US Elections 2004

[His_child]

His_Child said:

I just want to be the interior decorator.  

HS: I think that's a splendid idea!  

I think Ollie should also create a brand new cabinet member in his new administration - "Secretary of Wisdom".  The wisdom secretary will stand behind a tall, offical looking podium and give confusing and evasive answers to simple questions.  

Oh - wait - there's already a position with that job description:  Press Secretary.    

I could be like Martha Stewart without the record!  

I was just thinking how much money I could save this country because it really doesn't cost that much to decorate in Early American Goodwill.

[Rhys]

I voted for Bush in the last election and while I would never vote for Kerry, I have become disillusioned with Bush as well. While it is great to have a Christian in the White House and I applaud his stand on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. I am greatly disturbed by things like the "Patriot" Act, locking away people without trial or even charges being filed, torture of prisoners, etc., etc. - all tactics of a police state and violations of the Constitution he swore to uphold. I supported the invasion of Afganistan, but saw no need for the Iraq war and believe it was brought about through lies and misrepresentations - not tactics a Christian should be using. It has drained valuable resources from the War on Terrorism and domestic programs and stretched our military too thin.

I am also concerned about the massive deficits we are running, largely due to Bush's income tax cuts combined with war expenses. I am old enough to remember Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon doing the same thing during the Vietnam War and the runaway inflation that resulted a few years later. Furthermore, the Democrats are right that the cuts benefited only the rich - I saw no cut whatever in my income taxes, but as usual when income taxes are cut my property taxes went up, along with fees, to cover the revenue lost by state and local governments. Basically the Republican income tax cuts are always shell games to shift taxes from progressive to regressive forms of taxation. Their "less government" platform is also a shell game that means less regulation of huge corrupt corporations like Enron, but more and more government control over individuals and infringement on individual rights.

The Republicans make no real effort to deal with domestic problems such as health care, employment, etc. We need a thorough overhaul of health care, not the band-aid approach both parties have advocated so far. The complexity alone must add billions to our costs of health care - standardizing and simplifying would help greatly, but that seems to be beyond the ability of Americans, who seem to rejoice in continually making everything more and more complicated.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have long ceased to represent the average working person in any way and are now captives of the "looney left" and the sexual perverts.

Anyway, this year I may well vote for the Constitution Party candidate for president, even though I don't agree with some of their positions on taxes or health care, (as I don't see either of the major parties doing anything about them anyway). At least the Constitution Party seems to stand for Christian values. (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php).

[Reba]

If  government did not spend what they dont have there would be NO deficits.  


It is not governments place to provide jobs or health care. Why ever is it the responcibilty government to support the unemployed, or elderly.

[JudgeNot]

If government did not spend what they dont have there would be NO deficits.

Reba, dearest X;
Your talking 'common sense'.  Common sense has been outlawed in government by the ACLU - at the same time they outlawed Jesus.

I wish I was just 'cutting up ' (as I usually am), and making a joke... But this time I'm dead (America dead) serious...  

[Reba]

http://www.bidness.com/jbj/crockett.htm


This story is a bit long for a forum please take time to read the whole.

[Rhys]

If  government did not spend what they dont have there would be NO deficits.  


It is not governments place to provide jobs or health care. Why ever is it the responcibilty government to support the unemployed, or elderly.

True, but also true that if they raised taxes to cover spending there would be no deficits. The solution is to decide what really needs to be spent and then tax at a level to cover it. Bush cut taxes while increasing spending.

Unfortunately there is no agreement among Americans on what government should be doing and how much it should spend doing it.

Government really can't provide lasting jobs, except by stimulating the private sector, so we have no disagreement there. Health care has simply gotten so enormously expensive that there seems no alternative to government stepping in. If you have a better idea to reduce medical costs to a level affordable to average Americans, advance it!

(The only idea I have come up with in that area is to have the government direct research money to search for cures and preventions, not treatments. The drug companies have no incentive to find cures or preventions, as they make far more money by selling you medicines (treatments) you have to take for the rest of your life!)

It may be a surprise, but government in America has always supported the sick, unemployed and elderly, from the days of original settlement, if their own families couldn't do it. It was local governments that did it, not the Federal Government, and they usually did a very poor job and did it grudgingly, but they were responsible. (Families and relatives did and should bear the primary responsibility, but they do need help even when they are willing).

I've heard over and over that Christians and churches should be doing the job, not the government, and many of the current programs government runs were originally started by churches and religious organizations. However, the reason government took over in those areas was that the religious organizations either didn't have or wouldn't provide the resources to meet the needs. As government services to the poor have been cut back, I haven't seen a huge increase in giving by Christians to fill the gap. I've heard a lot of rhetoric and seen very little action.

[nChrist]

Rhys,

There was a time when churches did do a pretty good job of taking care of those in need. However, there is a new ingredient that is breaking the bank.

GREEDY LAWYERS!!!

Nobody can afford to pay for them in the health care arena. We are long past a crisis in the costs they add to every medical procedure. Some doctors are giving up, especially those in fields that are popular for lawyers to wade into. Some parts of the country are much worse than others, but it appears that lawyers are making health care harder and harder for average people to get.

So, the church question might be asked in several different ways:

Do you wish to help the sick people who can't afford medical care?

Same as above but add - prohibitive costs because we will also be lining the fat cat lawyers pockets with gold in the attempt.

This is a fact of life now. Tort reform must be one of the answers if rich and poor receive adequate medical care.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Reba]

The more government fixes things the less they work.


 Setting on the board of directors of the 'water district' here we HAD to accept the lowest bid  to install some new pipe. I wanted to take the middle bid because it just looked better all around. Government regulations said we had to take the lowest. the cost overrides were very high. but we took the lowest bid.

The more local the government the better. Local government was the format God gave to Moses to deal with the folks in the dessert.

[sincereheart]

An interesting quote:

“The biggest danger for Kerry is that his stances on issues are so carefully calibrated that she [his wife] might speak the truth and mess up the very carefully scripted way Kerry is hoping voters perceive the issue,” said Massachusetts Republican consultant Rob Gray. “The more outspoken she is, the more she could end up contradicting him.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5452786/

[Reba]

If government did not spend what they dont have there would be NO deficits.

Reba, dearest X;
Your talking 'common sense'.  Common sense has been outlawed in government by the ACLU - at the same time they outlawed Jesus.

I wish I was just 'cutting up ' (as I usually am), and making a joke... But this time I'm dead (America dead) serious...  

2 Chron 7:14

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
KJV

[Rhys]

Tom,
     I have to agree with you totally on this issue. We should do what the British do - limit suits to actual damages, no punitive damages unless intent can be proven. And people should be made to take responsibility for themselves, not blame sopmeone else for everything that goes wrong.

                       

Rhys,

There was a time when churches did do a pretty good job of taking care of those in need. However, there is a new ingredient that is breaking the bank.

GREEDY LAWYERS!!!

Nobody can afford to pay for them in the health care arena. We are long past a crisis in the costs they add to every medical procedure. Some doctors are giving up, especially those in fields that are popular for lawyers to wade into. Some parts of the country are much worse than others, but it appears that lawyers are making health care harder and harder for average people to get.

So, the church question might be asked in several different ways:

Do you wish to help the sick people who can't afford medical care?

Same as above but add - prohibitive costs because we will also be lining the fat cat lawyers pockets with gold in the attempt.

This is a fact of life now. Tort reform must be one of the answers if rich and poor receive adequate medical care.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Rhys]

Reba,
     If I came across as harsh in my last reply to you I apologize. It was not my intention. I should show the love of Christ.
     "The more government fixes things the less they work". This is a popular belief but think what life would be like without government.  Something like Iraq at present, but likely even worse. God instituted government for a reason. While there can be too much government, there can also be too little.
     The "lowest bid" rule was instituted to prevent fraud and government waste of the "Haliburton in Iraq" type. It does lead to substandard work at times, but I believe government rules do not "require" you to take the lowest bid if you can show valid reasons not to, at least around here. This situation could be avoided by requiring "performance guarantees" as they do in Europe for road construction. If a company uses substandard materials and the road doesn't hold up, they are required to redo it at their own expense. Cost overrides should be the contractor's problem, unless the specifications were changed.
     "The more local the government the better". In my experience the most oppressive (and least responsive) governments are the local ones, followed by State governments - (but then I live in NY, which is well named the "Empire" State. It sure isn't democratic). State and local governments are the worst in ignoring and taking away individual rights to please special interest groups, and local governments are usually the most corrupt form of government.
     Moses was dealing with an entire nation of people, so in effect it was a national, not a local government. (Actually Jethro  suggested a national judicial system, not a government). Almost certainly each of the twelve tribes governed itself to a large extent, under the authority of Moses, who was under the authority of God.
                                           Ted


     
     

The more government fixes things the less they work.


 Setting on the board of directors of the 'water district' here we HAD to accept the lowest bid  to install some new pipe. I wanted to take the middle bid because it just looked better all around. Government regulations said we had to take the lowest. the cost overrides were very high. but we took the lowest bid.

The more local the government the better. Local government was the format God gave to Moses to deal with the folks in the dessert.

[Reba]

Ex 18:25-27

25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

27 And Moses let his father in law depart; and he went his way into his own land.
KJV
 
I was too sleepy to look up the reference last night   .  I read the above as local government with a centrel control.


Rhys,  You did not offend me. A difference of opinion is not harsh, just different.  I am not good with words and i tend to be blunt. I do not mean to offend either.  

[ollie]

Tom,
     I have to agree with you totally on this issue. We should do what the British do - limit suits to actual damages, no punitive damages unless intent can be proven. And people should be made to take responsibility for themselves, not blame sopmeone else for everything that goes wrong.

                       

Rhys,

There was a time when churches did do a pretty good job of taking care of those in need. However, there is a new ingredient that is breaking the bank.

GREEDY LAWYERS!!!

Nobody can afford to pay for them in the health care arena. We are long past a crisis in the costs they add to every medical procedure. Some doctors are giving up, especially those in fields that are popular for lawyers to wade into. Some parts of the country are much worse than others, but it appears that lawyers are making health care harder and harder for average people to get.

So, the church question might be asked in several different ways:

Do you wish to help the sick people who can't afford medical care?

Same as above but add - prohibitive costs because we will also be lining the fat cat lawyers pockets with gold in the attempt.

This is a fact of life now. Tort reform must be one of the answers if rich and poor receive adequate medical care.

Love In Christ,
Tom

"I have to agree with you totally on this issue. We should do what the British do - limit suits to actual damages, no punitive damages unless intent can be proven. And people should be made to take responsibility for themselves, not blame sopmeone else for everything that goes wrong."

                       
We should forgive people their mistakes in life and not see it as a way to gain a bundle of cash in the courts.

However, like Tom said greed from the lawyers have them goading and  convincing people to give in to their own base desires and fall prey to their own inner greed and sue.

Ollie

[Reba]

I am the secuterry of edgucation I will now teach you how to spel LAWYERS

LIERS

  Sheeesh  thanks judge LIARS