Kerry Thoughts

[adios]

SomethingClever made a post that I thought was good. Where do the Kerry supporters stand on these issues.

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?
2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.
3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?
4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?
5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?
6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?
7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?
8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?
9) "Partial birth" abortion
10) Affirmative Action

I added 9 and 10.

[sam h]

I will give this one a shot.

1) Stem cell research - Definitely for it. I think this is one of the most promising frontiers for medical science and to keep people from using this resource is both foolhardy and harmful to all those who have conditions that might be cured through stem cell-related breakthroughs.

2) Iraq war - Supported the invasion initially, mainly because of humanitarian reasons but also because of WMD threat and faith that the administration had a good plan for dealing with the post-war situation. Basically think now that the administration has exhibited gross incompetence regarding everything after the initial invasion and that, as a consequence, we are actually less safe for numerous reasons. If my options were between this state of affairs and never having invaded, I would chooose the latter.

3) Gay marriage - Unequivocally for it. I go pretty far on this one, not just believing that it is a state's rights issue but that the ability to marry who you want should be covered by the equal protection clause of the constitution.

4) Birth control for 3rd world countries - Definitely for it. I am basically pro-reproductive freedom in general. In addition, these countries often have huge overpopulation issues that contribute to rampant poverty.

5) The environment - Basically I believe in a balance. I think the government needs to be fairly active in protecting the public good that is a clean environment. But I understand that this can only go so far. Generally, I think that arguments that we need to deregulate to compete with international competitors are not very supported by the empirical data.

6) Taxes - To me, the issue is not so much the overall tax burden but who pays. I would support shifting the tax burden much more heavily to the upper class and actually cutting taxes further for the middle class and poor. I guess in an ideal world the overall tax burden would be decreased, but we are in such trouble with social security right now that I think an overall decrease is pretty foolish.

7) Military experience - I don't think it should be required to lead the country. I don't see why having served would necessarily make a candidate better able to understand and deal with security issues.

8) Religion - I'm not religious.

9) "Partil birth" abortion - I'm on the fence on this one.

10) Affirmative action - I support it in a limited sense, usually on a case by case basis. Believe strongly that, while useful, such programs are not themselves the solution for persisting racial inequalities.

[andyfox]

1) Don't know enough about it to really say. From what I hear from my friends, I would say I'm inclined to favor full speed ahead.

2) A bad idea from the start, getting worse by the day. Kerry's "plan" is not too discernible; Bush's plan is and it's disastrously incompetent and unworkable.

3) In favor. Two people are in love and want to get married, wonderful. Two women strike me as the perfect parental unit.

4) In favor.

5) More than we're doing now. I've purchased Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book chastizing Bush on his environmental program, but haven't gotten to read it yet. But I believe ray zee. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

6) We need a more progressive tax policy. I agree with Bush that the tax code is a mess. Simple, though, has to be better, not just simpler.

7) Of course not.

8) I'm probably an atheist. Haven't thought about whether that influences my political viewpoints, although I would say I do worry when politicians invoke God, as when, for example, when asked if he seeks wisdom (or counsel? can't remember the exact wording), Bush says he appeals to a higher Father. Referring to the "evildoers" is also of concern.

9) Don't know enough about it, suspect I'd be opposed.

10) Enthusiastically in favor. I'm with Colin Powell on this one: what horrific harm is caused to our society if a few hundred black kids get into law school that wouldn't otherwise? I know that's a terrible simplification of a complex issue.

To me, the overarching issue of this campaign is foreign policy, in particular the Bush Doctrine, which I oppose vigorously. Thus I hold my nose and vote for Kerry. So I don't really qualify as a Kerry "supporter." None of this, of course, should come as much of a supprise to regular posters here.

[elwoodblues]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?

For it. Benefits are great. Not a federal issue. Should not be a factor in grants.

2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.

With this president it was a war just waiting for a reason. First part was executed very well. Second part, not so much. Given where we're at now, we need to put the right resources in place to make it a success (though we never should have been in this position.)

3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?

For it.

4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?

Good thing.

5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

Great extent. We should fully enforce existing laws. If we don't like a law get rid of it (as opposed to just not enforcing it.) Enforcement costs should be considered when enacting legislation/administrative regulations.

6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?

Progressive tax structure makes sense. Too much --- when creating policies/initiatives we should pay for them. If we don't want to pay for it, we shouldn't enact it. If we want to pay for it, we should expect increased taxes to do so.

7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?

Nope, not required. It is one of many factors to be looked at, but would rarely be a deciding factor.

8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?

Yep. Yep, to the extent that they form my morals and values and the candidate of choice shares those values. The candidates religion is irrelevant unless the values/policies proposed are a result of the religious beliefs and are, what I believe to be, bad policies.


9) "Partial birth" abortion

Against it.

10) Affirmative Action

Depending on how you define it, I am very much in favor of it.

[Zeno]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?

Scientific reasearch should not be subject to the whims and metaphysical nonsense of religious quackery.

2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.

Bungled and Botched as it was post-war (The coalition is now trying to 'secure the peace'), full spead ahead.


3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?

I'm for happy marriages between couples.


4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?

Promoting population control is an overall good.

5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

The earth's environment will continue to degrade and at best we have to seek a balance between growth to sustain the number of people on the planet and try to impove their living conditions and the sacrifaces that will come from trying to acheive that goal. Enforcment of too may bogus and silly regulations taxes the strengh of the oversight agencies which are usually run by morons and idealist that lose sight of practically issues.

6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?

Try for something more simple - whether the dopes in Washington can do this is another question.

7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?

No.

8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?

My atheism colors my worldview so in this respect I assume that it does influence my political thinking (see answer to question 1) but to what extent I do not know nor care.

9) "Partial birth" abortion

Haven't really followed this one. No comment.

10) Affirmative Action

Causes a lot of ballyhoo. I look forward to a day when this is not an issue. Really don't follow all this very much so probably best to not comment more than that.

[superleeds]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?

For. But it needs to be heavily regulated.

2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.

Origionally for. But I believed the lies. Unfortunately the US (and the rest of the world) will be paying for it both financely and Securitywise for a long time IMHO

3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?

For. Why not?

4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?

Good Thing. (I'm assuming the individuals get a choice.)

5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

To a huge extent. Large corporation have shown time and time again that if they are left to regulate themselves they will not do so. We will make the earth uninhabitable if we keep polluting it at the same levels we do know. A company's job is to make money not hamper itself by putting obstacles in it's own way. They must be policed and laws must be enforced.

6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?

A progressive taxation code is the right way. You hear many conservatives complain that it's simply not a fair way of taxing a nation. Well to be brutally honest, that argument is complete and utter bullshit. Why is it not fair? Because you only use one school? You get the same service from the police than the same person who pays far less? The military are defending you no better than an unemployed unmarried mother?

Who has more to lose if the country becomes unstable or being menaced by others or it's not safe to walk the neighborhood?

Defence and the maintenance of a stable country are what the vast majority of our tax dollars are spent on. People who earn more should pay more because, very simply, they benefit more.

7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?

No. But you would hope a complete novice's may listen to their military advisors

8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?

No. Yes. When Bush mentions God it makes my skin crawl much as it does when Osama mentions Allah.

9) "Partial birth" abortion

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

10) Affirmative Action

It's generally a good thing.

[adios]

Here's I believe a more or less unbiased web site. Congress passed a law banning them but pro choice advocates are fighting for them in court and I believe have won.

Partial Birth Abortion Infor (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm)

Description of the D&X Procedure:
These are generally called:

"D&X" procedures, an abbreviation of "dilate and extract," or
"Intact D&E," or
"Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedures.

They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level. We will generally use the medical terms in this section.

The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.

The exact number of D&Xs performed is impossible to estimate with accuracy. Many states do not have strict reporting regulations.

One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.
Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. 1 If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S.
Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia said: "I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia].

[anatta]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?
2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.
3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?
4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?
5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?
6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?
7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?
8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?
9) "Partial birth" abortion
10) Affirmative Action

1. I agree with the First Lady on this one, because as a librarian who knows the Dewey decimal system, she must be pretty smart. The promise of stem cell research is unknown. As such, we should be very afraid.

2. I support Bush policies...

because Saddam was a growing and immediate threat, capable of causing Nuclear winter, because he used WMD in the 1980's which is very relevant today, because Bush promised to take the final authorization for force to the UN for a vote, too see where they stand, who is with us and against us, and not at the last minute call it off. Because since Han Blix couldn't find any weapons after searching half the sites, it was clear to me on the eve of War that the WMD's MUST BE IN THE OTHER NON-SEARCHED HALF, because we knew where the weapons were as Rumsfeld informed me, because I believe Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, and not President Bush or the CIA, that 9-11 hijackers met with Iraqis, because Wolfowitz made it clear that Iraq can finance their own reconstruction and we would be greeted as liberators. Because how can anyone argue with a no-bid contract for Haliburton?, because Bush told me in the State of the Union that Iraq is seeking Nuclear material from Niger, Because Bush told me "we found them" re: WMD's, because why would an Iraqi who gets $28 million/month and sits next to the first lady at State of Union lie?, because "Mission Accomplished" and major combat operations are over (except for the battles to take those urban areas, about 36 or so that the insurgents (can I call them "insurgents" now Rummy?) control, and the killings and stuff), because 8500 killed or injured out of 150,000 really ain't that bad (Like they said on Fox, lots of people die in California), and its getting worse kinda slowly not really that quickly, except recently kinda quick, but as a whole, well, really kinda slow.

Since we are making progess in Iraq (other than the killings and stuff), since we really don't need to catch Bin Laden, we have plenty of resourses to do that, beside Bush told us "he doesn't care" where Bin Laden is, since we have a strong coalition (minus Australia in a few weeks and Briton is reducing too, we still have the Romanians on our side and those little girls are great on the beam), since we are killing the terrorists over there so we don't have to kill them over here and clearly not creating any new terrorist, since I believe that admin when they released a study and claimed terrorism is decreasing worldwide and I don't believe their subsequent correction which shows it is not, and again we are making progress, and the liberal media is just too scared to leave the green zone and see what is really going on in Iraq for fear they will, well, be killed. And the world really doesn't hate us despite the polls, and even if they did who needs international help in an international war on terror?

Besides, How can I believe Kerry? The admin tells me "he has no credibility on the issue".

The other stuff...Gay Marriage really concerns me and my ex-wife. Affirmative Action! No, like Bush, I believe in "Affirmative Access". My dad went to Harvard, I should have access too.

Like Bush's base, I am religious and believe in the rapture and all that stuff, like Jesus will come down once the Holy Land stuff is taken care of and we build 3 temples, then I will go to heaven and enjoy my life in paradise while billions suffer the tortures of hell. Its a little something called "morality" you libs should look it up.

[OrangeHeat]

9) "Partial birth" abortion - Against it and against abortion period. After seeing sonograms of my two kids with in the early months I can't see any of it being good.

10) Affirmative Action - Against it. If one person is more talented than another there should be no reason to punish him/her by artificially inflating another because of a differing race/age/gender. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Orange

[Matty]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?

For it of course. Because it makes no sense to be against it and there are many benefits.

2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.

I've said it's a distraction from terrorism from the very start.

3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?

Should be up to the states to decide. I don't know about marriage personally, but I do support civil unions.

4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?

Good.

5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

A larger extent than right now. I want another Teddy Roosevelt!

6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?

I was happy with the taxes under Clinton.

7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?

Not at all.

8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?

Yes, I am religious. I'm a Unitarian Universalist and the beliefs which led me to UU also lead me toward certain political candidates.

9) "Partial birth" abortion

I'm opposed to the term 'partial birth abortion'. It is not a medical term and it does not identify any particular abortion procedure.

10) Affirmative Action

I assume you mean affirmative action for minorities or financially-challenged people- and not the kind of affirmative action GW recieved.

I think AA is a somewhat ineffective band-aid for a larger problem, but until that larger problem is fixed, AA should be allowed to stay in place if a school so desires.

[ACPlayer]

While not a supporter per so, I am voting for him. Here is my take:

1. No position.
2. Hah!!
3. For. Cant find one good reason against it.
4. Give them the choice of birth control. Against forced sterilization and chinese style incentive/disincentive programs.
5. Corporations should be responsible for cleaning up all messes they create. Pollution standards should be tightened up with time (but slowly) - violations punished (including no govt contracts to any corp with violations in the recent past).
6. Federal taxes should be 10% max rate. Tax revenue should stay local, if NY wants high tax rates to maintain our city fine -- i dont want local dollars going to washington or montana. Feds should not be involved in intra state infrastructre spending.
7. No.
8. I consider myself a monotheist with disdain for all organized religions.
9. No position. Generally prefer these to be personal choices not govt mandated.
10. Should be based on a defined objective and not some nebolous standard.

[nothumb]

Well I responded to the one polling Bush supporters, which obviously I am not. Nor am I a Kerry supporter, but I will bite on 9 & 10...

I think 'partial birth abortion' is a term devised for political purposes and the whole manner of attack from the religious right on this issue has been despicable. I personally could not ask my wife to have one, and would probably be deeply hurt by it if she chose to, even knowing my child would be retarded or deformed. I would support it in extreme cases or in the cases of danger to the woman. I do not think it should be outlawed.

My girlfriend says she could never have an abortion and I support that. Should a situation arise I would never mention the possibility.

I'm for affirmative action, and I think the political demagogues who oppose it based on reverse racism or stealing opportunities from whites are using cheap, cynical logic. I understand the disagreements posters here have with it in principle but disagree with them strongly.

NT

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?

[/ QUOTE ]

For it. Medical research is a good thing and there is nothing wrong with the process involved.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste of resources. Saddam was clearly not an imminent and catastrophic threat to our existence as the administration lead us to believe. In attacking Saddam we took resources away from where they should be, fighting against those that wish us harm, are planning this, and have the resources to do so.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?

[/ QUOTE ]

For legalisation. I see no reason why two people shouldn't be allowed to marry. There is no good argument against it other than tradition.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously good. Education to go along with it would be better.

[ QUOTE ]
5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fullest possible.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxes should be highly progressive. The rich benefit more from society and the government than the poor and hence they should pay a higher percent in taxes. There is no reason why there should be so many people that are rich and so many people that are very poor.

[ QUOTE ]
7) Military experience: Required to lead our country?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but in times of war it would be beneficial.

[ QUOTE ]
8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no.

[ QUOTE ]
9) "Partial birth" abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm opposed to it, but it's silly to bring up. The reason is that it confuses the issue. A very low percentage of abortions are partial birth.

[ QUOTE ]
10) Affirmative Action

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully before I die it will no longer be so, but as of now it is sadly necesary.

[nicky g]

I'm not American but I'll answer these for the sake of giving a snapshot of my political views (which I know you guys can't get enough of /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

1) Stem cell research: For it or against it? And why?
Don't know much about it. In my ignorance, I'll say for it.

2) Iraq war: Your thoughts.
A disaster. Counterproductive and an extremely expensive and dangerous way of making the world a better place (which in some ways it has) with multiple drawbacks (not least the number of people killed in it); the resources spent on it could have achieved much more in other ways. The stated reasons for it were bull. The weapons inspectors were in and asking for more time; Iraq was in the process of destroying more weapons; the inspectos judged that nearly all its chemical and biological weapon stockpiles had been destoryed and the "intelligence" suggesting it was working to produce more was based on guesswork and politicised sources rather than evidence. The post war situation is being handled terribly and now that the "coalition" is viewed as an occupier it should leave.

3) Gay marriage: For it or against it? And why?
See no reason against it.

4) Birth control for 3rd world countries: Good thing or bad thing?
Should it be available? Of course. Should the developed world fund it as part of their aid commitments? Sure.

5) The environment: To what extent should we be policing corporations for violations?

More, and the laws defnining violations should be tougher. Harmful emissions represent a real cost to the the world so should be counted as a cost for which the firms should pay (ie they should be taxed, with the revenue ringfenced for clean-up programmes).

6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?
There comes a point when people are rich enough that extra money is not a particularly socially useful incentive. Where that point comes is debatable but above it marginal income taxes should be extremely high, say 90%. Income up to the poverty line should not be taxed. Sales taxes and other regressive taxes should be abolished with the shortfall made up for in increased income taxes for high rate payers. There is a lot more luck in life than most people realise and the government should aim to reduce the fluctuations, as it were; not to mention that there are clear correlations between high levels of inequality and social breakdown (crime, broken families, poor health etc).

7) Military experience: Required to lead a country?
No.

8) Religion: Are you religious? Do your beliefs influence your politics?
Yes. Yes. Christ taught compasion for the poor and oppressed and I hope my politics reflect that. That said, state and church should be clearly separated.

9) "Partial birth" abortion
Against.

10) Affirmative Action.
For positive discrimination on a case by case basis; should be based on disadvantaged background rather than race.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm opposed to it, but it's silly to bring up. The reason is that it confuses the issue. A very low percentage of abortions are partial birth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to refrain from commenting but I can't with this one. It doesn't confuse the issue at all IMO. First of all if something is inhumane and cruel, it doesn't matter that it's a small percentage of abortions in my mind. Second it shows in my mind how extreme the pro choice position is (the pro life position activists are extemists as well IMO). A lot of people from what I can tell are opposed to partial birth abortion. I'm fairly certain that if I just used the word abortion instead most Kerry supporters would say they're for it (a lot of Bush supporters too). I believe that it indicates a few things:

1) That the pro choice and pro life activists represent extremely polarized positions.

2) Most people want something in between these polarized positions as the law regarding abortion.

FWIW I don't think that the abortion issue will ever be resolved without some sort of "meeting in the middle."

BTW Kerry voted against the law banning partial birth abortions as well as the Laci Peterson law.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all if something is inhumane and cruel, it doesn't matter that it's a small percentage of abortions in my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Capital punishment is a very small percentage of all punishments but it is an issue that deserves attention. Frivolous litigation is a VERY small percentage of litigation, but it still deserves attention. Military prison guards who abuse detainees are a very small percentage, but they deserve our attention.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Capital punishment is a very small percentage of all punishments but it is an issue that deserves attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've convinced me about capital punishment. I'm against it but you've convinced me my reasons were wrong for being against it.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
6) Taxes: How much is too much? How much is too little? Who should pay the most? The least?
There comes a point when people are rich enough that extra money is not a particularly socially useful incentive. Where that point comes is debatable but above it marginal income taxes should be extremely high, say 90%. Income up to the poverty line should not be taxed. Sales taxes and other regressive taxes should be abolished with the shortfall made up for in increased income taxes for high rate payers. There is a lot more luck in life than most people realise and the government should aim to reduce the fluctuations, as it were; not to mention that there are clear correlations between high levels of inequality and social breakdown (crime, broken families, poor health etc).

[/ QUOTE ]


Ahhhh run for the hills!!!!! 90% income tax above "levels socially useful"!!!! AHHHHHHHH!!!! Abolish "regressive" taxes like sales tax! "Government should aim to reduce the fluctuations." AHHHHHHH! Run for your lives!!!!!!

Just having a little fun with it, but WHOA!

That's not America, nicky. Sorry. We RAN from that. That's why we're over here, and not over there. It's fundamental to the very existence of the United States of America. (See Boston Tea Party and The American Revolution, et. al.)

The U.S. - although already far removed from the days of NO income tax - is NEVER going to go far in that direction. If anything, we're marching towards an era of LESS income tax and more "regressive" taxes like the VAT and National Sales Tax. Why? Because they make more sense than taxing productivity.

You need a WSJ, stat.

[ACPlayer]

Regressive taxes do indeed reduce productivity at the margins; but they also reduce both upward mobility and productivity and the incentive to work at the bottom end of the income scales.

Just as a quiz, consider the worst tax presently in our system. Do you know it? At 15% plus it truly punishes employment - specially for the lowest in the income scales.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
Regressive taxes do indeed reduce productivity at the margins; but they also reduce both upward mobility and productivity and the incentive to work at the bottom end of the income scales.

Just as a quiz, consider the worst tax presently in our system. Do you know it? At 15% plus it truly punishes employment - specially for the lowest in the income scales.

[/ QUOTE ]

VAT and sales tax reduce upward mobility and productivity? While I'll acknowledge that ALL TAXES reduce capacity and subsequently productivity...these "regressive" taxes are much preferable to an income tax. I could write a 10,000 word post on this subject, but this is a poker message board.

The worst tax? You're obviously referring to the payroll tax - and I do not disagree. It's 15.30% - split between worker and employer. Most people think of it as 7.65%, but since I'm a business owner...I have to see the actual number go out the door when I match it.

And it all goes into those two fabulous government systems known as Social Security and Medicare. It's also a tax that's been bumped up, up, up, dozens of times in the past 30 years. It had to be to keep the insolvent monsters that are social insurance afloat.


Look, I'm close to being anti EVERY tax, so if you wanna talk taxes I can go all day.

[ACPlayer]

Upward mobility comes from the ability to save and invest money in your business. So, if your friendly poker dealer wants to move up in life, one of his best choices is removed when 15% of the money his productivity is earning is sent to the govt. Note that for FICA you pay far less than 15% of your income whereas your secretary pays the entire percentage.

So, while I too am against taxation, regressive taxes reduce upward mobility and make it harder for the middle class to move up. If one HAS to have a new tax, it would be far better to increase marginal tax rates than to add a regressive tax, similarly if one was to drop a tax from our structure get rid of the most regressive first -- FICA for example. For one thing it would make it easier for you to add employees to your biz if you need to do so.

[kak17]

I'm not a Kerry supporter but I'll comment anyway.


1) I am against all government-funded medical research. I have no problem with private institutions investing in stem cell research. But seeing that there is very little private investment tells me the benefits aren't worth the costs.

2) Progress in Iraq is better than the media portrays.

3) Against it. Homosexuals first stated that what goes on between two consenting adults is none of the government's business. Now they want it to be the government's business. They claim it's a violation of the equal protection clause, but marriage is not an individual right. Marriage is a social contract with issues going beyond the two individuals. Marriage between a man and a woman produce future generations on whom the fate of the society depends. This consideration does not apply with unions of the same sex.

4) Let each individual make his or her own decisions on birth control.

5) www.perc.org (http://www.perc.org)

6) I would abolish the 16th amendment. The War of Independence was fought mainly over excess taxation. The Founding Fathers did not want the federal government to have too much power so they forbade the Congress from imposing an income tax (Article I, Section 9). The federal income tax only became legal because of a Constitutional amendment.

7) I'm not in position to answer this.

8) No. No.

9) Murder.

10) I have no problem with a private entity using affirmative action or racial discrimination or any other means to influence its hiring decisions. Since discrimination has costs, profit driven firms in a free market would be foolish to use any method other than the individual's qualifications to determine who it hires. Most discrimination occurs where the cost of discrimination is zero, such as government and other non-profit organizations, labor unions, and minimum wage laws. A clear example of how discrimination affects markets is Major League Baseball. In 1947 the Brooklyn Dodgers hired Jackie Robinson, a black man, to play baseball. Two years later they hired two more black stars. They immediately gained a competitive advantage. An owner of an all white team now had two choices. He could either continue to only hire white players and watch his team fail, or he could hire blacks and remain competitive. As it turned out, the color barrier broke in baseball leading to seven consecutive years of a black player winning the MVP award in the National League. In the case of firms operating in a free market, profits are more important than discriminatory beliefs.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
Two people are in love and want to get married, wonderful. Two women strike me as the perfect parental unit.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea who needs a dad? what a moronic statement

[Utah]

3) I am very in favor of gay marriage. However, I do have some issues with adopting (although I think in general adoption is an awful awful thing). I worry that it places additional hardships on a child that would not be there in a typical family structure (much of the hardship simply stemming from it being atypical rather than having anything to do with homosexuality).

10) I am enthusiastically against the logic for affirmative action. Lets turn Powell's argument around "whats so wrong with a few hundred highly qualified white kids getting screwed out of law school and damaging there future so a bunch of undeserving black kids can go to school in their place". I think the problem with Powells statement, and the inherent disregard for individual rights, is self evident.

Also, I have worked for large companies and I strongly believe that black people are treated differently than whites because of affirmative action. Unfortunately, they need to prove them first because many people will first wonder if they are an affirmative action case. They will in essence always be a black employee instead of just another employee, which is too bad and unneccessary.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets turn Powell's argument around "whats so wrong with a few hundred highly qualified white kids getting screwed out of law school and damaging there future so a bunch of undeserving black kids can go to school in their place".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the great myth of affirmative action. The vast majority of blacks accepted to schools under affirmative action would have little chance of getting into other schools or succeeding without affirmative action programs. The vast majority of white kids who may or may not lose their place in one school are likely to get into at least a few others.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I have worked for large companies and I strongly believe that black people are treated differently than whites because of affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I think this is preferable to black people being treated differently from whites due to racism, because now they at least have better jobs. If affirmative action is indeed so damaging to black peoples' accomplishments, why are they so overwhelmingly in favor of it?

NT

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
although I think in general adoption is an awful awful thing

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious what you mean by that? I assume that you mean something like only responsible people should have kids, therefore adoption shouldn't be necessary (absent death of parents)

[Utah]

This is the great myth of affirmative action.

Respectfully, it is true and it cannot be any other way by nature. If the black studunt was good enough to get into the school or would have succeeded anyway then affirmative action would not be needed. If a white student is denied access to a school they want access to then it can only be considered detrimental to them.

It is a zero sume game and for some reason those that are for affirmative action dont want to look at the whole game. If one student is granted access then one student losses access. Its that simple.

[Utah]

assume that you mean something like only responsible people should have kids, therefore adoption shouldn't be necessary (absent death of parents)

I believe that there should be a proactive approach to pregnancy. Dealing with adoption or abortion is a reactive strategy. However, that is not what I meant.

What I mean is that adoption is inherently unnatural and unhealthy and it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Worse, I think the adoption industry and some adoptive parents have pushed a huge fraud on the public in their effort to protect and grow their billion dollar industry of selling babies.

Adoption is very harmful to adoptees and birthparents alike. Its simply unnatural to be seperated from your biological parents or your biological offspring. I think this is strongly backed up by the millions of adoptees and birthparents who are searching for their parents or child. It is also backed up by the need to move away from closed adoptions into open adoptions.

The adoption industry wants young girls (and the few men that stick around) to believe that they can simply place their child for adoption and everyone will live happily ever after. They dont tell the birthparents how much they will suffer. They also want adoptive parents to believe that they are resuing a baby and they dont tell them that the baby is one day going to want to his parents (in most cases).

In the end, almost everyone loses but the baby brokers.

Sorry for the off thread remarks, but you asked. LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Respectfully

Why the sudden "respectfully"

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

I agree with you about FICA. However I think punishing income-earning via an income tax is also regressive and counter-productive in its own way. It is certainly a discouragement to savings and investment, too.

In lieu of an income tax, I would favor a flat sales tax with exemptions or rebates for the amount covering the basic cost of food, shelter and housing for each individual. This would provide zero impediment to someone "trying to move up"--actually less impediment that the current graduated tax system. It would also greatly encourage productivity, savings and investment, as well as saving vast amounts by doing away with the need for complicated accounting and tax strategies.

[Utah]

The problem is that it is next to impossible to reach middle ground. Once the battle is won on partial birth abortions then it shifts to the next battle on abortion and it is indeed a slippery slope. One cannot give ground in a battle. You see the same thing with the gun control battle.

btw - I am fairly against abortion, mostly on grounds that I have yet to hear a logical reason for it. I am really against Partial birth abortion.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it is next to impossible to reach middle ground

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on what the question is and how we define middle position. When we phrase questions in a yes/no way, then middle ground is pretty tough to reach. We tend to get that when we have philosophical questions answered in court because courts have to ultimately give a yes or no answer (although, to a large extent, the opinions themselves are compromise positions.)

I would suggest that we can reach some middle ground on abortion (I posted something similar a LONG time ago, instead of searching the archives, I'll restate it.)

Some middle ground positions that I think are attainable:

1) An understanding that a fetus is a FORM of life. Rarely will a Pro-choice person hold the position that a fetus is nothing more than excess tissue. Similarly, most Pro-life people recognize (and please forgive my inability to state this artfully) that the fetus isn't a full life.

2) The decision to have an abortion or not is a difficult moral decision. This ties back to #1. Very few pro-choice individuals consider an abortion on the same level as a haircut or a nose job.

3) We should enact social policies aimed at reducing the number of abortions. This would obviously be the hardest of the three to get agreement on (especially once the particular policies were discussed). However, I suspect that by changing the tenor of the debate, most could agree that as a principle reducing the number of abortions is good. The devil is in the details. However, I think once both sides are committed to the principle the rhetoric from each side can be toned down so that, for example, rational education programs (on, for example, reducing unwanted pregnancies or abortion alternatives) could be accepted without each side believing such policies are for some ominous goal.



-----------------

On a side note - I find your positions on abortion and adoption curious in that you think both are wrong. A middle position between you and people who disagree with your stance would be that efforts should be made to decrease the number of unwanted pregancies.

[Utah]

The problem with middle ground is that those who take up "arms" for a cause are on the fringes. This is pretty logical because one who will fight for something tends to be very passionate about it. Therefore, no one fights for the middle ground, even though most people land there.

Unfortunately, you are often left with a situation where the majority's view is unobtainable.


[ QUOTE ]
On a side note - I find your positions on abortion and adoption curious in that you think both are wrong. A middle position between you and people who disagree with your stance would be that efforts should be made to decrease the number of unwanted pregancies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number one effort should be to limit unwanted pregnancies. That solves all problems. Every other option is second best. I dont really have a strong position on abortion, other than I hate both sides with a passion. Every argument of the pro-choice crowd seems to be easily refuted with logic (e.g., keep your hands off my body. I can think of many ways the government already has their hands on a persons body. To accept that argument we must eliminate a lot of other things as well). On an emotional side, I dislike them because what they are advocatig is a distructive act by nature and I dont like the cavalier attitude to destroying something with a human element.

To the pro life side, I simply say - go through an unwanted birth, give up your child to adoption and then come talk to me ten years later and tell me how you feel about your simple solution.

On the other hand, I obviously have a strong position on adoption. I think this is an area where the general population is woefully uneducated.

[riverflush]

My 2(+2) cents on the abortion issue: we're never going to solve it, or agree on anything, or get anywhere...so the sooner each individual comes to an understanding that he or she cannot change the world's opinion on the issue, the sooner that person can begin living a more full, less stressful life.

If we were to roll back Roe v. Wade, abortions would still occur. Governments cannot prevent human behavior, in fact, it's debatable whether they can even curb human behavior at all. Are there more or less illicit drug users in the U.S. due to the stiff drug laws? Some would argue more. Will there be less abortions if we roll back Roe v. Wade? I'm not convinced...

It's a brutal issue. It didn't begin yesterday and it's not going to end tomorrow. Though noble, the many "warriors" on both sides are going up against human behavior that is entrenched over centuries...marching to find a solution that does not exist. There is no common ground between life and death.

[ACPlayer]

Clinton said it best "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" (approx quote). Too bad he worked only on the safe and legal part.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no common ground between life and death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there is a middle ground. Very few people on the Pro Life side believe that a fetus has the same "life" characteristics as you or I. Very few people on the choice side believe that a fetus is nothing more than tissue. A middle ground position is that a fetus is a form of life.

[nothumb]

What are you talking about? He pulled out! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NT

[nothumb]

Respectfully, everything is not a zero-sum game, despite how forcefully a lot of posters here seem to insist it. Again, here's my point: the white kid loses access to one school. The black kid gains access to college that he did not have. The white kid loses minimally, the black kid gains greatly.

Compare this to the previous situation, where the white kid stays roughly the same and the black kid has little or no opportunity.

I personally agree with whoever posted, claiming that affirmative action should look for a background of need rather than just race. I was reading an article by a rather prominent black scholar, one of the leading authorities on affirmative action, and he was saying something similar - that by the time our kids are in college (I don't have any kids) we should be doing affirmative action based on economic or social disadvantage and not merely race. I think it's a good argument.

The idea of education should not be a zero-sum game. It should be to provide quality public and private educational opportunities for everyone who wants them.

NT

[riverflush]

IF we are going to have a program that approaches "affirmative action" - and that is a big IF - socioeconomic factors are much more relevant than race.

[MMMMMM]

Very important point, Riverflush.

[jdl22]

Apparently I should have been more clear. I don't think that it's an issue not worth discussing. The problem is that the pro-life crowd often bring up the issue of partial birth abortion in order to get people opposed to abortion in general.

An example of this occurred yearly at the University of Oregon where I was an undergraduate. The U of O is a very liberal school, probably too much so. Every year a pro life group comes to the school with huge pictures of final trimester aborted fetuses no doubt from partial birth abortions. When I say huge I mean it, these things are about a story tall and probably 15-20 feet wide. They then hand out their literature and have signs giving the statistics on abortions. Since more than 95% (don't know the exact number) of abortions are very early in the pregnancy this is quite misleading.

Since it is clear that you are able to think clearly and reasonably about the subject let me make my view a bit more clear. Firstly when you said this:
[ QUOTE ]


1) That the pro choice and pro life activists represent extremely polarized positions.

2) Most people want something in between these polarized positions as the law regarding abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct. As I said I am against partial birth abortion. Having said that I do consider myself pro choice, though certainly not in the activist class. The reason I feel this way is as follows:

- a fetus is clearly subhuman
- the morality of abortion could be debated forever, it is like arguing which color is best because there is no factual evidence that leads to a conclusion one way or the other so it is simply a matter of opinion. Your opinion essentially boils down to whether you think potential life is equivalent to actual life or not.
- abortion being illegal is much worse for society than abortion being legal even if it is morally wrong. This is because abortions will still happen in great numbers however they will be performed crudely and unprofessionally.

Clearly extremists on both sides are hypocritical. Here's why:

Pro choice people apparently believe that a fetus is not equivalent to a life and that potential life is not as important as an actual one. Many also advocate people being charged with murder for beating a pregnant woman and that causing an abortion or for two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Hence they think that in some cases a fetus is of less value than a human being but in others the same. Obviously as you would probably agree some sort of middle ground should be reached where you are charged with a crime but that crime should not be murder. Clearly beating a pregnant woman into an abortion is worse than battery but it's also not the same as killing a human being.

Conservatives are against abortion in most cases. Hence they believe that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. They are however in favor of making abortion legal in cases of rape and/or incest and/or when the life of the mother is at risk. Why should rape or incest be brought into the discussion at all? If you think that it is equivalent to a human being then why should it matter if the father happens to have raped the mother? Would you say to a 6 year old "sorry, Johnny your father is a rapist so we're going to go ahead and blow your brains out." If you believe them to be equivalent then it makes no sense that rape or incest would be a factor. It is possible that most pro lifers don't believe this but feel politically motivated to say it. Also it's one of the strange cases where the only consistent (pro-life) people are those in the extreme.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
onservatives are against abortion in most cases. Hence they believe that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. They are however in favor of making abortion legal in cases of rape and/or incest and/or when the life of the mother is at risk. Why should rape or incest be brought into the discussion at all? If you think that it is equivalent to a human being then why should it matter if the father happens to have raped the mother?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answer to the question is that your first assumption is wrong. Most pro-lifers don't believe a fetus is the same as a human. It is a form of life, but not to the same level as you or I. As a form of life it deserves protection. However, because it is not a fully developed life there is a balancing of harms. In that balance, many pro-lifers say that the life of the fetus is outweighed by the harm to the mother.