• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tell me again...why would you vote for Bush over Kerry?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: TravisT
This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.

I can do the same thing with Bush's comments made over the years. It was a masterful job of editing. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with you, you SHOULD vote for the person that YOU feel is gonna do best for their country. Personally, I feel Kerry seems to be the man for the job. We shall all see in November.

Edit: Subtracted party for country in the 2nd to last sentence. Sorry. Sleep deprivation mistake.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TravisT
This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.

I can do the same thing with Bush's comments made over the years. It was a masterful job of editing. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with you, you SHOULD vote for the person that YOU feel is gonna do best for their party. Personally, I feel Kerry seems to be the man for the job. We shall all see in November.

And about half the country thinks otherwise. But if you listen to some liberals in this forum, 50% of the people in this country shouldn't have a right to vote. If Bush loses, I won't be on these forums comparing Kerry to Hitler and calling Kerry a war criminal.. but thats what its come to on your side.
 
Agreed Crimson, we won't know for sure where he stands on any issue, so theres not much to complain about 😀
 
Originally posted by: TravisT
Agreed Crimson, we won't know for sure where he stands on any issue, so theres not much to complain about 😀
Actually like Gore back in 2000, Bush in 2004 has his Record as President (or part of the Administration as in the case of Gore) to defend where as Bush didn't in 2000. Now Kerry is in the position that the Dub was in back in 2000.
 
Originally posted by: TravisT
This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.


Sounds to me he was for the war, assuming proper diplomatic proccess. Sounds to me he was against the first Gulf War because he felt that diplomatic proccess wasn't followed. That's a remarkable amount of consistency for a politician over a 13yr window. He said, in his most war-supporting statement in that clip, that the inspections proccess had to be completed. Blix said he wasn't finished, but Bush went ahead anyway. It turns out there wern't any WMD, which was what concerned Kerry the most. I can see why he opposes "the way" the Bush admin went to war. He has remained true to the conditions for supporting action in Iraq throughout all those clips. The only time he came close to a flip-flop was with the one bill where he voted opposite ways. The first interview on the topic said that he wasn't opposed to supporting the troops, but that there was an amendment on the bill with which he disagreed. Anyone know what the amendment was? Was it that important? If that was a valid opposition, one that was in line with his position on the war, then I think that these claims of flip-flopping are overstated.

The only real change in his rhetoric was the spin he put on the affair. Compare that to Bush's flip-flop:

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us."
"I think that one way for us to end up being viewed as the Ugly American would be to go around saying "we do it this way, so should you."
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
My question is, taking Bush out of the equation, what reason is there to vote for Kerry?

I've heard a lot of talk about how he'll do a better job, but no concrete plans. When pressed, he says he doesn't want to tip his hand before being elected. :roll:


LOL, Bush has done such a lousy job that Kerry doesn't have to and he will probably still beat him.
 
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: umbrella39

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

The democrat poster boy Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments


LOL, everyone that could, did that!! It didn't matter what your political preferences were.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: MoFunk
Originally posted by: umbrella39

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

The democrat poster boy Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments


LOL, everyone that could, did that!! It didn't matter what your political preferences were.
No kidding. If they didn't have a draft back then they definately wouldn't of had enough men to fight that war!
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
1.) Bush is a strong moderate leader
2.) Bush is less likely to appoint a supreme court justice that'll use his station to intact his view of what "America should be", but rather interpret things as our laws intend.
3.) Bush is more likely to do what is unpopular but best for America
4.) Taxes going up for any group increases the drain of prosperity from all groups.
5.) Bush will fill out the necessary departments for control of terrorism while doing a better job of avoiding "big brotherism"
6.) Bush wants to set us on a path to achieve true greatness through space exploration.
7.) Bush recognizes the problems systemic to the illegal immigrant issue and has a truly visionary solution.
8.) Bush understands the need to bring American style freedom of debauchery to the barbaric nations of the world that are the spawning grounds of terrorism.

1.) He didn't even have a majority when elected and you say he is a strong leader?

2.) Oh BS. His appointment s will come from his base, or as he calls them "The Elite".

3.) Like tax cuts primarily for the rich, followed by starting a war he didn't have to start leaving the rest of us to foot the bill.

4.) I think that worked to get us out of the "Great Depression"??

5.) So how do you prove that? I guess just trust him like we did about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

6.) How is he going to pay for it?? It sure seems like a good deal for Florida, Texas, and California who just happen to have a lot of electorial votes. I guess that's coincidental.

7.) Both parties like immigrants. The Rep.'s because they work cheap and the Dem.'s because they mostly vote for them.

8.) Yeah, as long as he's not paying for it. Both parites can do that anyway.
 
Hey guys..Long time lurker @ AT, and just recently saw this forum. Being a political junkie, I now check this forum almost everyday!

Nowadays, I really am wondering why would someone pick Bush over Kerry? So, I decided to write down the key reason Bush supporters claim and argue against them....Here are two of them...

How could you be a long time lurker and only recently saw this forum?

Why pick Bush over Kerry?
Because I'm super rich and raking in Bush's tax benefits
I'm a major shareholder of Haliburton
I'm a reborn, devout, fundamentalist Christian who is amazed at the moral decay that liberals are spreading in this country
and I'm just kidding!
 
Because I don't like Kerry either....................................................

Wait.................I don't like Bush either................................................

Damn....Nader's a screwball...............................................

.........................I vote not to vote!😉

Surely this country can come up with better potential presidents than what we have now and what we have for alternatives........................:roll::disgust:
 
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Because I don't like Kerry either....................................................

Wait.................I don't like Bush either................................................

Damn....Nader's a screwball...............................................

.........................I vote not to vote!😉

Surely this country can come up with better potential presidents than what we have now and what we have for alternatives........................:roll::disgust:

I get the day off how bout you? Wanna come fishing with me and enjoy *some* of the freedoms we still have left? I know this great place I've been dumping X-mas trees every year thats 2-at-a-time crappie.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
1.) Bush is a strong moderate leader
2.) Bush is less likely to appoint a supreme court justice that'll use his station to intact his view of what "America should be", but rather interpret things as our laws intend.
3.) Bush is more likely to do what is unpopular but best for America
4.) Taxes going up for any group increases the drain of prosperity from all groups.
5.) Bush will fill out the necessary departments for control of terrorism while doing a better job of avoiding "big brotherism"
6.) Bush wants to set us on a path to achieve true greatness through space exploration.
7.) Bush recognizes the problems systemic to the illegal immigrant issue and has a truly visionary solution.
8.) Bush understands the need to bring American style freedom of debauchery to the barbaric nations of the world that are the spawning grounds of terrorism.

1.) He didn't even have a majority when elected and you say he is a strong leader?

2.) Oh BS. His appointment s will come from his base, or as he calls them "The Elite".

3.) Like tax cuts primarily for the rich, followed by starting a war he didn't have to start leaving the rest of us to foot the bill.

4.) I think that worked to get us out of the "Great Depression"??

5.) So how do you prove that? I guess just trust him like we did about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

6.) How is he going to pay for it?? It sure seems like a good deal for Florida, Texas, and California who just happen to have a lot of electorial votes. I guess that's coincidental.

7.) Both parties like immigrants. The Rep.'s because they work cheap and the Dem.'s because they mostly vote for them.

8.) Yeah, as long as he's not paying for it. Both parites can do that anyway.

1.) Majority when elected in no way changes that he's willing to be highly moderate when leadership of a divided nation is needed: see immigration, no child left behind, and sr. prescription drug coverage.

2.) His base is one that believes in stricter constitutionalism, the kind that wouldn't make flag-burning illegal even if the justice thought of it as un-American; the same can't be said for social issues of the other side.

3.) We rise taxes based on %s, we should lower them based on %s, If you want to talk dollar amounts then let's talk about how the top 2% pays 40% of the dollar amounts.

4.) Progressive tax didn't get us out of the great depression, income taxes put us into it.

5.) The conservative end is less for big-brother-government than the liberal ideology is.

6.) Fiscal responsibly re-directing the focus of NASA, instead of being a bloated omni-directional though box, we'll focus on man-kind advancing goals.

7.) Bush's plan will help the people themselves, allowing them to return to their own country to make a better life without expatriating.

8.) Kerry is more likely to wait t'll France has skimmed all the money it can and the Russians sold all the arms it can, before he'd help bring freedom to the world. Even at the danger of postponing the positive effects for America.
 
Originally posted by: burnedout
Interesting:

"In a Cali Today poll, 90 percent of Vietnamese Americans said they would vote for Bush, and only 10 percent said they would vote for Kerry."


My father in law got out of Austria (barely) one step ahead of the Nazis in 1938. Guess who he votes for? Anybody who pledges to kick a$$ against the forces of evil, whatever that may be. He was in favor of Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and anyplace else where the US used or contemplated using force against any and all for whatever reason.

I would anticipate that most Vietnamese who got to the US have the same sort of feelings.
 
1.) Majority when elected in no way changes that he's willing to be highly moderate when leadership of a divided nation is needed: see immigration, no child left behind, and sr. prescription drug coverage.

.........What are you a practicing spin doctor? His leadership stinks and he has no idea of what this country needs. Take the perscription drug plan for example. It is so compicated that nobody can understand it. I know I don't and I highly doubt that you do either. Why is it that the Seniors can get their drugs cheaper through Canada? Because the drug companies are greedy, that's why. They charge as much as the market will bear. That is what needs to be changed, not some BS drug coverage that is mostly lip service. Perhaps you could explain to me why they want to stop the prescription drugs that are sold in Canada from coming back to the US? We do have the North America Freee Trade Agreement and last time I looked Canada was part of North America, right? I guess it's a simple case of whose bull is being gored.

2.) His base is one that believes in stricter constitutionalism, the kind that wouldn't make flag-burning illegal even if the justice thought of it as un-American; the same can't be said for social issues of the other side.

...........That's not what I see where I live. All the Bush people out here would put flag burners in jail without a trial if they could. My buttons aren't so easily pushed as that.

3.) We rise taxes based on %s, we should lower them based on %s, If you want to talk dollar amounts then let's talk about how the top 2% pays 40% of the dollar amounts.

...........Since the top 2% have over 90% of the money they should pay more tax and quit whining about it. I wish I had that problem, it's what's known as a "good" problem. It's a proven fact that the wages in this country are out totally out of sync with what a person needs to make a living. The upper class keeps making more and the poor keep getting poorer so why should the taxes go down in %'s? The income doesn't go up in %'s now does it! Also it's not the same to compare what they are paying in a $ or % amount anyway. While they are flying around in their Lear Jets other people are working hard and don't even have health insurance anymore. What about poor people who can't afford to see a Doctor or get there prescriptions filled? I guess you don't care about them.

4.) Progressive tax didn't get us out of the great depression, income taxes put us into it.

............I seem to remember hearing a quote from Roosevelt about how he was going to "tax, tax, tax" and that is in fact what he did to finace the public works projects? Anyway, I would attribute the great depression to the collapse of the inflated stock market and the banks and of course, peoples greed. I have heard so many people say "that can't happen today with all the safe guards they have" that it scares the bejeebies out of me. Murphy's Law.

5.) The conservative end is less for big-brother-government than the liberal ideology is.

...........I'm 50 years old and I can tell you from my personal experience that the Republicans say they can fix all our problems, they just need you to give up some of your rights. The Democrats' say they can fix our problems, they just need more money (taxes). I think it depends on where you are on the food chain as to how that will affect you as an individual.

6.) Fiscal responsibly re-directing the focus of NASA, instead of being a bloated omni-directional though box, we'll focus on man-kind advancing goals.

...........After what Bush has done to the deficeit your going to talk fiscal responsibility? All the space program will do is benifit a few states and increase the deficit even more. If we didn't have to pay for destroying Iraq and then turn around and pay to rebuild it (with $2 gallon gas) I would go along with the space thing, but right now I think the taxpayers plate is full.

7.) Bush's plan will help the people themselves, allowing them to return to their own country to make a better life without expatriating.

..........Really? I thought they wanted to work and live here. After making the "big bucks" for 10 or 20 years, then they can retire in style back in their own country where $1 there is like $10 here.

8.) Kerry is more likely to wait t'll France has skimmed all the money it can and the Russians sold all the arms it can, before he'd help bring freedom to the world. Even at the danger of postponing the positive effects for America.

.........You seem to forget who was selling Iraq arms when they were at war with Iran, and the "hostages for arms deal That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not voting for Kerry or even the Democratic party. I'm voting for a change in direction of the whole country. IMO, if the Republicans would have been smart enough to give McCain the nomination I would have voted for him. He was just what the country needed at the time, but the "good ole boy" network muscled in there for another session at the hog trough. Now they can suffer the voters wrath for it. I'm certainly not worried about France or Russia. Bush and his cabinet have been so obvious in everyting they have done that it isn't even funny. It's no wonder so many people think he is an idiot.
 
Why is it that the Seniors can get their drugs cheaper through Canada? Because the drug companies are greedy, that's why.
actually the return on investment is much smaller for the drug industry than many others, it takes many years, and cutting the drug-company profits would only lead to fewer drugs.

Perhaps you could explain to me why they want to stop the prescription drugs that are sold in Canada from coming back to the US?
because someone has to foot the bill for the cost of drugs: the development.
In America we have a longer wait period because of the FDA, in America we have higher standards, in America we have more money to pay for our drugs, and in America we foot the bill and that those drugs can be sold at a discount rate in Canada is part of the American willingness to step up to the plate and shoulder the burden when socialist and third-world nations can?t or wont.

All the Bush people out here would put flag burners in jail without a trial if they could.
that?s not what we see when it comes to conservative supreme court nominees, but changing the constitution to fit a social agenda is consistently the realm of liberals.

Since the top 2% have over 90% of the money they should pay more tax and quit whining about it.
having money and using it to gain wealth are two different things. Wouldn?t a flat tax with a tax on using money to gain wealth be the most fair?

The upper class keeps making more and the poor keep getting poorer so why should the taxes go down in %'s?
because trying to destroy those who earn their way up, even through generations of building, isn?t the freedom that America stands for, it?s the communistic reasoning that allowed for the totalitarian states of the world that our freedom has over come.

What about poor people who can't afford to see a Doctor or get there prescriptions filled?
I?m poor, and experience high medical costs every day, but interestingly enough for life-saving drugs my dad?s never had to worry, God bless America.

I have heard so many people say "that can't happen today with all the safe guards they have" that it scares the bejeebies out of me. Murphy's Law.
certainly the stock market is imaginary money, built on the imaginary money in the banks, but as long as we think happy thought?s we?ll all be fine.

I'm 50 years old and I can tell you from my personal experience that the Republicans say they can fix all our problems, they just need you to give up some of your rights.
not federally, as they are for state?s rights.

After what Bush has done to the deficeit your going to talk fiscal responsibility?
sure because inflation is more of a tax on those that hold money than those that earn it and an anti-tax on those who owe money. I don?t like the deficit spending, but I like high taxes less.

I thought they wanted to work and live here. After making the "big bucks" for 10 or 20 years, then they can retire in style back in their own country where $1 there is like $10 here.
it?s supposed to be 3 year work programs that they apply for a renewal for, if they return they get all the FICA that was with healed, if they get an extension they can work to eventually become American citizens and have their taxes credited towards our system.

So yes, they can work 3-9 years here, go home, and build their own nations with the money they paid in over the period. I was very upset about it to start, but it?s honestly the best solution I?ve ever heard.
You seem to forget who was selling Iraq arms when they were at war with Iran
I didn?t forget, we gve them weapons to help defend against the religious extremist Iran. He was quite useful in keeping the whole of the middle east out of the hands of islamofascists, and because of that his country was a prime target to install western style debauchery.

IMO, if the Republicans would have been smart enough to give McCain the nomination I would have voted for him.
I think we can all agree he?s a good man, but not strong enough against abortion for my side.
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
My question is, taking Bush out of the equation, what reason is there to vote for Kerry?

I've heard a lot of talk about how he'll do a better job, but no concrete plans. When pressed, he says he doesn't want to tip his hand before being elected. :roll:

good point too vote for none of the above aka Nader
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why would I vote for someone who's running for office on a distorted account of what he did for 4 months over 40 years ago?

The only one still distorting it are the liars from swiftboatshills.com and people like you Kerry is highly decorated war hero who came back and spoke out. Get over it. You didn't serve in Vietnam and you certainly aren't over in Iraq laying your life down are you. So you are pretty much unqualified to have any idea what did or did not happen on his command.

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

Dude you are fooling yourself if this was about who went to war and who didn't Bole Dole would have won and Clinton would have never met Monica. To say that Kerry is a War hero is a slap in the face to every single military man and woman he backstabbed when he came back from Nam and testified against his Band of Brothers rubbish. 4 months and he is an expert. shooting a guy in the Back and he is a hero? No enemy fire but he gets shrapnel?

Denial is not only a river in Africa.
 
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why would I vote for someone who's running for office on a distorted account of what he did for 4 months over 40 years ago?

The only one still distorting it are the liars from swiftboatshills.com and people like you Kerry is highly decorated war hero who came back and spoke out. Get over it. You didn't serve in Vietnam and you certainly aren't over in Iraq laying your life down are you. So you are pretty much unqualified to have any idea what did or did not happen on his command.

You support a coward that hid behind his daddy's coattails to avoid active duty in vietnam, that tells us everything we need to know about you and your character or obvious lack-there-of.

:roll:

Dude you are fooling yourself if this was about who went to war and who didn't Bole Dole would have won and Clinton would have never met Monica. To say that Kerry is a War hero is a slap in the face to every single military man and woman he backstabbed when he came back from Nam and testified against his Band of Brothers rubbish. 4 months and he is an expert. shooting a guy in the Back and he is a hero? No enemy fire but he gets shrapnel?

Denial is not only a river in Africa.

You have proven nothing nor have the swift boat shills. All your talking points you have listed have been disproven years ago. Check your history. Just because this is being brought back up again, does not somehow make it the truth this time. Keep your AA catch-phrase denial-river sillyness at the meetings where it belongs.
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TravisT
This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.

I can do the same thing with Bush's comments made over the years. It was a masterful job of editing. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with you, you SHOULD vote for the person that YOU feel is gonna do best for their party. Personally, I feel Kerry seems to be the man for the job. We shall all see in November.

And about half the country thinks otherwise. But if you listen to some liberals in this forum, 50% of the people in this country shouldn't have a right to vote. If Bush loses, I won't be on these forums comparing Kerry to Hitler and calling Kerry a war criminal.. but thats what its come to on your side.
I was thinking of the right words to write in this thread, but saw this post - and the last sentence actually says what I was thinking.

I guess I can't understand the liberal party. They throw the first punch when it comes to smearing a character, then cry "foul" when the punch comes back at them.

As a Republican, I can tell you:

1) I don't combine God and politics.
2) I am not a Pro-life person.
3) I could care less about the NRA
4) I don't care about anyones 2nd Amendment rights.
5) I don't care about gays and their right to marriage. If they want to be together for a butt bongo fiesta, so be it.

So, what makes me a Republican? The constant flow of sleazy Liberal candidates is what keeps me voting Republican. I could see the sleaze in the campaign before Clinton was elected - and, look what happened before he was in office and during his time in office. Pure sleaze.

Finally, if a better Independent candidate would come on board, they would probably get my vote. Someone like Clinton or Kennedy (oops, I mean Kerry) will never get a vote of mine.
 
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TravisT
This 13 minute video clip of John Kerry flip-flopping on issues shows why I would want to vote for Bush:

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Why would I want to vote for someone who can't determine what would be best for his country based on what he believes is the truth? He is willing to do what is best for his party, not his country. Sorry, I don't believe that way.

I can do the same thing with Bush's comments made over the years. It was a masterful job of editing. But that's neither here nor there. I agree with you, you SHOULD vote for the person that YOU feel is gonna do best for their party. Personally, I feel Kerry seems to be the man for the job. We shall all see in November.

And about half the country thinks otherwise. But if you listen to some liberals in this forum, 50% of the people in this country shouldn't have a right to vote. If Bush loses, I won't be on these forums comparing Kerry to Hitler and calling Kerry a war criminal.. but thats what its come to on your side.
I was thinking of the right words to write in this thread, but saw this post - and the last sentence actually says what I was thinking.

I guess I can't understand the liberal party. They throw the first punch when it comes to smearing a character, then cry "foul" when the punch comes back at them.

As a Republican, I can tell you:

1) I don't combine God and politics.
2) I am not a Pro-life person.
3) I could care less about the NRA
4) I don't care about anyones 2nd Amendment rights.
5) I don't care about gays and their right to marriage. If they want to be together for a butt bongo fiesta, so be it.

So, what makes me a Republican? The constant flow of sleazy Liberal candidates is what keeps me voting Republican. I could see the sleaze in the campaign before Clinton was elected - and, look what happened before he was in office and during his time in office. Pure sleaze.

Finally, if a better Independent candidate would come on board, they would probably get my vote. Someone like Clinton or Kennedy (oops, I mean Kerry) will never get a vote of mine.


Not that it matters, probably, but I edited my quote you used. Meant to say country, not party at the end of the 2nd to last sentence. I advocate voting how you feel rather than voting for party lines.
 
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: burnedout
Interesting:

"In a Cali Today poll, 90 percent of Vietnamese Americans said they would vote for Bush, and only 10 percent said they would vote for Kerry."


My father in law got out of Austria (barely) one step ahead of the Nazis in 1938. Guess who he votes for? Anybody who pledges to kick a$$ against the forces of evil, whatever that may be. He was in favor of Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and anyplace else where the US used or contemplated using force against any and all for whatever reason.

I would anticipate that most Vietnamese who got to the US have the same sort of feelings.

This Viet stat may have to do with Kerry pushing to normalize relations with Vietnam. I wonder what their opinions of McCain are.

Zephyr
 
...........Since the top 2% have over 90% of the money they should pay more tax and quit whining about it. I wish I had that problem, it's what's known as a "good" problem. It's a proven fact that the wages in this country are out totally out of sync with what a person needs to make a living. The upper class keeps making more and the poor keep getting poorer so why should the taxes go down in %'s? The income doesn't go up in %'s now does it! Also it's not the same to compare what they are paying in a $ or % amount anyway. While they are flying around in their Lear Jets other people are working hard and don't even have health insurance anymore. What about poor people who can't afford to see a Doctor or get there prescriptions filled? I guess you don't care about them.

First of all, no matter how much more money Bill Gates or Donald Trump or Oprah Winfrey accumulate more than you or me, doesn't somehow make their money yours or mine. And hard work/calories burned doesn't justify a certain amount of earnings. Wage is determined by supply and demand in the open market. No matter how hard a McDonald's worker works, they'll always get a low wage b/c their position is a low demand / high supply position. Simple economics. Likewise, a person who clicks a few keys and trades millions of stocks in a span of seconds and makes millions of dollars a year makes that money b/c of his own efforts regardless of how "easy" you may consider them to be. If you don't like your job/pay become an investment banker (and if you find yourself not having the capacity to do so, then you answer your own question of why he's rich and you're not).

Secondly, if the upper class gets richer, the poorer class must also get richer. It is impossible for the rich to become richer unless those that are poorer become richer and spend money on the rich people's products. Moreover, the richer someone gets the more jobs are created. You should hope for the richer to become richer, b/c the poorer will become richer as well. And as for the "widening" of the gap between rich and poor... that's normal. If I put in $100,000 in a savings account and you put in only $1,000 then on interest I will earn more than you, but that doesn't mean you aren't becoming richer/better off just b/c I'm getting more money than you, and that also doesn't mean that the money I'm getting somehow becomes yours. Same thing applies for jobs and salaries.

Thirdly, you address the issue of prescription drugs and their high costs. The tremendous runup in health-care costs started in 1965 when Congress created Medicare and Medicaid. It is precisely because of goverment intervention that costs are high. When they passed it in 1965 Congress proejcted its costs into the future and estimated it would cost $3 billion in 1990, adjusted for inflation it would be $12 billion in 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.
Because medicare and medicaid impose many requirements, more and more of the money you and I pay goes to fund bureaucracy and not to the doctors. Plus, medicare often pays only a third or so of the actual cost, the rest of the cost is passed on to other patients or insurance companies, making hospital stays and insurance policies more expensive. THe fact is, if government never interfered (not only in medicaid/medicare, but also by establishing FDA which runs up the costs of drugs ten fold, and forcing insurance companies to guarentee coverage which increases insurance premiums and therefore causes healthy people to drop out of insurance policies causing insurance companies to collapse and/or increase costs even more) then medical costs would be much much cheaper than they are now. Medical costs are exponentially more expensive than they would be if government stayed out of medicine and let it be a completely free-market privatized industry- so even if Medicare covers $3 out of $10 thus effectively costing $7 for the patient, if these social programs didn't exist the actual cost of service would be far below $7 to begin with.

Ask yourself this: Since When Has A Government Program Worked? Ever since funding for education has increased, somehow SAT scores have steadily decreased... a fact you can look up for yourself. War on drugs hasn't succeeded, War on poverty hasn't succeeded, Medical assistance hasn't succeeded... every election there are more and more problems, and ever increasing costs.

Edit: What disappoints me is that people like you are the first to point out things like the high cost of perscription drugs and health insurance, but are the last people to ask 'Why perscription drugs and health insurance are expensive and how to make them affordable?' Instead, you just demand money to cover up the problem instead of seeking solutions to fix the problem; you will continue to repair a broken car even if the cost of the repair is greater than the cost of the car.
 
4.) Progressive tax didn't get us out of the great depression, income taxes put us into it.

Umm. . . conventional economic wisdom has it that if any one government policy could've caused the extent of the Depression, it was the simultaneous, unilateral raising of tariffs to protect foundering industries. That, in addition to poorly run financial institutions.

And as for the "widening" of the gap between rich and poor... that's normal.

"Normal?" Right now the ratio of the total income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10% is over 15-1. Already the largest in any developped country. And note that many of those countries have productivity growth rates comparable to the US. Would you advocate allowing that ratio rise to 20? 30? 100? Most political theorists suggest that gross inequality in wealth will lead to political instability. You don't like Democratic Socialism, how would you feel about the other kind?

Secondly, if the upper class gets richer, the poorer class must also get richer.

Hmm. . . The real incomes (after taxes and transfers) of the poorest 50% fell consistently from 1979-1996. All this while the real GDP per capita rose substantially for the greater part of that time. Through those years, the rich and upper-half of the middle class were getting richer, while the other half of the population were getting poorer. Data, not theory.
 
Back
Top