The candidates on domestic issues... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 08-24-2004, 05:55 AM

Frankly, I'm growing tired of the swiftvets issue. Not because I think there is nothing valuable to be learned from its developments... but because I think it has spun wildly out of control. It has devolved into chronological disputes and nuances that rely solely on 30 year old undocumented accounts. The media and the respective campaigns are not interested in finding the truth.

Same w/the war in Iraq. The Bush campaign will continue to try to minimize the failures and maximize the successes of the war as far as public accountability will allow them to stretch. The Kerry side will continue to try to distort realistic expectations for our progress and spread half-truths about the President's pre-war rationale.

This thread is intended for discussion of domestic issues (i.e. the economy, stem-cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, role of religion, healthcare, taxes etc.). I think there has been too little emphasis on this in the media, I'd like to have a discussion about it here on TFP.

Did anyone else think that Kerry's convention speech dropped a few domestic policy bombs that have gone relatively unnoticed? He briefly mentioned something that seemed to resemble socialized healthcare. If that is his plan, that would affect the average American more than any other issue (with the exception of national defense.)

What about the tax-cut modification that Kerry is proposing? Do you think it is fair to tax the top 2% more heavily in light of the load they are paying now?

What do you think about Kerry's religious beliefs? He professes to not "wear his religion on his sleeve". Is that a good thing... a bad thing? Was he trying to pander to the religious community or was he giving a sincere statement of his beliefs? Does this have a place in a political discussion?

Does Teresa Heinz Kerry have the power to influence voters one way or the other?

Hopefully we can get some factually grounded discussion going here on these issues that appear to be somewhat neglected.

rukkyg · 08-24-2004, 06:37 AM

Whenever Bush talks about God, it makes me hate him more. I can't take anyone seriously when they say God or Jesus did something for them. I was impressed by Kerry saying that although he believes in God (or says he does so he's acceptable to most of the nation), he won't exhibit his beliefs for everyone to see.

irateplatypus · 08-24-2004, 07:00 AM

As a Christian, Kerry appears to me to be a person who is educated in the "culture" of Christianity but does not embrace the faith in a deeply personal way that seems to characterize Bush's theological stance. I'm sure Kerry is aware of Biblical principles and church doctrine, but it seems to be more of a heritage than an everyday faith to him.

Granted, it is all speculation... I don't pretend to truly know either of the President's or Kerry's faith, but that is how it comes across to me from what both of them project publicly. As a Christian, I am convinced that Christianity is a positive thing and am encouraged when our leaders have views similar to mine (as i am sure anybody is about their own views). Politicians know this and, i feel, tailor their public appearance accordingly... so I'm not too naive on this.

Because the President makes both fiscal and moral decisions for the country, I think that a leader as powerful as the President should expect that their religious beliefs be part of the issues. Not that we should only elect a person of a specific religion... but that the electorate be fully aware of the context in which the leader makes moral judgements.

pan6467 · 08-24-2004, 07:36 AM

As for religion, I would prefer a man/ woman that says they are dedicated to their faith (whatever that maybe) yet, can govern on issues and what is best for the country and not what is best for their religious views. To me this shows that he is fair and will not bias his decisions just to appease his religion.

Take stem cell research, it may prove to be the panacea that Ron Jr. talked of or it may end up a total bust, BUT we as an ever progressing peoples (not just our nation all mankind), must take the oppurtunity and chance and do the research. If we choose to let it pass by and not do it because of religious beliefs then we may as well just surrender and go back to the dark ages and believe and do nothing unless the Church allows it.

As for education, hopefully, as a nontraditional student, Kerry will put more money into the financial aid packages and help ANYONE wanting to advance further in life. Right now because of my age I am not eligible for many scholarships and grants and because of my gambling past my credit is shot, I am not recieving very good aid, at all. If he can only do one thing hopefully it would be to add money to the Stafford Loans, they don't even cover tuition at a cheap school such as Univ. of Akron, let alone room and board.

I am for a socialized health care and I personally feel the cost would be made up in a healthier nation. At the very least, Government should force all businesses to offer insurance and cap the costs for businesses to a percentage of income and number of workers.

Teresa, she has to be better than Hilary and more active than Bush's wife.

Taxes should be increased on imports, and companies that employ overseas should be forced to pay taxes for those working for them. So say you are Nike and you pay 25 cents an hour. You should be charged for the taxes on each worker overseas at a rate of minimum wage*2.5. That would be a deterrant to shipping jobs overseas. Plus it would increase revenue.

Free market is a great idea, BUT when other countries refuse to play fair and take advantage of us, it's time to take care of our own. In an economic war we are losing and becoming very much 3rd world. My children and predecessors deserve better and better oppurtunities regardless of what the right may say. Every generation except the baby boomers (greedy fucks) took care of their future children, we need to do the same.

Well, those are my views. Kerry comes closest, Bush is almost exact opposite on all of them so......

onetime2 · 08-24-2004, 07:39 AM

I'll play.

Gay Marriage:

Kerry has taken the path of least resistance by supporting the state's rights view of it and I don't really fault him for that. Bush wants to change the Constitution over it. I disagree with this stance completely. I believe gay couples should have the right to a civil union and at the same time respect should be paid to the term "marriage" as it seems (to me at least) to hold a certain religious connotation. The compromise in this is the civil union so long as they offer the same "rights" to these couples as marriage offers to a man and woman.

Taxes:

I like Bush's approach better. The government needs to be forced to be more responsible with the money they already get. Until the government makes a more serious commitment to weeding out the useless and inefficient programs they do not deserve to take more from us. Kerry's plan continues to feed the monster while Bush's at least cuts it's portion size.

Iraq:

I do not believe there will be a significant change with Kerry in power. Putting the debate over the reasons for war aside I believe the campaign has been run well and the progress made in a short time is staggering. The only change that might happen with Kerry is commitment from other nations to send troops. I seriously doubt that will happen so the reality will likely be a plan very much like the one currently in place.

The economy:

The President does not significantly impact the economy. There are some pros and cons to each candidate's economic vision but overall they are about equal in my eyes.

Training for workers and students:

I like Bush's plan to help workers transition from sagging industries to more vibrant ones. The difference in growth rates between industries and the trend of employment moving outside of US borders have been key parts of my economic research over the years. There is little doubt some industries are destined to move outside of the US. All the protectionist policies and political maneuvering in the world can only slightly delay this fact. Recognition that it is inevitable in a global economy is the necessary first step. The Kerry campaign's stand on protecting these jobs will only hurt the economy (both ours and the world's).

Health Care:

I like that this is a topic in both campaigns. I do not believe the government is efficient enough at this time to take it on by itself however. Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors is a great starting point IMO. The attacks against it have only served to scare people away from something that could help ease the financial strains of high cost therapies. This could have been a great uniting topic but it has been used as just another political football by the Dems IMO. Rather than looking at it as a starting point that could be improved on it will be trumpeted as a failure to promote the Dem plan(s). This only hurts those who would have received the benefits and will likely set back progress on this important issue.

Stem Cell Research:

This is a tough one that I don't really have a firm stance on yet. While it certainly has a lot of potential, I really do believe that life begins at the point of conception (sperm making it through the outer layer of egg) and it bothers me to see the potential for such a huge loss of human life. These embryos will basically be giving up their lives for the benefit of the living with no guarantee that anything will come of it and without giving any sort of consent. In general I am for the concept of sacrifice of some for the benefit of all but I have not been able to reconcile the two issues. In the mean time I would prefer to see the research minimized. Current policy does not ban stem cell research but does minimize its use.

Religion:

I am not a particularly religious person but I absolutely believe that there are underlying concepts in all religions that make us better as people and a society. I like that Bush and Kerry both have some level of religious compass. I do not see Bush as some religious zealot as many others seem to claim and I don't see Kerry as lacking a religious center because he doesn't actively promote his faith. On this I see the two men as approximately equal.

irateplatypus · 08-24-2004, 08:02 AM

The socialized healthcare that seems to be ever-present in liberal platforms would be the best idea ever... if it actually worked. i know this will shock you all, but i'm skeptical of its chances of success.

We have countless news stories of government corruption, criminally prosecuted officials and billions of dollars of taxpayer money unaccounted for. Are these really the conditions we want to place our healthcare in? When the government stops losing my tax money, when the legislators can spend only the amount they are given, when I'm sure the officials in charge will have the general welfare of our country in mind w/every decision... then I'll think about socialized healthcare.

Granted, the private sector certainly isn't free from corruption or waste... but at least I have another company to turn to if my provider proves unsuitable. If the government dominates the field... you better hope the system works perfectly, because there is no competitor to take your business.

This is why Kerry's (and the left's) noble but, i think, naive notion of socialized healthcare is not for me.

filtherton · 08-24-2004, 08:18 AM

I have nothing to add other than to say welcome back irate.

98MustGT · 08-24-2004, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

I'll play.

Gay Marriage:

Kerry has taken the path of least resistance by supporting the state's rights view of it and I don't really fault him for that. Bush wants to change the Constitution over it. I disagree with this stance completely. I believe gay couples should have the right to a civil union and at the same time respect should be paid to the term "marriage" as it seems (to me at least) to hold a certain religious connotation. The compromise in this is the civil union so long as they offer the same "rights" to these couples as marriage offers to a man and woman.
Well stated

Taxes:

I like Bush's approach better. The government needs to be forced to be more responsible with the money they already get. Until the government makes a more serious commitment to weeding out the useless and inefficient programs they do not deserve to take more from us. Kerry's plan continues to feed the monster while Bush's at least cuts it's portion size.
We need congressional help with this as well

Iraq:

I do not believe there will be a significant change with Kerry in power. Putting the debate over the reasons for war aside I believe the campaign has been run well and the progress made in a short time is staggering. The only change that might happen with Kerry is commitment from other nations to send troops. I seriously doubt that will happen so the reality will likely be a plan very much like the one currently in place.
I think Bush was in a damned if he did damned if he didn't situation, if he did nothing and a dirty bomb went off in LA linked to Iraq the liberal would want his head on a stick

The economy:

The President does not significantly impact the economy. There are some pros and cons to each candidate's economic vision but overall they are about equal in my eyes.
I agree, keeping taxes low helps, if there were a way to tax the extreme wealthy I would not have a problem with that, here in San Diego when my 30 year old condo costed my 275,000 3 years ago you got to make a decent salary just to keep you head above water.

Training for workers and students:

I like Bush's plan to help workers transition from sagging industries to more vibrant ones. The difference in growth rates between industries and the trend of employment moving outside of US borders have been key parts of my economic research over the years. There is little doubt some industries are destined to move outside of the US. All the protectionist policies and political maneuvering in the world can only slightly delay this fact. Recognition that it is inevitable in a global economy is the necessary first step. The Kerry campaign's stand on protecting these jobs will only hurt the economy (both ours and the world's).
I like his plan too

Health Care:

I like that this is a topic in both campaigns. I do not believe the government is efficient enough at this time to take it on by itself however. Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors is a great starting point IMO. The attacks against it have only served to scare people away from something that could help ease the financial strains of high cost therapies. This could have been a great uniting topic but it has been used as just another political football by the Dems IMO. Rather than looking at it as a starting point that could be improved on it will be trumpeted as a failure to promote the Dem plan(s). This only hurts those who would have received the benefits and will likely set back progress on this important issue.
I would look into the idea of very BASIC health care for all, it may be more cost effective to have preventative care than just people showing up at the ER

Stem Cell Research:

This is a tough one that I don't really have a firm stance on yet. While it certainly has a lot of potential, I really do believe that life begins at the point of conception (sperm making it through the outer layer of egg) and it bothers me to see the potential for such a huge loss of human life. These embryos will basically be giving up their lives for the benefit of the living with no guarantee that anything will come of it and without giving any sort of consent. In general I am for the concept of sacrifice of some for the benefit of all but I have not been able to reconcile the two issues. In the mean time I would prefer to see the research minimized. Current policy does not ban stem cell research but does minimize its use.
I disagree with Bush on this we need to lead the world not follow

Religion:

I am not a particularly religious person but I absolutely believe that there are underlying concepts in all religions that make us better as people and a society. I like that Bush and Kerry both have some level of religious compass. I do not see Bush as some religious zealot as many others seem to claim and I don't see Kerry as lacking a religious center because he doesn't actively promote his faith. On this I see the two men as approximately equal.

I do not think that Bush is a zealot either, I am generally a republican (small gov't and keep them off our backs) but I believe in a womans right to have an abortion, first trimester only, condoms and birth control for teens to prevent abortion.
How can Kerry say he is a religious man and support partial birth abortion?

onetime2 · 08-24-2004, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT

I do not think that Bush is a zealot either, I am generally a republican (small gov't and keep them off our backs) but I believe in a womans right to have an abortion, first trimester only, condoms and birth control for teens to prevent abortion.
How can Kerry say he is a religious man and support partial birth abortion?

I forgot (or possibly ignored) the abortion issue. I am not a big supporter of abortion and the "right of choice" since there really is no choice for those that are the most helpless. That being said, I do support the availability of abortions because they will exist regardless of legality. I'd prefer to seem them done in the safest and most regulated ways possible. That is currently the case. I'd prefer, however, that more pressure or attention be given/applied to taking responsibility for the decision to have sex and the repercussions rather than making the "instant fix" of abortion on demand so acceptable.

pan6467 · 08-24-2004, 11:53 AM

OneTime,

I respect your views but 1 I do take issue with and is most important to me (not just being a student but having teachers in my family) is Bush's plan for "training workers and students".

I'm sorry but ANY president that cuts education and makes it almost impossible for someone to go back to school in their 30's is not worth being president. Where is this money for his programs? Why are so many students dependant on loans, that don't cover f/t tuition and room and board (and we are talking PUBLIC schools). Why when my wife and I made less than $25,000 last year did I not even qualify for a Pell Grant, and my loans cover my tuition and 1/2 my books? I'm a f/t student with 5 classes and 17 credit hours I start at 10AM and go till 6PM, how am I going to find a job that can pay rent and my bills while I am trying to better my life.

If I cut down to 10 hours or p/t I lose my work study (which isn't much), and I lose out on loan monies. This is fair how? Not everyone is mature enough or able to handle college when they graduate, some of us have to go through life before we realize what are true calling is. (And sorry I also want to go F/T so I can graduate in 5 yrs with my Master's and not 10.)

Plus, the field I am choosing is a very poor field in terms of money and in terms of employment (meaning there are very few good people out there for the jobs needed, and the demand is high).

I'm sorry but if Bush wants to talk about "training and school" then show the money he's putting into the system, and how one can get it, cause I don't see it.

By the way for those who don't know, I am getting a Master's in Social Work w/ a specialty in Drug and Alcohol Addiction Counselling, and during my summer's being certified in Compulsive Gambling counselling. My goal is to open a recovery center for Compulsive Gamblers and cross addicted gamblers.

For those saying, "well when you graduated high school you should have taken college more seriously." First, my parents got NO financial aid and secondly, what's the difference between me using the money then and not knowing what I wanted or using it now, knowing what I want and going into a very understaffed field?

Journeyman · 08-24-2004, 12:55 PM

pan: Keep at it. The lives you'll save helping people get monkeys off their backs will more than be worth it for all the hardships you're going through right now.

Ok, domestic issues.

Abortion: I'm thoroughly bummed out that a woman can know she's pregnant from 1 week after conception untill, say, 6 months after conception and decide then to terminate what amounts to a potentially viable, self-sustaining fetus. But, in terms of her right to choose, it is her right to choose. Point to Kerry

Health care: You really oughtn't have sick people who aren't getting treatment on the simple basis that they can't afford it/their work insurance doesn't cover it. Some changes are needed, but I'm not entirely sure that the government handling universal health care is a good idea. Tied.

Gun control: It's not about home defense, or hunting, it's about what's necessary to the security of a free state. Kerry is soft on gun control, but for the wrong reasons and I still don't trust the democrats to abide by the second amendment. Figure that one out. Point to Bush.

Stem cell research: Whatta you, nuts? Limiting medical treatment on the basis of moral grudges against what amounts to SCOTUS-approved, constitutionally-protected rights? Point to Kerry.

Religion: Kerry is Irish-Catholic, but understands that his duties to the country come before any desires to bring the country to it's knees and humble before God. Bush, I'm not so sure about. Point to Kerry.

The economy: Cutting taxes for the super rich, I honestly do not believe it will do jack shit for the economy. Since this is the best that either can offer, point to Kerry.

Gay marriage: As is said before, the term "marriage" has traditionally religious connotations. And, seeing as how there have been a number of christian... uhh, pastors, reverends, head honchos, etc who have married homosexuals together, Bush has no ground to stand on. If you want "traditional marriages," be sure and legislate me some polygamy laws while you're at it. Point to Kerry.

Taxes: Cut the fat, go from there. Flat tax rates, that's just silly. Tied, Kerry for not pandering to the super rich with tax cuts, Bush for being of the persuasion that loathes wasteful government spending.

Education: Bush fucked up. Kerry would be hard pressed to do any worse. Point to Kerry.

Defense: Stop punching people for no reason and you'll find that you don't get punched all that much yourself. On the other hand, taking the fight to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein may have increased underground terrorist networks, it did wake up a few nations to a new "Stop fucking around" message (Libya, Syria, Iran). I do like the idea of a missile defense system, which I don't think Kerry's going to have the cajones to develop unilaterally (although I honestly don't see the problem in doing it discretely, top secret, etc). Kerry would be able to handle a war as well as Bush would, though. Suprising as I find it to be, I'd have to say Tied.

So, about 6-1 for Kerry.

irateplatypus · 08-24-2004, 07:13 PM

my family of 7 making less than fifty grand a year didn't qualify for a single grant, and only one federal loan that only covered about 12% of my total bill for university. this was a year before Bush had been in office. I promise you... the situation has been poor for a long time. the current President has had little to do with it.

but what he has done is sign a bipartisan bill (remember him shaking hands with ted kennedy on it?) to increase educational funding and promote accountability in primary and secondary schools for their student's performance. while it's too early to measure success on the national level, there are great statistics from Texas where he implemented a similar plan as governor. In fact, he signed a bill that put so much more money into education that he had many of his conservative backers grumbling that he gave up too much to the left side of the aisle.

That's as much as a President has done for education in a single term as any in recent memory. Some may have legimitate axes to grind with the current system in specific instances (i know my college loan aid does because of me!

) But, for Journeyman to say that Bush has "fucked up" education is to ignore his record in favor of a blanket statement.

Journeyman · 08-24-2004, 08:35 PM

I was thinking of how standardized testing scores has a significant correlation to family income, and the idea that schools that do better teaching their kids to pass a multiple choice test get more federal money than schools that don't. So schools in low income areas will typically get less federal funding than schools in high income areas.

The idea that you can punish a school into getting better by taking away their funding is fucking retarded. Hence, Bush fucked up.

onetime2 · 08-25-2004, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

OneTime,

I respect your views but 1 I do take issue with and is most important to me (not just being a student but having teachers in my family) is Bush's plan for "training workers and students".

I'm sorry but ANY president that cuts education and makes it almost impossible for someone to go back to school in their 30's is not worth being president. Where is this money for his programs? Why are so many students dependant on loans, that don't cover f/t tuition and room and board (and we are talking PUBLIC schools). Why when my wife and I made less than $25,000 last year did I not even qualify for a Pell Grant, and my loans cover my tuition and 1/2 my books? I'm a f/t student with 5 classes and 17 credit hours I start at 10AM and go till 6PM, how am I going to find a job that can pay rent and my bills while I am trying to better my life.

If I cut down to 10 hours or p/t I lose my work study (which isn't much), and I lose out on loan monies. This is fair how? Not everyone is mature enough or able to handle college when they graduate, some of us have to go through life before we realize what are true calling is. (And sorry I also want to go F/T so I can graduate in 5 yrs with my Master's and not 10.)

Plus, the field I am choosing is a very poor field in terms of money and in terms of employment (meaning there are very few good people out there for the jobs needed, and the demand is high).

I'm sorry but if Bush wants to talk about "training and school" then show the money he's putting into the system, and how one can get it, cause I don't see it.

By the way for those who don't know, I am getting a Master's in Social Work w/ a specialty in Drug and Alcohol Addiction Counselling, and during my summer's being certified in Compulsive Gambling counselling. My goal is to open a recovery center for Compulsive Gamblers and cross addicted gamblers.

For those saying, "well when you graduated high school you should have taken college more seriously." First, my parents got NO financial aid and secondly, what's the difference between me using the money then and not knowing what I wanted or using it now, knowing what I want and going into a very understaffed field?

I'm sorry Pan but there are plenty of resources available to people who want to go back to school. You've made the choice to go back to school full time. Obviously that choice has costs. I know several people in my company working full time and supporting families attending school. Some would be considered full time students as well.

The number of students attending college today is far greater than at any time in the history of the US. College educations are not paid for fully by the government in this country and even if they were the system would never have been able to keep up with the rapid influx of students occuring over the last decade or so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...ver-usat_x.htm

Quote:

Posted 6/28/2004 1:37 AM Updated 6/28/2004 4:20 PM
Tuition burden falls by a third
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998, thanks to new federal tax breaks and a massive increase in state and federal grants to most students and their families.
Contrary to the widespread perception that tuition is soaring out of control, a USA TODAY analysis found that what students actually pay in tuition and fees — rather than the published tuition price — has declined for a vast majority of students attending four-year public universities. In fact, today's students have enjoyed the greatest improvement in college affordability since the GI bill provided benefits for returning World War II veterans.

What made the difference: a $22 billion annual increase in grants and tax breaks since 1998.

That 80% jump in financial aid — targeting middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year — has more than offset dramatic increases in tuition prices.

"College still takes a big chunk out of most families' income. But the average student is much better off today than headlines would have you believe," says Sandy Baum, an economist who co-authors an annual report on college costs for the College Board, which oversees college entrance exams.

USA TODAY analyzed what students paid for tuition and fees after grants, discounts, tax credits and deductions. Other studies focus on the listed price of tuition. But listed college tuition is like the sticker price on a new car: Few people actually pay it. In 2003, students paid an average of just 27% of the official tuition price at four-year public universities when grants and tax breaks are counted. Students at private universities paid an average of 57%.

The USA TODAY analysis used figures from the College Board, the federal Office of Management and Budget and the Internal Revenue Service. All numbers were adjusted for inflation. The bottom line:

• Average tuition paid at public universities fell 32% from $1,636 in the 1997-98 academic year to $1,115 in 2002-03. During that time, the published tuition price rose 18% to an average of $4,202. About three-fourths of the nation's 12 million college students attend public institutions.

• Total costs for tuition and room and board were flat at $6,794 at public schools from 1998 to 2003.

• Average tuition paid at private universities rose 7% over five years to an average of $10,684 in 2003, less than the 20% increase in published tuition prices.

Congress has approved eight tax breaks for college education since 1997. Last year, these tax benefits saved families more than $7 billion. Key benefits:

• 6.5 million families got tuition tax credits that reduced taxes an average of $1,350 per return.

• 3.5 million received a tuition tax deduction that saved an average of $325 in income taxes.

The most affluent taxpayers — 1.5% of returns are for incomes above $200,000 — do not qualify for tax breaks, but many benefited from big increases in grants that reward academic performance. Schools have increased merit aid to recruit the best students, who tend to be affluent. And since 1993, 14 states have started merit-based scholarships to reward students who achieve good grades in high school.

The poor have benefited from increases in federal Pell grants from $6 billion to $12 billion since 1998.

But the biggest beneficiaries have been middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year. They get the most tax benefits and often qualify for financial aid based on both need and merit.

onetime2 · 08-25-2004, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journeyman

The idea that you can punish a school into getting better by taking away their funding is fucking retarded. Hence, Bush fucked up.

And the thinking that throwing more money at schools will improve test scores hasn't succeeded over the last 30 years. I think I'll give the current plan more time to achieve results.

irateplatypus · 08-25-2004, 05:21 AM

I'm not quite sure where some of you are getting your facts.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB gives our schools and our country groundbreaking education reform, based on stronger accountability for results, more flexibility for states and communities, encouraging proven education methods and more options for parents. Passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, the law represents the most comprehensive revision of federal education programs since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Using figures from the president's FY 2005 proposed budget, NCLB programs include:

Title I. The largest federal K-12 program would provide over $13 billion to local districts to improve the academic achievement of children in high-poverty schools.

Also, you can go to this URL to see what the President's No Child Left Behind program is doing in your home state...

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/impo...nce/index.html

And what's more... federal money for k-12 education provides only 8% of education funds. That is a dramatic increase from a decade ago (around 5.5%), but it is still a relatively small amount. If you want genuine education reform it's best to look to your local and state governments, the federal government can only do so much.

onetime2 · 08-25-2004, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

And what's more... federal money for k-12 education provides only 8% of education funds. That is a dramatic increase from a decade ago (around 5.5%), but it is still a relatively small amount. If you want genuine education reform it's best to look to your local and state governments, the federal government can only do so much.

One other point in this regard I'd like to make. Here in NJ property taxes are directly related to money spent on education. There are countless people whining over rising property taxes while in the same breath crying how disadvantaged their children are educationally. These things don't come free.

TheKak · 08-25-2004, 06:42 AM

Pro stemcell research: Kerry
Anti-taxes: Bush
Pro-choice: Kerry
Education, gonna go with Kerry
Healthcare: Kerry (why doesn't Bush pass laws that allow American's to buy foreign drugs, which would reduce perscription drug costs by quite a bit?)
Pro Gay rights: Kerry
Iraq, Bush lied straight to our faces: Kerry
Not a religious fanatic: Kerry

I honestly don't like either one of them, but I can deal with higher taxes. But one thing I can't deal with is intolerance. An amendment to ban gay marriage? Give me a fucking break. Once they gave marriage tax benifits, it became a social institution instead of religious. An whose religion are they following anyway? There are lots of gay Christians, why not follow their religion and pass an amendment allowing the marriages? Passing laws based on religious beliefs is out right rediculous.

MSD · 08-25-2004, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

I was impressed by Kerry saying that although he believes in God (or says he does so he's acceptable to most of the nation), he won't exhibit his beliefs for everyone to see.

It worked for Kennedy, so he's trying to make it work for him. I can't tell whether or not it will, but I guess we'll find out

irateplatypus · 08-25-2004, 07:52 AM

for the sake of the thread staying on topic, can we please stop trolling about the iraq war? there are plenty of threads where that issue takes center stage... i'd like to keep this one about domestic issues.

hannukah harry · 08-25-2004, 07:16 PM

Gay Marriage: i'm pro-gay marriage. i don't care what you call it, but as long as gay couples get the same rights as hetero couples, well, that's what i want. i think to add an amendment banning it into the const. is disgusting. so i'm pro-kerry there.

Abortion: abortion should be legal at least until the end of the first trimester, and, imo, really until the baby can live outside the womb. so pro-kerry there.

Taxes: bush's tax cuts have done nothing for me. pro-kerry.

Iraq/defense: i'm not against the war, but disagree with the way we were brought into it by the current administration. i dont' think kerry would be better than bush or vice versa in handling the war or national security. tied.

The economy: i've yet to see anything taht bush has done to help workers. it seems he's so pro-corporations it sickens me. if money's going into the top but then staying there that doesn't help the economy. i don't know if kerry will be better, but i'm willing to give him a shot. pro-kerry.

Training for workers and students: i think NCLA is shit. seems like a way to get us a step closer to the voucher system. pro-kerry.

Health Care: i don't like how bush is against allowing the importation of drugs from canada (free-market what?), but the senior prescription plan doesn't seem bad. national health care is a great idea, but i don't think it's really realistic at the moment. i'd really like to see the govt. compete with private health care companies, that way the govt. could make sure the poor get the coverage they need while those who can afford it could go to a private company for coverage. tied.

Stem Cell Research: i don't care if life technically starts at conception or birth. as long as woman aren't getting pregnant in order to abort and cell the embryo, i'm cool will with stem cell research. stem cells could prove to be huge in future medical breakthroughs. they may go nowhere, but i'd rather no for sure and not miss out on potential cures than not have them. pro-kerry.

Religion: i'm not a religous person. i don't care if the president is religous or not, what i do care about is whether he will push his religous beliefs on me. i'm not gay, but if i were i would not want to be held back from marriage because i'm an unnatural sinner. or where churchs get more special treatment because they're of the pres's faith, and other religions either get none or possibly opressed by the govt. so pro-kerry.

08-24-2004, 05:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	The candidates on domestic issues... Frankly, I'm growing tired of the swiftvets issue. Not because I think there is nothing valuable to be learned from its developments... but because I think it has spun wildly out of control. It has devolved into chronological disputes and nuances that rely solely on 30 year old undocumented accounts. The media and the respective campaigns are not interested in finding the truth. Same w/the war in Iraq. The Bush campaign will continue to try to minimize the failures and maximize the successes of the war as far as public accountability will allow them to stretch. The Kerry side will continue to try to distort realistic expectations for our progress and spread half-truths about the President's pre-war rationale. This thread is intended for discussion of domestic issues (i.e. the economy, stem-cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, role of religion, healthcare, taxes etc.). I think there has been too little emphasis on this in the media, I'd like to have a discussion about it here on TFP. Did anyone else think that Kerry's convention speech dropped a few domestic policy bombs that have gone relatively unnoticed? He briefly mentioned something that seemed to resemble socialized healthcare. If that is his plan, that would affect the average American more than any other issue (with the exception of national defense.) What about the tax-cut modification that Kerry is proposing? Do you think it is fair to tax the top 2% more heavily in light of the load they are paying now? What do you think about Kerry's religious beliefs? He professes to not "wear his religion on his sleeve". Is that a good thing... a bad thing? Was he trying to pander to the religious community or was he giving a sincere statement of his beliefs? Does this have a place in a political discussion? Does Teresa Heinz Kerry have the power to influence voters one way or the other? Hopefully we can get some factually grounded discussion going here on these issues that appear to be somewhat neglected. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-24-2004, 07:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	As a Christian, Kerry appears to me to be a person who is educated in the "culture" of Christianity but does not embrace the faith in a deeply personal way that seems to characterize Bush's theological stance. I'm sure Kerry is aware of Biblical principles and church doctrine, but it seems to be more of a heritage than an everyday faith to him. Granted, it is all speculation... I don't pretend to truly know either of the President's or Kerry's faith, but that is how it comes across to me from what both of them project publicly. As a Christian, I am convinced that Christianity is a positive thing and am encouraged when our leaders have views similar to mine (as i am sure anybody is about their own views). Politicians know this and, i feel, tailor their public appearance accordingly... so I'm not too naive on this. Because the President makes both fiscal and moral decisions for the country, I think that a leader as powerful as the President should expect that their religious beliefs be part of the issues. Not that we should only elect a person of a specific religion... but that the electorate be fully aware of the context in which the leader makes moral judgements. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 08-24-2004 at 07:15 AM..

08-24-2004, 07:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	As for religion, I would prefer a man/ woman that says they are dedicated to their faith (whatever that maybe) yet, can govern on issues and what is best for the country and not what is best for their religious views. To me this shows that he is fair and will not bias his decisions just to appease his religion. Take stem cell research, it may prove to be the panacea that Ron Jr. talked of or it may end up a total bust, BUT we as an ever progressing peoples (not just our nation all mankind), must take the oppurtunity and chance and do the research. If we choose to let it pass by and not do it because of religious beliefs then we may as well just surrender and go back to the dark ages and believe and do nothing unless the Church allows it. As for education, hopefully, as a nontraditional student, Kerry will put more money into the financial aid packages and help ANYONE wanting to advance further in life. Right now because of my age I am not eligible for many scholarships and grants and because of my gambling past my credit is shot, I am not recieving very good aid, at all. If he can only do one thing hopefully it would be to add money to the Stafford Loans, they don't even cover tuition at a cheap school such as Univ. of Akron, let alone room and board. I am for a socialized health care and I personally feel the cost would be made up in a healthier nation. At the very least, Government should force all businesses to offer insurance and cap the costs for businesses to a percentage of income and number of workers. Teresa, she has to be better than Hilary and more active than Bush's wife. Taxes should be increased on imports, and companies that employ overseas should be forced to pay taxes for those working for them. So say you are Nike and you pay 25 cents an hour. You should be charged for the taxes on each worker overseas at a rate of minimum wage*2.5. That would be a deterrant to shipping jobs overseas. Plus it would increase revenue. Free market is a great idea, BUT when other countries refuse to play fair and take advantage of us, it's time to take care of our own. In an economic war we are losing and becoming very much 3rd world. My children and predecessors deserve better and better oppurtunities regardless of what the right may say. Every generation except the baby boomers (greedy fucks) took care of their future children, we need to do the same. Well, those are my views. Kerry comes closest, Bush is almost exact opposite on all of them so...... __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-24-2004, 07:39 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I'll play. Gay Marriage: Kerry has taken the path of least resistance by supporting the state's rights view of it and I don't really fault him for that. Bush wants to change the Constitution over it. I disagree with this stance completely. I believe gay couples should have the right to a civil union and at the same time respect should be paid to the term "marriage" as it seems (to me at least) to hold a certain religious connotation. The compromise in this is the civil union so long as they offer the same "rights" to these couples as marriage offers to a man and woman. Taxes: I like Bush's approach better. The government needs to be forced to be more responsible with the money they already get. Until the government makes a more serious commitment to weeding out the useless and inefficient programs they do not deserve to take more from us. Kerry's plan continues to feed the monster while Bush's at least cuts it's portion size. Iraq: I do not believe there will be a significant change with Kerry in power. Putting the debate over the reasons for war aside I believe the campaign has been run well and the progress made in a short time is staggering. The only change that might happen with Kerry is commitment from other nations to send troops. I seriously doubt that will happen so the reality will likely be a plan very much like the one currently in place. The economy: The President does not significantly impact the economy. There are some pros and cons to each candidate's economic vision but overall they are about equal in my eyes. Training for workers and students: I like Bush's plan to help workers transition from sagging industries to more vibrant ones. The difference in growth rates between industries and the trend of employment moving outside of US borders have been key parts of my economic research over the years. There is little doubt some industries are destined to move outside of the US. All the protectionist policies and political maneuvering in the world can only slightly delay this fact. Recognition that it is inevitable in a global economy is the necessary first step. The Kerry campaign's stand on protecting these jobs will only hurt the economy (both ours and the world's). Health Care: I like that this is a topic in both campaigns. I do not believe the government is efficient enough at this time to take it on by itself however. Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors is a great starting point IMO. The attacks against it have only served to scare people away from something that could help ease the financial strains of high cost therapies. This could have been a great uniting topic but it has been used as just another political football by the Dems IMO. Rather than looking at it as a starting point that could be improved on it will be trumpeted as a failure to promote the Dem plan(s). This only hurts those who would have received the benefits and will likely set back progress on this important issue. Stem Cell Research: This is a tough one that I don't really have a firm stance on yet. While it certainly has a lot of potential, I really do believe that life begins at the point of conception (sperm making it through the outer layer of egg) and it bothers me to see the potential for such a huge loss of human life. These embryos will basically be giving up their lives for the benefit of the living with no guarantee that anything will come of it and without giving any sort of consent. In general I am for the concept of sacrifice of some for the benefit of all but I have not been able to reconcile the two issues. In the mean time I would prefer to see the research minimized. Current policy does not ban stem cell research but does minimize its use. Religion: I am not a particularly religious person but I absolutely believe that there are underlying concepts in all religions that make us better as people and a society. I like that Bush and Kerry both have some level of religious compass. I do not see Bush as some religious zealot as many others seem to claim and I don't see Kerry as lacking a religious center because he doesn't actively promote his faith. On this I see the two men as approximately equal. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-24-2004, 08:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	The socialized healthcare that seems to be ever-present in liberal platforms would be the best idea ever... if it actually worked. i know this will shock you all, but i'm skeptical of its chances of success. We have countless news stories of government corruption, criminally prosecuted officials and billions of dollars of taxpayer money unaccounted for. Are these really the conditions we want to place our healthcare in? When the government stops losing my tax money, when the legislators can spend only the amount they are given, when I'm sure the officials in charge will have the general welfare of our country in mind w/every decision... then I'll think about socialized healthcare. Granted, the private sector certainly isn't free from corruption or waste... but at least I have another company to turn to if my provider proves unsuitable. If the government dominates the field... you better hope the system works perfectly, because there is no competitor to take your business. This is why Kerry's (and the left's) noble but, i think, naive notion of socialized healthcare is not for me. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-24-2004, 06:37 AM	#2 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	Whenever Bush talks about God, it makes me hate him more. I can't take anyone seriously when they say God or Jesus did something for them. I was impressed by Kerry saying that although he believes in God (or says he does so he's acceptable to most of the nation), he won't exhibit his beliefs for everyone to see.

08-24-2004, 08:18 AM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I have nothing to add other than to say welcome back irate.

08-24-2004, 11:53 AM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	OneTime, I respect your views but 1 I do take issue with and is most important to me (not just being a student but having teachers in my family) is Bush's plan for "training workers and students". I'm sorry but ANY president that cuts education and makes it almost impossible for someone to go back to school in their 30's is not worth being president. Where is this money for his programs? Why are so many students dependant on loans, that don't cover f/t tuition and room and board (and we are talking PUBLIC schools). Why when my wife and I made less than $25,000 last year did I not even qualify for a Pell Grant, and my loans cover my tuition and 1/2 my books? I'm a f/t student with 5 classes and 17 credit hours I start at 10AM and go till 6PM, how am I going to find a job that can pay rent and my bills while I am trying to better my life. If I cut down to 10 hours or p/t I lose my work study (which isn't much), and I lose out on loan monies. This is fair how? Not everyone is mature enough or able to handle college when they graduate, some of us have to go through life before we realize what are true calling is. (And sorry I also want to go F/T so I can graduate in 5 yrs with my Master's and not 10.) Plus, the field I am choosing is a very poor field in terms of money and in terms of employment (meaning there are very few good people out there for the jobs needed, and the demand is high). I'm sorry but if Bush wants to talk about "training and school" then show the money he's putting into the system, and how one can get it, cause I don't see it. By the way for those who don't know, I am getting a Master's in Social Work w/ a specialty in Drug and Alcohol Addiction Counselling, and during my summer's being certified in Compulsive Gambling counselling. My goal is to open a recovery center for Compulsive Gamblers and cross addicted gamblers. For those saying, "well when you graduated high school you should have taken college more seriously." First, my parents got NO financial aid and secondly, what's the difference between me using the money then and not knowing what I wanted or using it now, knowing what I want and going into a very understaffed field? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-24-2004, 12:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	pan: Keep at it. The lives you'll save helping people get monkeys off their backs will more than be worth it for all the hardships you're going through right now. Ok, domestic issues. Abortion: I'm thoroughly bummed out that a woman can know she's pregnant from 1 week after conception untill, say, 6 months after conception and decide then to terminate what amounts to a potentially viable, self-sustaining fetus. But, in terms of her right to choose, it is her right to choose. Point to Kerry Health care: You really oughtn't have sick people who aren't getting treatment on the simple basis that they can't afford it/their work insurance doesn't cover it. Some changes are needed, but I'm not entirely sure that the government handling universal health care is a good idea. Tied. Gun control: It's not about home defense, or hunting, it's about what's necessary to the security of a free state. Kerry is soft on gun control, but for the wrong reasons and I still don't trust the democrats to abide by the second amendment. Figure that one out. Point to Bush. Stem cell research: Whatta you, nuts? Limiting medical treatment on the basis of moral grudges against what amounts to SCOTUS-approved, constitutionally-protected rights? Point to Kerry. Religion: Kerry is Irish-Catholic, but understands that his duties to the country come before any desires to bring the country to it's knees and humble before God. Bush, I'm not so sure about. Point to Kerry. The economy: Cutting taxes for the super rich, I honestly do not believe it will do jack shit for the economy. Since this is the best that either can offer, point to Kerry. Gay marriage: As is said before, the term "marriage" has traditionally religious connotations. And, seeing as how there have been a number of christian... uhh, pastors, reverends, head honchos, etc who have married homosexuals together, Bush has no ground to stand on. If you want "traditional marriages," be sure and legislate me some polygamy laws while you're at it. Point to Kerry. Taxes: Cut the fat, go from there. Flat tax rates, that's just silly. Tied, Kerry for not pandering to the super rich with tax cuts, Bush for being of the persuasion that loathes wasteful government spending. Education: Bush fucked up. Kerry would be hard pressed to do any worse. Point to Kerry. Defense: Stop punching people for no reason and you'll find that you don't get punched all that much yourself. On the other hand, taking the fight to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein may have increased underground terrorist networks, it did wake up a few nations to a new "Stop fucking around" message (Libya, Syria, Iran). I do like the idea of a missile defense system, which I don't think Kerry's going to have the cajones to develop unilaterally (although I honestly don't see the problem in doing it discretely, top secret, etc). Kerry would be able to handle a war as well as Bush would, though. Suprising as I find it to be, I'd have to say Tied. So, about 6-1 for Kerry.

08-24-2004, 07:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	my family of 7 making less than fifty grand a year didn't qualify for a single grant, and only one federal loan that only covered about 12% of my total bill for university. this was a year before Bush had been in office. I promise you... the situation has been poor for a long time. the current President has had little to do with it. but what he has done is sign a bipartisan bill (remember him shaking hands with ted kennedy on it?) to increase educational funding and promote accountability in primary and secondary schools for their student's performance. while it's too early to measure success on the national level, there are great statistics from Texas where he implemented a similar plan as governor. In fact, he signed a bill that put so much more money into education that he had many of his conservative backers grumbling that he gave up too much to the left side of the aisle. That's as much as a President has done for education in a single term as any in recent memory. Some may have legimitate axes to grind with the current system in specific instances (i know my college loan aid does because of me! ) But, for Journeyman to say that Bush has "fucked up" education is to ignore his record in favor of a blanket statement. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-24-2004, 08:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	I was thinking of how standardized testing scores has a significant correlation to family income, and the idea that schools that do better teaching their kids to pass a multiple choice test get more federal money than schools that don't. So schools in low income areas will typically get less federal funding than schools in high income areas. The idea that you can punish a school into getting better by taking away their funding is fucking retarded. Hence, Bush fucked up.

08-25-2004, 05:21 AM	#16 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	I'm not quite sure where some of you are getting your facts. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB gives our schools and our country groundbreaking education reform, based on stronger accountability for results, more flexibility for states and communities, encouraging proven education methods and more options for parents. Passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, the law represents the most comprehensive revision of federal education programs since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Using figures from the president's FY 2005 proposed budget, NCLB programs include: Title I. The largest federal K-12 program would provide over $13 billion to local districts to improve the academic achievement of children in high-poverty schools. Also, you can go to this URL to see what the President's No Child Left Behind program is doing in your home state... http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/impo...nce/index.html And what's more... federal money for k-12 education provides only 8% of education funds. That is a dramatic increase from a decade ago (around 5.5%), but it is still a relatively small amount. If you want genuine education reform it's best to look to your local and state governments, the federal government can only do so much. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-25-2004, 06:42 AM	#18 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	Pro stemcell research: Kerry Anti-taxes: Bush Pro-choice: Kerry Education, gonna go with Kerry Healthcare: Kerry (why doesn't Bush pass laws that allow American's to buy foreign drugs, which would reduce perscription drug costs by quite a bit?) Pro Gay rights: Kerry Iraq, Bush lied straight to our faces: Kerry Not a religious fanatic: Kerry I honestly don't like either one of them, but I can deal with higher taxes. But one thing I can't deal with is intolerance. An amendment to ban gay marriage? Give me a fucking break. Once they gave marriage tax benifits, it became a social institution instead of religious. An whose religion are they following anyway? There are lots of gay Christians, why not follow their religion and pass an amendment allowing the marriages? Passing laws based on religious beliefs is out right rediculous. __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

08-25-2004, 07:52 AM	#20 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	for the sake of the thread staying on topic, can we please stop trolling about the iraq war? there are plenty of threads where that issue takes center stage... i'd like to keep this one about domestic issues. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-25-2004, 07:16 PM	#21 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	Gay Marriage: i'm pro-gay marriage. i don't care what you call it, but as long as gay couples get the same rights as hetero couples, well, that's what i want. i think to add an amendment banning it into the const. is disgusting. so i'm pro-kerry there. Abortion: abortion should be legal at least until the end of the first trimester, and, imo, really until the baby can live outside the womb. so pro-kerry there. Taxes: bush's tax cuts have done nothing for me. pro-kerry. Iraq/defense: i'm not against the war, but disagree with the way we were brought into it by the current administration. i dont' think kerry would be better than bush or vice versa in handling the war or national security. tied. The economy: i've yet to see anything taht bush has done to help workers. it seems he's so pro-corporations it sickens me. if money's going into the top but then staying there that doesn't help the economy. i don't know if kerry will be better, but i'm willing to give him a shot. pro-kerry. Training for workers and students: i think NCLA is shit. seems like a way to get us a step closer to the voucher system. pro-kerry. Health Care: i don't like how bush is against allowing the importation of drugs from canada (free-market what?), but the senior prescription plan doesn't seem bad. national health care is a great idea, but i don't think it's really realistic at the moment. i'd really like to see the govt. compete with private health care companies, that way the govt. could make sure the poor get the coverage they need while those who can afford it could go to a private company for coverage. tied. Stem Cell Research: i don't care if life technically starts at conception or birth. as long as woman aren't getting pregnant in order to abort and cell the embryo, i'm cool will with stem cell research. stem cells could prove to be huge in future medical breakthroughs. they may go nowhere, but i'd rather no for sure and not miss out on potential cures than not have them. pro-kerry. Religion: i'm not a religous person. i don't care if the president is religous or not, what i do care about is whether he will push his religous beliefs on me. i'm not gay, but if i were i would not want to be held back from marriage because i'm an unnatural sinner. or where churchs get more special treatment because they're of the pres's faith, and other religions either get none or possibly opressed by the govt. so pro-kerry. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer