Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: KERRY'S PLAN . . . A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!

  1. #1

    Default KERRY'S PLAN . . . A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!

    KERRY’S PLAN. . .A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!

    Our Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, has informed the American people that health care ought to be a "right". Surely, if health care ought to be a “right” as our Senator from Massachusetts believes, as opposed to being that which each American has a constitutional right to “pursue” individually, then it is the duty of folks in government to tax and spend to provide that right to all Americans, and not discriminate in the protection of that right.

    In accordance with Kerry’s view to provide health care to all Americans as a “right”, it becomes necessary and appropriate then to lay and collect taxes to pay for the health care needs of all, including the health care needs of tens of thousands of promiscuous homosexuals, some of whom may have engaged in multiple different partner same-sex sexual relations in just one evening which has predictably resulted in their HIV infection.

    And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?

    Kerry’s direction would also require prudent and hard working people with children to be taxed to pay the medical needs of unwed moms, some of whom have multiple children and by different fathers, and are unable or unwilling to meet the financial burden which has resulted from their promiscuous sexual activities.

    But what could be wrong with health care being made a “right”, and then taxing our nation’s prudent and hard working couples to pay for the health care needs of promiscuous unwed moms, in some cases who may have two, three and even more children born out of wed lock?

    Kerry’s direction would also tax prudent and hard working couples to pay for the medical needs of the obese who have brought on a sickly condition by self indulgence and the avoidance of prudent health practices to avoid predictable health consequences.

    Likewise, Kerry’s direction would tax prudent and hard working couples to pay the medical needs of alcoholics suffering liver disease, crack heads and many others who have knowingly and willingly brought on their own medical conditions.

    But what could be wrong with a new direction that taxes the prudent to pay for the excesses of others?


    You bet Kerry has a new direction in mind…but it is not to help prudent and hard working couples in America, nor singles who are sensible and cautious in their every day activities. Kerry’s direction is to expand government, create more high paying government plum jobs to be filled by his self interested and dishonorable political campaign workers, who will then disburse the paychecks of America’s working class citizens which Kerry, with the help of Congress, intends to acquire via government taxation for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. And, in the process, Kerry, as well as the Congress of the United States, will have done nothing more than follow a known and sinister strategy which benefits unscrupulous leaders as expressed by Hamilton in Federalist No. 79 “… a control over a man’s subsistence is a control over his will.”

    If folks in government are allowed to tax the bread which you have earned for the purpose of providing you with your health care needs, then folks in government have become the master and you an unwitting servant, indebted to a master for your health care needs.

    If Kerry were truly sincere in wanting to help America’s working class citizen, especially with their health care needs, he would immediately start by promoting the abolishment of a federal tax on the wages which labor has earned and focus his attention upon restoring our founding fathers original tax plan, which was intended to ensure individual economic liberty and keep in tact the earned resources needed by individuals to meet their own health care needs.


    JWK
    ACRS


    “…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

  2. #2

    Default Re: KERRY'S PLAN . . . A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk
    “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
    Hilarious. The Bush administration is neither wise nor frugal and not only steals bread from Americans but uses it to slaughter innocents (including Americans) halfway around the world.

  3. #3
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    In accordance with Kerry’s view to provide health care to all Americans as a “right”, it becomes necessary and appropriate then to lay and collect taxes to pay for the health care needs of all, including the health care needs of tens of thousands of promiscuous homosexuals, some of whom may have engaged in multiple different partner same-sex sexual relations in just one evening which has predictably resulted in their HIV infection.

    And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?
    HIV does not only affect homosexuals; drug users and heterosexuals comprise most new HIV infections. What about rape victims or babies who were born with the virus?

    We turned our backs in the early '80s and allowed the disease to spread when it might have been contained had we done something to combat it at the beginning. We're seeing the exact same thing happen in Russia now, except that gay people are not particularly being infected.

  4. #4

    Default

    That post is a time-warp to the 80s, when the little known "gay mens' disease" was called God's wrath for homosexuality by Falwell, Swaggert, et al.

  5. #5

    Default

    Actually, in the spring of this year. I remember reading an esquire magazine story that gay men do have a higher chance of getting HIV. By a much a higher percentage, it's more likely that homosexual activity will lead to HIV infection. Of course, anyone can get this virus, but it's just more likely that gay guys have a higher chance of getting it.
    Also, about the health care plan. It is not the federal government's role to provide universal healthcare according to the constitution. I think only a state could be able to do that, but even that might run against the national constitution. See, if liberals, and even George Bush, had a stricter standard to the constitution, we wouldn't have such a high deficit because there'll be less programs and the social security system will be gone(which btw was only meant to be temporary when created in the 30's, that's why it has inherent flaws in it, and the entire system must change, not just throw money at a problem like a lot of liberals do) and also the income tax will be gone because it is actually against the constituion. A national sales tax wouldn't.

  6. #6

    Default

    Naive and simplistic.

  7. #7

    Default

    A national health care plan by John Forbes Kerry, i might add, may lead to a decline in the actual quality of the health care. But, there's no doubt, that the health system should be addressed.

  8. #8

    Default

    Bush has presided over the largest deficit in U.S. history,and has actually increased the size of government.

  9. #9

    Default

    No doubt that the government has grown. Even Republicans are guilty of not decreasing the size of government. Actually, when looking at facts it is more fitting and accurate to look at things in terms of percent. and w/ the economy, it's good to look at percent relative to the GDP. So actually, in terms of %, the deficit is not the highest, because it takes up less of the GDP compared to previous years. Although, it is worthwhile to take issue w/ the growing government deficit. Just a reminder, it is not the government's role to make a profit, that's why government generally tends to be in a deficit.

  10. #10

    Default

    it's good that, Zippy, u seem not to enjoy the ever-increasing size of federal government. Remember, a government that governs the least is the best government. but, really it's the people that make this country, the USA, go. On a side note, that's why it is important that government keeps the citizens right to bear arms. Forbes Kerry tend to argue that hunters don't need powerful weapons, he's right. But the amendment wasn't written to allow us to hunt.
    Zippy, maybe u are actually more conservative than u think. Dont worry, it's ok to be conservative. To believe in individual responisbility, that the people are the ultimate source of power, and that power is delegated up gradually in the government. Unlike, more liberal Europe, where u believe in the government, and the government has ultimate power and that power is handed down gradually in the government, until it finally reaches the people. That's why, in many countries, people don't have the right to bear arms. it's a fundamental difference. U can have a state that mandates equality, but which takes away individual liberty. or u can have the right to property and happiness in the U.S.

  11. #11

    Default

    My reply was sarcasm to your programmed
    not just throw money at a problem like a lot of liberals do)
    Unlike, more liberal Europe, where u believe in the government, and the government has ultimate power and that power is handed down gradually in the government, until it finally reaches the people. That's why, in many countries, people don't have the right to bear arms. it's a fundamental difference.
    And what conclusion do you draw from this fundamental difference? I conclude that it is a primary reason that the murder rate in European countries is so much lower than in the US.

  12. #12
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nybboy
    Actually, in the spring of this year. I remember reading an esquire magazine story that gay men do have a higher chance of getting HIV.
    Higher chance or higher rate of infection?'

    And what conclusion do you draw from this fundamental difference? I conclude that it is a primary reason that the murder rate in European countries is so much lower than in the US.
    That said, Zippy, the crime rates of most European nations are actually rising as the crime rate of the U.S. falls. This goes for murder rates, as well; already you're more likely to be murdered in Moscow than in New York, and in general be a victim of crime in Paris than in New York. The same is happening in Canada as well.

  13. #13

    Default

    TLOZ Link5 wrote

    “HIV does not only affect homosexuals; drug users and heterosexuals comprise most new HIV infections. What about rape victims or babies who were born with the virus?

    We turned our backs in the early '80s and allowed the disease to spread when it might have been contained had we done something to combat it at the beginning. We're seeing the exact same thing happen in Russia now, except that gay people are not particularly being infected.”

    ANSWER

    Your limited focus on homosexual related aids as a rebuttal does not address the primary argument in the original post: “…what could be wrong with a new direction that taxes the prudent to pay for the excesses of others?”

    You see, the focus of the post with regard to homosexuals is not about homosexual contracted Aids as such, but rather, promiscuous homosexuals who have predictably contracted Aids and other sexual transmitted diseases because of their promiscuous life style, including multiple partner sexual activities, some of whom have several different sexual partners in just one night.

    I suggest you read:New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity

    The focus my friend is upon the excesses engaged in by individuals within various identified groups, not limited to homosexuals, and which predictably leads to exorbitant health care costs. Why should those who are prudent pay for the excesses of others?

    Heck, even the liberal kingpin, Washington, D.C.’s former Mayor Marion Barry, had enough integrity to admit single moms with multiple children out of wedlock was an unacceptable financial burden for the taxpayer when he advocated mandatory Norplant injections for welfare recipients___ the case in point being a mom with, as I recall, 14 kids and was ready to put out another which inspired Barry to speak out.

    And what about the obese, which I also mentioned, who do not follow prudent lifestyles to avoid getting obese which leads to all kinds of diseases and then outrageous medical costs? Should the prudent hard working people of America be taxed to pay for the excesses of those who bring on their own obesity which then results in countless other diseases and excessive medical costs?

    I suggest you read: Obesity…An Underlying Cause of Disease in North America

    And what about the crack heads and other drug users? Should prudent hard working people have their paycheck taken from them to pay the medical expenses of the above?

    Truth is, just as nybboy stated: “It is not the federal government's role to provide universal healthcare according to the constitution”

    But, as I originally posted:

    You bet Kerry has a new direction in mind…but it is not to help prudent and hard working couples in America, nor singles who are sensible and cautious in their every day activities. Kerry’s direction is to expand government, create more high paying government plum jobs to be filled by his self interested and dishonorable political campaign workers, who will then disburse the paychecks of America’s working class citizens which Kerry, with the help of Congress, intends to acquire via government taxation for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. And, in the process, Kerry, as well as the Congress of the United States, will have done nothing more than follow a known and sinister strategy which benefits unscrupulous leaders as expressed by Hamilton in Federalist No. 79 “… a control over a man’s subsistence is a control over his will.”

    If folks in government are allowed to tax the bread which you have earned for the purpose of providing you with your health care needs, then folks in government have become the master and you an unwitting servant, indebted to a master for your health care needs.

    If Kerry were truly sincere in wanting to help America’s working class citizen, especially with their health care needs, he would immediately start by promoting the abolishment of a federal tax on the wages which labor has earned and focus his attention upon restoring our founding fathers original tax plan, which was intended to ensure individual economic liberty and keep in tact the economic resources earned and needed by individuals to meet their own health care needs.

    JWK
    ACRS

    “…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

  14. #14

    Default

    It's not a direct-cause realtionship, u can argue though that crime and liberty have a positive correlaton.
    Why was your first sentence stopped midway, after "programmed." Im assuming that you're going to say that i was programmed into thinking that there should be individual responsibility and that people have the ultimate source of power. Actually, i was educated in a very liberal education system in Eugene, OR. Where Ken Kesey is from, where the several authors of anarchism reside and where the thought of anarchy enjoys the most popularity. A place that has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country. And u say that i was programmed? to think what? to think that government is the solution to humanity's problems? it sounds more like communism.
    I was talking about the ideals of the American constitution. The U.S. is not perfect, but the system we have seems to work the best for a populace of 300 million. Communism is a great idea, but only if everyone was in the church life, where the focus is Christ's life. And all actions and even thought might be governed by the "law of Life", which abides in everyone's spirit.( that information is from the book of Romans). After all, Karl Marx got his ideas about "communism" from a Christian author on the normal "church life." So aside from that, we need a system that best reflects human nature. our system allows for the most opportunity for anyone to achieve their goal. So ther're going to be inequailites. Because some people are smarter than other people, and some are better looking. i mean, communism runs against the very nature of Man. Remember, natural selection. that's why communism doesn't work. Someone will always rise up and be individualistic to criticize and revolt against such a government or system.
    Back to the point of the murder rate, let's take this point by point. Was the U.S., in the following years of its independence, in a state of high crime? I dont think so. It's because the idea of individual responsibilty was promoted. the immorality of this age is worsening due to the immoral garbage the young people get, including me(im only 19) from MTV doesn't help.
    2nd pt: Murder rate? u pointed out that because we, Americans, have the ultimate power and a smaller government, we also have a higher murder rate. well, that could only be a correlation-type of relationship, and a very weak one at it's best. A stronger correlation would be illegal immigration and crime(murder rate). Yes, our murder rate is higher than European countries. but we also have the most illegal immigrants. Over half of the inmate at federal prisons are actually illegal immigrants. IN texas and So. California, a very large percentage of crimes are committed by illegal immigrants. In general, in europe, the so called "liberal" countries of Europe have a tighter control on immigration. And within Europe, France, Italy and the U.K. have the highest murder rates. Now why is that? they have well-developed economies, don't they? It's because within Europe, the countries mentioned have the loosest grip on immigration. Talk to people in Paris, if they feel safe going to the Arab slums that are in the suburbs of Paris? In the U.K., crime has risen at an accelerating rate. And immigration is accelerating too along w/ murder. However, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the scandinavian countries have less murder than the 3 countries mentioned. Now why is that? well, one thing in common is that they an even stricter conrol on immigration than the U.K. or France. In, fact, immigration is pretty much not even allowed, only if there's so technical skills that may be provided. So the immigrant that are coming are coming from a higher status-background in their home country. Yet, all of these countries, are in essence welfare-states. So to make that case that the way constitution was written has increased our murder rate is a very weak one.

  15. #15

    Default

    My first sentence wasn't stopped. It directly led into your quote. I don't know whether you are programmed, but your remark is a programmed tag on liberal spending. My sarcasm was pointing out that conservatives also throw money at problems.

    You seem to have chosen a label for yourself,and all your views are from column A. I don't regard myself in that manner. I try to take positions on issues based on their merit, not some dogmatic philosophy. Maybe that comes from having been around for awhile (I was once like you).

    You have argued the constitutional right to bear arms beyond recreational use, but how do you personally feel about it? Where do you live? Why do you think it is necessary, in your life, to have a weapon?

    I grew up with guns, was in the military, and am comfortable around them, but I do not keep a handgun in the house. The Constitution is not the Bible. In fact, the Bible is not the Bible. Things change. The 18th century America no longer exists, whether discussing murder rates or the necessity for the 2nd Amendment.

    As for reasons for the high murder rate, I'll simply state that in the majority of gun murders, the murderer and victim knew each other.

    If you are going to blame the media for influencing crime, then you are going to have to explain how the "media capital of the world" has such a comparatively low murder rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyboy
    u pointed out that because we, Americans, have the ultimate power and a smaller government, we also have a higher murder rate.
    No, I concluded that we have a higher murder rate because we have more guns. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the comparative size of the governments.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Transit Plan for Lower Manhattan
    By amigo32 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: March 21st, 2008, 01:24 PM
  2. Downtown Brooklyn, the Plan
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2004, 09:01 PM
  3. Highs and Lows in Park Slope Rezoning Plan
    By Kris in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2003, 03:29 PM
  4. Financing Plan Adds Complexity to Remaking of West Side
    By Fabb in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 11th, 2003, 05:55 AM
  5. Officials Plan New WTC '93 Memorial
    By amigo32 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 27th, 2003, 04:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software