Re: Kerry vs Bush
Here are a couple things to help you decide, on things that matter today, not 20 years ago, but today:<br /><br />Bush = Pro Life<br />Kerry = Pro Choice<br /><br />Bush = lowering taxes... but he's got a spending problem.<br />Kerry = raising taxes... likely will have the same spending problem.<br /><br />As for the economy and why we are in the situation we are in today...<br /><br />Clinton benefited from the .com boom that we all know could not sustain itself. Of course many people were better off financially during Clinton's term, but a company can only survive for so long on the cash from a hyped up IPO when they have no product, no sales and huge salary expenses. Point is, this bubble had to pop sooner or later, its no presidents fault.<br /><br />An important thing to note: Many people are better off today than during Clintons term. This country has the highest home ownership in history, over 70% of American's own their home. And as we all know, home ownership is the key to personal financial stability.<br /><br />During the Clinton administration 1 huge mistake was made. Taxes were not raised, that was a mistake. Blame Clinton for never trying, or blame the Republican Congress for not passing it if it had been pushed through, it doesn't matter now... <br /><br />There are 2 things that can influence the enconomy: 1. Tax rates 2. Interest rates. When the economy is soaring interest rates go up... taxes should have gone up as well. When the economy is struggling, interest rates fall... taxes should as well. Bush did the right thing by lowering taxes, and the Fed did the right thing by lowering interest rates. But the .com boom was a waisted opportunity for this country to pay off some very expensive programs. Taxes should have been raised and a surplus built for 2 reasons: First, to slow down the booming economy, because the bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst and Second, to establish a large surplus to sustain the government during an economic recession w/o resorting to cuts.<br /><br />My question for the government is: Why are interest rates controlled by economists and taxes controled by politicians. In a court of law, this would be seen as a conflict of interest. I personally feel that taxes should be controled by professional economists (like the Fed).<br /><br />I've seen on this board in a number of places the following: Bush = Pro Business<br /><br />Question: If Bush is Pro Business... what is Kerry?<br /><br />Answer: Don't be fooled by political word play. Here is an example of where each stand, you decide where you want your vote.<br /><br />Bush = Pro Business <br /><br />Translated: Lets take a look at the bitter war over insurance costs. Insurance companies blame the thousands of law suits that have rediculously high settlements awarded to "victims" by the juries. Insurance companies want a cap put on the award for such things as injuries. They argue that if there is no cap they have trouble calculating their risk, which is how they price their rates. <br /><br />Kerry = Pro Lawyer's Translated: Bush is in favor of this very unpopular cap policy and is labled as cold and heartless for suggesting that a monetary value can be assigned to a person's pain and misery. Lawyers argue that juries need to decide what is a fair settlement, not politicians. Each case needs to be addressed on its own merits, etc. Lawyers also argue that Insurance companies are cash cows that over charge their customers and that the high price is due to a monopolistic control insurance companies have on the market.<br /><br />Reality: Something needs to be done. Doctors are dropping their insurance coverage and are refusing to deliver babies because they can't afford their insurance. (Remember, they need to make money too). In the Pacific Northwest the #1 fastest growing business is "Midwiving" i.e. non professionals devilering babies outside of hospitals w/o insurance coverage. As distasteful as it is, the system has proven that juries cannot be trusted with this responsibility. Their awards are completely out of proportion to damages (i.e. often unintentional accidents). I put "victims" in quotes above because because the standard fee for lawyers is 45% of the settlement. Consider this when you see a "Class Action" suit. <br /><br />Example: $10M settlement<br />1,000 victims<br />Layer cut: $4.5 M<br />Victims: $5.5M or $5,500 per victim<br /><br />You tell me who wins. <br /><br />As a note: my father's medical case was used to ban a drug he was on for over 25 years (for his kidney transplant) that ended up causing him serious side affects. However, my family did not participate in the lawsuit against the company who manufactured the drug. Why? Without that drug my Dad would have died 25 years earlier, with that drug, he lived with some bad side affects. Is my family upset with the company who produced that drug? Absolutely not. But where they sued and asked to pay damages? Sadley, yes. That is the thanks they received for keeping my Dad alive another 25 years. Courtesy of greedy lawyers.<br /><br />Bush may be easily labled a greedy oil / business man. <br /><br />But...<br /><br />Kerry can just as easily be labled a greedy lawyer.
?, Maybe FOX (hmmmmm Laurie Dhue)