RNC Day 3 Thread

[Chisoxfn]

Been on for a bit, Cheney is on the stage right now, and prior to that was an absolutely terrific speach by Democrat (From Georgia) Zell Miller.

 

Miller had a lot of fire in his speach and to me it was probably the best speach of the convention thus far. The fact that it was a democrat giving it, made it even more effective, imo.

 

I'll say one thing, and it continues with Cheney's speach and that is that the Republicans are on the offensive right here and they are going to go after Kerry's record. However, Cheney didn't once mention anything about Kerry's military record, other then the fact he was in Vietnam and you have to honor that.

 

I thought Zell did an oustanding job talking about Kerry and all the things he voted against.

 

Tomorrow is when some of their national policies are expected to be discussed about by Bush and the plans they have. Its quite obvious that tort reform is going to be a big issue and I for one and excited that this is finally going to happen. Specifically Cheney mentioned the litigation reform for Medicine and how they want to clean up trial lawyers.

 

The lawyers in this country are freaking driving costs up in so many different businesses and I'd say 80% of the time its for the wrong reasons. Its a serious problem and fixing it will definately be a bigger step then a lot of people would think in regards to this country, imo.

 

One thing I really didn't like was the crowd chanting flip flop all the time. I don't know if I was the only one, but I wanted them to shut the hell up. Just let Cheney speak.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I only got to hear Zell for a short time....minutes later my Car broke down.

 

 

DAMN THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!!!

[Purdue129]

Zell Miller just challenged Chris Matthews to a duel on MSNBC...

 

 

I really like Zell's speech, but I don't know how it'll play to swing voters, it might have been a little too much.

 

On the other hand Cheney was dead on.

[Spiff]

Cheney: "John Kerry says he sees two Americas; well, America sees two John Kerrys."

 

Ouch.

[sox4lifeinPA]

The smack has been laid for three days in a row

 

Bush is guaranteed to own tomorrow night!

[Chisoxfn]

Cheney: "John Kerry says he sees two Americas; well, America sees two John Kerrys."

 

Ouch.

Ya, Cheney had a few good one liners. Everyday I seem to be looking forward to Newt being on Fox News. I hope he's on again sometime tonight.

 

I don't know if anyone caught him last night, but I thought he was right on the money when it came to education. He mentioned all the money being poured into education, yet in a lot of areas it doesn't do much.

 

He feels that it isn't just, this school sucks, here lets give them some more money. He says the poor schools are the ones getting all the money (by poor I mean the ones with poor test results) yet it does nothing. It has everything to do with setting up the policy and creating a more strict adminstrative body. By strict, just in terms of setting down the goals and guidlines for the students as well as the teachers.

 

He did a lot better job saying it then I did, but it made a lot of sense to me. I kind of agree with it. I think teachers could get paid more, but what matters is getting quality people to teach, and pouring money into new facilities may help recroute better teachers, but bottomline, it doesn't make teachers smarter. All schools should have good facilities, but schools need to set standards, and not bs standards, high standards and they need to set out steps to ensure students, teachers, and the school meet those standards.

 

Its a hard thing to do, but if each district just pounded and hammered on making not only the students, but the teachers, school and the school administration more accountable then things would improve, imo.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Zell Miller re: John Kerry, 2001

 

John has worked to strengthen our military...

 

Zell Miller re: John Kerry, 2004

 

As a senator, he voted to weaken our military.

[DBAHO]

Cheney: "John Kerry says he sees two Americas; well, America sees two John Kerrys."

 

Ouch.

Weren't any teenage girls screamin for Cheney I hope. :rolly

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I only got to hear Zell for a short time....minutes later my Car broke down.

 

 

DAMN THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!!!

Zell Miller is awesome. His speech was uplifting and right on the money in every regard.

 

Hearing how he trashed Kerry's record of voting against the very weapons that have won every war we've been involved in. The F-14, F15 fighters, the B1 and B2 bombers, the Apache helicopter to name just a few.

 

I love the shot he took at Kerry over who decides when we go to war too. Especially when he said that Kerry wants to outsource our National Security to Paris. PRICELESS!!! Beautiful stuff.

[Texsox]

If the US had all of those weapons, would we have been able to stop the terrorists from slamming into the WTC?

 

If all this military spending is such a great thing, why doesn't Bush have the balls to increase our taxes to pay for it? If we don't pay for it today, who is going to pay for it later? Plus interest.

 

And what happened to the Peace Dividend that Reagan promised would be available after the USSR was dismantled? Was Reagan wrong? Where there no defense savings to be had?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If the US had all of those weapons, would we have been able to stop the terrorists from slamming into the WTC?

 

If all this military spending is such a great thing, why doesn't Bush have the balls to increase our taxes to pay for it? If we don't pay for it today, who is going to pay for it later? Plus interest.

 

And what happened to the Peace Dividend that Reagan promised would be available after the USSR was dismantled? Was Reagan wrong? Where there no defense savings to be had?

When we drew down the military after the cold war we overdid it big time. we nearly halved the Army and significantly pared down the other services too. In the 90's we slashed intelligence budgets, prevented the CIA from recruiting foregin agents destroying our humint capability and worst of all, allowed terrorists to attack with impunity wherever they wanted.

 

Peace dividend indeed. We're paying for our overzealousness in drawing down our defenses big time...............with interest.

[Texsox]

When we drew down the military after the cold war we overdid it big time.  we nearly halved the Army and significantly pared down the other services too.  In the 90's we slashed intelligence budgets, prevented the CIA from recruiting foregin agents destroying our humint capability and worst of all, allowed terrorists to attack with impunity wherever they wanted. 

 

Peace dividend indeed.  We're paying for our overzealousness in drawing down our defenses big time...............with interest.

Reagan was the one that promised a peace dividend, I guess he was wrong.

 

I like the sound bite about the pared down militery leaving us open for terrorist attacks. Just help me to understand something. Which of those weapons systems you isted would have stopped the terrorists from purchasing a ticket on a commercial jet, holding a box cutter to the throat of a flight attendant, taking over the jet and crashing it? Which of those weapons systems is good at stopping a terorrist from releasing sarin gas on a NY subway?

 

And again, why doesn't Bush have the balls to raise our taxes to pay for an increased military. And if we do not pay for it now, who is going to pay for it later?

 

Recruiting foreign assets is an area that I still havenot formed an opinion on. It is embarrassing later to find out we found Bin Laden, Hussein, Noreiga, etc. while they were committing human rights violations. So we set some standards before they are on the payroll. Then we cannot find operatives that can infiltrate those organizations. I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Reagan was the one that promised a peace dividend, I guess he was wrong.

 

I like the sound bite about the pared down militery leaving us open for terrorist attacks. Just help me to understand something. Which of those weapons systems you isted would have stopped the terrorists from purchasing a ticket on a commercial jet, holding a box cutter to the throat of a flight attendant, taking over the jet and crashing it? Which of those weapons systems is good at stopping a terorrist from releasing sarin gas on a NY subway?

 

And again, why doesn't Bush have the balls to raise our taxes to pay for an increased military. And if we do not pay for it now, who is going to pay for it later?

 

Recruiting foreign assets is an area that I still havenot formed an opinion on. It is embarrassing later to find out we found Bin Laden, Hussein, Noreiga, etc. while they were committing human rights violations. So we set some standards before they are on the payroll. Then we cannot find operatives that can infiltrate those organizations. I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils.

We had never been attacked in such a way before. From every experience we had with hijackings before they meerly diverted the plane to some s***hole and demanded this that and the other.

 

Maybe an Apache helicpoter won't stop a sarin gas spewing terrorist but good intelligence will and when you slash funding and burden the intelligence organs of the country with stupid regulation after stupid regulation you reap what you sow. I really don't give 2 s***s if we recruit unsavory characters to snitch on their pals. If that's what it takes to keep "Mr. Sarin Gas Man" off the subway then so be it.

 

As for raising taxes I think the government needs to restrain its own spending before they raise taxes. How dare they ask the people for more money when they waste so much as it is?

[Texsox]

We had never been attacked in such a way before.  From every experience we had with hijackings before they meerly diverted the plane to some s***hole and demanded this that and the other. 

 

Maybe an Apache helicpoter won't stop a sarin gas spewing terrorist but good intelligence will and when you slash funding and burden the intelligence organs of the country with stupid regulation after stupid regulation you reap what you sow.  I really don't give 2 s***s if we recruit unsavory characters to snitch on their pals.  If that's what it takes to keep "Mr. Sarin Gas Man" off the subway then so be it.

 

As for raising taxes I think the government needs to restrain its own spending before they raise taxes.  How dare they ask the people for more money when they waste so much as it is?

You mentioned the weapons systems, I was just clarifying. So it wasn't decreased military spending but decreased FBI, CIA, NSC spending that may have hindered our ability to stop the terrorists.

 

Does the military waste money?

 

Should the military budget be approved without debate and voting? Whatever they ask for, we give them?

 

What are some of the stupid regulations?

 

Ask for more money? Bush is asking for less money. Does that make sense?

 

Finally, by funding and recruiting and training these guys we are also funding, recruiting, and training terorrists. Shouldn't we be concerned about who we provide help to? Are we training the next Bin Laden? Remember all these guys were are buddies at one time and we helped them.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You mentioned the weapons systems, I was just clarifying. So it wasn't decreased military spending but decreased FBI, CIA, NSC spending that may have hindered our ability to stop the terrorists.

 

Does the military waste money?

 

Should the military budget be approved without debate and voting? Whatever they ask for, we give them?

 

What are some of the stupid regulations?

 

Ask for more money? Bush is asking for less money. Does that make sense?

 

Finally, by funding and recruiting and training these guys we are also funding, recruiting, and training terorrists. Shouldn't we be concerned about who we provide help to? Are we training the next Bin Laden? Remember all these guys were are buddies at one time and we helped them.

Decreased military spending was a part of it. People saw we had let our guard down too far and they saw an opportunity to hit us and they did, several times.

 

 

Yes the Military does waste money. As I have said before they should do a complete DOD wide audit to find wasteful spending and use that cash to modernize aging equipment and add more troops to the ranks.

 

No.

 

Stupid regulations? Where should I start? The CIA was barred by the Clinton Administration from recruiting foreginers for intelligence purposes. Because of Bill Clinton we were basically out of the intelligence business for 8 years and had to rely on electronic snooping which, while it works some of the time, is no substitute for human prescence infiltrated into these groups. The Military was barred from using thousands of acres of its National Training Center near Barstow California because of an endangered turtle. Air Force bombing ranges were shut down for similar reasons as well. The list goes on and on.

 

Bush asking for less money for defense? uhhhh.......

 

I think when it comes to recruiting foreginers to give us intelligence we should leave it to the CIA field officers on the scene rather than some seat-shiner in Washington who is best suited for the job.

[Texsox]

Thank you Nuke, well said. I believe we both stated things clearly and no need to toss stuff back and forth. I will clarify why I said Bush was asking for less money.

 

Bush called for a tax cut. So overall he is asking for less money. I wasn't speaking directly to just military spending. I have a problem with our government runnign a deficit and here's why.

 

We are spending more than we are taking in. This is suppose to stimulate the economy. What our government is doing for us is taking out a loan to give ua $400 or whatever our tax cut was. They borrow money to finance the deficit. They try and convince us that we will not have to pay it back because of some growth.

 

If we aren't going to be paying this back, then someone else has to. The US population is currently at just under 300,000,000 people. Based on the 2000 census, about 60% of Americans are between 21 and 65, the working years. So we have 180,000,000 potential tax payers. Using 5% unemployment rate about 9,000,000 Americans are unemployed. Assuming that 50% of thsoe can find jobs, and that is huge and would set an all-time low for unemplyment, we will have 4,000,000 new tax payers. That sounds great.

 

However, y'all have schooled me that the top 5% of earners pay well over 80% of the taxes in this country. I believe these newly employed people are not taking jobs paying over $200,000 per year so they will not be paying all that much in taxes. So who is paying for the deficits?

 

Eventually we will have to. Plus interest. No wonder politicians love this plan. Cut income, increase spending. What's not to like.

 

I want elected officials that have the intestinal fortitude to tell me we need to fund XY and Z and I'm taking your tax cut back to fund it. Then if we disagree we can vote the bums out of office.

 

I'd be out campaigning for Bush tomorrow if he repealed the tax cut to better fund out intelligence community, defense, and anything else he comes up with. How about a special tax to fund the rebuilding of Iraq? How popular would the war be if we all received an itemized bill?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Thank you Nuke, well said. I believe we both stated things clearly and no need to toss stuff back and forth. I will clarify why I said Bush was asking for less money.

 

Bush called for a tax cut. So overall he is asking for less money. I wasn't speaking directly to just military spending. I have a problem with our government runnign a deficit and here's why.

 

We are spending more than we are taking in. This is suppose to stimulate the economy. What our government is doing for us is taking out a loan to give ua $400 or whatever our tax cut was. They borrow money to finance the deficit. They try and convince us that we will not have to pay it back because of some growth.

 

If we aren't going to be paying this back, then someone else has to. The US population is currently at just under 300,000,000 people. Based on the 2000 census, about 60% of Americans are between 21 and 65, the working years. So we have 180,000,000 potential tax payers. Using 5% unemployment rate about 9,000,000 Americans are unemployed. Assuming that 50% of thsoe can find jobs, and that is huge and would set an all-time low for unemplyment, we will have 4,000,000 new tax payers. That sounds great.

 

However, y'all have schooled me that the top 5% of earners pay well over 80% of the taxes in this country. I believe these newly employed people are not taking jobs paying over $200,000 per year so they will not be paying all that much in taxes. So who is paying for the deficits?

 

Eventually we will have to. Plus interest. No wonder politicians love this plan. Cut income, increase spending. What's not to like.

 

I want elected officials that have the intestinal fortitude to tell me we need to fund XY and Z and I'm taking your tax cut back to fund it. Then if we disagree we can vote the bums out of office.

 

I'd be out campaigning for Bush tomorrow if he repealed the tax cut to better fund out intelligence community, defense, and anything else he comes up with. How about a special tax to fund the rebuilding of Iraq? How popular would the war be if we all received an itemized bill?

It's not 80%, I know that much. I read somewhere that the top 5% pay something like 47% of the taxes. I'm not totally opposed to paying more in taxes but I am opposed as long as the government wastes money like ours does. How about eliminating wasteful spending before coming to Mr & Mrs John Q. taxpayer , regardless of what they make, and asking for more money.

[southsider2k5]

It's not 80%, I know that much.  I read somewhere that the top 5% pay something like 47% of the taxes.  I'm not totally opposed to paying more in taxes but I am opposed as long as the government wastes money like ours does.  How about eliminating wasteful spending before coming to Mr & Mrs John Q. taxpayer , regardless of what they make, and asking for more money.

Yeah actually the stats are something like top 5% pays about 50% of taxes, and top 20% pay about 80%.

 

Link to story about effective tax rates and levels

[Texsox]

It's not 80%, I know that much.  I read somewhere that the top 5% pay something like 47% of the taxes.  I'm not totally opposed to paying more in taxes but I am opposed as long as the government wastes money like ours does.  How about eliminating wasteful spending before coming to Mr & Mrs John Q. taxpayer , regardless of what they make, and asking for more money.

How about not cutting taxes, reduce the waste, eventually have a surplus, get the country out of debt?

 

BTW, a lot of what we think of as waste, is the grease that runs our government. You want my vote for that, I need this to get re-elected. The party wants to get their guy elected in a certain district, they make him a hero with a nice building or some jobs training bill. They need regulations changed, fund this over here. They need your congressman's vote then your district gets something. My district thinks its waste, your district thinks its jobs creation. It's the game of politics, it's all about compromise. When one party has total control the "waste" increases because they can really fund stuff in their key districts.

[Texsox]

Yeah actually the stats are something like top 5% pays about 50% of taxes, and top 20% pay about 80%.

 

Link to story about effective tax rates and levels

Still the recently employed aren't typically the highest earners because John Q. Public has an extra $400 to spend. Plus the biggest growth area for jobs have been lower paying service sector jobs.

 

Anyone want to comment on what the reaction would be if we all received bills for rebuilding Iraq? Hey we need $100 to rebuild schools? Pay up. We need $50 to rebuild bridges? Pay up.

 

Better yet, we just dropped a bomb that will be $5 for the bomb, $8 for the pilot and crew, $2 for the plane, $10 to rebuild what we hit . . .

Edited September 2, 2004 by Texsox

[mreye]

I'm sorry. I thought I was in a thread about the Convention.

[The Critic]

I'm sorry. I thought I was in a thread about the Convention. 

I enjoy where this thread has gone very much.

Very enlightening back-and-forth with NO venom being spewed whatsoever. Bravo!

This is much more informative and thought-provoking than any recap of either side preaching to their choir.

Maybe it should have been done in a separate thread, but here it is and I don't mind a bit.

[mreye]

I enjoy where this thread has gone very much.

Very enlightening back-and-forth with NO venom being spewed whatsoever. Bravo!

This is much more informative and thought-provoking than any recap of either side preaching to their choir.

Maybe it should have been done in a separate thread, but here it is and I don't mind a bit.

I can agree with that. I think it needs to be in a different thread as well, though. This one is becoming more like a study session for the CPA test. My head is spinning.

[southsider2k5]

Still the recently employed aren't typically the highest earners because John Q. Public has an extra $400 to spend. Plus the biggest growth area for jobs have been lower paying service sector jobs.

 

Anyone want to comment on what the reaction would be if we all received bills for rebuilding Iraq? Hey we need $100 to rebuild schools? Pay up. We need $50 to rebuild bridges? Pay up.

 

Better yet, we just dropped a bomb that will be $5 for the bomb, $8 for the pilot and crew, $2 for the plane, $10 to rebuild what we hit . . .

We recieve bills for this stuff every April 15th. They just aren't itemized.

[kapkomet]

I can agree with that. I think it needs to be in a different thread as well, though. This one is becoming more like a study session for the CPA test. My head is spinning. 

Nah. CPAs just have to act like they understand all this crap.

 

 

Our job is just to get you back all the money we can, not how the government spends it.