If anybody cares.....

[m5lange1]

Thought you might be interested in why an undecided indipendant has finally made his decision on who to vote for.

1. I would vote for a third party candidate if I thought my vote would count. Voting a principal goes unnoticed and to me is not voting.

2.On the main issue "terroriosm and Iraq" there is no significant difference so the main issue is a wash.

3. I believe they are both lieing weasles but I am a cynic who believes you have to be to get a nomination from either of our main parties.

4. On a "feelings" level I like Bush as a person better. He seems much more real than Kerry. On the other hand I dislike the right-wing idealogues more. They seem to have taken over the liberal belief that they know what is best for me. Also they seem to have this idea that anyone who does not actively support all their ideals is liberal. (I never liked the "with us or against us" mentality)

5. It came down to outsourcing and economy. No one (including the sources here at volconvo) have even come close to convincing me that unemployed americans are good for the US economy.
Talking about "lower consumer prices" insults my intelligence.
The unemployed cannot buy at either price.
It costs my taxes to have more unemployed as opposed to employed.
More people buying is more important than fewer buying more. It is called volume.
It seems good for the CEOs and stock holders but I have not seen this theory, of them lowering prices or producing jobs as their profit margins and saleries go up, getting beyond the theory stage.

The reps have had 4 years with all the house senate and executive branches.
We have the largest deficit in history (starting with a balanced budget).
Yea yea they say "well its not our fault because..."
Well what the hell else do we expect them to say? In the past the incumbant could always finish that sentence with the other partie's control of house/senate.

I have heard for years from the right "If we had control..." Well suffice it to say they never finished that sentence with the situation we are in now.

The war? Yea it costs BIG bucks. In every other war we have raised taxes. This administration has not. In fact they have cut taxes.
I guess all that "sacrifice" talked about only applies to those families who have lost members over there. We certainly don't want the taxpayer to make "sacrifices".

Don't get me wrong I think the answer is not to go to war. But if we do, we should not "borrow" money to pay for it.

I have a child. Hope to have grandchildren someday. They will be paying for Bush's 'saving our taxpayers money', in addition to the problems of their day.

So I choose Kerry. Not because of anything he has done (except to have the intelligence to penalize outsourcing). Bush and his administration's economic policies are the cause of my decision.

Something could happen to change my mind but it is going to have to be something that matters to the country and not who can spit shit the farthest.

[PatrickHenry]

Why did you butterface this? Why not general discussion?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by m5lange1, Thought you might be interested in why an undecided indipendant has finally made his decision on who to vote for.

1. To vote otherwise, garuntees a major party will not consider 3rd party ideals if you won't vote for them simply because they're not large enough to win.

2. Wash

3. Ok.

4. This is a wash too. Liberals consider you a bigot, racist, and a holy crusader. But, seem to continue policies that segment and divide into smaller hyphenated groups.

5. VAT, NST, etc... policies would lower prices, and therefore increase volume. It probably increases revenue collected in tax, otherwise I don't think they'd suggest it. I'd also submit that these ideas come from 3rd parties, which you won't vote for. Removing the IRS is better than having the "weasels" dangle tax carrots saying "My credit is better than your credit". Those situations are a wash.

You'll never know if something works, if legislation is constantly opposed or watered down. It's almost a garunteed failure then. That isn't just for Bush, it applies to every President ever in office. Lots of good ideas are just killed because of special interest groups. We all suffer for that.

[m5lange1]

To PH
I guess because it was such a personal opinion based post. If you want to move it I have no problems with that.


Comp

Compugasm Posted on 08-18-2004 02:49 PM QUOTE (m5lange1,) Thought you might be interested in why an undecided indipendant has finally made his decision on who to vote for. 1. To vote otherwise, garuntees a major party will not consider 3rd party ideals if you won't vote for them simply because they're not large enough to win.

Yea there is some validity to that but at this point in time I still feel it is a wasted vote.

2. Wash

Yep

3. Ok.

Yep

4. This is a wash too. Liberals consider you a bigot, racist, and a holy crusader. But, seem to continue policies that segment and divide into smaller hyphenated groups.

Yea my point was that it was a wash (on an emotional level for me).

5. VAT, NST, etc... policies would lower prices, and therefore increase volume.

Not in agreement here at all. It is true that lowering prices will increase volume. I am far from convinced that loweing the price on item X will increase volume nearly as much as unemploymet will decrease volume.
More people buying is better for volume than people buying more. As I said, how many cars will one family buy, regardless of the price.

It probably increases revenue collected in tax, otherwise I don't think they'd suggest it.

I wish I had your optimism. I think it is just to wash the backs of big business. I could be wrong but it sure makes sense to me that taxes will suffer when business and/or jobs leave an area. I know my town does not benifit in tax revenues if a company moves to another town.

I'd also submit that these ideas come from 3rd parties, which you won't vote for. Removing the IRS is better than having the "weasels" dangle tax carrots saying "My credit is better than your credit". Those situations are a wash.

Except it still leaves Bush supporting outsourcing and Kerry opposing it.

You'll never know if something works, if legislation is constantly opposed or watered down. It's almost a garunteed failure then. That isn't just for Bush, it applies to every President ever in office. Lots of good ideas are just killed because of special interest groups. We all suffer for that.

Never knowing something works is not necesarily a good reason to give it a try. I have never cut off a finger to fix a hangnail and I am not willing to even give it a serious consideration.
Nothing that makes sense to me (and I confess that is somewhat subjective, but what decisions that we make are not) has ever been postulated about outsourcing. It sounds bad to me and even people who support it do not give me what I consider convincing arguments in their favor.

When job loss is this high and we have a record deficit, I just do not have faith in the ones in charge when they tell me "sending these jobs away is good for us".

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by m5lange1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (m5lange1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>how many cars will one family buy, regardless of the price.[/b]

Why did you choose cars? That's the worst example you could pick. However, I could even successfully argue that point. As in many states, CA has a vehical tax. You pay 2% of the MSRP... Ok, it's really boring.. suffice to say there are taxes to be repealed.

Originally posted by m5lange1,@ I think it is just to wash the backs of big business.

Good thing they're not being washed now. For one, I'd like a 22% payraise. Even if the price of everything we buy, goes up 15%, we still get 7% increase, plus a rebate check. And, you see those benefits each paycheck rather than the end of a year. That really makes a difference on the weekly grocery bill. Come on, think of the poor starving children going without milk!!

<!--QuoteBegin-m5lange1,
Except it still leaves Bush supporting outsourcing and Kerry opposing it.[/quote]
There are good and bad sides to outsourcing. You could say getting drugs from Canada is "back-door" outsourcing. It will still happen with evil businesses figuring out ways around Kerry's penalty. I don't see it as more effective than the war on drugs. Its government interfering with the market. I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise, so I won't.

[m5lange1]

Comp,

QUOTE (m5lange1,) how many cars will one family buy, regardless of the price. Why did you choose cars? That's the worst example you could pick. However, I could even successfully argue that point. As in many states, CA has a vehical tax. You pay 2% of the MSRP... Ok, it's really boring.. suffice to say there are taxes to be repealed.

First of all in this section we were talking about sales volume NOT taxes.
It is a simple fact that more people buying is better for busniness volume than a few people buying more.
That is why there are so many bigger stores and malls in big cities than small towns. Even affluent small towns.

QUOTE (m5lange1,) I think it is just to wash the backs of big business. Good thing they're not being washed now. For one, I'd like a 22% payraise. Even if the price of everything we buy, goes up 15%, we still get 7% increase, plus a rebate check. And, you see those benefits each paycheck rather than the end of a year. That really makes a difference on the weekly grocery bill. Come on, think of the poor starving children going without milk!!

Don't get this at all. The poor starving children going without milk surely do not have a paychek to increase or decrease. What it appears to me that you are missing is that unemployed people do not get paychecks.

QUOTE (m5lange1,) Except it still leaves Bush supporting outsourcing and Kerry opposing it. There are good and bad sides to outsourcing. You could say getting drugs from Canada is "back-door" outsourcing. It will still happen with evil businesses figuring out ways around Kerry's penalty. I don't see it as more effective than the war on drugs. Its government interfering with the market. I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise, so I won't.

Nor I you. My whole point of this post was the decision process of an undecided.
Just curious? Was there ever a point where you were undecided in the Bush/Kerry question?