Poll - Democrat or Republican?

[donali 57]

I certainly don't think that they should serve without pay!

But if only rich people can afford to serve at the average American wage...???? Now, how wrong is that?? Why can't the average American serve at the wage they're already currently earning? That is my point. And in order to serve under my fantasy rules, the rich would have to donate ALL of their extra wealth (what they have above and beyond the average American) to the campaigning pool. So the rich would not be allowed to stay rich if they wanted to serve - they'd have to give it up and live like the average American.

The less pay elected officials make, the less chance a common working man (or woman) will have of getting into politics.

If the pay is already the same as what the common working man/woman is making, then they should not be disadvantaged in serving. In fact, for a lot of them that "average" wage would be a step up.

[Scribby 0]

umm...here are some stats that may have some of us not giving a flying monkey about some of his moral do gooder work...

mind you, these are as of January lasty year so we all know its actually worse now...

232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004

501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far

0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945

0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed

0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq

100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003

10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest

2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House

9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year

1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began

16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war

10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the conflict

$100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003

$13 billion: Amount other countries have committed towards rebuilding Iraq (much of it in loans) as of 24 October

36%: Increase in the number of desertions from the US army since 1999

92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable Water a year ago

60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today

32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided

1983: The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs

45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the US

$127 billion: Amount of US budget surplus in the year that Bush became President in 2001

$374 billion: Amount of US budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003

1st: This year's deficit is on course to be the biggest in United States history

$1.58 billion: Average amount by which the US national debt increases each day

$23,920: Amount of each US citizen's share of the national debt as of 19 January 2004

1st: The record for the most bankruptcies filed in a single year (1.57 million) was set in 2002

10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33

1st: Rank of the US worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita

$113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history

$130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far

$200m: Amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign is expected to raise in 2004

$40m: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003

28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in US history (Record holder: Richard Nixon)

13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year

3: Number of children convicted of capital offences executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children

1st: As Governor of Texas, George Bush executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern US history

2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration

221,000: Number of jobs per month created since Bush's tax cuts took effect. He promised the measure would add 306,000

1,000: Number of new jobs created in the entire country in December. Analysts had expected a gain of 130,000

1st: This administration is on its way to becoming the first since 1929 (Herbert Hoover) to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office

9 million: Number of US workers unemployed in September 2003

80%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce now unemployed

55%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war

43.6 million: Number of Americans without health insurance in 2002

130: Number of countries (out of total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with an American military presence

40%: Percentage of the world's military spending for which the US is responsible

$10.9 million: Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet

88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes

$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes

$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001

$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year in taxes

44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy

700: Number of people from around the world the US has incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

1st: George W Bush became the first American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to US-held prisoners of war

+6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty

1951: Last year in which a quarterly rise in US military spending was greater than the one the previous spring

54%: Percentage of US citizens who believe Bush was legitimately elected to his post

1st: First president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by separate states and not at federal level

9: Number of members of Bush's defense policy board who also sit on the corporate board of, or advise, at least one defense contractor

35: Number of countries to which US has suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court

$300 million: Amount cut from the federal program that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes

$1 billion: Amount of new US military aid promised Israel in April 2003 to offset the "burdens" of the US war on Iraq

58 million: Number of acres of public lands Bush has opened to road building, logging and drilling

200: Number of public-health and environmental laws Bush has attempted to downgrade or weaken

29,000: Number of American troops - which is close to the total of a whole army division - to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to the Pentagon

90%: Percentage of American citizens who said they approved of the way George Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 26 September, 2001

53%: Percentage of American citizens who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 16 January, 2004

[Irish Dancers 0]

I just hope we don't end up with another Clinton in the house. I can't stand them. They are both screwballs!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I certainly don't think that they should serve without pay!

But if only rich people can afford to serve at the average American wage...???? Now, how wrong is that?? Why can't the average American serve at the wage they're already currently earning?... If the pay is already the same as what the common working man/woman is making, then they should not be disadvantaged in serving. In fact, for a lot of them that "average" wage would be a step up.

Because to serve in Washington DC, you need to have two homes, one in your district that you were elected from and one in DC so that you can work in congress. When you add up the extra costs of two homes (or 2 apartments, or one home, one apartment) plus traveling home to see the family, it is a lot of extra money.

About 25 years ago, my coworkers and some local politicians tried to talk me into running for congress from my district in Brooklyn. I calculated all the costs and if I stayed honest (which was why they wanted me to run), I could not afford to be a congressman. Many people start out honest, but when they find out what it takes to be a congressman, they realize that it is either take lobbyist money or lose money. Only people who start with a large bank account can afford to lose that much money.

If only rich people can afford to serve, they will make sure that the laws benefit the rich. These flat-tax proposals are all started by rich men. They sound good, because most people do not understand business or the way taxes are calculated. Steve Forbes, a man who inherited his money from his father's magazine company, and now makes a lot of money is pushing the flat tax. I do not have enough time to explain why a flat tax would never work, but believe me, it is all smoke and mirrors to trick the poor into voting the rich another bundle of money.

Talking about Forbes, they just published a list of the 400 richest Americans. For the first time in history, every one of the 400 were billionaires and in fact quite a few billionaires didn't even make the list.

When the Republicans talk about the economy doing well, they are not talking about the x-factory worker now working as a security guard or the 30,000 GM employees who just left or the 30,000 or so Ford employees who will be leaving soon, they are talking about the CEO's who make so much money that if you offered them the next 104 winning Lottery tickets (one years worth of winning tickets) in place of their salary, it would be an insult.

Talking about taxes. In the 1950's, the USA had the greatest economic growth in its history and produced thousands of millionaires, and yet the highest tax rate was 90%. It is now 32% and BuSh wants it lowered.

That is my point. And in order to serve under my fantasy rules, the rich would have to donate ALL of their extra wealth (what they have above and beyond the average American) to the campaigning pool. So the rich would not be allowed to stay rich if they wanted to serve - they'd have to give it up and live like the average American.

I do not like the way many rich people have accumulated their wealth, but even the most Robin Hood type liberal, would never force a man to give up his money to serve the public. Not even me.

[nursekathy2u 0]

gonnabethin:

Your complaints are honest, valid and logical.

If the words socialism and communism were never invented, could you see where a Canadian style medical program might be beneficial to this problem and this country?

GM & Ford are on the verge of bankruptcy. Yes, they could do better with their car quality, but that is not the real problem.

The problem is the medical system in the USA.

Medical? GM? Ford? Bankruptcy?

Yes!!

GM & Ford claim that the cost of covering employee medical benefits is more money per car than the cost of the steel in each car. GM & Ford have to add almost $2,000 to the price of each vehicle to cover the cost of medical insurance.

If GM & Ford each produced a car identical in quality to a Toyota Camry, they would have to charge $2000 more for it.

That is why GM & Ford have offered buyout packages to most of their workers. GM & Ford are willing to pay these people $140,000 each to leave as long as GM & Ford can get out of their medical insurance obligations.

WHY?

Because, the foreign car manufactures' car-builders in Japan and Germany have medical plans funded by taxes. Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes,etc. do not have to pay for medical insurance for their workers.

The workers that GM & Ford hire, if and when business gets better will not have medical insurance as a benefit. They may become more of the same problem that gonnabethin describes in the intelligently written piece above.

My husband works for GM.. He has never heard of any of this nor does he know anyone offered $140,000 as a buyout.. what is your source of this information?? GM is the top seller of vehicles in the country..(with toyota about to pass them) As far as my husband knows they are not about to go into bankruptcy..

[coltonwade 27]

My husband works for GM.. He has never heard of any of this nor does he know anyone offered $140,000 as a buyout.. what is your source of this information?? GM is the top seller of vehicles in the country..(with toyota about to pass them) As far as my husband knows they are not about to go into bankruptcy..

I heard about this on CNN about a month or so ago ?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/22/news/companies/gm_delphi/index.htm?section=money_topstories

[BJean 16]

Heavens to betsy! I was off getting banded and reading all about all the September bandsters experiences, swapping shoulder pain stories and what happens? You are all going off here, having a blast. I am loving reading all of this political stuff! T.O.M. you've written some very interesting posts.

My initial response to most things being posted here is that the insurance companies rule our lives. Period.

I am definitely a Democrat. Always have been, probably always will be. For many of my young years, I was a Democrat because my parents were political activists in the Democratic party and my father worked as a political appointee. Later, when I actually began to read and think for myself, I realized they were right. We weren't millionaires. We had little chance to become billionaires. We were comfortable financially, but were very uncomfortable with the rich getting richer whenever there was a Republican president with strong Republican presence in Congress. What we were comfortable with, however, was living in a country whose citizens care about each other. (Just as a side note, my DH is a Republican who works for a company that does contract work for the military.)

These past years, particularly since 9/11, things have become even more serious in dealing with the Republican party. They skewed both of the past 2 presidential elections - which is unfathomable in a "Free Nation Under God". Jimmy Carter and his team go into countries to monitor elections so that what happened right here, in this country, won't ever happen in those countries. How in the world are we able to live with the things that were done to affect the outcome of those elections? Why aren't we screaming to the rooftops that it should never happen again?

After the election and 9/11, the Republicans declared war on a country that was guilty of having a ruler (that we had placed in Iraq, by the way), who was a horrible, horrible man. Saddam had become ungrateful to us, the country who supported him as the ruler of Iraq, but who no longer made that country a friendly climate for Americans or American business. Our Vice President and the Bushes, had a long-standing investment in being able to make money in Iraq. So, I believe that George W. took office with the understanding that he would do the job of getting us back into Iraq by whatever means necessary. The American press - also with money and power at stake - played right along with it for the most part. We Americans believed all the weapons of destruction... blather., and many Republicans particularly agreed that it was in our country's best interests to go in there and make a big show of power and oust that manical mad man. And besides, almost everyone was in the mood for a fight after 9/11.

We invaded Afganistan right away, which was understandable since our Intelligence community had declared Bin Laden the mastermind of 9/11, but why do Fox and other media in the U.S. continue to ignore the fact that when we had Bin Laden cornered in a cave in Afganistan our soldiers were directed to walk away (ostensibly so that others could actually do the deed of either killing him or taking him prisnor)? What happened there? Why isn't Fox raising cain about that? Why is Fox jumping back in time, attacking Bill Clinton for not killing Bin Laden? Why is it hunkey dorey for Bush to be the guy who okayed walking away from Bin Laden in Afganistan, but when Clinton was President, they raised cain with him for trying to eliminate Bin Laden? At the time Fox and others declared that Clinton was trying to divert attention away from the Lewinsky matter. Are we all too burnt out to remember how they treated Clinton when he tried to garner support for going in and dealing with the threat that the CIA had uncovered?

Well, I can tell you why this stuff with Fox is happening. It is happening because of the elections in November. The Republican party is scared that they can't win some of the key Congressional seats that are up for grabs, and they'll take whatever measures necessary to divert the attention away from the issues that we Americans should be rising up en masse to get answers to.

And for those of you who believe that it is smart to "vote for the man" - I wish it were that simple. Fact is, if you vote for the man that is Democrat, you'll be voting for all the things that the Democratic party embraces. Same goes for voting Republican. So about the best you can do is learn what the real agenda is of both parties, figure out which offends you less, or which you really support, and vote for the man from that party who is running. I wish voting for the man was the answer. But we have to work with the system that is in place or we have to change it.

There are dirty politics out there on both sides, but the Republicans have always been powerfully powered by all the big business and personal money that pours into those campaigns. The only thing saving average Americans in politics is that the numbers of average Americans is far greater than the moneyed elite who vote.

T.O.M. (I think) had it so right when he said that people are better off in this country since Bush took over from Clinton. But as he said, the bad news is that most of us are not the ones who are truly better off. The white collar men at the top are the ones who are running everything and who are benefitting from this administration's policies. I don't even think we would be in such bad shape if our Congress had a better mix. But when you have a Republican President and a Republican Congress, there are no checks and balances. And this is scary!!

Also, if you aren't scared right now and extremely saddened by what this war in Iraq has done to us as individuals, then you must not have a member of your family over there. I want to puke or PB at least, everytime I think about the men and women who died, or have been wounded and who have been displaced by this war; their families, their lives all just on hold while they risk their lives and limbs for a nasty, horrible war. A war that this President was able to commit us to because he and his crew had us so frightened with their massive campaign, that we gave them the power and we let all it happen.

Now where are we with this war and all the lives our country (and others) have given and where is Iraq and its' people? It is a horrific state that Iraq is in, and it is horrific what has happened to our depleted military. Did you ever think we would see the day that our National Guard would become our regular military forces? Did you ever think you would see the day that we would be in the position of not knowing what would happen if we seriously needed a large military force to defend our shores, but didn't have that military force? We're getting there and I'm very uncomfortable with that feeling. I believe in a strong military, and I worry that our military will not soon recover even if they were brought home tomorrow.

Now, how do I really feel, you ask? (That's a joke) I guess I should apologize for going off like this, but having read all the other posts tonight, I just couldn't pass up a chance to voice some of my own concerns. If I were apathetic to the entire mess, I guess I wouldn't even be reading this thread. But gosh folks, as bad as the Lewinsky affair was, how can anyone seriously bring that topic up in light of what's happening under the Bush administration?

NurseCathy: The buy outs are all over the news.

[nursekathy2u 0]

I heard about this on CNN about a month or so ago ?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/22/news/companies/gm_delphi/index.htm?section=money_topstories

Thanks for the link... the article does NOT say GM is on the verge of bankruptcy.. and it says the money was offered to employees with >10yr experience to give up there retiree insurance..Im not reading it as saying they have to leave.. but maybe I am wrong...

Quote from Article :

"But a person familiar with terms of the offer said that UAW members with at least 10 years of service at the world's largest automaker will get $140,000 if they give up the retiree health care coverage that has become a crippling burden for GM. Those workers will keep their accrued pension benefits."

GM has been struggling, I agree.. they have been in talks with Ford and with Toyota about forming partnerships. Nissan has also expressed interest in forming partnerships. I hope they go with Ford though...

[BJean 16]

Gawd, I'd just LOVE to have Scribby and Carlene over for dinner!!!!! I haven't been able to enjoy a lovely repast with two such charming wits in too many years!

Keep it up you guys!!! You're making me a very happy woman!:clap2:

[gonnabethin 10]

Our education systems are to blame as well. Students in poor areas don't have books, computers, clean schools. Things that are instrumental in education. Their parents do not make enough to pay taxes into the school system to change it. Why not? Lack of education...from where? The same school system. It is a vicious cycle of the system. It is hard to get out of cycle.

Lack of resources=Lack of education=Lack of job opportunities=Lack of FUNDS!

__________________

We do not have that problem- We have what is know as the Robin Hood plan. The wealthier school districts supplement the poorer districts.

I am all for a flat tax!! Then it would automatically be on a level playing field. You pay 17% of 20k, 100k, or 1million.

[Carlene 12]

As far as the attack on our soil, I'm not sure I give Bush credit for that. We had only had one other one in all the years before. I don't count OK city only because it was domestic terrorists. And now there are lots of Americans in the Middle East to be targets.

What about the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? That attack - a car bomb - was courtesy of Arab Islamist terrorists.

How soon we forget.

[Carlene 12]

Clinton and his "non-sexual relations" with Monica were much easier to handle than Bush's Iron fist. I wish infidelity was the issue we were dealing with at the moment instead.

No kidding! Did I care that Bill was fooling around in the oval office? Of course I did! It cheapened the presidency and made a laughing stock of us in front of the whole world. But was it fatal? No, it wasn't. No one died as a result of Bill's frat boy indiscretion (although I'm sure Hillary WANTED to kill him).

I think the one time Clinton told the whole truth was later, when he said, "She made me feel young". I found that very poignant, especially since Bill and I are very close to the same age.

Anyway, I'm with you...Clinton behaved badly, but Bush is deadly.

[Carlene 12]

We do not have that problem- We have what is know as the Robin Hood plan. The wealthier school districts supplement the poorer districts.

I am all for a flat tax!! Then it would automatically be on a level playing field. You pay 17% of 20k, 100k, or 1million.

In Texas we do not have a state income tax (thank God!). Schools are supported by property taxes levied at the local level. The so-called Robin Hood plan does level the playing field somewhat. I say "somewhat" because there is still a huge disparity between the quality of education in the Carroll School District (Southlake) and inner city schools in Dallas.

[MsButterKup23 1]

I honestly don't think any of them give a crap about the American People. They are all rich and have no idea how the "common man" lives. Make them pay their own medical bills (as most doctors comp the bill for VIP's), drive themselves around and not give them the ability to give themselves raises whenever the mood strikes them.

I used to consider myself a Republican, but I honestly don't know where I fall now.

I love my country, it's the government that scares the hell out of me.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I am all for a flat tax!! Then it would automatically be on a level playing field. You pay 17% of 20k, 100k, or 1million.

OK. The Flat tax is a joke played on the people who want to think things will be fair that way.

First, the number one reason that flat tax can not work is that a corporation is considered as one person. GM and Exxon-Mobil and I are each considered as one person.

If GM sells 3 million cars and takes in 75 billion dollars, although it cost 73 billion to make the cars, they would still have to pay tax on 75 billion dollars which at 17% is 29 million dollars. So GM would lose 27 billion dollars. How can GM survive losing 27 billion because they had to pay so much tax.

If Exxon-Mobil sells 75 billion dollars of oil based products which cost them 45 billion to manufacture, they would pay the same 29 billion dollars in taxes. At least Exxon-Mobil would have One billion left after taxes, but nowhere near the 30 billion that they made after taxes last year.

WHY?

Because a flat tax does not allow deductions. So a business could not deduct their expenses from their income to arrive at profit which normal taxes are based on.

OK, you say, so we will allow deductions for business expenses. Then I and everyone else will incorporate and be allowed deductions.

Many people in the North-East where Local Real Estate taxes are high would lose their homes if they could not deduct Real Estate taxes.

Ok, so we will allow Real Estate taxes to be deducted.

Many of the working poor are barely able to survive raising children on Wal-Mart wages. They pay no federal tax now. Many make $320 a week and survive paycheck to paycheck, but let's take another $55 out of their paycheck for the 17% flat tax.

Boy this flat tax is fun. GM is driven into bankruptcy, with Exxon-Mobil not to far behind, most of the people in the North-East are losing their homes and the working poor are also becoming homeless.

Sorry, but the flat tax only sounds good when Billionaires explain it and that is because they are the only ones who will benefit from it. Ok. Some millionaires will too.

Oh and if you want to make the playing field level, get Bill Gates to share his money evenly with you and me. Then a flat tax would sound good.