Comments on: those who are anti Kerry http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/ You have to visit this geeky girl's blog. Sun, 20 May 2012 11:14:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: dodo http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15981 Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:02:30 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15981 aw here’s a new one

]]> By: dodo http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15980 Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:02:09 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15980 there are many. main ones
1. going to war unilaterally for which now seems no purpose at all. many people are saying he’s known all along there’s no WMD in iraq. well i can not prove that. but he originally said which the media fried there’s a high percentage that iraq has WMD. where is now? how does that make U.S. to the world? i say a bully.
2. cut tax and dragged down the federal budget. sue me. i’m the only person who’s against cutting tax. the fact is cutting tax really DOES NOT benefit poor people. they are paying more tax on tobacco than income tax anyway.
3. under clinton, congress were more discplined when spending federal money. they could only propose for a budget if they can put in their proposal where this money should come from. no longer under bush. another contribution to high federal debt.

]]> By: dodo http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15979 Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:01:18 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15979 hrm i’m talking about federal budget. not GDP. there are separate. altho bush is not a president since 60s, he managed to lead into a huge deficit nearly 500 billions during his four year turn. no other presidents could match that. under clinton we had a surplus. so he managed to turn this surplus into a deficit, a huge one. that certainly proves he’s incompetent in my book.

]]> By: Miki http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15978 Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:24:16 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15978 I don’t know anything about American history, but you mention the Great Depression in 1890′s with regards to Dodo’s question about balanced federal budget and I’m confused…

I thought the Great Depression happened in 1929 because of the stock-market crash. What does it have to do with the federal budget being stable, and was there a Great Depression in 1890 before the Great Depression in 1929?

Thank you. :)

]]> By: Sam http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15977 Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:43:09 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15977 Tax cuts create revenue and speed up the economy – it’s proven. When taxes are lowered, people have more money. When people have more money, they spend more money, and this helps the economy start up again. Furthermore, much of that un-taxed money can be regained after sales tax and other sources anyhow.

]]> By: Jennifer http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15976 Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:19:44 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15976 Oh, also, what exact policy of Bush’s did you think was so bad?

]]> By: Jennifer http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15975 Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:04:51 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15975 Well,firstoff, I’d like to mention the Great Depression. That was in the 1890s.

Also, Dubuya was not the president from the 60s up until now so…I’m not sure what that was supposed to prove.

Finally, I think if the economy has been somewhat stable in, say, the 1800s or so (which is still a dubious statement at best), then it would probably be because of the difference in the scope of the economy. Globalization has lead to a larger world economcy, greater dependence on one another, and therefore greater sensitivity to world affairs and the business cycle in general. Futhermore, calculation of the GNP and GDP did not occur until during/after (can’t remember which, but it was somewhere during that time) the Great Depression so it’s hard to say excatly how great the economic fluctations were before then.

]]> By: Sam http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15974 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:51:24 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15974 I suggest everyone reads this amazingly well-written article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040526.shtml
It has everythig that I could think to say, and more.

]]> By: dodo http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15973 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:18 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15973 “I don’t think the economic situation can be blamed on Bush; the business cycle is going to go up and down regardless of who is president and the fact is the economy is now getting better.”
if that’s the case, please explain then why had U.S. a very balanced federal budget for almost 200 years until 1960s. and why is the deficit now the lowest ever in history.

]]> By: Bubs http://pure-essence.net/2004/06/07/those-who-are-anti-kerry/#comment-15972 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:45:12 +0000 http://regretless.com/?p=844#comment-15972 One thing you have to keep in mind is that there WERE attacks during Clinton’s administration (ie USS Coal and many attacks on US embassies), which doesn’t prove that Clinton’s tactics were any better than those of the Bush administration. Also, I believe that 911 would have occurred no matter if the president was Al Gore, George W, or Ralph Nader… I personally blame 911 on the lack of intelligence, not the current administration.

]]>