« The Debate | Main | Let's return the favor. »

October 09, 2004

Debate Aftermath

Warning: As my "train" of thought doesn't follow a track, but rather jumps immediately to whatever else might pop off the stack (see the name of this blog), this post contains rapid shifts in direction. I am not responsible for any whiplash. Read at your own risk.

Michelle Malkin discusses Kerry's radical Medicare drug proposal, and how it would cost us -- not in terms of the taxes that would have to be raised for it, but the way it would damage the research for new drugs.

It's a good point to bring up. Much more effective than my argument with my sister this morning that it is not fair to expect that Bill Gates, who made his money through hard work and intelligence (even if you think that his intelligence was used in "evil" ways), should pay for a prescription drugs for Joe Blow down the street. If he wants to do that, that's great, but forcing him to do it... isn't that a good example of forcing your faith on someone else? And, didn't Kerry say that he wasn't going to do that?

Malkin also points out that, apparently, Kerry can decide how much a person makes by looking at them. I'm reminded of a story my dad told me about an acquaintance of his, who was looking to buy a new truck (of the type for which you need a CDL, not a pickup). The man had walked onto the dealership wearing coveralls and generally looking, well, blue-collar. He heard one of the salesmen make a derisive comment about his ability to buy a truck, so he walked off the lot. When he bought a new truck elsewhere not long after, he drove back to the first place, parked his truck and waited for the salesman to walk out to him, when he said: "I earn my money in these clothes. I'll spend my money in these clothes, but I won't do it here." Don't judge a book by his cover, Mr. Kerry -- all that can do is offend someone.

Allahpundit does a nice round up of different opinions, on both sides of the "Who won?" debate. While I agree with those who say that who won isn't really a question we can answer, I'll say I think Bush won. Of course, that only means that he impressed me far more than John Kerry... and that doesn't take much.

My review of Kerry's record at Vote Smart, what I've read of his speeches (at the same site), and every time I've heard the man speak, he's done very, very little to impress me, and he's done a lot to convince me that he's just not the candidate for me. Bush isn't perfect, but I think his heart's in the right place, so I'll stand by him over Kerry.

After the question on how the PATRIOT act infringes on 4th amendment rights, when Senator Kerry said that he would let no terrorists change our Constitution, I wanted someone to ask him if he'd support a liberal changing our Constitution -- specifically, the parts that say the government can't infringe on the practice of my religion, and the part that says that I have a right to bear arms. I agree that the PATRIOT act is a rather frightening piece of legislation, though I can't say that I'm educated about it enough that I can speak in any real detail about how it's frightening.

Posted by Robin S. at October 9, 2004 09:24 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.onestackmind.com/mt/mt-trackb.pl/62

Comments

"Much more effective than my argument with my sister this morning that it is not fair to expect that Bill Gates...should pay for a prescription drugs for Joe Blow"

I agree that Bill Gates shouldn't necessarily pay more for prescription drugs than Joe Blow. He CAN get health insurance and drug plans that will help cover the cost of his medical expenses.

"She also points out that, apparently, Kerry can decide how much a person makes by looking at them."

I'm assuming you're talking about me here. I don't remember saying this. I SAID that basically I think our tax system works pretty well. In a progressive system, people that can afford to pay more, DO, both percentage wise and tax dollar wise. I understand that high income people don't want to spend more of their money on taxes, I wouldn't either. The simple matter is, they DO have more disposable income than any of us and I would rather see people that can afford it get taxed rather than those that would have to work 80 hours just to survive if they were required to pay any more taxes.

Posted by: Amanda at October 10, 2004 08:32 AM

"I agree that Bill Gates shouldn't necessarily pay more for prescription drugs than Joe Blow."

But, he IS paying more, because he'll pay more taxes. Whether he pays directly or not, he is paying more, and he's paying more so that other people can have taxes.

No, I wasn't talking about you -- Michelle Malkin points that out. I never actually included any arguments that you made, just the argument that I'd given you. It was unclear, though (I'll fix that after I get done posting this). Sorry.

I admit that it's sad that some people have to work 80 hours just to survive, but I don't think that it's the government's place to steal from the rich to pay for those people. Yes, I think Bill Gates should give money to help people (and from what I know of the man, he does give a lot of charity). I don't think it's the government's place to force him to give to charity at gun point. That's called theft.

Posted by: Robin at October 10, 2004 12:41 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)