About as I expected, only 1 or 2 serious responses. TY, Preon and muck.
Define fully fund? Are we going to set a reasonable bar for the expectations of our children's future, or are we just going to throw money at the education system? People knock NCLB because they say that it sets the bar too high for realistic results in public education. The fact that we have trouble teaching kids to read and add is not an issue that's going to be solved just by throwing money at it. Give the public schools goals to stretch for, THEN apply money as necessary. A lot of my family is in public education, and it's AMAZING how wasteful schools are when they get government money without starving a bit under lofty goals
What Kerry is talking about is ending unfunded mandates. Where the federal government makes up a new rule, but forces locals to come up with the money, therefore raising your local taxes to fund it. That way Bush can say he never raised any taxes...he just forced others to do it for him.
The first initiative is nice, but a President asking people to volunteer time to improve the community is not a new thing. It's also something that can't and shouldn't be a benchmark of a national administration. Community improvement can only be realisticly directed from the local level.
As far as four years of college for two years of national service... I take issue with that. For instance, two years of tuition assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill would only net a person $6500, hardly enough to pay for 4 years in a State school. Where are you paying for this? Honestly, I believe the college education is overrated for (and even wasted by) most Americans. 2 years of National service should more realisticly earn you the right to vote.
I still have no problems with this. Sounds like a great way to get people to pay for college while improving our society. As far as Americans wasting their education, you may be right. But how many jobs require a degree? A lot of them! A great idea for those who want to learn, but can't afford the tuition.
Limiting rights when terrorism is suspected can hardly be considered wholesale. Most of these people aren't even Americans. This bullet is more like poorly worded filler so you can reach a magic 10 points. What civil rights under law have been lost with John Ashcroft as Attorney General? What civil rights will come under law when he's replaced? The fact is that any civil rights they may be whining about are already in place, and what they will attempt to enact is more like social favoritism.
Yes, we all know Ashcroft has saved us from an attack by Tommy Chong.
If Ashcroft was so concerned about terrorism, why did he rabidly go after an actor that sells bongs? Damned druggies! I have not seen any links between Chong and al-Queda, have you? Oh well, with this administration they invent links, don't they? Did I fail to mention his nephews recieved a slap on the wrist for growing 60 pot plants in Missouri while Ashcroft was Governor and didn't go to jail? They were procecuted in State rather than Federal court, even tho it fell under federal guidelines, because federal courts have manditory drug sentencing.
And speaking of flip-flops, Ashcroft said "There has been an insistence that we turn over the keys to our individual privacy to the federal government, but there has been no talk about safeguards or privacy. Apparently, innocent citizens are expected to trust the bureaucracy not to abuse them as the IRS has done by shake down audits, or the FBI by handing over hundreds of sensitive files to political operatives in the White House." That was prior to him becoming AG, now it's completely different. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."
Ashcroft ordered the statues of "Liberty" and "Justice" in the Justice Department covered because they were "obscene".
He is the live version of "The Church Lady" Dana Carvey used to play on SNL. Ashcroft is a rabid dog that needs put down. (P.S. He lost an election to a dead man!:lol )
All I'll really say about this is that if you check with the Department of Energy, you'll notice that we get very little of our oil from the Middle East. The vast majority of our oil comes from the american continents. However, I personally think that energy independence is a very sexy goal, and cutting off the Middle East is a good first step. 1 Point to Kerry for almost saying it.
You are correct in that we recieve the majority of our oil from the west, but it is still imported. I see becoming energy independant as a good thing. I think we both agree on this point. There are methods of energy available that we are not using and it makes us weaker overall. If we just lower usage enough to quit buying from the middle east, I say good job.
A successful war against terrorism is one of everlasting vigilance. I agree that we need allies in this war so they can police thier own, but the fact of the matter is that Bush chose the 'unilateralist' action because our allies WOULDN'T police thier own. Kerry doesn't have an effective solution for that problem. He simply hopes that he can put the trust and the lives of the American people into the hands of the UN. In my opinion, such a corrupt organization would, after having been given Kerry's approval, would sacrifice more American lives and trust than Bush ever did on his own.
We lost our allies when we focused on Iraq instead of al-Queda. Bush took a personal agenda and ran with it. Imagine what the war on terrorism would look like today if we had the coalition that Bush,Sr put together. He got antsy and dropped the ball. I don't want us to put our military under the sole control of the UN, but it's better to work with them than against them. Like the old saying "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
That's just silly. If you want to control health care costs, start with litigation and tort reform. Unfortunately, John Edwards got rich off of poor people battling corporations with the all mighty tort. Under Kerry and Edwards, not only would healthcare CONTINUE to spiral in cost, but so would taxes.
A national healthcare program is not "silly". All I see in rebuttal is "Edwards was a lawyer, ACK!" America needs a national health plan for Americans that can't afford insurance. Before you go screaming "they get insurance at work, why don't they get a job" just let me remind you not all companies offer health insurance. Some do just for employees, not family members. Some offer it to employees and family members, but the rates are restrictive. Some (especially construction) don't offer it at all, they hire by contract and have no benifits at all. It's a idea long overdue.
I could be wrong here, but I don't see anything in the term 'Manufacturing jobs tax credit' other than a handout to the AFL-CIO. I'm INCREDIBLY anti-union so I'll stop on this point before I make an bellybutton of myself.
Finally, closing loopholes for corporate tax evasion is a good thing. The fact that they're trying to pin it onto the wave of corporate accounting scandals is shameless. If there was a loophole in the law that allowed me to not pay taxes, I'd use it. What the accounting scandals amount to is me lying to the IRS on my taxes. One is legal, the other isn't.
They are not being procecuted because they used "loopholes'. They are being procecuted because they cooked the books.
Giving credit to companies for not firing Americans and sending their jobs overseas just to boost profits. Taking away credits to those that do sounds like good judgement. Why reward the greedy?
Kerry can't fund all his initiatives by repealing the tax cuts for those who make more than $300,000 a year. It's a mathematical impossibility. It's sad that Kerry believes that they way ahead in America is to punish the successful for succeeding.
You ever think if we quit sending BILLIONS of dollars to Iraq and let the rest of the world share the expense. I didn't see where he planned to completely fund it by the tax cut repeal.
It's a fine goal, but they won't be able to do it. We had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton during the hayday before all that accounting malpractice surfaced on the public radar. At that time, the government was getting it's tax revenue from 'successful' corporations. Waging war on the 'honest' successful corporations that we have left will leave us with nothing. The way out of the deficit is to start an initiative to kill wasteful government spending. It will take longer than 4 years, to kill 50 years of piled up crap.
Who spent the surplus? I agree it will take longer than 4 years to clean up 4 years of piled up crap...maybe 8.
