# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  John Kerrey's VP???

## Pete Hanlin

Well, who should he choose?

I was going to put little pithy remarks on each choice, but I wouldn't want to bias the polls...

Personally (seriously), I think *Joseph Biden* would be an excellent choice. Smart, somewhat witty- but wouldn't overshadow the top of the ticket. I'm going to make that my choice. Unfortunately, Biden tried to run before and had skeletons, he's from a mid-Atlantic state (and Kerry needs to pick someone outside the Northeast), and Delaware is a state 7 of 10 Americans can't find on the map anyway.

As for the rest of them...
*John Edwards*- he brings likeability to the ticket, soccer moms find him "cute"

*Ted Kennedy*- he could smooze treaties out of foreign leaders by drinkin' them under the table, knows how to "resolve" a scandal, and besides- he's a Kennedy!

*Dick Gephardt*- he's never going to get to the White House on his own, perhaps Kerry'll check out and give him a chance; besides, Dick can make Kerry look likeable by contrast!

*Hillary Clinton*- you just have to at least ask... the lib wing of your party is just drooling over the prospect (besides, it ensures another term for "W," so go for it!)

*Bill Clinton*- Why the heck not! The American public has kinda accepted having Bill in the executive branch as some kind of freak show/ penance... I miss the scandals!

*Bill Richardson*- Hey, those guys and gals in New Mexico think he's just fab (all 2,143 of them)- plus, Cheney showed those prarie staters can really deliver the vote!

Finally, not on the ballot (cause he's dead- which would create a small problem) is Paul Tsongas.  I mean a Kerry/Tsongas ticket would just be, well, memorable!  Other nominees for this sort of selection would be Kerry/Dukakis, Kerry/Mondale, ohhh I know, Kerry/Gore...
:D

----------


## Steve Machol

Personally I would have loved to see John McCain on the ticket, but it ain't gonna happen.

----------


## chm2023

Richardson may be from a small state, but he would be a great asset in the environmentally sensitive west, especially California.  Don't think the GOP could grab CA, but with Governor Arnold (dear God...), they could make enough noise to divert Dem resources, so Richardson could stem that tide.  Also the Hispanic vote.  And, not to be responsible or anything, he has a very strong resume in both international and domestic issues, so could be a viable president.

That said, I think Edwards is likely the man.  And "cute" or not, he will rip Cheney up one side and down the other in the debates.  You don't build a courtroom win % like Edwards' based on dimples alone.

----------


## walt

I sorta lean towards the charm and human kindness of a PeeWee Herman to offset the horse head. 

At least PeeWee is real. And in a democratic admin his skills will be very useful.:o

----------


## Jana Lewis

John Edwards...... Chm... you right, debating with Cheney will be dastardly fun! 


 :Rolleyes:

----------


## chm2023

> I sorta lean towards the charm and human kindness of a PeeWee Herman to offset the horse head. 
> 
> At least PeeWee is real. And in a democratic admin his skills will be very useful.:o


New bumper sticker:  Kerry or Bush?  Which end of the horse gets your vote?:p

----------


## walt

> You don't build a courtroom win % like Edwards' based on dimples alone.


Sure you do.  He would have been equally successful selling used cars, blacktopped driveways and aluminum siding.  Same endearing smile. 

"Hi, I'm Dr. Dimp Edwards, and if you're suffering from obesity please try my new Extract of Kerry ointment..."

Actually I like the guy but pundits claim he would steal Kerry's show.

----------


## walt

> New bumper sticker: Kerry or Bush? Which end of the horse gets your vote?:p


If it were Bill, he'd head for the bush. :p

----------


## walt

> Personally (seriously), I think *Joseph Biden* would be an excellent choice. Smart, somewhat witty- but wouldn't overshadow the top of the ticket. I'm going to make that my choice.


Does the expression "Pull a Biden" mean anything to you?  (If not, check Google.)

----------


## Pete Hanlin

That said, I think Edwards is likely the man. And "cute" or not, he will rip Cheney up one side and down the other in the debates. You don't build a courtroom win % like Edwards' based on dimples alone.
Of course, during the primaries they asked Edwards dozens of times if he would consider running as the VP (to which, he responded categorically "no"... but as it became apparent he was not going to be the candidate it moderated a bit).

Honestly, Kerry could do better.  I think Senator Feinstein (sp?) would make an interesting choice.  Having a woman veep didn't work for Mondale's ticket, but the senior senator from California is certainly capable, would absolutely nail down California (wouldn't have to spend any money there), and would garner a certain percentage of the vote just on the novelty of it all.

As for the debate- other than Reagan completely dismantling Jimmy Carter in the 1980 elections ("there you go again")- I'd have to say watching Cheney dissecting Lieberman four years ago was one of the most enjoyable political experiences of my life!  Now, Edwards is no Lieberman (and I mean that in a good- and bad- way), but Cheney holds his own pretty well (you don't convince oil company board members to invest money on dimples alone either).  Not that I would want anything bad to befall "W," but having a President Cheney would be perfectly fine with me!  

Having said that, I was mortified when I discovered "W" had picked one of his dad's old pals who hailed from someplace called Wyoming.  After placing a few calls, however, I discovered that support in Wyoming for Cheney was pretty much unanimous (all five households just love him!), so I felt better...
;)

I'm going to go out on a limb (cause I really think Edwards makes sense) and predict Dick Gephardt will get the nod.  That might be wishful thinking, but I have a feeling Dick has enough chips to call in to secure a nomination he obviously wants.  I think it would be a horrid choice (neither person on the ticket would have any charisma or "likeableness"- which is crucial in our entertainment driven culture), but there it is...

----------


## chm2023

> but Cheney holds his own pretty well (you don't convince oil company board members to invest money on dimples alone either).


..well if you followed Enron, apparently oil company execs are not the sharpest tools in the shed!!! ("You mean booking income prior to delivering product is NOT legit??? I'll be ripped!") Actually, I don't recall Cheney getting the better of Joe L--those debates were marked, if you remember, by an excess of civility. All very avuncular. Yuk! 

I think Edwards would go for the juggler and not let Cheney coast by with...inconsistencies shall we say. I would not think Gephardt would be a good candidate but some of the cognescenti claim that he could help deliver the swing states, PA, MI, OH--strong labor states. We'll see.

----------


## Steve Machol

Just a note - I added Wesley Clark to the list.  I think he's a viable option.

----------


## walt

> I'm going to go out on a limb (cause I really think Edwards makes sense) and predict Dick Gephardt will get the nod.


DNC bumper stickers... 
*I NOD FOR DICK!**Once we win, you will too!*

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Just a note - I added Wesley Clark to the list. I think he's a viable option.
Good add, Steve... I've added Diane Feinstein (sp?) for the same reason.

As for John McCain, he's already appeared with "W" on the campaign trail for this race, so I guess he's decided to be loyal to the party this go round...

I'm surprised someone hasn't added Nader.  After all, putting him on the ticket keeps him from running himself and stealing away votes.  Or, you could put Buchanan on the ticket (that way, the elderly West Palm Beach voters can't accidently vote for him instead of the Dem candidate).
:D  Ah, this is starting to get fun, isn't it!?!

----------


## chip anderson

Why not the ultimate Democrat that meets and exceeds all liberal criteria, fits in will all support groups:  *Michael Jackson!:bbg:*

----------


## walt

> Why not the ultimate Democrat that meets and exceeds all liberal criteria, fits in will all support groups: *Michael Jackson!:bbg:*


And has the money to finance their mutual obsessions. :cheers:

----------


## walt

Kerry/Gephard bumper stickers...*I LIKE DICK!**I'm John Kerry and I approve this message.*

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Pete,

I have to go with Edwards.  He has that likeability factor and enough newness to counteract Kerry's "good ole boy" factor.  Look at our last 2 presidents-outsiders (I am speaking of Clinton and W).

----------


## chm2023

> Why not the ultimate Democrat that meets and exceeds all liberal criteria, fits in will all support groups: *Michael Jackson!:bbg:*


I say Bush should take Rush as his VP:  Dumb and Doped in '04!

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Actually, I think the sterotyping on both sides is fun- but I have a feeling "W" has more on the ball than a lot of people in Washington.  No matter how much you try to say he sluffed his way through college on his name, you can't convince me that you're going to get through Yale _and_ Harvard unless you have a few grey cells to rub together (and he apparently did it while partying every night- even more impressive ;^).

Anyway, the previous President was supposedly a genius- but simply lacked common sense or any sense of propriety...  I'm happy to take the "B" student who has a frickkin' clue!

PS- Time ran a very interesting (and shockingly, _almost_ balanced) piece on Clinton and his book in the last issue).

PPS- I knew I could count on Steve to pull a strange candidate out of the hat...  Wesley Clark is scary!

PPPS- I've since read up on Biden / Kerry somewhat and have discovered they pretty much despise each other...  Just one more reason to start supporting Biden in his 2008 run for the nomination (probably against the likes of Hillary- after the Dems lose this go round they are going to start pushing the _real_ libs in their party to the forefront).

----------


## Steve Machol

> PPS- I knew I could count on Steve to pull a strange candidate out of the hat... Wesley Clark is scary!


In what way? I admit I haven't been following him very closely but I've seen nothing _scary_ about him.

----------


## walt

Wasn't there something about Clark getting fired from his NATO job?  What was that all about?  :Confused:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I was initially impressed with the thought of a serious military man who was a Democrat, so I paid attention to coverage on Gen. Clark. Everything looks good until you interview soldiers who have worked with him. Now, everyone has coworkers who have axes to grind, but as I recall, the overwhelming opinion shared by pretty much everyone was that this guy is trouble.

One of the majors under his command commented that the general views every subordinate officer in his command as a threat to his future. I think his nickname at one of his commands was "Section Leader Six" due to his management style.

Then there are his stands on the issues. I know not many people seem to care about this- but I guess I'm just "old school." I know you are too, Steve- and maybe you agree with these, but I don't...



> I believe that the arts are very important to the future of our America,. A country has a soul, and we have to continually find and examine our own. Arts help us do this. .So I believe in restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I haven't fixed any given level, except that I want to raise the prominence of the arts in our daily lives, and I want to reopen the idea of giving grants to individuals.





> First, we're going to insure all children. That will be mandated, and we'll help the parents if they can't afford it. Second, we're going to get all adults access to insurance, and we're going to help low- and moderate-income families to buy that insurance. Third, we're going to really do cost containment.





> I'm in favor of the principle of affirmative action. what you can't have is a society in which we're not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination."





> I will: strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards; accelerate the use of hybrid vehicles through targeted tax incentives; impose a cap on carbon emissions from power plants; promote the use of renewable energy like solar and wind; use incentives to increase the energy efficiency of our power plants, our business equipment, and our home appliances; upgrade our outdated electric grid; and help plan for smart growth rather than suburban sprawl.


Anyway, like I said, you may read all this and- the opinion of his leadership abilities from former subordinates aside- may say "this is my kind of candidate."  As for me, I can't think of anything that is more inappropriate for Federal funding than the NEA.  I don't believe in a state-run national health care (I'd like to see us getting out of that business, not further into it).  Affirmative action needs to go.  We have employment laws and they should be enforced to the letter, but affirmative action is simply reverse discrimination.  Finally, a clean environment is great and these things sound really nice, but aside from the electric grid- which really does need work- our economy should not be saddled with environmental laws that are much more severe than the rest of the world's.

----------


## For-Life

> I don't believe in a state-run national health care (I'd like to see us getting out of that business, not further into it).


Why is that.  Some people are devestated by the costs of health-care, and cannot afford it for them, nor their family.  What are you going to do if you get cancer, have a heart attack, get MS, or have diabetes?  What are you going to do if your job does not give you health insurances and you do not make enough money to afford health-care?

----------


## walt

> What are you going to do if you get cancer, have a heart attack, get MS, or have diabetes? What are you going to do if your job does not give you health insurances and you do not make enough money to afford health-care?


Thats easy...Move to Canada! :hammer: 

Now throw me a hard one.

----------


## For-Life

I don't need to move :D

----------


## Jana Lewis

Gee Pete.... I don't see anything "scray" about him at all. 


What's wrong with overhauling our healthcare crisis? 

Funding arts?

Keeping America beautiful? 

Decreasing our dependance on oil? 

Hmmm... I rather like this guy! 

;)

----------


## walt

> I don't need to move :D


We'll continue to provide Canada with a nuclear shield against the Soviets if you'll pick up our medical costs.  :Cool:

----------


## karen

I am trying to figure out which candidate would help Kerry lose...I pick Gephart.  Although getting Feinstein the heck out of California has some appeal... :p What? No Barbara Boxer???????

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Some people are devestated by the costs of health-care, and cannot afford it for them, nor their family. What are you going to do if you get cancer, have a heart attack, get MS, or have diabetes? What are you going to do if your job does not give you health insurances and you do not make enough money to afford health-care?
One of the first things I look at when considering a job is the quality of health care insurance I will be able to participate in or purchase.  Although my current employer has a good health program, I still pay quite a bit to ensure that my family and I are well-insured.

My parents, brother, grandparents (when they were living), and so on also pay/paid a lot to make sure they are insured against health-related catastrophes.  Should one of us have fallen ill (as my grandmother did), the family helps defer the cost of care and/or helps provide care.

I'm not blind to the fact that there are some who truly have no means of procuring health care other than a government sponsored (that is, a taxpayer-like-me sponsored program).  However, these programs should be kept at a minimum and should only provide coverage to those who are physically or mentally incapable of working (and perhaps those who do work full time but make below a certain level).  In my opinion, we have ample programs in place right now...  Self, family, local community, federal government- that is the order of who should be taking care of the individual.  In my opinion, we are well on the path to a reversal of that order.

Gee Pete.... I don't see anything "scray" about him at all. 
What's wrong with overhauling our healthcare crisis? 
Funding arts?
Keeping America beautiful? 
Decreasing our dependance on oil? 
Hmmm... I rather like this guy!
As I mentioned before, Wesley Clark is scary to _me_- given my opinions about what our government should be focusing on.  So, from my perspective...
1.) I do not have a "health care crisis," although my wife has required several operations over the past few years, we have had insurance (for which we paid) and paid the remaining balance for the hospital, surgeon, anesthesia, etc. ourselves.  
2.) Arts are terrific- and if you are dedicated to being an artist that is noble and great.  However, since I do pay for my own insurance, food, shelter, etc., I simply don't feel like shelling out any extra taxes to fund artists who wish to pursue their life's dream.  Plus, our government already spends more than it takes in- so I'm not willing to force my children to pay for the funding of art either.  If my _local_ government (in which I am more directly represented) wants to fund a _local_ art project, they may put it to a referendum in my local community and- if we deem the project worthy- we will pass a bond issue or something...
3.) America is a beautiful place.  Yes, there are also consequences to the industrialization and urbanization of America.  Personally, if they want to drill a well which will cover 10 acres in an area somewhere around the Arctic Circle, I am quite fine with that (as are the local people who live there- Alaskans).  You may not be, and I invite you to pay $2,3,4 a gallon (depending upon how much oil countries in the Middle-East feel like selling us).  Look, environmental causes are just great- but they come at a cost.  When you tell an industry they cannot do this that and the other thing, you basically tell them to conduct their business elsewhere in the world.  That's fine, but then you're also telling them to lay off Americans...  As long as our environmental laws are stricter than the majority of countries around the world, our economy will feel the impact.
  There should be (and are) environmental laws which prohibit practices that pollute the environment unnecessarily (that last word is open to interpretation- I realize).  They should be enforced.  However, we need to get off the whole "not in anyone's backyard" deal.  Build some frickkin' nuclear power plants, for God's sake!  There hasn't been one built since 1979 (TMI).  Environmentalists drive me nuts- they don't want us to use fossil fuels.  Okay, but they also don't want us to build dams, nuclear power plants, or any of the alternatives.  Solar/wind energy simply does not provide the power necessary to fuel our lifestyles and economy.
4.) Decreasing our dependence on foreign oil- see the above.

You know, you're right... all these things sound great.  However, these things cost _money_.  Specifically, they cost _my_ money.  When insuring other people's kids, starving artists, and making sure Caribou (or whatever lives in the Arctic circle) don't have to see an oil rig threatens my ability to purchase insurance for myself, pay for the gas to get to my job, and puts my children's government further in debt, that scares me.

PS- Republicans waste too dargonnit much money too- but at least they do it on things that somewhat approach the true purpose of the Federal government (provision of common defense and assurance of commerce).

PPS- Yes, I happen to be a conservative.  I understand there are those with other opinions who are scared by people like "W."

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Why is that. Some people are devestated by the costs of health-care, and cannot afford it for them, nor their family. What are you going to do if you get cancer, have a heart attack, get MS, or have diabetes? What are you going to do if your job does not give you health insurances and you do not make enough money to afford health-care?


In Canada, I believe you will get stuck on a waiting list until you get sicker or come across the border into the US. From what I have heard, if you aren't a government employee in Canada, you are pretty much stuck.

----------


## For-Life

> In Canada, I believe you will get stuck on a waiting list until you get sicker or come across the border into the US. From what I have heard, if you aren't a government employee in Canada, you are pretty much stuck.


There are some waiting lines, but they have slowly come down over the last two years, and as long as the Conservatives do not win a majority in the election Monday the lines will come down considerably in the next five years.  You have to understand why the lines were long and if you understand that then you know they will be coming down.

Pete I will take a look at your reply when I have a little more time :)

----------


## chm2023

> We'll continue to provide Canada with a nuclear shield against the Soviets if you'll pick up our medical costs.


Soviets? Big labor?

Quick, no looking it up: what year is this?:p

----------


## walt

> Soviets? Big labor?
> 
> Quick, no looking it up: what year is this?:p


2004  (I can see your confusion since your moniker has 2023)

Soviets?  We still maintain a nuclear umbrella but as you may be implying, the Soviets are long gone.

Big labor?  Although you co-mingled this from another post, you might have caught Kerry's union endorsement on the tube yesterday.  It was all he could do not to wet himself.  Or maybe he did.  At any rate, if you need a reality cookie, read Linda Chavez's new release "Betrayal".  Alternately, continue to bury your head in the sand and have your very own release.  :Cool:  

Glad I could help. :cheers:

----------


## chm2023

> In Canada, I believe you will get stuck on a waiting list until you get sicker or come across the border into the US. From what I have heard, if you aren't a government employee in Canada, you are pretty much stuck.


Canadian life expectancy is higher than the US;  Canadian infant mortality rate is lower.  And medical as % of GNP is lower in Canada than US, even though there is universal coverage there and US has 40 million plus un-insured.  

Balance this against the fact that you may have to wait for non critical procedures:  Are you kidding me??  

I have occasionally talked to Canadians (higher income types) who gripe about the wait issue.  When asked if they think the US model would be preferable, the usual response is laughter.

You may be ok with the fact that you live in a country that lags about 20 others in innoculating children against serious diseases.  I am not.

----------


## walt

> Canadian life expectancy is higher than the US; Canadian infant mortality rate is lower. And medical as % of GNP is lower in Canada than US, even though there is universal coverage there and US has 40 million plus un-insured.


A case of apples and oranges?

Its likely that Canadians are healthier to begin with. They probably eat more wisely and refrain from defecating in their own water bowls. i.e, could be their lifestyle rather than their insurance. 
:cheers:

BTW, how do you innoculate against stupidity?

----------


## Steve Machol

> You know, you're right... all these things sound great. However, these things cost _money_. Specifically, they cost _my_ money.


Speaking of where _my_ money is going:

http://www.costofwar.com/

;)

----------


## chm2023

> A case of apples and oranges?
> 
> 
> BTW, how do you innoculate against stupidity?


Get some cells from a stupid person and inject them.  Let me know how it works out.

----------


## chm2023

> Speaking of where _my_ money is going:
> 
> http://www.costofwar.com/
> 
> ;)


Not to mention lives.  But look how well it's going!

This is one of those things that makes you want to weep. :cry:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

You may be ok with the fact that you live in a country that lags about 20 others in innoculating children against serious diseases. I am not.
At the risk of entrenching my image as a "conservative, non-compassionate Republican," I'd point out that the innoculation rate of children in my household is 100% (both are innoculated). 

I _do_ care about my fellow man and _do_ believe in a Bible that instructs us to "take care of widows and orphans." Having worked within the Medicaid and Medicare systems; however, I have a hard time understanding how _anyone_ in this country who wants to be innoculated can make a case that there is no access to innoculation.

As long as I'm getting up every morning at 6am and dragging home after 7pm and receiving salary checks with a detailed description of the money I'm paying to the government, I'm going to have a problem with shelling out more money to take care of people who don't have a job (except for disabled people). 

My children are MY responsibility- not yours. I should be responsible for clothing, feeding, and taking care of them (and I'd be happy to be solely responsible for paying for their education as well- but the federal and state governments have taken over education as well). If I lived next to Bill Gates, I wouldn't expect him to give me money to raise my kids just because he has more than I do- so why is it assumed that I should give my families' money to others to raise their kids? 

Help me out here! I used to help one of the single mothers who worked for the practice I managed with her tax filing each year. One year she was upset because her "earned income credit" was _only_ $2,300. I pointed out that she hadn't had any taxes withheld, so this was just free money to her- but she was still miffed (cause she had gotten _more_ the year before when she hadn't earned as much money). Now, that same year, I had paid (after deductions and refunds) $6,200 in taxes. Unless I'm missing something, the federal government just took $2,300 from me (or a taxpayer like me) and gave it to my coworker- simply because she managed to have two children to two different men who failed to stick around? To make matters worse, she eventually asked to have Fridays off cause her parents would supplement her income and she'd qualify for more stuff if her income dropped to a certain level!

Now, I'm sorry she made poor decisions, and no- her children shouldn't suffer for it (and they didn't- her parents helped her out a lot)... but when I'd watch her spend the money on going out partying every weekend (which my wife and I don't do much because geez, there just didn't seem to be a lot of extra money to do that what with paying all the bills, putting aside for retirement, and all that). 

Which brings me to another point- retirement. After partying herself silly for 62 years, this same woman (who was actually a nice person- personal irresponsibility aside) will have nothing for retirement and will look to the Federal government (aka me) to give taxes out of the money that I had the discipline and foresight to save during my younger years.

In case you've missed it- I'm peeved. I'm mad. I'm outraged. Stop giving my money away! Its not that I'm apathetic, non-caring, or cruel- I'm just tired of having money that isn't easily earned taken away and frittered off by the Federal government. Is that so hard to understand? This girl was not a minority, had a college education, and had the intelligence (and looks, to be frank) to be successful in business- and there are 1,000s of her around the country getting taxpayer money to help raise their kids.

I know, I know, there are the poor underpriviledged out there who really can't get a job and blah blah blah. Know what, for the most part I'm not buying that either. In Lancaster, we used to have a day set aside for Medicaid patients. I'd work in the lab and watch the various families coming in for treatment. Amazing thing- I drove a '95 Saturn (this was in '97) and 60% of the cars were probably worth more on the Blue Book than my car (my coworkers and I tracked it). Furthermore, the gold chains, cigarettes, etc. these people brought into the practice must have cost a good deal of money (yet we'd sometimes have to go by diapers for their kids cause they had obviously not been changed in over a day). Many of them would PURCHASE a Cazal frame after using their "benefits" to get the free pair of glasses Medicaid provided.

We give plenty to those in need in this country. Know what, if you don't have a job life SHOULD be tough- that's what motivates you to go get a job- and that's my prescription- GO GET A JOB!!!

----------


## chm2023

Pete, I really think you should consider moving to a country with lower taxes.  Let me know when you find one.  

Some random thoughts:  take a look at your school tax bill and look up what your school district spends per child.  Surprise, your children's education is being subsidized by people with no children.  How's it feel to be on welfare?

What % of the federal budget goes to welfare?  Take a guess.  Varies year from year, usually 2%.  Now consider that 75% of US corporations paid NO taxes last year.  Seems to me you are mis-directing your anger.  It always astounds me that people are so willing to trash the poor (many of whom I am sure are less than paragons of virtue) as the main cause of high (?) taxes, but give corporations a pass.  This is a depressingly familiar phenomenon:  always **** on the people below you in the pecking order.  What a noble attitude.

Here's another interesting factoid.  Before we all strain ourselves patting ourselves on the back, consider that there is one factor that has about an +.8 coorelation with a person's economic status, as measured by personal income.  Hard work?  Superior morals?  Not quite, it's what one's parents earned.  Which is another way of saying that our relative success in life is largely an accident of birth.

I'm mad too.  I am sick to death of whining and self-righteousness.  The sight of well nourished, well paid, well educated people moaning about how they are getting the ****** end of the stick is genuinely repugnant.

----------


## Jana Lewis

Pete,


I have read your comments, I just don't understand them. I would much rather be enjoying a nice piece of art then watching our caskets come home draped in flags. 

I understand that you think that the government could be using our money differently, I believe that with every administration there's always some opinions on how things should be funded. I agree with that point. I just don't understand why you think he's scary......  :Confused:  

Honestly, I find Bush scary.... yes he scares me. I am afraid for my future and my unborn childrens future. I think that we have spent a obnoxious amount of money on this so called war, and Americans and Iraqi's alike are being killed, I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel afraid, to me that's just down right scary. I think we should all be afraid of terrorisim now, more so than before 9/11. 

It is unfortunate that enviromentalists upset you, I don't always agree with the enviro cause, but don't you think we outta be cleaning up things and protecting our natural habitats as opposed to just building more and more, increasing our dependancy for oil?? I saw the greatest bumper sticker the other day.... it said "keep opur planet clean, it's not uranus" I laughed out loud! And in some ways it's so true..... we share this planet,a nd everyone is responsible for keeping it clean. 

I understand your reasoning in our health care crisis, I too pay an exorbanant amount of money to be insured, but unfortunately there are many that don't have that luxury, when it comes down to paying for your family to have insurance or putting food on the table, what wins? I think we have a horrible crisis in our mist that needs to be paid attention to, I believe it's been put on the back burner for so long that we all tend to forget about it. 
I  understand alot of what you said.... I just don't agree that your reasoning constitutes being scared.

----------


## walt

> Get some cells from a stupid person and inject them. Let me know how it works out.


Beautiful! Just don't ship via USPS. :cheers:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I really am enjoying this conversation (and like you) but, really- get over yourself.

First, I mentioned the fact that the government subsidizes my kids education in my post- along with the fact that I do think its a crock that the governent has taken over education.  I went to a (and here comes another "aha" and an eye roll from you) private school from 7th grade on- which my parents paid for (and no, we weren't rich and yes, the school was largely staffed by parent-volunteers, my mother among them).

Second, welfare is a small part of the federal government's budget and no- its not primarily responsible for our deficits.  However, it is the part that I have the most personal exposure to (since I'm not a defense contractor or anything).

Third, I recognize that one's parents and family have a LOT to do with how one's life turns out.  Perhaps that is why we should begin encouraging people to take responsibility for their own children.  Look, I realize that I have been extremely fortunate in life to be born in the family, country, etc. that I was- fortune that I had nothing to do with.  However, I have had something to do with what I've made of those opportunities and I will be danged if I'm going to have someone else make me feel guilty for wanting to keep more of the money that I earn.  I don't work in a sweat shop or anything, but I do work hard.

The real problem with this country is spending- not just on welfare, on everything.  Ever since the New Deal and Great Society eras, we have figured that spending money on our social problems will make them go away- it doesn't... only responsible people can do that.  On the same trek, since the Cold War we have figured it is okay to spend any amount of money on national security- no matter how much in debt it takes us.  As Eisenhower said, "Spend every dime it takes to defend us, but not a penny more."  We have spent trillions of pennies more in the past 30 years.

I'm not blaming the poor for our economic woes, but don't blame me for some kid not having an immunization shot.  Get his lazy butt mom up and make her take him to the frickkin clinic.  Then, sit her down and tell her to stop sleeping with guys who have no intention of sticking around...

Remember the "old" horribly conservative days where people did things like hmmm, _get married_, before having kids?  All I'm asking is we don't demotivate people from doing just that...

Whew, that feels much better- now, back to work (and I'm very lucky to have the job I do- so I hopefully am doing it well).

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I just don't agree that your reasoning constitutes being scared.
I understand that we simply have differing opinions and perhaps different fears.  I happen to think we are doing a good thing in Iraq (for both us and the Iraqis).  I'm not happy about the cost (human and monetary), some of the activities, or the images it creates- but I am glad that we've ended the reign of a person that benefitted nobody but himself by being in power.

I despise big government- and when I see anyone that makes a plank of their campaign out of its increase, that scares me.  To be honest, Bush has increased the size of government far too much during this admin.  Then again, he's not a particularly conservative President when it comes right down to it.

This entire country has me scared, Jana.  We seem to be unwilling to live within any kind of budget (Reps AND Dems), we have no fiscal discipline (either as a government or as individuals), and we seem to be apathetic- on the whole- to it all.  Regardless of who wins this next election, the government will continue to spend more and more and more money we _do not have_.  Whether its a couple million per single missle or $10 bucks a pop for thousands of some handout, we need to realize we can't just spend money on everything that tickles our fancy.

I'm frustrated.  I understand those of you who say we certainly don't need to spend so much on military programs and such- fine, I see the point.  We also don't need to spend any more money on social programs, because by and large they haven't worked.  Additionally, we need to cut back on a lot of other stuff as well.  Every time anyone tries, however, there is a group of us citizens somewhere who have a vested interest in the money government is spending, and we protest until the spending continues and increases.

Third party ain't gonna do it.  The two parties in charge ain't gonna do it.  The only people who CAN do it are the citizens, and they won't- cause they don't care and those that do are outnumbered by those that don't.  

All politicians scare me.  One who is said to be a control freak (by those under him) who makes a point of talking about increasing spending here there and everywhere scares me even more.  Thus, Gen. Clark scares me...

----------


## walt

Don't get too torqued Pete.

Even though communism is now recognized worldwide as a failed system, socialism has made incredible gains in the U.S. and will soon elevate us to the greatness of Europe.

Since getting freebies is a belief system (much as religion), its has little to do with logic.

Also note that since you live in a "Free-choice" state, your Cost-of Living Index is a lot better than those in "Forced-Unionism" states.  For example, using 100 as the average, Tampa's index is 90.5 while Los Angeles (where I live) is 137.8, San Francisco (home of the enlightened) is 182.3 and NYC is a staggering 216.2. (Index compiled at George Mason University)
This means that a person earning $20,000 a year in Tampa would have to earn $45,072 in New York City.
You could have it a lot worse.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I'm frustrated. I understand those of you who say we certainly don't need to spend so much on military programs and such- fine, I see the point. We also don't need to spend any more money on social programs, because by and large they haven't worked. Additionally, we need to cut back on a lot of other stuff as well. Every time anyone tries, however, there is a group of us citizens somewhere who have a vested interest in the money government is spending, and we protest until the spending continues and increases.


Please don't think that I am not frustrated, I am extremely frustrated in how my tax dollars are being spent, regardless of who is handling our administration whether it be Republican or Democrat. Let me give you a small scenario, I am curious if you would agree or disagree with this. 

My husband and I were married 3 years ago, he had elderly parents ( in their 80's ) Right after our marriage took place both parents became unable to care for themselves, so my husband and I took up the duty to care for them. during this period, I became shocked to know, that TOGETHER they only earned 575.00 monthly from social security ( barely enough to cover their medications ) I was INFURIATED to say the least. 

Some background if I may....

These were HARD working immigrants that WORKED menial jobs all of their lives to care for their 4 children, one who was severely mentally retarted. My mother in law was a maid and my father in law was a custodian at a local school. They didn't have a car until they wer ein their fifties. 

Here's my GRIPE: MY husbands father died January 13th 2002. Weeks later, I got a nice little letter in the mail form the social security administration to RETURN half of the monies sent out at the first of the month! Ofcourse my husband and I antied up and paid the balance, but I was soooooo angry! I wonder if I could have taken his half taken bottles of meds and asked for a refund? 

Here's my POINT: We used every available agency out there, I felt like my in laws deserved it, we had meals on wheels delivered, we had free physicals and cold shots given, we had capital metro send free buses to take them to the doctor. They got free eye exams, free dental work at a local clinic, we even had his diabetic needles and testing strips delivered free from an agency. Here's what I am trying to say....without all of these things, they might as well had been dead. The little pithy 575.00 check would have never covered basic needs, such as electricty, heat, water, food, meds..... Thank goodness my husband and I were there for them. 

I am just curious Pete.... do you think that we shoud'nt have these services available to people who CAN'T work? 

What about folks who have PAID into the system all of their lives? 

Thoughts?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

You could have it a lot worse.
I could have it a LOT worse than I do- and the taxes here in Florida aren't so bad.  I've had a lot of chances many people don't have, but I've done more with less chances than some get (but that's the definition of the average middle-class citizen, I suppose).

Although I've ranted about welfare and other social programs a lot here, I also recognize that the debt we're incurring comes from a LOT of sources.  I don't think we're living in a socialist _economy_ or _government_, but there can be little argument that the various planks of the Democratic platform come very close to a socialist _society_.

My aunt is from Sweden, and her relatives visit from time to time.  They are very quick to disdain our form of government and our capitalism.  However, I also notice they purchase a lot of consumer goods during their visits.  When I inquire about this (and I always do, just to bring it up), they invariably complain about the level of taxation in their country (seriously, its like >50%!).  

The product of socialism does is forced redistribution of wealth (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need).  Its a noble idea, but it doesn't work (according to my observation).  

There's an interesting story about a grasshopper and some ants that comes to mind...

----------


## Pete Hanlin

These were HARD working immigrants that WORKED menial jobs all of their lives to care for their 4 children, one who was severely mentally retarted. My mother in law was a maid and my father in law was a custodian at a local school. They didn't have a car until they wer ein their fifties. 

Here's my GRIPE: MY husbands father died January 13th 2002. Weeks later, I got a nice little letter in the mail form the social security administration to RETURN half of the monies sent out at the first of the month! Ofcourse my husband and I antied up and paid the balance, but I was soooooo angry! I wonder if I could have taken his half taken bottles of meds and asked for a refund? 

Here's my POINT: We used every available agency out there, I felt like my in laws deserved it, we had meals on wheels delivered, we had free physicals and cold shots given, we had capital metro send free buses to take them to the doctor. They got free eye exams, free dental work at a local clinic, we even had his diabetic needles and testing strips delivered free from an agency. Here's what I am trying to say....without all of these things, they might as well had been dead. The little pithy 575.00 check would have never covered basic needs, such as electricty, heat, water, food, meds..... Thank goodness my husband and I were there for them. 

I am just curious Pete.... do you think that we shoud'nt have these services available to people who CAN'T work? 

What about folks who have PAID into the system all of their lives?
Extremely well said and asked... I don't like getting worked up and feel that I have allowed myself to do so in this thread (I was talking to Robert here just the other day about sub specie aeternatatis- all things in view of eternity- and without a doubt some of that noble concept has slipped away today).

First, I would note that your in-laws obviously invested themselves in their children- and that investment has paid good dividends. I mean this in the nicest and sincerest possible way. What if your husband had had parents who simply received a check from the government, didn't work, and didn't invest in him as a child? The result would probably be that they'd have had no one to care for them when they grew old.

Second, if you have worked your whole life and paid into the system, you should get something out of it. I disagree with the whole system of Social Security (one, its not the government's job to supply for your retirement, two, when they try they do a pathetic job- as you discovered), but if you've paid in you should get out. Ironically enough, my mom turned 62 yesterday and she will now be drawing 80% of her benefit level. Luckily for my parents, this just means they no longer have to draw any principal from their retirement fund- they can live off the interest and the SS.

Third, I have tried to emphasize several times that if you are indeed physically unable to work, there _should_ be programs to assist you in meeting the economic requirements of living. Look, this country has a LOT of wealth- if we can afford 2.8 billion to send a satellite to Saturn (arrives next week, so cool), we should be able to afford caring for the infirmed among us. However, it has been my observation that the VAST majority of social spending goes to able bodied individuals who have been demotivated to work or be responsible. Welfare reform went part way to resolving this (and oddly enough, when the welfare checks stopped coming most of them found jobs), but there is a lot more to be done.

BTW, I think Meals-on-Wheels is a non-government charity sponsored by volunteers (I'm not sure... I _am_ sure that I spent many afternoons as a child accompanying my grandfather who drove meals around as part of the program). Just having someone visit did as much for many of the shut-ins as the food ever did, but both are necessary for quality of life.

I'll make a deal with you- let's agree that we should stop subsidizing certain big industries, start holding government contractors responsible, and start paying attention to our elected representatives actual voting records. At the same time, lets figure out a way to help people who actually need help (like your in-laws obviously did) while cutting WAY back on the money that goes to people who shouldn't be getting it (which includes people from ALL races, genders, religions, and backgrounds). Do that, and we can all be happy!

Unfortunately- and here's the frustrating part- no one running for President (or the Senate, or the House) seems to be interested in doing any of this. Given all the evils offered to us, I find "W" to be the least evil (and the most likely to perhaps push for SOME of the things I would like to see happen). Perhaps you feel the same way about Kerry. That means we don't disagree all that much, we just have different opinions over which party is worse for America!

Sad situation to be in, isn't it?

----------


## walt

> Its a noble idea, but it doesn't work (according to my observation).


Sure it does, until they've sucked out all the blood and the whole rotten parasitic system crumbles ala USSR.

----------


## Jana Lewis

Okay Pete..... I'll agree with you on certain points you've raised. :) 


But here's the kicker..... 

Although my in-laws invested alot with their kids, not one of them were able to acheive the goal of college. Unfortunately, at the time, ( late seventies, early eighties) no such programs existed. 

However... now we see lots of programs that help under privledged people acheive goals of higher education. Is this something else that needs to be revised? Or do you think that these things need to go away? I am truely curious. 

Welfare... *sigh* I agree  it needs reform, I think your right, there are too many people that abuse the system. But let's not jump the gun... here's another scenario.... ( I hope your not bored with my scenarios ) ;) 

Good friends....married couple. Wifey gets pregnant and losses job because of it. Bills mount up, no one is hiring a pregnant lady, she get's on unemployment while looking. Bills continue to mount, they are now in a position where they could loose their house.... Wifey decides that she's gonna go and apply for food stamps...... she is turned down because her hubby makes 50.00 more than they allow..... so, she rids herself of unemployment benefits ( cuz she is getting ready to give birth ) and not actively able to pursue a job. They file bankruptcy loose the house. 

Now... should she have been able to get on temporary food stamps?

----------


## walt

> Although my in-laws invested alot with their kids, not one of them were able to acheive the goal of college. Unfortunately, at the time, ( late seventies, early eighties) no such programs existed.


Lame. Student loans and part-time work is and was always available. I did it. My kids did it.




> Wifey gets pregnant...Now... should she have been able to get on temporary food stamps?


Only if it was rape or an immaculate conception. People do all kinds of things which have consequences. Being an adult means facing up to those consequences and bearing responsibility for our actions whether its investments, copulation or drunk driving.

So she and hubby decided to couple but disregarded a contraceptive, or wanted to start a family but expected others to pick up their tab?

Social safety net - Yes.
Copulation net - only if we're all invited. :cheers:

----------


## karen

> Now... should she have been able to get on temporary food stamps?


Good question-I would say if she is a tax paying person then yes.  I have a personal situation that happened 10+ years ago that sort of illustrates this.  I was a single mom working a full time job and quite frankly, having a hard time making ends meet.  I applied for the WIC program because I thought that a little help with milk, cheese, formula and so forth would be all I needed to not be in the red.  I was turned down because my 25,000 I made a year was *too much money*.  Now, if I had quit my job and applied for aid-after the welfare system had gone after the dead beat dad-I could have had all the help I needed.  I thought at the time "I am asking for a little help for a little while and I can't get it-this sucks!"  I had been gainfully employed and paying taxes since 16 years of age.  I think this is the part that drives Pete crazy.  It seems that frequently the people who work the least can be rewarded the most.  I think people who have been working all their lives should get whatever help they need (within reason-and medication and doctors visits are very reasonable)  I would rather see them get it than some 20-something girl who keeps having babies she can't take care of so she can get more money. (You will notice I waited until I was happily married and more financially secure before I had another one!  ;) )

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Wow, a new day and I'm feeling much better (even though I was up till 3am working on my car).  I'll post here and then not look at this thread again till the weekend (cause I have a LOT of work to do ;^)...

I sincerely hope nothing I said gave the impression that I'm against single mothers or anything.  I have had the good fortune to hire quite a few of these resilient group of women over the years and find most of them struggling to do what I find challenging enough with the aid of a spouse- namely, raising kids.

Regarding your example, one year after my wife and I were married (and we married young- I had just turned 19, she just 20), we discovered we were going to have a baby (a surprise, considering the BC my wife took).  Anyway, I remember it being the scariest time of my life!  Working at Dominoes was not exactly a high-income job, and my wife's job at WalMart wasn't exactly raking it in either.  Unfortunately, we lost that child 3 months in...  

The experience left me with an appreciation of the panic that a young single woman must feel...  I mean, here I was married and halfway through college and a baby seemed like a scary thing- I can't even imagine how scary it must be when you're single and in High School.  Still, if you aren't ready to have a baby, you shouldn't be doing the thing that makes that a possibility (words from my father-in-law that seemed incomprehensible 16 years ago but make pretty good sense now).

There is money out there if one wants to go to college.  Between the Pell Grant system, student loans, and need-based scholarships (available at most colleges), most everyone who wants to work for it can go to college these days.  This is one of the things that irritates me about affirmative action, however.  Here in Florida, Jeb Bush came up with the idea of _Florida One_.  Part of the concept was the elimination of affirmative action in state-funded programs.  For example, assistance for college would still be available- but it would be completely based upon one's income level and grade scores, not upon race (i.e., those with the lowest incomes would get the most assistance- with preference being given to those with the highest GPA... in fact, those scoring in the top 10% of the state's students were guaranteed assistance for college).  The response?  Jesse Jackson and a bunch of politicians came down to Tallahassee and raised all heck...

I'm not against investing money in our own citizens, but I've just seen too much abuse of the system to really think most of the money we spend on social programs goes to those truly in need.  One job I had in college was in a grocery store deli department.  I remember listening to numerous rants by people who just couldn't understand why they couldn't purchase cigarettes with food stamps!  I know there will always be people who find a way to steal money from programs intended to help the truly needy (just like there are defense contractors who find ways to pad expenses when doing government work).  I just can't be convinced that we need any additional programs (including national health care- which is beyond a social program and is just a horrifying concept to me).

Anyway, I'll close by saying as I drove home in my relatively nice car from my really great job and saw my wife's large SUV sitting in the driveway to our modest-but-our-own house, and as I watched the sprinkler system watering the yard and heard my healthy kids playing in our heated swimming pool and flipped on my large screen HDTV (just trying to make a point here)... the words of _chm2023_ did come to mind.  To be honest, I do have things really good- and it is without doubt a bit hypocritical to propose that everyone should just _"pull up their bootstraps"_ and everything will be fine.  If it takes spending $10 to get $1 in the hands of a person who needs the assistance to survive, perhaps that's just the price of taking care of widows and orphans.

I guess I just keep coming back to hard work and perseverence- because that is the way I've been raised...  Well, speaking of, on to work!  There are taxes to pay... after all, I have a lot of stuff to support (everything from welfare to weaponry).  Thanks for the continued input to this thread- considering other viewpoints (from people who have different experiences and therefore different perspectives) cannot help but enhance one's own understanding- discussions like this do affect (even if minutely) my own paradigm, I think for the better...

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Only if it was rape or an emmaculate conception. People do all kinds of things which have consequences. Being an adult means facing up to those consequences and bearing responsibility for our actions whether its investments, copulation or drunk driving.
> 
> So she and hubby decided to couple but disregarded a contraceptive, or wanted to start a family but expected others to pick up their tab?
> 
> Social safety net - Yes.


Walt, Walt Walt....*sigh*

Wifey and hubby did not get pregnant to expect a handout from the government. Wifey and Hubby were secure people ( homeowners, tax payers, etc.) She became pregnant and lost her job. Was actively pursuing another, couldn't find one...... applied for food stamps. 

I am having a REALLY hard time figuring out how you can merge a "social safety net" with their situation. I mean...really..... even if it was family planning or not, isn't that what welfare was set up for? To help people get back on their feet? 

C'mon....

----------


## chm2023

Most citizens are happy to pay to give people a chance--I for one would gladly pay more for a time to have unmarried mothers learn a trade and have care for their kids so they can "break the cycle" and eventually become a net contributor to the coffers.  (Many states back in the good old budget surplus days, took their excess welfare/human services bucks and did some smart stuff--nighttime public transit, after school programs--all designed to assist people on the lower rungs of the employment ladder.   The data shows these programs were effective.  Not to mention enlightened).The fact is that the majority of people on welfare are on one time, for an average (this is going by memory so could be off) of 10 months.  Most people prefer being productive and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.  There are (and will ever be) con artists and rotten apples who abuse the system.  What is a bad, bad mistake is to point to these people as a reason to abandon the notion of providing help to people in need.  Baby out with the bath-water thing.

Pete, sorry for the attitude, this is just something that I feel passionately 
about.  My kids have all attended private schools, through college.  I consider it a privelege to pay school taxes to educate "our" children, and am very cognizant of the fact that my husband and I have been blessed to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle.  We pay a load of taxes, but my feeling is that to whom much has been given, much is expected.  

This was the main thing that irritated me about Reagan, making the lack of compassionate fashionable.  And talk about hypocrisy:  I'm thinking your basic "shining city on a hill" doesn't consider ketchup a vegetable.

Re the Iraq thing.  Kids, the game is over.  Politically we have lost and the "new" Iraq will be far, far more dangerous to the world, and to us very specifically, than the old.  News today:  Bush apparently thinks Pakistan is a democracy (gee, you would think someone who can't string together 2 sentences without talking about it would have a better handle on what it is!);  more soberly, the Saudis have advised foreign workers to start carrying weapons to protect themselves from the insurgents.  How Mel Brooks.

The end game here is that the Saudis are being targeted by AQ.  This is a secular state that AQ hates more than they hate us, with an angry, fundamentalist leaning citizenry. Think what this means in terms of disruption of the oil supply.  

What a good idea this was.  You'll notice the news folks, even on Fox, are now speaking in terms of "getting out"  and "limiting our losses".  Building a strong democracy that will be a beacon of hope in the region?  Not so much.

And Walt, the Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that Mary was conceived without original sin, nothing to do with getting pregnant.

----------


## shanbaum

chm, it's a mistake to all the Saudi regime "secular" - they are Wahabists, Wahab having been (if I remember correctly) a 19th-century proponent of the establishment of _shariah_ as civil law as well as religious.

Which simply means that for AQ, it's not enough to be a fundmentalist Islamic theocracy; you've got to be the right _kind_ of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Okay, I'm skipping lunch- so that means I get to take a short posting break! :) 

Pete, sorry for the attitude, this is just something that I feel passionately about. My kids have all attended private schools, through college. I consider it a privelege to pay school taxes to educate "our" children, and am very cognizant of the fact that my husband and I have been blessed to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle. We pay a load of taxes, but my feeling is that to whom much has been given, much is expected.
Same here on all accounts- I suppose I've just seen too much of the "system" and have grown frustrated with the manner in which help is delivered. For example, if you gave money to a charity that blew about 80% of the money on administration and waste- and redirected much of the other money to people who didn't really need help to begin with...

I have been exposed to various social programs many times over my working years. I would confidently state that I have NEVER seen a social program where less than 50% of the people had no business receiving the kind of funding they were getting. Perhaps you can point out some really efficient social programs that can moderate my frustration...

On the other hand, I have benefitted from government programs myself... I took out about $10,000 in student loans for my wife to attend college (happily repaid), our first home was financed courtesy of the FHA, and so on. I would argue that the "hand up, not a hand out" concept is decidedly NOT a liberal idea (welfare reform certainly didn't spring from the left side of the aisle)- but I have no desire to start pointing fingers.

We have the exact same problem on an area of spending that is more popular with conservatives- defense. Defense funds are mishandled almost as grossly as social spending funds!

This was the main thing that irritated me about Reagan, making the lack of compassionate fashionable.
Not surprisingly, I have a slightly different view of what Reagan was all about. Its not a lack of compassion- its a fundamental statement that its the TAXPAYER'S money- and the government should be more miserly in the redistribution of it from one person to another (but apparently, not in the redistribution of it from one person to a defense contractor- I'll give critics of Reagan that much). Gosh darnit, we can debate spending priorities, and that's fine- but I sometimes can't help but feel that Democrats forget this is MY money we're talking about (and I fully realize that I pay far fewer taxes than many- but more than a lot). I want to grab people like General Clark by the lapel (probably a dangerous move, come to think on it ;^) and scream _"What the heck gives you the notion that I want to take extra money out of my paycheck to give to an artist?!?"_ Reagan had the right concept- smaller government, lower taxes... truth is, he really didn't accomplish the first part (which is why the second part escalated the national debt).

My grandfather- a lifelong Democrat who thought FDR and Harry Truman were the ONLY good Presidents despised Ronald Reagan (apparently, President Reagan made the unforgiveable error of referring to military pensions as welfare- and my military-retired with a tour in the Pentagon grandfather just went ballistic). We argued over many a pleasant fishing trip over the merits of Ronald Reagan (picture Michael P. Keaton from Family Ties, and you have me as a conservative teenager).

Re the Iraq thing. Kids, the game is over. Politically we have lost and the "new" Iraq will be far, far more dangerous to the world, and to us very specifically, than the old.
I could not disagree more completely with this statement- but I have several friends who share your view, and I've argued it till I'm blue in the face and have given the subject over as one of those "whatever" topics. In my opinion, we have accomplished what we set out to do and yes- the transition of Iraq will be difficult, but its going to be up to the Iraqis to decide how they want to govern (and that's a choice they haven't been able to make in some time- unless you feel the re-election of Hussein with 100% of the vote was a legit excersize in democracy or something). No doubt, however, our non-congruent views of this issue have a lot to do with the differences in our ideologies, our views of what constitutes "dangerous," and probably our own stakes in the political ramifications of this war.

Well, that's all I can type in 10 minutes (which is what I gave myself- fortunately for the poor reader of these rants- the alarm just went off)...

Have a great weekend folks!

----------


## walt

> Wifey and hubby did not get pregnant to expect a handout from the government.


I didn't suggest they did.





> She became pregnant and lost her job.


Does this imply that she lost her job because she was pregnant. If so, I'm sure she had legal recourse against her employer unless pregnancy posed an occupational hazard. If not, then like so many others, she lost her job and probably qualified for unemployment benefits.
I know of someone who lost their business because of some deadbeat accounts.  Lost the house and had to start over.  Should gov't. have provided aid?  How about someone who's just sloppy and goes belly-up?





> ...... applied for food stamps.


If I understand the food stamp issue, she wanted to defray some of the food bills to cover her house payments. Wouldn't everybody?





> I am having a REALLY hard time figuring out how you can merge a "social safety net" with their situation.


So am I.





> I mean...really..... even if it was family planning or not, isn't that what welfare was set up for? To help people get back on their feet?


I don't think so but that's where we seem to differ.

Not to help maintain life as usual or reestablish their lifestyles, but to keep us out of the gutter. I mean, ultimately what's the difference between a welfare queen milking society for food stamps and somebody who simply does it to pay for a house? They applied but made too much money to qualify.

I'm sure the experience was inconvenient for your friends, but on the bright side I assume they now have a child and are reestablished.  I don't mean to sound harsh but they probably also learned a valuable lesson...Sh*it Happens.

----------


## Jana Lewis

Okay Walt.....


In your opinion, just what is welfare set up for?

----------


## walt

> Okay Walt.....
> 
> 
> In your opinion, just what is welfare set up for?


Not to outdo Bill, but it all depends on what the meaning of welfare is.

In some instances it's a last resort set up by humanitarians for the destitute so they/we don't croak in the street. Charities come to mind.

At the other extreme, its a welfare state like socialism, communism, etc. set up as a guise to buy votes and milk the proceeds. (Ever read Ayn Rand?)

So I guess it covers a broad spectrum defined by whoever creates it, ostensibly to bestow a hint of human kindness but unfortunately more often to empower the worst kind of scum who control it for their own agendas.

At any rate, whatever my opinion and whatever the prevailing benefits, there will always be those for who it's not enough. It shakes down to economics. I wish we could all enjoy life without paying bills, and with the dramatic increases in productivity it ultimately sounds possible but utopian.

Sorry I can't be more specific since this is not my area of expertise, but it's obvious finer minds than mine determined it wasn't set up to cover the food stamp thing.

Noblesse oblige :cheers:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Not to go back to the original topic or anything, but Senator Graham would make an excellent choice for Kerry- in my opinion.  Not the I particularly like the Senator or his politics, but he's pretty popular here in Florida- and Florida casts a lot of electoral votes (as I recollect, its 25)...

Speaking of the Electoral College, it actually amazes me that Republicans actually make it to the White House.  I mean, between California and New York (which even an actual donkey would win if it ran on the Dem ticket- I imagine Reagan was the last Rep to win either) you have almost 100 of the 270 votes necessary to win...

Of course, now that they've gotten all the voting machines simplified, the people of West Palm Beach will be able to ascertain the difference between Kerry and Buchanon (well, actually, they screwed up their last primary as well- so who knows), so perhaps Kerry doesn't need any help in Florida after all.

I think the debates will go a long way this time around (oh, and the economy and Iraq come November will play big, too).

----------


## karen

> At the other extreme, its a welfare state like socialism, communism, etc. set up as a guise to buy votes and milk the proceeds. (Ever read Ayn Rand?)


Walt, which is your favorite?  I pick Atlas Shrugged- closely followed by Anthem.

----------


## walt

Who is John Galt?  :Cool:

----------


## karen

> Who is John Galt?


And where is he when we need him??

That's the ticket for 2004!! Galt/D'Anaconia (or Rearden)

----------


## For-Life

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html

I am going to bring this back a little.  This site posts the military budgets of countries.  You can see that the US's last year was $399.5 Billion.  Now to put that into perspective it would take the combined military budgets of Russia, China, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Austrailia, Canada, Netherlands, Turkey, Mexico, Ukraine, Iran, Singapore, Sweden, and Egypt.  Yes, 24 of the next highest countries.

Now I agree that the US needs a very powerful, probably most powerful military in the world.  But someone said earlier that the US should spend ever penny on its military to keep it safe and not a dime more.  Isn't $400 Billlion a little wasteful?  I mean they could cut that in half and still dominate.

----------


## chm2023

I didn't know that; I assumed the royal family were "secular" in the sense they rejected the more restrictive tenets of Islam and particularly because they chose to deal with the West. Learn something new everday! What is "shariah"?

----------


## chm2023

Pete: gov't social programs that work, meaning the $$ gets to the people who are supposed to get it: school lunch programs, Head-Start, special education and trade schools (largely funded by state and federal money), public transportation "access", pre-natal care. My experience has been the big waste factor in government social programs comes from poor management and the people who work in the system hamstrung by ridiculous political mandates. Case in point: in Pennsylvania, the family courts are pressured to go to (IMO) extreme lengths to keep families together. I have seen cases where the mother is addicted, border-line personality, with as many fathers to her children as children, given chance after chance to keep her children. This of course puts the children at risk and is very costly--all the counseling, treatment etc that the mother goes through, all the costs of keeping the children in care; when the smart and humane thing for the kids would have been to get them into the adoption queue as soon as possible. The fallout of the system now is that the children are shuttled from the mother to group homes to foster care and (big surprise) end up with problems that make them a burden to society when they become adults.

With the right leadership the system could be streamlined and get real results. The problem now is that far too often we provide the bare essentials to these kids--food, shelter, physical safety--but don't make real changes that could benefit them. So the cycle continues. (I have spent many years as a volunteer in social services and later on a couple of boards. I'm afraid I have grown weary in the process!!):(

----------


## shanbaum

> I didn't know that; I assumed the royal family were "secular" in the sense they rejected the more restrictive tenets of Islam and particularly because they chose to deal with the West. Learn something new everday! What is "shariah"?


Saudi Arabia may be shade less repressive than Afghanistan was under the Taliban - the morality police are probably better dressed.

Saudis are reputed to engage in behaviour when travelling outside their country that would get them imprisoned if not executed if done inside their country.

_Shariah_ is the law established by and elaborated from the Koran.

----------


## chip anderson

> >** SOCIAL SECURITY:

** Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

**He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes
into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from 

their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?


A: That's right!**Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.**Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security> payments!

The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

----------


## walt

"Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!"

And they'll continue to get away with it because "The American People can't be fooled".

----------


## shanbaum

Chip, your bliss must be profound.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

----------

