Bush-Rice 2004

[DKW 86 7,899]

I have linked a site on the homepage to Bush-Rice 2004. While not a certainty by any means, I personally hope that the health concerns of Dick Cheney will lead the Republican Officials to endorse, nominate, and elect the First African-American and First Female Vp in US History.

Let the Republican Party lead as they historically have always lead.

Link

[Tigermike 3,717]

I think she was born in Birmingham, Al.

[SouthLink02 8]

I would change my vote to Bush in a heartbeat if he did this

[Ranger12 53]

I would love to see it, but the problem is that the liberals will make it out as a ploy to just get votes. (See Southlinks post as an example).

[rexbo 104]

I would change my vote to Bush in a heartbeat if he did this

I wouldn't vote for Kerry even if he picked Rice, I do not want a President that will give in to terrorists...

[MDM4AU 338]

I like Cheney and I don't want a bunch of hoop-lah over "who is it gonna be?" If Cheney's health is an issue, maybe it is time for him to step down. I personally think Rice would be a great choice for VP for what she brings to the table as a professional and as a person. I would be very pleased to have Ms. Rice as VP Rice!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

while i don't object to CR, i think its highly improbable she gets chosen (in the unlikely event cheney's not on the ticket).

would be cool though.

[SouthLink02 8]

I would change my vote to Bush in a heartbeat if he did this

I wouldn't vote for Kerry even if he picked Rice, I do not want a President that will give in to terrorists...

I don't want a President who runs the economy into the ground...thats why I am voting for Kerry

[War Eagle 96 10]

I would change my vote to Bush in a heartbeat if he did this

I wouldn't vote for Kerry even if he picked Rice, I do not want a President that will give in to terrorists...

I don't want a President who runs the economy into the ground...thats why I am voting for Kerry

Moron Alert!

[SouthLink02 8]

I would change my vote to Bush in a heartbeat if he did this

I wouldn't vote for Kerry even if he picked Rice, I do not want a President that will give in to terrorists...

I don't want a President who runs the economy into the ground...thats why I am voting for Kerry

Moron Alert!

So sad...would argue with you but I am sure the only response would be another name-calling post.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

SLink: you honestly believe BUSH ran the economy into the ground?

on what basis do you draw this conclusion??? I'll not call you names (other than dawgbreath!) and would enjoy discussing this with you.

ct

[rexbo 104]

I don't want a President who runs the economy into the ground...thats why I am voting for Kerry

Where you asleep in Sep 11, 2001, and not witness to the resulting major impact on our economy? Do you not remember the stock market drop in the weeks and months immediately after 9/11? Do you not remember the despair that everyone felt, not just because of the terrorist attacks, but the deep recession we were already entering and then thrown headlong into because of 9/11? Could you have imagined then, in Nov of 2001 when everyone was predicting not only doom and gloom for our poor troops that were about to be bogged down in Afghanistan, but doom and gloom for our economy for years to come? Did you not see the record growth that was reported last fall. Did you not enjoy looking at your tax bill this year and seeing a significant amount of your very own dollars being returned to your pocket? I for one remember feeling very, very poorly about the economy in the fall and spring after 2001; I am amazed, excited and very pleased with the way this administration has handled the economy, and the way that the American people have responded with consumer confidence (greatly due to the war being taken to the terrorists). You can choose to not vote for Bush for many reasons, but the economy is one of the lamest excuses there is...

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I lost a very profitable retail business in the year and half after 9/11. The present administration was not to blame for this, just the facts of life. However, were it not for the tax reduction policies of the Bush administration, I would not have been able to find another good paying job. Had we not had a pro growth, lower tax, economic plan the effects of 9/11 may have been catastrophic. I was a member of the top 25% prior to 9/11 and thanks to the Bush economic plan I have grown to the top 5% (according to all the liberals) even after all the difficulties caused by the terrorists and the Clinton Recession.

Moral: Do for yourself, because the government can not take care of everyone!!!!

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Southlink, if you can look at all the evidence, from the economic slowdown that started months before the 2000 election, to the recession that began less than 2 months after Bush took office (and before ANY of his economic policies had made it through Congress), to the Enron scandals (which had been going on for years before Bush was elected), to the 9-11 tragedy...and still believe that Bush ran the economy into the ground, then there really isn't much hope for appealing to you on the basis of logic, is there?

[DKW 86 7,899]

KERRY: NO FOREIGN ENDORSEMENTS, PLEASE... Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: '...It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements'...

Sounds like CYA to me...

[SouthLink02 8]

The Sweet Spot

By Paul Krugman

Friday 17 October 2003

What we have here is a form of looting." So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the Bush administration's budget policies — and he's right. With startling speed, we've blown right through the usual concerns about budget deficits — about their effects on interest rates and economic growth — and into a range where the very solvency of the federal government is at stake. Almost every expert not on the administration's payroll now sees budget deficits equal to about a quarter of government spending for the next decade, and getting worse after that.

Yet the administration insists that there's no problem, that economic growth will solve everything painlessly. And that puts those who want to stop the looting — which should include anyone who wants this country to avoid a Latin-American-style fiscal crisis, somewhere down the road — in a difficult position. Faced with a what-me-worry president, how do you avoid sounding like a dour party pooper?

One answer is to explain that the administration's tax cuts are, in a fundamental sense, phony, because the government is simply borrowing to make up for the loss of revenue. In 2004, the typical family will pay about $700 less in taxes than it would have without the Bush tax cuts — but meanwhile, the government will run up about $1,500 in debt on that family's behalf.

George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due — and it will be your problem, not his.

Still, those who want to restore fiscal sanity probably need to frame their proposals in a way that neutralizes some of the administration's demagoguery. In particular, they probably shouldn't propose a rollback of all of the Bush tax cuts.

Here's why: while the central thrust of both the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts was to cut taxes on the wealthy, the bills also included provisions that provided fairly large tax cuts to some — but only some — middle-income families. Chief among these were child tax credits and a "cutout" that reduced the tax rate on some income to 10 percent from 15 percent.

These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.

So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder.

Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?

In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101803I.shtml

Sound familiar?

John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003, which increased the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty and lowered tax rates. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000.

John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

Powerful special interest groups make it hard to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects. John Kerry supports a Commission that would recommend cuts and require Congress to vote on all recommendations, so no single special interest could fight for pet projects. Under Kerry’s plan, the President would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion – saving billions of dollars.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0828.html

[Tigermike 3,717]

John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

Kerry has also said he would increase $$ for the military, continue in Iraq, stabilize social security, will insist on mandatory funding for veterans health care for all veterans, John Kerry Will Ensure Military Reservists Have Health Care, if he does all this how will he cut the deficit in half? BY RAISING TASES FOR EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING!

You know while reading what John Kerry says he will do, I came across this on his website:

The Bush Administration Cares More About Military Technology Than Equipment for the Troops. With its focus on the technology of war, the Bush Administration has failed to provide the equipment our troops need.  There have been reports of crews scavenging for AK-47s because there are not enough M-4s to go around and Troops deployed to Iraq with Vietnam era body armor.

· John Kerry Will Never Break His Commitment to The Troops. John Kerry will fight for the equipment that the troops need. John Kerry believes there is no excuse not to provide our troops with the body armor, up-armored HUMVEEs, and weapons they require.

John Kerry is a liar of the highest order, what he just said, HE VOTED AGAINST!

I am beginning to think Kerry is one of those people who would rather climb a tree and tell a lie than look you in the eye and tell the truth.

[eibua12 81]

Back to Rice for a nanosecond....

Bush/Rice 2004

Then she could run against Hillary in 2008 (Clinton/Clinton 2008)

Rice/Powell 2008 (really didn't give this much thought just threw out first thing that popped into my head, bash away)

Not sure I would endorse that last one but I want to shake it up a bit and get away from Kerry/Bush bashing.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If health issues forced Cheney to withdraw from the ticket, I would fully support having Condi replace him. In addition to being extremely intelligent, she's also tough as nails.

[MDM4AU 338]

Southlink:

The first part is an editorial from Truthout.org that does not in any way explain to anyone how, Bush "(ran) the economy into the ground..." Please explain in detail once you read the rest of this post how in Fact he did this:

John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003, which increased the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty and lowered tax rates. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000.

John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

Powerful special interest groups make it hard to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects. John Kerry supports a Commission that would recommend cuts and require Congress to vote on all recommendations, so no single special interest could fight for pet projects. Under Kerry’s plan, the President would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion – saving billions of dollars.

GIVE ME A BREAK! All of this above is from the Kerry website for cryin' out-loud! He's never lied or flopped before so you can believe what he says on his site, FOR SURE!

Bush economy better than Clinton

Jobs under Bush

One more thing:

John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003,

In 1998, Kerry voted against eliminating the marriage penalty! Not until the wind changed in late 2003 did he then favor getting rid of it for the middle class when he started his class war-fare campaign.

This guy could be an Olympic Gymnast he flips so much! How do you know he won't flip on all these "grand ideas" he has when it looks like it will benefit him politically?

Finally, don't ever try to back up your argument with anything from THE KERRY WEBSITE!! That makes about as much sense as a Bammer linking to Rolltide.com for why they are the best team ever to suit up! It's just plain STUPID!

Now, considering all that has happened since Bush took office and considering the numbers posted above, how in the world is it that Bush ran the economy into the ground?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

SLink! i'm very disappointed that you ask for a discussion and then cut-and-paste some spin AND THEN what you cut & pasted isn't even related to the topic at hand!

that's gotta be at least a 10 yard penalty, if not 15. where's the ref that's so hard on me & my posts?

ct

[Tigermike 3,717]

where's the ref that's so hard on me & my posts?

ct

TigerAl, has been AWOL for several weeks.

[rexbo 104]

TigerAl, has been AWOL for several weeks.

Coincidently, so has Howard Dean, hmmmmmmm

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

In fairness to TigerAl, his family just experienced a 25% increase in population. He's got more important things on his mind, I'm sure.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

In fairness to TigerAl, his family just experienced a 25% increase in population. He's got more important things on his mind, I'm sure.

TA has 2 or 3 kids now???