This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Spanish Election

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by Oh8ch, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. BuckeyeInTheBoro

    BuckeyeInTheBoro This space left intentionally blank

    I'll take a stab at that since so many people seem interested. Keep in mind I was not the originator of this quote nor do I pretend to know what he meant by it, but here's why I agree with it:

    One can "vote one's pocketbook" by buying goods and services from the companies whose policies they support. In this sense it is a good thing, but we are discussing presidential politics here. Voting one's pocketbook in this context must be something like, "Which presidential candidate would benefit me personally the most monetarily if elected?" That is an attitude I would label as both selfish and shortsighted.

    Even if you choose to think of everything in terms of money (sorry economists, but there are still some of us who think this is wrong) you should surely agree that most people tend to make money decisions based on short-term thinking. Hence, people think a tax cut today is automatically a good thing even if their kids have to pay 70% tax to make up for it. You can disagree with this all you want, but the consumer debt statistics in this country are on my side. Short-term thinking is no way to elect the leader of the free world.

    As for the selfish bit, I feel it's obvious. If you think of no-one but yourself when making a decision you are being (by definition) selfish. Some people are cool with that and more power to them, but I'm not.

    To me, there are many things more important than money. There are even more things of greater importance than MY money. "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." has never been more true than in this context.

    Well, that ought to get some debate going! :biggrin:
  2. Buckeye69


    I'm sorry, I did not get back to this thread earlier. But, I would have answered you libs with what the astute and intelligent BuckeyeInTheBoro said. So, my answer to your question is See above
  3. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior


    Where is your Gallup Poll showing 80% of Americans consider terrorism the #1 issue in the election?
  4. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior


    Both democrats and republicans will be voting their pocketbooks. I don't see this as a democrat phenomena. What this particular poll favored by Buckeye69 suggests is that across the country at this point in time more people are worried about how the economy affects their lifestyle than any other issue. Those wanting better drug coverage under medicare are no more or no less "selfish" than those who fall into the top 1% income class and who desire further tax cuts.
  5. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Those who want better drug coverage want other people to pay for their needs.

    People who want tax cuts want to keep more of what they earned.
  6. gbearbuck

    gbearbuck Herbie for President

    what side will have my street snow plowed in the morning? Who ever says they will, gets my vote... first come first served. :wink2:

    On that note directly across the street from me is a Worthington elementry school... why does the city risk these kids lives by keeping the street an ice skating rink?
  7. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior

    You proved my point Nixon. Those who want to keep as much of their money as possible from government coffers will tend to listen to the current ads on TV run by the Bush campaign stating that Kerry will raise taxes by $900 billion. Those who are not so fortunate financially will listen to Kerry's message that his administration will do all it can to provide affordable drugs for those in need. Each group is voting its pocketbook based on its "selfishness" - "monetary selfishness" for the group who wants less taxes, and "monetary selfishness attribuatable to health issues" for the group who would like to see an affordable drug program. Neither group os more or less selfish than the other - they merely come from different environments.
  8. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    You consider wanting to keep what you have earned "selfish". I do not.
  9. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior

    Do you see a role for government in assisting with the establishment of an affordable drug program in this country?
  10. gbearbuck

    gbearbuck Herbie for President

    IMO basic healthcare for children is a must... outside of that healthcare is a privledge not a right.

    (in a different post you can read about my proposal regarding the drug program... in a nutshell, have patents expire in 7 years (no extending, period!). Once the patent is expired open the drug up to the generic market and cap what they can charge (thus making 7 year old med's very, very cheap). This way folks could afford drugs (granted it would be 7 year old tech.) at any income, and the drug companies would still have an incentive to continue to pump billions of $$ each year into R&D (they could make their money back selling the drugs over the first 7 years of which they would basically have a monopoly unless a competitor came up with something better)... that's the lowdown on the gbear drug plan.

    As far as the gbear health plan is concerned I would cap the amount one could sue for any medical lawsuit. This would lowere the cost of malpractice insurance, thus lowering the cost of providing medical service, and this would then lower the cost patents pay for service, and also lower the cost insurance companies would charge folks for health insurance... granted this is at the cost of the lawyers, but I can deal with that :wink2: ...
  11. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior

    What about healthcare for people who were fiscally responsible during their life but all of a sudden became critically ill through no fault of their own? In the example the person had healthcare and exhausted the plan's $1 million lifetime limit for benefits. Should that person be taken care of? Or what about the person who contracts Aids as a result of a blood transfusion? The person who is rendered a paraplegic or quadraplegic as a result of someone else's carelessness? People who worked hard all their life and were not fortunate enough to make as much as other groups in society - they weren't freeloaders, they worked hard, but in jobs that although important to the efficient functioning of economy were not in high paying jobs. Should this group be assisted with health care?
  12. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

  13. LightningRod

    LightningRod Senior

    OK, if government has no role, then Congress should repeal the Internal Revenue Code that permits companies to take a deduction for all amounts paid to employees and their dependents for health care coverage. Congress must also require employees to include in their taxable income all amounts received through their employer's health care plan. This government subsidy must stop immediately.
  14. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Your question was:
    "Do you see a role for government in assisting with the establishment of an affordable drug program in this country?"

    The definition of the word "establish" is to create. Pre-existing tax-write offs are not creating or establishing new government programs. If you consider these tax-write offs to be part of this "affordable drug system", then the system is already in place and doesn't need to be "established".

    But, of course, I would have no problem with government eliminating subsidies for all sorts of stuff--provided they also cut taxes on the whole so that the net effect was no change in or a decrease in government revenue.
  15. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned


    I highly regard your opinion but I am not sure that the bombing in Spain helped decide the outcome.
    From everything I heard previous to the bombing, most polls had the two parties seperated by 3 or 4 percentage points. This is a deadlock and the socialist may have won the election regardless of the terrorist bombings.
    The Spanish will regret this move in several years and the socialist will be removed from power.
    Show me a booming socialist economy that has the employment numbers that this country has. Socialism, just as communism, is an inherently flawed system of goverment.

Share This Page