Bush or the other guy?Follow

I tend not waste eloquence on those who are so stunningly ignorant that can't decipher something said in jest from the literal meaning. It would be for naught.

Edited, Mon May 3 18:03:10 2004 by Smasharoo

Let me direct you to years and years of art/satire/theatre/music that was and is politically and philosphically relevent.

You could throw a dart blindfolded in the hallway OUTSIDE a library and still hit something in this vein.

Eb

Hmmm... couple points:



Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.


It's much more accurate to say that Kerry's economic plan will benefit you if you are currently recieving some form of public assistance, make less then 20k a year, and either assume you will never have a better job, or actively intend to avoid doing so. You are essentially working to guarantee that those who don't get good jobs will still have luxuries, but all at the expense of good jobs. Wouldn't you rather have the job that pays 40+k a year, instead of getting public assistance that makes your 25k a year job *seem* like it's 40k? I would... Because I don't like my government deciding how to spend my money. But that's just me...




Hmmm... Part of that is apathy on the part of students, but a good part is the scam artists that pass for ballot measure takers and "student registration" at local campuses. I take classes at a local university on occasion. I moved from my last address about 5 years ago. I never re-registered myself to my new address (like at the post office or DMV). I have, however, entered my updated address at every single one of those little booths that are usually at local universities (and grocery stores and malls). I am still officially registered at my old address (which fortunately is closer to my work then were I'm at now, so it's not a big deal to just drive there to vote).

Could it be that most students *think* they are being registered, but since most of those booths only really care about collecting names for their ballot measures, and never seem to actually send in the registration information, that they're ending up not getting registered (and perhaps having no idea why)? Dunno. Maybe I've just been amazingly unlucky. But I'd estimate that between campus, mall, and grocery store booths, I've probably provided my current address at least a dozen times in the last 5 years, and not one of those got to the registrar's office...


Coincidence? I think not.

Hail Caesar!

Democracies fall when the elected leaders try to buy the most votes with popularity instead of doing what's right. I like Bush. He's unpolitically correct and the rest of the world fears us as long as we put people like him at the head of the Executive Branch. I don't think we need to put the most intellectual person at the head of the military just someone who can act at the right time. The deal breaker for me was when Kerry stated that he would not "classify us as at war with terroism." Sorry but these people have been at war with us since the nineties it's only now that we go to war with them. September Eleventh was the culmination of years of turning your back to a serious problem. I may not like Bush but at least he knows we're at war.

What? I'm not sure I understand this. Are you implying that Democracies fail when the elected leaders try to win votes with...popularity? I'm not even going to bother. Re-write that as something other than gibberish.


Firstly, Bush is entirely politically correct. He's run completely by poll numbers. He's the definition of politically correct. Unless be politically incorrect you mean "not liberal", in which case there aren't going to be any Republican's who are poltically correct.



Yeah, who wants the smart guy in charge of people's lives. Let's go with the guy that looks best in a cowboy hat. YEHHAW!!
Look, you can't be "at war" with a methodology. It's like declaring war on Haiku. It's an assanine concept.



At war with Iraq...who had what to do with 9-11 again?

Edited, Mon May 3 19:10:04 2004 by Smasharoo

Trickybeck the sly,
you have a very small mind,
what's wrong with poems?!?!

Edited, Mon May 3 19:25:55 2004 by Altaramere

Contractions violate the structure of a Haiku.

For future refrence.

I completely agree. All I'm saying is, *if* you think both parties are horrible, vote anyhow. I'm very comfortably for one of the major parties. People don't vote anyhow. Why not? I don't know - but I think they should. My only point.

I have no idea who's gonna win. Bush has a lot against him because Kerry is able to because people have seen him in action. When Kerry started critizinsing the AWOL though, that's when it looks like he's gettin a bit desperate. The army would've cauten it by now. Plus, one of the biggest elections of our time, Bush and Gore, NOTHING was mentioned of this. I'm for Bush, but it's up to the rest of you to decide.

Sounds like trickle-down economics, which led us to our previous recession.

If the government didn't decide how to spend some of our income, nobody would give ANY money to government programs, and you'd spend all yours on porno and beer.

Argument! Yay!

If Rep policies work the economy should grow - I assume gbaji is referring to the Laffer curve? Low taxes -> high economic growth? That and the Easter bunny have equal emperical evidence. Look historically. Maximum tax rates - in fact virtually all tax rates - have fallen dramatically since the inception of income taxes in the US and there is no correlation to growth. Correlation to defecit is obvious.

Republican policies are the same as Democrat policies: to get them elected. Someone is going to pay that enormous defecit that occurs every time the Republicans cut taxes (Reagan and Bush, Jr.) and by shifting the burdon onto the less well off, you ***** over everyone but the ultrarich who reap enormous benefits. Sure, I'm saving money right now. Go me! But my share of the debt is rising and guess who's going to pay later? Consider even now: we are all paying interest right now and we'll be paying a lot more. Interest on worthey expences like perhaps educating the population will return rewards later whereas giving the ultra rich enormous tax breaks has absolutly no proven value.

The argument is that they will work harder? More will aspire to become ultra rich? I'm trying to help the other side out here with any kind of logical reason. Surely people have some argument for this but I'm not sure what. In the era of raging capatilism, the highest marginal income tax rate was 90% and we did just fine. Many people still wanted to become rich then. Why, exactly, didn't we have economic collapse then? Further, it just isn't logical people will try harder to get rich when the tax burdon shifts onto them. Sure, it lessens the odds you'll make it because you have to pay more taxes in contrast to the ultra rich - perhaps the argument could be the ultra rich will become lazy with their newfound wealth and stop working so that the rest of us have a better chance?

Sure, cutting taxes is popular and it should gain Bush his second term as he brandishes the "new tax" deamon at Kerry, but socilized health care would be a far larger boon to new businesses then lower personal income taxes on the highest income individuals, and a slight decrease for the rest. It is incredably hard and expensive to pay health care for all your employees - further exhasperated by the byzantine jungle of forms and offers. Further it is hard to lure good employees away from other jobs because their doctor may not follow into a new health plan. Gaps in coverage occur between jobs presenting a huge barrier to changing jobs. There are laws (so called "COBRA" in California, or is it Federal? I think it is state) which do help, but my state law could not extend my coverage from University to job because my student health insurance was - get this - not an actual health insurance policy covering me. I joined a small startup company anyways and ran out and got and paid for personal coverage until they could enroll me, but I almost did not go because they could not cover me and my family for something like three to four months.

Single payer health care is cheaper and better in virtually any first world nation on Earth then the insane system we have in America. Look at any objective statistic, like cost per person per year or rate of surgical errors, rate of a preventable disease like RSI or adult onset diabeties, look at early treatment of cancers - basically you name it and we're paying for a front row seat and we're not in the stadium to paraphrase Ross Perot. And it would lower barriers to changing jobs and entering the market working for small startups. We have a far greater chance of this under Kerry then Bush.

The child care tax credit was a boon to business that Bush eliminated. Used to be able to write off some (all?) child daycare expenses making it easier for both parents to work. Restoring this would help business, as would socilizing daycare (by using a voucher system for private institutions or following the public school/US post office style system or other means). Many businesses run their own daycare centers. This is both expensive and inefficient. I'm not a big fan of child daycare and my wife and I don't plan to use it but I still think it would increase the efficiency of our economy by making it easier for all people to work who want to. And I'm willing to help pay for it.

Simplifying the tax code would save people tons of money and time otherwise wasted and reduce the IRS workforce saving money there.

Any pro-business party should have at least some plan for these areas of federal law. There are proven, working solutions to these problems in other countries - why don't we follow them?

In the mid-Clinton years we had two years of Democrat control of both elected branches of federal government in the US and now we are nearing the end of two years with total Republican control. Neither group adequately address any of these problems.

Voting:
If you have ever been registered in the state of California, you can walk up and do a provisional ballet at any polling location. No, they probably won't count your ballet unless the race is really close but them's the breaks. IIRC you do have to provide something like: (a) present address and former, registered address, and (b) some documentation that you live at your current address. This is California, so your state may vary.