Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Help Choose Final Bush/Kerry/Nader Youth Voter Questions

Roblimo posted about 10 years ago | from the how-hard-will-they-duck-the-hard-ones? dept.

Democrats 89

Quite a few of the submitted questions were generated by Slashdot readers, and your moderations and comments helped select the 25 semi-finalists. There's only one step remaining in the process: Voting on the the final 12 questions that will be submitted to the candidates, which must be done on the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate site by noon Eastern Time on October 5. Note that Slashdot readers are the only members of the moderation panel providing "...nominations from an entire community." We'll post the answers from Bush, Kerry, and Nader (who was added after the process began) on October 12.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mr Kerry?? (-1, Troll)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10429861)

WHY DO I NEVER GET FP

Mr. Bush? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10429893)

WHY DO I NEVER GET FP

Kind of ironic.... (4, Insightful)

isotope23 (210590) | about 10 years ago | (#10429896)

that the choices are only bush/kerry/nader

when even the /. poll shows badnarik at 5% and nader at only 1%

Re:Kind of ironic.... (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10429928)

I had the same thought, I wish the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Party were in this..

Re:Kind of ironic.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10431588)

There isn't anything stopping other parties from answering the questions as well. Hopefully at least Slashdot will link to them even if they don't appear on the new voters project website.

Re:Kind of ironic.... (0)

siriuskase (679431) | about 10 years ago | (#10431714)

Here, here, mod the parent up

Re:Kind of ironic.... (1)

Tyndmyr (811713) | about 10 years ago | (#10432398)

Heck, I dont expect the main canidates to actually answer the questions... Most likely, a subordinate will type something along the lines of...

Q: What will you do in Iraq?

Bush: We will be strong and free in supporting freedom from the terrorists for the good of all freedom and starting a free democracy in the middle east. Oh yeah, and I support the soldiers over there fighting the terrorists. Must fight terror. Terror Bad. Terror.

Kerry: Slightly more intelligently worded version of above.

Nader, Oh, right, hed actually have to win to do anything..

Re:Kind of ironic.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10431905)

yeah but interestingly badnarik has only a 0.5% chance of winning the election. fuzzy anarchists...

Re:Kind of ironic.... (0)

zonker (1158) | about 10 years ago | (#10432374)

now help choose their answers.

Re:Kind of ironic.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10433665)

Badnarik and Cobb should be doing this too. Were they invited?

Re:Kind of ironic.... (1)

notmtwain (813717) | about 10 years ago | (#10461925)

Nader Blasts G.O.P.
Someone brought this Borowitz report to my attention
today. I think that it's true that the Republicans are
falling down on the job with regard to promoting
Nader.

To Republicans, I say:

  • How about
    running a few ads for Nader?
  • What are you
    doing to get him on the ballot today?
  • What are
    you doing to get him elected today?



The Borowitz Report.com [borowitzreport.com]



.

Affordable healthcare (4, Insightful)

wayward_son (146338) | about 10 years ago | (#10430035)

It is becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to afford quality health care. Costs for health care and health care coverage are spiraling beyond the reach of many in this country. This is having an adverse effect on both the nations health as well as the nation's economy. (For example, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is people not able to pay their doctor bills.)

If elected President, what would you do to make quality healthcare affordable to all Americans?

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10430211)

(For example, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is people not able to pay their doctor bills.)

Just out of curiosity, do you have a citation for this? I don't, but I'd guess that credit cards and predatory pay day lending have more to do with most bankruptcies than doctors' bills.

Having said that, I'm sure that medical bills do account for many bankruptcies, and (if in that situation) I don't blame the person for opting for bankruptcy.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

siriuskase (679431) | about 10 years ago | (#10431595)

Loans aren't goods and services that people buy, they are simply the means to pay for the goods and services people really want, like healthcare when they need it.

Re:Affordable healthcare (2, Insightful)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10431662)

That's true, but the excessive use of credit cards gets a lot of people into financial trouble. I would guess that many more people declare bankruptcy because of the ease of obtaining huge credit card lines than because of the costs of health care.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about 10 years ago | (#10430265)

It is becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to afford quality health care. Costs for health care and health care coverage are spiraling beyond the reach of many in this country.

Spending on health care isn't the same as the cost of health care.

The difference is an important one.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10434814)

That's true- the cost would be labor + supplies, the spending is labor + supplies + your insurance CEO's new boat.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about 10 years ago | (#10435856)

That's true- the cost would be labor + supplies, the spending is labor + supplies + your insurance CEO's new boat.

The insurance CEO's new boat would be part of the cost, if that's what it took to get someone to run an insurance company. Most people don't work for free (maybe you do).

No. The difference between costs and spending is the difference between how much money it takes to purchase a particular treatment and how much money you actually spend on all treatments.

The costs in two different places might be the same, but if the people don't have the money, then there won't be spending.

Americans happen to have, in general, more money than other people and so they can spend more when they get sick.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10439963)

The insurance CEO's new boat would be part of the cost, if that's what it took to get someone to run an insurance company. Most people don't work for free (maybe you do).

I would if I could figure out some way to get food, clothing, and shelter for free. I can't- so I feel FORCED into working for money. That beside the point- CEOs in our society are WAY overpaid for what little they actually do (all C-level executives are) and are definately not within the Platonic Free Market ideal (of no job being paid any more than 10x any other job- for no man is more than 10x as productive as any other).

No. The difference between costs and spending is the difference between how much money it takes to purchase a particular treatment and how much money you actually spend on all treatments.

And right now- spending is far higher than the majority of Americans can afford at all.

The costs in two different places might be the same, but if the people don't have the money, then there won't be spending.

Nah- what's it to an HMO if they drive their members into bankruptcy as long as costs are controlled and spending is high?

Americans happen to have, in general, more money than other people and so they can spend more when they get sick.

You'd think that- yet well over 80 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured- and every single one of them is one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

quetzalc0atl (722663) | about 10 years ago | (#10456368)

>of no job being paid any more than 10x
>any other job- for no man is
>more than 10x as productive as any other).

that is one of the biggest loads of crap that i have heard in awhile. where did you get that from, karl marx?

compare some ghetto-rat who does nothing but sit on his ass feeding off of society versus someone creative who is a benefactor for society: are you suggesting that this comparison cannot be quantified? that somehow all people are intrinsically of the same value and therefore deserve something (from who, one might ask)?

and even if you are not "buying" this rather abstract concept: say that jack is a lazy worker and lifts 10 bricks all day, but jim is a good worker and lifts 100 bricks all day. this is both possible and plausible and a 10-fold increase in productivity.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10460226)

that is one of the biggest loads of crap that i have heard in awhile. where did you get that from, karl marx?

Nah, Marx is too modern for this idea- it came from Plato's The Republic. But I can't expect a neocon mammon worshiper to actually READ the classics.
compare some ghetto-rat who does nothing but sit on his ass feeding off of society versus someone creative who is a benefactor for society: are you suggesting that this comparison cannot be quantified?

No- I'm saying that there's no need for more than 10 levels of quatification to make the distinction- and that the creative benefactor for society deserves EVERY penny of the (based on current minimum wage) $235,000/year to live on, and that it should be as tax free up to that point as the guy who makes $23,500.

that somehow all people are intrinsically of the same value and therefore deserve something (from who, one might ask)?

From the point of view of the universe- both are specks of dust in the large view, and are so close to the same that one guy being only one order of magnitude more valueable than another makes sense.

and even if you are not "buying" this rather abstract concept: say that jack is a lazy worker and lifts 10 bricks all day, but jim is a good worker and lifts 100 bricks all day. this is both possible and plausible and a 10-fold increase in productivity.

Do you know the meaning of the words "More than"? By all means Jim deserves 10x as much as Jack- but there's no reason to reward him beyond that point, as a good worker the extra money spent above that 10x limit is wasted money.

Likewise, paying a C-level executive more than 10x what you pay a janitor isn't going to get any more work out of the C-level executive; in fact, it's likely that greed will take over and the C-level executive will start bilking the company for everything he can get- merely because he's allowed to. That way leads to Enron. The other way leads to Ben & Jerry's until the latest CEO thought like you do- that the CEO DESERVES 400x as much as everybody else makes, despite the fact that he's NOT doing 400x as much work.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

quetzalc0atl (722663) | about 10 years ago | (#10475182)

>current minimum wage) $235,000/year to live on, >and that it should be as tax free up to that >point as the guy who makes $23,500.

why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?

you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.

i hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?

i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10475249)

why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?

It's the point that Plato in his thought experiments found didn't create undue inflationary pressure on basic needs items. It would clearly have to be tinkered with in today's society- we might find it should be 100, or even 1000, times minimum wage.

you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.

Yes and no- there is some very old mathematics backing it up- read Plato's Republic.

hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?

I did- I'm under no illusions that Information-R-Us will ever earn it's founder anyplace close to that in a year. Millions of true small business owners work for less than this every single year. The reason is because FREEDOM is sometimes a better incentive than MONEY.

i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.

Or the way I'd put it- it all comes down to whether you think the purpose of the economy is to make the few rich or to provide a basic living for all members of a society. If it's the first- then a capital-driven society makes sense, because only that way can a small number of people become spectacularily wealthy. If it's the second, a work-driven economy makes sense, because those who do not work should not eat.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10475277)

i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.

Second reply- there's a third option rapidly approaching, and that's the robot-driven society. It will be marked by 75-90% unemployment, because human labor will be not economically viable any longer AT ALL. I've got some other long term ideas for how to deal with this beyond minimum/maximum wages- and all of them include using the money gained from the maximum wage cap to produce food, clothing, medical care, and shelter for the unemployed (but no luxuries beyond that).

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | about 10 years ago | (#10433097)

oddly enough i pay more in medicare taxes than i do for health insurance....

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10434833)

Ah, the joys of being young....just wait until you have a kid. With a slight, non-genetic congenital deformity due to birth trauma. Then just TRY to insure your family for less than $500/month.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

ViolentGreen (704134) | about 10 years ago | (#10441654)

If elected President, what would you do to make quality healthcare affordable to all Americans?

I think this question is a little vague. The candidate could say something to the effect of, "I would protect medicare and ensure that all children under 18 have access to healthcare," and would answer the question without any specifics. We need to phrase it so that it's harder for them to worm their way around the question instead of showing that they have an actual plan.

Re:Affordable healthcare (1)

bLanark (123342) | about 10 years ago | (#10458288)

It is becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to afford quality health care. Costs for health care and health care coverage are spiraling beyond the reach of many in this country.

Well, to some extent, this is fallout from the increasingly litigious society we live in. As more people sue their doctors, the doctors (and hospitals, and pharmacutical manufacturers) insurance costs increase. This cost is eventually passed back to the patient. Now, to raise the cash, the patient needs a lawsuit...

The Second Coming (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowdog (154277) | about 10 years ago | (#10430096)

James Watt, President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, was quoted in the Washington Post in 1981 as saying "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

Please tell the young voters what your beliefs regarding the Second Coming are, and how those beliefs influence your choices on long-term policy matters such as energy, the environment, and foreign relations.

Re:The Second Coming (1)

Anonymous Cowdog (154277) | about 10 years ago | (#10430135)

Haha, oops. Pays to read the full story before posting!

Re:The Second Coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10430361)

Hey! Mod this up anyway; I'd *love*
to see this asked. Absurdly divisive question,
but quite telling.

Re:The Second Coming (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | about 10 years ago | (#10430814)

Are you sure? I thought that quote was by James Watt, the inventor of the steam engine.

Re:The Second Coming (4, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 10 years ago | (#10431879)

There's a story that a freak meteorological event three centuries ago covered parts of New England with uncanny darkness. The story goes that most people stayed home and prayed because they thought it was the end of the world. But one man hitched up with oxen and went to plow his fields.

When asked later why he went about his work, he replied, "Well if figured it was one of two things. If the Good Lord wasn't coming back then I didn't want to waste my time. But if the Good Lord was coming back, then I wanted Him to find me industrious instead of idle."

Believing in the second coming shouldn't have any effect on one's behavior towards the environment. A really good answer to your question would be, "If the Good Lord is coming back tomorrow, I want Him to find me to be a faithful steward of the Earth..."

Re:The Second Coming (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10432997)

Well put, Most christians feel this way (in fact its pretty doctronally unsound not to). There is a reson than no man knows the day or the our and that is because G*d intends us to live our lives.

Two things drive me nuts, and that is George Bush Christians, and the Liberals who confuse them for actual Christians.

Re:The Second Coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10433161)

Well it's your own fault, isn't it? You set the bar at "Accepting JC as your Savior"; sad but true, W probably believes that he has.

Re:The Second Coming (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10433219)

Umm I personally set that as the bar? when was that, where was I?

Re:The Second Coming (1)

w3rzr0b0t5 (816100) | about 10 years ago | (#10435762)

So you must be one of the abortion Christians.

10th Amendment (3, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10430156)

What do you intend to do about the continuing groth of the federal government at the expense of states rights? Laws like No Chiled left Behind (Which Mr Bush created and Mr Kerry voted for) and provisions in the patriot act unconstitutionally infringe on the states.

Re:10th Amendment (2, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | about 10 years ago | (#10434143)

This is a good question, if a bit short on the grammar... anyway It won't be asked as part of this survey. I submitted almost the same thing, as did others, and neither made the top 50.

Such a question requires the asker, and those voting on the top 50, to actually understand balance, and the notion that there are some laws the federal government cannot pass, but the states can... and vice versa.

Until folks from coast to coast stop thinking of themselves as only as citizens of "America" and not citizens of "My State," they're not ready to ask this question.

Re:10th Amendment (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 10 years ago | (#10434265)

Laws like No Chiled left Behind (Which Mr Bush created and Mr Kerry voted for) and provisions in the patriot act unconstitutionally infringe on the states.

No Child Left Behind means that you don't get certain funds from the federal government, if you don't follow the attached rules. It has nothing to do with interfering with the soverignty of the states.

If you don't like it, don't follow it. You just won't get money from the federal government.

LK

Re:10th Amendment (1)

scotch (102596) | about 10 years ago | (#10436417)

I think the usual states-rights arguments against this line of reasoning is that the federal government is taking money from citizens living in a state, and conditionally giving it back. It's kind of a back door way for the federal government to control state governments - the taxes aren't optional, afterall. As far as I can tell, the back door method works. The grandparent poster's question is valid, your defense of Bush notwithstanding. The republicans of old would have made a similar argument, I think, the neocons have moved the party in strange ways.

Re:10th Amendment (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 10 years ago | (#10436644)

It's kind of a back door way for the federal government to control state governments - the taxes aren't optional, afterall.

States are able to dictate their own tax rates. If they need more money, they have the option of raising taxes. But, no one ever really wants that.

The grandparent poster's question is valid, your defense of Bush notwithstanding.

States have the choice to not take the money and not deal with the attached strings.

LK

Re:10th Amendment (1)

crackshoe (751995) | about 10 years ago | (#10443032)

States are one of the few organizations easily swayed by people voting with their feet -- if they lose the federal funds, they either need to cut services or raise taxes - both of which result in people leaving the state for metaphorically greener pastures. Look at the 'federal drinking age - every state towed the line - there was too much money at risk. A good number of hte states are already running incrasingly massive deficits -- do you honestly think they can afford to, either short or long term, to give up 'free money' that they paid in the first place?

Re:10th Amendment (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 10 years ago | (#10443761)

States are one of the few organizations easily swayed by people voting with their feet -- if they lose the federal funds, they either need to cut services or raise taxes - both of which result in people leaving the state for metaphorically greener pastures.

The federal government is also subject to the same pressures. When it becomes too expensive to have a corporate HQ in the US, they have and will relocate to another country that is more friendly.

Is it too expensive to make VCRs here? Yes. They get made in asia.

Look at the 'federal drinking age - every state towed the line - there was too much money at risk.

That's a great example. There is statistical proof that moving the legal drinking age to 21 has cost more lives than it saved, but states want that federal money so they keep in line. 18, 19, and 20 years olds don't vote enough to force House and Senate members to address their concerns.

A good number of hte states are already running incrasingly massive deficits -- do you honestly think they can afford to, either short or long term, to give up 'free money' that they paid in the first place?

State governments don't pay money to the federal government. State's can't claim the taxes that are paid to the federal government by its citizens.

LK

What about the real Green Party nominee? (0, Offtopic)

mind21_98 (18647) | about 10 years ago | (#10430199)

Last I heard, Nader was a member of the Reform party, not quite an important third party. Wouldn't people be better served if they interviewed David Cobb instead?

Re:What about the real Green Party nominee? (2, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10431085)

1) They already have interviewed David Cobb,

2) The reform party has pulled more than 10% in two presidential elections and elected a governer, what have the greens done nationally?

No while the reform party has fallen on hardtimes it is currently on the ballot in as many states as the green, and while you (a) may not agree with them, or (b) think that because they will most likely get fewer votes than the greens (although they will get more) does not mean they should be ignored.

The reform party has become a whore, how do you go from Perot -> Buchannan -> Nader? They want to put a name up, that being said Nader is a much bigger factor in this election than cobb..

Only 12 questions? (4, Funny)

bretharder (771353) | about 10 years ago | (#10430437)

These people are running for the highest office in the United States;
Yet they only have to submit to 12 questions?

Jesus! A McDonalds application has more than 12 questions!

Re:Only 12 questions? (2, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10430467)

Yeah, but these applicants can read the questions.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

phyruxus (72649) | about 10 years ago | (#10431090)

You know what's funny? Ten years from now, taxes will be sky high, the elderly will starve in their trailers, and the middle class will be mostly a memory. Yeah, real funny.

I'm going to stab the next conservative I meet. I hope it's you! :P

Re:Only 12 questions? (0)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10431140)

Thank you for proving his sig is true....

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

phyruxus (72649) | about 10 years ago | (#10431765)

Thanks for reminding me that conservatives are bitches, bitch.

Why don't you asshats just go live in Iran where everyone is a braindead religious fanatic? This isn't the twelveth century.

You know what's really funny? You. :) I'd call you a homo, but I actually have a shred of respect for gay people and wouldn't want to insult them.

Re:Only 12 questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10432126)

Wow. I'm a liberal, so would you respect my opinion if I said that YOU were the asshat?

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | about 10 years ago | (#10432171)

void liberal_hatred( void ) {
return liberal_hatred();
}

Re:Only 12 questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10432203)

Damn links, meant to respond to grandparent.

Re:Only 12 questions? (0, Offtopic)

Neil Blender (555885) | about 10 years ago | (#10432254)

Ok, I really suck at links.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | about 10 years ago | (#10432311)

Oh, wait, I don't suck that bad. It's just the threading threshold. (../waiting for 30 day ban on last shell account)

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10432420)

Ok, I really suck at links.

But I like your code.

I thought those guys were supposed to be the "tolerant" ones.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10432356)

And you just proved my sig again. Who among us is acting like a braindead fanatic? I'll give you a hint, it's not N3WBI3.

Re:Only 12 questions? (2, Funny)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 10 years ago | (#10432492)

Holy S*&^ Im not a braindead fanatic, wait till I tell my mom about this ;)

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10435724)

Yeah, like she'll believe some random nerd on the Internet... ;-)

Re:Only 12 questions? (1, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10432242)

Don't blame me, I'm voting for Bush.

Neither candidate is proposing something to prevent the collapse of Social Secuirty, but at least Bush is talking about investing some of the Social Security payroll tax (i.e., the additional 15% income tax you and I will never see back) to help prolong it. All the Democrats want to do is back out on the original SS promise by means-testing payouts. Forcing me to invest a sixth of my salary for my retirement for an expected cumulative interest rate of 1-2% per annum sucks*. Knowing that if I invest wisely I won't even get that doubly sucks.

If your SS funds were invested in an indexed fund, there is no 40-year period since SS was created that the fund would not have paid better than SS. Citizens go to jail for Ponzi scheme, but like many things, what's illegal for us is S.O.P. for the government.

* Yes, I know, it's about half of 15%, but if you think the matching amount your employer takes out doesn't come out of your potential salary, you're dreaming

Re:Only 12 questions? (2, Insightful)

hrieke (126185) | about 10 years ago | (#10438877)

Well since question #20 [slashdot.org] is mine, I'll give you my response.

Background:

We're talking about 73 trillion dollars here, to be spent over the next 50 years. Allowing for a bell curve, that means in about 15 years time we'll be heading for the sharpest increase in the curve.

Since congress never met a pork project it didn't like, both the Repbulicians and Democrates used Social Security to spend money that they didn't have, on the promiss that it would be paid back.

The problem

  • Now what Bush is suggesting has faults of it's own:
    1. Market preformance. What will people do if there is a stockmarket crash? How will people retire if their retirement funds are wiped out?
    1. Fees by brokerage accounts. A 10% return is nice, but we all know that Wall Street is drooling over the fees that they will get to charge just for selling index funds.
    1. Artifical bubble of the markets. Trillions will be put into the stockmarket, every stock will have someone buying it. Too much money, not enough products to buy = bubble.

    2. This is already happening with popular Funds for 401(k)s! See Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund - FLPSX as an example
    1. We'll still be paying for those who are already in Social Security. Somehow we have to make good on our promise to those who already are in the system. By taking out money that will be going into it, we'll need to come up with 2 or 3 trillion TODAY for this to work.
    1. Don't forget that companies are defaulting on Pensions too. This is going to make the Savings & Loans trouble of the late 80s look like small potatoes.

So my point is that it's just not going to work out.

PS. I find your sig to be part of the problem with politics in general- too much '' mentality.

PSS. I agree 100% that SS is a Ponzi scheme, but origially SS was for widows, orphans, and the blind. See my comment above about pork.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

hrieke (126185) | about 10 years ago | (#10438910)

Minor correction:

PS. I find your sig to be part of the problem with politics in general- too much 'Get the other guy' mentality.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10439528)

Well, that's kind of the point. People get so mindlessly incensed over politics. Ironically, I've already received a number of highly entertaining comments from livid liberals.

Re:Only 12 questions? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10439575)

See, now this is the kind of detail I'd love to hear from our leaders and candidates. You've brought up some excellent points that I'd neither heard of nor thought of.

At the end of the day, SS is screwed and those of us who aren't retiring in next decade or two are screwed. It would just be nice to somehow modify (or get out of) a system we didn't agree to, won't benefit from and don't want to be in.

Re:Only 12 questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10431951)

I doubt Bush can read at all.

Re:Only 12 questions? (0)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10432500)

Yeah, well he graduated from the Harvard Business School with higher grades than Al "invented the Internet" Gore.

I knew this kind of immature ad hominem attack would be made by someone. Too bad you didn't at least try to make it funny.

which applicants? (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | about 10 years ago | (#10436168)

Concept Junkie said: Yeah, but these applicants can read the questions.

I'm not entirely sure, but I assume you are referring to the MacDonald's applicants, right?

Coming Global Energy Crisis (3, Insightful)

ksemlerK (610016) | about 10 years ago | (#10430524)

What does your party intend to do about the coming shortage of petroleum based energy that will be even more apparent in the near future, (2-3 years)? I have heard President Bush's rhetoric regarding a "Hydrogen Economy", but hydrogen is merely an energy carrier, and not an energy source. Hydrogen may be the most abundant material in the universe, but it does not exist in a free state on the planet earth. Hydrogen must be extracted from compounds such as water or natural gas. Since natural gas is depleting at a very rapid rate on the north American Continent, and importation of this substance over oceans is very difficult. The effort to create a "hydrogen economy" is just boondoggle. If elected, what policies will you implement to ensure the continuance of energy for little cost, and how you ensure that a hard crash scenario does not occur? What will you do to ensure the survival of the "American Way" of life? Please only provide answers that are actually feasible with current technology, not just political tripe. I do not buy into the blind optimism that the media and political parties are forcing upon the American people. Positive thinking will not benefit a nation when mother nature is holding the loaded gun to our collective heads.

And have you stopped beating your wife? (1)

Shihar (153932) | about 10 years ago | (#10431211)

I think in order for that question to be valid everyone has to agree the world is going to end in 'the near future'.

Re:And have you stopped beating your wife? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | about 10 years ago | (#10436391)

The world will not end until the sun becomes a red giant in about 4 billion years and engulfs the earth in its rapidly expanding diameter. Even then, the physical existence of the earth will still be present, merely inside of a star and uninhabitable. It is not the end of the world I am talking about, it is simply a severe change in the American way of life. I simply do not want the problems of Venezuela or Ethiopia to arrive on the shores of the US, and the peak oil [peakoil.com] situation threatens to do exactly that; end the modern industrial society based on consumerism. Yes, I hate the deluge of advertisement, and have actively pursued to limit the amount of advertisement that I am subjected to, (such as by eliminating television, and all American radio broadcasts), and have found a new home on an ad-free internet, (thanks to a 2048 KB long hosts file), as well as S/W radio. Who ever came up with the scheme that material objects should influence ones happiness should have taken a psychology examination, and been shot up full of morphine.

I want consumerism to die, not industrial society. The thought of worrying about having enough rain to feed my crops in order to survive rather sucks compared to worrying about how I am going to fit a rectangular box into a square hole while binning excess freight. We need capitalism back, not this new corporatist regime where entrepreneurs cannot compete on any level with Wal*Mart and other giant retail chains. Consumerism must die, industry must live.

What are these questions? (1, Flamebait)

sithkhan (536425) | about 10 years ago | (#10431161)

These questions have a HUGE slant to them! They are not neutral nor are they informative. It seems that most of them are accusatory toward the President, and are 'softball' questions for the Democratic candidate. The questions come from a stance of supostion and assumption. Look at the Education (Sex Ed.) question; it is so biased that it was the straw that caused me to terminate my voting for the moderated questions. People are going to seriously ask these questions and expect an answer that they are open to? These questions are leading and closed. Why do I even bother reading the politics.slashdot section any longer?

Re:What are these questions? (1, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 10 years ago | (#10432084)

Maybe the people asking the questions -- hard-working young people who don't live in their parents' basements and have real concerns about the future -- have a reason for being accusatory toward Bush.

Did you even consider that, or do you just automatically assume that anything that doesn't favor your guy is "biased"?

Re:What are these questions? (1, Troll)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 10 years ago | (#10432433)

These questions have a HUGE slant to them! They are not neutral nor are they informative. It seems that most of them are accusatory toward the President, and are 'softball' questions for the Democratic candidate.

I wholeheartedly agree. We really need to be less partisan: it is just so unfair to ask questions which are aimed towards the strengths of John Kerry and the weaknesses of George W. Bush. For example, the question, "what is six plus seven?". That's just completely biased against W.

Damn liberals.

Re:What are these questions? (1)

dtfinch (661405) | about 10 years ago | (#10434830)

They are not neutral nor are they informative.

Perhaps the average young voter isn't neutral.

Why do I even bother reading the politics.slashdot section any longer?

Only you know the answer to that.

Re:What are these questions? (1)

Tyndmyr (811713) | about 10 years ago | (#10440934)

Most the questions are biased one way or the other, too easy to dodge by spouting bullshit, or just plain pointless. I chose the least crappy ones, in hopes that my small vote would help negate the opinion of some 12 yr old out there.

Still, I couldnt find ten I liked.

interesting fact about the new voters project (0)

whiteSanjuro (693864) | about 10 years ago | (#10431231)

the new [freerepublic.com] voters [theamericanmind.com] project [209.157.64.200] is a criminal fraud organization.

Re:interesting fact about the new voters project (2, Insightful)

lar (148557) | about 10 years ago | (#10433135)

I've read all three of those articles, and I'm a little confused. It seems to me that the thing everyone is worried about is the ability to fradulantly register voters, and then have people pretend to be those voters on election day. But isn't this something that any and all registrants can do? Why are the New Voters being singled out here as the "criminal" organization?

One of the articles claims that the New Voters being a registrant is bad because it can push its ideals on the voter as he registers. Even granting that the New Voters may be partisanly-biased (something they claim is untrue), how is this different than me going up to my Campus Republicans' club and registering at their booth (something I've done more than once in the past)? Maybe that's something you can't do in Wisconsin, I don't know (I live in CA).

But if you could explain to me why this is such a bad thing, I'm willing to listen. I just don't see why the New Voters have been singled out.

Disenchantment with Politics? (3, Insightful)

Yokaze (70883) | about 10 years ago | (#10431374)

Do you consider think there are sign of disenchantment with politics or especially with politicians?

If so, in which ways do you consider partisanship the problem, and in what the ways the de-facto two party system.

What have you done, and do you to plan do to counteract this?

How do you think your political campaign affects the image of politicians in general?

Re:Disenchantment with Politics? (1)

Yokaze (70883) | about 10 years ago | (#10431502)

Damn, too late.

I was very let down (0, Offtopic)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 10 years ago | (#10431939)

The summary promised a poll I could vote on, but I saw no Cowboy Neal option. Surely Bush, Kerry, and Nader would provide an insightful commentary on the life of said cowboy!

Kerry are you Metrosexual? (0, Troll)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | about 10 years ago | (#10432299)

What the f**k is a Metrosexual? a post-debate rally by Kerry at which the Massachusetts senator gushed over his "metrosexual" appearance. "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" quoting Kerry after the event. "Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry told the crowd. The article also has the Democratic candidate contrasting himself to US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy," Cameron quoted Kerry as saying.

Question for Nader: (0, Troll)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 10 years ago | (#10432334)

Just how much crack are you smoking, that you'd be willing to risk subjecting the nation and the world to another four more years of the policies of George W. Bush? (Same question for George W.)

Sen Kerry as an admitted War Criminal (1)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | about 10 years ago | (#10432405)

why in hell should anyone vote for you?

No question selecting for me. (1)

hopemafia (155867) | about 10 years ago | (#10432462)

Unfortunately, in order to help select questions, you have to trust the NVP with your personally identifiable information. After a quick look at their privacy policy [newvotersproject.org] , I don't. Particularly:

Use:
We do not use any information collected for any purpose inconsistent with state or federal law, or for any purpose other than forwarding the goals of the New Voter Project.


Seems like dodging the issue to me...normally use of personal information is spelled out in some detail. Not to mention that political organizations are exempt from many privacy laws... And what exactly are those goals?...it never really says that either. Now, I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer (usually a tinfoil hat wearer basher, in fact), but given the above combined with reports of "irregularities" involving NVP in Wisconsin (amoung other places), I'm not going to be letting them know anything about me.

A question that will never see air time (2, Insightful)

mabu (178417) | about 10 years ago | (#10432841)

Mr. Bush, why is our government protecting one of the world's most notorious arms smugglers [globalpolicy.org] , Victor Bout [pbs.org] , known affectionately as the "merchant of death" and is suspected of supplying weapons to Al Quaeda? The administration has pushed to protect Bout from international sanctions claiming he's "assisting" the US in Iraq. Why is our country protecting this criminal? Why would the US do business with a man who has been supplying terrorists with weapons? Why is this story not being covered by the mainstream media?

Um... (3, Insightful)

Slipped_Disk (532132) | about 10 years ago | (#10433243)

Are slashdotters becoming morons? I'm sad that I only have 5 mod points, and i'm not wasting them modding all the crap on this article as offtopc.

Clue in: We're not proposing new questions, and this *IS NOT* an Ask Slashdot. If you want your voice to have ANY chance of being heard go to the site (http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/) and vote for the questions you want to see answered by these candidates.

If y'all have INTELLIGENT comments to make, by all means make 'em, but quit baiting eachother with the usual republicrat false-posturing "A is a better choice than B because A stands for everything that B doesn't" crap, it's sickening.

Re:Um... (1)

crashnbur (127738) | about 10 years ago | (#10436840)

You just used the word "y'all" while complaining about intelligence. :)

have you seen the questions? (4, Informative)

mbonig (727002) | about 10 years ago | (#10435923)

look at these questions:
16. Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations. [newvotersproject.org] While the Senate's overruling of the Federal Communications Commission's controversial 3-to-2 decision to further deregulate media ownership rules in June of 2003 is a source of encouragement, most Americans want more variety in their sources of news and entertainment. What will you do to ensure that Americans have accurate sources of information to base their democratic decisions on?

that is 100 times better of a question then the crap we saw the other night! I want to know how the candidate is going to fix things in MY country before worrying about someone elses!

11. Why won't the candidates address the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? [newvotersproject.org] Do they recognize the significance that this demarcation holds as a stand against discrimination? Do they realize how their unwillingness to address this issue impacts every aspect of GLBT's (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender), and their families', lives? Are they aware that when political issues call civil rights into question that hate crimes rise exponentially?

I'm glad somebody is bringing up gay issues in the debate. This is important to Americans.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?