You cannot, at any time, use the 'because-he's-not-George-Bush' reasoning, or any fraction thereof.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Because he believes in my belief of the need for a separation of church and state. I don't believe that Bush believes in my definition of the separation of church and state.
I believe in more rights of the invidivual than Bush seems willing to grant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I make no bones at all about the fact that I oppose Bush and only loosely support Kerry. It's my opinion that the Dems nominated one of the worst possible candidates -- but, of that whole field, there wasn't a one of 'em who'd have been as bad as Bush.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom broke the rules! I'm gonna go tell teacher!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But in all fairness, if that's the reason that Tom is voting for him, then how else could he respond?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He could not have responded at all. . .
I'm very cross now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Because John Kerry does not see things in black & white/them or us. He understands the subtleties and is willing to work with them.
Because he is pushing for benefits for the great majority of people who are not the wealthy.
Because he is willing to compromise and seek the middle ground when it is best for the country, such as his attempt to bring John McCain into his circle, and when that didn't work, his willingness to bring John Edwards, a one time opponent, on as Vice President.
Because he is open minded.
Because when he says Bi-Partisan, he means Bi-Partisan, not Republican and no choice but the Democrats agree or be shut out.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Because he went to war when the country needed him whereas those in power went to war when the country didn't need it. And, er, because he is not from Texas.
fil
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What Dan_Raven said. John Kerry's a good speaker, for one thing, he seems sensible, yet at times like some democrats he bothers me. Like saying even if he knew then what he knew now he'd still vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq... That statement bothered me a bit. I dislike it when Democrats try to act like baby Republicans, or like low carb, low fat Republicans. I want to vote for a Democrat because they believe in different things from Republicans in terms of economics and the environment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And, er, because he is not from Texas.
I know it was probably meant as a joke, but that comment really ticked me off.
And I'm not even from Texas.
edit: Why do I have such a bad sense of humor here? Probably because even though it was meant as a joke, many people actually do feel that way.
[ September 07, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mr. Port, what do you expect after that "Swagger, in Texas we call it walkin" line from the convention.
Ok, that was a joke.
Back to our regulary scheduled rant.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Because he and John Edwards actually recognize that there are people like me out here, and that we are good for more than paying taxes and working in low-paying, dead-end jobs.
Because when the Democrats controlled the White House, I didn't have any trouble finding a job. But with the Republicans in charge, I can't.
Because Kerry didn't run away and hide behind daddy and money, but went to Vietnam, while Bush not only joined the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam but then skipped out on a lot of his Guard obligations.
Because Bush always seems like he's about to break out in a big smirk.
And because the idea of Bush and Cheney being re-elected makes me physically ill.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Whats strange about the idea that "A vote for Kerry is really a vote against Bush" is that President Bush is doing everything in his power to turn it around, and say "A vote for President Bush is a vote against that lawyer-loving, tax fiend, evil Kerry."
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
I support Kerry because he's got an established record of personally commiting war crimes. Kerry understands that when you're in a war zone, it is a good opportunity to kill innocents for fun (and profit). Kerry also needs extra consideration because...well, you've seen the man, he needs our support (unlike some people running for office).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
whoop dee doo... Ya can always air tapings of uninformed folks if ya throw out answers that don't show cluelessness.
JayLeno makes it a regular part of his show. Momentary fame being a driving passion of some, it would be unsurprising to find that many folks are cued -- through knowlege of the camera crew's employer -- to deliberately give incorrect answers in hopes of appearing on national TV.
Same with SeanHannity's "people are stupid" videos. Heck, most of those broadcasted answerers coulda been Hannity fans: neo"conservative"Republicans and pro-Bush folks who just wanted to be on his television show.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Because John Kerry is well-versed in foreign affairs. From his speeches, and the fact that one of his closest advisors is Richard Holbrooke, I get the impression that he will not alienate the United Nations or sidestep them, violating a nation's sovereignty in the process.
Because Democrats have a much better record on being fiscally conservative. Our debt is going incredibly high, and our deficits are the worst ever. Yet the Republicans want to make tax cuts permanent. This makes no sense. But the numbers are too large, the debt is too abstract for the public, and they are easily swayed by the paltry sum they get back from the government. Only fiscally responsible leadership will change this. This was also a factor in the '92 election, and one of the major platforms for Ross Perot.
Because Democrats have a better record on the environment. I'm not saying that things will get better with a Democrat in office. I'm just saying that Democrats will appoint people who care more about the environment and will damage the world ecosystem less than with a Republican in office. Republicans tend to favor big business over the environment.
Because I think Democrats do a better job of separating Church and state. I don't mind if our leader is religious - I just don't want him restricting possibilities (some might say freedoms) for many Americans who do not believe as that leader does, like the possibility that gay Americans can have civil unions. The Republican platform now opposes this. They do not want to let the states make the decision. And I think the basis for this is religion. This upsets me.
Edit: misspelled Holbrooke's name and put better link to him...hmmm, for some reason the background does not mention that he was also Amabssador to the United Nations.
Re-edit: Wikipedia link to him this time. MUCH better. Wikipedia rewls.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Because Dems are more willing to put envrionment ahead of business interests ( more being relative, of course)
Because I do not want a president who pushed for an amendment denying citizens marriage rights.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You know, most of these are at least partially "He's-not-Bush".
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Well if he were Bush, it would be an awfully difficult choice.
Reasons are reasons because they differ on the subject. If they had the same opinion, then it wouldn't be a reason to support Kerry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's fair. Almost all of my reasons for voting for Bush could be recouched in "He's not Kerrey" terms.
Dagonee
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Yeah. Kind of ironic isn't it? The Republicans have certainly lost their way on this issue.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
1) He is going to allow me to feel better about America. It's associative good. He isn't going to make me richer or give me more stuff, but I think he is going to make me feel better about the government I associate with. I read a great paper about associative goods in higher education, and if anyone is interested, I'll try to find a link.
2) I think he is going to take a big whack at lowering health care premiums, which will help everyone.
3) I think he is serious about alternative energy sources.
4) I think he is serious about getting tough with the Sauds and Americans with their love of gas guzzling cars, and that is the kind of political courage I admire, and I believe should be modeled in our everyday interactions.
5) I think he is the best shot at lowering the national debt and strengthening the dollar.
[ September 07, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: That's fair. Almost all of my reasons for voting for Bush could be recouched in "He's not Kerrey" terms.
I don't care about it. I was just thinking about Scott's stipulation. I've said that if I had to pick I'd pick Kerry because I know I can't trust Bush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I am also equally confident that there are many intelligent, informed people who are voting on issues they feel are legitimate."
To me, the removal of Bush IS a legitimate issue. You can practically define his politics and policies as "anything Tom Davidson thinks is ridiculously stupid and/or destructive." Ergo, it would take a real loser of a Democratic nominee -- I mean, a historically catastrophic loser -- for me to look at Bush and consider leaving him in office.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Being pretty much 50/50 at the moment, I appreciate those who took the time to follow Scott's rules here. I hate all the negative campaigning. I would also like to feel like Bush's successor had more of a platform than "I can do better than he did."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not that I'm American, but if I were...
...because the Kerry Administration would not contain the following people:
Paul Wolfowitz John Ashcroft Richard Perle Dick Cheney
George W. Bush himself I dislike to the same extent as Kerry. However, I suspect that Bush is going to win the election (and have suspected so since well before the whole process actually started). I realize I'm sort of ducking your rule, so I'll also give an answer within the parameters you set:
...because I believe that George W. Bush's tax cuts were a Very Bad Idea, and Kerry has said that he will correct that particular problem, repealing the high-end cuts but leaving the low-end cuts in place. Furthermore, the Kerry Administration MIGHT stem the tide of industrial deregulation that the present Bush Administration has started. Obviously the Bush Administration, were it to remain in power, would not stem this tide.
Edit: Keep in mind that a) I'm a pinko commie Canadian and b) I'm an engineer.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I can do better than he did.
Vote for PSI.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Biggest reason: because he's a democrat and congress will still be mostly republican. I maintain that a split government is far, far better than one with both parties controlling the legislative and executive branches, that this has been a sound historical tendency.
Furthermore, I think Kerry might actually listen on occasion to science (a way of thinking Bush rejects as a foundation for policy, his administration routinely suppressing studies that disagree with their goals), which I think is a reasonable expectation for a fair and rational presidency.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You can?! Oh, well, in that case...
Hey, wait a minute, PSI, could you assure me that voting for you won't just be voting for Bush?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Um, well, I'm not Bush, but you'll have to come do a DNA test to be sure.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think a lot of those were Bush related issues, and if we can't mentioned issues this might as well be...well, the RNC...
I dislike a lot of Bush's stances on a number of issues, and in fairness to the rule I will not bash Bush personally.
I am in favor of both pro-choice (reluctantly) and civil unions, and the republicans have made it clear that they are opposed to them. One of my biggest fears is the Supreme Court nominees that Bush would put forth would overturn most of the progressive reforms the Court has made over the last 50 years.
Also, I don't care how many minimum wage jobs are created, I don't like where the economy is heading under the Republican administration. Things are not any better for the middle class..as a matter of fact, even with both my wife and I working full time, we could probably qualify for food stamps....so I think Bush's plan to "change" (read eliminate) overtime rules is one of the worse ideas I have ever heard! A ton of people will become "Exempt" from the normal work week of 40 hours, and make less even though they are working more hours due to no more overtime pay or holiday pay...and only the companies will benefit from relaxing these rules, so they are free to create MORE 60 hour, non-overtime jobs...just what we need, right?
As long as your last name is Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft, things will only get better and better...
And you are a fundamental Christian...no separation of Church and State to speak of...
Kwea
[ September 07, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Alexa-- I created this thread because I wondered if anyone who was supporting Kerry was doing it on the man's own merits, and not on their perception of Bush's faults.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that was my point in the second part, adam .
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WEll, I think he has a better plan than what we are doing now...does that count? I am not going to vote for him just because he isn't Bush....although that sure doesn't hurt :;....but because I don't like his economic, enviromental, judicial, or religious stamces, and I think Kerry holds values closer to my own.
Does that count?
Kwea
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I'm quite glad that so many are, Scott. Of course, given, say, the choice between Stalin and "anybody else", I'd most likely go with anybody else, not knowing who it was. I'm not saying Bush is Stalin, but neither is Kerry anybody else. He's a fairly successful Senator who's not particularly extreme in any of his views, and has a long track record which shows he can think through issues and change his mind over time based on that (oddly, many examples Bush's team have come up with of Kerry "flip flopping" have been just Kerry voting differently in completely different situations on similar bills, such as with gasoline prices). Whereas Bush has a short record that some may find good in some areas, but definitely includes "say I'll support stuff, then ignore/try to cut funding on it shortly thereafter and just not mention that" (which, btw, the Dems should be hounding him on: clips of his state of the unions where he supports some program, then images of his proposed budgets which cut those programs), and suppressing science all over the place to a far greater extent than any recent administration, two rather large problems.
[ September 07, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you are a fundamental Christian...no separation of Church and State to speak of...
Riiigght. Because it's now illegal to go to any Church other than Bush's?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm leaning towards Kerry because:
On Tax Cuts Kerry believes "the first thing we have to do is to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." Source: Issue2000.org
Gay Marriage Kerry will not support a federal constitution amendment to ban gay marriage.
Death Penalty Kerry opposes the death penalty other than in cases of real international and domestic terrorism.
Environment John Kerry on the environment: "We have to encourage the use of hybrid vehicles and invest in research and development. We have to set a goal by 2020 that 20 percent of our energy will come from renewable fuels." Source: Issue2000
Free Trade Kerry on free trade: "I will order an immediate 120-day review of all trade agreements to ensure that our trading partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America's workers. I won't sign any new trade agreements unless they contain strong labor and environmental standards." Source: Issue2000
Gun Control Kerry supports the Brady Bill.
Social Security Kerry will not privatize social security, cut benefits, or extend the retirement age. Source: Issue2000
Edited: spelling.
[ September 07, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
On Beren's check list, I definitely oppose Kerry for 3 of them, for 3 I don't clearly agree or disagree, and definitely agree with only 1 of them.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Oh, by the way, conspicuously absent from my list are two very important issues: Health Care and Iraq.
We've had plenty of Iraq threads so we won't revisit those arguments. Suffice it to say on that topic, I'm still waiting for Kerry to articulate his position.
As for health care, I'm SOOOOO confused. Kerry promises to make health care a right and not a privilege. Great. I support universal health care. But is he going to present an overly ambitious plan to tie down his presidency like Clinton did in his first term?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I created this thread because I wondered if anyone who was supporting Kerry was doing it on the man's own merits, and not on their perception of Bush's faults.
And now you know that there are.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I support Kerry because he's got an established record of personally commiting war crimes. Kerry understands that when you're in a war zone, it is a good opportunity to kill innocents for fun (and profit). Kerry also needs extra consideration because...well, you've seen the man, he needs our support (unlike some people running for office).
I'm going to assume this is a joke, but it stuck out in this thread to me, and I wish someone had addressed it. I'm offended on the behalf of the Vietnam vets I know that you assume that service in Vietnam automatically includes killing innocents. That's a harmful attitude to foster and I am offended by it.
And as for me, I am voting Kerry chiefly because I support his stance on civil unions and separation between church and state. If he isn't elected, I fear that my friends and family will be harmed by the policies of his opponent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that Whoever-it-was talking about war crimes was hinting at the RUMOR that Kerry shot a wounded, escaping NV soldier in the back.
Irami-- now I know. And knowing is half the battle. What's the other half, again?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kerry is criticized for flip/flopping on his issues because he changes his mind as new information surfaces.
This is compared to a certain, unnamed sitting president, who flip/flops on the reasons he does things despite any new information that surfaces.
Example:
We should invade Iraq because-- 1)They have WMD 2)They support Terrorism 3)He is a really bad dude 4)To promote Democracy in the Mid East 5)To save the poor Iraqi people.
Whenever some one brings up facts that disprove one of these reasons, this person mentions another.
Example:
Tax Cut, especially designed to relieve the tax burden of those who give the most--the wealthy.
In 2000 When the Economy was booming: We have a surplus, so that Tax money needs to be returned.
In 2001 When the Economy was verging on ending its boom: We need to give a tax cut so we can avoid a recession.
In 2002 When we were in a recession, or close enough to one not to reall matter: We need to give a tax cut so we can get out of the recession.
In 2004, as we begin to recover from a recession: We need even more tax cuts to build the economy.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Irami-- now I know. And knowing is half the battle. What's the other half, again?
Spitballs?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dan -- it sounds like you are saying that it is wrong to have more than one motivation behind a single action. Or am I missing what you are criticizing?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If I'm reading him correctly, he's saying that Bush just likes tax cuts and is willing to make up reasons to justify implementing them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That makes more sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It does seem ironic that someone who changes his mind based on new information is considered LESS reliable than someone who, upon receiving new information, simply changes his reasoning for supporting his original course of action.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, Bush's tax cuts (the ones that haven't gone into effect yet, mainly) are almost universally considered bad by economists (notably including several people (formerly) in his administration such as the former treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, and a wide spread of conservative think tanks).
edit to explain why the above came into my head from the recent posts:
Bush isn't pushing the tax cuts for any economic reasons, he's invented economic jibberish to justify his tax cuts at every turn, and economicists caught on to that a while back.
[ September 07, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What's an "economicist?" I ask merely for information. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A rotund economist Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, Dag...
He wants to allow state and federal monies to pay Catholic church vouchers, which I am against.
He constantly uses his religious views as justification to supress new sciences that IMO should be federally funded and supervised.
His religious views are very prevelent in a lot of his speeches, to the point of alienating a large number of people who don't hold the same views. I don't have a problem with him believeing whatever he wants...but I don't think all his religious views should become public policy, making the whole country act as if they are "Christian" just like him.
A lot of what he has planned conflicts with the seperation of chruch and state, such as his support for the fedral judge that had the 10 Commandments posted in his courtroom, in violation of law.
And he supports prayer in the classroom.
SO I guess I am just silly, right?
Riiiight yourself....
Kwea
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Scott, I'm not sure what your point is in creating this thread. Voting for the lesser of two evils is nothing new. Even in Canada, where we had five, now four parties with seats in parliment, it still came down to choosing the lesser evil when election day rolled around.
I voted Liberal not because I believed their policies were ideal, but because I prefered them to the alternative. The NDP ran on a social platform that I found very appealing and an attractive yet optimistic fiscal policy which I prefered to that of the competent yet somewhat conservative stance of the Liberals. However, the NDP candidate in my riding stood no chance, so I went with what I thought the only sensible option, voting for the Liberal candidate to defeat the Conservative incumbent. Is voting against the policies of one person any less rational than voting for the policies of the other?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Chaeron-- I think my explanation stands. Does Kerry have merits of his own, or only as a alternative to Bush?
I think that the reasoning 'cuz-he's-not-X' is not a very strong endorsement of the candidate, and that mindset is setting many people up for disappointment.
Is the devil you know worse than the one you don't?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is the devil you know worse than the one you don't?"
That question presupposes that all candidates are in fact the devil. It seems to me that when presented with two options -- one you don't actively dislike, and one you do -- that it makes sense to choose the first.
[ September 08, 2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, sometimes he is...but I understand what you were trying to do here. I get tired of all the negitive ads the campaigns run, and would love to see a debate based on issuse between the two, but I doubt that will ever happen.
I am not saying that one vs the other isn't a valid criteria, but that there should be specific issues that they differ on that appeal to you as well.
Maybe Scott was just tired of all the bashing and wanted to see if anyone had specific things that they liked about Kerry.
Kwea
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not voting for Bush because while it is possible that Kerry will make bad decisions and not correct them, I know that Bush will. With Kerry there is a chance that he won't.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The way that sentence parses, it looks like you're saying you know that Bush will make bad decisions and then not correct them, and as a consequence you are voting for him.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
She's saying that Bush will take strides to correct his mistakes while Kerry may or may not.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's not how the sentence is phrased, though, which is the source of my confusion.
You're probably right. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh yeah, she totally botched the phrasing. Not unlike Bush in that respect. Take this quote (one of her favorites) as an example:
quote:Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
And she's voting for Bush. Hold on. Connections forming...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The way that sentence parses, it looks like you're saying you know that Bush will make bad decisions and then not correct them, and as a consequence you are not voting for him.
This is right.
Honestly, boys.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Curse your politiking!
(and superfluous editing)
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
One problem with taking Bush out of the equation is that this is a race between two people, and looking at the policies of one without the other for comparison is near meaningless. If I was eligible to vote in this election, my ideal candidate would be quite far removed from either candidate.
My ideal candidate would not fill her speeches with platitudes and shameless pandering. She would have enough of a spine to tell the public the truth, even when it is not what they would like to hear. She would condemn the deficit, runnaway spending and tax cuts for what it is: selfish excess at enormous cost to the next generation. She would stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and stem corporate deregulation. She would support science with funding, rather than rhetoric, and cancel massive defence spending contracts for more gee-whiz cold-warrior hardware with no purpose other than to pad the accounts of defence contractors; first on the list: missle defence, the JSF and the USS Ronald Regan. She would support an active foreign policy that was neither Wilsonian idealism, nor neo-conservative aggression. It would focus on humanitarian issues, on the premise that whatever alliviates the most suffering for the lowest cost is the most effective way to foster international security. First on this agenda would be to tackle the AIDS crisis. Dafur would be of immidate importance, rather than another Rwanda in the making. Money would be earmarked for a real effort to ressurect a viable Afghan state. The decades long failure of the War on Drugs would be addressed, along with the problem of the world's largest incarceration rate. Drug laws would be reformed to choke off the black market destroying inner cities all across America. The outrageous folly of "Plan Columbia" would be abandoned; cocaine supply has only increased and Columbia has been plunged into a perpetual state of war. My ideal candidate would make sure the drug problem would be treated as a medical issue. She would work to protect the environment, and promise to undo the damage the Bush administration has done. She would push for higher industrial sustainability standards and work to reduce dependance of fossil fuels, not just provide empty rhetoric about ending dependance of foriegn oil. She would run a boldly secular administration; in the interest of equal rights, she would support same sex marriage; in the interest of those who suffer from some of the cruelest diseases inflicted upon humanity, she would support stem cell research.
She would also not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Even if she was, congress would refuse to cooperate with her, and these initatives would fail. That aside, I cannot think of anyone who would satisfy these criteria.
Both Kerry and Bush are far from this ideal, but Kerry is significantly closer.
That said, there are some things I like about Kerry without reservation. I like his health care plan. I think it is the biggest step forward that I could concieve moving through congress. I like his focus on ensuring economic growth does not leave the middle and working class behind. If elected, this may turn out to be rhetoric, but at least it sounds right. However, I must say I like Kerry circa 1971 better than 2004. 30 years in politics has hurt his character.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He wants to allow state and federal monies to pay Catholic church vouchers, which I am against.
He constantly uses his religious views as justification to supress new sciences that IMO should be federally funded and supervised.
His religious views are very prevelent in a lot of his speeches, to the point of alienating a large number of people who don't hold the same views. I don't have a problem with him believeing whatever he wants...but I don't think all his religious views should become public policy, making the whole country act as if they are "Christian" just like him.
A lot of what he has planned conflicts with the seperation of chruch and state, such as his support for the fedral judge that had the 10 Commandments posted in his courtroom, in violation of law.
And he supports prayer in the classroom.
SO I guess I am just silly, right?
Compare this to "no separation of church and state to speak of."
Very different things, especially since it's easy to turn them around:
He wants to make assistance for private education available without taking religion into acount.
He respects the moral viewpoint on the beginning of life of a large percentage of the population enough to not use their tax monies to support research that can be equated to harvesting organs from unwilling donors.
And yes, you are silly if you think he has "no separation of church and state to speak of," considering what that can really mean.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
kat:
(Seriously, though, without the "not" there, the sentence DID leave me somewhat confused.)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How is this (trying hard not to compare to President Bush) -- An Environmental Policy that includes good science.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Environment, if nothing else, would be enough of a reason for me to vote for him. I would also like to think he can make good on his promises anout health insurance premiums, because the increases have effectivley reduced our incone over the past two years.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twink: I have a tendency to leave out the most important word in the sentence. I think it's because by the time I type it, I've been thinking the thought for so long that my brain thinks the main idea is obvious. I usually leave out the "not"s and the verbs. Very sad.
Sorry for the confusion. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
One problem with the argument against using tax money to send people to catholic schools is the fact that the money does not belong to the government...it belongs to the person who earned it.
If I don't want to attend a public school, why should I have to pay for it? That is the theory behind vouchers...the government is not paying for your private school, they are letting you use your OWN money to pay for private school.
If a person does not pay taxes, then I would agree with the arguments against using vouchers for them. In that case you would be using other people's tax money to send them to a private school, which would be wrong.
I do have other problems with how the vouchers are done…but my thoughts on education reform could take up an entire post all on its own.
I have the same argument when people complain about tax cuts...the money belongs to the people, not the government. The answer is not stopping tax cuts, the answer is cutting back on government spending (something that neither Bush nor Kerry will do).
When the democratic party complains that the poorest Americans did not get tax cuts it also annoys me. This is a lie. If you paid taxes, you got a tax cut. I am in one of the lower tax brackets, and I got a cut. No, it was not a lot...but I don't have to pay all that much to start with (though it does feel like a lot when I pay it). What Bush and the republicans were against was putting something in the bill to give tax money to those who did not pay taxes in the first place. THAT is welfare, not a tax cut, and it has no place in the tax system. It annoyed the hell out of me seeing democratic senators calling giving people who did not pay taxes a "tax cut."
sorry, a bit of a rant...but it is a pet peeve of mine when people forget that tax money does not belong to the government, nor does it belong to society...it belongs to the people who paid it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:sorry, a bit of a rant...but it is a pet peeve of mine when people forget that tax money does not belong to the government, nor does it belong to society...it belongs to the people who paid it.
When I get a grant to work on a project at a university, the university takes a cut off the top to cover the expenses it shells out to support me while using that grant (building maintenance, electricity, security, resources such as libraries and online journal access, etc.).
Sure, it's my grant money, and sure, sometimes I might disagree about how much is taken sometimes, but I don't dispute the setup because it makes sense. And if I don't like the details of a given setup, I can work somewhere else.
Note that I can't not work at a university, because I need those facilities in order to exercise the grant, and grant-givers won't shell out to me unless I can show I have the facilities to do the work.
Federal taxes look essentially the same as university cuts off grant money to me, and they make as much sense. Sure, I may quibble about the details, but if I really wanted to try and run a lab (i.e., live a modern life) without access to those resources, I'd be outta luck. I can't do this kind of work without infrastructure any more than I could work a corporate job without the elaborate infrastructure of roads, schools to educate upcoming citizenry, the power grid, police security, and on and on and on.
So, what if it is "my money" that I earned? I have a reasonable obligation to pay for the support to access it.
[ September 08, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: When I get a grant to work on a project at a university, the university takes a cut off the top to cover the expenses it shells out...
At least in my field, the money that is paid to the university does not come out of the set grant money you agreed to do research for, it comes out on top of that. Perhaps different fields work differently though. I suppose the grant groups COULD give you more money if they did not have to pay the universities...however, the money that is paid does recoup the expenses that the University has to shell out in order to house your research. Where the money goes is carefully itemized, so it is clear what you are paying for. In addition, it has been my experience, and the experience of others in my department that if the money is not all spent on costs that you caused, you get some of the money back. This is why I don't have a problem with this sort of fee. You are paying for a service (use of a lab) that you use. They are not doing things like paying for the research of others using grant money that you brought in. If my department told professor A that they would be taking some of his/her grant money to support the research of professor B because professor B could not get a grant, professor A would be very pissed.
Federal budgets are far more complex...and they don't make sure that each tax dollar you spend is in response to expenses that you caused the government. Also I don't get money back if I am cheap for the year. While both government taxation, and grant fees might be collecting money…they don’t really look that similar once you look past the surface. Of course, maybe your research experiences are different from mine.
That being said, I am not against all federal taxation. I am for limited federal taxation. I am not even arguing that it be done as tightly as grant fees are done. A federal budget is going to be complex due to its size. Also, there are some things that are more practical if everyone is paying for them equally. However, you can work to limit federal spending as much as possible...keeping as much money in the hands of the people who actually earned it as you can.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Even though by reports from all people present on the boat that day all say that the man was a combatant, and had fired on them, and still had a weapon that looked like a rocket launcher.....
Riiiigh.....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kwea, who's that in response to?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i really dislike kerry, but i'll try to rephrase my reasons for voting for him to be in keeping with the discussion.
i'm voting for kerry because he is an intelligent, thoughtful, and honorable individual. I'm voting for kerry so that when i listen to the state of the union i feel like i'm being spoken to by the president of MY country. i'm voting for kerry because i would like to be able to tell people with pride that i am an american. i'm voting for kerry because i trust him to make informed, well balanced decisions. i'm voting for kerry because i believe he will lead an inclusive and (fairly) bi-partisan administration. i'm voting for kerry because i suspect he will appoint secretaries and judges i would want to see in office. i'm voting for kerry because someone needs to drastically change the direction iraq is going. i'm voting for kerry in hopes that he will address terrorism (does anybody remember a shady looking guy called osama bin-laden?).
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Lupus - that's one way of thinking about taxation; as theft which is condoned because people are weak or whatever. i choose to think of taxation as membership fees. when you join a gym you don't yell at the owners because they make you pay to use their equipment in their building that they've payed to heat and cool do you? it's understood that you are giving them some of your money in exchange for the use of their facilities. Do you demand part of your money back because you prefer the stairmaster rather than the treadmill and don't feel you should have to help pay for people to use the treadmill? no, you suck it up, accept that even though some people get more use of the money they spent than you, you're still getting your money's worth or you would have gone elsewhere.
people keep talking about tax "relief" as though it's some artificial burden we've been forced to carry against our will, when in reality taxes are the price we pay for the priviledge of living in one of the most advanced and prosperous countries in the world. we should be glad our membership comes so cheap...
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote: It does seem ironic that someone who changes his mind based on new information is considered LESS reliable than someone who, upon receiving new information, simply changes his reasoning for supporting his original course of action.
And I find it ironic that someone who once assured me his first guess about the motivations of agents of government was never simply "consistant scruple" can see Kerry's changes of mind as being the result of "new information."
Unless the "new information" came from focus group testing.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sorry! Wrong thread, I guess...lol...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:And yes, you are silly if you think he has "no separation of church and state to speak of," considering what that can really mean.
No, silly is something I rarely am. I don't want to go into a huge slippery slope argument here, but his thoughts on "chruch and state" are what I have a problem with. If he had his way, children would still be saying prayers in school, regardless of their parents religious views....or perhaps they could leave the room ....no stigma there..
Those same church classes teach that abortion is murder, and religion is a REQUIRED class...and they ain't teaching tolerance to them either....its "us or them; I was RC for most of my life, so I remember that quite well.
Goverment monies to fund religious indoctronation....
So maybe I wasn't the one who was overreacting.
I still think that he pushes his religion a bit too much, and object even though I belong to a Christian congregation muself.
Imagine how others, who don't share his beliefs at all, would feel about it.
[ September 09, 2004, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I thought the "government" was by the people and for the people. How did "government" go from a "ours" to "theirs?" A "we" statement to a "they" statement. This whole tax money is "our" money not "their" money strikes me as fairly contrary to our contract with America. I like the comparison to dues...pretty apt. Like the gym, you don't like the dues, move somewhere else. Maybe Canada and Mexico are looking for some new citizens? Maybe Europe as I am sure they have significantly lower "dues" than we do. You might like Mexico or Korea or Japan as when I did a little digging, only they had lower overall tax burdens than the US. If you can get more for less money there, please head on out.
While competition is good for certain things, I think education shouldn't be. I think we should have the best and be done with it. I don't want the most economically feasible education for my daughter. I want the best one and that should be the MINIMUM thing that we as a nation give to ourselves and our kids. Competition between TV networks have given us shows catered to the lowest common denominator. Competition between fast food companies hasn't given us quality, just quantity and cheap. Competition in technology like audio and visual components yield some cheaper prices for certain products, but to get the better you have to spend more and with vouchers, you will only get the minimum as they will all be the same amount, right? Or will they vary based on what? So if you have only finite resources and schools competing for the same amount of money, there won't be incentive to have better schools...they will be for-profit machines which will provide minimal services for the same money so that their bottom line...profit, not children's education...looks good. Period. Unless of course you as a parent have more money to "sweeten" the pot...taking the voucher money and adding considerable resources to go to a better school that caters to those who have more than what the voucher will pay...which will leave what? Poorer performing schools in the inner city where people can't afford to get their kids out to the better schools.
What will be incentives for schools...now profit machines...to stay in poorer areas? Why not have a school that only works out in the suburbs where people's voucher money can be added to sizable contributions? Then they can make some serious money. And if the kids in the inner city can't find a school that will accept their $2500/year? Oh well...that is competition. They ought to move out to the suburbs.
Your money, indeed. That isn't the vision I want to strive to...schools with fast food, profit-or-else mentality. We have that plenty in the health care services I work in and it certainly hasn't improved the care. It is exactly like I see the vouchers. The poorest people will have the minimal amount (vouchers...the medicaid card of schools). Just like Medicaid, you will have less and less doctors that will even accept it which leaves limited choices with questionable quality and if you don't like the quality, too bad...that is all that will accept it. The rest will hold out for more expensive HMO's and private pay people...where the REAL money is.
And that will be our school systems, too. Which will create an even larger generation of kids who have little more to say in their jobs than "would you like fries with that?"
/rant
Sorry for that. Had a bad week trying to find care for a guy with only Medicaid and nary an available provider for what he needed...
fil
[ September 09, 2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by figgurat (Member # 6839) on :
quote:I'll vote for whomever is least popular on November 2nd - regardless of the reason.
I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, but stomping through the low-hanging cloud of undies-on-a-telephone-wire liar-begatting-liars, I reckon the underdog is the most truthful and least-reliant on high-flying consultants' fees.
fig
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
...as for the "Church and state" discussion, I see Kerry as being a bit more clear on that than Bush. In working in the social service industry, we already have religious institutions receiving money from the government in large amounts. Maybe people have heard of these little known agencies like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Jewish Family Services, etc. I think the biggest difference is that with the failed yet still implemented (by Executive Order, not by Congress) Faith Based Initiative a set of rules were laid down to give haphazardly chosen faith based groups money to do things that other social services agencies were already doing (religious or otherwise).
I am not sure why Catholic Charities was given money to do what it does. I would hope that it is because they have a plan, a track record and so on. I don't think they were chosen because they were Catholic. The new Faith Based Initiative can be, though. It allows these agencies to discriminate in their hiring BASED upon religious background of the applicant, not their ability to provide lets say drug/alcohol counseling. This happened out in the open, where openly Jewish applicants were told by funded agencies that "we don't hire Jews" because as a private agency they could do that. As a publicly funded agency under the Faith Based Initiative, they still can do that.
There is also the ability for Faith Based Organizations to preach their religious faith directly to the people getting the services, regardless if they wanted it or not. This allows a Christian organization to take more time talking about Jesus vs. talking about getting off crack cocaine. This is fine if a) voluntarily chosen by the person and b) paid for by private funds. But not if it is our nation's money.
There was also discrimination as to what was "faith based." The Pagan and Wicca faiths were sidelined as legit recipients for this funding by the White House, who marginalized and insulted peoples of this faith across the nation. Also, these monies were only intended to go to agencies WITH faith based systems, not to new secular agencies looking to provide help in the community. So instead of trying to fund what COMMUNTIES needed, Bush funded only what he thought communities needed...more religion, apparently.
Studies since the implementation of this executive order aren't promising ( Check it out ) but this has, like so many gaffs of this administration, gone without comment or significant discussion by our nations liberal media.
Either way, this was clearly a push not to make an inclusive policy for getting community base organizations involved in the paid treatment system...it was clearly a way to circumvent existing funding streams for religious organizations to provide social services to create loopholes so that they could spread the word of God, like it or not.
fil
[ September 09, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by figgurat (Member # 6839) on :
*resists the flish*
*relinquishes*
I'm a little confused as to how ANY charity could be classified as non-faith-based?
*clocks flish over the head with the nearest stone*
fig
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That actually isn't a bad question, fallow/flish/whatever else....there are secular charities that operate in the US, like the Red Cross. They recieve money from both secular and religious donors, but recieveing their care/assistance isn't based on recieveing their faith...they will help anyone, and not preach Catholisism, or whatever religion.
Also, they will hire anyone who is qualified, as long as that person is qualified to do the job and has no religious beliefs that conflict with their stated missons. Not just Christians, or Jews, or Muslims.
So, while a lot of the motives for people to donate to them might be religious in nature, or at least founded on a lot of values that most religions support, the orginazations such as the ALA, Red Cross, and United Way are not in and of themselves religious in nature.
Kwea
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I'm a little confused as to how ANY charity could be classified as non-faith-based?
By not being faith based, maybe? Such as:
-Toys for Tots -Many local food banks are not religious -Achievement Centers for Children (provides therapies and such for children with disabilities) -Arc- formally Association for Retarded Citizens...non-faith-based advocacy all across the US for people with disabilities. -Doctors Without Borders -UNICEF -The Sierra Club -The World Wildlife Fund
These and many more provide services both on the big picture and small focus level using donations and such. They are "charities" without the religious tag.
But more to the point of your question would be to support what Kwea said. The denomination of a religious organization prior to the executive order was separate from the treatment or services provided by the organization. As a customer you could go to Catholic Charities or Jewish Family Services and know you were going to get quality care, regardless of your own personal religious affiliation. You could also go get a job there to provide said services without worrying that you aren't the right color, religion, etc. as long as you had the qualification. It isn't the Faith Based part that is the entire concern. It is the empahsis on Faith vs. actually providing a quality service that is the problem.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kwea, one more time: "No Separation of Church and State to Speak of."
Come down from the hyperbole zone.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is a step along the path to it....Bush is basically using the federal government, and his executive order, to push religious teachings on people in order to receive benefits funded by the US Government.
That isn't hyperbole, it is a fact. I feel, and so do many other people, that if he had his way there would be no separation of church and state...or none to speak of, that is. How long until only "Christian" groups get the funding? Or there is a "federal religion", based on the teaching of Christ? After all, all other groups are just "uninformed"....
If I am so wrong about this, why did it require an executive order to implement his FBO plan?
Because before his order these types of groups were not eligible for a lot of grants from the goverment...because of the equal protection/ separation of church and state clause.
These groups were ineligible for this type of funding because of that seperation...until Bush came along.
Also, just because I believe something, strongly, doesn't make it silly, or hyperbole...I didn't agree with your stance on a lot of things, but I don't recall saying anything similar to you.
I hear a lot of rhetoric from you about abortion, but I have never claimed you were dramatizing it...because you care about the issue, deeply, and I respect that. I don't agree with your take on it, but I hold a lot of the same values overall, so try to respect your right to your own opinion on it.
To me, this is every bit as important. I believe in refusing to allow this type of attitude (Bush's, that is... ) affect public policies funded by tax monies, and think that his end-run around the rules that have governed all other Presidents is a horrible precedent, and is one of the reasons I won't vote for Bush.
And, to tell you the truth, I don't really care if you agree with me on that or not.
Kwea
[ September 09, 2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not a question of whether I agree with you or not, but "none to speak of" is just provably wrong.
There's TONS of separation of Church and State, and there's zero credible evidence that Bush is in favor of abolishing all, nearly all, most, or a even significant minority of it.
None. Zero. Zilch.
You want to see none to speak of, look at voting rights. Look at free speech. Look at right to serve on jury. Look at rights to go to whatever church, synagogue, mosque, or any other type of religion they choose to. Or to go to none at all. Even look at parent's ability to choose where to send their children to school for religious reasons. This right had to be extracted via lawsuit.
We're a long way from none at all. Bush is a long way from advocating none at all. There's a lot of religious persecution that's simply unthinkable here, and it's conditioned people into making statements like "none to speak of" because they don't pay attention to what could easily be.
There are a lot of free speech cases where religious views have been silenced in public forums by the government because they were religious. There are people who claim that having the government monitor the text of a magazine, or the content of a television show, and deciding what't "too religious" is separation of church and state. What it really is is a greater entanglement of church and state.
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:You want to see none to speak of, look at voting rights.
I don't think you're defining Separation of Church and State in the same way that Kwea is. It's not like Bush's form of Christianity means that atheists shouldn't vote, as far as I can tell.
It appears that Bush's version of religious morals and ethics is the code on which he bases his decisions and his laws. Because of the religious morals he seems to have, Bush is willing to make decisions that others see as breaking down the wall between Church and State. If there is a large gap in the wall through some choices of Bush's, I think it's reasonable for Kwea to say that the wall has no usefulness to speak of.
Does he believe that there are certain moral things that are wrong in his religion and is willing to push that agenda forward? Yes. Specifically through the appointment of Ashcroft, Bush's administration is clamping down on certain "immoral" arenas like pornography. You can claim that it isn't a question of church and state but a question of differing ethics. Okay.
But other issues, like prayer and governmental funding for religiously affiliated charities do sound that he's fine with breaking down that wall. What good is a wall if it's only half there?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So "none to speak of in certain individual areas of the vast federal government" would be more accurate.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think Bush has no qualms with making the US mirror his belief system as much as possible, without regard to the question of separating church and state. I don't think that's going to end with me having no suffrage and no jury duty. You're arguing as if Bush had these aspirations and was carefully checking them. I think Kwea probably believes (and I could see agreeing with him, but haven't researched this enough to be absolutely sure) that Bush doesn't worry about the separation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm simply saying that "No separation of Church and State to speak of" means something far, far more frightening than anything that's been proferred as a Bush goal.
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Okay. I think that a real Theocracy would be deadly and horrifying. So I agree that there are worse outcomes.
But perhaps the more interesting question at this point is, do you think Bush separates Church and State in his own mind? As in, does he put a barrier in what he believes is Church and what he believes he should push for/do/act upon as President?
Again, I think we're trying to base this on the man Bush is, not the worst theocrat possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on what you mean by barrier?
Do I think Bush's religious beliefs inform his political policies? Of course. Any one whose beliefs don't is a hypocrite.
Do I think there are things Bush thinks are wrong according to his religious beliefs that should not be illegal? Absolutely. Many, many, many things.
Do I think there are things Bush thinks are wrong according to his religious beliefs that should be illegal. Absolutely. Many, many, many things. Like murder. Like slavery. And yes, like abortion.
Do I think Bush has a set of operating principles that help him decide which is which? Yes.
Dagonee
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Do you demand part of your money back because you prefer the stairmaster rather than the treadmill and don't feel you should have to help pay for people to use the treadmill?
No, but I would be rather annoyed at the owner if he charged different people different amounts, and paid some people to come to his gym instead of charging them.
quote:Like the gym, you don't like the dues, move somewhere else...If you can get more for less money there, please head on out.
This is a rather silly approach to government. Much like the democrats way back in the last election who said they would leave the country if Bush won the election. I suppose it would make sense in a monarchy, but in our system of government rather than leave, you can vote for representatives that agree with you (or agree with you on many issues) or you can write your representatives and ask that they vote your way.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
But when will you find a political party that matters that seriously thinks we shouldn't have taxes? It is silly to think that roads are going to magically fix themselves (what, privatize those?) or that a army will magically spring to life when there is a need, even though money isn't there. What about the segment of our population who geunuinely can't take care of themselves? I see daily how those people are treated by those around them so I don't need to think to hard how it will look in a country where there aren't taxes or that people spend their contributions on the things that better THEIR lives, not those around them. Honestly, is there a country like this? If so, go there. Our government was founded by the people, for the people. General welfare seemed to play a part in it, too. The people that DIDN'T want to rid themselves did it for the reasons you feel taxes are too much of a burden. It wasn't that the US was taxed, it was that the taxes went to support England, not Americans.
What is your system of taxation that is fair? A flat tax of an amount? Say, everyone gives $10,000 of their income? That would be fair...everyone would pay the same, the guy who makes $100,000 a year or the guy who makes, oh, $15,000 a year. That fair? Fact is, compared to the rest of the world's industrialized nations, we have a pretty low tax burden overall. If you want it ALL back or spend it only in a way that benefits you, that isn't the general welfare. That isn't helping the tired, the poor or those yearning to be free. I honestly can't imagine the kind of nation that Republicans give lip service to (because they certainly don't lower taxes and lower spending..they lower taxes, increase spending and then borrow...just like the rest of Americans).
Honestly, how do you propose a system that wouldn't be MORE unfair to those with less money than those on the top?
fil
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lupus, a point about school vouchers.
The idea is that Mom and Dad pay taxes that go to help the local elementary school. Then one day they realize that, hey, we want to send our child to Smith School, a private school. It costs $10,000. Why should they not have their tax money changed over to money going to the Smith School?
Because their tax money isn't meant to pay for their children to go to school. Its meant to increase their standard of living by having an eductate generation to follow, full of people are better citizens, better voters, and better workers than if they had not gone to school.
If their taxes were just used to pay for their own child's education then childless adults shouldn't have to pay any taxes, and people with multiple children should have to pay multiple times the tax that single child families due. Now that would be a threat to the American family.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the idea is that each child essentially receives a certain amount of educational resources. Why shouldn't those resources be granted in a way that allows parents greater say over their children's education?
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Parents have plenty of say in their education. You don't like the schools, move to a place that has one you like. Are you saying that if a parent doesn't like their street they should get the money that THEY paid to fix that street and they could...er...buy a better one? Or that if a parent chose a city with a mayor that they didn't like...would they then demand their portion of their taxes used to pay him or her back so they can pay some private party to officiate their little corner of the city? Take their funds that would pay for police service to fund a private one of their choosing?
If a parent can't take the time to better research their school district when purchasing a home where their child will spend 13 years learning...well, that is their problem. I don't need them to move into OUR neighborhood for the nice home and then take OUR public schools money so they can send their child to a wealthier suburban school. They move here, they support all that goes along with it. We should be doing more to expect more from our schools, not treat it like some commodity to pop our kids in and out of as our whim takes us. It is hard enough when jobs force families to move out of a school district where kids have made lots of connections. But to do it because school A is offering a special or school B had better scores LAST year...wrong headed thinking about schools, in my opinion.
fil
[ September 09, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine for people who can afford to move. Again, if the government is providing X number of dollars for a child's education, why can't the parents use that in a school of their choice? What on earth is wrong with that?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Because the system isn't set up that way. They are providing money to pay for police services. They are providing money to pay for road repair. They are providing money to pay for judges. We can't just take our contributions and spend them as we want. Just the same, we can't take a public service that is paid by the public coffer and say "we want to have a different one." Schools are public institutions. Failing ones, to be sure, but public ones built to support a district, a city, a county or whatever.
You want to do this miracle system where driving kids all over creation will make better schools then you need to scrap the current system. Then what? Okay family A, here is your voucher for a school. Where do you go? How do you choose?
Your families who can't afford to move are going to have the same problems in a voucher system than the current "can't get out of this nasty part of town" system. If I have a voucher to send my child to school but the one I want is on the other side of the county and I don't have a car, then what? Stick their 5 year old kindergartener on a public bus (because school buses...thing of the past when there are no borders for who can go where) and off they go? Or will they go with closer because it makes more sense? Face it, vouchers will mostly benefit those who already have enough money to send their kids to private school by putting more money back in their pockets.
This is from a parent who sends his kid to private school, mind you. But that is my choice. At the same time, I am working with my city schools on a committee here or there to improve them such as building improvement committees. It is my city, I bought into it and will support it. Sure, they aren't at the level I want yet but we will work towards.
Simply raping the current system to pay for a new one just won't work. The same thing can be said about libraries. Should we take our tax dollars that support libraries so we can just buy a few books ourselves? Some would argue that, too but that someone clearly isn't of a community spirited mind with an eye on the general welfare and improvement of one's community.
fil
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
The best way to have a say in your school is to run for the School Board, to participate in all school board meetings, to talk with teachers and principals, to inform yourself, and to network network network!
Make sure your schools hire excellent teachers. Make sure they are meeting minimum instructional standards while striving for more.
Volunteer to help in the schools.
I think both Bush and Kerry are absolutely clueless about education today. Most politicians are. It is rare for policy makers to understand how their decisions actually pan out for those of us on the front lines.
That said, I am more attracted to Kerry than Bush at this point, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Especially the environmental aspects and the separation of church and state issues.
After all, didn't Bush insult Wiccans at one point? I'd really rather not live in a society where one's personal life (sexual partners, religious preferences, etc.) becomes a major issue. I fear that it will if the Conservatives have their way.
[ September 09, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Jenny Gardener ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is, of course, fodder for a thread on its own.
The problem is that School A has 1000 students. Say 200 of them decide to take their funds and go to another school. That cuts 20% out of the budget assigned for that school.
Unfortunately, things like health insurance, utilities, maintenance etc at the school aren't based on a per/child cost. That school has lost 20% of its funds, but not 20% of its costs. This means that it has less money to devote to those children who remain.
Now, that 200 students are most likely going to be the ones with parents most concerned about thier childrens education. This translates to usually the top students in the school, and that includes the least expensive to teach. Problem students, abused, handicapped, delinquent, expensive students are those that will remain.
Finally, do we regulate the other schools as well, or do we assume that just because they are a private school they will be ok? We have problems with diploma mills producing College degrees that are valueless, will our taxes go into the pockets of babysitters who produce classes of Valedictorians that can't read?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I personally think that nobody in the federal government should be doing *anything* about education.
I think it should be left to the states, and that the feds should keep their fingers out of it.
So whoever has the least ambitious federal education agenda wins in my book.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'm not against taxes...I am for limiting taxes...and limiting spending. True, there is no party that is for limiting spending (though the republicans used to at least give lip service to the idea)...my hope is they part can go back to small government someday. In the mean time I vote for the person who comes closest to my overall beliefs.
Note there are some in the party who do support smaller government. Mel Martinez is someone who I will be keeping my eye on over the next 10 years. He just won the republican senate primary in FL, I think he has real promise.
As for flat taxes, I have never heard someone ask for a flat amount. Generally a flat tax refers to a flat percent, not a flat number (ie everyone gives 15 percent of their income).
[ September 09, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Agreed...throw Bush and his "No Child Left Behind" program out.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Lupus, I know about flat tax...I was being facetious about flat amount. You had complained about a system that had people who made more money paying more. Along the lines of at McDonalds, I pay 3 bucks for a happy meal but someone who makes twice as much paying 6 bucks. I know you really didn't mean that...I assume you meant it that a rich person (on paper) pays more in a percentage of his income than a poorer person. But the fact is, their buck and a quarter will buy the same cup of coffee that a poor person may buy. The fact is, it costs more as a percentage of a poorer person's income to just sustain's one's basic needs than a person with significantly more money. A gallon of milk for someone at the poverty level costs the same for the guy in the top 5% of income. So I don't lose sleep if the rich guy has one less jet airplane so that a poorer family could have one more gallon of milk a month.
fil
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And once again, let me state that I still see it as Bush breaking down the barriers between Church and state. There have already been claims (substantiated ones) that some religions are barred from receiving funds because they don't fix HIS view of what a religion should be.
So, let me recap...he signed an executive order that went against 2 centuries of educational and governmental rules, with the aim of granting public funds to religious organizations for education of young people. Many of these groups require religion as a mandatory class, which would be funded in part by public money. This reduces the funding to public schools by a radical amount, considering a large portion of a schools bills are not based per student...new construction, mandatory insurances, staffing issues with tenure....all these are fixes expenses that the schools would no longer have the funding to pay.
And the worse schools are the worse ones hit...more of the affluent students leave, reducing the already low budgets in the poorest school districts....which in turn leads to lower test scores.....
In addition, Bush allowed religious groups that had always been barred form receiving Federal aid to be granted aid despite their clear religious ties. These groups are still able to discriminate against people of other religious backgrounds when hiring and firing even though other, non-religious groups would lose their funding for doing the same. Their exemption is based on the fact that they are religious organizations, so the government shouldn't interfere with their practices due to separation of church and state!
In addition, funding is only being awarded to "approved" religions, relegating other religions to a pariah status within the allocation of funding. Only groups that are "mainstream" enough can receive funding from Bush's FBO program.
So, I must be missing something here....where is the separation that you speak of?
No, I won't be shot at for not being Christian (although I am), I will simply be discriminated against by both the FBO initiatives and by the religious groups dispersing the aid. If I want their help they even have the right to force me to listen to their speeches, which OF COURSE isn't illegal....at least not for them, now....
The Federal Government should not be in the business of funding Religious Groups, or deciding which group gets funding or not based on religious standards....which is precisely what is happening now.
I don't have kids, but I pay taxes....so that per kid amount you are talking about for vouchers DOES affect me, as it has been my money for the past 25 years!
And I don't want religions to have it to disperse at their pleasure...that is why I donate at church. Not at the polls, for a millage.
Less and less separation every day Bush is in office.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Less and less separation every day Bush is in office
So if there's less and less every day, there must have still been at least some on the day you wrote "no separation of church and state to speak of."
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
You may think you're "winning," Dag, but you're really just nit-picking. At this point, can't you just work with the argument Kwea is actually trying to put forth? Or would it make you feel better if Kwea officially recinded the original comment first?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm trying to make a very important point, which is too often utterly ignored on this board.
Hyperbole, exageration, and fear-mongering are not productive to political discourse.
We can have a thread in which school vouchers are discussed. Or one in which faith-based organizations are discussed. The issues associated with the two are very different and very complex.
I haven't tried to discuss the school vouchers issue with Kwea, although I've thrown out one minor thinking point in response to someone else. I have consistently tried to deal with the precise accusation at issue.
I note that you didn't respond to me when I answered your questions about Bush's separation principles. All mys substantive posts on the topic have basically been ignored, especially the ones outlining why I take such exception the the statement. There is a huge difference between differences of opinion over where the proper line is between church and state, and accusing one side of not having a line.
There is an incredible amount of separation of church and state in this country. If Bush got everything he wanted passed, there would still be an incredible amount of separation of church and state in this country.
Less than Kwea wants? Apprantly so. "None to speak of"? Hardly. The difference isn't trivial, it's not insignificant, and it's not "nit-picking."
Dagonee
[ September 10, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I see your point.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, if you're looking for reasons to vote for Kerry...
What's good about his political views:
1. He proposes a "sensitive" war on terror. Right now we are losing the war on terror precisely because we are insensitive to the way the rest of the world is going to react to us, and end up inciting more terrorism than we can stop.
2. He promises fiscal responsibility, in terms of balancing the budget. Given the Democrats' successful record in doing this under Clinton, I'm inclined to believe that promise.
3. His stated views on social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, crime, health care, and religion seem well-thought out and fairly moderate. I don't agree with them, but among the candidates he's the one that seems least likely to try something radical.
What I like about his character:
4. His military leadership and political leadership is enough to convince me he's strong enough to be a decent president.
5. His anti-war protests would suggest he is not afraid to defend American ideals, even when doing so is unpopular among the American people. This capacity is critical right now, in the post 9/11 America, where there is pressure to act downright un-American in our willingness to sacrifice freedom and human rights for security.
6. Most importantly, his speeches and positions illustrates that he grasps the complexity of our affairs. He consistently turns his arguments on rather subtle but important lines. Republicans hammer this as "flip-flopping" in a day where speeches are supposed to be so simple that they can be summarized in a single sound byte, but I think it is more indicative of his being a person who understands fine lines and details. Really, this should be a feature we require of presidents, not something we complain about. We want well-thought-out leaders who are going to alter their views when the details change and are going to try to explain the complexities of our problems to us.
Truthfully, I don't know why people would hate Kerry. I do understand what would put people off about him, though. He has one really big fault: He tries to play politics in his campaign too much - another reason people call him a flip-flopper. I definitely don't like that.
However, I do not have the luxury of waiting for someone better. And the truth is, I think a politician who doesn't play politics too much during campaigns is pretty rare. Thus, I'd judge Kerry as a decent candidate - but not who I'd prefer to have if I could choose out of anyone in the U.S.
[ September 10, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't say that the country had none. I said that Bush had no idea of what it meant, so for him there is none to speak of in his plan for the country.
I believe that if he had free reign, it would be the beginning of the end of the separation of church and state. That isn't fear mongering, and it isn't unrealistic.
I said I wouldn't be shot at....just marginalized, and not funded. My religion (if I weren't Christian, which I am) would be at a state funded disadvantage....
in schools in funding for charities in protection of employment opportunities that my tax money was funding.
I would begin to lose (actually, I already HAVE, thanks to his FBO order) the right to be anything other than *christian*...insert any religion there you want...because I would be out funded, and discriminated against and my government would not only allow it but BE FUNDING IT!
It might be a long time before it went to the logical conclusion, where there is a federal religion....or it might never get there.
I just think it is a HORRIBLE precedent to have, and I don't think Bush sees anything wrong with it at all.
If you want to nitpick, go for it.
Look back and see what I said. I see a future with no obvious separation. I was talking about Bush, not the USA. This thread wasn't about the USA> Or where we are now, but where we will be if Bush had his way.
I'm not saying he would kill all non-believers, or force them to convert...but he would make sure that his religion is one of the ones that gets funding where others don't. Wait, that's right...he already did that...
He would make sure that public monies would be use to teach religion in his religious schools....wait....
I didn't say in my original post that we don't have any seperation...but I did say, in context to Bush and what I don't like about his policies, that there was no separation
quote:to speak of.
And in his stance I don't see any real concept of what he has begun. He has single-handedly begun a decay of that separation that may someday remove the rights of other religions to be treated equally under the law...
Wait, that's happening now ...
My ORIGINAL post:
quote:Also, I don't care how many minimum wage jobs are created, I don't like where the economy is heading under the Republican administration. Things are not any better for the middle class..as a matter of fact, even with both my wife and I working full time, we could probably qualify for food stamps....so I think Bush's plan to "change" (read eliminate) overtime rules is one of the worse ideas I have ever heard! A ton of people will become "Exempt" from the normal work week of 40 hours, and make less even though they are working more hours due to no more overtime pay or holiday pay...and only the companies will benefit from relaxing these rules, so they are free to create MORE 60 hour, non-overtime jobs...just what we need, right?
As long as your last name is Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft, things will only get better and better...
And you are a fundamental Christian...no separation of Church and State to speak of...
If you want to nitpick at least make sure you are misquoting me correctly... I was clearly (or not so clearly, I guess) speaking about the Bush administration, and the future they are creating. In their platform I don't see any true concept of what Separation of Church and State has meant over the last 100 years.
And I didn't say no seperation...I said none to speak of. Show me an example of the Bush administration has upheld that separation, in an active role.
Dabbler:
quote: Again, I think we're trying to base this on the man Bush is, not the worst theocrat possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, at least someone got where I meant to go with that....
Although I will not take what I said back, perhaps now we can stop the objections to how I said it, and perhaps hear a few reasons why I am wrong?
Not that I will believe you, Dag, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this....
Unless you want to ignore substance and go for the grammer overkill again..... Kwea
[ September 11, 2004, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, unless you're willing to say Bush would, if allowed, create a total theocracy, then the statement is wrong. If you are willing, we're too far apart to discuss pretty much anything.
As for substance, no one has refuted my analysis of GWB's separation above.
Dagonee
[ September 11, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I haven't seen a refutation worth responding to, to be honest.
I am not trying to be rude, just saying that all I have seen is you claiming that I shouldn't have used that phrase.
You said something about Bush using religion as a guide for his policies, and agreed with it. I agree as well.....but not to the point that I think public monies should be allocated to fund one religion over another...or one group of religions over another group of them.
I have a major problem with what he is doing. I never said that we have no current seperation....but I fear that the future under Bush's rules would lead to a reduction of that separation, to the point that it might disappear completely.
Think about it for a second. If someone was to say here in the USA that we should have an official State or Federal religion, people would be outraged, and it would never, ever happen.
Now, in 100 years, after the rules for the government have been changed so that the government has been funding religious education during all that time, and the rules for grants have become more and more restrictive....after all, the precedent for funding one and not the other has already been set....it is far more plausible under those circumstances, isn't it? After all, government funded discrimination in the workplace would have not only been allowed but encouraged for over a century at that point.
I don't see Bush having any true grasp of the possible consequence of his actions. There is a reason his FBO's took an executive order to implement.
I treasure the idea of separation of Church and State we have now, but I don't see Bush respecting that at all...so I see any meaningful separation in his platform, so I oppose it.
What will he seek to weaken next?
There is a difference between discriminating against a religion and actively attempting to outlaw it or suppress it. I never accused Bush of suppression, at least not by force. I just don't think he is willing to keep religion and state apart, as his actions have proven.
Does that help?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you're unwilling to discuss what I want to discuss and I'm unwilling to discuss what you want to discuss.
Fine.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, it isn't.
I am willing to discuss it, I just don't see what you want to discuss.
Could you please restate it?
I am fine with disagreeing with people on issues...
If everyone agree with me I would be bored...adn the world would probably be a mess...
I just didn't see what you were trying to discuss, perhaps because of it's phrasing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)