You guys have to read facts, not the television campaign rhetoric being spewed by the party of your choice (this includes both parties).

Fact: Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. That bill included funds for among other things, body armor which represented .33% of the total amoount. This was a bundled amount...which...oops!....wasn't enough in the first place. George Dubbya under estimated and the amount was way too low. There was one vote for the entire package, and consequently Kerry vetoed it.

Fact: Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

By the way Dick Cheney..you know...our Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, in 1989 proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. Then two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft.


(edit) Jack, all of your claims and concerns come right from those Bush campaign ads of which most are easily dispelled.

 

So, after the sensationalism.....

The future is looking rich for some, and yes the sub-contractors seem to be reporting 'wind fall profits', though the parent company is anything but solvent!

The old folks who had anything left after the savings and loan folded up, are now looking at the rest $ going up the chimney this winter at over $1.50/gal home heating oil! Good thing ole Mrs Perry passed on, she,d a froze to death this winter!

The board members aren't offering much of an option for replacing the CEO which leaves the stockholders classed as 'thee of little faith' ! ......sty

Oh yeh, back to Kerry, batting 500 worth a multi-million dollar contract these days? What is the over all membership batting average in the senate, house? What was GW's voting record while, oh wait, I think he came through the Govorners' mansion, didn't he ?

 

He actually voted YES on an Internet sales tax MORATORIUM, meaning he voted against allowing states to require companies who do business in their state solely by phone, mail, or the Internet to collect state sales taxes. This was Bill S.442 ; vote number 1998-296 on Oct 2, 1998


I might note here that the Prez recently stated to a Florida supporter that a national sales tax was "an interesting idea" worth serious consideration.

 

Yea we had serious problems, budget surplus, more jobs, non stagnating economy, etc. etc. All gifts from the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause, then came GW and he fixed it all.

 

Yeah, but the boss is in on it and nobody's started crying yet, so they're letting it run for a while.

 

it is a fact of life that in order to do anything it takes money. The surplus monies Clinton left us is gone. how is gw going to finance 4 more years ?

 

Show me where the rules say no political discussion

 

I served from 1971 to 1991 and never saw combat. I was in combat arms. The service record is a smoke screen for an agenda that the public is not even aware of. I have my suspicions but not evidence of what it is.

USA SSG (Retired)

 

"Yea we had serious problems, budget surplus, more jobs, non stagnating economy, etc. etc."

The problem here is that you saw an effect and are trying to determine what the cause is.

It is a fact that the economy was already in recession when President Bush took office and that September 11th was an attack on our economy, which had the effect of slowing the economy even further. An economy in recession looses jobs, tax revenues decline and budgets go into a deficit.

It’s not logical to blame President Bush for the recession that he inherited from President Clinton. And it is unreasonable to blame President Bush for the September 11th attack.

 

"The surplus monies Clinton left us is gone."

First - It was not Clinton's money - it was the taxpayers. Taxpaying Americans paid more taxes than the government spent!

Second - if it were not for the fact that the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate in 1994 it is unlikely there ever would have been a surplus. If you recall a balanced budget was part of their 1994 campaign.

There are economic cycles alternating between growing economies and recessions. It is interesting to note that President Clinton inherited a growing economy, but left one in recession.

 

there, all better. Can't tell you about the dealer thread.

 

I for one enjoy political discussions. First, it helps us to get to know each other better. Second, I inevitably learn a lot.

That said, I'd like to just throw out a few points to ponder:

-- The economy tends to be an animal of its own. Presidents want to believe they can fix (and will), and their enemies want to believe that he/she can break it (and will). Congress controls the money-- not the President. That said, even Congressional spending patterns bear little on the overall business cycle in the US. The monetary policy set by the Fed is the closest the gov't gets to influencing the economy in a real way, but even then it's not substantial-- the high interest rates of the late 70s didn't cure inflation, and low interest rates don't prop up the economy. Pundits like to shift the blame/credit for the economy back and forth from Congress to President-- whichever suits their case.

-- Bills of prospective legislation quite often get "Christmas treed", meaning they have all kinds of completely irrelevant amendments attached to them, which puts a congressmember in an unenviable position. They have to vote yes or no-- so what if you like 90% of a bill, but someone's attached a ridiculous provision in that other 10%? It means you sometimes have to vote against something you WANT, just because you believe that, for example, Robert Byrd doesn't need $5M more money in WV to build something and name it after himself.

-- We need to put the Viet Nam services in context. It wasn't a popular war. Those who went often went reluctantly, saluting smartly as they loyally followed misguided leadership. A LOT of people were looking for safe havens to avoid having to go to Viet Nam. There were many legal ways to do so-student deferments, etc. In the spirit of "keep your friends close, your enemies closer", some joined the military viewing it as the most appealing way to avoid Viet Nam-- as if being within the system gave you an advantage. They didn't understand that Guard or Reserves weren't a safe option. Others went simply because the leader of the country they loved said so.
I can't say what happened to Kerry in Viet Nam. He may be a hero. He might be a liar. The only clue I have to go on is based on assessments of his character now, and then going backwards from there. He's had chances to establish himself as a man of trust and good character, yet he's been content to confirm my worst suspicions. When confronted about his seeming contradiction between environmentalism and SUV ownership, he caved--"*I* don't own an SUV-- they belong to the family". Why couldn't he have just said: "I own one and use it when I need to. But the mileage is terrible and I think Detroit can do better". So if he can't be forthright on something as minor as a SUV ownership, how can he be trusted to be honest on bigger issues??

-- Bush's Guard service is honorable. People who disdain his service are not familiar with the dangers inherent in flying hi-performance fighter jets. The F-102 Bush flew was known to be more dangerous than most. But he took it for the same reason he joined the Guard to begin with: he wanted to fly. Flying planes in the Guard was not an escape route from Viet Nam-- there were plenty of ANG and AFRES pilots who flew in Viet Nam. He offered himself for service. The fact that no one sent him IN NO WAY means his service is any less honorable.

- The national sales tax Bush mentioned as "worth investigating" is here To me, it's the best plan for truly fair taxation that has yet been devised. It's good for everyone.

- I believe in a truly fair society that no one has the "right" to the time, talents, or assets of another. There is no right to prescription medicine, a car, a house, or anything like that. In a free society, there be a mutually benficial agreement made between buyer and seller. That's all that capitalism is: free people engaging in mutually beneficial economic transactions with other free people. Competition arises as people try to conduct more mutually beneficial transactions than someone else (therefore, they benefit more). This is the single most efficient way for prices to be set, and for economic growth to occur.
As a corollary, basic fairness also determines that if you don't have anything at stake (i.e. you dont pay taxes), then you shouldn't have a say in how that stake is spent (voting). It's not difficult to be charitable with someone else's money-- but it IS criminal to make yourself the object of that charity with someone else's money.

-- the right to own and carry a gun isn't about guns-- it's about liberty. Gun violence is still just violence. Why don't we make "knife violence" a special category? What kind of twisted thinking believes that taking away the liberty of a person who abides by the law will IN ANY WAY affect the decisions made by those who have already decided they are above the law?? If someone has already sworn off the law, then what difference does it make if something is legal or illegal? Moreover, it's dangerous thinking to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of humans. Triggers don't pull themselves, and guns don't make decisions. So who should be held responsible?

-- The government needs to quit giving itself special rules. I don't know about you, but if I'm in debt up to my eyeballs, I can't just sign some paperwork forcing my boss to give me more money! But the gov't does just that-- if they run out of money, they just raise taxes and keep on spending. They can spend and spend until the last taxpayer is broke or has moved to another country. Moreover, we have a fundamentally flawed way of budgeting, a way that encourages waste, not conservation.
Right now, if a gov't agency is budgeted $10M for a whole year, and it spends only $8M over the first 11 months, we'd say that's good right? It means they might spend less this year! But to the bureaucrat, this is major panic. If he goes the whole year and only spends $8M, then it means his budget next year will only be-- you guessed it $8M. But if he find a way to spend $11M by the end of the year, his budget next year will be-- you knew it-- $11M. So every year there's a big free-for all at the end as bureacrats find ways to "legally" waste as much money as they can so they can get all their money for the next year. This leads to things like replacing new-last-year furniture with newer-still furniture! Who cares? It's just a huge pool of nameless, faceless money.
But it's money that *I* paid-- money that YOU paid, too (unless you have 5 kids and work a low income job, then we give you a handout to reward your poor decisionmaking)
It's an irrevocable truth of life-- you get more of what you reward, LESS of what you punish. You reward waste, you get more of it. You reward illegitimacy-- you get more of it. You reward individual irresponsibility (really, the cigarette MADE me smoke it), you get more of it.

Sorry so long, I could go on and on (and I think just did). I might wite more later...

Justin