Posted on 10/06/2004 10:06:51 AM PDT by AMHN
I've heard from Kerry-Republicans recently that they are turning to Kerry over the current forecasted deficits and the state of the economy. The argument: I support small government, and Bush is spending and putting us into debt. Fallacy: 9/11 evaporated an estimated equivalence of 1/12th of the US GNP. The ripple effect throughout the economy can be measured in multiples of that loss; one could even argue that the multiple could easily bridge the gap between the inherited 5 trillion surpluses and the current forecasted 3 trillion deficits. Entire companies were wiped out in a single instant that day. Entire industries needed government subsidies, loans, and grants. Countless jobs were lost as a result of that day. The war on terror began that day. All past wars have caused this country to go into debt. The economy is relative to the events and the rate at which those events occur (or are forced upon us), and when the events are uncommon, the effect on the economy is equally uncommon. The real question these Republicans and all Democrats need to ask themselves is this: With a Democrat in the White House during 9/11 (specifically Al Gore), would the debts have been any less, the job loss less tragic, the overall economy forecasted to be better? Somehow the grass always looks greener in the other pasture, but you have to remember, its only because the cow manure is so much deeper.
Nice try.
So these losers think Kerry's proposed $3.5 trillion in spending promises made on the campaign trail, including a $2.5 trillion healthcare take over as priced by the Heritage Foundation, will give them "smaller government?" They think the guy with the most liberal voting record in the Senate according to the National Journal in 2003 will give them "Smaller government?" I maintain these people were never Republicans to begin with, but a few country club posers who probably haven't voted Republican in years.
But it's true! It IS illogical for Republicans to turn to Kerry over the economy!
In fact, it makes no sense at all.
Tell him for every American job that leaves there are 10 created by foreign investors in the U.S.
This is a phony issue. There are over 6 million Americans employed by foreign companies right here in the U.S.
Does he want to start a "top down" govt controlled job saving protectionist system, or doesn't he think we are capable of competing in the world.U.S. unemployment is lower than it was when Clintoon was re-elected.
If nothing short of out very survival isn't as important to him as this "outsourcing" issue then he's not being honest with you, IMHO.
Yeah, he's got BS all right...
That makes no senses.
The deficits will be higher when Kerry is President because the Congress won't control spending and won't increase taxes.
AMHN
Since Oct 5, 2004
Someone is lying then. You can't be against bigger government spending and then say that you want to support Kerry!!! That's a smokescreen. These people aren't even real Republicans. If you want lower spending, you don't have a candidate in this election. You have Bush who has spent a buttload and Kerry who will spend an even bigger buttload. There isn't a third choice or an anti-spending candidate on the ticket. Your best choice is still to vote for Bush because at least he won't spend a trillion dollars on universal health care for those who already have insurance.
There is no such thing as Kerry-Republicans.
I LIKE that line!
And a belated Welcome to Free Republic!
That and the first sentence I've heard from Kerry-Republicans recently that they are turning to Kerry over the current forecasted deficits and the state of the economy." I've heard from kerry-Republicans....... ????????
Nope, nothing suspect here.
STanding by...
bump!
In the computer industry, these people are know as "Eye-Dee-Ten-Tees".
I throught it said Republicans are turning Kerry over like a pancake.
Neither Algore (nor Kerry) would have proposed a viable alternative,
but IMHO, the answer to your odd hypothetical question is "yes". In such an unlikely scenario, it's probable that congressional Republicans would've adhered more strongly to fundamental principals espoused in the Contract with America. Unfortunately, the GOP "leadership" pitched that out the window at their earliest opportunity, and America is worse off because of it.
Buh, bye!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.