That flip-flopping &^$%#$@!!!!!

tec97 · Mar 28, 2004

Don't you all just hate politicians who flip-flop and change positions on every issue under the sun?

Fox New's Official Guide to discrediting a Democratic candidate:

Lesson #1- First get a label and try to make it stick: John Kerry is a "Flip flopper".

Lesson #2- Use the label as often as possible in news broadcasts and periodicals.

Lesson #3- Ignore the issues on which your prefered candidate has "flip flopped" and never use the same lable to describe said candidate. Only use the term to describe the candidate whom you dont like, even if your prefered candidate fits the same mold.

So, will the real "flip flopper" please stand up.

* Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

* Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

* Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

* Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

* Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

* Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

* Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

* Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

* Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

* Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

* Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

* Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

* Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

* Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

* Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

* Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

* Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

* Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

* Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. But after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

ALS · Mar 28, 2004

I take it your not a George W. Bush fan?
That's OK I'm not a fan of the Anti-American Marxist, Socialist, Communist, One World Order, United Nations Loving, Anti-U.S.Constitution, Treasonist, Democrat party either. But that just my opinion of the NEW "Progressive" Democrat Party

By the way FYI the Communist Workers Party of the 1930's, 40's, 50's and 60's always refered to themselves as Progressives. Hummmmm! Also WHY do you Democrat's get so jumping ugly when people refer to them as Liberal's?
I'm proud to be called a Conseravative Republican.

[ March 29, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: ALS ]

Drew99GT · Mar 28, 2004

Lovely ALS. The Democrats are Communists since they fundamentally oppose Dubya's policies.

Treasonists? Yup, continue attacking and labelling them instead of factually and truthfully attacking their argument. Continue lying about the policies that John Kerry has put forth. Nice tactic.

Whimsey · Mar 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
Lovely ALS. The Democrats are Communists since they fundamentally oppose Dubya's policies.

Treasonists? Yup, continue attacking and labelling them instead of factually and truthfully attacking their argument. Continue lying about the policies that John Kerry has put forth. Nice tactic.

Pray tell, what policies has John Kerry put forth. It's easy for him to criticize Bush but I would like to see some definite ideas or plans from him that support my voting for him. Since he's been a Senator for a number of years I would think that his voting record would "speak" about what he stands for. In all seriousness please tell me why I should vote for John Kerry. My concern is to protect America, it's interests and improve the economy. At this point Bush is a proven in improving economy and protecting America from "the religion of peace", aka Islamic fanatics. Again, in all seriousness please convince me why John Kerry would be better for America.

This is not a pro Republican or pro Democrat post. I truly want to know why I should support Kerry.

Thanks,

Whimsey

Drew99GT · Mar 29, 2004

John Kerry has put forth an economic plan modelled after the Robert Rubin fiscal plan of the Clinton years, which has factually proven itself. Lower taxes even more than Bush on the bottom 98% of taxpayers, and effectively increase taxes by roughly 5,000 dollars on the top 2%. He has also put forth the idea of closing all the loop holes like defferal on US multi-nationals producing products overseas inteneded for market in the United States. His policies will also lower the federal defecit greatly by LOWERING government spending, something Bush seems to not grasp at the moment. You think Bush has made you safer? By invading Iraq? As quoted by one Islamic scholar in a magazine article I read a while back, and stated on many news shows, "by invading Iraq, we are creating hundreds of new Bin Ladens". Yes, we have not had another attack in the US, but AlQueda has struck the US homeland twice now, roughly 8 years apart. The odds that there are now 10s of cells in the US actively plotting an attack more grandeous than 9/11 are pretty strong. Imagine if we spent that $180,000,000,000 on port security/cargo inspections etc, securing Nuclear facilites that are currently about as secure as the Taco Bell down my street.

Yes, the GDP has come back under Bush, but per capita GDP is DOWN, meaning that the economic vitality we supposedly have is being reeped by fewer and fewer people. In the long run, that is not good economic policy. Also, with the number of people currently unemployed that are NOT counted by the Government, real unemployment is roughly 8%, factually stated in such magazines as The Economist and other publications.

ALS · Mar 29, 2004

Am I thrilled with G.W. not completely but he has been one of the best war time presidents this country has ever seen. We were attacked and he took the war to our enemies. He fought the war on their ground not ours. Do I disagree with him heck yes. His immigration policy is a recipe for disaster. And there are other domestic policies that I don't agree at all with.
John Kerry is talking about a Middle class tax cut, is that the same tax cut Bill Clinton talked about. You know the one The middle tax cut that he tried so hard to give America but instead he gave us biggest tax increase in the history of America on the middle class. So I guess a man that has Never voted for any tax relief for any Middle or Lower class citizen really is going to put a tax cut through.
This is a man that voted over 350 times in his career for increasing taxes on the American people. Yet never voted once for a tax decease. Actions speak louder than words. The Democrat's never fix a problem they only talk about it. I guess to the average Democrat voter talk is more important to actually doing something to solve a problem. I've heard for 20 plus years how we need to fix SSI from the left. Yet they have no plan or ideas other than raising the rates on the workers. When there is plan on the table they bad mouth it to the ground. Ask them how they would fix it and you get silence and more bad mouthing of the other sides ideas.

Well lets look at history over the last 12 years. When the WTC was first bombed in 1993 what did the Democrat administration do. Nothing! When flight 800 was shot down on take off. What did the Democrat administration do, Covered it up and discredit the 300 plus people that saw a missile rise from the horizon and hit the plane. Wasn't it so convenient that the CIA was available to do the computer graphics for the public.
Two questions on that one, Why did the U.S. Government deliver a brand new 747 to TWA and no claim was ever put in to Lloyds of London for the loss of the aircraft. When Oklahoma federal building was bombed why was there a APB put out for 3 Arab men in a brown pick up truck by the Oklahoma state police? 4 hours later a order came down from Washington to cancel it. Oh yeh it was the right wing Militia that did it according to the Democrat administration. That was why Tim McVey had a pocket full of Iraqi phone numbers. McVey was killed faster than any other condemned man in the last 20 years. WHY!.
China couldn't get a missile over 500 miles from their country. Wasn't it two Democratic donors Hues(SP) and Loral that transferred sensitive missile technology to China. What happen to them not much a slap on the wrist. So now 75% of the U.S. can be hit by Chinese Nuclear Missiles. Oh lets not talk about the 50 years of Nuclear Technology that was stolen by the Chinese. How hard is it when your appointee leaves the door wide open for their spies that you gave top security clearance to. We know how the Democrat's deal with dictators real well. Clinton gave North Korea 6 Billion U.S. Tax payer dollars and a Nuclear reactor to quiet him down. He then tried to get a Noble Peace prize by buying peace plan in the middle East buy paying off Yasser Arafat.
What about how the Administration sent a little boy back to Cuba. The man who they made out to be his father was really his step father of 1 yr, instead of leaving him with his blood relatives here in the U.S.
What did the democrat administration do over the Koball Towers bombing and the Cole Bombing. Nothing. I doubt you want to get into the 50 plus dead bodies that surround the past Administration. Want to see what would happen if people that were involved with the Bush's started to show up with a bullet hole in the back of their head? Instead of a Arkanside it would be a Texaside.
The main steam media would be giddy digging to find out why Bush had them killed. The story would never die they would bringing it up every night. Why, who did it, who ordered it and what was being covered up.
Unlike how the serial number on the gun used to kill Vince Foster was checked THREE times through the BATF before the killing. Yeh right Vince killed himself. The best friend and legal council to the President of the U.S. dies by a gun shot to the head and the park police ran the investigation. Why didn't the FBI run the investigation? Or how Ron Brown's Body (the only one) came back with a .45 caliber hole in his head. And why were all the other bodies on that aircraft crash cremated before delivering them to the families? How the X-Rays and autopsy records Ron Brown (Commerce Dept) were destroyed but not after the X-Rays made it to the internet. All the military forensics unit that saw those records were drummed out of the service with threats of jail time if they ever spoke of what they saw. National Security was the reason.
The conservatives went nut's over this one and it was shouted down by the liberal press and NAACP as nothing.
I guess had a Black man been murdered in a Republican Administration the liberal press, and NAACP would have been on a witch hunt.
But killing or raping by a Democrat is PC in the new America that the left has crafted.
I guess all those IRS audits that came down on most of the conservative talk show hosts as well as any body that spoke out against the democratic administration were just a fluke. Ask Paula Jones if her Audit wasn't a payback.
Lets not get into the cooking of the labor and economic numbers from 1997 - 2000. 97 and 98 the economic and unemployment numbers were massaged by 10-15% in 99 and 2000 they were cooked as much a 30%. The economy was slowing down in late 97 and they cooked the books to cover it up.

I think when Ed Koch ex Democrat major of New York publicly states he is voting for George Bush in 2004 says a lot for the people who are now running the Democrat party. Howard Dean is the real Democrat party of hate speach today. Joe Leiberman represents the old Democrat party that most voters remember. John Kennedy today would be a Republican in his views. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is the only Democrat Governor I can think of that was smart enough to lower taxes on the residents. What most Democrat voters haven't realize is the Democrat party has left the average Democrat. Most are living in the glow of the party of the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's. This party is not the same party.
My sister-in-law a Union Teacher came from a Democrat family. My brother-in-law a trucker that hauls Steel came from a Democrat Union family that worked in the steel mills around Pittsburgh. Both are now registered Republicans. They saw the light and realized that the new Democrat party left them and their values. In the 2000 election over 40% of all union workers voted Republican.
I guess when Bill Clinton had a Cabinet meeting and it was all White Males sitting with him that makes him the first black President. When George Bush is sitting there with Rice (Security), Powel(State), and Page(Education) at his cabinet meeting those black faces are only the token or House slaves to the liberals. If the Republicans had gone after a National Security advisor in the Clinton administration like the Democrat's are going after Coni Rice there would be calls of racism. I'm sick of this double standard and I'm calling them they way I see them.

Scooby · Mar 29, 2004

Ok...you have democrats, republicans, and those that just don't care.

Bottom line...people think their candidate is the best, while the other is a "flip-flopper", Liar, etc.

Why does everyone not accept the fact that everyone won't agree here and it will cause arguments.

Instead of prancing around typing what you think is right, and eventually getting into a pi$$ing contest. Just leave it????

Why is that so hard? People say that they post these types of things to provoke good hearted debate. HOGWASH!!! It will ALWAYS turn in to the above, people will get pissed off, etc.

Why can't we stay off political ans religious topics? Of course...it could be said...why don't I just not open these topics up? I think that's what I'll try to do.

buster · Mar 29, 2004

quote:

John Kerry has put forth an economic plan modelled after the Robert Rubin fiscal plan of the Clinton years, which has factually proven itself. Lower taxes even more than Bush on the bottom 98% of taxpayers, and effectively increase taxes by roughly 5,000 dollars on the top 2%.

Not sure about this. Kerry has the most liberal voting record among all senators and has voted to RAISE taxes almost everytime.

Eric · Mar 29, 2004

Drew:
"John Kerry has put forth an economic plan modelled after the Robert Rubin fiscal plan of the Clinton years, which has factually proven itself."

Did it?? Try comparing the first Clinton term with the first GW term and things don't look so good for Clintonia. The economy was already coming back under Bush 1 when Clinton took over. As Clinton was leaving office, the economy was going Into a recession. Then we had 9-11 which was a body blow to the economy. Frankly, I think Bush had a tougher job with the economy then Clinton did, and has done more to rectify things then Clinton did. Go to your library and get the Oct 7th 1996 copy of Forbes out of the stacks. The headline is: "It's a Weak recovery WHY?" on the front cover with a graph showing how punk it was compared to the Kennedy, Reagan, and even the Carter recoveries.

sbc350gearhead · Mar 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
John Kerry has put forth an economic plan modelled after the Robert Rubin fiscal plan of the Clinton years, which has factually proven itself. Lower taxes even more than Bush on the bottom 98% of taxpayers, and effectively increase taxes by roughly 5,000 dollars on the top 2%.

100,000,000 taxpayers in america. Top 2% x 5000 dollars = 10,000,000,000 dollars. Which means the govt can lower taxes 102 dollars a year for the remaining 98% of taxpayers, and break even.

Can someone explain to me, how this is going to shift the economy into overdrive?

ALS · Mar 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Scooby:
Ok...you have democrats, republicans, and those that just don't care.

Bottom line...people think their candidate is the best, while the other is a "flip-flopper", Liar, etc.

Why does everyone not accept the fact that everyone won't agree here and it will cause arguments.

Instead of prancing around typing what you think is right, and eventually getting into a pi$$ing contest. Just leave it????

Like my last sentence says I'm tired of the double standard. They post the talking points of the DNC and Move-on.org and I'm coming after their lies. I'm sick and tired of the hate speech from the left and I will come after them. If you show John Kerry's Voting record it is HATE speech and negative campaigning. Well Excuse me!! If you ask them why they want to vote for John Kerry they can't give you three Honest reasons. Only that they hate George Bush. Well excuse me for pi$$ing on their parade. I not letting them get away with their out right lying. If you have a honest beef with Bush I may agree with you.
If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage you will hear them criticize Bush for bone head maneuvers as well as point out the lies from the left. But if you watch any of the liberal networks you will never see an unflattering story on John Kerry or any Democrat. Kerry fell down five times while skiing ever see a picture. If it was George Bush all five falls would have made the news. What's funny is the kids today are becoming conservative with all the liberal PC garbage that the schools are shoving down their throats.

But don't out and out make up lies and hate speech so you feel better. It's posts like tec97 is why every major liberal network ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are losing viewers as well as every major liberal newspaper is losing readers. Hate speech only goes so far before people are turned off. That is why a liberal talk network will never make it. They want to make everyone as miserable as they are. American's are an optimistic people on average. Talking down the country only goes so far before they turn on you. Ask the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (liberal leaning) why they had to go to the Union for concession's? If the Union had not given in the paper would have folded this year. Losing circulation and have been for the last 10 years. Then ask the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (conservative paper) why their circulation is growing at double digits.
Two weeks ago the Post Gazette was calling all the White people that fled the high taxes of the city for lower taxes in the suburbs as racists. It wasn't fair they left the black people with all the cities bills. It's garbage like that is tuning people on the paper. The story the day before was how 55 out of 130 communities in the county were seeing property values drop due to the high taxes. And the morons at the Post Gazette are calling for more taxes on the residents to cover the cities and counties wasteful spending. DUH. Don't they read their own paper. Oh I forgot they don't live in the city, they all live in the suburbs. Elitist to the end. Just like John.

wulimaster · Mar 29, 2004

I think you are all beating different sides of the same animal. None of you seems to notice that it is being led.

Pablo · Mar 29, 2004

This is kinda fun, see my inserts...

quote:

* Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

He never said he was against it, he was against the highly political union support form. The form the D's were pushing through was very lopsided with THEIR special interests getting a big boost...

* Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Didn't know he was against something he created, but ok.

* Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

OK, we know who did it, the commission haggled a bunch, one guy has sold a bunch of books because of it, the D's use it against Bush every chance they can. Dang, he should have stayed against it.

* Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

OK he caved.

* Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

9/11 changed us all.

* Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

He stupid for this one.

* Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Don't ever give in to the unions is the motto here.

* Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Like every President since....Nixon.

* Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

I fail to see the waffling here. States can decide now, nothing wrong with an appropriate constitutional amendment.

* Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Simply not true.

* Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

This one is pure hogwash. Check your "facts"

* Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

OF course he cares, it was a flippant remark. Geez.

* Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Secret? The environmental paranoia about Bush is one of the biggest hypes out there.

* Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Again, not true.

* Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Nothing inconsistent about this. He said he wouldn't negotiate on their terms, so far we haven't.

* Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Dang that was awhile back, man you are digging.

* Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

The same UN that wasted time on drafting a resolution on condemning Israel for putting a know child killer to death. The UN is pointless, now, Bush shouldn't have wasted his time with them.

* Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Don't know about this. Man you have a deep hatred.

* Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. But after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

Caved to Mr. Fox. Bummer.

Dude, I'm not sure why I wasted time on this, but there you go. You proved the President is a politician. I'm sure you can find one or two on Kerry, but why bother?

tec97 · Mar 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
Dude, I'm not sure why I wasted time on this, but there you go. You proved the President is a politician. I'm sure you can find one or two on Kerry, but why bother?

Because according to the right, Kerry is a flip-flopper w/ no position on anything while Dubya is the paragon of moral virtue in standing for what he believes... Duh!

BTW, thank you for at least attempting to address the point of the post as opposed to spouting drivel about how evil Democrats are, how bad Clinton was, and how oppressed Republicans are.

carrera79 · Mar 30, 2004

So, this is what the big hubub is about politics on the board. Tec97, I completely disagree with your politics, but I'm not going to bash you. I think that some people here have. I also think that your original post was somewhat inflamatory and therefore was asking for the semi-flames that you've recieved.
For my opinions... I'm not a fan of GWB at all. On the other hand I cannot with any clear conscience vote for John Kerry. "I voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it" He voted for it with his amendment asking to raise taxes to obtain the money. When his amendment was shot down he voted nay. The interesting point is that on "Face the Nation" he stated that no matter what happened to his amendment he would vote for the bill becaue it would be no less than deserting the troops to vote against it.
I'm not against Kerry becasue I think that he's a ******* or a liar. Nor do I feel that he's any less honerable than GWB. I simply disagree with him a lot more than I do with GWB.

The power should be in the hands of the individual. Government should be kept to a minimum. It is an organization that produces nothing and wastes much. Finally, economic freedom is necessary for any freedom. The so-called rich are those who make things happen. I'm definitely not one of them, but I sure as **** am trying my best to get there, and I don't want any help from the government to do it.

tec97 · Mar 30, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
The power should be in the hands of the individual. Government should be kept to a minimum. It is an organization that produces nothing and wastes much. Finally, economic freedom is necessary for any freedom. The so-called rich are those who make things happen. I'm definitely not one of them, but I sure as **** am trying my best to get there, and I don't want any help from the government to do it.

Well, to an extent I agree w/ you. I think government should stay out of people's homes, their bedrooms, out of whatever god/gods they choose to worship or not to worship, and especially out of women's uterus's...

needtoknow · Mar 30, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
The power should be in the hands of the individual. Government should be kept to a minimum. It is an organization that produces nothing and wastes much. Finally, economic freedom is necessary for any freedom. The so-called rich are those who make things happen. I'm definitely not one of them, but I sure as **** am trying my best to get there, and I don't want any help from the government to do it. [/QB]

Not to take this off topic too far, but since you brought it up C79, see the Heritage Foundation discussion papers below. You would seem to get to be rich faster if you jumped on the corporate subsidy chuckwagon that many conservatives here lambaste liberals for. I don't necessarily disagree with all corporate subsidies but I also don't think the constant anti-lib posts here look at the entire picture. Bush seems to think that the role of government is to help those most capable of helping themselves. I also know that a lot of these subsidies are from both sides of the house.

Both (1) and (2) are from Heritage Foundation web site. http://www.heritage.org/

(1)How Farm Subsidies Became America's Largest Corporate Welfare Program
by Brian Riedl
Backgrounder #1520
I did not want to post whole article so you can go to web site if you want.

(2)The Other Welfare Reform
February 4, 2003

The 1996 welfare reforms comprised the boldest social policy reform over the last 60 years. Millions of people moved off the government dole and achieved self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, those reforms excluded a rather large segment of society that still considers itself too vulnerable to survive on its own, and stubbornly resists subjecting itself to sink-or-swim capitalism: Corporations.
Corporate welfare?defined as direct payments, low-cost loans or insurance, subsidized services to private businesses?costs taxpayers over $90 billion per year. That means the average household pays $850 in taxes each year to special interests that neither need nor deserve the help.
The federal government?s top two priorities are fully funding national security, and reducing the high tax burden that is currently weighing down the economy. Addressing those priorities without expanding the budget deficit requires eliminating unnecessary and wasteful spending elsewhere. It requires eliminating corporate welfare.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) represents a typical corporate welfare program. Back in the late 1980s, America had a brief fixation with the Japanese economic ?miracle.? Believing that Japan?s system of government subsidies and protections to preferred businesses was the Next Big Thing, America created ATP to fund private research projects and bring them to the market.
Japan?s economy has since drifted into stagnation, and so has ATP. Costing $2.5 billion since its inception, the program is a classic government boondoggle. A recent audit showed the program doesn?t keep records identifying why grant applicants get selected or rejected. Program officials also apparently lack knowledge of the fields they provide grants to: They recently gave a $1.2 million grant for initial research into computer recognition of cursive handwriting, even though the technology had already been developed, patented and marketed years ago. Anyone who owns a credit card or regularly signs for packages likely has been signing these small electric screens for years.
ATP?s largest problem is that it pays businesses to perform activities they would naturally do anyway. Bribing corporations to research and develop profitable new technologies is about as necessary as bribing athletes to try and win games. Consequently, these federal research grants do not create new projects. They merely subsidize existing ones. Better to leave corporate research funding to the stockholders?at least they?ll get a share of the profits.
It?s not exactly the small, capital-starved companies that receive ATP grants, either. IBM, with $8 billion in annual net income and $89 billion worth of assets, could fund its own research even without the $111 million of ATP funds it has received. Similarly, companies such as General Motors ($82 million in grants), General Electric ($75 million) and Sun Microsystems ($50 million) should not receive additional taxpayer dollars.
Although the Advanced Technology Program fits almost all definitions of corporate welfare, fewer people would think to include farm subsidies in that group. Most Americans maintain the Rockwellian stereotype of farm subsidies aiding small, struggling family farmers at the mercy of unpredictable weather. But Farmer Jones has been bought out by Agribusiness, Inc. Thus, farm subsidies have evolved into America?s most expensive corporate welfare program, peaking at $30 billion in 2000.
Since 1996, Fortune 500 companies such as Westvaco, Chevron and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance have received as much as 68 times the amount of farm subsidy dollars the median farmer receives. Tyler Farms of Arkansas has received $31.9 million since 1996?more than 7,000 times more than the median farmer. Overall, nearly three-fourths of federal farm subsidies are granted to just 10 percent of subsidy recipients. The bottom 80 percent of recipients combined for less than one-sixth of all farm subsidies.
The $90 billion freed up by ending corporate could be put to much better use. It could fully fund a war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, dramatically beef up other defense and homeland security needs, or reduce taxes by $850 per household.
Besides, if there ever was a time for politicians to get rid of corporate welfare, it?s now. Recent corporate accounting scandals have provided a political environment that?s safe enough for even the most timid politician to finally end this wasteful spending. Corporations should be assured that leaving the government dole isn?t so bad. Just ask the 3 million families who?ve already done it.
Brian M. Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary issues at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.

carrera79 · Mar 31, 2004

needtoknow, I agree with you completely. Unfortunately I am voting against someone instead of for someone in the next presidential election. that is no place to be in.
Tec97-I agree with that, but the left is just as
guilty a number of items. I'm not religious, but I really believe that there is some serious anti-christian and especially some anti-semetic individuals who attach themselves to the left. Being anti religion is be no means a good thing. The idea is to allow for all. Nor should you ever try to remove religion from people's though processes, as it is part of who they are. As for as the womb thing... Well you're really missing me there. I hate to get into abortion on here, but it only come down to one thing. When is the unborn child a life. Give me that definition. Not to insult any women here, but your right to choose is absolutely meaningless to me if you're talking about another human life. Give me concensus on that then you can argue whether or not abortion should be legal. To think that this has anything at all to do with womens' rights is completely wrong.

tec97 · Mar 31, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
When is the unborn child a life. Give me that definition.

Honestly, I'm not sure. At 9 mos minus 1 day, it definitely is a human life; at conception it definitely isn't. I cannot tell you the exact moment at which the switch occurs - my gut says it is whenever the fetus reaches such a point that it isn't dependant on a particular human (the mother) for survival - or around 4-5 months.

Maybe at some point, medical science will advance to the point of being able to extract a fertilized egg from a woman and grow it in an artificial womb - at that point, I'll support you in banning abortion under the condition that SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE MOTHER (government/churches/etc) pay for this service. Then the child can be put up for adoption.

carrera79 · Apr 1, 2004

Tec97-thanks for that post. I need to clarify myself. I am not anti-abortion, but I am anti-murder. Before it is considered a life I have no problems with abortions. I'm taking a position that's going to get me in trouble with both sides. Honestly, what really gets my goat is the posturing of groups like NOW with their "woman's choice" argument especially in regards to late term abortion (I have no issues with abortion in the case of medical emergency). That is completely callous and flys in the face of civilized people. IMHO.
This is such an ubelievably difficult issue.

That flip-flopping &^$%#$@!!!!!

Similar threads