
^The Environment
*Abortion
*Supreme Court Appointees
%The Iraq War
^Foreign Policy
^Israel & Mideast Peace
%State-Sponsored and Nuclear Terrorism
%Homeland Security & the Patriot Act
^Balancing the Budget
%Stem Cell Research
^Health Care
*Taxes
*The Economy
^International Opinion of the US
*Bush has the edge on these issues
^Kerry has the edge on these issues
%Tough/undecided who I agree with
I am trying hard not to be a single-issue voter. All of these things matter to me, and not all of them are equally important.
I think Bush knows how to fix the economy, and has been doing a good job overall (though the net loss of jobs is worrisome), but the deficit is horrendous. As far as the Iraq mess, we just need to finish the job and finish it right, and I don’t see either candidate as having an edge on this issue. I am strongly in favor of universal access to health care, but I don’t know how much Kerry will be able to do; I’m pretty sure Bush will do nothing.
I think both are men of as much integrity as one can have in politics. I don’t like Bush’s pandering to corporate interests, but at the same time I don’t like Kerry’s flip-flopping. I don’t like Bush’s overzealousness with the Patriot Act, but I’m not sure if Kerry will do anything at all against terrorism. I think it is of the utmost importance to be diplomatic and represent ourselves well before the world, though, and I think Kerry could do better at that. I also think nuclear terrorism needs to be addressed at some level.
Abortion is probably the biggest issue for me. Again, I’m trying not to let one issue decide it for me, but the possibility that Roe V. Wade could be overturned is huge. I am strongly opposed to abortion, and the possibility of stopping it is alone almost enough reason to vote for Bush.
Bush’s environmental record is terrible. This matters. Mideast peace matters, as does preventing terrorist attacks. But right now, I’m thinking the Supreme Court’s makeup matters more.
Here’s the thing with the Supreme Court. What I don’t like about Bush is that in some respects he is a bit too right-wing for me. But the possibility that he will successfully appoint wacko right-wing SC justices is next to zero - they have to be confirmed by Congress, and justices are notoriously nonpartisan. But they all believe something about abortion, and that matters a lot for the future of our country. I cannot whine about the quality health care or the budget while it’s legal to kill inconvenient children before they are born.
On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that no justices will step down in the next four years, so it may be a moot point.
***By the way, if you’re calling from the Democratic party, yes, I got my freakin’ absentee ballot, and yes, I know it has to be mailed by election day, and yes, I know I have to sign the envelope, and yes, I’ll send it in. Stop calling me already. I’ve gotten more phone calls from democrats (including Bill Clinton and Howard Dean) than I have from my friends in the last three weeks. Seriously.


Nai -
You wrote:
Nai, you’re right that some people would continue to get abortions, and that this would be dangerous for some of them because they couldn’t afford to get it done properly. And that sucks, that really does; but 50 children being aborted and 30 mothers being injured a day is a lot better than 4,000 children being aborted each day.
As for the unwanted children, that’s another part of this problem that sucks. But, I’d personally rather be adopted than killed. It’s definitely a tough situation for the mother, especially if the father is a shmuck and won’t help her, but they still need to take responsibility for their actions. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s the right thing to do.
I don’t understand how you can believe that abortion is murder, but then say that it’s a woman’s right to choose. It’s a woman’s right to choose whether or not she murders her child? I realize that abortion or pregnancy affect the mother, but the life of the child outweighs those concerns a thousand times over.
Ooops, I screwed up my blockquote above. I meant to reference your comment:
And then respond with what got inadvertently blockquoted above…
Ian -
We have that now, its called the BATF/FBI/CIA/Military. I believe we’re trying to change it in a peaceful democratic means, instead of by force.
Sorry, couldn’t resist the hyperbole
Nai -
I’m an adopted child, so I understand the stakes from the other end. Obviously I am glad to exist. And I don’t think the Abortion should ever be treated lightly. But can I say that there is never any good cause for abortion? (Like the pregnency endangering the mother’s health?) No I can’t. That’s the problem with blanket moral judgements and absolute laws. Only God can see people’s hearts, and only he is fit to judge their actions.
I’m not saying we don’t need rules and laws. Only that the threshold for me to restrict other people’s actions by force is far higher than just right or wrong.
Regarding Kerry as a flip-flopper— This is the most vague and bizarre criticism of a lifetime politician I have ever heard. Say it with me… “politicians pander.” That’s what they do. Our own “resolute” president has done it himself. (one of the most striking was in the 2000 debates when he said, we shouldn’t be involved in regime changes, nation building, or say, “we’re america. this is the way it oughta be. if you don’t like it, tough.”)
And regarding abortion… it’s certainly true that you cannot legislate the heart. As Father Ronald Rolheiser points out, we live in a culture that blatantly promotes promiscuity without consequences and any culture that does that will have abortion as a symptom - legal or illegal. The real work of abortion takes place in the hearts of women and young girls.
Does anyone ever notice that Jesus never seemed to involve himself in politics? Slavery was a reality of the time. Unbelievable oppression and brutality were common in his day as well. But his approach was bottom-up, not top down.
Many people in mainstream Christian culture — and I’m not suggesting any of you belong in this category — have this concept of Jesus that if he had come in the 20th Century, he would use mass media and political authority to establish his kingdom. But he didn’t come today. And if he did, I still doubt he would have chosen such a path. I still believe in the Jesus who meets people one on one.
Christians need to be more active in loving and caring for a generation of young girls who are growing up with Britney Spears branded chastity and young men whose sexuality was bred in digital pornography.
Millions of children are dying around the world for other reasons besides abortion. But in each and every case legislation is not the answer.
To enact real change, we need to start where Jesus did - in the hearts and minds of men and women.
You don’t smash the fruits, you attack the roots.
– sorry… I had no idea I had a sermon in me. I was just going to write a couple sentences.
Just for fun. This was forwarded to me.
Food for thought….
This was passed on to me, but I can’t understand it. Maybe you can,
I’m trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I’ll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good…
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad…
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good…
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad…
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad…
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good…
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad…
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad…
No mass graves found in Serbia - good…
No WMD found Iraq - bad…
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good…
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad…
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad…
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good…
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad…
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good…
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad…
Milosevic not yet convicted - good…
Saddam turned over for trial - bad…
Ahh, it’s so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the “Tax Freedom Day”. This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That’s the earliest it has been since 1991. It’s latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Who to vote for? .
HUMMM……….
Interesting quote from the Bruderhof communities concerning Bush’s supposed pro-life stance:
Who Is Pro-Life?
Emmanuel Charles McCarthy
As I read the triumphant headlines in the
newspapers day after day–?U.S. Pounds
Iraq from Air?–and saw the pictures of
missiles streaking into Iraq, I could not
help but hear the silent screams of all the
little Iraqi children in utero who were having
their lives ripped from them…Yet the silence
on this matter of abortions induced by war–
silence in the church, in pro-life circles and
in peace and justice efforts–is thunderous.
It is as if abortion for saving a person?s
reputation is absolutely evil; abortion for
saving a family?s economic life is absolutely
evil; abortion for saving a person?s job is
absolutely evil; abortion for saving a person
from what he or she perceives to be an
intolerable personal future is absolutely evil,
but abortion to save oil fields for the present
and future control and profit of American and
British oil interests or to save the world from
non-existent weapons of mass destruction
or from a local dictator is morally permissible!
It is as if patriotic earplugs have been discreetly
employed by pro-lifers in order to not hear what
they have been telling others to listen to for over
thirty years–the silent screams.
virusdoc,
Give me a break! What a propagandist, spindoctor load of crap.
I like this one.
Your Heinz bottles don’t lie
Check your Heinz bottles
I checked and my bottle of Heinz catsup says “Product of Canada”
Guess I’ll be checking out all the Heinz products at the store!
Shortly after reading the following e-mail content, I happened to
look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich slice pickles.
Yep….”Made in Mexico.”
Check some of your Heinz products. Sen. John Kerry keeps talking
about U.S. corporations leaving this country and setting up shop
in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them.
He is right, because that has happened. However, he is trying to
blame it on George W. Bush. As far as I know, Bush has not moved
one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a
single factory. That cannot be said about Kerry and his
wife,Teresa Heinz-Kerry. According to the Wall Street Journal, the
Kerrys own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific.
In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, leases four
factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories
in North America, some of which are in Mexico and the Caribbean.
I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs
when their plants relocated in foreign countries?
I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the
same wages and benefits as workers in the United States. Of course
they’re not. However, Kerry demands that other companies that
relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S.
Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company, since he is
married to the owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those
foreign factories and bring all those jobs back to America?
Of course they won’t.
They’re making millions off that cheap labor.
The labels don’t lie, Does Kerry?
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO MAKE
SURE THEY HAVE THE FACTS!!
…talk about spin!
I guess you would be happier if no one but Americans had jobs? Heaven forbid Canadians or Mexicans or Asians should be allowed to earn a little money while at the same time making less expensive products for you to fill your home with.
Go check your own house and driveway and see how many foreign made products you own, then eat your own words. Perhaps with a little ketchup on top to make them go down more easily.
Jobs wouldn’t go overseas if Americans didn’t demand three things:
i) maximum profit from their stock market;
ii) minumum prices for their goods; and
iii) maximum salaries and benefits from their employers.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that all three cannot coexist for long.
A couple of quick thoughts on abortion as discussed here…
I agree that we should also attempt to deal with the root causes of abortion. But we need to remember that the root cause is usually selfishness, in a large majority of the cases. Personally, I’m not willing to wait until everyone in the world becomes less selfish for abortion to stop.
Is killing another adult ever justified? Some people might say it is, in self-defense or in defense of others. But are there ever economic reasons for aborting a baby? I think not. Adoption is always an option.
Also, I think the argument that, if abortion is made illegal, it will still happen, is a bit overworked. Maybe the occasional desperate teen mother will do something stupid with pills or a coat hanger, but for all practical purposes abortion in America would stop if it were made illegal. The 4,000 abortions a day would drop to nearly zero, and those that did occur would start to be called murders, as they should be.
Personally I don’t care where the jobs go. I say make money if you can. It’s John Kerry that says he cares.
Seriously though. Make no mistake, I am not a Kerry fan and I will be voting for W. but I posted that stuff for fun mostly
Now I have to know. What scent of candles do you burn in your John Kerry shrine?
In my John Kerry shrine I always burn West Texas Crude scented candles, so that I can be encouraged at the thought of the Bush Oil Empire going up in smoke…
I’m assuming that in your GWB shrine you burn candles scented like the inside of an Emergency Room (you know, that delightful mixture of industrial grade Lysol and isopropyl alcohol, with just a hint of urine), to commemorate the fact that this was the only source of healthcare for 40 million Americans under his reign?
I’m speaking as a Canadian, so I have no right to take a stand in your political argument. However, we make good ketchup up here. In fact, we make a lot of things better up here. Maybe it’s the cold winter that makes us hearty or something. Nobody in the US outsources to Canada to save money, they outsource to Canada to improve quality. You outsource to Mexico, China, etc. to save money, the same as us. Welcome to the global economy.
I may be wrong, but I think the biggest issue of our time is abortion.
Just as in 1860 there were some who did not think a slave was a human (or they did not know) so they allowed slavery to continue, now some do not think unborn babies are human (or they do not know) so they allow them to be killed. Not many people today care what other issues people had an opinion on at that time besides slavery. We remember them for their position on slavery, and we know that those who supported slavery were wrong. I believe (and hope) that in 100 years people look back look back with greater knowledge and be glad that some of us were willing to stand up for the unborn baby. And I believe that people will only remember us for what we stood for on that issue.
We should have given the slaves the benefit of doubt as people, just as we should now give the unborn the benefit of the doubt as people. Until someone is able to prove to me that the unborn child is not a person, (and how can that ever be proven) I will stand up for their rights as people.
Thanks for your thoughts, Justin. I am right with you for sure on selfishness being the primary cause of abortion. This is one issue I wish was easier. A couple more thoughts, quickly (I hope).
…
Abortion is such a frightening issue because of how everything lines up. If I make my vote this Tuesday about abortion, I can’t say I agree with more than a handful of other stances of our president. Even Pat Buchanan fears a second-term Bush presidency!
…
I wish the same justices who would protect the unborn were the same ones who would protect our freedoms. There are not only liberal activist judges, there are conservative activist judges that are every bit as scary.
What do you think? Are freedom of speech and assembly less important than protecting the rights of the unborn? Does anything counterbalance this issue? Is this a hill that all Christians should die on when it comes to every other policy decision? I think for some it really is.
…
Some of you, if you’ve had any experience in pastoral care of grieving families, may be aware that the funeral industry is a powerful lobby group. This is relevant, so stay with me. Because the increase in numbers of people requesting cremation has caused a huge dropoff in profits for funeral homes, funeral corporations have gotten legislation passed in many states that requires a family be told what will happen to their loved one’s body.
They are told that parts of the body may explode and pop. That most of the remains will be turned to a fine powder, but that some parts will stay intact until they are eventually ground up in the final stages of the process.
They are “required” to read this gruesomely phrased script to people in grief if they choose cremation.
Now - if all this can be required by law to be read to an individual regarding a dead loved one, couldn’t a similar law be passed requiring the reading of a detailed description of an abortion? At a minimum, people should have to face the gravity of their decision, so long as it remains a choice.
And as I believe Nai pointed out — the fathers are almost always left out! I think the guys should be required to pay a lifetime of child support if the mother chooses abortion.
…
Oh yeah — and regarding outsourcing: I am not a proponent of sweatshops, but my friend Chet Thomas who has lived and worked among the poor of Honduras for 20 years says that the best jobs available for the poor are the ones outsourced to the country by North American corporations. I would personally rather see employment and development creep up around the world than at home. A poor North American is far better off than a poor third world child. If outsourcing jobs helps my incomparably poorer neighbors, I would have to cautiously say that I am not against it - for now. Unfortunately, it’s American corporations that have contributed and/or caused many of the problems existing in third world countries… so… uh… yeah.
Anyway, most American Christians would probably want to slug me for it, but I echo Ben Folds’ frustration with politicians and their endless “God Bless America”s… Folds says, “Why don’t you bless someone else for a while and give us a rest?”
Speaking of giving it a rest, would someone shut me up already?
Adam,
I agree with you about the abortion description. Knowledge of the reality can be the best solution.
On the loss of freedom of speech and assembly, I don’t think that is neccessarily a partisan issue. That will be lost because ignorant Americans will forfeit the right. Its operating on both sides of the isle in one way or another. Some of these things almost make me a liberatatrian except I don’t want to live in a giant Amsterdam. The legal drugs and all might level itself out after a while but I think legal drugs would be like a zoo for the first five of ten years.
Whoever,
My wife saw an interesting study done in the 1930’s I believe. It involved 87 civilizations over 5000 years. The study showed that civilizations that accepted and allowed homosexuality as a normal lifestyle only lasted another 3 generations before they fell. Also it showed that the strongest ones were strong patriarchal societies with good father figures. What concerns me most is that I’ve heard that generations are becoming shorter and shorter. I like America. I think it is a great nation and if you don’t believe me ask someone from anywhere else in the world where they would like to live. I believe it is because God has been with I us just like the nation of Israel. The thing is is that when Israel sought after God they prospered but as soon as their prosperity caused them to look inward or to other gods they fell and were crushed or taken captive.
Virusdoc,
Very good! It was fun. I have one more forward for you.
FOOD for ADDITIONAL thought when deciding who to vote for in November!!
> These costs are real and don”t have anything to do with the issues in the
> news today.
> In God We Trust
> Got this from a friend in Florida. Food for thought……….
>
> Thought I would share some information that is helping me decide how I
> will
> vote in November.
>
> Most of us haven’t thought about this — no matter how much we like or
> dislike John Kerry. Even an estimate of this cost is staggering.
>
> If elected, you and I (or those of us who actually pay taxes) will pay
> upkeep and secret service protection for five Kerry mansions here in the
> United States plus those he and his wife own abroad. It is good to be
> John
> F. Kerry…the F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one
> of
> the richest senators in government and he married even richer. Their
> properties certainly reflect their opulent lifestyle. When someone is
> elected president, the Secret Service has to protect this person and
> family
> as well as their property for as long as the president and his spouse
> lives!
> Beacon Hill, Boston $6.9 million
>
> As mentioned, the Kerry’s have five US properties and several foreign
> properties. The cost to run one of these homes for a year is more than
> upper middle income Americans could afford, even if the rent was free, and
> all you had to pay was the water, gas & electric bills (we won’t mention
> ground keepers, maintenance, pool, cooks and housekeepers.)
>
> Fox Chapel, PA $3.7 million (this is their “shanty”)
>
> If Kerry becomes president each property requires staffed secret service
> security 24 hours a day. Security improvements to each home will come at
> tax payer expense. Even if the Kerry’s never use all the properties they
> will be retrofitted — just in case they drop by for a weekend.
> Facilities for the secret service agents must also be provided on each
> property. Who do you think will pay for this? We pay! This takes all the
> expense off Kerry and puts it on Bill Clinton is paying for his New York
> manor house by charging the government monthly rent for the required
> secret service facility. The monthly rent is nearly three times more than
> his mortgage payment. So we the tax payers are buying his house and he
> pockets the extra money from the rent on the secret service facility.
> Then he gets to write off the interest on his mortgage. Well, he was
> broke from defending his immoral skullduggery and his wife’s little
> scandals, so maybe we should feel sorry for poor old Slick Willie.
>
> Georgetown, Washington D.C. $4.7 million
>
> Ketchum, Idaho $4.92 million
>
> What does it cost to staff one property in terms of secret service agents?
> Let’s just talk about his American properties. Each property would
> require 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days a year for the
> rest of Kerry’s life and however long his widow might live. In addition,
> we pay to house and feed these agents at each property for the duration.
> Do the math. Five properties requiring five agents per shift, times four
> shifts. That is 20 agents per day per property, 365 days per year. Lets
> say each agent receives a salary of about $60K (this doesn’t include
> insurance, retirement, etc.; add 30% of salary for that). There will also
> be vehicles, repairs, gas, and other miscellaneous costs. Straight salary
> and benefits for 100 agents for one year would cost $7,800,000. We can
> only guess at the cost of retrofitting each property, building the
> facility necessary to house the agents and the monthly rent for each
> facility.
>
> Nantucket, MA $9.18 million
>
> On the other hand, George Bush owns one house, the one at his ranch in
> Crawford, Texas.
>
> Again, who pays? You and I pay. I don’t mind one property; heck I
> wouldn’t even complain about two, but five in the U.S. and those abroad?
> Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Kerry should offer to foot the bill for all but two
> of these properties if they want me to consider his candidacy. Does it
> make sense to spend this kind of money on his excessive life style when he
> and Mrs. Heinz-Kerry can better afford it??
>
> Paying for the Kerry mansions is only a small part of my concern about
> this man sitting in the White House. Tax and spend Kerry, that’s his
> party motto. I’d rather see the money we’d spend protecting his fancy
> properties go toward health care, our military and homeland security.
> Which America does he live in? Not the same one I live in, that’s for
> sure!
>
> Please pass the mustard; do America a favor and pass this to your friends.
> Let’s keep Bush a resident of the White House rather than spend millions
> and millions to protect Kerry’s preferred lifestyle and opulent
> properties. We’d save an incredible amount of money for more deserving
> programs. Oh, and viva Del Monte Ketchup!
It should be noted, as numbers are thrown around, that without his wife’s net worth, Kerry is indeed less wealthy than Bush. Check the link below.
Between 9 and 26 million for Bush compared to as much as 1.8 million for Kerry, with Kerry having a prenuptial agreement with his wife keeping her money separate. Together Kerry and his wife are worth . He does share as much as 600,000 of assets, including homes, etc.
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040823.html
…
One last note: I had considered myself a lifetime conservative until experiencing this presidency. My wife and I voted Bush in in 2000. But the last four years have caused me to question some of the beliefs I have held deeply about politics. It’s been very difficult for me as I live in a very conservative town, serve in a fairly conservative church, and come from a mostly conservative family.
Finally, why do people (on both sides) rely on angry partisan forwards from unknown origins to make their cases for them? I mean absolutely no offense to those who cited them. Please be kind.
I have to respond to the comment that the large number of families waiting to adopt is due to the large number of abortions. That’s only partly true, because many people waiting to adopt want to adopt a health baby of the same race as they are.
There are thousands of children in this country awaiting adoption who don’t fit that mold: they are considered “hard to place” because they are older, part of sibling groups, victims of abuse or neglect, disabled, or interracial. I used to work for an adoption agency that specialized in hard to place adoptions, and many of the adoptive parents found that while there are challenges they wouldn’t have with a healthy baby, there are also many tremendous rewards.
I apologize to all those who asked for a reply, and I dropped out of the fun (busy week and weekend).
dcrew - asked me “to explain what I meant by Bush cutting funds for the poor, the hungry, the sick.”
I cannot offer a long list of specific stories, but I believe the sources of the stories when I did read them. A similar story is about how George hugged the firefighters right after 9/11 and said he was with them, then within the year, cut $150 million in funds for training/equipping/supporting emergency personnel nationwide. THe Chicago Tribune columnist Molly Ivins? wrote the column that really hilighted this for me.
George and the Republican congress have a consistant habit of lending moral support to the needy, but withdrawing material support. I assume they would say they were cutting government waste, or the tax cuts will trickle down money in other ways, but that never worked for me.
Pat - on the abundance of parents waiting to adopt babies.
I am sure that there is a log jam of parent waiting for caucasian babies. Is this so for minority babies? I don’t know. Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. See Amy’s post for a good plug on this.
Ian - You said, “I don?t understand how you can believe that abortion is murder, but then say that it?s a woman?s right to choose. It?s a woman?s right to choose whether or not she murders her child? I realize that abortion or pregnancy affect the mother, but the life of the child outweighs those concerns a thousand times over.”
Yes. The issue is whether this country’s laws consider abortion murder, not what you or I believe. The woman must choose within the moral code she has at the time. If she does not have, or denies, a relationship with God, she may murder her baby.
It always appears to be a male thing to legislate women into a second class existence. I will say it again, where is the father in these situations? Where is the family’s of the two prospective parents? Where is the community? Where are all the Christians who should be helping support these women in need? Who will love these women as Jesus said to do? (sorry, I get a little carried away)
For the record, I am a male.
Justin - On your quick thought: “Also, I think the argument that, if abortion is made illegal, it will still happen, is a bit overworked. Maybe the occasional desperate teen mother will do something stupid with pills or a coat hanger, but for all practical purposes abortion in America would stop if it were made illegal. The 4,000 abortions a day would drop to nearly zero, and those that did occur would start to be called murders, as they should be.”
I would love to see what statistics, or train of thought led you to believe that only the occassional desperate teen would do something stupid. You could be right, I don’t have a crystal ball, or any information to say otherwise.
Another thing that continues from something virusdoc mentioned. How can a self-declared Christian president be against killing the unborn, but deny pardons to those facing capital punishment and make war on two powerless countries? Yes, yes, I know we are all sinners. I guess he isn’t done yet?
I liked Adam’s question on how you balance such a serious issue with all the others in determining who is the best candidate. My answer is that the pro-choice issue will be with us long after a second GWB term. This election is about what kind of country my grandkids will inherit, and that has everything to do with Kerry vs. Bush, and every presidential/congressional/senatorial election hereafter. God be with us.
I am now done with the pro-choice issue. Whew!
Nai-
You’re right, I was mistaken about the number of illegal abortions that we could expect. Thanks for pointing that out. See the Abortion in Context post above for more thoughts on that.
As far as Bush being a warmonger and pardoning war criminals, while opposing abortion-
I think you are making an a fortiori argument, but have it reversed. Bush is willing to allow killing and death in war, but not of the unborn. I think the correct usage of this argument would be: If you’re opposed to killing our enemies in war, how can you support killing children with abortion?
Nai,
The Chicago Tribune I would imagine is quite liberal. I would have to know the details behind those cuts, those kinds of numbers can be manipulated easily.
Speaking of numbers here is an interesting look at tax cuts explained.
Tax Cuts Explained
>Let’s put tax cuts in terms that everyone can understand. Suppose that
>every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
>If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
>like this:
>
>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>The fifth would pay $1.
>The sixth would pay $3.
>The seventh $7.
>The eighth $12.
>The ninth $18.
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>So, that’s what they decided to do.
>
>The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
>with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
>”Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the
>cost of your daily meal by $20.”
>
>So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
>their bill the way we pay our taxes.
>So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But
>what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy
up the
>$20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?
>
>The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
>subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth
>man would each end up being ‘PAID’ to eat their meal. So, the restaurant
>owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly
>the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
>And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
>savings).
>The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
>The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (29% savings).
>The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
>The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
>The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings).
>Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to
>eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
>their savings.
>
>”I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to
>the tenth man “but he got $9!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth
>man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got nine times more
>than me!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $9
>back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
>”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
>anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
>
>The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
>tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without
>him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
>important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half
>of the bill!
>
>And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
>tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit
>from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and
>they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good
>restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
This is true unless you are a Kerry and you pay 13% on taxes.
Happy Voting. I had a blast!
So I’m a bit late on this discussion, but wanted to throw in my 2 cents anyway…
dcrew - the tax story you gave is interesting, but its pretty far off base. Income taxes are only a part of the overall revenue that the government receives. In 2003, this was just 44.5% of all revenue. In contrast, Social Insurance taxes (FICA, Medicare) accounted for 40%, corporate taxes brought in 7.4%, and other (gas, etc) brought in 8.1%. So the 4 poorest people in your example were actually responsible for paying a considerable amount of the overall bill. Considering that social security is a flat tax which does not tax income over $87,900, it is an incredibly regressive system. That would be fine if there really were a trust fund that those people could rely on for retirement, but the money is being spent as general revenue, and most of those paying in now cannot expect to see much (if any) in the way of payments when they retire. So while it makes a nice story, the fact is that the poorest people in your story actually pay a considerable amount in taxes, so the whole example is bunk.
Also, tax returns for presidents and candidates are readily available on-line. If you add up the Kerry’s income, you get $5468892, and they paid $730553 in federal taxes. That’s how you get 13%. HOWEVER, of their income, $2781791 was tax-exempt interest. ANYBODY can take advantage of this break by buying tax free municipal bonds (funding schools, roads, etc). You generally accept a lower stated yield in return, but the tax-free status makes them more attractive if you’re in a high income bracket.
For example, I could invest in the local school district’s building funds and get a 4.17% return on a AAA rated bond. Now, if I’m in a 15% tax bracket, that’s the equivalent of a 4.91% return on a taxable bond. If I’m in the 35% bracket, that’s the same as a 6.42% taxable return. Those are very good returns for a high-rated bond. So tax-free munis are very attractive to those with high incomes who want a stable, guaranteed return. They also let local governments borrow at below-market rates, as an equivalent taxable bond runs at 5.37% return.
So in the end, the local governments get cheaper loans, while high income earners get effectively higher returns. Then, with reduced demand, those of us in lower brackets get better returns on corporate bonds. Sure, its taxable, but the tax rates are lower. Its a win-win situation.
SO ANYWAY, if you eliminate those sources of income, then the Kerrys had income of $2687101, and a tax rate of 27.2%. How does that compare?
Bush: 27.6%
Kerry: 27.2%
Cheney: 19.9%
Adjusting for charitable contributions (lower net income to report, but same taxes):
Bush: 30.2%
Kerry: 27.6%
Cheney: 26.7%
NOTE: The Cheneys gave by far the largest amount to charity of the 3, then Bush, then Kerry, but the Kerrys run those donations through their foundation, lessening the impact on taxes.
So you see, there’s little difference between the candidates. The Kerrys simply chose a risk-adverse investment strategy that anyone could taken advantage of. In fact, Cheney did! If you add that income to the above numbers, you would see a tax rate of (surprise!) 13.3%!!!! The exact same percentage by which you accuse the Kerrys of dodging taxes.
So before anyone decides to get upset over a number you hear on Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Bill O’Reilly - do a little research, please?!?! (this only took me 5 minutes to find out)
-Cinti2003