GENIERE said:
Njorl has given reasons perhaps, but not facts.
I’m not aware of a Kerry economic policy. He has stated that he supports Bush’s tax policy except for the “the wealthy American” bit. If he does have a policy, he should submit it to the GAO to test its merit as compared to the president’s policy.
No non-incumbent presidential candidate releases a finished budget proposal before his party's convention. Kerry's policy is good old fashion Democratic responsible spending. At a time of low interest rates, cutting taxes on the wealthy has no effect on growth. The two biggest factors for growth are consumer demand and investment capital. Investment capital can come from disposable income from the wealthy, or from borrowing from investment banks. With low interest rates, the money for growth can come from the banks.
GENIERE said:
The Commerce Department has released its findings re. The economy. It found the economy was in a sharp decline during the last year of the Clinton Administration and reached bottom during the 2nd quarter of the Bush administration while the government was still using the Clinton budget. When Bush announced his tax cut plans, a rebound occurred and, due to the cut, continues to this day. In fact the growth in 2003 was greater than at any point during the Clinton years.
No, actually the growth in the third quarter of 2003 was greater than the growth in anyone quarter of teh Clinton administration, but that is about all you can say for the Bush economy. 1998 and 1999 both had larger annual growth rates than 2003, and I haven't even found the growth for the earlier years yet.
GENIERE said:
One problem a long serving senator has is that votes cast many years ago are not always relevant to present and may be attacked by an opponent. For that reason I cannot hold Kerry responsible to defense cutting in the ‘80’s. The more responsible question would be to ask what he has done to improve our countries defenses. Asked that way he has failed miserably.
He has been a minority party senator while the opposing party controls the White house. Other than hopping on the roof of the capital to shoot down one of the 9/11 planes with a shoulder launced missile, what exactly do you think he should have done?
GENIERE said:
The truth, if one ignores the outrageous support Kerry provided to Clinton’s “criminal vs. terrorist” intelligence barrier is: Kerry introduced a bill on Sept. 29, 1995—S. 1290. The bill sought to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion over a five-year period. Described by Kerry bashers as “gutting” I would personally only consider it an example of stupidity.
Now this one is just absolutely dishonest. When conservative smear campaigns actually use facts instead of innuendo they shoot themselves in the foot. As I stated before on this board, the $1.5 billion Kerry wanted to cut was from the National Recon Office. It was for a satellite they never bothered to launch. They wanted to spend the money on a fancy new building instead. Kerry spearheaded the effort to kill this funding. At the same time, he fought against a bill to cut twice as much from the budgets of the CIA and FBI. That bill passed, with Republican and Democratic support, but not Kerry's.
GENIERE said:
On the contrary, he has proven to bend with the wind. As Howard Dean’s rants re: Bush caused him to be the front runner, Kerry responded in kind and drew away from his more subdued comments. He, like Gore, assumes acting rolls, such as the use of “four letter words” when addressing motorcyclists. I’m sure I need not remind you of the “I voted for it and against it” blather.
No, I'll remind you of it. You don't seem to have a very good handle on any specifics, so I better deal with it. Kerry voted for a bill in commitee to provide $87 billion for the efforts in the middle east. This bill had provisions
for raising the $87 billion. The bill that he voted against, which passed, spends money we don't have.
GENIERE said:
Quote is not precise.Very true, I’m sure can provide the most complex solutions we’ve ever endured. One can expect social plans similar to the laughably complex health care plan produced by Hillary Clinton. When has complexity ever been considered advantageous?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Simple solutions-:
Peace dividend - cut taxes
Surplusses - cut taxes
Deficits - cut taxes
War - cut taxes
GENIERE said:
When nations and the UN act against the best interests of the US and gain financially by criminal activities in doing so, those nations and organizations should be antagonized to the greatest extant possible. Pointless or deserved?
No. That is a child's thinking. Whatever other nations do, in their own interest or in ours, criminal or legal, we should not pointlessly antagonize them. If our interests antagonize them, then so be it. But if their good will is necessary for other things, then judgement must be used. The president of the United States should act in the best interest of the United States, not engage in petulant little feuds.
GENIERE said:
Let us be a little more up to date. The National Journal, a non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine found Kerry in 2003 to inhabit the far-left fringe.
No US senator or representitive is on the far left. It is immaterial to what I said though. My point was, that despite ideological differences, he maintains good working relationships with other senators.
GENIERE said:
Until recently I would not differ with that statement, but it seems all is not yet known. Never the less his service is to be admired. It seems it has unfortunately left him mentally scarred and perhaps not able to make the responsible decisions.
That is just cheap. The truth of the matter is Kerry's service record was far more impressive than anyone realized. He released it last week. He had kept it hidden, evidently out of modesty. Repeated attacks by right wing scandal mongers finally created enough hysteria among media types that Kerry allowed its release. The most severe accusation you can make against Kerry is that he denied such a promising young officer to the Navy.
GENIERE said:
Does anyone doubt that Bush’s policies are his, that the people around him submit to his wishes? Fortunately we’ll never know that about Kerry.
Actually, quite a few people think Bush is a puppet. Even more think that he is nothing more then "Head of Personel" at the executive branch. Have you forgotten Dick Cheney's search for a good Bush running mate which came up with ... Dick Cheney!
Njorl