|
Post by gameeks on Jun 30, 2004 8:40:43 GMT -5
Just want to know who people will be voting for.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Jul 1, 2004 5:26:01 GMT -5
Being Canadian I can't vote, but if I could I suspect I would vote for Kerry. I don't like Bush's views on stem cell research, abortion, or same sex marriage. I think Kerry would be more tolerant on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 1, 2004 19:29:07 GMT -5
Personaly im with you on this one but, Bush's policies on the war effort would push me to vote for him. Even though i also dont agree with his position in religion, i suport his stand on education and tax's.
And people say that teenagers dont know nothing about politics.
|
|
Anarchat
Seasoned Citizen
School's design is two-fold: to polish the exceptionally dull and to dull the exceptionally bright.
Posts: 107
|
Post by Anarchat on Jul 1, 2004 21:39:35 GMT -5
Personaly im with you on this one but, Bush's policies on the war effort would push me to vote for him. Even though i also dont agree with his position in religion, i suport his stand on education and tax's. And people say that teenagers dont know nothing about politics. It's funny, it's Bush's stand on education and taxes that I don't like. After years there's little evidence to support the claim that the "No Child Left Behind" program has had any positive impact. So far as I can see it has only served to introduce even more bureacracy into the educational system. And then there's his tax plan. Let's for a moment forget that the bottom 60% of American wage earners only recieved about $300 on the latest tax cut while those earning over a million received a tax cut of about $110,000 (US News and World Report). One needs only look at the dependence of state and local governments on federal tax money to realize that a large tax cut does little to relieve the burden on most people. With a tax cut comes cutting of federal grants to state and local governments. What this means is that it becomes the burden of those governments to pay for what becomes additional responsibilities. Take, for instance, the shifting of health costs and unfunded federal mandates for things such as homeland security and "No Child Left Behind". State and local governments then have to raise taxes and slash services in order to come in under budget, which unlike the federal government aren't allowed to spend more than they make. And his foreign policy! Well, let's not forget that this is the man who deliberately mislead the American public on going to war in the first place (either he mislead the American people or the intelligence reports mislead him, but either way a serious situation was bungled).
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 2, 2004 13:38:57 GMT -5
After years there's little evidence to support the claim that the "No Child Left Behind" program has had any positive impact. Being that i am curently in school and am directly afected by his program i am able to see the good it has done for american students. This would include raising standards in English, Math, Science and Social Studies. (which have never been all that high in the first place, compared to most Europian countries) Also instituting a nation wide test that will eventual be used inplace of state testing programs. I my self have taken this test, trust me its much harder than the state test which i also took this last year. Bush has also put into place a national literacy level which will raise the US reading level to a 9th grade standard. (compared to current 7th grade level) On to the tax issue. I have no real problem with this, personaly my familys income bracket alowed them to recieve a $600 tax cut. Also remember that those people that recieved a bigger cut also pay more taxes in the first place. Also cutting the tax's for the rich alows them to invest more money into our economy, which might i say it needs despertly.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 2, 2004 17:46:03 GMT -5
I'm not in the US. But 8 years of Mike Harris Conservative rule in Ontario gives me a great basis to pick away at this argument:
Gameeks
The short answer is no. The long answer comes in a longish rant (you have been warned).
Basically, the problem is that the right wing misrepresents what taxes are and what they are for. This enables them to look good when they cut taxes, because they think taxes are this horrible unjust burden. The simple fact is that taxes are an investment that you make in the functioning of your country. This is how government gets the revenue required to serve the public good. (Incidentally, a government that derives its legitimacy by being by the people and for the people had better damn well be acting for the good of the public that installed it if it wants to maintain any semblance of legitimacy.) Cutting taxes is therefore not a strategy to put money back in the pockets of civilians. It is a deliberate strategy of revenue reduction.
Why would anyone want to reduce revenue? Because they hate government programs that serve the public interest. The argument the right wing advances, put backwards, runs as follows:
We have to cut health care/environmental programs/education. We have to cut because we can't afford to spend that much on those programs anymore. We can't afford to spend money because we don't have as much money in our budget as we used to. We don't have as much money because we cut taxes.
Of course, these points are never connected like this. The right wing will do their best to ensure that the topic of cutting taxes stays entirely separate from the topic of spending, despite the fact that nobody with the slightest knowledge of finances would claim that balancing a budget is dependent only on looking at expenditures, and not revenue. The fact remains that contrary to being of public benefit, cutting taxes is a direct way to attack government programs that serve the public interest.
The other problem is that cutting taxes is simply not a benefit to most people. The reason for this is that social programs take far more of a hit from budget cuts than most people receive from a tax cut. The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives had an interesting study in which they looked at the effect of the Harris tax cuts. Now, because of the tax cuts, health care user fees had to be introduced to cover the shortfall. The study found that the average family not only had their tax cut eliminated by the user fees, they had to spend $76 more on health care user fees than they got back from the government in tax cuts!
The true irony is that cutting taxes for the poor could stimulate the economy. A bit of extra spending money here would actually be spent, which would be helpful. Cutting taxes for the rich, however, does nothing. They are far more likely to invest the money (especially in bonds), which does nothing to stimulate the economy whatsoever. The way tax cuts work now, being tax cuts primarily for the benefit of the rich, the rich get the added benefit of thousands of dollars to invest that they really don't need, and the poor get saddled with extra costs they can't afford.
There's also the morality aspect. It is because of the laws that set up the economic system, the national treasuries that regulate it, and laws dealing with investment and incorporation (among many other government initiatives) that the rich are even able to amass such large sums of money. To then turn around and assert that you owe nothing to the country without which you would not be rich is nothing less than a slap in the face, as well as being indicative of profound ignorance of one's status.
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 2, 2004 22:56:06 GMT -5
I just now noticed i have "I'm not in the US" twice Please if this is your stand please vote for the first one. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jul 5, 2004 12:12:44 GMT -5
For a person still in school you are very smart. It is refreshing to see.
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 5, 2004 17:49:18 GMT -5
For a person still in school you are very smart. It is refreshing to see. Thanks, i think?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jul 6, 2004 8:30:28 GMT -5
Don't read what isn't there. What do you think it means?
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jul 24, 2004 10:30:46 GMT -5
I alas am not old enough to vote...probably good, cus I don't understand taxes worth crap...I don't follow all the issues too closely because some of them don't really apply to me all that directly (ie, taxes). And some I have not learned about thoroughly enough to make a sound judgement about.
However, if I turned eighteen tomorrow, I'd vote for Kerry. I am so tired of hearing flawed justifications for Iraq, and Bush's religious-driven policies make me ill. I fervently disagree with him on issues like abortion, gay rights, environmental policies, the list kind of goes on and on. I'm tired of having a religious zealot in office. And I'm tired of listening to "nuke-u-lar."
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 26, 2004 21:36:27 GMT -5
Griffey
Tax issues still do affect minors in the United States. If you purchase items from a store, you pay a sales tax. Also, working minors still get local and state taxes and Social Security taken from their paychecks. Taxes also indirectly affect many public school students whose funding often relies on certain taxes (the type of tax that funds schools varies by location).
I'm sure there are more ways in which taxes affect minors that I've left out. You might not have to file tax forms yet, but taxes still do affect you on some level.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 26, 2004 21:57:48 GMT -5
Gameeks
How has the "No Child Left Behind Act" raised standards in English, Math, Science, and Social Studies? Since you mentioned four subjects, I expect that you will give me evidence of higher standards for each.
Gameeks
Sorry, but "trust me" is not enough. Since you have taken the nationwide test, I think it would be better for you to compare it with your previous state test. How are the tests different? How is the new test harder?
More importantly, how does testing alone increase educational standards?
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 27, 2004 10:26:34 GMT -5
Well in English, students are now required to have to read at a 9th grade level have the comprehension of a 9th grader the vocabulary of a 8th grader by the time they graduate high school, which has been raised from the previous 7th grade levels. In math students are required to at least have taken an algebra class and pass with a B- or above by the time they graduate, this standard has not changed very much but has help to better define what should be taught. Social studies now requires that you take at least one US history class and one World history class, and to take a government class before graduating. Science I’m not to sure about what the requirements is b/c my school I attend fare surpasses the national average that is required. (yes I attend a school full of nerds, I being one myself)
The big difference from the state tests is that you must explain all the procedures you used to get your answer. You have to write a whole paragraph to explain your answer. Mostly the big difference is that it causes more of a headache while taking it.
As for your last question, I really don’t know. But supposedly by testing the students this can help the school find out what parts of the curriculum that needs to be stressed. And it also helps to determine what type of government funding the school may need to help introduce more standards into the schools teachings.
The thing that makes me laugh is that this act was created by a person who cant even pronounce nuclear correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 27, 2004 13:27:09 GMT -5
I just now noticed i have "I'm not in the US" twice Please if this is your stand please vote for the first one. Thank you whoops I voted the second one. If I weren't Canadian I would probably vote Kerry. Or anyone who wasn't Bush. If Satan were real and american and the only one running against Bush, I would still not vote Bush. Anyway here's something funny: www.jibjab.com/
|
|