People can "adapt" within the system and move to a higher position in the food chain, as Bill Gates did, in just the same way that animals can overcome natural selection through adaptation, like small mammals overcoming the dinosaurs great size by eating their eggs.

But you can bet everything that Bill Gates owns that his children and their children and the children after them will never want for anything. His "adaptation" has moved his "species" to the top of the food chain, and the only thing that will remove them is a better, more powerful "predator".



------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

Hits - re #155: LOL! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif It's all falling into place for me now!<BR>

Perhaps both were spouting rhetoric but I was not impressed by the Gore rhetoric, at all.

I guess either you get it, or you don't. Probably goes both ways though.

My only take was that Gore's handling of it was not in my opinion very impressive. No more than GB, maybe even a little less impressive. How many times can one man give the same answer to five or 6 different questions?

Brevity does not prove lack of knowledge, any more than rambling about a topic proves authority on it.

My take is that Al Gore was not as good as George Bush. I don't buy the arguments that the media has placed and that you apparently agree with.

I do not think that the specifics are a requirement to make a decision, I elect a President based upon how well I feel he will support my opinions and beliefs. Bush does that for me, Gore does not do it in the least for me.



[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Ann Coulter [hard-a$% I know, but still a babe] drops some interesting knowledge on the supposed [orchestrated??] Dumb/Sincere -vs- Evil/Smart choice we've been presented.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> In high school, Gore received all C's in French and mostly C's and B's in English and history. Indeed, his lone A in all those subjects came in a senior year history class. Only in art classes did Gore earn straight A's. And he took a lot of them.

Gore got into Harvard on the basis of his high board scores -- and the fact that his father was a prominent U.S. senator. (When George W. Bush got into Yale, his father was a comparative unknown -- a mere congressman, on the verge of losing his first race for Senate. He was a Yale alumnus, but so were a lot of other boys' parents.)

Gore continued his mediocre performance at Harvard, ranking in the bottom fifth of the class for his first two years. In his sophomore year, the Post reports: "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale."

Gore could not complete either divinity school or law school at Vanderbilt, failing five of the eight classes he took in his three semesters at divinity school. Exactly how many classes do you have to fail to be called dumb, if you're a Democrat?

Meanwhile, the Dumb Guy was earning his MBA from Harvard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp

Disco,

Not an attempt to confuse or anything, but the "social Darwinism" I am referring to has not existed for thousands of years. For those first thousands of years, we've been making the adjustment from being instinctive animals to intellectual human beings.

In fact, the genesis of the capitalist social order finds itself at about the same time as Darwin was formulating his theories. This whole "evolutionary" process is only about 150 years old.

We've spent the last 2 centuries creating a new "culture" whereby money is the be-all end-all of existence. People with money, it could be argued, are further ahead in the process. In fact, it can be said that, especially in our society, the impoverished or unfortunate are viewed and even treated as "animals".

Again, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But it is the world that we have created for ourselves.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

JC... that is some very interesting information. Wonder why this background information has not been prevalent in the media. Seems this might insight more careful judgement of the candidates. It amazes me how easily people are swayed to believe something that the media wants them to believe.

I thought that Bush was extremely intelligent and I think that he won this debate. The mystique that GW is dumber than Al Gore is playing on people's minds and affecting their perceptions, no doubt.

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

I really think that Bush missed an opportunity last night. Gore continuously hammered him on the top one percent thing and he did a poor job of responding. What would have been so wrong in pointing out the obvious? People who make over $1,000,000 a year pay more dollars in income tax than someone making 30K. So obviously if we cut everyone’s taxes they are going to get a larger # of dollars back. The graduated income-tax brackets are ludicrous. Why should the Government get to keep a higher percentage of your money because you made more? I really with they would just nuke the entire friggin mess and go to a consumption tax that excludes food and medicine.

Well first we are talking about school grades, and IMO anyone who went to school knows that grades are overrated. Hell i used to have friends 10 times smarter than I was who got lower scores on their tests than I did because they were busy with other things or did not know how to study for tests or whatever. I also found that my grades actually improved after i transferred from community college to Berkeley, because with a bigger university the curve is a lot bigger and thus you have a better chance at getting higher grades. Then there are schools like Stanford who I've been told used to not give anyone anything below a C because they needed to maintain their "standards."

Intelligence in my estimation is how you learn and what you learn from your experiences and how you put your ideas into action.

The interpretation of intelligence is how you present yourself. Bush has a problem mispronouncing things and saying some dumb things or whatever, and thus he is percieved as not being too bright. However, you don't become governor of Texas and get this far into the presidential race by being dumb...

Interesting side note....

ABC News reported today on the "poor little girl" with no seat at school that Gore pounded home. Supposedly due to overcrowding and poor funding this girl had nowhere to sit in class... at least that is what Gore stated last night.

The principal of the school called the local ABC News affiliate. It seems the girl did not have a seat, for 3 whole days.... because they were busy unloading $100,000.00 worth of science equipment in the room. She had to sit at a bench on a stool for 1 hour of 3 different days while her school mustered up a couple of bucks to install a gadget or two in the science room. The principal stated that his school is definitely not overcrowded and has never been underfunded.

How many more lies can this idiot tell without the media blasting him for it?>

Hits - I find this subject interesting and I'm sure that we could have hours of fun discussing it at a nice watering hole. I don't know how much more I'll be posting on this and I think that we may be straying from the initial meat of the topic.

But....with regard to the birth of social Darwinism, it would be shortsited to assume that the CONCEPT existed before Darwin's theories because if they had, it wouldn't have been Darwin's theory. Get it? But, to assume that it could not already be OCCURING before the theory arrived is like saying that America did not exist until Columbus "discovered" it. "Intellectual human beings" have existed for thousands of years. Look at the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans, and the Chinese. The Romans even used currency and had a trade-based economy. So even if the rest of the world was behind, the Romans should all be very wealthy by now - if not own the world. They've had at least a couple of thousand years to "evolve".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>In fact, it can be said that, especially in our society, the impoverished or unfortunate are viewed and even treated as "animals".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I do think this is wrong, but I don't think it is due to social Darwinism. The world was like this long before Darwin's theories.

I have enjoyed our discussion. Thanks. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

It seems that just about anything and everyone is fair game for Gore. If there is a storyline somehere, he will twist it and use it. Is he that desperate to feel connectedto real people that he has to make all these stories up. It really makes him look like the dumb one.

Maybe he can tell a story about how the Chiefs fans have been denied a Superbowl and had one of the best records of the nineties and therefore should receive more tax breaks than the 1%ers. (and 49ers). At least then Chiefs Fans will get tax breaks and increased drug benefits for their troubles.

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Clint - Instead of just showing appreciation in the latter years, we actually plan for our own futures? Yes, it is true, you can actually plan your own destiny if you try.

With mandatory retirement plans and privatization of SS funds, the evil monster of social security and the money sucking medicare could actually be controlled and drastically reduced - by as much as 80%.

Why don't Democrats offer these options? Because then they cant lie to old folks in the nursing homes about how their pets get the same meds they do only cheaper.

Al Gore, Stop scaring people and just be honest.

According to the "objective" CNN analysis, both candidates lied or exaggerated about their plans and, of course, their accusations of each other...

- Gore was wrong on Bush's tax cut numbers (the rich 1% getting 50% of the tax cut is flat out inaccurate / the bulk of the tax cut goes to the middle class)
- Bush was wrong on Gore's gov't program numbers (numbers are not hard and fast, where the money comes from not defined)
- Gore was wrong on Bush's Social Security impacts (no doom and gloom)
- Bush was wrong on Gore's prescription drug plan (estimates are all over the place because no one really knows because the plan is too vague)

Ready for Round Two...

Here's some of favorite excerpts. Bush apparently didn't know about Russia's support of the wrong side in the Yugo election fiasco. Oh, yeah - this guys qualified to be president.....

BUSH: But this'll be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well, be a wonderful time for the -- for the Russia to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic it's in his best interest and his country's best interest to leave office. The Russians have got a lot of sway in that part of the world, and we'd like to see them use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold.

Gore: Now, I understand what the governor has said about asking the Russians to be involved. And under some circumstances, that might be a good idea. But being as they have not yet been willing to recognize Kostunica as the lawful winner of the election, I'm not sure that it's right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this dispute there, because we might not like the result that comes out of that.

BUSH: Well, obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President.

GORE: Well, they don't.


Kinda remind you of Ford? Or Quayle? Here's another gem - thinks Mexico is a state...

BUSH: And I talked about how best to be able to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States, so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil.

OK this has no bearing or anything, But Did Gore remind you of someone?

with his head movements and mannerisims?

To me he looked like the SNL parody of Reagan they did one time.

Coundn't stop giggling the whole time he was speaking.<P>

Duck,
LOL. Bush always comes up with some gems...

Just an observation....

Why do people need to put the disclaimer "Non-football related" on certain posts?

As if the majority is going to open a thread entitled "did you watch the debates last night" and be surprised to see it about Gore/Bush and not Alexander/Morris, who were debating about who's the best receiver on the Chiefs?

Howzabout when that journalist was testing Bush's command of foreign affairs and Bush didn't know the names of the leaders of the countries. Bush's said he didn't know and asked the reporter if HE knew.

The journalist replied, "Well, I'm not running for president!"

I think the disclaimer "non-football" originated under the old BB due to the constant complaining of a few that the BB should only be used for football and folks shouldn't have to read non-related stuff... Hence, the phrase "non-related" worked its way into thread titles, even though the topic was already self-explanatory...

Old habits die hard...
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Duck-

Let's see, we want Kostunica in, since he actually won the election. There is not much we can do about it, so we'll need some assitance for this to be accomplished. Vladimir Putin is offering to step in and help. Let's see which Yugoslavian canidate is willing to allow Russia to mediate.

Hmmm, seems Kostunica disagrees with Algore. (He's the guy who won.)

"President Vladimir Putin's proposal is very much in my interests," Kostunica said in an interview with the paper appearing on Wednesday. "All that remains to be done is to work out certain details and the format of the meeting in Moscow."

Let's see what Milosevic has to say. (He's the guy who lost)

Milosevic has not replied directly to Putin's proposal and made no mention of it in a television address on Monday evening.


Duck, whenever Algore speaks, it's best to asuume that it is a lie. This admin has zero foreign policy. If it concerns you, Cheney can cover. The dems have no Cheney, anywhere.

Billy Richardson after several trips begging OPEC for more production got zero.

Chase as she may, Albright accomplishes nothing.

How laughable it is that dem's actually think they have a foreign policy advantage.

One a positve note, Algore is very good with the pronunciation of foreign leader's names, however I'm not that convinced that will garner any respect from said foreign leaders. Oh--and dogging Russia on this is the epitome of a diplomatic snafu.

Read the debate transcript on the CNN website. Bush again had no clue on his foreign policy homework. But thats OK because Cheney or someone that knows what they are doing will step in and take care of business. Is Bush then just a mouthpiece for the decisions of his cabinet? In that case it would be nice if he told us beforehand who he intends to pick. Because they would then be the real leaders of our country with Bush as the posterboy for their decisions. Is it really Newt, Army, Hatch & Co that Gore is running against?

Even the hated Bill Clinton wouldn't get caught with his foreign policy pants down the way Bush is prone to do. Bush has had plenty of time to do his homework on how to run the country. He has failed. But its OK. Cheney or someone else will make those decisions for us.

Duck-

Thanks for the tip on the transcript. That sounds like the correct give and take. I am not questioning the validity of your cut and paste job.

My question is whether or not Gore even knows what his admin is doing.

When Gore said "Well, they don't." It appears he was incorrect.

He (foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko)said Putin had discussed the Yugoslav situation by telephone with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as part of a series of consultations that also involved U.S. President Bill Clinton, Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato and French President Jacques Chirac. Gee- looks like Bill was on the horn already discussing this.

Yes, Bush will need many advisers. As will Gore, as did Clinton, Bush, Sr. etc.

So---in the simplest of terms, what Bush suggested is now being put into play (at least that's what Kostunica would like so he can assume his rightful place as leader) and Gores ididotic response is right now in the process of being proven wrong.

Putin has no choice but to step in, since Milosevic is uninterested in participating which way do you think Putin is leaning?

Duck-

Here are some of my favs from algore:

Vice President Al Gore yesterday conceded that a dramatic anecdote he told in Tuesday night's debate was not exactly true. (That means he was lying)

Mr. Gore — who said he traveled to Texas with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt to inspect wildfire damage — acknowledged yesterday he did not. He was in Texas, but he was at a fundraiser. But he really is for campaign finace reform.

The Gore campaign spent much of yesterday putting out other fires concerning other anecdotes, including one by Mr. Gore that a Florida school forced a female student to stand in an overcrowded classroom. Oops, wrong again.

Mr. Gore's latest gaffes follow the concocted story two weeks ago about how prescription drugs for his mother-in-law cost more than arthritis drugs for his dog. Aides later said the story was a "composite" using numbers from a congressional report.

That was followed by Mr. Gore's claim that he was involved with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "since the days it was first established." In fact, he entered the House two years after the reserve was created in 1975.

Then he told a labor group that his mother had sung one of their union songs to him as a lullaby, but the song wasn't written until Mr. Gore was 27. "Look for the Union Label."

Sure I could do the internet thing, the Love canal, Love Story, etc. But it's like shooting fish in a barrel.<P>

So are you saying that Putin had already nixed the idea of the Yugo runoff election at the time of the debate? Where can I find that info? Seems to me that it makes good sense to make sure the Russians will "sway" the Yugos the way we want them to sway before we ask them to mediate the crisis. I am not aware that Putin agreed to nix the runoff before the debate happened. Certainly we expect Putin to be in phone contact concerning what is happening in their back yard. But that doesn't mean they will sway our way unless we have a solid agreement. Bush was premature in suggesting that its a good time to invite "the Russia" to come in and sway.

And he doesn't know the world leader's names, either. Should have been doing his homework like Clinton. Bill couldn't keep his zipper up, but he outclasses Bush by a mile with regard to knowledge, preparedness, and execution. Bush strikes me as a Gerald Ford type - the world will laugh at us if that is the best we can come up with.

But didn't Gore agree that it would be good to call in the Russians if they saw things the way we saw them too? I'll have to read the transcript on that one again...


"Tell them, I HAVE LEARNED FROM MISTAKES I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE MADE"
George W. Bush

Duck - Are you actually stating that you support Al and Bills current foreign military policies?

Which ones have you been impressed with? Bosnia, Ethiopia, Somalia, or Iran?

ALL were dismal failures.

At least Cheney has the cojones to accomplish his goals.

In foriegn affairs, the primary objective is to earn the trust of those that you're dealing with. Do you think that Russia trusts Clinton/Gore?

Do you think that they will change their mind and start trusting Gore knowing he's prone to 'exageration' (lying)?

It was clear to me that Bush was thinking that a proper foriegn policy would have the russian's doing our bidding ~ but his ability to communicate that in two minutes at the debate was piss poor. Bush missed a beautiful chance here to expose the ineptness of current foriegn policy.

Luz
more to come...

I want to respond to the following statement...

DaWolf
Regular
Post# 87 posted 10-04-2000 12:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Luz,
"Someone who can get it done" is a line used every election by an opposing candidate. Why exactly would Bush be more successful? Would he cave in on the tax thing like his pops did? Bush can say all he wants, but we never really know until a guy reaches office. He's never been in Washington, it is very easy to say "I will get everyone to work together." Doing it is a totally different animal... "

Bush has a very real reputation here in Texas of doing exactly that ~ getting things done.

He won the Governorship from Ann Richards (a Democratic icon) and was the most hated republican (by democrats) in the State.

Never the less, he pulled both sides together in bipartisan efforts and achieved historical reforms in many areas, especially education. He became the only governor in Texas to ever be elected to consecutive terms, and today, even has prominate democrats serving in his administration.

He has proven himself a man that sets results ahead of party politics, a man that carries respect on both sides of the isle, a man that gets things done.

This is the side of George Bush that you won't hear outside of Texas because the media doesn't want you to.

Luz
gore/clinton divide people along lines of race, rich/poor, and party ~ bush brings people together...

And finally, I want to address this class warfare that has been propagated this last eight years.

It seems that there is an ever increasing amount of people that feel you are 'rich' if you make over $80k per year ~ as a couple (according to Gore/Clinton definitions).

If you fall into this bracket, understand that you are one of the 'rich' that Gore wants to soak!

Even if you restrict the debate, however, to bona fide millionaires it makes no sense. These people already have their money. Income Tax doesn't tax their existing money, only new income. It is moraly wrong to tax these people at a higher rate, but ironically, it doesn't punish them at all ~ IT JUST MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE REST OF US TO JOIN THEM IN WEALTH!

George gave a good example earlier of how he falls into the 'rich' tax classification, yet still works hard and hardly 'has it made' as some would like to imply.

I want to be wealthy. I want to be able to give my kids a head start in life by handing down to them the sum of my life's work. There is nothing ignoble about this.

Luz
don't get in my way...



[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-05-2000).]

Duck,

Bush was not referring to Mexico as a state. He was referring to foreign sources of oil as opec. Makes sense to ask our allies to help break the agreements set on limiting oil production, since higher prices will start building pressure toward inflation in our economy. I like the Gore plan of riding bikes and shutting down all production facilities till we can invent a "clean" source of energy. His 10 billion dollar investment should do the trick. IF THERE WAS SERIOUSLY ANY FORM OF "CLEAN-RENEWABLE" energy on the horizon that could fuel this nation and its economy, don't you think the private sector would be all over it. Any investor involved would be the next Bill Gates.

But hey, this is from a man that stated a woman picking up cans on the side of the road to pay for her prescription drugs, drove from Iowa to Boston in her 6 mile per gallon Winnabego. SP? Wonder how she could afford the gas on the trip, the Winnabego itself, let alone live with all the damage she was inflicting upon the enviornment driving the gas guzzler. I know! She must have stopped every mile or so to pick up cans (saving the enviornment) and paying for her gas with the cans. She will probably have to go without her drugs this month.

Duck-

What did he know and when did he know it? I'm not sure of the time line. Premature? The plan was either in place and moving or (gasp) the suggestion by Bush was acted on and is now moving forward.

Here is the key, you are saying Bush made a gaffe by his suggestion just because algore stated "Well they don't"

Bush makes enough misstatements without having to try and make one up. Never trust what algore says, he'll make you look foolish by backing him and his statements of opinion.

This mornings OC Register reported that Gore "exaggerated" about being in Texas with the FEMA director during the recent floods there.

It was true that Gore was in Texas at the same time as the FEMA director. However, he was there for a FUND RAISER!!!!!!!!!!!!! He never went to the disaster areas or was involved in any way with helping out.
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

On the topic of being honest with people, let's not forget that Bush also tried to push that statement put out by the Republican staff of that senate committee on budgets before the Gore plan was even released as a factual statement provided by a bipartisan senate committee studying the topic. So let's not claim that only one side is trying to misrepresent the facts...

Luz,
Again, that is on the state level. Washington is a whole different animal. I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor. But until they get there, you do not know. That is my point. You can guess or whatever, but you just don't know. It is VERY hard to get bipartisan efforts to work, and with some of Bush's proposals, I'm thinking it will be a chore for him to get that to work in Washington, especially if the Demo's claim some more seats in the house and senate. I've heard a lot from Texas since I have a lot of relatives living down there, and let's just say a person will see Bush based on the light that they want to see Bush in. Same for Gore.

As far as the education issue goes, I'm not real sure what they really accomplished. Apparently they've still got high school completion rates and SAT scores and teacher salaries that rank near the bottom of the country. I was talking to one of my old professors here in Berkeley and he said that one of the reasons Texas state test scores improved is because they decreased the number of tests they actually give students, and made them easier. Now I don't know if this is true or not, I have read some articles in the Dallas Morning News raising this topic last year, but it does raise the question to me that if Bush is going to leave the testing and educational things to the local and state level, then isn't it possible that some of these people might try to structure it so that their test scores go up and then they can say "hey look at us, we improved"?

Sorry, server problems here... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-05-2000).]

Absolutely agree, DaWolf. Any "partisan" studies, reports, papers, should be thrown away as campaign fodder and not used or presented as official numbers.

I'd rather hear numbers from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) or the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and require both candidates to use those numbers when arguing their positions...<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense DaWolf, but that is a VERY wrongheaded assumption. Truth be told, the fact that the converse was Clinton's true style is probably one of the unheralded undercurrents in the "right"'s pursuit of him. I really do not have the time to chronicle the numerous times Clinton would "talk" bi-partisan compromise behind closed doors, shake the other side's hands, and agree that a solution had been reached. He would then proceed directly to a press conference where he would tell the American people;

"Ah tried, and ah tried . . . to get something good for the American people. Buh-t my opponents are more interested in letting old people eat dog food than enacting TRUE reform [ie, my way or the highway], and AH CAAN'T STAND FOR IT."

The most notable instance surrounded the "republican shutdown of government." Why would anyone approach him in a conciliatory manner after being treated like that? How can you trust a word he says. You got the agreement. You got the handshake, then you get hosed.

I really don't think the Russians would care if an American president embellishes anecdotes at home. They might be a little more concerned if he has trouble speaking his own language and understanding international politics.

Howzabout Bush trying to squirm away from the Justice nomination question? Good thing Leher and Gore didn't let him get away with it. Look up how he addresses the issue when speaking to the Religious Right groups. Then look at the debate transcript. Why the embarrassing squiggle? Is he trying to fool America at large, or the Religious Right? Be honest, Bush. Be a man, tell us where you stand. Don't just say, "Fuzzy number! Invent a calculator! Phoney number!" We need more substance than that. If a number is phoney, show us where its false.

Every poll taken after the debate sez Gore won (even Bush supporters). Lucky for the Repubs only 50 mil watched. Now is his chance to clear up his ineptness before the later debates come around. There will be more voters watching as the election draws nigh. He could lose a lot more ground with another performance like that.

Regarding the tax cut debate the question is which will benefit the country more. Bush apparently will give $561 billion back to that 1%, but only spend combined total of $382 billion on education, national defense, health, and prescription drugs.

So is it better to give all that money back to the richest so they can put it back into the economy, or spend more on programs to affect the less fortunate? This is where democrats and republicans are obviously on different sides...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> Howzabout Bush trying to squirm away from the Justice nomination question? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean like AlGore saying [very near approximation] "i will not have a litmus test for abortion rights, but I assure you that I will not nominate a justice who will reduce a woman's right to chose." What does he think a litmus test is?

All politicians lie with numbers. It is to be expected. If you believe 1/4 of the programs Gore or Bush espousing will actually happen, then you are in for a big let down. Much like Bronco fans.

Gore is a hoot! He lies for the sake of lying just to make himself look better. Talk about insecurity.

On the education issue, Texas has a whole set of challenges many states do not. Very high hispanic population, with children still learning the english language as they enter school. Many first generation families struggling to survive, verses completely focusing on childrens education.

Texas is a right to work state, without a state income tax. Teachers have received a 30% pay raise over the last 5 years. Would bet as a percentage of income, verse lets say, a US postal service employee, public school teachers in the state of Texas are doing better than teachers in boston.

It all comes down to their core beliefs and trust.

Gore - Big government, more taxes.
Bush - Less government, less taxes.

Gore - pro abortion
Bush - anti abortion

All else they promise, you have to take with a grain of salt. Gores grain is just much bigger.

[This message has been edited by Red Till Dead (edited 10-05-2000).]

This story is incredible. Check it out..

http://www.nypost.com/news/12221.htm



------------------
bk

But JC, that is what I am saying. I am not saying Clinton actually DID get both sides to come together or anything, I am just saying he also spun things in his favor when he was getting elected. You know if you are a Democrat then all these good things about Clinton come out about how he is a moderate and how he attempts to work with people and how he is all inclusive and has all this diversity in his cabinet and all that stuff. If you are on the other side obviously you point out stuff like you just did. Same thing with Bush. He is probably not all he and his supporters make him out to be, but if trying to get elected that is what gets pushed, same way Clinton pushed his stuff when trying to get elected, whether accurate or not. Clinton spent a lot of time saying "See, I did this, I did that" which he may not have actually done behind closed doors or whatever, but he uses the perception to his advantage. And I don't see why Bush would be all that different in that regards...

"The unauthorized side-by-side shots at the first debate emphasized that Bush is a few inches shorter and slighter than Gore - a comparison that could be to Gore's advantage."

LOL. It is amazing how much emphasis this country puts on appearances...

<BR>

Wasn't it the Hitler type mustache that kept Dewey from beating Truman in the 50's?



------------------
bk

The difference is that DEMOCRATS in Texas will tell you that about Bush.

This is one of the most frustrating aspects of the last eight years and the erosion of credability as coin of the realm in politics. People assume that EVERY politician lies like Clinton, just because he did it best.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems that you're saying. Bush says he's a uniter. Clinton said he was a uniter. Clinton was lying, therefore Bush probably is too. But even Bush's biggest foes [that know him from Texas and actually observed him govern] will grant him this one, he does try to do the right thing, regardless of whose idea it was or who will gain politically from it.

please post your 'source' for #198...The numbers seem dubious at best.

Speaking about looks. How is it that Gore is seriously gaining scalp area on the back/top of head one day, then disappears the next.

Looking up at my family tree, may need to learn his secret.

JC,
Again, it depends on who you talk to. Certainly there may be some democrats who will give Bush props. And I agree that we probably should give guys a benefit of a doubt sometimes.

But my original point has been twisted out of proportion here. I said that Bush did some things on the state level, but we could not assume that this will be the case on the national level until he is actually there, because as with ANY politician, you never know until they are on the job. That is my thing about Bush. You cannot make any difinitive statements until he is actually on the job doing it. Anything else is an assumption. I do not live in Texas, I do not know if you live in Texas, and the majority of us who do not live in Texas just have to go by what the sides tell us. Obviously Bush will push his positives and the other side pushes his negatives, and people choose their sides. I've got relatives in Ft Worth and Austin whose opinions obviously differ. It all depends in which light you choose to see him in...

DaWolf, we agreed that partisan numbers are bogus. Yet you just used partisan "Gore" numbers to criticize Bush's tax cut plan. Please stop it! You are now officially speaking out both sides of your mouth...
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/eek.gif

In response to #198. What effiecient, cost effective government programs benefit the "less fortunate".

The private sector drives this economy not the government. Government can only slow it down through over spending (higher borrowing costs) and regulations. Previous democrat congress. Or take off the reigns, current republican congress.

More money in the private sector drives the economy, and thus creates more jobs! The best way to help the "less fortunate" is to give them opportunities to earn a living.

My biggest take home from the debates was the demeanor of the two candidates.

Bush seemed cool and relaxed. Willing to deal with the issues and wanting to do the right thing. Some of his numbers didn't add up, but the exact details are what you pay policy wonks for. Over all I'd say Bush confirmed my vote.

Gore seemed flustered, almost desperate. And he came across as arrogant, and condescending. The constant sighs and bullying for mic time was outrageous. His constant harping about 'tax breaks for 1%' only proved that he'd focused grouped the phrase and confirmed my opinion that he's a political animal like Clinton. Gore confirmed every reason I have to dispise him.

Titus:
"Bush Budget 2001-10" (www.georgewbush.com, 9/5/00)

Fly,
I didn't critisize. If you have numbers to debate those, let's see them, and I will apologize for being incorrect. I just put the numbers out there (using the word "apparently") and said "So is it better to give all that money back to the richest so they can put it back into the economy, or spend more on programs to affect the less fortunate? This is where democrats and republicans are obviously on different sides." I don't call that critisizing...


[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-05-2000).]

One thing that Gore kept doing that I thought was real irritating was when he would start his rebuttal with 'Bush and I agree on .....'. It was nice the George W. brought up the topic first. I thought that was a big slap in the face of Gore.

------------------
bk

I repeat, what effiecient, cost effective government programs help the "less fortunate"

And why is everyone talking about the 'cost' of Bush's tax cuts, but not talking about the cost of Gore's social spending?

The worst numbers I've seen show Bush giving up about a third of any surplus on tax cuts. Gore on the other hand outspends projected surplusses by twice. This means that Gore would either raise taxes, cut other spending (read defense) or return to deficit spending to attempt half of what he proposes.

If anyone's numbers don't add up it's Gores'

The major reason I'm bringing up Bush is because the majority of people posting here seem to be Bush Backers, and you can't have a debate if everyone agrees on everything. Personally I'm not impressed with either. I am generally in the middle here and was hoping McCain would get the nomination, I like him better than either of these two guys... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

DaWolf, you said that partisan literature, including budgets, were bogus. Then you turn around and use them.

I suggest you go to CNN.com and check out their evaluation of the claims, counterclaims, and the validity of the numbers if you doubt me.

CNN is not exactly the rock of conservatism. And even they say what Gore spouted about the 1% was plain wrong.

Please, you can't have it both ways... unless you're a liberal...

that site is not up or is no longer. I cant really look at the exact text, but let's look at the numbers.

Let's assume that these numbers, first of all, represent all 10 years worth of spending for these classifications.

The tax cut for the 1%'ers per annum would be 56B.

Spending on 'education, national defense, health, and prescription drugs' would be 38B per annum.

Now, looking at the 2001 FY budget for the U.S. Govt, it is 1.8 Trillion Dollars--for JUST 2001. That would mean that if we spent the same amount for 10 years we would be spending 18 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

Of that 18 Trillion, or 18000 Billion, we would be spending 382 Billion on the items listed above or roughly 2% of the budgets. This cant be right because looking at the FY 2001 budget Defense spending alone represents 35% of the budget.

So let's assume that the 382 Billion and 562 Billion are per year figures. Doing so would mean that according to this website, Bush would propose giving 5620 Billion or 5.6 Trillion back to the 1%ers over the next 10 years. Of course, the 562 Billion alone if applied to the 2001 budget would create a 380 budget deficit for this year.

Somehow these numbers dont add up.

Further, the last report from the IRS stated that the top 1% of the nation paid approx 45% in total revenues into the treasury. using the OMB receipts figures for 2001, the IRS received about 2 Trillion dollars. 45% of that would be 900 Billion dollars (for just one year mind you). If we gave them a 562B tax cut per year that would be an effective cut of over 50% in their taxes. Something tells me Dems would be clucking like chickens if this were to be true. If on the other hand the number was 56B per annum, that would mean an effective cut of 6%.

Again, of course, I have to assume those numbers to be true on a web site that no longer functions.

Fly,
Dude, again you are reading whatever you want to into the post based on your viewpoints. Again, I used the words "apparently" and I did not draw a distinction between right or wrong. Even the Bush camp admits that the richest get such a large amount back because "they pay so much in the first place." I just put the numbers out there and said it could work or it could not work depending on how you looked at the numbers. Now if those numbers are NOT representative of the top 1 percent I apologize, but those are the numbers I found. I am not trying to pass them as the definitive numbers. Here is what I got from CNN:

""Well, the man is practicing fuzzy math again," Bush offered by way of rebuttal. "The facts are, after my plan the wealthiest Americans pay more taxes than the percentage of the whole than they do today."

Is that a fact? Well, the bipartisan Joint Tax Committee of Congress analyzed Bush's tax plan and said that after it was mostly phased in, in 2005, persons making over $200,000 a year would be paying 27.4 percent of federal income taxes, exactly the same share as under current law.

By that measure, Bush is wrong.

The same bipartisan analysis showed persons making over $100,000 a year would get 51 percent of the money under Bush's tax cut plan."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...eck/index.html

Titus:
That is supposed to be the Bush/Cheney official site where they have their numbers listed. I am assuming their server is down or something, because at the moment I cannot get through. I just have those numbers here in an e-mail in text form citing that web site. Thus the use of the words "apparently." Again, if it is bogus, I apologize. But it is the best I could do with the restraints I've got here at work while trying to debate on this topic... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

In times past you were called a serf when you gave a third of your crop to the fuedal lord for protection on his lands.

In todays Clinton/Gore world, giving up to 50% of your earnings for protection on OUR lands, is called fairness!!!

We have come a long way, baby!

It seems to me that this is more about the fact that the 1%ers are making the largest portion of the money. If we gave these 1%ers, a tax cut equal to the amount of spending on these programs that are being held against the amount would everyone still be this worried about the cut to the 1%ers. I think so. Why?

Because what people are upset about is the fact that the 1%ers are making such a lopsided amount of the money and are generally jealous about this fact.

AlGore is using this fact to skew the perception that an across the borad tax cut will have, by comparing it to the money spent on these other programs. If we did not give the 1%ers the tax cut and gave it to the 99@ers, would we all feel any different?

And further to that how many people are being taxed at the same rate as the 1%ers. Can anyone do the research and find out. Does anyone want to talk with real information or just what we are hearing from AlGore?

Let me see if I can go find the facts.

BRB.

Oh yeah, feel free to put me in my place while I go do some real research.

Oregon,

Like I said, there is no debating the fact that they are getting such a large amount back because they pay such a large amount in the first place. The debate between sides only comes up in the philosophical belief of:

Republican: The economy will be better off if we give them more money back to invest back into the economy.

Democrat: The money would be better spent giving more targeted cuts and using the rest of the money on programs.

That is a philisophical difference. The numbers to me don't make all that much of a difference because it is obvious Bush wants to give a great deal back to the upper class and it is obvious that Gore wants to spend a great deal on government programs. My point was it is only right or wrong based on which you put more priority in and which you think will help the economy and/or society in the long run. Everyone's opinion is going to differ on this based on philosophy...

I've said before and I have to say again. the term "targeted tax cut" is an anethema to me. Bush rightly pointed out the thousands of IRS agents it will take to sort-out Gore's intricate plan. What he didn't point out so well was that we will be living our lives according to the dictates of a government form.

Should I send my kids to college A or college B? Well I can deduct all of the tuition at college B, so [s]he'll go there.

Should we have another kid? We got a tax break for one, but won't get any more breaks from here on out. Put on that rubber.

I love my girl and would love to propose, but that will cost us $XX on our return. Let's live in sin a little while [1-4 years] longer.

That untold truth is that a lot of people will cast their vote thinking a "targeted tax cut" is target to them, only to wake up in early April and realize IF ONLY they'd lived their lives more in keeping with Gore's wishes it wopuld have, but now we're SOL. The government gets to keep the money and we'll blame ourselves for not "living right."

And trust me, if this gains traction the tax code will become increasingly engineered. As in MN, taxes for cotton gloves are $XX and for leather gloves are $XX times 2, or 3. Envision tax credits for the Ford F7%$us and tax penalties for the Explorer, tax credits for cellulose home insulation and tax penalties for hardwood floors. Also imagine the INCREASED importance of special interests with this system in play.

Why not say, you make the money, the government taxes it, the government spends its portion. And if anything is left over, you get back your portion of the surplus to do with as you wish?

Gore: Fuzzy Math

Bush: Fuzzy English

Me: Fuzzy comprehension of these two "leaders"

Ok here are some facts that we can all agree on. I will use Married filing jointly as a default for these figures.

15% Tax rate: 43,050
28% Tax Rate: 43,051 - 104,050
31% Tax Rate: 104,051 - 158,550
36% Tax Rate: 158,551 - 283,150
39.6% Tax Rate: 283,151+

Now, with that being said, everyone that makes over 283,151+ would have to fall into the 1%er tax cut issue as well. Just what is the average yearly income of a 1%er? Now that would be interesting infomation. If anyone can find it or calculate it I would like to know.

Another tidbit of information, the top 20% of this country makes about 8 times more than the bottom 20% of this country.

Is it really fair to say that a 1%er deserves to not get a tax cut because they make more money by percentage than a 99%er, or a 80%er, or 60%er, or 40%er, or a 20%er?.

They are already getting taxed at a higher rate than those beneath, why should they contine to be overburdened even further, as tax rate decreases are given? We are assuming that since we can't give the 1%er a decrease we cannot give anyone in the highest tax rate a decrease also.

Food for thought.

DaWolf, your point is that the rich, whoever they are, will get a tax cut. Nevermind that they are themselves responsible for 60-70% of the taxes paid in every year.

Gosh, there must be something terribly wrong giving those bad rich folks a cut. Afterall, ya can't have all those free programs if those "rich" folks aren't paying for them...

You seem to like to encourage class warfare... I'm am disappointed...



[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-05-2000).]

Fly,
Again, you are the one putting words in my mouth. Where am I encouraging class warfare? I have specificallt said that Bush plans to give more back to the richer BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Bush has himself said this. There is no denying this. I did not say this was right or wrong. What I did say is that the difference in philosophy as to where the money should go is where the argument arises. I have also pointed out that Al Gore intends to spend a hell of a lot on government programs. I do not recall ever saying that one road was right and the other was wrong.

Please tell me how I am encouraging class warfare? Stop reading what you want into my posts and stop putting words in my mouth...

DaWolf, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

It just seems to me that in general we are all too willing to throw around numbers to justify our positions, when the numbers don't mean a damn thing.

And I hate "invented" class warfare. America is about making your opportunities, not being "owed" them...<P>

ok...after the CNN report, I HAD to go find this joint report on Bush's plan. I can't find it, but I did find the Joint Committee's website that lists the reports.

I found this: Distribution of Federal Tax Liabilities by Income Class for 2000.

In this report, it states the top 1% bracket starts at just under 300k (296k). They earned 1.1 Trillion of 7.5 Trillion in Total income (14% of total) and paid 297B in taxes or 33% of the total collected taxes on Personal income for 2000.

The number in Oregon Chief Fan's reply #288 are correct; you can find them on page 69 of your 1999 1040 Instruction Booklet. It should also be mentioned how the rates apply. Only that part of one's income that falls into each bracket is taxed at that rate.

For example, suppose a couple makes $100,000. Here's how the tax rate schedule applies to them:

The first $43,050 is taxed at 15%: that's $6,457.50

Now, ONLY the money between $43,050 and $100,000 (a total of $56,950) is taxed at 28%: that's $15,946. Thus, their total Federal Income tax is $6,457.50 + $15,946=$22,403.5, an overall rate of 22.4%.

The point is that, though this couple is in the 28% tax bracket, they don't pay 28% of their income in taxes. They paid 22.4%.

Now, let's suppose they made $200,000, which uts them in the 36% bracket. Then, their total tax would be $40,432.50 for the first $158,550 of that plus 36% of the rest
((200,000-158,550)*.36)=$14,922: a total of $55,354.5 or 27.7%.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 10-05-2000).]

Post #211 sez Bush seemed cool and relaxed, Gore seemed flustered. I got the opposite impression. Bush was so flustered he stumbled and fumbled over his words in a bad way. A president should be able to communicate his thoughts, and it really helps to use coherent language. His teacher wudda flunked him. Here's a few examples of how "cool and relaxed" he was:

"Well, here's what I've said: I've said, Jim, I've said..."

"I think what the next president ought to do is to -- is to promote a culture of life in America, is the life of the elderly and the life of those living all across the country, life of the unborn."

"I said I would make sure that -- that women would be safe to use the drug."

"But this'll be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well, be a wonderful time for the -- for the Russia to step into the Balkans..."

"We're going to spend $25 trillion -- we're going to collect $25 trillion of revenue over the next 10 years, and we're going to -- projected to spend $21 trillion."

more...<P>

(cont. from last post)

"And in return for flexibility, we're going to ask you to show us whether or not -- and we ask to post the results on the Internet."

"But that's the time when you're tested not only -- it's a time to test your meddle.

But what I would do, first and foremost, is I would get in touch with..."

"It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off, you know, tomorrow what we should do today."

"Well, I just, you know, I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life."

"And so I -- look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I'm going to uphold the law. I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law; that if the time for -- the time for campaign funding reform is after the election, this man has outspent me,..."

Fly,
No prob. We're all Chiefs fans. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif See my #225, I also do not believe the numbers are the primary issue, it is the difference in philosophy.

I want to respond to:

DaWolf
Regular
Post# 193 posted 10-05-2000 11:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luz,
Again, that is on the state level. Washington is a whole different animal. I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor. But until they get there, you do not know.

DaWolf,

What we DO know, is that Gore is incapable of uniting both sides. He has arguably a 24 history of failure in this area, and by anyone's standards, an eight year track record of just the opposite ~ devisevness, partisanship, and fearmongering.

So you can choose from Gore who has had a chance on the national level and failed miserably, or you can choose Bush who succeeded on the State level to the point where even the opposite party praises him for it (this is a matter of public record ~ not opinion).

Are you telling me that there is not a clear distinction here?

Luz
imo, you have to be very heavy into justification to claim that bush doesn't carry this point ~ hands down...

I just want to post this article, I said something earlier about Gore's comment that we should look into alternitive fuels and mentioned nothing about lowering the price of gas. It sounds like their plan is to eventually put up windmill's and solar power houses, should help us a lot over the next five years as inflation increases due to the high gas prices of car fuel. I guess I need to find a way to run my car with solar panels and a windmill...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,39275,00.html

Morphius
bitter...

Duck,

Nice list of Bush quotes. I guess that someone that is trying to come up with an HONEST answer to a question stumbles a bit.

Unlike Gore that will lie when it suits him, and avoid the questions to harp on his pre-programmed answers. Gore is like a child, when he doesn't have an answer or gets caught, just lie away or avoid the issue.

Heres one for you. Gore made Bush look like a world class orator on this one.

Several weeks back on one of the Sunday morning talk shows the host asked Gore the following:
Set it up by asking Gore if he believed in the death penalty. Believe Gore said yes, if he didn't host set up question, with would you up hold the death penalty if it was the law of the land. Either way Gore said yes.

The following question was classic (and from a liberal host!) VP Gore, WOULD YOU EXECUTE A WOMAN THAT WAS 7 MONTHS PREGNANT?!!!!!!

Gore himmed and hawwwed for about 3 minutes. Emmm, ahhh, welll, dahhhhh, hahhhh, finally came up with, I would follow provisions of Roe vs Wade.

Talk about sounding stupid. Made the republican candidate sound brilliant. Hope Bush nails him with same question in round table debate.

[This message has been edited by Red Till Dead (edited 10-05-2000).]