political rant/debate

[Wren57]

This is from an AIM convo I was having and just thought I'd post my rambling thoughts...

bush is supporting amendment banning gay marriage...
dems are coming out and saying he is trying to change the constitution to "earn political points"
and that he is like hitler, but "not as good at it"
that he is trying to "spend so much money that the government is forced to cancel all social programs"
the govt IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLES SOCIAL LIVES
we dont need to spend money on inner city basketball leagues and bullshit like that
im really worried abt this country... its going down the shitter
people with GOOD, positive views dont get heard as much as those with negative views

there was this guy being interviewed a few min ago
said that john kerry is against gay marriage, but thinks the states should decide what is right for each state
so... while oppossed to gay marriage, he wouldnt DO anything about it and just let other people figure it out, because he isnt willing to take a stand for what he believes in

and all these fucking morons saying that bush is on the run bc he is slightly down in election polls... hell, kerry has been campaigning for months against bush and bush is sittin on 150mil cash and hasnt even started campaigning



bah, ok thats it for now, I have plenty more... if you are a dem, don't feel bad, its not your fault;) . But I would like to have a serious debate on something, so if you have a strong opinion that you think is just as a democrat, post it and we can debate.:yes:

[4drmadness]

I must say you make some good points there my man...I'm sure if my grand father hadn't of passed away last month he would take you up on that. He loved him some politics and a good debate....:yes:

[ChrisCantSkate]

well, im a registered rebublican, but do not like bush's ideas/views/way of handling things. i agree it is not the governments responsability to fund social actvities, but the thing with bush's administration is its turning exactly how pre ww1 was going. everything was great, economy was on the up, etc. bush then goes before the UN and the whole world saying how grave of a danger iraq's WMD are and how we must act with military force(you know where im going with this wont draw it out) and basically when nothing was found, he expects everyone to shrug it off.

we invaded a country. not only did we invade, but we managed to take out more civilian lives than the total 9/11 disaster took out of our own people. im sorry, but the death of an iraqi civilian shouldnt be looked upon as less of a death than of anyone else. we FREAKED.. let me emphisize FREAKED out over 9/11. our country was in complete panic, and we trusted our president to gather the information needed to make those responsable pay. now we have a dictator with no WMD, we have a 3rd world country that is going to jsut have another government put in place until they get pissed at us in 10-15 years and actually do in some way threaten the contitental US. meanwhile, we wont hear of osama till im guessing mid-summer when political campains are going on and bush needs support.

on to domestic problems. the republican party put this little balance budjet amendment in the constitution i believe and well... bush's HUGE spending is bringing our economic stability waaay down, not to mention the worlds if this continues. durring "war times" we need to raise taxes to pay for a war. not cut even more to make our rich business owners richer.

as far as gay/same sex marragies... hoestly we have bigger problems. let it be a state thing, since its the state who gives you a marrage licence. get the government out of it.

as far as your hitler statement.... i really hate comparing the 2, since you instantly get the "no way, bush isnt some guy committing genocide" well, if you look how hitler achieved political power, and how he was able to persuade the people into a complete "us vs. them" mentality, then look at things such as the patriot act, and how fvcking narrow minded people are now when it comes to minorities, expecially from india and the mid east. everyone of them is now a 2nd class citizen. its sad but true. no one gives these sometimes born americans the time of day because of bush's "well one terrorist leader attacked us so i'll take another one out and gain public support" idea.

the anti-french people really piss me off. i know this is a little off topic, but im thinking about it and your gonna read it. im part french and proud of it. in ww1 when america "saved" europe from germany, all we did was come in at the end of a war with germany giving their last breath effort to cut off allied supplies but it failed and america was there to help english and french soliders who have been in fox holes for YEARS. not months, YEARS. they were severly starved, not clean at all, and actually war fatigued. americans showed up, marched in paris(which btw we didnt let a single black troop march in our army on the streets while every other country let their minorities march), then stayed around long enough to more or less write the genoiva treaty(spelling is way off).

interesting little fact about ww1, french toast usta be german toast, Dachshunds were called freedom dogs, sounds a bit familiar...

everyone who has taken american history knows the french won our independence from england with their HUGE blockadge of the chesapeake bay and most of the east coast from all incoming englsih ships. which was part of a treaty we later screwed the french on when england attacked them.

ok enough of a rant for my first post...

[GT40FIED]

I'm not a democrat or republican...I suppose that makes me independent, but i honestly think Bush is doing a horrible job. As for the gay marriage thing, if you missed the thread I made, here's a sumarization: basically I'm with Chris. It shouldn't be a political hot button because it effects such a small portion of the country (not that they are any less important, just fewer in numbers). And why, for fuck's sake, are people so opposed to the idea? God forbid two people should be happy. So apparently they're evil and sinful because they can't have kids. Does this mean all infertile straight couples are evil and sinful too? Staying together while knowing they can't concieve...how dare they? Jeez...I hope they don't start adopting one of the millions of unwanted and unloved kids out there and giving them good homes. What you said about John Kerry's stance needs to be a little more well thought out. This is, after all, politics so forget what you know about logic. He CAN be opposed to something but not force his will on others. I actually appreciate his stance...he's against it but he's willing to let US sort it out. I DON'T appreciate the whole "I don't agree with it so it'll go before congress and there ain't shit you can do about it" crap. As for comparing him to Hitler, it's just ridiculous politics and they only did that because of the implications Hitlers name carries for most people. But aside from the genocide, tyrannical dictatorship, and ultimate suicide that followed, Hitler actually did a better job in the beginning. He brought Germany back to where it was socially and economically after it was turned to rubble after WWI in only about 18 months. This is why he was Time magazine's "Man Of The Year" in 1930 or '31 (I don't remember exactly which year). So in some respects he's far and above our own president (but somehow I don't think that makes up for the 6 million bodies he's got tacked onto his name). As for spending...I scarcely know where to begin there. Too much money put into needless things and things still haven't gotten better. We spend billions and billions in Iraq and what's it gotten us? A dictator who *might* have had WMDs at one point in time (it's hard to tell when your intell folks lie or misrepresent facts) and I don't even know how many dead Americans and Iraqis...many of whom were non-combatants. It's not for me to decide whether or not war is justified, but I think we made the wrong decision. We went into Afghanistan and were much more tactful about it. Far fewer people died and we got more done and didn't waste a bunch of money. Now, keep in mind were really only looking for a particular group of people. In Iraq we've spent more (and are still spending) to pretty much find one person and fix the insuing pissed off-edness that followed. Something tells me that in the long run hosting inner city basketball night games is more productive for Americans...and that's our government's job, to look after the citizens. I think the only reason people still stand by Bush is because he was there through 9/11...but that could really apply to anyone. I just don't want to vote in this election...the democrats are all acting like a bunch of bitchy little kids and Bush has, in my eyes, failed miserably to do anything he said he would do as far as policy and international affairs. And I'll be fucked if I vote for Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speeds" Nader. I hate to say it, but I just may not vote at all this time around.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i'll throw a new topic in the air... bush's "military career" and how he wants to keep our troops over seas, and how proud they should be to serve america, while he managed to skip out on his duty without a consiquence.

also why oh why is this our first president in a very long time with no real environmental plan? as much as i dont want smog checks in every state, if we dont, we'll all be living in bubbles by the end of our lives. think long term mr. bush, more than your presidency. be a good american and setup something for future leaders to build off of, not try to rebuild(alos insert foreign relations argument here)

[Wren57]

Originally posted by ChrisCantSkate
[B]UN and the whole world saying how grave of a danger iraq's WMD are and how we must act with military force(you know where im going with this wont draw it out) and basically when nothing was found, he expects everyone to shrug it off.
No WMDs found yet, but then again Iraq had 6+ months to hide/export stuff while the UN sat around like construction workers staring at a hole in the ground...


but we managed to take out more civilian lives than the total 9/11 disaster took out of our own people.
flat out incorrect. would you care to show me any credible source that says this?



on to domestic problems. the republican party put this little balance budjet amendment in the constitution i believe and well... bush's HUGE spending is bringing our economic stability waaay down, not to mention the worlds if this continues. durring "war times" we need to raise taxes to pay for a war. not cut even more to make our rich business owners richer.

true, but business is a cycle. late 90s was an up cycle, followed by the down part of the cycle. tax cuts alleviate pressure on small business owners (my parents own a business). trust me, it will help.



as far as gay/same sex marragies... hoestly we have bigger problems. let it be a state thing, since its the state who gives you a marrage licence. get the government out of it.

I do agree there are bigger issues, but we can't let the moral fabric of our country deteriorate because we are too lazy/occupied to deal with additional problems (this).



the anti-french people really piss me off.
I don't hate the french, just the french gov't policies. Same goes for most mid-easterners with anti-american sentiment. They don't hate Americans, just what America stands for, because they view capitalism/free market as a threat to their religion which placed allah above all.


interesting little fact about ww1, french toast usta be german toast, Dachshunds were called freedom dogs, sounds a bit familiar...

Yeah, its all propoganda/rhetoric... thats a two sided coin


everyone who has taken american history knows the french won our independence from england with their HUGE blockadge of the chesapeake bay and most of the east coast from all incoming englsih ships. which was part of a treaty we later screwed the french on when england attacked them.


Thank you French from 230 years ago:rolleyes: . Seriously, don't you hate being blamed for slavery because your ancestors practiced it? Same theme here, the past was then, this is now... things change...

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by highlander
No WMDs found yet, but then again Iraq had 6+ months to hide/export stuff while the UN sat around like construction workers staring at a hole in the ground...

you mean besides bush saying intelligence was wrong and they only had WMD programs? or could it be because his father has the recipts to these WMD that he knows saddam had them?

flat out incorrect. would you care to show me any credible source that says this?

i have it somewhere, and i will post it up. until then, i'll let this be a dead argument

true, but business is a cycle. late 90s was an up cycle, followed by the down part of the cycle. tax cuts alleviate pressure on small business owners (my parents own a business). trust me, it will help.

yes it helps the economy when we arnt spending billions upon billions of dollars. i know how economics works, and well, this isnt the way to bring around a good economic turn(at least according to previous war time overspendings)

I do agree there are bigger issues, but we can't let the moral fabric of our country deteriorate because we are too lazy/occupied to deal with additional problems (this).

yeah i think we agree here

I don't hate the french, just the french gov't policies. Same goes for most mid-easterners with anti-american sentiment. They don't hate Americans, just what America stands for, because they view capitalism/free market as a threat to their religion which placed allah above all.

Yeah, its all propoganda/rhetoric... thats a two sided coin


Thank you French from 230 years ago:rolleyes: . Seriously, don't you hate being blamed for slavery because your ancestors practiced it? Same theme here, the past was then, this is now... things change...

first off yes i HATE being a "white male oppressor" just because of who i am. 40-50 years ago this argument could still kind of fly of we were as liberal to talk about it., but if we want equality then we need to just do away with all these programs designed to get african-americans into college because they have worse grades than another applicant. make it 100% skill based, no color or gender at all. it makes people earn what they have, instead of knowing as long as they do almost as good as someone else they can still get in because everything has to be "fair".

second, i dont know if you made the reference before or not, but ive seen alot of people saying that saddam was the next hitler or bonapart or something, using historical references to show the significance of their argument, im simply stating that this "anti-french" feel we have going around america is complete BS. so they were buying iraqi oil or whatever, but we stayed out of both WW's initially because of our own personal benifits from not being involved, but when psuh came to shove we stepped up. well, this "war" or so its being called never came near shove. we trampled into bagdad in very short time considering how lines move in traditional warfare.

so anyways... thats why i made the point, cause if people are gonna use history for their argument then so am i

[ChrisCantSkate]

August 7th 2003

Extraction of media-reported civilian injuries from the Iraq Body Count database and archive of war reports provides evidence of at least 20,000 civilian injuries on top of the maximum reported 7798 deaths. 8,000 of these injuries were in the Baghdad area alone, suggesting that the full, countrywide picture, as with deaths, is yet to emerge.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm

vs.

Citing an American academic, a BBC report on Thursday said the number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs had surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks. Nearly 3,800 Afghans had died between 7 October and 7 December, Prof Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire said in a research report.

Basing his findings on data collected from news agencies, major newspapers and first-hand accounts since the attacks began, Herold placed the civilian death toll conservatively at 3,767. "I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000," he reportedly said.

This figure was well in excess of the estimated 2,998 people killed in the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington, the BBC report added.

Meanwhile, the US has denied accusations of indiscriminate or unaccountable bombings, as well as reports that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians have been killed since US retaliatory strikes were first launched on 7 October.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0107civil.htm



notice the afgani numbers(and dates... 2 month period) in there too... if you find other sources saying different post them up

[GT40FIED]

No WMDs found yet, but then again Iraq had 6+ months to hide/export stuff while the UN sat around like construction workers staring at a hole in the ground...

I loved the president's stance on that. When everyone was pushing for more time to find the stuff he rushed ahead and invaded. Then when everyone asked for proof to justify our actions he said "give us more time". It's almost like a cop falsifying information to get a search warrant.


I do agree there are bigger issues, but we can't let the moral fabric of our country deteriorate because we are too lazy/occupied to deal with additional problems (this).

There's nothing, I repeat NOTHING, wrong or immoral with two people who love each other who want to get married. Just because whatever church you go to tells it's wrong doesn't make it immoral. I don't particularly like the idea of homosexuality, but for fuck's sake, they're just people. There's absolutely no reason they should be denied the same rights as everyone else solely because there's too many traditionalist conservatives in government.


I don't hate the french, just the french gov't policies. Same goes for most mid-easterners with anti-american sentiment. They don't hate Americans, just what America stands for, because they view capitalism/free market as a threat to their religion which placed allah above all.

Don't forget that much like those anti-Americans, man of us are also taught that god is to be put above all else. I think the reason they hate us is simple...we don't even know why they hate us. We're so preoccupied with our pointless little nothing lives that we don't even take time to examine why others hate us. They don't like our culture or the parts of it that find their way over there, but how is that any different from what we do?

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by GT40FIED
Don't forget that much like those anti-Americans, man of us are also taught that god is to be put above all else. I think the reason they hate us is simple...we don't even know why they hate us. We're so preoccupied with our pointless little nothing lives that we don't even take time to examine why others hate us. They don't like our culture or the parts of it that find their way over there, but how is that any different from what we do?

its no different at all. we dont like the way they live and they dont like the way we live, but since we're not the ones being really put in harms way, everyone thinks we're doing the right thing by forcing cultural change

[AkimboStylee]

wow, if you guys ran for president, i think one of you would win
jfwyg

[spoogenet]

French: Seriously, the French pretty much want Saddam out just as much as anybody else. Sure they make money in illegal oil trade, but they want a piece of the Iraqi pie just the same as anybody else. They're just smart about it. By being publicly against the US invasion of Iraq, they spare themselves the political backlash of their populace while also getting Saddam out of power. If you ever wonder why the French hate us....the French don't like anybody, including the French. Equally, nobody likes the French.

Iraq and WMD: There is absolutely no question in the circles of international intelligence that Iraq has had WMD. It's just not worth debating. Whether Iraq had WMD recently is a different story. Whether they existed when Bush was on the warpath is another story. Simply put, Saddam is NOT a stupid person. In fact, he's a very bright person. He is playing the US on the international political scene just as he did back in the Gulf War. He knows that he can discredit any US intelligence, no matter how valid, by removing the very proof that the US seeks. If we don't find WMD, Bush looks to be an idiot, even if they were there when Bush was on the warpath. It is no surprise that we haven't found anything. However that is not to say that the intelligence community was correct or honest about everything when Bush made the decision to go to war.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, however I am not yet convinced that Bush made a wrong decision. In retrospect it may be wrong, but was it wrong at the time it was made? He can only act based upon the intelligence provided for him at the time. Just as whoever pushed the button that bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade cannot be held very liable for the faulty intelligence, Bush is in the same boat. He may have made a bad decision, or acted on intelligence he suspected to be wrong....or he may have made the best deicions ANY of us would have made based upon the intelligence he was given. Remember, the President never makes ANY decision without tons of input from lots of advisors, etc. In fact, in a way you could easily say the President doesn't ever make any decision, his advisors make the decisions.

Also trust me that there are many other sides to the discussion of the Iraqi war that never make it into the news media. Some are downright unpopular ideas, others are top-secret and nobody has leaked them.

Social programs: The government's responsibility is to look after its populace. There are people who do work for a living and still don't have the money to pay for things like gym memberships. There are neighborhoods where nobody wants to spend tax dollars because no taxes come from them. There are government programs that help children in those places. Why should the child of a poor family be relegated to poverty as a rule? The government spends time and money on social programs to try to help these children so they can maybe make a better life for themselves. Of course, many of them don't.....many by choice, many not by choice. But for every minute that someone is playing basketball, that person isn't committing a crime, is possibly happy, maybe even learns something, and develops physical fitness (an asset).

On Kerry's comments: Kerry is taking a stand. He's saying that the issue belongs up to the states. He's saying he doesn't agree with it, but he's not forcing his opinions down others throats as many Republicans are doing. Why must people discriminate and persecute gays so much? Now we want to build persecution into the Constitution? This country was suppoed to have been founded upon FREEDOM, we are fighting a war on terror to protect FREEDOM, what part of denying same-sex marriages says freedom to you? It doesn't hurt anybody, if anything it benefits us. Bush stands so tall talking about the "sacred institution of marriage." Why, then, do 50% of marriages end in divorce these days? If it's such a sacred life-long commitment, why all the failures? Should we make a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce as well? Bush mentions how we have learned about marriage from the millenia of human experience. Funny, because marriage is a WESTERN institution, not to mention the fact that polygamy is common everywhere but WESTERN cultures. Human experience in many parts of the world has taught us of polygamy, not the sacred union of one man and one woman till death or divorce do they part. Bush wants to write marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" into the Constitution, while leaving open the possibility of future crackdowns on civil liberties or making "gay marriage" a "civil union." Doesn't anybody realize that it's either semantics (meaningless) or is just a stepping stone to future abuse of civil liberty?

On the tax cuts: Sure Bush's tax cuts may "help soem small business owners like mommy and daddy." But bear in mind that the tax cuts are also pushing more and more people into AMT. Bush "looks good" on TV by lowering taxes, but for some people he's actually RAISING taxes with the AMT. He and Congress refuse to revamp the AMT to keep in line with inflation and the tax cuts are largely just a paper phenomenon. Of course it can't all be blamed on Bush, nobody else has had the balls to actually revamp the AMT because it is such a money maker these days with inflation. But Bush won't tell you anything of that when he says he's going to "save you money and spur the economy." Yeah, right.....

Sorry it was so long.

b

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by spoogenet
On Kerry's comments: Kerry is taking a stand. He's saying that the issue belongs up to the states. He's saying he doesn't agree with it, but he's not forcing his opinions down others throats as many Republicans are doing. Why must people discriminate and persecute gays so much? Now we want to build persecution into the Constitution? This country was suppoed to have been founded upon FREEDOM, we are fighting a war on terror to protect FREEDOM, what part of denying same-sex marriages says freedom to you? It doesn't hurt anybody, if anything it benefits us. Bush stands so tall talking about the "sacred institution of marriage." Why, then, do 50% of marriages end in divorce these days? If it's such a sacred life-long commitment, why all the failures? Should we make a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce as well? Bush mentions how we have learned about marriage from the millenia of human experience. Funny, because marriage is a WESTERN institution, not to mention the fact that polygamy is common everywhere but WESTERN cultures. Human experience in many parts of the world has taught us of polygamy, not the sacred union of one man and one woman till death or divorce do they part. Bush wants to write marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" into the Constitution, while leaving open the possibility of future crackdowns on civil liberties or making "gay marriage" a "civil union." Doesn't anybody realize that it's either semantics (meaningless) or is just a stepping stone to future abuse of civil liberty?

Well put. I also like how Bush wants to sink something like half a billion dollars to "promote the sanctity of marriage". So he's gonna spend half a billion just to become like a nagging mother that constantly asks you when you're gonna settle down? Also, last I checked, while marriage does have some legal implications, it's largely a religious ceremony. Why do I have to put up with Bush spending tax dollars I contributed to so he can lord his religious convictions over the rest of us? Ok...so he thinks marriage is sacred. So what? I used to think it was until too all of my friends and family started getting divorced in short order. His opinions are his own to keep...so long as he doesn't involve money I've paid to force his opinions on everyone.

[Wren57]

^ I agree with you about the French and about Iraq, I just didn't want to spend the time/thought to matriculate everything as well as you said it. :yes:

As for social programs, there are some that are needed, but most aren't. It is parents responsibility to raise their children, not the government's, simple as that. I do understand some parents simply don't have the time (two jobs) to be with their kids all the time and help them as much as they should, but the government shouldn't fill that void; some other family member/friend should. I support Boys&Girls Club, YMCA, and programs like that, but lots of programs simply don't benefit enough people to justify the cost to the taxpayers.

The gay marriage issue, I have nothing against gay people, or against gay people living together etc. I do get pissed when the media tries to force gay-acceptance down my throat, but I just change the channel:yes:. I do believe gays can live together and be happy. I believe that this is also a separation of church and state issue. If a marriage is a holy union, what say does/should the government have? My answer is none. BUT to keep each individual church from running rampant, legally recognized marriage should be kept as union between man and a woman- think about why; a married couple gets a break on their taxes (in some cases), and are expected to birth and raise children to maintain the population of this country. Sure, homosexuality is scarce, but you can't deny that it is growing... the media has glorified it and made it appeal to many impressionable young people, and they have since turned gay. Just my thoughts of course, you are free to disagree.

I'm not sure if you were bashing me on your comment about tax cuts, but I warn you, you shouldn't argue economics with me. I am 18, yes, but the Federal Reserve invited me to make a presentation to a district branch on interest rates. I took the oppurtunity, and they were thoroughly impressed. I know what I am talking about beyond, as you put it, what "mommy and daddy" tell me. The tax system needs renovation, no doubt. You wanna be the one to propose something? ;) Also, don't forget about elimination of the death tax and the cutting of the capital gains rate (spurred investors into domestic investing... GOOD thing for the economy...)

Don't apologize for length... that just means you have a lot to say:yes:

[spoogenet]

Marriage, as the union of two people in a "life-long" legal contract with responsibilities and equity, is a good place for the goernment to step in. Marriage, as a holy matrimony, is purely religious and is up to the religions to decide. Legal issues should be up to the government, religious issues up to the churches. While marriage was originally brought into this country as a holy matrimony of religious significance, it has largely changed to the status of a legal contract with only ritual religious significance. However Bush, with the language he is using, sounds like he's trying to take us back to the Puritan days and clense ourselves of the impurities and take it back to a religious significance....oh, with a couple legal implications too.

What's the difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage? Either semantics (if you are Bush's speach writer) or religious morals. Either way, neither has a place in the Constitution, and I would stretch so far as to say state law as well. Civil unions, as folks are calling them, are basically the legal side of marriage without the religious side. What's the difference, then. Marriage, legally, is only based upon religion in the sense of ritual administration. Beyond that, it is purely a legal contract. Hence why I believe Bush is trying to take a step at the revocation of the freedoms of homosexuals.

Bad Bush, no oil for you!

Highlander: You mention the increasing incidence of homosexuality in the US. Now is the number of homosexuals in the US actually increasing, or is it merely a mirage? The fact that homosexuality is increasingly becoming more acceptable in the media and to many people, especially younger folk, is it not entirely possible that the apparent numbers are only rising due to people "coming out of the closet"??? I honestly don't know the numbers myself, but I would suspect that people are merely being more open with their sexuality and it only appears as though homosexuality is a growing trend.

Many gay men were married back in the day. It was considered abhorrent to be gay and also bad to be a single man. To appear "successful" one must be married, have children, and a decent job. Many gay men would do just such a thing, playing "the man's game" to keep their head above the waters while also living a secret life of homosexuality. These days those men are living their lives of homosexuality in the open without the fake marriages.

What I was saying about tax cuts was not directed to you, but it was spurred by your comments. Many people overlook (or don't even know about) the AMT when thinking of tax cuts. While the tax cuts are beneficial in ways, they are also detrimental in others. The most obvious detriment is the near-term loss in tax revenue for the country. Whether the tax cut helps the long-term revenue of the government is a matter of great debate for even the most educated, experienced, and knowledgeable economists. However the impact of the AMT is very real and not such a subject for debate. Without reform, year-to-year it will hit a quickly growing number of people and provide solid revenue for the government while still allowing officials to tout their tax cuts. I have my own ideas of what I'd like to see in our tax structure, however I do not claim to have an answer on how to balance the budget, nor do I claim to understand all the chalenges and tradeoffs that are faced by those trying to balance the budget.

I also agree there are many wasted social programs. Personally I don't like the idea of handouts, they promote laziness and provide no incentive for people to get off their asses and work, which hurts our economy. They're much like government jobs. ;) However slums and extreme poverty also hurt our economy, they drive up crime rates and devalue property. There's no simple way to deal with it. Sometimes, though, the greater benefit is to invest in handouts rather than face the alternative. This principle is also evident in international politics. Why do you think the US gives aid to North Korea? Same basic principles, just different stakes.

The problem with politics is that, even the smartest politician, can't implement the smartest plan. While many politicians have good ideas, they are crushed by such things as public opion and the "image" they have. It takes balls to speak the truth, and even more to act upon the truth. The simple fact is that many Americans are stupid when it comes to ideas such as economics, and even more stupid when it comes to international politics and policies. But the fact of the matter is, the politician must do the best job possible while keeping the voters happy. It's a job, they like job security just as much as the next person does. And in the end they do things to get votes, not to help us. They do things that people THINK will help us, even though they won't.

Take education reforms, for example. Nobody has the balls to do what it takes, or even say what it takes, to get our education system on track. Yet all sorts of politicians have all these great ideas that will "help educate America's youth and give us a brighter future." Sheot, they've been saying that for years, and they've been failing miserably at it. Because the voters can't handle the truth.....the politicians play to politics, not what's best. It's a catch-22 of the job, and we all suffer because of it. Oh the irony!

b

[silver]

good god it took an hour to read all this...i'll try and tackle the issues.

first off saying that sexuality is impressionable is quite a claim. so my understanding is that if it were cool to be homosexual, more people would be? um...you don't become homosexual. you are born homosexual. it may take time for the person to understand there feelings, but there isn't a "when did you become gay" moment. its growing because its becoming more accepted, so people who were in the closet before are now comfortable with coming out. and someone must have a lot of time on their hands if they are going to propose a consitutional amendment regarding marriage.

the tax cuts are bullshit. how are capital gains tax cuts going to help the low income population? the tax cuts are once again for the higher income people of the country, why don't we eliminate taxes for the people at the poverty level and keep the taxes the same for the rich instead of cutting them? that would give the lower income population the ability to spend money on goods that they will need such as food and basic necessities. that will increase the productivity of the manufacturing and agriculture markets, plus alleviate their need for federal and state aid, of which seems so strongly opposed by republicans. i have no problem with taxes as long as they are being used for the betterment of people. you wanna raise my taxes? go ahead, just do something with them. people making under 18,000 a year are having a hard enough time making ends as opposed to the people who are getting a tax cut on their stock portfolios. domestic investing will not lead to a growth in the private small business sector(which by the way receives oodles of money from the small business administration of the fed gov) but rather into established corporations who are trying to cut costs by moving jobs overseas and are also putting smaller businesses out. the miniscule tax cut for the lower and middle class that equates to a couple hundred bucks isn't going to do anything, people will either pay off some credit card debt or put it in the back, taking it out of the financial cycle. putting money into government work programs much like the mid 30's will promote economic growth and also give jobs back to the people. and what moron cuts taxes when we have the largest deficit in the history of the country? that just seems illogical to me. and how low are we going to let the dollar fall? our economic policies are screwing up the world economy and the other major players in the world are getting pissed.

social programs are the backbone of our society. how would like to have been that kid in elementary school who couldn't get lunch because you didn't have a dollar for everyday? unemployment insurance, medicare, social security, all these programs are what make our country so great. there are european countries that have even more extensive health programs and what not, but for what the tax payers pay here, it is a very good return. anyone can sit and say how its up to the individual to take care of their own stuff, what about people who can't? for some reason or another that are at a disadvantage to you and i? yes there are many people in this country who abuse the system, and reform to weed out those people would possibly save millions, even billions annually. but these programs are safety nets and u never know if one day you may find yourself using them. after school programs, inner city basketball leagues. these help keep kids out of gangs and away from the dangers of drugs, which in turns helps them create a future for themselves that they may not have been able to forge by themselves and would maybe have ended up in jail, costing the taxpayers much more annually than an afterschool or midnight basketball league. plus many republican politicians, like gov. jeb bush for example, have no problem funding religous programs for the education of people in a "determined" faith, where's the separation there?

our foreign policy is bullshit. we're pissing off the world and anyone who isn't with us is against us? what kind of diplomatic message is that? we feel is is our responsibility to initiate regime changes? we have a hard enough time getting our own administration elected here. we have a president who has no tact and very little experience in the foreign arena, luckily for us we have colin powell or else we'd probably be at war or have icy relations with many more countries because our president sticks his foot in his mouth too often. axis of evil...you gotta be kidding me. why is the economy bad? 9-11. why is the enviroment going to crap? 9-11. why can we spy on your email? 9-11. why are we in the middle east? 9-11? we can't we ever leave the mid east now? bush.

the no child left behind act is bullshit...dumbest thing i've ever heard. taking so much money away from schools that are badly in need of it. school vouchers will cause great problems with the quality of teachers in public schools, if you think they're bad now, wait till 4 years pass.

i've got plenty more but that's all i have time for.