You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
September 24, 2004
Informatio: Politics
I need your help...
The closer we get to the election, the more confused I get as to who I'm going to vote for. So, in order to assist me in deciding, I am conducting a carefully moderated scientific study. Please take this quick poll and help me in making this important decision...Who the heck should I vote for?
- George W. Bush (28 votes)
- John F. Kerry (27 votes)
Thank you.
(Voting has been closed.)
Posted at 1:11 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (26):
Come on, Tim…there are better ways of figuring how to vote. Look for three things in a candidate:
1) How each candidate lines up with the Word of God and your personal beliefs.
2) How much wisdom they have. (Wisdom, not knowledge.) The most important virtue of them all. Has the candidate displayed honesty, virtue, integrity, and consistency in his actions? Does he waffle on the issues or state plainly what he believes? Can you summarize his stance on a given issue in two sentences or less, or are you hard-pressed to find his position on anything?
3) Who they surround themselves with. Look at who Bush and Kerry have chosen as colleagues in the past: Are they people who add depth of knowledge and character to the candidate’s team, or does the candidate have a tendency to pick people who appeal to some common denominator or likeability poll? Remember, no man is better than his company.
I will pray for you in this important decision, and I hope you will do the same for me. This election is too important to get wrong.
1) How each candidate lines up with the Word of God and your personal beliefs.
2) How much wisdom they have. (Wisdom, not knowledge.) The most important virtue of them all. Has the candidate displayed honesty, virtue, integrity, and consistency in his actions? Does he waffle on the issues or state plainly what he believes? Can you summarize his stance on a given issue in two sentences or less, or are you hard-pressed to find his position on anything?
3) Who they surround themselves with. Look at who Bush and Kerry have chosen as colleagues in the past: Are they people who add depth of knowledge and character to the candidate’s team, or does the candidate have a tendency to pick people who appeal to some common denominator or likeability poll? Remember, no man is better than his company.
I will pray for you in this important decision, and I hope you will do the same for me. This election is too important to get wrong.
John Adams (URL) - September 24, 2004 at 7:46 pm
Hey Tim,
Just so you know, it’s possible to vote multiple times on your poll, so it can easily be skewed. Best of luck making your decisions! Now if I can just get those absentee ballots to get here a little faster…
eml
Just so you know, it’s possible to vote multiple times on your poll, so it can easily be skewed. Best of luck making your decisions! Now if I can just get those absentee ballots to get here a little faster…
eml
Erica () (URL) - September 24, 2004 at 11:42 pm
Tim: How come I don’t get a ‘none of the above’ choice?
will () (URL) - September 25, 2004 at 12:24 am
John ~ I know, I know… I’m just fed up with trying to do all of that work when everytime I think I get a pretty good idea, something contrary to what I thought presents itself and I have to start all over again.
Yeah, this is an important election (and I am praying for sure), but it’s frustrating as well.
Erica ~ But, isn’t this election going to be a little skewed anyway?
No, really, the poll bases peoples’ voting on their IP address, so if you’ve got dial-up and your IP address is different everytime, you will be able to vote multiple times… Broadband users, with one IP can only vote once. Oh, well.
(And I was being sarcastic when I said this was a scientific study.)
Will ~ But, I gotta vote, right? I mean, my who philosophy is that if you vote, you are free to complain… If you don’t? Well, keep your mouth shut. And the problem I see with voting for someone other than those two is that I know it won’t really make a difference — not like any of this really does. But, I do feel like I’d rather make a difference based on one of the candidates that is a sure-thing. Ugh. This is difficult.
Yeah, this is an important election (and I am praying for sure), but it’s frustrating as well.
Erica ~ But, isn’t this election going to be a little skewed anyway?
No, really, the poll bases peoples’ voting on their IP address, so if you’ve got dial-up and your IP address is different everytime, you will be able to vote multiple times… Broadband users, with one IP can only vote once. Oh, well.(And I was being sarcastic when I said this was a scientific study.)
Will ~ But, I gotta vote, right? I mean, my who philosophy is that if you vote, you are free to complain… If you don’t? Well, keep your mouth shut. And the problem I see with voting for someone other than those two is that I know it won’t really make a difference — not like any of this really does. But, I do feel like I’d rather make a difference based on one of the candidates that is a sure-thing. Ugh. This is difficult.
timsamoff () (URL) - September 25, 2004 at 11:42 am
Ow crap. I’m so used to “whitch candidate is most retarded”-polls, that I accidently clicked on Bush. Only read what it was about after I voted :/
So plz extract 1 from Bush, and add it to Kerry :P
So plz extract 1 from Bush, and add it to Kerry :P
Kork (URL) - September 25, 2004 at 10:17 pm
if you are person, like i am, who hopes for a radical change of the political/social landscape, then i think kerry is the candidate to vote for. kerry, by no means, is the answer to our current societal problems. very rarely do government representatives like or want REAL social change. they just bicker with each other from the two sides of their little playground, but rarely does that ever really lead to anything, but just more division and ego tripping.
in almost every big “civil” moment in our history; civil rights, workers rights, women’s right to vote, change was triggered by common citizens, not the politicians. take rosa parks for example. do you think what she did was something that higher up legislators were really happy about? when she sat down at the front of the bus, i could just hear all of the lawmakers and law-keepers say “damn, now we actually have to DEAL with this”.
i don’t believe that kerry will bring massive change for the better for this country. but i do believe that his mere presence in office, and bush being out of office, will create a friendlier environment for the the normal everyday folks to bring about change in their own way.
all this, and the fact that we invaded a country that didn’t invade us and were not a threat to us. having kerry in office immediately increases our credibility in the world.
in almost every big “civil” moment in our history; civil rights, workers rights, women’s right to vote, change was triggered by common citizens, not the politicians. take rosa parks for example. do you think what she did was something that higher up legislators were really happy about? when she sat down at the front of the bus, i could just hear all of the lawmakers and law-keepers say “damn, now we actually have to DEAL with this”.
i don’t believe that kerry will bring massive change for the better for this country. but i do believe that his mere presence in office, and bush being out of office, will create a friendlier environment for the the normal everyday folks to bring about change in their own way.
all this, and the fact that we invaded a country that didn’t invade us and were not a threat to us. having kerry in office immediately increases our credibility in the world.
Zach Lind () - September 25, 2004 at 10:53 pm
by the way, i love john adams #2 in the “how to” pick the right guy. particularly the “Does he waffle on the issues or state plainly what he believes?” bit. you couldn’t resist the temptation there could you john. it’s just so easy. it’s all a bit funny to me, the “waffling” bit. not to say that kerry hasn’t “waffled” or as most rational people call it; changed his mind. but you are suggesting in your ever so polite way that one of the candidates changes their mind and the other one does not change their mind, or is more “decisive on the issues”. and please correct me if i am off base here, but if that’s more or less what your hinting at, you might actually want to check your self before you dash away any credibility to people who don’t just watch cnn and fox for their news. bush has “changed his mind” many times….here are just a few times this has happened:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he’s for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he’s for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he’s for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he’s for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he’s for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he’s for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he’s for tariffs on steel; then he’s against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t.
Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military … then he cuts benefits
Bush-“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won’t negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say’s he shouldn’t have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he’s against it.
sorry for the long list, and if you were refering to bush as the flip flopper in your post above, then let me know. i’ll provide with a list of how many times kerry has changed his mind as well….if you don’t already have that.
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he’s for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he’s for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he’s for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he’s for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he’s for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he’s for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he’s for tariffs on steel; then he’s against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t.
Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military … then he cuts benefits
Bush-“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won’t negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say’s he shouldn’t have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he’s against it.
sorry for the long list, and if you were refering to bush as the flip flopper in your post above, then let me know. i’ll provide with a list of how many times kerry has changed his mind as well….if you don’t already have that.
Zach Lind () - September 25, 2004 at 11:13 pm
I almost hesitate saying this, because people on the web seem to be the most critical people, but here goes…
I simply can’t vote for someone who is pro-choice. I know that most people think that is such a minor issue, but to me it is the most important of the issues. There aren’t many things on this earth that are worse than abortion.
What I really find amazing is the number of people who would claim the Christian Faith as their own, yet still say that it is OK to kill an unborn child. Amazing.
Like I said, I know that most people will say that this is not the main issue, but I consider this a defining issue. Most of us are fools if we think that we know as much as Bush or Kerry when it comes to running the govt. I have never tried to run a govt., so on some of the issues, I have opinions, but I do know that it is wrong to kill innocent children. I know that there are thousands of women across this nation that have listened to the lie that it was OK, and now they are trying to survive the aftermath of such a decision. AND if I have to chose which man is going to be responsible for the govt. that I am under, that I have to Biblically submit to, I hope to get a man that will stand firm on an issue, no …on a moral principle.
I am sure that I am going to get comments about how wrong I am to say such a thing, and quite frankly, that’s OK. (this isn’t my blog anyway…) Just thought that I would put in my two cents…
I simply can’t vote for someone who is pro-choice. I know that most people think that is such a minor issue, but to me it is the most important of the issues. There aren’t many things on this earth that are worse than abortion.
What I really find amazing is the number of people who would claim the Christian Faith as their own, yet still say that it is OK to kill an unborn child. Amazing.
Like I said, I know that most people will say that this is not the main issue, but I consider this a defining issue. Most of us are fools if we think that we know as much as Bush or Kerry when it comes to running the govt. I have never tried to run a govt., so on some of the issues, I have opinions, but I do know that it is wrong to kill innocent children. I know that there are thousands of women across this nation that have listened to the lie that it was OK, and now they are trying to survive the aftermath of such a decision. AND if I have to chose which man is going to be responsible for the govt. that I am under, that I have to Biblically submit to, I hope to get a man that will stand firm on an issue, no …on a moral principle.
I am sure that I am going to get comments about how wrong I am to say such a thing, and quite frankly, that’s OK. (this isn’t my blog anyway…) Just thought that I would put in my two cents…
harmless () (URL) - September 26, 2004 at 3:05 pm
Mr. Harmless –
Thanks for standing by your convictions, always an admirable attribute. I to cannot fathom the act of abortion and could never support such thing. However, politically speaking, it’s a moot point. Here is why. . . just as many abortions can and do occur during a “pro-life” administration as that of a “pro-choice” administration.
It has always baffled me and angered me (this is not directed to you Matt) that “Christians” stand on the abortion issue alone when exercising political rights. We are called to be our brothers’ keeper; to care for those that are in need. Is this limited to unborn children, absolutely not. Many “pro-life” Christians could care less about the well being of pregnant woman, just that her fetus lives. They don’t offer her any solutions, compassion, or help. They could care less about the homeless guy they rush past and ignore his pleas for help, or the black kid that is actually more depressed than violent, or the homosexual that really does not “deserve” to die. In a nutshell, Republicans oppose abortion and social support for those in need. Democrats support abortion and social support for those in need. Pick a side. It’s not fair, but it is what it is. Since this issue is a moot point politically speaking, wouldn’t it would make more since to focus on actual modern day Biblical issues and needs ?
Let me leave on this note. This is how I judge our current president and the gentleman wanting replace him:
Mathew 7
15“Be wary of false preachers who smile a lot, dripping with practiced sincerity. Chances are they are out to rip you off some way or other. Don’t be impressed with charisma; look for character:
· Love
· Joy
· Peace
· Patience
· Kindness
· Goodness
· Faithfulness
· Gentleness
· Self-control
21“Knowing the correct password — saying “Master, Master,’ for instance — isn’t going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience — doing what my Father wills. 22I can see it now — at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, “Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.’ 23And do you know what I am going to say? “You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don’t impress me one bit. You’re out of here.’
Be Well,
Doug
Thanks for standing by your convictions, always an admirable attribute. I to cannot fathom the act of abortion and could never support such thing. However, politically speaking, it’s a moot point. Here is why. . . just as many abortions can and do occur during a “pro-life” administration as that of a “pro-choice” administration.
It has always baffled me and angered me (this is not directed to you Matt) that “Christians” stand on the abortion issue alone when exercising political rights. We are called to be our brothers’ keeper; to care for those that are in need. Is this limited to unborn children, absolutely not. Many “pro-life” Christians could care less about the well being of pregnant woman, just that her fetus lives. They don’t offer her any solutions, compassion, or help. They could care less about the homeless guy they rush past and ignore his pleas for help, or the black kid that is actually more depressed than violent, or the homosexual that really does not “deserve” to die. In a nutshell, Republicans oppose abortion and social support for those in need. Democrats support abortion and social support for those in need. Pick a side. It’s not fair, but it is what it is. Since this issue is a moot point politically speaking, wouldn’t it would make more since to focus on actual modern day Biblical issues and needs ?
Let me leave on this note. This is how I judge our current president and the gentleman wanting replace him:
Mathew 7
15“Be wary of false preachers who smile a lot, dripping with practiced sincerity. Chances are they are out to rip you off some way or other. Don’t be impressed with charisma; look for character:
· Love
· Joy
· Peace
· Patience
· Kindness
· Goodness
· Faithfulness
· Gentleness
· Self-control
21“Knowing the correct password — saying “Master, Master,’ for instance — isn’t going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience — doing what my Father wills. 22I can see it now — at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, “Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.’ 23And do you know what I am going to say? “You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don’t impress me one bit. You’re out of here.’
Be Well,
Doug
doug () - September 27, 2004 at 12:38 am
Tim –
what’s with the lines through the text ? ? ?
what’s with the lines through the text ? ? ?
doug () - September 27, 2004 at 12:40 am
Wow, thanks for all of the great thoughts guys (I’d love to hear more — especially from the female perspective). And it just goes to show: even a “scientific study” can leave me confused. Guess I’ll just have to rely on the poll! (Just kidding.)
Doug ~ sorry about the stricken text… This Weblog uses Textile as the text processing engine. It’s main job is in making text formatting easier to do without the knowledge of HTML. This being said, if you put dashes on either side of a word, it will strike it (like this ). To avoid this, always put spaces between your dashes and your words (which will create em-dashes) — I have fixed your comment to reflect this.
Doug ~ sorry about the stricken text… This Weblog uses Textile as the text processing engine. It’s main job is in making text formatting easier to do without the knowledge of HTML. This being said, if you put dashes on either side of a word, it will strike it (
timsamoff () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 08:46 am
Actually the point that I was trying to make is that I can’t trust that a politician can make good decisions in other “issues” if he can’t see (and state openly) that abortion is wrong.
As far as offering help and solutions, that is the responsibility of the church not the duty of the government. In fact, if you want my opinion (which you probably don’t), I don’t want a government of godless men offering solutions to mothers.
And I can’t speak for the “Christians” that you know, (I know that this world is full of hypocritical people) but most of the christians that I am around on a weekly basis work very hard at offering as much help, support, and Biblical counsel as they can. And it doesn’t come in the form of an organization or committee, it comes in the form of people helping and loving other people.
But like I said before, my only point is that, if a man doesn’t say that it is wrong to kill, then I don’t want him making decisions about war or economics or anything else for that matter. And NO, I am not foolish enough to think that America will ever get to the point where abortions aren’t taking place, and NO I don’t think that they will even get any less just because of a president, that wasn’t what I was saying. My point is just that the issue of abortion, for me, is a sign of some level of morality.
If all of the other levels of morality are gone, at least he knows that it is wrong to kill.
As far as offering help and solutions, that is the responsibility of the church not the duty of the government. In fact, if you want my opinion (which you probably don’t), I don’t want a government of godless men offering solutions to mothers.
And I can’t speak for the “Christians” that you know, (I know that this world is full of hypocritical people) but most of the christians that I am around on a weekly basis work very hard at offering as much help, support, and Biblical counsel as they can. And it doesn’t come in the form of an organization or committee, it comes in the form of people helping and loving other people.
But like I said before, my only point is that, if a man doesn’t say that it is wrong to kill, then I don’t want him making decisions about war or economics or anything else for that matter. And NO, I am not foolish enough to think that America will ever get to the point where abortions aren’t taking place, and NO I don’t think that they will even get any less just because of a president, that wasn’t what I was saying. My point is just that the issue of abortion, for me, is a sign of some level of morality.
If all of the other levels of morality are gone, at least he knows that it is wrong to kill.
harmless () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 09:10 am
No, Matt… All opinions are appreciated! Thank you!
timsamoff () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 09:17 am
I guess that my judgement of character isn’t based in how they act on TV or anything else. I base it on something that is clearly defined in the Bible. It is wrong to kill. some versions of killing can be debated (capital punishment, war, etc.) but to take the life of a unborn baby is heinous. Kerry believes that life begins at conception, but still supports the pro-choice movement.
I just can’t go along with that.
I just can’t go along with that.
harmless () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 09:20 am
Wow, we must be posting comments at the same time, I always find that to be weird, it reminds me that Tim is an actual person, not just a website. :)
harmless () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 09:22 am
(Or just very responsive artificial intelligence.) 
timsamoff () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 09:32 am
I don’t think harmless was going against any others opininions. He is just trying to understand “how” ideas that seem mutually exclusive can be supported. Well stated Matt!!
Doug Hensley () - September 27, 2004 at 1:02 pm
- “It is wrong to kill . . . some versions of killing can be debated (capital punishment, war, etc.)”
where are we to draw the line in who and why we can murder ?
* “As far as offering help and solutions, that is the responsibility of the church not the duty of the government. In fact, if you want my opinion (which you probably don’t), I don’t want a government of godless men offering solutions to mothers “
great point and I agree whole-heartedly ! ! !
unfortunately, “the church” is failing miserably at serving those in need. the church should be a place of refuge, restoration, and healing. the catholic charities are one of the only places I know where homeless, sick, orphans, unemployed, etc. can go for restoration. since the church is failing to meet the needs of their communities, I am glad the government can provide funding for social service agencies to serve the needy. Since the Bush Admin. took office, the federal debt, homelessness, uninsured, and unemployment have risen to epidemic levels for the first time in decades. As a Christian, that is not soemthing I can support with good faith.
We are Biblically mandated to serve “the least of these”, what is wrong with giving up few bucks so this can actually happen ? Our tax money helps social service agencies (like the one I work for) serve those in need. Unfortunately, during the past 4 years, we have had our federal contracts either been eliminated or severly reduced (reasons given for this range from the historical federal debt to change in idealogies of this admin.) This has turned in to a double-edged sword; we are not able to effectively serve those in need and we have had to lay off employees, thus contributing to the cycle of unemployment, homelessness, etc . that we are trying to cure.
(excuse the long winded rant)
The long-short of this is abortion happens no matter who is President. I detest it and will never understand it. But at what cost do we as Christians continue to on;y focus on the unborn, while poverty and illness are at epidemic levels in our country ?
We need to remember who has been in charge for the past 4 years and vote accordingly . . .
Be Well,
Doug
doug () - September 27, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Government, as a whole, has proven to be bloated and inefficient with many programs (welfare for example, and all the loopholes that allow people to sit on their rears, pop babies out, and not work while living off of my taxes). That isn’t to say there aren’t some good ones out there.
However, thanks to the econ classes I have taken and am currently taking, I believe the less the government is involved, the more money is in my pocket. The same holds true across the board for everyone. Less taxes = more money for you and me.
Now this seems awful selfish, doesn’t it? Me me me, I want all my money. Well yes, I do! If it is in my hands, I determine where it goes. I determine which program it supports, and who I give it to. This also runs into the more money I have, the more I spend. The more I spend, the more products are sold, and thus more people are employed.
If I buy a new shirt for $20 (that I saved in taxes), I help the person at the register get paid, their manager, the person who makes the shirt (probably in a country with a lower standard of living than the US), and part of my money goes to the state to pave the roads and whatnot. I think that is enough.
There are times in history where social programs are amazing (Great Depression), but I don’t see this as one of those times. I’d rather see more privately funded programs (churches, etc.) than more government red tape.
However, thanks to the econ classes I have taken and am currently taking, I believe the less the government is involved, the more money is in my pocket. The same holds true across the board for everyone. Less taxes = more money for you and me.
Now this seems awful selfish, doesn’t it? Me me me, I want all my money. Well yes, I do! If it is in my hands, I determine where it goes. I determine which program it supports, and who I give it to. This also runs into the more money I have, the more I spend. The more I spend, the more products are sold, and thus more people are employed.
If I buy a new shirt for $20 (that I saved in taxes), I help the person at the register get paid, their manager, the person who makes the shirt (probably in a country with a lower standard of living than the US), and part of my money goes to the state to pave the roads and whatnot. I think that is enough.
There are times in history where social programs are amazing (Great Depression), but I don’t see this as one of those times. I’d rather see more privately funded programs (churches, etc.) than more government red tape.
Kevin () (URL) - September 27, 2004 at 5:22 pm
There is more efficient use of resources in centralized and expansive governments. You can better serve the specific needs of the people from within the city and state, than from D.C.
I think we agree on that . . .
Where I am confused is how you equate more money on your pockets and the country being fiscally healthy ? We are experiencing a time of both record levels of tax cuts and a record level federal debt. The only time in the past few decades we have had a balanced budget, let alone a surplus, was during the high tax Clinton Admin.
So your logic of less taxes = fiscal conservatism is factual refutable.
The Republican Party used to be able to hang it’s hat on small federal government and fiscal conservatism. They WERE the party that could run a balanced budget and / or a surplus. Bush has expanded the size of the federal government beyond the size of the Clinton Admin and his ran our debt to historical highs. Now future generations will be left with our enormous debt, while our checking accounts are a little bigger. That is not responsible, I couldn’t face my kids and explain why we screwed them for a few extra bucks.
Please help me understand what you meant in face of the opposite facts.
Be Well,
Doug
I think we agree on that . . .
Where I am confused is how you equate more money on your pockets and the country being fiscally healthy ? We are experiencing a time of both record levels of tax cuts and a record level federal debt. The only time in the past few decades we have had a balanced budget, let alone a surplus, was during the high tax Clinton Admin.
So your logic of less taxes = fiscal conservatism is factual refutable.
The Republican Party used to be able to hang it’s hat on small federal government and fiscal conservatism. They WERE the party that could run a balanced budget and / or a surplus. Bush has expanded the size of the federal government beyond the size of the Clinton Admin and his ran our debt to historical highs. Now future generations will be left with our enormous debt, while our checking accounts are a little bigger. That is not responsible, I couldn’t face my kids and explain why we screwed them for a few extra bucks.
Please help me understand what you meant in face of the opposite facts.
Be Well,
Doug
doug () - September 27, 2004 at 6:22 pm
“The power of the purse is in the Congress not the President according to the Constitution.” Unemployment is currently at 5%. During the Congress of the late 1970’s (Democratic in both the House and Senate) unemployment was at 10%, twice as much people were out of work. Taxes were also higher in the late 1970’s compared to now. People also couldn’t afford housing and food with interest rates and inflation in the double digits. Doug, your a wonderful person helping the less fortunate and I pray God truly blesses you but I just do not want to go back to those days. Doug, putting aside our differences, keep up the good work!! Together with a strong economy and people like you we all can make a difference. :)
Doug Hensley () - September 27, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Amen Doug, I appreciate the feedback.
I am not sure the work I do is all the great; I just hope I leave the world a better place than how I found it.
I guess I just have a hard time with any greed and waste when we are actually experiencing unprecedented rates of unemployment, uninsured and homelessness. I know with a few extra tax dollars from each of us so much more of the Lords work and love can be shared by those that are skilled in social service with those who need it most. We are kidding ourselves to think that we can do the work of thousands of organizations world wide that depend on federal programs created from our taxes to create jobs and services on our own with the few bucks saved from unjustifiable tax breaks.
It bothers to see Christians desire money and war over that.
Again, I really do appreciate your feedback Doug (I keep wanting to call you Mr. Hensley like I’m 10 again . . . uuuggh). My mind and heart are so hungry and never seem to rest. I need more love and guidance, thanks for sharing that with me.
Be Well,
Doug
I am not sure the work I do is all the great; I just hope I leave the world a better place than how I found it.
I guess I just have a hard time with any greed and waste when we are actually experiencing unprecedented rates of unemployment, uninsured and homelessness. I know with a few extra tax dollars from each of us so much more of the Lords work and love can be shared by those that are skilled in social service with those who need it most. We are kidding ourselves to think that we can do the work of thousands of organizations world wide that depend on federal programs created from our taxes to create jobs and services on our own with the few bucks saved from unjustifiable tax breaks.
It bothers to see Christians desire money and war over that.
Again, I really do appreciate your feedback Doug (I keep wanting to call you Mr. Hensley like I’m 10 again . . . uuuggh). My mind and heart are so hungry and never seem to rest. I need more love and guidance, thanks for sharing that with me.
Be Well,
Doug
doug () - September 27, 2004 at 11:48 pm
This is like watching two sides of one person go at it, confusing there for a bit. Doug vs. Doug!
“So your logic of less taxes = fiscal conservatism is factual refutable.”
It’s also factual that recessions and economic booms ebe and flow with oil price changes. It’s also factual that whether you are in an ecomonic boom or recession, the current administration had nothing to do with it. It isn’t like Clinton walked into office and with a wiggle of his nose the economy just completely flipped over from a dead recession, the same with Bush. He didn’t walk in, shake his finger at economic prosperitity and cause an immediate flop of the economy. Think of the economy to look like imperfect sine graph, or amplitude graph, or simply waves. If you’re in a recession the economy takes years, yes years, to plow out of it and up into economic prosperity, and it takes years (usually) to slide into a recession.
“There is more efficient use of resources in centralized and expansive governments. You can better serve the specific needs of the people from within the city and state, than from D.C.”
Yes, I agree. But I also don’t think the government should control everything, nor near everything. The closer you get to government taking care of everyone, the closer you are to socialism. And I think we can agree that is not a good thing, at least I hope we do.
I also believe it is true that in some cases, the government is not more efficient. There is a road that my neighborhood connects to. It is a small two lane road that leads to a major road. On one side of the road, it has been completely torn up and left as gravel most likely due to water work of some type being done (I am not 100% sure of this, but nonetheless it is there). This causes drivers going down that side of the road to slide over onto the oncoming, paved section of road when no other cars are coming. This is more annoying than dangerous, as it is a small section of the road that leads up to a stop sign, so you can easily see traffic coming. The road was dug up sometime after early July, as I was down at my apartment for a wedding. It is now the end of September, and no work has been done to fix the road. Why? Because the government controls road paving.
Why do I think, in this case, that is a bad thing? Because the government has no reason to want to excel, and neither do the workers (in this case, not trying to offend you on your job). Why? Because the ‘company’ (government) isn’t going to go under if they don’t do the job, or do it right. If a paving company for driveways and parking lots was allowed to pave the road, they would most likely be pro-active if someone gave them a call and asked them to come give an estimate. They come out, give the estimate, and the neighbors agree on a price. The road gets paved in good time, because the company’s reputation depends on it — their livelihood depends on it. And if they mess it up and do a poor job, it is also in their best interest to come out and fix the problem as soon as possible. Such is not the case with government.
How many times have you seen government paving equipment sitting on the side of the road, workers at the site, but they are all just standing around? They aren’t pushed to excel because they are going to end up being paid no matter the outcome of the day’s work.
So while I agree it is a good thing that the government is 99.9999999999999% likely to stay in business and feels no threat for doing poor jobs or plainly not doing the job, because I enjoy some of the things government provides for me (liberties, freedom, safety, etc.), I don’t agree that they are more efficient all the time. The argument could be made for business, I’m sure, but I think you would find a business that continually acts without ambition or pro-activity will not last very long in whatever sector they are in.
I guess I’ll get off my soapbox, but your comment of “Please help me understand what you meant in face of the opposite facts.” seems to say you believe I am flat out wrong. I don’t think you are flat out wrong, and obviously I don’t think I am either. Perhaps we have two different perspectives on the same subject, with perhaps different pieces of information.
Just remember, it used to be a fact that the world was flat.
The above is the opinion of a 20 year old management major. Take it with a grain of salt, please.
“So your logic of less taxes = fiscal conservatism is factual refutable.”
It’s also factual that recessions and economic booms ebe and flow with oil price changes. It’s also factual that whether you are in an ecomonic boom or recession, the current administration had nothing to do with it. It isn’t like Clinton walked into office and with a wiggle of his nose the economy just completely flipped over from a dead recession, the same with Bush. He didn’t walk in, shake his finger at economic prosperitity and cause an immediate flop of the economy. Think of the economy to look like imperfect sine graph, or amplitude graph, or simply waves. If you’re in a recession the economy takes years, yes years, to plow out of it and up into economic prosperity, and it takes years (usually) to slide into a recession.
“There is more efficient use of resources in centralized and expansive governments. You can better serve the specific needs of the people from within the city and state, than from D.C.”
Yes, I agree. But I also don’t think the government should control everything, nor near everything. The closer you get to government taking care of everyone, the closer you are to socialism. And I think we can agree that is not a good thing, at least I hope we do.
I also believe it is true that in some cases, the government is not more efficient. There is a road that my neighborhood connects to. It is a small two lane road that leads to a major road. On one side of the road, it has been completely torn up and left as gravel most likely due to water work of some type being done (I am not 100% sure of this, but nonetheless it is there). This causes drivers going down that side of the road to slide over onto the oncoming, paved section of road when no other cars are coming. This is more annoying than dangerous, as it is a small section of the road that leads up to a stop sign, so you can easily see traffic coming. The road was dug up sometime after early July, as I was down at my apartment for a wedding. It is now the end of September, and no work has been done to fix the road. Why? Because the government controls road paving.
Why do I think, in this case, that is a bad thing? Because the government has no reason to want to excel, and neither do the workers (in this case, not trying to offend you on your job). Why? Because the ‘company’ (government) isn’t going to go under if they don’t do the job, or do it right. If a paving company for driveways and parking lots was allowed to pave the road, they would most likely be pro-active if someone gave them a call and asked them to come give an estimate. They come out, give the estimate, and the neighbors agree on a price. The road gets paved in good time, because the company’s reputation depends on it — their livelihood depends on it. And if they mess it up and do a poor job, it is also in their best interest to come out and fix the problem as soon as possible. Such is not the case with government.
How many times have you seen government paving equipment sitting on the side of the road, workers at the site, but they are all just standing around? They aren’t pushed to excel because they are going to end up being paid no matter the outcome of the day’s work.
So while I agree it is a good thing that the government is 99.9999999999999% likely to stay in business and feels no threat for doing poor jobs or plainly not doing the job, because I enjoy some of the things government provides for me (liberties, freedom, safety, etc.), I don’t agree that they are more efficient all the time. The argument could be made for business, I’m sure, but I think you would find a business that continually acts without ambition or pro-activity will not last very long in whatever sector they are in.
I guess I’ll get off my soapbox, but your comment of “Please help me understand what you meant in face of the opposite facts.” seems to say you believe I am flat out wrong. I don’t think you are flat out wrong, and obviously I don’t think I am either. Perhaps we have two different perspectives on the same subject, with perhaps different pieces of information.
Just remember, it used to be a fact that the world was flat.
The above is the opinion of a 20 year old management major. Take it with a grain of salt, please.
Kevin () (URL) - September 28, 2004 at 11:54 am
Oh…” It bothers to see Christians desire money and war over that.”
If you are referencing anyone in this comment thread actually wanting war, then I would have to assert myself this once and say you are indeed, flat out wrong. In fact, I don’t see anyone here saying they wanted war. It is discussed a bit as to leadership decisions, but no one said they wanted war.
If you are referencing anyone in this comment thread actually wanting war, then I would have to assert myself this once and say you are indeed, flat out wrong. In fact, I don’t see anyone here saying they wanted war. It is discussed a bit as to leadership decisions, but no one said they wanted war.
Kevin () (URL) - September 28, 2004 at 11:59 am
DUDE! what a great blog and i didnt even write (im sure you anticipated my entry) but i decided to sit this one out. But on a lighter note, remember KROQ : Kevin & Bean (im sure you do) they had George and John (impersonators) on and they were bagging on eachother.. it was pretty good. anyhow, being conservative, even I understand the struggle. All i care to say is i wish Bob Dole was running… that guy was awesome. Or Mike Reagan (Ronald’s oldest, very conservative, funny and smart son. Oh well.
Dennisthemenace () - September 30, 2004 at 5:40 pm
hey tim, i stop by every once in while just to see what sort of interesting things are happening on your site. here are some of my thoughts on this debate. as a preface, let me say that im not incredibly well educated on these things. but i do have some thoughts.
im probably voting for bush come election time. not because i think he’s the greatest thing ever, but, well, i just dont feel comfortable voting for kerry. it’s a gut feeling. there are plenty of heavy-hitting pros and cons with both parties. the abortion issue, like mr. harmless up there, is a big one for me. granted, republicans do some pretty bad things too, but that is something i too consider a defining issue.
also, at this critical juncture in history, it doesnt make sense to vote for such drastic change. the feeling i get from kerry is that he has a lot of great things to say, but (and i have nothing but a gut feeling to base this on) i dont think he’s got the goods. he may mean well and have a plan outlined, but we’re smack in the middle of all this junk right now. to change leadership in the middle of it all could be detrimental. not that bush has had a great track record (he hasnt) but at this point it would be foolish to make a head transplant. if waffling is such a big issue, what more enormous waffle could there be than for america to put a man in office who would so drastically change the county’s stance on things? that could really throw things out of whack in a bad way.
in the end, though, it’s really a trust issue. the holy spirit is our guide and counselor…i would say pray and vote for whichever candidate you have the most peace about. for me, to base it on the stances or political views of either party is nothing but an endless debate. we could argue bush vs. kerry till the second coming. the point is, God knows what’s best, so we should seek His peace on the matter. do you feel more peace about putting kerry in office? then vote kerry. or is there more peace with bush? then vote bush.
i guess that’s the simplistic nutshell version of my thoughts, but it gets the idea across. anyways.
thanks!
jared
im probably voting for bush come election time. not because i think he’s the greatest thing ever, but, well, i just dont feel comfortable voting for kerry. it’s a gut feeling. there are plenty of heavy-hitting pros and cons with both parties. the abortion issue, like mr. harmless up there, is a big one for me. granted, republicans do some pretty bad things too, but that is something i too consider a defining issue.
also, at this critical juncture in history, it doesnt make sense to vote for such drastic change. the feeling i get from kerry is that he has a lot of great things to say, but (and i have nothing but a gut feeling to base this on) i dont think he’s got the goods. he may mean well and have a plan outlined, but we’re smack in the middle of all this junk right now. to change leadership in the middle of it all could be detrimental. not that bush has had a great track record (he hasnt) but at this point it would be foolish to make a head transplant. if waffling is such a big issue, what more enormous waffle could there be than for america to put a man in office who would so drastically change the county’s stance on things? that could really throw things out of whack in a bad way.
in the end, though, it’s really a trust issue. the holy spirit is our guide and counselor…i would say pray and vote for whichever candidate you have the most peace about. for me, to base it on the stances or political views of either party is nothing but an endless debate. we could argue bush vs. kerry till the second coming. the point is, God knows what’s best, so we should seek His peace on the matter. do you feel more peace about putting kerry in office? then vote kerry. or is there more peace with bush? then vote bush.
i guess that’s the simplistic nutshell version of my thoughts, but it gets the idea across. anyways.
thanks!
jared
jared () - October 02, 2004 at 6:49 pm
