Presidential Race - The Issues

[etech]

I thought it was time to get back to the real issues of the presidential race. The synopis of the positions is from a Reuters news articleReuters Article

Abortion:
Gore supports a woman's right to have an abortion in all circumstances and opposes Republican efforts to outlaw a procedure of late-term abortions that opponents have called ''partial birth abortion.''
Bush opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman. He would sign legislation outlawing ``partial birth'' abortion and cut federal funds for family planning services as well as banning overseas aid for organizations that provide abortion services. He has said he would not try to ban the recently approved RU-486 abortion drug.

The outlawing of partial-birth abortions is something I can support. Knowing they have to suck the baby's brain out of its skull to abort it is reprehensible to me.
A very difficult subject to deal with.

Affirmative action/civil rights
Gore supports such preference programs intended to help women and minorities gain opportunities in education and employment. Backs federal ``hate crimes'' legislation to punish crimes motivated by racial, religious, ethnic or sexual intolerance. Backs the death penalty.
Bush opposes quotas and racial preferences. Opposes federal hate crimes legislation. Supports the death penalty.

Quotas and reverse discrimination are definately not the solution. Hate crimes legislation seems like more feel good laws to me, they do nothing to solve the problem but are a way for a politician to say "see what I did". Laws are already on the books to deal with the criminals, enforce them.
Point to Gov. Bush has the better plan.

Campaign finance reform:
Gore has backed legislation to ban unregulated ``soft money'' contributions from corporations and individuals and would provide candidates with public funding.
Bush wants to raise campaign contribution limits and improve disclosure regulations but opposes legislation to ban soft money unless union contributions are also banned.

The big problem with the McCain/Feingold legislation is that it does not ban soft money from unions. Since the Democrats have the unions in their back pockets I can understand the Republicans not supporting it in its current form.
Point to Gov. Bush for not pushing an unfair unworkable piece of legislation that would not solve the problems.

Defense:
Gore would move ahead cautiously to examine limited missile defense program, streamline Pentagon and work for steady increase in military spending. Would end ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy on homosexuals in military and allow homosexuals to serve openly.
Bush would increase funding on high-tech weapons systems, increase defense spending, give military personnel better pay and conditions. On missile defense, he would pursue ambitious programs to protect the United States and allies from rogue nations, even if that meant withdrawing from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Would retain ``Don't ask, don't tell.''

The military needs better pay and conditions to retain the experienced personel.. Perhaps some time it will be possible for homosexuals to serve openly in the military, I'm not sure that time has come yet. Also Bush would skip a generation of weapons to put more money into current military readiness
Point to Gov. Bush for a less costly plan that still completely satisfies the nations needs for a strong military.

Education:
Gore would expand the federal role in school construction and invest in infrastructure and new teachers. Would offer tax credits for those pursuing ``lifelong learning'' and increase spending on early childhood education, to reach universal pre-kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. Would introduce testing of teachers.
Bush would provide $1,500 vouchers for students in failing schools that did not improve over three years. Would expand charter schools and end ``social promotion'' for students who do not reach required standards. Would encourage testing by states and boost spending on reading programs.

Less Federal involement, more choice for parents to pick the school that is right for their childern.
Point to Gov. Bush

Environment:
Gore supports the Kyoto global warming treaty, would encourage new energy technologies and provide tax breaks to companies and individuals switching to environmentally friendly homes, cars and businesses. Would preserve Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Preserve.
Bush opposes the Kyoto treaty, would give tax breaks for ethanol use and supports state efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power stations. Supports opening Alaska reserve toil and gas exploration.

The Kyoto treaty would be a disater for the United States. Both will work to reduce pollution but I remember in Gores book where he said that he wants gas prices in the US to be on parity with those of Europe(paraphrased). That would lead to a recession and the same type of riots and protests that were seen in Europe this summer, no thanks.
Kyoto Treaty

Gun control:
Gore supports strong gun-control measures, including background checks of people buying weapons at gun shows, national licensing of firearms and mandatory child safety locks.
Bush support enforcement of existing gun laws, immediate background checks at gun shows but opposes any federally mandated national registration program. Backs voluntary child safety lock programs.

I don't think that Gore can prove that his costly program will reduce the incidence of violence. I strongly do not want National licensing of firearms. The laws are on the books, enforce them.
Point to Gov. Bush

Social Security:
Gore proposes using the budget surplus to reduce the national debt. That would cut interest payments in the budget and Gore would use the savings to extend the life of Social Security. Would offer workers supplemental tax-free retirement account.
Bush proposes allowing younger Americans to set aside part of their payroll taxes for personal savings accounts that they would then invest in financial markets.

Under Gores spending plans there will be no surplus. Social Security will go broke with out a large increase in taxes. As someone has previously pointed out Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme ever. It needs to be fixed now, otherwise the day of reckoning is just being put off.
"In its original analysis released on August 18, NTUF estimated that Presidential hopeful Al Gore's policy agenda would, if enacted in its entirety, increase federal spending by a grand total of $2.334 trillion over ten years. This amount would swallow all of the projected ten-year, non-Social Security federal budget surplus of $2.173 trillion." ntu.org


Taxes:
Gore backs targeted tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, including a $80 billion cut over 10 years for married couples, an increase in the earned income tax credit by up to $500 a year for families with three or more children and provide tax breaks for help finance college education.
Bush proposes a $483 billion tax cut package over five years, would simplify the income tax system eliminating one bracket, would cut rates for all Americans, increase child credits, phase out the estate tax.

Why do I get nervous when a Washington politician announces "targeted" tax cuts? A fair across the board cut that gives tax relief to everyone makes more sense.
Points to Gov. Bush

 

[brandc]

Issues? We don need no steenkin issues! We'd rather argue whether Gore is a Socialist or if Dubya is smart enuff.

http://frontpagemag.com/elder/2000/le11-03-00.htm

 

[jaydee]

Harry Browne stand on the issues. Everything here can be found at harrybrowne.org, unless otherwise noted.

Abortion:,


<< Abortion is one of the most contentious issues of our time. Both sides have understandable positions -- whether a revulsion at government's continuing intrusion into personal decisions or a concern for the children yet to be born.

Until science can demonstrate otherwise, I must assume that life begins at conception. Thus I believe abortion is wrong -- very wrong.

But I also believe that the federal government should never overstep the bounds of its constitutional authority. The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to legislate against common crimes -- murder, theft, and so on. In fact, only three crimes are mentioned in the Constitution: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. And so I must oppose the idea of having a federal law against abortion.

Needless to say, I also oppose federal funding of abortions. Not only is it wrong, as Thomas Jefferson said, to compel someone to pay for a cause he finds immoral, it is also an unconstitutional use of your tax money.

As President I would have vetoed both the &quot;Woman's Right to Choose&quot; bill and the partial-birth abortion bill -- no matter what my personal feelings about either of them. It would be my responsibility to do so because the President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Unlike all recent occupants of the White House, I would take that oath seriously. And the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in abortion in any way. >>



Campaign finance reform:,
From www.realcampaignreform.org/


<< America?s elections are rigged. Our ruling parties have passed so many laws to protect themselves from competition that America now looks more like a banana republic than the nation of free and open elections it once was.

The deck is so stacked against third parties and other non-incumbents that if politics really was a game, as the media seems to think it is, the Las Vegas Gaming Commission would be called in to investigate.

Or perhaps foreign nations should send observers to monitor our elections for fairness, as our own hypocritical rulers do to so many other countries. These foreign observers would find that American elections are among the least fair and open of any in the world.

The purpose of RealCampaignReform.org is to restore the American election process to the voters and taxpayers, to open up the system to new voices, and to remove the advantages our ruling parties have granted themselves.

In short, RealCampaignReform.org wants to make free speech legal again. We want to put you back in charge of your own government. We want to restore your birthright as an American citizen.

Our initial method for doing this is a major lawsuit to establish the constitutional illegality of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Commission for Presidential Debates (CPD), and the federal campaign funding system.

The Supreme Court decision that permitted all of these abuses, Buckley v. Valeo, was based solely on congressional claims that these laws were necessary to prevent political corruption, or the appearance of corruption. But the historical reality is that these laws have actually increased political corruption. The Buckley decision has never been tested against this historical record. We intend to do that.

We believe our prospects for success are good. None of the current Supreme Court Justices has wholeheartedly embraced the Buckley decision.

To the contrary, in January of this year, Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy called for the overruling of Buckley, even though no party in the case had asked the court for such a ruling.


Justice Souter, in an opinion in the same case joined notably by Justices O?Connor and Rehnquist, refrained from reconsidering Buckley, with the singular observation that no party had asked the court to reconsider it. Remarkably, Justice Souter made no effort to defend Buckley from the vigorous attacks wages against it by Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy.


Kennedy?s attack on Buckley prompted Justice Stevens, in a concurring opinion, to note that he had not been on the court at the time that Buckley was decided, and to speculate on a line of logic that could lead to the overturning of Buckley.


Justice Kennedy?s attack also spurred Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, to write a concurring opinion, in which he stated that if Buckley stands in the way of a &quot;comprehensive solution...to the problems posed by campaign finance,&quot; he &quot;like Justice Kennedy,...believe the Constitution would require us to reconsider Buckley.&quot;
Our case would ask for Buckley to be reconsidered and overturned. It is very rare that a constitutional case challenging the status quo starts out with such a receptive Supreme Court.

Our coalition includes Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne, the Harry Browne for President Committee, Citizens United, Gun Owners of America, Constitution Party presidential nominee Howard Phillips, the Phillips 2000 Committee, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian National Committee.

Our lead attorneys are Herbert W. Titus (former Dean of Regent Law School) and William J. Olson, who has practiced election law since 1977 and has worked for many candidates for president, Senate, and Congress.
>>



Defense


<< Our government has spent trillions of dollars on the military since World War II, and yet we are still completely vulnerable to the whims of any two-bit dictator who can get his hands on a nuclear missile. By involving ourselves in a multitude of treaties around the world, we are liable to be drawn into World War III by a petty dispute between third-rate powers. And by meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations we make enemies of people who would otherwise be friends. We thus inspire terrorism and subject the American people to threats that should not exist.

Politicians say we must defend our &quot;national interests&quot; abroad. But, then, they define almost anything that happens anywhere as a threat to those interests.

And our Presidents seem to roam the world in search of trouble -- to prove their toughness, to raise poll numbers, to divert attention from scandal, or to create a &quot;legacy.&quot;

As President, I will bring American troops home. I will remove us from the entangling alliances that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned us about. I will see to it that America has a proper defense against any missile attack. We will be far safer than we are now, while spending far less money on the military. >>



Education


<< There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education in any way whatsoever. The growing amounts of money and control coming from Washington have been matched by lower SAT scores, declining standards, more dangerous schools, and generations of Americans who have no basic education in history, geography, the Constitution, mathematics, science, or literature.

Democratic and Republican politicians want to use federal aid to education as a way to implement their social agendas.

I believe there is no federal educational program that will ever work. I want to get the federal government out of education completely and immediately. The most effective way we can improve education is to repeal the income tax, so that you can afford to educate your child as you deem best -- in a private school that offers the curriculum you want, in a religious school that teaches your values, or through home-schooling conducted your way. >>



Environment:


<< Most environmental pollution to date has occurred because governments have allowed industries to pollute government property -- rivers, streams, lakes, roads, and lands. Most clear-cutting and strip-mining occur on government property because the offenders have no stake in the future value of the land. Pollution seldom occurs on private property, because property owners are concerned about the future value of their property. Obviously, pollution would diminish if more property were taken out of the hands of government and turned over to private owners for protection.


Saving the Environment

America's environmental problems are obvious. Toxic wastes are being dumped into waterways, forests are being clear-cut, and vast tracts of land are being strip-mined.

But what isn't so obvious is who is committing these outrages, who is allowing them, and why. Why would landowners allow such pollution when they know it will reduce the value of their property? To understand why this is happening we first have to understand who does the polluting, where they do it, and why.

Who, where, why?

There are three principal potential sources of pollution:

Private companies who pollute their own property.
Government agencies that allow private tenants to pollute government property.
Government agencies that pollute government property.
What is overlooked is that most pollution actually occurs on government-owned property, rather than privately owned land. It is easy to understand why this might be so. Private owners have an interest in preserving their property, so it can be sold for a good price at a later date. But the government has no such incentive, and is therefore less likely to give its properties the care they need. >>



Gun control:


<< There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws haven't made America safe by now, why should we think 20,001 laws will suffice?

We shouldn't. Instead, we need to recognize that those 20,000 laws are a principal cause of the current violence in society. They have made our children and all innocent adults much less safe -- by disarming innocent citizens and encouraging armed criminals to take advantage of us.

So it's time to face reality and repeal these laws -- all of them.

By definition, law-breakers don't obey laws. Hardened criminals do whatever is necessary to evade identification and arrest. So they don't buy guns that can be traced; they buy them in the underworld or simply steal them.

Thus the gun-control laws don't apply to criminals or stop gun violence. They simply make it much harder for innocent people to defend themselves -- encouraging criminals to take advantage of us.

In other words, gun-control laws make the world safer for criminals and less safe for you. >>



Social Security:


<< Social Security is a fraudulent insurance scheme in which the government collects money from you for your retirement and immediately spends the money on something else. All polls show that an overwhelming majority of young Americans have little hope of getting back a single dollar for the 15% of their wages they're pouring into it.

Social Security is also a bad deal. It provides only a meager monthly income and no estate for you to leave to your children. But the same money, invested in a simple bank savings account, would provide a monthly income several times greater than Social Security, and would build an estate worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for most people.

The Democrats and Republicans want to keep Social Security afloat through tax increases and benefit reductions -- including raising the retirement age, invoking a means test, and changing the cost of living index on which yearly changes are calculated.

But the only way to avoid the coming Social Security collapse is to get the government completely out of Social Security. I want to sell trillions of dollars worth of unneeded, unconstitutional federal assets to finance the purchase of private retirement accounts for those who are dependent on Social Security. This would give older Americans guaranteed contracts with private companies that have never broken their promises -- unlike the U.S. Congress. And younger Americans would be free of the 15% Social Security tax forever. They would be able to save on their own, earn a much higher rate of return, have a prosperous retirement, and build a substantial fortune. >>



Taxes:


<< If we eliminate all the current powers and programs of the federal government that aren't &quot;delegated to the United States by the Constitution,&quot; then the remaining constitutional functions, such as national defense and the federal courts, can be performed for about $100 billion dollars a year. This means the federal government will be so small, there will be no need for a federal income tax . The excise taxes and tariffs that are already being collected (bringing in over $100 billion a year) are more than sufficient to cover these costs.

A constitutionally limited government would have no need for a personal income tax, estate tax, gift tax, capital gains tax, or corporate income tax. And there would be no need to replace these taxes with a flat tax or a sales tax. We could repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.The income tax is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the American people. It forces every worker to be a bookkeeper, to open his records to the government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for a harmless accounting error. Compliance wastes time and money. The income tax creates an enormous drag on the U.S. economy.
But in order to get rid of the income tax we must also get rid of hundreds of unconstitutional federal programs. However, history has proven that we can't remove them one at a time, because each program has beneficiaries and supporters who will fight for it -- while the average American is too busy paying his taxes and running his own life to lobby for the elimination of any government program.

We can rally the American people to our cause only by combining all the spending cuts into a single package that includes the total repeal of the federal income tax. That way most people can see that they'll save far more in taxes than they lose in subsidies.

By combining the reduction of government with the repeal of the income tax, every voter will know that the price for keeping today's federal programs is to continue paying the income tax. Every voter will know exactly how much he can gain by eliminating the complete package of unconstitutional programs. >>


Points to Harry on all accounts.

 

[Ornery]

Yea for etech! I love when the issues get brought back to the fore. I hope the fence sitters take a gander at this. I'll keep bringing it back to the top whenever I get a chance.

I finished quite a bit of remodeling around here, and I'm kicking back now waiting for some overdue guests to arrive. The first thing I got put back together is my PC and connection. I'm sitting in a pile of dust and rubble as I type this

 

[DirkBelig]

Don't forget that Gore and his bloodthirsty NARAL supporters opposed the &quot;Born Alive Act&quot; which would've provided protection to babies that SURVIVE ABORTION. Right now, if a doctor attempts a partial-birth abortion and the baby happens to pop out, they have no obligation to provide any care. So, a baby that is fully delivered and viable, able to survive if treated, can be left to die.

Explain that &quot;choice&quot;.

My take on government and abortion is very close to the Libertarians, however, to vote for Browne takes away needed votes from Bush to stop Gore. If it was a Bush landslide, I'd be voting Libertarian, but every vote matters to save the country from the ravages that the Democrats will deliver upon us.

Gotta vote for Bush. GORE IS SUCK.

 

[jaydee]

How does a vote for Bush accomplish anything? What is he going to stand for that differs so greatly with Gore, that you will compromise your vote for it? True, Gore is suck, Bush is suck right behind him. Browne is NOT suck. Republicans used to be unsuck, but all the compromises, leave them just short of Democrats. People like Dirk (unintentionally pointing you out, because there are many examples) annoy me the most, beacause they know who they want to vote for, but feel they can't 'cause of the 'lesser of 2 evil' clause that they think applies to them. YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE DEMS, OR REPUBS. There are alternatives.

 

[etech]

jaydee, you are right there are alternatives. Realisticly, either Gore or Bush will be our next President though. From the polls I have seen it will be one of the closest races there has been.
I strongly believe that there are some major differences between Gore and Bush. I feel strongly enough about those differences to vote for Gov. Bush vs. anyone else.

I also do not agree with the popular sentiment of the &quot;lesser of two evils.&quot; I think that is more a legacy of the disenchantment of people with politics in general due to the scandals, corruption and lack of morals of the present administration. I have no reason or have seen no indications that Gov. Bush would not be an admirable president that will be able to restore honor and dignity back to the office.

edit- I wanted to thank Brandc for the link to Elder's site. Some very informative and interesting reading there.

 

[ToBeMe]

OK.........my .02............Harry Browne has a few good ideas, but, some of them are borderline scary! The ideas are there.............but especially the economic ones are at best &quot;rough drafts&quot;. If anyone cares to explain to me how they will work....and make sense out of it.............fine, I'm open minded.....but I'm telling ya' some of it just will not work!

 

[jaydee]

On the contrary, etech, I was speaking of those who won't vote who they want, because they are scared by the possibility of having the party you oppose greater has a better shot if you vote for a 3rd party, be it Gore instead of Nader, or Bush instead of Browne, ect. Also most people who check the polls, fail to check the state polls for the electoral college, which is vastly more important than the national. Half the states are led by unsurmountable percentages by either of the candidate, by which your reasoning, the vote won't matter, because it won't affect the outcome.

 

[jaydee]

What's so scary? What won't work? Economy a rough draft? Could you be a bit more specific?

 

[Harvey]

I am not thrilled by either major candiate, but...

Abortion:

Gore supports a woman's right to have an abortion in all circumstances and opposes Republican efforts to outlaw a procedure of late-term abortions that opponents have called ''partial birth abortion.''

So do I.

I have four very bright over-achieving sisters an equal number of nieces and more nieces-in-law beyond that. I would not deny any of them, or any other woman, the right to make that very personal choice for herself.

* * *

A good reason to vote for Gore

Affirmative action/civil rights

Gore supports such preference programs intended to help women and minorities gain opportunities in education and employment. Backs federal ``hate crimes'' legislation to punish crimes motivated by racial, religious, ethnic or sexual intolerance. Backs the death penalty.

Bush opposes quotas and racial preferences. Opposes federal hate crimes legislation. Supports the death penalty.

* * *

I'm opposed to the death penalty, especially in light of recent revelations about people on death row proven innocent by DNA tests. A toss-up on this one.

Campaign finance reform:

Gore has backed legislation to ban unregulated ``soft money'' contributions from corporations and individuals and would provide candidates with public funding.

Bush wants to raise campaign contribution limits and improve disclosure regulations but opposes legislation to ban soft money unless union contributions are also banned.

The big problem with the McCain/Feingold legislation is that it does not ban soft money from unions. Since the Democrats have the unions in their back pockets I can understand the Republicans not supporting it in its current form.

* * *

The problem isn't the source of big money. It's simply BIG MONEY! The way things are, now, somebody's big money is speaking much louder than me or anyone else who doesn't have that kind of clout. All that money is concerned about one thing -- keeping it for themselves and grabbing more of it, which doesn't leave much room for most of us to get heard, at all.

Defense:

Gore would move ahead cautiously to examine limited missile defense program, streamline Pentagon and work for steady increase in military spending. Would end ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy on homosexuals in military and allow homosexuals to serve openly.

Bush would increase funding on high-tech weapons systems, increase defense spending, give military personnel better pay and conditions. On missile defense, he would pursue ambitious programs to protect the United States and allies from rogue nations, even if that meant withdrawing from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Would retain ``Don't ask, don't tell.''

The military needs better pay and conditions to retain the experienced personel.. Perhaps some time it will be possible for homosexuals to serve openly in the military, I'm not sure that time has come yet. Also Bush would skip a generation of weapons to put more money into current military readiness Point to Gov. Bush for a less costly plan that still completely satisfies the nations needs for a strong military.

* * *

I don't care what you think about whether it's time to treat all people, including gays, equally. It IS time.

Education:

Gore would expand the federal role in school construction and invest in infrastructure and new teachers. Would offer tax credits for those pursuing ``lifelong learning'' and increase spending on early childhood education, to reach universal pre-kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. Would introduce testing of teachers.

Bush would provide $1,500 vouchers for students in failing schools that did not improve over three years. Would expand charter schools and end ``social promotion'' for students who do not reach required standards. Would encourage testing by states and boost spending on reading programs.

Less Federal involement, more choice for parents to pick the school that is right for their childern.

* * *

Public education has historically been a cornerstone of our society. Any money spent on a voucher system is money not available to public schools. It is obvious that we must invest substantially in our schools, but I refuse to divert one dime away from public education to underwrite any schoold with a private agenda, including and especially religious based schools.

Environment:

Gore supports the Kyoto global warming treaty, would encourage new energy technologies and provide tax breaks to companies and individuals switching to environmentally friendly homes, cars and businesses. Would preserve Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Preserve.
Bush opposes the Kyoto treaty, would give tax breaks for ethanol use and supports state efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power stations. Supports opening Alaska reserve toil and gas exploration.

The Kyoto treaty would be a disater for the United States. Both will work to reduce pollution but I remember in Gores book where he said that he wants gas prices in the US to be on parity with those of Europe(paraphrased). That would lead to a recession and the same type of riots and protests that were seen in Europe this summer, no thanks.
Kyoto Treaty

* * *

If we don't get serious about cleaning up our mess, we won't have a viable planet. We, the population of planet Earth, made the mess in a time of ignorance. That is no excuse for not taking action against the forseeable disasterous consequenses of ignoring the facts as we know them, now. Bush's attitude of keeping his head between his glutial cheeks to avoid seeing this reality does not speak well of his leadership potential.

Gun control:

Gore supports strong gun-control measures, including background checks of people buying weapons at gun shows, national licensing of firearms and mandatory child safety locks.

* * *

So do I. Voluntary??? You are joking, right? That will work about as well as Bush's &quot;voluntary&quot; environmental actions in Texas, one of the dirtiest states in the Union. Another point for Gore.

Social Security:

Gore proposes using the budget surplus to reduce the national debt. That would cut interest payments in the budget and Gore would use the savings to extend the life of Social Security. Would offer workers supplemental tax-free retirement account.

Bush proposes allowing younger Americans to set aside part of their payroll taxes for personal savings accounts that they would then invest in financial markets.

Under Gores spending plans there will be no surplus. Social Security will go broke with out a large increase in taxes. As someone has previously pointed out Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme ever. It needs to be fixed now, otherwise the day of reckoning is just being put off.

&quot;In its original analysis released on August 18, NTUF estimated that Presidential hopeful Al Gore's policy agenda would, if enacted in its entirety, increase federal spending by a grand total of $2.334 trillion over ten years. This amount would swallow all of the projected ten-year, non-Social Security federal budget surplus of $2.173 trillion.&quot; ntu.org

* * *

Competent actuarial analysis shows that both &quot;plans&quot; are flawed. Bush's plan is by far the most off the mark.

Taxes:

Gore backs targeted tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, including a $80 billion cut over 10 years for married couples, an increase in the earned income tax credit by up to $500 a year for families with three or more children and provide tax breaks for help finance college education.

Bush proposes a $483 billion tax cut package over five years, would simplify the income tax system eliminating one bracket, would cut rates for all Americans, increase child credits, phase out the estate tax.

Why do I get nervous when a Washington politician announces &quot;targeted&quot; tax cuts? A fair across the board cut that gives tax relief to everyone makes more sense.

* * *

NO! Not as long as there is abject poverty among employed minimum wage workers and serious inablity to provide niceties like a college education for the kids of middle class working people. No points to Bush on this.

Neither candidate is really anything to write home about. If I could vote my conscience and have it mean something, I would vote for Nader, a man with a history of fighting for consumers and the best interest of the public, at large. If we had had a President with those credentials for the last fifty years, maybe the tobacco industry wouldn't still be lying to us while continuing to try to hook more kids. Maybe Firestone would have been called to account much earlier in their product failure cycle. Maybe lots of well financed interests whose products and actions are not in the best interest of all of us would not have gotten their way. Maybe, or maybe not.

Assuming Bush tries to do even half of what he says he would do, it scares me sh8less. He is of, from, and part of that same mentality, and his interest and announced directions are definitely not mine. If Gore doesn't do what he promises, I can blast him for that, but I can at least be sure he won't blatantly go the same way Bush says he would.

I'm not happy about it, but lame as it is, the answer, this time, is Gore.

 

[Shuxclams]

I am voting Browne and MrsSHUXCLAMS is voting Nader. phuck the two party system. :|


SHUX

 

[ToBeMe]

Sure.........like I said.........I'm easy!

<< And by meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations we make enemies of people who would otherwise be friends. >>

Take Iraq for instance..........if we would not have intervined, it is well known that Kuwait was just a starting point. Saddam had the third strongest Army in the world (by shear numbers at that time) and would have gone straight through the Middleast and taken complete control of the worlds largest Oil Fields and we would be paying a whole lot more than we are now for our gas! No one else would have had the guts, or strength to stand up to them! being a &quot;Superpower&quot; does come with some responsibilities (U.N.) in regards to helping countries that can not help themselves when overwhelmed!

<< So it's time to face reality and repeal these laws -- all of them. >>

For now, I'll just give a couple of examples as to why this would be very bad.....waiting period for buying a handgun........what about the enraged/unstable/drunk husband or wife that finds their spouse sleeping with another......the waiting period makes it much more difficult to just go buy a pistol out of rage and go on a shooting spree! OK, then we have guns such as Uzi's.....I'm an avid hunter &amp; sportsman....but what Godly use does any common citizen have with an Uzi?????

<< I want to get the federal government out of education completely and immediately. >>

Where exactly will the money come from to pay for the education of the persons who find themselves jobless due to reccession or lack of work? Plus the Federal Gov. sudsidises the school meals.....if we're going to be paying several thousand dollars to send our kids to school with this program without Fed. funds, the lunch prices would easily rise ten fold!

<< We could repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing. >>

This one is probably the worst...........First, what is going to happen to all these people who are suddenly jobless? Unemployment rates will skyrocket, but wait....there's no more Unemployment Ins.! Second, who's going to pay to defend our country? Defense isn't free and $100B won't cover it and all else....it just doesn't add up! Besides the Gov. sector think about all the Accountants/CPA's you'll be putting out of business? Believe it or not, about 75% of them work primarily with personal/corporate taxes! Where are these people going to work? Sorry, it just don't add up! Our economy is based upon this system in place, it *could* be changed slowly over time but not radically/immeadiately as Mr. Browne proposes!

 

[jaydee]

Ok, ToBeMe, here we go.


<< Take Iraq for instance..........if we would not have intervined, it is well known that Kuwait was just a starting point. Saddam had the third strongest Army in the world (by shear numbers at that time) and would have gone straight through the Middleast and taken complete control of the worlds largest Oil Fields and we would be paying a whole lot more than we are now for our gas! No one else would have had the guts, or strength to stand up to them! being a &quot;Superpower&quot; does come with some responsibilities (U.N.) in regards to helping countries that can not help themselves when overwhelmed! >>


I don't know for sure, but I doubt it was the 3rd largest, otherwise, we wouldn't have destroyed them in 6 days. I could be wrong. Anyways, If we just exploited the oil in our own backyard, we would have little worry over what happens over in the middle east. It would have nothing to do with Americans. If your nieghbor spanked their kids, and you were against it, are going over their because your bigger and stronger then the parents in that household, and teach them a lesson? I think not.



<< For now, I'll just give a couple of examples as to why this would be very bad.....waiting period for buying a handgun........what about the enraged/unstable/drunk husband or wife that finds their spouse sleeping with another......the waiting period makes it much more difficult to just go buy a pistol out of rage and go on a shooting spree! OK, then we have guns such as Uzi's.....I'm an avid hunter &amp; sportsman....but what Godly use does any common citizen have with an Uzi????? >>


Here's Harry's reasons against all 'good gun laws'.
<<Let's take a brief look at how the various kinds of gun-control laws make you more vulnerable.

Waiting periods: A waiting period means that a woman being stalked will have to remain defenseless for a few extra days. Will her stalker refrain from assaulting her until the waiting period is over?

Safety locks: Although safety locks might prevent a child from accidentally firing a gun, they also can slow you down when you need a gun in a hurry to defend yourself. Imagine a woman attacked by a rapist in a parking lot. Will she be grateful for the time it takes to unlock her gun? And, of course, if her adversary is carrying a gun, it won't have a safety lock.

Registration of handguns: What would this achieve? Nothing positive. Evil-doers won't register their guns; only law-abiding citizens will. And once your gun is registered, you'll have to be afraid that some future President whose heart isn't pure will use that registration to confiscate your only means of defense against armed criminals.

Licensing of guns or gun-owners: Since criminals won't acquire them, gun licenses won't help find the perpetrator of a violent crime. They are simply a gratuitous invasion of your privacy and that of other innocent citizens.

Background checks for purchasers: No one wanted by law-enforcement agencies is going to buy a gun in a way that requires a background check. He'll get his gun from another criminal or steal it. So the only achievement of a background check is your inconvenience.

But don't background checks catch people with criminal records?

If someone is wanted by the police, he certainly isn't going to undergo a background check. On the other hand, if the gun-buyer is an ex-convict who has paid his debt to society, he should have the right to defend himself from predators -- just as you or I do. Or should his criminal record also prohibit him from buying food or clothing?

Require guns to be locked up: If the law requires guns to be kept out of reach of children, how will the law be enforced? Will the police invade your house periodically to verify that your guns are in safe places? If not, what's the point of the law? If yes, this is another gratuitous invasion of your privacy.

Ban some types of guns: At first glance it might seem reasonable to ban such things as assault weapons or mortars. After all, you don't need such a weapon.

But some people do.

During most riots, the police have been outnumbered and have intentionally stayed clear of gangs that were looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a poor and dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

If you prevent innocent citizens from acquiring assault weapons, criminal gangs will still have them -- even if they have to smuggle them into America from thousands of miles away. So why pass laws that disarm only the innocent?

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other people from owning inappropriate firearms. But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence -- and that will never be you or I. >>



<< Where exactly will the money come from to pay for the education of the persons who find themselves jobless due to reccession or lack of work? Plus the Federal Gov. sudsidises the school meals.....if we're going to be paying several thousand dollars to send our kids to school with this program without Fed. funds, the lunch prices would easily rise ten fold! >>


The federal gov't pays no more than 6% of total school funds. The money would come from the people who send their kids to the schools. In other words, people pay for it directly, instead of paying the gov't, to pay for the schools. Besides, kids could always pack their lunch.



<< This one is probably the worst...........First, what is going to happen to all these people who are suddenly jobless? Unemployment rates will skyrocket, but wait....there's no more Unemployment Ins.! Second, who's going to pay to defend our country? Defense isn't free and $100B won't cover it and all else....it just doesn't add up! Besides the Gov. sector think about all the Accountants/CPA's you'll be putting out of business? Believe it or not, about 75% of them work primarily with personal/corporate taxes! Where are these people going to work? Sorry, it just don't add up! Our economy is based upon this system in place, it *could* be changed slowly over time but not radically/immeadiately as Mr. Browne proposes! >>


Can I break your legs, so my employees can treat you? What? No? You want to put my employees out of a job!?!? Same concept. Your basically saying, &quot;I don't want the IRS agents to lose their jobs, so I'll just keep throwing money at them&quot;. You do realize this don't you? People as highly trained as accountants, shouldn't have much problems finding work anyway. Defense for our country would be that cheap, because we wouldn't build up a strong offense. Simply missle defense. Harry on his site said:


<< The government should simply post a reward -- say, $25 billion -- to be given to the first company that can demonstrate a working, functioning, fool-proof missile defense. Not a prototype, not a plan, not a cost-plus contract -- but the actual system. If such an offer were made, we probably would have a missile defense within five years. >>


We would also build up a large surplus under his plan here, that should cover this and much more.


<< I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves. The first proceeds from these sales should buy private retirement accounts for everyone dependent on Social Security. The remaining proceeds should pay down the federal debt. No one can know in advance what the assets will bring in the open market; the estimates have ranged from $5 trillion to $50 trillion. But if they bring in just $12 trillion, we can solve the Social Security problem once and for all, cover the other unfunded liabilities of the federal government, and pay off the entire national debt.&quot; >>



Let me know if you have further questions.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< Take Iraq for instance..........if we would not have intervined, it is well known that Kuwait was just a starting point. Saddam had the third strongest Army in the world (by shear numbers at that time) and would have gone straight through the Middleast and taken complete control of the worlds largest Oil Fields and we would be paying a whole lot more than we are now for our gas! No one else would have had the guts, or strength to stand up to them! being a &quot;Superpower&quot; does come with some responsibilities (U.N.) in regards to helping countries that can not help themselves when overwhelmed! >>


I don't know for sure, but I doubt it was the 3rd largest, otherwise, we wouldn't have destroyed them in 6 days. I could be wrong. Anyways, If we just exploited the oil in our own backyard, we would have little worry over what happens over in the middle east. It would have nothing to do with Americans. If your nieghbor spanked their kids, and you were against it, are going over their because your bigger and stronger then the parents in that household, and teach them a lesson? I think not.

Actually, yes, they were according to U.N. stats. As for the oil.....now there's one I don't know about, you could be right. Still, as the one of the richest/most powerfull nations in the world, we can not stand by and watch other countries be desimated by others.....As for the last comparison......depends upon the situation! I'm 6'7&quot; and I have witnessed a punk beating on his &quot;girlfreind&quot; and picked the guy up and threw him so yeah, I might intervine.

<< For now, I'll just give a couple of examples as to why this would be very bad.....waiting period for buying a handgun........what about the enraged/unstable/drunk husband or wife that finds their spouse sleeping with another......the waiting period makes it much more difficult to just go buy a pistol out of rage and go on a shooting spree! OK, then we have guns such as Uzi's.....I'm an avid hunter &amp; sportsman....but what Godly use does any common citizen have with an Uzi????? >>


Here's Harry's reasons against all 'good gun laws'.
<<Let's take a brief look at how the various kinds of gun-control laws make you more vulnerable.

Waiting periods: A waiting period means that a woman being stalked will have to remain defenseless for a few extra days. Will her stalker refrain from assaulting her until the waiting period is over? In this instance it can also be said that the person in question could go to the police or a shelter, or family for help.....

Safety locks: Although safety locks might prevent a child from accidentally firing a gun, they also can slow you down when you need a gun in a hurry to defend yourself. Imagine a woman attacked by a rapist in a parking lot. Will she be grateful for the time it takes to unlock her gun? And, of course, if her adversary is carrying a gun, it won't have a safety lock.
No comment here.........
Registration of handguns: What would this achieve? Nothing positive. Evil-doers won't register their guns; only law-abiding citizens will. And once your gun is registered, you'll have to be afraid that some future President whose heart isn't pure will use that registration to confiscate your only means of defense against armed criminals.

Licensing of guns or gun-owners: Since criminals won't acquire them, gun licenses won't help find the perpetrator of a violent crime. They are simply a gratuitous invasion of your privacy and that of other innocent citizens.

Background checks for purchasers: No one wanted by law-enforcement agencies is going to buy a gun in a way that requires a background check. He'll get his gun from another criminal or steal it. So the only achievement of a background check is your inconvenience.

But don't background checks catch people with criminal records?

If someone is wanted by the police, he certainly isn't going to undergo a background check. On the other hand, if the gun-buyer is an ex-convict who has paid his debt to society, he should have the right to defend himself from predators -- just as you or I do. Or should his criminal record also prohibit him from buying food or clothing?

Require guns to be locked up: If the law requires guns to be kept out of reach of children, how will the law be enforced? Will the police invade your house periodically to verify that your guns are in safe places? If not, what's the point of the law? If yes, this is another gratuitous invasion of your privacy.

Ban some types of guns: At first glance it might seem reasonable to ban such things as assault weapons or mortars. After all, you don't need such a weapon.

But some people do.

During most riots, the police have been outnumbered and have intentionally stayed clear of gangs that were looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a poor and dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?
No, that's ludicrouis.......
If you prevent innocent citizens from acquiring assault weapons, criminal gangs will still have them -- even if they have to smuggle them into America from thousands of miles away. So why pass laws that disarm only the innocent?

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other people from owning inappropriate firearms. But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence -- and that will never be you or I. >>



<< Where exactly will the money come from to pay for the education of the persons who find themselves jobless due to reccession or lack of work? Plus the Federal Gov. sudsidises the school meals.....if we're going to be paying several thousand dollars to send our kids to school with this program without Fed. funds, the lunch prices would easily rise ten fold! >>


The federal gov't pays no more than 6% of total school funds. The money would come from the people who send their kids to the schools. In other words, people pay for it directly, instead of paying the gov't, to pay for the schools. Besides, kids could always pack their lunch.



<< This one is probably the worst...........First, what is going to happen to all these people who are suddenly jobless? Unemployment rates will skyrocket, but wait....there's no more Unemployment Ins.! Second, who's going to pay to defend our country? Defense isn't free and $100B won't cover it and all else....it just doesn't add up! Besides the Gov. sector think about all the Accountants/CPA's you'll be putting out of business? Believe it or not, about 75% of them work primarily with personal/corporate taxes! Where are these people going to work? Sorry, it just don't add up! Our economy is based upon this system in place, it *could* be changed slowly over time but not radically/immeadiately as Mr. Browne proposes! >>


Can I break your legs, so my employees can treat you? What? No? You want to put my employees out of a job!?!? Same concept. Your basically saying, &quot;I don't want the IRS agents to lose their jobs, so I'll just keep throwing money at them&quot;. You do realize this don't you? People as highly trained as accountants, shouldn't have much problems finding work anyway. Defense for our country would be that cheap, because we wouldn't build up a strong offense. Simply missle defense. Harry on his site said:
No, I'm sorry, this makes no sense, you aren't getting it......this would eliminate jobs for people without creating any new market for their skills! An act such as this would wreak havoc on the economy if implemented as Mr. Browne lays it out.

<< The government should simply post a reward -- say, $25 billion -- to be given to the first company that can demonstrate a working, functioning, fool-proof missile defense. Not a prototype, not a plan, not a cost-plus contract -- but the actual system. If such an offer were made, we probably would have a missile defense within five years. >>
The minute we do that there will be a coalition including Russia, China, and most other civilized countries knocking on our doors.......you're inviting war by doing this China has already stated this!

We would also build up a large surplus under his plan here, that should cover this and much more.


<< I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves. The first proceeds from these sales should buy private retirement accounts for everyone dependent on Social Security. The remaining proceeds should pay down the federal debt. No one can know in advance what the assets will bring in the open market; the estimates have ranged from $5 trillion to $50 trillion. But if they bring in just $12 trillion, we can solve the Social Security problem once and for all, cover the other unfunded liabilities of the federal government, and pay off the entire national debt.&quot; >> This looks good on paper but.......who's going to buy when they put a &quot;For Sale&quot; sign on the Grand Canyon? Like I said before.....a lot of this may sound good, but implementing would cause total Anarchy &amp; Deppression IMHO.....

 

[JellyBaby]

Good thread! Too tired to read everything but I'm about half way through.

Would anyone who is backing Darth Nader care to post his position list, similar to what these fine gents have done for bush/gore/browne?

 

[etech]

Taxes:
Gore backs targeted tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, including a $80 billion cut over 10 years for married couples, an increase in the earned income tax credit by up to $500 a year for families with three or more children and provide tax breaks for help finance college education.
Bush proposes a $483 billion tax cut package over five years, would simplify the income tax system eliminating one bracket, would cut rates for all Americans, increase child credits, phase out the estate tax.

Etech - Why do I get nervous when a Washington politician announces &quot;targeted&quot; tax cuts? A fair across the board cut that gives tax relief to everyone makes more sense.

Harvey - NO! Not as long as there is abject poverty among employed minimum wage workers and serious inablity to provide niceties like a college education for the kids of middle class working people. No points to Bush on this.


Harvey, I believe that Gov. Bush has the better plan.
Gov. Bush's tax plan
1. Increase access to the middle class for hard working families:
Cut the current 15 percent tax bracket to 10 percent for the first $6,000 of taxable income for singles, the first $10,000 for single parents, and the first $12,000 for married couples.
Double the child tax credit to $1,000.
2. Treat all middle class families more fairly:
Cut the maximum tax rate for the middle class to 25 percent (versus the current maximum rates of 28 and 31 percent).
Greatly reduce the marriage penalty by restoring the 10 percent deduction for two earner families, allowing them to deduct up to an additional $3,000.
4. Promote charitable giving and education:
Extend the deduction for charitable contributions to the 80 million taxpayers that do not itemize, and raise the cap on corporate giving. Increase the annual contribution limit on Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $5,000 per child.

The items in the plan look as if they cover all of your points very well. Had you even read the points of Gov. Bush's plan?

 

[jaydee]

<< Actually, yes, they were according to U.N. stats. As for the oil.....now there's one I don't know about, you could be right. Still, as the one of the richest/most powerfull nations in the world, we can not stand by and watch other countries be desimated by others.....As for the last comparison......depends upon the situation! I'm 6'7&quot; and I have witnessed a punk beating on his &quot;girlfreind&quot; and picked the guy up and threw him so yeah, I might intervine. >>


Let the Middle East deal with the Middle East for crying out loud. We have no business over there, the only reason we had the gulf war, was to protect our oil buddies, not because we are a gracious nation who only protect the innocent. If we had stayed out of World War I, a treaty would have been reached between the Allies and Central Powers in the Spring of 1917. No embarrising treaty of Versaille, no enraged Hitler coming to power, no Lenin movement in Russia, NO WORLD WAR II. Winston Churchill said it himself. That's what happens, when we get in the way of 2 idiots fighting; furthermore, we have not had a positive impact of the politics of ANY NATION we fought in to &quot;preserve democracy&quot;. Everywhere we've been, its worse off now, or no better, than when we started.
<<<U.S. intervention and meddling hasn't brought us a single unqualified success since World War II -- not in Somalia, Rwanda, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, or Cuba.

In every case, the original reason for our intervention still exists (as with Iraq and Libya) or an enemy that's equally bad has replaced the original adversary (as in Afghanistan). The U.S. armed the Afghan &quot;freedom fighters,&quot; Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega (among others) -- all of whom became enemies that eventually had to be attacked.

This has happened again and again for the simple reason that war is just one more big government program -- and, like any government program, we shouldn't be surprised when it achieves the exact opposite of its promised results.>>>


<< No, I'm sorry, this makes no sense, you aren't getting it......this would eliminate jobs for people without creating any new market for their skills! An act such as this would wreak havoc on the economy if implemented as Mr. Browne lays it out. >>


I guess this is a difference of opinions. I'm concerned about government intrusion where is doesn't belong, and your concerned about gov't officials tapping your phone lines, reading your email, and agents who frequently check your bank accounts, not being paid to do that, at the expense of taxpayers. I've made my choice on that issue, and you've made yours, so lets move on.


<< The minute we do that there will be a coalition including Russia, China, and most other civilized countries knocking on our doors.......you're inviting war by doing this China has already stated this! >>


I don't understand how building a missle defense, would cause a global war. Could you explain?


<< This looks good on paper but.......who's going to buy when they put a &quot;For Sale&quot; sign on the Grand Canyon? Like I said before.....a lot of this may sound good, but implementing would cause total Anarchy &amp; Deppression IMHO..... >>


Most likely, a large corporation for publicity which would sell it off for a substantially lower price to some enviromental company who would retain the great beauty it is today. I can't imagine a different senerio. It's not like Donald Trump buys it for kicks and then fills it in with gravel.

 

[etech]

Environment:
Gore supports the Kyoto global warming treaty, would encourage new energy technologies and provide tax breaks to companies and individuals switching to environmentally friendly homes, cars and businesses. Would preserve Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Preserve.
Bush opposes the Kyoto treaty, would give tax breaks for ethanol use and supports state efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power stations. Supports opening Alaska reserve toil and gas exploration.

Etech - &quot;The Kyoto treaty would be a disaster for the United States. Both will work to reduce pollution but I remember in Gores book where he said that he wants gas prices in the US to be on parity with those of Europe(paraphrased). That would lead to a recession and the same type of riots and protests that were seen in Europe this summer, no thanks.&quot;
* * *
Harvey- &quot;If we don't get serious about cleaning up our mess, we won't have a viable planet. We, the population of planet Earth, made the mess in a time of ignorance. That is no excuse for not taking action against the forseeable disasterous consequenses of ignoring the facts as we know them, now. Bush's attitude of keeping his head between his glutial cheeks to avoid seeing this reality does not speak well of his leadership potential.


Which facts do we now know? Global warming is still debatable. Putting the US under the punitive restrictions of the Kyoto treaty while China and India and many other countries are fully exempt is political and economic lunacy at it's worst. Dictating standards to companies without understanding the best methods involved also seems to be in Gore's plans. The government needs to work with the companies to find the best solutions. The federal government itself is one of the nations worst polluters.

Gov. Bush's Environmental policies
-Federal Environmental Compliance: Direct active federal facilities to comply with all environmental protection laws and hold them accountable. It is time to end the double standard that has the federal government acting as enforcer of the nation's environmental laws, while at the same time causing pollution that violates those laws.
-Global Climate Change: Support continued research into the causes and impact of global warming and the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
-Kyoto Protocol: Oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it is ineffective, inadequate and unfair to America. It exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance.
-Off Shore Drilling: Support the moratorium against new leases for oil and gas drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. Will work with California and Florida leaders and local affected communities to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not drilling should go forward on existing leases.
-Pacific Northwest Dams: Oppose breaching dams in the Pacific Northwest.
-National Parks and Federal Lands: Alleviate the substantial repair and improvement backlog facing our national parks, wildlife refuges and other public lands.
-Clean Air: Support the new Tier II standards that will require lower sulfur, cleaner-burning gasoline and cleaner cars.
-Urban Sprawl: Believe the challenges of land management decisions are best handled by local and state governments. The challenges of urban sprawl highlight the need to revitalize our inner cities, through improved public schools, cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields, reduced urban crime rates and creating a strong, healthy economic environment that supports job creation.

 

[etech]

Harvey &quot;Competent actuarial analysis shows that both &quot;plans&quot; are flawed. Bush's plan is by far the most off the mark.&quot;

Is that just your opinion that Bush's plan is off the mark? What mark, the democrats keep them poor so they will vote democratic mark?

Something has to be done instead of just moving the time of insolvency futher out into the future.