A thread about an actual campaign issue!

Kbob

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,897
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I'll pick Social Security. It seems to me that Bush is trying to address the coming crisis in Social Security. Specifically that the pay outs to retirees are exceeding the incoming funds and if left unchecked will bankrupt Social Security. This is a fact that basically all economists agree on. He wants to allow another form of retirement account that an individual can pay into for retirement. I'm not sure of the specifics on that one, but I do know that Kerry is opposed to it. Of course there is talk about reducing SS benefits and raising the retirement age. Anything to do with Social Security is going to require some tough choices any way you look at it. And someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Kerry is opposed to any messing with Social Security. He's actually using it against Bush to senior citizens. Shouldn't we be trying to avert a catastrophe instead of sweeping it under the rug?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that sums up the real issues we've discussed to date.......... :)
 
Joeychgo said:
Well, that sums up the real issues we've discussed to date.......... :)

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a joke LOL! I hit enter after entering the title and poof!
 
Kerry has covered it a few times but just to counter bush with a "I dont agree with bushs' policy argument" That is why the national debate is going to speak a lot better than the candidates themselves. It seems sometimes, kerry is waiting for his team to come up with his answer before he says it. I believe he does have a plan, but is a bit reserved with, but that is neither here nor there, just speculation. Anyway, bush is always a strong leader and that is his strong point, but this is where it works against him. All of his policies are all or none. In the social security argument he seems to pick one side to get screwed, either families depending on social security, that are recieving now, or the to be retired crowd. There is no middle ground on his policy. There are a lot of politicians that ignore the social security issue because it will be damaging to any recipient involved. It is going to be a very complicated fix and one which many people are going to disagree with no matter what the fix is.

I think they might be more interested in making the soc system more efficient. Reduce waste for people that do not use it as intended. Because when it comes down to it, the baby boomers are gonna be pissed when the have to work longer, or dont have any money, and so are they people that live off of it monthly when they cant pay rent. (that is an even longer story and what i was referring to when i said "efficiency".)

Beyond that, bush has plenty of ideas on social security because it is convenient to speak about it because the dems. use his neglect of the issues as a slandering tool. I have not heard bush speak about anything that will improve the nation yet. I believe he is doing it becuase it is the fad to do that just before the election, so that alone will drop his viewpoint in my book. I dont take his word seriously, unless it is in the same sentince as "war on terrorism". Dont get me wrong im not saying that kerry is an angel here, but I believe he is already a step above on credibility before either candidate even opens their mouth.
 
I agree that Social Security is a nasty political issue that can be very damaging. Your comment about Bush having no middle ground, that one side or the other is going to get screwed is interesting. Maybe he know's that you can't please everyone and he's picking one side or the other so that everyone won't hate him? I don't know, but that's a possibility. But I liked what Newt Gingrich said tonight when asked if it was a good or bad idea for the Republicans to have their convention in NYC. He said that to not come would have been criticized as well. He said something like that's the nature of the beast when you're in politics, you're going to be criticized no matter what. So just make a decision and do it. That may have been a subtle jab at Kerry, but it didn't seem to be in context. Maybe the Kerry camp will have a more detailed Social Security stance by the debates.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I was beginning to hear crickets. Anybody else got a campaign issue you'd like to discuss?
 
Pepsi2185 said:
It seems sometimes, kerry is waiting for his team to come up with his answer before he says it. I believe he does have a plan, but is a bit reserved with, but that is neither here nor there, just speculation.
Pepsi, I truly appreciate your participation in this forum. It helps to see viewpoints from all directions but I have to take exception here with your support of Mr. Kerry.

I have not been able to decifer anything that Kerry proposes to make this country a better place ecomincally for all and a safer place in the world.

I have never seen a candidate in my life run an issue orientated campaign without outlining any issues. Kerry's campaign to me seems to be of Vote for me now, Trust me later.

I just can't accept that out of a President.
 
MonsterMark said:
Pepsi, I truly appreciate your participation in this forum. It helps to see viewpoints from all directions but I have to take exception here with your support of Mr. Kerry.

I have not been able to decifer anything that Kerry proposes to make this country a better place ecomincally for all and a safer place in the world.

I have never seen a candidate in my life run an issue orientated campaign without outlining any issues. Kerry's campaign to me seems to be of Vote for me now, Trust me later.

I just can't accept that out of a President.

What i wrote kinda came out wrong. What was i was going for was: When kerry does get asked questions about running the country, it seems he avoids the answer, takes a shot at bush and then reconvenes with his (what did kbob call it, LOL) dem camp.

I have my reservations over kerry too. But Bush already has negative points with me, because he has already had a chance to prove what kind of a leader he is (I am unimpressed) and kerry has not yet had that chance, so its kind of a bit of a gamble. But to be honest with you all, is this not the greatest nation on earth. Best of the best of the best. Wouldnt you think that the choices for the leader of the greatest nation on earth would be at least a little bit better than mr. triggerfinger and John "change my mind more than a woman" kerry.

The motorcade came by here today. Boy is that a sight. But do you guys remember when the motorcade was less security and more a parade? Strange times we live in.

Okay, enough of the pondering material . . . . .

Lets get those stragglers in here for some input, eh guys????? I see you staring at that reply button, click it and tell us what you think!!!!!!

Two possible topics: 700 club sucks, and PBS rocks
(700 club is christian news, pbs is public broadcasting)
Oh and fox kinda sucks too.

What is the deal with the education system!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In florida teachers make 6.50 an hour, and in mich they make like 40-50 grand a year. Kids can tell the teachers to F'off and teachers have no recourse.

This is one of my favorite stops of the day, thank you for the educated conversation, trust me around the airport of Detroit metro there are not taht many people to have stimulating conversation with.
 
Sounds like another with the "Anyone But Bush' voting block.

I'll be totally honest. Kerry doesnt excite me. He just doesnt scare me as much as Bush.

IMO -Bush has made the US resented and hated in many parts of the world. His policies have started the decline of the UN, a very important body IMO. The war in Iraq, really, IMO was for reasons we'll never know for certain. Not WMD or Liberating or UN violations or anything else. Those were merely justifications IMO. Personally, I think it was to avenge the assigination attempt on his father 10 years ago, and to distract from the failing economy, while at the same time being able to give no bid contracts to haliburton and lets not forget, giving him the chance to stand on that Aircraft Carrier and look tough while accomplishing little. Down the road, I think the Iraq war will have upsides in the region, and long term might be able to help bring stability in the region, but there was no immediate need.

While terrorism is certainly an important issue, so is health care, education, the economy and many other issues. I dont feel as though he has done much in any of these areas. And while his tax cut may be debated, its my belief that he simpy enriched his buddies and really has done little for the economy. I know many people that are unemployed, or underemployed. With my Mom I experienced first hand how screwed up healthcare is. (and she HAD insurance)

I kinda figure Kerry cant do worse...... But GW as a lame duck, could make an even bigger mess in his second term.
 
I was really hoping this thread would be more of a discussion of new ideas or topics for us and not just a rehash of what has been mentioned a thousand times from both sides. Bryan, we know what you think about Kerry. Tell us some specifics about Bush please. And Joey, same for you. You've got the anti-Bush message down pretty good as well, how about talking about some specifics about Kerry please.

Social Security is probably not a good topic since that is really something that needs to be done in a bi-partisan fashion due to the fallout any side would get in tampering with Social Security.
 
Ok, how do the Bush supports feel about Halliburton and Carlyle?? Seems that its a conflict on interest to me from the start. Then to award no bid contracts? Sure they may have even been the best choice, but to give them the contract without even bidding.... They didnt have to worry about being under cut, im sure it means more cash for them, more we have to pay.
 
I can understand choosing Halliburton in the beginning, when there really wasnt time to hold bids........... but after all this time, considering their missteps, I cant see why the contracts havent been put up for bid.
 
Punisher said:
Ok, how do the Bush supports feel about Halliburton and Carlyle?? Seems that its a conflict on interest to me from the start. Then to award no bid contracts? Sure they may have even been the best choice, but to give them the contract without even bidding.... They didnt have to worry about being under cut, im sure it means more cash for them, more we have to pay.

So much for issues. I guess bashing Bush is all you're about. I pity such a bitter person that has nothing to contribute other than "anyone but Bush." I guess there's nothing Kerry supports specifically that you would like to promote?
 
Kbob said:
So much for issues. I guess bashing Bush is all you're about. I pity such a bitter person that has nothing to contribute other than "anyone but Bush." I guess there's nothing Kerry supports specifically that you would like to promote?

I guess thats one way to avoid the question. But your right its not really a issue that involves both canidates, I was thinking of putting in a different thread but figured it didnt matter.

I pitty you, for your such a bitter person and your blind support of Bush. You obviously have nothing specific you would like to promote. WOW I can say it too. We are really getting somewere with this huh?

I just wish you could make a point without trying to bash the other person. Why not comment? Oh its easier to just bash someone, I see.
 
:D
Punisher said:
I guess thats one way to avoid the question. But your right its not really a issue that involves both canidates, I was thinking of putting in a different thread but figured it didnt matter.

I pitty you, for your such a bitter person and your blind support of Bush. You obviously have nothing specific you would like to promote. WOW I can say it too. We are really getting somewere with this huh?

I just wish you could make a point without trying to bash the other person. Why not comment? Oh its easier to just bash someone, I see.

Gee, that's a good one! Just admit that you're a Bush-hater and get it over with. Everyone knows it and you'll feel better about yourself afterwards. :D And good one with another misdirection by digging up an old conspiracy theory. I know I've got your number with the whole "Bush-hater" thing, I'm just sorry you can't see my humor.

This thread was started to promote the issues and where the candidates stand on them, not to pick a fight. So how about we call a truce here?

p.s. I wasn't avoiding the question. I thought you were avoiding Kerry. If you want I can post a link to a site that basically states my stance on the Halliburton conspiracy theory.
 
Joeychgo said:
No personal attacks guys............ remember, we're all friends.
*owned* oooohhhh . . . yes sir . . . :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is an old article.............

Remember the statements where Bush tells the nation he wants new laws to bring criminal charges against dirty-dealing CEOs who fake company books and destroy not only the public's trust but its savings as well.

What happened??? We forget about that? One of my Problems with Bush is that his economics plans are really only to benefit himself and his buddies....



Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
George Bush, Failed Corporate Crook
Nitwit Scion Turns Avenger
July 10 - 16, 2002

In common parlance, what these execs are doing is called fraud, and common knowledge says Bush already has the power to do something about it. Yet again, the president is ducking a tough issue in favor of a PR operation. The problem for Bush is how to seem to be attacking corporate scoundrels while keeping their campaign contributions coming. This is, after all, an election year, and the GOP badly wants to recapture control of the Senate and widen its margin in the House.

If Bush really wanted to address the situation, all he'd have to do is to pick up the phone, call Attorney General John Ashcroft, and ask him to launch an investigation of any one of these CEOs for fraud, conspiracy, theft, obstruction of justice, or perjury. The president could also turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can refer a civil case for criminal prosecution. Bush doesn't need additional legislation to do this. All he has to do is call. He refused to do that in the Enron case, even though his administration knew about the scandal months before the company went public with its bankruptcy. And he hasn't done it with any of the subsequent double-dealings.

Perhaps Bush's inaction stems from his own history of stumbling in the corporate back alleys. Last week, the media revived a case from the early '90s, where it looks like Bush was involved in insider trading with the stock of an oil company of which he was an official. He dumped the shares shortly before the firm tanked, then failed to report his activity to the Securities and Exchange Commission for months. The ensuing investigation, handled by an agency whose director was a Bush appointee and whose general counsel was Bush the younger's own former attorney, was dropped.

Though Bush has shown he can play the game, too, he's not quite ready for the majors. The big difference between him and a guy like Kenneth Lay is that Lay at least was successful. Before he left the world of commerce for a life in politics, Bush lost money time and again. "It was dreadful," one investor told The Wall Street Journal. "I think we got [back] maybe 20 cents on the dollar," said another.

The hapless Shrub took shelter under his family tree. Nowhere is this blue-blood network more evident than in the feeble activities of the president before he became governor of Texas. Consider this chronology, put together largely from research done by the Center for Public Integrity in Washington for its book The Buying of the President 2000.

• 1979-83: Fifty Bush family investors and friends, led by uncle Jonathan, a New York Republican Party official and an investment manager, fork over $4.7 million to set up young Bush in a company called Arbusto. It's a flop, and in 1982 gets a new name: Bush Exploration.

• 1984: Spectrum 7 Corporation, an Ohio oil exploration outfit owned by Dubya's Yalie pal William DeWitt Jr., buys out Bush Exploration, setting up young Bush as CEO at $75,000 a year and giving him 1.1 million shares of the firm's stock. Another flop. The company's fortunes soon sink, with $400,000 in losses and a debt of $3 million.

• 1986: In the nick of time, Bush and partners merge the failing Spectrum with Harken Oil, a Dallas exploration company, with a $2 million stock purchase. Bush puts up about $500,000 and gets a $120,000 annual consulting fee along with $131,250 in stock options. Harken is a small outfit, looking for oil opportunities within the U.S. Then out of the blue comes Harvard Management Corporation, an investment adviser for Harvard University's endowment portfolio. It pumps millions into the venture.

• 1990: Although Harken has no international expertise, it gets the attention of the Bahrain National Oil Company, which unexpectedly appears on the scene and bypasses big oil's Amoco and Chevron to sign a production agreement with the little Texas concern. The contract grants Harken exclusive rights to what seems to be a promising offshore area squeezed between two productive tracts owned by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Wall Street Journal speculates Bahrain was trying to cozy up to Daddy Bush, who was plotting an assault on Iraq after Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.

Bass Enterprises Production Company finances the Bahrain drilling with $25 million, and Harvard Management raises its investment. A couple of members of the Fort Worth Bass family have places on Team 100, an elite business group contributing to the Republican National Committee.

In June, Harken drills two dry holes in Bahrain. The future looks bleak. Dubya dumps two-thirds of his Harken holdings (212,140 shares), for $848,560. He uses some of this money to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball club. This is a lot of stock to dump on the market all at once, and brokers say it was purchased by an unnamed institutional investor.

That August, Harken posts a loss of $23 million.

• January 1991: Daddy Bush attacks Iraq.

• February 1991: Dubya, as the official in charge at Harken, reports his big stock sale to the SEC—eight months late.

• April 1991: The SEC begins an investigation into Harken dealings. Chairman Richard Breeden, who had been appointed by the senior Bush and served him as an economic policy adviser, hails from Baker & Botts, a big Texas oil law firm where he was a partner. Inside the SEC, James Doty, general counsel and the official in charge of any litigation that might come out of the Harken investigation, is another alumnus of Baker & Botts. And as a private attorney, before joining the government, Doty represented the younger Bush in matters related to Dubya's ownership of the Rangers.

• 1993: The SEC ends its Harken investigation following perfunctory interviews.

The good people of Baker & Botts continued looking out for Shrub. Since 1993, Breeden, Doty, and other lawyers there have given him $182,050 for his various political campaigns, making the firm one of his biggest supporters.

That's how the network functioned in the Harken affair. Dubya also has historic mentors among his kin. During the Second World War, for example, the government investigated his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his maternal great-grandfather, Bert Walker. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act, officials seized Bush stockholdings, charging that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."

When it comes to business, the contemporary Bush men have been equally good role models for Dubya. Think about it:

• Dubya brother Neil Bush made the news during the late 1980s because he was a director of Silverado Savings & Loan, which went broke and ended up costing taxpayers about $1 billion. In the Silverado case, federal investigators accused Neil of conflicts of interest, but he was never prosecuted. The Resolution Trust Company, set up to bail out bankrupt S&Ls, brought a civil suit against Bush and other Silverado officers. The case was eventually settled for $26.5 million.

• Prescott Bush Jr., a brother of Bush Senior, was reported in 1989 to have arranged investments in two U.S. firms by an alleged front company for the Japanese mob, a task for which he was allegedly paid $500,000. Prescott denied any knowledge of mob involvement.

• In 1991, Jonathan Bush, the Daddy Bush brother who spearheaded the family effort to get Dubya set up in business, was himself fined $30,000 in Massachusetts and several thousand in Connecticut for violating registration laws governing securities sales. He was barred from securities brokerage with the general public in Massachusetts for one year.

• Then there's George W.'s other brother, Jeb, currently standing for re-election as governor of Florida, who defaulted on a $4.5 million S&L loan in 1988, plunging the thrift over the edge. Jeb and his partners paid but 10 percent back.

With his own personal landscape a minefield of weird business dealings, Bush the younger has to watch his step. For him, leaving a few stones unturned might be a wise choice. Thus does he find himself at once making a show of righteous anger and shielding his wealthy friends. "You need to know that by far the vast majority, by far, of corporate America are above-board," he said, "and doing their job just the way you'd expect them to do."


See the article here: The Village Voice
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Social Security in a nut-shell: Something we will not see...

I strongly urge people to NOT plan on receiving Social Security if you are in your 20 to mid 30's

Look into other forms of retirement, and hopefully by the time you do retire, what you get from Social Security will be used to attend the Wednesday Night Senior Movie Outing...
 
No one wanted to talk about 700 club or PBS? No one wanted to talk about education??? Sorry to put us off topic. I didnt mean to repeat the old thread.

What do you guys think about the whole hydrogen as an alternative fuel. I know my position, but what would you think about using a fuel that may be made in the US and finally get the government to stop blaming mass transit vehicles for polution. It would still allow a product and industry to flourish, but with more efficiency and less dependance on foreign trade. Not to mention we may be able to power industry with it and turn around the damage to the environment what do you guys think???? good, bad, why?
 
What I like about both the 700 club and PBS is that you hear things on their programming that you won't hear anywhere else. :)

I have heard somewhere but I don't recall where that a retiree needs at least 3 sources of income to live comfortably. In other words, Social Security, maybe a pension, and investments.

Any alternative energy source that is relatively environmentally friendly, feasible, and makes the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil has my approval.

Oh, and Bush is a crook. :shifty:
 
I like the smiley, it reminds me of the fat pervert that would hang out by the girls locker room in high school, . . . . . . . . . . . . . wow, repressed memories.

Bush is a crook???? Why??
 
Pepsi2185 said:
What do you guys think about the whole hydrogen as an alternative fuel.

Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a processed energy transportation method. Yes, there is plenty of it "available", but not in the form that makes it directly useable w/out requiring alot of energy to create. Same for "fuel cells". Anyone who thinks these are an "alternate energy/fuel source" needs to repeat HS science class. If it takes energy to "create a fuel", it is just false economy.

Solar energy: If it can be transformed cheaply using technology that does not require gobs of energy to create, it would be a great alternate source. Photoelectric solar cells are NOT that technology. The most efficient solar cells will NEVER never regenerate the amount of energy in their lifetimes that it takes to manufacture them. That is just false economy. Probably the best we'll do here is the "solar farms" where acres of mirrors focus sun light to generate steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. Unfortunately, land costs makes this mostly impractical except in the vast western states.

Tree huggers LOVE the electric car. Its clean and the energy source is easy to transport. Unfortunately they are so short-sighted to realize that in order to replace all the energy consumed each day by cars, trucks etc. with electric power vehicles, the electric power distribution grid in this country would have to carry ~ 10x it's current capacity. You think they have brown-out problems in California NOW? Just wait until Arnold dictates that everyone must buy EV-1s and plug them in. Additionally, distribution problems aside, the electricity must still be generated by buring oil, coal, neuclear or hydroelectric. Tree huggers hate buring fossil fuels (dirty), plus that doesn't address our foreign oil dependancy, there are only so many rivers to dam-up in the US (limited supply), only so many acres of land for solar farms (limited supply). That pretty much leaves neuclear power as the only potentialy energy SOURCE that can be expanded to meet our future needs. THAT, IMO, is where we need to be developing technology to make it safe and a clean (a good place to dump the waste).

The reality of our energy situation in the US is that everything revolves around money. While only a limited supply exists, fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) is, and will continue to be for many generations, by far the cheapest energy source when you consider the total cost of extraction to use. Only when it becomes so scarce, and prices escelate (sp?) will we really get serious about finding an alternate fuel source and ways to utilize it.
 
Pepsi2185 said:
Bush is a crook???? Why??

That was just a facetious statement in reply to the old article posted by Joey.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top