NationStates Jolt Archive

No debate, just a simple one or the other vote.

Kerry!

I'd love to see either the libertarians or greens win, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. It's going to come down to choosing the lesser of two evils (Bush or Kerry). American society could stand to be a bit more learned in politics.

Kerry.

kerry will (should) win on these forums simply because of the kinds of people that visit these forums... one can only hope the rest of america isnt like most of the visitors of this forum.....

I voted for Nader but in the elcetion i would vote for Kerry. A vote for Nader is a vote aginst Kerry in these elections. That is how close it will be and how vital power is returned to where it belongs.

The only reason that I choose Bush, is that I'm am in the military and he supports us more than Kerry does. So I guess you can say I'm thinking about myself more than the country. I like Kerrys' views on some things. And the fight overseas will never end. :mp5:

Bush

kerry will (should) win on these forums simply because of the kinds of people that visit these forums... one can only hope the rest of america isnt like most of the visitors of this forum.....

<clap clap>

Pass that amendment and get Ah-nold in there!

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/images/gov_AS.jpg

kerry will (should) win on these forums simply because of the kinds of people that visit these forums... one can only hope the rest of america isnt like most of the visitors of this forum.....

A good number of forum users are liberal europeans...or "punk" little kids...who couldn't vote anyhow.

BUSH IS ACTUALLY WINNING!!! this is new for these biesed forums

A sad day indeed for America's future...

I'm seriously considering writing myself in.

BUSH IS ACTUALLY WINNING!!! this is new for these biesed forums
Wolf!! Wolf!! No, I'm serious this time!!! Over there, Wolf!!!!!!!

Bush isnt winning anymore. Rejoice, rejoice its not so bad democrat voting people we're going to win, Bush is losing yay :) :D :) :D

Damn you Nader, you're suppose to take votes away from Kerry! Work faster! :D

Bush!

Five bucks says this breaks down into a screaming political fight before page 5.

Kerry, dammit!
:sniper:

I voted Nader because 1 my vote doesnt really count and 2 America need to get rid of its 2party system

Bush isnt winning anymore. Rejoice, rejoice its not so bad democrat voting people we're going to win, Bush is losing yay :) :D :) :D

last I checked Bush had a double diget lead over kerry and dominated kerry in popularity on every major issue besides the environment......

I support the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I speak for the majority of registered voters too.

I'd love to see either the libertarians or greens win, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. It's going to come down to choosing the lesser of two evils (Bush or Kerry). American society could stand to be a bit more learned in politics.


Libertarians learned in politics??? I have no problem with people being politically active, but the Libertarians killed my state. Thanks a lot guys. Really happy about that.

If this year wasn't so important, I would be voting for the Revolutionary Communist Party of America. Although I think those guys aren't actually legit.

Bush on the forum:36.76% Bush in reality: 54%
John Kerry on the forum: 47.06% Kerry in reality: 38%
Ralph Nader on the forum 5.88% in reality 4%

very interesting

I voted Nader because 1 my vote doesnt really count and 2 America need to get rid of its 2party system
I agree with you, but for me, there comes a time when I have to put as much effort as I can towards a cause. Removing Bush from office is critical to the long-term success of this country in my opinion. Once a better candidate is in office, we can struggle with the issues like the two party problem and the electoral college problem (both can be solved in one fell swoop).

Mike

you guys are so out of the mainstream. I really am sorry to say that though.

would vote for:Bush 54% kerry 43% nadar 4%

Bush's strong points
better commander in chief:bush 60% kerry 32%
better plan for Iraq: bush 55% kerry 37%
foreign policy:bush 54% kerry 38%
taxes:bush 52% kerry 38%
the economy:bush 49% kerry 43%
education:bush 48% kerry 42%
gay marriage:bush 44% kerry 36%

Kerry's strong points
medicare: Kerry 45% Bush 43%
environment: Kerry 50% Bush 36%

Was it the right thing to invade Iraq last year?
Yes: 55% No 38%


Interesting in light of the way people talk on these forum threads.

I support the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I speak for the majority of registered voters too.


Not anymore. The Democratic parties' Get Out The Vote campaign has been so successful, that over 10 million liberals have been registered.

When did you speak for the majority? Last time I remembered, before this post convention bump, we had Kerry in the lead by between 1 and 4 percentage points. This 11% bump will decrease, and we will find that in the debates, Bush will get stomped as bad as he did last time. I have only found 2 conservatives who have been able to put up decent arguments. One is McCain, and the other is in this forum. And no, Undecidedterritory, it certainly isn't you.

Wanna try to beat me in a political discussion? Try me. I'll turn you inside out, shred your beliefs before your eyes, and leave you a sobbing mess on the ground in front of your computer.

i vote bush i live in massachusetts and let me tell ya kerry hasnt done anything for it we have a very low job rate very high unemployment rate insurance rates are sky high and taxes and home prices are through the roof yeah he really help screw up this already screwed up state

imagine what he will do to the country

Not anymore. The Democratic parties' Get Out The Vote campaign has been so successful, that over 10 million liberals have been registered.

When did you speak for the majority? Last time I remembered, before this post convention bump, we had Kerry in the lead by between 1 and 4 percentage points. This 11% bump will decrease, and we will find that in the debates, Bush will get stomped as bad as he did last time. I have only found 2 conservatives who have been able to put up decent arguments. One is McCain, and the other is in this forum. And no, Undecidedterritory, it certainly isn't you.

Wanna try to beat me in a political discussion? Try me. I'll turn you inside out, shred your beliefs before your eyes, and leave you a sobbing mess on the ground in front of your computer.


see my post on the last page about poll details and if you know anything about history you will know that in the last 7 straight elections the republican bounce did not fade....right now Bush is 16 points ahead of where he was in 2000 on than first week of september. I personaly do not act rude to people and if you want to "shred " someone or leave someone " a sobbing mess" I would recomend seeing a specialist about anger control rather than a person in a political chat. thanks.

you guys are so out of the mainstream. I really am sorry to say that though.


Sorrier are we that we have to say this. The left loathes Bush with such a passion that we will see almost 80% turnout from that part of the population. Even if we are a minority, we are still going to throw Bush out with our enthusiasm. Most Americans will fall for the bullshit the right is willing to say about Bush and Kerry, but the left will not be swayed by anything less than the truth.

I am voting for Bush for because I think he is better qualified to lead this country, but even if I didn't I would still vote Bush because I am retired military and couldn't vote for Kerry with a clear conscience. I am also looking at who is gonna pick my pocket the least. Bush offers tax cuts, Kerry for over 20 years has voted for tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.......

I guess all of you are too young to remember 1972 or 1984. Both of those years we had a tight presidential race that opened up in the last two months to a landslide victory for a Republican incumbant( nixon in 72' Reagan in 84') who was HATED by the left. They said the left had more registered voters, more emotion, more push, more enthusiasm. But The left got beaten...badly. I guess you are too young to remember?

Bush on the forum:36.76% Bush in reality: 54%
John Kerry on the forum: 47.06% Kerry in reality: 38%
Ralph Nader on the forum 5.88% in reality 4%

very interesting
Not as interesting as:

July 23, 1984: Poll Puts Mondale Even With Reagan

Democratic presidential nominee Walter F. Mondale, on a post-convention fishing vacation in Gunflint Lake, Minn., did not catch any fish but hauled in some good news yesterday from a poll that showed him pulling even with President Reagan.


May 3, 1984: Mondale-Hart, Reagan-Bush Tickets Running Neck and Neck in New Poll

If the November election were held today, a Democratic Mondale-Hart ticket would run even with a Republican Reagan-Bush ticket, according to a new Gallup Poll.


October 28, 1980: Carter Goes Into Debate With Lead in New Poll

President Carter and Ronald Reagan meet in Cleveland tonight for the long-awaited debate that could be the crucial event in determining who will be the next president of the United States.


November 3, 1952: Final Survey Shows Nip-and-Tuck Race

Final poll results, based upon interviewing through Thursday, show Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson coming down the homestretch in a tight race for the popular vote majority.


July 12, 1936: Roosevelt's Popular Lead Is Reduced to 51.8% in July Poll; Landon Ahead in 21 States, Has Electoral Vote Majority

You like polls, no doubt about it. Fact of the matter is, public polling has a long history of not being particularly accurate. So is it interesting? Not really, at least no more than this:

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/7638/aproval_vs_alert_chart.gif

This is the graph that shows why Bush is going to lose. This also explains the topics at the RNC (i.e. Sept 11 and Iraq).

i vote bush i live in massachusetts and let me tell ya kerry hasnt done anything for it we have a very low job rate very high unemployment rate insurance rates are sky high and taxes and home prices are through the roof yeah he really help screw up this already screwed up state

imagine what he will do to the country
Gee--considering that Kerry's not directly involved with any of the issues you describe there, maybe you ought to start looking at your state government, like say, your Republican governor, Mitt Romney.

I am voting for Bush for because I think he is better qualified to lead this country, but even if I didn't I would still vote Bush because I am retired military and couldn't vote for Kerry with a clear conscience. I am also looking at who is gonna pick my pocket the least. Bush offers tax cuts, Kerry for over 20 years has voted for tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.......Hate to break this to you, but if you're wealthy enough to actually benefit from Bush's tax cuts, then you don't need them.

Nixon is 22 points ahead of mcgovern post convention and 21 points ahead come election day.
1976: Ford was 26 points behind carter post convention but only lost by 4 points on election day.
1980: Reagan was 12 points ahead of carter post convention and won by 10 points on election day.
1984: Reagan was 6 points ahead of mondale post convention and won by 19 points on election day.
1988: George Bush was 6 points behind Dukakis post convention but won by 8 points on election day.
1992: George Bush was 13 points behind clinton post convention but only 6 points behind on election day.
1996: bob dole was 10 points behind clinton post convention and 9 points behind on election day.
2000: George w. Bush was 5 points behind gore post convention and even on election day.
2004: George w. Bush was 11 points a head of kerry post conevention and.............( notice the republicans have never lost more than 2 points support in the september to november period) Bush wins! look at the trends of history!

im votin for bush because i dont want to have too hand more of my money over to the govenment.

see my post on the last page about poll details and if you know anything about history you will know that in the last 7 straight elections the republican bounce did not fade....right now Bush is 16 points ahead of where he was in 2000 on than first week of september. I personaly do not act rude to people and if you want to "shred " someone or leave someone " a sobbing mess" I would recomend seeing a specialist about anger control rather than a person in a political chat. thanks.


Oh, I don't need anger control, I just love destroying other people's opinions. Back in High school, it was my favorite thing to do. It's not that I'm mean, it's just that whatever you have been taught needs to be untaught, and I try to be the person to do that for you! Think of it as a public service!

I did see that poll. I know most Americans don't give a shit about politics. I know that they aren't willing to look into what was said in that campaign. I know the media won't say anything about what was truth, and what was a lie. I know Kerry won't go out and say that these things are lies either. I know that neither side uses hard facts, and you know it too.

Bush's No Child Left Behind act? he hasn't even funded it! How can we even know if it is successful of not? Bush's economic performance? Sure, our job rate is climbing, but if you look at the level that is necessary to maintain our population growth, we are still falling about 10,000 jobs short! On taxes? I got $100 worth of tax cuts. My boss got $45,000. You call that good on taxes? Better plan for Iraq? When we went in, did we even have a plan??? We expected them to greet us as liberators! Now they're fighting us!

Hate to break this to you, but if you're wealthy enough to actually benefit from Bush's tax cuts, then you don't need them.

my family barely scrapes by and we got a $1000 dollar child tax credit 2 years straight.

education funding:
2000: 40 billion dollars
2001: 42 billion dollars
2002: 49 billion dollars
2003: 53 billion dollars
2004: 63 billion dollars
2005: 66 billion dollars


seems like Bush increased education funding to me. By the way, a friend of mine works for the dept. of education.

im votin for bush because i dont want to have too hand more of my money over to the govenment.


Are you rich? because, otherwise, Kerry is still going to keep your taxes down. Bush campaigned that Kerry was going to raise taxes. Truth is, he is only repealing the tax laws that Bush revoked! So, you are still going to have a cut, just the cut for the wealthy is going to be much smaller! And really, do rich people need that money anyway?

Pardon me but the tax cut was across the board. And I got a substancial tax cut and I am certainly not rich. Also, if you cruch the numbers ( I doubt you have) the tax increases that Kerry is calling for ( just the rich) will cover just 1/3 of the new spending he proposes. He says he will only raise middle class taxes as a last resort. that was the same Clinton checked into about 10 years ago.......

Hate to break this to you, but if you're wealthy enough to actually benefit from Bush's tax cuts, then you don't need them.

I'll tell you what lets do. I'll take my little tax cut. Every little bit helps. You put yours in an envelope and send it back to the treasury since you dont want yours.

[QUOTE=Comandante] Truth is, he is only repealing the tax laws that Bush revoked! QUOTE]

?

education funding:
2000: 40 billion dollars
2001: 42 billion dollars
2002: 49 billion dollars
2003: 53 billion dollars
2004: 63 billion dollars
2005: 66 billion dollars


seems like Bush increased education funding to me. By the way, a friend of mine works for the dept. of education.



Can I see the place you got that info from? And I have to ask you this. In my state, the education system was totally gutted. It has gotten worse as this presidency has progressed (my state is Oregon, by the way) So, I, honestly, think you are trying to feed me Bullshit and call it Chocolate! Give me a source. Adjust for inflation. Show me the money.

I'll tell you what lets do. I'll take my little tax cut. Every little bit helps. You put yours in an envelope and send it back to the treasury since you dont want yours.

actualy that is an option on the IRS form for people over a certain income.

Can I see the place you got that info from? And I have to ask you this. In my state, the education system was totally gutted. It has gotten worse as this presidency has progressed (my state is Oregon, by the way) So, I, honestly, think you are trying to feed me Bullshit and call it Chocolate! Give me a source. Adjust for inflation. Show me the money.


It will take me some serious time to do that being that I have that info written down but not the web adress. It was from the department of education website under "budgets" I believe ( never seen it huh?) well, I will slog it out and try to find it for you no matter how insulted I am by your insistance that I am I liar.

Pardon me but the tax cut was across the board. And I got a substancial tax cut and I am certainly not rich. Also, if you cruch the numbers ( I doubt you have) the tax increases that Kerry is calling for ( just the rich) will cover just 1/3 of the new spending he proposes. He says he will only raise middle class taxes as a last resort. that was the same Clinton checked into about 10 years ago.......
Your substantial tax cut amounted up to what exactly? I got $300. That'd be great if I didn't have to spend more in almost every other area. In all, everything's costing me more than it would otherwise and these costs are not offset by the $300 check.

I am voting for Bush for because I think he is better qualified to lead this country, but even if I didn't I would still vote Bush because I am retired military and couldn't vote for Kerry with a clear conscience. I am also looking at who is gonna pick my pocket the least. Bush offers tax cuts, Kerry for over 20 years has voted for tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.......

Sup, I'm new to this forum, but this looks like quite a hot debate, so I'm just going to come in with my own opinion.

First, Bush isn't qualified at anything, not even lying. All the companies he tried to lead were... pretty damn well unsuccessful (euphemism). But as we all know, this has no real link to the matter of leading a country, right?

Next, as we all know... or do not wish to know, some people were forced out of voting for absurd matters, such as their origins.

Then, here's the interesting matter. You think a tax cut is good, right? WRONG! Do you think the government steals your money or something? Each dollar you send for taxes comes back to you, one way or another - which means, tax cut is good for YOU, and bad for the PEOPLE. Let's explain it a bit more: if the government gets less tax income, let's take a look at what's gonna happen to... let's say health system. They'll be getting less money from the government, which means, basically, they'll have to make ends meet by asking their money elsewhere. Where? The people, of course. Insurances will go through the roof, and right now... how many people? 40 000 000 Americans have no insurance at all, 'cause they just can't afford it... why? Tax cuts. It's all about tax cuts. In fact, if you're not rich, you'll be the first to take advantage of a tax rise.

...So, you are still going to have a cut, just the cut for the wealthy is going to be much smaller! And really, do rich people need that money anyway?

Most of the wealthy actually worked hard to earn their money. They worked hard in school and studied. They didn't slack off. The wealthy had earned their money. The large majority of the poor were once those bully's and crack-addicts who used to push around the harder-working kids that actually cared for their future.

But now those kids are all grown up. And they are mad that they are being treated unfairly! Hah!

The wealthy should not be punished for actually working hard and earning what they got! If anything they should be rewarded!

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

that's for that angry fellow who calls me a liar.

Bush removed capital gain, dividend, and estate taxes a few years ago. Kerry's agenda is to bring those back, because they affect almost solely the top 10% in our income bracket.

Is Kerry going to raise our taxes by 900 billion dollars? Why yes! Are you going to be affected? Why no! Should you care? Why no! Will this help to get us off of the deficit spending? Why yes!

So, when you really look at it, who is making a wiser tax choice here? Kerry will only be bringing back the tax that the wealthy already had, and Bush will be keeping us in deficit spending! That doesn't look too good to me!

I am voting for Bush for because I think he is better qualified to lead this country, but even if I didn't I would still vote Bush because I am retired military and couldn't vote for Kerry with a clear conscience. I am also looking at who is gonna pick my pocket the least. Bush offers tax cuts, Kerry for over 20 years has voted for tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.......
Why couldn't you vote for Kerry with a clear conscience?

my family barely scrapes by and we got a $1000 dollar child tax credit 2 years straight.And how much did your local and state taxes rise? How much did college tuitions at state universities go up? How much did local charges for services like water and electricity go up? Taxes for public schools? How many services were slashed--school programs discontinued, fire stations closed and the like? Did you really come out ahead? Not likely.

You think a tax cut is good, right? WRONG! Do you think the government steals your money or something? Each dollar you send for taxes comes back to you, one way or another - which means, tax cut is good for YOU, and bad for the PEOPLE. Let's explain it a bit more: if the government gets less tax income, let's take a look at what's gonna happen to... let's say health system. They'll be getting less money from the government, which means, basically, they'll have to make ends meet by asking their money elsewhere. Where? The people, of course. Insurances will go through the roof, and right now... how many people? 40 000 000 Americans have no insurance at all, 'cause they just can't afford it... why? Tax cuts. It's all about tax cuts. In fact, if you're not rich, you'll be the first to take advantage of a tax rise.

Baffling. ok.I will take it one thingat a time. Yes I think tax cuts are good.
no, actualy because of overhead beauracracy about 25% of the money the govt. takes in actualy gets back to everyday people. And by being good for me isnt it also good for the people? I thought I was a member of the "people". and people cant afford insurance because of tax cuts......?ok, they are not related to each other. You obviously are not familiar with the budget defecit or the workings of a free market society.

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IN THE USundefinedundefined

Idealistically: Badnarik
Realistically: Bush

Really, I'm not happy with either of the candidates in this election. However, my hate of Kerry and his collectivist brethren outstrips my dislike of Bush's big government spending, so I'm voting for him.

latest poll: trust more on the issue of taxes:
Bush 52% kerry 38%

ok, I have to go now. But keep following this election. You might just get a suprise.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

that's for that angry fellow who calls me a liar.


A solid rebuttal, but I do believe that discretionary spending didn't make it's way to my state! How many days worth of school did our students lose? 21? That's right! In most of the Democratic states, this was one of the trends. Money was appropriated in smaller quantities to our states! How is that fair? How did your state do? Which one do you live in? Is it a Republican state?

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

that's for that angry fellow who calls me a liar.
And this is for you...

http://www.townonline.com/dover/news/opinion/ds_edidsschools06032004.htm

Bush came up with the requirements for the No Child Left Behind Act and then has come up short with the funding of that act. Now many, many schools are left without the money to enact all the requirements of the NCLBA which ironically means that they will likely face cuts in their federal funding.

This is the area that Bush hasn't funded. Some states are as much as $26 million short and it is the children that are feeling the consequences.

Five bucks says this breaks down into a screaming political fight before page 5.

Took only three pages, actually :D

Most of the wealthy actually worked hard to earn their money. They worked hard in school and studied. They didn't slack off. The wealthy had earned their money. The large majority of the poor were once those bully's and crack-addicts who used to push around the harder-working kids that actually cared for their future.

But now those kids are all grown up. And they are mad that they are being treated unfairly! Hah!



Exactly. This is why college professors are all right-wing, to a man.

Oh, wait...

Idealistically: Badnarik
Realistically: Bush

Really, I'm not happy with either of the candidates in this election. However, my hate of Kerry and his collectivist brethren outstrips my dislike of Bush's big government spending, so I'm voting for him.


I demand the 21 days of my schooling that your Libertarian friends took away from me! In your idealism for low spending, I, and my classmates, lost 21 days from our senior year. They weren't happy either!

Do you know who Margaret Thatcher is? I want you to answer this one too. No escape. Do you know what she did for England? She privatized their services, which is one of those things that you Libertarians seem to enjoy quite a bit. What did it do for the English services? Hah! Try to catch a train in England. If you manage, I'll revoke my Marxism, and kiss your misguided feet! Otherwise, you'll have to do the same to me!

As much as you think that services would benefit from privatization, the facts about what happened to England remain. You are dead wrong if you think that privatization is workable, or even a good idea! Oh, I want you to ask yourself this: "does capitalism help me?" And you should be saying no 100% of the time, unless you own your own business, own stock, or own a major company. Interesting, how you have to OWN a part of the system to get the benefits from it!

Most of the wealthy actually worked hard to earn their money. They worked hard in school and studied. They didn't slack off. The wealthy had earned their money. The large majority of the poor were once those bully's and crack-addicts who used to push around the harder-working kids that actually cared for their future.

But now those kids are all grown up. And they are mad that they are being treated unfairly! Hah!

The wealthy should not be punished for actually working hard and earning what they got! If anything they should be rewarded!
You mean the rich people that aren't like Paris Hilton right? You know, those rich people who didn't do a damned thing to earn their money. You know, the rich people that get all the freebies and gifts from corporations just for being rich. The kind of people that don't actually add anything to our society.

Your bully story is bizarre and gives us all a little insight into your tormented school life. I'm no psychologist, but if I were you, I would go see if you can work out your issues with getting picked on as a kid.

Fact of the matter is, most people who are either middle class or poor are not now, nor ever were bad, bullies, or addicted to drugs. Furthermore, there will always be a subset of the populace that are poor or in poverty (although there is not always a middle class). People who are poor are people after all. They are the ones that drive this economy by fixing the cars, cleaning the buildings, cooking the food, and fighting in the military. By ensuring that these people are healthy and happy, you will ensure that there are people still willing to do those jobs that Paris Hilton would never dream of doing (unless it were taped and shown on Fox). Why should someone who makes millions get a $78,000 tax return (twice as much as the median income in the US)? Why not put that $78,000 into something that can positively affect everyone as oppose to just the ultra rich?

Bush removed capital gain, dividend, and estate taxes a few years ago. Kerry's agenda is to bring those back, because they affect almost solely the top 10% in our income bracket.

And anyone that will have money in the stock market. Thus the market will go down. Ironically when the Dividend tax was removed, stocks actually jumped up considerably.

Is Kerry going to raise our taxes by 900 billion dollars? Why yes! Are you going to be affected? Why no! Should you care? Why no! Will this help to get us off of the deficit spending? Why yes!

Uh no!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200407%5CNAT20040729a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF

Kerry will actually increase defecit spending

So, when you really look at it, who is making a wiser tax choice here?

That would be Bush!

Kerry will only be bringing back the tax that the wealthy already had, and Bush will be keeping us in deficit spending! That doesn't look too good to me!

And then businesses will go down, unemployment would probably go up again. Frankly, I'll tak Bush in this regard than Kerry.

Baffling. ok.I will take it one thingat a time. Yes I think tax cuts are good.
no, actualy because of overhead beauracracy about 25% of the money the govt. takes in actualy gets back to everyday people. And by being good for me isnt it also good for the people? I thought I was a member of the "people". and people cant afford insurance because of tax cuts......?ok, they are not related to each other. You obviously are not familiar with the budget defecit or the workings of a free market society.

I think you definately are the one out of range here.

Let's make it crude and simple, so your brain gets the major part of the point.

1)Less money to THEM = less "services" to YOU.
2)Bureaucracy doesn't steal 75% of your taxes. It invests it in "services" you'll eventually need.
3)Tax rising would make the inequalities between the rich and the poor lesser, so the poor wouldn't need $1000 tax "comebacks" to make ends meet. That's what socialism is about, though it requires a wider mind.

Finally, did you know Roosevelt (either Franklin or Theodore, I don't care that much about American history) wanted to implement a $42000 income roof for everyone, and to "100% tax" every income over 42000 (like, 43950 = 1950 income removed). And even with the mass medias (paid by the wealthy) against him, he was elected with....
67%. It's a sad thing he couldn't pass that project.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
Uh no!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200407%5CNAT20040729a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF
QUOTE]

What do I see? CSN news? Washington Times? Are your sources and informations absolutely, and beyond the shadow of a doubt, objective?

And anyone that will have money in the stock market. Thus the market will go down. Ironically when the Dividend tax was removed, stocks actually jumped up considerably.



Uh no!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200407%5CNAT20040729a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF

Kerry will actually increase defecit spending



That would be Bush!



And then businesses will go down, unemployment would probably go up again. Frankly, I'll tak Bush in this regard than Kerry.



Funny, how even today there are firm believers in Voodoo economics. We learned that lesson a while ago. The person who owns the company is not what keeps it afloat, it is the company itself. If you wanted to lower unemployement and raise the economy, don't lower the taxes on the wealthy! Lower business taxes and lower income taxes!

But seriously, I want you to give me rock solid evidence that voodoo economics is a workable system. I will give you my evidence against it.

1922, after the Federal Reserve was formed, the idea of Trickle-down (aka Voodoo) economics was put into practice. The idea being that, if tax cuts were given to the wealthy, then they would invest in their companies, thus making them stronger. What did we actually see happening? The wealthy held onto the money. It would be either saved, or put into the stock market. Rarely did it go back to the company. The gap between rich and poor increased. The middle class started to shrink. The only time when we actually had 90% of the wealth in the hands of the top 10% was about 1929. Three years later, America's economy failed.
The Great Depression was the result of your Voodoo economics.

Now, try to find when it was a good idea! If you can manage, I'll buy you a candy bar!

The Holy Republic of Dirtle supports everything conservative. Education is not our priority. Warfare is our way of life. Vote Bush!

I think you definately are the one out of range here.

Let's make it crude and simple, so your brain gets the major part of the point.

1)Less money to THEM = less "services" to YOU.
2)Bureaucracy doesn't steal 75% of your taxes. It invests it in "services" you'll eventually need.
3)Tax rising would make the inequalities between the rich and the poor lesser, so the poor wouldn't need $1000 tax "comebacks" to make ends meet. That's what socialism is about, though it requires a wider mind.

Finally, did you know Roosevelt (either Franklin or Theodore, I don't care that much about American history) wanted to implement a $42000 income roof for everyone, and to "100% tax" every income over 42000 (like, 43950 = 1950 income removed). And even with the mass medias (paid by the wealthy) against him, he was elected with....
67%. It's a sad thing he couldn't pass that project.


Damn, that is an awesom idea! OH, BTW to all you who say that is theft, it really isn't. At the time, people didn't need nearly that much to live very well. The equivalent amount of money would be about 200 million dollars. I mean seriously, how could one person need that much money? Absolutely, even though they may have "earned" it, they still don't need it! That actually sounds like a great idea. It still gives people the incentive to be businessmen, but it will give huge amounts of money back to the people! Yay!

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. It could not only
dispense drinks flawlessly, but also -- like any good bartender -- engage in
'appropriate' conversation.

A man enters the bar, orders a drink. The robot serves him a perfectly
prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "150."
And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string
theory, atomic chemistry, etc. The customer is very impressed and thinks,
"This is really cool."

He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and
comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and
asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "100." And immediately the
robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball,
cheerleaders, etc.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one
more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your
IQ?" The man replies, "50." And the robot says ......................

"So ......... you’re gonna vote for Kerry?"

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
Uh no!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200407%5CNAT20040729a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF
[QUOTE]

What do I see? CSN news? Washington Times? Are your sources and informations absolutely, and beyond the shadow of a doubt, objective?

Ok so don't believe the study from the National Taxpayers Union! (That'll be the last link)

Alexandria, VA) -- For overtaxed and deficit-weary Americans, future prospects for lower federal spending are bleak indeed, according to a detailed analysis of the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's fiscal agenda by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). Despite adding spending caps to his agenda, Kerry's campaign promises could still hit taxpayers with a $226 billion blow, on top of the 29 percent spending run-up under George W. Bush's term.

"Despite Kerry's attempts to outflank Bush on the deficit issue and portray himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate, the data behind Kerry's rhetoric tell a different story," said NTUF Policy Analyst and study author Drew Johnson. "Enactment of Kerry's 'revised' spending agenda in its entirety would still mean higher taxes, a larger national debt, or likely both."

The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of Kerry's agenda, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal he offered. For actual legislation that Kerry has endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more. Highlights of the study include:

Based on Kerry's promise to "pay for" every program he has proposed, U.S. taxpayers would each face an average additional $2,206 in higher taxes during Kerry's first year in office, and a cumulative increased tax burden of $6,066 over his first term.
If Sen. Kerry's policy agenda were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $226.125 billion during the first year of a Kerry Presidency alone.
Despite nearly $36 billion in spending cuts, $734.62 billion of Kerry's spending agenda remains unaccounted for, and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt.
Kerry has promised nearly $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, energy, and environmental handouts during his first term, including $2 million to restore voting rights to felons.
Although Sen. Kerry claims Americans can look to his voting record when determining whether to trust his vow of fiscal responsibility, according to NTUF's BillTally and VoteTally reports, Kerry sponsored or cosponsored $182 billion worth of new federal legislation in 2003, and voted to increase federal spending by $466.5 billion during 2002. VoteTally figures for 2003 are unavailable due to Sen. Kerry's many absences.
Kerry has announced only five cost-saving policy ideas out of a total of 70 policy proposals.
"By exempting a series of major discretionary categories, Kerry's so-called 'strong' spending caps are actually so porous as to be no more effective than the restraints George W. Bush has sought," Johnson concluded. "In the final analysis, the 'winner' of the 2004 election could very well be the federal deficit -- leaving taxpayers with a landslide loss of their economic freedom."

NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTUF Policy Paper 153, One Hand In Your Pocket: How Kerry's Campaign Pledges Stand to Cost Taxpayers Billions, is available online at www.ntu.org.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=51
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=628&org_name=NTUF

two other links!

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. It could not only
dispense drinks flawlessly, but also -- like any good bartender -- engage in
'appropriate' conversation.

A man enters the bar, orders a drink. The robot serves him a perfectly
prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "150."
And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string
theory, atomic chemistry, etc. The customer is very impressed and thinks,
"This is really cool."

He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and
comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and
asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "100." And immediately the
robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball,
cheerleaders, etc.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one
more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your
IQ?" The man replies, "50." And the robot says ......................

"So ......... you’re gonna vote for Kerry?"



Funny isn't it, that most College students are going to vote for Kerry or Nader? Oh, if you are going by I.Q. you might as well reverse that thing, and make it about Bush. My IQ was tested by a proctor (so it's legit) and I scored a 167.

It seems as though the uneducated seem very keen on voting for Bush. Or joining the military! Hmm, what can we deduce from this?

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. It could not only
dispense drinks flawlessly, but also -- like any good bartender -- engage in
'appropriate' conversation.

A man enters the bar, orders a drink. The robot serves him a perfectly
prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "150."
And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string
theory, atomic chemistry, etc. The customer is very impressed and thinks,
"This is really cool."

He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and
comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and
asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "100." And immediately the
robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball,
cheerleaders, etc.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one
more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your
IQ?" The man replies, "50." And the robot says ......................

"So ......... you’re gonna vote for Bush?"
Good one!

Funny isn't it, that most College students are going to vote for Kerry or Nader? Oh, if you are going by I.Q. you might as well reverse that thing, and make it about Bush. My IQ was tested by a proctor (so it's legit) and I scored a 167.

It seems as though the uneducated seem very keen on voting for Bush. Or joining the military! Hmm, what can we deduce from this?

Someone with a low IQ is just silly ^^

Ok so don't believe the study from the National Taxpayers Union! (That'll be the last link)



http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=51
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=628&org_name=NTUF

two other links!
All speculation of course. Here are graphs that represent the facts.

First the current and projected federal deficit (from the proposed budget):

http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/images/2005Budget%203_files/image007.gif

Second historical, current, and projected national debts:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP-large.gif

We know that Bush has increased both the federal deficit and the national debt. We can only speculate what Kerry will do, although there are indications that he will take the Clinton stance and reduce the deficit and the debt (note the above graphs).

Bush has had his chance and he hasn't even attempted to be fiscally responsible (tax cuts in a time of war for example). It's time for a new president.

Ok so don't believe the study from the National Taxpayers Union! (That'll be the last link)



http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=51
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=628&org_name=NTUF

two other links!
Uhhh...... I tell you something, now... this national taxpayers' union, it does look pretty old. I'd ask you, could you search and see if, historically, it has ever promoted a rise in taxes, or it has, in all times, always existed to protest against such things?

I'd have my answer about it's validity, then. And you too, if you aren't too stubborn.

All speculation of course. Here are graphs that represent the facts.

First the current and projected federal deficit (from the proposed budget):

http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/images/2005Budget%203_files/image007.gif

Second historical, current, and projected national debts:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP-large.gif

We know that Bush has increased both the federal deficit and the national debt. We can only speculate what Kerry will do, although there are indications that he will take the Clinton stance and reduce the deficit and the debt (note the above graphs).

Bush has had his chance and he hasn't even attempted to be fiscally responsible (tax cuts in a time of war for example). It's time for a new president.

Ok so I guess the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (which is non-partisan) was wrong but I doubt it highly. They went through what he proposed and came up with this data. Did you bother to read the links I provided? I did not think so otherwise you would be able to see this. Kerry WILL increase Federal Spending more than Bush and you will see this if you bothered to see what Kerry is proposing. Obviously NTUF did this and came out with this Study.

As for taxes, look at what happened to the Economy when JFK (John F. Kennedy) and Reagan BOTH cut taxes. The economy BOOMED

Here, I have a better one.

A man walks into an old, chinese antiques store in the middle of Chinatown. He looks around, sees some interesting knicknacks, and then, his eye catches a rat made purely out of bronze.

He asks the owner, "how much for the rat?" The owner says "$20 dollars without the story, $2,000 with the story."

The man, not wanting to spend $2,000, buys it without the story.

He leaves the store, and starts walking around the downtown. He starts to notice, that rats seem to be following him. He gets nervous, and speeds up his walking. Rats start coming out of Trashcans, Sewers, Law offices, anywhere and everywhere.

Soon he has a giant army of rats following close behind him. He starts speeding up, and runs down to the docks. The rats are close behind, and he barely manages to get to a boat, before the rats all jump in the water and drown.

Flustered, and a bit shaken, he goes back to the store. The owner says, "So, do you want the story now?"

The man says, "No, just tell me where I can find a bronze Conservative!"

John Kerry visits a primary school and sits in on one of the classes, which
is in the middle of a discussion of words and their meaning. The teacher
asks Mr. Kerry if he would like to lead the discussion of the word
"tragedy." So, the illustrious senator asks the class for an example of a
"tragedy."
One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend, who lives on a
farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks
him dead, that would be a tragedy."
"That's wrong," Kerry shouts. "That would be considered an accident."
A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove
over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"You are completely incorrect," shouts the senator. "That would be what we
would consider a great loss."
The room goes silent. No other children volunteer.
Kerry searches the room. "Isn't there s! omeone here who can give me an
example of a tragedy?"
Finally, at the back of the room, a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet
voice, he says, "If a plane carrying the Senator John Kerry were struck by a
missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaims Kerry. "You are absolutely right. Can you tell me why
that would be a tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss, and
it probably wouldn't be an accident!"

Kerry Fled

As for taxes, look at what happened to the Economy when JFK (John F. Kennedy) and Reagan BOTH cut taxes. The economy BOOMED


Tax cuts are only good when they go to the people that actually spend the cuts. Even I, a Communist, am for middle-class tax cuts, because they always help the economy. The problem with the Shrub's cuts is that they go in huge quantities to the wealthy, while much less happen to the middle and lower class.

If Bush really wanted economic growth, he should have made those huge cuts to the middle class instead. The economy would have Sky-rocketed!

Look at where the Bush cuts go, you will see that they don't go to the middle class. The taxes that he did away with (dividend, capital gain, estate taxes) are only applicable to the upper income brackets! And those are where most of the tax cuts come from!

What's the difference between Senator Kerry and a tossed coin?

1. A tossed coin flips over fewer times.

2. A tossed coin eventually gives you a definite answer.

3. When you look at a U.S. coin, you're looking at a President.


On a tour of Texas, the Pope took a couple of days off to visit the
coastal area for some sightseeing.

He was cruising along the sea wall on Galveston Isle in his Pope mobile
when suddenly he notices a frantic commotion just off shore.

There was John Kerry struggling frantically to free himself from the
jaws of a 25-foot shark.

As the Pope watched, horrified, a speedboat came racing up with two men
aboard.

One of the men, President George W. Bush quickly fired a harpoon into
the shark's side while Dick Cheney reached out and pulled the bleeding,
semi-conscious John Kerry from the water.

Then using baseball bats, the two heroes beat the shark to death and
hauled it into the boat.

Immediately the Pope shouted and summoned them to the beach. "I give
you my blessings for your brave actions," he told them. "I heard that
there was some bitter hatred between President Bush and John Kerry, but
now I have seen with my own eyes that this is not true."

As the Pope drove off, President Bush asked Dick "Who was that?"

"It was the Pope," Dick replied. "He is in direct contact with God and
has all of God's wisdom."

"Well," President Bush said, "he may have access to God's wisdom, but
he doesn't know squat about shark fishing...how's the bait holding up?"

John Kerry visits a primary school and sits in on one of the classes, which
is in the middle of a discussion of words and their meaning. The teacher
asks Mr. Kerry if he would like to lead the discussion of the word
"tragedy." So, the illustrious senator asks the class for an example of a
"tragedy."
One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend, who lives on a
farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks
him dead, that would be a tragedy."
"That's wrong," Kerry shouts. "That would be considered an accident."
A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove
over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"You are completely incorrect," shouts the senator. "That would be what we
would consider a great loss."
The room goes silent. No other children volunteer.
Kerry searches the room. "Isn't there s! omeone here who can give me an
example of a tragedy?"
Finally, at the back of the room, a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet
voice, he says, "If a plane carrying the Senator John Kerry were struck by a
missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaims Kerry. "You are absolutely right. Can you tell me why
that would be a tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss, and
it probably wouldn't be an accident!"

Kerry Fled

Haha! Very funny, I like that one.

BTW, this Frances is pretty cool. Im in the Florida panhandle, just came in from outside. The rain is killing me! And the win is blowing junk all over the place. This is fun! Just hope that shaky tree out there doesn't fall on my car..... it won't be fun no more...

John Kerry was going to visit the Catholic National Catherdral outside Washington as part of his campaign. Kerry's campaign manager made a visit to the Cardinal and said to him, "We've been getting a lot of bad publicity among Catholics because of Kerry's position on abortion and the like. We'd gladly make a contribution to the church of $100,000 if during your sermon you'd say John Kerry is a saint."


The Cardinal thinks it over for a moment and agrees to do it. Kerry shows up, and as the Mass progresses the Cardinal begins his homily.

"John Kerry is petty, a self absorbed hypocrite and a nit-wit. He is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. He is the worst example of a Catholic I've ever personally known.


"But compared to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry is a saint."

Tax cuts are only good when they go to the people that actually spend the cuts. Even I, a Communist, am for middle-class tax cuts, because they always help the economy. The problem with the Shrub's cuts is that they go in huge quantities to the wealthy, while much less happen to the middle and lower class.

If Bush really wanted economic growth, he should have made those huge cuts to the middle class instead. The economy would have Sky-rocketed!

Look at where the Bush cuts go, you will see that they don't go to the middle class. The taxes that he did away with (dividend, capital gain, estate taxes) are only applicable to the upper income brackets! And those are where most of the tax cuts come from!

Read what the Congressional Budget Office has said. Read the real statistics and not what the Democratic Party is saying.

Friends of Bill, I have had it with your constant trolling and flamebaiting. Once again you are adding nothing to discussion and merely trying to provoke others. If I catch you doing this again, you will be forum banned for a length of time given at my discretion. Do I make myself clear?


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

George W. Bush's Intelligence Quiz

While visiting England, George W. Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people. He asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

She phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister. Please answer this question: Your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

"Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Upon returning to Washington, he decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. He summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

"Uh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now look here Colin Powell, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother, or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course, you dumb ass."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb ass, It's Tony Blair!"

Friends of Bill, I have had it with your constant trolling and flamebaiting. Once again you are adding nothing to discussion and merely trying to provoke others. If I catch you doing this again, you will be forum banned for a length of time given at my discretion. Do I make myself clear?


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Well I happen to be enjoying his posts... He IS adding something to the discussion, he is adding a topic of which people can participate. If there were no topics, then the forum would die. These forums revolve and thrive on debate. Face it, debate is needed.

Wow, this thread suddenly turned into the bad political humor thread. Maybe it's an improvement over where it was heading.

Wow, this thread suddenly turned into the bad political humor thread. Maybe it's an improvement over where it was heading.

Incertonia, for once we are in agreement.

Read what the Congressional Budget Office has said. Read the real statistics and not what the Democratic Party is saying.



Yeah, already looked into it. What are you trying to prove to me? I never listen to any of the political parties! They all have an agenda! I did the math on the way that the tax structure works, and what has happened now that Bush has cut those particular taxes. I found that I save nothing, my family, (having money in the market) saves some, the Lawyer I intern under saves quite a bit (having a large amount in the markets, and having recently won a very large lawsuit (our clients won $25 million, and he got 33% of that)) and Dick Cheney saves about $200,000! What are you trying to prove? Seriously? That money actually does go to the middle class? Sure, some does, enough for a family to buy an X-box! What kind of tax cut is that?

Yeah, already looked into it. What are you trying to prove to me? I never listen to any of the political parties! They all have an agenda! I did the math on the way that the tax structure works, and what has happened now that Bush has cut those particular taxes. I found that I save nothing, my family, (having money in the market) saves some, the Lawyer I intern under saves quite a bit (having a large amount in the markets, and having recently won a very large lawsuit (our clients won $25 million, and he got 33% of that)) and Dick Cheney saves about $200,000! What are you trying to prove? Seriously? That money actually does go to the middle class? Sure, some does, enough for a family to buy an X-box! What kind of tax cut is that?

Then why did we have a sky-rocket economy under JFK (the Real John F. Kennedy) and President Reagan? They both presented across the board Tax Cuts like Bush and the economy BOOMED

I agree with you, but for me, there comes a time when I have to put as much effort as I can towards a cause. Once a candidate is in office, we can struggle with the issues like the two party problem and the electoral college problem (both can be solved in one fell swoop).

Mike

I was curious what problems you had with the electoral college? I have my own issues with it, but they may differ. I will not get into the other arguements as they are overworked, but wish to know what you think on this. Thanks.

Pimsleur

Then why did we have a sky-rocket economy under JFK (the Real John F. Kennedy) and President Reagan? They both presented across the board Tax Cuts like Bush and the economy BOOMED


LOL, once again, I have to say, you really need a sense of perspective! I am well aware that when you give cuts to consumers, they spend like crazy. But, it seems to me, and everyone else in the world that the Bush cuts seem to go in any real volume to only a certain percentage of the population! Maybe, the top 20%? Nah, that's too generous. Maybe the top 15%? Yeah, that's more logical!

Please, oh dear god please make this into a meaningful discussion. I could have been getting laid right now, but I told my GF I was too tired, so that I could debate on this forum.

And now I'm getting a woody again! Damn you! Your BS has already been disproved a million times! This isn't a discussion anymore! I need to fuck!

LOL, once again, I have to say, you really need a sense of perspective! I am well aware that when you give cuts to consumers, they spend like crazy. But, it seems to me, and everyone else in the world that the Bush cuts seem to go in any real volume to only a certain percentage of the population! Maybe, the top 20%? Nah, that's too generous. Maybe the top 15%? Yeah, that's more logical!

Please, oh dear god please make this into a meaningful discussion. I could have been getting laid right now, but I told my GF I was too tired, so that I could debate on this forum.

And now I'm getting a woody again! Damn you! Your BS has already been disproved a million times! This isn't a discussion anymore! I need to fuck!

Actually Comandante, you have NOT provided any evidence that what I said was BS! the NTUF is a Non-partisan group that has studied this. If they say that Kerry is going to increase spending then kerry will increase spending. I find how they did it to be reasonable and commendable. I just wish you had that guts to read what I provide and to contemplate what it says.

Then why did we have a sky-rocket economy under JFK (the Real John F. Kennedy) and President Reagan? They both presented across the board Tax Cuts like Bush and the economy BOOMEDDifferent situations. With Kennedy, we were still laboring the WWII tax system which had truly punitive rates at the top levels--70%+. A lowering of the top rates was necessary then.

And as far as Reagan is concerned, you better take another look at his record. He jumpstarted the economy with one big tax cut at the beginning and then raised taxes every year afterward until 1986, when he essentially just rearranged them, and even then, we only got growth at the expense of deficits. That kind of economics is only good in the short term, never the long term.

I'll give Reagan this much--with his deficits, we at least got jobs. We haven't gotten that much with Bush's deficits.

Different situations. With Kennedy, we were still laboring the WWII tax system which had truly punitive rates at the top levels--70%+. A lowering of the top rates was necessary then.

At least he reduced them. I find that a Plus. Looking at what Kennedy did, even I would've voted for Kennedy. As for lowering the top rate, its not necessary now since they do the hiring?

And as far as Reagan is concerned, you better take another look at his record. He jumpstarted the economy with one big tax cut at the beginning and then raised taxes every year afterward until 1986, when he essentially just rearranged them, and even then, we only got growth at the expense of deficits. That kind of economics is only good in the short term, never the long term.

He cut taxes, modernized the military and outspent the Soviet Union. Yea we had massive deficiets but it did do us alot of good. BTW, the US Economy Boomed big time under Reagan thanks to his tax cuts.

I'll give Reagan this much--with his deficits, we at least got jobs. We haven't gotten that much with Bush's deficits.

Then why is the economy booming in a way not seen since the Reagan Administration?

At least he reduced them. I find that a Plus. Looking at what Kennedy did, even I would've voted for Kennedy. As for lowering the top rate, its not necessary now since they do the hiring?
If the top tax rates were anywhere near where they were at the time of Kennedy's presidency, then you'd have an argument to make--they're not that high, and as our dear president noted on the campaign trail a couple of weeks ago, the richest find ways toget around paying them anyway. There comes a point where further reductions in the top tax rate does harm--we're beyond that point now.

He cut taxes, modernized the military and outspent the Soviet Union. Yea we had massive deficiets but it did do us alot of good. BTW, the US Economy Boomed big time under Reagan thanks to his tax cuts.The economy didn't boom as much as Reaganites like to argue it did. It boomed far more under Clinton and under JFK/Johnson/early Nixon. And again--remember that Reagan only cut taxes twice in 8 years. He cut them in his first year, raised them gradually every year until they were back where they were originally and then cut them again in 1986, although he offset that with a rise in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare).

Then why is the economy booming in a way not seen since the Reagan Administration?
It isn't. No matter how Bush and his people try to spin it, this is not a boom economy. It's a soft economy at best, and it threatens to sink into a disaster.

If the top tax rates were anywhere near where they were at the time of Kennedy's presidency, then you'd have an argument to make--they're not that high, and as our dear president noted on the campaign trail a couple of weeks ago, the richest find ways toget around paying them anyway. There comes a point where further reductions in the top tax rate does harm--we're beyond that point now.

But yet they pay the most in taxes no matter what! Besides, Bush's tax cuts was across the board. Everyone got one, even expanded where people don't pay any taxes. As for what you say, I think everyone should pay just one flat rate and Bush even said that too.

The economy didn't boom as much as Reaganites like to argue it did. It boomed far more under Clinton and under JFK/Johnson/early Nixon. And again--remember that Reagan only cut taxes twice in 8 years. He cut them in his first year, raised them gradually every year until they were back where they were originally and then cut them again in 1986, although he offset that with a rise in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare).

Ok, My parents went through the Reagan Years and so saw what happened with the economy. I remember the Clinton Years and what happened to the Economy. There was more of an economic Boom under Reagan than Clinton in most of the industrial sectors. Samething is happening again. What is it? GDP growing by what? 3.9% under Bush? Higher somewhat depending on the numbers? Never saw that under Clinton.

It isn't. No matter how Bush and his people try to spin it, this is not a boom economy. It's a soft economy at best, and it threatens to sink into a disaster.

It is. It is a boom in the economy. No matter how much Kerry and his people try to spin it, this is a booming economy. As for it being soft, all economies are soft. Anything can affect the economy from terror attacks to hurricanes. I'm seeing an increase in Florida Orange prices coming thanks to Charely and Frances.

And I see an increase in oil prices whenever I go fill up. Guess who's responsible for that. Probably the man responsible for the boom economy that the rest of america doesn't see.

Richard Clarke, go clarke, hes been in high ranking politics for the past 15 years and is a man of action against bueacracy and is a smart man too.

But yet they pay the most in taxes no matter what! Besides, Bush's tax cuts was across the board. Everyone got one, even expanded where people don't pay any taxes. As for what you say, I think everyone should pay just one flat rate and Bush even said that too.
Bush's tax cuts favored the wealthiest Americans--there is no argument about that. And as to tax cuts being across the board, I didn't get one, and in fact saw my overall liability rise because of the effects of Bush's taxcuts. My state and local tax rates have increased because of the lower revenue that has come in to the federal government. Not everyone benefited from the economy.

Ok, My parents went through the Reagan Years and so saw what happened with the economy. I remember the Clinton Years and what happened to the Economy. There was more of an economic Boom under Reagan than Clinton in most of the industrial sectors. Samething is happening again. What is it? GDP growing by what? 3.9% under Bush? Higher somewhat depending on the numbers? Never saw that under Clinton.If you didn't see it under Clinton, then you weren't paying attention. Simple as that. I'm not saying that the Clinton economy was magical for everyone involved--it wasn't--but it was far better than it is now, and in overall terms was better than it was for Reagan. Reagan had a good economy, even though his policies have done more long term damage than benefit, but it wasn't the golden age that many like to make it out to be.

It is. It is a boom in the economy. No matter how much Kerry and his people try to spin it, this is a booming economy. As for it being soft, all economies are soft. Anything can affect the economy from terror attacks to hurricanes. I'm seeing an increase in Florida Orange prices coming thanks to Charely and Frances.No--it isn't. The economy has been basically stagnant for the last three years, with miniature boom and bust periods. Look at the "progress" over the last three years--markets are about the same, employment is about the same, real income is down, personal debt is up. That's not a boom economy, especially when you factor in the fiscal irresponsibility in the federal budget.

Actually Comandante, you have NOT provided any evidence that what I said was BS! the NTUF is a Non-partisan group that has studied this. If they say that Kerry is going to increase spending then kerry will increase spending. I find how they did it to be reasonable and commendable. I just wish you had that guts to read what I provide and to contemplate what it says.


I beg to differ. I will admit that democrats are more likely to spend more, based on the nature of the programs that they are enacting. The difference between you and me is though, I don't think that is a bad thing! I already read the report, and that organization is almost always reliable.
However, if I remember correctly, we have moved past there. We were discussing if the Bush cuts would benefit both the economy and the middle class.

I have a site that shows the report on higher income households (such as the one that I used to live in) The pattern that it takes suggests that expenditures are higher (obviously, they have more money) however, not in any exceptionally large amounts. The average expenditures between a family that makes $130,000 and a family that makes $130,000,000 are only $80,000 per year! Considering that the $130,000 bracket is one reached by about 25% of households, this is number is still not anywhere near the level for our top 10% (the group that get the vast majority of the Bush cuts). Although our wealthy do spend more, they still do not consume anywhere near the percentage that the middle-class does.

Sorry, the way I presented that was a bit confusing, but what I am trying to say, grossly simplified, is that tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective for economic growth.

And the only significant tax cuts Bush has made have been to the Wealthy.

I can rest my case, knowing that tax cuts to the wealthy are not helpful to the economy.


www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils26.pdf This is the site that you need to go to

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF

Read the article Comandante! You might be surprised! That goes for you too Incertonia!

Why I believe Bush will win... for a bit

Have any of you ever heard of the Curse of Tippecanoe?

Dating back to 1811, the Curse of Tippecanoe is believed by some to be responsible for the death of seven presidents and an attempt at the life of another.

After the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, legend has it that Shawnee Indian Chief Tecumseh sent a letter to then-Gen. William Harrison stating the details of a prophecy.

"Harrison will not win this year to be the Great Chief," he said. "But he may win next year. If he does ... he will not finish his term. He will die in his office. And when he dies, you will remember my brother Tecumseh's death. You think that I have lost my powers. I who caused the sun to darken and Red Men to give up firewater. But I tell you, Harrison will die. And after him, every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter will die. And when each one dies, let everyone remember the death of our people."

Harrison would go on to be elected president in 1840, but only one month into his term, he died of pneumonia, becoming the first president ever to die in office.

Abraham Lincoln took over the presidency 20 years later in 1861 and was assassinated on April 14, 1865.

In 1880 and 1900, James Garfield and William McKinley were elected president, respectively, but neither would make it more than a year before they were assassinated.

Elected in 1921, Warren Harding died of food poisoning two years later.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected for one of his terms in 1940, died in 1945 from a stroke while serving his fourth term in office.

John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 and assassinated in November of 1963.

Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, and in March 1981, an assassination attempt left him hospitalized. He technically did die. He flat-lined for a bit.

.............ok, so 20 years later George W. Bush takes office in 2000. Well he hasn't died yet. So two things can happen with this election. Either he will die before the election, or he will be re-elected to die some other time in office. But the curse says he must die in office. And so far the curse has been pretty much 100% accurate. Every president that was predicted to die in office, died in office, and Bush is the next on the list.

No political debate, please. Would a moderator please edit or delete future political debate in this thread?

I feel the best part of this poll is that it's a nice reference on everyone's politics...

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF

Read the article Comandante! You might be surprised! That goes for you too Incertonia!


I read the goddamn article the first time! What are you trying to prove? You expect everyone to believe that tax-cuts for the rich benefit the economy? It is apparent that you do, but anyone with a solid, college education doesn't! So will you please shut up about the Article?!? I read it! We are beyond the issue of Kerry now! We know that he is going to spend more!

I don't care if Kerry spends more! His taxes are going to come from the rich! He has alredy promised that! And frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if the rich get taxed more or not! We, as Americans, are not going to front the bill! And we are going to get the advantages of it! I don't care if some bitchy little CEO complains about how high his taxes are, because you know what? I don't give a shit! Ever since we had taxes in America, they have always been high for the wealthy. Bush thought it should be different, but the thing is, most Americans like seeing their bosses lose $20,000 a year more than them! I don't like the wealthy, Americans don't like the wealthy, No one in their right of mind likes the people who exploit them!

Please, we are far beyond clarifying that we don't value the wealthy. So don't think any more that we value them one bit. I'm not jealous at them. I would never want to be as cruel and heartless as the rich. I couldn't do that to myself.

And that was my rant for the day. Congratulations. Your insistence on the nobility of the wealthy brought it out of me. Now I feel a lot better.

I read the goddamn article the first time! What are you trying to prove? You expect everyone to believe that tax-cuts for the rich benefit the economy? It is apparent that you do, but anyone with a solid, college education doesn't! So will you please shut up about the Article?!? I read it! We are beyond the issue of Kerry now! We know that he is going to spend more!

That rolling back the tax cuts that he wants to cut back WILL DO CRAP! Something that even my mom who is an independent non-voter has reached. Your damned right he's going to spend more. Far more than what Bush is doing thanks to what Kerry wants to do.

I don't care if Kerry spends more!

You should care. People complain about Bush's spending. This'll be more than that. I can't wait to here the people that complain about bush say about Kerry's spending. Oh Wait, they won't say a thing and will drown out those that will saying we don't know what we are talking about.

His taxes are going to come from the rich!

No doubt here but it won't pay for what Kerry wants to do. Its been proven. he'll hike the middle class next. Don't say I didn't warn you if he does it. Thank God for a Republican controlled House that will stop him from doing this since all money bills originiate in the House.

He has alredy promised that! And frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if the rich get taxed more or not! We, as Americans, are not going to front the bill! And we are going to get the advantages of it!

What type of advantages? Less jobs? Less money in the Economy? Having to spend more for products? There is far more here than raising taxes on a group of people. Especially ones that make products that we use, drive, and work with everyday.

I don't care if some bitchy little CEO complains about how high his taxes are, because you know what? I don't give a shit! Ever since we had taxes in America, they have always been high for the wealthy. Bush thought it should be different, but the thing is, most Americans like seeing their bosses lose $20,000 a year more than them! I don't like the wealthy, Americans don't like the wealthy, No one in their right of mind likes the people who exploit them!

You are a little socialist and it shows. I care if some CEO complains because that CEO will have to raises prices on his or her products and that'll hack into their profits and then they will have to lay some people off and we are right back to square one.

Please, we are far beyond clarifying that we don't value the wealthy. So don't think any more that we value them one bit. I'm not jealous at them. I would never want to be as cruel and heartless as the rich. I couldn't do that to myself.

And some of the Rich have actually done far more for us than the Average Joe. Look at the Dallas Mavericks owner. Look at the Denver Broncos Owner. Look at what some of our Pro Athletes are involved in. Heartless rich? That'll be some in Hollywood because I'm hearing good things being done by the rich. Also did you know that Bush has contributed MORE to charities than John Kerry did?

And that was my rant for the day. Congratulations. Your insistence on the nobility of the wealthy brought it out of me. Now I feel a lot better.

to bad what you spouted was the rant of a socialist that has no idea how the real economy actually works.

the percentage of people who vote for Bush on Election Day of 2004 is directly proportional to the percentage of people who need to go back to school

srry had to say that, no hard feelings ;)

Bah! NO MORE POLITICAL DEBATE!

That rolling back the tax cuts that he wants to cut back WILL DO CRAP! Something that even my mom who is an independent non-voter has reached. Your damned right he's going to spend more. Far more than what Bush is doing thanks to what Kerry wants to do.

Will do crap? Is 900 billion in the next two years crap? That is how much we could have had! That's a ton of freaking money right there!



You should care. People complain about Bush's spending. This'll be more than that. I can't wait to here the people that complain about bush say about Kerry's spending. Oh Wait, they won't say a thing and will drown out those that will saying we don't know what we are talking about.


People only complain about spending when it doesn't help them. The thing is, the things he is proposing are going to go towards us! Unless you want to pay to have all the services privatized, you will not get better service from anyone else. Plus, if he cuts military research spending, I can live happy knowing that we aren't inventing better ways of killing each other.


No doubt here but it won't pay for what Kerry wants to do. Its been proven. he'll hike the middle class next. Don't say I didn't warn you if he does it. Thank God for a Republican controlled House that will stop him from doing this since all money bills originiate in the House.

Ha! 900 billion is more than enough for any kind of spending. Plus, I doubt that Kerry will be able to get all of it through anyway. And it is easy to cut spending when dealing with companies. All Kerry has to do to lower the prices for prescription drugs is force the companies that make them to lower their prices. They are already sitting WAY above cost, meaning that all this time we have been getting charged too much anyway.

What type of advantages? Less jobs? Less money in the Economy? Having to spend more for products? There is far more here than raising taxes on a group of people. Especially ones that make products that we use, drive, and work with everyday.


How do the rich provide jobs? I already disproved your belief in Voodoo economics. If you want to lower prices and increase jobs, lower business taxes, not the taxes on businessmen. And you want to hear something really Marxist? The rich don't make the products we use! The workers do! Why not simply have the workers own the means of production? Plus, with the jobs that are brought home because of a Protectionist economy, how wouldn't our economy improve that much faster? Rather than having our money funnel into China or India, why not have it just stay here! So what if our businesses get less efficient?


You are a little socialist and it shows. I care if some CEO complains because that CEO will have to raises prices on his or her products and that'll hack into their profits and then they will have to lay some people off and we are right back to square one.


How? We aren't hurting the company, just the owner! And I'm actually not a socialist. I'm a Revolutionary Marxist. Huge difference.


And some of the Rich have actually done far more for us than the Average Joe. Look at the Dallas Mavericks owner. Look at the Denver Broncos Owner. Look at what some of our Pro Athletes are involved in. Heartless rich? That'll be some in Hollywood because I'm hearing good things being done by the rich. Also did you know that Bush has contributed MORE to charities than John Kerry did?[/QUOTE]



Certainly, and they should be given what they deserve, the tax break that you get for donating to an organization! But that's it! If they want a deduction, they should do it the way everyone else does it!

Bye, I have a date

Will do crap? Is 900 billion in the next two years crap? That is how much we could have had! That's a ton of freaking money right there!



[quote]You should care. People complain about Bush's spending. This'll be more than that. I can't wait to here the people that complain about bush say about Kerry's spending. Oh Wait, they won't say a thing and will drown out those that will saying we don't know what we are talking about.


People only complain about spending when it doesn't help them. The thing is, the things he is proposing are going to go towards us! Unless you want to pay to have all the services privatized, you will not get better service from anyone else. Plus, if he cuts military research spending, I can live happy knowing that we aren't inventing better ways of killing each other.

How is going towards us? I don't want socialized Healthcare. Look at Canada and see it in action. I've heard Canadians complain about it. I don't want that. I want to have a choice as to where I go and I don't want to pay an arm and a leg. Kerry won't provide that. He'll provide Socialized Healthcare and I find that unacceptable. As for military research, why do you want that cut? Do you want us to lose our edge in the world? We have the most advance military in the world. We need to maintain that. Why should we cut it?

No doubt here but it won't pay for what Kerry wants to do. Its been proven. he'll hike the middle class next. Don't say I didn't warn you if he does it. Thank God for a Republican controlled House that will stop him from doing this since all money bills originiate in the House.

Ha! 900 billion is more than enough for any kind of spending. Plus, I doubt that Kerry will be able to get all of it through anyway. And it is easy to cut spending when dealing with companies. All Kerry has to do to lower the prices for prescription drugs is force the companies that make them to lower their prices. They are already sitting WAY above cost, meaning that all this time we have been getting charged too much anyway.

900 Billion WILL NOT pay for every one of Kerry's programs. You can't spin it anyother way.

What type of advantages? Less jobs? Less money in the Economy? Having to spend more for products? There is far more here than raising taxes on a group of people. Especially ones that make products that we use, drive, and work with everyday.[/qoute]


[quote]How do the rich provide jobs?

How about hiring people? How about business that they own? How about opening new shops that require workers to work in? These are how jobs are provided.

I already disproved your belief in Voodoo economics.

And yet it also gave us one of our greatest booming economies under Reagan AND JFK!

If you want to lower prices and increase jobs, lower business taxes, not the taxes on businessmen.

Lets lower Business taxes! Oh wait, Bush has done that already. All taxes has been slashed on all boards. I guess you haven't heard it yet.

And you want to hear something really Marxist? The rich don't make the products we use! The workers do! Why not simply have the workers own the means of production? Plus, with the jobs that are brought home because of a Protectionist economy, how wouldn't our economy improve that much faster? Rather than having our money funnel into China or India, why not have it just stay here! So what if our businesses get less efficient?


Because then no one will buy our products. I could blame it on Unions because of their wages but I won't! I actually blame the government and their regulations. I want to have efficient business and not have it go anywhere. However, when people are demanding 10-11 dollars and hour to do a menial job, and the competition is making the same product elsewhere, how is America suppose to compete?


You are a little socialist and it shows. I care if some CEO complains because that CEO will have to raises prices on his or her products and that'll hack into their profits and then they will have to lay some people off and we are right back to square one.[quote]


[quote]How? We aren't hurting the company, just the owner! And I'm actually not a socialist. I'm a Revolutionary Marxist. Huge difference.

So sue me. I prefer to have a democracy than a Marxist government.

And some of the Rich have actually done far more for us than the Average Joe. Look at the Dallas Mavericks owner. Look at the Denver Broncos Owner. Look at what some of our Pro Athletes are involved in. Heartless rich? That'll be some in Hollywood because I'm hearing good things being done by the rich. Also did you know that Bush has contributed MORE to charities than John Kerry did?



Certainly, and they should be given what they deserve, the tax break that you get for donating to an organization! But that's it! If they want a deduction, they should do it the way everyone else does it!

If your going to quote me, please quote me. It'll make rebutting you so much more easy. Kerry will increase spending far more than what Bush is doing. I find this to be unacceptable. At least with Bush, I know where most of the money is going. National Security. I find that to be my #1 priority.

..Isn't this a senseless and unimportant debate?

I mean it doesn't really matter. Who wins, wins. That's final.

So stop the sensless debate over who is better and what-not and lets discuss something that's actually a little bit interesting. This topic is outright BORING.

So what are yall's thoughts on my Curse of Tippecanoe post?

..Isn't this a senseless and unimportant debate?

I mean it doesn't really matter. Who wins, wins. That's final.

So stop the sensless debate over who is better and what-not and lets discuss something that's actually a little bit interesting. This topic is outright BORING.

So what are yall's thoughts on my Curse of Tippecanoe post?

I actually found it interesting Cullenus.

Thank you... Bumpish

Bush. I'm from Norway myself and can't vote in the election, but... Bush!, I'd say.

It is. It is a boom in the economy. No matter how much Kerry and his people try to spin it, this is a booming economy. As for it being soft, all economies are soft. Anything can affect the economy from terror attacks to hurricanes. I'm seeing an increase in Florida Orange prices coming thanks to Charely and Frances.

Beg pardon, but how the devil do you call 900,000 people losing their jobs a "booming" economy? Is it a booming economy when the average salary decreases? Does the economy always "boom" as oil prices hit an all-time high, when we live in an oil-dependent society?

Please give us some evidence that the economy is currently doing well if you want to argue thus.

it's funny, I'm a liberal. However I would rather see Bush win then Kerry.

Beg pardon, but how the devil do you call 900,000 people losing their jobs a "booming" economy? Is it a booming economy when the average salary decreases? Does the economy always "boom" as oil prices hit an all-time high, when we live in an oil-dependent society?

Please give us some evidence that the economy is currently doing well if you want to argue thus.

Skep, look at the growth rate of the GDP! Clinton NEVER had this under his watch. This is the FASTEST growing economy we've seen in TWENTY years. Ironicly, twenty years would've put it under President Ronald Reagan.