BrooksMustGo

I thought our great leader's TAX CUTS IN A TIME OF WAR were supposed to cure our need for jobs?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/30/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

2.7 million jobs lost, and counting. Bush has surpassed Hoover, an impressive achievement for net jobs lost when you think about it.

:kerry:

Saintsfan4ever

The present administration inherited a recession in 2001, then got hit with 9-11, then corporate scandals, ect.... and in 3 years this administration cut taxes and turned the economy around. Unemployment in August `04 was 5.4%, thats lower than what is was in 1993 at 5.6%.
Companies that have shut down and moved either out of state or out of country have done so at their own will.
Also, if you pour water out of a bucket into another bucket. It is ignorant to say \"look how much water we have lost from our original bucket\". I have investments in an overseas company that was once here in the US. The returns have been great. I then take these earnings and invest in my own business here allowing me to hire 2 additional people so far this year.
Unemployment is really a non-issue in this campaign. The real issue is who is best qualified to protect America from terrorist who want to destroy us and destroy our economy. I don`t think any rational person has to think about that very long before they know the answer.

Saint4

BrooksMustGo

Interestingly enough the working age population is growing at about 1.2% a year. In order for employment to keep up with population, we need to be creating 137,000 jobs a month. So the percentage is better, but still not keeping up with actual growth. The other interesting tidbit is that the current administration has yet to be correct on the jobs that will be created by its policies. So depending on who\'s numbers you want to look at, we are still down at least 1 million jobs.

I don\'t agree that unemployment is a non-issue. Running a prolonged and giant deficiet is a ruinous course for the strength of the dollar and long term economic health of the country.
As for protecting us from the terrorists, I agree.
1. Saudis in Al-Qaeda attack the world trade center.
Bush has taken no steps with Saudi Arabia and bin Laden is still on the loose and his ranks are growing daily.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-qaeda.
Bush promptly attacks Iraq and currently has 160,000 Americans chasing the fantasy of creating a Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east.

3. We might want to actually protect our borders
Bush has not funded first responders or inspections of virtually all the shipping entering this country. If al-qaeda wanted to buy an A-bomb from North Korea and smuggle it into the country in a cargo container, it isn\'t likely we\'d catch it.

4. North Korea is building nukes and is part of the \"axis of evil\"
Bush does nothing.

5. We need to bring the full might of the United States to bear on al-qaeda.
Bush decides to cut taxes in a time of war. No president in history has ever done this. How he can keep a straight face that he is waging war is beyond me.

6. We need a president who is focused on the task at hand.
Bush has spent more time on vacation than any president in US history. He\'s been on vacation for about one fourth of his presidency. Nothing like electing a guy to a 4 year term when you know he\'s going to take one of those years off. Great work if you can get it. But does it make any of us safer--not a snowball\'s chance in Iraq.

:kerry:

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

blake6900

Funny, you Democrats didn\'t care about deficits when you were in control of Congress.



Look, you\'ve got all the talking points down. You quote plenty of statistics without attribution. However the bottom line is a tax and spend liberal like John Kerry will balloon up the deficit (and debt) higher than it is now. His \"plans\" will increase spending to ultra high levels and there is no way that just raising taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers will foot the bill. It\'s never happened before and anybody with an ounce of sense knows it won\'t happen this time. Wealthy people aren\'t stupid people and everytime their taxes have been raised, they find ways to avoid it. Kerry knows this. He\'s married to a wealthy woman who, by the way, refuses to release her tax returns. Why? My bet is because she\'s in the 15% tax bracket, that\'s why. Imagine that...a woman worth close to a billion dollars and she\'s in the 15% bracket. Now use your head. You don\'t really think the wealthy folks in this country are just gonna pay higher taxes without looking for loopholes, do you? And while $200,000 sounds rich, it\'s not when you\'re shelling out paychecks from it which some small businesses do.

In case you haven\'t noticed we haven\'t been attacked since 9/11. Now I know you Democrats are hoping for it so you can say, \"See, we told you so. It\'s all Bush\'s fault.\" Don\'t act shocked and incensed. You know it\'s true. What\'s bad for America is good for your candidate and your party but, so far, no luck, huh? Kerry was asked at the last debate why we hadn\'t been attacked since 9//11 and his answer was brilliant. \"They\'re waiting.\" Yeah, right...they\'re waiting till he\'s president so he can blame it on Bush. Until then, we\'ve still not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. That\'s a fact and facts are funny things. They never lie. Or flip-flop. Or blame anybody.

You might find it useful to read the entire Duelfer Report rather than just the media filtration of it. There\'s much more to the report than \"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.\" It\'s difficult to include countries like France, Russia, Germany and China in any \"coalition\" when they\'re being bribed to keep inspectors in, the US out and the sanctions weakened almost to the point of non-existence. Everybody, including Kerry and Edwards believed Saddam had WMD because Saddam wanted them to. Why? Because WMD (or the possibility of them) were the only things keeping Iran from coming across the border into Iraq. Saddam knowingly bluffed their existence because to not do so would ensure an invasion from Iran and nobody, not us, not the French, not the Germans, nobody would have stood in the way. Read the report. It\'s all there. Or be a good little soldier and keep reciting the party\'s talking points.

Personal income, according to the Dept of Labor is at an all-time high. Kerry says family income is lower. Perhaps he and you can explain how incomes are higher, unemployment is lower (lower than when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996), taxes have been cut, etc. yet family income is lower. He and you can\'t because it simply is not true. Keep in mind that inflation is not an issue nor has it been during this administration. So the economy\'s really rotten cuz you guys say so, huh? All hail Ted Kennedy, the God of Liberals. I wonder how Mary Jo Koepekne likes him. Oh, that\'s right, she\'s dead.

During this presidents watch the US has experienced a recession, coporarate scandals (Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Imclone, Martha Stewart, etc.), a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, the Chinese comandeering of an American aircraft and an attack on Sept 11, 2001 that was potentially catastrophic to the airline industry, the hotel industry and all related tourism, the manufacturing industry, the tech industry, the stock markets, the commodities markets, etc. yet Kerry has the gall to say tax cuts are the reason for any economic woes we\'ve experienced. That nonsense alone disqualifies him of being credible or truthful.

Kerry is a tax and spend liberal, operative word liberal. Kyoto will cost jobs, not create them. Increased taxes, any taxes, undercuts job growth. Even John Kennedy, one of Kerry\'s heros, knew this. Kerry says he\'ll give us a middle-class tax cut then drones on about tax \"credits\" for this and that. Tax credits are not tax cuts. Credits require certain requirements be met and, of course, Kerry doesn\'t bother to tell us what those requirements will be. It all sounds good but it\'s meaningless. BTW, the last president that promised a tax cut for the middle-class was Bill Clinton in 1992 who-along with a Democratic controlled Congress-promptly raised everybody\'s taxes in 1993. That cost them control of Congress in 1994. Again, facts are funny things. There is no reason to believe Kerry won\'t pull the same shenanigans. All we have is his word...and that\'s been discredited time and time again. In one breath he says he\'ll get rid of corporate welfare then says he\'ll create tax cuts for corporations to hire more people. Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Corporations go overseas because of the high cost of labor as well as the excessive regulations imposed on them here at home. Somehow I just don\'t believe any of those regulations will be relaxed during a Kerry administration. The problem with you Democrats is you love jobs but you hate the companies that offer them. So your solution is to have everyone work for the government. Except, in order for that to happen you have to raise taxes.

If you believe Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, then ask why? For $50 a barrel oil? For daddy\'s revenge? For fun? If he lied, then he\'s not near as stupid as you guys claim he is. He fooled Kerry, Edwards, the British, most Democrats in Congress, the Aussies, the Italians, the Spaniards, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, in fact the entire UN Security Council, Hans Blix, the International Atomic Enengy Agency, most Americans, probably you at one time, most of the UN, etc. You get my point. We\'re in Iraq because of Iran. Don\'t believe it. Watch the headlines. You can\'t talk to these people. Carter tried in 1979-80 as he did with the North Koreans in 1994. Talk doesn\'t convince people who only respect power.

If you think Kerry\'s the best man for the job you vote for him. But the economy, health care and all the other issues are meaninigless if our national security is gone...and if Kerry becomes president, it will be. Which may be the point. Kerry the one world government, give all power to the UN candidate may just be what the doctor ordered for most liberals.

BrooksMustGo

A pretty well thought out response. Appreciate the time you took to formulate it, so I\'ll try to respond to all of it by paragraph.

I don\'t get the \"tax and spend\" moniker. The alternative seems to be \"borrow and spend\" and I don\'t see how prolonged debt financed by other nations is a good economic policy. This seems to be a bedrock conservative principle to me and one of the reasons that Bush claims to be a conservative in the first place. The guy signs off on any and all spending that hits his desk. At least Reagan and Bush 1 tried to keep spending down. Bush 2 doesn\'t seem concerned by that. Even if you take the 20% increase in military/homeland security spending, it doesn\'t account for the other 16% increase that is higher than any discretionary spending during the Clinton era. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=139.html. I\'m using factcheck since Cheney seems to think it\'s an acceptable source and to avoid the whole \"liberal bias\" argument which I think is a waste of time to discuss.

I basically agree with this. However, I don\'t see a Kerry landslide with huge coat-tails. The congress will remain under GOP control and Kerry won\'t get the health care thing through which is his big ticket item. So while Bush has shown that he signs everything for the past 4 years, it seems reasonable to say that 2 parties will slow down the spending.

Yes tax dodges are legendary and among the wealthy more easily done. It may be reality, but that doesn\'t make it right. If I didn\'t pay my taxes, I\'d be audited. It seems to me that the law and order crowd would favor the idea that \"everybody pays\". It\'s a crime not to and should be prosecuted. Wasn\'t it Leona Helmsley who said (as she went to jail) \"Taxes are for little people.\"

As for the small business angle. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=118.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html The Bush talking point is that Kerry\'s tax rollback will injure 900,000 \"small businesses\", even though factcheck seems to think the number is closer to 500,000. From there you\'re talking about Subchapter S corporations. Most of these are just individuals who have some sort of \"business\" income. Like say Lynn Cheney\'s speaking fees--no employees. Or say you rented out your yacht once in a while--no employees. It\'s a loose definition of business and Bush is blowing the job creation angle way out of proportion.

Nope, don\'t want that at all. I had friends at the Pentagon who, thank God, made it out OK. I have no desire to see that happen ever again.
Maybe Bush is the reason we haven\'t been attacked, and maybe he isn\'t. It\'s an argument from silence. But the Bush people have been making regular claims that we are going to get hit again (especially if Kerry is elected). It seems like the Bush people don\'t think we can prevent another act of domestic terrorism.
This argument seems congruent to an argument from the other side claiming that September 11 is Bush\'s fault since he happened to be in office. He did get the briefing while he was on vacation that bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. So I\'m not sure this argument is a winner. As you say, facts are facts.

Real income levels are at least debatable, choose the facts you want for it. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=120.html As for employment, The Clinton/Bush numbers are partly explained by the number of new workers needing a job, so we\'d need to create 137k a month just to keep up. But even aside from that Bush has claimed over and over and over that his tax cuts would create somewhere between 200-350k per month and has never happened. Another tricky little part of the Bush record.

And Bush says that tax cuts are the only solution for any economic problem we face, when that seems to have surprisingly little to do with it. Wouldn\'t that also bring Bush\'s credibility into question? If anything the federal reserve policy of dropping interest rates to historic lows seem to have done far more to keep the housing bubble inflating and far more to do with new homeowners than Bush tax cuts.
But even so, who cuts taxes in a time of war? Honestly, who does that?

Interestingly enough, Kerry was an early supporter of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment which would have required mandatory balanced budgets and cut overspending. I don\'t know how old you are, but you might not remember that there was a strong movement toward more fiscal discipline--when real conservatives still roamed the earth. http://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue4.htm Reagan pretty much ended the movement by inititating the borrow and spend right wing. If anything, Kerry seems most inclined to follow the model of Clinton and adopt a pay as you go sort of policy by balancing the budget and paying down the debt. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687592/

I lived in Houston for a while and was there during September 2001. When the airlines were grounded, the CEO of Continental, Gordon Bethune, made a big stink about going on TV and crying for federal money so the airline could keep all its employees. Congress promptly comes through with the bailout. Continental promptly fires thousands of employees and gives bonuses to the executives with the federal money. That makes me feel great about paying taxes. As for \"excessive regulations\", I\'m reminded of Enron, Reliant and that crowd. As it turns out market forces didn\'t cause California\'s cost for electicity to increase 3000% per kilowatt hour. Enron, Reliant and the guys decided to do some old fashioned price gouging. Bush and Cheney absolutely refused to even look into the problem. They were busy blaming \"failed energy policy\" and letting the guys at Enron and Reliant write the administration\'s energy policy. I don\'t hate the corporate types, but sometimes they make it awfully hard to like them. I will agree with you that the goal of Bush\'s crowd is to do all possible to push down the cost of labor.

I have no problem agreeing with the report in this regard. So if Iraq was bluffing to maintain the balance of power in the region, why do we need to invade him? Hussein was a rotten little man who did awful things to his people. Why invade him and not the dozens of other rotten little men who do awful things to their people? And if the bluff was keeping Iran at bay, why destabilize the reason and practically invite Iran to go on into Iraq? I agree, nobody was going to ride to Iraq\'s rescue if Iran came over the border, but why take down the only secular government in the entire middle east?

Power is going to have to be the same sort of power that we saw in Gulf I, overwhelming and multinational. I think Governor Bush makes much more sense than President Bush. \"And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don\'t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we\'ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.\" http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html It looks like we are in the middle of a monstrous nation building project, i.e. the creation of Jeffersonian democracies in the middle east. So here we are for the foreseeable future. (John McCain says we could easily be in Iraq for the next 20+ years). So with 140,000 people on the ground in Iraq, we are now living out the dangers that Governor Bush verbalized; we\'re nation building, we\'re overextended, we have no exit strategy and we\'re trying to be all things to all people in the world. I\'m not sure that having US forces all over the globe makes us safer.

This is too ridiculous for words. You\'re better than this. That\'s right up there with saying something from the other side like, \"Bush wants to give all power to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.\" Kerry wants other nations to help foot the bill and provide the manpower to get the job done. Now that we\'re in a \"nation building\" project, we have to fix it or leave a big power vacuum in the region.

Now is Kerry further to left than I am? Yep. But Bush only seems to be one of the social conservatives and I don\'t vote social issues. If he had a leg to stand on in his use of the military or the budget, then I wouldn\'t be so quick to dismiss him, but he really doesn\'t have anything to run on but fear. And fear isn\'t a good enough reason to make a guy president.

:kerry:

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg