Vanity: [FR Poll] If it's Kerry vs Bush how will you vote?

2/7/2003 | FR

[MJY1288]

I'm voting for JOHN KERRY because:

1) He will reverse the tax cuts,

2) He will place our security in the hands of the U.N.,

3) He will reinstate all the Environmental regulations Bush has did away with,

4) He will suspend the deployment of the Missile shield

5) He will rejoin the ABM Treaty

6) He will appoint liberal judges

7) He will appoint a panel to find out why the terrorist dislike us and do what it takes to win them over

8) He will sign the Kyoto Treaty

Now if you can't bring yourself to vote for John Kerry, vote for a Libertarian or a Constitution party nominee, it's the same thing

[yonif]

Theoretically, one could say that the Republicans could do the same thing, when Kerry will try to appoint his.....

[nicmarlo]

Yep, that's about the results of being "undecided" about whom to vote for, I'd say.

[TonyM]

Just did a poll in my house and it was a landslide. Bush 100% Kerry 0%. Take that Newsweek.

[Neets]

When America sees what hell is like under a pure Marxist/socialist government, then they'll suddenly wake up, forget everything they learned at universities like Berzerkly, see the light (wow!) and rebel. Yeah, that's the ticket! Viva la revolucion!! Viva Liberte!!

BTT

[GailA]

Remember Florida?

[Neets]

I'll gamble everyone who doesn't say bush, gets suspended.....

How does it feel to be a loser?

[Jim Robinson]

What Republican Congress? I wouldn't count on them holding the majority for that long.

Best forget about that nonsense and drive a stake through the Democrat heart while we have a chance. May never have another golden opportunity like this for the remainder of our lives (short all out revolucion, of course. LOL). Yeah, baby, bring it on!!

[Rodney King]

And if that's not you cup of tea, well, vote for Kerry because this way the country can go to hell right away and we won't have to wait for the Republicans to develop the backbone to dump the NEA.

In general, I am with you, and as I said I will vote for Bush. But let's face it: When there was a Democrat president we came close to eliminating the NEA. Now that there is a Republican president, the budget calls for a massive increase for the NEA. What gives? I am not one of those guys who demands 100% allegiance, but why on Earth would Bush possibly promote increasing the NEA budget? I truly think they have gone nuts over there and have thrown all concepts of right and wrong out the window in order to answer the focuse groups (on domestic issues, anyway).

[math=power]

I agree Joe Lieberman is the only one of them running (over now) who has a shread of decency. I don't agree with everything that GWB has been doing but not to vote for him is crazy. You think you don't like things now just wait if Kerry gets in. All of the 'healing' we will do with other nations will be enough to make you sick. Bush it is.

[Rodney King]

It's on his campaign site. All you have to do is use Google and go read it. Come back and tell us if you like it better.

I didn't say that. I was quoting someone else.

[nicmarlo]

Theoretically, one could say that the Republicans could do the same thing, when Kerry will try to appoint his.....

That's in theory....we already know that no Rat president will attempt to appoint ANY conservative judges...so, what you're looking at is ALL liberal judges, but the rabid ones might not get appointed.

[Indy Pendance]

We are coming back from a Clinton recession. Tax cuts are just the start. Interest rates are at an all time low. Do you own a home? Did you refinance at a 5% interest rate?

Think about the Reagan years. If we didn't have a dem congress with out of control spending on social programs, imagine what could have been accomplished.

The president isn't solely responsible for spending as many here think. It's a joint effort. Our founding fathers created it so one man could not become dictator. The way many of you think, you want a dictator. Be careful for what you wish for, because if Bush can wave a magic wand and correct the ills of the past, so too could a democrat president.

The Bush administration protected this country from more terrorist attacks after only having been in office 9 months. Do you think a dem (gore) could have done better? We'd be kowtowing to the Islamic radicals as we speak, oh wait, we wouldn't be speaking. We would have lost our ability to post on FR. Don't think the dems wouldn't love to shut FR and others like us down. They're trying their damnedest with Rush.

Bush is cutting taxes to increase the revenues. Also, remember, we have only had 2 years of a republican controlled house and presidency. Check out the 75th congress. We've come a long way, we have a longer road ahead. We can not expect one man to change the course of a nation when so many have been manipulated into thinking the socialist way is the right way.

---

Growth From Reagan Tax Cuts

Tax cuts do not create federal deficits; greater government spending does. That is the message tax-cut supporters must hammer home, according to political analysts and economists. Otherwise this truth will be drowned out in the media in a deluge of confusion.

Politicians are expected to repeat the mantra, "Reagan tax cuts were responsible for declining revenues and soaring deficits in the 1980s," but no such thing occurred, according to budget analysts.

* Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.

* Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent inflation.

* During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.

From 1981 to 1983, personal income tax receipts rose 1 percent -- while spending surged 19 percent. This was during a bad recession. After the recession, the Reagan tax cuts worked and revenues soared.

* From 1984 to 1989, growth in personal tax receipts outstripped growth in spending, 50 percent to 34 percent.

* And the deficit fell from 5 percent of gross domestic product to 2.9 percent.

* After 1989, the deficit ballooned again as revenues dried up following an increase in tax rates.

* From 1989 to 1993, personal tax receipts rose just 14 percent, while spending rose 23 percent

Then there is the evidence of the beneficial economic effects of President Kennedy's tax cuts.

* In 1964, the economy grew by 5.8 percent -- followed by 6.4 percent growth the following two years.

* The increasing tax revenues following from the surging economy led to a balanced budget by 1969 -- the last time that the government was able to balance its books.

But either sloppy thinking or purposeful confusion perpetuates the myth that tax cuts produce higher federal deficits.

Source: Editorial, "The Supply-Side Deficit Myth," Investor's Business Daily; and Donald Lambro, "Unstrung Tax-Cut Lamenters," Washington Times, August 12, 1996.

[Killborn]

Dub.

[GailA]

Most of the new gov't workers were the airport screeners...a RAT idea.

[buccaneer81]

You must have slept through September 11.

[Columbine]

My apologies. I see now that your were replying to someone else.

Let's hope all the pouters see it instead.

[34512a]

You must have. If Sept 11th taught us anything it is that we need stricter controls on who comes into this country. And it also taught us that blowback is a bitch. Our nation building in Iraq could mean a Sept 11, 2012.

[Mark]

Also, GW had a terrible tie on last month. It clashed-- gotta go Kerry-- here is a good site to check out:
http://www.youdontknowwhoiam.org/youare.swf

[Jim Robinson]

The problem of the NEA pales in comparison to all else that is going on. The Democrats are maybe one Suprememe Court Justice away from ushering in complete 100% socialism and world government. Give them two and it's all over for America as we know it.