While I applaud your points on the issues, I see that your proposals reveal a systematic lack of knowledge on How Things Work. That's why I advocate more than a duopoly of parties seeking to solve these problems: they are not solved by black and white answers. Continued polarization of the populace will do nothing to solve these issues, and create more internal conflict and resource squabbling. To wit:

Vile wrote:
] So, we live in a country where everyday, people break their
] backs to further the profits and political interests of a
] corporate structure that hates individual rights, yet demands
] that its own structure be treated as an individual in the eyes
] of the law. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

agreed on this one. Corporations have grown far more powerful than the founding fathers could've anticipated, and the appropriate checks and balances are not there. I would venture to say that there are no real governments in the world at this point. There are religions, corporations, and the UN. Governments are just the bankrolls for the above to pillage.

] On the subject of Kerry's tax on those in the 200k or over tax
] bracket. Bush claims this is a bad idea because many small
] businesses file their business taxes personally and a tax such
] as this would hinder small businesses abilities to grow.

This is probably true, but I've yet to see an objective study that proves or disproves it. Regardless, it's very easy to determine what the appropriate contribution one should make given their income. The problems come in defining income (see below). A flat tax is a good idea in theory, but you lose important mechanisms for incentives (a la home ownership, saving for retirement, education, etc). The ideal capitalist mantra would be pure fee for service, meaning that you pay for what government services you utilize. But that's not practical, unless you want a revolution every generation or so. I don't see either candidate doing a good job here. Bush will continue to break off the top 2% of earners in this country to appease them. Kerry has the right spirit in re-balancing this equation, but his programs are too damn expensive to pay for, so the tax burden will rise for everyone. And at somepoint, we've got to pay off our debt and fast. My solution here would be more fiscally conservative than Kerry, but not allow for tax breaks that Bush would seek.

] Kerry dodges that issue to try to make the small taxpayer feel
] that he will only tax millionaires. Well, there's an 800,000
] dollar difference between 200,000 dollars and a millionaire.
] There are two solutions available, but neither of these two
] jokers care to explore this.
]
] Solution 1: Make the millionaire's tax only apply to
] millionaires. That seems logical enough.

what defines a millionaire? this is where the tax system is truly broken in the US. There's no way to achieve a flat tax, or even a truly fair tax system because the loopholes and incentives create ways of hiding or diverting income. Rich people are good at this, because they can afford to hire people to exploit it. The middle class and poor people don't have those resources, and so they typically get taxed at higher rates proportionately than high earners. It's very easy to actually be earning $1M, but claim very little of it on your taxes. In fact, most financial institutions make a healthy living doing just that for their clients. They're the same ones that bankroll Congress and prevent things like the balanced budget amendment and IRS reform.

] Solution 2: Correct the situations that make it more
] beneficial for a business owner to file their taxes
] personally. Then, allow small business to recieve a tax cut
] while forcing those making over $200,000 to contribute to the
] greatness of America that allow them to rise to wealth.

impossible. the very things that make it possible to build wealth from little or nothing are the very things that incent you to file personally. You've got to have a reasonable stepping stone, and this is one of the most important ones. You can't ask the lady who sells Mary Kay cosmetics to file as a C Corp, or an S Corp, or even an LLC. They are too cost prohibitive, and far too complex for her to manage appropriately. Sole proprietorship is the way to go. In fact, most of the 'wealth' of America is built on exactly that. It's the plumber who has a 4-6 man operation, generating $350K+ annually, that falls directly to his bottom line. THAT's the backbone of America's economy, and it's the lions share of job creation and growth. Ownership is king, and the closer you are as an individual to what you own, the better.

The argument above is that if you tax individuals making $200K+, that you will stunt this growth. I tend to agree, but you cannot cut taxes for them without cutting relative burden on the other tax brackets. It has to be fair.

] On the subject of healthcare. Let's take a nasty look at
] things. The liberals believe we all deserve healthcare, but
] we had 8 years of this philosophy under Clinton and I still
] have no benefits.

Don't blame the Clintons. They had a plan to give *everyone* healthcare (arguable if it would've been "affordable", since true accounting wasn't used). The right and the healthcare industry stiffled it at every turn, going so far as to continuously antagonize them with crap like TravelGate, Whitewater, LewinskiGate, etc... Instead of solving problems, it was more in the industry's favor to divert attention and dilute the fuck out of the reforms. Little passed, and the stuff that did has been instrumental in moving the healthcare industry forward. The downside is that with half a solution, it caused premiums to soar. The last 4 years under Bush have seen 20M+ more uninsured, with premiums hitting all time highs in annual increases. 60% since Dubya took office. It will bankrupt the country (Medicare, Medicaid) if it doesn't first destroy the economy because we cannot compete globably (commercial healthcare premiums represent the highest cost of goods sold in many industries, and overall in the US it's $.30 on every $1 of GDP).

] The conservatives wonder who the hell will
] fund such an undertaking and they point to the socialized
] medicine of canada, what with waiting lists and other such
] nonsense. This makes me think a bit. If it's a given that
] socialized healthcare would create breadlines at the doctor's
] offices and ER's of America, then there is a moot point being
] valued by the conservatives (of which I count myself a member,
] proudly). If socialized medicine would create these
] pill-lines, then so would the reality of every american
] working hard to get benefits. Even if everyone worked hard
] enough to pay cash for all healthcare needs, there would still
] be these pill-lines.

Not true. Healthcare is the only service or good you partake in but do not directly procure. Your employer pays for it in most cases. If not, then you are likely getting Medicare or Medicaid, or one of the 40M Americans who have absolutely no benefits. Why? Because the system itself is broken, not how it's funded.

Most consumers see healthcare as an entitlement, not a benefit. So therefore they don't shop and they don't wear their good little American Consumer hats when they use the system. So if Dr. X charges $50/visit and Dr. Y charges $100, but there's no difference in quality, it doesn't matter. The patient will chose based upon disincentives, like who's closer, who's nicer, who did your Mom use, or who can I get an appointment with. There's absolutely no alignment to cost or performance whatsoever. You couldn't even research it if you wanted to, because docs don't track their outcomes. Other industries would crap their pants if they could be so lucky.

Add this to the fact that the insurance company is who reimburses the docs, not the employer who just paid for the services. Another disconnect in terms of price/performance. Who's providing better care? We should pay them more! Nope. Can't tell, and it doesn't matter anyways because someone else is worried about paying for it out of the risk pool.

It gets even worse when you see the prevalence rates for people with chronic illnesses, like diabetes and congestive heart failure. The top 5% of system users account for 80% of the total costs, screwing people who don't smoke and don't eat shit and exercise. Is there any punitive price for treating your body like shit? Nope. Is there any incentive to align your behavior with costs and healthy outcomes? Nope. Cuz as consumers we're totally insulated from actually paying the price. And because of all this waste and intermediation, you have a cost cycle that is spiriling out of control. It won't get fixed by socializing it (most other countries do this and they are suffering from the exact same problems we are). It won't get fixed by privatizing it (that will just exacerbate the cost cycle, since now I've got to have PROFIT GROWTH!). It will only get solved if the system is realigned along a consumer model that incentivizes healthy outcomes. Period.

] It could be the fact that our society
] NEEDS a certain amount of "expendable poor" that will never
] recieve healthcare, no matter what, in order to meet the needs
] of the priviledged many. Sorry, but we cannot take care of
] everyone. The recent revelation of flu-shot vaccine shortages
] underscores (but does not stand as sufficient proof) of this
] very problem. I hear that the suggestion is that we save
] these limited supplies for infants and the elderly. That's
] nice, but, if I may show a tinge of heartlessness, let's
] forget about the elderly and infants for a minute. They do
] less for our society than any other demographic. I will take
] the flu vaccine, I have at least 50 more years of living to
] do, I have a job that needs me there and I have people who
] would miss me numbering upwards of 50 (three on
] memestreams.net). Granted, there are about twice as many
] people who would fancy me dead, but we must prioritize, here.
] What good are infants and elderly if everyone in-between is
] dead?

um, you wouldn't have the inbetweens if it weren't for the elderly. It's on their backs that you're here. Literally. And despite the fact that they've poisoned the system against the future, and have overused it, they have a right to take out what they contributed. In fairness to them, they didn't have all the evidence based medicine we have today about not smoking and eating shit. But at the same time, I don't know if that would've mattered because the system is still not incented to the consumer.

The whole point of paying for the poor and downtrodden is that the more you fuck them over, the more rowdy and unhappy they get. At some point, they grab pitch forks and torches and kill you. As a person in the middle or upper classes, you have to take care of a certain amount of your population, otherwise you cannot enjoy the things in your society that you've worked hard to build. It's definitely a fine line, but cutting it off has been the death knell for many a despot or short Frenchman.

] On the subject of war, I wouldn't worry very much. It's very
] nice to oppose any war for the sake of appeasing the
] "intelligentsia of liberals" that I prefer to call "chattering
] masses." In reality, we needn't worry about the effects of
] war until China decides to invade the U.S.

War should be opposed for practical reasons, not ethical. It costs too much. It destroys resources and diverts application of resources to channels of little or no return. Even if you win, you are not going to benefit because in today's society you cannot integrate the 'conquered' resources into your own without repraisal globally. Now planning for war, and investing in the capabilities to make war... THAT's good business.

] Our Chinese
] planetmates seem to have little interest in such a triflesome
] undertaking, so we can breath easy as we worry about the
] future terrorist attacks that were inevitable whether we set
] foot in Iraq or not.
]
] Regarding job downsizing and outsourcing, no politician should
] dare run for president of our country unless they are willing
] to place tariffs on any company that outsources its employment
] to another nation. Beyond that, they should be forced to meet
] the salary of each "downsized" employee for five years from
] the date of severance including health benefits. That may
] discourage the company from leaving the US to begin with. If
] not, then you see the dedication that GMC has to the people of
] Mexico. That would bring a tear to my eye. By the same
] token, Corporate Welfare should be an obsolete concept and,
] for that matter, all welfare should come with a demonstrable
] civic duty on the part of the recipient.

This is erroneous and stupid. American's want to drive $45K SUVs and have plasma screen teevees. You can't live that lifestyle plugging a nut and bolt together down at the factory. If you want to live a prosperous lifestyle, then you need the appropriate jobs to support it. Exporting low wage, low earning potential jobs is GOOD. Not just for the US, but for everyone in the global food chain. It keeps your DVD players cheap, and it keeps your terrorists appeased. Taxing outsourcing will only make costs here go up, and it will make it harder for people to get better paying jobs and grow their businesses.

The reason why is simple: as products and services mature, they commoditize, which brings margin pressure and competition. The cycle feeds on itself, until at some point, players cannot compete at the appropriate price points which the market demands. With all other things being equal, whoever can produce the good or service for less will win. That's what's great about capitalism. It balances itself! But to not export capitalism, is a mistake. We don't want a nation of people who can only screw together pieces on an assembly line. We want people who can design, innovate, create, and manage - because that's the only way we can afford to bling bling in our McMansions and SUVs. If we want to stay competitive, you have to cater to your strengths, and right now, manufacturing and other tight margin jobs are not our strengths as a country. Don't even get me started on how healthcare premiums actually make this worse for American businesses. The US automotive companies cannot possibly be competitive with Asia when they pay 10x+ more in health benefits than their counterparts.

Plus when you get other countries around the world raising their standards of living by taking on the jobs that we can't afford to pay less for, then you give them something to strive for, and they stop hating you (as much). It then becomes a race to see who can outproduce eachother, rather than on fundamental ideology. Not sayin this is morally superior or not. But seems to be a lot more stable than what we've seen throughout human history.

] While we continue on the path of old ideas, there will be
] little progress. As the world changes, we need creative
] solutions. I don't need Bush out of office to create a good
] idea. If you all put Kerry in office, you will only breed new
] problems, but I care about that as much as I care about those
] that Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or any other president has brought
] to our nation. Benjamin Franklin once told us (were we to
] care, or have the balls to apply it to ourselves) that the
] foundation of our nation would become obsolete and devoid of
] benefits when the public becomes stupid and corrupt. At that
] point, we would no longer have the nation that our forefathers
] set up, but rather we would have a nation that a corrupt,
] apathetic, and ignorant people without true vision deserve.
] WE got it. Shoulda' studied your Franklin folks!

Amen. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

RE: Kill Your Brain!