If you could vote in the US Presidential Elections, who would you vote for?

[Timber Loftis]

I am a citizen of Canada where individuals have rights to rule of law, where an ijured party can be reparated properly, and where a balance is struck so all concerned are treated fairly.

So, how does that balance work?

Sorry to inquire further, but it's an interesting topic.

And... I want to determine if anything better than Tarrence and Phillip can be found in Canada. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Gab:

2 trillion more in spending?! Where did you get that?

"...mandatory programs and interest payments will total $1.485 trillion in 2005. Adding in defense ($450 billion), homeland security ($30 billion) and the non-mandatory spending for education ($79 billion) and health care ($42 billion) brings Kerry-protected spending to $2.1 trillion,"

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...1351-5228r.htm

How do you suppose he is going to pay for all this?

There's no proof that low taxes = more jobs. Business don't always invest, they sometimes just horde the money.

Economics is basically the study of historical trends in business. The trends sure do point to job creation through low tax incentives.

Even if a business hordes money away it creates jobs. Businesses put money into banks. Since their supply of money is large, banks are able to offer low interest rates. (basic supply and demand) The banks then loan money to someone wanting to build a house, thus creating construction jobs. (or banks loan money for a new car creating automotive jobs, or loan money to a student going to university creating educational jobs...)

Kerry's plan for the enviroment is to reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks to the Clean Air Act and spend more money on innovative, job creative programs that reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

Of course he is.

To say Bush has no economic plan is inaccurate. You may or may not agree with his plan but it is there.

How is he going to get rid of the deficit? What's he going to do about the rising costs of healthcare? What plan does he have for the enviroment?

Have you considered checking out the President Bush web site?
To reiterate, you may or may not agree with his plan(s) but to say they are not there is inaccurate.

[Timber Loftis]

How is he going to get rid of the deficit? What's he going to do about the rising costs of healthcare? What plan does he have for the enviroment?

1. Deferment.
2. Simple -- he sponsored a bill giving our tax money to drug companies so they don't have to lower prices. Everybody wins.
3. Cut it and drill it, for the betterment of us all. Well, all timber and oil companies at least. That's okay, jobs are good. Oh, that will cost you tax money too. You can make your check payable to Halliburton.

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: I am a citizen of Canada where individuals have rights to rule of law, where an ijured party can be reparated properly, and where a balance is struck so all concerned are treated fairly.

So, how does that balance work?

Sorry to inquire further, but it's an interesting topic.

And... I want to determine if anything better than Tarrence and Phillip can be found in Canada. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Saw a report on a Canadian new report a while ago, and if memory serves; if a defendant is found negligent they would be responible for paying medical related costs of the plantiff, legal fees, plus a sum (for lack of actual term) pain and suffering (generally under $300 000 Cdn). There is more to it than that but the basics are there. The basic reasoning is to ensure that plantiff is well compensated while at the same time an unduly harse penalty is not imposed on the defendant(which would just get passed on to everyone else by the insurance companies).

[Timber Loftis]

Note that "an unduly harsh some" will usually exceed all the insurance policies. $200 million verdicts land on the lap of the party, usually. Maybe not -- I'm not real familiar with the levels and insurance and excess insurance doctors/hospitals retain. I do know that for me, if a malpractice judgment exceeds $4 million, my firm would likely be paying out-of-pocket. Oh, I'd be fired of course.

Except for the limit on pain and suffering, it sounds like we do it here. However, what's missing from you calculation is the "damages" for what was lost. How is a lost leg accounted for? Is it just pain and suffering? Here we view it as the loss of a valuable body part, which can have any amount of value. If it's Kobe Bryant's leg, for instance, he'd suffer damages in the dozens of millions.

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: How is he going to get rid of the deficit? What's he going to do about the rising costs of healthcare? What plan does he have for the enviroment?

1. Deferment.
2. Simple -- he sponsored a bill giving our tax money to drug companies so they don't have to lower prices. Everybody wins.
3. Cut it and drill it, for the betterment of us all. Well, all timber and oil companies at least. That's okay, jobs are good. Oh, that will cost you tax money too. You can make your check payable to Halliburton. [/QUOTE]With Democrats giving out spin like that it is no wonder that Kerry is really starting to drop in the polls.

[Timber Loftis]

Except for the "payable to Halliburton" snippy bit, I'm right on the money, and you know it.

On the deficit, he has lessened how much further we will fall in the hole this year to a modest $400 billion. That's ADDITIONAL debt, mind you. If that ain't deferment, then what the hell is it? It's profligacy akin to a Paris Hilton/ Nicole Ritchie shopping spree -- all on daddy's credit card.

The prescription drug bill was a big handout to drug companies, and increased our national spending by 1% -- FOREVER. That's a long way to go to avoid having drug companies suffer price cuts (or citizens suffer continued lack of medical drugs).

Oh, he does back brownfields redevelopment. Other than that, on the enviro, he's handed control of almost all the Bureas in the EPA to former industry lobbyists. A former timber industry lobbyist heads up the forest service. A former mining lobbyist heads up another agency (I think the national parks). A former utility lobbyist is in charge of air "enforcment" at EPA. Go ahead, show me wrong. He's an eco disaster.

I'm on the money, on the money, and on the money. You spin it your way, I'll spin it mine, but the truth's the truth.

[ 09-13-2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Knightscape]

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
[QB] Except for the "payable to Halliburton" snippy bit, I'm right on the money, and you know it.

On the deficit, he has lessened how much further we will fall in the hole this year to a modest $400 billion. That's ADDITIONAL debt, mind you. If that ain't deferment, then what the hell is it? It's profligacy akin to a Paris Hilton/ Nicole Ritchie shopping spree -- all on daddy's credit card.

Rebuilding the military and fighting a war on terrorism obviously has not been cheap. Losing the war on terror would not be the best thing for the economy, no matter who is president or what the economic policy is. The defecit will continue until the war is won(imho). Any candidate that says they can get rid of the defecit and win the war on terror at the same time will have a difficult time convincing the voting public.

The prescription drug bill was a big handout to drug companies, and increased our national spending by 1% -- FOREVER. That's a long way to go to avoid having drug companies suffer price cuts (or citizens suffer continued lack of medical drugs).

The prescription drug bill is a way to make paying for medication easier for citizens (mostly senior citizens).

Oh, he does back brownfields redevelopment. Other than that, on the enviro, he's handed control of almost all the Bureas in the EPA to former industry lobbyists. A former timber industry lobbyist heads up the forest service. A former mining lobbyist heads up another agency (I think the national parks). A former utility lobbyist is in charge of air "enforcment" at EPA. Go ahead, show me wrong. He's an eco disaster.

I believe he has provided tax incentives and grants for alternative energies, more so than any other president before him. He has also placed highly qualified people in charge of various services. How exactly is he an eco disaster.

I'm on the money, on the money, and on the money. You spin it your way, I'll spin it mine, but the truth's the truth.

The truth depends on who is spinning it. Facts are facts and the fact is like him or hate him you know where Bush stands on issues, you can't say the same for Kerry(his position on any issue can be changed the next day, and often is).

[Timber Loftis]

I believe he has provided tax incentives and grants for alternative energies, more so than any other president before him.

Mmm... nope. In fact, some big incentives under PURPA just lapsed. But I won't hold him accountable for that solely, because they would have been renewed in the energy bill, had it passed. However, part of the reason it didn't pass was the Clean Air Act rules he insisted on changing to allow major modifications at plants without getting permits amended. So, he's partially, not wholly, at fault on that one.

Now, he did mention a lot of money for fuel cells, which I wholly supported. However, for more than one year now, I have seen his State of the Union addresses turn to only dust in the wind, so I'm not going to credit him for unkept promises.

He has also placed highly qualified people in charge of various services.

A general statement unsupported by facts. Mushy language -- trying out for your political campaign? As I said, regarding the environment, he took industry lobbyists and put them in charge. Former Monsanto execs at the helm of the FDA. C'mon, the "capturing" of agencies by the industries they govern is bad enough already -- they don't need the help.

How exactly is he an eco disaster.

I think I was very specific. If you need more, Natural Resources Defense Council is very thorough and very professional, and though they've got a left-leaning bent, they've been around for ages, so they can probably convince even you. If you are willing to read with an open mind. However, he fails the conservative market test on environmentalism as well. Here we see that PERC, a group dedicated to market solutions to solving environmental problems, also rated him a "C-." Read on, very interesting stuff. Either angle you come at it, Bush is an eco-disaster, as I said.

Feel free to go to his own website, too. Link info from there, and you will show us all that it's very non-specific stuff where the environment is concerned. He touts "healthy forests" as fire safety while COMPLETELY ignoring the clear-cutting that will be approved. All he's good at when it comes to the environment is creative euphamisms.

Okay, now back to the things I know less about, because it's not my job. Regarding the drug bill, there were OTHER options OTHER than cutting the drug companies a big fat check. Prices are regulated in several indsutries -- why not drugs? He specifically DISALLOWED the states from negotiating for lower prices, showing who's side he's really on.

Regarding the military, sorry but I don't fall over and pay homage to spending just because it's done for tanks. When it comes to failure at balancing the budget, there is always an excuse. Every president is guilty of it, it's a deplorable thing, and J.M. Keynes rolls over in his grave daily because we have totally misunderstood his economic philosophy. But do note this: Bush DID NOT cut other spending, so the military along ain't gonna hack it, here. He likes to spend, and he's never lived life on a budget.

And, this is about Bush, don't make it about Kerry. "The other guy is bad too" doesn't defeat my points, so I refuse to go there in response to this particular post.

[ 09-13-2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Grojlach]

*snort*
Rush Limbaugh is now an official, unpaid advisor for the Bush campaign, which would be really funny if it wasn't scary.

I made an official announcement to open the program today. I have become, and have been for a while, an official, unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, and we decided to go public with this because there's no problem with it whatsoever. There was thought about my stepping down from the Golden EIB Microphone two or three days a week on the days that I was giving advice, but we decided not to do that. There's no conflict here. There's absolutely no conflict whatsoever. The line has been successfully blurring now for years and years and years. I will not be giving up my precious seat behind the Golden EIB Microphone. I will continue to serve both functions with credibility on both sides, an official unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign '04, as well as your host here on the EIB Network.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...tra.guest.html

[ 09-14-2004, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]