Scary Thought
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
Thread Starter
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
Banned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,058
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
Yeah that's it, I've been manipulated by the evil liberal's charisma and charm and don't think about the issues whatsoever which is why I like the guy. I don't read the news or pay attention to current events or even know the slightest bit about public policy whatsoever that the only reason I like Clinton is because he boned an intern in the oval office and smoked bud when he was a teenager.
It's more that since I think basically every single policy ever devised by the Republican party is bad, so I'll take the alternative that is most likely to get elected and keep a Republican out of office.
As far as raising taxes are concerned, I personally believe in not bankrupting the government. When the government is doing well financially, it increases spending on the private sector. Those companies that contract to the government hire consulting firms and buy computer equipment. Then they have to get a company like IBM to come in and get everything running with all the other stuff. IBM buys chipsets from companies like Intel, Motorola and AMD, and those companies go to accounting firms and e-commerce providers to keep their sales networks as efficient as possible. All of this creates more cashflow throughout the economy and all these companies hire more employees. The public can then recoup any extra money they paid in taxes by investing in the stock of these companies that are doing well as a result of the government not plunging itself further into debt. Trickle-down economics work, but not by just lowering taxes for corporate entities. You have to give them work which encourages further spending to finish the project.
Handing money to the taxpayer in the short term doesn't help the economy, but since the Republican party endorses the concept of "no way are my tax dollars aren't going to be spent on helping out poor people" they in the process always run up a huge national deficit. What it gets spent on should be a peripheral issue especially when in a good economy fostered by a government that is not running up billions of dollars of debt every month the taxpayers are able to earn back more money through investments. The economy is one of those "big picture" situations and cutting off one of its main sources of well-being screws everybody over.
Why is it that billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros are so vehemently opposed to Republican economic policies? Warren Buffett issued a press release saying that with the new Bush tax cut and a few accounting tricks combined with some philanthropy, he is now only paying a 3% tax rate. Yet he would rather pay more taxes and have a strong economy in which he is able to make more money through investments.
As for nationalizing health care, that is obviously not the intent. I don't think anybody wants to create a system that will mimic Canada or the UK. But, do you have any idea how much something like an emergency room visit and 1-day hospital stay can cost? Easily $5-10 thousand dollars. How is the family making $24k a year before taxes whose kid breaks his leg on a swing set going to pay for that without some kind of assistance?
My dad happens to be the CEO of a managed care consulting firm so I'm at least reasonably well accquainted with how the system works and the fact of the matter is that health care is ridiculously expensive and unless you're well above the national median income and have really good health insurance, you probably can't pay for the medical expenses that you're going to incur. Just because someone doesn't make $60k a year doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the health care system as me, the son of a CEO of a company in the health care industry.
I feel like this is the mid 80's all over again with the young Republicans. Seems to me like it's driven by greed, selfishness, a fixation on the military when we're supposedly at peace, and clinging to conservative Christian morality when we're supposedly a secular state.
Yeah, all those ideas were put in my head because I saw Clinton play the saxophone on MTV.
I eat plastic.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,177
Likes: 0
From: Detroit, MI
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videop...10/video548745
Andy Rooney rules. Anyway. Both sides have their downfalls. Neither side is perfect. I'd pick the democrats, because at least they don't endorse people being close minded (i.e. lott, santorum, etc.). The republican party has a lot of old-school views on social things that impede on progress. It's 2003, get with it. Giving middle classed citezens a $600 or so tax cut a year isn't going to do much for them OR the economy. I worries me that so many people that are patriotic think that the democrats are unpatriotic. It wouldn't be a democracy if people couldn't question things. I don't like when Democrats go after Bush like he's the say all and end all to the Republican party. Concerning morals, I think that parents should teach morals, not the government. I also think that the government shouldn't go along with the Christian ways. I don't care if there are more Christians in the country, they should accept that there are other religions out there, like their own religion teaches them to. It's a funny thing, extreme Christians can sometimes be some of the nastiest people. It makes you wonder. Morals do not directly mean "church" OR "religion." Yes, to the few that care, you can be a good person and not belong to any religious affiliation. 9-11 didn't happen because of Clinton. Do we really need MORE military funding? If everybody who put a "support out troops" sticker on their car in times of [avoidable] all-out war, thinking they are rough tough (TRUE!) americans, were to enlist, the government wouldn't complain about needing more people in the military. I consider going into the reserves at 16, even if I don't like everything the military does. I think it's honorable, not because I want to make my republican parents happy. There's no single person to point the finger at about 9-11. You can't correlate the weak economy with Bush being in office. Both sides have their good points, both sides have their weak spots. Neither is perfect.
Andy Rooney rules. Anyway. Both sides have their downfalls. Neither side is perfect. I'd pick the democrats, because at least they don't endorse people being close minded (i.e. lott, santorum, etc.). The republican party has a lot of old-school views on social things that impede on progress. It's 2003, get with it. Giving middle classed citezens a $600 or so tax cut a year isn't going to do much for them OR the economy. I worries me that so many people that are patriotic think that the democrats are unpatriotic. It wouldn't be a democracy if people couldn't question things. I don't like when Democrats go after Bush like he's the say all and end all to the Republican party. Concerning morals, I think that parents should teach morals, not the government. I also think that the government shouldn't go along with the Christian ways. I don't care if there are more Christians in the country, they should accept that there are other religions out there, like their own religion teaches them to. It's a funny thing, extreme Christians can sometimes be some of the nastiest people. It makes you wonder. Morals do not directly mean "church" OR "religion." Yes, to the few that care, you can be a good person and not belong to any religious affiliation. 9-11 didn't happen because of Clinton. Do we really need MORE military funding? If everybody who put a "support out troops" sticker on their car in times of [avoidable] all-out war, thinking they are rough tough (TRUE!) americans, were to enlist, the government wouldn't complain about needing more people in the military. I consider going into the reserves at 16, even if I don't like everything the military does. I think it's honorable, not because I want to make my republican parents happy. There's no single person to point the finger at about 9-11. You can't correlate the weak economy with Bush being in office. Both sides have their good points, both sides have their weak spots. Neither is perfect.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
I'd vote for Clinton again. His only mess up was perjury about some sexual affair, which did not jeopardize the nation in any way shape or form. It only made Americans more gossipy and further popoularized fellatio. He did good for the nation's well-being, and that's what matters. It's all those self-righteous people with morality stuck up their butts that hate him.
He's a pimp in my book.
He's a pimp in my book.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally posted by FocuzDave
He was def a good president other then that little mishap...he brought the economy out of a slump for sure
He was def a good president other then that little mishap...he brought the economy out of a slump for sure
This too shall pass..
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: DC/VA/MD/NY/OH
A lot of that "being brought out of a slump" was George Bush's policy's. Look it up. Thats how it works. If a President doesn't make a rule early then the effects won't get felt in their term. And he was really bad with foreign policy. And he did lie to us, so did bush.
Ah well, will we ever just give Ross Puro a chance? :P
Ah well, will we ever just give Ross Puro a chance? :P
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by FocuzDave
He was def a good president other then that little mishap...he brought the economy out of a slump for sure
He was def a good president other then that little mishap...he brought the economy out of a slump for sure
Mickey mouse could have been President and we still would have had the economic boom. All Clinton did was ride the wave...he didn't create it.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by /^Blackmagik^\
not quite... he definately took credit for the dot-com boom. however, back over here in reality, we all know that the dot-com boom came about because wall street investors went nuts buying and selling internet stocks. it all came to a crash(no pun intended) when they finally realized that most of these internet stocks have barely any tangible value and we have the economic delimma that you see today.
not quite... he definately took credit for the dot-com boom. however, back over here in reality, we all know that the dot-com boom came about because wall street investors went nuts buying and selling internet stocks. it all came to a crash(no pun intended) when they finally realized that most of these internet stocks have barely any tangible value and we have the economic delimma that you see today.