WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-01 16:21:13 +0000

(Warning: Does contain WH2004 content.) Bush has increased big government oversight of our lives, and increased big government spending more than any other president in the last 20 years.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-01 21:01:23 +0000

I probably should have left the phrase ' big government' out of my initial post as we dont appear to be arguing (excuse me: discussing) my central point is that the anti-gay legislation that a stereotypical gun-lovin no-separation between church and state good ole boy republican wont ultimately hold a lot of water in congress. To expound on why I would choose Bush over Kerry again, and ot re-bring up Healthcare: I am 100% against corporate welfare, steel tarriffs, farm subsidies etc. As for the rest of the deficit that has created the"big government" that Terry is pointing out, we ARE fighting a war on Terrorism and Wars cost money. I, as an individual, agree with the mindset we need to take an across-the-board approach to Terrorism as opposed to a narrow ands single so calles "focused" approach. Good Ol Osama may be #1 on our list, but focusing on that and that alone wont ultimately make us safer IMHO. People around the globe that are encouraged by using terrorist tactics and/or use oppressive totalitarian gov't to get their way need to know that the US wont sit around and wait to negotiate with them. We tried that and got planes flown into our buildings. It's definitely a gamble to continue w/ Bush. Aside from national security, My main thing is maintaining tax deferred savings accounts (towards reducing taxavble income spent on dependent care. secondary education and medical expenses), overhauling Medicare towards more privitization (I'll risk higher drug costs through good Research and Development @ Pfizer / glaxo Wellcom / whatever... It might be expensive, but we are REWARDING the time and energy scientists and doctors spend on pushing medicine further. Will it be the same under a system of more government regulation? Maybe if Kerry is a trailblazer who does things differently from the avg democrat, but past stabs (Hillary care for example) show otherwise. In the future, along with using my mind tio make money, I intend to try to save money so I can make my money work for me as opposed to earning money just by back breaking or mind numbing repetitive labor. A country that rewards those who put in effort for hard work and wise investments is where I want to be, and I feel my family can grow more with a conservative philosophy of gov't that sticks closely to the constitution. News for you here: affordable HC is an oxymoron. Kerry's HC plan, as far as I can tell, will still cost people plenty.. (if anyone has specifics that refute this please share this) Cheap Health Care sounds a lot like "Sensitive War" to my ears...

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-04 13:55:39 +0000

If you ignore the cost of the Iraqi invasion and occupation, plus related costs of the war on terror, the Bush Administration has overseen greater increases in discretionary, domestic spending than the Clinton Administration. Additionally, the payroll of the federal government as a percentage of overall personal income has gone up, after seeing declines under the Clinton administration.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-04 14:07:11 +0000

I've been reading the 9/11 Commision Report. Your "negotiation" swipe is not fair, given that the U.S. government intelligence agencies were not sharing information they knew about Islamic terrorists. What would the negotiations entail, anyway? "OK, Usama, we'll shut down Hollywood and staunch the flow of libertine cultural hegemony that is threatening to destroy your culture in exchange for you not hating us." I agree completely that negotiations aren't going to work against the threat posed by Islamic fundementalism bent on destroying Western civilization. However, failed negotiations isn't why 9/11 happened. If there were no negotiations, or proper understanding of the threat, how could they fail?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-04 14:26:08 +0000

I thought rladew was making the pro-con sheet for Kerry and Bush. Now we get, "Just cause I wont vote for Kerry doesn't make Bush 'correct.'" Where did we fail to convince rladew that Kerry is the better man? I even did the pro Bush thread, and there was nothing anyone else put on it; only tgl's counterpoints. It seems that almost every post you had from fiscal policy to terrorism was argued convincingly that Kerry lines up better with your political views. I've said it before: voting different just to be different doesn't work in politics. What gives rladew?

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-04 15:09:50 +0000

I'm with Rich on the profit motive being a powerful insentive for companies to innovate. However, I'm suspecting that Big Pharma is increasing budgets for lobbying and advertising at the expense of R&D. A claim on my part, that I can't back up at the moment. The Prescription Drug Benefit that just passed is a prime reason why I can't see the Bushies trying to hold the line on health care costs. P.J. O'Rourke pointed out that the Benefit plan would have a lower cost if we just gave everyone on Medicare $600 a year to spend on drugs (the ave. Medicate recipient spends $900/year). Now, we're stuck with a plan that could cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. It's clearly a new entitlement program. Instead of fostering competition by making it easier for people to buy drugs in Canada (you know, that whole, let the marketplace decide thing), we've created more corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not trying to argue here that Kerry has conservative values. I'd like some recognition that Bush's policies are clearly not conservative (which I think rladew concedes). One of the ways to ensure a bit more moderation in budgets and new entitlement programs is if the party in the White House is not the same party in control of Congress. Concerning Kerry's health care plan, I'm still waiting on hearing ways in which it supports mediocrity in the health care industry.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-04 19:33:55 +0000

Thank God people get to vote the way they want to as opposed to they way you guys seem to be telling me to vote: I'm not voting Bush to be different. Even if someone was leaning towards Kerry but played devil's advocate against Kerry (which Ive done several times on this site and also seen others do), I get the feeling that you're automatically discredited for your different viewpoint "What? You're not voting for Kerry? You're not listening to the facts!" I'm saying despite the big deficit right now, despite our conflict in Iraq and economic situation domestically, I believe in the long run these problems won't be solved as well by adding more governmental bueracracies and controls. Bush in my opinion, and i've said this before somewhere else on this board, Bush's mess IMHO will be easier to clean up at the end of 4 more years than Kerry's will be. This race to me anymore isnt about who will fix our current problems, but who will blunder things up more than they are already. I guess this is my libertarian streak, but I view almost all types of Government as bad. I fundamentally don't trust the government. I certainly dont think Im promoting anarchy, but I think Bush's move to privatize some things like Health Care makes sense (if you are encouraged and rewarded to solve and fund your own problems, there will be less incentive, less taxes paid out, more streamlineed gov't administration so that people wont have toand to me that is a more important issue than a social issue that wont have a big chance against the constitution such as same sex marriage (Which BTW was also shot down by the Senate after my first post noted the House shot it down) or women's rights. As far as the environment, and Iraq, these are messy situations, but I'm not convinced Kerry id the person to fix these things. It's nice to have other countries agree with you, but you shouldn't necessarily pander to them if they don't. To elaborate on pandering to other countries who aren't necessarily helping us out right now, I have some specifics which I "Borrowed" / stole / whatever from today's WSJ. During the debates, Kerry referenced UN style alliances / summits/ etc SEVERAL (more than 10 times in the approx 40 minute time span) showing, at least to me, that he highly values this. Wasn't the UN established to protect a country's territory such as helping Poland by keeping Germany from invading? What about situations of horrendous genocide within a country's borders? Where is the UN when you are talking about Nigeria, former yugoslovia when Milosovic was runnig around wild, or even Iraq when Hussein was doing shit like murdering hundreds and thousands of Kurds and Shiites? sometimes, when you know you must do something, you might not get your friends approval, but does that mean you shouldn't go and do it? The old adage whats popular isnt always right etc etc etc. comes to mind... Good ol' 4 letter word Crossword staple KOFI Annan and company went running out of Iraq when it got ugly and violent, and I'm not necessarily advocating staying in harm's way on purpose to get yrself killed, but could it not be argued when Iraq becomes "safer"and the UN returns that they really wont be needed all that much anyway? BTW Dawn: I didn't know I had a deadline for my pro-con sheet! I usually finish them a few days before elections.... With all due respect, Posting to this site is done for fun not to answer to a professor for a term paper :)

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-04 20:33:35 +0000

Terry, I will certainly concede on this point that I dont have specifics. This is more of an idea I have in my head- I haven't seen any studies or pundits arguing for / against this idea. Health Care and Mediocrity is my theory of more socialism being introduced to American health care: In terms of knowledge, experience and innovation, which nation's medical program is most prestigous? Is there any argument for Canada (or any other nation besides America for that matter? - there could very well be - if there is I'm ignorant of it - so feel free to enlighten me....) I see it this way: We CAN guarantee every person in America some level / standard of care / but what will that standard of care be? If there is more of a standardized system out of the hands of privitization, how will the government attract top doctors and scientists ? I know capitalism will reward those who are most productive and innovative. Will socialized medicine? I don't know, but my gut (which again I have no proof of - sorry) tells me if we socialize healthcare, there will be at least an attempt to standardize and/or streamline all healthcare in America to one system. While this sounds attractive in theory, what about different individuals who need different levels of care? Will the Doctors, Scientists and Researchers that are mavericks / trailblazers be as rewarded? will they be rewarded at all? (Maybe if they deviate from the system they would be frowned on) What if under this socialized system you appreciate and are willing to pay for health care extras but cant get specialized services due to bueracracies? Kerry talks about Seniors going to Canada b/c they cant afford prescriptions. I do agree with Terry that there is a lot of corporate welfare that I personally hate, but when I see Kerry talking about this, the message I hear is: Dont trust the drug companies, dont trust these doctors organizations - put your trust in the government. Ultimately, I don't know if Bush's corporate welfare and otheer issues I disagree with will make less of a mess than Kerry. When Bush claims an ownership society, it is a 2 way street where you get to own all the messed up crap in America as well as cool self reliant things as tax free savings account. At the end of the day , I would rather go for the system that at least pretends to foster individual responsibility. Government isn't supposed to solve all of your problems.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-04 20:45:56 +0000

Other than to illustrate a point about voicing one's opinion, I don't think I've ever said "YOU MUST VOTE KERRY." If you're taking my examples of the many ways in which Bush is for big government and for more bureaucracy to solve problems (he did create the Dept. of Homeland Security), as an indication of why a self described conservative voter should have pause to vote Bush... Well, yeah, that's what I'm intending. If someone is concerned with these issues, I'm interested in knowing how that person jives the goals of conservatism with the facts of the first Bush 43 term. You _think_ that a Kerry Adminstration would add more bureaucracy and controls. We _know_ that a Bush Administration has already done so. That's all I'm saying. Vote (or don't vote) for who you want. Foreign policy... can we get a new thread up in this piece?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-04 23:55:04 +0000

rladew wrote: "I'm saying despite the big deficit right now, despite our conflict in Iraq and economic situation domestically, I believe in the long run these problems won't be solved as well by adding more governmental bueracracies and controls." If you do believe this THAN VOTE FOR KERRY!!! TerryG said this as well, but Bush has added more beaucracy/deficit/controls than any President probably since FDR and maybe ever. The Patriot Act? Please! That alone is the reason many libertarians are voting for Kerry (and not for Michael Badnarik the nominee.)