kerry is going to increase the spending and the bureacracy (much like bush). like hell he's going to be able to balance the budget.

 

kerry is weaker on national security.

Who spent more on bureaucracy, Clinton or Bush? Clinton came in promising universal healthcare! To say that Kerry won't overspend when Bush openly does is crazy.the percentage growth of bureacracy has been lower under bush than under clinton. relative to the GDP, the bureacracy has decreased.

 

not that i buy that, of course, but that is the republican explanation.

 

and i hope you're not suggesting that kerry would spend less than bush...

 

Bush is among the weakest presidents on national security ever, using needed resources overseas that we should of never had to use.? Now we have to deal with it, and that should give Bush a F in national security (okay, bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.)

government spending for anti-terrorism efforts and homeland security under bush has been much, much, much more than it has been for any other administration in history. the institution of the department of homeland security, the enactment of the patriot act, and the integration of the intelligence agencies qualifies bush as the strongest president on national security, ever.

 

the diversion of anti-terrorism funds toward funding the war in iraq was reproachable, yes. however, despite that, anti-terrorism funding is still far greater it ever has been because of just how much was appropriated for counterterrorism efforts.

 

do i think funding is sufficient? i have no clue, but it's clear that no administration in history has been this devoted to homeland security (for the obvious reasons).

1) Do you not remember those checks in the mail? Or were those invisible? Selective memory tells us to forget the good and remember the bad when trying to find fault with a person. But like it is said, "They only remember when you are wrong, not when you are right."

Great, a check that'll last for a few trips to the grocery store

 

I rather have a country that is not in enormous debt than a check.

 

Also, great move by GW by giving less of a tax cut to the poor and more to the rich...wtf is that?

Reasons why people shouldn't vote for Bush:

 

1) Tax cut policy deepens the economic deficit. It only benefits a few, the rest of us (middle-class and low income families) never saw a dime of those famous tax cuts.

 

2) Stronger Markets for foreign industrialized countries. Responsible policy is the key here.

 

3) Malpractice issues is also strong on Kerry's agenda.

 

4) Superior National Security (Patriot Act). Invading another country and pissing off future generations of very radical Arabs, doesn't seem as very well thought out plan for National Security.

 

5) Stronger businesses and Industries. Hmmm I guess we haven't heard of job losses and job migration issues.

 

6) Tougher on crime. Strong on any other candidate agenda, without hindering the right to privacy and human rights.

 

7) Supports better family values. Family values are not promoted by the President or the media; it comes from each of us. Just because he seems like a good husband doesn't make him a good president.

 

8) Supports the place of religion in public institutions. This is wrong. I am 100% catholic and I think Government and religion should never be mixed. Otherwise, we would have a "radical" christian government. This country was founded to escape religious persecution and one of it principles is that "Church and State" should be separate.

 

9) More powerful military. Why do we need powerful military? As far as I know, there is no country on earth that can withstand USA military. We don't need to spend more money on weapons that cannot kill people like Bin Laden. Fighting terrorism requires a little more than advanced military technology. Better intelligence maybe.

 

10) Privatization of Social Security. I don't have an opinion on this one.

 

11) Holding Schools Accountable for poor performance. How about investing more money in education and public schools, so they don't have to resort to hire morons for teachers???? Bush is for cutting education funds.

 

12) School Vouchers. No opinion

Not going to say I'm a Bush Backer, I'm actually pretty neutral this election, but:

 

1) Do you not remember those checks in the mail? Or were those invisible? Selective memory tells us to forget the good and remember the bad when trying to find fault with a person. But like it is said, "They only remember when you are wrong, not when you are right."

 

2) I don't know how many billions of times I have to say that the current president has NOTHING to do with the market at the time of his presidency.

 

3) It's big for alot of people. Big deal.

 

4) We are focussing foreign policy in the wrong area anyways. The Arabs can be crazy and all, but the world's problems of my generation will from South America at the rate we are going. So you know what, everyone is wrong in who to turn attention to. And oh yeah, the Patriot Act sucks IMO. But it's expiring soon.

 

5) Have you heard of job increases? They haven't all fallen. They've fallen in Michigan, for example, but Florida's jobs are growing. Jobs aren't falling everywhere, that is a misconception. And again, the economy is not in the hands of the current president.

 

6) Ehh, people pretend to be strong on crime. They all suck.

 

7) Not true. The President is the leader of the free world, he is supposed to provide an example to the rest of us. If the president beats his wife, I'm willing to bet alot more people would be beating their wives then are now.

 

8) Separation of Church and State is a beautiful thing.

 

9) Fighting terrorism isn't as easy as some people think. And the military needs to be kept intact. But that can be done by instead of stretching our troops, by focusing them in certain areas of need and then pulling out later. Solving the world's problems is not our business, especially when we aren't taking care of our whole hemisphere.

 

10) Social Security was a crap idea from the first place and whatever dignity it had was destroyed by LBJ. I've been saying it for a while and I've been saying it, if the government doesn't kill it and send it to the private sector, there will be SERIOUS problems in the future. You don't want to f*** with old people, and especially old baby boomers. Big problems ahead.

 

11) Education is not the problem of the federal government. That is the state and local governments' problem. Why people listen to candidates talk garbage about this continues to baffle me.

 

12) Public schools need to be reformed. To start that process off, to help it along, and to give alternatives to kids that might be left out while it happens, private schools need to be turned to. There is no question the best education is in private schools, and allowing more kids to go there is a good idea. Even though most schools can handle financial aid by themselves, this is a temporary solution that isn't a bad idea.

Also, great move by GW by giving less of a tax cut to the poor and more to the rich...wtf is that?

OK, you know what, I love the poor and all. And they are important too. But who pays more taxes? Huh? Who pays a higher amount of taxes? So therefore, by rational thinking, wouldn't the people paying MORE get the BIGGER discount? Or can the left not put two and two together?

If Castro was a personable guy and because he likes baseball, would you vote for him? Please.

Oh hell naw, you did not just go there.

Also, great move by GW by giving less of a tax cut to the poor and more to the rich...wtf is that?

OK, you know what, I love the poor and all. And they are important too. But who pays more taxes? Huh? Who pays a higher amount of taxes? So therefore, by rational thinking, wouldn't the people paying MORE get the BIGGER discount? Or can the left not put two and two together? Thats not rational...That's just sad the society revolves around things like that.

Personally, I'm in favor of a flat tax anyways, because it's the best possible system.

 

But that being said, the poor already get an insane amount of benefits they don't deserve from the government. Welfare is the most abused system in the history of man. It is not the place of the government to give money to the poor of the country just because they are poor. What are you contributing to society? Even communism was based on contribution to society. Damn man, I should just stop doing everything I can to succeed in life, and live off the government! Come on! Everyone's doing it!

 

Not only do the poor get welfare for not working, but they have more kids than they can handle so they can get more welfare! What a wonderful system! What does this have anything to do with tax cuts? The fact that the poor get a bunch of welfare, abuse a system that a real government shouldn't even be responsible for, and then they expect tax cuts? WTF?

 

If we were living in any other time, people who produced absolutely nothing would not be rewarded for their production (or rather, lack thereof). But instead, the poor get to live off the government completely, be lazy, and take the money from the real people paying taxes.

 

Shouldn't people pay for the services that are renedered to them? Obviously. You shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use, and you shouldn't get things free just because. Obviously, if people only paid for what they used, we'd have a problem, because no one uses as many resources as the poor, but they have the least to pay. Kind of funny if you think about it. But wouldn't you give money back to people that are paying to have someone else do absolutely nothing?

 

This is why giving money to public and private charities (regardless of affiliation) is a good idea. Get the people that are supposed to dedicate their lives to helping people to help people, and get the government off of it. It is not the government's job. If charities and private institutions do it, people will have to shape up, because there isn't a private institution in this world that likes to save money. Kill two birds with one stone, you get production out of people who would otherwise give none and you get them off the government's breast milk.

or, since it's actually against the Constitution to have a Federal Income Tax we could do the intelligent thing and have a national sales tax.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/important_information.htm

http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/08-30-03/opening_1.asp

and the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/IRS/petition.html

 

with no income tax, there's no need to b*tch about who gets what tax cut.

or, since it's actually against the Constitution to have a Federal Income Tax

eh?

 

the 16th amendment to the US constitution:

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/

did you actually read any of the links?

did you actually read any of the links?

i did not.

 

now that i have read it, the guy is disputing the constitutional definition of the word "income" and using the following as the basis of his argument:

 

Income in its "constitutional sense" means income "separated from its source" as occurs when a corporate profit is determined. The tax is on "profit" and not on the "sources" that produced the profit. This "constitutional meaning" of "income" is rooted in the holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in which the Supreme Court said:

 

"The whole purpose of the (16th) Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the sources whence the income was derived."

 

i haven't a clue what the case was about or the context in which he quoted the supreme court there.

 

his page doesn't substantiate his claim, and instead he refers the reader to look at his 2002 tax return and his motion for reconsideration. i read his 2002 tax return addendum and got the stuff above, yet he still didn't explain the relevance of this random court case and instead points to his motion for reconsideration for a full explanation.

 

as much as i'd love to read his 36-page, single spaced, reconsideration motion, i think it's pretty safe to say his theory doesn't have much weight since (so far) it hasn't been successful in any level of the court system and since the guy is considered a kook.

 

but yeah, income tax sucks. i saw an interesting factoid the other day about income tax levels in the 50s compared to relative quality of life and income tax levels today compared to relative quality of life. interesting numbers...

but yeah, income tax sucks. i saw an interesting factoid the other day about income tax levels in the 50s compared to relative quality of life and income tax levels today compared to relative quality of life. interesting numbers...

interesting...gotta link or something?

 

btw, your avatar brings back so many wonderful memories of yesteryear.

This topic has gone far beyond my original intention with it. I just wanted to see who was more "popular" among people here. Nevertheless, the debate has proven to be very enlightening. While I am still a "Bush Hater", I can see where some people who support him are coming from.

 

I can only agree on one thing. It was necessary to have a "tough" president on power, in order to respond adequately to the thread of terrorism. Would a Democrat do just as good? I am not really sure of that. The thing that really bothers me about Bush's "Counter-terrorism" estrategy, is that he lied to invade Iraq.

 

I sincerely hope that if he gets re-elected, he lives up to the expectations of all who support him, because we're all together in this one, if he fails, we're all f***ed up.

Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>> BUSH

 

Cooler

 

Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush

 

I'm not going to sit here and it explain again why Clinton in my opinion was one the best Presidents past 20 years.I believe the other thread tittle was George Bush vs Bill Clinton.

I just remember how much the Republicans hated the guy... They tried absolutely everything, but most of their efforts were unsuccessfull. Everything just slid right off him... Which pissed the Republicans even more...

More Tax Cuts people?

 

Don't like you're BMW? Well with the new Tax Cuts you'll be able to upgrade to a Audi... :lol

i hope you're not suggesting that kerry would spend less than bush...

With a republican majority in both houses? He won't be able to, it will be the same thing like when Newt actually cut things. With the republicans controlling everything, there is less incentive to MAKE GOVERNMENT SMALLER, when it is under YOUR control. A democratic president and republican house and senate would collide their heads into each other like musk oxes and is result there will be less government, like after 1994 when the republicans took over.

 

i'm not saying kerry would want to spend more or less, i'm saying HE won't be able to spend more.

 

I don't buy that republican % spending thing. Government got bigger, end of story. I want NEWT.

 

 

government spending for anti-terrorism efforts and homeland security under bush has been much, much, much more than it has been for any other administration in history.

Yeah, and we piss people off and are therefore less safe, just with a higher price.

clinton would of won in 2000 if he had been allowed to run.

 

 

 

easily.

clinton would of won in 2000 if he had been allowed to run.

 

 

 

easily.

clinton wouldn't even be around had ross perot not run in 1992.

 

easily.

clinton would of won in 2000 if he had been allowed to run.

 

 

 

easily.

That scares me.

What is this s***, you think Bill Clinton has a chance agianst my father, bull s***

What-the-f***-ever! Bill is a f***ing dumbass. He's a f***ing adulterer! Like ewwww.... *takes another sip of her Bud*

You bet! My daddy is cooler and smarter you sluts!

Smarter? HA!!!!! Oh wait....he didn't inhale, right?

Smarter? HA!!!!! Oh wait....he didn't inhale, right?

Exactly b***h! he did not!

 

Unlike your drunken dumb daddy