[Transcend]

OK so tomorrow we will quite obviously be discussing the debates.

I am not american, but am honestly curious as to why regular, middle class americans woudl vote for Bush (not republicans in general).

So far he has:

-Raised taxes on the middle class, lowered taxes on the rich
-Made half the world hate the USA
-Let a ban on Assault weapons run out (how is this a good thing, anyway you look at it?)
-Has broken multiple UN agreements, including the moratorium on missile defense systems and weaponizing space
-Pulled out of the Kyoto meetings (again, WTF? this doesnt help anyone)
-Basically killed the US economy (Republicans are usually VERY good at boosting the economy). Also slowed growth in the world economy due to having a large part in boosting oil prices.
-Enacted bizarre, seriously conservative behind the times policies (or supporting) with regard to gay marriage, abortion etc

I would like to hear both sides of the story, from the (d) side voters and (r) side voters. Enlighten me.

I can see them as the shoe in vote for big business, as well as defense contractors and the rich. What I do not get is why middle class worker bees, those who will be affected the most, still vote for him??

 

[Ridemonkey]

Damn newbie, do a search!

 

[Transcend]

Damn newbie, do a search!

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search : why

more then 5 characters

 

[Toshi]

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98230

 

[Transcend]

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98230

I actually read that, not exactly what i was looking for. I am looking for reasoning for the points i brought up. Also, why people think the democrats are better on these points. Good read tho.

 

[Ridemonkey]

My theory, eBully, is that the big W really hits home with a lot of people on one particular consrvative issue or another, or a combination of a few issues, and thats enough for a lot of people to be blinded to the fact that W is screwing them in other areas, like taxes or lying about why we are at war.

 

[Transcend]

My theory, eBully, is that the big W really hits home with a lot of people on one particular consrvative issue or another, or a combination of a few issues, and thats enough for a lot of people to be blinded to the fact that W is screwing them in other areas, like taxes or lying about why we are at war.

Thet is a good point, Asshat Jibber. Most conservatives hold one topic very close to their hearts and will decide to go with that candidate for that 1 reason (anti abortion/anti gay marriage etc).

Not all fo his voters are conservatives however. I have a few friends who vote for him simply because he is "pro-gun", even tho they are pro gay marriage. It is interesting.

Are you voting D simply because you are anti republican? Or do you support various D policies as well?

 

[BurlyShirley]

-Raised taxes on the middle class, lowered taxes on the rich
-Made half the world hate the USA
-Let a ban on Assault weapons run out (how is this a good thing, anyway you look at it?)
-Has broken multiple UN agreements, including the moratorium on missile defense systems and weaponizing space
-Pulled out of the Kyoto meetings (again, WTF? this doesnt help anyone)
-Basically killed the US economy (Republicans are usually VERY good at boosting the economy). Also slowed growth in the world economy due to having a large part in boosting oil prices.
-Enacted bizarre, seriously conservative behind the times policies (or supporting) with regard to gay marriage, abortion etc

I can see them as the shoe in vote for big business, as well as defense contractors and the rich. What I do not get is why middle class worker bees, those who will be affected the most, still vote for him??

Sure, I'll adress each:

Raised taxes: Though I am not in the tax bracket that got a break, I can understand how lowering taxes for the wealthy (bear in mind that 5% of the poulation pays 95%of the taxes) encourages growth in our economy. Wealthy people INVEST. This creates jobs. This helps us all IMO, not just the rich.

Made the world hate USA: Perhaps, but he did so upholding the views of the majority of Americans, so if the hate is against bush, its against the values we hold, and as americans...we say **** that!

Assault Ban: Americans are VERY concerned about their 2nd ammendment rights. A president who supports those rights will always win favor with middle america.

Broken UN agreements: Im sure youre speaking most of the nuclear proliferation treaty. This is post Sept. 11 USA, not anything else. We are developing weapons to defend our interests, not satisfy the likes of countries who didnt support us in our anti-terror endeavor.

Killed US economy: There isnt really any data to my knowledge that says the president was responsible for this. I think in general it is accepted at a post Sept. 11 effect, as well as remnants from the clinton admin, plus the war and a ton of other factors. Not the pres. directly.

Gay marriage/ abortion : This is probably where the guy actually scores THE MOST points with middle america. People are religious here and they support the president who beleives the way they do.


Now, do I agree with all of the above stuff...mostly...yes...but mainly its a breakdown of why mid america supports him.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Sure, I'll adress each:

Raised taxes: Though I am not in the tax bracket that got a break, I can understand how lowering taxes for the wealthy (bear in mind that 5% of the poulation pays 95%of the taxes) encourages growth in our economy. Wealthy people INVEST. This creates jobs. This helps us all IMO, not just the rich.

Warren Buffet, second richest man in America, said this was basically a bunch of BS.

 

[Transcend]

Sure, I'll adress each:

Raised taxes: Though I am not in the tax bracket that got a break, I can understand how lowering taxes for the wealthy (bear in mind that 5% of the poulation pays 95%of the taxes) encourages growth in our economy. Wealthy people INVEST. This creates jobs. This helps us all IMO, not just the rich.

Made the world hate USA: Perhaps, but he did so upholding the views of the majority of Americans, so if the hate is against bush, its against the values we hold, and as americans...we say **** that!

Assault Ban: Americans are VERY concerned about their 2nd ammendment rights. A president who supports those rights will always win favor with middle america.

Broken UN agreements: Im sure youre speaking most of the nuclear proliferation treaty. This is post Sept. 11 USA, not anything else. We are developing weapons to defend our interests, not satisfy the likes of countries who didnt support us in our anti-terror endeavor.

Killed US economy: There isnt really any data to my knowledge that says the president was responsible for this. I think in general it is accepted at a post Sept. 11 effect, as well as remnants from the clinton admin, plus the war and a ton of other factors. Not the pres. directly.

Gay marriage/ abortion : This is probably where the guy actually scores THE MOST points with middle america. People are religious here and they support the president who beleives the way they do.


Now, do I agree with all of the above stuff...mostly...yes...but mainly its a breakdown of why mid america supports him.

Hey man, good stuff, thanks for answering. Her eis my rebuttal, feel free to let me know I'm a twerp if you want.

1- Taxes, while lowering upper bracket taxes DOES increase a small part of the economy, lowering taxes in the lower brackets INSTANTLY increases spending across the board for the most part by putting money in pockets. Your theory is sound, but it is loosely based ont he so called "reaganomics" which combines both monetarist policies (lower taxes, lower wages, lower prices) and keynesian policies. It is a disaster as all it does is raise prices, but not raise demand.

2- Hate the usa issue. I don't think it is so much the fact that people hate US values, so much as people hate the USA for making a mess out of Iraq. Getting rid of saddaam, coulda have been done differently. Linking it with al quaeda was shooting themselves int he foot, as they had nothing to do with each other. MOST people do not hate us values, simply us actions as of late. (kyoto pull out, invasions of small countries with insane dictators etc).

That part of the world DOESN"T want a western style democracy. Who are we to say that our set of values, our systems are better then theirs? Beaty is in the eye of ther beholder. Other constructivist comments can be added here at will

3- Assault weapons. Hey i agree with gun ownership. I had many guns when i lived in Colorado, do not get me wrong. I simply do not see how an assault weapon (I use this term loosely) is necessary. A shotgun with bird shot is alot more useful and alot safer as a home defense weapon then an AR 15 with a drum mag, or a Tech9 which you can't get a decent grouping with on a range let alone in the dark, while nervous and angry.

4- Un. I mean both the nuclear proliferation treaties, as well as the missile defense and space weaponization treaties. You don't need NEW nuclear weapons, while minutes later talking about de-nuclearizing russia. Hello conflict of interests? Do as I say not as I do?

5- Economy. True, much of this WAS inherited from past presidencies, and general world economic issues. Raising low level taxes, driving up the price of crude and sending tens of thousands of reservists away from their possibly high paying jobs does not help tho. (narrowminded, but just an example)

6- marriage/abortion. I could not agree more. He gets his big push here form the caonservatists. I guess this is more of a rhetorical question. As in, why do people even care? It does not affect you, as a person, so please, leave these people to do as they wish.

OK so these are not necessarily my opinions (tho some are) simply observations and point of debate.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Warren Buffet, second richest man in America, said this was basically a bunch of BS.

I dont know warren buffet, but does he suggest that rich people do not invest? Or does he have a political agenda? Or does he speculate that investment does not stimulate economic growth?

 

[Toshi]

Warren Buffet, second richest man in America, said this was basically a bunch of BS.

on the other hand, some real economists, such as my former classmate now in the poli sci ph.d. program at berkeley, actually think it works...

one thing is for certain, however: it hasn't led to a net gain in jobs.

Made the world hate USA: Perhaps, but he did so upholding the views of the majority of Americans, so if the hate is against bush, its against the values we hold, and as americans...we say **** that!

you're falling into the "they hate us 'cause we're free" trap. most americans are unaware of our huge subsidy of israel and how corrupt and generally awful many of the middle eastern govts we prop up are. pressed on whether they support _those_ issues i bet the majority would swing the other way.

Now, do I agree with all of the above stuff...mostly...yes...but mainly its a breakdown of why mid america supports him.

i agree that this seems accurate for why middle america thinks they support bush, "thinks" because their perceptions, as above, are often contrary to reality. as the daily show has noted, "it appears that the facts are biased against bush."

 

[syadasti]

Warren Buffet, second richest man in America, said this was basically a bunch of BS.

Well, BS is right on that point, they do invest more. They've been investing more in outsourcing and global trade which doesn't help the majority of Americans.

 

[Transcend]

I dont know warren buffet, but does he suggest that rich people do not invest? Or does he have a political agenda? Or does he speculate that investment does not stimulate economic growth?

Read my answer to this above. I looked up a bunch of info in international political economy textbooks i have to make sure i wasnt talking outta my ass. I was right! woooo.

 

[Silver]

Why do people vote for Bush?

Single issue voters. Either guns, gays, Jesus, or taxes. If you're a true believer in one of those and vote accordingly, Bush could eat an orphan on live tv on Christmas Eve and still get votes.

 

[Ridemonkey]

I dont know warren buffet, but does he suggest that rich people do not invest? Or does he have a political agenda? Or does he speculate that investment does not stimulate economic growth?

You skipped a step. I think the speculation is that decreased taxes does not always result in incresed investment.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hey man, good stuff, thanks for answering. Her eis my rebuttal, feel free to let me know I'm a twerp if you want.

1- Taxes, while lowering upper bracket taxes DOES increase a small part of the economy, lowering taxes in the lower brackets INSTANTLY increases spending across the board for the most part by putting money in pockets. Your theory is sound, but it is loosely based ont he so called "reaganomics" which combines both monetarist policies (lower taxes, lower wages, lower prices) and keynesian policies. It is a disaster as all it does is raise prices, but not raise demand.

2- Hate the usa issue. I don't think it is so much the fact that people hate US values, so much as people hate the USA for making a mess out of Iraq. Getting rid of saddaam, coulda have been done differently. Linking it with al quaeda was shooting themselves int he foot, as they had nothing to do with each other. MOST people do not hate us values, simply us actions as of late. (kyoto pull out, invasions of small countries with insane dictators etc).

That part of the world DOESN"T want a western style democracy. Who are we to say that our set of values, our systems are better then theirs? Beaty is in the eye of ther beholder. Other constructivist comments can be added here at will

3- Assault weapons. Hey i agree with gun ownership. I had many guns when i lived in Colorado, do not get me wrong. I simply do not see how an assault weapon (I use this term loosely) is necessary. A shotgun with bird shot is alot more useful and alot safer as a home defense weapon then an AR 15 with a drum mag, or a Tech9 which you can't get a decent grouping with on a range let alone in the dark, while nervous and angry.

4- Un. I mean both the nuclear proliferation treaties, as well as the missile defense and space weaponization treaties. You don't need NEW nuclear weapons, while minutes later talking about de-nuclearizing russia. Hello conflict of interests? Do as I say not as I do?

5- Economy. True, much of this WAS inherited from past presidencies, and general world economic issues. Raising low level taxes, driving up the price of crude and sending tens of thousands of reservists away from their possibly high paying jobs does not help tho. (narrowminded, but just an example)

6- marriage/abortion. I could not agree more. He gets his big push here form the caonservatists. I guess this is more of a rhetorical question. As in, why do people even care? It does not affect you, as a person, so please, leave these people to do as they wish.

OK so these are not necessarily my opinions (tho some are) simply observations and point of debate.

This could easily be turned into like 5 different threads, but just to hit back a bit.

1. I dont expect to even get to the bottom of this debate, as democrats and republicans have been trying for years, but Ill just say both sides would seem to make sense at some level, however, after the tax cuts in question the economy has been on the upswing.

2. I didnt mean to suggest that the world actually hate US values, but when the moral base of a country is so strongly aligned with its president, policy and values become a big grey area as one is supposed to represent the other and vice versa. The dispute over US foreign policy is taken personally by alot of people in the US (thats why we HATE the french all of a sudden) so I dont think that the majority of these voters care much that the world hates them back.

3. On the guns, gun owners hate ANYTHING that chips away at their rights, and I can sort of understand it. Think of the way people get freaked out over the patriot act and how its chipping away at their freedomes. Well, its sort of the same thing, only in a physical sense because banning weapons of any kind affects what people think of as heritage on a grand scale. Guns are a big thing and people are very afaid of the slippery slope that has taken away gun ownership in places like Australia. Do people NEED assault weapons? No, but they dont need H2s either and Im sure more folks die in SUV crashes per year than assault weapon shootings, so again, its really an issue of control.

4. The Nucs the US has been developing are the "bunker buster" variety. Which are essentialy designed for places like Afghanistan where people hide in deep holes. These are not Nucs in the sense of blow up hiroshima or something. They dont cause explosions nearly as big as some of the non nuclear bombs we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its just that people hear Nuc and freak out because of a lack of education on what's actually happening. In the Post Sept. 11 world, weapons like this become necessity and treaties with quasi-allies become secondary. As for the star wars missile defense, Im really not that educated on it, but with growing fears about NK and China as nuclear threats in the future, i would not be surprised at projects like this beginning to take shape.

5. On the economy. Im pretty much in agreement.

6. I think it does actually effect us in one way or another and alot of people see that as a negative. I use this example alot, but think of it like the civil rights movement. Before that and numerous law suits by the ACLU, you wouldnt see minorities in text books or get proper mention in history classes and things like that. Well, its a good thing that we've diversified in that sense, but once the government recognizes gays, transexuals, things of that nature...it will set precedence for the ACLU to go for similar law suits, and people are worried that schools will be flooded with visions of these lifestyles that they dont support and actually find offensive. Im not so sure that I would want my child to have something like a transexual or crossdresser teacher myself. Not that I have anything against someone that decides or is born to be that way, but Im just not sure that in a 2nd grade class is the place to be exposed to it. Again, that's just an example, but people are petrified about such things ruining their "american" "christian" "tradtional" way of being, and you have to sympathise with that. Not necessarily agree with it. I mean, Native American culture was destroyed by the white man's ways and now the world is at a loss, so what make traditional white middle america culture worth any less? Destruction by war (ie indians) or by Americanization is still destruction of culture none the less.
On abortions, well, people just think killing babies is bad. It all comes down to what you think is a baby and that's never gunna be settled.

 

[Silver]

You know how people always say that Communism doesn't work, and then point to Russia and China as examples?

You can do the same thing with tax cuts for the wealthy. Remember Reagan? This is basically a rehash. A rising tide is great if you have a boat. Otherwise, you just end up drowning...

 

[BurlyShirley]

You skipped a step. I think the speculation is that decreased taxes does not always result in incresed investment.

Has the economy not been improving since the tax cuts?

 

[Ridemonkey]

Has the economy not been improving since the tax cuts?

Marginally, and that's quite a stretch to call that a cause and effect relationship

 

[BurlyShirley]

Marginally, and that's quite a stretch to call that a cause and effect relationship

To what do you attribute the upswing then? I mean, could be a war boom or something I guess, but whadda you think?

 

[Ridemonkey]

To what do you attribute the upswing then? I mean, could be a war boom or something I guess, but whadda you think?

I think the professional economists could better answer that question - and I have a feeling the answer is a little more complex than W's tax cuts.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think the professional economists could better answer that question - and I have a feeling the answer is a little more complex than W's tax cuts.

You could just said "I dunno, but I thin Bush sucks" and saved me some time responding

 

[Ridemonkey]

You could just said "I dunno, but I thin Bush sucks" and saved me some time responding

Or you could have posted the same a while ago with something about W being your daddy.....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Or you could have posted the same a while ago with something about W being your daddy.....

But I at least offered up a theory. I didnt just conced to leave it with the experts and not take a side. What kind of debate would that be?

 

[Transcend]

This could easily be turned into like 5 different threads, but just to hit back a bit.

1. I dont expect to even get to the bottom of this debate, as democrats and republicans have been trying for years, but Ill just say both sides would seem to make sense at some level, however, after the tax cuts in question the economy has been on the upswing.

2. I didnt mean to suggest that the world actually hate US values, but when the moral base of a country is so strongly aligned with its president, policy and values become a big grey area as one is supposed to represent the other and vice versa. The dispute over US foreign policy is taken personally by alot of people in the US (thats why we HATE the french all of a sudden) so I dont think that the majority of these voters care much that the world hates them back.

3. On the guns, gun owners hate ANYTHING that chips away at their rights, and I can sort of understand it. Think of the way people get freaked out over the patriot act and how its chipping away at their freedomes. Well, its sort of the same thing, only in a physical sense because banning weapons of any kind affects what people think of as heritage on a grand scale. Guns are a big thing and people are very afaid of the slippery slope that has taken away gun ownership in places like Australia. Do people NEED assault weapons? No, but they dont need H2s either and Im sure more folks die in SUV crashes per year than assault weapon shootings, so again, its really an issue of control.

4. The Nucs the US has been developing are the "bunker buster" variety. Which are essentialy designed for places like Afghanistan where people hide in deep holes. These are not Nucs in the sense of blow up hiroshima or something. They dont cause explosions nearly as big as some of the non nuclear bombs we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its just that people hear Nuc and freak out because of a lack of education on what's actually happening. In the Post Sept. 11 world, weapons like this become necessity and treaties with quasi-allies become secondary. As for the star wars missile defense, Im really not that educated on it, but with growing fears about NK and China as nuclear threats in the future, i would not be surprised at projects like this beginning to take shape.

5. On the economy. Im pretty much in agreement.

6. I think it does actually effect us in one way or another and alot of people see that as a negative. I use this example alot, but think of it like the civil rights movement. Before that and numerous law suits by the ACLU, you wouldnt see minorities in text books or get proper mention in history classes and things like that. Well, its a good thing that we've diversified in that sense, but once the government recognizes gays, transexuals, things of that nature...it will set precedence for the ACLU to go for similar law suits, and people are worried that schools will be flooded with visions of these lifestyles that they dont support and actually find offensive. Im not so sure that I would want my child to have something like a transexual or crossdresser teacher myself. Not that I have anything against someone that decides or is born to be that way, but Im just not sure that in a 2nd grade class is the place to be exposed to it. Again, that's just an example, but people are petrified about such things ruining their "american" "christian" "tradtional" way of being, and you have to sympathise with that. Not necessarily agree with it. I mean, Native American culture was destroyed by the white man's ways and now the world is at a loss, so what make traditional white middle america culture worth any less? Destruction by war (ie indians) or by Americanization is still destruction of culture none the less.
On abortions, well, people just think killing babies is bad. It all comes down to what you think is a baby and that's never gunna be settled.

This could be many threads, bit I liek it so far. I shall fire back.

1- It isnt a republican/dem issue. Economists have proven what he is doing across the board (all econ policies considered) does not work! Look up reaganomics.

As for which policy to choose, they both have advantages and disadvantages (monetarist, keynesian) but you cant do both. It fails.

2- heh, I wrote a paper on this. basic hypothesis - the us people in general are too ****ing stupid to be influential on us foreign policy. On this topic, they should be completely and utterly ignored. even the highly educated ones do not usually have a grasp of the rammifications of foreign policy choices.

3- Although i think comparing assault weapons to H2s is silly (although both are utterly useless) i can see your point. The point isn't murders tho, it is the proliferation of violent crime. Since the ban, violent gun crimes were down about 20% as a direct result (i think, would have to check). They were simply harder to get, granted many got them anyways, but it was harder.

It also allowed the police to catch up and not be outgunned at every single encounter. Public safety is more the concern in my mind.

4- I am completely aware of what nukes they are researching. They are useless for a few reasons. a) using ANY nuke would be frowed upon by the world community, tactical or strategic. Therefore, the chance of them actually being used is highly HIGHLY unlikely. Waste of $. b) a fuel air explosive, shaped charge HE with booster etc etc could be just as effective, cost less, and not cause all this flap. They are a dangerous precedant to set, and mighty 2 faced. North korea cant have nukes! OMG OMG, we are building more.

To be honest, i am more concerned with the weaponization of space then insignificant bunker busters.

5- settled

6- The issue is that people are being categerized un-necessarily. Gay marriage. who the hell cares? Marriage is marriage. They love each other, they support each other they should get the benefits that straight couples get. Hell, they are usually MUCH more likely to stay married then straight couples in this day and age.

Gender wise (transexxual etc) thi sisnt an issue. They are not sexual orientations or sexes (they fall into gay, straight, bi) or (male, female).

It is the same as the black white issue. It is a simple personal difference. Let it be. Live and let live.

As for the ACLU, i believe in it. I do NOT believe in affirmative action for example. Get the job because you are better then me, not because you are latino/black/eurasian/a lobster.

The problem of the lawsuits isn't due to the ACLU, it is due to the litigation culture in the USA. You guys sue for EVERYTHING!!!

 

[Ridemonkey]

But I at least offered up a theory. I didnt just conced to leave it with the experts and not take a side. What kind of debate would that be?

I could pull some theories out of my ass too. Perhaps the stringer economy is due to the 1.5 standard?

 

[BurlyShirley]

This could be many threads, bit I liek it so far. I shall fire back.

1- It isnt a republican/dem issue. Economists have proven what he is doing across the board (all econ policies considered) does not work! Look up reaganomics.

As for which policy to choose, they both have advantages and disadvantages (monetarist, keynesian) but you cant do both. It fails.

2- heh, I wrote a paper on this. basic hypothesis - the us people in general are too ****ing stupid to be influential on us foreign policy. On this topic, they should be completely and utterly ignored. even the highly educated ones do not usually have a grasp of the rammifications of foreign policy choices.

3- Although i think comparing assault weapons to H2s is silly (although both are utterly useless) i can see your point. The point isn't murders tho, it is the proliferation of violent crime. Since the ban, violent gun crimes were down about 20% as a direct result (i think, would have to check). They were simply harder to get, granted many got them anyways, but it was harder.

It also allowed the police to catch up and not be outgunned at every single encounter. Public safety is more the concern in my mind.

4- I am completely aware of what nukes they are researching. They are useless for a few reasons. a) using ANY nuke would be frowed upon by the world community, tactical or strategic. Therefore, the chance of them actually being used is highly HIGHLY unlikely. Waste of $. b) a fuel air explosive, shaped charge HE with booster etc etc could be just as effective, cost less, and not cause all this flap. They are a dangerous precedant to set, and mighty 2 faced. North korea cant have nukes! OMG OMG, we are building more.

To be honest, i am more concerned with the weaponization of space then insignificant bunker busters.

5- settled

6- The issue is that people are being categerized un-necessarily. Gay marriage. who the hell cares? Marriage is marriage. They love each other, they support each other they should get the benefits that straight couples get. Hell, they are usually MUCH more likely to stay married then straight couples in this day and age.

Gender wise (transexxual etc) thi sisnt an issue. They are not sexual orientations or sexes (they fall into gay, straight, bi) or (male, female).

It is the same as the black white issue. It is a simple personal difference. Let it be. Live and let live.

As for the ACLU, i believe in it. I do NOT believe in affirmative action for example. Get the job because you are better then me, not because you are latino/black/eurasian/a lobster.

The problem of the lawsuits isn't due to the ACLU, it is due to the litigation culture in the USA. You guys sue for EVERYTHING!!!

1. I have a decent understanding of Reagonomics and the idea of building demand and all of that, but I still fail to see how giving those who invest more money to invest is not good for the economy.
2. Well yeah, the average joe shouldnt think he has that firm a grasp on all the ramification of foriegn policy, YET, here we are debating it. In fact, thats about all we do in this forum nowadays. Perhaps ignoring what people think isnt the best idea.
3.I dont see what you cant rob or kill with a 12 gauge that you can with an assault rifle. You said it yourself that the shotgun is a better weapon for home protection. A similar use would be a robbery of a home or liquor store or something. I dont think some guy decides to rob something just becuase he got an assault rifle. IMO, he'd do it with a pistol too.
4. As for the bunker busters...its all still in testing so I cant say which would be more effective or why they'd choose to make nukes if they had such a good substitute that they could get away with using while making no noise on a political scale. Something doesnt jive there.
6. I disagree fundamentally, probably as a result of my upbringing. I kind of just explained how it DOES effect everyone on some level, and Im rigid on the issue as I hope my children share my views and I dont wish my governmnet to condone otherwise.

 

[Transcend]

1. I have a decent understanding of Reagonomics and the idea of building demand and all of that, but I still fail to see how giving those who invest more money to invest is not good for the economy.
2. Well yeah, the average joe shouldnt think he has that firm a grasp on all the ramification of foriegn policy, YET, here we are debating it. In fact, thats about all we do in this forum nowadays. Perhaps ignoring what people think isnt the best idea.
3.I dont see what you cant rob or kill with a 12 gauge that you can with an assault rifle. You said it yourself that the shotgun is a better weapon for home protection. A similar use would be a robbery of a home or liquor store or something. I dont think some guy decides to rob something just becuase he got an assault rifle. IMO, he'd do it with a pistol too.
4. As for the bunker busters...its all still in testing so I cant say which would be more effective or why they'd choose to make nukes if they had such a good substitute that they could get away with using while making no noise on a political scale. Something doesnt jive there.
6. I disagree fundamentally, probably as a result of my upbringing. I kind of just explained how it DOES effect everyone on some level, and Im rigid on the issue as I hope my children share my views and I dont wish my governmnet to condone otherwise.

1- The problem is reaganomics raises prices in the end, without raising demand. It is not just the tax cuts. Its the tax cuts + increased spending + state business protections.
2- I hate to say it, but we are probably more wualified then 90% of americans. I feel i am especially qualified (hello narssicism!) due to my background and field pf study. When you know what the ramifications/theories are, it is much easier to grasp.
3- I agree. You missed my point. It was why do people think they need them? A shotgun is better for what they claim they need these weapons for. Peopel can rob with a pistol, but they cannot outgun the police with them. When you have AW vs glock, you have a greater chance that 1 - the law officer gets killed, 2- the guy goes ape**** shooting the place up 3- the suspect gets away due to police concerns about public safety.
4- what doesnt jive (in my opinion, obviously) is the current administration. They do it because they can. No one else is building them or thinkinf og using them. Again it is more about breaking treaties and losing credibility, then it is of the actual weapon.
6- we can agree to disagree here. I just don't see how my buddy being gay and wanting to get the same benefits my parents have, affects your bottom line. It doesn't. The idea of traditional marriage is an outdated concept. I believe anyoen who lives together in that capacity should get the same advanages. Whether Gay or straight.

Same goes for abortion. Way to go male population, you tell those women what they can do with their bodies! When you get raped and saddled with an un-needed child, you come and tell me. I don't see how what we do with out bodies is someone elses choice (don't get started on the drugs/alcohol debate please, another thread).

That brings me to the stem cell research debate, as it has to do with abortion. On this, i believe that the research should be done, as it is the most promising field of research for bio tech and health. The babies were gonna be aborted anyways, let the foetuses do some good!

Other domestic issues are quite obviously important, but i am not up to date on them enough to talk about them.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Same goes for abortion. Way to go male population, you tell those women what they can do with their bodies! When you get raped and saddled with an un-needed child, you come and tell me. I don't see how what we do with out bodies is someone elses choice (don't get started on the drugs/alcohol debate please, another thread).

I think we're about at a stalemate (sp) on everything thus far, but this is an issue I can see both sides of. First off, people dont care WHAT a woman does with her body, they care about the HUMAN BEING inside of it. If I were an emotional person, I think I would be anti-abortion simply because I dont see how you can say its not killing a living thing or person. I mean, it is just a little person after all.
BUT, to me, its kind of like feeding those starving kids on TV that you see at 3 am. The more you feed them, the more kids they grow up and have, so you end up starving 8 instead of just one to begin with.
Anyway, the type of kid that would be born into a world that didnt want it but was force because abortion was illegal would likely not be a very cared for or loved person. It would die in alot of cases anyway. I can disconnect myself enough to think that abortion should be legal, even if it is murder on some level.

 

[Toshi]

i think if more people knew about fetal development then they'd support abortion. all the proper bits and pieces, so to speak, aren't in place and functional until late in the game. it's not like you'd pop a 4 month old fetus out into the air and it'd have any chance of surviving on its own. the problem is that most anti-abortion people don't seem to care. instead they just picture, i don't know, the baby jesus or their own newborn and immediately make the gut reaction call.

 

[ohio]

on the other hand, some real economists, such as my former classmate now in the poli sci ph.d. program at berkeley, actually think it works...

Truth is you're both right. Anytime you're putting money back into folks pockets it's a good thing for the economy (though often bad for other things), but if you give it to the rich it will be a long time before you see the effect of that money. Yes they invest... investing means putting something in now and expecting to get a return later.

Give it to folks with little or no capital, and they spend it... it goes immediately back into the economy giving an important emotional boost... and guess what it goes straight to those rich asset-owners/investors that were going to get it anyway, except this time the people down the ladder get a good or service and that makes them happy and productive. Basically rich people are rich because they can leverage the spending of poor people. Trickle UP, not trickle DOWN.

That was the short simple version. The longer version explains why both are important if you want to maintain long-term AND short-term health, and both have their benefits given certain situations. Unfortunately in real life neither method is picked because of prudence at the time, but rather because of political interests.