NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if it's been reported much in the states, but a couple of UK Conservative MPs (including one of their main "front-bench" spokesmen) have come out in support of Kerry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3749401.stm

Deep irony here, as the Conservatives normally line up with the Republicans - it's Labour and the Liberal Democrats who normally team up with the Democrats, but Blair is seen to be MUCH too close to Bush.

I suppose that the US electorate doesn't like to take notice of foreign opinion, but if more Conservative MPs come out like this, would this have any impact on the campaign at all , bearing in mind we're talking about the Conservatives in the USA's most faithful ally?

i doubt it. it seems to me that most of us Americans have already made up our minds. i know i have.

as for Kerry...he never seems to make up his mind about anything. heh.

Well observed - thanks for pointing that one out.

I am a member of the UK Conservative party and will certainly be voting Tory in the upcoming European elections.

Ironic - most certainly, however I feel too that what Bush and particuarly Rumsfeld has done is starting to severely compromise basic liberties and has alienated potential powerful friends particuarly in the middle east (the potentially strong "moderate" Islamic movement - evidenced here by the Muslim Council of Britain).

The uber powerful Neo Conservatives currently running US defence are giving amunition to the left wing opponants of and perhaps rightly Mr Duncan has seen the democrats as the lesser of two evils - I'd be inclined at the moment to aggree.

Brunodom, interesting response, thanks.

I can't help feeling that if George W was British, he'd never ever be considered as party leader material, would be lucky to get beyond being a backbencher - whereas his father might have done quite well.

Is George W. the US equivalent of Mark Thatcher?

Kerry is not a conservative. He wants to put vital trade agreements, like NAFTA and the WTO, under review, and produce a limited national health insurance plan worth $900 billion (and probably more to fund a bureaocracy to run it). The government is $400 billion in debt. Guess where the money will come from?
Also, with the exception of foreign economic policy, Kerry's foreign policy is the same. If one analyzes his speeches, he rips Bush to peices on Iraq, but never proposes a counter-plan. He wants to cooperate with our allies on Iraq, but Bush is also trying to do the same.

Kerry is not a conservative, but any conservative should vote for Kerry, considering that Bush is so far right that he puts even the most regressive redneck to shame.

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?

Kerry is not a conservative, but any conservative should vote for Kerry, considering that Bush is so far right that he puts even the most regressive redneck to shame.
Republicans aren't regressive. We're progressive, but not in the same way most people feel.
It'll take an entire thread for me to explain this, so I'll give you the gist of our arguements. Tax cuts, lack of government intervention, and increased state priviledges make society better, not big government, social liberalization on a federal level, and welfare.

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.

true true! there's no good candidates at all this year...i guess we'll be stuck with some loser for the next 4 years...

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.whatever his plan was the plan that passed was typical republican pork for the rich at the expense of the american people and Bush signed this atrocity--Bush has so much contempt for the people he even forbade the govt the right to negotiate cheaper drug prices from the corporate pirates who hold the sick hostage with their greed and he pried cheaper canadien drugs out of the dying grasp of sick people on their deathbeds

they're just jelous

So just legalize euthanasia, and we'll be well rid of those drains on healthcare money.

Think of it: people wanting to live, and yet are so far gone that it doesn't even matter. If they want to stay alive, those "sick people dying on their deathbeds", if they are on their deathbeds, what good will those drugs do?

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him

spoffin, arent you british? why do you care?

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

spoffin, arent you british? why do you care?
No man is an island, entire of itself.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee

So just legalize euthanasia, and we'll be well rid of those drains on healthcare money.

Think of it: people wanting to live, and yet are so far gone that it doesn't even matter. If they want to stay alive, those "sick people dying on their deathbeds", if they are on their deathbeds, what good will those drugs do?I personally think heroin should be legal for the deathly ill

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

in reality, george bush isnt a real republican. in the sense that his economics are fucked up to shit, and he hasnt seen any program he doesnt like. :x (hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)

they're just jeloustheir jealous of our values

Kerry is not a conservative. He wants to put vital trade agreements, like NAFTA and the WTO, under review, and produce a limited national health insurance plan worth $900 billion (and probably more to fund a bureaocracy to run it). The government is $400 billion in debt. Guess where the money will come from?
Also, with the exception of foreign economic policy, Kerry's foreign policy is the same. If one analyzes his speeches, he rips Bush to peices on Iraq, but never proposes a counter-plan. He wants to cooperate with our allies on Iraq, but Bush is also trying to do the same.
Speaking of where will the money come from, how about this recent article about Bush-Enomics (Republican spending) and a balanced budget request from a member of Congress, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi:

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm

Let us put that in reference. If you went all the way from the Revolutionary War to 1979, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, built the interstate highway system, built the Golden Gate Bridge, the intercoastal waterway, we borrowed less than $1 trillion. In 25 months, you guys have borrowed $1 trillion.

The Speaker in the chair knows what a $1,000 check looks like. It is what a lot of us write for rent checks up here in Washington. If you wrote that $1,000 rent check a thousand times, you have spent a million. If you wrote a $1 million check a thousand times, you have spent a billion. If you wrote a $1 billion check a thousand times, you have spent a trillion. That is how much money a trillion is.

In just the past 12 months, you have increased the national debt by $544 billion. More importantly, you have stolen $371 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say stolen is if you take it back and you do not have a plan to repay it, it is stealing. If someone pays on their payroll taxes toward Social Security, they fully expect it to be put in a trust fund just for Social Security and that it is going to be sitting there for when they need it.

That is not the plan, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you or any of my colleagues to tell me the name of the bank account that the Social Security trust fund is put in. Because you know and I know there is not a dime in it. It is nothing but IOUs, government securities.

You have borrowed $167 billion from Medicare, the same thing. Hard-working Americans pay payroll taxes. On that payroll tax is a line item that goes to Medicare with the promise that it would be set aside just for their retirement. There is not a penny there.

Do you not get concerned about YOUR future? Does the average American know this stuff? I suggest that they don't. This stuff looks extremely scary to say the least.

they're just jeloustheir jealous of our values :?:

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

in reality, george bush isnt a real republican. in the sense that his economics are f--- up to shit, and he hasnt seen any program he doesnt like. :x (hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)hes a real republican to me--welfare to the rich while the govt stabs the people who matter in the back--if thats not republican I dont know what is...

they're just jeloustheir jealous of our values :?:the oilagarchs

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

in reality, george bush isnt a real republican. in the sense that his economics are f--- up to shit, and he hasnt seen any program he doesnt like. :x (hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)hes a real republican to me--welfare to the rich while the govt stabs the people who matter in the back--if thats not republican I dont know what is...

thank you foor proving to me andeveryone else ere how ignorant and elitist you are :roll:

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

in reality, george bush isnt a real republican. in the sense that his economics are f--- up to shit, and he hasnt seen any program he doesnt like. :x (hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)hes a real republican to me--welfare to the rich while the govt stabs the people who matter in the back--if thats not republican I dont know what is...

thank you foor proving to me andeveryone else ere how ignorant and elitist you are :roll:how could I be an elistist if im the exact opposite of a republican?

i am a conservative when it comes to economics, and that is among the main reasons i cannot support George Bush for President; he's not a conservative at all when it comes to finance, in fact Kerry is more conservative than Bush. it doesn't surprise me that many fiscal conservatives are sick of Bush playing the spend-o-crat game and blowing conservative financial values totally out of the water.

in reality, george bush isnt a real republican. in the sense that his economics are f--- up to shit, and he hasnt seen any program he doesnt like. :x (hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)hes a real republican to me--welfare to the rich while the govt stabs the people who matter in the back--if thats not republican I dont know what is...

thank you foor proving to me andeveryone else ere how ignorant and elitist you are :roll:how could I be an elistist if im the exact opposite of a republican?

never mind, you're beyond saving

Kerry is not a conservative. He wants to put vital trade agreements, like NAFTA and the WTO, under review, and produce a limited national health insurance plan worth $900 billion (and probably more to fund a bureaocracy to run it). The government is $400 billion in debt. Guess where the money will come from?
Also, with the exception of foreign economic policy, Kerry's foreign policy is the same. If one analyzes his speeches, he rips Bush to peices on Iraq, but never proposes a counter-plan. He wants to cooperate with our allies on Iraq, but Bush is also trying to do the same.
Speaking of where will the money come from, how about this recent article about Bush-Enomics (Republican spending) and a balanced budget request from a member of Congress, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi:

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm

Let us put that in reference. If you went all the way from the Revolutionary War to 1979, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, built the interstate highway system, built the Golden Gate Bridge, the intercoastal waterway, we borrowed less than $1 trillion. In 25 months, you guys have borrowed $1 trillion.

The Speaker in the chair knows what a $1,000 check looks like. It is what a lot of us write for rent checks up here in Washington. If you wrote that $1,000 rent check a thousand times, you have spent a million. If you wrote a $1 million check a thousand times, you have spent a billion. If you wrote a $1 billion check a thousand times, you have spent a trillion. That is how much money a trillion is.

In just the past 12 months, you have increased the national debt by $544 billion. More importantly, you have stolen $371 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say stolen is if you take it back and you do not have a plan to repay it, it is stealing. If someone pays on their payroll taxes toward Social Security, they fully expect it to be put in a trust fund just for Social Security and that it is going to be sitting there for when they need it.

That is not the plan, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you or any of my colleagues to tell me the name of the bank account that the Social Security trust fund is put in. Because you know and I know there is not a dime in it. It is nothing but IOUs, government securities.

You have borrowed $167 billion from Medicare, the same thing. Hard-working Americans pay payroll taxes. On that payroll tax is a line item that goes to Medicare with the promise that it would be set aside just for their retirement. There is not a penny there.

Do you not get concerned about YOUR future? Does the average American know this stuff? I suggest that they don't. This stuff looks extremely scary to say the least.That really is very scary.

Kerry is not a conservative. He wants to put vital trade agreements, like NAFTA and the WTO, under review, and produce a limited national health insurance plan worth $900 billion (and probably more to fund a bureaocracy to run it). The government is $400 billion in debt. Guess where the money will come from?
Also, with the exception of foreign economic policy, Kerry's foreign policy is the same. If one analyzes his speeches, he rips Bush to peices on Iraq, but never proposes a counter-plan. He wants to cooperate with our allies on Iraq, but Bush is also trying to do the same.
Speaking of where will the money come from, how about this recent article about Bush-Enomics (Republican spending) and a balanced budget request from a member of Congress, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi:

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm

Let us put that in reference. If you went all the way from the Revolutionary War to 1979, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, built the interstate highway system, built the Golden Gate Bridge, the intercoastal waterway, we borrowed less than $1 trillion. In 25 months, you guys have borrowed $1 trillion.

The Speaker in the chair knows what a $1,000 check looks like. It is what a lot of us write for rent checks up here in Washington. If you wrote that $1,000 rent check a thousand times, you have spent a million. If you wrote a $1 million check a thousand times, you have spent a billion. If you wrote a $1 billion check a thousand times, you have spent a trillion. That is how much money a trillion is.

In just the past 12 months, you have increased the national debt by $544 billion. More importantly, you have stolen $371 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say stolen is if you take it back and you do not have a plan to repay it, it is stealing. If someone pays on their payroll taxes toward Social Security, they fully expect it to be put in a trust fund just for Social Security and that it is going to be sitting there for when they need it.

That is not the plan, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you or any of my colleagues to tell me the name of the bank account that the Social Security trust fund is put in. Because you know and I know there is not a dime in it. It is nothing but IOUs, government securities.

You have borrowed $167 billion from Medicare, the same thing. Hard-working Americans pay payroll taxes. On that payroll tax is a line item that goes to Medicare with the promise that it would be set aside just for their retirement. There is not a penny there.

Do you not get concerned about YOUR future? Does the average American know this stuff? I suggest that they don't. This stuff looks extremely scary to say the least.
Convinient, as he stopped counting how much we borrowed in 1979, the year that one of the biggest bouts of inflation in American history began. Was Mr. Taylor measuring our past borrowing in actual dollars, or dollars adjusted to inflation? Something tells me it was the forward, and here's why.
The Revolutionary war was extremely expensive. As the fledgling US had no money to start out with, it had to borrow from wealthy individuals and banks in the US and France. On top of that, it needed the money to establish a government before it could collect taxes. It took generations to pay off our war debt. Same thing happened with the Civil War, and I'm sure it happened in other wars. I'm sure that adjusted to inflation, Lincoln borrowed $1 trillion in less than a year.
And no, it doesn't leave me worried. I see know problem borrowing against Social Security. If I had my way, it wouldn't exist, and I could save for my retirement in ways that I wish. Besides, borrowing $1 trillion is nowhere near the amount of outstanding loans by the Japanese government, which has a government debt approaching 150%. I'm not worried, because quite frankly, I feel that borrowing from Medicare and Social Security should be rewarded. And there's nothing wrong with issuing bonds to investors. In fact, I can argue that intensive borrowing from investors is helping the economy by giving out nice, long-term bonds, that can be paid off by the government only little by little.

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him
Really? I see few.

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him
Really? I see few.this is why america needs a liberal media--to inform the people

Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him
Really? I see few.Because you're wearing blinkers?

Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy. I fear putting him in office will lead to another 9-11. Bush is just as scary though, in that our forces are scattered across the globe, fighting wars we most likely wont win. The US is being bogged down. Once again we're too worried about appearence as opposed to winning. You cant look good and win a war nowadays.
Both Kerry and Bush are awful choices. In this instance is there really a lesser of two evils for the average american (meaning neither far right nor far left)?
Bush isn't far right at all. If anything, his "compassionate conservative" policy is too far left for comfort. Take, for example, his plan to give children universal healthcare, or the Medicare plan.are you talking about the same Bush who destroyed medicare to give corporate welfare to price gouging HMOs?
That wasn't his Medicare plan. His plan was to pump way too much money into the system, and make it so that the richest age group in the nation doesn't have to pay a thing for healthcare, even perscriptions. Nevertheless, I can overlook this one black mark.Of course you can, when there are so many other black marks to hold against him
Really? I see few.this is why america needs a liberal media--to inform the people
LMAO! Liberals dominate newspapers already. And there's a plethora of liberal websites, like Moveon.org.

LMAO! Liberals dominate newspapers already. And there's a plethora of liberal websites, like Moveon.org.Most reporters are liberals, but most editors are conservative. Who do you think has the last word?

Convinient, as he stopped counting how much we borrowed in 1979, the year that one of the biggest bouts of inflation in American history began. Was Mr. Taylor measuring our past borrowing in actual dollars, or dollars adjusted to inflation? Something tells me it was the forward, and here's why.

The Revolutionary war was extremely expensive. As the fledgling US had no money to start out with, it had to borrow from wealthy individuals and banks in the US and France. On top of that, it needed the money to establish a government before it could collect taxes. It took generations to pay off our war debt. Same thing happened with the Civil War, and I'm sure it happened in other wars. I'm sure that adjusted to inflation, Lincoln borrowed $1 trillion in less than a year.

And no, it doesn't leave me worried. I see know problem borrowing against Social Security. If I had my way, it wouldn't exist, and I could save for my retirement in ways that I wish. Besides, borrowing $1 trillion is nowhere near the amount of outstanding loans by the Japanese government, which has a government debt approaching 150%. I'm not worried, because quite frankly, I feel that borrowing from Medicare and Social Security should be rewarded. And there's nothing wrong with issuing bonds to investors. In fact, I can argue that intensive borrowing from investors is helping the economy by giving out nice, long-term bonds, that can be paid off by the government only little by little.
Perhaps you are independently wealthy and you would be unaffected if the US goes into a depression, and/or that you will have need of no Social Security. However, I would suggest if this were true, you would be in the top 5% of wage earners to have such a cavalier attitude.

It also appears that since you are independently wealthy, you could care less about the economic hardships that would beset your fellow Americans in the event of economic implosion?

I don't know if it's been reported much in the states, but a couple of UK Conservative MPs (including one of their main "front-bench" spokesmen) have come out in support of Kerry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3749401.stm

Deep irony here, as the Conservatives normally line up with the Republicans - it's Labour and the Liberal Democrats who normally team up with the Democrats, but Blair is seen to be MUCH too close to Bush.

I suppose that the US electorate doesn't like to take notice of foreign opinion, but if more Conservative MPs come out like this, would this have any impact on the campaign at all , bearing in mind we're talking about the Conservatives in the USA's most faithful ally?

I don't think even the Thatcherite wing of the Conservatives would support Bush the Terrible.

(hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)You admit the man is an impostor and yet you still support him? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Do you like telling Bush "Please sir, ram me up the ass again. I like it."?

(hes an imposter i tell you! but id rather have him than kerry)You admit the man is an impostor and yet you still support him? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Do you like telling Bush "Please sir, ram me up the ass again. I like it."? :lol:

Well at least you americans aren't taxed as heavily as canadians.

I will tell you who has the last word, its the fat cats who run the media conglomerates. I do not know how anyone can get off saying that there is a liberal media when people like Bill "fair and balanced" Orielly and Rush Limbau are on the air spouting their clearly conservative propoganda but if Tom Brokaw wants to read the names of the men and women who gave their lives in Iraq everyone gets their knickers in a twist. Thanks Sinclair Media (a corporation that gives huge amounts of money to the republican party).
Furthermore, just because some of you guys do not care about the people of America unless they are independantly wealthy does not mean that the rest of us do not.

I hate to say this but that massecusets liberal Kerry is still better then Bush. Man i just feel like I had teeth pulled.

I hate to say this but that massecusets liberal Kerry is still better then Bush. Man i just feel like I had teeth pulled.

Well at least you americans aren't taxed as heavily as canadians.

True, but Americans don't have half the benefits that Canadians do either.. you can't have it both ways..

Convinient, as he stopped counting how much we borrowed in 1979, the year that one of the biggest bouts of inflation in American history began. Was Mr. Taylor measuring our past borrowing in actual dollars, or dollars adjusted to inflation? Something tells me it was the forward, and here's why.

The Revolutionary war was extremely expensive. As the fledgling US had no money to start out with, it had to borrow from wealthy individuals and banks in the US and France. On top of that, it needed the money to establish a government before it could collect taxes. It took generations to pay off our war debt. Same thing happened with the Civil War, and I'm sure it happened in other wars. I'm sure that adjusted to inflation, Lincoln borrowed $1 trillion in less than a year.

And no, it doesn't leave me worried. I see know problem borrowing against Social Security. If I had my way, it wouldn't exist, and I could save for my retirement in ways that I wish. Besides, borrowing $1 trillion is nowhere near the amount of outstanding loans by the Japanese government, which has a government debt approaching 150%. I'm not worried, because quite frankly, I feel that borrowing from Medicare and Social Security should be rewarded. And there's nothing wrong with issuing bonds to investors. In fact, I can argue that intensive borrowing from investors is helping the economy by giving out nice, long-term bonds, that can be paid off by the government only little by little.
Perhaps you are independently wealthy and you would be unaffected if the US goes into a depression, and/or that you will have need of no Social Security. However, I would suggest if this were true, you would be in the top 5% of wage earners to have such a cavalier attitude.

It also appears that since you are independently wealthy, you could care less about the economic hardships that would beset your fellow Americans in the event of economic implosion?
I've heard this arguement before. No, I'm not wealthy. I'm from a single-parent family, and while we live very comfortably, it may have been better if my father was still alive.
Anyhow, the elderly are mostly well-off. Eliminating the income tax would ensure that their children are well-off. In fact, it is estimated that only 5% of the elderly need Social Security or Medicare to live. I support giving them money, but giving it to them through Social Security just isn't the answer.
Here's an interesting study, btw.
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/June%2000/FTR-6-26-00SnrsCntrlWlth.htm

Just to bring this back into topic...this post is one more for the column titled "Who cares? They don't have a say in US politics."

However, I guess Jean Francois Kerry can now add to his list of "foreign leaders." After all, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat were getting kind of lonely.

Funny, Panhandlia, considering how much success Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Arafat and Castro have had at the expense of the Bush administration, you'd think they'd be looking forward to another four years. Only Hussein has reason to complain, and I don't imagine he's expecting much support from a Kerry presidency.

And by the way--they fact that the best you can do is throw bullshit epithets and call names just further shows how intellectually empty your point of view is.