Thread: Here's one person's vote for Kerry

Nice to read a Republican's point of view that involves an actual discussion of the issues! Seems like jokes and banter is everyone's argument against Kerry. I'd find it refreshing to hear your factual point of view. Care to offer it?

-Will

Originally Posted by wkirby

Nice to read a Republican's point of view that involves an actual discussion of the issues! Seems like jokes and banter is everyone's argument against Kerry. I'd find it refreshing to hear your factual point of view. Care to offer it?

-Will

This is the lamest freaking post I've seen in a while.

It's a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

Vote Labradorian......er, I mean Libertarian!

Good stuff CD, good stuff. Although you should have worked in that Saddam is a veteran of the first Iraqi war.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Good stuff CD, good stuff. Although you should have worked in that Saddam is a veteran of the first Iraqi war.

Is John Kerry a Veteran? Seems like if he was, he'd mention it.

Originally Posted by Pepper

This is the lamest freaking post I've seen in a while.

It's a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

I'm glad that's your opinion, sorry if it came across as "lame" to you. I think that one of the biggest problems in politics is that it's become increasingly divisive in recent years. Among other reasons, I think it's because we've gotten out of discussing issues. Both sides would much rather make a mockery out of their opponent rather that discuss reasons why the beliefs of their opponent are flawed.

Stupid, and frankly lame, stories like the one posted in this thread, and the image in your signature are funny, but they’re just a further indication in people’s unwillingness to truly debate the issues. I’m not a fan of Bush, but I’m not going to sit around and make jokes of his college years, lack of service, or the speaking gaffe’s he makes. That’s distracting from the real serious issues that are at hand.

Living in Columbus, GA, home of Ft. Benning, I’ve seen first hand the effect of war on the community and the fatherless families that are left behind. Without making a statement on the war itself, I think we owe it to the families who are struggling as we speak to change the tone of debate in America. Whether Bush is reelected, or Kerry elected, it’s critical that we push ourselves toward solutions.

Perhaps my comment is lame, hopefully I’ve toped my previous “lamest post ever” with this one. If not, keep it going and I’m sure that I’ll top it sooner or later, but in all sincerity let’s bring forth a real debate on the issues. Perhaps this isn’t the right place for it, but if that’s the determination, then let’s keep these boards apolitical.

-Will

Not lamest post "ever," just in a while. Don't worry, Balla will be by soon and you'll be off the hook.

I suppose we could talk about how Kerry has promised to increase the military, increase teachers pay, clean up the environment, lower taxes on the masses and roll-back the tax increases on the top 2% AND decrease the deficit...now, it doesn't take an accountant to see those numbers don't add up.

Debating religion or politics on this site is worthless. I usually don't do it. Just post a joke or a jab here and there. All in fun (usually)

Here's another one for you....

Excellent response-

You're right in that he hasn't spelled out how he plans to fund these programs, but it's not a stretch to see how they could be done. I'll preface what i'm about to say by noting that i'm not an accountant, i'm actually in Graduate school - but I do have a degree in Economics and i'm persuing a MBA/Law Degree.

Increase the military: This will simply cost money. There's no way around it, but there are ways to reallocate money within the defense budget to increase the military. The name escapes me, but a local Military expert wrote a report suggesting that the #1 way we could cut spending in the military without hurting the capabilities was to change the way we use the private sector. Most military contracts are not truly "the best bidder wins." I'm not referring to the Halliburton scandals, but he made the point that political considerations often decide what companies get military contracts. His estimates were that most contracts pay 20-30% more than would have been necessary if they were a true "best bidder" process. If you're interested i'll try and find a link to the report.

Increase teachers pay: One way that this could be accomplished is to remove the "No Child Left Behind" program, which has become an unfunded mandate which would free up millions of dollars in every State. This is money that we're wasting on a state level which could be used by States to increase teacher pay.

Clean up the environment: This is largely done through regulations. Many of the environmental regulations passed under the Bush Sr. and Clinton's administartions have been allowed to either lapse, or have been repealled. Kerry would reverse that trend. Also, by setting an energy policy that was environmentally friendly we'd see future environmental benefits become a reality.

Lower taxes on the masses: This would absolutely cut government revenue. However, I believe that by cutting taxes essentially for the "masses" we'd see consumer spending skyrocket, which would of course raise revenue for the "Top 2%" as well as lowering unemployment through increased business revenue. That's a very layman's description - I can go into greater detail if you'd like.

Roll-back the tax increases on the top 2%: Naturally this would increase revenue which could help fund any program necessary. I would caution Kerry to roll back portions of the tax, and couple that with incentives to invest such as the continued state of the capital gains tax.

Decrease the deficit: Prospering economies truly lower the deficit. The key for Kerry will be to pump up consumer spending. This is truly the critical cog in our capitalist economy. The '90s taught us this and we must never forget it if we're to continue rapid growth of our economy.


Sorry, you catching me on a day when i'm bored beyond belief.

-Will

Originally Posted by CaptainDeadlift

Subject: Lost everything under Bush


I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely
good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.
Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.

I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my home.
I lost my health insurance.
As a matter of fact, I lost virtually everything and became homeless.
Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an
animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.
I will do anything to insure President Bush's defeat in the next election.
I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is
back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.
I just thought you and your listeners would like to know how one senior
citizen views the Bush Administration.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein

I think anybody with family members that are public school teachers would be offended by this one.

I assume that you are a UGA graduate since you are living in Athens. But, how can you have an economics degree and not realize that most of your bullet points listed above will destory the economy. If your economics degree is from UGA I feel kinda bad because I got a MS degree in Physics from there back in 1995.

1. Increase the military: Yes, increase the military budget, but cut where? The contacts are usually with American companies with American workers, so the money goes back into the American economy. Soldiers pay also goes back into the American economy. I suggest we close all military bases on foreign soil, double the number of aircraft carrier groups and submarines to project our strength throughout the world.

2. Increase teachers pay: spending on education has no direct affect on school performance. As a graduate student at UGA in the Science Education department I gathered statistics for the Georgia Department of Education and saw how programs didn't affect scores. Also, people that enter the teaching profession (on average) come from the bottom 1/3 with regard to SAT scores and college grades. I agree that teachers should be paid more, but economics follows the law of supply and demand. Theres no demand for high quality teachers and there is a large supply of lower qualified (academically) people. There are a lot of other reason too but thats a different topic.

3. Clean up the environment: You have to consider the cost/reward ratio with this. No one wants the environment polluted to the point that people's health and lives are affected, but the debate is about what level causes problems. We can make power plants emit a lot less pollution but is it worth the cost? Suppose the current amount of pollution is 5 parts per million and a level of 8 parts per million affect people's health. Is it worth $1 trillion per year to reduce the pollution down to 4 parts per million when the difference won't affect the average person's health?

4. Lower taxes on the masses: Who are the masses?

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%).
The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%).
The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%).
The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%).
The bottom 50% pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.

Who earns what?
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%).
The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%);
The top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%),
The top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

5. Roll-back the tax increases on the top 2%: see # 4 plus, have you ever gotten a job from a poor person.

6. Decrease the deficit: I don't believe that the yearly deficit or total debt affect the economy that much. A roaring economy causes more taxes to be collected and that would reduce the deficit as long as spending isn't increased. In the past, every time the tax redate was reduced the total amount of tax money collected increased. It happened when Kennedy reduced taxes, when Regan did it, and when Bush did it.

Some of my points could be lacking the research to back them up and I defintely come from a financially conservative point of view and I don't have an economics degree, but today is pay day and I just saw how much tax was taken out of my check. Actually I didn't see it all because my employer has to pay 6.2% in social security taxes on my behalf.

Originally Posted by LazyByNature

3. Clean up the environment: You have to consider the cost/reward ratio with this. No one wants the environment polluted to the point that people's health and lives are affected, but the debate is about what level causes problems. We can make power plants emit a lot less pollution but is it worth the cost? Suppose the current amount of pollution is 5 parts per million and a level of 8 parts per million affect people's health. Is it worth $1 trillion per year to reduce the pollution down to 4 parts per million when the difference won't affect the average person's health?

If a company is forced to upgrade it's facilities to accomodate stricter environmental regulations, would they not be pumping more money back into the US economy?

LOL@Saddam joke.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If a company is forced to upgrade it's facilities to accomodate stricter environmental regulations, would they not be pumping more money back into the US economy?

I work in alternate energy and right now we are having problems getting things in stock because our U.S. manufacturers are supplying the European markets first because the demand is greater. Right now Germany and Japan are light years ahead of us in becoming less oil dependent. That's one thing they really pisses me off is the way Bush backhanded the Kyoto Protocol and has continuously put our energy bill on the backburner.

Originally Posted by wkirby

Nice to read a Republican's point of view that involves an actual discussion of the issues! Seems like jokes and banter is everyone's argument against Kerry. I'd find it refreshing to hear your factual point of view. Care to offer it?

-Will

Word, to both sides. I want a Jack Webb like "Just the facts ma'am" debate.

Nah fuck it, let's have them box to see who's next. 20 on Kerry in the first round. Or how about a came of dodgeball best of three.

I don't believe anything that comes out of a vegetarians mouth, so save it Vegan.

I dunno who said it but on a show on VH1 called "Best Week Ever", someone said Kerry looked like Robo Cop. Because he has that smooth forehead with no wrinkles. Who thinks Kerry looks like Robo Cop?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I don't believe anything that comes out of a vegetarians mouth, so save it Vegan.

Exploring and expermenting with alternative energy sources sounds like a great idea to me.

My dad used to be a Nuclear Engineer (yes, yes, just like Homer Simpson) and because of Clinton, the powerplant basically shut down, and of course, we had to change jobs and move. He is still extremely upset about the fact that our country was making such solid steps toward using nuclear energy (which he firmly believes is much more cost effective, and much safer than people know, but the media blows things way out of proportion.)

Im sure there are many issues with Nuclear Power, but just think of how far we could have come researching with 100 percent effort the past 10 years.

I prefer fusion over fission. And hey, we have a huge Nuclear Fusion Reactor 95 million miles away that magically transmits it's energy to us without the need for wires.

Funny Stuff!

Originally Posted by maniclion

I prefer fusion over fission. And hey, we have a huge Nuclear Fusion Reactor 95 million miles away that magically transmits it's energy to us without the need for wires.

Uh.. thats really creepy.
Do you still have hair? How many fingures am I holding up?
How does that work tho? Just minute traces, or? Even small amounts of electricty going wireless is out of my realm of understanding

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If a company is forced to upgrade it's facilities to accomodate stricter environmental regulations, would they not be pumping more money back into the US economy?

Sure, it would pump more money back into the US economy, but it would also greatly increase everyones' energy bills. So people would see the increase every single month. Another issue to consider is that since the companies would have to spend a lot of money to upgrade the equipment to meet the stricter regulations there would not be any capital left for additional employees, employee raises, expansion, ...

I'm in the military, and I get paid as much/more than my mom (an educator), which is pretty sad (she has two bachelor's and a Master's). We really don't make too much in the military. I think I've earned every penny from the taxpayers, though.

Baby Bush is a draft-dodging, dry-drunk alcoholic, former cocaine snorter, who is a born again psuedo-religious fanatic.

You fill in the blanks.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If a company is forced to upgrade it's facilities to accomodate stricter environmental regulations, would they not be pumping more money back into the US economy?

It's cheaper for large chemical plants to pay the EPA fine than to shut down and upgrade their facilities.