Why I'm not voting for "W" (Resume)
-
I like BUSH
-
Government spending does have an undeniable correlation to economic growth. THIS is the purpose of government spending. Think for a second. What got us out of the depression? was it giving tax breaks to the rich? nope. it was massive amounts of government spending.
The purpose of government spending is to encourage consumption, provide something for the public good, and influence the level of total demand in the economy
-
Gov't spending on what?!? Are you saying that the gov't should be kicking out more money to boost our debt? Gov't spending is already ridiculous. More economic growth can be generated by tax breaks for those with higher income than by simply increasing gov't issued freebies to those with low income.
-
Not talking about welfare, talking about government spending that creates incentives for investment. Government builds a new building on a public university. What the benifits? Contractors get $$$, People work to build it $$$$, the general public gets a better education -> better educated society -> etc.. etc..
Look. If you were in the top 1% of the tax bracket, chances are your not going to go out of your way to spend any extra money then you would have already on something for the public good.
-
I personally do not want the government spending my money for me. The job of the govt was not (as set up by the founding fathers) to provide health care, or whatever else private sector the govt is trying to get into now. I suppose you can argue that govt spending can influence the economy, but it is a flawed and anti-free market way to do it. IMO the govt should be in charge of as little as possible, and should be using as little of the peoples money as possible. As far as massive govt spending goes... we already have that every day of the week!
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Jim wrote:
Not talking about welfare, talking about government spending that creates incentives for investment. Government builds a new building on a public university. What the benifits? Contractors get $$$, People work to build it $$$$, the general public gets a better education -> better educated society -> etc.. etc..Look. If you were in the top 1% of the tax bracket, chances are your not going to go out of your way to spend any extra money then you would have already on something for the public good.
Goverment doesn't create jobs....please. It was found out that Kerry will raise taxes on those making 85k or more ....not 200k like he said. Also, those making 200k or more are actually alot of small business owners who file S corp on their taxes. What your describing Jim is actually a socialistic society....something that we are close to right now. Take from rich and give to poor. The "rich" (200k or more) are the ones starting new businesses and creating jobs for the poor. Raising taxes like Kerry proposes will not spur economic growth...it defeats it.
-
Jim wrote:
I suppose though, the republican view would be that all those homeless people should get off thier asses and get jobs, the government doesnt need to provide healthcare, becuase if people worked, they would idealy have it anyway...
The republican view is not to enable them more and have them rely on the goverement, but give them the skills so they can get a job and better themselves. The first step is to get off their asses I suppose. -
Point well taken. I doubt anyone would disagree that stimulating the economy through gov't spending on these types of investments help everyone. I see that the problems with gov't spending lie in free kick backs to poor people. If gov't spending is intended to boost employment, no one should argue with that. The downfall of gov't spending lies in the fallbacks of programs like welfare. The company I work for is a billion dollar company. IT's economic progression has a direct impact on me and the way I feed the economy. The more money this company makes, the more money I make. The more money I make, the more money I spend on goods and services.
-
Ok, just for a minute lets assume the govt needs to supply healthcare... we all need healthcare right? Well shucks we all need food too, maybe the govt should supply all the food. Heck, we all need housing, maybe we should all have govt housing. While we are at it, we all need a car, heck maybe we should combine GM/Ford/etc into the USA Auto company and we all get free cars every couple years? A nice minivan for everyone with low emissions and low HP so we don't hurt ourselves driving it...
Jim wrote:
I suppose though, the republican view would be that all those homeless people should get off thier asses and get jobs, the government doesnt need to provide healthcare, becuase if people worked, they would idealy have it anyway...DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Another thing you have to look at is the way small busineses are paying their company taxes. Many small businesses are setup and pay on the personal income tax level that everyone else on here does. By taxing the "rich" or "upper middle class" you are actually taxing the small businesses that provide for a large majority of job creation in the US.
Kerry is not a proven leader either. What has he done in the senate in the last 20 years? 5 bills in the last 20 years that he has sponsored have managed to get passed. 1 every 4 years is good, right? Kerry has no plan for the future of the United States, he just continues to state how everything Bush has done in the last 4 years has been wrong. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.
-
Jim wrote:
Bush gave tax cuts to the rich
To be fair Jim, I received a tax cut in the form of no marriage penalty. People w/ children received increased tax cuts on their children. I am all for that. -
I actually agree with a lot of what the republicans are stating here (mostly Dave and Matt), BUT the only questions I have are:
- How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
- How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)
The only answer I can think of is taxes...not just for the rich, but for all of America. Regardless of who is in office, taxes will have to be increased somewhere to pay off our foreign debts.
-
heh. just goto a US mint, tell them to give you 300,000,000,000 and go on and pay for it. i dont see why not..mints are US Gov't property, and the president runs the gov't...
-
RX8ownage wrote:
heh. just goto a US mint, tell them to give you 300,000,000,000 and go on and pay for it. i dont see why not..mints are US Gov't property, and the president runs the gov't...
that would still be far short of the 880,000,000,000 that we owe (cummulately) to Japan and China. -
not to mention it would weaken the dollar to lows that we have never seen.
-
tjamz wrote:
The plan to hunt down terrorists.....woops, decided to stretch our military and attack a country that has never (prior to the current war) killed one US civilian nor did they have the means to attack us AND had no connection to Al Qaeda(duelfer report, 9/11 commission, etc... all confirm this)....I agree Saddam was a bad man, he killed many innocent civilians in his own country, but there are MANY other "leaders" that fit this description. Seems odd to me that of the 3 countries in the axis of evil, we attack the only one that doesn't have and wasn't capable of nuclear weapons....hmmm....who's the biggest threat?The plan to finance the war, sorry, don't agree there either. Someone has to repay the debt, I'd prefer to pay it now, through either higher taxes or extreme reductions non-critical govenment programs (I know, Kerry doesn't want to cut a ton of programs, like I said we are different and he's not perfect like me )
Everybody knows, Iraq would have, and probably did harbor terrorists from late 2001 to present times. All of these car bombs, road side bombs are performed by She-di-Yene(sp?) soldiers, which are basically terrorists. Well, Saddam and Osama don't see eye to eye in some things such as religion. But if they had to cooperate with one and nother, they would do so. You say we had no right to start a war with Iraq, yet your candidate voted to get Saddam. Getting him was a big boost in the war on Iraq, and terror itself. But just because he never attacked, or killed any Americans(doubt that, just dont remember it) since the Gulf War doesn't mean he had any plans to do it in the future with soldiers based world wide, and key allies with much hated Israel and a Turkey country whose been nothing but big help for lending us air force bases and also troop support. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring Arab country that is kind of on the ropes with everything. My gut is that we shouldn't really trust them.
North Korea and Iran are big concerns to, no doubt. If Kerry was elected, he would probably leave these countries be, let them develop a few nukes and then use them on a European country. Then we'd all be back at square 1 blaming Kerry for being to sensitive with terrorists/evil countries and giving them time to strike without us being the first ones to hit them first. Those 3 countries are the only 3 I can think of with actual radical leaders. The part where you said many, please give some examples, with communist ambitions, not just a country that just harbors and supplies terrorists with little groups such as Sudan and tiny tiny parts of Pakistan.
Eventually to pay for the war, there will be no tax-cuts but just raises, no matter who the president is. And right, neither will cut a large amount of gov't funded programs, as it would set off a few tree huggers that fortunately recieved a screw job. Which would start all this bickering and blah blah blah.
-
Umm...like I said before, there was NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND AL-QAEDA. Many reports have confirmed this. Many reports have also stated that our "friends" the Saudi's have and still do harbor terrorists and al-qaeda training cells. Saddam did not and has not had the capability to attack us w/ missiles. There were no WMD's, which was THE case for us going to war in the first place. Hans Blix (UN Weapons Inspector) said this before the war, during the war, and still maintains it to this day. I think we went to war on false pretenses, maybe the info wasn't clear, but it is the job of the president to ensure that all intelligence is factual before acting on it. And yes, I know, Kerry authorized the president to use force, however Bush said he was going to go to our friends in the UN and not rush to war and that we would attack w/ a grand coalition of forces with "Shock & Awe". Some grand coalition. 3 countries backed us militarily (according to bush) as we invaded Iraq (England, Australia and the ever fearsome Polish Army).
As for N korea and Iran, I don't think he would "leave these countries be", I don't think he would attack them, but I think he would try and rebuild some form of relations to these countries. I'm not saying he would partner with them or anything like that, I just think that we would try and find some sort of resolution and compromise. Maybe that compromise would be to allow weapons inspectors in as they dismantle their nukes and in exchange they get some sanctions lifted...I don't know. I don't think he would just say "oh gee, these countries are harmless, lets let them be". Kerry has stated that he would like to see bi-lateral talks between the US and Korea, talks that would be aimed at eliminating their nuclear programs. Of course we need to get other parties involved as well, such as Japan, the Chinese, Russia, etc...
I am glad that we agree that tax hikes are needed to fund this war.
One thing I will say is this, just because I don't like the war (or the reasons we went to war) doesn't mean I don't support the warriors involved. I have friends and family there right now. We have to win. We need to win in Iraq.
-
I never said Al-Qaeda and Iraq had a direct link, but if you give a dictator like Hussein the resources, knowledge, power, time, equipment..he could and probably would've caused major troubles over there. The US first started war in Oct. 2001, and we attacked Iraq in March of 2003.. that gave Saddam around 15 months or so to destroy any evidence to prevent such an attack. We knew he had such gasses as mustard gas,because he used it against his own people and tried developing his arsenal of nukes but failed. Now that we got Saddam, it gives us some relief. But of course, some other republicans like myself disagree that we should be over there right now and losing soldiers. But once they finally establish a Gov't, hold an election, get proper security systems in tack, we'll still be over there losing guys which I think should've started pulling once they got Hussein.
And when you got North Korea, who never negotiates, and Iran, who we'll never ever ever see eye to eye with(unless Regan resignated and got re elected). So I dunno if ole Kerry could pull of a task thats much more easier said then done, with out using any, if not none military force.
I do think that what we see from the media is just a lil chip on the soldier. I think we're winning Iraq and winning it strongly. From over throwing a pro communist gov't, establishing a democracy, getting a good education system up and running, seducing the bad guys etc. is what we never see from the Media.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login