»Ducky Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 Thoughts, views?Unscientific public poll shows that Kerry again won. I think the margin was much smaller this time, but yet still considerable. (despite the near exact 70%ish/30%ish ratio as the first)
Jerogoth Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 (edited) . Edited July 11, 2007 by Jerogoth
»Ducky Posted October 9, 2004 Author Report Posted October 9, 2004 I did not catch the publisized debate on television as I was out. I read the transcript though and only had one problem. More of a hatred toward the statement than all else.Some back story, and my point in bold LAURENT: Senator Kerry, you’ve stated your concern for therising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidentialcandidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medicalprofessionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters? KERRY: Very easily. John Edwards is the author of the Patients’Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people rights. John Edwards and Isupport tort reform. We both believe that, as lawyers—I’m alawyer, too. And I believe that we will be able to get a fix that hasalluded everybody else because we know how to do it. KERRY: It’s in my health-care proposal. Go to johnkerry.com.You can pull it off of the Internet. And you’ll find a tort reformplan. Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand, the presidentand his friends try to make a big deal out of it. Is it a problem?Yes, it’s a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for OGBYNs(sic) and for brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it’s less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care. Your premiums are going up. You’ve gone up, in Missouri, about$3,500. You’ve gone up 64 percent. You’ve seen co-pays go up,deductibles go up. Everything’s gone up. Five million people have lost their health insurance under thispresident. He’s done nothing about it. I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health carefor you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to letyou buy into the same health care senators and congressmen givethemselves. I have a plan that’s going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy intoMedicare early. KERRY: And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic casesout of the system, off your backs, pay for it out of a federal fund,which lowers the premiums for everybody in America, makes Americanbusiness more compe-*BAD WORD*-ive and makes health care more affordable. Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do onething: Join me in rolling back the president’s unaffordable tax cutfor people earning more than $200,000 a year. That’s all. Ninety-eight percent of America, I’m giving you a tax cut and I’mgiving you health care. GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute and a half. BUSH: Let me see where to start here. First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the mostliberal senator of all. And that’s saying something in that bunch.You might say that took a lot of hard work. The reason I bring that up is because he’s proposed $2.2 trillionin new spending, and he says he going to tax the rich to close the taxgap. He can’t. He’s going to tax everybody here to fund his programs.That’s just reality. BUSH: And what are his health programs? First, he says he’s formedical liability reform, particularly for OB/GYNs. There’s a bill onthe floor of the United States Senate that he could have showed up andvoted for if he’s so much for it. Secondly, he says that medical liability costs only cause a 1percent increase. That shows a lack of understanding. Doctorspractice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits thatcost our government $28 billion a year. And finally, he said he’s going to have a novel health care plan.You know what it is? The federal government is going to run it. It’s the largest increase in federal government health care ever.And it fits with his philosophy. That’s why I told you about theaward he won from the National Journal. That’s what liberals do. They create government-sponsored healthcare. Maybe you think that makes sense. I don’t. Government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing. Itwould ruin the quality of health care in America. I don't understand how one can truely rationalize with that statement.It breaks down the boundaries between the Richer classes and the more poor. Who has right to say because you do not make xxx amount of income, you are not en-*BAD WORD*-led to the same care for the same percentile cost.There is a median that must be met so that both sides of our divided classes may see equality. IT most !@#$%^&*uredly will lower the quality of those who can afford supreme treatment and help, but it increases that quality for our poor just as much. We all have but one life, and to say one is greater than another is just unfathomable.
MasterDrake Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 agreed Bush even pissed me off today PRO CHOICE BABY
Dr.Worthless Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 I don't understand how one can truely rationalize with that statement.It breaks down the boundaries between the Richer classes and the more poor. Who has right to say because you do not make xxx amount of income, you are not en-*BAD WORD*-led to the same care for the same percentile cost.There is a median that must be met so that both sides of our divided classes may see equality. IT most !@#$%^&*uredly will lower the quality of those who can afford supreme treatment and help, but it increases that quality for our poor just as much. So were you equally as appaled by Kerry's "remove tax cuts for the rich" plan? Who has the right to say because you make xx amount of income, you are not en-*BAD WORD*-led to the tax cuts every other citizen receives?
Vile Requiem Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 As long as there's tax loopholes like Bush's Timber Company out there, I think it's a pretty fair proposal to increase rich people's taxes. Need some wood?
A Soldier Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 I didn't have the chance to see it Is there any place where I can watch it for free?
»Ducky Posted October 9, 2004 Author Report Posted October 9, 2004 So were you equally as appaled by Kerry's "remove tax cuts for the rich" plan? Who has the right to say because you make xx amount of income, you are not en-*BAD WORD*-led to the tax cuts every other citizen receives?Heh, and to burst your bubble. I amThe rich are too highly taxed.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 As long as there's tax loopholes like Bush's Timber Company out there, I think it's a pretty fair proposal to increase rich people's taxes. The top 50% of the tax bracket in the US provide 95% of the tax revenue.
Aileron Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 hmmmm....when I read that transcript it looks like Kerry got well owned in the health care issue...not so much in taxes. Still I don't benefit from the upper class' taxes being raised or lowered and know very well that the world is not fair. There is no good reason for us to care if upper class taxes are high, low, dodged, or whatnot. Well, except that our government needs money...but since we are a capitalist system any budget problems stem from us spending money on liberal programs. A national health care system would be great for a socialist government that is set up properly. However, our capitalist government isn't really set up for heavy social programs. I don't like the way liberals think. Kerry is thinking: Alright, I'm too dumb to figure out the proper solution to this situation, so I'm going to tax money from the populace and throw the money at the problem. In any case, the solution to this problem will not be made by dramatic plans from the Presidency but rather a series of small subtle changes in Congress that will occur or maybe even already have occured. Thus, Bush's path of pursuing Tort law reform is better...that's one of the pieces to this puzzle. Kerry's plan is effectively to throw the puzzle off the table and try to singlehandedly make his own.
MasterDrake Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 mmmk I watched the debate again I going with bush, kerry kept avoiding questions
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Author Report Posted October 10, 2004 Kerry's plan is effectively to throw the puzzle off the table and try to singlehandedly make his own.Aye, not at all what this country was founded on. Although I do agree with the difficulty in obtaining his goal, dismissing it isn't the proper way. No headway is ever made. I don't like the way liberals think. Kerry is thinking: Alright, I'm too dumb to figure out the proper solution to this situation, so I'm going to tax money from the populace and throw the money at the problem.That is one of the best solid solutions. I cannot speak for others, but if we can achieve such a thing of equality, I would not mind s-*BAD WORD*-ing out extra money. I don't believe in obtaining more material possession than I need if I am already comfortable. If I worked 30 hours a week to obtain that goal, working 31 would be no trouble if I knew it was going to a solid cause.
Aileron Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Ah...but taxes aren't that. Taxes FORCE people to work that 31st hour even if they don't want to though forcing people to do the right thing isn't all that wrong. Social Inequality is a bad thing...but I don't think the solution is taxes. One needs to examine how the upper class makes their millions and pull economic strings to change the system. Social Equality is kinda like the Robin Hood concept...rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, the point of giving to the poor has to be made. Robbing from the rich and pocketing is simple greed, robbing from the rich and throwing the money away amounts to envy. Giving to the poor without robbing from the rich is righteous. That is my problem with government social programs...they tax the rich, but the money ends up in a maze of buerocracy. In the end, the money probably ends up in either some corrupt worker's pocket or flat-out wasted. If we are lucky, it goes into some welfare check that somebody will spend on beer or drugs. If it is going to be pocketed or wasted, the money would probably better off in the hands of the rich. What needs to be done is for corporations to be given incentives for hiring more employees and paying them more. Another thing that could be done is to provide aid to smaller businesses, so that corporations get some compi-*BAD WORD*-ion. We should focus on the latter. CEO's make the money they do because corporations are too easy to run and its too easy for them to find employees. Neither candidate has a platform close to what I think should be done...but Bush's plan is in the same ballpark.
MonteZuma Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 ...If we are lucky, it goes into some welfare check that somebody will spend on beer or drugs. If it is going to be pocketed or wasted, the money would probably better off in the hands of the rich....The problem with people who have never been poor is that they think welfare payments are only spent on beer and drugs. The fact is most of it is spent on shelter, utilities, food and clothes. More money is spent by wealthy people on alcohol and drugs than by poor people. I've seen some stats that indicate that a bigger proportion of wealthy household income is spent on alcohol too. The idea that people on welfare waste all their money is a myth propogated by middle class people who begrudge their taxes being used to help people less fortunate than themselves.
MasterDrake Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Poor misguided foreigner, We complain about the people you abuse welfare and don't really need it. How would you feel if some dirtbag in perfect health without a job was taking your hard earned money, even if they use it for food and shelter its still wrong.
MonteZuma Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 Poor misguided foreigner,Cute. We complain about the people you abuse welfare and don't really need it.Most people who get welfare really do need it. Most welfare recipients aren't dirtbags. Most welfare recipients are ordinary people who haven't had the same breaks that most people have had. You don't end social inequality or welfare dependance through insults and neglect. You end it through education, understanding and the provision of support services. But it isn't cool to actually understand a problem and search for win-win solutions. The cool thing to do is to throw around a few piss-weak insults and pretend to be bad-!@#$%^&*. Petulance works for GWB, why shouldn't it work for you?
Petrajs_Killer Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 MonteZuma, you missed the point. And then added in a bit of flammage yourself, how cute. Anywho, there does exist a problem of giving away welfare to those that don't need it. Healthy people who can work, yet chose not to since they're being given a handout by the government, should not recieve it (with the exception if their work won't be enough to fully sustain them). There is also another source of fraud with Mexican citizens who cross the border. Yes, this is true, but barely news-worthy I suppose. I heard of this a couple of years ago, and nothing else since. So, these people apply for welfare, have a mailling address within America, and simply cross the border, get the paycheck, and cross back. But hey, if throwing more money into this program helps, why should we complain, right? We're bad people if one raises a discenting voice. It's only fair that a liberal can shout and scream while the rest must sit down and stay quiet, right?
»Ducky Posted October 15, 2004 Author Report Posted October 15, 2004 We could kill two birds with one stone?Give christian conservatives the lead with welfare and let them tweak it. I assume Monte is raising the point that welfare abuse is a minority, and that the majority of people honestly do need it.It seems he is taking a crack of the over exaggerated conservative view on the subject. 9x% of people are only supported by welfare within a 2 year period; those that extend that period of time are disabled to the point of needing it and abusers. 9x% is a good number, so the issue needs only tweaked as earlier mentioned. I agree that corruption in the system needs to end, but the majority of say (drug users) are in the situation where that welfare is needed, and the goverment has an incredibly hard time catching those who dishonor the system and determining whether or not the money is for legit reason. That last paragraph can be ripped apart, but I can't think of how to word it more appropriately at the moment.
MasterDrake Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 So only 3.5 million of the population abuses is what your says, I don't know about you but that pisses me off because my taxes aren't going to a righteous cause. Maybe we could make better welfare regulations to make sure that it isn't possible for these abusers to get it.
Bacchus Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 I don't know about USA but better welfare regulations means more efficient control mechanisms and that in turn costs money in man power and in paperworks. It could even be that such measures would cost a whole lot more than what's being poached by abusers.
»Ducky Posted October 15, 2004 Author Report Posted October 15, 2004 I gave no definate number as I don't know it Drake.The latter 10% could be 9.9% disabled for all I know. The system does need worked out, and to meet Bacchus' point, I would prefer to live in an over expended system that is righteous to it's people than one that turns the other eye. Although that seems the course of action for most things important, I wouldn't mind it being better.
MonteZuma Posted October 17, 2004 Report Posted October 17, 2004 MonteZuma, you missed the point.No. I didn't. And then added in a bit of flammage yourself, how cute.When in Rome... Anywho, there does exist a problem of giving away welfare to those that don't need it. Healthy people who can work, yet chose not to since they're being given a handout by the government, should not recieve it (with the exception if their work won't be enough to fully sustain them).Obviously. If this happens, then rules need to be improved or better enforced, fraudsters need to be punished. But anyone who !@#$%^&*umes that most people who get welfare are ripping off the system needs a reality check. Living on welfare sucks. Very few people would make an informed choice to live that way. Those that do probably need some serious counselling. But hey, if throwing more money into this program helps, why should we complain, right? We're bad people if one raises a discenting voice. It's only fair that a liberal can shout and scream while the rest must sit down and stay quiet, right?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Heh. Some conservatives aren't called red necks for nothing. There are squeaky wheels on every side of politics. At the moment the conservatives are getting a lot more grease.
Synister Posted October 17, 2004 Report Posted October 17, 2004 I didn't have the chance to see it <_< Is there any place where I can watch it for free?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> O_o hey soldier..havent seen u for awhile.....................
Recommended Posts