[.::Tin Can::.]

Ok, we dont know who will win, Bush or Kerry, so lets try and imagine that Kerry won the election and he has been in office for at least a week now, and has gotten his feet wet with the layout of the white house and such. Or something.

What do you think he would do if he was elected? What is going to happen? We know the whole Iraq incident isnt just going to "go away" like people want. If we pull out, then all the other nations will have it on their shoulders instead, and if they pull out then terrorists can just move back in and take it over, and we can start this mess all over again. Other then guessing that he will just get everyone out of Iraq, (since he hasnt given us any clue what he is going to do) he hasnt really said what he will do to help the economy either.

The point is it doesnt need to be helped. If he can make it better than it is, then great. That would make us even more prosperous. Unemployment is low, taxes are low, economy is good, what can you make better about that particular sitation? I remember hearing lines shot from a phrase or two where he might raise taxes. I dont know, I dont think he needs to. I dont think we need to change our economy at all.

So far, this is about all I know what he will do or what plans to be done. He hasnt really said anything that I can remember, nor has he re-said anything of what he plans to do. The only things he has touched on are "I won 3 purple hearts, I'm a war hero" when he was there for only 3 months, which isnt even half a tour of duty, and his first injury didnt even merit a purple heart. He has also only said "Bush is a dumbass, I am right." Right about what? You havent even given any arguments against him, andif you have, they were on rare occasions. I've listened to this guy and I seriously have no idea what he plans to do.

With Bush out of the chair, we would just have to see what Kerry did. If he did exactly the same thing as Bush, he would recieve no critisism. If he followed all of Bush's plans and actions, even down to choking on the pretzel, he would not be ridiculed or made fun of in the way Bush has. Bush has already been humiliated by our friendly liberal media to a point where its unrepairable. People make fun of him now, and half of them dont even know why they do it, they just do it because everyone else does it. *sigh*

So, what is Kerry going to do for the US? For the world? What does he plan to take part in?

[Ghostavo]

The plan is already in motion... In a couple of months the US will make Al Quaeda seem a like a group of boyscouts

[.::Tin Can::.]

Something a little more serious Ghostavo. And remember, the topic isnt here to critisize what I think, that has happened on too many levels at the moment, but just to give ideas on what you think Kerry will do in the big mans chair...

[aldo_14]

Terrorists will move 'back' in?

[Genryu]

True. Terrorist were never 'in' in the first place under Saddam. Something about Saddam being an heretic in their eyes for not following the Coran

[Rictor]

Here's my prediction. I'll refer back to this thread a year from now, provided Kerry wins, which I think he will:

1) The US will stay in Iraq with full force at least until 2006, with possibly additional troops sent in. After that time, a force of about 50k troops will remains in Iraq, at the request of the government of course.  Afghanistan too.

2) Kerry will make a token gesture towards bringing peace about in Israel, but his terms will be unacceptable to the Palestinians and rejected outright by Sharon. He will continue the long tradition of vetoing UN resolutions critical of Israel.

3) He will continue, in earnest, the neo-liberal economic policies which are meeting with almost unanimous opposition around the world. This, I think, is actually Kerry's main characteristic.

4) He will continue to put pressure on Iran and North Korea to end their forays into WMD research, hypocritical though it may be. This applies to any other country seeking a nuclear deterant.

5) He will try, and to a limited degree succseed, in getting greater cooperation from Europe and the rest of the world in the "war on terrorism". All future US initiatives will be under the banner of "mutlinationalism" even if they are in essence US actions. If you liked the "coalition" in Iraq, 90% of which was made up of US troops America, and of which most nations didn't even have a single soldier in action, you're going to love Kerry. Watch for a greater emphasis on NATO.

6) He will continue the murderous and unjust US policies in South America, including the draconian measures against Cuba, the supplying of arms to Columbian right-wing death squads and the subversion of democracy via NGOs and government funds. If Chavez wins the referendum, which I think he will, he will be getting a lot of heat from "human rights" groups and NGOs, all taking orders from Washington.

7) He will continue Clinton's tradition of "humanitarian interventions" and "peace-kepping forces". Every time the US decides to invade a foreign nation, it will be under the banner of multilateralism and human rights.

8) He will continue the "reshaping" of the Middle-East, with Iran and Syria being the main pariahs.

9) He will mostly continue the illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay, with a few people, who are obviously innocent and who are citizens of allied nations, being set free. The majority will remain in Gitmo, with maybe a few token measures towards hebeas corpus.

10) He will not turn back the PATRIOT act, but merely cut it down a bit and put it in nicer language.

Shazbot.

[Falcon]

Hmmmm me thinks teh plan doesn't belong to Kerry.......

[vyper]

[q]what can you make better about that particular sitation? [/q]

Social justice, public healthcare, better living conditions, less children living below the bread line, less gun crime, return of many civil liberties...

I won't go on, your head might explode.

As for the rest of you like me in other countries, if you live in the west you're pretty much in the same boat as the yanks only with less gun-crime and demanding better public health care rather than any.

[aldo_14]

The US, to be fair, needsto stay in Iraq at present.  There is no security force there to ensure a fair and free election.  

Proviced that adequate measures are taken, such as Un inspectors, there's no reason why free & fair elections can't take place under the security of the US/UK troops.  

Same for Afghanistan.  The US and UK have a moral duty to stay in those countries until they are no longer needed.

[Rictor]

So you think that just because there are a hundred and fifty thousand foreign troops parked in your country, and entrenching themselves, that shouldn't have the least effect on the elections?

"Oh don't mind us guys, just go about your business, we promise that whatever you decide is best, we'll go along with. Influence the elections? Perish the thought"

Their mere presence, armed to the hilt and operating outside Iraqi control, is going to have a profound affect on the elections, not to mention that they wrote the rules under which the elections will be held.

But its not the elections I'm worried about, its what happens after. If US troops just left after the elections, which should be early next year, I'de be fine with that. But they won't, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]what can you make better about that particular sitation? [/q]

Social justice, public healthcare, better living conditions, less children living below the bread line, less gun crime, return of many civil liberties...

I won't go on, your head might explode.

As for the rest of you like me in other countries, if you live in the west you're pretty much in the same boat as the yanks only with less gun-crime and demanding better public health care rather than any.

Alright, let me point something out. Healthcare is well and good for people with low income, or people who are retired but cannot afford medical drugs AND the basic necessities at the same time. The biggest problem with healthcare / wellfare / medicare is that too many people who DONT need it are leeching off of it. If we didnt have so many people getting everything free off healthcare, and the companies did some background information and checks that you really ARE poor and cannot afford it, then we would have better service and ways to give it to people because we wouldnt have to pay so much for moochers.

Better living conditions? Are you kidding me? Living conditions are fine the way they are. All you need is an understanding at math, a job at burger king, and you can afford to live in a decent apartment with food coming in at the same time. I know, my sister has done it. From nothing to being able to have a choice on where to move from apartment to apartnment to possible house location. Shes going to college and is going to graduate soon. The point is, if you dont dodge the legal system and get a legitimate job and work at it, you can become whatever you want. Sure, if you work from absolute 0, it may take a while. But if you compare lower class with some other third world countries and compare those to the lower class of America, you have a pretty big difference.

We give dirt poor people free healthcare and free handouts.

[Ford Prefect]

So you think because you've seen a success story, everyone has that opportunity? Let me clue you in on something: There are a lot of people in this country working multiple jobs and they still have to choose whether they're going to eat or take the medicine that they need to live. The government is supposed to be a safety net for poeple to whom circumstances are unkind, because the fact of the matter is, you simply can't control everything that happens to you, and very often life is going to leave people without a pot to piss in-- without the help of tax money, THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT.

[Bobboau]

then piss in the woods, my dad's left, my family is bankrupt, I am haveing to work 9 hour days in a meat packing plant to a) pay for my school b) help my family.
I don't ask for hand outs.
Handouts make you weak.

and as much as I disagree with Rictor's political position, his annalasis of what the facts of the situation will be seems right on to me, though I think we'll be there till 2008, and Kerry will probly let go more gitmo people than he think

I think a better question would be what would the differences between a Bush or Kerry win, excludeing the domestic agenda, wich neither would make any headway on.

[Ford Prefect]

Handouts make you weak? This is civilization, not Call of the Wild. This is not a matter of people mooching, this is a matter of giving people what they need to hold their lives together.

[Bobboau]

dude, I'm one of the prime "needs there lives held together" people, everytime I or someone I know gets something for free and doesn't have to work for it they get soft in whatever respect that handout is, they get weak. experience.

[Beowulf]

*sigh* Same thing Bush is doing now, only he'll hand over US sovereignty to the UN.

[Ford Prefect]

A) You're in school. That's more than a lot of people can even manage.

B) Apparently your job is making a difference. Try working three jobs that don't even pay enough for you to support a family.

(Of course, a lot of people in this plight are immigrants, so I can guess what the answer for them is.)

[Rictor]

I think the phrase we're all dancing around, due to its rather negative perception, is wealth redistribution. Might as well get it out in the open. Now, keep in mind, every administration for a long time  has been firmly opposed to this, including the present Bush administration and the possible Kerry one.

So, why do I feel justified in taxing the rich to pay for social programs?

a) They derive their wealth almost entirely from the work of the poor and middle classes. Now, I understand that in a capitalist society, this is all good and acceptable and hailed as "business sense", for which the rich are justified to give back to their workers only a fraction of what they produce. But the fact remains, the rich are, for the most part, rich because of the work of the poor(er).

b) The rich can simply afford it. If we accept that everyone on a society should be provided with the minimum bare essentials, then you must naturally take excess wealth from those who can afford it, and give it to those who need it. A millionare can easily afford a $20,000 per year tax, while a worker, who makes $40,000 a year could not. Call it forced charity, but before we even begin to talk about profit, there are more fundamental things to take care of, such as ensuring survival for everyone. This applies internationally as well.

c) The myth, and it is a myth, that the majority of the poor are so becuase they are lazy, if pure bull****. **** happens, life happens. Most of the poor are working their asses of just to make ends meet, and there is no reason why their hard work should not be rewarded. This is not a handout, it is merely rewarding hard work as well as initiative and business sense, instead of only initiative and business sense.

This results in whats called a welfare state, which is not what the US currently is. There are various definitions of the welfare state, but the one I find most straight-forward is that it is a society in which the primary job of the state is to ensure the welfare of the people. Keep in mind, this does not entail communism or socialism, but rather social spending within a capitalist society to ensure that everyone is above the poverty line.

[Ace]

I'll try to pre-empt the "lazy people abusing the system" arguement.

Criminals abuse the system of society. A "moocher" who isn't working in some form or another and trying to get money from a system that ensures no one is below the poverty line is effectively no different.

Of course, in an ironic sense even a moocher is a useful part of the society due to it being consumer based. The person still has to purchase products for their survival.

Just like prisoners need a support structure, which ensures employment for law-abiding citizens.

Of course, for a system like that to work controls on inflation are needed. Look at what happens when minimum wage is raised, often inflation rises after minimum wage is raised due to inflation causing a higher cost of living. (vicious cycle)

[Bobboau]

I don't want a welfare state, the purpose of a government should be simply to make sure that [other citizens, other governments, natural disasters, or damn dirty comunists] don't harm you. I'll make an exeption for schools, an education should be available for everyone, but if you don't take advantage of it you shouldn't be able to hold that open forever (ie minimum educational requierments for continued government support), and you shouldn't be forced to pay for schooling that you don't use (ie vouchers).
controle of corperations should be limeted to ensureing that no one company controles more than 50% of a market, all that does is insure capitalism does not degrade into facism. (laws should be passed barring investment in corperations during a term in political office)
if any action has no harm on someone outside of a ten foot radius then it's legal
and the biggest thing; taxation on spending, not income,
food == no tax, clothes == minimal tax, first house/car(per owner, houses are joint between two people generaly, cars are individual) == moderate tax, second+ house/car ubber tax. everything else gets a moderate tax. and people should be given direct bugetary power over there taxes, I'd say you should be able to determine were at least 75% of your tax money goes.

I don't think getting into a war with "The Evil Rich [tm] " is going to solve anything