In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,

If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

There's no evidence to suggest he would do that, but even if he did,
it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be
for the benefit of the middle and lower classes.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:58:37 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,

If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

If size of government is a concern of yours, you damn sure shouldn't be
voting for Bush.

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/light20030905.htm

"Maxprop" wrote
If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

The idea that Democrats grow government more than Republicans was possibly
true before WW-2 but not since "Ray Gun nomics".

Check out the spending under Reagan - a so called conservative - vs Carter.
How about Bush vs Clinton?

Compared to these "Borrow and Spend" Republicans even the worst "Tax and
Spend" Democrat look like fiscal conservatives.

I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,


Maxprop wrote:
If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

One of the things that strikes me about your political statements is how
utterly hypocritical they are.

Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do
you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7
expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do
something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy, nyet?

DSK

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

There's no evidence to suggest he would do that,

Actually there is. His health care program, as proposed by him during
campaign stump speeches AND in two debates, admininstered by the US gummint.
Clearly there is no single program which would be as all-encompassing and
overbloatedly enormous as government-sponsored health care. It would make
HHS and the Medicare combined look miniscule by comparison. You could
probably throw in the IRS, the US Postal Service, HEW, NTSB, and a few
others as well . . .

but even if he did,
it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be
for the benefit of the middle and lower classes.

Actually he has not excluded any class from his health care proposal. All
are welcome to participate, according to him, including the richest of the
rich. Like him.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,


Maxprop wrote:
If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

One of the things that strikes me about your political statements is how
utterly hypocritical they are.

Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do
you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7
expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do
something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy,
nyet?

In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge
difference between expanding the size of government and overspending. Yes,
W has set a new precedent in spending, especially for a republican. I'm
hardly pleased with that. Even the conservative side of the congressional
aisle is disturbed by his spending habits. But spending is reversible.
Budgets can be balanced. Fiscal responsibility is incumbent upon any
president and congress. So is holding the size of government to its present
or an earlier level.

Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much
as some presidents have in the past. Ultimately Homeland Security should
encompass the CIA and the NSA and a few other less-prominent agencies under
one roof. Once the fallout settles in the intelligence reorganization,
which will certainly happen during the next four years despite who occupies
the oval orifice, the net size of gummint may be the same, or possibly even
less. But even if it grows, it will be by necessity and not by political
whim.

Government-sponsored health care--socialized medicine, essentially--would
eclipse nearly every other bureaucracy now in existence. It has been
estimated that Hillary's plan would have increased the size of government by
roughly 1/7 to /1/5 of its prevailing size in the early 90s. And once
instituted, such bureaucracies don't go away. Ever. And if you check the
records, you'll also discover that such agencies almost always self-expand
and cost increasingly more every year. They become huge, fund-sucking
monsters, spinning off subsidiary agencies to facilitate various aspects of
their own operations. And we taxpayers end up paying for it. Forever.

Hypocrisy? It might be, only if one is unable to differentiate between
expanding government and overspending.

Max

Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not
what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks
to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all encompassing
as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

There's no evidence to suggest he would do that,

Actually there is. His health care program, as proposed by him during
campaign stump speeches AND in two debates, admininstered by the US
gummint.
Clearly there is no single program which would be as all-encompassing and
overbloatedly enormous as government-sponsored health care. It would make
HHS and the Medicare combined look miniscule by comparison. You could
probably throw in the IRS, the US Postal Service, HEW, NTSB, and a few
others as well . . .

but even if he did,
it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be
for the benefit of the middle and lower classes.

Actually he has not excluded any class from his health care proposal. All
are welcome to participate, according to him, including the richest of the
rich. Like him.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not
what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks
to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all encompassing
as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault.

What Kerry won't tell you is that it costs roughly $7K+ per year for each
member of Congress. And it IS a government-administered program. Kerry is
being disingenuous--the congressional program is NOT what he's proposing for
US citizens, rather something similar in its administration. As usual his
rhetoric and reality are different things.

Max

No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to
join. Something similar would be just fine with me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not
what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks
to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all
encompassing
as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault.

What Kerry won't tell you is that it costs roughly $7K+ per year for each
member of Congress. And it IS a government-administered program. Kerry
is
being disingenuous--the congressional program is NOT what he's proposing
for
US citizens, rather something similar in its administration. As usual his
rhetoric and reality are different things.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to
join. Something similar would be just fine with me.

And you believe him??? Federalized health care is not a viable option
without participation at nearly 100%. Who's going to pay for all that
congressional-level coverage? You? Me? Yeah, and businesses--literally
all of them. At $7K per individual per year, which is what is being doled
out by taxpayers for members of Congress, it ain't gonna be up to the
individual, as you imply. Check out Britain's and Canada's system. You can
pay for your own health care in either of those two countries, but you are
NOT allowed to buy your own, independent health coverage--only the
gummint's. Without full participation the system won't have adequate
funding.

Of course Kerry will change his position on this issue half a dozen times or
more before anything becomes law, if he's elected.

Max