oex,

Very well said.

Mark

WOW hows this for a big can of worms!!

Anyway I think we are screwed either way, both are equally incompetent and should pass the buck over to anyone else, hell my dog could do a better job (no I am not a Nader fan either) I am just pissed at all of the incompetence and $10K toilets. Each of the candidates seek something to gain for themselves, and those that don't really have anything to gain got railroaded out of a chance (I.E. John Mcain, and try to say something about his military record). Anyway I am at a loss as which is the lesser evil, and that is really what it comes down to.

Your always better off with the evil you know as opposed to the evil you don't

Something Kerry would rather not have us poor working class stiffs understand. He loves to say he will only raise taxes on those making over $200,000. You have to keep in mind that includes companies.

Seventy-six percent of employment in the USA comes from those small companies, and his $200,000 figure will pretty much hit them all.

Your salary comes from the profits of the business. That is exactly where Kerrys proposed tax increase will come from. More paid in taxes means less profit and less chance of people getting meaningful raises.

Kerrys tax increase on the 'rich' will definitely harm those of us who make far less than that. It will mean either no raise, or much smaller ones.

I don't want my slice of the apple going to Washingtons hands for them to squander.

Just my two cents worth, but I cannot understand why anyone would vote for a man who says he has a plan to fix everything under the sun, but flat out refuses to tell anyone any details.

Can you imagine doing that in your business? What customer is going to let you install something in their home with you telling them you have a plan for them, but you are not going to tell them what it is?

In one interview Kerry said he could not offer details on his plan for Iraq because he would not know enough about the situation until he was in office. (Not exactly true since anyone running for President gets the same daily briefing sheets on that the President does).

In the very next sentence he said he had a plan to fix Iraq. Come on now.... how can you seriouly have a plan if you claim you don't have the details on the problem?

If you are so sure of this, maybe you can give some specific example. What "relief" and specifically what "big money" corporations are you talking about. My guess is that you understand very little about government and business and therefore believe any load of crap Kerry spews. You do tend to fear what you don't know or understand. Also, we do not have a domestic job crisis. The best thing the government can do to create jobs is to let the PEOPLE who create jobs have as much freedom as possible to do so. Kudos to OEX, right on the money, so to speak.

The government that governs best, governs least.

Ben Franklin

Hey, it is pretty good to see that we are all over the map, just like the nation.

A couple of thoughts:

First, I have heard people say that they do not know anyone who will vote for the other candidate. Think just a moment: whatever you might say about how Bush became President, neither he nor Gore had anything like a solid majority. Saying you do not know ANYONE who will vote for the other guy is admitting that you are completely and totally out of touch with almost a full 50% of America! How the hell could someone like that (you) be relied upon to make a decent judgment of what is best for the USA when you are sitting b abbling in a corner with only cohorts of like persuasion? Of course, you do not realize that you are saying that; you think you are saying that your guy must of course win. But what you are saying is that you do not have a clue.

Second...
I have heard on two different, yes, generally conservative radio shows, that when interviewing college people, the athletes overwhelmingly report that they will vote for Bush. These are people who submit themselves to a higher authority (the coach, who is God for them in their sport), MUST work together, and whose rewards are totally tied to their performance. Anyone have any other characteristics (stupidity is often associated with sports, but perhaps ability to see reality is the real characteristic) to suggest?

I have not heard any comments about the other students, who will vote for Kerry, but it could be argued that they are individuals who do not know or care to work as a team (i.e. with the rest of the country) and who feel entitled...to something or anything, it does not much matter, but the meaning is that they do not tie reward to performance. They are just entitled.

You and I will pay the taxes that fulfill their senses of entitlement.

Ernie are you a philosopher? That was deep...lol

Mark

BTW I did like it.

However, if you look at the map of which states voted Repulbican and Democrate in 2000 you will note that the population centers, North East, Far West, and upper Mid West, voted Democratic and the rest of nation went Republican. So if you are from the south, most of the mid West and mountain states you could very will not have met someone who voted Democratic. And if you live in those areas that voted Democratic you may indeed find it difficult to find a Republican.

Put an other way we tend to socialize with those who are like minded.

oex
Point of order:
the research does not support your beliefs--not that this will matter but true nonetheless. The tax burden has already shifted from the wealthy to the middle class. We are in a war and whether you think this is good or bad is beside the economic point. If our soldiers are prepaired to pay for this war with their lives and limbs should not the rest of the society pay the price financially? Or should we just agree to get out if we are unprepaired to pay for what we want. It is historically unprecidented that in a time of war to provide tax cuts. We need to raise money and not just pass off our profligacy to our children and great grand children.

I understand that facts will not change a belief system.
Your sense that "Is it better for the rich as a group to give an extras $100 billion to Uncle Sam to spend or for them to spend. " is something hard to argue with. The idea that Washington knows better or that a technocrate can do better is an interesting point. But this nonesense that it is better to shift the tax burden to those least able to support it is absurd. The rich will try not to pay taxes but this does not mean that it is socially redeemable value. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that supply side economics works. For each instance you might site it can be shown that the economy also faired well after a tax increase ( to wit: the 8 years of Mr. Clinton ). Not running a deficit can also be economically beneficial.

The wealthy will always have sufficient income to purchase what ever they want irrespective of what they pay in taxes. Only the guy in the middle who needs to make choices has this problem. But it is ironic that more wealthy individuals are now voting Democratic while most working and middle class are voting Republican.

Alan

My head hurts...

Well, I agree with pretty much every thing that OEX said about economics. Reagan’s economic policies were right at the time and perhaps would be right today. His social policies, however, were abysmal. I didn’t care about social policies at the time so I supported him (and I still do – for that period in time). As I get older (now in my late 40’s) I find myself shifting over to the left (I call myself a P.O.R [Pissed Off Republican]) I now realize that prudent social policies are, IMO, necessary. If you ignore the poor they will come back to haunt you - in more ways than not. You can either pay now or pay later. For example, you either pay to educate the poor so they can hopefully self sustain or ignore them and pay later to “over secure” your property and attempt to keep what you have worked so hard to earn. Now those are just materialistic entities, so it is easy to get pragmatic, one way or another, about those items. But when it comes down to the safety of your wife or kids, things change dramatically. However this is easier said than done and no one has all the answers.

My feeling is that Bush would be better for our business for many of the reasons that have already been sited. We sell to the affluent and generally they feel better about spending discretionary income when there is a Rep in the White House. I know my business has gone through the roof since early 2002 and it wasn’t that robust directly after the 1999 stock market/dot.com bust.

However I can’t vote for Bush with a clear conscience. He is a buffoon. Period. I didn’t vote for him in 2000 either. The fiasco in Iraq is a personal vendetta that his daddy didn’t get right in the first place, and all it is doing, is fueling terrorism. We should have been spending our resources in Afghanistan instead. We have no business in Iraq and there is no way in hell I would ever let my son (if it came down to a draft) go over there to that clusterf*$k. I would pack up and move to Mexico or Canada before I would lose my son. Thankfully I won’t have to make that decision. I love this country in spite of our screwed up foreign policies. In fact, I love this country enough to vote against Bush even though I know it would hurt my pocket book (dramatically) if Kerry were to win. If that is not sacrifice, what is? I don’t care much for Kerry either - but given a choice, I feel Bush must go. History will not be kind to him. McCain would be so much better for this country!

There is too much special interest money in Campaign finance and lobbying and until that gets fixed, this country will never experience true democracy (and may not even then). Flame me if you must. Bush will be better for our particular business but worse for our country.

FP Crazy,

I just said everything that you just said, to my wife about a half an hour ago. This thread is very interesting and scary at the same time. This is a strange time for America. I don't ever remember an election that was so hotly debated, and the country so split. Not even the 2000 election. I actually feel the same way about social issues. If we don't help the poor, we will be endangering our families lives in the long run. I am actually torn on who to vote for. I believe it will be Bush (about 98% sure) but I don't like either one very well. I wish we had a good leader like Ronald Reagan to vote for. Now with Osama Bin Laden coming forward today, I am nervous about what this next week will bring.

God Bless America,
Mark

The real problem with "helping the poor" is that much like AA, for it to work, "the poor" have to want to be helped. In my mind, the government already provides public schooling and public libraries, basically all the tools anyone with any desire to succeed should need. A large percentage of our super wealthy individuals either never went to school or dropped out. And I assume that when you say "help the poor" you are implying that the government should somehow throw our tax dollars at it. Of coarse when you do this the problem gets bigger not smaller. One last thought, this group of people referred to as "poor" is not constant, but continually changing and the numbers comprise a lot of young people and people who work part time by choice. To quote Mark Twain: there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Don't be taken in by too much B.S. about the "poor", liberal dems like to play this up, because they never have to prove anything. The poorest people in America would be considered at least middle class in most countries in the world.

Kerry would WITH OUT A DOUBT!!! be better for our business. I truly believe that Bush is one of, if not THE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US. I challenge any one reading this to tell me one single thing that Bush has done to make this country a betterplace to live. People have lost jobs in record numbers and the economy has been terrible. We rely on the invested public's disposable income and when your not sure if your "President" knows he is no longer in the oil business, or a member of the Saudi royal family but the president of the US, you can fear for the future of the economy. Kerry WILL get this thing back on track and focused. And yes that means focused HERE at home on the real issues. Not covering up the lies and inventing new lies to make it appear as though 1500 US troops did not die over a selfish WRONG decision. BUSH needs to go work on a cattle ranch where he belongs and leave the big boy job's to the people like Kerry who have a real plan. If I have to hear one more speach filled with impact words stolen from the star spangled banor I think I will choke. Vote Kerry and let's start making money again Like we did under Clinton!!! Remember, Clintons lies did not costs thousands of lives and billions of $$$ Think about it !!! Change is GREAT!!!!!!

I was in Iraq in '91. My nephew was in Iraq in 2003-4. He is stationed in Texas right now. In April, he was supposed to be discharged. He was actually doing everything in his power to get that date moved up. He got his orders last week, he will be on his way back to Iraq next week, he will NOT be discharged in April. He has a new wife and a new baby. I spoke to him about a week ago, he is "AFRAID" to go back.

Unfortunately, we have gotten ourselves into a situation that we cannot win. We have gotten ourselves into a HOLY WAR. We have built 14 military bases in Iraq. None of which will ever be closed.

George Bush, John Kerry, it doesn't matter. Neither one of these guys can win the "War on Terror". You can't stop a terrorist 100% of the time.

You can't win the:

"War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", and you certainly can't win the "War on Terror"

The palestinians and the Israelis have been fighting since the beginning of time.

Do you think that they will stop fighting us? they view this as an occupation.
After all we have built 14 military bases in Iraq. With no signs of leaving anytime soon

The palestinians have been throwing rocks at tanks for 50 years, they are obviously not afraid to die.

At some point we have to realize that they are just "hard wired" differently than we are. Our government was so confused because nobody would hand over Usama Bin Laden for $25 million. Money means nothing to them, but we don't understand that. Religion means everything to them, and if they view us as trying to send a christian crusade through their country they will fight us until the end of time. And we would do the same.

In America we call the Iraqis "insurgence". They call them "freedom fighters". They view this occupation as the United Stated trying to take over the country. We have already installed our own "puppet president" whom they have tried to assassinate 4 times in a month. They will resist American influence until you kill every last one of them, and the country will never be safe.

In '91 we didn't go anywhere near Baghdad because of this very reason. The policy makers knew that this very thing would happen, they didn't want any part of it.

If our country was invaded by an army of Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't you fight to maintain your way of life? how long would you fight? that is my point.

We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our "way of life". They hate us because we are trying to change theirs, and they're not sure if it's for the better. They don't know.

Lastly, we were also told that Usama Bin Laden attacked us because "he hates what we stand for". He attacked us because we built a military base in Saudi Arabia on what he considers a sacred piece of ground.

The equivalent of building a Casino on a indian burial ground.


Here is a 48 minute documentary that some of you might find interesting. The first few minutes of it are in a different language "german" i don't know. But then it goes to english. Its worth a look and its free.

[Link: informationclearinghouse.info]

False - I'm on vacation now with a horrible connection but will provide details prior to election


False - the rich pull the wagon by far the hardest. The top 2% of wage earners pay 80+% of all taxes - Again, i will supply accurate data soon



The rich pull the wagon the hardest. In Clinton's 1992 speech about soak the rich - rich was defined as family income above 28k. That ain't rich! Check the facts.



Tax revenues went up with Reagan - tax cuts and economic boom

Tax hikes in '87 followed by declining tax revenues and severe recession. Remember? Short memory? Check your facts.


Clinton policies had nothing to do with the wealth effect created by Y2K tech spending, which created a stock bubble and huge taxes collected from stock profits.


|. Not running a deficit can also be economically

Wrong. Having a surplus with no debt will create deflation. Governemnt spending is needed but should be spent as investments (Read this as education) and not entitlements. Want health insurance - buy it.

Kerry with drugs from Canada - NONSENSE. Why? Canadian drugs are cheaper for 1 reason only. Product liability. In the US take a drug and die - sue for damages. Die in Canada - oh well. Get it? Drug companies are forced to keep us safe or suffer from huge payouts. Not in Canada. Thats were the price difference is. The cost of litigation is passed to the consumer as it shouldbe. Limit product liability - limit non economic damages in auto injuries. Limit huge jury awards for medical malpractice. ALL WILL BRING DOWN INSURANCES AND DRUG COSTS!!!! its a fact. You cant have socialized medicine with medical malpractice. Kerry is full of SH&T. These are the facts.

As for Iraq, we dont know the facts. What is fact is that Hans Blix had several guys on Sadams payroll. The weapons were traced throughout the middle east and stopped at Libya. Ever thought why Quadafi threw in the towel for no apparent reason? I sympathize with those who have lost family members in our military. I thank all those who protect me and my family. We are fighting for a cause. Thse who are fighting now signed up to serve. They wanted free education, following in their family tradition, whatever. There is not a draft in effect now. If you really wanted a free world we have to accept collateral damage. Unfortunately we wont do it. Its not politically correct. Screw it. Nuke them all.

Sorry for the rant again.