Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Vote Bush 


-- War on Terror --
Bush understands the stakes, Kerry doesn't.
Vision: Bush sees a future where the War on Terror is over because the governments that spawn Islamic Fascists are reformed or smashed. This is the only way to bring an end to the threat. To achieve this goal, Bush is consistent in his efforts to keep on the offensive, work with foreign governments for internal reform, and will never capitulate.

Kerry has claimed that another attack would be followed by a counter attack, forgetting 9/11. He has claimed to be for unilateral pre-emptive action, but claims that there is a global test needed to take that action. Even if figurative, the assertion is ridiculous. He fails to see how a democratic Iraq will change the uniformly corrupt non-democracies in the area, calling it the “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”. In the face of Jordanian al Qaeda lieutenant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war started, Kerry fails to see the connection between corrupt regimes and terrorists.

Bush is working closely with allies & the UN to disarm Iran. Bush is fostering a strong, grass-roots democracy campaign, supporting the millions of students who demand reform there. Kerry’s solution is to GIVE Iran nuclear material, a test which, when failed, we all lose. Kerry has never mentioned any plans to achieve democracy in Iran.

Bush is pressing North Korea, leveraging the influence of China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea. Kerry’s plan is to start bilateral talks, which failed horribly under Clinton. Where is his beloved global test and multilateralism now?

The Kerry plan to get more allies will fail. France and Germany have already declared they will not give troops, even if Kerry wins. Meanwhile, France, German, and Russian government officials and oil & arms traders are all under investigation for violating UN sanctions on Iraq & possible involvement in a corrupt Oil-For-Food program multi-billion dollar bribe scheme to keep Saddam in power. While the United States was trying to ensure its security and free millions of people, our ‘allies’ where bowing to backhanded oil interests of the then corrupt status-quo.

-- Social Security --
Currently, the government does not count what it owes to future seniors as 'debt', though these obligations are very real. Take those into account, and the federal government is TRILLIONS more in debt than can possibly be paid for with the current system.
Bush wants to reform Social Security, to break the pyramid scheme that fails when you have a Baby Boom. Bush has a plan for the nation’s youth, with personal retirement account, which can never be threatened by irresponsible politicians, and don’t depend on anyone else paying into the system.

Kerry ignores the future and suggests cutting benefits to the prudent senior who "don't need" what they are owed, because they saved smartly for retirement. Also, while promising to not raise taxes on "the middle class", Kerry plans on great tax increases, a rollback not to Clinton-era, but pre-Reagan era taxes, by raising the cap on social security taxes.

-- Health Care --
Have you ever wondered why you have “insurance” for something you know you’ll need, like a periodic medical check-up? A third-party payer system is the #1 problem with today's health care system. Tax structures and government price-setting through Medicare warp the free market, and prevent the innovation and cost cutting of a free market.

Bush wants to make tax-free medical savings accounts, so there would be no greater incentive for a company to give you health insurance as to give you cash. You can use this to purchase catastrophic health care, and purchase the rest out-of-pocket. This will revolutionize the system, allowing for a normal market exchange, where you can choose any doctor, and they have an incentive to provide the lowest price and best quality. In today’s system, when you aren’t the one paying, you don’t care about real price, and the payer, either an insurance company or the government, does not care about quality as much as you do.

Excessive regulation is another huge problem, keeping our health care system from innovating and providing low cost health care. Bush supports sane regulations, including tort reform. Kerry wants more regulations, and trial lawyers make up Kerry's #1 paying constituency.

-- Free Trade –
Free trade is the most empowering tool for the world’s poor and the best friend of both working class Americans with limited budgets and employees hoping their company expands into the global market place. Though foreign corporations pay workers in 3rd world nations TWICE the national average, Kerry wants these companies to go against a system that benefits everyone, by warping tax systems to avoid this synergy. I care more about people entrenched in poverty abroad than obsolete workers unwilling to retrain themselves domestically.

For more resources & info:

For social security information:
here and here

For information on medical savings accounts:
here and here

For medical deregulation:

For information on free trade:
here and here
The above comment is wrong for a number of reasons.
Here is one.

Also, the Duelfer report very clearly stated that while no stockpiles existed, Saddam was waiting for the sancions regime to be lifted (by pressure from France & Russia who were interested in trade), to restart WMD programs.

If you think that inspections would have solved that problem, where the problem only comes to fruition after inspectors leave, then your views are reality are quite divergent.

Put another way: how long would it have taken the UN to sponsor free elections in Iraq? Ever?
Now think about Iran, or the starving folks in N.Korea, and both of their urgent security threats.

Are you going to trust a solution to those problems by hand-wringing technocrats? After so many failures, why does anyone trust the UN to do anything?

On a side note, there is nothing in my reasons to vote for Bush that is conflicted by reality. Please point it own if I am wrong.
Hey Ivan,

Well I am not as much of a fan of the Bush Fascist Theocracy as you are, but perhaps you can tell me how free elections in Iraq for the necessary and sufficient conditions for a more secure middle east, and by extension the world.

Also, if Bush had said that we were going to war owing to a constantly changing set of justifications -- justifications constructed by an intellgence agency whose process was perverted due to a need to get the answer wanted, then maybe lots more people would be on board with our Boorish Fool in Chief.

I am happy about the elections in Iraq, but a little more troubled by our large investment in something with so much uncertainty.
"Iraq for the necessary " should read "Iraq are the necessary"
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?