JM for President
PolicySpy
It seems to me that JM is keeping things simple. And that's what GWB did
when he first ran for President against AG. In one debate GWB didn't have
much to say other than "lower taxes" and was not very animated. AG on the
other hand was talking, moving, pointing, and waving hands. GWB seemed like
the gatekeeper that wanted to keep things as they are while AG seemed like a
heckler or a stone thrower who wanted to change everything. Then in the
first few months of the GWB Administration...GWB broke a nuclear treaty with
Russian, broke an environmental treaty with Europe, ended a
Clintion-Administration nuclear diplomacy with North Korea, and began flying
spy planes over China.
Well what is JM saying ?
On nuclear power plants he says they're...safe.
On taxes he says keep them...low.
On alternative energy he says that government funding will make electric car
batteries...better.
On Russia he says they're...bad.
On employment he says that the American worker can be...retrained.
On Social Security...?
And those points above are paraphrases...not quotes and not complete.
Now here are my positions or observations:
What about nuclear power plants ? Are they safe ?
Well I'm almost convinced but the problem is that the coal that we do not
burn here will just be exported to be burned somewhere else.
What about taxes ? Well BO mentioned increasing capital gains tax and then
backpedaled with the current fundamental that the low capital gains tax is
increasing tax revenue. Then BO mentioned ZERO tax for those 65 years and
older who make less than 60,000 a year. And he perhaps pays for that with an
increase in tax on all those who make more than 200,000 a year. (Yeah that's
much better...elect this BO guy.) But there's one problem...if the rich are
taxed too much they will just leave the country. In other words they might
leave the country or they might just conduct business in other countries or
they might send their money out of the country. In fact the current news is
that the U.S. rich have $20 billion in offshore accounts that they do not
note on their Schedule B and their signed tax return.
Now taxes and Social Security are related so what about Social Security ?
Well I don't know what JM's position is on Social Security but the Democrat
position is that funds saved for Social Security now would just be used on
other things so now let's just not worry about it for a few more years. But
consider that young people paying into Social Security will never get their
benefits while retired people paid into it for many years and thus depend on
the fact they planned on having Social Security benefits. And the retired
people out-number the young people in a vote. But my plan for Social
Security would be that young people pay into their own investment accounts
and that people receiving benefits under the current plan have their benefit
reduced by the amount of their other income. But consider BO's tax plan of
no tax on retired people making less than 60,000 a year and consider the
Democrat platform of a national health care plan...and realize that those
two things could be the beginning of a need-based Social Security system. In
other words your health care costs are taken care of, your taxes are taken
care of,...so now what else do you need ? Food stamps ? Housing assistance ?
See you get what you need...not what you want.
A better electric car battery if the government funds it with $300 million ?
(Yes saved by yet another future technology.) But GM says that they spent $1
billion developing fuel cell cars, said they were serious, and then stopped
talking about it. Meanwhile Silicon Valley is interested in electric cars
and if better batteries can be developed for $300 million then they will do
it.
On Russia ? Well Russia became the enemy in 1917 when the working class took
over the country and U.S. capitalists lost trade positions. That's it ?
Yeah...that's it. And the Russian Revolution did not overthrow a Democracy
but overthrew a ruling Imperialism of rich families. And while the Russian
Revolution put in place a one-party system...it also put into place a large
parliament. But what about WWII ? Well Russia held all of Eastern Europe
after WWII and that was very ambitious. But Eastern Europe was the poor
section of Europe and Russia did not really very much change the
relationships between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. And Russia held
Eastern Europe after facing a massive invastion during WWII. But of course
now Russia has given up all territories gained during WWII.
On employment and retraining the American worker ?
Well why not start with the education system and make an engineering degree
the standard degree instead of having a liberal arts degree as the standard
degree ? India, China, and Ireland have all pushed it this area...
PolicySpy
Oh, also at the end of WWII Russia got some of the German nuclear scientists
and the U.S. got some of them...and strategic positioning of nuclear weapons
began.
PolicySpy
Also and relating to JM...he is very pointed about the fact that when he was
shot down during the Vietnam war...that is was the Vietnamese that had him
and not the Soviets.
the_pc_jellybean!!
"PolicySpy" <PIn...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:s8qtk.17910$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> JM for President ?
Who the fuck is "JM"?
A You
>> JM for President ?
>
>
> Who the fuck is "JM"?
>
JM, GWB, AG, and BO are fictional characters with no actual relationship to
the subject...