NationStates Jolt Archive

What's with all the paranoid Neo-Conservative posts? It sounds like a pound at feeding time around here all of a sudden.

There are far more liberal posts in here than "neo-conservative". And their boy isn't losing if you pay attention to polls being run by the liberal media.

Actully....if you watch whats happening, you will see where this is going.

First you paint Kerry as a flip-flopper and get him to make all kinds of promises to fight that charge. Free medical care....people in wheelchairs suddenly getting up and walking. That kind of stuff....

Then you paint him as a "liberal" because of all the programs he wants to do. How is he going to pay for all that? By raising taxes....

Kerry is already a dead man and cannot even see it.

Actully....if you watch whats happening, you will see where this is going.

First you paint Kerry as a flip-flopper and get him to make all kinds of promises to fight that charge. Free medical care....people in wheelchairs suddenly getting up and walking. That kind of stuff....

Then you paint him as a "liberal" because of all the programs he wants to do. How is he going to pay for all that? By raising taxes....

Kerry is already a dead man and cannot even see it.

... I think you didn't quite get the full explanation of what a "tax" is.

... I think you didn't quite get the full explanation of what a "tax" is.
A tax is a way of making someone else pay for your idea.

Taxes are like Christmas, except instead of Santa Claus it's Uncle Sam.

And instead of climbing down your chimney in December he sends you stalker-love-notes in the mail.

Then in April he sodomizes you with a seven trillion dollar d-

A tax is a way of making someone else pay for your idea.

Kerry has a lot of ideas and "plans" doesn't he? ;)

Kerry has a lot of ideas and "plans" doesn't he? ;)
That's the inevitable result of standing on both sides of every issue.

Paranoid neocon posts? Look at an MKULTRA thread and come back!

Paranoid neocon posts? Look at an MKULTRA thread and come back!

Hey, I don't defend MKULTRA. He's to the radical left, just like neo-cons are to the radical...whatever direction they are, since they aren't left or right.

Now, ciomparing neo-cons to liberals is incorrect. Liberals are somewhat to the left of moderate (generally,) and conservatives are somewhat to the right (generally.)

Neo-cons are another bird altogether. They love big government and imperialism. They are all about deregulation and trickle-down economics. They believe the people of the world are generally untrustworthy, while believing that Corporations are generally trustworthy. They are radical and reactionary. They are military globalists, but diplomatic isolationists.

I don't know what the parrallel to the left would be, but I suspect they would be socialist anarchists who are isolationistic militarily but are globalized diplomatically.

Actually, liberal is a pretty broad term that I use. It can be far-left or left-leaning. ;) And yes I agree that neo-conservatism is... disturbing. But they're entitled to their opinion.

That's the inevitable result of standing on both sides of every issue.

Even Bush has flip-flopped on that issue. Now he's not attacking Kerry for flip-flopping, but for being on the wrong side of every issue (i.e., resolutely wrong.)

More proof that Bush is the flip-flopper. Events have show that Bush is wrong on just about every issue as well.

Even Bush has flip-flopped on that issue. Now he's not attacking Kerry for flip-flopping, but for being on the wrong side of every issue (i.e., resolutely wrong.)

More proof that Bush is the flip-flopper. Events have show that Bush is wrong on just about every issue as well.

You still don't see it.

By painting Kerry as a "flip-flopper" and you have to admit, he has said some damn stupid things that make him at least look that way. The SUV quote is simply amazing in its stupidity.

However...by painting Kerry with this label it forced kerry to fight it by making all these crazy promises of what he will do. How many "plans" does the guy have anyway? Medical care like he and ALL Senators have? It will cost over $7K per family annually for that. How many other promises has he made? Tax CUTS for the middle class? So he makes all these promises.....

Now you hit him with the wallet...how is he going to pay for all these "feel good" ideas he has? He is going to HAVE to raise taxes to do it. Even on the middle class. Thats what is going to kill Kerry in the end I believe.

Dude, there have been paranoid neo-con posts and paranoid neo...um...-lib posts all year.

You still don't see it.

By painting Kerry as a "flip-flopper" and you have to admit, he has said some damn stupid things that make him at least look that way. The SUV quote is simply amazing in its stupidity.

However...by painting Kerry with this label it forced kerry to fight it by making all these crazy promises of what he will do. How many "plans" does the guy have anyway? Medical care like he and ALL Senators have? It will cost over $7K per family annually for that. How many other promises has he made? Tax CUTS for the middle class? So he makes all these promises.....

Now you hit him with the wallet...how is he going to pay for all these "feel good" ideas he has? He is going to HAVE to raise taxes to do it. Even on the middle class. Thats what is going to kill Kerry in the end I believe.

Don't you see the contradiction though? How come Bush doesn't have to raise taxes, since he has racked up the biggest deficit in the entire history of the world? Don't you see that Bush's actions have basically guaranteed that SOMEONE is going to have to raise taxes? This is another case of Bush making a mess and expecting someone else to clean it up for him.

You may not be personally affected, but I know the cost of living for me has gone way up, much much more than I got back in a tax refund. Taxes do not automatically mean you will have less money.

See, one thing the government can do (when run correctly,) is to pool resources and to use that greater bargaining power for the good of all. Would you pay $100 to get $200 worth of benefits in return? Most likely you would. What Bush has done is to not only reduce taxes, but he's also giving Americans less of a return on what the DO pay. He's increased funding to education, but our children are doing less well.

For example. Say you had $10,000 that you wanted to invest. Would you be more likely to get a larger return on that investment if you went it alone, or if you and 10 friends pooled your money and invested it together? More money equals more bargaining power.

So, the question isn't just about how many programs Kerry proposes, the question is about the efficiency with which he runs them. His plans include cost-cutting provisions that enable an increase in the money available to programs without increasing the amount of money needed from the taxpayers.

THAT is fiscal responsibility. Not only not spending more than you have, but spending what you do have in the most efficient and productive way as possible. I have seen many more plans for improving efficiency from Kerry than I have from Bush.

Don't you see the contradiction though? How come Bush doesn't have to raise taxes, since he has racked up the biggest deficit in the entire history of the world? Don't you see that Bush's actions have basically guaranteed that SOMEONE is going to have to raise taxes? This is another case of Bush making a mess and expecting someone else to clean it up for him.

You may not be personally affected, but I know the cost of living for me has gone way up, much much more than I got back in a tax refund. Taxes do not automatically mean you will have less money.

See, one thing the government can do (when run correctly,) is to pool resources and to use that greater bargaining power for the good of all. Would you pay $100 to get $200 worth of benefits in return? Most likely you would. What Bush has done is to not only reduce taxes, but he's also giving Americans less of a return on what the DO pay. He's increased funding to education, but our children are doing less well.

For example. Say you had $10,000 that you wanted to invest. Would you be more likely to get a larger return on that investment if you went it alone, or if you and 10 friends pooled your money and invested it together? More money equals more bargaining power.

So, the question isn't just about how many programs Kerry proposes, the question is about the efficiency with which he runs them. His plans include cost-cutting provisions that enable an increase in the money available to programs without increasing the amount of money needed from the taxpayers.

THAT is fiscal responsibility. Not only not spending more than you have, but spending what you do have in the most efficient and productive way as possible. I have seen many more plans for improving efficiency from Kerry than I have from Bush.


Couldnt be truer. A deficit is a debt, no matter what president goes next, it will have to be payed, either by further reducing expenses (And its hard to see were, a war, rightful or not, is expensive) or by raising taxation. Though running a small percentual deficit isnt problematic (canada, australia, and other developed countries have run such deficits for their entire existence), a deficit that big (the US deficit is the largest EVER) is dangerous to the health of your nation, because the capability to service the debt starts to be challenged. If the debt is so big, that people fear the US won't pay, or will have problems pay it, they wont lend more money. And if that happens, than the US goverment WILL HAVE (either its bush or kerry) to cut expenses and raise taxes, or go bankrupt. Don't think it can't happen, that is one of the greatest fears of the bean-counters (economists :P ) of our days.

Don't you see the contradiction though? How come Bush doesn't have to raise taxes, since he has racked up the biggest deficit in the entire history of the world? Don't you see that Bush's actions have basically guaranteed that SOMEONE is going to have to raise taxes? This is another case of Bush making a mess and expecting someone else to clean it up for him.

You may not be personally affected, but I know the cost of living for me has gone way up, much much more than I got back in a tax refund. Taxes do not automatically mean you will have less money.

See, one thing the government can do (when run correctly,) is to pool resources and to use that greater bargaining power for the good of all. Would you pay $100 to get $200 worth of benefits in return? Most likely you would. What Bush has done is to not only reduce taxes, but he's also giving Americans less of a return on what the DO pay. He's increased funding to education, but our children are doing less well.

For example. Say you had $10,000 that you wanted to invest. Would you be more likely to get a larger return on that investment if you went it alone, or if you and 10 friends pooled your money and invested it together? More money equals more bargaining power.

So, the question isn't just about how many programs Kerry proposes, the question is about the efficiency with which he runs them. His plans include cost-cutting provisions that enable an increase in the money available to programs without increasing the amount of money needed from the taxpayers.

THAT is fiscal responsibility. Not only not spending more than you have, but spending what you do have in the most efficient and productive way as possible. I have seen many more plans for improving efficiency from Kerry than I have from Bush.

On one hand I agree with you. On the other I see it this way....

By lowering taxes across the board, you put more money in the hands of those who need it the most. Now, those who get this extra money will do one of two things with it. They will either save it or spend it. Those who save it will increase the amount of money available to banks and other institutions for loans and so forth. Those who spend it will buy products that will increase the sales of retailers. The taxes generated by those sales will offset the tax breaks given. Then, once the economy grows from this "adjustment" small incremental tax hikes can be made.

Unfortunately for Bush, the terrorist attacks put a lot of things on hold and delayed the economic recovery. Kerry will almost immediately raise taxes and take money out of our hands, thus causing the economy to falter more.

Kerry has a lot of ideas and "plans" doesn't he? ;)
Would you prefer if he stood for nothing at all? You criticise Kerry for being a big-spender, and that's probably true, but from what I see Bush is also a big spender. Just Kerry makes up for his spending with taxes not deficits.

Would you prefer if he stood for nothing at all? You criticise Kerry for being a big-spender, and that's probably true, but from what I see Bush is also a big spender. Just Kerry makes up for his spending with taxes not deficits.

Which makes him a "tax and spend" liberal. Many of the plans he has are unrealistic. He says he can supply good paying jobs. How is he going to do that? Put everyone on the gov't payroll?

No, he is just another in a line of liberal Democrats with their "feel good" programs that do everything BUT make anyone "feel" good. The 1960's were awash in social programs from the Democrats that caused far more harm than good and cost billions in taxes.

Which makes him a "tax and spend" liberal. Many of the plans he has are unrealistic. He says he can supply good paying jobs. How is he going to do that? Put everyone on the gov't payroll?

No, he is just another in a line of liberal Democrats with their "feel good" programs that do everything BUT make anyone "feel" good. The 1960's were awash in social programs from the Democrats that caused far more harm than good and cost billions in taxes.

Yeah. Clinton did a horrible job in the 90's. People real earning went up and we had a surplus. Kerry, meanwhile, broke with the Democrats often to promote fiscal responsibility. Of course Bush won't let you know that. He wants to paint Kerry as a stereotypical tax and spend Democrat. He's not, and his record (the part of his record tha Bush ignores, which is the majority,) proves it.

Pure and simple, Bush is the biggest pusher of Corporate pork in a long time. This is money that simply disappears. Money we taxpayers eventually have to pay for that provides us no benefit whatsoever. How can you not see that Bush, with his record deficits and limited benefits to the American voter, is a fiscal responsibility disaster. No matter who is President, someone is going to have to raise taxes eventually. Bush just puts it off for purely political purposes. Saying Bush is good for taxes is like saying paying with a credit card won't take money out of your savings account. Eventually, you have to pay the debt.

Bush is a disaster in not only how much he spends, but in how and how efficiently he spends. The evidence is as plain as can be.

Yeah. Clinton did a horrible job in the 90's. People real earning went up and we had a surplus. Kerry, meanwhile, broke with the Democrats often to promote fiscal responsibility. Of course Bush won't let you know that. He wants to paint Kerry as a stereotypical tax and spend Democrat. He's not, and his record (the part of his record tha Bush ignores, which is the majority,) proves it.

Pure and simple, Bush is the biggest pusher of Corporate pork in a long time. This is money that simply disappears. Money we taxpayers eventually have to pay for that provides us no benefit whatsoever. How can you not see that Bush, with his record deficits and limited benefits to the American voter, is a fiscal responsibility disaster. No matter who is President, someone is going to have to raise taxes eventually. Bush just puts it off for purely political purposes. Saying Bush is good for taxes is like saying paying with a credit card won't take money out of your savings account. Eventually, you have to pay the debt.

Bush is a disaster in not only how much he spends, but in how and how efficiently he spends. The evidence is as plain as can be.


Yet people will balk when they know their taxes will be raised. Kerry has all but said he will raise everyones taxes. When was the last time a candidate did that? Mondale.....remember what happened to him? Kerry makes a LOT of promises. So many he cannot POSSIBLY keep them. How he claims that he can cut taxes on the middle class and then give them the healthcare he says he is is beyond me. He will HAVE to raise everyones taxes to pay for that program. As a Libertarian, I dispise ALL forms of taxation as a violation of my and everyones civil liberties to spend the money gained from my labors as I see fit. That a man like Kerry, who will take more of my money away to pay for the healthcare of someone else is anathema to me. I am responsible for my own healthcare, not anyone elses. Socialism is NOT the American way.

I do not think Kerry will win the election. Bush played him like a fiddle, kept him dancing to try and disprove the labels he was painted with. Kerry did not do himself any favors with some of his comments either. In the end, this will go down as the worst election campaign in US history.

Just this morning, here in my area, Jesse Jackson and that idiot Corrine Brown were taking busloads of black voters to the polls for early voting. Funny thing about those two, they actually stated that there were Republicans using dogs and water hoses to keep blacks from voting. The insanity has hit new highs....

Yeah. Clinton did a horrible job in the 90's. People real earning went up and we had a surplus.

That's because he ignored all of the corporate book cooking that was going on which artificially inflated the stock market and individual stocks in those companies. Bush came in, cracked down (as an administration not him personally) and we now have a more realistic value in the stock market, it's not all based on overpriced under valued .COM stocks anymore it's based on solid blue chips and within 1000 points of record highs.



Pure and simple, Bush is the biggest pusher of Corporate pork in a long time. This is money that simply disappears.

Those corporations are what give people jobs btw.

There are far more liberal posts in here than "neo-conservative". And their boy isn't losing if you pay attention to polls being run by the liberal media.

What Liberal media?

That's because he ignored all of the corporate book cooking that was going on which artificially inflated the stock market and individual stocks in those companies. Bush came in, cracked down (as an administration not him personally) and we now have a more realistic value in the stock market, it's not all based on overpriced under valued .COM stocks anymore it's based on solid blue chips and within 1000 points of record highs.



Those corporations are what give people jobs btw.

No, small businesses, who are being squeezed much more by rising costs than by taxation, are the ones who create new jobs. Aiding Corproations too much and deregulating them causes a concentration of the workforce and a net job loss. A business that does twice the work of a smaller company doesn't need twice the employees of the smaller company.

Bush "cracked down" my ass. If the various companies hadn't gone bankrupt (while their CEO's made off like robber barons and none have yet faced trial,) they'd still be cooking the books today. Bush has utterly failed to enforce international trade laws as well. What world do you live in where you think Bush has been strict with corporations?

No, small businesses, who are being squeezed much more by rising costs than by taxation, are the ones who create new jobs. Aiding Corproations too much and deregulating them causes a concentration of the workforce and a net job loss. A business that does twice the work of a smaller company doesn't need twice the employees of the smaller company.

Bush "cracked down" my ass. If the various companies hadn't gone bankrupt (while their CEO's made off like robber barons and none have yet faced trial,) they'd still be cooking the books today. Bush has utterly failed to enforce international trade laws as well. What world do you live in where you think Bush has been strict with corporations?

Since small businesses are being squeezed by rising costs and not taxes, what would you propose?

Kerry says he will raise the taxes of individuals making 200K a year and up. Fine....except that small businesses pay at the individual rate and therefore will also see their taxes increased. He will do far more damage to the economy than even I can imagine.

Ironically, I had a young woman come to my door a few minutes ago. Since I am a registered Libertarian, she wanted to convince me to vote for Kerry. Dastardly plot sending beautiful blondes around to tempt me like that! ;) Needless to say, I assured her that I would vote for Satan before I gave Kerry my vote.

Since small businesses are being squeezed by rising costs and not taxes, what would you propose?

Kerry says he will raise the taxes of individuals making 200K a year and up. Fine....except that small businesses pay at the individual rate and therefore will also see their taxes increased. He will do far more damage to the economy than even I can imagine.

Ironically, I had a young woman come to my door a few minutes ago. Since I am a registered Libertarian, she wanted to convince me to vote for Kerry. Dastardly plot sending beautiful blondes around to tempt me like that! ;) Needless to say, I assured her that I would vote for Satan before I gave Kerry my vote.

The increased taxes they will pay will be far less than the savings they make under Kerry's health plan alone. There are also numerous small business tax-breaks built into Kerry's tax plan. The idea is to increase the amount of taxes paid by individuals who are small business owners in name only, but to actually create job creation incentives for actuall small business owners.

You still don't see it.

By painting Kerry as a "flip-flopper" and you have to admit, he has said some damn stupid things that make him at least look that way. The SUV quote is simply amazing in its stupidity.

However...by painting Kerry with this label it forced kerry to fight it by making all these crazy promises of what he will do. How many "plans" does the guy have anyway? Medical care like he and ALL Senators have? It will cost over $7K per family annually for that. How many other promises has he made? Tax CUTS for the middle class? So he makes all these promises.....

Now you hit him with the wallet...how is he going to pay for all these "feel good" ideas he has? He is going to HAVE to raise taxes to do it. Even on the middle class. Thats what is going to kill Kerry in the end I believe.


His multitudinous plans will add less to the debt than those proposed by the Bush administration, according to multiple financial think tanks on both sides. And that is assuming that he only repels the tax cuts on the ultrarich, as Kerry as promised many many times.

Expensive? Yes! But on the other hand Kerry's proposed programs will help ordinary working people, such as yourself (assuming you are still in the military as you mention fairly often), while slightly hurting people who make so much freaking money that they can afford to give a little, such as, say, George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Soros, or Bill Gates.

Raise taxes on the rich and companies. Shut loopholes to make sure said rich and companies pay the taxes they owe. You end up with a pile of money. As opposed to the Bush plan, which seems to be to cut taxes on the rich until something happens. While increasing domestic spending, of course.

How much money do you think it costs to pay for those 800,000 government jobs Bush added the past few years?