". My vote would be to spend exactly what is needed to keep our country safe and not a penny more. "


Exactly what is your idea of safe? Clinton thought this country safe so he cut back the spending on the military to record lows. The result of such "paper Tiger "tactics? USS Cole, Embassy Bombings, Weak intelligence (defense and intelligence budgets go hand in hand) and many of attacks leading up to the grand Daddy of them all, Sept. 11th. How quickly the people of this nation forget...............I heard a lady on the radio the other day bashing Bush over the tremendous defense budget, saying why do we need such a huge defense budget? we haven't been attacked in 2 1/2 years! All I could think to say was "why do you think that is?" Funny I don't hear any of the Liberals griping about "social Programs" The government has no business funding social programs like welfare and health care or perscriptions either for that matter. The Federal government was never created for the purpose of supporting social programs. It was created for the purpose of defense of this nation.

 

If you don't like Kerry's positions, wait 5 minutes, they'll change.

 

 

I have yet to figure out why anyone supports Kerry.

 

I would think it would be because anyone is better than Bush.G.W.seems to be losing ground.His domestic policies seem to be his weak spot.Sound familiar?

 

Now that Bush has a single target and the press is done sucking up to Kerry, you'll see GW's support grow.

 

Ya know I dont see why everyone makes a big fuss about the GWBs economic policies. I have not seen what he has done to actually HURT it. nothing at least compared to NAFTA which is not worth the paper it was written on.

The presidents main job is not the economy. It is defense and Kerry does not know JACK about that. The economy should be left up to the states. hence the name UNnited STATES of America. People have the wrong idea about the fed gov. They are not supposed to be the...how do I put this....umm....They are not supposed to be doing the job we have them doing. They are strictly supposed to be the glue that holds these 50 individual states together. Defense is the feds primary concern. that should be it. not the economy. or not the extent that they are doing it.

 

I agree. We will see that huge war chest come into play, the real fight is beginning.

 

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. you're going to have to lay off that sausage, it is clogging the blood flow to your brain. Think back to a recent presidential campaign and the slogan, "It's the economy, Stupid". That slogan may be reborn in the coming campaign because it is considered a political soft spot. People (voters) are concerned about lost jobs and deficits and they will always look (justified or not) to the place where the buck stops. Your political theory is interesting but in the real world, candidates run on the economy and are elected on the economy. You are correct that the President's main job is not the economy - it is getting reelected

 

I remember when an unemployment rate of 5.6 % would be considered low. However when a Rep. is in office the Dems. and the press scream about lost jobs. Most economists agree that
4% is full employment, that means that the real rate is more like 1.6%. Where I live if you don't have a job it's because you don't want one. I moved to Ga. in '81 from upstate NY where unemployment was 15%! Sometimes you have to go where the jobs are you can't expect them to come to you. When the public finds out who Kerry really is, the most liberal US Senator, the election won't be as close as people think. He'll get the anybody but Bush vote and thats about it. That is a sizeable number but not enough to win.--Jack

 

You keep saying that over and over as if you can make it true by repeating it enough.

Here's a real world situation. I lost my job of 11 years last March. It was NOT due to performance. I have a glowing letter of recommendation. It was during a mass layoff when the hi-tech company I worked for shed 10% of its work force. I looked and found a new job in the same industry. I had to move to get this job. I just got my tax returns back and here are the final results for last years fiscal performance. I made more money last year than the year previous by 30% (thanks GW for the economy). I got the biggest refund that I have ever gotten (thanks GW for the tax changes). I now work 7 days per 2 week pay period instead of 10 (the number of hours per pay period went up, I now work 82 hours instead of 80). Which means I get 3 and 4 day weekends all year long! All in all I'd say yes I am doing better than I was the year before last.

So, I'm sorry, but someone is going to have to come up with a MUCH better reason than 'anyone but Bush' to get me to vote against him. My prediction for this election-- Kerry carries Massachusetts, and that's it. Bush crushes him everywhere else. (Anyone remember McGovern?)

 

I believe that the Democrats have a much weaker candidate then they realize. That swing vote that they keep talking about as being sooooo crucial, is going to bite the Dems in the backside. The liberal nature of Kerry will be exacerbated and exposed by the huge P.R. campaign yet to come from G.W.'s camp. So when the mud starts flinging, I see that swing vote voting for the lesser of the two evils. Which is G.W. by far.

 

I agree. The President's main concern should be with foreign policy and defense. But, I also believe that it's the President's job to cajole Congress into shrinking the size and scope of the Federal Gov't and I've yet to see any President do that since Reagan.
Last night on the news, there was a story about Killington,VT wanting to become part of NH because Dean was killing them with taxes. They were getting back ~10% of what the area put into the State's coffers. They said that by becoming part of NH, their taxes would drop and they'd be more on par with what is put back into the area from the State. This was the first time that I ever heard of a city wanting to secede from a state. Leave it up to Howard Dean to set a precedence like that.

 

Yesterday I was watching the national news when they announced that George Bush was getting ready to unleash his $100,000,000 re-election campaign and I was thinking, "What's wrong with this picture". He has the most "visible" occupation in the world and after 3.5 years of well documented performance, if the country was happy with him, he shouldn't have to spend a nickel to get re-elected.
I would also like to make 2 points regarding previous posts:
1) I keep hearing Republicans criticizing NAFTA; why doesn't this Republican President or this Republican Congress repeal NAFTA if everyone is against it?

2) The President has a lot to do with our economic policies. Whether or not that was the original intention of our forefathers is irrelevant. They collect, spend, and allocate our tax money which has a huge impact on our economic well being. Also, political interventions like Iraq have a major impact on our economy from the outright costs to the psychological effect they can have on consumer spending. Finally, policies like NAFTA, or the trade agreements we make with countries like China all originate in Washington. Like it or not, the decisions they make, or don't make, have profound effects on our economy.

 

If we follow that logic I guess that means the Dems shouldn't have to spend any money to defeat Bush if people aren't happy with his performance, right? Tell that to George Soros and Moveon.org.
1) What Reps. have you heard decry NAFTA? I merely point out Kerrys hypocricy in supporting NAFTA , then blaming Bush for the loss of American jobs. As usual he wants to have it both ways.
2) The President has no Constitutional authority to collect or spend one dime of our taxes that authority is reserved to congress alone. -Jack