Benefits of a Kerry Victory

I won't move to Canada even if Kerry wins.

Published on November 2, 2004 By messybuu In Politics

I'm afraid John F. Kerry will win the presidential election tomorrow. However, even the victory of a terrible candidate brings with it benefits to the nation, so if he wins tomorrow night, I won't kill myself or move to Canada as Democrat threaten to do if Bush wins again. Instead, I'll swear for a few minutes and then laugh it off as I acknowledge the positive aspects of a Kerry victory:

The populace will no longer see Heinz Corporation as a ketchup company, but as a corrupt multinational corporation stealing resources from third world countries.
The euphoria of the Democrats will fade and give way to the biggest disillusionment ever to suffer the Democrat Party, parallel with the shame a girl would feel with sleeping with a creep to make her ex-boyfriend jealous.
Whiney Democrats won't have excuses to bitch anymore.
A Republican victory will be inevitable in 2008.
Michael Moore will fade into obscurity.

It is possible the next four years will turn out well, but it won't be because of Kerry, who intends to damage the nation with his idiotic plans, such as reviving the economy with a tax increase (Although Democrats believe that more taxes lead to a stronger economy, citing Clinton's success, they completely fail to acknowledge the dot-com boom of the nineties because they either failed Economics in high school were baked then).

If Kerry wins, I'll accept it and not demand infinite recounts twisted to my favor, because besides ethics, I'll know he won't win another election, unless the Republican Party goes Democrat and elects some terrible Kerry-like candidate for 2008 since Republicans aren't as likely to settle with the lesser of two evils as Democrats are due to their higher standards and realization that the President doesn't have control over the entire nation.

Comments (Page 4)

drmiler

on Nov 04, 2004

Reply #43 By: Brownsnout - 11/4/2004 2:50:53 PM
Are you saying Bush does? Please illuminate us!

I will give you the most telling one. There is a group of international scientist who have studied global warming for many years. I am talking about total PHD geeks dedicating their lives towards global warming research. A very long awaited report from them came out at the beginning of the bush Presidency showing that global warming happens and it negatively affects the world. What did bush do? He put together a group of hand selected scientists who did a six week study and came to the opposite conclusion. Final result for bush - "there are conflicting reports"

On privitization of social security he put together a group of people to study it who had their minds made up before the began researching it.

First and foremost. There are just as many mainstream scientists that refute global warming. And the ones I'm reffering to weren't on his panel. Privatization of social security. It needs to happen! Right now you pay into SS your WHOLE working life. If you die before you get to collect guess what? Your wife ain't going to get what you paid in. And neither will your kids. That means the $14 per $100 that they get will go to someone else. With privatization, your family will get it all. Which would you prefer?

Dysmas

on Nov 05, 2004

Well said drmiler, and as for me......well I would prefer that my family recive the money that I put in and not just let it all go to waste. Even though I don't feel that someone else getting it is a waste per-se, but nevertheless I would like my family to have it, kind of like life insurance in a way.

whoman69

on Nov 05, 2004

The reason that privatization of social security is not done is for two reasons. First off, those who are close to or at retirement will fear that without the current influx of money, they will not get what they paid into the system. The problem with this theory is that those who are nowhere close to retirement will probably not see a cent of the money because our elected officials have been raiding the system for quite sometime. The second problem is that without social security in place, what happens when we have those who fail to save for retirement going on welfare? We are transferring one entitlement for another, and the new welfare grannies might turn out to be more expensive than the one in place.

Clearly privatization would allow Americans to have more in their pockets come retirement. The money put in a simple IRA would bring about much more than what the current system brings for the same investment. A new system would be voluntary as those close to retirement probably would do better to stay on the current program. However what could not be voluntary is that the same money put into social security now would need to be either invested in the private programs that become available, or stay with the current social security system. Because Congress has been stealing from the program for years, they would need to guarentee the funding for those who remain with social security.

The increase of investement caused by privatization would be a great boon to the economy.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!