9/11 conspiricy

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:12 pm

Bookworm wrote: I can't say that I enjoy the idea of Bush expanding the size of the government any more than the next Republican, but voting for Kerry is certainly not the solution for that. Every time I hear a speech by Kerry, he is promising more money for this and more money for that, and I don't see where he is going to get the money to keep all his promises. Even eliminating the recent tax cuts wouldn't be enough.

Yes, but these days some republicans are thinking more like democrates and vice versa. Throughout history this has often been the case. When the Democratic party was formed in the mid 1800's, it believed in what Republicans believe in now. Kerry has talked more about states rights than Bush. Bush on the otherhand has been more than happy to take whatever power he can from where-ever he could. Ideologies change. Having watched speeches from both closely, Kerry has come across with many 'conservative' ideas I wish Bush would embrass.
Even eliminating the recent tax cuts wouldn't be enough.
Eliminating an unbalanced tax cut while revamping the tax code and having the forsight required to run a country (meaning don't bite off more than you can chew, spend on what needs it) might do it. We'd have a lot more money if this administration had thought things through a little more.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12159

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:35 pm

Is it possible that Kerry is expressing some of his "conservative" ideas simply to appeal to a larger group. I can't really see him following up on those.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12160

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:48 pm

If I hadn't been watching him since before his 'campaign' it would certainly look like that. Mostly I think that 'they' are doing a good job of making him look ultra-liberal, when in fact he is not. It's all in the details. Modern politics don't follow ideologies completely, both parties are more than willing to bend depending on the question. It's not just Kerry-Bush, but many Republican and Democrates follow their own self-made-mesh-of-morals rather than what boils down to philosophic ideology.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12161

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:01 pm

Another factor in my support of Bush is the fact that I would have a very hard time voting for a candidate who is not pro-life. I am not a one-issue voter, but certain issues are more important to some people than others.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12162

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:30 pm

Indeed. I am not pro-life, I am pro-choice but not like most pro-choice. I don't believe you should be able to take a childs life, but I don't believe it is a child at conception no more than it is at sperm or egg. I certainly respect Bush for the partial-birth ban. That was something that should have been done long ago, that was murder.

My view is that Bush has proven he won't do right in his next term, there is still hope for Kerry, if he does what he says America will be great. I gave Bush a chance, he failed to deliver.

I very much appreciate the candid talk Bookworm.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12164

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:04 am

What exactly are Kerry’s ideas??

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12176

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:55 pm

What area? There are too many for me to list/lookup. Individual issues would be easier. Mainly though foreign affair issues, tax code(completely revamping it and getting rid of rediculas tax loopholes that cost us so much money by a panel of experts), trade and regulation (WTO has imposed sanctions against the US for that steel tariff a while back, free trade?), and fiscal responsibility.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12192

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:42 pm

Just a quibble about your wording when you say "tax loopholes that cost us so much money." If the government used to take 10 dollars of my money, and now it is only taking 8, then the government is simply taking less money. It is not an actual charge or cost for them to be taking less of my money. The cost comes in the ridiculous things both parties find to spend money on.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12282

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:58 pm

Bookworm wrote: Just a quibble about your wording when you say "tax loopholes that cost us so much money." If the government used to take 10 dollars of my money, and now it is only taking 8, then the government is simply taking less money. It is not an actual charge or cost for them to be taking less of my money. The cost comes in the ridiculous things both parties find to spend money on.

Not exactly, loopholes are taking about corporate loopholes that allow for exemptions that let companies get out responsibilities. It's not talking about personal taxes so much, but corporate, this is a point of both Nader and Kerry. Coporate America is in trouble, and Bush is not helping at all, but adding to the greed. I wish I had the stats handy, but CEO to worker pay ratio has increased (meaning CEO's now make even more on average than workers than they did before, I think the current stat is 300:1) while average salary has decreased.

So when I say "that cost us so much money", I mean just that, corporations are not paying what they should so the burden falls on the people, and that seems to be ok with this administration

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:12287