The New Yorker Endorses Kerry [Archive] - CookingLight.com Community

honeygirl1971

10-25-2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by ellen6242
I consider myself to be a smart woman, but for the life of me I cannot understand how, with all the horrible, scary things we're hearing on the news, the president has a 5 point lead in the polls. I don't mean to stir up a political debate, I was just wondering.
Ellen

Me too. It's a mystery. My French fianc� and his family ask me about this all the time, and I just have to say, with extreme frustration, "I have no idea!" To me it seems like for Bush supporters it's got to be either a)they refuse to accept that the past 4 years have been a disaster because they simply don't want to believe it, b)they have benefited personally from what Bush has done and don't care about any perceived mistakes he's made, c)they don't really know about all the things that have gone wrong/are going wrong, or d)they feel that Bush is the right candidate because of his religious beliefs, and that is the only thing that matters to them. But I am OBVIOUSLY biased, and I'm sure this is unfair yadda yadda yadda. But I do NOT understand those Bush supporters!!

ellen6242

10-25-2004, 04:06 PM

I was simply expressing my own OPINION. I refuse to take the bait and have a fight with anyone.

Ellen

honeygirl1971

10-25-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Grace
Like there isn't a single good reason to support him

In my honest opinion, THERE ISN'T!

stefania4

10-25-2004, 04:16 PM

Thanks for the link - that's an incredibly well-written article.

And I have to say that, for the life of me, I can't understand why this should be a close election. Even the most right-wing Republican I know is an undecided voter - he said that he voted for a "compassionate conservative", and that Bush has proven beyond a doubt he's neither of those things.

Grace

10-25-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by ellen6242
I was simply expressing my own OPINION. I refuse to take the bait and have a fight with anyone.

Ellen

I'm not baiting you or looking for a fight. I only have a problem with the judgementalness and indirect put-downs. There isn't an ounce of respect for people who DO support Bush. That's what I find bothersome.

ellen6242

10-25-2004, 04:21 PM

I absolutely do not disrespect you, Grace. I just don't understand how someone could support the President, given the current climate in the country and the world.

Ellen

HejazSunKat

10-25-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Grace
This is what's troubling to me. I've mentioned it several times here before. If you say you are a Bush supporter, you're looked at INCREDULOUSLY like it couldn't be possible. Like there isn't a single good reason to support him, and you must be a big idiot if you do. Like there couldn't be enough supporters out there to give him a 5 point lead.

Well, of course, it's all context. If you mention you're a Bush supporter in a roomful of Bush supporters you're not going to get that reaction. The polls seem to be nothing better than using a crystal ball or consulting a psychic and we'd probably do well to just ignore them. There are so many agencies out there taking polls, so many ways the results are analyzed and presented that they don't really seem to yield much useful information. We'll see what happens on November 2nd.

Grace

10-25-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by ellen6242
I absolutely do not disrespect you, Grace. I just don't understand how someone could support the President, given the current climate in the country and the world.

Ellen

I actually think there are lots of good reasons, and I believe myself an intelligent person as well, but there are few who disagree with my views who are actually interested in understanding why. I think it's easier to believe that we just must be a bunch of idiots and leave it at that. There hasn't been a single person who opposes me who has actually been interested to hear or understand why I believe what I believe. And to then therefore make the assumption that I must be an idiot without actually understanding why I believe what I do is extremely judgemental and unfair and also presumptuous. And it's not just you. It's almost every, single person who doesn't share my views that I've ever run across.

I don't think that I need to only be thought of as having legitimate thoughts by the people who agree with me. I would like to think that since I am a reasonably intelligent person with lots of life experience, that my views and thoughts would have some kind of merit. Apparently not. But that's ok. I could just as easily brush off and discount any person who says they are a Kerry supporter and not even bother to listen to their thoughts. But the president will either win or he won't. If he wins by a reasonable majority, then I guess all the opposition will continue to scratch their heads and wonder who all these ignorant Bush supporters are. If he doesn't get elected, they'll be happy and it will be a moot point.

So Linda's right. No need to wonder for long. We'll all find out Nov 2nd!

stefania4

10-25-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Grace

So Linda's right. No need to wonder for long. We'll all find out Nov 2nd! Actually, I seriously doubt that. We're already hearing about computer crashes in Florida, and the red flags on Diebold were raised a long time ago. I think we're going to have a ton of lawsuits and challenges to get through and it'll be another few weeks of wondering who'll be in the Oval Office.

Was it Leno or Conan who said that Bush was ahead in the polls - the Supreme Court would go 7-2 this time? :D

Chefzhat

10-25-2004, 04:40 PM

I'm not surprised that the New Yorker has come out for Kerry. As a long-time subscriber I realize their political leanings. Reading the magazine makes me a more informed person.

I agree with Grace, though. The perception is that Bush supporters must all be ignorant, because how in the world could someone support him? If I were to say the same thing about Mr. Kerry - I'd be lambasted right now.

I truly cannot wait until this election cycle is over.

ellen6242

10-25-2004, 04:45 PM

This is the last thing I will say and then I'm going home - In which one of my posts did I call you, or any other Bush supporter an "idiot?" You say that I didn't ask why you support Bush. I could say the same thing to you. Instead of asking me why I think Kerry is the better candidate, you say that I make assumptions and am judgemental about your choices. I am extremely offended by those insinuations.

Going forward, I will post on the Great Food board, where you don't mind if I post my opinions on chicken recipes, do you?

Ellen

HejazSunKat

10-25-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by stefania4
Actually, I seriously doubt that. We're already hearing about computer crashes in Florida, and the red flags on Diebold were raised a long time ago. I think we're going to have a ton of lawsuits and challenges to get through and it'll be another few weeks of wondering who'll be in the Oval Office.

Oh dear, I seriously hope not Stefanie! I prefer to be in denial and hope that the country will not be put through another election like we had in 2000. I think we are all too tired from the nasty election season to go through that again and am beginning to think that it's time we got back to the business of being united as Americans again instead of sniping at one another over who should sit in the oval office. The more time we spend on internal election politics the less time we have to work on things that really count - like trying to prevent another 9/11. We have too many enemies out there who'd love to take advantage of our distraction and that worries me.

Chefzhat

10-25-2004, 04:51 PM

Oh boy. I don't know who you are directing your comments too, but I didn't say that YOU said we're ignorant, I said it's a perception. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Chefzhat

10-25-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat
Oh dear, I seriously hope not Stefanie! I prefer to be in denial and hope that the country will not be put through another election like we had in 2000. I think we are all too tired from the nasty election season to go through that again and am beginning to think that it's time we got back to the business of being united as Americans again instead of sniping at one another over who should sit in the oval office.

Hear, hear Linda. We are all still suffering from the last election process. I hope this one - no matter which way it goes - ends on a positive note.

BTW - Linda, sweetie - are you adjusting to life stateside again?? How's that gorgeous grandkiddie?

Grace

10-25-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by ellen6242
This is the last thing I will say and then I'm going home - In which one of my posts did I call you, or any other Bush supporter an "idiot?" You say that I didn't ask why you support Bush. I could say the same thing to you. Instead of asking me why I think Kerry is the better candidate, you say that I make assumptions and am judgemental about your choices. I am extremely offended by those insinuations.

Going forward, I will post on the Great Food board, where you don't mind if I post my opinions on chicken recipes, do you?

Ellen

I am not trying to fight with you or offend you. I'm telling you how your comments make someone like me feel. If that doesn't interest you, then of course, continue on.

You said several times you can't understand for the life of you why anyone would support Bush. As someone who is reasonable and has what I think is a legitimate perspective, I feel like since you can't see my argument (and then say you disagree with it of course) that it's one that has no basis. That is what I find offensive and bothersome.

I know why the Bush haters hate Bush. You can't get away from it. It's everywhere. You think he lied about WMD's. You think he went into Iraq with no real authority. You think he's alienated the World. You think he's made bad economic decisions. I could go on and on. There are articles posted all over this board that explain the Bush-haters position all day long (not to mention in every newspaper/media outlet/whatever). I don't think there have been much of any here on the board anyway that explain the Bush supporters position, and even if someone posted them, I doubt anyone who hates Bush would take the time to read them and ask questions.

Again, I only responded to your post originally to say that whether or not you meant it or realize it, saying that what I believe is so outrageous it's inconceivable is a put down, and makes someone like me feel badly. I just thought you might want to know that. Again, you might not care, and that's your right.

foodfiend

10-25-2004, 05:03 PM

Just jumping in here. I rarely post on politics threads. I'm Canadian, so I'm just observing what's going on. There is not a lot of support here for American foreign policy. In fact, there was a poll that said if Canadians voted, Kerry would win by a landslide. (for all the reasons that have been stated). But then, our country was not directly attacked and our lives threatened. A columnist wrote that people are voting for Bush simply because there has not been another 9/11. Security first.
I haven't read the New Yorker article yet. It's not surprising the New Yorker supports Kerry because of its political leanings. But it is interesting that they support him since they are based in the city where the attacks happened.

HejazSunKat

10-25-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
BTW - Linda, sweetie - are you adjusting to life stateside again?? How's that gorgeous grandkiddie?

We have 2 now Debie (another one, a girl, was born in May) and they are both doing fabulously, thanks for asking. I am LOVING being home but have had my days when it's felt weird. We were away a long time and I sometimes feel all Rip van Winklie! :D

OK, hijack over...carry on... :)

honeygirl1971

10-25-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by foodfiend
A columnist wrote that people are voting for Bush simply because there has not been another 9/11. Security first.

foodfiend, thanks for giving us the Canadian perspective. I've heard that people think Bush is stronger on "security" too, but that's just one more position I don't understand. He has made it easier for the government to violate our civil rights, but he has not made America "safer." In fact, our ports, borders, airplanes, and so on are not much safer than they were on Sept. 10. And since the war in Iraq has given our enemies a common purpose, and, apparently, given terrorists access to serious weapons and explosives, you could argue that America is less safe than before the attacks.

Re the above comments posted by Grace...I don't think I have any less respect for you as an individual because you support Bush, but I honestly don't understand how you, or anyone, could. But it's not a "personal" attack. If you took it that way, sorry, but I'm not going to say that I respect your opinion in and of itself. I respect your RIGHT to support him, but I am filled with what I feel is righteous indignation when I think about what he's done to our country. I've never hidden my beliefs, or claimed that they were anything other than my beliefs, and just as I respect your right to post yours, I think I have every right to post mine.

Grace

10-25-2004, 05:54 PM

Of course you have every right to post your beliefs.

Look at it like this. You see a lady come into a party with a HIDEOUS dress on. Really, really hideous. You say to yourself, I wouldn't be caught dead in that dress! You say to your friend who agrees, OMG, look at that dress! She looks ridiculous!

Would you say really loudly, to the whole room (who probably agrees with you too that the dress is really ugly and unflattering), and so the lady can hear you, "I can't understand why ANYONE would want to wear a dress as ugly as that!!"

Of course not. It's an opinion. You'd have a right to it. Does that mean you have to insult or put down the person? It's a little simplistic an analogy, but maybe there's something about the dress that makes it beautiful in the eyes of the wearer. Perspective isn't right or wrong (is the glass half full or half empty? It's both. Neither perspectives are WRONG.)

Or maybe you could substitute a lady walking in in a burqa. Do you think I would say really loudly, so the lady in the burqa could hear me, "Wow! How could anyone in this day and age STILL WEAR A BURQA!" Even if that's what you believed, you wouldn't say it because it would be offensive to the woman wearing the burqa. Just because I don't understand why anyone would wear a burqa doesn't mean there isn't any validity at all to wearing one.

honeygirl1971

10-25-2004, 06:05 PM

These arguments become very tedious very quickly, so I'm only going to say that I don't think your example is relevant to a political discussion. I have nothing against you as an individual, but I do find it hard to believe that anyone could support Bush given what we know now, and I really don't see anything wrong with stating that personal opinion. I found it hard to believe anyone could support him in the last election either, but after what he's done in the past 4 years, I *really* don't understand how anyone could support him now. And yes, I have read a LOT of articles written by supporters, and I don't find the arguments credible, consistent, logical, or convincing. If that's offensive to you personally, as an individual, I am sorry, it is not meant that way. But I do not understand the political position of those who support Bush. That's all. I do not feel that all opinions are equally logical or right, but that doesn't change the fact that I DO feel that you are entitled to have, and to voice, whatever opinion you do in fact hold.

beckms

10-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Grace

There hasn't been a single person who opposes me who has actually been interested to hear or understand why I believe what I believe.... It's almost every, single person who doesn't share my views that I've ever run across.

Beg to differ. I disagree with almost every view you hold (with regards to issues pertinent to the election, anyway), and yet I respect pretty much everything you've said on the political debates on this board. And I believe I told you as much at one point.

With all due respect, Grace, be careful not to fall into the "woe is me" trap that certain others on this BB who share your political views like to milk.

colleency

10-25-2004, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Grace
Look at it like this. You see a lady come into a party with a HIDEOUS dress on. Really, really hideous. You say to yourself, I wouldn't be caught dead in that dress! You say to your friend who agrees, OMG, look at that dress! She looks ridiculous!

I'm not sure that your example really works.

It's more like you were at a party wearing a Chanel dress, and you went into a room with a sign on the door saying that people were going to be talking about why Prada dresses are better than Chanel dresses. You go in, and you hear people saying how hideous Chanel dresses are.

Unfortunately, there are more people at the party who like Prada than Chanel, so when you put up a sign that says you're going to talk about why Chanel is better than Prada, you end up with more people who want to convince you that Prada is better than people who want to talk about why they like Chanel.

Grace

10-25-2004, 07:03 PM

So there's a sign on the front of the boards that says "This Board Endorses Kerry" and it's understood that everyone here will be talking about how much they love Kerry?

Even if you're referring to the title of just the thread, all it says is that "The New Yorker" endorses Kerry. It isn't apparent by the "sign" that the poster is also a Kerry endorser (it could have been an outraged Bush supporter pointing it out), nor does the "sign" on this door say anything about the discussion being kept to comments in support of Kerry.

Now I would agree with you that on the thread that's entitled "Reasons Why I'm Voting For Kerry" (or whatever it says to that effect), you would have a point, and I actually refrained from posting my thoughts on the articles presented for quite awhile, because I figured it was just a thread about those supporting Kerry and not meant to be a debate thread. I could just as easily have started a thread that said "Reasons Why I'm Voting For Bush" and put my thoughts there. I am in agreement with you on that point.

But I still don't think it's very polite to knock people for their political OR religious beliefs. I wouldn't say to someone who was say, a Mormon, "I think your religion is nothing but a cult! I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would follow a cult!". Even if I believed that (which some people do). I might think it, but I wouldn't insult someone.

Grace

10-25-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by beckms

Beg to differ. I disagree with almost every view you hold (with regards to issues pertinent to the election, anyway), and yet I respect pretty much everything you've said on the political debates on this board. And I believe I told you as much at one point.

With all due respect, Grace, be careful not to fall into the "woe is me" trap that certain others on this BB who share your political views like to milk.

I did say "almost" in my post. People like you (and Maureen) are few and far between, let me tell you. And maybe that says something when several people "complain" of the same thing. Perhaps there's actually an element of truth to it.

And I did (and do) appreciate your consideration of my views. Very, very, very much. But I just couldn't let an outright insult just go by without pointing out how insulting it is.

honeygirl1971

10-25-2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Grace

And maybe that says something when several people "complain" of the same thing. Perhaps there's actually an element of truth to it.

Or not.

But I just couldn't let an outright insult just go by without pointing out how insulting it is.

Of course not. And we appreciate your attention to this matter, of course. You are our "insult watchdog." For the posts of others, at least.

MrsReber

10-26-2004, 04:44 AM

Grace, I totally see your point. It seems that everyone here is saying "why would anyone support Bush?"

First of all, my local paper endorses Bush and just ran an article about WHY they endorse him last weekend. None of the reasons were the same reasons stated above (no clue as to the past 4 years, his religious affiliation, etc.) I agree that it is demeaning to post something like that. I realize it's an opinion, but have a little tolerance, please.

Second of all, do the Kerry supporters ever stop to think that there are millions of people who are saying "how could anyone in their right mind support Kerry?"

jmarie

10-26-2004, 05:05 AM

The perception is that Bush supporters must all be ignorant, because how in the world could someone support him? If I were to say the same thing about Mr. Kerry - I'd be lambasted right now.

Well, I AM saying the same thing about Kerry supporters right now.

they refuse to accept that the past 4 years have been a disaster because they simply don't want to believe it, b)they have benefited personally from what Bush has done and don't care about any perceived mistakes he's made, c)they don't really know about all the things that have gone wrong/are going wrong, or d)they feel that Bush is the right candidate because of his religious beliefs, and that is the only thing that matters to them.

I refuse to accept MR KERRY's voting record for the last 20 years, voting against the Military, voting against National Security and voting gainst the funding of Intelligence. Senator KERRY scares me FAR MORE than any other man who has run for the Presidency.

KERRY WILL BE THE RUINATION OF THIS COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. WE WILL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH INCOME DISTRIBUTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING. :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE!

I will give it to the NEW YORKER, at least they have the guts to come out and say that they are biased towards KERRY. Most of the rest of the LIBERAL Media, push Kerry while claining to be fair and not liberal leaning. What a joke!

Thank you for the 'enlightening' article. I will feel very safe with KERRY at the helm.:rolleyes:

HejazSunKat

10-26-2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Grace
But I just couldn't let an outright insult just go by without pointing out how insulting it is.

Grace, I think you read more into Ellen's comment than was really there. Ellen did not state her political affiliation or leanings; she was making an observation that in spite of all the negative press out there concerning Bush's record, to hear the polls tell it, he is enjoying a 5 point lead and that didn't make sense to her.

I consider myself to be a smart woman, but for the life of me I cannot understand how, with all the horrible, scary things we're hearing on the news, the president has a 5 point lead in the polls. I don't mean to stir up a political debate, I was just wondering. I would love to know who they're polling - I've been registered to vote since 1976 and no one has ever polled me!

It's a leap to label her comment an 'outright insult' to Bush supporters.

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by MrsReber
Grace, I totally see your point. It seems that everyone here is saying "why would anyone support Bush?"

I realize it's an opinion, but have a little tolerance, please.

Second of all, do the Kerry supporters ever stop to think that there are millions of people who are saying "how could anyone in their right mind support Kerry?"

What is "tolerance"? I have said over and over again that I support everyone's right to have their own opinion and to express it here and elsewhere. Isn't that "tolerance"? Do I also have to say that those opinions are right, logical, consistent, and so on? I don't think they are! I don't think the claims made by Bush supporters are supported by facts, and therefore the support he has seems mysterious to me. I refuse to apologize for saying that, I just don't see it as wrong. If you choose to read and post on a thread that is discussing the merits of Kerry or other "democrat" or "liberal" positions, you've got to expect that you're not going to get a lot of support for right-wing positions.

And of course there are people who don't understand why I would support Kerry. Does that bother me? NO! That is their right, and I do not take it as an insult! I am an adult, and I don't take it personally if others don't agree with me or don't understand my opinions.

leightx

10-26-2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Grace

I actually think there are lots of good reasons, and I believe myself an intelligent person as well, but there are few who disagree with my views who are actually interested in understanding why. I think it's easier to believe that we just must be a bunch of idiots and leave it at that. There hasn't been a single person who opposes me who has actually been interested to hear or understand why I believe what I believe.

Grace, are you talking about "real life", or here, on this bulletin board? It seems to me like there have been MANY intelligent and lengthy conversations here, with people on both sides wanting to hear the responses from the other. There has been a lot of debate here lately - I'm not sure why you think that we aren't interested in understanding your views? I know many friends and family members that are voting for Bush. I wouldn't call any of them stupid - they simply believe different things. I may not understand their point of view (well, I understand it in some cases and just don't agree with it), but it is certainly valid!

claire797

10-26-2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by leightx

It seems to me like there have been MANY intelligent and lengthy conversations here, with people on both sides wanting to hear the responses from the other.

I agree 100%. As much as I hate getting into political discussions on a BB, I have to admit I have learned a lot and these debates and certain articles posted (which I probably wouldn't have found otherwise) have certainly influenced my opinion.

Grace

10-26-2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by leightx

Grace, are you talking about "real life", or here, on this bulletin board? It seems to me like there have been MANY intelligent and lengthy conversations here, with people on both sides wanting to hear the responses from the other. There has been a lot of debate here lately - I'm not sure why you think that we aren't interested in understanding your views? I know many friends and family members that are voting for Bush. I wouldn't call any of them stupid - they simply believe different things. I may not understand their point of view (well, I understand it in some cases and just don't agree with it), but it is certainly valid!

Leigh, you're exactly the kind of person I'm NOT talking about. Especially your last line "Well, I understand it in some cases and just don't agree with it". That is all I'm asking. And you're right - we have had some great discussions/debates here on in this board, but it's the only place I've ever had a discussion or debate with someone who believes opposite of what I do. It's never happened once to me IRL. And the person who posted "I can't IMGAGINE ANYONE wanting to vote for Bush!" was not someone who participated in any of those threads, and is basically a new person to the political discussion, and is just another example of the kind of talk I hear everywhere (again with the exception of a few people here).

And Linda, I would agree with you until you get to the part of her post where she said "I would love to know who they're polling", which insinuates (again) that there couldn't be in her mind enough people who support Bush to give him a 5 point lead.

But I'm done with this horse. It's soooo dead now.

MrsReber

10-26-2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

What is "tolerance"? I have said over and over again that I support everyone's right to have their own opinion and to express it here and elsewhere. Isn't that "tolerance"? Do I also have to say that those opinions are right, logical, consistent, and so on? I don't think they are! I don't think the claims made by Bush supporters are supported by facts, and therefore the support he has seems mysterious to me. I refuse to apologize for saying that, I just don't see it as wrong. If you choose to read and post on a thread that is discussing the merits of Kerry or other "democrat" or "liberal" positions, you've got to expect that you're not going to get a lot of support for right-wing positions.

And of course there are people who don't understand why I would support Kerry. Does that bother me? NO! That is their right, and I do not take it as an insult! I am an adult, and I don't take it personally if others don't agree with me or don't understand my opinions.

This is generally why I stay out of these conversations and just read them. However, I believe (my opinion here, again) that anyone who supports Bush gets repeatedly slammed and berated for having that view. No, you don't have to agree with it, but why so many posts about how horrible Bush is and who in their right mind would support him? I don't care who supports Kerry or who supports Bush. Every person is entitle to vote for the candidate they want to see in office. But on no other threads (such as the recipe opinions) do I see anyone say "Oh, gross! You like that? How could you? You must be insane!" I just don't see the need. Really, a simple "I support Kerry and here's why" is fine.
I'm outta here so don't bother responding. I won't be back to read it.

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 09:50 AM

It kills me that the last two posts claim to argue for tolerance of all opinions, yet also prescribe what one should post and what one shouldn't. It also kills me that they see how very tedious this discussion has become, and yet want to have the last word so badly they ask others not to respond!

Chefzhat

10-26-2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by MrsReber
This is generally why I stay out of these conversations and just read them. However, I believe (my opinion here, again) that anyone who supports Bush gets repeatedly slammed and berated for having that view. No, you don't have to agree with it, but why so many posts about how horrible Bush is and who in their right mind would support him? I don't care who supports Kerry or who supports Bush. Every person is entitle to vote for the candidate they want to see in office. But on no other threads (such as the recipe opinions) do I see anyone say "Oh, gross! You like that? How could you? You must be insane!" I just don't see the need. Really, a simple "I support Kerry and here's why" is fine.

It's called passive-aggressive. Not a pretty trait.

Chefzhat

10-26-2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971
It kills me that the last two posts claim to argue for tolerance of all opinions, yet also prescribe what one should post and what one shouldn't. It also kills me that they see how very tedious this discussion has become, and yet want to have the last word so badly they ask others not to respond!

Because you are using your opinions to bludgeon others. It gets tiring.

colleency

10-26-2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Grace
So there's a sign on the front of the boards that says "This Board Endorses Kerry" and it's understood that everyone here will be talking about how much they love Kerry?

I think I was just trying to point out that you knew the thread was political, and from past experience, you know that more politically vocal people here tend to lean toward the left.

I don't think that people should bash one side without listening to the other, but it seems like any time there is a political discussion of any type, it devolves into finger pointing and name calling from both corners.

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Because you are using your opinions to bludgeon others. It gets tiring.

It's also very tiring for the same people who make insulting generalizations all the time to turn around and say "Oh, you INSULTED me!!!" when someone posts their opinion on an obviously left-leaning political thread. "Bludgeon" �lso seems far too strong a word to describe, "� don't understand why people support Bush", but WHATEVER.
There were no attacks made against INDIVIDUALS here, but if people want to use this as an excuse to try to silence opposing opinions, that's their perogative.

Chefzhat

10-26-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971
"Bludgeon" �lso seems far too strong a word to describe, "� don't understand why people support Bush", but WHATEVER.

Ah, the word police. That you for performing that most important service.

Ahem. Seems you were accusing Grace of doing something of this nature a few posts back. Black pot, let me introduce you to the black kettle.

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Ah, the word police. That you for performing that most important service.

Ahem. Seems you were accusing Grace of doing something of this nature a few posts back. Black pot, let me introduce you to the black kettle.

I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "something of this nature." I don't appreciate when people make rude comments or assumptions about me as an individual person. Now, if someone says they don't understand my political opinions, that is not a "personal insult." I think that's pretty clear.

Chefzhat

10-26-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

Of course not. And we appreciate your attention to this matter, of course. You are our "insult watchdog." For the posts of others, at least.

Exhibit A.

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Exhibit A.

Um, where's the contradiction? I said Grace was very quick to claim "insult" in others' posts. Then I said it again later. Where's the problem, other than in the fact that you don't agree?

Chefzhat

10-26-2004, 04:48 PM

No problem. Just stating that you are performing the services of "word police", just as you claim that Grace is overseeing insults.

Is this more clear?

honeygirl1971

10-26-2004, 04:57 PM

Sure. I ask people to be precise, especially if they are making claims or accusations about what I've done. I don't see how that is comparable to Grace claiming "insult" whenever she doesn't like what others post, but I understand your comment now.

lovemybeetle

10-27-2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by jmarie

I refuse to accept MR KERRY's voting record for the last 20 years, voting against the Military, voting against National Security and voting gainst the funding of Intelligence. Senator KERRY scares me FAR MORE than any other man who has run for the Presidency.

KERRY WILL BE THE RUINATION OF THIS COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. WE WILL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH INCOME DISTRIBUTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING. :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE!

I will give it to the NEW YORKER, at least they have the guts to come out and say that they are biased towards KERRY. Most of the rest of the LIBERAL Media, push Kerry while claining to be fair and not liberal leaning. What a joke!

Thank you for the 'enlightening' article. I will feel very safe with KERRY at the helm.:rolleyes:

So, I know that I'm just jumping in here after lurking on these political threads but in the current state of upset in this thread, it would be wrong to laugh at this, right?

whocares

10-27-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by lovemybeetle

So, I know that I'm just jumping in here after lurking on these political threads but in the current state of upset in this thread, it would be wrong to laugh at this, right?

Well, Kerry is running for president, not dictator like jmarie seems to think. This is beyond laughable, it is freightening!

KERRY WILL BE THE RUINATION OF THIS COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. WE WILL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH INCOME DISTRIBUTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING. I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE!

Please share with me where this information comes from. I would very much like to see if there is any credible information regarding this socialist conspiracy.

badunnin

10-27-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by whocares

Well, Kerry is running for president, not dictator like jmarie seems to think. This is beyond laughable, it is freightening!

KERRY WILL BE THE RUINATION OF THIS COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. WE WILL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH INCOME DISTRIBUTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING. I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE!

Please share with me where this information comes from. I would very much like to see if there is any credible information regarding this socialist conspiracy.

So much for our system of checks and balances I guess. :) Congress? Yeah, we no longer need your services. You can collect your unemployment checks on the first of every month.

whocares

10-27-2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by jmarie

Well, I AM saying the same thing about Kerry supporters right now.

I refuse to accept MR KERRY's voting record for the last 20 years, voting against the Military, voting against National Security and voting gainst the funding of Intelligence. Senator KERRY scares me FAR MORE than any other man who has run for the Presidency.

KERRY WILL BE THE RUINATION OF THIS COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. WE WILL BECOME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH INCOME DISTRIBUTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING. :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE!

I will give it to the NEW YORKER, at least they have the guts to come out and say that they are biased towards KERRY. Most of the rest of the LIBERAL Media, push Kerry while claining to be fair and not liberal leaning. What a joke!

Thank you for the 'enlightening' article. I will feel very safe with KERRY at the helm.:rolleyes:

honeygirl1971

10-27-2004, 03:18 PM

I always laugh at posts like that. That's the only thing to do.

jmarie

10-27-2004, 03:49 PM

ME TOO!:D :D :D

greatcook

10-27-2004, 04:28 PM

Thank you for posting the link- powerful piece.

hollysmom

10-27-2004, 05:22 PM

Right now, I really miss Escher. Wonder where he/she stands on all of this.

SSM

stefania4

10-27-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by jmarie
] I DO NOT WANT TO SHARE ANYMORE OF MY INCOME THAN ALREADY AM. I AM ALREADY GIVING 35 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH! :mad: I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE MORE! Guess what? EVERYONE pays for programs they don't agree with, no matter who is President. I hate, hate, hate the fact that my tax dollars are paying for a pretend war and lining Halliburton's pockets and giving tax breaks to multi-millionaires and enriching corporations that destroy the ecosystem. But that's part of being an American - you're not going to agree with your government 100% of the time. And I'd rather have a "tax & spend liberal" at the helm than a President who spends, spends, spends and cuts taxes and incurs a giant deficit that we're going to have to pay off eventually, with interest.

jmarie

10-28-2004, 04:34 AM

OK.

lovemybeetle

10-28-2004, 07:54 AM

Perhaps if the giant corporations and Richie Rich were paying their fair share instead of massive tax breaks, we (or I should say the regular working stiff, I don't want to assume what most people are here. Maybe Mrs. Kenneth Lay is a big Cooking Light subscriber.) wouldn't have to foot the whole bill.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 08:03 AM

Quite an assumption. The top 20% of the wage earners pay 80% of the federal taxes. Is that not enough? Just what is the right amount of taxes to pay, pray tell.

newtricks

10-28-2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Quite an assumption. The top 20% of the wage earners pay 80% of the federal taxes. Is that not enough? Just what is the right amount of taxes to pay, pray tell.

As a fiscally conservative voter I would say as little as possible BUT enough to cover what's being spent. GW spends like a drunken sailor and that's a huge problem in my mind.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by lovemybeetle
Perhaps if the giant corporations and Richie Rich were paying their fair share instead of massive tax breaks, we (or I should say the regular working stiff, I don't want to assume what most people are here. Maybe Mrs. Kenneth Lay is a big Cooking Light subscriber.) wouldn't have to foot the whole bill.

Indeed, on the "why do you support the candidate you do" thread (I think it was that one), Chefzhat said she was wealthy and that's why she supported Bush's economic/tax policy. For some of the rest of us, though, things look a little different. I think we do need tax reform in this country, but Bush does it all wrong! He gives corporations breaks to take their money out of the country! How in the world does THAT help the economy? The actual relief that low to middle-income families and true "small" businesses get is a negligible (less than $100 a year for the first, less than $500 a year for the second), despite the way he claims to be a champion of both middle income families and small businesses. It's so frustrating to hear Bush talk this way and to hear others repeat his words when the facts don't support these claims!

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 08:15 AM

Facts:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above $196,000, paid 29 percent of all income taxes.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers, with incomes above $91,000, bore almost half of the federal income tax burden.

By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes below $22,000, paid less than 5 percent of all income taxes.
source: http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook4.html

So, please. I appreciate that things look differently at different income levels, but answer the question. Just how much is enough taxes?

Jessica

10-28-2004, 08:25 AM

Debie--What would interest me is how those tax figures compare to the percent of total income earned by those people. For example, if the top 1 percent pays 29 percent of taxes but also earns 29 percent of the income, then that seems fair to me. I am not sure where I would find those types of figures.

For me, the question is not how much I pay in taxes, but where those tax dollars are going. I am not comfortable with how Bush chooses to spend tax dollars, nor with the types of tax cuts that he has made.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by newtricks
As a fiscally conservative voter I would say as little as possible BUT enough to cover what's being spent. GW spends like a drunken sailor and that's a huge problem in my mind.

True enough, but should my tax rate be increased even more because of that? I get no tax breaks, child deduction, or tuition assistance. The only break we get is the mortgage interest rate, and even that will be phased out after a certain point. I have 4 children, 2 are in college. We pay that tuition as well as my own. My husband employs over 100 people, our household employs 3 people, plus whatever various services we contract for such as plowing, lawn service, household help, repairs and construction projects, etc. In my mind I'm contributing quite a bit to the health of the nation just through employment alone. If our tax burden gets higher, some people will be out of work. I don't think that is a good trade off, quite frankly.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Jessica
Debie--What would interest me is how those tax figures compare to the percent of total income earned by those people. For example, if the top 1 percent pays 29 percent of taxes but also earns 29 percent of the income, then that seems fair to me. I am not sure where I would find those types of figures.

For me, the question is not how much I pay in taxes, but where those tax dollars are going. I am not comfortable with how Bush chooses to spend tax dollars, nor with the types of tax cuts that he has made.

I would love to see those figures too. And I think Jessica's last comments echo what a lot of people feel. Not only do many of us disagree with the kinds of tax cuts Bush has given (esp a lot of the corporate ones), but also we disagree with the choices he's made with our money. So it's really BOTH things that combine to make really bad policy for a lot of voters.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 08:38 AM

Good question, Jessica - I'll try to find the figures. They must be somewhere.

I agree, it would be nice if we could all pick and choose how tax money is spent. Unfortunately, that issue is out of our hands. Any administration, whether democrate or republican will be spending money on something that someone disagrees with. It's hard to pick and choose. There are lots of programs that I think should be funded more (public housing, for example), and lots funded less.

Here's my basic question - would you all prefer me to employ people, or fire them and pay more taxes??

jmarie

10-28-2004, 08:39 AM

If I make 100,000 dollars and my tax bracket is 35%
If you make 30,000 and your bracket is 20%.....Excuse me, but
how is it fair to anyone, that my tax bracket should be higher than anyone elses? I put my jeans on one leg at a time just like you,in just about everything we do, there are similarities. So, you tell me why, we should have to pay more taxes?

I am not satisfied to go out and just make a pittence. At one time, I worked three jobs so I could afford what I wanted. My husband has worked from dawn to dark the entire time we have been married, for what? So that we have to pay more taxes? Why should my bracket be higher than anyone elses?

Hillary said herself that when the Democrats are elected that they are going to roll back the tax cuts for the COMMON GOOD. And whose COMMON good might that be? Certainly not mine!

And welfare is a joke! Sure there are those who could use a leg up to better themselves, but rarely do they get that leg up because of the abuse of the system. The ones who do try to get a leg up get beaten back down because it is better for them to be dependent on the system than it is for them to help share the burden. I resent that the abuse is so widespread and rampant and no checks and balances in place to rid the abuse.

Why is it that so many are consumed by jealousy of those who make it big? And yes, there are always going to be the ENRON's of this country. But there are far more of us out there working at very job we can get so that we can have what we want. Not asking ANYONE for anything, except to be able to keep what we work so hard for. The people in this country who work are PUNISHED for wanting to make it on their own.

And something else. If you are on welfare, you are in the Democratic Party's pocket. They have voted you every thing that you get free. So, of course you are going to vote that way. I praise God every day for the Republican Party, because if it weren't for the Rebublican's the Democrats would be taking even more out of my pocket. Someone has to be on someone's side. And since the Democrats aren't going to be on mine, then my side has to have someone in Government who is going to be on my side. Who's it going to be? And don't think for one minute that is not what higher taxation (in my opinion) has become: Income Re-Distribution. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

What's that you say? It's not fair? Then we disagree, don't we?:eek:
joyce

jmarie

10-28-2004, 08:42 AM

Oops, and BOB, just so you know....I saw the punctuation error in this phrase.....if it weren't for the Rebublican's....(This might save you a little time!):p

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Jessica
Debie--What would interest me is how those tax figures compare to the percent of total income earned by those people. For example, if the top 1 percent pays 29 percent of taxes but also earns 29 percent of the income, then that seems fair to me. I am not sure where I would find those types of figures.

Still looking, but just a thought: the figures really can't be compared, I don't think. Wage earners in the top 1% earn different levels of income. The top 1% is anyone earning over $196,000. So, for example, I earn $196,000 (just to use a number), "Richie Rich" earns $500,000. His tax rate will be higher than mine, but his income level is grouped into the wage earner figure.

Does this make sense?? Not enough coffee yet for this deep thinking.

I was just reading a book called "Rachel and her children" about the homeless issue in New York in the 1980s. I know that there are probably abuses in the system, but I think that the abuses are far more applicable to the adminisration of the programs. The book is an eye-opener. And, not to start anything, but I believe that NY was run by a democrat during that time. So the elephants and donkeys can and do inflict equal damage.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
If I make 100,000 dollars and my tax bracket is 35%
If you make 30,000 and your bracket is 20%.....Excuse me, but
how is it fair to anyone, that my tax bracket should be higher than anyone elses? I put my jeans on one leg at a time just like you,in just about everything we do, there are similarities. So, you tell me why, we should have to pay more taxes?

I can answer this one, Joyce. The difference is between a regressive and progressive tax system. The problem with a flat rate, say 25 percent for everyone, is that it hurts the poor more than the rich. If I earn $11K (minimum wage) a year, that 25 percent is going to make it much harder for me to put clothes on my back and food on the table. If I earn $100K, that 25 percent is annoying but not forcing me to eat less or live in substandard housing. The idea is that the more you earn, the more you can afford to pay as a percentage. Not everyone agrees that this is fair; IMO it is fair because I have lived on both ends of it and there is a difference, to me, between saying, "I have $20 for groceries this week because that's all that is left," and "Wow, if I had this tax money, I could take a more expensive vacation."

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
I agree, it would be nice if we could all pick and choose how tax money is spent. Unfortunately, that issue is out of our hands...

Here's my basic question - would you all prefer me to employ people, or fire them and pay more taxes??

Actually, I think it is somewhat in our hands. I am sending a message to Bush that I don't approve of his choices. I can also vote for congresspeople that have similar views etc. Is there always going to be some disagreement, sure, but I do get to have a say in the matter with my vote.

As for your last question, I think that's a tough question to answer without having more info. But would you hire more people if you had more money? Maybe you would, and that's great. But that's not what all beneficiaries of Bush's tax cuts do with it. My point is simply that Bush says these tax cuts help the economy, and I don't see that. Now if he was more honest and said simply, "I just think wealthy people should pay less in federal income tax," then at least his words and his actions would match better. Would I vote for him, no, but at least he wouldn't be trying to deceive people.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Still looking, but just a thought: the figures really can't be compared, I don't think. Wage earners in the top 1% earn different levels of income. The top 1% is anyone earning over $196,000. So, for example, I earn $196,000 (just to use a number), "Richie Rich" earns $500,000. His tax rate will be higher than mine, but his income level is grouped into the wage earner figure.

You have a point there. The $196,000 earner pays the same percentage as someone who earns millions.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Jessica

You have a point there. The $196,000 earner pays the same percentage as someone who earns millions.

Was that what she was saying? I thought she was saying that "the top 1%" was a group that included different levels of income AND different tax brackets, so it was hard to compare figures...so can we break it down by tax bracket?

Jessica

10-28-2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

Was that what she was saying? I thought she was saying that "the top 1%" was a group that included different levels of income AND different tax brackets, so it was hard to compare figures...so can we break it down by tax bracket?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but to me this is the same thing. In each bracket, the bottom and top pay the same percentage, but when you get to the top bracket, there is more of a disparity because it begins with low six-figure incomes and goes up to millions and billions.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:04 AM

Here's a link to an article regarding "corporate tax cuts".

http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html

Haven't read it completely, but it answers a few questions.

Honeygirl, we can't tell everyone how to spend their tax cuts. Wish we could. For example: last year's tax rebates (of which I didn't see one penny - again, I'm a member of the filthy rich) - people were spending the money right and left for bills, tvs, down payments, putting it back into the economy. Some also probably pounded it up their noses, but what are we to do about that?

There seems to be a perception that wealthy people are greedy and keep their money to themselves, when actually the more money we get to keep, the more money we spend in the local economy. Some people hoard it, but that occurs at all income levels.

Just an aside - I always feel like I'm getting clobbered here - why is it that even online we have this huge class divide? IRL I'm very generous with our good fortune. To flip this issue around, we wouldn't put down people who are extremely poor - why do it to people who have the good fortune of earning a good living. We work just as hard.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Jessica
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but to me this is the same thing. In each bracket, the bottom and top pay the same percentage, but when you get to the top bracket, there is more of a disparity because it begins with low six-figure incomes and goes up to millions and billions.

Jessica, my brain is turning to mush :) I think that there are different brackets in the top 1%. Also, earnings over a certain level eliminate tax breaks (such as child deduction). But, for the purpose of the study I posted previously, the top 1% includes anyone over $196,000 - even though each earner in that category earns a different amount of money.

Oy. I need coffee.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Just an aside - I always feel like I'm getting clobbered here - why is it that even online we have this huge class divide?

It was not my intention to clobber you. I have a different view on taxes and wanted to express that--I don't think I said anything that criticized you personally. Not everyone supports a progressive tax rate; I do.

jphilg

10-28-2004, 09:10 AM

I don't know about your finances, Debbie, but we, by the grace of god, and a lot of hard work, also fall within that "1% of highest wage earners" and I was almost appalled at how LITTLE we paid in taxes last year. Due to assorted tax cuts, deductions, and funky loopholes, we paid roughly 16% of our gross income last year in taxes. Sure, our actual rate is much, much higher, but most people of means a) have some tax-planning help to extract as much post-tax value from each dollar earned, and b) give, which can create huge tax benefits. Sixteen percent. For the privilege of living in a country where there ARE social programs for people who have not been as lucky or had the same opportunities as we have. For having medicine that comes out of the best research programs in the world, often funded by the NIH. For the security that comes from having one of the most powerful standing armies in the world fight for me. For roads and schools and police forces....and most importantly, a FREE MARKET (well, not totally free, but one of the most effective market-based economies in the world) that has led to our personal wealth. Even today, wealth follows family lines in most places in Europe and Asia. The U.S. offers financial mobility in ways that other nations simply cannot, at a very reasonable price.

I have strong opinions about this election, but I respect that others disagree just as strongly, so for the most part, I just stay out. But where the argument turns to "I hate paying taxes," I just have to pipe up. I think that the cost of being an American citizen, tax wise, is a remarkably good deal.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat

Jessica, my brain is turning to mush :) I think that there are different brackets in the top 1%. Also, earnings over a certain level eliminate tax breaks (such as child deduction). But, for the purpose of the study I posted previously, the top 1% includes anyone over $196,000 - even though each earner in that category earns a different amount of money.

Oy. I need coffee.

Hey, I can't even HAVE coffee :).

I did not realize you were referring back to that particular study and that is where I got confused.

I still think that the percentage of income earned is relevant to those figures that you posted. On the other hand, I cannot speak to whether wealthy families are overtaxed. I can only say that I disagree with Bush on tax policy, although that is not the main reason I am voting against him.

eas11

10-28-2004, 09:13 AM

I know this is REALLY simplistic and I'll probably get blasted since it speaks to choice, social programs, education, etc....but here goes........
Given Joyces, and Dedies examples- even though people are paying more taxes, they STILL have more money and can still afford to live!
In my city, Boston, if you earn 30,000, you cannot afford a home, car, insurance, healthcare, childcare, etc. All the essentials. A recent figure (last year) is that it requires a salary of 21.00 PER hour to afford an apartment in Boston AND essentials (no car, but public trans fare, food, health care and p.t. child care for 1 child). My teaching assistants at my former school, earn a maximum of 9.33 an hour. No great tax loopholes for these folks! This is to take care of OUR children, people! Students with severe disabilities, many of whom need to be fed. And bite. And are full size adults...in diapers. And need to be lifted. I've done that time in my early days and now am an administrator, still earning 1/4-1/3 of my corporate counterparts.
This is my world, anyone want to trade their paychecks and tax bills with my staff? They would happily pay 35% if you asked them, I'm sure. Thing is, they want to KEEP these hard jobs-they just want to be able to afford to keep them. So yup, I think we need to roll back the taxes for the top 1% or whatever- IMHO it should go to the programs and people doing the good work we all need to be done.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Jessica
It was not my intention to clobber you. I have a different view on taxes and wanted to express that--I don't think I said anything that criticized you personally. Not everyone supports a progressive tax rate; I do.

Sweetie, I wasn't meaning you - or anyone specifically. Just voicing a perception.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Jessica

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but to me this is the same thing. In each bracket, the bottom and top pay the same percentage, but when you get to the top bracket, there is more of a disparity because it begins with low six-figure incomes and goes up to millions and billions.

Maybe I'm the one that's confused. Sorry if I added to the confusion over the figure. I thought Debie was talking about the top few tax brackets, not just the one at the very top, and she was saying that the term "the top 1%" was misleading...But I agree with you, even in the tax bracket at the very top of the scale, there is a pretty big disparity.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:20 AM

Ellyn, not to sound harsh - but if I couldn't work at the job I love and earn enough money to live I'd get a different job, or move to where I could do the job and the income would support my lifestyle. Seems pretty easy. Yes, those things are all good works - but by stating that you are inferring that the good works I do are not as important. And quite frankly, I don't set wages for those workers, I'd pay everyone more - teachers, social workers, etc. And if I chose to pay more taxes, I cannnot direct those funds to go to the programs you refer to.

Jen - 16% TOTAL tax burden? Fed/State/Local? Wow. Gotta get your tax guy!

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by eas11
This is my world, anyone want to trade their paychecks and tax bills with my staff? They would happily pay 35% if you asked them, I'm sure. Thing is, they want to KEEP these hard jobs-they just want to be able to afford to keep them. So yup, I think we need to roll back the taxes for the top 1% or whatever- IMHO it should go to the programs and people doing the good work we all need to be done.

Just a logic thing - why should some taxpayers support others so they can do the job they love? Maybe I don't like what I do either. But it earns good money and I can take care of myself. Just because someone wants to work in social services, goes into it knowing that it pays basically nothing (which is wrong, but there it is) doesn't mean that the rest of the taxpayers should support it.

Nothing against you, eas11 - just stating a logic argument.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:28 AM

One more thing about taxes - I'd prefer to have a lower tax burden and then contribute money to the organizations that I support. The money goes directly to these sevices rather than getting passed around the federal government before what's left trickles down to the recipients.

Keeping more earnings gives everyone more control on how their money is spent because they are spending it themselves.

I think we are all distilling this argument down to a critical issue - what programs should we support? What is important to us as a nation?

Thanks everyone for keeping the discussion on a courteous level.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Honeygirl, we can't tell everyone how to spend their tax cuts.

There seems to be a perception that wealthy people are greedy...

Just an aside - I always feel like I'm getting clobbered here - why is it that even online we have this huge class divide?

Of course we can't tell people how to spend the money they save on taxes. And it's not clear that Bush's tax cuts help the economy. That was my only point as I tried to answer your direct question about whether it was better to employ people or to pay taxes.

I don't think anyone here said wealthy people are greedy.

I also don't think anyone clobbered you here. I think that everyone reading your last few comments was pretty respectful, they just didn't/don't agree with you on this issue of taxes.

As for the class divide, hard to say. You said you were "filthy rich" and used your own case as an example. And I think everyone here was pretty careful not to lump you personally in with other "filthy rich" people. But I'm not sure that the debate over economic policy and taxes is really one about a class divide anyway--Kerry is "filthy rich" too but his policies are really different from those of Bush.

Grace

10-28-2004, 09:31 AM

This is perhaps a simplistic way of looking at the subject of taxes, but it's a good "nutshell" example of what I believe. This piece ran in the Chicago Tribune originally, I believe.

"Understanding Tax Cuts"

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.

But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. The first four would still eat for free. But what about the other six men the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth (the richest) now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

Of course we can't tell people how to spend the money they save on taxes. And it's not clear that Bush's tax cuts help the economy. That was my only point as I tried to answer your direct question about whether it was better to employ people or to pay taxes.

I don't think anyone here said wealthy people are greedy.

I also don't think anyone clobbered you here. I think that everyone reading your last few comments was pretty respectful, they just didn't/don't agree with you on this issue of taxes.

As for the class divide, hard to say. You said you were "filthy rich" and used your own case as an example. And I think everyone here was pretty careful not to lump you personally in with other "filthy rich" people. But I'm not sure that the debate over economic policy and taxes is really one about a class divide anyway--Kerry is "filthy rich" too but his policies are really different from those of Bush.

Perhaps you're right - I was reading into things. Either way, I appreciate the courtesy shown here.

Grace

10-28-2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

And it's not clear that Bush's tax cuts help the economy.

I disagree with this completely. Because it's not clear to YOU doesn't mean it's not true and not clear. Plenty of economists agree that relieving the tax burden on small businesses really does get the economy moving. It's actually what caused all the small business boom in the 90's after Reagan did the same thing.

If you're talking about big corporate taxes, that could be another story, but being "rich" starts at a very, very low income compared to the big corporate guys (the Ken Lay's of the world). And it's this group of "rich" people I'm talking about of which there are many, many more than the "corporate rich" guys.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
One more thing about taxes - I'd prefer to have a lower tax burden and then contribute money to the organizations that I support. The money goes directly to these sevices rather than getting passed around the federal government before what's left trickles down to the recipients.

Keeping more earnings gives everyone more control on how their money is spent because they are spending it themselves.

I think we are all distilling this argument down to a critical issue - what programs should we support? What is important to us as a nation?

Thanks everyone for keeping the discussion on a courteous level.

I think this is exactly the issue. Some people feel as you do and have their own ideas about where their own money should be spent. For example, some (I'm NOT saying you, just people who agree with your stance on taxes) might choose to give to their local church, which sponsors missionary activities, Sunday school classes for kids, afterschool Bible study, and so on. They might prefer that to something like HeadStart. I personally would rather have my money go towards HeadStart. I think the bureaucracy of the federal government is somewhat inefficient, but since congress etc is elected by voters, and the federal government is somewhat restricted in the types of programs it can support, I prefer this somewhat inefficient system to a privatized one where people just give their money to the charities they choose. But that's just my own opinion.

eas11

10-28-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Ellyn, not to sound harsh - but if I couldn't work at the job I love and earn enough money to live I'd get a different job, or move to where I could do the job and the income would support my lifestyle. Seems pretty easy. Yes, those things are all good works - but by stating that you are inferring that the good works I do are not as important. And quite frankly, I don't set wages for those workers, I'd pay everyone more - teachers, social workers, etc. And if I chose to pay more taxes, I cannnot direct those funds to go to the programs you refer to.

Jen - 16% TOTAL tax burden? Fed/State/Local? Wow. Gotta get your tax guy!

Yes, I'd agree, I'd pay everyone more as well. Since these are public funded programs and jobs, where should the money for higher wages for these workers come from?
Many people DO leave because they can't afford the job they love. Ask parents of kids with severe disabilities how much turnover there is in programs serving their children, at least in a high rent area like Boston. So maybe the workers should move to VA where they could do the work and afford to live...what about the families who need the services? Should they move too? To follow the workers?
Of course we can try to have a part in directing where taxes (any public funds go) with our votes, and there are 4 public hearings in Boston in November for Human Service programs. Hearings can be powerful. I am not inferring the good works you do are not important, I am saying the GREAT works Direct Service workers (in all fields) do are under-valued, does not provide them with the benefits we are so lucky to enjoy and they need us (generic us) to stop whining and step up to the plate for them.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Grace

Plenty of economists agree that relieving the tax burden on small businesses really does get the economy moving.

And plenty of ecnomists say that this is not what Bush is doing.

BarbaraL

10-28-2004, 09:50 AM

Not really part of the argument, but something along those lines. DH and I worked hard (and paid alot of $$) to get good educations, and then worked hard, did without, and saved money. Now, turns out that works against us as DD goes to college. If we spent all our money (big house, vacation home, new cars, etc, etc) and had nothing in the bank or huge mortgages, etc, we'd get financial aid. Because we've lived within our means, we're at a disadvantage. Seems like there shouldn't be a penalty for being fiscally prudent.

Rant over.

Chefzhat

10-28-2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by eas11
Yes, I'd agree, I'd pay everyone more as well. Since these are public funded programs and jobs, where should the money for higher wages for these workers come from?
Many people DO leave because they can't afford the job they love. Ask parents of kids with severe disabilities how much turnover there is in programs serving their children, at least in a high rent area like Boston. So maybe the workers should move to VA where they could do the work and afford to live...what about the families who need the services? Should they move too? To follow the workers?
Of course we can try to have a part in directing where taxes (any public funds go) with our votes, and there are 4 public hearings in Boston in November for Human Service programs. Hearings can be powerful. I am not inferring the good works you do are not important, I am saying the GREAT works Direct Service workers (in all fields) do are under-valued, does not provide them with the benefits we are so lucky to enjoy and they need us (generic us) to stop whining and step up to the plate for them.

Social services, teachers, child care workers are all undervalued. It's a shame. The turnover rate at our local rehab hospital is horrible. I have a child with a disability (but is now ambulatory) and the costs for his care are astronomical - but his direct care workers are not paid well at all. I always wonder where the money is going.

I appreciate what you do, eas11. The lovely women that work with my son are amazing people and we love them dearly.

jmarie

10-28-2004, 10:25 AM

and I was almost appalled at how LITTLE we paid in taxes last year. Due to assorted tax cuts, deductions, and funky loopholes, we paid roughly 16% of our gross income last year in taxes.

So, what did you do to rectify this? If you were that appalled, surely you took the amount that you felt you should have paid and did something worthwhile for it? Like funding a soup kitchen or something? Or maybe making a house payment for someone who was down on their luck?

The way I see it, is that with a flat rate, I am still paying way more that the person at the bottom line. 15% of $10,000 = $1500.00 as opposed to 15% of 100,000=$15,000 With a flat tax, you cut all of the tax loop holes and credits so that what everyone pays is taxes.

As an aside, I found it interesting, that a student I transported last year, felt like people should not gripe about the welfare system, if they were TRUE Christians. I told him that true Christians and ANY others who have a heart (Not all Christians have a heart and not everyone is a Christian) didn't need the government telling them what to do by taking their taxes and doing it for them. That a lot of people tithe. My church helps a lot of people who need it during the year. People who would fall between the cracks of the welfare system as we know it today...those just wanting a leg up, not a handout. (DISCLAIMER: I am using the Christian example here, only because this is the discussion we had, not to put anyone down, who is not a Christian)

For the record, I think that a lot teachers are undervalued. And yes, if you aren't paid enough in your state, then perhaps you should move. We lost several teachers, from here, to Georgia, for that very reason. Living costs may be lower here in VA, but so are wages. Living costs may be higher in Boston, but so , maybe, are the wages.One would really have to study the economics of such a move, it might not be such a trade-off.

jphilg

10-28-2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by jmarie

So, what did you do to rectify this? If you were that appalled, surely you took the amount that you felt you should have paid and did something worthwhile for it? Like funding a soup kitchen or something? Or maybe making a house payment for someone who was down on their luck?

Of course we did.

jmarie

10-28-2004, 10:37 AM

THEN, GOOD FOR YOU! FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING! :D

kima

10-28-2004, 10:41 AM

Ellyn- I am shocked at the pay teacher's assistant are getting at your old school1 That is apalling! Here in BC the minimum wage is 8.50/hour- that is for working at a fast food restaurant!How sad that people who do such valuable and difficult work are not better compensated!
I don't understand and have no interest in tax systems but I feel I get alot for my money up here- though the waste in government kills me.:(

MrsReber

10-28-2004, 10:41 AM

Where I live, it'd be impossible for DH and I to simply support our family on less than what we earn now. So what do we earn now? I can tell you that it is over $100k between both of us. We do get a child care tax credit (without sending our kids to daycare only 3 days a week, we couldn't work- which is not an option). So I would say $100k is a lot of money- IF you don't have a mortgage, you don't have kids, you don't live in NJ. We don't live the rich life, believe me. Our only option is to move out of state. $100k looks a lot different depending on where you live.

Besides federal taxes, we have state income taxes and pretty high property taxes. What does that leave in my pocket? I enjoyed the last tax break. I liked getting that check in the mail so we could finally replace our 40 year old windows.

Aside from that, I really would like to keep more of my money and I really would like more say about how it is spent. I don't believe that putting more of my income into expanding government is going to help anything. I have a friend who was on welfare and her mother and two sisters (4 kids each) are on welfare. What are they doing to get off of it? Nothing. Why should they? They get their checks each month, they can work under the table and supplement that income. I know another woman who gets over $1000 each month for housing! Where's my cut? At least I'm an active member of society. I do have respect for those who have made it off welfare, but I honestly don't see much of that.

greysangel

10-28-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by MrsReber
$100k looks a lot different depending on where you live.

Darn tootin'!

I have this woman who works next to me and has a family with three kids. She says the only reason why she works is because of the health care benefits... between cost of commuting, child care etc she her salary is gone! :eek:

j

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 11:00 AM

I think a lot of people who are against Bush's tax cuts are also FOR welfare reform. The welfare system could and should be improved a LOT, so that people who truly need help get it, and so people can get off the system and make it on their own in a timely manner. (But of course, just cutting people off is not an effective strategy either.) These two things seem like different issues to me.

jmarie: LOL! ;)

BarbaraL

10-28-2004, 11:01 AM

I agree that "rich" can depend on where you live. Taxes in NJ are very high. Computations for things like "reasonable and customary" charges for health care, or financial aid for colleges, are not based on the cost of living where you live, so people in our area are at a disadvantage. Also, NJ is a state that regularly pays out more money than it gets back in federal funding/services, etc.

badunnin

10-28-2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by MrsReber
Where I live, it'd be impossible for DH and I to simply support our family on less than what we earn now.

And yet, people do manage to get by on less that what you earn I'm sure.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 11:17 AM

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Jessica

This is a good example of why health care is such an important issue right now. I am sure you will all think I am a pinko commie but I support a national health care plan and I think it is about 50 years overdue.

LOL! Another one checking in. Would it be really expensive? Yes. Should we do it anyway? In my opinion, yes.

badunnin

10-28-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

LOL! Another one checking in. Would it be really expensive? Yes. Should we do it anyway? In my opinion, yes.

I'm all for it as well.

slknight

10-28-2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by greysangel

Darn tootin'!

I have this woman who works next to me and has a family with three kids. She says the only reason why she works is because of the health care benefits... between cost of commuting, child care etc she her salary is gone! :eek:

j

I certainly understand that! That's pretty much the only reason that DH was working. Now that he quit to be a SAHD, we are in a serious health-care situation. To switch to my employer's plan, it was going to be $1200 a month!!:eek: :eek: :eek: We opted for an individual plan that is considerably less but has a 10K deductible. They end up being about the same for the year if you meet the deductible, but we're crossing our fingers we won't. Fortunately, I earn a nice wage, but 15K a year for health insurance is absurd.:( :(

tbb113

10-28-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by badunnin

And yet, people do manage to get by on less that what you earn I'm sure.

Its all a matter of priorities. I earn a very good income (close to 6 figures and with my child support, probably over 6 figures). However, I choose to live in an expensive area. The average cost of a house is close to $800,000 (I rent because of this). I have one inexpensive car (2002 Corolla). I haven't been on a 'real vacation' since 2001 when I took the boys to Hawaii (we have gone on local vacations to LA and Disneyland). Because I work fulltime, my childcare costs during the summer are expensive (close to $4000 for the kids to be in camp, that's why I don't go on a vacation :rolleyes: ). Could I live on less income? Obviously, I could but my quality of life would be reduced even more (no more eating out, no more cable TV, DSL, etc). Would a tax cut make a difference? Honestly, no because $100/$200 a month is not enough money to make a difference in my life. It would just get frittered away. The only tax credit I take advantage of is the child-care credit (and that is only for one more year, even though I still need summer care for my 13 year old).

The real problem IMHO is that in general the people that are elected to congress/senate are not the people that have middle-class incomes. They REALLY don't get it. Did I like the tax credit? Of course I did, but I would have preferred NOT getting it and having the defict be lower, better roads, better social services, etc. $1000 a year isn't enough to really impact MY life, but $1000 per taxpayer staying in the government is enough to impact other peoples lives assuming it is spent wisely and appropriately.

badunnin

10-28-2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by tbb113

Its all a matter of priorities. I earn a very good income (close to 6 figures and with my child support, probably over 6 figures). However, I choose to live in an expensive area. The average cost of a house is close to $800,000 (I rent because of this). I have one inexpensive car (2002 Corolla). I haven't been on a 'real vacation' since 2001 when I took the boys to Hawaii (we have gone on local vacations to LA and Disneyland). Because I work fulltime, my childcare costs during the summer are expensive (close to $4000 for the kids to be in camp, that's why I don't go on a vacation :rolleyes: ). Could I live on less income? Obviously, I could but my quality of life would be reduced even more (no more eating out, no more cable TV, DSL, etc). Would a tax cut make a difference? Honestly, no because $100/$200 a month is not enough money to make a difference in my life. It would just get frittered away. The only tax credit I take advantage of is the child-care credit (and that is only for one more year, even though I still need summer care for my 13 year old).

Absolutely. You can absolutely live in any state on less than $100k a year - most of the population of this country does it. But you need to make choices you make. It's not that you CAN'T, though.

jmarie

10-28-2004, 11:44 AM

This is a good example of why health care is such an important issue right now. I am sure you will all think I am a pinko commie but I support a national health care plan and I think it is about 50 years overdue.

I don't think you are a pinko commie. Not at all. But I do disagree, and do not support a National Health Care Plan.:o

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 12:10 PM

Is there something wrong with the update feature for this thread? I am getting constant updates about the same few posts from a few hours ago??? Seriously, I have about 20 updates in my emailbox about the same 3 posts!!:confused:

MrsReber

10-28-2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by badunnin

Absolutely. You can absolutely live in any state on less than $100k a year - most of the population of this country does it. But you need to make choices you make. It's not that you CAN'T, though.

Are there people worse off than us? You betcha. But we are middle class in NJ, not upper middle, just middle or even lower middle. I think it's a matter of "reasonable" choices because it's not like we can pick and choose. There are only limited options for us. I fear that Kerry may tax us to death and then we'll be in some serious trouble. I don't think there are commies here, either, but I don't support a national plan. I don't think it'd really work here.

BarbaraL

10-28-2004, 12:31 PM

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago when there were stories in the news about Canadians coming to the US for operations because, under the national health plan, they would have to wait months or years for the procedure? Wasn't that used as a reason to not have a national health plan. My intention is NOT to slam Canada's health system, I just seem to recall this being a news item.

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 12:38 PM

I don't know much about Canada's system, but I don't recall hearing about the problem you mention, Barbara. Many European countries have really good national health care plans, with top quality doctors, drugs, and services, and it's certainly no harder to get an appt than it is with some HMOs here--in fact, in my experience, it's easier. These plans are very expensive though, and that's certainly one reason why some are against it in the U.S.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 12:41 PM

Barbara, I don't know the answer to that. I am not sure a European or Canadian-style plan would work here, but we need something other than the system we have now, which leaves more than 15 percent of Americans with no care, including many children. The resulting ER visits alone cost us a fortune. In my little pink world with green skies, I envision a plan that covers all children and provides basic and catastrophic care for adults, with supplemental plans available for purchase.

Kristilyn1

10-28-2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat

[i]I consider myself to be a smart woman, but [/B]

I realize that the above now looks like it came from Linda, which I know it didn't. But I think the excerpt above is the problem.

Why add the words about being smart? It's a poor choice of words.

Kristi

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 12:53 PM

Jessica--The way I understand the French system, it is very much like that. Many, many people choose supplemental plans (and many employers offer them as well), but basic health care, preventative health care, well child care, catastrophic care, all those things are included in the government plan. Are there problems? Yes. Particularly with prescription drugs, as the French, like the Americans, use a LOT of prescription drugs and this ends up costing the government a lot of money. But in France you do NOT have the situation where poor people end up going to the ER for basic care because they have no insurance (which costs the rest of us a fortune), and you do not have children who don't get the basic care they need, and so on.

tbb113

10-28-2004, 01:00 PM

It comes down to a basic thought of should the government being providing social (health) services to citizens or should you allow the free market system to provide it. As I told my kids 4 years ago when we were discussing the differences between the two parties, its not that people want other people to go without, they just don't want to fund it. I would prefer to have less take home pay and have the less economically advantaged people have health care, housing, food, etc. Other people don't agree. I find it ironic that the Republican Platform is all for government minding their own business when it comes to health and housing issues for the poor, yet have no problem with passing regualations regarding right to choose, stem-cell research, etc. :rolleyes: Guess its just a matter of priorities

honeygirl1971

10-28-2004, 01:09 PM

Kristilyn1

10-28-2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by tbb113
I I find it ironic that the Republican Platform is all for government minding their own business when it comes to health and housing issues for the poor, yet have no problem with passing regualations regarding right to choose, stem-cell research, etc. :rolleyes: Guess its just a matter of priorities

Because these issues are just simply on the same level as having a wart removed? Please. You may not agree with them, but why is it so hard to understand that there are many, many people that equate those two things to walking up to another human being and blowing their brains out? I've mentioned before, I'm ambivalent about abortion law, but can't people understand that it is not an issue without very real, very profound reasons FOR AND AGAINST IT?

Kristi

Grace

10-28-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by tbb113
It comes down to a basic thought of should the government being providing social (health) services to citizens or should you allow the free market system to provide it. As I told my kids 4 years ago when we were discussing the differences between the two parties, its not that people want other people to go without, they just don't want to fund it. I would prefer to have less take home pay and have the less economically advantaged people have health care, housing, food, etc. Other people don't agree. I find it ironic that the Republican Platform is all for government minding their own business when it comes to health and housing issues for the poor, yet have no problem with passing regualations regarding right to choose, stem-cell research, etc. :rolleyes: Guess its just a matter of priorities

Tyra, I think you've given a good explanation, and I would actually agree with you if I thought that it was really just the less economically advantaged people that were going without.

As an example, I have a brother who is homeless, with schizophrenia, and has been homeless for 20 years. People like him are absolutely disadvantaged and can't provide for themselves. And I would gladly, with every fiber of my being, be tripping over myself to make sure these kinds of people were taken care of, and I think most people would too. And I wouldn't even say that only extreme cases like his are the only ones "worthy" of financial assistance. My problem is when you give too many services away for free, there becomes no incentive to work, and without people working paying in to the system, it collapses.

I run the health insurance at work (I'm Plan Administrator). We have young kids (I call them kids - they're 23, 24, 25 etc.) who don't take the health insurance offered to them because they don't WANT to buy it - they think they're young, won't get sick, and would rather spend their money on other stuff. One guy just recently had an acute appendicitis attack and his appendix burst, caused him SEVERE complications, and he was treated anyway of course (and very well, I might add even though they knew he had no insurance). He was in the hospital for over 2 weeks, and his bills totalled more than $80,000. Now he's applied for medicare because he can't pay it. If medicare won't pay (they're still deciding) he'll file bankruptcy, and basically stiff the doctors and the hospital who saved his life. All because he didn't WANT to pay for his insurance, not because he couldn't afford it or couldn't get it. And he's not the only one in the office walking around with no insurance because they just don't want to pay for it.

My own father went without health insurance for a period of 5 years just after he retired at age 51 (he had been a policeman), and complains that he's one of those "old people" for whom health insurance is too expensive and he couldn't afford it (he now has military benefits that cover both him and his wife). Well, I watched him during that same 5 year time period move to Florida, buy himself a nice house with a built in pool and jacuzzi, a new van (more expensive than any car I've ever owned), bought and sold a couple of small boats (granted they were used, but still), and went on some vacations. The reality is he didn't WANT to pay for health insurance and gambled for those 5 years until his military benefits kicked in. But choosing not to pay for it is not the same as not being able to afford it, and I have a serious problem with people like that. Including my own father. The sort of "entitlement" mentality. Far too many people take advantage in this country, and as BarbaraL mentioned in one of her posts, people who do the right thing are penalized and people who are irresponsible tend to be given even more.

tbb113

10-28-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

Because these issues are just simply on the same level as having a wart removed? Please. You may not agree with them, but why is it so hard to understand that there are many, many people that equate those two things to walking up to another human being and blowing their brains out? I've mentioned before, I'm ambivalent about abortion law, but can't people understand that it is not an issue without very real, very profound reasons FOR AND AGAINST IT?

Kristi

Kristi: I was just trying to point out that some people in government sends a mixed message. They want to pass legislation on some social issues (that truthfully affect very few people) yet hesitate to pass other legisalation that would impact many people. It just seems a strange combo in my mind. I was not trying to equate health care with abortion (even though abortion is a health care issue). You either support government intervention in people's personal life (health care, schools, abortion,housing, etc.) or you support free market paying for them.

Jessica

10-28-2004, 04:15 PM

Grace--I agree with you that it is is frustrating when people can afford insurance and choose not to buy it. But at some companies, the premiums are hundreds of dollars a month for people who earn less than $10 an hour. Not everyone can afford insurance.

If we got our primary and catastrophic care through a national plan, perhaps we could have some economies of scale. I am not sure exactly what it would look like but to me, the current system is broken and in need of repair.

Kristilyn1

10-28-2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by tbb113

You either support government intervention in people's personal life (health care, schools, abortion,housing, etc.) or you support free market paying for them.

no, no, no! You are looking at this from your own perspective. Just because the courts have decided when life begins does not make it so, it's an opinion---an opinion admittedly shared by many, many people. You can support the idea of not interfering with a person's personal life but that is not the same as stopping someone from HURTING SOMEONE ELSE. It's completely different if you are on the other side of the debate. No one wants to stop abortion because they want to "interfere with a woman's right to do something to her body"--they want to interfere to save a human being's life and the argument is that NO ONE has the right to end someone else's life in this country just because they want to.

I totally see what argument you are trying to make but I believe that your logic is flawed by your own view of what an abortion is. Not meaning your opinion on abortion is flawed, but that because of WHAT your view is on it, your logic in applying it to the above example is flawed.

As an aside: keep in mind that for some pro-choice Republicans the issue is whether there should be federal funding for at-will abortions, not whether people should legally have access to them.

DISCLAIMER: the above views are not necessarily mine, just pointing out the other side. I know I've come across lately as someone who is rabidly pro-life but for whatever reason I'm solidly on both sides of the fence on it, and have a lot of sympathy for both sides of the issue.

Kristi

Kristilyn1

10-28-2004, 06:02 PM

Healthcare. I think most people would agree, it's in need of repair, what we can't seem to agree on is how to pay for it and whoops, edited to add, HOW to go about it!

What I would do:

1. incentives/tax breaks for small companies to offer insurance at lower cost.

2. getting rid of the litigation gravy train. The injured get screwed, the doctors get screwed and the only people getting rich are the lawyers.

3. #2 would help address this point, lowering malpractice insurance costs for doctors

4. Get people to get healthier! (granted a long-shot)

5. Offering insurance companies incentives for preventative and wellness programs, same for employers.

6. Dramatically lower the cost for physicians to be trained IF they do a rotation in underserved markets after medical school. U think five years ago the average student loans for a Family Practitioner was approx. $80,000.

7. Spread the costs of prescriptions a little more evenly around the world.

So, yes the government would have to kick in some money--but hopefully then hospitals would stop having to eat millions of dollars a year in uninsured care. You have to keep in mind that right now it costs $XX to keep America healthy---all you are doing by handing it to the government is adding another layer of bureacracy and landing the cost directly onto your lap.