posted
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.
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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
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...
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
How is this (trying hard not to compare to President Bush) -- An Environmental Policy that includes good science.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.....
posted
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?).
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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...
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.
posted
...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.
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So "none to speak of in certain individual areas of the vast federal government" would be more accurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
