John Kerry for the Middle Class...and you believe it?

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok lets back up a sec...

...If Bush's economy keeps growing, government revenue will catch up as it did in Clintons first term from the Reagan/Bush years,

You keep saying that "reaganonmics"(of what ever) had something to do with the good ecomnomy we had under Clinton. Didn't reagon inflate our national dept to astronomical levels? Something that Clinton had balanced. Yet Bush has done this also, how is that good for our economy?

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Didn't reagon inflate our national dept to astronomical levels? Something that Clinton had balanced. Yet Bush has done this also, how is that good for our economy?

Reagan had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Republican Congress. Bush has a war to prosecute and fund.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by dgtempe
You're right . why should I impose on someone's last desperate attempts of trying to get Bush more votes? Time's almost up

my bad.
[edit on 16-10-2004 by dgtempe]

YOu actually think I will change your minds? Or that is my intentions? Come on get serious, I am outnumbered here 40-1. All I want you to do is when you are filling your ballot out to know who you willingly vote for. You are the one that has to live with the choice...Man that was funny!

[edit on 17-10-2004 by edsinger]

and you dont have to live with the fact that you're advocating evil, the draft, the senseless killing of God knows how many and looking Armageddon in the face and saying "bring it on"?

i�ve said it before and i�ll say it again. look at whats posted above, even if almost everything is blown out of proportion and idealised or demonized to suit your claim, most have some truth in them, enough to think twice about shaking either of their hands. But alas here lies the problem. Time and time again this very same problem arises in the states, you poor bastards have to choose the lesser of too almost equal evils. And I stand here on my side of the atlantic and I ask my self why?
I�ll tell you why. If you only swim on the shallow side of the gene pool, you�ll crack your skull. it doesn�t matter which part of the pool (right or left) you consider to be the shallow one, the point is if you only have politics from one side you�ll end up with politics as bright as a child who ant and mother are the same woman. I couldn�t imagine the outrage if we only could vote on the conservatives of the liberals here, the same outrage would occur if we only could vote for the left party of the social-democrats.

left right

too much interfamily marriages will result in stupidity, its genetics

ps...




plz... If Kerry is a communist, that would make bush a fascist wouldn�t it?

Originally posted by disturbence

plz... If Kerry is a communist, that would make bush a fascist wouldn�t it?

Kerry placed himself in the same pot as communists by advocating their cause before Congress, in the media and in the streets of America and this in no way reflects upon George Bush.

[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
You keep saying that "

reaganonmics"(of what ever) had something to do with the good ecomnomy we had under Clinton. Didn't

reagon inflate our national dept to astronomical levels? Something that Clinton had balanced. Yet Bush has done this also, how is that good for our economy?

How do you think Clinton balanced the budget? I will tell you how, the government revenue grew just as predicted by even Kennedy and by the time Clinton came in office the government reciepts were closed to being balanced and wham, a republican Congress came in and stopped the Clinton attempts at massive spending. Remember National Heath care? Plus Clinton got lots extra from the massive cuts he laid out to the military.
These are facts whether you choose to believe them or not. The economy was on its way down BEFORE Bush Jr. was even elected...then the recession hit and then the double whammy of 911, and now we are on our way to recovery....unless Kerry a massive tax and spend liberal democrat gets in office....

Originally posted by dgtempeand you dont have to live with the fact that you're advocating evil, the draft, the senseless killing of God knows how many and looking Armageddon in the face and saying "bring it on"?

EVIL = Bush? Ok you you know the definition of Evil? And yet you make fun of Bush for listening to God? That is what they call an Oxymoron.


Senseless killing? You mean WTC1? COLE? TWA800? OKCITY? EMBASSY BOMBINGS? WTC2? Oh I see what you mean.....


When Armageddon comes, you had better have chosen corrrectly else it will be pretty hot, btw, dont take the mark ok?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Kerry is placed himself in the same pot as communists by advocating their cause before Congress, in the media and in the streets of America and this in no way reflects upon George Bush.

Must be the reason he was Dishonorably Discharged huh Grady? I wonder why no one will answer why he wont sign the 180? I think we ALL know why he wont.

quote: Originally posted by disturbence

plz... If Kerry is a communist, that would make bush a fascist wouldn�t it?


Kerry placed himself in the same pot as communists by advocating their cause before Congress, in the media and in the streets of America and this in no way reflects upon George Bush.

again plz as the post above the one mentioned stated, the two are very similar, they may play a diffrent tune, its its they same flute. I dont care if he in some way sympathise with the worker class wich is not more than i would expect from a political figue, but to belive that he hold socialist ideologi as his own, is to think to highly of him....

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by ahsingjai
At least Kerry is aiming for the Middle Class. He wants to help, he targeting the middle class, believing they need attention.

Bush listens to the lobbyist, the rich.

Kerry saying people like him should get tax cuts, is a start.

Ok lets back up a sec.

He is aiming for the middle class during and election, you have already siad his plan to raise taxes on the rich. This would not be totally bad but these are the ones that drive growth in an economy. Kerry has said he wants about 2 Trillion in more spending. Even IF he repealed Bushs cut to the rich, at 90billion a year, that falls way short. So you figure it out. Bush's dad tried the same crap and had to raise taxes, but who did he raise them on?

Luxury Boats for example--- well no one bought them and the builders lost their jobs.

another example was beer. Well he lost my vote in 1992 for that reason. I wrote Nixon in!

Sumation = Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class as well, and you will have less money.

If Bush's economy keeps growing, government revenue will catch up as it did in Clintons first term from the Reagan/Bush years,

A Multi Millionare recieving more money or a 30k-50k income household recieving more, what would a Middle Class person want? Most of the burden I've seen is the Federal Government putting most of the cost on State and the State transfering the burden to the Counties and Cities.

Forcing cities to cut services and State to increase cost of education. What Bush has done hasn''t pleased the Middle Class anyway.

Originally posted by ahsingjai

A Multi Millionare recieving more money or a 30k-50k income household recieving more, what would a Middle Class person want? Most of the burden I've seen is the Federal Government putting most of the cost on State and the State transfering the burden to the Counties and Cities.

Forcing cities to cut services and State to increase cost of education. What Bush has done hasn''t pleased the Middle Class anyway.

Go check
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you can easily can show that the tax cuts that the dems spin is baseless in the long term, the cuts help the economy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Didn't reagon inflate our national dept to astronomical levels? Something that Clinton had balanced. Yet Bush has done this also, how is that good for our economy?

Reagan had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Republican Congress. Bush has a war to prosecute and fund.

And yet Edsinger wrote "...If Bush's economy...". ANd now your blaming
bad stuff on the Democrats, yet you seem plenty happy to five republicans the credit for good stuff.

First you try to claim that the Good economy we had under Clinto was reagons fault, and state that he won the Col WAr by funding the military but then blame the deficite on the democrats in congress. Either The democrats are responsible for the good economy under Clinton, or reagon is responsible for the deficite. I'm not going to let you split hairs on this one.So which is it?