Play here!

http://www.gop.com/bigspender/

HOTDOG! That'll really get the economy going eh? :rolleyes:

Extend Amount Of Time Military Families Can Stay In Housing After Family Member Killed-In-Action, Make Family Separation Allowance Permanent, Increase Death Gratuity, $1.5 Billion

I guess the Bush white house is planning on having a lot of US servicemen killed in action. I question their math. Mind you so far the GOP has failed in it estimates horribly why would you believe them know?

Oh yeah it serves your purpose.

Tax Plan: $658 Billion Over 10 Years!

Isnt his primarily a repeal of Bush's tax breaks on the wealthy. Guys your issue isnt Income tax ( yours is fairly low comparitively) its the regresive taxes like payroll tax that really hurting you.

The question is: Which do you want, a tax-and-spend Democrat, or a don't-tax-but-still-spend Republican?

Those added tax hikes don't apply to the average American, and this biased piece of trash from...gop.com.. fails to mention that.

Originally posted by Sinclair
The question is: Which do you want, a tax-and-spend Democrat, or a don't-tax-but-still-spend Republican?

Yeah. lol. It's funny to see the right get their knickers in a knot over one candidate's - the left, of course - spending proposals yet they seem oblivious and remarkably silent on the issues of record debt and deficits at the hands of their guy.

:scratch:

I mean, ffs, military spending has to come from taxes too. It's not like military spending falls out of some sort of magic hole in the Oval Office that leads to the enchanted land of, I dunno, Por'K'Barel or something.

Originally posted by KanuckiStang


Yeah. lol. It's funny to see the right get their knickers in a knot over one candidate's - the left, of course - spending proposals yet they seem oblivious and remarkably silent on the issues of record debt and deficits at the hands of their guy.

:scratch:

I would like to see a rebuttal :)

Those added tax hikes don't apply to the average American, and this biased piece of trash from...gop.com.. fails to mention that.


Prove it.


Where is Kerry going to get all this money from for all these new programs and spending he is proposing?

Yeah. lol. It's funny to see the right get their knickers in a knot over one candidate's - the left, of course - spending proposals yet they seem oblivious and remarkably silent on the issues of record debt and deficits at the hands of their guy.

Unfortunatly for you that isn't true. I among many other conservatives here have been VERY critical of Bush's spending and lack of spending disipline.

The larger point is that Kerry proposes even MORE spending and less fiscal disipline and has no way of paying for it, thus putting us further in debt.
What is worse, some debt or even MORE debt?




I would like to see a rebuttal

DONE!

word to that

Originally posted by Sinclair
The question is: Which do you want, a tax-and-spend Democrat, or a don't-tax-but-still-spend Republican?

None of the above.
I'd like a tax-cut and spend-cut candidate, but he/she would never get elected by the masses in the forseeable future.

Originally posted by Powerboss



Prove it.




I can't believe I'm quoting from this rag, but I thought it'd be a nice change of pace to post a source that you have posted in the past (and I can see why) Look at the picture of Bush kissing a babie right in the same article lol...COME ON..

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112004/news/nationalnews/20481.htm

March 11, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - John Kerry yesterday said he wants to hike taxes on people earning more than $200,000 a year to the level they paid under President Bill Clinton - a move that would hit New York harder than most states.


Good! :nice:

Originally posted by Volconvo

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112004/news/nationalnews/20481.htm

March 11, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - John Kerry yesterday said he wants to hike taxes on people earning more than $200,000 a year to the level they paid under President Bill Clinton - a move that would hit New York harder than most states.


Good! :nice:

This isn't anything new, although it is a change from his original position to roll back all the tax cuts which he initally proposed, then flip-flopped on.
I guess people who are successful in life are not Average Americans, do they qualify as above average Americans?

How much should people who earn 200k or more pay?
What is their "fair share"?

Is 36% of their income not enough? Apparently not.

Either way, his numbers don't even come close to adding up. Even if he did roll back the tax cuts he would only hinder economic growth, which will harm tax revenues and he is well short of "paying for" all his new spending proposals.

Bottom line, with Kerry we get EVEN more debt than under Bush.

lol..it hasn't happened yet, so stop sounding like you have any idea how it will play out. Bush has proven ineffective, the debt is bigger than any democrat ever made it through policy.

Clinton had a surpluss, and Bush pissed it away in tax cuts for the wealthy.

lol..it hasn't happened yet, so stop sounding like you have any idea how it will play out. Bush has proven ineffective, the debt is bigger than any democrat ever made it through policy.


Wrong again Volconvo!
As a percent of GDP the deficit is smaller than the deficit under Clinton.
The only thing that kept Clinton restrained was Newt Gingrich and I am beginning to believe that the combination of opposite parties is the best way for the least amount to get done in DC.


Clinton had a surpluss, and Bush pissed it away in tax cuts for the wealthy.

These simplistic one liners from Democrats amuse me.

Not only are you wrong on facts about how the surplus vanished you attribute credit to Clinton for creating something that American taxpayers created.

The biggest reason the surplus is gone was the shrinking economy, that means "the recession" so you can understand.

Do you want to get into the facts about who is right about this?

yep, and not from your BS right-wing blogg/wanna-be paper sources either.

Facts plz.

Right wing blog wanna be source #1) The federal Government:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11

Go look up the years 1993 and 2003.
Look in the 4th column called Surplus or Deficit.

In 93 the deficit was 3.8 of GDP

In 03 the deficit was 3.4 of GDP


I will get you the information for the biggest factor in the deficit being the downturn in the economy tomorrow.

lol..are we looking at the same numbers? look at 1995, when the other ****up, GB I was in office. We have 1995 -164 -147 in standardized deficit.

Now look at 1996-2000.. I see positive Numbers 1999 126 12

And now look at 2003 -375 -313

Thank you, and I don't care what percentage of the GDP -375! is vesus +126

Originally posted by Volconvo
lol..are we looking at the same numbers? look at 1995, when the other ****up, GB I was in office. We have 1995 -164 -147 in standardized deficit.

Now look at 1996-2000.. I see positive Numbers 1999 126 12

And now look at 2003 -375 -313

Thank you, and I don't care what percentage of the GDP -375! is vesus +126

uh, George H.W. Bush was president from 1989-1993 (not 1995). Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001.

oh that's right, my bad, but the numbers are still consistent with my point.

Kerry is truly a pandering idiot and outright liar.

He just said that he would "create 10 million jobs" if he becomes president. He knows full well that no president can claim such a possibility! He is just a plain liar.

He says that he will make a law that stops corporations from moving jobs outside the USA. Like this is some sort of panacea or something.

What that will really do is stop international corporations from open offices in this country and will stop American companies from even creating a single job that they cannot control in the first place!

It will be a net loss to jobs and then this idiot knows the moronic left will fall for the "evil rich are destroying our jobs" line of crap.

Originally posted by Volconvo
lol..are we looking at the same numbers? look at 1995, when the other ****up, GB I was in office. We have 1995 -164 -147 in standardized deficit.

Now look at 1996-2000.. I see positive Numbers 1999 126 12

And now look at 2003 -375 -313

Thank you, and I don't care what percentage of the GDP -375! is vesus +126


Is a 20 dollar debt the same percentage of debt if your budget is 200 or 20,000 dollars?

Let me simplify it for you. Lets say our governments budget is 200 dollars in 1998 and we end up with a 20 dollar deficit.

And lets say that in the next year, 1999, our governments budget 20,000 dollars in 1999 and we end up with a 20 dollar deficit.

Is this the same percentage of each budget or is the 20 dollar deficit a much smaller percentage of the 1999 budget?

No it is not, which is why dollar amounts are irrelvant and not an accuate way of measuring because our budget increases every year.

I would suggest you sign up for an economics course.



Regarding the deficit and the factors responsible for it.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1515.cfm

oh, so GDP counters deficit? Since when? Show me some data on exports vs imports, the trade gap, etc, then maybe if there's improvement you'd be right. Simple saying that the GDP is higher, so a higher deficit is understandable is silly.

Wow. You don't seem to understand.

I made it as easy as I could for you.

I can't help you any longer. Go ask one of your teachers to put it on paper or something for you.

haha, wow you tried to act condescending even when you're absolutely wrong. The Gross Domestic Product does not have anything to do with deficit.

Did you even attend University?