Kerry VS Bush
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Kerry VS Bush
I know this is going to be a touchy subject but we are all adults here and will hopefully act accordingly. I am an avid Bush supporter but am completely open to hearing others' opinions on this issue. I haven't been "politically active" very much in the past and really think I may learn something from this debate.
Ok here it is coming up on election time again. I am curious as to who you are voting for and why.
I am voting Bush because I feel he is ultimately the lesser of two evils. Kerry came home from the war and protested that same war. I feel that is wrong even though that is his right as a US citizen. I don't completely agree with us being in Iraq nor do I believe the reasons given as to why we were sent there. However I will not speak out publicly against our efforts. I also read that Kerry would cut military pay. NOT GOOD, we really are under-paid as it is. In my opinion he doesn't have good leadership qualities. He also seems wishy washy in his gay marriage stance, among others. I personally don't care who marries whom. I am not gay and don't care if anyone else is, but at least Bush stands on firm ground with his conviction. I don't know much more so help me out guys. Give me YOUR opinion.
Hi, Mike - were you expecting me? As for Kerry's votes on various military matters, try this web page: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209
Factcheck is a publication of the Annenberg newspapers, of which my local Philadelphia Inquirer is one. The Inquirer publishes a debunking column on the editorial page a few times a week, analyzing political ads from both sides (including the "supporting" organizations' ads), pointing out the truths and falsities in each. I think it is very important in any election, but especially in this one given the increase in negative and not-quite-false-but-not-really true advertising, to try to find some neutral source against which to check facts and to consider the source of any information you hear. The page link above is specifically about Kerry's votes on military matters.
Did Kerry vote in such a way that it could be interpreted as voting for a cut in military pay - possibly, depending on what else was in a bill he voted against. But it was the Bush administration that has proposed cutting benefits, danger pay, housing allowances - and was persuaded that this would not be a good thing to do right now. It is the Bush administration that sent too few troops to Iraq in the first place, and is now extending the length of time units have to stay in Iraq or return after already having been there, put in place the "stop loss" program that prevents members of the military from resiging or not re-upping when their period of enlistment ends, and is calling up the ready reserve folks (who haven't had any training at all since they left active duty), and it is the Bush administration that opposes increasing the size of the military - claiming budgetary constraints. It is Kerry who is saying that he wants to expand the size of the military and increase benefits and pay.
As for the gay marriage issue and your comment "at least Bush stands on firm ground with his conviction", I don't understand why standing firmly on a conviction if the conviction is wrong is such a good thing. He also stands firm on his conviction that Iraq had/has weapons of mass destruction, and we know that all the facts contradict that stand. And stands firm on the teaching of abstinence only to prevent AIDS, to the point of withholding voted for and budgeted funds that promote other methods of preventing AIDS, both in U.S. programs and international programs.
Kerry did protest the war, after volunteering to fight in it, fighting in it, and earning three Purple Heart medals at the risk of his life. A whole lot of other Vietnam vets protested the war after their return. I'm not sure why you feel it is wrong for Kerry to have protested the war "even though that is his right" and even though he was only one of thousands of Vietnam vets who did so. Could you expand on that?
Time Magazine published an in-depth article about Kerry this week - not supporting Kerry or being against him, but giving his history and exploring how he got to be the person he is. I found it interesting.
As for Bush, of course I am voting against him. But because I have to shower and get ready for work, I will give some of my reasons in a later post.
Ginny thanks for the insight on Kerry. I will explain What I mean about the protest. Yes he does have that right but as a soldier I feel it is wrong to protest, especially after seeing what was being done to the soldiers after coming home,the being spat upon,shunned,etc. His fellow soldiers were IMHO let down by his protests, its like an admission they were right. His intentions may have been good, but others could easily mis-intrepret, or twist what he was saying to benifit thier own feelings or beliefs. When coming home from war the last thing we need is our own people to hate and shun us.
I was going to post the article in The Army Times about kerrys' plans for the military but the site is down. Ill copy and paste it later.
I'll vote for Bush, DH will vote for Bush, everyone I know in my family is voting for Bush.
I just think he's made his mistakes as every other President has. Overall, I think he's done well. I respect the fact that he doesn't agree with gay marriage bevause neither do I. Its something special between a man and a woman and shouldn't be altered in any way. And I have a gay brother so i'm not a gay basher or anything, I just prefer to not acknowledge them. I think Bush has more support for our military and we need that more than anything right now. And of course I think it would scare me right now to take Bush out of office to be replaced with anyone else because of the issues in Iraq. I believe he knows best what is going on and if someone else gets in office and changes things around I could imagine how hectic things could/would get. More casualties, protests etc.... Its just bad. We have enough as it is.
And besides, what kind of military wife would I be to vote for the person who condemns everything my DH stands for????? 
I am curious as to who you are voting for and why.
I did not vote for Bush in 2000 because I did not feel he was qualified for the job. I believed then that he road the coattails of his father and was chosen for the ticket based mostly on his name recognition. His appointment of many of the same people who worked for his father only confirmed that for me. I also believe that his insistence on invading Iraq was motivated by his determination to finish the job his father started and not about WMDs. I may be wrong and you may not agree, but I have not been impressed with his time in office and will not be voting for him in November.
My vote will be for Kerry/Edwards.
Sunny, what is 'WMDs'??
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Isn't it crazy that this is such a talked about issue that we can now make it an acronym?
I am with Sunny.
My vote will be for Kerry/Edwards
I think Bush, while not the worst President, is not a good leader. I think he tries to come off as a tough & strong person, but seriously lacking in that area.
I like Kerry & am glad that he is on the Democratic ticket.
Problem. Staunch republican married to a staunch republican trial lawyer (yes, there are republican trial lawyers - despite how the party continuously bashes them!)
Now, how do I not vote for a ticket that has a trial lawyer who will be obviously supportive of issues that affect trial lawyers?
But ... How do I vote for a democrat?
Indecision here.
Ame
Ame, I am confused by your post. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Could you clarify?
OK I am a staunch republican and so is my husband, who happens to be a trial lawyer by profession.
The republican party is notorius for its anti-trial lawyer policies and rhetoric.
Now, Edwards is a trial lawyer. He will obviously support issues which concern trial lawyers. Therefore, in the best interests of my husband's profession, I should vote for Kerr/Edwards, right?
Yet, being a staunch republican, how can I vote democrat?
Is that clear?
Ame
I understand your delemma, so just vote for Kerry/Edwards LOL
That would be a difficult choice me to make. I would go by the issues & who ever you agree with more vote for.
Okay, I understand now. That is a tough situation. Honestly I think everyone can find things they like and dislike about each candidate. Ame, I think it is the same way for you. I think after doing much research, you should be able to decide which candidate you agree with more. That is a toughie.
I'm awaiting Ginny's continuation of her previous post. I always love hearing what she has to say regarding politics!
Kerry/Edwards here. I come from a long line of staunch Republicans, my family is appalled at my choice to vote Democrat. Ame~ don't vote ticket, vote platform. I would vote for a Republican if they had a platform I believed in. I voted independant in 2000, I can't stand Bush or Gore. Now, Kerry seems much more qualified than Gore, so he will win my vote this year, as well as Nate's. Mike, Ginny is correct, Bush was ready to reduce Hazard, Family Separation, and other military pay. He only kept them at their current levels because he was facing an election year. While the Rep. party is more for military than Dem., they are also for big business and wealthy people. (I'm generalizing, I realize this.) I have a Bush for a governor as a Florida resident, and he's done nothing good for the state. I feel President Bush is inept, and has embarrassed our country. Clinton wasn't the best guy in the world, but our economy was doing damn good. It's been awful since this administration took over. And while I support our military, and feel they should be compensated for their work, they make damn good money compared to a large part of the civilian world. (With comparable training, not considering Drs and the such) Mike, we both know how much your base pay, BAS, and BAH add up to, and it's more than my household makes. Nate makes less now than he did as an E-5, and the benefits in the service are better than HMOs. Insurance premiums are insane, and soldiers don't pay them. Please don't think I'm saying cut military pay, I'm NOT! But the minimum wage in this country is horrendous, and there are so many families who can't find adequate paying jobs. Education in our country is a joke, and Bush's "education plan" is laughable. We take care of the rest of the world, but can't help our citizens with basic needs. (Food, shelter, health care) Weapon control is decreasing, here in TX you can buy and carry a concealed weapon with only a 15 minute wait. As long as you have no felonies or domestic violence convictions, you are good to go. Abortion is a big issue, who gives the government the right to choose for women? Bush's environmental team is a flop, and that includes my former NJ governor Christine Whitman. We're trusting her to help the nation's environment, have you ever been to Newark, NJ area? Well, that's my rant on why I'm voting Kerry... I'm a proud supporter of this year's Democratic ticket!
Oh, and gay marriage... well, straight marriage has turned into a joke, (Britney Spears anyone?) but we won't allow commited couples of the same sex to marry? That's crappy!
Canadian here, so no right to voice an opinion on US political candidates, other than we're interested in the outcome. Canada just went through an election too.
Our electoral system (Federalist) is different from the US in that we don't vote for the overall leader - we're supposed to vote for our local rep and whoever's party gets the most ridings wins.
In our election the Liberals won (US equiv = Democrat) but the Conservatives (US equiv = Republican) came sorta close. To Amy's comment above, the one thing I kept hearing over and over and over from the voting public was, "I don't like any of them. I'm voting for the one I don't like the least." (came down to a devil you know vs. one you don't).
Anyway, I voted for the party who's values most closely aligned with mine even though I really really didn't like the leader. We're a 3 party system (sort of) and have definite right, left & center (plus the "Leave Canada!" party). Center won, and that's pretty much where I sit, value-wise.
It's tough, isn't it? I don't know who I'd vote for if I was a US citizen.
Anyway, my 2¢ (which is about 1.5¢ US).
Questions: Who else is there? Do you have a third party? Nader? Would you vote for someone else other than Bush or Kerry?
Sadly, in this country of great minds, we are once again left with candidates who are not all that exciting.
If we had a true democratic society, and money (the war chest) wasn't an issue, perhaps we'd have better people running.
Ame
I will not vote for George W. Bush. (I didn't last time either)
I am all for Kerry's education plan.
Ginny brought up some excellent points. (as always)
I typed a long paragraph regarding an increase in military pay and then chose to delete it. It's a whole other topic on it's own, for me.
OK....I just went back and read Crystal's first post. I didn't take the time to read through all of the posts before posting my opinion.
Crstal, you pretty much summed up my feelings. Excellent post.
Kerry/Edwards here! I'm very excited for this duo. I'm so glad he picked Edwards. My beliefs match the Democratic platform a lot more than the Republican one.
Last election I voted for Bush, though, bec I thought he was the lesser of two evils and bec I'm a Texan and bragging rights are fun. (And Dick Chaney just lived down the road from me in TEXAS not in whatever state they claimed he lived in.) Now I see that was the wrong way to think.
Frankly, the Republican party scares me. Their beliefs and platform make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. YET, they've convinced a lot of lower and middle class conservative folks to vote for them by convincing them they, too, can become wealthy just like them. But does it happen? Have you gone from being poor in your childhood to becoming well-off in your adulthood? Or are you well off because your parents were well-off and able to set you up to be successful? (Which is not nearly as impressive, but expected.)
I'm impressed with John Edwards coming from a working class family to becoming successful and still remaining a Democrat. Usually, when you come into money, you switch from Democrat to Republican bec the Republican party protects your wealth better. That's really the main agenda of the Republican party, I think. Protecting personal wealth using a "We're more moral than you" position.
I think they hook the middle class with their pro-life stance. So many people vote just on this one issue. Another "We're more moral than you" thing. But, really, truthfully, if Jenna Bush had gotten pregnant in high school I can guaran-damn-t-you she would have had an abortion. Just like all the other wealthy Republicans. But they get votes from people who think about nothing else except being Pro-Life and will vote Republican no matter who they put on the ticket. Notice how none of the First Ladies will come out as Pro-Life in any convincing way in any kind of public forum.
I encourage anyone who has time and interest to read Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. It is very interesting and he worked for both Democrat and Republican administrations.
I also relate more to Kerry/Edwards on a personal level. Their wives are intelligent, opinionated and educated and know what it means to work outside the home. I like the fact they are not so polished in a perfect politician wife sort of way. They seem very real to me. They have both experienced significant loss. They're both sortof frumpy. I like them! Hello real world!
I think they are a lot of closet Kerry/Edwards voters out there.
Look forward to reading other people's post.
Ame, it might be easier if you look at the big picture. There is a lot more to your life and your husband's life than his profession. I realize it's a big deal, of course, but I think you need to look at a lot more than that and then make your choice. And if you just can't cross party lines, you'll have no objection from me.
I will be voting for Bush again.
Bush will get my vote again. Add me to the staunch Republican group. Always have been and always will. I will never support a Democrat. IMO, they have never presented an image of STRENGTH for our country to the rest of the world, and it's a dangerous world that we face today. Let one wishy-washy President take office (think Carter), and we're going to be in for a world of hurt, especially at this particular time. I'm proud of our President. I feel he is a strong leader, and I accept the fact that Democrats will always try to provide facts and links and examples to prove otherwise (for obvious reasons). I'm proud of our military, and I'm proud to be an American today, EXTREMELY proud ...
I'm sitting here watching John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry on Larry King and I'm even more impressed!
Question though - I have zippo experience with the military (my dad did what George Bush did - wink, wink - and no one else in the family has been in the military). Are military personnel always Republican? Do they always support a President that takes them to war? I don't understand why Republicans always relate themselves to the military (although war makes a lot of people wealthy) but I mean the rank and file. Or am I not seeing things correctly? Can anyone enlighten me?
I know, Kate . My post was more in jest than serious. There are a lot more issues than just protecting the interests of trial lawyers. I haven't yet crossed the party line and neither has my hubby. Will this be the first time? I don't know.
But, it would be nice to have someone in office who is not constantly denegrating trial lawyers as though they were some lower form of life ... My husband and countless other trial lawyers have helped millions of people. It would be nice to see them get a little respect on the political scene.
Laura, as far as republicans and the military, republican administrations always seem to build up our military strengh and just show more respect for the military. More recent democrat administrations seem to dowsize the military (generalization - I know - please don't throw FDR or JFK at me).
Ame
Ginny is dealing with sick dog worry issues. I had gotten about half way through a long post when we decided to take the dog to the vet (at about 8:30 p.m.). Now I am heading for bed after checking to see if there are any (other) hot issues, and my boss is in all day tomorrow, so don't look for anything more in this thread from me until tomorrow night.
But, I will be baaaaack!
Laura, WELL PUT!!! I couldn't agree with your original post more! As far as the military, many military personnel are Democrat, it has a lot to do with your personal beliefs. Yeah, Republicans pour more money into the military on a whole, but I'm not sure Bush would have done that this time if not for 9/11. Ginny may be the best person to give you a perspective on this, I'm not as familiar with party differences. I don't consider myself an extreme liberal, I just feel the Democrats work more for the average American than Republicans.
Bush last time and Bush again. So far in every "big" election (governor, president, senator) I have voted Republican. I am not, however, a staunch Republican and would cross party lines. For example if Bush was the moral and ethical equivalent of Slick Willy, then I would seriously consider voting for a Democrat. I do relaize that Bush is not the greatest orator in the world, but the way he handled 9/11 (Michael Moore's thoughts nonwithstanding) and the aftermath have shown great leadership skills. My problem with the Democrat platform as a whole is that I am VERY (vehemently, passionately, etc. ad nauseum) concerned about values in particular with the issue of gay "marriage," abortion, stem cell research (love the Reagans, have a grandmother with Alzheimer's who doesn't remember me anymore and am watching her slowly die with little dignity, but I do NOT think the ends ever justifies the means), and the way money continues to funnel into social programs like welfare, medicaid, SSI, etc. that allow *some* people to leech off of the system without promoting any obligation or personal betterment. Because of my job, don't even get me going on the Medicaid issue or my head will explode. I do think that social programs are very necessary as I have spent time in Nicaragua where there are no social programs and 80% unemployment. However, I think that welfare, medicaid, etc. should come with some strings attached.
As far as Republicans protecting wealth better...well, we are very middle-class people who don't live paycheck to paycheck, but we drive older, high mileage cars, live in an older modest home, and don't have as much in savings as we should. I just don't want our hard earned money going to support people who aren't working at all and have no intent to do so. Also concerning the "look at our economy and unemployment rate" issue...*sigh*. I am not an economist and never hope to be one, but things go in cycles and the economy cycles as well. Obviously leadership figures into it to some degree, but overall I think it is a very cyclical thing and if you just happen to hit the presidency at the right time then you are thought of as a great president b/c the economy was good.
The following bumper stickers illustrate my views on this subject perfectly.
I tend to agree more with what Pamt has said. However, I am still open to hearing more from others. I hate politics because I feel like I can never form a solid stance on anything. Every time I hear an educated, well-informed person back a particular candidate/party, I begin to question myself. One day...
Sorry, but I simply can't resist. I need to add something to Bea's witticisms. "The last time someone listened to a Bush, folks wamdered around the desert for 40 years".....and ended up freed from slavery and oppression and ultimately entered the Promised Land.
Bush here all the way. Can't stand Kerry, Can't stand pretty boy Vice president either! As far as issues are concerned i will admit that i guess there are some for and against with both but regaurdless of what we think about this war it is happening and frankly my concern lies with the men and women over there who i very much believe will be sept under the carpet by Kerry no matter what he says to get a vote!
Bea, where do you find these things? My DH loves them.
----Oh, and gay marriage... well, straight marriage has turned into a joke, (Britney Spears anyone?) but we won't allow commited couples of the same sex to marry? That's crappy! -----
So why turn it into even more of a joke and demoralize the values *I* took seriously when I got married??? If you look at the big picture, most gays want to marry just to show they can, not because they really want to. I know there are a few out there that are "in love" (so they say, I say just infatuated) but overall its just a way of showing what this world is coming down to the more you take religeon and morals out of it. And I myself don't want to be in that type of world.
I am for gay marriage. There are benefits and rights associated with having a legal spouse and I think gays should have those, too.
See this is the problem i have right now....
What the heck difference does it make to anyone else what gay people do? How on earth is it gonna affect your life? I don't believe in it, i think its wrong, i think its against God but he did give us ALL free will and i think that means gays as well so who am i too judge.. I want to hear the issues that will directly affect my life. Same goes for abortion, i think its wrong and against God as well ( there are cases such as rape or certain death of infant or mother that i feel can be justified) But really, why is it anyones right to take away that right from anyone, it won't affect us, we don't have to live with the decision. Lets argue about the issues that matter to us and our every day lives!! I could not care less how the presidents feel on either of these subjects!
Also, let's look at the reasons straight people marry:
they're in love;
they're infatuation;
pregnancy;
to get out of their parents' house;
bec one spouse is heading into the military or on leave for 2 days from the military;
guilt;
the parent's told them they were getting married;
to get wedding presents;
to be a bride and orchestrate a wedding;
bec she was getting married before age 30 damnit;
he's abusive and has convinced her no one else will want her;
bec dad needs another SAHWife since the last one is gone and the kids are out of control and daycare costs too much;
to move to another country;
free sex;
so one can be the caretaker of the other;
no one else has asked;
bec her younger sisters are already married;
the man is loaded$$!;
the woman is HOT!;
because they can!
So, to say straights are only getting married for moral and religious reasons, to me, is not an indication of reality.
I know a lot of people get married for the wrong reason. Me being a military spouse, it surrounds me so I know. I just take it as an offense that someone such as gays (i'm not picking on them just using an example) can take the vows *I* used for something that has great meaning to *me* and twist it all the way around into something it was never intended for. I can't speak for people who marry for the wrong reasons because it would be hard to determine who's who and stop them from getting married as well. I'm just saying if we can keep the sanctity of marriage special without altering it would make marriage seem that much more special. But hey if it were up to me there would be no drive up weddings in Vegas or anything else that makes something special to me look so convenient, easy and "not a big deal" to the rest of America. So, its not just gays I have a problem with, its half of America that take marriage irresponsibly. So I guess the point I was trying to make before is that if we keep commercializing (sp?) marriage as anything but "special" (as America does) where are we going to be 20, 30, 50 years from now? Gay marriage is only a small piece of the problem but you gotta start somewhere, right?
Pamt, you brought up the other reason I will always vote Republican. Democrats are traditionally known for "robbing Peter to pay Paul." In this case, Peter represents the hardWORKING middle class, not just the rich, basically anyone who pays income taxes, and Paul represents the millions of people who lay back, refuse to work (because their parents never worked, and their grandparents never worked, and on and on). They refuse to do the work necessary to become educated enough or learn the skills necessary to get a job. I am NOT referring to those who genuinely are disabled or have run into a "temporary" hard time, mind you. But I and my DH work too darn hard to have to pay to support another family out of our small checks, while we live practically having to scrape by. I'm in the medical field too, and this is an especially sore point with me, because I type medical reports evert day on patients who are presenting with the sole purpose of *trying* to be declared disabled, so they can be supported by the government (translation: me and you) for the rest of their lives. They use every excuse under the sun, high blood pressure, a splinter, minor aches and pains. And in their history, they have never worked and have been on welfare all of their adult lives, but it's about to be cut out.
More ... I consider myself proof that if you need to earn money, REGARDLESS of your situation, you can. I quit my job to stay home with my babies off and on throughout the years. However, we needed my income to survive. I did not seek welfare, food stamps, or any other type of support from other people. Instead, I did everything I could think of to earn money. Believe it or not, I got hold of a great family recipe for hot tamales and spent several hours every day cooking, rolling, and bagging hot tamales, then calling around to everyone I knew to see if they wanted any, and delivering them. I took in children to babysit. I found one job where I could work and keep my children with me. These are not glamorous jobs, and they were hard work, but I don't believe in able-bodied people laying on everyone else's leg out of pure laziness, and I won't support a politician who will make it easy for them to do so.
Bubbels.......all i have to say to that is AMEN!!! BTDT. I worked in medical records for some time too and it does get terribly irritating, you just feel like marching up to that ER and telling these people to get up off their lazy butts and work! I have worked 3 jobs at one point to take care of my family and there are people in that welfare line i never saw at those mcdonalds interviews! We needed people like crazy at 7-11, did they apply, nope... It really ticked me off when these people would finally be forced to work and got free daycare and free rent and food stamps when i never got qualified for those things cuz i amde 5 cent more than minimum wage!
I am basically conservative, I do not vote a straight ticket, and I will be voting for Bush again this election. He has morals and I admire the way he stands up for what he believes. He does his job and makes decisions, not based on how favorable he will look in the polls, but based on what he feels is best for our country's well being. I may not agree with every single decision he makes, but I believe that he is the best choice for the next four years. I have not doubt that my dh will be voting Bush again as well. His view is: "Who do you think Bin Laden would like to see win the election?"
I do not vote straight ticket, although I do consider myself more a republican. At least more conservative than liberal. I voted Bush last time, not sure this time. Things that bother me about Bush, seems that he makes decisions and follows through without always taking a look at the big picture, seems to act without listening to his advisors. This is scary. For example the tax cut, no one thought this was a great idea, but he did it anyway. Pros for him, I do like his strong Christian viewpoints, also I think economy wise he has done well, but only time will tell. Whoever mentioned our bad economy on Bush needs to realize that it takes several years for all the political process to turn over and things really change. What we face in the economy now is a combination of Clintons choices, Bush's choice and the house being divided. Against Kerry thoughts, seems to of picked a running mate that may not compliment him, he bad mouthed edwards during the election and now suddenly they have the same views? The war stuff, interesting. Most interesting is we KNOW Bush rode coat tails to get here, but so did Kerry. How did a low ranking military person get into speak to congress after vietnam? He has some strings, they just aren't as obvious. I actually am torn enough I just might not vote...YIKES! but I believe if I can't make an informed decision and feel convicted, then I shouldn't vote, I will not vote for the lesser of two evils and I don't think that either of them will be BAD, just different.
I do agree with Kaye when she said that it takes years to see the effect of any policy change concerning the economy. The full effect of Bush's tax cut will not be seen for a few years so long as there are no additional tax cuts/hikes. It is so important that policy makers (and the economists that advise these policy makers) take a good look at how any change will effect the economy in the long run, not the short run. Any policy that makes what appears to be positive changes in the short run is not necessarily to the benefit of our economy. One must look at the long term effects of an economic plan. Those who did not understand this concept bashed former president Ronald Reagan for his economic policy. However, we can now see the positive effects many, many years later. It is especially important to consider this during election time. Many candidates try to boast of having plans for the economy that look good to the American people in the short run. The majority of Americans do not have much knowledge regarding economics and these candidates know this. If you find a candidate whose economic policies you disagree with, try and take a second look. Do some research. You may just find that even though it does not seem beneficial now, it may be in the future.
I'm definitely voting for Bush.
What people who are against Bush don't realize is that terrorists want to wipe the United States of America OFF THE PLANET. That means YOU, it means ME, it means the nice old widow down the street, the gas station clerk, the bank teller, the mailperson, EVERY United States citizen is in danger of being murdered by these evil terrorists who are motivated by nothing but pure unadulterated HATE.
Supporters of Kerry don't really think Kerry is the best that the Democratic Party has to offer. They want Bush out because they are still sore about the 2000 election. They honestly don't believe that Bush won nor do they believe that he deserves the power.
Iraq; after 9/11 it was discovered that Hussein did in fact have ties to al Queida and Bin Laden, in addition to that Hussein had 12 years to comply with the UN. Bush did NOT finish what his father started; he finished what Bill Clinton SHOULD HAVE started.
Now- the entire US congress voted in favor of the war on terror, WHEREVER it may exist, because wherever it exists it is a threat to our way of life. It existed in Iraq. I don't know what the deal was with the WMD's. We didn't need any other excuse to go in other than that we are at war with terrorists everywhere.
Gay marriage; I know some people believe that we should move forward and "progress" our culture into the 21st millennium; Turn our backs on the foundation of our country's birth; Throw away old traditions and beliefs; Come on, this is the 21ST CENTURY! I believe that as a result of this progressive thinking, our nation is in a state of turmoil, chaos, and degradation. Our children are more confused than ever, and few people are truly happy anymore. The guidelines for moral behavior are blurred, almost gone.
LIKE IT OR NOT, this nation was born out of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves right now. This was NOT how they hoped we would turn out to be some 200 years later. The Bill of Rights has been shredded by activist judges who are forcing THEIR beliefs on this “free” Nation. Why do you think millions are rising up in opposition of this decision!? (The Republicans couldn’t get enough votes to pass in the Senate, but I am not happy about that, and I will write to my Senator and tell him so, and so should you!) Do you remember what the Israelites did on their way to the Promised Land that got them 40 years in the desert? They sinned. BOY, did they sin! They betrayed God, turned their backs on Him. Sex, idol worship, intoxication, you name it. What happened to them? What would happen to us?
How is Gay Marriage going to affect my life; I was raised with a clear understanding of why men and women get together and get married. So were my parents, and grandparents, and so on. NOW, my son is growing up in a culture where that understanding is no longer clear, it is confusing. How gay marriage affects my life is through my son's life, through what I want to teach him versus what society shows him. This is still a free country and I have the right to teach my son what I feel is right or wrong. By the time he is an adult, he can take it or leave it. Hopefully, I will have done a good enough job so that he draws on what I have taught him and decides for himself that I was right.
Quote:So, to say straights are only getting married for moral and religious reasons, to me, is not an indication of reality.
Okay, so all the other twisted screwed up reasons you gave are just another sign of how our Nation's reality has become morally corrupt and shallow without God or any type of moral standards in our society anymore. What we have today is an anti-moral free-for-all where anything goes and you do what is right "for you" and screw anyone else who doesn't agree. Chaos.
Kerry's voting record; I have NEVER heard him say in any of his ads or in the media that he wants to increase the size of the military. I heard him say that he voted for $85 Bil for defense, BEFORE he voted against it. I don't know where some people get their facts, but according to mine, he has NEVER voted for anything whatsoever in favor of the Nation's defense.
Bush as a Leader; We all know where he stands on the "issues", and he stands unwaveringly. Don’t Liberals appreciate someone who fights for what they believe in? I can't count how many times I have heard him repeat his positions. Reporters keep asking him the same questions as though they hoped he would finally give a different answer. How many times can a true leader change his mind on something? According to Kerry- unlimited.
Republicans for Big Business and Wealthy People; This is basic economics. Remember the Trickle Down Theory? I will explain it for you. Basically, the gov't gives big tax breaks to businesses such as factories, for example. With all that money the factories don't have to pay the gov't, they can invest in machines, matierials, research and development, and, most importantly, LABOR. That means more people have JOBS. That means more people have money to SPEND. That means more people BUY things made by BIG BUSINESS. That means prosperity for a Great Country. You know what? The Trickle Down Theory WORKS! It was started in the 1980's and prospered in the 1990's, when Clinton was Pres. and claimed credit for the "economic boom" of that decade. (One more tidbit: the economy started slowing down BEFORE Bush even ran for Pres.)
Quote:Things that bother me about Bush... seems to act without listening to his advisors.
Reagan didn't always listen to his advisors either. Besides, he did listen to his advisors regarding Iraq and the intelligence on WMD's, and he is still being criticized.
There! I spent 2 hours reading this thread and formulating my responses. I hope I did so in a respective manner. This gets me a bit hot under the collar because the future of our Nation is at stake, and anyone could see it if they take off their rose-colored glasses.
Or do the terrorists have to strike successfully again for some to understand?
Wow, Lisa!! You did an AWESOME job!!! I totally agree with you! Thanks for doing all the work and letting others come after you and merely say DITTO!!
Lisa,
I get the feeling from your post that you are for Bush because he represents your values. That's great, that you share values and beliefs, and important to a point. But does he represent fairness, equality, FREEDOM? You also mention liberal judges using the Bill of Rights to push "their" values on America. But you want to do the same. I want a leader who is going to stand up for freedom, and fairness, not just what *he* personally believes. I want a leader to stand up for what our founding fathers gave us, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" I'm straight, but I think gays should have equal rights as we do in marriage. You don't, because being gay is not part of your beliefs. You mention the things your son is learning in this country, and how they differ from what you teach him. I want my kids to know diversity. That's where you say "Mommy and Daddy don't believe in this, but some people do, and that's ok." I don't want to live in a world where only one point of view is accepted and taught. Yes, we were founded on Judeo-Christain beliefs, but the whole reason my great (times 12) grandfather came here on the Mayflower was to allow FREEDOM. Whether that was freedom to believe what the Quakers did, or to believe in the Church of Flying Pigs. The Pilgrams knew what it meant to persecuted, and wanted to create a land without that. You say Kerry supporters don't think he's the best the Democrats have to offer, we just want Bush out. I DO think Kerry is one of the best, I'm very satisfied with the ticket we have this year. I refused to vote for Gore, I'd rather not vote than vote for someone that clueless. But Kerry is strong and will make a great leader IMO. As far as Iraq goes, yes, Congress was for the war on terror, no matter where it is. However, Bin Laden is still free. We can't seem to catch him. I have a few ideas on who could catch him for us, but thats another story. We dropped so much money into this war, mainly because Bush wasn't getting anywhere in Afghanistan. Diversion is good for Bush here, "Hey, look who we caught!" The American public was distracted from the lack of progress in shutting down al Quieda. Yeah, Iraq had ties, but they weren't the ones who attacked us. They weren't even closely linked. Saddam did unspeakable things to his people, but we saved a country who still hates us. We never finished saving ourselves. I'm tired of saving everyone else, I want America to take care of Americans. ALL Americans, not just the wealthy, straight, Christian ones.
Amen, Crystal. Well put.
Lisa, what a great and obviously well thought-out post. I also agree with you wholeheartedly. And, btw, I did email my senators before the Federal Marriage Amendment vote to express my opinion in favor of it and will be emailing them again with my opinion of how they voted.
Few questions for Crystal and other Kerry-supporters and/or Bush-haters...Although I don't agree, I can see how you would think that Bush does not represent "fairness or equality," but can you give some examples of how he is anti-freedom? Also, you stated, "I want a leader who is going to stand up for freedom, and fairness, not just what *he* personally believes." Isn't anyone President or Joe Blow citizen going to stand up for what she/he believes? I am doing so in my post and you are doing so in your post. Our belief and value systems...worldview, if you will...color our every thought and opinion whether we realize it or even want it to. My (Christian) worldview comes into play with every decision I make, the things I teach my children, how I treat others, how I behave, etc. I can't take my belief system away from *me* and I don't think anyone can.
Finally, you stated, "I want my kids to know diversity. That's where you say "Mommy and Daddy don't believe in this, but some people do, and that's ok." I don't want to live in a world where only one point of view is accepted and taught. Yes, we were founded on Judeo-Christain beliefs, but the whole reason my great (times 12) grandfather came here on the Mayflower was to allow FREEDOM." As I understand it, the Pilgrims came primarily for the purposes of religious freedom and that is something that we still most definitely have in the United States...even to the point of separation of church and state (which I do agree with, btw). However, as I teach my children I don't teach that any behavior is okay...even if we don't condone it. I teach that deviant behavior is just that and I tell my children why we don't partake in it. For example, I don't say, "Mommy and Daddy don't believe in taking illegal drugs to get a high, but some people do and that's okay." I know that's a far-fetched example and I hope you understand the tone is more *devil's advocate* than anything else, but to me that is the weakness of your argument. The fact is that I can see nothing good about using illegal drugs. I don't stand for it and a I want my children to know why...not to "tolerate." Same with homosexuality. And yes, I know plenty of homosexual people and even have a lesbian co-worker. When my back went out she helped me with some exercises for it. She's is a lovely person and one of the most upbeat, positive people I know, but I strongly disapporve of her lifestyle and want my children to know why.
You (and that's a general "you" not directed to any one person) may think me narrow-minded...and you would be right. I personally don't consider that to be an insult because the path I try follow is straight and narrow and that's why it is difficult at times. Being "narrow-minded" doesn't mean I haven't educated myself about all or other angles in an issue. It just means I have looked at other opinions and formed my own opinion...strongly. If that makes me narrow-minded, then so be it. I think the true freedom that we have in this country is to all have wildly divergent viewpoints, the freedom to each speak our piece, and the right to vote for the person we deem to be best for the position.
I'll end with this...
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"
Dante
(posted in the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC)
And while I don't think that it theologically correct, I sure think it has a ring of truth to it.
I believe that the liberal judges have twisted the Bill of Rights around so far that it now resembles nothing of what our Founding Fathers intended. I don't want to push my values on America, I only want to uphold the principals on which this Nation was founded. I'm all for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but not at the expense of those principals.
Bin Laden may still be on the loose, and al Queida is still working, but the war on terror that our Congress approved with a bi-partisan vote includes all terrorists regardless of whether or not they were directly responsible for 9/11. They are all connected because they are all working toward the same goal- the ultimate destruction of the United States of America.
Oliver North reported from Iraq to say that they are indeed happy and thankful that we rescued them from Saddam's rule. You won't hear this on the liberal biased media because it isn't a bad thing- if they can't say something bad about the war in Iraq, they won't say anything at all. The constant attacks in Iraq are happening because terrorists are going in from outside Iraq and stirring up anti-American sentiment. Unfortunately Iraq has become a melting pot for terrorists all over the Middle East. It's "where the action is."
I have a question for Kerry supporters. What is it about him that makes you believe that he would be a good leader? I am confused. I don't see how anyone can follow a leader who doesn't know where he is going.
As Pam mentioned, I don't understand how anyone could wonder whether or not President Bush stands for freedom. Did we not free the people of Afghanistan from Taliban rule? Did we not free Iraq from a murderous evil dictator? Everywhere we have been, we have left them better off than before. The authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The authors truly believed that every human on the face of this planet has the right given to them by their God to be free. Were they wrong? I don't think so, and neither does Pres. Bush. While we are in the process of eradicating terrorism, we are also in the process of eradicating bondage.
Yes, it is a big job, and a dangerous one at that. Some may say that it isn't our job to do. I am a firm believer in taking lessons from the mistakes of the past. From what I know of WWII, this Nation had just that mentality. It was called the "Isolationist" theory. We vowed that after WWI (which at that time was known as "The Great War"), we would not get involved in any other counrty's business. Fine. So, we didn't get involved when Hitler began invading one counrty after another after another and murdering millions and millions of innocent human beings. We turned our backs. We heard the rumors of horrific death camps and bold invasions. We did nothing. We ignored it as much as we could for as long as we could, until finally, we could ignore it no more. Pearl Harbor was attacked. Thousands of OUR men and women were murdered. Then it became personal. Then we knew we HAD to involve ourselves as a Nation. We found that the rumors were true. We found that an evil force was at work in a land thousands of miles away. And we as a Nation bonded together, united in the cause, to fight to save more innocent people from being murdered, to get back the countries that had been invaded, to give aid to the weak and helpless. Sounds somewhat like what we are doing today.
What do you think would have happened if we had involved ourselves sooner in WWII? How many millions of innocent lives would we have saved? What do you think would have happened if we had NEVER involved ourselves, even after Pearl Harbor? Would we even be here today?
We cannot ignore evil. When good people stand by and do nothing, evil prevails.
My blood pressure is rising.
Okay, I've been reading all of your comments ever since this thread was started. Until now I have resisted the urge to throw in my two cents worth, but now I find that I just have to make a comment or two. I have resisted until now because I realize what a hot topic politics can be, and I really doubt that anyone's mind will be changed by anything posted on here. On the other hand, this is a debate board and no one should be offended by anyone who politely chooses to disagree with their position.
I am so tired of hearing people insinuate that you must vote Republican if you are moral and/or a Christian. I am not necessarily directing this comment to anything any of you have said, but here in the South I almost always here something along these lines anytime people get into a discussion of whether to vote Democrat or Republican. I consider myself to be both moral and striving to live a Christian life, yet I will not apologize for voting Democrat. I have never agreed with every position any candidate took, but I consistently find myself agreeing much more with the Democratic candidate than with the Republican one. I will vote for Kerry.
Why am I going to vote for John Kerry?
Well, let’s start with health care: There were 44 million people without health insurance in 2002 (Kaiser Family Foundation). The Bush plan of tax credits for low and middle-income families ($3,000 a year, family of 4, income of $25,000) would reduce that number by 1.8 million. The Kerry plan (to be paid for by rolling back the tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000), according to Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.7 million. The Medicare prescription plan touted by the Bush administration is, by all accounts, confusing and doesn’t save people much money, especially when they can only pick one card and must stick to it for a year, but the drug company whose card was selected can change its prices every week (AARP). And many older adults who presently pay for prescription coverage in their Medi-gap insurance will find those insurers dropping their plans and forcing them into the Medicare program promoted by Bush. And don’t forget that prescription drugs are anywhere from 10% to 60% cheaper in Canada (and I do wonder why, since a large percentage of those drugs are made by either U.S. drug companies which ship them to Canada or Canadian factories owned by U.S. drug companies). The Bush administration says it is illegal to buy drugs from Canada and the U.S. Customs Dept. has even stopped buses full of senior citizens to search them for drugs they buy in Canada.
Overtime pay: Somewhere between 5 and 8 million workers may lose eligibility for overtime pay. Under the new rules, if you make as little as $155 a week and fall into a category where their work experience or technical training can be enough to make a worker ineligible for overtime pay (and this could definitely include nurses and hospital technicians). “In another example, "executives" ineligible for overtime, according to the old rules, were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor. (Economic Policy Institute article on CNN) The Dept. of Labor has not held any hearings on these new regulations.
“No Child Left Behind” - a Bush program which is, by most statistics, underfunded by $26 billion, and has forced schools to give more tests and spend more time teaching for the tests. Is public education any better off in your community? Are more children learning, are attendance statistics up, are more children graduating? Not according to any statistic I have read. But schools with high populations of children for whom English is not their first language must test those children in English, schools with high percentages of special education children must test those children on the same basis as non-special ed children; and if the school’s scores don’t measure up to some statistical average it’s funding is at risk.
Jobs: The standard measure of payroll jobs -- what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "total nonfarm employment" -- declined by just over 2.7 million between its peak in February 2001 and August 2003, when it hit bottom - something like 2% of all jobs. And we haven’t created 2.7 million new jobs to re-employ those people. How many moms have reported here that their husbands have lost jobs and not been able to find jobs with comparable wages? Do I blame Bush for all of the job loss - No. Do I blame him for programs which don't encourage new jobs that pay decent wages and for encourage or allowing outsourcing, loss of overtime pay, part-time and temporary jobs which won't support a family - Yes.
Trickle down - frankly, that’s hogwash. The trickle down theory assumes that every dollar of tax cuts will be put back into the economy in job creating ways - enlarging factories, increasing production through increasing jobs, buying U.S. made products to increase U.S. jobs. Riight! I don’t think so. It didn’t work in the Reagan administration, and it isn’t working now. There are a lot of jobs out there in the service industries, but a large percentage of them don’t pay a wage which will allow one worker to support a family of four at a minimally decent standard of living, and often don’t have benefits such as health care. But a lot of industries are out-sourcing jobs to lower wage areas - states within the U.S. with lower wage levels, and overseas. Even our high-tech jobs - computer programming for one - are being outsourced to places where IBM, American Express, and even Dell can pay 1/10th or 1/4th of U.S. wage levels - and there is no penalty for doing so.
Of course - the tax cuts. I don’t know about you, but that $600 tax “rebate” is long gone, and my state, county and school taxes have gone up significantly to make up for the major drop in federal funding. Not to mention the increased cost in health insurance, prescriptions, food, electricity and natural gas (and gasoline). But that means a lot more to me than it does to people whose income is over $250,000 a year. The capital gains tax cut - doesn’t mean a thing to me. The only stocks I invest in are through my 401K and IRA - and they aren’t taxable at all until I retire (when I will have less income and thus a lower tax rate anyhow). Yes, I have more cash in my paycheck, but less “disposable” income by the time I get through paying my state/local/school taxes and paying for necessities.
And please, let’s not forget WMD and the “link” between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Everyone who has studied these questions - starting with Senatorial committees headed by and with majority Republican membership, the 9-11 Commission, and a host of other highly regarded investigative bodies, says not only that there ARE no WMD - but also that there were no WMD. It has been documented, time and again, that the CIA told the Bush administration over and over again that the “sources” being relied on - Iraqi exiles who want to get back in power in Iraq (including Chelabi, whom even the Bush administration has now rejected) were not reliable sources - and, in fact, they often lied. And the same high powered investigative bodies say there is no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda (remember Al Qaeda - the people who planned and carried out 9-11?). But VP Cheney continues to insist that the link is there - but he can’t prove it. Very few military experts or intelligence experts or international affairs experts outside of the Bush administration think Iraq was a threat to us then or now. But we have spent hundreds of U.S. lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions of tax dollars (with more every day). The action in Afghanistan (where Bin-Laden and Al Qaeda were based and which still has large numbers of terrorists) has suffered severely because of the diversion of troops to Iraq.
We are supposed to be fighting a war against terrorism, but are not even budgeting money to protect our nuclear power plants and other utilities or our mass transportation - but we can consider even more tax cuts. it sure doesn't make sense to me.
Let’s also not forget that this war was to be quickly won (which it was), that our troops were to be greeted with flowers and dancing in the streets (they weren’t) and that Iraq would welcome democracy (it hasn’t) and with a minimal force we would be able to get out in a year. The military said many more troops were needed - about 3 times as many - but the top advisors said no. And Iraq is a mess. Yes, we handed over power before the end of June, but our troops are still there. This administration has put into effect Stop Loss orders, so that troops who have already seen active service in Iraq can be sent back, people who were near the end of their enlistment can’t get out of the military, reserve units have been activated for 9 months to a year (and maybe more) and Ready Reserve people are being called up. But, we can’t afford to increase the size of the U.S. Military - for budgetary reasons. So let’s just keep on sending in the same people who have been there, put them back into harm’s way; activate and keep reserve units (people who never, ever dreamed that they’d have to leave their jobs and families for 6, 9 or 12 months - with all the hardships that entails); and call up the Ready Reserve, most of whom haven’t had an hour of training since they left active duty.
Oh, and don’t forget Haliburton (formerly headed by VP Cheney) with more than $1.7 billion in no-bid contracts. Have you read the stories of no-bid high prices being paid for food service (higher than local Iraqi suppliers bid and would charge); trucks being sent out empty because the contract pays on a per truck per trip basis? It seems to me that just as a matter of concern for appearances another contractor could have been chose, or a bidding process set up.
But mostly I will vote for Kerry because I believe he is honest and I don’t trust George Bush. I believe he is dishonest. I don’t know if he deliberately lies or if he simply doesn’t tell the truth to himself. Examples include taking credit for the program providing health insurance to low income children in Texas - a program he fought against, which was passed and became law without his signature, but for which he took credit during his campaign. He took credit for the improvements in public education in Texas, even though the Rand study he used for support for that position was based on national tests from 1990 to 1996, and Bush became governor of Texas in 1995. He either lied about or deceived himself about Iraq - the WMD, the link to Al Qaeda. And, of course, there is the whole National Guard service question - contrasted to Kerry’s volunteering for military service, serving in Viet Name, and getting three Purple Heart injuries (both Bush’s National Guard story and Kerry’s military service are well documented).
Yes, Bush is decisive. But if you make the wrong decisions, is being decisive good? Yes, he has convictions - which I don’t agree with. Having convictions is not in and of itself a good thing, and refusing to be open to new information, the possibility that you were wrong, being unwilling to ever admit a mistake or a change of mind, is something I would describe as inflexible, not as having convictions.
The gay marriage issue - a smokescreen. Republican members of Congress admit that they don’t have the votes to pass a Constitutional amendment (which I personally oppose), but they want to get the vote on record to have ammunition for the campaign. As many of you know, my oldest son is gay. My Methodist church is a “reconciling congregation”, which means we oppose the denomination’s position that does not allow openly gay/lesbian people to be ordained and does not allow church celebration of gay/lesbian unions. I’ll be honest, I had a lot of trouble with “gay marriage” for a long time, until I realized (1) that couples who live in serious, monogamous commitment with each other should have some way to have that recognized; and (2) these same people do not have legal protections that anyone who bops into a Las Vegas “chapel” for a 2 minute ceremony can have. I can understand the religious objections, and I think any denomination which does not allow religious ceremonies for gay/lesbian unions is perfectly within their rights. But “marriage” is a legal, civil issue, and provides legal, civil protections for the two people involved. Why should those protections be denied to couples I know (gay and lesbian) who have been together, faithful and monogamous, for anywhere from 10 to 30 years, but granted to any two people of the same gender whether they are faithful, monogamous, or even care about the religious connotations of marriage? To say that allowing faithful, loving people to have a legal formula for their relationship would somehow degrade marriage or provide a bad example to our children is, I think, incorrect. And, for pete’s sake, homosexuality is not contagious. If your children see two same-gendered people living together in a legal union, that is not going to make your child homosexual (and, according to most medical, psychological and scholarly studies, it isn’t a “choice” anyhow). Certainly the gay and lesbian couples I know would provide a better example of loving, faithful, caring and monogamous relationships than, say, Elizabeth Taylor or Madonna.
That is more than enough for now. I will vote for Kerry/Edwards AND against Bush/Cheney.
This is funny and related to the topic :
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself! MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green." Tom Daschle and John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican
LOL@ Claire, mine is rising, too. I was outside ranting about this last night with Nate, when our neighbor pulled up. She gave me a look like I'd lost it until she found out what I was ranting about. I think I feel much more passionate about this election than the last, and I'm a Palm Beach County resident! ROFL!!
And in the spirit of the devil's advocate here we go again!
Lisa,
You mention the part in the Declaration of Independance "All men are created equal". You also say "every human on the face of this planet has the right given to them by their God to be free." But your post, and other posts here make me feel like that "freedom" is only for those who believe the same things you do. I think that's the part that upsets me the most. I think everyone deserves to be free to believe in what they want. This is the basis of many of my views, "it may not be for me, but if it works for you then GREAT!" No, I don't think we should allow anarchy, but things that harm none, that are personal choices, we have no right to stand in the way. Honestly, I don't care what who my neighbors pray to, who they marry, whether they eat meat or not, etc. They don't hurt me, or anyone else, and they don't push their beliefs on me, and I'm happy. I'm tired of people who think THEIR way is THE right way, and the rest of the world is wrong. We've turned into a country of those type of people. Who the hell are we to tell others how to live? And I'm pretty sure the Bible says not to judge, 'cuz it is not our place.
And as far as the WWII references, and what is going on in Iraq, I'm not saying we shouldn't step in. I just think we should help our own people first. Why bother saving the world when we are crumbling here. We give our resources to everyone else while our people starve and the such. For what in return?? People hate us, fight us, bite the hand that feeds them.
"We cannot ignore evil. When good people stand by and do nothing, evil prevails." Well dammit, what about the evils in our homeland? Can we deal with that before we run across the rest of the world with our Superman complex?
Pam,
I certainly understand your point, and agree we need to teach our children what we consider acceptable. My point in my original comment is that while you don't think homosexuality is acceptable, (and I hope you never have a child or close relative that is gay, because then what would you do?) you shouldn't have the right to stand in someone else's way. Does someone homosexual getting married affect you directly? You don't want to give them equal rights. That's what it comes down to. The only thing a piece of paper (marriage, we're talking the legal sense, not religous... people seem to forget that) can really do is provide the couple with certain privileges. THAT'S IT! So, because it's not the relationship you would approve of, they don't deserve that? That's like saying one of your children can't marry because you don't approve of the mate they chose. If they are of age, it's out of your control!!
Ok, I keep telling myself to just let it go, and stop checking this thread, (THANKS MIKE! LOL) so I'll try and quit now. To sum it up, I feel Bush will only back things he believes in, even if they are unfair. We are all entitled to our personal beliefs, but a leader is supposed to be diplomatic and just. Our president is supposed to uphold our rights to believe what we want, not shove his down our throats. I'd rather relinquish my citizenship than live with forced beliefs. Last I checked this was a democracy, and while that has is faults, it's all we've got.
Crystal and Ginny....you are both posting excellent information. I agree wholeheartedly. And, I'm glad that you are the ones typing it up. My blood pressure rises everytime I come to this post! I just feel like yelling out.
Crystal....I especially like the last statement you made:
"I feel Bush will only back things he believes in, even if they are unfair. We are all entitled to our personal beliefs, but a leader is supposed to be diplomatic and just. Our president is supposed to uphold our rights to believe what we want, not shove his down our throats. I'd rather relinquish my citizenship than live with forced beliefs. Last I checked this was a democracy, and while that has is faults, it's all we've got. "
Ginny, thank you for the well thought-out post and the excellent and well-documented information. I continue to check in on this thread, read some of the posts, get "het up" about the conservative viewpoints offered, get frustrated because I can't put into words the ideas and beliefs I have, and then find that you and Crystal have done an excellent job of expressing my thoughts. Thank you for your courageous and intelligent posting.
Speaking of ants and grasshoppers - or, rather, speaking of the rich, the businessman/woman, and the welfare recipient, I will quote some paragraphs from a column by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune:
The quotes follow, and I am trying really hard to not change the sense of the column by omitting or deleting:
Corporate welfare--an array of direct subsidies, tax breaks and indirect assistance created for the special benefit of businesses--is one of those things that politicians would rather criticize than abolish. For the most part, it has a deservedly bad image.
....
When Republicans won control of Congress back in 1994, they talked about slashing corporate welfare, which many of them saw for what it was: a fiscal extravagance and a presumptuous interference with the normal functioning of a market economy. But they soon lost interest in such thankless tasks.
Although his budget director once said it is "not the federal government's role to subsidize, sometimes deeply subsidize, private interests," President Bush has proposed only piddling cuts. Under his leadership, the budget for corporate welfare has remained as high as ever--about $87 billion a year, according to the Cato Institute in Washington.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has come up with a way to stop the mutual back-scratching and promote the greater good. He wants to create an independent commission that would examine all the corporate handouts in the federal budget and make a list of those that should be scrapped. But instead of letting Congress and the president pick and choose from the list, they would have to accept or reject them all.
Members would still have to sacrifice items prized by a few constituents, but they'd be able to achieve big budgetary savings in exchange. Although it's easy to vote to preserve a single item for the folks back home, voting to keep a long list of expensive business goodies is harder. The commission approach was first used for the painful obligation of closing unneeded military bases, and it was a huge success.
Unfortunately, few members of McCain's party are on board. Steve Moore, who heads the anti-tax Club for Growth, which provides support for conservative Republican candidates, faults congressional Republicans for their selective frugality. "It makes them look like complete hypocrites," he complains. "They want to get single mothers off welfare but not Archer Daniels Midland," referring to the politically connected agribusiness giant.
This year, however, at least one prominent Democratic senator is taking a different approach--a guy named John Kerry. As part of his plan to reduce the deficit, he has said, he would "implement the McCain-Kerry Commission on corporate welfare to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects."
But winning Congress over does not promise to be easy. Just last week, the House voted to expand the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which provides all sorts of help to some 18,000 small manufacturers through several hundred offices.
These are services that companies could pay for themselves. If they choose not to, it's probably because the services are not worth what they cost. Based on that sound logic, President Bush had wanted to phase out the program. But this year, he changed his mind, on the dubious grounds that the MEP was needed to save manufacturing jobs.
The administration didn't go far enough, though, in the eyes of most House members. They approved $110 million for the program next year, up from the $40 million it proposed. When it was created in 1988, the MEP was going to last just six years, after which time the offices it funded would survive on their own. Yet here it is, 16 years later, still draining public resources.
It's a prime example of how hard it can be to eliminate government favors to business. President Bush has aided and abetted the expansion of this wasteful program. And what about corporate welfare opponent John Kerry? He's for it.
(End of quotes from Chapman article)
Back to Ginny:
It's fun to make up cute stories (and we all know the story of the ant and the grasshopper). But poor people aren't grasshoppers. In fact, most of them are single mothers of children - and many of those single mothers of children are in that position because a husband or father of the children walked out. So, do we let the children starve, live without heat, not have decent clothes to go to school or decent schools in which to learn, because dad walked out or mom made a mistake in deciding who would be dad?
And many poor people are working poor - dad and often mom work at jobs which don't pay a living wage and don't provide health insurance. They work because they believe in working and do their darndest to raise their children and pay their bills.
This nation passed legislation called welfare reform several years ago. No individual can stay on welfare more than 5 years unless there are overriding reasons, like physical or mental disability. Women with pre-school children have to work a certain number of hours a week, at least 20 and usually 30 or 40. If the woman was in school trying to upgrade her skills and suddenly finds herself without support, she has to quit school and take the first job that comes along. And, this administration has proposed major cuts in support for childcare for the pre-school age children of welfare moms.
But Haliburton has $1.7 billion in no-bid contracts for rebuilding in Iraq. There have been numerous articles about the fraud and serious over-pricing that has gone on in these contracts. And this administrtion has decided that even if a company has been proven to have committed fraud against the government it will not be barred from future government contracts.
As for who is getting rich off of whose labor, how come Lipitor (cholesterol reducing) is $258 for 90 at Sam's Club and $133 from a Canadian supplier. Celebrex (arthritis medication) is $234 at Walgreens, $102 from Canada. And here's a good one: Tamifaxen (breast cancer drug): $315 at Target, $29 at a Canadian supplier. (WFTV.com, Channel 9, a Florida TV station). Canada regulates drug prices, the U.S. doesn't. U.S. drug manufacturers take doctors to expensive lunches, make expensive gifts to doctors, spend about as much on advertising and promotion as they do on research (and advertising is a business expense and therefor tax deductible).
And there's always Enron, where Enron executives had their managers play games with the electrical power supply in California (post de-regulation) to increase Enron profits - deliberately overscheduling the state’s power grid, threatening to overload it, so they could charge the state for delivering the "excess capacity" out of state, where the Californians couldn’t keep track of it. They got so good at this they finally never even bought the "excess energy" they were charging California NOT to deliver.
Here is an interesting segment of a Molly Ivins column. Yes, Molly is a liberal and anti-Bush (after all, she experienced him as governor of Texas before he became President). But Molly always backs up her columns with sources and attribution, as she does here:
AUSTIN, Texas -- CBS News has acquired tapes of Enron employees boasting about how they were "f----g over" California during the late, great "energy crisis" there.
My favorite segment in these charming conversations is the dismay at Enron when local utilities try to get the money back. "They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" inquires an Enronite. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, Grandma Millie, man."
"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a-- for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."
Grandma Millie. The nerve of her. Imagine thinking it's wrong to rig a market and overcharge by billions of dollars. But hey, no worries at Enron, because George W. Bush is about to be elected president. "It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay secretary of energy."
"When this election comes, Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap bulls--t."
Tell me - who is the grasshopper and who is the ant? Personally, I vote for Grandma Millie (and Kerry).
I wasn't going to post to this thread because I really didn't think I wanted to share my opinion on this topic but I am going to go ahead and have my say..
First of all, Crys and Ginny are not Anti Bush they are Pro America and Pro Americans. They are wanting someone in office that is going to see that America is taken care of. Not just the things that are in his best interest but the best interest of the people. This isn't just a Bush issue this is an issue of many presidents of the past. They are hoping that their vote for Kerry will bring someone into office that will be looking to help the under dog before he lines his own pockets.
The way I see it we have terrorist right here, right now in America that are American citizens. We have gang violence that kills inocent people every day, we have drug traficing that kills inocent people every day, we have laws that protect the guilty and convict the inoccent, we have people on death row until they are dead by natural causes because they have a right to appeal. Our Judicial system is a joke at best which is why we have repeat offenders at the rates that we do. I mean you can go out and comit a major crime and as long as no one dies you are back on the street in no time. But we have some kind of right to go in to Iraq with guns blazing killing inocent people because we see their presidents treatment as injust and because they have bad guys on their streets??? I mean really, what good is any of this going to do when we can't even stop some uneducated punk from shooting some child in the name of his gang?
I think the issue on marriage is a joke. I think that a commited couple is a far fetched thing any more no matter the sexual combination. People in general do not get married out of a life comittment they get married because they can. It doesn't matter if they are male, female, or gay. We live in a throw away society. If I marry him/her and I don't like it then I will just divorce him/her and find someone else that wants to play the game by my rules. So to say it is not biblical for two men to marry basically doesn't mean anything in a society that gives no vaule to the vows taken before God and man in the first place.
Welfare reform. People are on welfare because the system sets them up to have to stay on it. Welfare is an all or nothing type of system. They say the hope is to get people working. Where are they going to work?? Mc Donalds?? They offer education. Okay then you go in and apply for a job and the employer wants to know where you have worked before and when you can't list off jobs they hire the guy that can. Many women are on welfare because the child support system doesn't work. And because you can't give a child medical care, pay bills and pay for day care on minimum wage even with both parents in the picture and working. There are no insintives to work for these people and surely no insintives for anyone to hire them. Many are living hopeless exsitances and don't know how to get themselves out of the situation. Some people just are clueless as to the way you go about making a life out side of the system. They see themselves as always going to be poor and always be on assistance and they accept it as the way the world works. In this world you have the haves and the have nots... It is easier to sit back and point out their issues than it is to do something to help them fix the situations. The world knocks them down. Instead of reaching out a hand and helping them up people just want to keep knocking them down and steping on them and complain about it when they cycle repeats.
Medicare.... Social Security... We are spending millions to fight a war that honestly has no point to it and we will spend millions more to rebuild over there but we can't medicate our seniors? And it is illegal for us to buy are mediactions from Canada?? Why would that be?? Well could it be about money?? Why ofcourse everything is right? Just imagine how much money the governement would loose in taxes if we took all of our medications and bought them out of the country. One of Robs medications alone cost 495 dollars for one months suply. Who on a fixed income could afford that? They can send financial aid all over the world but we can't support our elderly?? What is wrong with this picture???
So basically, This vote should be about who is going to take care of America not who is going to take care of your personal views.... Because at the rate things are going I honestly think that whether a man marries or man or a woman aborts her baby (which I feel strongly about both issues) but they aren't going to amount to a pile of beans with the way this country is headed. And yet we have some kind of superman complex that makes us think it is our right to sweep in and save the world from all it's woe's. For all of those that like to refer to the Bible. What's the quote about pointing out the splinter in some one elses eye and looking past the plank in your own???? We need to take care of our own and we need a president that is going to make sure that that is a priority to him.
Man I should correct my spelling on this but I am not going to. I am beat and I think you get the just of what I am trying to say or I hope you do. Night everyone.... 
Amen, Ginny... Said everything I was thinking and ten times better than I did...
And I'll Amen to Bobbie and Ginny, and add just one bit of food for thought about the grasshopper and the ant. Around here, for "unskilled" (you don't have a degree) a fabulous wage is $8-10 an hour, but most make $6. Even skilled and licensed, like Nate, is somewhere in the median of that range, unless you have a 4 year degree or better. And theres talk of taking away his OT? The people who save lives, people who teach, people who protect you are paid less that the people who fix your plumbing!!! And, God willing, they don't make nearly as many mistakes! Here's some math the "grasshopper" faces...
Say best case, $10 an hour, 40 hours a week. $400.00 a week before taxes. $1,600.00 a month BEFORE TAXES! That's an excellent wage to most people in Cen. TX! Minimum wage? $5.15 X 40= $206 a week, $824.00 a month BEFORE TAXES!!! Can you raise a family on $824.00 a month? Less than 10K a year? But if you don't work you can get assistance, so why bother working? That's the problem with our system... my challenge is for someone to tell me how to raise a family on $824.00 a month.
I'm at a loss here. Can someone explain to me exactly why welfare recipients and low income citizens never did have the same opportunities to get a public education, grammar school, middle school, high school, college if they want using all of the tuition/education assistance programs out there, then college transcript in hand, head off to apply for jobs, like everyone else? And explain to me why after they voluntarily didn't attend class, eventually dropped out of school, acted promiscuous and irresponsible, maybe decided to bypass the usual ways of earning money (i.e., start at the bottom, learn skills, work your way up) and went for the quick money (selling drugs, prostitution, robbing people), we should turn around and "give them a helping hand" (translation: free money) ????
This is just blowing my mind ... the apathy.
The ant story is reality, folks. Anyone who can't see this is blinding themselves (probably for some personal agenda.)
The above is actually the source of a great deal of the problems with this country, and frankly my patience is wearing thin hearing people whine about how "the system" has let them down. If you get out there and do the work, you'll make it. There's no way to work around it ... and I won't vote for a politician who will help people do that.
Welfare. It certainly is a hot topic. In an ideal world, it would only be used as a crutch to help people during desperate times in their life. We have all heard stories or know of some who have abused the system. It would be interesting (if not impossible) to actually know how many who are on public assistance are truly using it for it's original purpose and not because it is the "easy" way out. Pam (Bubbels), what is the solution? Should we do away with welfare? Make the guidelines stricter? How can we make the system work the way it was intended? Haven't we put reforms in place to address the problems of welfare? Why aren't they working? Nothing is ever cut and dry; for every proposed solution, there are more questions and problems.
Healthcare. I was watching a news show regarding the practice of some hospitals suing uninsured patients for past due bills. It seems as though the hospitals and doctors charge uninsured patients the rack rate while those fortunate enough to have health care through Medicare or private insurance are given a reduced rate. It doesn't make sense that those without the ability to pay are losing their savings and any assets because they got sick. All it takes, really, is to lose your job or be dropped from your insurance for whatever reason and we could all find ourselves in that kind of situation. What is being done about it? What has the Bush Administration done about it?
Social Security. I'm not confident it will be there when I reach retirement age and I have tried to insure that I won't need it when the time comes. I'm even more concerned about privatizing it. That would be a gamble I'm not willing to take.
Terrorism. Was capturing Hussein worth losing the respect and alliances of other nations? Now, before anyone says we haven't lost anything (or if we have, we can live with that), we our, whether we admit to it or like it, a global society. We are dependent on other nations just as they are dependent on us. We have to get back that respect and partnership with those nations. IMO, I don't believe Bush has the ability to do that!
No Child Left Behind. Great idea but will never work in its current form. Teachers are now teaching to the test. More emphasis is put on reaching a certain test score than educating.
Economy. Trickle down theory. Whenever I think of the Trickle down theory, I think of the phone operator in India, the lay-offs by major employers, Enron and the CEO of Tyco. No, nothing trickles down. It either gets pocketed by the big wigs or gets sent to another country. Small businesses get eaten up by the Walmarts and the Home Depots. AT this rate, we will become a country of haves and have-nots and the working class, the backbone of this country, will be no more.
And now, something to lighten the mood. It's all in fun, so no offense (probably not a good idea to watch with the kids around, so wait until you're alone)
This Land
I'll give you one example, Pam. When I lived in Germantown (a low income, primarily African-American area of Philadelphia), I lived on a block where there were only two white families. We became close friends with a son of a family across the street, who attended Germantown High School. Hardworking, religious widowed mother, oldest son hard working, good family. When he was in his 2nd year of high school he was scheduled for Algebra but the classes were full, so he was rescheduled for a second year of General Math. He also was not scheduled for Biology because they didn't have room in the class. So they put him in print shop instead (lots of jobs in printing these days, aren't there?) (His mother was not educated and didn't know this was a problem.) In his 3rd year he was told he couldn't take Algebra in his 3rd year and that it was too late to take Biology or begin a language because he wouldn't be able to "finish" the language or science or math track before he graduated. Late in his 3rd year he told me he was planning to go in the Army after graduation, so he could go to college. I asked him about his high school classes and credits and learned that he hadn't gotten the math, science or languages he would need to be accepted at college. I talked to his mom, who at my suggestion went to an organization called Parents Union (which I helped form) which adovcates on behalf of public school students. After 4 months of negotiation, the school agreed to (a) get him into Algebra, Biology and a language in his 4th year and (b) give him a 5th year of high school at age 18(which is almost never done because it costs money). He got Algebra and Trig, Biology and Chem, and 2 years of Spanish, had two years of community college, and now owns his own catering business.
This was a family that was doing all the right things but didn't know the system and the system, for its own convenience and budgetary reasons, wrote this kid off in his first year of high school. If he hadn't had someone to push the system into doing what it should have done in the first place, who knows where he would be now. And this is just one kid, one poor, black kid out of a couple of thousand in that school.
My church, across the street from that high school, now runs an after school program for kids in that school. We take 90 kids a semester and turn away over 500 because we don't have room. We do tutoring, computer training, and general support stuff. These kids spend 2 hours a day after school in this program. All but 2 of them passed all their classes this year and will move up. But what about the 500 we turned away?
When I transferred from a Lutheran High School at the end of my 3rd year (1955) I had taken all the right courses including 1 year of Spanish. At the public high school I transferred to they didn't have room for me to take the 2nd year of Spanish and suggested Shorthand instead. I got really high scores on my college entrance exam but because I didn't have a high enough grade average (I didn't do well in math), I was told I would have to take another year of Spanish before I could be accepted. I was working full time, plus a part-time job, and kept falling asleep in Spanish - and after all, most women of my age in that time got married - which is what I did.
I had a friend who had to go on welfare because her husband (a lawyer on the District Attorney's staff) wouldn't pay child support until he was forced to by a hearing, and then stop again in 2-3 months. She was in college full time (1975), and at that time welfare let her stay in school. She is now a counselor at Temple University. But today she'd be told to quit school and take the first job that came along, no matter what it paid if it paid minimum wage, and never mind learning skills to get a better job.
Welfare has always paid the barest minimum for survival (and in many states not even that). In Louisiana, for example, according to the Louisiana Dept. of Social Services, "The average family consists of a mother and two children. The average grant in Louisiana is $200 per month. 86% of all FITAP recipients in Louisiana are non-white and 14% are white."
What also happens is that in "low income" (translate, poor) neighborhoods, general services are lousy. Housing laws are not enforced and landlords are not taken to court if the roof leaks, the plumbing or heat doesn't work. The police (who are badly overworked, especially in such communities) tend to not get involved in domestic situations unless they are really violent (which I do understand - don't like it, but understand it). Supermarkets are few and far between, with lousy food and high prices.
In many parts of low-income Philadelphia you have to walk a mile and a half or more to get to a bus line - and Philadelphia has a fairly good public transportationi system. There are fewer hospitals and because people don't have health insurance, emergency rooms are over-used and over-crowded with long waits.
When I lived in Germantown (again, one of two white families on the block), there was an incident where the police descended on the block to try to catch a man who had committed a violent assault. During the questioning, etc., one of the officers (an African American) said to me - you know, ma'am, you shouldn't be living here. Why don't you move to Mt. Airy (a mostly white community). In Germantown (part of the big city of Philadelphia with all that living in a big city means) I called the police one night because someone was trying to break into my back window. They came 30 minutes later. When I called the police in Glenside, the suburb I live in now, because my father had fallen and Mom and I couldn't lift him, they were there in 3 minutes.
I don't know the statistics now because the Philadelphia public school system has changed drastically (it's been "privatized" by state legislation), but up until a few years ago, teachers with seniority could select the schools in which they would teach, which meant that schools in poor neighborhoods with mostly single-parent families got the least experienced teachers. These schools had 5 times as many days of substitute teachers as schools in higher income neighborhoods.
If we really wanted welfare to work - that is, get people properly educated and trained and able to hold down decent-paying jobs, we'd put a lot more money into support systems. If a woman has no family member available to provide child-care and there is no financial subsidy for child-care while she works her mandated job, what does she do? A lot of the time she leaves her children alone or pays a neighbor a minimal amount under the table to watch her kids and a dozen others, just to have them kept "safe" and so she doesn't get arrested for child neglect. You all have enough experience in child raising to know that this is very unhealthy for the kids and these kids are much more likely to get into trouble.
I'm speaking from experience. I was for several years a volunteer advocate with Parents Union and worked with many poor families who were struggling with problems in their children's schools. The indifference in the schools to the needs of the children, their safety,and whether or not they were even learning was astounding and appalling. And it was mostly blamed by the school on the parent - well, if she'd come to the parent-teacher conference (held during the work-day and she is a working mother), well if she'd put nicer clothes on her son so he'd fit in, well if she (herself uneducated) would spend a couple of hours working with him every night (after she comes home from her job, fixes dinner, and takes care of all of the rest of it) - there wouldn't be a problem. Never mind that the kid is being bullied by older kids every day when he enters the school yard so he is afraid to go to school (and hence truant); never mind that the school doesn't have enough books so that he can take a science book home at night (but they have mimeographed handouts of the work - boy, that would never fly in Glenside, I guarantee you); never mind that at tht time, in schools in poor neighborhoods, class size was anywhere from 32 to 45 (with 32 being the mandated maximum but because of teacher shortages or classroom shortages in that school they got a pass).
No, poor people don't have the same opportunities to get the same kind of public education you got. They get the fuzzy end of the lollipop (to paraphrase) most of the time, and then we blame them for not taking advantage of what they never had the opportunity to take advantage of.
Sure, most illegitimate babies are born to young, poor, single women. Who by and large don't know about or don't have access to birth control. And the schools sure aren't going to teach them, with abstinence being the primary method of birth control taught these days. And no matter how you feel about abortion, if a 16 year old poor girl finds she is pregnant and wants an abortion, the odds are high that she won't be able to get one, so she'll have an illegitimate child and probably be on welfare.
As for personal agenda - my personal agenda is that I believe that until we make it a priority to really deal with the needs of poor children, we are going to be paying the high price of uneducated, untrained people who see drugs and crime as their only way to survive. I believe it is in my best interest to make solving these problems a priority, from Get Set to lower class size in public schools (more money for more teachers), school counselors who really counsel starting a 5th or 6th grade (more money for more and better trained counselors); good, readily available health care for poor people so that children with health, vision, hearing and learning problems get identified early on and get the support they need to solve those problems.
Poverty is not the result of sin and it is not a self-induced condition. It starts with a personal tragedy for an individual, multiplied by thousands of individuals, and snowballs because of a national attitude and system that says "every one who wants a good job can get one". There are large communities in Pennsylvania right now with 70% to 80% of the families on welfare because the local steel mill or factory which was the sole source of jobs in the town closed down and moved to a state with lower wages or moved the jobs overseas.
I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer last week where a high-tech company moved its jobs overseas. Something like 60% of its highly trained, well educated work force found jobs paying a lot less than they had been making - about 20% of them in service jobs (Burger King, Walmart, etc.). One guy, with a masters degree for pete's sake, had been to 80 interviews in a year and still hadn't gotten a job other than Burger King. And at most of the interviews he was told he wasn't being hired because he was overqualified and might leave if he got a better offer.
A major baking company in Philadelphia was bought out by a national chain. There were examples of whole families - dad, mom and adult children who were all laid off at once. Many of them had started working for this company right out of high school and never worked anywhere else. There are no similar jobs available for them and a large number of them will be on welfare for at least a while after their severance runs out.
In this country, the majority of families are only a few paychecks away from welfare. By that I mean that if the job disappeared and the worker couldn't find a new job at a reasonable pay level, within six months after unemployoment ran out (and that's only 6 months of payments) they'd lose their house and either move into a crummy apartment or be on the street, and be on welfare. It happens, all the time. If a guy loses a $20/hour job and all he can find is $8/hour jobs, how is he going to pay his mortgage, car insurance, and all the rest?
Pam, I know you are a hardworking woman who has taken advantage of everything available to you to be self-supporting and a good citizen. But stop and think of what you had available to you. I lived on welfare for two years. I lived in a median income community with decent stores and decent medical care available. I lived on a street with a bus route and had some idea of how to make the system work so I got my kids into a public school in another district, where they had to ride public transportation 20 minutes each way, because the schools in my district were overcrowded, understaffed, and were teaching to their expectations of their students (which were very low). I had decent supermarkets within walking distance. I had friends who would pass on clothes to me, and a family that would send money whenever they could. And there were times when we had to decide between shoes for the kids or oil in the furnace. If I had not had those support systems available - if I had lived in Kensington, for example, a very poor white community in Philadelpha, I don't know if I would have made it.
Stop and think about the position Amy might be in if Mike were not in the Army but worked in a civilian job and suddenly he wasn't there. What would she do, with 3 young children? And if she didn't have a supportive family able to help her, what would happen to her?
Sunny, if I had a solution to the welfare issue that's crippling this country, I'd certainly be wasting my time being a parenting board administrator, wouldn't I? I'd better serve others by running for political office. But, alas, I'm just who I am, an American citizen whose job it is to VOTE for the politicians who can make the changes necessary to get us out of this mess.
On what do you base your statement that "welform reform is not working"? According to the statistics, within only three years of its enactment, the welfare caseload has been reduced by ..... 54%! More than half the people that you and I used to have to support are now working and supporting themselves.
As to your statements that this is not working and that will not work above are they based on facts or your opinion? Is your opinion formed based on whether it's something George Bush is working for? Just checking.
Cut welfare. Get more people working. Less people on the street with victim attitudes and lots of free time to get into trouble. Better self-esteem. Less crime. Less juvenile delinquency. The effects are far reaching.
It can work. No quick fixes. It took a long time to get where we are now, but it is definitely a goal to work towards.
You have posted about welfare and your problems with it. I responded and asked you if you had the solution. I ended it by saying that nothing is as cut and dry as it seems. There is no reason to be sarcastic.
You feel very strongly on this subject, it is obvious from your posts, but to me it is only one of a number of issues.
I never made the statement that reform wasn't working, I asked questions, questions that I don't have the answer to. Apparently reform is working. That's great. Perhaps we are moving in the right direction.
Obviously, we are on different sides of the political fence. Shall we just agree to disagree?
First of all, Ginny, I would like to tell you that Amy was working as an assistant manager at Nine West when we met. While working full-time, she also was attending Loyola University getting her degree in economics, (for which she WORKED HARD in school and earned a scholarship) and at the same time was raising our oldest ds Adrian. She took on further economic responsibilities by supporting me as I was not working. She is not the type of person who uses crutches or excuses. It is okay to have welfare, but not as a way of life, rather as a temporary fix so that you can WORK to get back on your feet. I dropped out of school in the 9th grade and got my GED. I worked construction jobs and labor positions most of my life. I was tired of killing myself for a small paycheck and gave up. When I met Amy I knew I was going to have to suck it up and get back to work. I decided to join the army. My point in all this is that you have to work towards your future. There are no free rides. Sometimes we have to do things we *dont* want to do. For me the army was one of those things, but in retrospect I am grateful for what I have with the army. Under-paid as we are, we make ends meet and keep food on the table. Point blank it takes YOU to make YOUR future. No one will hand it to you on a silver platter. YOU have to work for it.
I will just chime in and say that there are many, many people on welfare that could survive if they made a few changes. There are also many people that cannot do anything more and are deservingly receiving welfare. The welfare system needs modifications to find that line between the two. Many women out there refuse to marry and keep having baby after baby in order to maintain their welfare check. This needs to be stopped. Welfare reform aims to eliminate this type of thinking and way of living. If the welfare check runs out after a number of years, these types of people will be forced to reevaluate their way of living and get on track. Opponents of welfare reform - what is your solution to the problem with thousands of welfare recipients leaching off of the system by purposefully perpetuating their living conditions/poverty?
The first thing I would say is remedial education and job training, readily available child care and subsidies if needed, and, sadly, about ten times the drug rehab programs we presently have available. One of the terrible things present in most poor communities is widespread use of drugs - crack and pot are both relatively cheap and widely used.
And, if I were running the cities, I would make it a lot harder to get liquor licenses and not allow the large number of bars that can stay open late hours (like 3 to 4 a.m. - and in Germantown I used to see bars open at 8 in the morning, for pete's sake).
I would treat goods made overseas by U.S. corporations as foreign made and impose whatever import fees and taxes we impose on goods made by foreign corporations (which, in these days of free trade, isn't much), and cut off entirely any tax breaks or credits to companies which send jobs overseas.
I think it would be a lot cheaper in the long run to pay people to clean and repair streets and buildings than to house them in jail, to subsidize hospitals, nursing homes and schools to employ a lot more people as aides, technical staff (with training) and so on. I know in many suburban areas they have a lot of problems hiring people for the lower paying jobs, but the people who want those jobs don't have transportation - I'd subsidize public transportation so that people and jobs can get together. I'd give tax breaks to supermarkets and major chain stores that build and operate in poor communities. (Right now Philadelphia and Pennslvania are giving a large tax break to a real estate company building a large high rise in Center City, where we have plenty of office vacancies, and to the local cable company which will be housed in that building, even though the company can't move out of the area without losing it's privileges as the major cable supplier in the Philadelphia area and so doesn't need the tax breaks to encourage it to stay. That doesn't make sense to me.) Hospitals, especially those which serve poor communities, are really getting hurt by reduced insurance payments and the continually increasing cost of providing care, and many are closing either the entire facility or their emergency rooms and clinics in poor communities - and I'd subsidize those hospitals.
As for saying that women keep having babies just to stay on welfare, in Louisiana a woman with 2 children gets an additional $44 a month for a third child plus $100 more in food stamps, $43 more a month and $100 in food stamps for a fourth child, and $39 more a month and $89 in food stamps for a fifth child. Do you really think most of these women are having children just to get that much (or little) more money? Yes, people trade food stamps for stuff not in the food stamp program and for cash, and that is something that should be strictly enforced. But Louisiana uses the electronic transfer (debit card type system) for food stamps, which helps a lot on reducing fraud.
I think the idea of welfare reform is excellent. But I think that the support systems which would produce true reform were not put into place along with the limitations. All of you know how much child care costs - do you really think a woman with two pre-school children who makes $10/hour, $400/week before taxes - and pays rent and utilities, buys food and clothes for those children - can afford child care without a subsidy? But Congress and the present administration are budgeting major cuts in child care subsidies for the next fiscal year. And cuts in federal subsidies for health insurance for children in poor families (including, don't forget, the working poor).
What is required is a change that will take at least two generations and a lot of apples along with the stick. We are using the stick but cutting way back on the apples. I don't know what the end result will be, but in the interim I think we are going to see a lot more drugs and crime in poor communities and the surrounding areas, a lot more malnourished and generally unhealthy children. You suggest - rightly - that people should reevaluate their way of living and get on track. That's fine and objectively correct. But subjectively, how do we help them get on track - not make them get on track with punitive measures, because that's not going to work for significant numbers of people, but help them by making it easier to get job training, get to a job, and making sure there are jobs out there. Personally, I'd much rather have tax dollars go into job subsidies than welfare, because anyone who has a job is paying taxes and generally staying out of trouble.
And what about the children? While we are applying cutoffs and punitive measures to their parents and cutting child-care and health care support, they are the ones who suffer. The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statitics reported that in 2002 the number of children living in poverty by federal standards (which are not high) grew from 11.2 million in 2001 to 11.6 million in 2002; and for children living with single females the poverty rate was 40%! What about these children?
Agreed, Sunny. I apologize for becoming sarcastic. You're right. I do feel strongly about this issue, and sometimes I get carried away with my emotions, which is why I normally try to stay away from the Kitchen Table. 
OK, I don't have the statistics that Ginny has but would like to give you a BTDT story. My dh was laid off from a company he had been with for 8 years and given 6 months of unemployment payments. It was a "non-degree" type job. He had over 200 interviews in 14 months. I went back to work as a retail associate (all I had experience in before marriage) at minimum wage and my dh took a job at Pizza Hut so that I could work days and he could nights. No costs for daycare for 2 children that way. Both of us have parents that work full time so they are unable to help with that. We gave up our cell phone, cable, internet, and one of our cars. We moved from a 4 bedroom 2 bath home we were planning to buy after we had rented for 2 years into a 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment. Since we made less in a month than our rent was we had to go on welfare. Cashing that welfare check each month was the most humiliating experience I have ever gone through. Our state used the ATM type food stamp card so that wasn't quite as embarrassing. I signed up for WIC, was put on the 3 1/2 year waiting list for housing assistance, and signed up for every utility discount available. We still had trouble buying shoes for our kids. My dh finally got a job with a major food distributor but he makes less than 1/2 what he used to and we are still under the federal poverty level. We are still in that tiny apartment. We don't have cable or a cell phone. The internet is a gift from my parents so that my kids have access to it for school and I have a little rest and relaxation since I can't leave the house while dh is at work. We still work opposite shifts and still only have one car. Welfare doesn't work unless you are making money under the table but it is next to impossible to get off of it and have a decent quality of life. The embarassment made the effort to get off it worthwhile for us but we weren't raised in the environment that it is okay. If we had been, I'm sure we wouldn't have. There were people in the welfare office each month in shoes that cost more than our entire family's cost, talking on cell phones, leaning on $30,000 cars. Would I give up the good thing I had if I could keep milking the system? No probably not. Were they milking the system? Damn right they were. Were we? No way! Yes it got us through a difficult time but we weren't supported in any way other than financially. We were not offered any training, schooling, or childcare subsidy. We worked our butts off and found that we may not ever have the quality of life we had before my dh is laid off. I am working for my degree but, frankly, my time is precious and at the rate I'm going, it's going to be 10 years before I graduate. Not a pleasant situation.
I am voting for the democratic ticket this year.
We are not, nor have we ever been on welfare.
Welfare is just one of the hot topics during a political debate.
I'm interested in knowing how all of you Bush supporters feel about his education plan?
Well, here are the two plans:
President Bush's No Child Left Behind
John Kerry's National Education Trust Fund
In Bush's plan, I see that he is allowing extra funding to states to help children who cannot speak English and setting goals to force the educational system to help these children learn English in a way that can be tested. The reason is not to be mean. It's because he wants all children to graduate with the same opportunities to succeed in this country. To think they can do so without the ability to TEST well in English is not realistic. To think that there are OTHER ways to measure whether student's are learning well, all students, without testing is also unrealistic. Kerry plays on that line of thinking by stating he will ease the standards that need to be met and not require such testing, but rather measure school success by other means. His other means are, and I quote: "...graduation rates, teacher attendance, parental satisfaction, and student attendance." Give me a break. Are you guys really agreeing that we should actually lower our standards for our children's success by determining if schools are succeeding based on "parental satisfaction?" Let's think about the millions of parents out there who don't know (or care) where their children are half the time, who never get involved in their school and who are *satisfied* if the school will just leave them alone. Teacher and student ATTENDANCE???? Oh, this is so ridiculous. So you agree that it is an important measurement of success to just *show up*? Finally, "graduation rates?" This leaves so much room for letting the undereducated children who just "show up" for school to slip through the system and find themselves out on the street totally unprepared for college or LIFE. We'll be back to square one again. Are we really going to sacrifice our children's educational advancement, because some clone politician is waving dollar bills in front of our eyes, saying, "See? I'm throwing lots and lots of money your way, See? Money! " Exactly where in the budget are all these millions of dollars he's promising coming from, BTW? I'm so freakin' highly suspicious of a politician who, point blank, sounds like your typical clone politician with his typical clone promises.
What I AM for are standards that need to be met in order to E*A*R*N the money, that it will not be just given. And if the standards are met, and they can be, my children (and all children, disabled, originally non-English speaking, native American, ALL) will be better educated in the end. It's just going to take W*O*R*K on behalf of alot of people who have just gotten used to showing up, collecting their paychecks, and going home.
IMO, Bush in a nutshell wants to raise standards and offers a concrete, detailed plan for doing so that make sense, that can be actually measured and is based on accountablity. Kerry wants to lower standards, and his plan is so generic and undetailed that all I see is cookie-cutter political rhetoric, unsubstantiated accusations against his opponent, and an attempt to pacify people with generic phrases (more money! more money!), just feeding everyone what he knows they want to hear.
I'm still at a loss as to why someone would vote for a "wishy-washy" candidate who changes his mind everytime it will bump up his popularity for election. Of course, I AM talking about Kerry.
And as far as Gay marriage:
"Yes, DD when you are older you can become a murderer, drug dealer. Heck, you can even have a sex change operation. Mommy doesn't believe in it but you have the right of FREEDOM so You can!" Uhhhhh.......................NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND DO YOU THINK THIS WORLD IS WHERE ITS AT TODAY FROM THE *LACK* OF MORALS??????????????????????????????????????????
Pam, I understand. No hard feelings.
Melissa, don't you think it is a bit of a stretch to equate two people wanting legal recognition of their relatinship with murder and drug dealing?
AARRGGH! I had typed a long post and lost it, so I’m trying again.
Joan, first I wanted to respond to you. I agree that in the south being Christian is often equated with being a Republican, unfortunately. I am sorry that has all too often been your experience. I am sure that my posts on this subject can be construed that was as well, but that was not my intention, so I do apologize to you if it seemed that way. I think the polarizing issues of abortion, homosexual issues, etc. seem to divide many Christians into the Republican camp. However, I do know strong growing Christians who are staunch Democrats as well. It also depends on what issues are the key issues for you. Most Republicans and (coincidentally or not) most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. However, I am vehemently opposed to capital punishment and if such an issue were a key one in this election I would be very conflicted in my vote. I don’t agree that politics has any place in the church pulpit other than an urging to get out and vote. While I think that groups like “Focus on the Family” do some good, I am not a big fan of James Dobson’s political agenda. I also don’t truly believe that we can legislate morality, but I do hate to see us going the other direction entirely. Finally, Jimmy Carter was (and is) a godly Christian man and a Democrat. While not a great president, he was, in the words of my FIL, “the best ex-president we have ever had.”
As for those who are having blood pressure problems from these posts, sorry but they have done nothing but educate me. I didn’t realize that minimum wage was a state issue until I looked up minimum wage because Crystal’s quote seemed low. I also was inspired to go to the official Bush and Kerry websites to see how they really feel about the issues---not from the media, not from my Momsview friends, but from their mouths and the pens of their spin doctors.
Robin, in regard to your question about education, I did go to the Kerry website and read his education plan. Frankly, I didn’t understand it. Bush’s education plan has focused on measurable progress in education, more money funneled into education, and a strong desire and method to improve reading and math skills, with funding available for supplemental tutoring to low-income families. Yes, some teachers are teaching the test, but that fault lies (lays..I never know which) with the individual teacher not the plan. Those are the type of teachers who teach for the 3 months of vacation rather than the love of children learning in the first place and they don’t deserve tenure. Kerry’s education was vague with no plan of attack. It did mention more funding (I agree), ways other than tests to measure progress (I agree, but attendance and satisfaction are not valid [attendance] or objective [satisfaction] ways of making sure the job of educating our children is getting accomplished). Robin, could you explain to me what you do like so I can better understand?
Welfare issue…I almost started another thread on this, but wanted to respond to some comments under this one. I am incredulous at the idea that we can’t get the education or training we want and for a reasonable cost. Ginny, your story of the boy across the street from you is certainly unfortunate. However, I don’t see that as a failing of the system necessarily. As Mama Bear I would have stormed in there and demanded my child get the classes he needed. I realize too that his mother may not have known her rights, but that still remains her responsibility to get in there and advocate for her child. Now regarding parents who abuse and neglect their children, we each have to step up and advocate for them. I do that as part of my job and I have done that personally with peers of my children. That’s a key responsibility of teachers, ministers, and physicians as well. There are plenty of free advocacy groups out there, but it does take some phone calling to find them. In the USA we do offer free education, including special education services from 3-21 years of age with many states offering additional education from birth-3 for special needs or “at-risk” children. Not too many countries have that. Furthermore, state universities are very reasonable. I am attending college right now at a state university and if I were taking a full load it would only cost about $1200-1500. That’s pretty darn cheap for higher education (not including books or room and board). When you factor in Pell grants (which Bush has poured more money into), scholarship opportunities including many geared for low-income and/or minority groups, state programs to keep students in state universities (like TOPS in Louisiana and other pre-paid college programs) and very low-interest student loans there is NO reason that anyone in this country who wants a college degree should not have one. Not everyone goes to college or wants to and we still need many people in trades. The same opportunities and funding are offered to those who want to be in heating and a/c repair, mechanics, the beauty industry, etc. Incidentally, the aesthetician at the spa in the wellness center of the hospital where I am employed makes almost as much as I do. She went to cosmetology school for a year and I earned my B.S. and M.S. in 6 years---it’s not ALL about education when we are talking $$$ and the “American Dream.”
Finally, my BTDT story: My mother’s dad was one of 6 or so kids born to a farmer/circuit-riding Methodist minister in Alabama. He hired himself out as a farmhand, after already farming for the day on his father’s farm, to put himself through college. After graduating he wanted to go to medical school. He borrowed money from a family friend and went through medical school. He paid the man back after graduating and working a couple of years. Along came WWII and he voluntarily signed up to be a flight surgeon. He missed my aunt’s birth and first year of life…came back and resumed his practice. He was an ENT and both of his brothers were doctors as well (an ophthalmologist and an internist) and in the same manner.
My dad’s dad graduated 8th grade (as did his mom) and had to go work on the family farm to support the family in Alabama. He never graduated, got married (in 1929…the depression) and went to work to support his family by washing milk cans in the basement of a dairy. Over the years he worked he way up and by the time he retired he was the General Manager and Director of Marketing for Meadow Gold/Supreme Ice Cream in my hometown. He was a very wealthy man who lived in the same house for over 50 years. The only signs of his wealth were a modest lake house that he and my grandmother purchased and the Lincoln Towncar that he drove. In the intervening years he became an alcoholic and there was quite a rough patch, but through AA he had been sober for over 10 years by the time he died and spent those 10 years helping other alcoholics break their addictions.
The story culminates with my parents. My mom, a 15 y/o pampered doctor’s daughter who had always had a maid, and my dad, a 17 y/o “hood” who had been spoiled rotten by his parents since the death of his 16 y/o brother (brother died when my dad was 2 y/o of spinal meningitis). There romance was Travolta-Newton-John like of “Grease” fame. My mom became pregnant at 15. Both sets of grand parents were livid. My parents went to Georgia, lied about their ages, and married (1961), then moved to FL to take a correspondence high-school equivalency course (no GED and no other options for pregnant and/or married teens). They “graduated” high school and started college. Their parents offered emotional support, but little or no financial support being of the “you made your bed, now you have to lie in it” school of thought. They moved into a trailer (yes…”trailer trash”) and my dad worked as a milkman, getting up at 4:00 am to deliver milk to put them both through school. They scheduled classes so that they didn’t have to pay a babysitter. My mom said that they literally passed my sister through the car windows sometimes as they went to classes. My mom graduated and became a teacher. Because of having to work (and some lack of maturity issues), it took my dad 9 years to graduate with his pharmacy degree, which is typically a 5-year degree. I was born in the meantime when my mom was 22. I attended my dad’s college graduation and we continued to live in a trailer until I was preschool aged. Then we rented a small house….bought a small house….bought a bigger house…parents got promotions, etc. My mother ended up getting her M.S. in educational administration when I was in elementary and my dad got his Ph.D. in clinical pharmacology just a few years ago. So…there you have it. The American Dream is alive and well and does work, even when you screw up and make some really bad choices along the way.
As if I didn't say enough already, I forgot I wanted to respond to Sunny's post about healthcare. She stated, "It seems as though the hospitals and doctors charge uninsured patients the rack rate while those fortunate enough to have health care through Medicare or private insurance are given a reduced rate. It doesn't make sense that those without the ability to pay are losing their savings and any assets because they got sick." I don't know the specifics about hospitals suing uninsured patients, but I do know that those with insurance are NOT given different rates than the uninsured. Now maybe when a bill is submitted to insurance the insurance company agree to pay the "usual and customary fee" which is reduced. However, any uninsured person can ask for this rate as well or shop around for doctors, they just usually don't. I am insured. I would work 2 half days a week except that we only have insurance through me and I have to work 20 hrs/week for qualify for insurance through my employer. As a minister, my DH is considered "self-employer" although he most certainly is not, and he receives no insurance benefits. I have over $400 a month deducted from my paycheck to cover medical and dental for my family. When you are only working 20 hr/week that's alot of money. I have $20 co-pays on top of that. When I go to get prescriptions filled (and there are a lot of them since I have one son with asthma and one with chronic reflux) I choose generic drugs because it costs less. However, someone on Medicaid can choose for their medicine for depression to be namebrand and I have to help foot that bill. I have had 2 $20,000 surgeries in the past 3 years and I can attest that every $3 medicine cup, $15 mask, $12 tubing, etc. was itemized on my bill and paid by me and my insurance company.
Since I work at a hospital I have felt the dramatic effects of the Medicaid situation. Because so many people are on Medicaid we are having layoffs from the hospital and care and types of services offered are being cut. Medicaid pays so little for therapy services that we have had to put a cap on how many MCaid pts we can accept b/c we can't afford to treat them. And my facility is a non-profit one at that! MCaid pays less per hour than my salary (and I'm not making huge money) and that doesn't factor in rent, office supplies, tests, toys, tongue depressors, etc. We have to rely on insurance pts to keep us afloat and we do offer some reduced rates for out-of-pocket services. Many of the kids I see on Medicaid come from hard-working families, but I have some who have recently build new homes POOLS, drive car nicer than mine, and are loaded down with cell phones and other expensive gadgets. Healthcare is a huge mess, but I don't agree that socialized medicine is the answer.
Pam, I couldn't understand from your post if was I incorrect about the minimum wage, or not. I'm not sure what the federal minimum is, but here I *know* it's $5.15, because I've made minimum wage in TX. I spent more on my daycare than I made, so I had to quit. I've not done any research on it past TX, so I was wondering what you found. And I agree with Ginny that comparing a sexual preference between adults to murder and drug use is extreme. It worries me that people could compare the two.
BTW Pam, the rise in blood pressure for me is from frustration, I guess that's natural in debate. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I won't keel over from a civilized discussion! *eg*
People on Medicaid, in WI, called Managed Health Services (something like that) do NOT get their choice of meds. The pharmacists are always calling my clinic and needing a different order because the ordered med isn't covered by MHS. In fact, with a lot of insurance companies, the ordered med isn't covered and has to be changed to something else.
Crystal, the federal min. wage is $5.15. I just didn't realize that states could decide on their own to go by the federal wage or come up with own. Here's the website www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm.
In Alabama, where my dad practices pharmacy, people on Medicaid do get their choice of meds and he said it is amazing the amount and types of non-crucial drugs that people are on.
As far as Melissa's comparison, I'm sure she'll respond, but I would guess she is coming from a "what's wrong is wrong" viewpoint--whether that wrong thing be homosexuality or drug dealing.
Thanks Pam, thats what I was getting to. MY job as a parent is to teach my daughter what is right and wrong in my beliefs. What she takes of it is up to her as she grows and becomes her own person. She will grow up knowing that gays are wrong and that its not acceptable in our house but she also needs to realize she cant make fun of them such as kids do to the physically and mentally handicapped.
I'm reading up on Kerry/Bush so i'll be back later!
Just a little question though Melissa, what happens if she comes to you in 18 years & tells you that she is gay? Will you accept her choice or no longer accept her.
I know that according to the bible that homosexuality is wrong, but what about seperation of church & state?
I have watched the welfare system used horribly, but I also have known many people that need it that cannot get it. I am on WIC & am embarrassed to use it because of how people look at me. That is wrong on their part. My husband works 40+ hours a week & we barely make it.
I will not vote for Bush. I think that he has lied to us about weapons of mass destuction & had his own agenda. Cheney still recieves money from a company that over charged our military in war time. In fact he made over a million dollars off that company last year.
I find it funny that I have seen ads that put Kerry down that were appoved by Bush. I have not seen one negative ad appoved by Kerry about Bush. I think that says a lot about the characters of the canidates.
Emily, no matter what my DD does, I will love her. I will not accept her lifestyle if she turns out that way and I will be sure she knows how disappointed I am in her. I will not push her out of my life, I will just not allow "gay" talk in my house. And honestly, I think being gay is a fad, an escape from a hard life, a way of feeling accepted by someone. I dont think you are born gay. So, as long as I continue to do my part as a parent, I dont think i'll have to worry about that.
Melissa, please don't take this as an attack on you or your beliefs. I'm merely adding my 2 cents in on this subject.
"And honestly, I think being gay is a fad, an escape from a hard life, a way of feeling accepted by someone."
I have some friends that are gay and I don't believe it's a fad. The 'fad' I believe you're thinking of is the one where the girls have a lesbian experience because their boyfriend thinks it's cool. At least that's the only fad with being gay that I see (I think it's called bi-curious?). I believe mainly to please the male that has the fantasy of 2 girls, you know.... I actually don't know of any men that do the bi-curious thing. Most men that are with another man is because they're gay.
Which brings me to my next belief:
"I dont think you are born gay."
I dated a guy who had 2 brothers who were both gay. I use to think that most gay people chose their way of life, but after knowing two brothers who were both gay, I changed my mind. I do now believe that it's not a choice and that you had to be born that way. My reason for this is that I don't think the one brother said hey, my brother likes guys that's cool I think I'll do the same. Sorry for the sarcasm. Not trying to be snotty just making a point. I'm also not bashing gay people by being sarcastic. I just don't believe that someone would choose to live a life where almost everyday they would be looked upon with shame and ridicule. I know I wouldn't choose that.
Although I don't know the studies, I know there have been some that have proven that the brain patterns or chemistry is different in a gay or lesbian person than they are in a straight person. How does someone choose what their brain chemistry is going to be? Since I have trouble with depression, am I choosing to have that problem? Boy, I wish I could change my mind about that!
Do you really think that someone chooses to be gay as a form of acceptance and love from someone? My aunt, who is lesbian, has been shunned by a lot more people for being gay than accepted for it. I'm not sure I understand your logic there. If I can have one person's love, then I can handle the crude messages spraypainted on my car and the rocks thrown at my house?
Being gay a fad? Something that one chooses? There is no way to respond to this respectfully. It is just so much bunk!
Why on earth would anyone choose to be something that causes the person to be villified, persecuted, harassed, beaten up, refused jobs, fired, rejected by family/friends, even killed? Clearly a large number of people in this country believe that being homosexual is bad, wrong, a condition to be deplored and pitied at best, to to be treated as somehow "less" than totally human. I have heard this baseless charge numerous times and I know that some people sincerely believe it. But no one who believes it has been able to explain to me why someone would choose something that has such unpleasant results.
My son is gay. I have said that before. He is "out" to his family and to friends. He is not "out" at work because he works near and as part of his job spends time on a college campus where fraternity brothers make it their goal to harass, verbally and physically, anyone they believe is homosexual. For all that people prate of "hate the sin and love the sinner", the so-called sinner is hated and treated as hateful. Have you read the disgusting signs some of the anti gay-marriage protestors carry at some of the demonstrations - according to the signs, some of them think it is alright to kill a gay man.
The very words are used as insults - gay, lesbian, homo, lezzy, or, a phrase sometimes used in my office (though not if they know I am in earshot any more, "light in hs loafers"). Men are accused of and called gay as insults, women are accused of and called lesbian as insults. If a woman rejects a man's overtures he will often accuse her of being lesbian, as if there were no other reason for her to refuse to have sex with him.
Men have used as a "reason" for beating or killing a gay man that they thought he was making a sexual advance to them - but wouldn't dream of making such an excuse if the victim were a woman, or if the perpetrator were a woman who thought a man had made a sexual advance to her.
And you say this is a self-selected fad? I don't think you have thought this through very well.
One of the reasons I am a Democrat and will vote for the Democratic candidates is because it is the Republican leadership that has made this issue of "gay" being "wrong" a part of this campaign and has promoted an atmosphere where hatred of homosexuals is politically acceptable. No, they don't say it is OK to hate homosexuals. But they do say the "homosexual agenda" is destroying the fabric of morality, the fabric of our nation, the bedrock of our civilization - i.e., marriage. They act as if homosexuality were contagious, with the notion that somehow, if our children learn that some people are homosexual our children will "choose" this "lifestyle". (And no one has ever explained to me what the "homosexual lifestyle" is.)
It is the Republican leadership that has said, over and over, that any criticism of Bush and his advisors over starting the war in Iraq and the way it is presently being handled is "un-American". That it is OK to carry out some forms of torture (and yes, by all legal definitions what has happened at that prison and others is torture) because, after all, we shouldn't be held to our former standards because "this is a war", that newspapers which published some of the photos of the treatment of the prisoners or photographs of the coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow committing treason by "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
This nation was founded by people who, by and large, were believers. Believers in many different ways. And these founders chose, deliberately, to imbed in our constitution the rule that the government shall NOT support the establishment of religion because they had direct experience of the dangerous ways in which government support or promotion of specific kinds of religious beliefs could impact on individual freedoms. This nation was founded by people who said, very clearly, that the rights of individuals to express their personal beliefs - religious, political, or whatever - should in no way be interfered with by the government, because they knew only too well the harm that is caused by governmental efforts to interfere with such expression.
So if you want to refer to the foundations of our nation, the foundations of our nation were, as imbedded in our constitution, to support the rights of the individual over against the wishes of government or the majority - the right to be and believe differently from the accepted point of view - and that government has absolutely no business interfering with the beliefs and private lives of individuals unless those individuals harm others or commit treason as it is defined by law, not by rhetoric.
I will support your right to believe as you wish, no matter how much I privately deplore it. I will not support and will battle against the efforts of any group which seeks to impose their personal beliefs upon me and force me to live the way they think is right. And no, allowing gays to have a civil legal way to define their relationship does not impose anything on you, any more than allowing persons of different races to marry imposed anything on those who believed in "segregation now, segregation forever". I do find it a bit ironic and terribly sad that much of the language that is being used now to oppose the rights of same sex persons to have a legal relationship is identical to or terribly similar to the language used to fight against allowing persons of different races to marry.
I just wanted to say that me and my dh also agree to disagree about this gay subject. We are christians and so following the bible is important and we agree that it is a sin. But that is the only thing we agree on. All sins are equal so i think that Gays can go to heaven as all others can that sin whcih is all of us! The main disagreement in my house is whether or not it is a choice. I have seen several documentaries on the studies that are being done that are proving that it is NOT a choice but a built in brain function. I highly doubt ANYONE would chose this life with all the horrible things people do and say. To me being gay always seemed to be on the same lines as who straight people are attracted to. Some guys like big boobs and blonde hair. SOme girls like dark hair and built. Some people are attracted to the same sex. Can straight people say okay i am NOT going to be attracted to this kind of person anymore. NO we can't! We can't help who we love! Yes i do believe it is a sin, but at the same time so is sitting there judging them and hating them! I have gay friends and love them just the same. They will answer to their sins and i will answer to mine.
I am sorry this really had nothing to do with the election but this really burns me up at times!
I've read plenty about Homosexuality being linked to brain patterns etc... etc... etc... but they have yet to convince me. But lets just say it is true: What about when little boys go through the Oedipus Complex (identified by Freud, though I know hes a bad choice since he signed a repeal of the law penalizing homosexuality in 1930) stage where they have a sexual desire towards their mother? Thats a proven brain pattern thats been around for centuries. Is it okay to act upon it? Of course not because its wrong. I think the same with homosexuals. Even if somebody *could* convince me that its in their genes, I would still think it is wrong and wrong to act upon. I only brought up the Oedipus Complex to show you that just because there *may* be brain patterns doesnt mean its okay.
Don't think I disrespect gays or make fun of them. As i've said before, my brother is gay and I know many of his gay friends. They're very nice people and fun to go clothes shopping with . Just because I dont agree with their lifestyle doesn't mean I have to "hate" them. And this is aimed more towards Ginny because I dont want you to think im "bashing" your son, i'm simply stating my beliefs.
Aside from the gay marriage issue, I want to thank you all for such a good debate. You have all inspired me to read more about Kerry/Bush. Though i'm still voting for Bush, its been very knowledgeable for me. And I hope nobody is taking anyones beliefs or statements on here to heart because I sure am not!
Changed my mind and edited.
I didn't read on single part of this post. My parents taught me about politics at a young age. My Dad was a cop in a nasty town that was full of politics. They didn't discuss their business with ANYONE. I do the same. It makes MY life much easier. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and the right to disagree. Its not my place to convince anyone to change his or her mind.
That's my two cents.
:o)
Received this in an email from the Grandma, "THE" staunch Republican:
TALK ABOUT A REAL CHOICE THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!
I have yet to meet a "Bush hater" that could coherently explain this hatred or was totally misinformed as to facts bearing on his actions. As for those single issue folks, I would suggest that they fail to realize that national security is the one single issue from which all other issues flow. Can they possibly believe, for instance, that abortion rights, gay marriage rights, union rights, or any other rights, would be part of our national agenda under Chinese or Muslim rule. Think about it and tell me that you are serious about electing Kerry and his Godfather Ted Kennedy and friends. FYI, The below is a list of weapons systems that Kerry (& Kennedy) voted against and without which we would be armed with
1980s technology. Please use the good sense that you were born with. Chris
I hadn't seen this list printed until today.
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16 He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade He voted to Kill the B-1 He voted to Kill the B-2 He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system He voted to Kill the FA-18 He voted to Kill the B-2 He voted to Kill the F117
In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.
He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding [Kinta Delamain] for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!! Is THIS a President YOU want?
John Kerry actually did each of these things. I checked it on "urban legends" to be sure and was horrified that this person believes that he should be allowed to be President of this Nation.
You may have received it in an email, but here is a quote from McCain:
Quote from article:
Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"
McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.
McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."
Ginny: I recommend that you go to www.Factcheck.org. I did a search on Kerry +weapons +vote. Factcheck is published by the Annenberg Policy Center based at the University of Pennsylvania. It has debunked ads from both sides, very thoroughly. I believe they are reliable.
Here is another quote from a Factcheck article:
Quote: The statement that Kerry voted against a long list of mainstream weapons is misleading. He didn't vote against those weapons specifically, and though he did vote against the entire Pentagon budget on occasion he voted for weapons spending far more often than not. Furthermore, Republicans including Bush's father and Vice President Cheney also proposed cuts or elimination in several of the same weapons at around the same time Kerry supposedly "voted against" them.
Here is more from the same article:
Quote: Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn't quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We've addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .
PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.
Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.
Ginny: I believe it is important to check the facts. Ads, whether on TV, radio, newspapers, websites or emails, are paid for by supporters of one candidate or the other and are not likely to present anything other than a distorted perspective.
As for claims about Kerry's votes on intelligence funding, another quote:
Quote: And the same year Kerry voted to cut intelligence funds, 1994, a bipartisan commission was formed to assess the state of US intelligence efforts. It concluded two years later that cuts in intelligence spending were inevitable and might be made without endangering national security. In 1996 the 17-member Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community (also called the Aspin Commission) found that, despite cuts already made to that time, intelligence spending was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even including adjustments for inflation. By comparison, other defense spending had decreased 4%. To be sure, the commission didn’t recommend any more cuts in intelligence spending, but it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made:
Aspin Commission: Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . (I)t is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required.
Among the Republican commissioners who unanimously approved that language were Paul Wolfowitz, who is currently Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Sen. John Warner, now chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Also worth noting is that after Kerry's proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1 billion a year failed, a Republican-sponsored cut sailed through easily. In 1995 Republican Senator Arlen Specter proposed to cut $1 billion from the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for fiscal year 1996. That cut was considered so uncontroversial that it passed by a voice vote.
Ginny: I agree with Senator McCain: "This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."
By the way, Melissa - what was the source of the email Grandma sent you? I think it is important to know the source so you know whether it is biased or neutral. That's why I like Factcheck - even when they are debunking a Kerry ad they provide sources.
You can go back and forth...forever. I don't debate politics anymore. Or religion, for that matter. I like to listen and read them though. Keep going! LOL
Voting Bush/Cheney...ALL the Way!
I'm still waiting for someone to explain their interpretation of Kerry's education plan...please?
Politics is always a hot topic to debate with lots of potential for problems (which is why we created the Kitchen Table), but I still think it can be a good thing, because you can learn so much about important issues that affect us all by doing research to support your side of the argument or refute the other side, and by listening to both sides of an argument debated here, especially when you have an opportunity to hear it from someone you feel you can trust who has BTDT.
Bubbels - that why I dont mind coming here to debate. It seems as if everyone here is grown and leaves everything to debate about in the Kitchen Table. And I have learned a ton from this.
Ginny - I looked in my email and I guess I deleted the email which had the source. I will email my Grandma and have her resend it. I will also check out Factcheck and read up on some things, Thanks!
I agree with Pamt. I keep checking to see if anyone can explain Kerry's education plan in concrete terms. I went to his website and read his synopsis, but there was nothing specific stated. He talks about measuring a school's success by teacher attendance, student attendance, parent satisfaction, and graduation rates.
Student/teacher attendance - we can measure a school's success by students and teachers just showing up??
Parent satisfaction - many parents are just satisfied enough having their children out of their hair or are so naive that they think the teachers have their child's best interest in mind when we all know that that is not true all of the time.
Graduation rates - So if the student and teacher "show up", the teacher slacks off in teaching and just passes everyone, and the student "graduates", this is considered "successful"?? Huh??
So, if this is the foundation of his education plan on his own website - where am I to find anything concrete on this plan?
Furthermore, he says he will be putting all of this money into education, including funding for college/tax breaks for higher education, but he doesn't say where he will be pulling it from. I would like to know that as well.
Amy, Kerry proposes to reduce the Bush tax breaks for people making $200,000 or more a year (but keeping the cuts for middle and lower income taxpayers) to fund his education plan and other programs. I agree, it is entirely possible to have kids attend school and graduate and parents be "satisfied" and not have good schools. But is it any better to have the results of mandated tests be the deciding factor in whether a school loses its funding when, as examples of what has actually happened, a school with a large number of special ed students or students who are just learning English must give the same tests the other schools give and be evaulated on the basis of whether those students pass the tests.
With the reduced tax breaks he will set up a New National Education Trust Fund. So that when the goverment sets up new mandates there will be money to actually fund them. If you go to:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html
it explains some of what he plans to do. I like the concept of the plan, & hope that when he becomes President it won't be "held up" in Congress.
Ginny, in Bush's plan, schools educating special-ed students and students who do not have English as their native language are actually receiving a special fund of money to help these children reach a level that will allow them to pass a standardized test. The reasoning behind this is not to be cruel or tough. It's to help prepare them to compete in the real world. I think that's a good thing. It seems, based on my reading of Bush's plan on education, he pretty much has all of the bases covered and in detail, with good, sound reasons behind everything he has proposed.
Speaking of tax breaks, I've been giving this alot of thought. I have a unique opportunity to examine the issue of "rob rich Peter to pay poor Paul," in other words, tax the rich (or cut their tax breaks) and give it all to the poor.
My baby brother, Joey, with barely two nickels to rub together started a computer repair business out of his living room several years ago. Slowly over time, with ALOT of work and effort on his part, he managed to grow his business tremendously, by doing honest work for fair pay. He became involved with our government and now belongs to the technology committee for Louisiana, working with our governor to help bring more of the technology market to Louisiana and to get money from the federal government to give to our public schools so that all students will have an equal opportunity to be educated on computers, not just one shared computer in the classroom, but a classroom with a computer for each child. He even met six months ago with Bill Gates' CFO and managed to persuade Microsoft to donate several million dollars to Louisiana's technology education fund. When she told him okay, he admitted to me that he broke down and cried like a baby.
The reason I am telling you all of the above is that my brother has worked hard and not just to benefit himself, but also to benefit our state's children. You can correctly guess that someone with his energy, drive, and enthusiasm has managed to grow his company into a multimillion dollar corporation with 150 employees. He is what you would call "rich", by most standards.
I, on the other hand, would be considered middle class or even lower middle class. I did not make of my life what my brother did.
So I have a real problem with the Democratic concept of it being perfectly okay to take money from my brother and give it to me. Why????? Why is that okay? He worked hard for every penny he has earned! I chose not to work as hard, so I have fewer pennies.
Sure, I would stand to benefit from such a tax change, yet my morals and values tell me this is just not okay. It's just not right.
It fits the ant and grasshopper story to a tee...
Just because my dh & I barely have enough money leftover to buy food doesn't mean that he doesn't work as hard, if not harder than your brother. Your brother got lucky & was able to turn his knowledge into something profitable. My dh breaks his back every day while his boss sits in an airconditioned office making money because my dh is out working hard. Why give tax breaks to those of us that work hard, but can barely make it, because we are the ones that are keeping your brother & many others in business. We work at Wal-Mart(and other companies like them) & buy from there too, making the CEO's millions each year. Why don't we deserve tax breaks?
Emily, can you explain what you mean by my brother got "lucky?"
Actually, it took him five years to get his four-year degree in computer science. It was kind of touch and go there for awhile, and we were all worried he'd never make it. But he did. When he first started his company, he was the one and only employee, and he worked unbelievable hours, until he married my sister-in-law, and then she helped him with the administrative end of the business. As hard as I try, I just can't think of any way he was "lucky." Everything he got, everything he did, is based on decisions and choices he made early on his life. He had no advantages over anyone else as far as I can tell.
My opinion on this still stands.
Did he over come the obstacles that he had to create this multi-million dollar company? Well I would call that lucky & smart. Just because I said he was lucky does not in any way infer that I think he did not work hard. The pieces to his puzzle just eventually fit, to me that is lucky.
Luck in the Websters Dictionary...
1.something that happens to a person by or as if by chance 2. the accidental way events occur 3.good fortune.
I would say he had good fortune. He had a talent & did his best to make that talent work for him. I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. I just get upset when the Vice-President of the United States paid about the same tax rate as my dh & I did. Here is a portion of an article fron the Associated Press
Published on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 by the Associated Press
Bushes, Cheneys Reaped Tax Benefits
by Jennifer Loven
WASHINGTON - President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reaped tax benefits last year from the cuts that they pushed through Congress and that Democrats have criticized as a boon to the rich.
The government's top two executives, both wealthy men, paid smaller shares of their income in federal taxes in 2003 than in the year before, according to returns released Tuesday by the White House.
Bush and his wife, Laura, paid $227,490 in federal income taxes — or about 28 percent of their $822,126 in adjusted gross income. For 2002, the Bushes paid about 31 percent of their adjusted gross income — slightly higher at $856,056 — in federal taxes, for a total of $268,719.
The difference from one year to the next was even more pronounced for Cheney. He and his wife, Lynne, owed $253,067 in 2003 federal taxes — about 20 percent of their $1.3 million in adjusted gross income. In 2002, the Cheneys earned less but paid more, owing 29 percent — or $341,114 — of their $1.2 million in income.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0414-04.htm
That was the link to the rest of the article. I do have to apologize I was wrong about how much money Cheney made off from Haliburton in a previous post, by quite a bit( I misread the number )
Emily - I'm confused. How can you call that "good fortune"? It was stated that he went to college, started a company from scratch, and made his way up over time by working hard and never giving up. How is that good fortune? It seems to me that his success is a natural result of hard work and motivation.
Also, explain to me why it is unfair for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to pay the same tax RATE (not same tax amount) as you and your dh. Is the job of president so *easy* that he should have to pay more in taxes? I believe that President Bush works equally as hard if not harder than most working citizens. Furthermore, I still do not understand *why* individuals in the higher income bracket should pay more in taxes than those in the lower. Why? I just don't get it.
It could have just as easily gone the other way for him. I never said he didn't work hard. In fact I said: He had a talent & did his best to make that talent work for him. I am sorry, he was lucky to have that talent & had good fortune to be able to put it to work for him. It may have been difficult at times, but he was able to do it.
President Bush knew that the job wasn't going to be easy, he chose to run. He gets a tax break because of that. I don't think so.
Why not leave it the way it was? The tax breaks are not helping me, why should they help people that have more money? I also think EIC is stupid. There is a woman I know that makes $7200.00 a year before taxes. She got $3500.00 back in taxes, more than she paid in. So not only does she get foods stamps, section 8 for housing, medical for both her & her daughter, but she gets a huge lump sum in April that she can spend on anything but living expenses. Of course I am angry, we work hard & we can't seem to make it. It is not like we are not trying. I have WIC & Medical for my kids. I have medical bills every month that we have to pay out of pocket, because medical for me cost to much. I can't find child care so that I can work. My dh can't afford to take a day off work to look for a better paying job. He makes $13.77 an hour, that used to be a good wage. Why shouldn't I be upset when I see people not work as hard, but can milk the system to their advantage. Why shouldn't I be upset when I can't get the same breaks as others. You may think they are out there for everyone, but no tin this community.
What I don't think you are understanding is that he didn't just have a talent for computers, he went to college for 5 years learning about this field and countless other years personally advancing his knowledge as well. That is not a talent, it is knowledge, and it is the natural result of hard work and motivation.
And as far as the rest of your post, I hope you weren't replying to me because I mentioned nothing of how milking the system while not working hard was okay. I asked, and I'll say it again in hopes that someone might *finally* answer, why should those in the higher income bracket pay a higher tax rate than those in the lower income bracket? (Remember: higher tax RATE, not actual tax dollars) Please, anyone, enlighten me. Because for the life of me, I still can't figure out the first good, solid reason.
I think maybe you are taking my post about your family member wrong. I NEVER once said he didn't work hard. If he didn't enjoy or have some kind of interest or talent then why did he choose that profession. My BIL has a talent for tinting windows & he has used that to start his own business. He works hard, but with out the previous knowledge/talent he wouldn't own his business. Stop assuming that you know exactly what I mean, I think it is great when people can make something of themselves. I have seen in a previous post that everyone is afforded the same opportunities & that isn't true.
If no one is answering your question, perhaps you can enlighten us as to why they shouldn't pay a little bit higher percentage. After all Cheney in 2002 was paying 29% & now is paying 20%. Why should they be allowed to lower their tax bracket? Maybe something like that should be put on the ballot, not left up to those that it helps the most. I would not mind paying the same tax rate, if it had always been like that, but it hasn't.
They shouldn't, Amy. I agree completely with you and your mother.
I used to work for an EXTREMELY successful, EXCEEDINGLY WEALTHY woman. We are talking more money than you can imagine. She had her own practice which she obviously worked hard for and she was very successful, saving many, many lives. In New York state, you can only give away $10,000 to someone, tax free. I think that is absurd. If you MADE the money, and you've ALREADY PAID your taxes, why can't you do what you please with it without being penalized for it?? To get around this ridiculous system, this woman put her children (they were all adult at this point) on the payroll. Did they work for her, truly? No. But it was a method for her to give her kids all the money she wanted (because of course she 'paid' them whatever salary she wanted). While it was illegal, and I don't condone such practice, I sure understood it and personally I didn't blame her. Others who worked for her were downright angry about it. They felt it took away from THEIR salaries, which was not true. Those people made what they deserved, they were just babies about it and angry that this successful woman was giving her OWN MONEY away to her OWN CHILDREN. Like I said, it was wrong, but there was no other way for her to do what she wanted with her own money without being penalized for it. It was HER money, not Uncle Sam's! Why do people insist on punishing successful people??
Kudos to your uncle, Amy.
You know what? I shouldn't have said no one was penalized by this method. It WASN'T a scott free way to do it, because the kids must have had to declare that income, so they DID end up taxed on it, sadly. It must have worked out that the taxes were less with this method, than with her giving money to them outright. Sheesh. WHY can't you do whatever you want with your own money??
Emily, you said: "If no one is answering your question, perhaps you can enlighten us as to why they shouldn't pay a little bit higher percentage."
Those in the higher income bracket should not pay a higher tax rate because either 1.)They have worked hard to become successful - why be penalized for working hard? or 2.)They inherited the money (through no fault of their own) - why should they give that money to others?
Those who are in the higher income bracket because they are immoral, conniving criminals (street criminals or business criminals) obviously do not deserve their money and should be dealt with through the judicial system. So, these types of individuals should not even enter this argument.
My mom puts it this way: If your neighbor was very wealthy, and you were lower middle class - would you call up your neighbor and tell her that you deserved some of her money and to give a percentage of it to you. Realistically, we are telling higher income individuals - I deserve some of your money - give it to the government so that they can give it to me.
Get real. Life is life. Some people are born into rich families. Some people work their butts off to become financially successful. And they should be penalized? How selfish must one be to tell them that they need to be punished just because they have more money. How blind must one be to suggest that perpetuating a system where there is less and less incentive to get off your rear and make an effort is actually "helping" those in the lower class.
We have financial assistance programs in place to help those who truly need it. What needs to be done is to reform such programs so as to weed out the leeches and give more aid to the truly needy and deserving. I am ashamed to think that I live in a country where some people have lost site of the fact that if you give, give, give to the poor and take, take, take from the rich, not only are you providing no incentives to work, make money, and advance (thus advancing technology, education, science, etc) but you are heading toward communism. Is that what you want?
For those who do not understand exactly what I mean by communism, let me explain. One significant characteristic of a communistic state is that every citizen works, yet receives the same benefits regardless of how successful they are at what they do. This system does not reward extra effort, but instead is demotivating and could actually cripple a country by discouraging individual progress which ultimately benefits society as a whole.
Your point is a very good one. However don't you think it should be up to the American people to vote for tax breaks & not up to those that will benefit from them? That is just like when Congress votes for there own pay increases, that should be up to the American people. That is what truly upsets me.
I am not sitting at home waiting for a hand out, I just think that it should have been up to us to give those tax breaks. Just like it should be up to us to increase the tax rate.
Thank you for your opinion, it did help me to see that what I was trying to say & actually were saying didn't exactly come together.
By the way I am not selfish or uneducated(I guess you edited that to say blind after I read it). When I had to have help paying an electric bill a few years back I asked for help with just one month, they paid three. I asked how I could pay it back when I had the money, they said I couldn't. Maybe that is part of what is wrong with welfare, they don't expect people to actually make it on their own.
Amy, you are describing more of a socialism approach to government but didn't mention the fact that in that form, everyone is highly taxed.
Communism is when the government owns everything and one individual does not have any business rights at all.
Here is what I said regarding communism:
One significant characteristic of a communistic state is that every citizen works, yet receives the same benefits regardless of how successful they are at what they do. This system does not reward extra effort, but instead is demotivating and could actually cripple a country by discouraging individual progress which ultimately benefits society as a whole.
Annie, what you stated above is true. However, it should be noted that Communism is an extreme form of Socialism, so yes - I was describing a socialist approach because Communism *is* a form of Socialism. Also note that I did not say I was describing every aspect of Communism. I specifically said I was referring to "one significant characteristic".
Communism, in theory, stands for total public ownership and rejects private property and personal profit. You can take total public ownership to also include ownership of money itself which gets divied up according to who the state feels needs it most. This sounds strikingly similar to the "Take from the rich and give to the poor" argument I hear so many supporting. The end result? A socialist/communist society where there is no longer any incentive to work your best at your job which, when this general attitude becomes that of all citizens, can not possibly ever lead to a progressive country. It would create a society where everyone does "just enough to get by". There would be no technological breakthroughs, medical breakthroughs, etc....
I don't honestly think that anyone would want to live in a society like the one I just described.
No, your right there, Amy.
Socialism to me seems more in a democratic state where to me, communism seems to come under the pressure of violence and control. Is this usually or always the case with communists?
I know I am getting way off topic.
Amy, you've made some great points.
Annie, I would say that you are right about Communism including control of the people with violent repercussions for dissidents. Communism is the extreme of Socialism. I found the following information (which I included in quotes) very informative at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Karl Marx on Communism:
"During the current stage, capitalism, the dominant bourgeoisie (capitalists who controlled the means of production) exploited and oppressed the proletariat (industrial workers). Karl Marx in his work Das Kapital explains in detail how capitalists buy labor from workers, obtaining then the right to sell the productive result of labor at a profit; this, Marx argued, creates class stratification and an unjust, unsustainable distribution of wealth. Marx thought it was only a matter of time before the working classes of the world, realizing their common goals, would unite to overthrow the capitalists and redistribute the wealth. He felt the establishment of communism would be the inevitable outcome of a historical process."
"In Marxism, communism refers to an ideal stateless, propertyless, and classless society with no oppression or exploitation and general abundance and freedom. This society would run in accord with the principle: To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. A common exemplification of the concept is "if a successful architect is single, he only needs one loaf of bread a day, and if a member of the proletariat has seven children with his wife, they need nine loaves of bread a day; neither have to pay for the bread at the baker's, and they both ask for exactly as much bread as they need -- the same applies for any other property, such as the apartment or the car". Because such a circumstance has never occurred, the Marxist ideal of communism is often viewed as an unrealistic goal, although at present many proponents of nanotechnologies argue that such society of abundance is technologically feasible (see also Paradise-engineering)."
Communism critics (and most Historians) feel this way:
"However regimes of this nature have been totalitarian, featuring absence or repression of free press, church, and independent labor unions, and have often committed human rights abuses, opponents of Communism see it as a dangerous ideology, similar in effect to fascism."
I am definitely NOT saying that by creating a flat tax rate we are going to become a Communist nation. I am, however, pointing out that by taxing the higher paid we are subsequently trying to create a system that tries to divide the wealth among all citizens regardless of who actually earned the money. Socialist/Communist nations are nations in which every citizen (except the small ruling class) receive equal health care, property, food, etc. This may sound wonderful on the surface, but the consequences are terrible and don't provide any hope for the future. Health care, although across the board, may not be as best as it could be (no incentive to advance in medicine). You can see where I am going here.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
Pamt....I'm not sure what you are not understanding regarding the Kerry/Edwards education plan. It is eloquently written in very easy to understand terms. Are you just reading the overview? Or are you reading deeper into it in the provided links? It is very basic and simple to understand.
Amy, well stated and informative. Thanks
Don't know if anyone else watched the DNC and Bill Clinton last night, but I thought he gave an excellent speech.
FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED:
The extreme makeover of John Kerry continued last night in Boston.
Centrist Democrats paraded across your television screen to praise the most liberal Senator in Washington and his running mate - the 4th most liberal member of the Senate.
The Democrats are working hard to make Americans believe that these far-left politicians are actually mainstream. Only you can ensure this doesn't happen.
www.GeorgeWBush.com/JebBush/
My brother is the President, and I am very proud of him. But the truth is, I would be working just as hard for his re-election if he wasn't.
Why?
Because I believe he is the right person to lead.
My brother believes that strong families do make a difference and he fights for that belief. He believes in the constitutional rights of Americans. He believes you can have a strong, growing economy, and still safeguard the economy.
My brother would never dream of telling different audiences different stories, because he believes that values are constant, and don't change with the political winds or the special interest you're addressing.
What about John Kerry? What does he believe? Well, you can tell a lot about a Senator's beliefs from the way they vote.
Kerry has consistently voted against strengthening America's families, including his support for the distribution of the morning after pill in schools without parental notification, and his opposition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors.
Kerry's views change depending on the day and the audience.
He told Wisconsin voters he likes to go hunting with his "trusty 12-gauge double-barrel," but he received an "F" from the National Rifle Association.
He said in Iowa that he is personally opposed to abortion, and believes that "life does begin at conception," but he has received a 100% rating from the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).
He told voters in the West that he likes "a lot of parts" of the Healthy Forests bill, but he told Democratic primary voters that the law took "a chainsaw to public forests."
He told autoworkers in Michigan he owns "an SUV... a Chevy, a big Suburban," but then he told environmentalists, "I don't have it, the family does."
We cannot trust the presidency to someone who makes decisions by holding up his finger to determine which way the political winds are blowing.
I hope I can count on your help.
Sincerely,
Governor Jeb Bush
I am just wondering if any of you have seen Fahrenheit 911 yet? I've seen it, and am VERY curious to hear your opinions - especially on all of the connections he claims Bush and other administration has/had with the Bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11.
Gillette would never bring the movie here. I at first didn't want to see it, because even though I don't like Bush I do like to support our President. I think that as a country it is best to show a solid & united front. It upset me to see that Mr. Moore was trying to say that Bush wasn't a good President because he didn't stop reading to the kids right away & jump into action. I am curious though. What did you think about it Amy? Was it factful or just full of it?
I have no idea if it is factful or not. I have no problem saying that parts of it are probably true (though exaggerated, slanted) and other parts are likely completely false. It does make you wonder though.
I havn't seen it and I don't think I really want to. I like our President and don't really care what people will say about him for attention.
Amy and anyone else interested, here's a review of the movie by ABC news with an interview with Michael Moore regarding his motives behind making the movie, the timing of the movie, whether it should be classified as propaganda, how much is fact or fiction... I don't have time to read all of it right now, but will later on. For now, here's the link:
ABC News
Here's a point to ponder;)
Kerry's wife was a registered Republican up until last year, read it in the USA Today newspaper. All political timing isn't it...
Kerry will be in Scranton, PA tomorrow, which is about 20 miles from me. My DS and I are going to take a ride to Scranton and hopefully hear Kerry's speech.
Hmmmm..... makes you wonder Marg,huh?
I've heard nothing but bad about that Heinz family but have yet to mention things. And its all been verified on the urban legends site.... uuugghhh!!!
My husband and I are voting Republican.
Another item of interest didn't Mrs. Kerry marry a Heinz and he died and that's how she came into money?
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/teresa_heinz_kerry/
This is the artical on her at the above mentioned website. You can also click on her interests & such there. To me she seems like a very strong independent woman.
Teresa Heinz Kerry brings extraordinary ability, experience, and accomplishment, to her husband’s campaign for President. Her extensive philanthropic work finding solutions to many of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, demonstrates she will be a leader helping our nation explore these issues, such as protecting the environment, our children, and the rights of women. She has been a fighter for human rights, and a strong supporter of the arts.
Born in Mozambique, fluent in several languages, she has combined compassion and common sense to become a force for innovation and social progress as leader of one of the nation's large private foundations. After studying at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa and the University of Geneva, she moved to the United States and got a job working for the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. In 1966, she married Senator John Heinz whom she met when they were graduate students and with whom she had three sons. Shortly after celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary in 1991, she lost her husband in a plane crash.
Turning down offers to seek election to her husband's Senate seat to take care of her sons, family and professional responsibilities, she became chairman of The Howard Heinz Endowment and the Heinz Family Philanthropies. Under her leadership, the Heinz foundations are widely known for developing innovative strategies to protect the environment, improve education and the lives of young children, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, promote the arts and help women achieve financial economic security. She established the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement in 1996 to educate women about pensions, savings, and retirement security.
Their mutual interest in environmental issues brought Teresa and John together. She was first introduced to John Kerry by Senator Heinz at an Earth Day rally in 1990. In 1992, she met Kerry again at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President George H. W. Bush appointed her as part of a State Department Delegation representing U.S. non-governmental organizations. She and Sen. Kerry were married in the presence of her three sons and his two daughters on Memorial Day weekend in 1995. Teresa has received numerous awards and 10 honorary degrees for her many works. In September of last year, she was presented with the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism, for her work protecting the environment, promoting health care and education and uplifting women and children throughout the world. She was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.
In addition to her three sons and two step-daughters, Teresa is the almost inordinately (but understandably) proud grandmother of one grandchild.
Theresa Heinz was married to Republican Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania until his death in 1991. As far as I know, she has no involvement in the Heinz company ( Snopes.com Truth or Fiction. Whether she switched to the Democratic party for her husband, I don't know, but that can't be any worse than a politician switching parties to run on a ticket.
Theresa Heinz Kerry seems to me to be a strong, independent woman who isn't afraid to speak her mind. I don't think that's bad! LOL
Oh and yes, according to what I've read, she did inherit a lot of money after her first husband died. But that would be expected, wouldn't it?
I agree with you Sunny.
I'm not criticizing, I'm stating facts,and remember she's not the one running for president. We have to chose the best president elect for president, not their wives.
It must hurt her to hear all those bad things her dh states about republicans, since her deceased was one and so was she (sarcasm...)
How is she a strong, independent woman who speaks her mind when her political views are decided upon who shes married to? I can guarantee if Mr. Heinz were here today she'd be just a republican as he.
Yeah Melissa! sorry women, I don't think we as women, should switch our political views based on who we are married to...
Why does her registering as a democrat mean she gave up her views. It just means that she is showing her support for her husband. As a wife I do what I can to support my husband & he supports me, isn't that part of what makes a marriage?
Look at Arnold Schwarzeneger and Maria Shriver, she did not give up her political view and still supports him as husband and governor.
I don't think changing parties means you are giving up your political views. She still supports women rights, environmental issues, educational issues, & promoting healthcare.
By the way John Kerry is giving a great speech tonight. I am looking forward to seeing what Bush is going to say.
When a person registers as a democrat, I sure hope they agree with democratic views. I think Arnold and Maria are a great example of a political couple. They both respect each others views and dont have to be politically alike to get along in other ways. I'll tell you if for some reason DH went Democrat theres no way in he)) that i'd switch just be "support" him because its not about what he supports, its about what I believe in. And i'm as far from democrat as they come, LOL!
You are right, Maria & Arnold are good examples of a political couple. I think that everyone has a right to change their politcal party, as you do I am sure. When I met my dh he was a democrat & is now a republican, makes for some fun conversation.
I think that when people think of democrats they think of the very liberal kind & we are not all like that. I may be a democrat, but I do agree with some things that republicans do. In fact I don't vote a straight ballot.
Mrs. Kerry has been in the political spotlight for a long time & I don't think she would have changed parties just because.
I agree, Emily.
Marg, Melissa, and the rest - Is there any chance that she changed her party registration because she no longer agrees with the leaders of the Republican party? Why do you automatically believe she changed her registration because she married a Democrat several years ago? If she were going to change her registration because she married a Democratic politician, wouldn't she have done it several years ago? After all, Kerry's been in the Senate for several years.
As an example, my ex-husband, who has been a registered Republican since I met him in 1954. He changed his registration two years ago because of his disgust with this administration and its policies.
Thank you Ginny.
But if she suddenly decided she didn't like the leaders wouldn't she have changed parties in 2000 when Bush won the election? I just find it odd that she "suddenly" changed when Kerry decided to run for president even considering the fact that she used to be one of the two or three most powerful republican women in the state. I'm not her so I can't speak for her but with her and her husband combined, they just cant seem to make up their mind! I guess if whatever is "popular" at the time and will get you the winning ticket is what they're trying for.
Geesh, I cant wait til this election is over so Bush can continue with something of importance.
Oh has he already said what he was doing after the election? LOL sorry, I could resist.
I think it is going to be interesting to see how this is going to turn out.
I trust that the best person will win, because I always put it in a certain someones hands.
I'm not sure how this turned into a debate about Theresa Heinz's motives, but for what it's worth, I found this:
She only recently started using Kerry's last name and was prompted more by anger than ambition to change her party affiliation.
"I was very upset at the way the party dealt with Max Cleland of Georgia," she says.
Cleland is the Democratic senator who lost re-election in a bitter campaign when Republicans attacked his patriotism. In 1968, Cleland lost his right arm and both legs in Vietnam.
Theresa Heinz Kerry
I think I'm going to leave this thread alone now. My opinion and vote remains the same.
In regards to my many posts regarding the issue of taxes in the upcoming election, I found this presentation to visually display exactly how I feel about the subject. I thought I would share it with those interested in learning a little more.
http://www.noblegraphics.com/taxes.htm
Very interesting. It is a good slam campaign against Kerry. That is to be expected, it is an election year.
Doesn't change my vote because it is more than taxes that concerns me. Thank you for sharing it though.
THANK YOU AMY!!!!! But I could really do without the up close pics of Kerry, very scary, lol!
Is is a good slam Emily but theres nothing to prove otherwise is there? Im sure its more than taxes that concern you but im sure that it sits at the top of your list doesnt it?
You know a part of me doesnt mind who wins just because if Kerry wins, the ones who voted for him can see what a mistake theyve made. Isnt is sad that Bush "flaming" didnt really become too public til the war started. God forbid our country to DO ITS JOB!!! Think people, think!
This post IS up front but only is some of this world came with morals we'd all get along.... LOL!
Melissa, the world has been with out morals since the begining of time. If you believe in God & in the 10 commandments, why do you think they are in mentioned in the bible? Because even at that time there was murder, theft, adultry. Who are we to judge who has morals? A great number of people think that we as Americans have no morals. What kind of morals does the person that lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction have?
What job is it that this country needs to do? We have so many problems here on this land, shouldn't we be doing something about what is going on here? They are the same problems that have always been here, why can't we fix us before we fix the world?
9/11 gave us one thing for a while, it gave us a country that was united for once. Then it did exactly what the terrorists wanted it to do, it is slowly tearing us apart.
I have never been so unsure who to vote for in my life. I can see the good that President Bush has done (& as a strong Democrat that kills me to say). I read a wonderful article in the Readers Digest about a young girl that lost her Mom on 9/11. She shook President Bush's hand & then someone mentioned she had lost her Mom. President Bush turns to her & asks how she is doing, then he holds her in a strong embrace. She says that she felt so safe in his arms.
I honestly don't know. You guys have made very strong points along with research that I have done. I am truly confused & unsure. I guess maybe I am not as strong of a Democrat as I thought.
Amy, the noblegraphics propaganda is the sameold, sameold diatribe that the Bush campaign and anti-tax people have been saying for a long time, and it is false. Here is what FactCheck says:
Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for “higher taxes” Higher than what?
Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush’s own words mislead reporters.
March 23, 2004
Modified:March 24, 2004
Summary
The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”
But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”
Analysis
To be sure, Kerry has cast votes to increase taxes, and he's clearly on record favoring raising taxes on persons making over $200,000 a year, if he's elected. It's a major difference between the two candidates. But Bush aides have been falsely accusing Kerry for weeks of casting far more votes for tax increases than is the case. And now the President himself has joined in the misleading attack.
Bush’s campaign manager Ken Mehlman told CNN’s Judy Woodruff on March 12 that “Senator Kerry . . . supported 350 tax increases over the course of his career.” And again on March 16 Mehlman told CNN’s Candy Crowley: “This is a senator who has voted 350 times to raise taxes during the course of his career.” Commerce Secretary Don Evans also said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on March 10 that Kerry “has voted to increase taxes some 350 times.” And both Fox News and MSNBC quoted Bush’s campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt as saying March 11: "John Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times and his numbers for new spending don't add up."
The President chose his words somewhat more carefully than did his aides, but still clearly conveyed the idea that Kerry had voted 350 times to raise taxes above current levels. Here's what he said a political rally in Florida March 20:
Bush: Senator Kerry is one of the main opponents of tax relief in the United States Congress. However, when tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a "yes" vote out of him. Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people --
Audience: Booo!
So it was no surprise when several news organizations quoted President Bush as saying just what his campaign spokesman and his campaign manager had been saying.
The Associated Press said Bush depicted Kerry "as a serial tax-raiser who has voted for tax increases 350 times.” United Press International said Bush "accused Kerry of voting over the past 20 years for tax increasing legislation some 350 times." The New York Times reported: Mr. Bush said Mr. Kerry had voted 350 times to raise taxes in his nearly two decades in the Senate," and The Palm Beach Post said: "The President accused the Massachusetts senator of voting to raise taxes more than 350 times."
So reporters were misled, as were probably many ordinary voters who listened to the President's speech. In fact, even the President's own campaign organization now admits Kerry didn't vote for tax increases 350 times, or anything close to it.
When pressed for a list of Kerry's 350 votes, the Bush campaign quickly supplied FactCheck.org with one document listing 352 votes and a second listing an additional 27 votes. But a campaign official cautioned: “It is important to note that these are votes for higher taxes, not necessarily tax increases , meaning it includes votes against tax cuts.” (Emphasis added by FactCheck.org). In other words, what the campaign's manager and chief spokesman had been saying was wrong. And even the President's phrasing -- saying Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times -- is not only misleading but actually misled several news professionals. It's simply untrue that Kerry voted for tax increases 350 times.
The Bush lists of 379 votes is padded with scores of votes Kerry cast against tax decreases (which would leave taxes unchanged, not higher), votes to reduce the size of proposed tax cuts (which would leave taxes lower, though not as much lower as proposed), and “votes for watered-down, Democrat ‘tax cut’ substitutes” (which often proposed to distribute the benefits of tax cuts farther down the income scale than Republican proposals). Thus the Bush campaign counts some votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes."
Among the votes the Bush campaign documents count as votes for “higher taxes” are the following:
A 1985 vote to offset a proposed increase in Medicare premiums by preventing the tax on cigarettes from dropping to 8 cents a pack from 16 cents, as it was scheduled to do. Taxes would have remained at 16 cents a pack.
A 1986 vote against a non-binding resolution to express the “sense of the Senate” that hazardous-waste “superfund” cleanup shouldn’t be paid for by a broad-based tax on manufacturers, but by some unspecified alternative source. Taxes would have remained the same.
A 1987 vote against repealing a “windfall profits” tax on oil. Taxes would have remained the same.
A 1989 vote to sustain a Democratic filibuster against a proposed cut in the capital-gains tax. Taxes would have remained the same.
None of these votes would have resulted in a tax increase, and most of the votes on the Bush lists are like that. Whether they would have resulted in "higher taxes" depends: higher than what? Bush campaign officials argue that in each of the votes they list, Kerry was presented with alternatives and chose the higher of the two. Perhaps the President should have said Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes than Republicans prefer."
http://www.momsview.com/discus/messages/3743/25696.html#POST149124 If you go to this post, at the bottom is a long, long list of sources for the information.
So, I have one question. Why should a person who makes over $200,000 a year pay a higher tax rate??? This REALLY bothers me. My dh came from nothing. He worked really hard to put himself through college. Dh was/is the first in his family to graduate. He started out in a telecommunication company in an entry level position. He has worked hard to move up in the company. Our family has moved several times and given up a lot, so he could get where he is today. If he gets one more promotion we get a big bump in salary, this could put his salary over this amount. Why should we pay more taxes????
And, noblegraphics says the wealthiest people pay 55% of their income in taxes. Well, the current federal tax rate on “adjusted gross income” (after various deductions) is 25.7%. And Social Security and Medicare taxes stop after earnings (wage earnings, not dividends or profit earnings) at $87,900 (this is presently 7.6% on the wage earner and a matching amount paid by the employer). So I don’t understand how the wealthiest people pay 55% of their income in taxes
As for capital gains, here is a web site that explains the capital gains tax: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tips/20010305a.asp
Basically, people in the highest tax bracket (25.7%) pay a capital gains rate of 15% for long term investments, 25% for selling real estate which was depreciated (in other words, tax deductions were taken in prior years for depreciation) and 28% for the sale of small business stock. Which still doesn’t add up to 55%, as the film says.
So how does the film get to 55%? Maybe adding in local taxes - state, county, municipality - and real estate taxes. But frankly, I don’t believe it. It just doesn’t add up. And the film doesn’t provide any sources for this figure.
Education:
Excerpts from an article by Michael Dobbs, originally published in the Wasington Post, 2/19/04: “More States Are Fighting 'No Child Left Behind' Law “
Until now, no state has been prepared to reject No Child Left Behind altogether, which would mean relinquishing federal subsidies, which account for about 11 percent of total expenditures on education. Instead, they are looking for ways to escape the most onerous parts of the legislation.
In an early example of this trend, Vermont passed a law in 2003 refusing to implement unfunded federal mandates. William Mathis, who supervises a group of school districts in central Vermont , said the No Child Left Behind law will force him to divert money from several of his neediest public schools to support student transfers and supplemental tutoring. It is tantamount, he said, to a "death sentence" for several small rural schools.
If Mathis accepted the federal money (about $500,000 in his case) for schools in low-income areas, he would also have to implement a slew of federal regulations and sanctions. Instead, he is channeling the same money into other programs, such as early education, that have fewer strings attached.
It is unclear whether this tactic, which has been implemented in other Vermont school districts, will pass muster with the federal government. Mathis and other opponents of No Child Left Behind cite a clause in the law that stipulates that states cannot be compelled by the federal government "to incur any costs not paid for under this act."
In Utah, meanwhile, the superintendent of the state's largest school district has calculated that he will have to spend $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind. The Jordan school district currently receives about $2.2 million a year in federal Title I funding.
"Imagine that you are building a new home, and you have reached agreement with the contractor on when the home will be finished and what the price will be," superintendent Barry Newbold said. "Then someone comes along and says they want the house to be completed much more quickly, and with a spectacular new addition. You would say, 'I can accomplish that, but I will need more money, more resources.' " A similar study estimated that Ohio will have to spend nearly $1.5 billion over the next 10 years to implement No Child Left Behind. While some extra money will be required for student testing, most of it will go to raising student achievement through tutoring, longer school days and summer school.
And this is from FactCheck:
Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively
Bush ad claims "dramatic results" in Texas schools, but fails to mention data-manipulation scandal.
May 12, 2004
Modified:May 12, 2004
Summary: Bush released an ad May 12 claiming "dramatic results" from his Texas school reforms and touting his "No Child Left Behind" law as "the most significant education reforms in 35 years."
But some of those Texas claims were scaled back last year after school officials were shown to be fudging the numbers to disguise high drop-out rates. And many state officials are complaining that Bush's policies impose expensive new requirements without a large enough increase in federal aid to pay for them.
Analysis
Bush Cheney '04 Ad "Key To Success"
Bush: I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message.
Announcer: As governor, George Bush enacted reforms that produced dramatic results.
As president, he signed the most significant education reforms in 35 years. Because accountability and high standards are the keys to quality schools, the president's reforms give parents the tools needed to measure a child's progress. Today public schools require raised standards, well-qualified teachers, accountability to parents. Because no child in America should be left behind.
The ad shows Bush hugging a school child, and paints a glowing picture of the federal education reforms he pushed through two years ago. It accurately summarizes the main points of his No Child Left Behind Act, saying "public schools require raised standards, well-qualified teachers, accountability to parents."
The act is indeed giving parents new tools for holding public schools accountable and measuring progress. Already, detailed data on schools in many states are available on the Internet, for example.
Dramatic Results?
But when the ad claims that Bush's Texas reforms "produced dramatic results" it omits a key fact: those results were inflated to some extent by school officials who reported false information about drop-out rates to improve their statistics.
In Houston, investigators found 3,000 students who should have been listed as dropouts but weren't. A local television station, KHOU-TV, called citywide dropout statistics a "lesson in lies." The station found one former student working at a Wendy's fast-food restaurant after her public high school reported that she had left to attend private school. The Washington Post later found another high school that reported an unbelievably low 0.3 percent dropout rate when in fact up to half its students failed to graduate. The CBS program "60 Minutes II" reported that Houston's entire school system reported a city-wide dropout rate of 1.5 percent when the true dropout rate was somewhere between 25 and 50 percent, according to educators and experts checked by CBS News.
It's true that drop-out rates were not the only statistics used to measure progress, but the scandal happened in Houston -- where Bush's Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige had been superintendent. That has raised questions about how well reforms really worked in Texas, and also about whether school officials nationally will manipulate statistics to look good under the new standards imposed by the No Child Left Behind law.
The Question of Money
Also left unmentioned in the Bush ad is the question of money. As we've pointed out before, federal aid to education has increased sharply under Bush. Funding for the Department of Education rose 58% during Bush's first three years, a bigger increase than during the previous eight years under Clinton.
But many say even that increase is not enough, considering the demands the law imposes on schools. Funding is still $7 billion a year under what was envisioned in the authorizing legislation for No Child Left Behind, according to the National Education Association.
And it isn't just Democrats and the teachers unions saying it. In Republican-dominated Utah, the superintendent of the state's largest school district estimated it would cost $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind, compared to the $2.2 million per year it now receives in federal aid. And in Republican-dominated Ohio, a study for the state department of education estimated the cost of compliance with the law to be $149 million per year.
Even one former Bush administration official is now lamenting the lack of resources. Susan B. Neuman was the U.S. Department of Education's assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education until January 2003. She recently told a meeting of the International Reading Association in Reno, Nev., that she worries that the most vulnerable children are still being left behind, despite the law that she helped implement:
Neuman: In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources . . . we are creating a fantasy.
Neuman has now returned to the University of Michigan, where she is a professor of education.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=181#
Wow, y'all are all over the place. It's hard to even jump in after reading all these posts since the last time I checked this thread.
Being gay a fad? Oh my! To take a line from the jibjab video - *that really scares me.
The Texas education system - People, I am telling you, you will HATE this. We've been under this system for over 10 years and the teachers teach ABSOLUTELY nothing that is not on the state test. NOTHING. It doesn't matter the quality of the teacher. They are pressured and required to teach only that is on the test. If one year's test had only one question on fractions, they will not cover fractions the next year. They will cover the items that had the most number of questions on the prior year's test. And that's it.
Nothing matters but the test. It's horrible. When I tutored in a public school I had to attend a seminar first on what is on the test and told these are the only things that matter.
Kids are bailing right and left to private schools. My son left an exemplary public school to attend a private school for kids with learning disabilities. The state says our public school is EXEMPLARY, the best, the highest category based on state test scores and attendance which is what they use to rank the school. Yet, they can't teach my dyslexic son how to read. So how exemplary is it?
Our local jr high got a Low Ranking rating. Why? Because 5 African-American girls failed the 8th grade math test. Take those 5 girls out and they would have gone up two rankings. What kind of system is that? And you don't think there weren't some backlash on those girls?
The school my aunt teaches at runs the district wide program for kids with serious disabilities. Because NCLB only allows a certain percentage of kids to be in special ed per school, no other child in the school can be in special ed. They max out with the 30 kids in their disabilities program, but there are 600 neighborhood kids in the school and are we to assume that none of them qualify for special ed? None of them are ADHD, LD or any number of other disabilities? My aunt said they had to dismiss all their special ed kids and they had to tell the parents their kids were "okay" and "ready" to be released from their IEP and bec these parents are mostly low income, they bought it hook, line and sinker.
You see, it's all just a numbers game now. Individual children mean nothing.
Poverty. Poverty is a very complex issue. I think some of y'all are totally underestimating what it's like to grow up dirt poor, a minority, in a horrible part of town where kids are shot at school and sitting on their front porch, were drugs are everywhere you look, girls have babies at 13 bec that's the only thing they can do, the only part of their life they have any control over, where the schools are scary, the teachers unqualified bec the good ones would never *dream of teaching there, the people move from shelter to relative's home, to run down apartment, to shelter.
Kids who are able to graduate from their low ranking high school from their inner city school are not remotely prepared for college level work. And the cost of college??? What is this now? Tom Ridge says he will resign after the election because he can't afford to pay for his two kids to go to college and he makes $175,000/year? And HE can't afford college at that salary level?? But I digress...
I think it's very difficult to break out of this poverty cycle and be in a position where subsidies are not needed. I think it's foolish to think you can just look at these folks and say, Find a Way Out Yourself. There are huge fundamental problems in those communities that Tough Love isn't going to help.
Ya know, There by the grace of God, go I.
I think Bush wasn't being criticized too much prior to 9/11. But 9/11 brought up a lot of things and then Bush decided to go to war without UN backing and Americans started to die and Bush underestimates what's involved and then Bush's response to 9/11 turns out to be a horrible mistake. Thus, he deserves criticisms at this point in his career. I voted for Bush last time, but not this time. I thought he was the lesser of two evils and I learn he is worse.
Do you know how much the govt spent on investigating Whitewater - which turned up nothing, by the way - $50 million. The govt spent $50 million investigating the Columbia explosion - it killed, what 7 people? Do you know how much Bush gave the investigation into 9/11? $3 million at first. The commission asked for more. Bush said No. He didn't want 9/11 investigated. Finally they gave $9 million more. Bush still doesn't want 9/11 investigated. He knows he'll look very bad. Congress secured $12 million more. The families won't give up. That's why when the report was released they kept saying, It was the FAMILIES who got the still underfunded report done. It sure as heck wasn't The President of the United States who you would think would want a full investigation with no expense spared. But, he has a lot to hide. (Source: Vanity Fair, August 2004, page 84.)
Regardless of how many times Kerry voted for raising taxes, whether it be 350 or 150, 0R how many of the said 350 times were actually to leave present taxes unchanged, he voted *too many* times for higher taxes in my opinion - which will only serve to penalize the higher income bracket, reduce incentive to make advancements (scientific, technological, etc), hinder the progress of our country, emphasize that money is not earned by how hard one has worked, maintain that one (outside of those that have mental and physical disabilities to include the elderly) must not necessarily have a job in order to survive, shout loudly that one need not contribute in order to reap benefit, and on and on. By continually requiring the higher income bracket to pay more in taxes, we, in essence, are trying to even out what all individuals "bring home" financially until it is approaching equal. Once again, communism anyone?
Regarding education, there is MUCH to be done concerning reform and new, effective policy. However, while I do agree that Bush's "No Child Left Behind" is not working in its former state, I also would like to copy/paste my thoughts on Kerry's "National Education Trust Fund" as previously stated in another of my posts above.
John Kerry bases his policy on four factors: parent attendance, teacher attendance, graduation rates, and parent satisfaction. While this all sounds good, consider this: (from my earlier post)
Student/teacher attendance - we can measure a school's success by students and teachers just showing up??
Parent satisfaction - many parents are just satisfied enough having their children out of their hair or are so naive that they think the teachers have their child's best interest in mind when we all know that that is not true all of the time.
Graduation rates - So if the student and teacher "show up", the teacher slacks off in teaching and just passes everyone, and the student "graduates", this is considered "successful"?? Huh??
So, as long as the student is there, the teacher is there, and the mom is satisfied - our children will be adequately educated? And so long as we have a good graduation rate, we can rest comfortable knowing that these graduates are well-educated, ready to go on to become our nations doctors, accountants, attornies, *teachers*?
It seems to me that Kerry's education plan is similar to his tax plans - *Work is no longer a requirement here in America*
Well, I think there is a relationship between teacher and student attendance and achievement. Schools with higher attendance on both are usually schools where the children succeed. Schools that have higher rates of teacher absentism are usually the worst schools in the worst neighborhood.
Student attendance is one of two things that are looked at when determining if the school is good and the kids successful in Texas. So, even Bush feels attendance means something very important in education. And it is. Showing up is half the battle! Many, many of our Latino population WILL NOT bring their kids to school before labor day. They just won't. They don't believe in it. Unfortunately, we start school in August in Texas. Some as early as August 3 and 4. It's a huge problem, esp in districts that are majority Hispanic like Dallas.
The elementary schools look at test grades and attendance and that's it to determine ranking. I think at the high school level they factor in drop out rate, too, which leaves that statistic wide open to abuse (see Houston ISD and the way they reported drop outs when our education secretary was in charge).
At my son's public elementary NO child was to make a doctor or dentist appt that caused them to be absent at 9:30am when the day's roll is taken. That's the sacred time of day. If they have a sick kid in the nurse's office they will keep that kid past 9:30am so he can be counted present for the day.
Graduation rate is important. What's wrong with graduating? That's the goal, isn't it. If someone barely graduates, who cares? Not every person is cut out for college. Not everyone is academic. Would you rather these folks be drop outs?
It's not easy to accumulate all the credits one needs to meet the graduation requirement. It's not like these kids are sitting there with their thumbs up their bums for 13 years. It's not like high school is going to be easy just because there's no high stakes test. With the test we are encouraging struggling kids to drop out or go to private school. Who cares if they drop out bec those statistics can be manipulated to not look bad on the school. The high achieving kids are going to overachieve no matter what. They don't need end of course tests to prove they spent 4 hours a night on HW.
And what's wrong with listening to the parents?? When I tell people my child was failed by an exemplary school they don't believe me. How can that be? It's true. I expressed my displeasure with the school to the principal. She says, "You're better off leaving. We can't teach every kid." Obviously. But, all that anybody knows is that the school is exemplary. Talk to the parents of dyslexic kids and you'll hear a different story. We are NOT satisfied. But no one cares. No one listens. The school expresses gratitude when our children are withdrawn. Our kids won't hurt their exemplary status.
And I wanted to throw out a couple of comments a couple of my weathly Republican friends have said to me (they assume I'm Republican, too, bec my son attends a wealthy private school and I am a recovering Republican).
One said to me about a group of young Hispanic school children we saw, "There go our future maids and lawn care people." Think she wants Hispanics to succeed in school? Think she cares Hispanics drop out of high school as soon as they can? She's *counting* on it so she can employ them for cheap. Do you think she wants to give any of her tax dollars to helping them finish high school and go to college? Heck no! She wants them to be the underclass, the modern day slaves, and she wants to blame them for it happening.
Another one said to me when we were on the brink of war, "This is exciting. This is a good thing. The stock market usually goes up during War Time. Our portfolios will love this!"
This is the way they think. It scares me.
Amy, almost every member of Congress has voted to raise taxes at one time or another, whether they are called income taxes, taxes on imports, fees for using waterways or national parks, or whatever.
Just what do you think taxes pay for? I can tell you some of the things they pay for: roads so that entrepeneurs and factories can transport their goods; federal and state and local police (with federal subsidies) to make sure trucks are in good mechanical condition and not overloaded (and there are not enough police to do enough inspections - how many times a day do you hear of an overturned tractor-trailer on a major road where you live?); inspectors for safe foods (and again, not enough, which is why we have more and more food poisoning scares); air traffic systems; airplane inspections; border patrol (again, not enough); customs (again, not enough, given the large number of drugs and other illegal stuff that gets through); federal and state prisons; court systems so that if someone infringes on an entrepeneur's patents he can get protection; and yes, schools; national health systems; oversight of hospitals and nursing homes; drug testing and safety; and let's not forget our armed forces.
Which of these would you want to do without?
The amount of "discretionary" spending in the national budget ranges from a low of -2.2% and a high of 7.5% in the Clinton years to 13.1%, 12.4% and 10% in the Bush years (this, however, does include "discretionary" military spending). http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=139
According to a representative of the Heritage Foundation, a very, very conservative organization which focuses on taxes and spending, in June, 2003: "People think we're increasing spending just for defense," said Brian Riedl, federal budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation. "But Congress has also gone on a spending spree in areas such as education, health research, [$190 billion in] farm subsidies, unemployment benefits, highways and small low-priority programs.
"Really, Congress isn't saying no to anybody right now," said Riedl. Federal spending per American household is now at $21,000 annually, up from $16,000 in 1999, he noted.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/10/92403.shtml
According to the Washington Times, July 4, 2004: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-024236-4063r.htm
The average U.S. household has already spent almost $1600 on the war in Iraq, according to a report presented in Washington Wednesday. The final bill will be an estimated $3,415, based on the U.S. military's prediction of a three-year military occupation, says the report, citing calculations by economist Doug Henwood.
.....
An additional emergency supplement of $25 billion dollars was appropriated by the administration in June, bringing the total bill to date to $151 billion. Congress has also promised another supplemental appropriation after the election. This figure, Cavanagh notes, stands square in the $100-200 billion projection that White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay was fired for giving as the likely cost of the Iraq War in 2002.
....
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate hearing last March : "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a House of Representatives appropriations hearing the same day.
However it later emerged that behind the scenes experts had warned officials that the Iraqi oil industry was badly dilapidated and would in no way cover reconstruction costs. James Schlesinger, former secretary of defense and energy who co-chaired an independent task-force set up by the Council of Foreign Relations, a prestigious independent think-tank, and who briefed administration officials, told the Financial Times last year that "nobody" believed oil revenues would support reconstruction costs. He said his advice, and that of the CFR report, forecasted that oil would produce at most $10-12 billion annually, if captured intact and with no further deterioration.
....
The current financial cost to the American taxpayer, according to the IPS report, now rivals that of the Vietnam War on a monthly basis. Operations in Iraq are estimated at 4-5 billion a month whilst the average monthly figure during Vietnam was $5.1 billion, adjusting for inflation. This has had tremendous social and economic effects within the United States, say the authors.
The administration's budget request for 2005 proposes "deep cuts in critical domestic programs," the report details, "(and) virtually freezes funding for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security." The White House is seeking the elimination of programs including grants for firefighters' assistance, low-income schools, family literacy, rural housing and economic development. As written, the proposal would keep such cuts in place until 2009.
A White House memo, leaked in May to the Washington Post, outlined further cuts in 2006, including funding for education, Head Start, home ownership, job training, medical research and homeland security.
"The Bush vow to 'leave no child left behind'" the report adds, "remains underfunded by at least $14.1 billion, with the new budget threatening to reduce funding by an additional $9.4 billion."
....
Homeland security funding has not lived up to promises either, says Dolan. A June study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that only 24 percent of the 231 major cities surveyed had received any of the first responder/critical infrastructure funding pledged by the Department of Homeland Security, while another 24 percent had been notified of the funds' impending arrival.
To put the figures into context, Dolan offers a summary of what could have been purchased with the Iraq appropriations so far. Purchases could have included, she says, 678,000 new fire trucks, health care coverage for 82 million children, or for 27 million adults, almost 23 million housing vouchers or over 20 million Head Start slots for children. On a global level, the war budget could supply all impoverished people worldwide with sufficient food, childhood immunization, HIV/AIDS medicine and clean water and sanitation for two years, according to U.N. and World Water Council estimates.
"The administration's budget priorities," the report concludes, "have privileged a war of choice over human needs at home."
Ginny - end of excerpts from Washington Times article.
A letter writer in today's Philadelphia Inquirer poses this question to President Bush:
"Now that you know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, now that you know there was no working relationship with al-Qaeda; now that you know tht Iraq was not an imminent threat, are you still saying that you would still sacrifice 900 lives (Ginny - U.S. lives, and growing daily), still spend more than $200 billion and still cooly dismiss our allies, all of this just to remove Sadam Hussein?"
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=148
The federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 (which ends Sept. 30) is projected by the President’s Office of Management and Budget to be $521 billion. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting a somewhat lower total of $477 billion. But either would easily exceed the previous record deficit of $375 billion set last year. That in turn broke the previous record of $290 billion, which was reached under Bush’s father in 1992.
Ginny: We've gone from a $236 billion surplus to a projected $477 to $521 billion deficit in just four years. Does this make any kind of sense? One of the things this deficit means is fewer dollars available for business to borrow for growth and job creation. Another thing it means is probably more cuts in every area of discretionary spending by the federal level, which is going to mean higher state and local taxes. And, our children are eventually going to have to pay for it.
I am voting for Bush. I get tired of hearing Kerry and the other Democrats saying Republicans are for the rich. My husband and I are on the low end of middle class, but we have truly seen more money in our pockets based on the percentage of take home pay we get. Yeah, the wealthy get a higher amount of money back, because they make more $, but the percentage they get back is less.
My husband drives a lot for his day job (he's a musician) and loves to listen to talk radio. Yesterday, a man who had been in the service side by side with Kerry called in. He said that Kerry's 3 purple heart medals were from self-inflicted wounds. Apparently, once a soldier got wounded 3x he got to go home. This caller said Kerry was a real coward and was disgusted by attempt to use is vietnam vet status as an appeal in his speech at the DNC.
I was also troubled by Kerry saying that he wouldn't strike until we had been striked against. The next day, in an interview (which of course didn't make the liberal evening news), Bush said he would always strike first, not giving the enemy an opportunity to strike at all.
Now, that's who I want leading my country! Whew! I got carried away, and now I'm feeling all patriotic!LOL.
I feel like what I am saying is either being completely misunderstood or completely misconstrued. I also feel like I am being treated as though I were completely ignorant, which I am not.
Mommmie - I never once said that student/teacher attendance, parental satisfaction, or graduation rates were not important measures of a school's success. I'm not sure if you misread what I was saying or if you are taking my post and putting a spin on it to aid your own post/agenda. Obviously, we need the students and teachers to show up. Obviously we want parents involved and satisfied with their children's education. And, of course, we need these children to graduate. But to base your entire education policy on these four factors determining a school's success?? Are you kidding? I would hope that our nation's leader would have higher standards for our teachers and children. I know I sure do have higher standards for my children, and I hope you all do too.
Mommmie, you said:
"At my son's public elementary NO child was to make a doctor or dentist appt that caused them to be absent at 9:30am when the day's roll is taken. That's the sacred time of day. If they have a sick kid in the nurse's office they will keep that kid past 9:30am so he can be counted present for the day."
Isn't this the type of behavior by school administration that would be encouraged if Kerry's education plan were put into effect?
Mommmie, you said:
"With the test we are encouraging struggling kids to drop out or go to private school. Who cares if they drop out bec those statistics can be manipulated to not look bad on the school."
Can't student attendance and teacher attendance (considered as the first two vital measures of a school's success under Kerry's plan) also be "manipulated to not look bad on the school"?
As far as your rich, Republican friends, I certainly do NOT doubt that there are many, many rich Republicans that feel this way. I find it both disappointing and discouraging. I also think that there are just as many people, primarily in the lower class (of which, btw, I am a part) that find it to their personal advantage to attempt to exploit the rich in the form of higher taxes for the higher income bracket (although I, personally, am against this). I find this equally disappointing and discouraging. In short, you will find that the majority of people, namely those that don't take the time to educate themselves regarding matters on which they express their opinion *or* simply do not care about the inevitable consequences that will follow this type of thought/policy.
Ginny - I find it insulting that you felt the need to explain what our taxes pay for, as if I am ignorant and did not study Economics as a major in college. I can certainly understand your need to explain your opinions and beliefs, but to explain that taxes pay for roads, policemen, border patrol, the armed forces??? Did you *honestly* think I did not know that taxes pay for these things? I am a military wife. I am well-aware that our taxes pay for our armed forces.
I also did not ever say that anyone who votes to increase taxes is a poor politician. I did say, however, that I personally believe that Kerry has voted way too many times to hike up taxes. I hope that is clarified.
Amy, why are you so defensive? You posted that you thought Kerry's education plan was lame bec it only looked at student and teacher attendance, graduation rates and parent satisfaction and I said, What's wrong with looking at those areas? I don't get where you think I'm spinning your post.
What I'm saying is that Texas has lived under an education plan similar to NCLB for years and even you agree it's not working in Texas, what makes anyone think it will work in the rest of the country? When it was being planned in Texas I remember thinking (and I was childless at the time) that this sounded okay, that we need accountability, we're graduating folks who can't read and that needs to be stopped, social promotion should stop, etc. Then when I was a PhD student in school psychology, I learned that school psychs as a professional group don't like retention as it almost always guarantees that child to drop out in high school. I learned a lot in that program. You can't play hard ball all the time. This are real kids, with real issues and to continually be punitive in the education setting just doesn't work. Things that look great on paper, bomb in reality.
And the Texas plan has another flaw. While schools are given tests results by classroom/teacher, these scores are not published. It is a secret on which are the teachers who can teach their kids to pass the test and which ones can't. Students who repeatedly get these bad teachers actually regress in their scores on the test to the point they are failing and not being promoted. But do they get rid of these teachers? No. They can't. Teacher shortage. We know this bec an Open Records expert got a hold of Dallas' list and tracked the kids and which teachers they had and how good/bad those teachers were at teaching the kids to pass the test. The Open Records guy took it to court to get classroom scores released to the public. He lost his case. I think that's weird. Do you want to help the kids or not? Or do you want to help the kids as long as it's convenient and doesn't make any teacher look bad? We can point the finger at 5 African American 8th graders at our jr high, but not at the teachers who failed them.
Anyway, all of these statistics can be manipulated, you're right. Any statistic can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say. We even have teachers helping their students cheat on the test. So why are we putting these kids through this? What's the point? We don't need a bunch of high stakes state tests to tell us that our upper middle class white kids are overachieving and their parents have spent thousands supplementing their education. That African-American and Hispanic students aren't doing very good. There are so many complex issues there. Why spend all the money to test them when we know a large chunk of them are going to fail. How humiliating is that for them? Maybe we could put that money into remediating these kids. I think these high stakes tests are going to further divide the Haves from the Have Nots.
About taxes. I'm not the into the tax debate. I thought sending me a few hundred bucks bec I had a child was kinda odd. Don't we have a gigantic deficit? Why is the govt me sending me money when they are in debt? I see no problem with wealthy people paying tax at a higher rate. I grew up with money and there's still money in the family and we expect as folks with more money than most that we have a responsiblity to our fellow man and government to give more, whether through taxes or charities. I just see it as the nature of the beast (and there's always ways to shelter money if you think you're getting screwed). What are you going to go do, tax the 80-year-old sick lady across the street, the 20-year-old single mom working for minimum wage? Whose going to pay tax? I mean, I just don't understand. Should we have more voluntary tax like the lottery? Should we raise the sin taxes? Should we make all the roads toll roads? Should we get rid of corporate welfare? Where do we get money to run the government? If the govt doesn't make the money it can off people with high incomes, then where will that money come from? People with low income? Do they even pay tax even after all the credits and what not? I mean I'm truly in the dark about this tax issue.
I listen to talk radio, too, but sometimes it's just so stupid (from both sides). I heard a Republican call in and just *rant* about not being able to see Elizabeth Edwards' wedding ring during her speech. Where was it? Why wasn't she wearing it? Is she not committed to her marriage? Is the rock too big? There's something fishy and this caller didn't like it and he ranted and ranted until the host stopped him. Those kinda calls drive me nuts. A wedding ring conspiracy? Who gives a rats a$$ about Elizabeth Edwards' wedding ring? But this is Bush country...
Amy, I am sorry you feel insulted. I should not have directed that comment specifically to you but rather as a general point of information (not everyone thinks through what taxes are for). However, you are the person in this thread who has written about taxes most recently and I was responding to your posts.
When you say: "In short, you will find that the majority of people, namely those that don't take the time to educate themselves regarding matters on which they express their opinion *or* simply do not care about the inevitable consequences that will follow this type of thought/policy.", do you mean that because I don't agree with your position I am some one who does not care about what you believe are the inevitable consequences that will follow? Believe me, I thoroughly understand the "consequences" that will follow from Kerry's proposals, and the consequences present and to follow from Bush's economic policies, and that is why I am voting for Kerry.
As for Kerry voting "too may times" to hike taxes - compared to who, and by what standards? I don't personally know how many times Kerry has actually voted to hike taxes (as opposed to retaining or not lowering taxes or not lowering them by the amount or to the level proposed in legislation he opposed). I suspect that the only people who know are the people at FactCheck and at other organizations who have actually read each bill he voted for or against. I do believe that voting to not lower a tax, end a tax, or to not lower a tax as much as is proposed in legislation is NOT the same as voting to raise taxes.
Mommmie - I AGREE with everything you have said about Bush's NCLB. However, I am simply pointing out that Kerry's plan is no better. That's it. Regarding taxes, you said "I grew up with money and there's still money in the family and we expect as folks with more money than most that we have a responsiblity to our fellow man and government to give more, whether through taxes or charities." I agree with feeling a responsibility to contribute more, however I think it should be strictly voluntary, not government-regulated (taxes).
Ginny - I also believe that voting to keep taxes at the current level/voting against a cut is NOT the same as voting to hike up taxes. We are in agreement. I can see where you were upset when the figure "350 votes by Kerry to raise taxes" was misconstrued. However, to me, it all means the same - voting against a cut is essentially raising taxes from what the proposed figure would have been. Although, you are right in that that figure should have been clarified.
Hopefully, you all can tell that we are in agreement on Bush's LNCB and the unclarified statement regarding Kerry's voting record (taxes). However, I keep trying to reiterate that Kerry's education plan is also lacking and that the minute details of Kerry's voting record (raising taxes/keeping taxes the same/voting against cuts) is not of importance as far as *I* am concerned.
Also, Ginny, I was not referring to you *per se* regarding the statement that you quoted. Like you, I was using it as a "general point of information," as you called it.
About the No Child Left Behind program (source: President Bush himself, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html)
President Bush, "When you had a system that was just shuffling kids through, it said to me that some (people) perhaps thought certain kids couldn't learn, and therefore, the best thing to do was just move them on. If you believe every child can learn, if you're willing to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations, then you want to know, is it true that each child is learning -- that's what you want to find out. A system which measures progress for each child is a system in which the inherent philosophy is, I believe every child can learn. If you don't want to know (if every child can learn), then you probably don't believe they can learn. If you believe every child can learn, then you shouldn't fear that question. You shouldn't fear (the) results."
On whether it is discriminatory to measure, Bush said, "It is discriminatory not to measure. ... It is discrimination not to measure, because guess who gets shuffled through the system? Guess who just gets shoved through? It's generally children whose parents don't have money. It's generally minority kids. We're just going to move them through, and hope they come out okay in the end. Well, they don't come out okay in the end.
And so the federal government said, not only in return for money (will you) measure, (but) we (also) said we're going to disaggregate results. That's a fancy word that says we want to know whether or not Hispanic students are learning, whether or not the African American students are learning. We want to know if every child is learning, that's what we want to know. We want to take a look at every single possible group of citizens to determine whether or not we are meeting the high standards that we believe so strongly in our hearts.
People say to me (that) we can't have a measuring system because it's going to be "punitive." Quite the contrary. A measuring system is a useful tool. A measuring system will allow people to know where they stand relative to where they need to go. YOU CANNOT SOLVE A PROBLEM UNTIL YOU FIRST DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM.
... We know that by using information correctly every child's problems can be addressed. And we know how essential it is that every child does learn in America. The truth of the matter is, we're talking about the future of this country right now. A hopeful America is where people can dream and realize their dreams because the education system is fulfilling its promise."
FACT: The federal government is now putting 41% more money into education since Bush became President.
So, (Pam speaking now), IMO Bush's education motto is "Every child CAN learn, and we're going to make sure they do." And Kerry's education motto is "Minority children CANNOT learn, so we're going to push them through the system as painlessly as possible. Just show up, and we'll graduate you. What you do after that (with your lack of education and skills to make it in the world) will be up to you. You can try to make money somehow, but if you can't, don't worry, we'll just give it to you. And where will we get the money to give to you? Why, we'll take it from Joe Blow, who did well in school, got a job, and made a success of himself..."
BUSH HAS MY VOTE, because he is trying to improve the state of our country and society from the ground up, make it possible for everyone to receive a "real" education so they can support themselves and feel good about themselves, do away with the self-defeating action of actually penalizing the very people who provide these jobs, make schools accountable for the money they receive from the federal government, and put an end to the tunnel vision special interest groups, low expectations for our country's next generation, and easy money attitude that has been tearing down this country for so damned long. Nitpick from now until the cows come home about this particular item or that particular item. It doesn't make a difference. It's time to throw out the laid-back, just-get-by apathy of yesterday, wake up, folks, and smell the coffee, so we'll have a freakin' half decent country left to pass on to our children when it's their turn to take the reins.
Oh, and about Theresa Heinz Kerry. I like her. I think she's incredible interesting. I give her a pass on her changing parties to support her husband running for president just like I give Laura Bush a pass for killing a classmate when she was a teenager (and not being charged for it like she would be today if the same events happened).
Pam, and Amy, given what you have articulated about your positions, I think you have expressed very well why you will vote for Bush. I can't think of a better reason for voting for a candidate than agreeing with the candidate's positions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Nitpick until the cows come home". Do you want to clarify?
I've never heard that about Laura Bush.......
Are you speaking of the car accident thing?
I'm voteing for Bush again. He did the best he could dealing with what happened on 9/11 and I agree with alot of his view points. Plus I have always liked Cheny. He graduated from the same High School I graduated from here in Wyoming and was a good Govenor here also. He was here in my town a couple of weeks ago for his High School reunion and I got to see him speak. He just seemed like a normal person not a politician. He was at the reunion and did not once say anything about the election. He kept that seprate from the reunion and I thought that was cool. I agree with all of Bushes opinions on the big issues.
Yes, when Laura ran a stop sign going 50 mph and hit another car that was driven by a classmate. That classmate was killed. She isolated herself in the school library after that and it's what led her to be a librarian.
Today, that would lead to charges. But she was not charged as far as I know.
Here is a link to a USA Today article about the crash...
Mrs. Bush ran stop sign in fatal crash
God knows I have tried to stay out of this but I have to comment. There is NO reason to believe charges would have been filed against Laura Bush if that accident happend today. There is no indication that alcohol was involved and generally speaking accidents are ACCIDENTS and if everyone faced charges for having an accident - well no one would want to drive.
There you have it from someone who generally speaking can't stand the Bush family politics!
I despise it when people get too personal in politics.
Claire's right. I am absolutely certain, given that there was a fatality, that if there had been any fault on Laura Bush's part in this accident that she would have been prosecuted. To the best of my knowledge, Laura Bush is a very nice lady who loves and supports her husband and children, and is very low key and, I suspect, not a feminist (her privilege). I agree, why drag up stuff like this.
My vote is for Bush! No other comment because everything that can be said most likely has. One addition though, I am so glad that abortion was not an option, I love my children!
Even if something horrible happened and I had a child that was from abuse or rape, why not give it up for adoption, there are people out there that cannot have children and have tried everything in the world to have them. If I am so lucky as to get pregnant, why should I throw it out with the trash when someone else in the world is crying to have one.
I have read so many times about women doing everything and finally just trying to find some person that would have the baby and give it to them. Adoption! is the ONLY alternative. Carrying a baby is not as bad as the life-long depression some people have after having abortions. Also people that have abortions could possibly be at risk for not being able to have a baby when THEY WANT it. People need to think about someone other than themselves when it comes to this issue. I don't have any websites for the information I have posted, I just know what I have read and Watched on videos about abortion. This is something I believe in strongly! I don't know how anyone could lay there head down at night after killing an innocent baby. When the sperm meets the egg it IS a baby. From then on you decide if you want to kill your baby or take care of it.
Although I oppose it, once you have done it, it is over, I believe if you are truely sorry you will be forgiven (by God). These are, of course, only my views on it.
Wow, all the Bush supporters are finally coming out. I thought I was a minority for a while, LOL!
Just out of curiosity, do you girls *really* think 4 years is all it takes to change the education system (the time Bush has been in office)? Do you *really* think that its a one hit deal? Sure the NCLB hasn't done as great as projected but dont you think Bush is realizing that and may be configuring another route to go? If for some crazy reason Kerry wins, how is he so great as to change the education system in his 4 years?(thats all the time I give him if elected because the real Kerry will come out eventually ) I trust that Bush is doing what needs to be done and its sincerely coming from the bottom of his heart.
Personally, my DD will attend a religeous private school (well, with politics now i'll be lucky if those are still around) because I dont think teachers in public schools are doing their jobs anymore. My sophomore year of high school my history teacher was mad at the school officials so he gave us all an A if we showed up for class everyday to watch a movie he picked that had nothing to do with History. When he got caught he did the same thing except we were stuck watching "Shaka Zulu" (sp?) How that for a teacher? I can give plenty of other examples but thats just one. Im not saying private schools have their faults but statistics have me going for them.
My2cuties - I love your points. Its too bad the rest of the world cannot think with their heart too when it comes to abortion. Its sad that us pro-lifers are indeed becoming the minority. All we can do is walk proud knowing that we arent killers at heart.
Claire said "One addition though, I am so glad that abortion was not an option, I love my children!"
Are you saying people who are pro-choice don't love their own children??? Huh?? You're joking, right?
Regarding Laura Bush's accident. YES, charges would be brought today. A kid at my son's school has charges against him for vehicular manslaugher. He was sitting at a stop sign in his truck. Stopped. The sun was in his eyes. After checking for traffic as best he could with the sun on the windshield, he proceeded to make his left turn and what do you know, he ran over a little girl walking to school. Didn't see her. Killed her. Horrible tragedy. The school crossing guard was two blocks down, but instead the mom and the little girl crossed the street at this spot. The mom was a few steps behind the girl and wasn't hit. The driver is facing charges. (He's been indicted, no trial set yet.) Neither family wants charges brought, but it wasn't their choice.
And, *of course* the speed limit Laura Bush was driving was illegible on the police report. *of course* it was. Of course the records are sealed. Of course no one is talking about it.
But, like I said, it plays no role in who I'm voting for just like Mrs. Heinz Kerry's "doings" play no role. But for those of you who are looking at the past of the wives as part of the election package then I think you should consider all of the pasts. Noone is perfect.
Nope
Claire did NOT NOT NOT say that CLAIRE is pro choice and would NEVER dream of making a personal decision for anyone else - whatever someone decides about abortion is as far as I am concerned is between them & God and none of my business.
At this point I will cease to post to this thread. I will however ask that people READ before they post in response.
Mommmie, it was actually My2cuties in which you were quoting.
Well, to your question, Mommmie, I will ask you a question in return. If you have your own children, why would you want someone else to kill there's?
And no I am not joking it is getting way out of hand! I went to school with a girl that thought abortion was just an expensive birth control, "no big deal if you get pregnant (by having sex willinglly) just have an abortion". I don't think so. That is SO wrong.
I have heard it all, from "I wanted to finish college" to "I just didn't want a baby". Did they ever stop to think maybe this is what is best for that point in their life?
What about all the people that wait until they see the ultrasound? It really is there and looks like a baby so they don't have the abortion...good for them!
Alot of people have to "see it to believe it".
When you hold your soft, little, new baby Isn't it worth it all? If it isn't then someone out there will sure think that baby hung the moon if you don't. I really cannot see the point in abortion, when adoption is available.
FROM ABOVE: (Melissa)
"a part of me doesnt mind who wins just because if Kerry wins, the ones who voted for him can see what a mistake theyve made"
That's interesting. I'm not even quite sure what to say. What an ignorant thing to post.
This is our country that we are talking about. The rest of our lives.
If Kerry is such an awful candidate for president, I would think that there is no way that you would want him to "win". Just for your own personal gratification? You would think that you would be more interested in the future of the presidential office and our country moreso than showing your peers that "I was right and you were wrong....hahahahaha" How mature is that?
I'm retiring from reading this thread.
Are you going to take care of all of the unwanted children? Is it better to have a child be aborted than in an abusive home? I could & would never have an abortion, but it is not my right to say some one else can't. I don't think it is right to have late term abortions or to use it as birth control, but that is my opinion & it shouldn't be forced on to anyone else.
Gay marriage is not up o the government. If a judge or minister has a problem with it than they don't need to marry them. We have seperation of church & state. I see this as an issue for the church, not the lawmakers they have enough to do.
So sorry, Claire. Got the wrong name. I meant My2cuties comments on only pro-life people loving their children and pro-choice people not loving their children. Please, don't leave the debate over a typographical error. It was not intentional. Thank you My2cuties for clarifying.
And I'm with you Claire, I would never want to make someone else's personal decision about having a baby. It's none of my business. I simple don't care if someone gets pregnant and they don't want to take the baby to term. What am I going to do, raise it for them?
Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time. They are going to happen no matter what. When my mom's friend got pregnant in college, my mom drove her to a back alley and she had an illegal abortion in horrible conditions. When I was in college and my friend got pregnant, I just gave her money. She got her abortion in a clean sterile medical environment. Making abortions illegal is not going to stop abortions.
I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. Just stating what I believe, isn't that what everyone on here is doing? I realize I cannot change the world, I am only one person, but I will never support killing anyone. And no I do not believe it is better to have an abortion, no matter what! I do my part to make the world better and I have bought many items for children that were needy, not because I had to, but because I cannot believe some of the situations that these parents put their children in. But all I say when I see a mother and her children are dirty and wearing rags for clothes and they live in a 1 bedroom shack is "At least she cared enough about them not to have aborted them." All I can do is pray for the little children, and that I WILL do. Because Lord knows the world needs prayer.
Mommie, there is a big difference between saying that Laura Bush should be in jail for killing a person(who are we to say, we weren't there) and talking about Mrs. Heinz Kerry not wearing her wedding ring (not that I care if she doesn't). If you look at the article that Bobbie posted, the records are no longer sealed. There was nothing in the records that says it was not an ACCIDENT. There is nothing to hide. As far as the siutation at your son's school, that is a shame. It sounds like a terrible ACCIDENT, with no one at fault. I have a friend who lost control of her car. Her Aunt, who was a passenger, was killed. She was not charged with anything, but lives with the guilt everyday. Should she have been charged?? I think we really shouldn't be condemming anyone unless we know all the facts, not just what people have written since Bush decided to run for President. Why do we have to jump to the worst possible conclusions?? Why is it so hard to believe it was just a terrible accident, not some big cover-up, some big misjustice?
I, personally, hate politics for this reason. I have tried to become as informed as possible, so I can vote for who I feel will do the best job. I will be voting for Bush, as I did last time. No, I do not feel he is perfect. Yes, he has made some mistakes. But, haven't all of our leaders?? I feel he does what he feels is best. He stands up for what he believes and this is important to me. I think he is a force against terrorism and unfortunately, that is a very big deal today. Education is important to me. Yes, the NCLB is not perfect, but it is better then what Kerry is proposing. With no measure or standards, how will education improve?? I think, we really have a long way to go with education. It is not going to be perfect overnight. It is going to be a long, slow road to get it where it should be. I also think it is very unfair of Kerry to make promises that he is going to bring home half of our troops by the end of his first term. How can he promise this?? He is counting on other countries stepping in to supply troops. They haven't so far, so why should they now? I feel it is very unfair of him to make this promise.
These are the reasons why I am voting for Bush. I feel that I have made a well imformed decision. I am voting for who I believe will do a better job. Hopefully, more people will get informed and vote. It really amazes me on how many people don't vote.
I read your post after posting mine. How is your friend that you gave money to, to have an abortion? Did she ever regret it? I have a friend that had an abortion early in life, then when she married her husband, was not able to have children. They soon after divorced, the abortion still haunts her. It is sad to think about such an aweful situation.
I'll continue reading here because I enjoy hearing the pros/cons but i'm going to try and refrain from commenting anymore. Were just beating a dead horse with the subjects now concerning abortion, gay rights etc... I think everyone knows where everyone stands and thats that. Were not here to change minds (or atleast im not) and I can see this post continuing up until after election day, where there will then be a new post carefully depicting the Presidents private and public life.
So good luck in all your choices on who to pick for President, may the best man win!
Well said Melissa...I agree with you.
Could we agree to leave Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry out of this? Neither of them is running for office and when they married their husbands neither of them was running for President. As far as I can tell, both Bush and Kerry are good husbands, faithful to their wives, and good fathers. Beyond that, I don't think the history of either woman matters very much in terms of who is going to be setting (or, given Congress, trying to set) this nation's policies come next January.
IMO, far too much attention is paid to candidates' wives (any candidate's wife). Unless there is something serously wrong in their relationship that shows a deep character flaw in the candidate, or something happened in the recent past which is illegal or by general standards immoral, I don't think we should be invading what little privacy such women have.
I don't know the facts of the fatal motor vehicle accident in which Laura Bush was involved - how many years ago? If anyone knows a link I may read it, but I suspect that if there were anything there it would be all over the papers, TV and internet. Since I read two papers front to back daily, plus TIME magazine weekly, and haven't seen anything, I am inclined to wonder if there is anything worth thinking about.
I agree Ginny. The canidates are running, not their wives or family. I thought it horrible when the families get picked apart. Look at what the Bush twins went through, a lot of teenagers drink before it is legal, I did. We got to hear all about it & it isn't fair.
I definitely agree as well. We already have our hands full with debating President Bush and John Kerry. I would like to live the lives of their family members out of it unless a good reason arises to bring them in.
Exactly the point I was trying to make Ginny.
Now this really is my last post lol
In the past, we've done some interesting polls here at Momsview. How would you guys like to have a Presidential election poll? I'm curious as heck as to how this election is going to go and have no clue. Everyone I have talked to seems to be equally divided. I thought we could poll our membership here ANONYMOUSLY and see who everyone is planning to vote for. The poll would be set up to prevent multiple votes by the same person (based on IP.)
Optionally, we could also include additional questions, such as rank the issues that are important to you: Homeland security, the economy, taxes, Iraq, foreign relations, trust, values, character, jobs, education, gay rights, the spouse, etc.
I can create this poll however we'd like. We could even include specific questions.
If you'd be interested in participating, post here and let me know. If there's enough interest, I'll go ahead and create the poll. Also, if you have any suggestions for the poll, post them here, as well.
I think thats a great idea Bubbels!
sounds good!
I think the poll is a good idea!
great idea!
I think that's a good idea.
I would love to see the results.
Would you post the results?
I think it is a great idea.
Good idea!!
Great idea...been curious myself about the results
An anonymous poll would be very interesting!
Very, very, good idea. AJ
I always hear about the results of "polls" but have yet to be in one or known someone who has been polled. Count me in!
Sounds great! I have a funny anecdote to share in light of this thread. Most of you know I am a Bush supporter. Well, my DH is out of town and I had to put my car in the shop this week. I asked my neighbor if she could take me to pick up my car today. They are pretty good friends of ours and their son and my boys play together all of the time. We take turns watching each others kids, taking care of pets, etc. It's funny because her husband in a political science professor and my hubby is a minister. The ultimate taboos to avoid---religion and politics, LOL . Anyway, I've always wondered how they vote, but it's never really come up in conversation. We are all big readers so when we get together we usually talk about books. When she picked me up I noticed a John Kerry button pinned on her purse. I just smiled to myself (and thought of this post--LOL) and decided that we wouldn't go there. We talked about books again instead *g*.
Count me as an "aye" vote regarding the poll!
LOL, Pam. Discretion is the better part of valor. That sounds like the perfect situation to keep your lips zipped, in the interest of neighborly peace. After all, who wants to alienate a potential kid/pet sitter?
LOL Pam, you know the importance of silence is often not learned soon enough!
Bubbels, count me in on the poll!
me too.........
me three....
I love the idea of a poll!! count me in.
Yes for me too.
I just now started reading this thread -- wow -- I had to eat 3 salty veggie chips. This is a highly emotional & polarizing issue.
I'm going to try to read the WHOLE thing and not just "my" side and see if I can do it without eating any more chips.
I think a poll would be great
I think a poll would be great also !
Are we doing the poll?
Sorry, they increased my hours with my job (which I don't mind, since it means more $$), but it caused me to have to put the poll temporarily on the back burner. However, I still plan to do it. I could do a simple "Who are you voting for?", but I really think it would much more interesting if we could include several other poll questions related to the issues involved in this upcoming election. If you ladies could come up with some questions to add to the poll, that'd be great. Post them here, or email them to me: pam @ creatingonline . com (without the spaces.)
Also, would someone like to volunteer to help out with the poll? I could get it set up and show you how to go in and fill in the questions. Email me if interested.
If you want to post questions for the Presidential poll, please go to the thread in the General Topic.
Sorry- not into partial birth abortion..only 1 of the reasons Mr. Bush has my vote!
|
Members
