Well, first let me say that a lot can happen between now and November - therefore, my opinion right now is just that - for right now. Disclosure of a dead girl or live boy can change everything.
I am a Republican/Conservative who is going to vote for Kerry. I will hold my nose, I will take Pepto-Bismal to quell my stomach, but I will pull the lever for Kerry. Not because I like him but because my conscience cannot stand me taking action that would result in another 4 years of Bush & Co. If you expect me to vote for Kerry and be happy about it well… :rolleyes:
I think that, if not in this thread, in one of the many other threads, you will find your admissions from Republicans that they’ll vote against Bush too. I know I’ve said on a few occasions in different threads that I’d vote for the Democratic nominee (I was hoping for Edwards!) before it had been decided as Kerry yesterday.
MeanJoe
I think it’s fairly obvious that I’m not a Bush-fan, but that’s not important rioght now, since I don’t vote in the US. Just two thoughts:
If there is nothing you can vote for, there’s always something you can vote against. For myself, that would mean voting for a democrat to get GWB out of office, even if I don’t like democrats. However, the trend seems to be that for people with that frame of mind, the tendency is to stay at home, come election.
For the ‘liberal’ republicans: What about a Kerry/Edwards ticket?
What do they have to offer other than an alternative to Bush? Can’t someone give me something? Anything? I apologize for the sarcasm, but people are ragging on me for my planned vote, but can give me no other reason to vote for Kerry than to vote against Bush?
Maybe that is enough for some, I can accept that. I hated Clinton during his terms as much as you folks hate Bush. No matter what he did, I could not see through that hate. Heck, I have a difficult enough time seeing through it today. I understand that the case you have built against Bush is so strong that to see others such as myself who plan on voting for him, must make you want to pull you hair out or something.
I guess I am interested in how someone, an intelligent person, could see some sort of hope with Kerry in office. So far, I have seen him promise to raise taxes, promise to apologize and negotiate with terrorist nations, and then spend BILLIONS on some sort of national health care. Am I missing something? I’ll be the bigger man and admit that I may just hear what I want to hear from his campaign, but I truly see nothing there.
I tried to explain my reasons once, Elvis along with others didn’t like my reasons so some decided to attempt to insult me. Problem is, I don’t care to get in a war of words over someone’s opinion of me.
I asked the question originally without a trace of smugness.
It went unanswered. As far as I can tell, that is still the case, not counting the ham sandwich comments.
IRAQ: Bush went in without an exit plan. Kerry would not have been so foolish. Now that we’re in, Kerry would be in a better position to get us out. Bush’s thumbing his nose at internationalism regarding Iraq is going to cost us the international cooperation we need to establish a credible government in Iraq and rebuild the infrastructure needed for the post-Saddam era.
TAXES: Bush’s tax cuts were a huge mistake and resulted in catastrophic deficits. John Kerry has the courage to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest. He will crack down on corporations that shift their headquarters overseas to avoid paying their fair share of the burden.
ECONOMY: Three million Americans lost their jobs under Bush. Kerry proposes a tax credit for manufacturers that hire new workers. Kerry would double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership- which Bush proposed a 90% cut for. Bush has not sought action against those nations that violate agreements by the World Trade Organization. Kerry would.
COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY: Kerry would introduce a tax credit for the first $4000 of tuition paid each year.
TERRORISM: Kerry will do more than announce a color. He will make sure that cities do not have to bear all the costs of beefing up security in times of elevated threats. Bush has left the cities to their own devices.
CRIME: Kerry is a former prosecutor. He knows what is needed to fight crime. He has the courage to stand up to the NRA and extend the Assault Weapon Ban. One in five police officers killed in the line of duty is shot with an assault weapon. Our policemen should not be outgunned.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: The Bush Medicare drug fiasco tied the government’s hands in negotiating with drug companies. Kerry would use the government’s purchasing power to negotiate with giant drug wholesalers and force them to pass along some of the rebates they get from the drug makers.
These are but a few of the reasons why this election is vital, and that to secure our nation’s future we must elect John Kerry.
Thank you. Pesonally, I don’t feel that as a tax payer I need to fund someone else’s college education. By offering them a tax credit aren’t I dong that very thing? I may be wrong
How about a cite for that 1-5 police officers killed. I don’t believe it. My research, and the CDC in Atlanta’s research show totally different numbers. I have no time for my cite now, but I will later this evening.
It’s hard not to separate the two, because this election is partially/largely a referendum on Bush’s first term, and whether or not he should be afforded a second. If this was an election without any incumbents, then you could argue the merits of each individual, but that’s not the case here.
I mean, I could easily say “I am deeply concerned and worried about the direction this country is heading in the last four years. I will vote for any candidate who has a good chance of winning the election and who will turn the country back towards where we were before, and John Kerry is the best candidate to fill that role at this time.” But is that a pro-Kerry or an anti-Bush statement? And the answer, of course, is “a bit of both.”
As far as for number 1, I think the whole situation with the last election will bring out a lot more people then previously, I think that people have a better idea of just how important their vote can be after seeing the slim margins last time, whatever their political leanings.
On number 2, I think that would be the best route Kerry could really go, although from what I understand Edwards is pretty liberal himself, at least he is from the South, which Kerry really needs, whether he admits it or not. Anybody think there is a chance for Kerry to pick a more conservative VP?
Boblibdem, I assume that you are getting your info from the VPC . And I am sure you know that they are vehomently antigun, correct? How about we use a relatively unbiased source for the truth. Before I do so, I must add that any Law Enforcement Officer dying in the line of duty is a tragedy, and not to be taken lightly.
As taken from the FBI: (Thanks The_Macallan for your research)
TABLE 4.
1991-2000:
601 out of 644 LEO killings were due to firearms.
452 (70.2%) handgun
114 (17.7%) rifle
35 (5.4%) shotgun
43 (6.7%) all other (knife, club, bomb, etc)
So let’s see, VPC says that from 1998-2001 20% of LEOs killed were from “assault weapons”… a dubious claim especially when they decided in their study what an assault weapon is, many times in contrast to the AW Ban legislation. From 1991-2000 only 17.7% of LEOs were killed with ANY type of rifle. Is there a reason VPC chose 1998 as their “starting point”?
It seems there was an anomalous spike in the number of LEOs killed by .223s in 1998 and 7.62s the year after - how convenient. Nothing like picking and choosing your data that most heavily favors your argument!
I’ll post that data too if asked, but it is pretty dry to say the least. The bottom line is that the statistic you quoted is not the whole truth at best and a gross misrepresentation at worst. Assault weapons, as defined by the 1994 AW Ban were rarely used in crimes before the ban, and are still rarely used in crimes since the ban.
This is flawed legislation that hopefully will sunset as planned in the Fall. Both Bush and Kerry are pandering by supporting this effort.
How about this: playing the Republicans against the Democrats by splitting the White house from Congress. If you put John Kerry in the White house, you won’t get the sort of party unity on pork. It’s now an obvious fallacy that one party is more porky than the other, but very true that they have opposing ideas of what the pork should be.
Will Kerry be able to raise taxes anywhere near where he even wants to (which I doubt will even be back up to pre-Bush levels)? Will he seriously be able to get nationalized health care? I don’t see it happening with a Congress that is only likely to get more Republican controlled.
But if Bush gets elected, however, you’ll see an incredible push for pork as Republicans see the chance to do everything they’ve ever dreamed, much bigger than in his first term where he had to worry about a second. Bush is dreaming if he thinks it’ll be easier to cut spending in a second term with a Congress that tilts even more towards his own party.
I thought I couldn’t have my mind changed. I’m not there yet, but like I said earlier, gridlock is good. Kerry and a Republican House and Senate would be full of gridlock for sure.
You are correct: I was mushing together you, your kids and your grand kids (and their grand kids, etc.).
OBTW: Many of the effects on the Grand kids will proceed via lower capital investment now: our descendents may feel these effects, but they won’t be able to identify their source. Likewise, the effects of Reagan’s tax cuts on us remain hidden but very real.
Let me restate another aspect of my post. I think there are a lot of upper-middle class people who believe that because they make upwards of $100,000 per year, that Bush is on their side.
What they may not realize is, thanks to various anomalies including his decision to maintain the Alternative Minimum Tax, Bush’s tax plans have a fairly pronounced bias towards the ultra-rich grouping (ave: $1,000,000+ each year), at the expense of, oddly enough, those making about $100,000 or so per year.
The $100,000 per year grouping (the bottom 15% of the top 20%) actually has its share of total taxes increase the most during the 2000-2004 period (relative to income quartiles below it and 4% and 1% groupings above it*).
There are other oddities. The median voter in many Southern States benefits less from the Bush tax cuts than median voters in, say, Connecticut, Alaska or New Jersey or even Massachusetts.
Of course it’s not that odd. Those making $75,000 - $300,000 are less likely to drop $3000 or whatever into GWB’s re-election fund. They don’t call the ultra-rich, the “donor class” for nothing.
The Government Cuts Thy Taxes, The Government Borrows in Your Name
Fun Fact: This year, the government will borrow about $1800 in your name. To find the figure for your family, remember to multiply that by the number of members in your household. Then, compare that to your tax cut.
*The tax-share of the 4% group rises, but not as much. The tax share of the top 1% falls.
Well, it seems to me that if we do not keep our populace well educated, we’re all in trouble. It’s really one hell of a good investment. If companies can’t find enough qualified people, they fold or they outsource. White-collar jobs are going overseas to people who have the education to handle those jobs; it would be foolish for a company to try and send those jobs abroad to people that couldn’t handle it. We aren’t seeing many jobs coming back due to poor performance so those workers must be educated at least as well as their counterparts here.
And we have people coming into this country because we simply don’t have enough people with the qualifications to do the jobs. We have businesses here that were crying for more qualified people during the boom. Even now, there are jobs enough that people around the world will probably fill the quota for all the visas that will be issued in the next round.
We’ve priced ourselves out of a good part of the manufacturing sector worldwide. We are more of a service oriented and R&D economy now, and thus the bar has been raised to the point where a high school education will get you a job at McDonalds. An Associates degree or a trade school of some sort is now the defacto equivalent to the HS diploma. Many people with a Bachelors degree get in the door, you can get some kind of a job and it doesn’t need to be in the field you have on that piece of paper. However, to advance or make some good money, you often need post graduate education.
Obviously, there are other places in the world that can educate their people to do the work, and do it cheaper. We need to make it do-able for the masses here as well. So it’s gonna cost. Either you pay now, or you pay later. At least paying for educations now, you have an idea of what the return on your dollar will be, and it may indirectly put money back into your pocket after a while.
For a man who ran on being an “Education President”, Bush’s failure is appalling at best. His legacy? A costly federal mandate for K-12 which all states must implement, and yet he does not provide the federal dollars to carry it out. The states must do this out of their own pockets. Disgusting. And arguably it’s not a good mandate at that.
Our colleges are in trouble in these economically troubled times, and there is no help to speak of coming from Washington. If the Education President has not put any of these concerns about higher education on our nations radar, and is not working hard to close that education gap what, does that say about him?
We need to be better educated than the rest of the world to compete in the next century. Why shouldn’t we help pay for schooling here in this country? It seems like Kerry’s on record to provide some needed cash for students. He’s cutting and running away from the issue.
Hey,** JXJOHNS**, I went to the Kerry Website and found this there. This looks interesting and provides a point about what Kerry plans to do in his first hundred days. Whether you find it a positive point remains to be seen. (I myself am only a Kerry supporter by default - the Ham Sandwich dropped out of the race early on :D) Kerry wants to implement a program where a young person spends two years performing volunteer community service, and in return they get a four year education at a public college. This seems like it may be a fair deal for the taxpayer and the students. It could be a cost effective way of funding higher education.
By the way, if you follow the above link you can find all the alternatives Kerry has to offer in depth rather than waiting here for the little bit people might bring you. Go judge for yourself.
Actually, I’d rather pay for someone’s education, who is going to turn around and become a productive tax paying citizen, then pay for a war to make Haliburton and Cheney richer. Just how many people could we educate for the cost of the war? Well, remember that $87 billion figure? It’s probably low, especially if you read this site . But lets take it as is to be conservative. $87 billion for war or $4000 per student- let’s see that would mean that we could assist with a year’s a year of tuition for 21,750,000 students for the cost of Bush’s war. Which is money down the rathole and which is an investment in our future? The war is costing about $5 billion per month, or enough to provide $4000 in tuition credits to 1,250,000 students.
As far as the stats on the police killed by assault weapons, I took it from Kerry’s web site. I’m still researching for independent verification. But I don’t care if it’s20% or 5%, I don’t want our policemen to be outgunned. If the police think this bill would make them safer and help them keep us safe, I’m for it.
Did you go to college Bob? I did. My folks made just a bit too much money for any substantial financial aid, so who got stuck with the bills? Me. Maybe a tax credit isn’t such a bad idea, but my knee jerk reaction is that I did it on my own, without tax credits, so why can’t everyone else?
I gave you the link where Kerry took the numbers from, a private study by VPC that is flawed. You realize that the AWB does not take one gun off the street don’t you? Do you know what it does? It set up the first legislation to ban guns not by the way they function or by their perceived dangers. Instead it looks at cosmetic features to determine which guns are more dangerous and relies on an uninformed public to support it. Did you look at the data I supplied? Did you see any police officers killed by bayonet lugs? How about telescoping stocks? Just because a gun appears to look scary to some, is not a reason to ban it.
You have repeated the “cops outgunned” line a couple of times. Police are the most trained firearms carriers out there, short of the military. A trained officer with his/her duty weapon will be a much dangerous opponent than a thug with a rifle any day. Most/many police departments carry the very guns that are named in the '94 AWB. Modern police departments have no excuse to be “outgunned”. The very guns that many are peeing their pants over have always been available to LEO’s.
I am not voting (again) for Bush. I’m not apologizing to anyone for voting for him the first time around; the adage of “be careful what you ask for as you just may get it” applies here.
I don’t blame him for 9/11. Heck, I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11, with the caveat that he (and admins. before him, too!) were obviously in a position to stop it.
I don’t blame him for record deficits. War is expensive, and the fact that we were (are?) in an economic slump doesn’t help things any, either.
The blatantly false pretext for invading Iraq; the low-down tactics in the Plame Incident; the diplomatic alienation of the UN and other foreign allies (probably inevitable anyway; liberal socialists hate Republicans, esp. NeoCon Republicans); The Haliburton plundering of the military budget; Bush’s support for the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban; these are enough for me to want him gone.
I ain’t voting for Kerry. I could have voted for Edwards, maybe Dean. But not Kerry.
Is Buchanan running again this time around? Where’s my Bob Dole when I need him?
And that Bush’s policies are good for business, and therefore good for the economy. Former GE head Jack Welch, the Golden Boy of Corporate America, says otherwise here, interestingly:
