Convince me to vote for Kerry

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Yup, i suppose. I mean i wouldnt blame anyone who decided NOT to take that argument into account when voting. For those of us who are genuinely on the fence, its at least something to think about.

LoTM, the Dems were in power when the spectre of al Qa'ida darkened the landscape with terrorism. Don't ignore history.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, the Dems were in power when the spectre of al Qa'ida darkened the landscape with terrorism. Don't ignore history.

And when Bush became President, they tried to tell him an attack was coming, and they were ignored.

See Rice's wonderful appearence with the 9/11 commission wherein she states that a memo entitled "Bin Laden Intent on Attack Within United States" did not mean that Bin Laden was intent on an attack within the United States. See also that she states she was informed that there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in the United States, but probably never told the President (she doesn't remember ever talking about it with him). All this well before 9/11.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned


If you would simply admit to the possibility of corruption by Chirac, I would be satisfied.

It's possible, but there is no decent evidence for it now. In any case, even if he was involved that is no reason to write off an entire country.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, does the Kerry plan offer every American basic and catastophic health insurance, even if required some co-pay by the insured?

[MalevolentLight]

And when Bush became President, they tried to tell him an attack was coming, and they were ignored.

See Rice's wonderful appearence with the 9/11 commission wherein she states that a memo entitled "Bin Laden Intent on Attack Within United States" did not mean that Bin Laden was intent on an attack within the United States. See also that she states she was informed that there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in the United States, but probably never told the President (she doesn't remember ever talking about it with him). All this well before 9/11.

Or we could just look at Clinton's decision not to pick up OBL when he was offered to us. Or any other number of Clinton **** ups. And you say "all this well before 9/11"...but he was only in office for 8 months before 9/11 happened so I don't want to hear about a mere 8 months when compared with 8 years of Clinton blunders.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


It's possible, but there is no decent evidence for it now. In any case, even if he was involved that is no reason to write off an entire country.

-Drachasor

True.

But it would give one pause if the very same person remained in power.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


And when Bush became President, they tried to tell him an attack was coming, and they were ignored.

See Rice's wonderful appearence with the 9/11 commission wherein she states that a memo entitled "Bin Laden Intent on Attack Within United States" did not mean that Bin Laden was intent on an attack within the United States. See also that she states she was informed that there were Al Qaeda terrorist cells in the United States, but probably never told the President (she doesn't remember ever talking about it with him). All this well before 9/11.

-Drachasor

Drach, Clinton was in power in '93 when al Qa'ida attacked the WTC.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Then your father is in the minority. Maybe you should look up some of the groups against Edwards then come back and talk to me. I don't know of any doctors that are for a government run healthcare system. Maybe you should read up sometime on the idea of the invisible hand in economics. Taxes shouldn't be so high that tax credits are even needed. If you have to start giving out tax credits in order for a small business to make it then something is wrong. And again, I see alot of promises but I don't see any ways on how any of this is going to work. Government getting involved in the private sector is never a good thing. All of you can point to the great depression, but that was a different era and those social programs (including social security) were never meant to be continued after we came out of it. Who is the government to plan the retirement of people and to take their money and give it to someone else? And I have looked at the latest figures and they are very good. Unemployment is at a lower level than when Clinton ran for re-election in 96. You keep harping on unemployment, but that only works on voters when they actually know someone who isn't employed (yet another issue used every single election by Democrats). What's next on the list, out-sourcing? Maybe we can get started on the Heinz corporation then. Or how about while we're on the subject of taxes we ask why Teresa Heinz Kerry is only paying 1.2% in income tax. Hypocracy is a religion for Democrats.

http://www.doctorsforkerry.com/

And once again, Kerry's plan is not government-run-healthcare. Try reading something from a neutral party:

http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

I would note I was unable to even find a site of doctors being in favor of Bush (and the google hits on "doctors for bush" is not even a third of the hits of "doctors for kerry."

As for the private sector and government involvment, in many cases it does help, if done properly. I can't believe you are trying to say that the government helping businesses by offering loans and tax breaks is a bad thing.

As for the Unemployment Level, in case you didn't know it is very misleading. Anyone working 10 hours or more is "employed" and anyone that has given up on looking for a job is not counted. Historically it is always low, especially when the job market has been bad for a sustained period.

And you know what? Kerry wants to close loop-holes on taxes for big businesses. That means he wants to fix that hole he is involved in. He knows it is a problem and wants to change it. Bush doesn't.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, I repeat. Does the Kerry plan offer ALL Americans basic and catastophic health insurance?

[Drachasor]

During Clinton's presidency there was one relatively minor attack on us by Terrorists. He met with terrorist experts every DAY while in office to discuss the problem and how to combat it.

When he was "offered" OBL the deal was quite sketchy and quite possibly too costly. The strategies he used overall worked very, very well. He stopped attacks after the first bombing and his administration knew another attack was coming and quite possibly could have stopped 9/11 from happening. OBL didn't have to be captured in a very risky maneuver, because under the Clinton Administration he wasn't as large a threat. They still worked on tracking him down safely and attacking various training camps he had.

They couldn't stay in power though, so they tried to get Bush to understand what was going on. Memos and pleading didn't work, discussions over the threat didn't work. Bush thought they were "obsessed" over terrorism.

In contrast, Clinton's failure happened much earlier and no one was shouting that something was going to happen. He didn't hush anyone up, and launched numerous attacks on terrorism during his term. He was able to maintain control of the situation.

The fact is that Clinton was very strong against terrorism and was also able to keep American soldiers safe while combatting it.

-Drachasor

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I repeat. Does the Kerry plan offer ALL Americans basic and catastophic health insurance?

IIRC, the offer is for those who want it... nobody is forced to use Kerry's plan. It is aimed at those with no healthcare coverage. AND, BTW, Kerry's plan is a full trillion dollars less than Bush's.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I repeat. Does the Kerry plan offer ALL Americans basic and catastophic health insurance?

He doesn't plan on making a program that everyone will necessarily be in. Estimates are that he will cut the numbers of uninsured roughly in half, however. The program is pretty cheap for what it does (about $650 billion) and will be fully paid for. It can also be scaled up or down fairly easily so that some improvement will assuredly be made.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, the offer is for those who want it... nobody is forced to use Kerry's plan. It is aimed at those with no healthcare coverage. AND, BTW, Kerry's plan is a full trillion dollars less than Bush's.

Indepedent estimates have it covering more people too.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


He doesn't plan on making a program that everyone will necessarily be in. Estimates are that he will cut the numbers of uninsured roughly in half, however. The program is pretty cheap for what it does (about $650 billion) and will be fully paid for. It can also be scaled up or down fairly easily so that some improvement will assuredly be made.

-Drachasor

So it does nothing directly, then, to permit the working poor or the unimployed to get health insurance by taking direct action on their own. They cannot buy health insurance and have their premiums subsidized or paid for by the government.

That is the plan we need.

What we do not need is a major government program subsidizing health care costs for the middle class and well-to-do which seems to be Kerry's plan.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
So it does nothing directly, then, to permit the working poor or the unimployed to get health insurance by taking direct action on their own. They cannot buy health insurance and have their premiums subsidized or paid for by the government.

That is the plan we need.

What we do not need is a major government program subsidizing health care costs for the middle class and well-to-do which seems to be Kerry's plan.

His plan does do this, I was just describing the cost and the projected effects.

It gives tax credits to help people get insured.

-Drachasor