Forums > Debate > Dear God Why?
wilcoboy says: Nov 25, 2004, 8:49 PM
I feel like beating my head against a wall over and over again until my brain is completely demolished, because that's what the American people did when they re-elected George "I gotta finsh what my daddy couldn't to prove to him that I'm a man" Bush. I mean come on people! Fear obviously influenced the vote this time, fear of change.Doesn't anyone see that for some reason or another, the new Bin Laden video came out like right before the election? Now not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but that kinda rings some bells in my mind. I just say that we failed... Not only ourselves... but also our brave men and women in uniform... In the words of Michael Moore.. "Will they ever forgive us?"
cvincent says: Nov 25, 2004, 8:55 PM
Careful there. Mentioning Michael Moore will get your arguments some automatic ridicule just because his name was in there. And most of it will come from people who know nothing of the man except what is mentioned on Fox News.By the way, the "Will they ever forgive us?" part of the movie is the absolute best way anyone has ever put it.
Leon5465 says: Nov 25, 2004, 10:09 PM
If Bin Laden was threating attacks on all states that voted FOR Bush... what was your argument again?cvincent says: Nov 26, 2004, 12:39 AM
Oh come on, you know that's bull Leon. In the tape, bin Laden said that neither Kerry nor Bush would protect America. He did not threaten any attack whatsoever, let alone states that voted for a particular candidate. Where exactly do you get your information?wilcoboy says: Nov 26, 2004, 10:28 AM
I know that mentioning Michael Moore will get me into some trouble but I don't really care, I mean the man is really a smart guy and I love his work.But yeah, Bin Laden said that he was going to attack no matter who was president, but I still think that the fear that Mr. Bush placed in the American people before the election won him the votes that he got, mark my words
cvincent says: Nov 26, 2004, 11:50 AM
Definitely. The fact is, the majority of Bush voters are unable to name any specific policy issue that they support him for (except maybe abortion for some of them, and gay marriage for others). It's always something rhetorical and meaningless, such as, "He's tough on _____!" or, "He doesn't waffle on the issues!" (even though he does), or, "I just feel it in my gut that he's the right guy for the job..."Those few who are able to bring up, say, gay marriage, are unable to back up why without quoting Scripture. Protect the sanctity of marriage? What? Sorry, but I think the people getting married should define what that "sanctity" is, rather than the government. Hell, what happened to the Republicans, who traditionally support smaller government that doesn't get into other people's business? Bush is far, far from that.
wilcoboy says: Nov 26, 2004, 12:25 PM
I know what you mean, it seems that every gay-bashing right-wing nutcase has come out of the woodwork since Bush has been in office. It scares me. I say that if you love someone and you are truely in love, it doesn't matter what is between the legs.Bush, in general, frightens me to my very core
thebloodybrothers says: Nov 26, 2004, 6:02 PM
Oh Chris come on, I don't care what your views are on politics. I, as I have told you, think the whole system is a sham. But it is ignorant of you to repeatedly assume that people that vote for Bush are stupid and don't know anything about policies. It is a broad generalization, which I know you frown upon.And to think that Kerry did best, for example in Ohio, in the large Metropolitan areas. Meaning the poorer, and the poorly educated. (I'm not saying that poor=stupid, I am saying that the inner cities usually lack enough funding for adequate education. I think you are smart enough to know what I'm saying here.) Do you think THESE people had specific policies that they supported for John Kerry? Hell no they didn't. The fact is, American citizens don't vot on policies. It is sad, but true. Considering a large part of the Democratic base was voting "Not Bush", your argument is flawed.
cvincent says: Nov 26, 2004, 8:10 PM
"But it is ignorant of you to repeatedly assume that people that vote for Bush are stupid and don't know anything about policies."No it's not. I've had first-hand experience with the issue, and in fact more than one right-wing pundits have said the same thing. If you want the opinion of real conservatives who know the issues, why don't you ask the staff of the New Republic? They endorsed Kerry against Bush in this year's election.
"And to think that Kerry did best, for example in Ohio, in the large Metropolitan areas. Meaning the poorer, and the poorly educated."
Yes, I know what you mean there. But what you mean by "education" is not the same sort of education one needs to know a little something about the guy they voted for. What do schools teach? Besides teaching indirectly how to game the system (which you yourself calls a "sham), they teach mathematics, science, history. The only one of those subjects applicable here is that last one, which admittedly provides an important frame of reference for today's policy issues. So you're right, people in metropolitan regions supporting Kerry might not know how to expand polynomials as well as you and I, or the name of the eighth US president, but that doesn't mean they don't know what Kerry stands for (or, more likely, that they don't know what Bush stands for that they disagree with).
"Do you think THESE people had specific policies that they supported for John Kerry?"
Maybe some of them. But far more of them probably knew Bush's policies better than Bush supporters did, and thus had plenty of reason to vote for the opposition.
"The fact is, American citizens don't vot on policies."
Hence the results of this year's election.
"Considering a large part of the Democratic base was voting "Not Bush", your argument is flawed."
That actually strengthened my argument. But keep in mind that even your statement is flawed; most of the Democratic base voted *for* Kerry. However, most of the independent leftists voted *against* Bush. Liberal != Democrat (or evil, for that matter).
In the end, of course there are people on both sides who vote for a party rather than the issues. But any objective viewer can see that Bush benefits from that fact far more than Kerry. It is really a testament to the Republican propaganda machine, which historically does much better at toying with emotions of the masses than its Democratic counterpart. I mean, for God sake, Cheney said voting for Kerry would lead to us being attacked! That, in the middle of his statements that an attack was imminent no matter what.
Like you said, policies did not win the election. FUD did.
Leon5465 says: Nov 26, 2004, 8:46 PM
To name one, I voted for Bush because of his tax cuts.cvincent says: Nov 26, 2004, 9:21 PM
*for his fiscal irresponsibility.You would prefer "don't tax but spend anyway" over "tax and spend"?
Leon5465 says: Nov 26, 2004, 9:35 PM
We were in a recession. There are three main things you can do to get out of a recession. The conservative way is to lower taxes, the liberal way is to increase government spending, or you could do both. Bush did both, and it worked.Leon5465 says: Nov 26, 2004, 9:43 PM
Oh, I forgot a fourth option. You could just let the economy try to rebound on it's own, and just buckle up for the ride. But that's what Hoover did, and I think we all know how that little story ended...cvincent says: Nov 26, 2004, 9:51 PM
"The conservative way is to lower taxes"Well, that's actually the Maynard Keynes way to do it, simplified. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, also took this approach. However, one must be careful who they give the tax breaks to. Also, it's important to note that it's not as simple as saying, "Ooh, a recession, lower taxes!"
"the liberal way is to increase government spending"
What? Where do you get this? The Book of Liberal Economics? Please explain.
"Bush did both, and it worked."
FIrst of all, I've never heard anyone arguing that driving the government's budget into the worst deficit in history is a good way to boost the economy. What an interesting precedent you've set there. Second of all, you can't really say that "it worked". By that you mean that he didn't make it *worse*. It would have been hard to keep the economy from *ever* improving. Who's to say that another approach would not have made the economy recover faster and more effectively?
To take it a little further, what kind of recovery are we in when the new jobs a) still aren't coming in fast enough to keep up with the number of new workers each month, and therefore we are *still* at a net job loss, and b) are paying very little compared to the jobs we had *before* the recession. This "recovery" isn't much of a recovery yet, so don't go doing something crazy, like maybe declaring victory prematurely.............. "Mission Accomplished!"
thebloodybrothers says: Nov 27, 2004, 9:11 AM
"No it's not. I've had first-hand experience with the issue, and in fact more than one right-wing pundits have said the same thing. If you want the opinion of real conservatives who know the issues, why don't you ask the staff of the New Republic? They endorsed Kerry against Bush in this year's election."I remember when you once freaked out on me for "generalizing" you as a liberal/democrat/whatever label you want to apply. This my friend, is a generalization. And a rather harsh one. Liberals aren't defeating people like Bush because they think they are smarter than everyone else, as your post is a prime example.
And look at what you are saying Chris. People are dumb for voting FOR Bush and not knowing his policies. But people are smart for knowing Bush's policies and voting against him, while still not knowing Kerry's. This doesn't make sense!
Because you know a couple dumb republicans as your first hand knowledge that voted for Bush, doesn't mean that the majority of people that voted in the last election, I mean those that elected the president, are idiots.
And I should have voted for Kerry on what policy? His plan to leave Iraq? Or one of his other broad rhetorical campaign issues?
Zeph says: Nov 27, 2004, 1:32 PM
I think the biggest difficulty in this debate is that each of you is supporting a candidate that doesn't really deserve much support. They both have massive faults, and in my opinion it's worthless to try and make either one seem like a positive decision. With that aside, I'd vote for Bush because a) Tax cuts (hey, I'm a selfish kid and if things go according to plans...those will be very helpful to me in a few years). b) I think Bush is better at making friends and surrounding himself with smart people, so that even if he is screwing up, the people he places in other positions of power can help straighten things out. c) I'm bored and want to get to read another argument from vincent.thebloodybrothers says: Nov 27, 2004, 3:25 PM
I don't necessarily support Bush. The lesser of two evils in my opinion. I didn't vote because this election blew anus. But I'm not about to call the people that voted for Kerry idiots or uninformed or whatever. Just as I'm not calling the people that voted for Bush geniuses or amazing or blah blah woof woof. I'm saying, don't be close-minded and angry at the entire freaking world because Bush was re-elected.cvincent says: Nov 27, 2004, 7:44 PM
Actually... I'm not angry. Nor am I closed-minded; that would require me to have not bothered to study both sides of the issue.I *am* angry at part of the world, though, and in fact a very small part. About 51% of the US population. Precious few people exist outside our borders who support Bush. Maybe that's because they aren't getting the mindless tax cuts. Meanwhile, the United States mid-west votes from their wallets.
You say Bush is less evil than Kerry. Why?
thebloodybrothers says: Nov 28, 2004, 11:43 AM
Why don't the support Bush? What difference does it make if they do? Do you support the President of Argentina Nestor Kirchner?The fact is, people don't like Bush from around the world because he doesn't bow to their demands or wants. They want to feel as though they have some sort of power over the all-powerful U.S. When they realize they don't, they get angry.
And I support Bush more than Kerry because: I like the tax-cuts. They've helped my parents out tremendously as small business owners. I have no doubt Kerry would raise taxes back, regardless of what he said and I think that Iraq is going to get better under Bush (Operation Fallujah) and that under Kerry we would just bow to International pressure.
And you've switched the topic from my original post, which you neglected to respond to. Are people that voted for Bush stupid? Are people that voted for Kerry smarter? Is there, or is there not, an inherent contradiction in your argument?
Leon5465 says: Nov 28, 2004, 12:05 PM
That's one thing the tax cuts were aimed at, small businesses. Help boost the economy, increase jobs, etc. But some people don't realize that and keep screaming that Bush just wants the rich to get richer, even though the upperclass got back a smaller percentage of the taxes they orignally paid than the lower class. Under Kerry's plan, under specific numbers (I forget the exact numbers.. something like 195,000 and 205,000) someone earning 10,000 dollars more than someone else would actually take home a few dollars less.cvincent says: Nov 28, 2004, 1:36 PM
"What difference does it make if they do? Do you support the President of Argentina Nestor Kirchner?"That argument is moot, since Argentina does not have sweeping worldwide influence.
"The fact is, people don't like Bush from around the world because he doesn't bow to their demands or wants."
What kinds of demands and wants are those besides a different perspective on the war in Iraq? Do you even know? You have allowed an insane point of view that it's the world against us. Sorry, but here's some news for you. After 9/11, the whole world, even the French, mourned via newspapers and demonstrations. It's not the world against us unless we have a leader who makes it that way.
"I have no doubt Kerry would raise taxes back, regardless of what he said"
Me either. It's called responsibility. But keep in mind, unless your parents' small business made insane amounts of money, they wouldn't be affected; in fact, Kerry was going to further *lower* taxes for 99% of small businesses.
"and I think that Iraq is going to get better under Bush"
Dude, Bush and Kerry have the *exact* same plan for Iraq. But you only point that out when it's useful to you.
"And you've switched the topic from my original post, which you neglected to respond to. Are people that voted for Bush stupid? Are people that voted for Kerry smarter? Is there, or is there not, an inherent contradiction in your argument?"
No, I think I very clearly answered you. I hate repeating myself, but I'll do it just for you, my little monkey.
I, along with many other *right wing* pundits, believe that more people voting for Kerry had at least *some* grasp on the issues than those who voted for Bush. I don't know a *few* Republicans who don't know about the issues. I know a *lot* of them. In fact, most *independent* Bush voters are the same way. In contrast, I have met very few Kerry voters (yet) who couldn't name several specific issues that they were voting for (or in many cases, against; note that above you tried to conflate my argument into saying that those voting more against Bush than for Kerry knew why they disagreed with Bush by not why they agreed with Kerry; that was a nice attempt at spin that most people would just accept. But that was never my argument, and in fact is contradictory; that they know Kerry's issues is the *reason* they decide they're voting against Bush and not for Kerry).
Now on to Leon.
"That's one thing the tax cuts were aimed at, small businesses."
No, they were aimed at everyone, but balanced way, way on the side of the rich.
"Help boost the economy, increase jobs, etc."
Yes, that would be the effect on most small businesses. But the corporations that practically *own* state and city governments because of the number of jobs they provide would not spend the money in that fashion. Statistically, they just pocket the savings. They don't even use it to reduce prices in the industry, let alone hire new workers.
"But some people don't realize that and keep screaming that Bush just wants the rich to get richer, even though the upperclass got back a smaller percentage of the taxes they orignally paid than the lower class."
Cite a source. I don't think you even read the plan. The top economic 1% of people earned over 50% of the money given back by the tax cuts. If that's not reverse redistribution, I might as well stop arguing, because obviously we exist in a world in which facts have no weight.
"Under Kerry's plan, under specific numbers (I forget the exact numbers.. something like 195,000 and 205,000) someone earning 10,000 dollars more than someone else would actually take home a few dollars less."
Oh come on, that's completely moot. You *have* to draw the line somewhere. With Bush's plan, it's just somewhere else. It's like a kid moving across the street and having to go to a different school because he's in a different district. It happens with any plan, and there's no practical way to prevent it.
Leon5465 says: Nov 28, 2004, 2:23 PM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201/http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbostudy2.html
"The top economic 1% of people earned over 50% of the money given back by the tax cuts."
And they also pay *much* more than 50% of the taxes going into the government. I don't understand the argument here... should the government have given no cuts to the rich and give all that money to the middle/lower class? I'm kind of in a hurry and couldn't find a chart showing the tax cut percentages, but if I recall correctly, the bottom bracket went from 12% to 10% and the top bracket went from 38% to 35%. A lot of people just look at this and assume that means the rich are getting a larger percentage back. But, the lower class is paying 10/12 of their original taxes and the upper class is paying 35/38 of their original taxes. Or 5/6 vs. 35/38, or 83.3% vs. 92.1%. Also, the Bush tax cuts added another lower class bracket, increased the credit per child from 500$ to 1000$, AND increased the credit given to married couples. Which means that they pay even less taxes than before.
cvincent says: Nov 28, 2004, 2:50 PM
First of all, most American families received an average of about $350. Second, the rich should pay in more because they have received more from society. And many of today's rich are rich by inheritance, which has *nothing* to do with economical merit; this used to be taken care of by the estate tax (which Bush called the "death tax" to increase opposition against it; he scared lower and middle class farmers into thinking that they would have to sell the farm to pay the "death tax", even though that has not happened even once in American history, and only an incredibly small percentage (less than 1%) of farm owners would even have this tax apply to them).For an objective look at the necessity of redistribution, which it seems you fail to grasp, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution
Leon5465 says: Nov 28, 2004, 3:27 PM
Well.. the thing is.. the rich ARE paying more taxes. 35% of their income compared to 10% of the lower class income. They also received a smaller percentage of their taxes back. And that's not even including things like property tax.cvincent says: Nov 28, 2004, 4:00 PM
Yeah, that's basically what I said... did you read it?Leon5465 says: Nov 28, 2004, 4:41 PM
I agree with you and many others that the rich should pay more taxes. But I don't know why people are saying that the tax cuts are for the rich. The rich pay far more taxes than anyone else, and they got back a smaller percentage from the tax cuts than anyone else. So I don't see why democrats are against them.Zeph says: Nov 29, 2004, 9:02 AM
You are underestimating the unfairness of the death taxes, they have been extremely corrupt throughout time, and often exceed 100% of an inheritance because of assets that are valued greater than they are worth thanks to the corrupt government assessors that only look toward the "value" of something, not the actual liquid cash value. They fail to take into account the costs of upkeep for any kind of non-cash inheritance (real estate, or a business), and often the inheritor cannot pay the tax on it and it must be sold, usually at a great loss, often even less than the taxes themselves, leaving the inheritor in debt, rather than wealth. For example: When the lone ranger died, his horse (which had been stuffed) was part of the estate that his family inherited. The value of the horse was assessed at several million and the family had to pay taxes on that and other over-assessed collectibles that in reality sold for only a few thousand dollars. In a more realistic example, say someone inherits a business and must pay taxes on it, they have received no cash, and have to out of pocket the tax money. Believe it or not it takes continuous investment to run most kinds of businesses, especially retail financing. Without that cash flow, inventory cannot be replenished which results in a lack of sales, which results in a lack of money to run the business and bankruptcy is guaranteed to follow. Death taxes suck. They need to be taken case-by-case instead of having set standards.cvincent says: Nov 29, 2004, 11:08 AM
I do understand your argument, and if what you say is true, then there's certainly reason for reform of the tax. What I am opposed to is a) completely repealing it, and b) the way the case has been presented by the Administration.For A: America fought a revolution on the basis that our colonial dictators wielded enormous power granted not for merit, as a free market system is supposed to naturally distribute power, but by inheritence. Today, we have the same thing. Many of our country's elite are what they are not because they earned it in their own lifetimes, but because they inherited it. So not only do we have a system which naturally compounds large amounts of power in a small number of people (which is what redistribution efforts are supposed to help), but a system which allows this compounding to continue over an undefined number of generations. That's why an estate tax is proper and necessary.
For B: The Administration has tried to make it look like the estate tax could happen to *anyone*, and has especially targeted lower- and middle-class farmers. However, they have not been able to produce one farmer who had to sell his land to pay an estate tax, because it has never happened in American history. These farmers don't have to pay *any* estate tax at all, let alone sell the farm to do so. The estate tax effects less than 2% of Americans.
Zeph says: Dec 1, 2004, 12:30 PM
I agree that these taxes shouldn't be done away with, just changed...a lot. Only actual cash inheritances should be taxed, if the person's intention is to turn their property inheritances into money by selling it, it'll get taxed when they sell it. It's ridiculous for them to have to pay taxes on the same property twice. I'm probably not making much sense, but what I'm saying makes sense in my head, it's just a little hard to explain in the few short minutes of free time that I have during class.cvincent says: Dec 1, 2004, 2:17 PM
No, it makes sense to me. The whole system needs revamped, really, but there are some taxes that Republicans want to do away with that I think are necessary.metallicafan2132 says: Apr 9, 2006, 3:22 PM
Man your so right.. Bush had done nothin for us. He really fucked up and is just a dipshit..... We're in debt just cuz his dad didnt do what he wanted to and now bush said This is for you pops.josh-13 says: Oct 9, 2006, 12:13 PM
Hahaha, Well I voted for Bush, do I like him, NO, but honestly people give him way too much credit, He is too brain dead to actualy do anything he is just a monkey on strings. People blame him for the war, but did you know the executive branch of the goverment has no power or authority to start a war? It's the Legislative branch, they have power over war, and trade, the executive branch is just a speaker for the people. Now, Bush he may be a total monkey on strings but I do feel he has some good, and yes some bad, but carry, hmm The other guy... now if he where elected things would be worse, way worse. Does anyone pay attention? it was a lose lose situation with the presidents. So all I gotta say is bush is the lesser of the 2 evils. In my opinion, when both presidents suckGO NADER!
Post Reply
You must be logged in to participate in the forums. Don't have an account yet? Sign up for free!
