Here Is Your Big Chance

[mweiss]

"To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. " - cannot be done. Not all three at the same time.

Well, yes, it can. OK, in a somewhat serial fashion, if you want to be nitpicky. You can't replace oil overnight. But, with ingenuity and resources devoted to solving the oil dependence, we can in fact achieve that goal.

Quick side note...there's a team that has developed a working processor that converts biological waste (such as from meatpacking plants) into methane, water, and oil. And it does it in a fashion that consumes no external power. The issues they're working on now are only focused on how to scale it up. This solves two-and-a-half of three. And that's right now.

"John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties." - how?

By focusing on intelligence and better screening, instead of racial profiling and violating the Bill of Rights.

"John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities." - Getting Teresa to finance this ?

In a sense, yes. She takes in more than $200,000 per year, so she'd get a tax increase, too. But she's hardly the only one.

"They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you." - I guess all those other countries sending people and resources to IRAQ don't really count right?

Not really, no. The countries may be large in number, but they're small in participation.

"modernize the American military " - then why has he voted agains every major military upgrade his entire career in congress?

Because he didn't. Read for yourself.

You claim to read enough to reach your own conclusions. Your own words belie your true nature.

 

[sentrido]

Not create job within the federal government, because that does not help the economy, but provide an environment where businesses can grow, make a profit, and create jobs.

I have a problem with this assertion. A job is a job isnt it? I mean, didnt federaly created jobs help us get out of the depression?. As for the second part, all Bush has done is increase corporate profits. 1 out of 3 is a pretty bad record dont you think?

How is a Lientenant(jg) from over thirty years ago qualified to wage a "more thoughtfull war against terrorism"? What is his actual plan? Other than to say, "I can do a better Job"? HOW? Tell us, we would love to hear it. Give us some details.

It may or it may not. It goes to the question of character. Bush supported the war in Vietnam, but avoided going. How much relavance that has 30 years later is up to each individuls opinions. the Republicans have been whining about a perticular dem that avoided military service for 12 years now, now comes along a guy who did serve, and it still doesnt satisfy them.I guess all it means is that Kerry, a son a priviledge, thought serving his country was a good idea.And then had the balls to speak out aginst the things about the vietnam war he didnt agree with. That shows an awfull lot of maturity at a very young age. I Imagine a "more thoughtfull war against terrorism" wouldnt involve diving into situations like Iraq. it would involve Actually reading full inteligents reports, not the cliff notes version. Not taking the CIA directors word for it on issues like WMD when the "evidence" before you is weak.Listening to Clark when he says, Iraq wasnt involved. Being able to deal with other countries in a diplomatic way. If you dont think it matters than dont consider it when you deciede who to vote for.

Also he server a lot longer than 4 1/2 months. He was only in combat for 4 1/2 months. He was in the Navy much longer.


Anyway, as I pointed out, the plan is comming out in a 250 page book. Those Interested can read it and maybe then we can continue this debate.

 

[FredF]

NO. A job is not just a job. A government job takes more money out of the economy than it puts back in. You see, someone, like me for instance, has to have more of thier hard earned dollars confiscated to pay the salary of that government worker. So in answer to your question, a governmetn job is not the same as a job in the private sector.

Why do you keep insisting that this thread is about President Bush when it clearly is not. You want to debate him, fine we can do that, but I am trying to get a better understanding of the qualificaions of the person that you clearly support and you will not give them to me.

An analgy if you will: When looking for an investment vehicle, mutual fund, stock, bonds, whatever, what do you look at to gauge future performance? Me, personally, I look at the history. When your man sKerry starts be telling people that he is going to do this and going to do that and that he believes in this or that, I look for the history. Where in his many years in the senate has he demonstrated that he truly believe what he stands for today. He is running for election, yet he will not stand on what he had done and supported and believed in his entire career in the senate.

Go back and answer my questions. Show me why he is qualified to be president. Show us, where in his 20+years as a senator, he has initiated legislation to strengthen our intellegence community. Show us where legistaion he has worked hard for has helped out economy and created jobs(not government workers).

Tell us why a ltjg from over 30 years ago purports that that qualifies him to wage a better and nor thoughfull war against terror.


By the way, I personally am glad that the President did not listen to Clark when he said that IRAQ was not involved with AlQueda becuase Clark was wrong.

One more thing, since you like to add links here is one for you to go read.

The Democratic nominee has shunned substance for patriotic atmospherics. Will it work?

 

[KCFlyer]

NO. A job is not just a job. A government job takes more money out of the economy than it puts back in. You see, someone, like me for instance, has to have more of thier hard earned dollars confiscated to pay the salary of that government worker. So in answer to your question, a governmetn job is not the same as a job in the private sector.

And that money that is paid to the government worker is taxed again and put back into the government hands. What is left with the government worker goes to pay for food, cars, vacations, homes, and many other things that help provide jobs in the private sector. And the amount of money that goes to pay those government workers pales in comparison to the amount of money that is being sent over to Iraq to "rebuild".

An analgy if you will: When looking for an investment vehicle, mutual fund, stock, bonds, whatever, what do you look at to gauge future performance? Me, personally, I look at the history.

Then by that yardstick, Enron and Worldcom would have been 'strong buy' stocks because their "history" looked pretty darn good. But as it turned out, that history was based on a lot of lies and deceit. Damn, when I think about it, that's a pretty good analogy.

Show me why he is qualified to be president

Please show me why Bush is qualified to be president. It took him 6 months to justify the attack on Iraq.

 

[sentrido]

NO. A job is not just a job. A government job takes more money out of the economy than it puts back in. You see, someone, like me for instance, has to have more of thier hard earned dollars confiscated to pay the salary of that government worker. So in answer to your question, a governmetn job is not the same as a job in the private sector.

Why do you keep insisting that this thread is about President Bush when it clearly is not. You want to debate him, fine we can do that, but I am trying to get a better understanding of the qualificaions of the person that you clearly support and you will not give them to me.

An analgy if you will: When looking for an investment vehicle, mutual fund, stock, bonds, whatever, what do you look at to gauge future performance? Me, personally, I look at the history. When your man sKerry starts be telling people that he is going to do this and going to do that and that he believes in this or that, I look for the history. Where in his many years in the senate has he demonstrated that he truly believe what he stands for today. He is running for election, yet he will not stand on what he had done and supported and believed in his entire career in the senate.

Go back and answer my questions. Show me why he is qualified to be president. Show us, where in his 20+years as a senator, he has initiated legislation to strengthen our intellegence community. Show us where legistaion he has worked hard for has helped out economy and created jobs(not government workers).

Tell us why a ltjg from over 30 years ago purports that that qualifies him to wage a better and nor thoughfull war against terror.


By the way, I personally am glad that the President did not listen to Clark when he said that IRAQ was not involved with AlQueda becuase Clark was wrong.

One more thing, since you like to add links here is one for you to go read.

The Democratic nominee has shunned substance for patriotic atmospherics. Will it work?

Fred, we have answered your question. If the answer wasnt good enough for you, or anybody else, then dont vote for Kerry.

 

[FredF]

Where? Where have you answered my questions?

Show me. I am still waiting for someone to show me where in 20+years in the senate that sKerry has worked for or tried to enact what he purportes to stand for today.

Show me. I will make it even easier for you. Answer this one question

1. What has sKerry done for the country as a U.S. Senator? How has he demonstrated leadership and the ability to create an environment where businesses can grow and provide jobs? Not create job within the federal government, because that does not help the economy, but provide an environment where businesses can grow, make a profit, and create jobs.

 

[sentrido]

The United States has embarked upon an era of global economic competition in which American companies and American workers are going head_to_head against foreign businesses and workers for market share at home and abroad. I believe the international economic race is not a sprint but a marathon; winning requires endurance. Building endurance requires first and foremost training and investment in our workers. With knowledge having surpassed capital, labor and raw materials as the key resource in the new world economy, education in the schools and in the workplace must provide American workers with the capability to create and apply new technology and the flexibility to adapt to change.

Critical investments in education and technology must be accompanied by a concerted effort to achieve high standards of budget discipline and fiscal responsibility. With our national debt now well over $5 trillion, wasteful spending must not be tolerated. Paying down the debt creates a ripple effect throughout the economy - cheaper access to credit for American businesses, lower mortgage rates for home buyers, reduced auto loan rates, and lower inflation. During the 1990s, a national commitment to deficit reduction resulted in the longest peacetime expansion in history. In the 21st century, I believe that trend should continue. The government must use its resources wisely to ensure the economy runs efficiently.

My record reflects an unwavering commitment to job creation, economic growth and deficit reduction. From my assignments on the Senate's Finance, Commerce, Foreign Relations and Small Business Committees, I have been a strong advocate for measures to strengthen budget discipline, deliver targeted tax relief to working American families, sustain investments in research and development, expand capital formation, facilitate the creation and growth of small businesses, establish free and fair international trading rules and promote the export of United States products and services. With new trends and challenges emerging daily, I will continue working to ensure that American businesses and the American workforce remain at the forefront of our global economy.

 

[sentrido]

As a United States Senator, John Kerry has advocated market-based solutions aimed at maintaining a high level of economic growth, job creation, and technological advancement. In Senator Kerry’s view, keeping America strong and competitive requires an economic agenda based on education and training, investments in key priorities such as research and development, and a commitment to fiscal discipline. Vital economic decisions should not be governed by special interest reactions to tax cuts or spending increases, but rather careful consideration of their long-term impact on the national and global economy.

One of Senator Kerry’s first legislative initiatives as a United States Senator was his cosponsorship of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act. At the time of its enactment in December of 1985, the federal deficit was over $200 billion. The bill sought to gradually eliminate the deficit by requiring adherence to a series of fixed deficit targets. Sequestration, a process involving automatic spending cuts, was established as a means to enforce the deficit targets. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation is widely recognized as a turning point in federal budgeting–representing a critical step in curtailing runaway government spending.


Nevertheless, by 1992, the unemployment rate was over 7 percent, the fiscal deficit was $290 billion and projected by the Congressional Budget Office to grow to over $500 billion in 2001, and the federal debt had quadrupled over the preceding 12 years and was projected to double again by 2001.


Against this unfriendly backdrop, Senator Kerry was a key supporter of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993–a bill which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. With its commitment to fiscal discipline, the bill’s deficit reduction program set in motion a virtuous cycle of rising incomes, job creation, the lowest poverty rate since 1979, low inflation, unemployment as low as 4.2 percent–a level not seen in 30 years, and large current and projected surpluses. Between the beginning of 1993 and the beginning of 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 20 million jobs.


Through a policy strategy of maintaining fiscal discipline, investing in people and technologies, and opening international markets, the nation has been able to exploit new opportunities and reap the benefits of major scientific and technological advances.


Balanced budgets have contributed to lower interest rates, restoration of consumer and business confidence, increased demand, increased investment–especially in new technologies, and increased productivity levels.


Recent events, however, threaten to dismantle the framework of budget discipline which enabled our economy to grow for a record 10 years, the longest expansion in history. In June of 2001, a Republican-controlled Congress passed a $1.35 trillion tax cut which relied almost exclusively on uncertain budget projections. Within eight months, the new tax legislation and a decline in economic activity had resulted in the loss of nearly $4 trillion in projected surpluses. Deducting Social Security revenue from surplus calculations revealed that the federal budget had returned to an era of deficit spending. At the same time, Republicans were calling for additional corporate tax cuts while opposing Senator Kerry’s proposals to assist working families struggling during the recessionary period.


Senator Kerry’s agenda for economic growth and prosperity involves continued investment in key priorities to lift and improve worker productivity–education and training, investments in new health care technology, and support for both federal and private sector-based research and development. Senator Kerry supports capital gains relief for investments in small businesses and critical technologies. He also supports targeted tax relief to encourage savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. Senator Kerry believes in harnessing the power of the market economy, not overwhelming it with excessive government regulation. For the economy to grow, government and business must work in tandem, not in opposition. The 1990s demonstrated that a national commitment in favor of fiscal discipline; productive investments in education, business, and technology; and modest and targeted tax cuts can serve as an effective engine of economic growth. Senator Kerry will continue to work in the months and years ahead to ensure that the American economy remains a beacon of leadership in a competitive global marketplace.

 

[diogenes]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews.../9310551.htm?1c



good enough for me!

 

[NWA/AMT]

Where? Where have you answered my questions?

Posing a couple of intentionally vague or loaded questions then refusing to accept any answers provided while pretending no answers have been provided is a quite a technique. I'm surprised you're not having better luck with it. Perhaps you should ask them when did they stop beating their wives.

Show me. I am still waiting for someone to show me where in 20+years in the senate that sKerry has worked for or tried to enact what he purportes to stand for today.

Perhaps if you were to refer to the Democratic candidate by his name rather than by a nickname more appropriate for an elementary school playground people might answer you. It's rather, err..., 'Bush-league'.

Show me. I will make it even easier for you. Answer this one question

1. What has Kerry done for the country as a U.S. Senator?

He represented the people of his district, one of the most liberal in the country, in exactly the way they had elected him to do it.

Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you'll answer mine:

What did Bush do for the country prior to becoming the Governor of Texas?

Not create job within the federal government, because that does not help the economy...

Sure seemed to work when the Democrats had to save the country from the economic collapse the Republicans brought about in the Great Depression. Considering what the Republicans are doing to the deficit we had better hope it works again.

 

[FredF]

I asked an honest question but failed to get an answer until that post by sentrido. That was the first reply that actually stated what sKerry did in congress. I asked for history and facts and about all I got was a bunch of I beleive's or I support's. No-one was willing or able as the case may have been to actually come up with something in his record in the senate or elsewhere that could actually demonstrate that the man actually worked for what he supposedly believes today. Noone. And I went back over this thread a number of time.


I was going to let it drop after sentrido's post there because I was completely underwhelmed. In 20 years in the senate all they can come up with is that he supported legislation along party lines. There are only two specific pieces of legislation listed there and sKerry merely supported them. Both of those were along party lines.

You are correct in your assesment that he supportd the will of his constintuits. A very liberal senator from a very liberal state. Fine. Great. Why doesn't he run on that record then?

 

[NWA/AMT]

I would prefer to elect a person who has demonstrated the ability to represent the will of his constituents and to modify his opinions in the face of new facts than someone who has only demonstrated the ability to represent special interests like Halliburton and Big Oil and refuses to modify his opinions and discourages the introduction of facts that contradict is prejudices.

 

[FredF]

Well good for you.

Personally, I would prefer to elect someone that shows genuine leadership in adverse conditions, has the courage of thier convictions to stand up for what they beleive in and not to go where the political wind blows.

I prefer someone who has the strenght of character to do what they beileve is right, not what some silly focus group tells them is most popular.

I prefer someone that has one message, not one message for each crowd of people that they happen to be speaking to. I prefer someone that can look back at their career and say, I took a stand here and fought for what I believe in.

I prefer someone who thinks that this country is great in spite of the Government not because of it. I prefer someone who believe in individual responsability not reliance on government. I prefer someone who thinks that I am the best person to decide how best to invest my money and workes hard to ensure that I get to keep more of it for myself, instead of someone who constantly tries to take that money away from me to spend on some new entitlement program that only servers to put increase the number of people dependant of the government that they create.

I prefer someone that is not constantly trying to evoke images of class warfare. I prefer someone that truly understands that the Top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of all income taxes.





http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/d...r/?id=110005450

 

[sentrido]

if the top 5% control 95% of the wealth, and pay about 50% of the taxes, then arent 95% of the people whome control only 5% of the wealth and paying the other %50 carrying a much higher tax burden?

Getting 50% from 95% of the wealth, and
Getting the other 50% from 5% seems fair to you?

Anyway, you better take a closer look at your boy Bush, other than the tax cuts for the rich, he doesnt seem to meet your criteria either. He may stick to no abortion, no gays, and tax cuts for the rich, but he has flipp floped on just about everything else. And if you think Bus and the GOP dont have focus groups your a fool.

 

[sentrido]

The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. The increase was the smallest since December, when payrolls rose by just 8,000.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent, an improvement from the 5.6 percent reading in June.

Ok Fred, according to you, give the rich a tax cut and then they will create jobs for us. Well, they have had the money now for a while, where the hell are the jobs? Like I said (not really me, but the bunch of economists I read sometimes) that job growth a few months ago was just a hiccup. Thanks Dubya, thanks for putting all that money into the hands of the people who dont need it and wont spend it, instead of putting it into the hands of the middle class who do need it, would spend it, thus ceating demand for good, thus creating jobs. Bush is definelty right when he says the "have more" crowd are his base.