GeddyLee

Bad-ass Guitarist
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 24, 2003
325
1
0
42
Visit site
Status
azcomdiddy said:
Rustybruce

I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, I'm a Republican too but even I can't in good faith vote for a President that

1. got 600 U.S. solidiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens killed over oil. Sorry but it's just too big of a coincidence that the U.S. granted Halliburton pipeline rights. Halliburton is the same company that Vice President Dick Chaney ran for several years. Haliburton also gave a generous campaign contribution to Bush.

2. Does nothing to curtail the outsourcing of jobs overseas. This alone is the issue I'm most upset at our current administration for. When an egnineer can't find a job, you can't blame the lack of education on his unemployment.

I could be greedy or responsible. I'm choosing to be responsible by voting for Kerry.
Well, first off, Halliburton has been awarded many contracts by the government, even under the Clinton administration. So I don't see the problem here. Would you give the contract to another company, less capable, and at a higher price to avoid the conspiracy theories? And lets get real for a second, corporations are always going to pour money into government to get favors, under the guise of campaign funding or what-not. It has happened with everyone in a public office, I'd bet. If you're gonna vote for a candidate who is immune to this....good luck, you'll be hard pressed to find one.

The war in Iraq was about Oil? Come on....you know that's not true. The same was said the first time we went to war. So...where was the oil in yugoslavia? somalia? I won't even rebut the statement that "bush ignored terrorism until it hit us in the face" by Gleevec. Prior administrations could certainly be accused of the same thing.

Secondly, how would you curtail outsourcing of jobs overseas? Clinton went a long way toward making that happening with the NAFTA agreement. Furthermore, for all of the foreign policy people out there, it won't go a long way for our international image to ban outsourcing of jobs. Countries depend on this for their economy, just as we depend on outsourcing for our economy. Every corporation in the country wants the same job done cheaper, the same applies to your future job as a doctor. You can count on more and more priveleges given to "cheaper" allied health professionals, along with greater cuts in reimbursement. And believe me, the person you put in office isn't going to make a difference in any of this. Outsourcing jobs and doing anything possible to cut costs is just a fact of life, I don't care who is in office.

And as for all the tax talk....I can't imagine paying more tax into a system that wastes so much of what they already take. Government needs more streamlining, not more money. We don't get much for our tax money, in my opinion. A tax hike to afford a national health care plan? Get real...none of you want that....you'd all still have your private plans because the federal plan would suck.

Do you really want to pay an extra 10% or so in taxes so someone else can have insurance? I'm sorry, maybe I've seen too many end stage alcoholics and 40 year olds with a 40 pack year habit, and too many people get drunk and go ATV'ing at 2AM only to end up in our trauma bay, but I'd rather save my money to invest in my own family, rather than health care for people who could care less about their health. 50% taxation is enough. If the feds need more, trim the fat and re-align the allocation of funds they already recieve.

I just don't see how greed=bush, and responsibility=kerry. I think this is a simplistic analysis of the situation. Certainly Bush voters can name a number of reasons for their choice that go beyond tax savings.
 

(nicedream)

Fitter Happier
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 10, 2004
2,042
1
0
The Sea
Status
GeddyLee said:
Well, first off, Halliburton has been awarded many contracts by the government, even under the Clinton administration. So I don't see the problem here. Would you give the contract to another company, less capable, and at a higher price to avoid the conspiracy theories?
The Halliburton contract was a no-bid contract - they were not the cheapest, they were handed the contract on a silver platter. According to your later arguments regarding cutting of costs being a constant in life, shouldn't the government have seeked out the cheapest deal?


GeddyLee said:
The war in Iraq was about Oil? Come on....you know that's not true. The same was said the first time we went to war. So...where was the oil in yugoslavia? somalia?
We didn't go to war against Yugoslavia and Somalia, we intervened in internal conflicts. Countries don't go to war unless they have personal interests. Did we invade Iraq because of terrorism? Give me a break...

GeddyLee said:
it won't go a long way for our international image to ban outsourcing of jobs. Countries depend on this for their economy, just as we depend on outsourcing for our economy.
You're right - maybe the best foreign relations strategy would be to bomb countries and then send jobs there. :rolleyes:

GeddyLee said:
Outsourcing jobs and doing anything possible to cut costs is just a fact of life, I don't care who is in office.
Ironic, considering the Halliburton deal. Why didn't the government hire a cheaper foreign outfit?

GeddyLee said:
And as for all the tax talk....I can't imagine paying more tax into a system that wastes so much of what they already take. Government needs more streamlining, not more money. We don't get much for our tax money, in my opinion. A tax hike to afford a national health care plan? Get real...none of you want that....you'd all still have your private plans because the federal plan would suck.

Do you really want to pay an extra 10% or so in taxes so someone else can have insurance? I'm sorry, maybe I've seen too many end stage alcoholics and 40 year olds with a 40 pack year habit, and too many people get drunk and go ATV'ing at 2AM only to end up in our trauma bay, but I'd rather save my money to invest in my own family, rather than health care for people who could care less about their health. 50% taxation is enough. If the feds need more, trim the fat and re-align the allocation of funds they already recieve.
National sales tax anyone?
 

Finally M3

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 27, 2002
974
2
241
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
(nicedream) said:
We didn't go to war against Yugoslavia and Somalia, we intervened in internal conflicts. Countries don't go to war unless they have personal interests. Did we invade Iraq because of terrorism? Give me a break...

National sales tax anyone?
Curious, I distinctly remember a bombing campaign that targeted bridges, power plants, radio/tv stations and the like in Yugoslavia. And this was AFTER the EU and the UN sat on their collective as$es and watched tens of thousands die in an ethnic cleansing campaign....another glowing example of how useful those organizations can be. Funny how the Serbs stopped their cleansing FOLLOWING the US' military intervention, huh?

National sales tax, that will really fly. Besides the fact that a sales tax will decrease consumer spending on durable goods (washers, dryers, cars) and thus obliterate a burgeoning economic recovery, sales taxes most directly impact people who can afford it the least. As a future physician with a future physician significant other, I can live with a 1% tax on my brand new BMW. However, a single-income family of four would less likely be able to tolerate a 1% increase on their monthly food bill when they are struggling to meet the copay on their health insurance, morgage, etc.

Flat tax would be great. Would never happen, though, because we would put all the accountants out of business. :laugh:
 

(nicedream)

Fitter Happier
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 10, 2004
2,042
1
0
The Sea
Status
Finally M3 said:
National sales tax, that will really fly. Besides the fact that a sales tax will decrease consumer spending on durable goods (washers, dryers, cars) and thus obliterate a burgeoning economic recovery, sales taxes most directly impact people who can afford it the least. As a future physician with a future physician significant other, I can live with a 1% tax on my brand new BMW. However, a single-income family of four would less likely be able to tolerate a 1% increase on their monthly food bill when they are struggling to meet the copay on their health insurance, morgage, etc.
Don't you think that low-income people would wind up paying the same taxes they do now, maybe less, because they spend much less money than a well-heeled person? Food isn't taxed by the way. The tax money a national sales tax would yield from the illegal trades alone is mammoth. Needless to say those high up in the drug business, for instance, aren't paying taxes on the income used to buy their mercedes and mansions.
 

Seaglass

Quantum Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2003
1,614
6
251
40
Winston Salem, NC
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
Flat tax would be great.
If you're against a national sales tax because it's a regressive tax, how can you be for a flat tax? That same low income family can much less tolerate a 10% tax than me when I'm earning 100k+.

C