|
Post by k on May 22, 2004 18:43:32 GMT -5
First of all, he is from MASSachussetts-liberal mecca of the US. A state known for baby killing, euthanasia, gay marriage etc. Anything goes in that liberal hellhole! Think Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barney F@g Frank and company.
Kerry has never run a state. As senator, he hasn't been outstanding. List some legislation he has sponsored.
Kerry isn't charismatic. He doesn't inspire anyone. He isn't the energetic guy like Slick Willie who could charm anyone he knew.
He is wrong on taxes. No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
He is wrong on the economy. New jobs are being created at a rapid rate. But Kerry is stuck on 9-11 recession.
Kerry has the wrong approach toward terrorism. Or does he have an approach. Go to the UN and get their permission??
Kerry has no vision. Plain and simple. He is an uppity New England liberal. Liberal media is trying to shield his rear end from real scrutiny.
Kerry is an enemy of Christians, rural Americans and our soldiers in their fight against terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 22, 2004 20:11:49 GMT -5
Overall reaction... Oh well. Oh dear. Now that is just terrible!! I'm mortified. If Kerry would become president, our country would for sure go straight to hell! andy
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 22, 2004 20:26:51 GMT -5
Please give examples how he is NOT the enemy of Christians and Christian values.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 23, 2004 7:04:08 GMT -5
He is wrong on taxes. No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Lots of democratic countries did.. People in Europe pay a lot more taxes then you do and in return they get back excellent public goods and a healthy economy. And even though you pay a lot of taxes there you don't have to worry to pay huge insurance premiums for healthcare or college fees, 'cause the goverment is paying that for you. Less risk and still enough money to spend for yourself as wages are a lot better then in the States, doesn't sound too bad, does it? Finally Bush managed to create some jobs after years of doing nothing about it, just have a look at these stats: Does Bush have any vision with the States if it wasn't for terrorism?? I doubt it. And if he's got one, there will be no money left to spend with the huge deficit he created.
|
|
|
Post by no on May 23, 2004 12:34:51 GMT -5
Jimmy Carter experienced job losses. Otherwise why did he lose? DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT in 1980?
Carter created job my ass.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on May 23, 2004 14:20:28 GMT -5
1) Quoting job statistics from "Music from America" is like asking Britney Spears to provide an analysis of the economy. I'm amused that someone thinks it's a reliable source.
2) Despite anyone's political differences, I don't think it's ever appropriate to characterize Barney Frank's sexuality in such a crude manner.
3) The economy is experiencing a "boomlet", recovering from a mini-recession that began late in the second Clinton Administration
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 23, 2004 15:56:41 GMT -5
1) Quoting job statistics from "Music from America" is like asking Britney Spears to provide an analysis of the economy. I'm amused that someone thinks it's a reliable source. Okay, its source might be politically biased, but this figure was just supporting my case in an appealing way. I can't deny the notion that statistics can be manipulated easily, . but I could have made the same thing myself, based on official data. That would just have represented the same basic information: That job growth in the US over the last three year has been negative. This is what Bush promised and what the results were: Campaigning last year for his tax cuts, George W. Bush promised that his measure would generate 510,000 jobs by the end of 2003, above and beyond the number normally created in a recovery. All in all, the Bush administration projected a growth of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004 if the massive tax cuts were adopted, or an average of 306,000 jobs a month from July 2003 to December 2004. In reality, jobs have increased by 221,000 since the tax bill went into effect, approximately one ninth the promised amount.www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/jobs-j10.shtmlYou might question this source again, but you can easily verify this data if you feel the need for it. It's pretty obvious that the economy will grow with huge government spendings and the Fed's interest rate on a record low of just 1%.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 18:21:07 GMT -5
Doesn’t sound bad if you’re a Socialist. No thank you. You should keep in mind that Bush inherited a weakening economy/recession, that actually began in late 99/early ‘00. We should also remember that America suffered the most devastating attack on its soil in history. As far as the fallacious claim that Bush took years to do anything about job growth – people should also remember that the economy does not turn around on a dime. ================ The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under BushPaige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim. One little problem: It's not true. Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses. While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America?s economy has been steadily creating jobs. At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. . . . . economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery. The signs: - The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.
- The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000. Even better, the number of so-called discouraged workers declined in December.
- Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.
- Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.
- The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.
- Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.
- Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.
- Productivity growth is extremely high.
Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story. Faulty Counting The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all. Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office. But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity. People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office. As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey." Credit Where Credit Is Due That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing. Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels. "I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said. "I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year." Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office. If elected, will John Kerry get credit for the jobs created under the Bush administration? And find out why so many workers are not being counted.
|
|
|
Post by kk on May 23, 2004 20:36:17 GMT -5
The Democrat party would be better off for a Kerry defeat. Especially in rural areas. Once Kerry unleashes his Kennedy style liberalism on America, Democrat party will be history. Southern US Democratics cringe at the thoughts of Kerry. Only pretty boy John Edwards can save the Democratic party.
|
|