NationStates Jolt Archive

The last time I posted this, it was quickly covered up. Now, people can scan all the topics in General in about two minutes, so I'm going to try again.

The Promise Season
John Kerry has been making many campaign promises this year, saying he will roll back the Bush tax cut, start reforms in health care, veterans services, education, etc. plus increase funding to a number of special interests, such as stem-cell research. Ah, yes. Promising to fix every problem the country has by throwing money at it, while cutting the deficit in half at the same time. Promising lots of things to lots of people - it's a clichéd campaign tactic, but one that voters still would do well to look into. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
It is.

The Kerry Deficit
If you look at his budget plan, there is a dangerously wide gap between how much money Kerry's tax policy will bring in and how much he plans to spend. He plans to remove portions of the Bush tax cut. This puts him $658 billion ahead over 10 years. However, his health-care reform plan alone is expected to cost $653 billion, eating up most of the money he is planning to bring in. Keep in mind he now only has $5 billion to work with. Let's look at more promises he has to fund:
> $25 billion to undo state cutbacks in educational funding and staffing
> $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds
> $11 billion more to help schools meet No Child Left Behind requirements
> $12 billion for special education
> $14 billion over four years to help students pay for college.
And that's just in education. That puts him $81.8 billion dollars in the hole. Oh, then there's over $200 billion more for veterans health care. At least $281.8 billion of new debt.

These stats do not include his plans for Medicaid, energy and child-care programs.

So you've got to ask yourself: on which of these promises is he going to back down? Which guarantees are going to go up in smoke? The one you were counting on? You can believe the promises, or the math: Kerry's policies will not reduce the deficit, they will inflate it.

If anyone here still thinks he will reduce the deficit instead of contributing to it, please explain how.

And, keep in mind, that these monstrous "the rich" he talks about are not a bottomless supply of money. We already tax away 40% of their incomes and there's still a deficit. They aren't an instant solution to every budget problem.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=608&u_sid=1130692

For those of you who want to see for yourself and not just take Reynes word for it..

Kerry On The Issues (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)

For those of you who want to see for yourself and not just take Reynes word for it..

Kerry On The Issues (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)
For those who want to blindly follow the promises in question, go to Steph's link.

For those who want to blindly follow the promises in question, go to Steph's link.

Listen to my sig.. it's pretty well the way it is..

Listen (http://www.johnkerry.com/audio/whatitsworth.mp3)

(Takes between 2-5 minutes to load, perhaps longer for those of you on dial up.. but it is worth the wait)

Don't get fooled again!

Meh!

http://www.81x.com/Authors/Lucresian/deadhorse.gif

As said before over and over and over and over.

The Rich do pay a large amount of income tax. Now the other taxes......

As to vet's getting money. Absolutly! We should pay taxes to help them and improve their lives for the sacrifices they have made!

Hmmm what sacrifices have you made for your country?

Hmmm what sacrifices have you made for your country?

Information is power, power is knowledge... get informed, VOTE.. that is a start! ;)

Ah yes - damn Kerry for promising to fund education, and lets all denigrate him for the expense if he actually does it ... not like GW who just promises to and then doesn't.

You remember those nice statements and promises don't you? Cases like...


Date: 1/5/2004
Quote:
"Teacher training money is up. We've increased the teacher training and recruitment budget significantly." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
In his most recent budget, Bush proposed to freeze Teacher Quality State Grants - cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less teachers trained than called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill. - House Appropriations Committee Report, 2004


Date: 1/5/2004
Quote:
"Title I money [for disadvantaged students] is up." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The President proposed slashing 82% of the proposed growth of Title I. Instead of a $5.65 billion increase in Title I called for in “No Child Left Behind” the President's budget provided an increase of only $1 billion - with most of that $1 billion “increase” coming through terminations of other programs directed at the same needy schools.


Date: 1/5/2004
Quote:
"The reading program money is up by 4 times." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The Bush budget proposed funding the new program, Literacy Through School Libraries, in “No Child Left Behind” at only 5% of the level promised ($12.5 million). Under the Bush request, funding would be sufficient to buy an average of five new library books for only about 124,000 children - 2.4 million fewer children than under the [original] “No Child Left Behind.” - House Democrats Web site


Date: 2/23/2004
Quote:
"I'm going to vigorously defend No Child Left Behind because I know in my heart of hearts it's the absolute right role for the federal government -- to provide money, but insist upon results…And [if schools do not pass], there will be special help to make sure they do." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
In 2005 alone, the Administration has requested $9.4 billion less for its own No Child Left Behind bill than the bill demands. The Title I program – the main program targeted to disadvantaged children - is underfunded by $7.2 billion, leaving "nearly five million disadvantaged children without extra academic help and services." In all, the Administration has underfunded the bill by a total of $27 billion since it was signed. - House Education & Workforce Committee, 2/11/04



Date: 12/13/2003
Quote:
"The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants." - House Appropriations Committee Report, 10/3/03


Date: 2/23/2004
Quote:
"We have [been] increasing Pell grants..." [White House Web site]

Fact:
The Administration has frozen the maximum Pell Grant available to students at $4,050, despite the President's campaign pledge in 2000 to increase the award to $5,100. The program freeze comes at the same time "state colleges and universities in every region of the country are preparing to impose this fall their steepest tuition and fee increases in a decade." Because of the Administration's budget, "most students won't get any more help than they receive now" – at the same time the White House has proposed a rule change that would cut off 84,000 students from receiving college aid. - Wall Street Journal, 2/3/04; Washington Post, 7/22/03; Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/10/03

Fact 2:
Financial aid is primarily based on family income. Median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, has fallen for the last two years for which data is available (2001 and 2002). - U.S. Census Bureau

So if more people are getting grants, it's largely because more people in America now qualify for them thanks to declining income.

Yep.... that's something to be proud of.



I wonder what education would be like in the US if GW had decided to fund that instead of unneccessary wars? Damn - I bet it could have really been something!


If you ARE going to go into debt, I think most Americans would prefer that it had been done for things that benefit them rather than blowing up and then rebuilding schools 5,000 miles away....

This was a good topic.. how come the person who started the thread never came back? :D

This was a good topic.. how come the person who started the thread never came back? :D

I can't imagine why :p

Nice song, Steph!

Information is power, power is knowledge... get informed, VOTE.. that is a start! ;)

That's hardly a sacrifice. I'm not discouraging voting, but you should not mistake voting for joining the military.

I would not be opposed to the draft so long as Bush isn't president. I want a responsible, peace-maker for president if we're going to have a draft. Not an uninformed, warmonger, chimpanzee that hardly knows anything about American Civics, much less American Foreign Relations and International Current Events...(aside from the ones he creates...)

That's hardly a sacrifice. I'm not discouraging voting, but you should not mistake voting for joining the military.

I would not be opposed to the draft so long as Bush isn't president. I want a responsible, peace-maker for president if we're going to have a draft. Not an uninformed, warmonger, chimpanzee that hardly knows anything about American Civics, much less American Foreign Relations and International Current Events...(aside from the ones he creates...)

A peacemaker? Here's a senirio! (A hypothetical Sceniero so don't bash it) We have info, Accurate info, of a pending attack on our soil or a base overseas by an enemy of the US!

Which option would you chose:

1) Go to Congress with the info, get authorization to go to war and launch an immediate assault?

2) Go to the UN and negiotiate with the UN Security Council! If they don't act and the Base gets attacked, your ridiculed for not following up on the intel given to you by an oversight committee that was formed regarding the said attack!

Out of these 2 options, I know which one I would choose! I would Choose option Number 1 since the threat is immeniate and against us. I don't want to haggle with the UN since they drag their feet! If your choice is option number 2 then you just gave up your right to self-defence to the UN and their goes US Soveriegnty.

Now, here's a kicker! In the said senerio, the intel isn't 100% certain. Now do you still go with option 1 and take the chance that your wrong in which case you take out a US enemy but not for the said reasons or option 2 and take the same risk of a pending attack? Frankly I still will go with option 1! Its easier to do something and apologize later than to wait and find out that you were wrong!

As for Bush! He at least had the brass to tell the UN to go F**k themselves and followed through on UN Resolutions that the UN choose to ignore! Frankly I want Bush in office and I have a feeling that Bush will get 4 more years in office. He may not be the smartest person in the world but at least he tries to defend us in the best way he sees fit. Critize him all you want. There is plenty to critize him about like his immigration policy, which I oppose, but he does his best in this day in age. Could Gore have done better? Maybe then Maybe not. We'll never know. Will Kerry be better? Its possible but from what I'm hearing, I won't put much stock in it! If he does get elected, I hope he proves me wrong but if Bush gets re-elected, he will do what he can to defend the US from our enemies overseas.

A peacemaker? Here's a senirio! (A hypothetical Sceniero so don't bash it) We have info, Accurate info, of a pending attack on our soil or a base overseas by an enemy of the US!

Which option would you chose:

1) Go to Congress with the info, get authorization to go to war and launch an immediate assault?

2) Go to the UN and negiotiate with the UN Security Council! If they don't act and the Base gets attacked, your ridiculed for not following up on the intel given to you by an oversight committee that was formed regarding the said attack!.

Let us know if this ever happens ok Formal ;)

And what do you do when you send your secretary of state to the UN to present the case, and a prestigious group of retired senior intelligence personel - including a former director of the CIA, a former deputy secretary of Defence, and former inspectors of this very intel send a note that very night pointing to significant deficiencies in the presented intel.


Do you press forward and start a war in the face of obviously contradictory opinions? Or do you go the your intelligence people and ask the pointed questions brought up in the note from such an august group?


Of all the things to do precipitously, war should not be near the top of the list.

Let us know if this ever happens ok Formal ;)

I said a hypothetical case didn't I? Quote the whole thing and not a part of it!

And what do you do when you send your secretary of state to the UN to present the case, and a prestigious group of retired senior intelligence personel - including a former director of the CIA, a former deputy secretary of Defence, and former inspectors of this very intel send a note that very night pointing to significant deficiencies in the presented intel.


Do you press forward and start a war in the face of obviously contradictory opinions? Or do you go the your intelligence people and ask the pointed questions brought up in the note from such an august group?


Of all the things to do precipitously, war should not be near the top of the list.

Bush continued to ask the CIA if this was factual. A point he made quite clear! The CIA told him it was. A point he made quite clear. I believe the CIA told Bush it was a "Slam dunk" on WMD? We all know now that the WMD charge was eggasterated.

In My scenerio, I never mentioned the SecState! Now what option do you take? option 1 or option 2?

A peacemaker? Here's a senirio! (A hypothetical Sceniero so don't bash it) We have info, Accurate info, of a pending attack on our soil or a base overseas by an enemy of the US!

Which option would you chose:

1) Go to Congress with the info, get authorization to go to war and launch an immediate assault?

2) Go to the UN and negiotiate with the UN Security Council! If they don't act and the Base gets attacked, your ridiculed for not following up on the intel given to you by an oversight committee that was formed regarding the said attack!

Out of these 2 options, I know which one I would choose! I would Choose option Number 1 since the threat is immeniate and against us. I don't want to haggle with the UN since they drag their feet! If your choice is option number 2 then you just gave up your right to self-defence to the UN and their goes US Soveriegnty.

Now, here's a kicker! In the said senerio, the intel isn't 100% certain. Now do you still go with option 1 and take the chance that your wrong in which case you take out a US enemy but not for the said reasons or option 2 and take the same risk of a pending attack? Frankly I still will go with option 1! Its easier to do something and apologize later than to wait and find out that you were wrong!

As for Bush! He at least had the brass to tell the UN to go F**k themselves and followed through on UN Resolutions that the UN choose to ignore! Frankly I want Bush in office and I have a feeling that Bush will get 4 more years in office. He may not be the smartest person in the world but at least he tries to defend us in the best way he sees fit. Critize him all you want. There is plenty to critize him about like his immigration policy, which I oppose, but he does his best in this day in age. Could Gore have done better? Maybe then Maybe not. We'll never know. Will Kerry be better? Its possible but from what I'm hearing, I won't put much stock in it! If he does get elected, I hope he proves me wrong but if Bush gets re-elected, he will do what he can to defend the US from our enemies overseas.

Peace-making doesn't have to be entirely done through the UN is what I first have to say. And I'd like for you to not equate war with peace. It disturbs me. First off, I never remember hearing anything about Iraq being a threat to the United States aside from their WMDs, which in no way could reach the United States. Secondly, North Korea is a definite threat to United States soil but Bush isn't launching a war there now is he? Of course, they do have significantly less oil, and there are probably a lot more American voting Asians then there are American voting Arabs. Anyway, where was this threat that Iraq was going to strike us? Also, if you say the threat was Al Qaida, then why didn't we go after Al Qaida in Iraq instead of the Iraqi government? Sure Saddam was bad, but until Al Qaida has been dealt with, I don't think he needed to be top priority. After all, it was American money and weapons that put Saddam in place. And on that note, it was also American money and weapons that put the Taliban in place (this is why the terrorists have weapons...). Anyway, I'd choose neither of those options. I'd prepare a defense. Minimize the casualties as much as possible, change my mood ring up to orange (but not red, because then people would see it is a hoax), and defend my country. After defending, I'd have my crew find solid proof as to where this attack came from, present my case to the UN in an effort to seek support, but even if I did not find my support, my war would still be justified by the UN charter as it makes provisions for defending a country AFTER it has been struck, but does not condone pre-emptiveness.

In My scenerio, I never mentioned the SecState! Now what option do you take? option 1 or option 2?
This is the problem with a newly developing disease I like to call the "Bush Mindset Syndrome" or BMS. It is hard for me to think that any situation has only two options. The people with BMS however think that every scenario (which by the way is the proper spelling of that word) has only two options and there is no room for critical or creative thinking.

EDIT: See above post for my solution to the scenario.

How much does Bush know about American Civics?

How much does Bush know about the United Nations Charter?

How much does Bush know about the United States Constitution?

These questions I'd like to know the honest answers to. Here is what disturbs me about George W. Bush. If I'm not mistaken, he graduated from Yale or something with a degree in Business. He has been the owner of baseball teams and an unsuccessful oil company and other things I'm sure. This is what I don't like. Bush is a business man and I'm sure, in the business world (except oil I guess) he would be a very successful person. Up until now, the majority of presidents have had some sort of background in law or politics (aside from just being a governor). Therefore, these people know a lot about the things a good president should know about. Does Bush have this background?

Stop dodging my question and answer it! By not answering it shows that you can't make up your minds. That is why Kerry will lose! He can't make up his mind either.

Bush had to make a decision! I guess people don't realize that PUTIN said that Hussein was PLANNING ATTACKS and WARNED BUSH about said attacks against the US! Who will overlook that? Not me! I'd attack before getting attacked.

A peacemaker? Here's a senirio! (A hypothetical Sceniero so don't bash it) We have info, Accurate info, of a pending attack on our soil or a base overseas by an enemy of the US!

Which option would you chose:

1) Go to Congress with the info, get authorization to go to war and launch an immediate assault?

2) Go to the UN and negiotiate with the UN Security Council! If they don't act and the Base gets attacked, your ridiculed for not following up on the intel given to you by an oversight committee that was formed regarding the said attack!

Out of these 2 options, I know which one I would choose! I would Choose option Number 1 since the threat is immeniate and against us. I don't want to haggle with the UN since they drag their feet! If your choice is option number 2 then you just gave up your right to self-defence to the UN and their goes US Soveriegnty.

Now, here's a kicker! In the said senerio, the intel isn't 100% certain. Now do you still go with option 1 and take the chance that your wrong in which case you take out a US enemy but not for the said reasons or option 2 and take the same risk of a pending attack? Frankly I still will go with option 1! Its easier to do something and apologize later than to wait and find out that you were wrong!

As for Bush! He at least had the brass to tell the UN to go F**k themselves and followed through on UN Resolutions that the UN choose to ignore! Frankly I want Bush in office and I have a feeling that Bush will get 4 more years in office. He may not be the smartest person in the world but at least he tries to defend us in the best way he sees fit. Critize him all you want. There is plenty to critize him about like his immigration policy, which I oppose, but he does his best in this day in age. Could Gore have done better? Maybe then Maybe not. We'll never know. Will Kerry be better? Its possible but from what I'm hearing, I won't put much stock in it! If he does get elected, I hope he proves me wrong but if Bush gets re-elected, he will do what he can to defend the US from our enemies overseas.

Firstly your scenario is off topic.

Secondly, your scenario is just based on speculation, and doesn't allow an option based on ability to defend.

Thirdly, the UN itself was following through on those UN Resolutions, and quite successfully with inspectors gaining access to wherever they wanted to go. The UN inspectors were in the process of cutting up some rather inoffensive rockets when Bush told them to GET OUT, because the US was going in.

Lastly, I believe that the American people seem to have tuned into Bush's deceptions and that Bush will be soundly defeated in the upcoming election.

To satisfy the requirement of staying on topic, I sincerely believe that if Kerry does go over budget, it will be for the benefit of Americans, especially the ones that have been neglected by Bush's penchant for spending monies on disposable armaments in far away lands.

Peace-making doesn't have to be entirely done through the UN is what I first have to say. And I'd like for you to not equate war with peace. It disturbs me. First off, I never remember hearing anything about Iraq being a threat to the United States aside from their WMDs, which in no way could reach the United States. Secondly, North Korea is a definite threat to United States soil but Bush isn't launching a war there now is he? Of course, they do have significantly less oil, and there are probably a lot more American voting Asians then there are American voting Arabs. Anyway, where was this threat that Iraq was going to strike us? Also, if you say the threat was Al Qaida, then why didn't we go after Al Qaida in Iraq instead of the Iraqi government? Sure Saddam was bad, but until Al Qaida has been dealt with, I don't think he needed to be top priority. After all, it was American money and weapons that put Saddam in place. And on that note, it was also American money and weapons that put the Taliban in place (this is why the terrorists have weapons...). Anyway, I'd choose neither of those options. I'd prepare a defense. Minimize the casualties as much as possible, change my mood ring up to orange (but not red, because then people would see it is a hoax), and defend my country. After defending, I'd have my crew find solid proof as to where this attack came from, present my case to the UN in an effort to seek support, but even if I did not find my support, my war would still be justified by the UN charter as it makes provisions for defending a country AFTER it has been struck, but does not condone pre-emptiveness.

I enjoyed your well thought out response. :)

Stop dodging my question and answer it! By not answering it shows that you can't make up your minds. That is why Kerry will lose! He can't make up his mind either.

Bush had to make a decision! I guess people don't realize that PUTIN said that Hussein was PLANNING ATTACKS and WARNED BUSH about said attacks against the US! Who will overlook that? Not me! I'd attack before getting attacked.

How does providing a good third option equate to dodging the question? When Bush recieved the intel that Iraq was a very dangerous threat (I don't think he recieved that because I don't think the CIA is that dumb) to American soil, he didn't have a true/false question in front of him. The question was open ended and the answer was left up to his creativity, which apparantly, to the people with BMS, is limited to "Yes" and "No," "A" and "B," "True" and "False." What about "Maybe"? "C"? "Neither and both"?

EDIT: I just realized you said something about Putin. Who is dumb enough to rely on intel from another country before your intelligence agency checks it out first? Honestly.

I enjoyed your well thought out response. :)
I hope that isn't sarcasm.

I hope that isn't sarcasm.

Absolutely no sarcasm whatsoever!! I especially enjoyed the part about planning a defence. If a country is always on the offensive, sometimes it leaves the back door open, and that can get ugly to say the least.

Absolutely no sarcasm whatsoever!! I especially enjoyed the part about planning a defence. If a country is always on the offensive, sometimes it leaves the back door open, and that can get ugly to say the least.

That I can agree with! more than one war was lost that way!

That I can agree with! more than one war was lost that way!
Yet you defend Bush's pre-emptiveness, or am I confusing what side you are on? (By the way, no sarcasm, I'm really not sure what side of the fence you are on.)

Stop dodging my question and answer it! By not answering it shows that you can't make up your minds. That is why Kerry will lose! He can't make up his mind either.

Bush had to make a decision! I guess people don't realize that PUTIN said that Hussein was PLANNING ATTACKS and WARNED BUSH about said attacks against the US! Who will overlook that? Not me! I'd attack before getting attacked.

Perhaps we chose not to answer an asinine scenario that you present in such a biased manner that has no relevance in real life. As mentioned, there are almost never just two choices in such a scenario,

Nice how you get to editorialize your choice with your little Bush hugfest but you refuse to allow others to do the same.

Yet you defend Bush's pre-emptiveness, or am I confusing what side you are on? (By the way, no sarcasm, I'm really not sure what side of the fence you are on.)

REad the thread entitled "Senate Intel Report! Part II " and you will have a good idea of what side she is on, and her debating style

the topic is the deficit and yet people are talking about war. John Kerry will:

1. Get rid of pork barrel spending.
2. Eliminate almost 100,000 federal contractors.
3. Reduce the federal travel budget.
4. Reduce the amount of electricity used by the federal government.
5. Increase the royalty rate for drilling for oil on federal land.
6. Have the Securities and Exchange Commission get rid of the offshore accounts used by corporations to avoid paying taxes.

And I suspect he'll also do something about Bush's faith-based stuff

It won't leave us in any bigger of a deficit than what we are in now. He'll probabably raise taxes "on the rich" for his expensive programs. That'll tie up investors' money, and possibly that of corporations, and it may threaten to stiffle the recovery. These programs may win him votes, but let's face it, if implemented, it instantly makes Kerry an idiot. Why, with these spending programs it suggests, it makes him look like the moderate socialists that are (or will be) the legacy of Blair, Schroeder, and Hirohito.

It won't leave us in any bigger of a deficit than what we are in now. He'll probabably raise taxes "on the rich" for his expensive programs. That'll tie up investors' money, and possibly that of corporations, and it may threaten to stiffle the recovery. These programs may win him votes, but let's face it, if implemented, it instantly makes Kerry an idiot. Why, with these spending programs it suggests, it makes him look like the moderate socialists that are (or will be) the legacy of Blair, Schroeder, and Hirohito.

In just 3.5 years, Bush has raised what every American (man, woman, and child) owes by over $5,000. Whether you like it or not, that is a tax on the future created and driven by Bush and the Republican party.

$1.5 Trillion higher US debt, lost jobs, and underfunded programs, is a recipe for another 4 years of Bushanomics?

In just 3.5 years, Bush has raised what every American (man, woman, and child) owes by over $5,000. Whether you like it or not, that is a tax on the future created and driven by Bush and the Republican party.

$1.5 Trillion higher US debt, lost jobs, and underfunded programs, is a recipe for another 4 years of Bushanomics?


Some people just can't look past this year's tax return....

This was a good topic.. how come the person who started the thread never came back? :DBecause I was sacking groceries for seven hours.

This topic, quite simply, is about John Kerry's budget plans which, according to my research, will tend to increase the deficit. That's it. Let's keep focused, alright?

Because I was sacking groceries for seven hours.

This topic, quite simply, is about John Kerry's budget plans which, according to my research, will tend to increase the deficit. That's it. Let's keep focused, alright?

Ah yes, so then explain to me why Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill that has crossed his desk? That's right! Neverah!

Do you really believe Kerry would spend more then Bush? Is that even possible? So much for good old fashion economic conservatism huh.. that's a fact you can't deny.. Bush is not a fiscal conservative.. you know it and so do I.

Ah yes, so then explain to me why Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill that has crossed his desk? That's right! Neverah!

Do you really believe Kerry would spend more then Bush? Is that even possible? So much for good old fashion economic conservatism huh.. that's a fact you can't deny.. Bush is not a fiscal conservative.. you know it and so do I.
I am merely saying that Kerry will not eliminate the deficit.

I am merely saying that Kerry will not eliminate the deficit.

I like to know how he is going to pay for what he is talking about!

His healthcare proposal alone is off the charts and couple that with others of his economic plans, totals more than what we are spending now if my math is right!

That's hardly a sacrifice. I'm not discouraging voting, but you should not mistake voting for joining the military.

I would not be opposed to the draft so long as Bush isn't president. I want a responsible, peace-maker for president if we're going to have a draft. Not an uninformed, warmonger, chimpanzee that hardly knows anything about American Civics, much less American Foreign Relations and International Current Events...(aside from the ones he creates...)

Actually if you study the chimps; you will find they are probably better peacemakers and war practioners then we homo sapiens. ;)

the topic is the deficit and yet people are talking about war. John Kerry will:

1. Get rid of pork barrel spending.
2. Eliminate almost 100,000 federal contractors.
3. Reduce the federal travel budget.
4. Reduce the amount of electricity used by the federal government.
5. Increase the royalty rate for drilling for oil on federal land.
6. Have the Securities and Exchange Commission get rid of the offshore accounts used by corporations to avoid paying taxes.

And I suspect he'll also do something about Bush's faith-based stuff

Prove that he will get rid of pork barrel spending!
Prove that he will eliminate 100,000 Fed Contractors
Prove that he will reduce the federal travel budget
Prove that he will reduce the amount of electricity used by the federal government
prove that he will increase the royalty rate for drilling for oil on Federal Land since he is opposed to oil drilling in Alaska! He wants to find end our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil but he won't let people drill where the oil actually is!
SEC really can't do that. Those accounts are in another country thus the money isn't under US Control. Penalties yes that they can do but they can't eliminate them.

As for Bush's Faith-Based stuff, passed by Congress thus it'll have to be Congress to stop it!

Prove that he will get rid of pork barrel spending!
Prove that he will eliminate 100,000 Fed Contractors
Prove that he will reduce the federal travel budget
Prove that he will reduce the amount of electricity used by the federal government


We will see when he is elected to office.

prove that he will increase the royalty rate for drilling for oil on Federal Land since he is opposed to oil drilling in Alaska! He wants to find end our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil but he won't let people drill where the oil actually is!


Alaska is no Saudi Arabia. Our addiction will not be satisified by Alaskan oil so we will always be depending on The ME until we do in the Gas Combustian engine.

As for Bush's Faith-Based stuff, passed by Congress thus it'll have to be Congress to stop it!

Sure but the President can help that by stuff like "Well if you want my support then I will trade you for......."

In just 3.5 years, Bush has raised what every American (man, woman, and child) owes by over $5,000. Whether you like it or not, that is a tax on the future created and driven by Bush and the Republican party.

$1.5 Trillion higher US debt, lost jobs, and underfunded programs, is a recipe for another 4 years of Bushanomics?
I'm sure that's offsetted with the higher net worth of an average household in the past year. Since the net worth has risen (total assets minus total liabilities), it is safe to assume that the worth of the US is rising faster than the debt we owe. I'd rather have a rising debt with a rapidly rising net worth, instead of falling debt and net worth.

Prove that he will get rid of pork barrel spending!
Prove that he will eliminate 100,000 Fed Contractors
Prove that he will reduce the federal travel budget
Prove that he will reduce the amount of electricity used by the federal government
prove that he will increase the royalty rate for drilling for oil on Federal Land since he is opposed to oil drilling in Alaska! He wants to find end our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil but he won't let people drill where the oil actually is!
SEC really can't do that. Those accounts are in another country thus the money isn't under US Control. Penalties yes that they can do but they can't eliminate them.

As for Bush's Faith-Based stuff, passed by Congress thus it'll have to be Congress to stop it!

Prove that he won't.

We have already seen the Bush spending habits, and frankly most people are appalled. That includes a good number of Republicans. Has Bush given any indication that he will reform his "drunken sailor with a paycheck" technique for managing the country's coffers? Not that I've heard.

Peace-making doesn't have to be entirely done through the UN is what I first have to say. And I'd like for you to not equate war with peace. It disturbs me. First off, I never remember hearing anything about Iraq being a threat to the United States aside from their WMDs, which in no way could reach the United States. Secondly, North Korea is a definite threat to United States soil but Bush isn't launching a war there now is he? Of course, they do have significantly less oil, and there are probably a lot more American voting Asians then there are American voting Arabs. Anyway, where was this threat that Iraq was going to strike us? Also, if you say the threat was Al Qaida, then why didn't we go after Al Qaida in Iraq instead of the Iraqi government? Sure Saddam was bad, but until Al Qaida has been dealt with, I don't think he needed to be top priority. After all, it was American money and weapons that put Saddam in place. And on that note, it was also American money and weapons that put the Taliban in place (this is why the terrorists have weapons...). Anyway, I'd choose neither of those options. I'd prepare a defense. Minimize the casualties as much as possible, change my mood ring up to orange (but not red, because then people would see it is a hoax), and defend my country. After defending, I'd have my crew find solid proof as to where this attack came from, present my case to the UN in an effort to seek support, but even if I did not find my support, my war would still be justified by the UN charter as it makes provisions for defending a country AFTER it has been struck, but does not condone pre-emptiveness.
First off North korea has its big pal China not to mention it also has its nukes aimed at one of our allies so unless we want a world war III we will stick with nagotiations as long as possible. As for waiting for any attack then you oponent will say that you knew it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it. So either way your gonna be critized for it. I would much rather shoot at some one than get shot at first then ask questions later as soon as i can tell that I saved my ass.

I'm sure that's offsetted with the higher net worth of an average household in the past year. Since the net worth has risen (total assets minus total liabilities), it is safe to assume that the worth of the US is rising faster than the debt we owe. I'd rather have a rising debt with a rapidly rising net worth, instead of falling debt and net worth.

Here we go again? I think your assumptions are inaccurate based on the following charts:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub1.gif

What happens to net worth when interest rates rise and the stock market slumps badly or even worse, crashes?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub2.gif

A false sense of security when everything is peaking is not really too good to bank on?

First off North korea has its big pal China not to mention it also has its nukes aimed at one of our allies so unless we want a world war III we will stick with nagotiations as long as possible. As for waiting for any attack then you oponent will say that you knew it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it. So either way your gonna be critized for it. I would much rather shoot at some one than get shot at first then ask questions later as soon as i can tell that I saved my ass.
Uhm...I don't think China would take up arms against us on the side of North Korea...I also don't think that invading North Korea would cause World War III (as DPRK has to know the 4 nukes vs however many thousands of nules we have isn't much of a match...) Also, there are very few people saying that Bush knew about 9/11 and I find it hard to believe that anyone thought that Iraq was a threat (in fact...Iraq being a threat to America was not the reason we went in there...I wish more Bush supports would realize that...) And on top of all this, this is politics. Your opponent is going to criticize you no matter what you do. You can't make political decisions for the world's superpower if you're basing them off what your opponent will make of you...
And as for your support of pre-emptiveness, until George W. Bush invaded Iraq, the United States of America has NEVER made a pre-emptive strike on any other Nation. That's 225ish years of playing defense and not having any problems with it. Pearl Harbor proved that if you play defense (although Pearl Harbor could have been prevented as there was a guy who had intel that suspected a Japanese attack, but it took too long for it to go through the Pentagon, etc., anyway) there are no questions to ask. Why worrying about asking questions? If we would have waited for Iraq to attack us (which they wouldn't've any time soon), we would have lost some soldiers. Well guess what, we didn't wait and we still lost some soldiers. You know what the difference is? If we had waited, there would be unquestionable proof as to the threat Iraq poses to us. Therefore, our war with Iraq would not be in violation of the United Nations charter and all of our NATO allies would be forced to assist us unless they dropped out of NATO (which I doubt anyone would choose that) and ultimately, there would be less America casualties because there would be less American soldiers in the field because there'd be more NATO troops...anyways, I'm glad to know that the Republicans are now against another thing that America has stood for for so along. They already ditched parts of the constitution and now they've ditched our feelings about pre-emptiveness. Hooah!

Here we go again? I think your assumptions are inaccurate based on the following charts:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub1.gif

What happens to net worth when interest rates rise and the stock market slumps badly or even worse, crashes?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub2.gif

A false sense of security when everything is peaking is not really too good to bank on?
And why do I need to be concerned about irresponsible consumers?