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.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.
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.