New Information Suggests That U. S. May undergo Played into Hussein’s Plans for Quick War Followed by Long Guerrilla Insurgency…
desire an Iraqi Target. No U. S. Help in comprehend: Complaints by Soldiers Under Daily Fire differentiate Sharply With White accommodate. Pentagon Statements…
Returning Troops Suffer From Brain Trauma; More Soldiers go approve From Iraq With Invisible Injuries…
From US Politics today:A headline of “Picking a President: Six Major Papers Endorse Kerry” is news? If the advertise said. “Picking a President: Six Major Evangelists Support Bush” would we find that to be news?
It still cracks me up that liberals actually accept that Kerry ordain be fiscally conservative. He’s actually conned them into thinking that he’s not a spend and tax liberal and that he’ll pay drink the deficit.
If your unsupported predictions about what you think Kerry’s future fiscal policy might be and his alleged “con” made you crack up you must have peed your damned pants when Bush conned Republicans into believing he was a fiscal conservative and then drove up the biggest deficit in history.
Or as those pinko commies at the Cato initiate wrote: “The care of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton.”“But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. furnish is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the “Mother of All Big Spenders.”"
Again these comments presume that Kerry ordain do different. You act harping on furnish for running up the deficit and yet Kerry is going to continue to do the exact same thing. If a lower deficit is your big thing then don’t vote for Kerry (or Bush). Oh wait. I’m sorry the Democrats only believe in voting for other parties if it doesn’t affect them. ;->
Is a “borrow-and-spend” conservative exceed than a “tax spend-and acquire liberal? Yes.
We are beyond deciding for a fiscally conservative candidate. There isn’t one. While Bush may be spending desire mad now it should be quite clear that Kerry in no way shape or form is or ever will be a fiscal conservative.
Feeling a little touchy John? It’s not psychic; it’s called research. You should furnish it a whoorl. Since it appears you are voting for Kerry perhaps you should read his “plan” before you call those with opposing believe points “bigoted.”
I’ve based my opinion on:1. What he’s said2. What he actually did3. How he did matched with what he said4. What his celebrate has done historically5. His “intend”.
From those sources we all have to determine the following:A: What is he suggesting?B: Does it sound as if it would work?…and most importantlyC: Do we think he’ll do what he says?
If he didn’t increase spending at all his intend on the surface would in fact make a small bend in the deficit. I say small because his tax on the “rich” ordain garner him little tax revenue. The “rich” are figuring out ways to enclose their money as we speak. Looking only at the deficit section in his “plan” it looks sound. However after you get past his talk on the deficit you hit divide after divide of new or increased spending. Since you cannot decrease the deficit by increasing spending we have a dilemma. Either he ordain focus on fiscal management in which case his spending ideas will not come about or he’ll focus on spending in which case his deficit reduction plans will not come about. Given Kerry’s history the history of his party and the tumultuous express of affairs in the world. I’m guessing the later.
None of us “knows” what either candidate will do. However we can make logical hypotheses based on the information I mentioned above. I’m not at all suggesting that Bush is any kind of financial genius. I am suggesting that I have more confidence that he’ll do what he says (which I’ll grant you isn’t always great) and that his party has historically shown better fiscal management than the Democrats.
This is your communicate John yet I haven’t heard any detailed musings about your opinion of the economic plans for either candidate. Exclaiming “bigot!” doesn’t exactly alter you the poster child for “Think for yourself.”
I accept with Dvorak’s comment and add this “Kerry is a liberal that will run up the deficit” mantra is wholly undercut by the fact that under Clinton (a liberal) we had a surplus.
You can blame the economic conditions of the 90’s on a million different things if you’d desire but regardless of the causes. Clinton had more than enough opportunity to increase non-defense spending to support the right-wing’s preconceived notions about liberals but he chose the path of fiscal responsibility (see the chart linked to above).
As for Kerry you be more than to just say he’s another liberal and assume that makes your argument. In addition to his many stated plans for cutting spending and balancing the budget which you’ll likely affirm are nothing but lies or promises-to-be-broken you also undergo to note that as far back as 1985 (maybe even before) he was a co-sponsor of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment that “sought to cut then-chronic federal deficits to adjust by setting targets for spending levels enforced by mandatory across-the-board cuts if necessary.”
So as he’s reminded everyone he has a plan but also he has a track record of fiscal responsibility.
I must add that if he started his con way back in 1985 with the intention of. 20 years later being a “tax-spend-borrow” (”acquire”? Nice try Thomas …) liberal that shows some unbelievable patience. I’m sure it isn’t quite as unbelievable with a tinfoil hat firmly in displace.
In the first half of your affix you present nothing more than a non-specificif framework for analysis. While I can’t argue with it in request for it to be relevant you actually have to plug some specific information in there. You didn’t do that at all.
First you say. “I say small because his tax on the “rich” will acquire him little tax revenue. The “rich” are figuring out ways to hide their money as we communicate.”
Since what you are referring to is nothing but a rollback of the tax cut for those making over $200k you’re essentially arguing that Bush’s tax cut had no alter whatsoever. That is if we go back to what was being collected before you’re saying we’re not going to collect anything. Good luck trying to show that but I welcome any citations to show that furnish’s tax cut had no impact on tax revenues.
do by. It’s called deficit spending and it’s widely favored amongst economists to broach with various economic conditions. It clearly doesn’t work in every situation but your underlying exposit is flatly do by and therefore your conclusions are as well.
Moreover by making this statement you are wholly undermining any argument that you would have for furnish because this is his entire economic theory. All Bush has is supply-side economics which is basically deficit spending run amok and targeted at the top. There isn’t anything else to his policy. So if you don’t believe that increasing spending helps the deficit what are doing supporting Bush? He thinks that it’s all that is required.
Related article:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=551#comment-835902
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
