Townhall Debate..

[Bill Glasheen]

Ben

Rich is right on this one. And once again, Edwards proposed we increase taxes on the top TWO percent (speech at the DNC). That's even worse.

Interesting dilemma, Rich. You should have been in the crowd at the second debate with your predicament.

My father was a Democrat for years and years. Of course as an Irish stock broker (JUST got his license after being first a civil engineer and then an independent contractor), he was ecstatic when John Kennedy made it to the presidency. I can remember him coming home early from work just to listen to his speeches. JFK was a maverick among Democrats in that he saw the wisdom of stimulating the economy through tax cuts. He lowered the captial gains taxes dramatically, and the economy took off like a shot out of a cannon. And he did this BTW while simultaneously initiating a war in Vietnam, conducting the (failed) Bay of Pigs invasion, and sending an armada to Cuba to get Castro to remove missiles.

My father as you can guess from being an investor also was one of those folks who chose to save as opposed to live to the limit of his means. Although he sent eight kids to private school and my mom stayed home, he saved in every other way. We never had health insurance. He drove Ramblers. We never belonged to any country clubs as his business associates did. My mom would save bags from the bread to use for our lunches that she prepared herself. We almost never went out to eat. Because of this, he managed to save and invest. And he did quite well.

And now that he has sacrificed while those around him pi$$ed their money away and enjoyed the good time, he - like you Rich - is being unfairly treated. He lives off his investment income. A Kerry presidency would bring dramatic tax increases to him and hurt his lifestyle. But all those folks who spent all their money today and didn't have the discipline to save will enjoy their government handouts I suppose. That's not right.

Again, he had his tax rates lowered and yet paid more total taxes under the Bush tax cuts. This is "less government" economics. In his case, everyone wins with the Kennedy and Bush schemes.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

This says it all...

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage

You are entitled to vote for whomever you wish, Ian. And if I were gay, I certainly would vote in my best political interest. However I'd like to point out - once again - that you do no better with Kerry and Edwards.

Of course in front of a different crowd, Kerry may state a different position. That's not filp flopping, mind you, that's pandering and any fool knows the difference.

Let's go one layer deeper, Ian.

* John Edwards made a living wrongly destroying the lives of OBs while making himself richer. Science backs me up, and Edwards is either an idiot or a thief.

* Dick Cheney meanwhile has a gay daughter and now is openly supporting a state's right to determine the issue for themselves. He is against an ammendment banning gay marriage.

* An ammendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage has no chance in hell of passing. You know that. I know that. Bush knows that. Call it slimey, but call it for what it is. Bush threw a bone to the Religious Right to shut them up. It's no different than Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" bone he threw to gays.

I'm all for looking at the records rather than the rhetoric of politicians. Look at what they DO and ACCOMPLISH in their careers, and do not pay attention to the verbal diarrhea that you hear on the campaign trail.

Vote for Kerry to support your gay rights if that makes you feel better, but I am telling you that you are making a big mistake. You are not going to improve your lot. I think you have a better chance getting in the back door with Bush/Cheney and getting some real, incremental change that may make things better in YOUR lifetime.

As for the science....

* I second the notion that most gay people do NOT have a choice on their sexual preference. Recent research even has shown anatomical differences in certain parts of brain anatomy between gay and heterosexual males. (Lesbianism apparently is a more complex issue)

* I continue to challenge you and science to do better on preventing teenage pregancy and STDs. While I've seen the micro studies, the fact of the matter is that you can't show me Democratic policy doing better than Republican policy on the matter. Check out trends on teenage pregancy and the rates of increase of HIV infection by political party in power, Ian. Who wins?

Absent real outcomes, nobody wins this debate.

* A physician DOES have the right to refuse treatment. And it is unethical to continue a self-destructive pattern of treatment. A physician not only has a responsibility to a patient. (S)he also has a responsibility to others who may be infected by a person who engages in promiscuous, unprotected sex and has a repeated pattern of contracting STDs. (S)he also has a responsibility to break a pattern of promiscuous unprotected sexual behavior that may bring a child into the world to an irresponsible parent. While refusing a morning after pill in a time of need may be a drastic step, research shows that these "moments of truth" are rare opportunities to affect behavioral modification. A simpler person calls this "tough love."

And FYI, another physician in my wife's practice called the morning after pill prescription in. The patient was not abandoned, and my wife's statement was made.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Ben: I found a tax table from 2000, pre Bush tax cuts, and the top rate was 39.1%. That is 4.1% higher than it is now.

Now for really scary possibilities for some of us...

Under current law (and I do not know when this started) I am allowed to take the dividends on my GE stock in the 401K with no penalty. This is my main income source. GE is given a tax break to allow the $$ out. If this 'corporate welfare', as Kerry calls it, was canceled, GE would no longer allow me or other current or former employees to access the dividends because of the tax penalty to the company.

If that happened, my income would drop by $28,000 - 70%. I cannot access my 401K without a 10% penalty since I am under 59.5 years old. Even if I did, I'd be drawing down the stock that produces my dividend income and at the same time be subject to the capital gains tax that he wants to raise back up to 20% or more! Getting to my money would then cost me 6 times as much in taxes... screwed big time by Kerry I'd say. That would end my second career as a high school teacher as I'd be unable to make ends meet as a sub.

The law was set up as it was for people like me... someone who left their primary career but under 60 and not eligible for retirement benefits or SS. Or for those down on their luck for some reason who need to tap their 401Ks for some reason and not be heavily taxed.

Beware Ben, someday you could be in this position. By the time young Ben is 18, I suspect even state related colleges will cost you $50,000 or more a year. I made the commitment to both my kids that I would put them through college so they could start their adult lives with no debt and a good education.

You are against Bush and the war, and I believe earlier you mentioned someone who was in the National Guard for the 'free education' and now was displeased at being called up. Unless you have $250,000 (or more) on hand for young Ben in 2022 he may be faced with that same decision. So, under my economic planning my son can decide what to do about the military when he graduates, but need not now while in school.

What really irks me about the tax structure is that GE is taxed on its profits. It pays employess with its net cash who are also taxed. Their investments hopefully generate income which is then taxed. The dividends, which are also paid out to shareholders after GE pays taxes, are then also taxed. There are four layers of taxes on the same dollars. And state and local and payroll taxes are on top of that.

My kids told me they were voting Kerry last summer. I said fine, just vote. But, then I showed them the impact on the family and their grandparents and ultimately them of taxing the 'rich'. What an eye opener that was! Two more votes for Bush.

My son is now taking an advanced econ course at Radford U (near you) and just learned about double and triple taxation. He may have been suspicious of my reasoning, but is now convinced that Kerry is bad for the economy and the economy.

Any more questions?

Rich

[Gene DeMambro]

Win for W. By a landslide here in my opinion

A partisan outlook by a partisan observer. Everyone else thought it was a wash.

I was there, Ben. I remember 9/11.

Were you in NY when the planes hit, Bill? Or were you near DC when the Pentagon was hit? If so, most of us didn't know that, and ww truly would like your take, as an eyewitness observer. But most everyone was "there" when 9-11 went down, so I don't really undertand what you mean here.

Yes he [Kerry] should be in the Oval Office

- Damn Straight!

Let Kerry whine about "no WMDs" all he wants.

Since that was the reason d' entendre for invading and that pretty much was a lie by the President, now the President wants us to believe that we justly invaded Iraq because Saddam was embezzling money. Yeah, a legitimate reason for war if there ever was one

Can you live with Vice President Cheney's view?

Since the VP doesn't make policy for an administration, and the President wants us to believe that he isn't being handled at all by the VP, whether we can live with the VP's position or not is irrelevent.

There is a way, after all, w/o pi$$ing the church off.

WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT PISSING THE CHURCH OFF?! No church or religious body holds sway over public policy in the US or any of the several states. Nor should they. If they have something to say on a particular issue, let them. It's their right like it is yours and mine. But at the end of the day, I want my elected officials in government - federal or state - to do what's in the public's interest. and not for any of the churches.

Security now costs us $$$. I am getting tired of taking my bloody shoes off.

I wonder what the folks who kept saying in the past "overhaul of our airport security will cost too much money" are saying now....

JFK never did this.

JFK had to be convinced to enact his tax cuts, and he immediately wanted to enact "supply side" programs as well. Notice we don't hear any of Pres. Bush's supporters mentioning this. So where are Pres. Bush's supply side programs?

I was just asking the guy to show just a little bit of feeling and raw emotion and belief behind his words.

Pres. Bush did that in the 1st debate and universally was judged to have gotten creamed.

I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.

Good. So the people in this income bracket will earn more money and pay more in taxes as a result, like everyone keeps saying.

and their blood even in drops is precious

So you had posted in support of Kerry when his enemies were bitching that he didn't bleed "enough" in wartime, Jeff?

Bush is the wrong president for wrong country at the wrong time.

He has snowed too many gray hairs by promising 'affordable' health care they do not understand the impact of his plans.

Sounds like you're decribing Pres. Bush's Medicare reform, Rich. His own people lied to Congress about the cost. Folks eagerly looking for some type of prescription drug benefit were looking forward to something wonderful. When the discount cards came out, they went over like lead balloons. The entire reform process was a turkey from top to bottom. You'll be thanking your lucky stars when Pres. Kerry truly gives us affordable health care when GE kicks you off of it's retireee health plan, like the NLRB ruled they can now do. As you are looking at paying more and more of your own health care expenses, Rich, you need to think down the road. Consult your tax and or estate planner. Under Bush, you will need one! Rich, you are going to need every health care dollar you can scrap up, to pay for this President's so-called Medicare/health care "reform".

but judging from the people he appointed to his stem cell research committee

This is but one example of Pres. Bush sheer idiocy or willing ignorance when it comes to matters of science and science's place in the public policy debate.

John Edwards made a living fixing the lives of people injured through the fault of others. Science backed him up. More irrational rantings from a sore loser.

Dick Cheney meanwhile has a gay daughter and now is openly supporting a state's right to determine the issue for themselves.

He now supports a state's right to allow gay marriages? If he truly cared about the issue and thought that gay marriage was acceptable, he would not support a state's moves to ban it.

An ammendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage has no chance in hell of passing. You know that. I know that. Bush knows that. Call it slimey, but call it for what it is.

And folks complain about Kerry being too "political"....

Vote for Kerry to support your gay rights if that makes you feel better, but I am telling you that you are making a big mistake. You are not going to improve your lot. I think you have a better chance getting in the back door with Bush/Cheney and getting some real, incremental change that may make things better in YOUR lifetime.

Prs. Bush will never relent on the issue of banning gay marriages. He continues to speak against them. He continues to lend support to efforts by states to ban them. He continues to speak out against civil unions. At a time when the military is facing increasing needs for manpower and his continued use of reserve, national guard and individual ready reserve troops, he still continues to kick out gay soldiers...simply for being gay. I hold absolutely no hope of any chance for any positve change on the issue of gay rights under a continued Bush presidency....in my or anyone elses lifetime.

Check out trends on teenage pregancy and the rates of increase of HIV infection by political party in power, Ian.

Show us, Bill.

Pres. Bush continues to lead a government he wants to operate in secret, without any type of oversight by We, The People. He has no regard for the facts or teachings of science and research when it comes to the environment, health care or public policy. He continues to use his economic plans to give giveaway after giveaway to the corporations who continue to bend his ear - drug companies, oil and energy companies, manufacturing and technology. He continues to enact policy after policy that is a detriment to the American worker. He marginalizes those who ever disagree with him, like Colin Powell and Eric K. Shinseki. People b!tch about Kerry's perceived "flip-flopping", but at least Kerry listens with intelligence and an open-mind. Bush is just a dumb, closed-minded idealogue who never wishes to be told he's wrong. His foreign policy, except for the invasion of Afghanistan, is an unmitigated mistake. He seeks to roll back women's rights, worker's rights, civil rights and patient's rights. He's the wrong man at the wrong time to lead a second term.

As for me, I am for just taxes, strong defense, strong states rights with a just as strong Federal government in those areas it can weigh in on, and an interpretation of the Constitution balancing the rights of We, the People and the powers of the state.



Gene

[Gene DeMambro]

What effect does the Alternative Minimum Tax have on future tax policy? Neither candidate to my knowledge has addressed this issue.

Many folks, consistantly, never made as much money as what they made during the Clinton years. And we had a balanced budget for much of that time. Using the Clinton policies as a model for a tax and economic policy sounds like a sound policy to me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

Gene

[RACastanet]

Gene said: "when GE kicks you off of it's retireee health plan,"

I am not a retiree. I get ZERO from GE for health care. I pay 100% of my health care costs out of pocket. I am also not bitching as I fully understand the true cost and value of good health care and planned ahead to be able to pay for it. I do not expect anyone to pay my way.

I wish otheres were as prudent instead of sticking their hands out for government 'redistribution' of others wealth.

Rich

[Mills75]

Enjoy reading all the information and all the discussion and yes as I said I am a Bush Supporter and still am.I must say Ian I think your rebuttle was more than adequate here in this post and so I won't post it in a new discussion and I value your points and respect them and as I said you seem like a real intelligent and good person and yes some of my opinions that I still believe are not exactly the answers that science has come to provide but I must admit I still feel them.But I enjoy talking here with you and with all the guys on different subjects and how we feel about them and I think it's beneficial and once again truly it's not meant to say who is better or who is worse just how people feel different about things but I respect your rights and wish you happiness sincerely.I'm just a man who strongly believes what I believe but has no bad intentions with it and I don't wish anyone that opposes me any ill will.So cool that's America for ya and one things for sure I am glad we have the right to be so fundamentally different and still shake hands at the end.I really don't know what else to say and you did as always make some solid points based on science where some of mine was more an opinion and a feeling but anyway I thank you and admire your courage for talking about it in a civial manner so we all learn more thanks and best wishes

Jeff

[Mills75]

Ben said what does it hurt if it's private and yes I feel this is true also but in the same light I feel if a state or government starts the sanctioning and approving of these relationships by marriage then it starts to become not so private anymore because kids will learn that's acceptable in the schools and see it just seems to me it ceases to be private anymore when government gets invloved not the relationship itself that is always private but the allowance by government and approval that others will come to know.And no Ian as to your question about interfering with anothers religion I would not seek to do this sort of thing and I pose this question and sincerely I don't know the answer to this .Is there any religion out there that views gay marriage in an acceptable light I mean in straight words from the text of their belief system?On this I have no idea but I don't know it seems like there is so much grey area to clear up before something like these unions could be approved in my opinion.And I do hate to think of voilating someones rights but I also feel the same about not violating the rights of people who don't wish to have the issue effect them or be known as acceptable to their families. as always I respect ya just this is a tough one.

Jeff

[Mills75]

oh and about religion I would not seek to interfere with ones religion and I'm not equating this to anything we talked about.But honestly isn't satanism a religion and in these black religions would you allow an after school group to hold satanic meetings after school with it's school club as not to violate their rights? just a question? or is this something that violates the rights of others.I used to smoke also why can't I smoke anywhere I choose and not have that right taken away from me i can't blow smoke just anywhere I want too and I feel that is a right of mine.But I accepted the fact that my smoking could effect others.I don't know i don't think it's a clear cut answer and it needs much attention before we rush into making something approved by government . I feel marriage is something that god originated and that's why you say the vows to him and that's why I reference the church because I don't think government should change what we know as marriage between a man and a woman. and yes if you want some kind of union I guess that could be something that would be possible but not marriage in my opinion.

jeff

[RACastanet]

M75 said of Ian: "you seem like a real intelligent and good person"

Yes he is. I'll vouch for him.

Rich

[Mills75]

Rich by the way you seem the very same a very good person as all these people on here seem to be so i'm thankful for this forum and it's good people and yes Ian seems real cool and smart he gives me some real body shots on some of my not so scientific opinion but i learn more in the process so it's cool.One very last thing I'm just all into this a bit lol .About animals like the lion eating the lioness's babies to put her back into heat .human fathers haved killed their babies in various ways maybe not for the purpose of putting the women back into heat but they still have killed their kids before.some humans as well are canibals and enjoy eating human flesh not something i would hope anyone would have a taste for but there are people who do.And again I couldn't sit out on the curb and enjoy a nice piece of someones leg and maybe someone out there feels it's their religion and right to do so but see it's sketchy.would you be violating their right? one mans right alot of times seems to be another mans burden so it's hard to get a right answer.

[Mills75]

Rich by the way you seem the very same a very good person as all these people on here seem to be so i'm thankful for this forum and it's good people and yes Ian seems real cool and smart he gives me some real body shots on some of my not so scientific opinion but i learn more in the process so it's cool.One very last thing I'm just all into this a bit lol .About animals like the lion eating the lioness's babies to put her back into heat .human fathers haved killed their babies in various ways maybe not for the purpose of putting the women back into heat but they still have killed their kids before.some humans as well are canibals and enjoy eating human flesh not something i would hope anyone would have a taste for but there are people who do.And again I couldn't sit out on the curb and enjoy a nice piece of someones leg and maybe someone out there feels it's their religion and right to do so but see it's sketchy.would you be violating their right? one mans right alot of times seems to be another mans burden so it's hard to get a right answer.

[RACastanet]

Gene said: "the Clinton policies as a model for a tax and economic policy"

Aside from NAFTA and some welfare reform, Clinton's contribution to the roaring 90's was the fact that he pretty much stayed out of the way. That was a good thing as the more you try to mess with the economy, the more likely you are to screw it up.

Unfortunately he did allow it to overheat. The huge surpluses were a result of taxes paid on huge 'paper' gains in the late 90s. The historical market forces were in effect after all as it turned out.

Greenspan was correct when he spoke of 'irrational exuberance' as the market soared with no regard to reality regarding profits, PE ratios, cash flow etc. Fortunately I was listening to Warren Buffet instead of the 'new economy' proponents like Robert Rubin and stuck with what I understood. When the bubble burst, it hurt, but was not catastrophic to me or my plans.

Rich

[RACastanet]

Back to Gene's comment on my health care expenses:

Barring any unforseen medical emergencies, my healthcare cost this year will likely be around $10,000 for my wife, son and myself. My daughter is 23 now, gainfully employed, and off my payroll.

Kerry/Edwards claim they will reduce my health care costs about $1,000 annually. Whoop. The proposed tax increases for the wealthy will likely cost me over $4,000 if not more even though my income is only about $40,000. My 401K makes me look 'rich' in their eyes. Too bad I saved and invested instead of living beyond my means.

Trading a $4,000 tax increase for a $1,000 health care decrease is no bargain. Give me continued Bush tax cuts and let me continue to invest and manage my own money and health care. I'll outperform the welfare state every time.

Rich

[Mills75]

Kerry posed with his shotgun but everyone knows that he is with the United nations in trying to take everyones guns and right to have firearms away.He want's every gun owner to be registered in a government database and much like in Britain he would love to take all your guns even the ones passed down from grandpa and all and chop them in half to complete his global vision and test for the world.I'm an American citizen and I'm most certainly not a citizen of the world and I want to keep my gun rights and preserve the constitution and the second amendmant.and before you go donating to unicef know that some of your money will go towards taking your second amendmant rights away through the united nations.Kerry put your circular saws away my man because I'm keeping my guns no matter what and voting for Bush

Jeff