"Nate Perkins"
"Fletis Humplebacker"
"Nate Perkins"

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.


You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
Why do you refuse to look at government spending?


If you look at my other posts in this thread I think you will agree
that I am very willing to look at government spending. It is way too
high. I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see smaller
government. What boggles me is that so many guys who claim to be
fiscal conservatives are still willing to support George Bush,
although he has increased government spending far worse than "Slick
Willie." He's as bad as a "Liberal Democrat" on this.



As I mentioned before the military has absorbed much of the expense
while Bill reduced it so I would not go as far as to say he's as bad but
fiscal conservatives generally support Bush because the alternative is
the most liberal senator in the house with the track record to prove it.



Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.


Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.


Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.


That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?


Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.

He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.


We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.


A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.



Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
more than about real issues.


It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
specifics, where are they. It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."


Still, Google is your friend. Or you
can go to the source at
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/econ...nsibility.html



The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
will balance the budget or pay for education. The website is politically optimistic
of Kerry and hostile of Bush but vague on details. Surely a reasonable mind
would be skeptical. Corporations are made up of shareholders. They pay taxes
like everyone else. Please explain how punishing corporations is going to create
jobs, decrease deficits or pay for anything? The point of view is typical of liberal
ideology where it sees monies as a finite source that needs to be distributed by
government, over achievers need to face increasingly difficult financial hurdles while
under achievers need to be compensated in the interests of "fairness". It doesn't work.
It's juvenile at best and deceptive at worst. It's all about class envy and thinking
the rich guy won life's lottery and cheated you out of your fair share. Democrats
that promote it are being highly irresponsible. Fiscally conservative Democrats
are watching their party march further and further away from them. Ask Zel Miller
or any number of Democrat office holders supporting Bush this year. Do you really
think John F. Kennnedy would have a home in todays Democratic party? You
are kidding yourself if you think so, no fiscally conservative Democrat was invited to
speak. To those who follow the liberal leaders of today they dislike Bush because
they think he's moved his party far right but in reality it's their leaders who have
been moving further and further left.