In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Anti-Bush, but what's better about Kerry?
dheffley
Member Posts: 25,000 ✭
OK, you Bush whackers answer this. How are we going to be better off with Kerry in office. What do you think he will and won't do to hurt us? What do you think will happen to taxes and gun rights? Be honest![:D]
How you doin'!
How you doin'!
Comments
"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long..."
How you doin'!
104 million individuals and families will receive an average tax cut of $1,040.
Nearly 43 million married couples will receive an average income tax cut of about $1,720.
Over 38 million parents with children will receive an average income tax cut of $1,460.
Over 10 million single mothers will be able to keep, on average, $770 more of their income.
About 13 million seniors will see their taxes reduced, on average, by $915.
33 million business owners who pay business income taxes at individual rates could benefit.
Economic growth has returned: 5.6% in the first quarter of 2002 compared to 1.2% in 2001.
Residential investment is growing faster right now than it has in almost six years: the fastest quarterly gain, 14.6% in the 1st quarter.
Consumer confidence in May was at the highest level in a year and a half.
Home sales and the real estate market are historically strong.
Household spending is up: Auto sales hit a record high last winter (Q4), furniture and appliance sales are up and all durable consumer spending is much stronger -- direct results of the tax cuts.
Theres Still More To Be Done To Create Jobs And Ensure Long-term Growth.
To keep America on the path to economic recovery, Congress should make the tax cut permanent. Unfortunately, the tax cuts we put in place last year are scheduled to expire in 2011. To ensure a robust economy, to give every worker a job and to provide American families and businesses the security and certainty needed to make long-term savings and investment decisions, the tax cut must be made permanent. Otherwise, the tax increases that will occur in 2011 will be an ongoing drag on our economy:
The tax rate on low income families would jump 50% (from 10% to 15%)
The child tax credit would be cut in half (from $1,000 per child to $500)
Marriage penalties would be restored.
Education savings taxes would skyrocket (withdrawals for certain savings plans will be taxed)
Retirement savings and IRA contribution limits would shrink by more than 60%.
The death tax would be restored.
To ensure job creation and a robust recovery, Congress should give the President Trade Promotion Authority, a comprehensive energy plan and a terrorism insurance bill. While the economic signs are encouraging, unemployment is still too high and business investment is not where it should be. To speed the recovery and guarantee jobs for all American workers, Congress should give the President Trade Promotion Authority, a comprehensive energy plan and a terrorism insurance bill.
To guarantee long-term growth and future prosperity, Congress must exercise fiscal discipline. When the federal government overspends, it has a serious effect on the long-term growth of our economy. The President has submitted a responsible budget that focuses on our nations priorities: ensuring economic recovery, winning the war on terror, and protecting our homeland. If Congress holds spending to the Presidents budget, we will return to a budget surplus by 2005. As the President has shown by issuing a stern warning in the SAP for the Supplemental Bill, he will enforce fiscal discipline.
The War and Recession -- Not the Tax Cuts -- Drained the Budget Surplus
While some in Washington want to blame the tax cut for the declining surplus, the facts tell a different story:
The Recession Erased Two-Thirds of the Surplus: The recession and declining tax revenues drained roughly two-thirds of the budget surplus.
Homeland Security and War Spending Used 19% of the Surplus: Immediately following the terrorist attacks, President Bush and Congress rightly passed significant spending increases for the war against terrorism, homeland security, airline security, and emergency response. This necessary spending accounted for approximately 19% of the surplus.
The Tax Cut Only Used 15% of the Surplus: Despite the claims of some in Washington, the tax cut used less than 15% of the surplus.
Economic growth and job creation are the key to future surpluses. Tax increases do not create surpluses.
Also was under the impression that the Reps were anti-large government; hasn't the government swollen under the able guidance of Bush?
Also was under the impression that the Reps were against nation-building; but for some reason, I think the Bush administration is well into that concept, isn't it?
But, looking on the bright side, our intelligence gathering capabilities will be improved once the Reps, under the able guidance of Bush, have that investigation completed by 2005.
Also, on the bright side, the issue about marriage may be addressed fully by the Reps, despite the fact that almost 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce. Don't bother allowing people who care for each other have a relationship that provides some benefits--if dey ain't no man and no woman, dey ain't 'possed to be caring for each udder!
What the heck, we still think marriage is a vital US national interest and we can prove it: that's why our children are doing so well in being taken care of by their parents in a sanctioned marriage.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
OK, you Bush whackers answer this. How are we going to be better off with Kerry in office. What do you think he will and won't do to hurt us? What do you think will happen to taxes and gun rights? Be honest![:D]
So far, none of the Bush whackers has answered the gun rights question.
Good answer to stop spending Heavy barrel , but not with Bush. He has spent more $$$$ than any President I have ever seen. By the way his excuse is the War. When only a small amount has actually gone for the war.
I believe 40% is war related. Not a small percent is it?
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
For some reason, I was under the impression that the Dems, under the able guidance of Clinton, were able to generate a SURPLUS that the Reps, under the able guidance of Bush, have squandered completely--along with a $500+BILLIONS new debt. Am I mistaken?
HAIRY, beating an old drum. Economy was overinflated and on a decline with Clinton. The surplus was gone with Bush or Gore in office. Bush didn't squander it. It is a misleading argument to blame the current administration for the economic problem caused by Clinton's administration.
On another note, I doubt the economy would look as good as it does now (post recession) if Gore had won the election.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
select-fire -- We "good Republicans" are not sure whether George W. is one. He has done some stupid things since he got in. Absolutely. He's going to have to rectify them by Election Day, and talk about what he's doing about them in the debates with the Democrat candidate. NAFTA is a disaster; the money to corporate CEOs and drug companies and insurance companies is a disaster... If he does as his father did, and simply talks about "stay the course" on the economy and jobs during the debates, I'll be yelling at the TV this time too -- "BUSH JUST DOESN'T GET IT! YOU'RE LOSING THE ELECTION, BUBBA!!!" Hell, I could have done a better job of quarterbacking George Senior during those debates than whoever he had in the wings there did. He really didn't get it. People wrote him and wrote him and he didn't listen. I guess he thouht he knew better than his own party grass roots. Obviously, he didn't. Same thing WILL happen to George W.'s re-election bid if he doesn't take action to staunch the job hemmorage and divert the flow of money away from the enemy (CEOs) and directly into real career development programs. We can't stand this job flight much longer, particularly since medical insurance ends shortly after the lay-offs. I understand all those corporations are using the money -- to shore up their retail prices. This is precisely the WRONG result.
The trouble with the AWB sunset is this: If we get one, and I think we might see no bill get out of Congress -- and then we put a Democrat in office -- how long do you think the hiatus will last? If you are a one-issue voter you cannot escape the possibility that a Democrat President will try to talk up a new gun ban and push a new bill through Congress after the old one is dead and justly buried. Whether that Democrat president succeeds or not may depend on how many Dems get elected to Congress in 2004... If they have the votes, they could surely pass an EVEN MORE restrictive ban on modern defensive guns including all the new variations and what they like to call "clones."
It will take time to get Congress used to the idea that the AWB was unconstitutional, bad for business, bad for homeland defense, and ineffective against crime. But assumptions about the "need" for a new AWB to plug some phony loophole will change -- IF the expiration of the AWB lasts long enough.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
And I disaggree with you on the marriage issue, but the rest of what you stated seems pretty fair.
The gun issue is probably not going to have the outcome we would like. And that's why. We would only "like" a particular outcome. But as the single largest interest group in America, we don't DEMAND a particular outcome.
As far as the Bush/Kerry comparison...On a scale of 1-10, I give Bush a 1, I give Kerry a negative 10. Just like Hillary wanted. If a quality democrat (oxymoron, but you know what I mean) was selected and won the election, Hillary wouldn't get to run in '08 against a newcomer.
________________________________________________________________________
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
Kerry doesn't have Cheney's hand stuffed up his @$$ telling him what to say and think.
Kerry doesn't have Rice barking like a mutt in heat and calling it sound national security advice.
Kerry doesn't have Rumsfeld handing our Bronze Stars like party favors and using the Pentagon as his own personal fiefdom.
Kerry doesn't have John Ashcroft ramming the Patriot Act down our throats.
THAT'S what's better than Bush.
the anti-Nam war protest meeting on the news this morning. Just wondering what sort of a Commander and Cheif he would make for
wartime. I imagine a lot of other vets are also wondering. He sure did'nt have a very good opinion of our troops over there.
As far as taxes, there is a fundimental equation that the GOP doesn't get. Deficits now mean more taxes to pay for them later, simple and true. $300.00 in my pocket is nice, but doesn't mean much; without going into detail, it doesn't have the economy of scale that all that money in the gov'ts hands would do. This money now will cost us many times that amount later.
I hate paying taxes, but I also hate paying for my mortgage and car. By the same token, I like living in the US, Living in my house, and driving my car. It isn't free.
If you really want to do something about the economy, keep jobs in the US. If you give corporations every imaginable break (as the GOP does), make it contingent on the company staying in the US! Insist on US content! We used to be the aresenal of democracy, becuase we had both the talent and ability to produce. What are we now, when our ability to produce has been sent overseas?
Products are somewhat cheaper now, in relation to their content, but who can afford them? Remember, a corporation is a LEGAL FICTION! It is a MAKE-BELIEVE entity that allows for the shifting of some liability. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE CORPORATIONS. That is all well and good, but if there must be a trade-off, and the benefit must be for the public, and not this make-believe entity.
As far as gun rights, I wouldn't be too concerned- post 9/11, I beleive that there is a national sentiment that may well allow the AWB to fade away.
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you.
Rita Mae Brown
Jacqueline
www.gratuitouslylongdomainname.net
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt (1783)
"So far, none of the Bush whackers has answered the gun rights question."
It HAS been answered. If Kerry or some other pathetic nitwit Democrat gets into the White House, he's NOT going to be able to do very much with a Republican House and Senate to spit in his eye (provided, of course, that the b*stards realize which side their bread is buttered on regarding the gun-owners who put them there in the first place.)
With the "Patriot Acts" and no-fly lists and the general trashing of the Constitution he's had a hand in, I'd GLADLY see Bush out on his butt and take my chances with a Dem in the White House who has to face a Republican House and Senate. It's better than the alternative, which is four more years of outrageous spending, pandering to the Hispanics and illegal aliens, betrayal of our gun rights by pandering to the liberals and soccer moms, and flushing civil liberties and due process down the toilet in favor of greater and greater Federal police power in a patently bogus "war on terrorism".
Quote:
"So far, none of the Bush whackers has answered the gun rights question."
It HAS been answered. If Kerry or some other pathetic nitwit Democrat gets into the White House, he's NOT going to be able to do very much with a Republican House and Senate to spit in his eye
What kind of logic is this trstone?? You opt to put someone into office that will try to take away your rights because you hope he won't be able to?? That makes a ton of sense[xx(][;)]
We have overthrown a dictator, effectively destroyed Al Qaida (sp?), and forced N. Korea, pakistan, libya into serious negotiations to disarm or stop their WMD programs. Is there anything wrong with any of this?
If Kerry is elected, you think he'll cut spending. Maybe "he'll try but won't succeed with a Republican cogress" trstone[;)]
I have yet to see anything about Kerry that's appealing. He's as liberal as Kennedy. You want someone like Kennedy as president just because you dislike Bush??
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
From what I heard just last nite, Al Qaida might have tac nukes, so I would not consider that group "effectivey destroyed" at all. Also, I now hear more frequently on Fox News (Fair and Balanced) that the attacks on the US and the Coalition are coming more and more from Al Qaida--so again, even in a hot environment, it is not being "effectively destroyed".
Also, North Korea still has its nukes; not much movement with negotiations there.
Libya's recent decision to give up its nuke program is the result of over six (6) years of negotiaitions, not what the propaganda mill is churning out.
Pakistan has not, as far as I know, entered into any negotiations regarding giving up its nukes, nor has India. Pakistan has publicy said it will help close down the blackmarketing of the nuke technology (made enough money already, I guess).
Regarding overthrowing dicators: since when is that a US National Interest item? It is only if you are Our Leader and the dictator threatened your daddy.[}:)]
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Regarding overthrowing dicators: since when is that a US National Interest item? It is only if you are Our Leader and the dictator threatened your daddy.[}:)]
Threatened someone's daddy??? Do you really believe that Saddam was not a threat to our national security?? You are one of the only ones as Clinton, Bush, and most leaders of this country thought he was. Sooner or later he would have directly or indirectly attacked our country. Clinton knew it, Bush knew it. The difference is that after 9/11, we learned we could not take the chance of waiting.
If 9/11 had not happened, Bush would have continued the status quo with Saddam, just like Clinton did. 9/11 seriously changed our index of suspicion and action.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY