posted on August 9, 2004 08:19:57 PM new
all the promises that Kerry has and is making.
I just heard on the news that he is going to give 600 million dollars to fix up the National Parks. This was as he had just flew over the Grand Canyon. Will his promises ever stop. I for one would like to know where the money is going to come from. Sorry I couldn't post a link but it was just on our news.
Money for assisting immigrants. Millions of Jobs, Help for our Native Indians. Health care for all, lower prescription drugs for seniors, after school programs, free education for college. The list is getting longer and longer and I am sure I have missed some. Oh last but not least more funding for strengthening the Military.
I am sorry but I can't seem to find enough resources to fund the projects. Can anyone?
Now this is getting serious. Every time his train stops he pledges more money and that is fine but I think this is impossible.
This post is not about Democrats or Republicans, maybe in some minds it is, but where is the money going to come from. Any suggestions as he talks about lessening the tax burden for the middle and lower class.
Opps misspelled a word.
[ edited by Libra63 on Aug 9, 2004 08:21 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2004 08:54:19 PM new
What they're telling the public is that by removing the tax cuts for the wealthy that's going to pay for all these promises. Yeah...right.
Those who have been keeping track of the costs of his 'promises' are saying there's not anyway he will be able to pay for all these programs without either raising the taxes on the middle class, or ever fulfilling his promises, or driving our already too high deficits into outer space.
Plus remember....he's also promising to cut the deficit in 1/2 in his first four years.
Impossible dreams....for fools he think he can live up to all these promises. With a kerry/Edwards ticket we'll only see bigger government....higher taxes....and more government re-distribution of income. It's the democrats normal pattern.
So far....kerry has refused to give his own projected costs....but I've read they're as high as $100 Billion dollars in the first year alone. Good luck to those in the middle class....they're going to be in for a REAL surprise if kerry gets elected.
posted on August 9, 2004 09:55:31 PM new
Well I did go in and search
Funding for Kerrys promises. I came upon 3 websites but one was G. Gordon Liddy and the other bush.com. I didn't want to C&P from theirs as I am sure they are biased, but I did find a site of which party affiliation I don't know.
National Taxpayers Union & National Taxpayers Union Foundation. I found their web site to be very information. I will not bore you with a C&P, besides it is to long. If you want to read it here it is.
They do mention both candidites. But 12 I still can't see that money coming just from the rich. If Kerry is elected I think I will see taxes coming from my SS check. I sure hope not.
posted on August 9, 2004 10:07:20 PM new
Ummm...how do you think you'll be paying for all the spending Bush has done & plans to do? And for the massive debt that he has plunged our country into? Or is some good fairy going wave a magic wand and make it all disappear?
Taxes are not endemic to Kerry. They are a fact whether the president is Democrat or Republican. Because let's face it: while many Republicans say they want less government interference in their lives, they would be just as fast to scream if government services they take for granted were not available.
Which means that we have taxes. They are a fact of life.
edited to insert "not" where it should have been in the first place!
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 9, 2004 10:22 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2004 11:23:13 PM new
OMG!!! It's TWICE as bad as I'd read....more than double the amount.
---
Highlights of this NTUF study include:
A projected $226.125 billion increase in spending -- in the first year of a Kerry Presidency alone.
A projected $734.62 billion increase in the national debt over five years.
Nearly $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, energy, and environmental handouts over a first Kerry term.[4]
Kerry the Fiscal Conservative?
ROFLMHO
Oh yea...just what we need....$735 billion dollars MORE debt than we already have.
Sure...vote for kerry....you'll be broke in no time flat.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 9, 2004 11:56:30 PM new
How are we going to fund all of this. First of all, we aren't. It will be the future generations of Americans that will be funding all of Bush's mistakes. That includes all of the funding to rebuild Iraq, and all of the improvements therein.
Also, what about the space program's 4 billion price tag to go to Mars? Let's see, 4 billion to go there to see.... what was it now??? I think water. It seems to me that this money would be better spent here and now for things that this country needs in the immediate future.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we! They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” ~ George W. Bush, 8/5/04
posted on August 10, 2004 04:20:40 AM new
And how are WE going to pay for Bush's planned programs or is that not an issue? Government paid counseling for married couples on welfare???? Trips into outerspace (well, let's be fair. He's already there so it will be a short trip).
"According to the Heritage Foundation, the years 2000 to 2003 marked the biggest spending spree in the history of the United States, except for WWII. Total spending has gone up nearly 14 percent in Bush's first three years, and discretionary spending has gone up nearly 20 percent".
"Knowing this, it's all the more extraordinary that when Bush got asked about his spending habit on Meet the Press, this was his answer:
If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
That isn't even close to being true. Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It's now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
But perhaps Bush meant to say, "domestic discretionary spending." Well, that, too, has increased every single year of Bush's presidency, and, as previously noted, is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
It seems almost gratuitous to add that in the last year of President Clinton's term, discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 3 percent, and that domestic discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 5 percent".
"The government ran a deficit of $374 billion in the year ended Sept. 30, and it is expected to be around $500 billion for this fiscal year. When Bush took office three years ago, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a surplus for the following decade of $5.6 trillion".
"Despite the misleading claims of some conservatives, the evidence clearly shows that the Bush tax cuts along with the cost of the Iraq war—not domestic spending—accounts for the great majority of the out-of-control deficit. Of the $500+ billion shortfall estimated by the White House for FY 2005, $291.3 billion is due to the cost of the Bush tax cuts (of which $94.7 billion goes to the richest one percent). Projected over a ten-year period, the tax cuts will cost 36 times more than all other domestic initiatives recently proposed by the president (e.g. funding for community colleges, pro-abstinence programs, prisoner re-entry support, etc.)".
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 10, 2004 06:20:54 AM new
Class warfare... communistic and socialistic ideas are all that is posted on these boards anymore...
are you people communists? Does the American dream mean nothing to you anymore? other than with your lazy hands out... what the government can give you?
too lazy to work, so you want government to pay for your health care... there are public health care in most states...
too lazy to work, so you want the government to give you handouts everytime you turn around...
and they blame President Bush for their problems... look in the mirror first....
Space exploration is good for the US, it does create jobs... It is our nature to explore... and I would rather see 4 billion spent on sending a rocket to the mars... than to see one dollar spent so a lazy street bum gets a free handout... lots of missions out there that provide food and shelter...
kerry will not be able to fund his ideas... but then he will blame the GOP congress for not working with him... no matter how a repugnant socialitic idea it is...
posted on August 10, 2004 07:02:27 AM new
Cheryl, some spending must go up in a time of war and conflict. Thats a given.
Now of course, I know you'll say, well, we wouldnt/shouldnt be in a war were it not for Bush...but the fact of the matter is it was voted for by congress. Do you think *any* of them had the forsight to think its ok going into a war, and we wont have to spend some money doing? Was that how they figured it was going to proceed? Are all of our congressmen that dumb?
Thats like taking your kids to the amusement park and thinking the only pocket money you'll need is just the cost of the admission ticket.
posted on August 10, 2004 02:39:09 PM new
That's quite an analogy from the Right!
Neroter is comparing the War in Iraq with taking your kids to an Amusement Park.LOL
posted on August 10, 2004 03:19:16 PM new
It still is pretty ironic that while the lefties condone kerry's suggested spending plans $735 BILLION dollars MORE....they scream about what President Bush has spent. Like kerry's new programs are going to reduce our deficits?
All-the-while that this President has spent tons of money on programs the dems agreed with.....the dems have wanted MORE spent on most of them NOT LESS. They have been constantly complaining he wasn't giving enough to the different programs - claiming he was underfunding them. But out of the other side of their mouths....using the deficit against President Bush.
posted on August 10, 2004 03:49:58 PM new
Twelve, you throw the words socialist and communist around like you know what they mean. If you looked around you, you would see how far removed the U.S. is from these examples.
You also regard your underprivileged as being beneath you, implying they are making a choice to be poor or unhealthy. You don't realize that most of the middle class are living from pay check to pay check - only steps away from losing their houses or jobs. Are they lazy too?
And if you go to the Kerry site, you will find more information about the plans of Kerry...NOT irresponsible like George W. Bush. Can you imagine another four years of his increasing deficit?
posted on August 10, 2004 06:03:42 PM new
helen - Until the kerry actually gives his OWN numbers....I'll take the one's provided by a group who wants voters to be aware just how DEEPLY kerry wants to get in our pockets. All these programs don't come without cost. And he's got a list a few miles long.
There's a reason he's NOT saying how much all these promises are going to cost and how he intends to pay for them all. Nobody's stupid....it'll mean tax increases for all.
------------------
KD - I disagree with your comment on socialism....sorry. But the ultra-left is slowly working it's way towards that goal. They want the government taking more and more care of people and their families. They get more voters that way. But meanwhile we all pay for it.
Like the afterschool program....for all...NOT just for the very poor - needy. That's more government intrusion into our lives - government taking over parental responsibilities. People need to learn to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves and the children they produce.
I sure don't want to see us like Europe....or with a National Health care program - a government run - government makes the decision on health care for us....another entitlement program. That's the gradual slide into socialism.
The problem with that Linda is that your source is unreliable and biased in favor of corporations and the wealthy. There is no sound basis for their ridiculous estimate. I wonder how George plans to recoup his deficit or if he is reelected will it just continue to grow while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...the Republican way. While he is exploring the moon and waging war with the mid-east, somebody will have to pay. So if George is reelected, the middle class and poor will pay with higher taxes and loss of services, continued unaffordable health care, and funds for education etc. while corporate welfare continues - along with tax breaks for the wealthy, Bush's reason to be.
Another four years of Bush will be a disaster for this country and for the world.
I could write a book about it but it's late here and we will never agree.
posted on August 10, 2004 11:35:33 PM new
Don't ya wonder how people can call this the greatest country in the world when some of it's people don't give a damn about anybody but themselves (must be those "christians".
I don't think we should be proud of 40 million Americans not being able to afford health care.
We shouldn't be proud of the fact that America has a high infant mortality rate.
We shouldn't be proud that huge corporations bilk the taxpayers out of billions of dollars with the help of the current administration.
We shouldn't be proud that this administration committed treason by outing a CIA agent no matter what her husband did or didn't do .....the White House committed treason.
We shouldn't be proud of thumbing our nose at the rest of the world as if only WE matter.
We shouldn't be proud that anyone would even think to have to observe our elections in the hopes that they might be kept honest.
We shouldn't be proud that our senior citizens have to work past retirement so they afford their medications AND food.
We shouldn't be proud that poor innocent children WHO DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE POOR are so hated by some people that they don't care if these children eat or not......Oh, MY GAWD, feed a hungry child like Jesus would have done and you're a gasp! COMMUNIST, Socialist ..whatever! Jesus was a socialist ????gimme a break!
posted on August 11, 2004 06:29:51 AM new
once again crowfart doesn't know anything about the Bible and it's teachings...
Should we be obligated to feed those bastards from birth to graduation? I don't think so... even Jesus taught people to fish so they could feed themselves...
As I pointed out you haven't the first clue of what communism/socialism is or you wouldn't be asking these questions.
posted on August 11, 2004 08:11:09 AM new
dolitter: you dumbshi1, it was not a comparision of the war to a park, but a comparision of being able to make a sound financial decision relative to what you are doing.
Like your buddy Kerry. He figured it's okay to go to war, but not to fund it or the soldiers? [ah, yes, very sensible! Send them out there with shi!! for protection. Great decision!]
posted on August 11, 2004 08:11:41 AM new
Twelve says,
"Should we be obligated to feed those bastards from birth to graduation? I don't think so... even Jesus taught people to fish so they could feed themselves...
As I pointed out you haven't the first clue of what communism/socialism is or you wouldn't be asking these questions."
Ok,linda/tweleve, your first sentence proves my point...some one who professes to be a christian calls the poor bastards...just like Jesus would?
Stupid, where did I say they should be fed from birth to graduation??
No, I believe that people should be helped whenever they need the help..
The whole world can't be as perfect as you are Linda/Twelve. Although I would think if you're so perfect ...what are ya doing in this chat room.????? Wouldn't you be at really important meetings, board meetings, consulting with your finanacial advisors, lawyers, making public appearances, counting your money,vacationing in the south of France in a mansion, driving your Ferrari around ??????????
I would think you had so much better things to do?
I believe you post, Linda/twelve just to promote your special form of hate...it's a "religion" to you..
What do you call your religion...."Torturing Children is Fun and Just the Start".
posted on August 11, 2004 08:20:51 AM newOh, MY GAWD, feed a hungry child like Jesus would have done and you're a gasp! COMMUNIST, Socialist ..whatever! Jesus was a socialist ????gimme a break!
This is an issue that I feel strongly about. So strongly, in fact, that I give a significant amount of my time as well as what I can afford, to assist the homeless and the hungry. We organize bar-b-ques at local shelters, participate in The Midnight Run, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to provided necessities to those in need, and a whole host of other things. The issue means something to me and I back it up with action.
I do not think the answer is "Robin Hood" economics, I think the answer is more people who "talk the talk" actually getting out there and "walking the walk." The government can not and should not be viewed as some kind of savior for all problems. Taking money away from those that earn it to put it in the hands of a big government who will then supposedely "take care of us all" may be some people's idea of utopia but not mine. If hungry children in the street bother you, do something about it.
posted on August 11, 2004 01:48:31 PM new
Okay helen...you don't like the numbers that were put together....then YOU post what kerry says they're going to cost. Bet you can't as he doesn't want to say. Wonder why?
--------------------
fiset - I agree, absolutely, 100% with your statement:
I do not think the answer is "Robin Hood" economics, I think the answer is more people who "talk the talk" actually getting out there and "walking the walk." The government can not and should not be viewed as some kind of savior for all problems. Taking money away from those that earn it to put it in the hands of a big government who will then supposedely "take care of us all" may be some people's idea of utopia but not mine. If hungry children in the street bother you, do something about it.
That's exactly the issue, as I see it. The liberals want our government to do it....not the faith based groups and individuals that are more than willing to help out with their own time and money. No...they do all they can to put roadblocks up on these faith based organizations that are the MAJOR contributors to the down-and-out.
It's socialism they approve of....pure and simple.
posted on August 11, 2004 01:54:34 PM new
What about all the programs Bush has passed and failed to fund or pushed on the states to fund. It is funny how Bush suggests all these programs and then doesn't even follow through with them. The No Child Left Behind Act is one that comes to mind. The second is the so called Marriage funding that he suggested last year. What ever happened with that. It was a suggestion that didn't even happen because he knew there would be no way to pay for it.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 11, 2004 03:25:01 PM new
logansdad - you are misinformed. The NCLB program was funded....the lefties were upset they weren't given the maximum amount to begin with. That doesn't mean they weren't given enough to begin the program.
I've read several states governors saying they had more than enough funding for this program. Washington State was one of them.
It's the usual case of the dems ALWAYS wanting MORE funding while complaining about the deficit. Can't have it both ways.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 11, 2004 09:47:06 PM new
dolitter: you dumbshi1, it was not a comparision of the war to a park, but a comparision of being able to make a sound financial decision relative to what you are doing.
Sorry about that Neroter! I hadn't realized before that you had a speech impediment. I'll take that into consideration in the future and make allowances for it. Doc
Prevent Bigotry through Education.
.
