[BurlyShirley]

Kerry said last night that he plans to boost our homeland defense, provide more money to cops, fireman. He said he wants to give tax cuts to lower income and not the richer americans. He said he wants to provide healthcare to all these millions of people. He said he will do what he has to to support the troops in Iraq. THEN he says he wants to reduce the deficit. How is this possible?

 

[BurlyShirley]

cricket...cricket...

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

By raising taxes

 

[biggins]

Kerry said last night that he plans to boost our homeland defense, provide more money to cops, fireman. He said he wants to give tax cuts to lower income and not the richer americans. He said he wants to provide healthcare to all these millions of people. He said he will do what he has to to support the troops in Iraq. THEN he says he wants to reduce the deficit. How is this possible?

the same way clinton did.


or maybe by not spending a few hundred billion dollars on a war we won a year ago but are still dumping money into? :evil:

 

[ohio]

Kerry said last night that he plans to boost our homeland defense, provide more money to cops, fireman. He said he wants to give tax cuts to lower income and not the richer americans. He said he wants to provide healthcare to all these millions of people. He said he will do what he has to to support the troops in Iraq. THEN he says he wants to reduce the deficit. How is this possible?

I don't for sure, but I think he's rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.

At THIS point the deficit has to be secondary... which is pretty terrible, but that's the pile of **** Bush has handed us.

 

[BurlyShirley]

By raising taxes

On only the rich people who invest? That doesnt sound like it makes much sense...break that down for me.

 

[Skookum]

cricket...cricket...

You keep blasting down Kerry by asking how is he going to actually succeed where Bush fails. Ever notice that?
Why do you always make excuses for him like he's your husband who beats on you.

 

[Skookum]

Bush puts the country in a deficit, outsources jobs, economy sucks ass, gets his buddies off from Enron, puts us in a war where his chronies benefit but we get shafted for it. Explain to me a scenario where any lamebrain couldn't do a better job for us?

 

[BurlyShirley]

You keep blasting down Kerry by asking how is he going to actually succeed where Bush fails. Ever notice that?
Why do you always make excuses for him like he's your husband who beats on you.

I personally think that the deficit we have was made of necessity to some extent. Not that it was GWBs fualt. I was just curious about the Kerry promise to change it, among a ton of other things that will cost out the a$$!

 

[ohio]

Explain to me a scenario where any lamebrain couldn't do a better job for us?

Paris Hilton for president!

no, wait...

Jenna Bush for president!




(I loved, by the way, when Bush said he was trying to put a leash on his daughters, and Kerry responded that he tries NOT to do that... the contrast between the respective offspring is SO telling)

 

[fluff]

On only the rich people who invest? That doesnt sound like it makes much sense...break that down for me.

Which word did you not understand?

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

On only the rich people who invest? That doesnt sound like it makes much sense...break that down for me.

No by just raising taxes in general. Or by eliminating tax loops holes exploited by the very wealthy.

In order to reduce the deficit, you have to either increase the income, or reduce the spending, or both.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No by just raising taxes in general. Or by eliminating tax loops holes exploited by the very wealthy.

In order to reduce the deficit, you have to either increase the income, or reduce the spending, or both.

yes, but as i pointed out in the first post, he talking about INCREASING spending across the board, so how does his promise of a reduced deficit hold water? I think it does not, much like the rest of his promises.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

yes, but as i pointed out in the first post, he talking about INCREASING spending across the board, so how does his promise of a reduced deficit hold water? I think it does not, much like the rest of his promises.

So long as he raises taxes (or reduces loopholes in taxes) enough to cover the increased spending it would work.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So long as he raises taxes (or reduces loopholes in taxes) enough to cover the increased spending it would work.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea of the money it would take to cover what the man is talking about? One HELL of a tax hike...and that's not good for the economy...right?

 

[Changleen]

1) I don't think what he proposes will cost as much as you think - I think a tax hike should do the job. And maybe everyone should get one, not just the rich. Americans have to realise you don't get something for nothing. Now it's payback time.
2) If it did (cost too much), you could simply dump unnecessary surveillance of the American people, the homeland security joke, and divert millitary spending from developing WMDs and other ludicrous weapons systems (missile defence shield which probably won't work for one) back to the troops, who actually do the fighting these days.
3) There is no actual evidence that tax hikes are bad for the economy. Some of your country's fastest growth has occured under 'higher' tax condidtions. Obviously a huge hike would hurt, but we're not talking about that. At most I think a reversal of the Bush cuts would be enough. If the economy works, being taxed is OK as you can afford it.

 

[biggins]

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea of the money it would take to cover what the man is talking about? One HELL of a tax hike...and that's not good for the economy...right?

less money than it took to, and is taking, to fight bushs grudge match?

 

[ohio]

One HELL of a tax hike...and that's not good for the economy...right?

Neither is a huge deficit, potential domestic terrorist attacks, and unemployment/business flight.

Like I said, we've been handed a sack of ****.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea of the money it would take to cover what the man is talking about? One HELL of a tax hike...and that's not good for the economy...right?

you are assuming that lower taxes are ALWAYS better for the economy.
that is not necesarilly true. 1% tax is not any much better than a 2% tax, when that means 50% less for the gvmt, an not enough to run a gvmt.

2ndable, not necesarilly the richest (and by rich i mean people who make several times more than a 500k a year, not the guys making 100k and thinking they are the richest of the rich), use their profits for investments in a very benefitial way for the US economy overall.

what does it serves a ultra low tax rate? when most people are saving peanuts from it, but its costs to society overall are as high as the current in the US?????

 

[Skookum]

If we legalized weed and taxed the hell out of it we could afford to fight 5 wars at once. Bush could police the globe!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If we legalized weed and taxed the hell out of it we could afford to fight 5 wars at once. Bush could police the globe!

naaa dude, if WE legalized coke we would rule the world.
hahahaha

for real, a drug kingpin was caught here in Peru like 15 years ago, in his public trial offered the peruvian gvmt a trade.

He would pay off all the 12 billion dollars of peru´s external debt in 10 years, if the gvmt let him free and let him do his business.
another kingpin in colombia offered the same when he was caught.

but the gvmt cannot make those trades, otherwise we would get invaded like panama.

 

[lonewolfe]

You know Burly Surly, it is a blessing for Bush that this country has such a fine education system. As a result, America is overflowing with dumb asses like you that buy all of Bush's one and two syllable bull s..t and think he is looking out for your best interest. Get a clue Buddy! We are going to be digging our way out of debt from this administration for decades to come. And another thing, do you REALLY think we are better off than we were four years ago? If so, give us some examples. No, I forgot to keep it simple, give us ONE example.

 

[Toshi]

You know Burly Surly, it is a blessing for Bush that this country has such a fine education system. As a result, America is overflowing with dumb asses like you that buy all of Bush's one and two syllable bull s..t and think he is looking out for your best interest. Get a clue Buddy! We are going to be digging our way out of debt from this administration for decades to come. And another thing, do you REALLY think we are better off than we were four years ago? If so, give us some examples. No, I forgot to keep it simple, give us ONE example.

this is unfair. it seems that BurlySurly supports bush for real, rational reasons. well, at least some of the reasons are rational. it's not as if he's just been raving about "flip flopping" and "sensitive foreign policy" and "nuances" like our frothing-at-the-mouth N8.

 

[Silver]

Bush (and his supporters) have lost the ability to criticize any other party or candidate about deficits.

It's like being preached abstinence by someone who works in a brothel...

 

[BurlyShirley]

And another thing, do you REALLY think we are better off than we were four years ago? If so, give us some examples. No, I forgot to keep it simple, give us ONE example.

We'll be digging out of a deficit because of the events of Sept. 11. The costs of preempting terrorism are high, of course, but as has been said %75 of al queda's high level operatives have been apprehended or killed. And there's your one example too.

 

[Changleen]

We'll be digging out of a deficit because of the events of Sept. 11. The costs of preempting terrorism are high,

Yeah, It cost a lot to stage that. I mean, rigging the twin towers with explosives, rigging WTC7 to destroy the evidence, organising the national air defence boys to look the other way, having all those CIA guys in place to collect all the video evidence of cruise missiling the pentagon, paying off all the heads of media companies, paying off all the victim's families not to take it to court.

of course, but as has been said %75 of al queda's high level operatives have been apprehended or killed. And there's your one example too.

That's true. I'll give you that one. But then, you could argue the CIA created Al-Quaeda in the first place (at the end of the cold war).

 

[BurlyShirley]

Yeah, It cost a lot to stage that. I mean, rigging the twin towers with explosives, rigging WTC7 to destroy the evidence, organising the national air defence boys to look the other way, having all those CIA guys in place to collect all the video evidence of cruise missiling the pentagon, paying off all the heads of media companies, paying off all the victim's families not to take it to court.
That's true. I'll give you that one. But then, you could argue the CIA created Al-Quaeda in the first place (at the end of the cold war).

....... ....dumbass

 

[Skookum]

We'll be digging out of a deficit because of the events of Sept. 11. The costs of preempting terrorism are high, of course, but as has been said %75 of al queda's high level operatives have been apprehended or killed. And there's your one example too.

Where's Osama?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Where's Osama?

Hiding somewhere I guess. Where's Atlantis and Jimmy Hoffa?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

We'll be digging out of a deficit because of the events of Sept. 11. The costs of preempting terrorism are high, of course, but as has been said %75 of al queda's high level operatives have been apprehended or killed. And there's your one example too.

here you are making an assumption on a direct connection between ALL the economic problems AND 9/11.
while it may be truth in part, there is no necesarilly a direct cause-effect on 100% that.

2nd, your definition of "preemptive" is wrong. preemptive is a very well defined word in courts, way different from GWB´s definition.

3rd, 75% of the members caught??? or 75% of the suspected member caught???? that is a different thing, and very may be subjective depending on who gives that number.

so your 3 reasons to say "we aint worse than 4 years ago" are kinda partial truths at the best.

 

[BurlyShirley]

so your 3 reasons to say "we aint worse than 4 years ago" are kinda partial truths at the best.

Are there every ANY definite truths in politics? I say they are only partially false.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Are there every ANY definite truths in politics? I say they are only partially false.

there are no definate truths in politics, but there are true facts in which you can base political ideas.

plus that wasnt a political question, it was , better or worse than 4 years ago???

the political question would be, how much of that can be GWB faults???
and even then, your 3 reasons are false enough to not be considered.

 

[BurlyShirley]

the political question would be, how much of that can be GWB faults???
and even then, your 3 reasons are false enough to not be considered.

How can they be false enough not to be considered when we're sitting here considering them. As a liberal, you're obviously inclined not to accept them, nor would you be inclined to accept much of anything else, so really what's the point. Bush could go out with a 9mm and take down Osama himself and you'd be complaining that it wasnt a fair fight or some other ****.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

How can they be false enough not to be considered when we're sitting here considering them. As a liberal, you're obviously inclined not to accept them, nor would you be inclined to accept much of anything else, so really what's the point. Bush could go out with a 9mm and take down Osama himself and you'd be complaining that it wasnt a fair fight or some other ****.

gwb shooting osama in the face on video would be a FACT.

i dont accept those 3 arguments as

1st, not all the economic problems are exclusively caused by 9/11. refute that. i would guess that the economic policy has at least as much do to with economy as 9/11.

2nd, that preemptive war, wasnt preemptive at all.
“Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable.”
Saddam was not more of a threat in 2003, than it was in 2000, or than it was in 1991, or in 1983, when it was its pike of threat and the US was supporting him. refute that.

3rd. 75% members of what caught?? here i might be wrong IF the US is certain that they know EVERY al qaeda leader and have captured 75% of them. but IMO, its more likely they have captured 75% of those who they know of, not the actual number.
but terrorism (the ideological one) IMO (i lived 12 years of it) is usually a monster without a unique head, that grows more as they dissapear.

i have no problem in saying, some things gwb did were right, even tough its kinda hard to remember one. but still you havent answered, during which 4 years you think the Us was better off?? 2000-2004 or 1996-2000???

 

[BurlyShirley]

i have no problem in saying, some things gwb did were right, even tough its kinda hard to remember one. but still you havent answered, during which 4 years you think the Us was better off?? 2000-2004 or 1996-2000???

I was asked to give ONE example of how we are better of now than 4 years ago. Now, of course, overall we wont be better off because of the events of Sept. 11, but that is not the fault of the administration. ONE way we are better off though is that the 75% (even if that means ONE terrorist) have been apprehended. We are better off in that respect than having clinton lob a couple cruise missiles off to africa and call it a day.

 

[Changleen]

....... ....dumbass

Hey, you're the one voting Republican..

 

[ohio]

I was asked to give ONE example of how we are better of now than 4 years ago. Now, of course, overall we wont be better off because of the events of Sept. 11, but that is not the fault of the administration. ONE way we are better off though is that the 75% (even if that means ONE terrorist) have been apprehended.

If your basement is flooded with 1000 gallons of water, and you hire someone to fix that, and they remove 750 of the 1000 gallons (leaving 250 gallons behind), but in the process break a water main which then pumps 200 new gallons of water into your basement every day, are you better off than you were before?

 

[BurlyShirley]

If your basement is flooded with 1000 gallons of water, and you hire someone to fix that, and they remove 750 of the 1000 gallons (leaving 250 gallons behind), but in the process break a water main which then pumps 200 new gallons of water into your basement every day, are you better off than you were before?

I dont believe high level al queda operatives capable of planning attacks on US soil and Iraqi car bombers are the same kind of water...if that makes any sense.

 

[Transcend]

There is a few pretty good ways to do this. Raise taxes on the wealthy, increase protectionist practices (tarriffs etc), offer tax breaks to off shore investors, basically in source tech jobs etc. It can be done, it takes a rather left wing socialist type approach, but it can work. Is it the best choice? Probably not, but he can easily enough get the economy booming again. The question sis just how far is he willing to go, and what is he willing to give up?

The amount of money that is wasted int he beauracracy is insane however

 

[Serial Midget]

How is this possible?

With the money we'll save by not invading soveriegn nations.