Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

[reverend B]

Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He reduced debt, which is yearly. And that is why the liberals kept saying there is a surplus. The deficit was always there. There's a difference.

your right. there is a difference. the deficit is how far short our budget comes from meeting our expenses. this is what he eliminated by bringing in a balanced budget for the first time in decades, which created a budget surplus that we COULD have used to pay down our debt, but this administration had "better" ideas for that money. the debt is the accumulation of what we have spent on credit and the accumulation of the the deficit over the years. this was also reduced.

I thought majority of businesses if they want to borrow, they borrow it from loaning instition, not the government except for the big businesses like Ford?

You talk like the government handles all loans.

in a way they do. lending is a retail business. you buy money at wholesale and sell it at retail. where do you think the lending institutions borrow their money? hint: they aren't paying the vig to a loanshark.

Did you know top 10% of the richest people pay over 60% of annual income tax? And did you know that bottom 50% less than 5%? So, what's my point? Stop punishing the rich people! When did the U.S. ever became a communist State trying to take the rich people money away? If I work hard and lucky enough to earn lot of money, why am I being punished?

I swear you liberals(democrats) want this country to be more and more like the communists.

first of all, they are making 80%of the money that is being earned, so that makes good sense. second, as a christian having that kind of money is a gift that you are privileged to be able to share. if you can't live well on millions, you need to tighten your belt, like the lower 50% do. the effect of the 5% of taxes on the bottom 50% probably effects their lifestyle more than the 60% of taxes effects the top 5.

the truth will set you free!

 

[reverend B]

now will someone please teach me to format my responses!!!!!!!

 

[lucaspa]

On the contrary his policies will reduce the debt properly unlike Clinton who was like most Americans, take short term loans out to pay off things, then when they come due again, you still have huge principal balances and even higher interest rates.

Clinton ran a budget surplus for 6 years. He did this by cutting expenses, not short term loans.

I'm afraid that it is the short term loan policy that Bush is using. He is borrowing money from Social Security (which he promised not to do) in order to make the deficit look less.

Right now, the government spends more than it takes in. That is because taxes were cut but spending wasn't. There is no way for such a policy to reduce the debt. Try it on your own finances and see what happens.

Kerry has just as much if not more wealth and "rich" people supporting him.

The facts say otherwise. The Dems have raised less than half the money the Republicans have. If your statement were true, this would not be the case.

And don't play the lib/media quote about tax cut for the rich bc. I make less than 50k a year and in this area I live, that is difficult to make it having a family to support. My tax return was the highest ever, and not to mention during this presidency I got something I have never seen out of any other president, a tax relief check in the middle of the year.

That "tax relief" check was an early refund check. It came out of your proposed refund. How much, in actualy dollars, was your tax refund this year? I don't make much more than you, and my 'tax relief' came to $40 a month. Big whooping deal! If you made more than $500,000, you got over $125,000 back, not $480!

You libs and the media alike crucified Bush Sr when he raised taxes,

The conservatives crucified Bush for breaking his promise so spectacularly. It wasn't the taxes; it was going back so prominently on a pledge made while he was in the White House.

now his son lowers taxes and makes it easier for middle america to have families with good child tax deductions and so on and you harp on that.

My total tax bill is increased. I bet yours has too. Why? Because Bush simply shifted the tax burden to local government. State, county, and city taxes are up because Bush is no longer supporting the funding mandated by federal laws. So the local governments have to make up what the Federal government isn't paying them. For instance, the No Child Left Behind Law mandated lots of expensive tests for public schools. But the Feds aren't paying for that testing -- due to your tax cuts -- so the local school boards have to raise property taxes.

Bush played smoke and mirrors, and you didn't pay attention.

You sound like Kerry, voting for the war before he voted against it? Can't make up your mind.

My mind is made up. And your opinion is supposed to change with new information. At the time Kerry voted for the war with Iraq, he believed Bush about the WMD. I never did. I could tell from the start that Bush was lying about that. Bush wanted a war and WMD was simply a good rationalization. But Kerry trusted his President. You have a problem with that? Would you think a President would stoop to lying to promote a war for his private ends? Kerry didn't either. I, OTOH, was much more cynical.

The tax cuts start at 30k a year and that is hardly rich.

It's not where they start, but who they benefit the most. Your percentage cut is less than 10%. However, for someone over $250,000 a year, their precentage cut is over 30%. So, let's say at $30,000 you pay about 25% in taxes (which is close), you pay $7,500 and have $22,500 for you. Your tax cut is $750 so now you have $23,250 to keep. If you make $250,000 a year you pay 40% or $100,000 and still have $150,000 to keep. But you get a 30% tax cut which means you get to keep $30,000 more, or $180,000 total. Hmm, $750 more or $30,000 more. Who got the better deal?

 

[lucaspa]

The economy was on an upward track before Clinton was elected and began its decline before he left office. I don't have the data, am not going to look for it, because the reports I heard regarding these facts were from National Public Radio .....'nuf said .....no Republican bias there.

If you look, the economy started up when it was realized that Clinton was going to win. The stock market and economy started its decline when people realized Bush was going to win. The big money boys in the stock market knew what Bush's economic policies would do.

And yes, I got my data from NPR also. I just paid more attention to the details when it was happening.

 

[lucaspa]

Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He reduced debt, which is yearly. And that is why the liberals kept saying there is a surplus. The deficit was always there. There's a difference.

The deficit is yearly. It's the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends. If it spends more than it makes, then there is a deficit.

The debt is there from all the previous years of deficit. It is what is borrowed. Clinton eliminated the deficit and was spending down the debt. Normally, like on your credit cards or your own loans, most of what you pay is interest. You pay very little on the principle. That's what the Federal government had been doing for years: paying the interest on the debt but not touching the principal. Which is why every now and then the Congress had to vote to raise the debt limit. This is the limit to how much the Federal government can borrow.

Under Clinton, the amount of debt was shrinking because there were budget surpluses and not deficits. Some of the money above and beyond expenses - the surplus -- was used for new programs. But most went to funding Social Security and reducing the debt -- paying the principle.

I thought majority of businesses if they want to borrow, they borrow it from loaning instition, not the government except for the big businesses like Ford?

They do. But the Federal government also borrows from loaning institutions. Where did you think the government borrowed money from? They are just like you: they go to a bank.

The US government sells bonds. Some individuals buy. But most bonds are bought by big banks and other lending institutions.

Now, those lending institutions only have so much money to lend. The money to lend depends on how much people (and businesses) put into savings. So now you have both private business and the federal government competing for the same money. The pot is only so large. The more the government pulls out, the less there is for private business.

Did you know top 10% of the richest people pay over 60% of annual income tax?

And the top 10% have over 70% of all the income. So shouldn't they pay that much?

And did you know that bottom 50% less than 5%?

And they have less than 3% of the income. So they are paying more than their share, aren't they?

If I work hard and lucky enough to earn lot of money, why am I being punished?

You are not. You are being asked to pay your fair share.

I did these figures before. If you earn $100,000 year you are in the top tax bracket. That is now 25% or $25,000 and you have $75,000 left. If you make $20,000 you pay the bottom rate, which is 15%. That's $3,000 and you have $17,000 left. Now, we tell the person at $17,000 that he has enough to live on. Gee, you think $75,000 is enough to live on then?

Some people are going to have more than others. The question is whether everyone has enough. The problem is that, in the US, many people don't have enough. Jesus said to give to the poor, take care of the poor. Now, who is able to give more? $100,000 a year or $20,000 a year? If we take an extra $10,000 from the $100,000 a year, you think maybe $65,000 is enough?

I swear you liberals(democrats) want this country to be more and more like the communists.

I think we want it to be more and more like Christians.

 

[alaurie]

If you look, the economy started up when it was realized that Clinton was going to win. The stock market and economy started its decline when people realized Bush was going to win. The big money boys in the stock market knew what Bush's economic policies would do.

And yes, I got my data from NPR also. I just paid more attention to the details when it was happening.

I remember the economic decline beginning with the dot com failures well before the 2000 campaigns were going strong. Which seemed to me then and seems to me now to be a good analogy for Clinton's leadership. That the driving forces behind his good economy were smoke and mirrors 'industries' much as he was an ersatz president.

 

[renegade pariah]

....two weeks before 9/11 this administration was saying it would have to take money from social security to meet the budget...meanwhile it has spent hundreds of billions on a war. Interesting how money for a hyped up cause is available, but America's social problems are ignored.

 

[GW_in_04]

I think we want it to be more and more like Christians.

Than Bush should win by a landslide if that were really true!

 

[GW_in_04]

as far as taxes yes the more you make the more you pay, the more you pay the more you get back. Sounds fair to me. Why should I get back 50% of my taxes when I don't pay a small percentage of what the richer people pay. And as far as my check being less, hardly. It has gone up about 50-60 dollars a pay period since those tax cuts took effect. And my year end income return has tripled since GW came into office. So keep trying, but you can never get around facts, that John Kerry WILL raise taxes he has said so over and over. And GW will continue to push for no new taxes, and lowering the ones we have now even lower. It wasn't GW or really any party's fault for people throwing there money at .com stocks like they did in the late 90's. Analysts all said they were highly overrated. That caused a lot of the mess were in now. Thankfully the market is recovering and the business scandals that were in large part due to the way Clinton ran his office are behind us now as well.

 

[BFWard]

are you just hoping that noone will go to the link? i went.
kerry 45% bush 43%

what are u referring to?

The current poll on the right of the site index. Currently, this poll reads:

Bush-86%
Kerry-9%
Nader-2%
Bush, but can be swayed to switch-2%
Kerry, but can be swayed to switch-1%

This was as of 23:40 EST.

 

[BFWard]

Are you talking about the internet poll that is in progress? Do you understand that internet polls don't mean diddly squat? I will tell you why:

They are a self-selected sample, which means that potential respondents, themselves, decide whether or not they are included in the sample. FoxNews is a biased website because more conservatives and republicans prefer FoxNEws opposed to other news stations.

While a randomly selected sample has better results, like the LA Times had.

So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**

 

[kermit]

On the contrary his policies will reduce the debt properly unlike Clinton who was like most Americans, take short term loans out to pay off things, then when they come due again, you still have huge principal balances and even higher interest rates.

I really have to chuckle. You have bought conservative rhetoric hook-line-and-sinker. Clinton's plan to reduce the and eventually eliminate the deficit was sound. It was curtailed by stock market downturns.

If Bush's policy were a sound way of reducing the deficit then why has his policy added more to the deficit than any other president? That is not only in dollars but also taking into account inflation. His low tax, high spending policy is a recipe for disaster.

People will point out that Reagan lowered taxes and the economy boomed. Those same people forget that Reagan also raised taxes when gov't spending had to increase. Also, keep in mind that Reagan was also jump starting a failing economy. The measures that Reagan took were drastic and could have easily failed and ended this thing we call the US. The American people will be paying for his policy for a long time, but I feel was worth it. Think of a life saving surgery, but you don't have health insurance and you're stuck with a $100k bill. Bush took more drastic measures to end a mere recession.

 

[propane]

"So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**"

Think before you speak and people will see the thought in your what you say...

 

[Texas Lynn]

The election won't be over for a while. Predicting what will happen is always a guessing game. Either Bush or Kerry will win. Swing voters matter, and turnout matters.

Bush's people are targeting conservative churches to turn out voters from them. That may help him some. OTOH, other people, knowing they're doing that, will turn out to counter those votes.

The battleground states are crucial. Missouri and Ohio are now the important ones. But wait, that could change.

Momentum will matter, as will the debates. As for momentum, people 'in the know' say the race is Kerry's to lose. We'll see. As for the debates, Kerry must take care he not humiliate Bush too bad lest he be perceived as a bully.

On the issues, Kerry would win. Problem is, so many don't vote on the issues.

Then there's reverse coattails. There's going to be some hot Senate races. Bush could very will win this election but lose the Senate. OTOH the Senate races in places like Missouri could hurt him. People motivated to vote for a candidate for Senate often vote straight ticket.

Personally I think Kerry will win, barely, with a friendly Senate-and get into a urination contest with the House from Day One. Tom Delay is a formidable opponent in the legislative arena. Everyone ready for government shutdown in Fall '05?

 

[jameseb]

"Between 1985 And 1990, Kerry Accepted Over $120,000 In Special Interest Honoraria. 'Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show … In 1985, Kerry’s freshman year in the Senate, he supplemented his $75,000 salary with $19,480 in speaking fees. The next year the fees grew to $22,725.'”

John Solomon, “Kerry Pocketed Speaking Fees,” The Associated Press, 2/9/04



As a forced member of a union, and forced to contribute my hard earned money to his political party, I can think of no other appropriate word to describe him other than a thief. If anyone wants to vote for a thief, be my guest.



P.S.
Buy Hunts ketchup. Its the patriotic thing to do.

 

[reverend B]

So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**

you simply don't understand how polls work. i am not trying to be a smarty pants, but you don't. fox, on that same sight, has an actual poll at the top that is done by the scientific method and has an accuracy of plus or minus 3%. the way that poll is taken is by people calling a CROSS SECTION of registered voters. this includes both democrats and republicans and gives an overview of what the country is thinking. as misty told you, the poll you are referring to is voluntary, so the only people that will ever even SEE that poll are fox.com readers. what it is giving you as data is what the fox.com reader thinks about the election, not the country, so of course the results look like that. does this explanation make sense to you? they are very different things.

 

[alaurie]

P.S.
Buy Hunts ketchup. Its the patriotic thing to do.

Whoohooo! Hunt's is in my pantry now! Always has been ...Mama raised me up right

 

[BFWard]

"So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**"

Think before you speak and people will see the thought in your what you say...

Touting an LA Times Poll would be paramount to touting a National Review Poll. I think people can understand this.

 

[reverend B]

Touting an LA Times Poll would be paramount to touting a National Review Poll. I think people can understand this.

READ MY POST MAN! i was giving the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't understand the difference, but now you are embarrassing yourself. pick your pollster. the results are extremely close among all of them. the fox poll of its readers is a completely different animal. do you honestly not understand the difference?

 

[reverend B]

"Between 1985 And 1990, Kerry Accepted Over $120,000 In Special Interest Honoraria. 'Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show … In 1985, Kerry’s freshman year in the Senate, he supplemented his $75,000 salary with $19,480 in speaking fees. The next year the fees grew to $22,725.'”

John Solomon, “Kerry Pocketed Speaking Fees,” The Associated Press, 2/9/04



As a forced member of a union, and forced to contribute my hard earned money to his political party, I can think of no other appropriate word to describe him other than a thief. If anyone wants to vote for a thief, be my guest.



P.S.
Buy Hunts ketchup. Its the patriotic thing to do.

totally don't get your point. how did he steal? by legally public speaking for fees? i am dying for that opportunity and would take it tomorrow.

and you are not being forced to join anything. you chose to do what you do for a job and by doing so you accepted whatever baggage comes with it. did you not know they had a union when you accepted the job? did you not know that democrats tend to support unions and republicans tend not too? how have you been forced or coerced?