Reagan and GWB spent like drunken sailors. What you are feeding us is partisan rhetoric dribble that the Republicans have been dishing out over the years and NOT how the Republicans actually act.
Cool site. Zip through the choices if you like, but the most informative bit is the end if you do a comparison between Bush and Kerry. Lists various issues and the candidates position. Of course you'll have to judge if these are the issues that are important to you, and how to rank them...but cool to see a decent summary.
Looking for some excuse to explain away the actual history? Why not list out all of the budget cuts GWB proposed over the last four years? GWB had a Republican Congress to rubber stamp anything he wanted, so where are those budget cuts?
I posted this months ago on a different toipic but it applies here also. If you just want to have one good reason why someone should vote for Kerry rather than Bush? Try the environment. Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative has to be the most Orwellian oxymoron I've ever seen. Read all about it at his re-election website, then go to the Natural Resources Defence Council's website to find out what it actually means, and the lies it is based on. There's plenty of information there, and you can search Google if you don't want to believer NRDC. The "Clear Skies" initiative isn't the only black mark on Bush's environmental record-- he's done more to gut environmental policy than any other president in US history. http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord>/ Or Reason 2: The sepaeration of Church and State From "Faith Based Initiatives" to using churches as defacto campaign offices, George Bush has done a lot to damage the separation between church and state. Many people think that if you start spouting off about 'Separation of Church and State' you must be a Godless heathen-- not true! I say, if you value being able to worship God in the way you see fit, you should be fighting for that separation tooth and nail. Even the Methodist Church, of which he is a member, has criticized Bush for blurring the line: http://www.umc.org/interior_print.a...&pagemode=print For more on Bush and Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org Kerry, on the other hand, has stated in his speeches that he respects the "beautiful line" between Church and State. From what I've gleaned off of Google, he did not support Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", and sided with the ACLU on the "under God" issue in the Pledge-- which leads me to believe he really does respect the separation of Church and State. So if this is an issue of yours, there's Reason Two. Reason 3: The Death Penalty The death penalty is just as divisive an issue as abortion, gay marriage, etc., but you didn't mention it, so I'll go ahead. If you look around the web you'll find all kinds of conservative and religious sites screaming about how John Kerry supports the killing of innocent unborn babies. Ironically, no one is screaming about Bush's undying support of the death penalty over the years. And if you've paid attention to the news at all since DNA evidence has been introduced, many death penalty convictions have been overturned, one governor stopped executions because so many convictions were turning out to be false, and it sure wasn't Bush...there's a very good chance our George killed some innocent people as the governor of TX. (Now he's just getting our soldiers killed, but that's another post) As governor of TX, George Bush executed 152 people, including the mentally ill and first woman executed in the state of Texas since the 1860s (who he mocked in the media by impersonating her and saying 'Please, don't kill me.) More info: http://www.bushkills.com/index.html Kerry, on the other hand, has always been against the death penalty, except for a post 9/11 opinion in favor of putting terrorists to death. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=226 Other than during his service in Vietnam, John Kerry hasn't killed anyone. So, if the death penalty is an issue you care about, there's Reason Three. Reason 4: Civil Liberties When mild mannered librarians start complaining about civil liberties, you know something is wrong. http://librariansagainstbush.org/ When you have to sign a statement saying you are a Bush supporter in order to get a ticket to a Bush/Cheney campaign rally, you know something is wrong. Security concern, my ass. http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm Or when you get arrested on public property for wearing an anti Bush T-Shirt? That's just really wrong. http://www.wvgazettemail.com/static...2004071346.html I could go on and on, but the ACLU has already compiled a neat sheet of Bush's record on civil liberties. Unfortunately, it looks like it hasn't been updated since Sept. 2002, so it isn't complete. http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html Kerry, on the other hand, has a better record on civil liberties. Not perfect-- he did vote for the Patriot Act-- but better. At any rate, he's no friend of John Ashcroft, and that is a relief. He has stated "In my first 100 days, I will restore our commitment to civil rights and individual rights," That will begin with the appointment of "an attorney general who knows he can fight the war on terrorism without attacking America's freedoms. ... an attorney general whose name is not John Ashcroft." http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004537.html And so far as I know, no one has been required to sign a pro Kerry statement to attend a rally, nor has anyone been arrested for wearing a Bush T-Shirt at a Kerry rally. Yeesh. So, Reason Four, if civil liberties is an important issue for you Reason 5: Kerry is his own man Don't take it from me. Take it from columnist Charley Reese, who otherwise has a reputation for being extremely conservative. ______________________________________________ Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers. I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory. It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently. John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts. But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be. People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice. It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian. It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration? This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace. I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site (www.johnkerry.com) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions. All pretty good reason to vote for Kerry, in my mind. Blackfish
The last 40 years of evidence show us otherwise. Note the increasing size of federal government as a % of GDP towards the end of Nixon, and in Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2, years. Now note the decreasing size of federal govt expenditures during Clinton and even Carter. The last one to increase it was likely LBJ, although he is subject to the "war" excuse that you give to Bush 2. "tax and spend" is an empty slogan of little current relevance. . Republicans just spend -more without taxing, as if that's sound fiscal policy No, not more than most Republicans, more than most presidents regardless of affiliation, certainly more than Clinton or Carter We were still waiting for some of that 9-11 rebuilding money here in New York back in June of this year, so that dog doesn't hunt. Of course it's only 20b anyway, which isn't all that much. http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/9268/ Your labels are wrong, dead wrong. Republicans spend like drunken sailors when in the Whitehouse, especially when enabled by a Republican congress. Democrats historically do not, probably because they are afraid of people spreading the misconception that you currrently harbor. Someone does have to pay for it. (I am excluding 'the corporate scandals" as they did not represent significant government expenditure, nor does "the dot com burst") So why didn't he increase taxes, or at least keep them at the same level? Oh, that's right, buy now, pay later. Also, I'd like to know how the Bush administartion's massive increase in farm subisidies to red states factors into this equation. What aspect of this was beyond his control? Are you happy with paying more later? I"m not.
Well between 9/11, financing the Iraq war, the corporate scandals and the dot.com burst a lot changed. Somone had to pay to finance all those issues and they've all hit in the last 4 years.
Sam- The democratic party is the party of social programs right? Look where Federal spending has been going to. more to social programs than any other part (defense, interest, etc). So do the democrats want credit for all the social programs or not?
We finance these problems with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Doesn't make sense? then you are not a supply side true believer!!!
Dude, you need to look at the numbers again. Defense is #1. Besides, even taking out homeland security increases, GWB has increased spending more than any president in my lifetime.
Uh, no wrong again. I meant to post this link above, but http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table8 As you can see, non-defense discretionary outlays (not entitlement programs SS and Medicare, whose funding is according to preextisting formulas) which include those "social programs" that you talk about, including such "social programs" as roads, police, etc, decreased during the years of democratic presidencies and increased during reagan, bush, etc I don't follow, nor does it matter. You can't change the facts: Total spending takes big jumps during Republican presidencies, you can't say the same for Democratic presidencies. You can repeat "tax and spend" to yourself as much as you want, but it doesn't make it true. Again, I find it amusing that anybody can dare defend President Bush under the fiscal conservative label. That's like me saying that Kerry comes across as warm and engaging in public, it's just not true.
Jebus. The country is safer under GW than JK. Now more than ever, we need to be safer. You are 1 in 300 million, you are statistically safe. The world "we" implies 300 million.
Jebus, John Kerry talked about not having to get permission from other countries to defend the country. He did say he would get more allies to help. That doesn't mean doing what they want, it means leading. We are obviously stronger with more allies than fewer. John Kerry wants our nation to be stronger. John Kerry wants to make sure all children are covered by health care. Under Bush millions of Americans lost their access to health care. Kerry wants to turn it around and will make sure that all children who don't have a say in the matter will be covered. That is not currently the case. Dick Cheney lied in his speech when he claimed that the U.S. had the best health care in the world. If I remember correctly we have the 7th best health care in the world. It's wrong when the richest nation on the planet can't make sure that it's innocent children don't have access to health care. John Kerry is better with money than G.W. Bush. Bush's record spending has pushed the nation further in debt. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2548/is_2003_Jan-Feb/ai_97132978 2001 Federal Spending Interest 19% Health 18% Income Security 6% Education 3% Nutrition 2% Housing 2% Environment 2% Other 15% Military 33% If you notice that 19% of our total spending goes to paying the debt. That is almost 20% of our money that doesn't provide any roads, education, defense, healthcare, veteran's benefits, etc. It doesn't even reduce our debt. It just pays the interest we owe. The only that takes more of our money is defense. So the second biggest chunk of our income tax goes to pay for nothing. We get nothing in return. The debt under Bush has grown, and is growing. That's irresponsible and it's government waste. If people really want to cut govt. spending we need to reduce our debt. Debt is reduced by spending less and taking in more. Spending less can be done in a number of ways, we take in more by revenue such as taxes. Bush cut taxes, and spent money on things that weren't necessary such as a star wars program that won't work, and a war in Iraq that hasn't made our country safer or was necessary. If we reduced our debt that would be 19% more we could have in tax cuts that would make sense. That would be almost 20% more we could spend on health care, veterans benefits, anything. And we wouldn't be hurting the future generations. Bush is irresponsible with our money, and Kerry supported the balanced budget amendment as a senator, and helped support welfare reform.
And you still think we're somehow safer under this moron? Get your head out of your ass and take a long whiff of reality. It might sting your nostrils for second, but I daresay it's bound to smell better than the crap you're sniffing now. Amnesty International's 2002 annual report on global human rights abuses proclaimed the world to be a more dangerous place due to increasingly repressive governments, the curbing of human rights, and the undermining of international law in the wake of Bush's "war on terror." The annual report targeted the U.S. for criticism because of many actions it has taken in the name of state security. Specifically, Amnesty denounced the U.S. for detention of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without charge or trial. As quoted by the New York Times, Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, described these violations as "a human rights scandal." In addition, she charged that the U.S. "continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them." Sources: Reuters, "Amnesty International: 'War on Terror' has made World Worse," Gideon Long, May 28, 2003; New York Times, "Amnesty Calls World Less Safe," Sarah Lyall, May 28, 2003. Bush Drops Support for Strengthening Biological Weapons Convention The Bush administration recently announced that it will not support efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and that it wishes to postpone discussions of proposed treaty revisions until 2006. The Convention, which bans the "development, production and stockpiling of germ warfare agents," does not include measures to ensure compliance. Negotiations to build enforcement mechanisms into the treaty have been underway for nearly seven years. A conference on these proposals (which are supported by many of the United States' allies) had been scheduled for November, after the Bush administration abruptly walked out of last year's discussions. Source: Washington Post, "U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord," Peter Slevin, Sept. 19, 2002 In contrast to the disapproving remarks by the U.S. Department of State and White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, Bush praised Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf when asked the about the latter's move to expand and entrench his powers. Musharraf, one of Bush's steadfast allies in the war against terrorism, amended Pakistan's constitution to extend his mandate by five years and grant himself the right to dissolve parliament. Despite these and other anti-democratic changes, Bush indicated that he appreciates Musharraf because "he's still tight with us on the war against terror" and "understands that we've got to keep al Qaeda on the run." Bush also thanked Musharraf for the "strong support" the Pakistani dictator has offered. After making these comments, Bush added, "We will continue to work with our friends and allies to promote democracy, give people a chance to express their opinions the proper way." Sources: The Washington Post, "Democracy as Afterthought," Aug. 25, 2002; Agence France Presse, "Bush Says U.S. 'Still Tight' with Musharraf," Olivier Knox, Aug. 23, 2002 Two new international polls, conducted one year after the invasion of Iraq, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and predominantly negative views of the U.S. in all foreign countries surveyed. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, views of Bush were strikingly low in Europe and the Muslim countries: Only 14 percent of Germans, 15 percent of the French, 28 percent of Russians and 7 percent of Pakistanis viewed Bush favorably. The opinions represented a dramatic reversal from 1991, when 75 percent of Germans and 72 percent of Russians had a favorable view of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. A similar poll conducted by AP-Ipsos on Feb. 12-21, 2004, indicated that a majority of the people living in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico and Spain have an unfavorable view of the role that Bush plays in world affairs, and that they think the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism in the world. Sources: The Pew Research Center, March 16, 2004; AP/Ipsos Poll, March 5, 2004. U.S. officials and foreign policy experts say the ability of the Bush administration to make serious headway on a range of foreign policy goals has been called into question as a result of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. "It's a blinding glimpse of the obvious to say we're in a hole," conceded Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who added that the backlash in Europe is even greater than in the 22-nation Arab world. In public and private communications, European officials have reportedly become increasingly critical of the U.S., and experts say that the scandal will not only compromise the Bush administration's goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East, the humiliating photographs will incite terrorist groups to act against the U.S. Meanwhile, deep divisions are emerging among senior military officials over the course of the occupation. Some have reportedly said that the U.S. could face casualties for years without establishing a free and democratic Iraq. Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A May 10 editorial in the Army Times, an influential private military paper, called the scandal "not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential—even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war." Sources: "U.S. Faces Lasting Damage Abroad," Robin Wright, The Washington Post, May 7, 2004; "Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks on War Strategy," Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post, May 9, 2004; "Rumsfeld Criticized by Influential Military Paper," Charles Aldinger, Reuters, May 10, 2004
George W. Bush ran as a uniter and not a divider. Currently Bush and his campaign are making a push to actually change our constitution in order make gay marriage illegal. That amendment won't pass. There aren't enough votes of people who believe banning someone from marriage should be part of our nation's governing document. The issue is only used to energize a certain part of our population and DIVIDE them from the rest. The republicans keep talking about how the Democrats support hollywood values and not mainstream values. Again they try to paint America one way and alienate those who are outside of that way. It's divisive and not uniting in the least. Kerry asked at his convention to have a positive campaign. Barak Obama talked about how even as they wanted to unite the country and fulfill Bush's broken promise that people were planning to try and divide the country. Sure enough the Republicans announced their plan to go negative against Kerry at their convention and have kept up that promise. These are troubled times with many young men and women serving in foreign countries where they aren't the most popular among the local population, and are exposed to danger daily. We see people who disagree being called unpatriotic, supporting Saddam or Osama Bin Laden, etc. It's ok to talk about differences when it comes to issues. But trying to label people and divide the country isn't what we need right now. Kerry has the right idea, and has set a better tone for uniting our country at a time when we need it.
A lot of posters have already taken some of my points but the main argument I can put forward for voting for Kerry is to return the country to divided government. It is obvious to nearly all liberals and many moderates that the current Administration of GW Bush has proved to be a disaster on the grounds of foreign policy, the environment and advocating a divisive self-righteous social agenda. The administration is also severely wanting in regards to pushing unfunded and costly mandates in the areas of education and health care that rather than fixing problems exacerbate them. The failings of this administration are ones that should also concern the conservatives base. Rather than practicing fiscal responsibility this administration has engaged in an orgy of spending threatening future generations with the specter of debt and high interest rates. Inconsistent trade policies have also spelled problems by delivering an unclear message at home and abroad regarding this administrations commitment to free trade. Under this administration the executive branch has gained more power and less transparancy. Continually asserting the same right of executive privilege that was ridiculed by conservatives in previous administrations. Under this secrecy the administration has engaged in a level of backroom dealing with political and financial allies that verge on cronyism. Backroom deals to allow lobbyists and contributors write key legislation and secret no bid deals that affect the national security of this country. The close collusion of between members of this administration and members of the Supreme Court also spell trouble for the separation of the powers at the heart of our constitutional form of government. This administration is a failure to liberals and moderates but also should be considered skeptically by even conservatives. It would be a disservice to the country to reward the failings of this administration with another term in office. At the same time for moderates and conservatives the alternative of the Democratic nominee John Kerry is wanting also. John Kerry’s record is littered with switches on position that seem to reflect shifting political winds rather than logical progression of thought. The latest being perhaps the worst, his flip flop on voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq while voting against funding to support the occupation. John Kerry’s anti-trade rhetoric is also very worrying to moderates and conservatives while his overall domestic policy seems more of the old reviled tax and spend policies of the past. So voters are left with a quandary of whether to choose the known failure of GW Bush or to choose an uncertain and questionable John Kerry. This need not be a choice between the lesser of two evils because there is an easy solution to this. Vote for divide government. As of now Congress is narrowly dominated by Republicans and this situation seems unlikely to change in the next election. The electoral math simply doesn’t support the Democrats regaining control of Congress and barring a major turn of events a Kerry victory is unlikely to have many coattails. A GW Bush victory ensures a continuation of single party domination of all three parts of elected government which has led us to our current problems. Without the check of an opposition Congress the executive is free to initiate an agenda that serves its own interests without consideration of its affects across the whole country. A divided government where one of the parties controls the legislative branch while another party controls the executive will provide the necessary check against implementing a policy that is too one sided. From the conservative side reasons to support a divided government are that this current administration has both expanded and concentrated powers in the executive branch and the Federal government. Congressional Republicans who traditionally have been suspicious of centralized power have abrogated their watchdog functions in favor of supporting a president from their own party. If John Kerry were to become president it is likely that Congressional Republicans will rethink their dereliction of their oversight duties and failure to counter balance the executive branch. Finally for those who are concerned about divided government causing problems in the War on Terror I think that is unlikely given the stated positions of both candidates. If anything divided government in this time may cause the executive branch to fight the War on Terror more efficiently and effectively because they will be accountable to Congress. Problems like the lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq and questions regarding the soundness of intelligence regarding threats will be dealt with as an opposition Congress will be less likely to go along with how the executive decides to deploy the military. An opposition Congress will demand to know how Iraq will be secured after Saddam's fall (something that even GW Bush admits was a miscalculation) before authorizing an invasion. Now is the time to return balance to the government and recapture the proud American tradition of checks and balances. The failures and shortcomings of the GW Bush administration should not be rewarded with another term. At the same time voting out the GW Bush administration doesn’t mean handing a blank check to a Kerry administration. Divided government is the reasonable and logical solution. Sorry for all of the bolds but I figured that was the best way to get the main points across if you don't want to read through the hole post. Of course I recommend reading the whole post but then again I'm biased.
Can we get that in English please? The cliff notes to all of that is that Bill Clinton failed the conservatives & should not have been rewarded with another term in office, but he somehow was able to convince voters that this logic was illogical... Vote for Kerry in '04 if you want to see John McCain as President in '08. Vote for Bush in '04 if you want to see H. Clinton and McCain battle it out. So many choices ...
