Why vote for Bush?

[JustAnotherGuy]

*Originally posted by jshore *

And, JAG, as to your point that “that Canadian doctor would make alot more money here”…Do you think he doesn’t know that?!? And yet, he prefers the system there. Hmmm…He’s either a masochist or he has some principled or self-interested reasons for liking it better!

The response was to the implication made that the doctor would NOT come to the U.S. because they would NOT make as much money because of all the people they would have to hire to fill out paperwork. I was basically saying that was ridiculous and am glad you agree. As to why he might like it there… most people are, by nature, territorial and don’t pick up and move just to make more money, especially when it involves moving to another country. Most people also justify staying where they are in spite of economic factors that might benefit them elsewhere. Some people are actually good at heart and do things out of a sense of something other than a paycheck, still the paycheck is very important.

JShore

(Exhibit A: all the huge SUVs clogging the roads and people who won’t walk a block when they can drive.) This is basic market economics theory.
I think the evils introduced into the economy by having automobile use so highly subsidized needs to be addressed. (And, by the way, it is not just gas vs. electric cars, it is also big huge monstrosities vs. smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, it is excessive and illogical use of automobiles vs. more careful and efficient use, and it is cars vs. public transit…at least in areas of high enough population density to support public transit.)

I don’t know anyone who would take the time to get into the car to go a block. You don’t need to exaggerate to make your point. SUVs are popular for a number of reasons, safety being the biggest. Have you ever seen one of those gas-efficient compacts after an accident? Most people who can afford to do so will prefer to put their children in something a little safer. Plus, there is the comfort of the additional room, key for long trips. There is the ability to accelerate with more than one person in the vehicle to merge onto the beltway.

It isn’t because people hate the environment. Cows reportedly emit more ozone reducing gases than cars, perhaps we should tax steak and hamburger? I agree that the environment needs to be not only protected, but helped. However, I don’t think additional gas taxes are the way to go about it. Perhaps if that money is earmarked for environmental purposes, but you and I are intelligent enough to know that the federal government never locks itself up that way. The money will go to some State project somewhere to make the Congressperson who writes the bill look good in their home state. Or to Interstate construction for the unions that buy government like candy. (Not just indicated Dems here, Reps have their Owners too, i.e. Pharmaceutical Industry)

If that money went directly to a separate agency, who’s only goal was emissions control (already paid for in many states by emissions testing fees) and other environmental functions(perhaps clean fuel or electric car technology research), I could support a gas tax, otherwise, it’s just another door for greedy politicians to get their hands on our money and I am against it.

[DKW]

Why vote for Bush? Well, because he might possibly have the best chance of winning, and everyone wants to back a winner! And he’s a lot more pleasant than boring 'ol Gore. Besides, the Democrats have been been in power for too long!

Other than that, I’m drawing a blank here. :rolleyes:

[jshore]

*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *

I don’t know anyone who would take the time to get into the car to go a block. You don’t need to exaggerate to make your point.

No exaggeration…A colleague at work describes his neighbor who regularly drives one or two hundred feet down his driveway to get his mail from the mailbox. Strangely, my colleague says that this person is otherwise quite industrious…He added a new deck onto his house by himself. Go figure.

…Now back to watching the election returns…

[PunditLisa]

And, I read recently that the claim that the drug companies are responsible for all this wonderful innovation is overblown. Basically, they often take discoveries made with government money and then do the final step of product development and then make a killing on it.

So you want to pull a Gore and tax the companies to provide money for the NIH, only to return the money back to the very companies you taxed…minus the cost of “administering” the program. Great idea!

Besides, if the government “gives away” the technology they developed, that’s good! The government’s goal in hiring researchers and giving grants is what – to give people jobs? No, to help combat sickness and disease of its people. It’s a matter of national interest that our population is healthy. So partnering with Merck or Marion Merrell Dow makes sense because they have the resources in place to take new products through the final steps to get it to market. Just as partnering with General Electric to develop new and better aircraft for the military makes sense.

And taking a new product to market isn’t easy or cheap. After the r&d comes the FDA approval process, patent applications, packaging, advertising. and acquiring liability insurance against future claims should your new product, in addition to growing hair, also starts eating away at people’s heart valves. And who do you think would accomplish this “final step” quicker and more cost effectively? The bureaucrat who pays a grand for a screwdriver or the scum sucking CEO?