Ok, you tell me. Why should anyone support this Administration?

Originally posted by Analyst
I would have a very difficult time convincing anyone to vote for Bush. So this is very OFF TOPIC but ... I just need to ask: James the Lesser:
Why does your signature include this: "What are Frenchmen? Cheese eating surrender monkeys!".

Its kind of explains itself. IMHO, While we all eat cheese, the modern French seem to have a penchant for rolling over in conflicts. I thin the last one they won was the French Revolution (oh wait they were fighting themselves)

Actually its a line from the SImpsons when Willy the groundskeepr is drafted to teach French at Sringfield elementary "Say Bonjour, you Cheese eating surrender monkeys" Ya kind of have to imagine it with Willy's accent

Originally posted by mOjOm

FredT, I'm not sure what to say about your comment.

Now Now I just said it was one of the considerations not an overriding one. And FYI were are far from comfortable and live paycheck to paycheck. Let me reemphasize the point. Due to the ultra high cost of living in teh SF Bay area our salaries are comparitivly high when lookin at other areas of the country. Kerry does not take that into account. He looks at my family lables us a rich and taxes the bejesus out of us. People think we are all Dot Com billionairs. The reality is that we manage to get along and an extra 2000 or so in tax savings goes a long way for us. Don't forget we also have some pretty high state taxes here as well.

mOjOm
Good thread, im shocked it has remained civil for all this time. You never did get back to me on this. Alot of other posters have mentioned the tax issue as well. Do you feel that money and taxes should not play a part in a decision process? Or are you concerned that I would make it the only factor?


[edit on 8-7-2004 by FredT]

Bush gave the US military members a significant boost in income. For many years, when a president asked for additional monies for military spending, it was put into weapons, technology and the ilk. Under Bush we actually got a substantial raise in income. The enlisted members (not officers - think sergeants, privates, airmen) had been surviving at or below the poverty level for decades. We were so poor, even the people on welfare were better off than us, for the first 15 years of my husband's enlistment. Bush was the first one to actually use the military spending budget on a boost in income for the poorest members of the military. One president (who shall remain nameless, as this is about Bush and not another specific president), gave the military a 10% raise and then turned around and took away a benefit which amounted to a 15% reduction in income. So we ended up losing money (5% pay cut) as a result.) I believe Bush's honest-to-goodness boost in income for the military members has contributed to the economy, as there are alot of military members, their spouses and children, who put that money back into the society by purchasing homes, clothes and so on, that never really could afford to before this.

This may seem lame to some, but from our perspective, it was a long-awaited and severly needed income boost. It was a travesty that our presidents could send our military anywhere in the world to do whatever political and military manuevers they required, at great risk to life and limb (and oftentimes at the risk of their family members as well), and still insist we do it for the same or less salary than a person on the welfare roles. I believe this happened primarily due to the fact the past presidents had to account for anti-military sentiment that was prevalent in the media and press for the prior 40 years or so. Bush stepped up to the plate and corrected that error. This is one of the reasons I see him as a principled man, one who at the very least, does what he feels is right by the people he expects alot out of.

Historically, the leaders of nations and empires would give their best to their military - the best sustenance, the best of everything they had, but this was at the expense of the common citizen. In America, however, we were expected to do the hardest possible jobs, with the least amount of money they could pay without disregarding their own laws. That was very, very bad. Haggard, worn out troops, trying to exist on poverty level income, frequently coming down with horrific illnesses as a result of poor diets, harsh environments, and a plethora of other strangeness (gulf war syndrome, saddam's biochems, agent orange, etc), were falling like flies and no one really cared because the military had been shuffled into the box of a "necessary and better ignored, evil."

Regardless of hearsay or conspiracy theory, I do believe Bush's attempts to isolate the terrorist network both home and abroad, were better than no attempts at all. He was faced with a horrible situation. In retrospect, I don't know if any of our other presidents could've handled it any better. There were no easy solutions to 9-11. If nothing else, his decisions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, have made the world aware that America takes terrorism on their home soil exceedingly serious. If the leaders of nations who have engaged in assisting in terrorism see this response, they will likely think twice before continuing to aid in terrorist efforts aimed at the US, as I'm sure they don't want American military in their neighborhoods either.

Overall, I think Bush took a really bad situation, and did the best he could.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Undomiel]

FredT, sorry I haven't got back to you yet. I've actually been waiting as long as possible before replying so as to give as much time as possible for others to post their Pro-Bush Presentations.

First, let me say that I tried not to sound too harsh in that first post I made that included the comment to you. I'm glad that you didn't get personally offended or at least not seriously offended anyway! Cause I didn't mean for it to come across like that. Sometimes I just don't mix words very well on here and end up pissing people off with my comments.

I also realize that the area you live in has a very high cost of living too. I honestly don't know how it would compare with my area or whatever, but I assume that it would equal out to some respect. Since that is what it's supposed to do. The thing I don't understand is how it works exactly, but the whole 'Cost of Living' thing I know does change from one area to the next. Which works great for those who start somewhere High and earn some money and then move somewhere of a Lower range, but sucks in the other direction.

I live in California also, but in the Central Valley. It's an area where people keep moving to cause it's more mellow and small town-ish compared to places like The City (as you people call it) or LA or San Diego. They all work in cities like that, save up a couple hundred grand or whatever, which over there buys a 1 room rat hole, but here buys a big fat house with a huge yard, etc. etc. Personally, I think that sux cause it screws up this town, but I can totally understand why they do it.

I do think the Taxes thing is important though sure. However, I can tell you right now it doesn't matter what tax range you're in, we're all getting screwed by taxes. Unless you own your own business, and play the system where everything is written off under the Business Name and you, according to the 'Books', pay yourself something like $20 a month or whatever, thereby using the loopholes and so forth.

On top of that let's say two different people pay roughly 50% in taxes. But one of them makes 300,000 a year and the other makes 20,000 a year. Well, that still leaves one guy with 150,000 which is still way above poverty. But the 20,000 a year could maybe make it on 20,000 living like a hermit, but 10,000 might as well be nothing cause it doesn't matter at that point, you just can't make it anywhere for that. You see what I mean?

Another thing is that aside from all that, the problem is that Taxes have become what they are anyway. Especially Income Tax. Income Tax is basically Robbery and nothing more. Plus, it is just incentive to either cheat using the loopholes, or to earn a living outside the system, whether that is Illegal or just Off the Record & Unreported. The reason being is that Income Tax takes more money away from you for the work you do. That is just f*cking retarded!!! Why penalize the people who work??? That doesn't make any sense. I mean what is the incentive for people to work, if working a full time shift minus half in taxes leaves them in poverty?? Hell, they can be in poverty without having to work 40 hours a damn week!!! Then of course you can sell drugs of something for about 2 hours a day, make at least a couple hundred bucks, but probably more, and keep it all. When you look at it, you realize that in the current situation, you'd have to be a idiot to work and play by the rules like you're supposed to, cause even if you do, you're still in poverty class anyway. Hell, you might as well be in poverty and do what the hell you want all day instead and say screw the system and it's rules. People wonder why everything is falling apart, well there is one obvious reason right there, there is no reason to do it the Right and Legal way anymore, but a million reasons to not too!!!

Then there is the fact that sure you may save a little on your taxes, say like a couple grand or whatever. Which I understand makes a big difference and all. But is it really worth it?? You say it helps provide for you and your family right. Well, Education is always being cut. This year in Calif. big time. Actually, everything here in Ca. money wise is so totally F-cked up it is just unbelievable most of the time, but that has been mainly cause of the past few years and all the problems here which make it especially bad, as you know I'm sure.

Anyway, if you check into it, and really pay attention and work through the B.S. you'll see that the Tax Benefits you think you're getting cause of voting Rep. are not the Benefits you think they are. Not that they are real for the Dem's either, cause they just screw you openly since they are for Raising taxes anyway. But honestly, look back through history, and you'll see beyond a doubt that the 'old school' idea of Republican meaning 'Less Government', 'Less Taxes' and so forth is just a bunch of sh*t. They just use sneakier tactics that's all. Both sides do it, cause both sides are a bunch of criminal bastards, plain and simple.

Anyway, this is getting long so I'll stop now. I'm not even sure if that answered your question either. But it felt nice to Rant a little anyway. Hopefully, you'll enjoy reading it too. If not, restate your question and I'll try again!

[edit on 8-7-2004 by mOjOm]

Well, here is one good reason why they should be voted OUT of offices, and I don't think anyone should make any smart remark about the French after reading this.

This URL , just goes to you the people of the USA what kind of corruption is running our Gov't, and has been for nearly four years,

www.capitolhillblue.com...

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
Well, here is one good reason why they should be voted OUT of offices, and I don't think anyone should make any smart remark about the French after reading this.

This URL , just goes to you the people of the USA what kind of corruption is running our Gov't, and has been for nearly four years,

www.capitolhillblue.com...

We all know how you feel about this admin nanna, however, if you read Mojom's very detailed posts, he clearly states he wants valid reasons why someone supports this admin, not why this admin is so bad. OK?

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Analyst
I would have a very difficult time convincing anyone to vote for Bush. So this is very OFF TOPIC but ... I just need to ask: James the Lesser:
Why does your signature include this: "What are Frenchmen? Cheese eating surrender monkeys!".

Its kind of explains itself. IMHO, While we all eat cheese, the modern French seem to have a penchant for rolling over in conflicts. I thin the last one they won was the French Revolution (oh wait they were fighting themselves)

Actually its a line from the SImpsons when Willy the groundskeepr is drafted to teach French at Sringfield elementary "Say Bonjour, you Cheese eating surrender monkeys" Ya kind of have to imagine it with Willy's accent

FredT:

I am French, and although I do find this line from the Simpsons funny (like most of what Willy comes up with) I don't think you should base your understanding of France's military history on a TV show...

France has been involved in numerous conflicts since the Revolution in 1798. Napoleon had conquered most of continental Europe by the 1850's. WW1 was won by France and its allies, which included the US, and my home was actually built on a site of a former battlefield.

The reason that the French are not warmongers today has a lot to do with WW1. I think that 3 million casualties tends to drive home the point that war is a futile waste of people and resources.

France was indeed conquered during WW2. It also lost the war of decolonialization in Algeria and Indochina (the US also suffered defeat in Vietnam a few years later).

It's funny but I feel that many Americans have this French bashing attitude, although I am not saying that "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is part of it.

I wonder where this comes from? Do you still call fries "Freedom fries in the US?".

Why, thank you mOjOm. I was just trying to give you my view on things, as asked.

I'm a Quality Engineer, working for an automotive supplier that makes transmission gears, among other things. Our plant has doubled in size over the past 2 years, and there is no ceiling in sight. As for why we haven't been hit by all this, I really can't say. Demand for our 2 top customers' autos has been at record levels. Perhaps people are buying their cars instead of someone else's? While the brunt of the manufacturing downturn has been due to increased overseas competition, I can't also help but think a lot of it has to do with mismanagement of a lot of companies here. It is quite possible to compete with other countries who can only offer gobs of cheap, stupid labor. You've just got to refrain from trying to out-cheap-stupid-labor them, as we obviously can't do that. One intelligent machinist is worth 50 illiterate third-world natives anyday, and will deliver on that promise if given the opportunity and motivation.

Much as I'd love to expound on the intricacies of how the tax cuts worked, I don't have a clue. All I know is that a check showed up in my mailbox just because el presidente decided I could use a little relief. I appreciated that, and did my civic duty to "stimulate the economy"! Also worth mention is that my tax returns this year were better than they've ever been. Not that it was that much, but better than I've gotten in...well...ever. I've still not achieved the tax return status that a non-working societal parasite gets, but that's OK. I still just don't understand why is it that I pay in thousands and get back hundreds (if not pay more!), when someone who has paid in virtually nothing that year gets the thousands back. Still, the tax situation for me has improved. My income is hardly in the 'top 10%' figure (more like 'bottom 10%') quoted as being the only people benefitting from these cuts, so I don't quite get the rationale behind that statement either.

Aha! That's it! The tax cuts given to the general population enabled them to buy more cars...which in turn increased demand for our product...which prompted the plant expansion which was paid for by the increased revenue from the increased sales combined with the tax break the company got. It's all so clear now!

But seriously...

My apologies for the involuntary Kerry-bashing. I meant only to tell why he's not getting my vote, and it's quite difficult to explain that without going on a tear, as it were. Still, I didn't get too rowdy, and I think I did convey some shortcomings of the Kerry/Edwards ticket as I see them. One reason he gets so much support is because a sizable chunk of the voters aren't old enough to remember, and aren't inquisitive enough to look back and see, what kind of actions Kerry's taken in his political career. IMHO, of course. I don't care if he's got good hair. Last I checked, that wasn't a prerequisite for presidency.

In summation, Kerry's *ahem* checkered past, coupled with his ticket's distinct lack of any coherent plan for achieving the improvements they profess to be capable of, is a double whammy. GWB's done alright by me, and if my only other choice is Kerry, the decision for me is a no-brainer.

I'll not even seriously entertain the notion of voting for Nader.
As Nietzsche said, "In the end it is a matter of indifference whether the herd is ordered to have one opinion or allowed to have five. Whoever deviates from the five licensed public opinions, and stands apart, will always have the entire herd against them." In this case it's narrowed down to 2 'licensed public opinions', but the gist is still the same.