John Kerry's Plan: Unveiled!

[Corn]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur
Conservatives have no creativity.

didnt you used to say you were a conservative or something? oh well ....

Mild irony detected. I give Conjob a for being a hypocritical troll and not adding anything significant to the "discussion".

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur
Conservatives have no creativity.

didnt you used to say you were a conservative or something? oh well ....

Mild irony detected. I give Conjob a for being a hypocritical troll and not adding anything significant to the "discussion".

See my above posts. I'm surprised that conjur hasn't responded yet.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn

Mild irony detected. I give Conjob a for being a hypocritical troll and not adding anything significant to the "discussion".

And your post added what, exactly?

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol !

This plan is your plan, this plan is my plan.....

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: conjur
Conservatives have no creativity.

Judging from the MP3, neither does John Kerry.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn

Mild irony detected. I give Conjob a for being a hypocritical troll and not adding anything significant to the "discussion".

And your post added what, exactly?

Right about the same thing your's did, DV.

What, I'm forbidden from doing my best Conjob impression? How about Henny Youngman?.....take my wife, please.

 

[ScoobMaster]

Originally posted by: conjur
Conservatives have no creativity.

Hey conjur,

With all due respect......... if you have any better information, could you elaborate with some details of Kerry's "plans" (or provide links). I watched the debates and did keep thinking to myself, "OK, this man keeps mentioning his many 'plans' but is not giving *ANY* details or clues as to the substance of them!" WHAT exactly does he intened to (on a more specific or substantive basis) do to make life in America better than it is now? (FWIW current Presidient Bush didn't do much better - I found the "debates" a waste of time as far as really learning anything new about either candidate, but I pretty much anticipated that before watching )

 

[Gravity]

Cute.

 

[Genx87]

So what is his plan?

From what I gather from Liberals who apparently can read between Johns plans.

1. He plans on eliminating our need for foreign oil at the same time he will advance an enviornmental cause.
Thus he cant drill for oil to replace the oil we apparently wont be purchasing from the middle east if he becomes president because he protected all the lands from drilling oil.

2. He plans on raising wages while trying to force US companies by closing supposed tax loopholes to not outsource lower end jobs so they can compete in a world market. Thus he will either force the business to either move out of country, close up shop, or reduce wage earnings so they can compete with the 1 dollar an hour workers their competitors are paying for the same job. Two outcomes end with no job and a 3rd will come with a lowered earnings potential. Something he blames bush for at the moment.

3. He plans on giving a govt run health care program to the people of the United States. This will apparently keep costs down. Since when does allowing the govt spend money keep costs down?

4. He plans on leaving social security alone because in its current state it is nothing but a model system that should eventually cost my generation about 70% of their paycheck provided we decide to keep it afloat.

btw the last two are going to be paid for exclusively by him reversing the tax cuts given to the 1% under Bush. :roll:

5. He Plans to get countries who have said they will have no part in Iraq to come to Iraq. Maybe he will bribe them with a Ketchup holdout?

6. He Plans on visiting a bunch of places but not really visiting them. Then in 4 years claim he visited them.

Yup I cant wait for this guy to come in and be president

 

[Rainsford]

This thread has been very enlightining about the maturity of some conservatives on this board...thanks for clearing that up, I THOUGHT you guys had sounded too adult lately.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Who the hell is this Hannity guy everyone keeps talking about? I assume he's a talk radio guy, but what station and what part of the country?

Jason

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This thread has been very enlightining about the maturity of some conservatives on this board...thanks for clearing that up, I THOUGHT you guys had sounded too adult lately.

As opposed to the enlightenment and maturity displayed by the liberals here on a consistent basis? :laugh:

This is a humor thread - there are plenty of other serious threads about the war, terrorism, economy, abortion, etc. Stick with those if this isn't your cup o' tea.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Who the hell is this Hannity guy everyone keeps talking about? I assume he's a talk radio guy, but what station and what part of the country?

Sean Hannity -> Hannity and Colmes -> Fox News Network

 

[Vic]

Bush plan:

- Endless war, the US vs. the Rest of the World
- Cut taxes
- Increase spending
- Bankrupt America

My question of the day for party-line Republicans: If you don't believe in the deficit and the debt, why don't we just stop paying taxes altogether? Rescind all taxes and just have the government print money and spend as it pleases?



Actually, that won't work (for obvious reasons). So I predict that one of the first things that GW will do if re-elected is raise taxes drastically to cover all the government spending increases he never vetoed. He will have no choice.

Enjoy.

 

[Genx87]

Bush plan:

- Endless war, the US vs. the Rest of the World
- Cut taxes
- Increase spending
- Bankrupt America

Well it looks like Bush and Kerry dont have much differences then.

Especially on the last two items.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Bush plan:

- Endless war, the US vs. the Rest of the World
- Cut taxes
- Increase spending
- Bankrupt America

Well it looks like Bush and Kerry dont have much differences then.

Especially on the last two items.

So we should hasten the bankruptcy of America by dramatically widening the deficit and piling on the debt (as GW has been doing)? Hey, at least we'll all have a big party while the ship sinks, right? Wrong. The onset of deficit-induced inflation only looks good at the beginning. Soon, the hard times come. Didn't anyone here live through the 70s? Has no one studied economics, finance, money theory, and economic history?

Seriously though, GW will have to raise taxes early in his 2nd term. Widening deficits, increasing debt, and the declining dollar will force it. "Read my lips." Do the 'Pubs really believe they can have their cake and eat it indefinitely?

 

[Genx87]

So we should hasten the bankruptcy of America by dramatically widening the deficit and piling on the debt (as GW has been doing)? Hey, at least we'll all have a big party while the ship sinks, right? Wrong. The onset of deficit-induced inflation only looks good at the beginning. Soon, the hard times come. Didn't anyone here live through the 70s? Has no one studied economics, finance, money theory, and economic history?

And John Kerry with his healthcare plan and leaving the bankrupt social security system alone isnt? At least Bush has acknowledged the problem where John seems to think taxing the top 1% will magically pay for his expansions.

Seriously though, GW will have to raise taxes early in his 2nd term. Widening deficits, increasing debt, and the declining dollar will force it. "Read my lips." Do the 'Pubs really believe they can have their cake and eat it indefinitely?

Or maybe he can get congress to curtail spending? /gasp what a thought!

Military spending alone does not account for the large deficit. The large deficits can be traced back to programs being created and funded in the later years of the Clinton administration using an unrealistic tax revenue stream. When the bubble bursted the programs were still funded but the revenues werent there.

Military spending has cost us about 250 billion more over a year. That is about 40% of the deficit. Where did the rest come from?

Ask John Kerry, he was in the senate when all those spending bills were passed in the late 1990s.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So we should hasten the bankruptcy of America by dramatically widening the deficit and piling on the debt (as GW has been doing)? Hey, at least we'll all have a big party while the ship sinks, right? Wrong. The onset of deficit-induced inflation only looks good at the beginning. Soon, the hard times come. Didn't anyone here live through the 70s? Has no one studied economics, finance, money theory, and economic history?

And John Kerry with his healthcare plan and leaving the bankrupt social security system alone isnt? At least Bush has acknowledged the problem where John seems to think taxing the top 1% will magically pay for his expansions.

Seriously though, GW will have to raise taxes early in his 2nd term. Widening deficits, increasing debt, and the declining dollar will force it. "Read my lips." Do the 'Pubs really believe they can have their cake and eat it indefinitely?

Or maybe he can get congress to curtail spending? /gasp what a thought!

Military spending alone does not account for the large deficit. The large deficits can be traced back to programs being created and funded in the later years of the Clinton administration using an unrealistic tax revenue stream. When the bubble bursted the programs were still funded but the revenues werent there.

Military spending has cost us about 250 billion more over a year. That is about 40% of the deficit. Where did the rest come from?

Ask John Kerry, he was in the senate when all those spending bills were passed in the late 1990s.

But but but........congress curtailed spending and contracted the federal budget because there was a Democrat (opposition) President in the 90's.

Oh, wait........

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
And John Kerry with his healthcare plan and leaving the bankrupt social security system alone isnt? At least Bush has acknowledged the problem where John seems to think taxing the top 1% will magically pay for his expansions.

Or maybe he can get congress to curtail spending? /gasp what a thought!

Military spending alone does not account for the large deficit. The large deficits can be traced back to programs being created and funded in the later years of the Clinton administration using an unrealistic tax revenue stream. When the bubble bursted the programs were still funded but the revenues werent there.

Military spending has cost us about 250 billion more over a year. That is about 40% of the deficit. Where did the rest come from?

Ask John Kerry, he was in the senate when all those spending bills were passed in the late 1990s.

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

First, SS is bankrupt because the Bush Admin has raided it for general funding. They're raiding the government employees pension right now.

In 4 years, Bush has not made one attempt to get Congress to curtail spending. He has not vetoed one single bill that has gone across his desk. Quite the opposite, he has gone to Congress on multiple occasions to get his spending bills passed.

I did not blame military spending specifically. However, you are foolish (or revisionist?) to blame only the Clinton Admin for our current crisis. In addition to benefitting from a healthy economy, he actually did cut some government spending. For example, spending under Bush has increased from Clinton's 1.7 trillion in 2000 to 2.4 trillion under Bush this year. An increase of 41% in only 4 years! In contrast, spending only increased 30% during 8 years of Clinton. At least Clinton had the excuse of increased revenues.

Military spending (not counting Iraq) was $450 billion this year. Roughly 100% of the this year's deficit.

On the largest spending bill of the Bush Admin, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003, strongly supported by GW, Kerry abstained from voting while Edwards voted No.

You were saying?...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corn
But but but........congress curtailed spending and contracted the federal budget because there was a Democrat (opposition) President in the 90's.

Oh, wait........

I have never said that.

Spending under Clinton increased from $1.3 trillion in 1993 to $1.7 trillion in 2000. Revenues, however, increased from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion during that same time. Government may have increased, but at least it was kept within its fiscal means.

Hey, if you think federal budget deficits and the debt are no big deal, why don't we just stop paying taxes altogether? Seriously. If you think that no ill effect can come from running government constantly in the red, then why do we bother to pay taxes at all? Because it can't be done and there are ill effects of the deficit and debt, aren't there?

edit: I find it odd that supposedly small government conservatives have no problem with the Bush Admin's government increases. Or with the deficits and mounting debt. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you think that as long as your taxes are cut that government will be kept small. Or maybe you just want your cake and eat it too? Seems most likely.

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: Vic
Spending under Clinton increased from $1.3 trillion in 1993 to $1.7 trillion in 2000. Revenues, however, increased from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion during that same time. Government may have increased, but at least it was kept within its fiscal means.

Do the words "dot com" mean anything? Hell, I could have run the country during that time (at least fiscally). Those revenues were unsustainable.

 

[Chadder007]

Well.....Bush's spending is scary.
Kerry's plans for spending are even more horendous. There is no way he can NOT raise taxes on the middle class to pay for what he wants to spend even and get us out of the hole we are in.
Still Bush > Kerry economically.
That is why we are screwed this year.

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Well.....Bush's spending is scary.
Kerry's plans for spending are even more horendous. There is no way he can NOT raise taxes on the middle class to pay for what he wants to spend even and get us out of the hole we are in.
Still Bush > Kerry economically.
That is why we are screwed this year.

That pretty much sums it up for me!

 

[Corn]

I have never said that.

Acutally you did: "- I credit a Republican Congress and a Democratic President with reigning in spending in the late '90s. It worked well then and I see no reason why it couldn't work now. "

Any thought that simply having an opposition President in power will automatically curtail spending is folly at best and has no recent historical basis in fact. A significant portion of our deficit issues are rooted in Iraq and Afganistan. No matter who becomes President, it is unlikely the military budget will be significantly reduced within the next Presidential term. Do you believe congress will rescind the pork promised to their constituency and special interests? Hah hah, that's a laugh. Not gonna happen. Do you believe a Republican congress will pass a major tax increase to cover the budget? Also unlikely.

You believe what you wish, Vic, as will I. Make no mistake, Bush didn't veto because it was politically expedient. If re-elected, he no longer is bound by that crutch. While congress won't give Kerry his socialized healthcare plan, don't think that Kerry is gonna whip out that veto pen for any of their pork loaded budgets during his term. As if.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TBone77
Do the words "dot com" mean anything? Hell, I could have run the country during that time (at least fiscally). Those revenues were unsustainable.

Which is why Bush cut taxes and raised spending as soon as he entered office and the dot-com bubble was already over right? C'mon, are you fiscally conservative or not?
Dot com was just a blip on the radar anyway. Techies make too much of it. There are other industries in this country yaknow, many of which have done quite well even during the Bush Admin and have provided for an excellent revenue base. In fact, revenues are up during the Bush Admin even after the tax cuts. It's just that Bush's spending is up that much more.,

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Well.....Bush's spending is scary.
Kerry's plans for spending are even more horendous. There is no way he can NOT raise taxes on the middle class to pay for what he wants to spend even and get us out of the hole we are in.
Still Bush > Kerry economically.
That is why we are screwed this year.

Hello? Short of a cut in government spending (unlikely), Bush cannot help but raise taxes in the near future. And those increases are certain to fall on the middle class regardless of who is elected.
You are right though, we are screwed.