posted on June 1, 2004 06:25:19 AM newhe needs to get over it and so do his followers.
Appears Nader has a lot more support and a better chance than your candidate, Mr. K [the socialist]....who can't 'get over' the fact that the democratic party won't be giving him the nomination.
posted on June 1, 2004 06:55:20 AM new
Cheryl was right in that remark.
Kucinich knows that he isn't a viable candidate at this point and you should know this also. Don't you know that all former candidates still have the power to influence and change the party platform, linda. As an outstanding American and former candidate for the presidency that is exactly what he is attempting. Are you calling him "Mr. K" because you can't spell either? His name is Dennis Kucinich and he is a Democrat.
What's up with your focus on Socialism, linda....It hasn't worked well in any country that I know of and I don't believe that you have anything to fear in that respect. The only danger on the horizon is the possible election of George Bush by ignorant voters.
posted on June 1, 2004 07:10:58 AM new
Bush Plans To Slash Popular Programs After Election
A leaked White House memo shows that if George Bush is re-elected, he will make large cuts in many government programs, including both homeland security and veterans programs, while again cutting the taxes of the wealthy.
By Stewart Nusbaumer
Referring to America’s war dead, President Bush told an audience at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day that “America acknowledges a debt that is beyond our power to repay.” Many of the nation’s 26 million living veterans, some of whom were wounded in wars, some of whom are old and frail, are wondering if President Bush is interested in repaying the debt owed to them. Veterans, as well as other Americans, are asking, where is George Bush's “compassionate conservatism”?
A memorandum from the White House Budget Office, recently obtained by the Associated Press from congressional sources who requested anonymity, instructs government agencies to prepare for massive cuts to domestic programs in 2006, even as the administration pushes for $1 trillion in new tax cuts.
“The ball is now out for everyone to see,” said Senator Bob Graham (Democrat--Florida). “The only thing that's left in place is the part of the ball that is labeled ‘tax cuts for my rich friends.’”
“The fat cats will get their tax cuts,” writes Bob Herbert in The New York Times. “But in the new American plutocracy, there won't even be crumbs left over for the working folks at the bottom of the pyramid to scramble after.”
“Same old Republican game,” says disabled Vietnam veteran Phil Hartman. “Raise the defense budget and make military veterans pay for the cost. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. George Bush is now doing it.”
Post-Election Budget
As revealed in the White House memo, with the exception of the Defense Department which would grow 5.2 percent to $422.7 billion and the Justice Department which would increase 4.3 percent to $19.5 billion, in the 2006 budget nearly every major domestic program would be slated for large decreases.
The Veterans Affairs Department budget would fall 3.4 percent from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion. This would include a $910 million cut to the existing veterans health care budget and a $53 million cut for the homeownership program, nearly reversing the $78 million funding increase that Bush pledged for a homeownership program in 2005.
For the last four years, the Bush Administration has been encouraging congressional Republicans to reduce veterans’ benefits and health care; most of the time they backed down in the face of strong Democratic opposition. Now the administration seems to have switched tactics: give today to take away even more tomorrow. The 2006 budget appears to be only the beginning of the administration’s drive to decrease the veterans’ budget.
Presidential candidate John Kerry has strongly criticized the Bush Administration for not honoring “the national obligation” to our military veterans and promises that if he is elected there will be “a new compact with veterans” that includes fully funding the Veterans Administration.
Last year the head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars called a similar Bush Administration budget “disgraceful” and “deplorable.” In the coming years, if Bush is relected, we can expect the VFW to use words like “even more disgraceful” and “even more deplorable.”
Even money for domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies, a budget John Kerry has promised to increase, a budget that would seem to be immune from any cuts, would drop by 3 percent, from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion. As CBS’s 60 Minutes pointed out last week, the large corporations have gotten their money for domestic security, only the States have not been paid. Time to cut the budget!
The document reveals that the Bush Administration is also ordering cuts in the following agencies: 2.4 percent less for the Education Department; 2.6 percent less for the Environmental Protection Agency; 2.1 percent for the National Institutes of Health; 1.9 percent less for the Interior Department.
Meanwhile, the Administration is requesting a $1 trillion reduction in taxes, with most of the reduction going to the wealthiest Americans.
“The only way we can even begin to pay for these huge tax cuts is by imposing cuts on critical government services,” said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee. “Despite [administration] denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along,” Kahn said. “Next February, the administration plans to propose spending cuts in key government services to pay for oversized tax cuts.”
“Many of the targeted programs are widely popular,” writes Alan Fram of the Associated Press. “Cuts could carry a political price for a president who has touted his support for schools, the environment and other domestic initiatives.”
This revelation of the Bush Administration’s plans to cut back on popular federal programs, programs that on the campaign trail George Bush is now supporting, is not only a political embarrassment, but a serious attack on the president's personal credibility. Plans to slash programs such as Head Start for children, homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs, as well as homeland security and veterans programs, should come at a heavy political cost to a president whose standing in the polls continues to decline. The political cost should be his defeat in November.
As Howard Dean continues to muscle his way to the front of the Democrat pack, the line between the Democratic Socialists of America, and the socialist Democratic Party, continues to blur. Read the Socialists' statements on Iraq and pay attention to the campaign speeches of all the Democratic candidates. Each of them, to one degree or another, recites the official Socialist Party line.
Now examine the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Note that the co-chair, Dennis Kucinich, is one of the Democratic candidates. John Conyers, a caucus member, spoke at the Socialists' convention in Detroit in November, as did former House Majority Leader David Bonior. Now, study the issues the caucus is promoting, and compare its positions with the Socialists' positions and with the Democrat Party Platform.
If there is a difference between the Socialist Party and the Democrat leadership, it is a difference without distinction. In fact, the Socialists' web site says: "We are not a separate party ... Many of us have been active in the Democratic Party ... to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
The 2004 elections are not simply to decide whether the nation will be led by Democrats or Republicans. They will decide whether the nation will continue to pursue the values of capitalism in a free society, or whether we will return to the pursuit of socialist values in a managed society.
Socialists believe that land, resources and the wealth they generate should be owned, or at least controlled, by the "public," i.e., the government. Capitalists believe that private property, and the right to use it to generate personal wealth, is the foundation of individual freedom.
Socialists believe that the marketplace should be controlled by government, to ensure the equal distribution of the earth's riches. Capitalists believe that individuals should be free to accumulate their own wealth without government confiscation and redistribution.
Socialists believe that people are empowered by government. Capitalists believe that government is empowered by the people.
Socialists believe that the entire world should be governed by the United Nations, through a system of selected "stakeholder councils" at the local, regional, national and international levels.
as does kerry - the most liberal Senator in the Senate
Virtually every Democratic presidential candidate says the U.S. should have gotten approval from the U.N. before removing Saddam Hussein. Virtually every presidential candidate, and the Democratic leadership in Congress, says the U.S. should submit to the Kyoto Protocol. Virtually every Democratic presidential candidate, as well as the Democratic leadership in Congress, denounce the Republicans' efforts to protect national sovereignty as inappropriate unilateral "cowboy swagger."
Socialist values are not confined to the Democrat Party. There are several Republicans in Congress who share the socialist view about government control of land and resources, and about the United Nations. Many conservatives believe the Republican Party has sold out to become "socialist-lite." The biggest threat to President Bush's second term likely comes from disgruntled conservatives who have decided to sit out next-year's elections.
People who champion conservative, capitalist values might take a lesson from the Socialists, who have infiltrated the Democratic Party, and have now taken control. Rather than drop out of the Republican Party, and try to form another unsuccessful third-party movement, conservatives might come closer to achieving their goals by being more assertive at the local and state levels in the Republican Party.
The election in 2000 was certainly a pivotal event in the direction of the United States.
Had Al Gore become president, the U.S. would almost certainly now be under the regulatory power of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. Following the example of Bill Clinton, Gore would have launched a few missiles toward Afghanistan in response to the World Trade Center attack. Even more private property and natural resources would be held or controlled by the government, and the United States would be even further under the control of the United Nations.
Socialists suffered a setback when George Bush was elected. They are doing everything in their power to return to the pre-Bush course they set during the Clinton-Gore years. Howard Dean is their champion, endorsed by Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt, both of whom advanced the socialist agenda during the Clinton years.
The choice between socialism and the American alternative has never been clearer, nor as important. The battle for America's soul will be fought in the coming year.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
-----------------------
Is every democrat a socialist?....imo, no. But the ultra-left wing of the democratic party are....and Mr. K is one of them.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add a list of the members of the Progressive Caucus....most, imo, are very much pushing the socialist agenda.
posted on June 1, 2004 11:57:12 AM new
What a pile of crap.
And your little "imo" is so cute. Who really gives a dam about your imo when it has absolutely no basis other than insinuation.
Furthermore, if you really have an opinion, why can't you state it in your own words. Why, for example do you believe that Dennis Kucinich is a Socialist? You only insinuate. All that you do is insinuate.
Everybody can see that. I'm not alone in that regard.
posted on June 4, 2004 02:37:19 PM new
Did kerry mention *how* he's going to pay for all his proposed new programs and the ones he is promising to expand? Along with cutting the deficit in 1/2 in 4 years.
posted on June 4, 2004 03:06:04 PM new
LOL! When are you going to stop reading WorldnetDaily and Drudge? You may as well be reading Hans Christian Anderson.
Kerry will inherit a budget made in hell but I'm sure that he will handle it better that Bush who turned a surplus into a 600 billion deficit.
posted on June 4, 2004 03:48:48 PM new
Linda-K
I don't think it's any of your business how Kerry plans. to fix the mess Bush has placed this country in. Clinton had to fix Daddy Bush's Mess !!! Now Kerry Has to Fix Sonny's. Thank God we have people that can do it.
posted on June 4, 2004 05:21:06 PM new
LOL helen - So now the FACT that the US Communist Party threw their support to Mr. K and probably will now also support kerry....can't be believed since it's reported on an unapproved site...according to you.
Now that's really funny. The facts don't change because you don't like who's reporting them.
------------
Excuse me jewelry21 say what???? ROFLMHO at your statement - I'm putting my tin foil beannie on for that statement.
What country do YOU live in? ...or what school did you go to where you think that it isn't EVERY US citizens business who is running for our highest office - and what they're saying they plan for our future. Are you planning on taking away my voting privileges too.
posted on June 4, 2004 06:07:33 PM new
LOL Linda_K Seams I got your attention . You know the Bush Gang looks like a pack of rats on a sinking ship . I wonder just how many he will have left by November. Top Cia Officals (glub gulb) Who do you think will be next ???? Rummy ? Maybe Dick C. ??? God only knows. If I where you I'd jump off that ship before it sinks.
posted on June 4, 2004 06:15:09 PM new
Well, everybody, I emailed Nader and asked him to please stop...no, I demanded he stop and try working with the party closest to his interests.
Now what do you think would happen if everyone who didn't want him to run emailed him and told him so ...might not help but he'd sure would know where we stand....and it's so much better than remaining silent.
We CAN influence politics with actions other than voting.
Become involved.
posted on June 4, 2004 06:21:57 PM new
Yes, it's good to become politically active...let 'em know your thoughts.
But if the democratic party themselves haven't been able to talk him into dropping out....I don't think he's going to be influenced by a few emails asking him to do the same thing.
posted on June 5, 2004 04:29:05 AM new
Oh Linda, do honestly belive all that? Yes, some is true...he doesn't think women have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies...and he did give the richest 1% of Americans a huge tax break...but Linda, please research some of those other statements, they're simply not true.
Now, don't get your back up, I'm not here to fight or even change your mind but jeezz, girl, you need a dose of Al Francken and Big Ed Schultz. Find them on your local radio station, you may not agree with them but they'll dump facts, not just bumper sticker slogans, all over you. Try it, you might like it.
We libs aren't all that bad (if you overlook those midnight bonfires, naked dancing, ritual murders, and vampirism).
Peace
