Good Points By Mr. Maher

[BuddyLee]

Cleaned Up Quotes... Cont'd
JOHN KERRY'S "TRUST ME"
John Kerry has the right issue in government catering to special interests. I don't have nearly the problem with Bush about Iraq as I do about this - crony capitalism as they call it. But is he the right messenger, given he's the senator who raised more from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years.

And his answer is the same as the one I hate from the Republicans: "Trust me!"

Yes, I take their money - but they get nothing! Nada! I spit on their requests! Scorched earth policy! If they even ask me for a favor, I give them such a look!

This is the same problem I have with Rush Limbaugh: don't come out and pretend your addiction is better than the other guy's addiction.

The money influences your votes, who you talk to and who you don't have time for, and which asses you kiss.

Not that the Republicans aren't worse - for them, "Special interests have taken over our government!" is an applause line.
____________________________________________________

Just Give Us the Tools, We'll Take it From There

According to ABC News, U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are receiving the usual “Care Packages” from home. You know, clean socks, chewing gum, smokes…armor chest plates to keep them from getting killed. Due to still-unexplained shortages of critical materials and equipment, some U.S. military families and parents are forced to spend thousands of dollars of their own money to purchase essentials for their enlisted sons and daughters serving in Iraq. Other troops, including the President’s beloved reservists, are bringing their own goggles, backpacks, and gloves when they travel to Iraq to fight the people who hate us because we’re free or whatever. Now, I can see the Bush administration screwing these kids out of essential supplies if they were just schoolchildren, but these are our troops we’re talking about here. Is it too much to ask to send them into harm’s way with decent safety equipment? Or should we just start calling them the Coalition of the Naked?

 

[vraiblonde]

Cont'd? Where's the first part?

While I'm impressed Maher would bring up the Kerry hypocrisy, I take exception to him saying the Republicans are worse. They're not worse - just different in who they sell themselves to. To me, that's what it boils down to in that regard - do I support the group that bought a particular candidate?

And I'm impressed with you, Buddy, because at your tender age of almost 21, you're taking an interest in this stuff.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Now, I can see the Bush administration screwing these kids out of essential supplies if they were just schoolchildren, but these are our troops we’re talking about here. Is it too much to ask to send them into harm’s way with decent safety equipment? Or should we just start calling them the Coalition of the Naked?

I hope you can see the attempt to heap blame where it may not be founded to further an agenda:

1. Fighting men have been supplementing their issue equipment to get an "edge" or increase their chance of victory since ancient times. It was not uncommon, for instance, for a soldier in the civil war to spend a couple-months pay to obtain a repeating rifle for an advantage over the government-issue muzzleloader. When I see images of the fighting men in Iraq, they hardly appear naked or underequiped - especially as compared to their adversary.

2. The budgetary and procurement process in the US government is a long and lengthy ordeal. As I understand it, military procurement has increased significantly over past expenditures; hopefully this will continue until our fighting men & women have even better than the best equipment in the world.

3. The Federal government HAS not been the one to provide "essential supplies" to school children. Nor should it be. However, I believe Federal spending on education has increased.

Notice the tactic: Pit one group against another, so no matter what is done, nothing will satisfy. Spend more on defense, your screwing children....Spend more on eduation, your screwing our soldiers. Spend more on both as we are now, and the whiny pizz-babies cry foul.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Just Give Us the Tools, We'll Take it From There

According to ABC News, U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are receiving the usual “Care Packages” from home. You know, clean socks, chewing gum, smokes…armor chest plates to keep them from getting killed. Due to still-unexplained shortages of critical materials and equipment, some U.S. military families and parents are forced to spend thousands of dollars of their own money to purchase essentials for their enlisted sons and daughters serving in Iraq. Other troops, including the President’s beloved reservists, are bringing their own goggles, backpacks, and gloves when they travel to Iraq to fight the people who hate us because we’re free or whatever. Now, I can see the Bush administration screwing these kids out of essential supplies if they were just schoolchildren, but these are our troops we’re talking about here. Is it too much to ask to send them into harm’s way with decent safety equipment? Or should we just start calling them the Coalition of the Naked?

What equipment are the troops lacking? A blind claim doesn't make it so and I am sure that the boys and girls out there doing our bidding are equipped properly. I certainly haven't seen anyone scrounging for a weapon or Kevlar.

 

[SurfaceTension]

To be fair, I have seen a news report that claimed some (?) Guard units were lacking vest inserts for stopping higher-energy rounds. The same report, however, only actually showed the guardsmen "spending their hard-earned pay" for Mechanix-brand gloves, lamenting that the government-issue gloves were not as good. That got a from me and cast doubt on how much was reality vs. how much was generated by a reporter trying to create a story.

A far cry from "the Coalition of the Naked"

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And I'm impressed with you, Buddy, because at your tender age of almost 21, you're taking an interest in this stuff.

Yes, young people need to be more involved with the political process. It is pitiful how few of us vote - 20% last election - and because of it, no politicians care about us. I mean the latest Medicare drug benefit puts a tremendous burden on my generation. Either there has to be a 23% tax increase to pay for the benefits or there has to be large, reckless spending cuts. The politicians continually raid the Social Security trust fund without any care. College loan programs are getting cut, and more pollutants are allowed in the air. Young people need to start paying attention, or our generation will face major hardships when we hit middle age.

 

[tlatchaw]

Originally posted by rraley
Yes, young people need to be more involved with the political process. It is pitiful how few of us vote - 20% last election - and because of it, no politicians care about us. I mean the latest Medicare drug benefit puts a tremendous burden on my generation. Either there has to be a 23% tax increase to pay for the benefits or there has to be large, reckless spending cuts. The politicians continually raid the Social Security trust fund without any care. College loan programs are getting cut, and more pollutants are allowed in the air. Young people need to start paying attention, or our generation will face major hardships when we hit middle age.

You know, 20 years ago I had the exact same arguments and thes issues are still there. Here are a few things that have made an impact on me, however.

-raise taxes or cut spending: spending needs to be cut. Raising taxes has a negative impact ont he economy, thereby lowering the tax base and getting less for the taxed percentage. Then we aren't getting as much $ as we thought we would so we have to raise taxes again and the cycle continues.

-Social security needs radical change. We have a social contract to support those that are already on it, but we can't expect today's wage earners to keep putting in $ that they have no hope of ever getting back. It would be best if we privatized at least part of the investment and KEPT CONGRESS'S GRUBBY PAWS OFF OF IT! DON'T use SS overages to fake your way into a balanced budget. I don't consider my 401K to be part of my budget, except for the amount that I PUT IN.

-Not sure where you are coming from with the clean air thing. Seems to me that the air today is cleaner and fresher overall (not in big cities during rush hour) than it was 20-30 years ago. I'm afraid you might be getting fed some hype.

Keep the faith and welcome the forums!

 

[rraley]

Thank you for the welcome tlatclaw.
Let me tell you about what I believe needs to occur on the issues that I mentioned.
Raise taxes or reduce spending: Spending has got to be controlled. No one on either side is really desiring a stop to it though. Republicans always talk about how they want to do this, but then they go off to Washington and see that there is more pork available than there is on a hog farm. Congressmen all want pet projects in their districts so that they can essentially buy the votes of their constituents. There needs to be some real fiscal discipline in Washington from both sides. Now on taxes, I am not so sure that increasing taxes have such a negative effect on the economy as some say. For instance, FDR increased taxes during the Depression and rather than unemployment go up, it decreased from 25% to 8% in a matter of two years. Clinton increased taxes for the rich early in his presidency and 20 million jobs were created. This is what I believe we should do about these taxes. The Bush tax cuts for those who have incomes above $200,000 should be repealed in order to help our financial situation (after all giving the rich all that money has greatly helped the economy). Rather than helping the rich in the realm of personal income, companies ought to be helped in the business taxation realm. The capital gains tax, especially for small businesses, needs to be reduced, and other tax incentives for job creation from individual businesses should be passed. That, in my opinion, will help the economy much more than income tax reductions, and will help everyone's income to go up. The true form of supply-sided economics is to reduce business taxes, not income taxes. The fact is that the deficit has to be controlled, for the only generation that it hurts is mine and later ones. We need more revenue and more business stimulation, which will come because of business tax cuts, not personal tax income reductions.

Social Security: it does absolutely need change. This is what I propose. The current people that are receiving Social Security continue to receive it as do those that are close to retirement. After the baby-boomers retire, some major reform has to start. First of all, the "lockbox" has to be created so that greedy politicos don't get their hands on the money of my generation and those that do not receive Social Security. Voluntary retirement accounts should be established for all that want them, the retirement age should be increased in accordance with life expectancy, and there should be caps for wealthier people (these folks mostly will be getting some fat pension checks, making Social Security not as needed for them).

Environment: the most recent Clean Air Act that recently passed Congress allows more carbon dioxide emissions because it is no longer labeled harmful to the environment. It is vital that we protect our environment and sadly politicians would rather explore for oil in ANWR than consider the long range environmental effects of that exploration.

 

[vraiblonde]

there should be caps for wealthier people (these folks mostly will be getting some fat pension checks, making Social Security not as needed for them).

The problem with that is there aren't enough wealthy people to go around. SS deductions aren't like Federal or State taxes, where it's completely income-based. SS is only deducted on your first $87,900 in income. Even if you make a million $$$ a year, SS is only paid on that portion.

So now we have to define "wealthy". Is it $100,000 per year? $200,000 per year? Those people typically don't get pension checks. They sock money into an IRA or something, which is just good planning on their part and shouldn't be penalized.

 

[rraley]

I didn't fully explain myself on that. The cap for taxing should be lifted to around $200,000 as Henry Aaron suggests so that more money can be paid into the system. It is not the cure all but along with other measures, it will greatly help. I also forgot to mention how we need to change the mentality of Social Security. The program has never been intended to be the lone way for paying for retirement. You have to save money and build up some interest. Social Security is a third of sound retirement, not all of it.
The definition of wealthy to me is around $200,000 a year income (I believe that is where the second to highest tax bracket starts). You can do damn well with that kind of money.

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Cont'd? Where's the first part?

While I'm impressed Maher would bring up the Kerry hypocrisy, I take exception to him saying the Republicans are worse. They're not worse - just different in who they sell themselves to. To me, that's what it boils down to in that regard - do I support the group that bought a particular candidate?

And I'm impressed with you, Buddy, because at your tender age of almost 21, you're taking an interest in this stuff.

Thanks Vrai! Do you want to know what my biggest influence was to get into politics? Mr. Maher lol.

I wish more youngsters like me would vote and then we'd have a better chance of having it our way.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by rraley
The definition of wealthy to me is around $200,000 a year income (I believe that is where the second to highest tax bracket starts). You can do damn well with that kind of money.

Not if you're only bringing home a little more than half of that $200K due to it being taxed at such an exorbitant rate. Also, depending on where you reside a $200K income will equate to a $40K income. (N. VA vs Hickville WV).

I'm really fed up with the Robin Hood taxation in this country.
I'm 33 years old, my husband is 35, we're ahead of the game when it comes to income, however, we're by no means "rich". We've made smart choices in our lives to get where we are, why should we be penalized for these choices?

You know, what liberals fail to understand, in the "you can do damn well with that kind of money".... is that so what?! We've worked for it, strived for it, busted our hiney's for it. Stop penalizing those who better themselves. Guh! Okay off my soapbox.

 

[Pete]

The other thing that the liberals do not understand is that you can pass out $5,000 checks all freaking day long and by the end of the week 9 out of the 10 reciepients will still be broke losers. THEY DO NOT WANT IT ANY BETTER.