Us presidential election 2004

[Bernadotte 0]

Not to mention the insane amount of nitpicking, "shove it" or "fuck off" gets covered way too much, hell, one of our previous presidents called openly certain people "goddamn fuckups" and held his office for over 20 years.

The media cannot sell there soap and detergent without pretending that people are bothered by such language, even though it is completely untrue.

Example:  In 1971, Canada's PM Trudeau told an opposition MP to "Fuck Off" during a parliamentary session.  With a wry grin, Trudeau claimed to have said "Fuddle Duddle".  Trudeau continued to lead Canada for another 12 years and will alway be remembered as one of the nation's greatest Prime Ministers.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]OK.  Placebo has PM'd us with his blessings.  The wager is on.  

Edit:  Btw, this only applies to Bush vs Kerry.  Naturally if one of the candidates stops running for the presidency then the wager is off.

ok..

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Says Kerry Will Raise Taxes $900 Billion; Kerry Says That's False

Attack ad revives question of whether Kerry's numbers add up.

March 11, 2004

Modified: March 12, 2004

Summary

In its first attack ad to hit the airwaves, the Bush campaign accuses Kerry of proposing to raise taxes by $900 billion. Kerry denies that. And Bush's ad fails to mention that Kerry's "new government spending" would provide health insurance to more than 26 million who don't have it now.  

But Kerry's ambitious health-care plan that would indeed cost an estimated $895 billion over 10 years. And Kerry has also promised to cut the current $500-billion federal deficit in half. Can he pay for all that while raising taxes only for the wealthy? Those numbers don't quite add.

Analysis

Bush unveiled an ad March 11 that claims Kerry plans to pay for "new government spending" by raising taxes $900 billion. The Kerry campaign calls that number "completely false." Neither side is exactly right. We'll try to put this in context.

Bush Spin

Naturally enough, Bush's ad leaves out that the "new government spending" it mentions would benefit millions of Americans who lack health insurance. According to a study  by Emory University professor Kenneth Thorpe, which the Bush campaign's own background material cites as a credible authority, Kerry's plan would provide coverage for 26.7 million ( ) who currently have no coverage.

The ad also goes too far when it says "Kerry's plan" is to raise taxes by at least $900 billion. Kerry has never endorsed such a figure, and his campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter issued a statement accusing the Bush campaign of using "weapons of deception and distortion" and saying "The $900 billion ad is completely false."

Well, maybe not completely.

Kerry Spin

Kerry himself issued a statement (see below) in which he didn't address the $900 billion figure directly. Instead he said, "What's most interesting about this ad is what's not in it." But the same can be said of Kerry's tax proposals, which leave out many specifics.

The Bush campaign -- in backup material issued to reporters -- argued that Kerry's health-care plan and other promised spending proposals are so expensive that only a $900-billion tax increase over 10 years will pay for them while still allowing Kerry to cut the deficit by half, as he has also promised to do.

And in fact, several news organizations have said that Kerry is overpromising, most recently a Washington Post story Feb 29. The Post said Kerry is proposing to spend at least $165 billion more on new programs in the next four years than his tax plan would pay for. Kerry disputed that, saying the Post failed to account for his plan to save $139 billion by repealing Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit, and overestimated what Kerry planned to spend -- temporarily, he said -- to stimulate the economy.

But Kerry hasn't yet shown in detail how he would close the gap between his spending promises and his somewhat vague promise to repeal portions of Bush's tax cuts.

Kerry's health-care plan alone would cost $895 billion over 10 years, according to the Thorpe study , which Kerry has accepted. And it's not clear how that would be paid for.

Kerry would not repeal the entire Bush tax cut; he's said he would preserve increases in the per-child tax credit, tax breaks for married couples, and lowered rates at the bottom of the income scale. He also speaks generally about raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. But a look at some calculations  made recently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center suggests strongly that raising taxes only on individuals in that category wouldn't produce nearly enough to pay for Kerry's health plan, let alone reducing the deficit.

For example, restoring the top two marginal tax rates to what they were before the Bush cuts would produce only $224 billion over the next 10 years. And even that would hit some people making less than $200,000. The top two rates  currently affect those making $174,700 or more in taxable income for a married couple filing jointly, or $143,500 for a single taxpayer. Those income brackets would be somewhat higher in years to come, as they are adjusted each year for inflation.

John Kerry's Response:

(The full text of Kerry's response as issued by his campaign)

“After losing nearly 3 million jobs, watching health care costs rise out of control, turning record surpluses into record deficits, and breaking his own promises on everything from improving schools to making America secure, this President has now decided to launch a negative advertising campaign against me.  What’s most interesting about this new ad is what’s not in it.  This President can’t talk about his positive vision for America, because at each turn he has put this nation on the wrong track.  It’s time he pays attention to that old saying, when you’ve dug yourself into a ditch, stop digging.  I am running for President because I want to change the direction of this country.  If I’m elected, we’ll create new and better jobs, lower the cost of health care, and get Bush’s runaway deficits under control.  What you’re seeing is the last gasp of air from the failed Bush Administration that has no record to run on and nothing but more of the same failed policies to offer the American people.â€

Kerry might also recoup some additional billions by restoring the estate tax and reversing the new, lower rates on capital gains and dividends. But still, accepting the Kerry campaign's statement that there's no plan to raise taxes by $900 billion, voters are left to wonder where the money to pay for Kerry's health plan would come from.

Pressed on that point, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told FactCheck.org: "John's not the president yet. When he becomes the president he'll send up a whole budget." Meanwhile, Meehan said, "We're not going to get into the back and forth on that." He also said that the Thorpe analysis "doesn't take into account any savings," but Meehan would not be specific about what kind of savings he meant.

    I love that site...Kerry-lovers visit that site to get some Bush dirt, too

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]OK.  Placebo has PM'd us with his blessings.  The wager is on.  

Edit:  Btw, this only applies to Bush vs Kerry.  Naturally if one of the candidates stops running for the presidency then the wager is off.

ok..

and eitherway, I get to take 200 post coutns from both of you.

edit: kinda shows that you are Bush lover. you highlighted all the things that could be used against Kerry, but not the ones agaisnt Bush.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]and eitherway, I get to take 200 post coutns from both of you.

.....    

Quote[/b] ]edit: kinda shows that you are Bush lover. you highlighted all the things that could be used against Kerry, but not the ones agaisnt Bush.

Why would I get info. from a website that also critize the fearless leader. I'm trying to make this thread a "fair and balanced" one... this thread should not be Kerry, future presient, thread 2004

[ralphwiggum 6]

about the health plans. last year,

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Friday the news that his Medicare overhaul would cost significantly more than expected would require lawmakers to be careful with spending.

The Congressional Budget Office had estimated the Medicare legislation would cost $400 billion over 10 years, but this week the Office of Management and Budget put the figure at $535 billion

kinda funny that the recent(last year ) pass of Medicare Bill would cost about 400-535 billion in 10 yrs. i fail to see how Bush campaign can claim Kerry is going to incur 900 billion figure, when there is 400 billion he incurred by this bill. Furthermore, the bill was a work of compromise that will cause problem.

Quote[/b] ]Why would I get info. from a website that also critize the fearless leader. I'm trying to make this thread a "fair and balanced" one... this thread should not be Kerry, future presient, thread 2004

ROFL!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]kinda funny that the recent(last year ) pass of Medicare Bill would cost about 400-535 billion in 10 yrs. i fail to see how Bush campaign can claim Kerry is going to incur 900 billion figure, when there is 400 billion he incurred by this bill. Furthermore, the bill was a work of compromise that will cause problem.

Kerry's bill is estimated to be $895 billion over 10 years. Kerry will have a harder time paying for that tab.

[bn880 5]

If the tax refund for the top 1% or was it the top 10% is removed (the one introduced by Bush) it will pay for over 800Billion of that over the 10 years.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the tax refund for the top 1% or was it the top 10% is removed (the one introduced by Bush) it will pay for over 800Billion of that over the 10 years.

Let me correct myself:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_dem_platform.cfm

Quote[/b] ]

Democratic Platform Offers Shades of Old and New

Author: Caroline Baum

Published: July 27, 2004

As the Democrats gather in Boston this week to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as their standard bearer, the party is united against incumbent President George W. Bush even as it's divided on the issue of who or what it wants to be.

Will it be the Old tax-and-spend-and-the-deficit-be-damned Democrats who dominate the week's events at Boston's FleetCenter? Or will it be the New tax-and-spend-and-cut-the-deficit Democrats who are in charge?

It looks to be a little bit of both: Democrats acting old and posturing new.

``Kerry has a three-part fiscal program,'' said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. ``Part one is to increase spending. Part two is to raise taxes. Part three is to assume the stance of a Democratic deficit hawk.''

The problem is, parts one and two don't add up to part three, Hassett said. Depending on whether the Bush tax cuts are extended or allowed to expire by 2010, Kerry ``will raise the national debt by $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years'' as spending on programs for health care and education far exceeds revenues from raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year, Hassett said.

Fuzzy Math

Hassett relied on the calculations of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington for the price tag on Kerry's tax proposals and on the National Taxpayers Union Foundation for estimates on spending proposals.

If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2010 as they're scheduled to under present law, Kerry's proposals would reduce federal revenue by $602 billion over the 2005-2014 budget horizon, according to updated Tax Policy Center calculations.

If the cuts are extended, as the president has asked, Kerry's tax proposals -- including a repeal of the tax cut on upper-income households, a permanent tax cut for the middle class and a refundable tax-credit for higher education -- would raise $544 billion in revenue over the next 10 years, according to the TPC.

The Bush/Cheney campaign tallied up the campaign proposals Kerry has said he'd pay for with the repeal of the tax cuts -- 21 proposals totaling $1.5 trillion -- and found some fuzzy math. According to the most optimistic independent estimates, the tax- cut repeal will yield $800 billion to $900 billion over 10 years.

If the repeal of the tax cut won't cover 21 of the total 117 campaign proposals, how does Kerry plan to pay for the rest?

Mo' `Rights'

Kerry wants to reinstitute the pay-as-you-go rules, wherein every spending increase must be offset with a cut in some other program, every tax cut countered with a tax increase somewhere else in the budget. Health care spending, which is estimated to cost $653 billion over 10 years, would be excluded from the pay- go rules. Kerry won't be able to pay for this new spending and cut the deficit in half in four years -- all on the backs of the wealthy.

Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards from North Carolina, want ``to make affordable health care a right -- not a privilege -- for every American,'' according to Kerry's Web site.

Creating rights is certainly Old Democrat. Natural or universal rights -- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- can be exercised by all of us at any given time without impinging on the rights of others. To the extent that a so-called right imposes a burden on someone else, it can't be a right.

Minimum Sense

Affordable health care may be a worthy goal and a thorny issue because of the aging population, but it isn't a right.

Signs of Kerry's relapse to an Old Democrat can be found in his support for the proposal to raise the national minimum wage from its current $5.15 an hour to $7.00.

I'm embarrassed for those making arguments in favor of an increase in the minimum wage without any mention of the cost.

If raising the minimum wage were costless, surely someone would have proposed raising it to $100 an hour by now and make everyone rich.

In a market economy, the demand for labor meets the supply of labor at some equilibrium price, or in this case, wage. When the government artificially imposes a floor on the price businesses can pay for unskilled labor, the folks at the bottom of the food chain, it's good news for those who keep their jobs. It's not so good for the ones who get fired.

Unintended Consequences

The local McDonald's may have a dozen folks flipping hamburgers and dunking fries in oil at $5.15 an hour. But if the government mandates the flippers and dunkers be paid $7 an hour, MacDonald's will retain perhaps eight of those employees and fire four.

Asked in Congressional testimony last week for his view on the minimum wage, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said it ``increases unemployment and, indeed, prevents people who are at the early stages of their careers -- it prevents them from getting a foothold in the ladder of promotions. And the evidence does suggest that it tends to be more counterproductive than not.''

Back to the convention. Kerry has an edge over Bush in the opinion polls, and it may not matter what goes on in Boston with the party platform, convention speeches or behind-the-scenes negotiations.

Still, for an electorate whose resentment toward Bush seems to be encapsulated by the words, ``he lied,'' it's important to listen to Kerry and ascertain what kind of Democrat he'd be if elected president.

Big Spender

Kerry's tax proposals would increase the deficit by less than Bush's, according to the Tax Policy Center. When it comes to spending, however, ``Senator Kerry's non-tax proposals would likely have a more adverse effect on the deficit than the president's,'' said Leonard Burman, co-director of the TPC.

Being designated a potential bigger spender than Bush is no mean feat. It's enough to make a New Democrat blush.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000634_KerryPlan.pdf

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]kinda funny that the recent(last year ) pass of Medicare Bill would cost about 400-535 billion in 10 yrs. i fail to see how Bush campaign can claim Kerry is going to incur 900 billion figure, when there is 400 billion he incurred by this bill. Furthermore, the bill was a work of compromise that will cause problem.

Kerry's bill is estimated to be $895 billion over 10 years. Kerry will have a harder time paying for that tab.

at least there is a chance that it will work better than the current Medicare Bill which is a fiasco waiting to happen. that's 400bill wasted. if that bill did not pass, there could have been 400 bill for some thing that could be better.

and thanx to good old system of compromise, Kerry's plan would go through some serious fiscal excercise before getting approved. so the actual amount will be less than 900 billion as claimed.

[ralphwiggum 6]

kinda funny how hard it is to find 10yr estimate of what Bush's tax cut will cost.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/pf/taxes/q_taxchanges/

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - As expected, President Bush on Tuesday proposed an accelerated reduction of income tax rates and the elimination of taxes on dividends for individual investors. His proposals were the centerpiece of an economic stimulus plan that the White House estimates will cost $674 billion over 10 years.

so 674 billion dollars that could have been better used such as paying for part of the deficit which incidently today reported at 445 billion.

[Placebo 29]

Clinton left behind a $5.6 trillion surplus, why don't they use that?........

[ralphwiggum 6]

Clinton left behind a $5.6 trillion surplus, why don't they use that?........

note: projected surplus

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Clinton left behind a $5.6 trillion surplus, why don't they use that?........

I think you got that confused with the national debt because in 2000 (clinton was president) it was 5.7 trillion..

Edit: updated older post...

[walker 0]

Clinton left behind a $5.6 trillion surplus, why don't they use that?........

Hi placebo

George Bush Jnr. spent it on tax cuts to Enron and his buddies Or gave it out in Corporate social security payments like the No Bid Contract for Halliburton.

Since then he has run up a record breaking Credit Card bill he call the Defecit. Which he says is OK cause debt dont matter US citizens in fear of mortgage reposesions might disagree.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi placebo

George Bush Jnr. spent it on tax cuts to Enron and his buddiesOr gave it out in Corporate social security payments like the No Bid Contract for Halliburton.

Since then he has run up a record breaking Credit Card bill he call the Defecit. Which he says is OK cause debt dont matter US citizens in fear of mortgage reposesions might disagree.

Kind Regards Walker

9/11; tax cuts to all americans; war on terror; pork (both sides of the aisle); and etc.

[bn880 5]

Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, Iraq war etc.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.issues/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- After keeping a low profile during the Democratic National Convention, President Bush returns to the campaign trail Friday morning to unveil broad themes of his agenda for the next four years at stops in three crucial battleground states.

Friday's events kick off a monthlong push by the Bush campaign leading up to the Republican National Convention in New York.

Nicolle Devenish, the Bush campaign's communications director, said the president will deliver a retooled stump speech during stops in Missouri, Michigan and Ohio that will pivot away from tough rhetoric against Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry and focus more on "laying out a vision" for the next four years.

"Strategically, it is an important month for us," said Devenish, who said this has been a long-planned strategy.

"We started the campaign by talking about what the country has been through, the war on terror and the economy, and now we'll talk about the vision for the next four years and the difference in visions for the future."

Bush's new refrain during this time will be "we've turned a corner, and we're not turning back," Devenish said.

read: doesn't matter if we hit a dead end or gravel road.

this man is truly a man. doesn't ask for directions when turning a corner!

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Clinton left behind a $5.6 trillion surplus, why don't they use that?........

Well Bush had to give tax cuts to the rich, help out enron and haliburton, hire private contracting "mercenary" firms to help fight his war since we don't have enough uniformed troops to do the job, pay for his futile "please re-elect my lying ass campaign" yada yada yada. But a trillion is an awful lot of a surplus someone needs to look into that

[Bernadotte 0]

Of all the speeches I heard at the Dem Convention, the best was by Bill Clinton.  And the following excerpt was the most substantial:

Quote[/b] ]At home, the president and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices, which they also deeply believe in.  For the first time when America was in a war footing in our whole history, they gave two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent of us.  Now, I'm in that group for the first time in my life.  And you might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me.  But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress. I almost sent them a thank you note for my tax cuts until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it. And then I thought better of it.

Now look at the choices they made, choices they believed in. They chose to protect my tax cut at all costs while withholding promised funding to the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving 2.1 million children behind.  They chose to protect my tax cut, while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their after-school programs when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school, learning, going to college and having a good life.  They chose - they chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising the out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests.  Now, in this time, everyone in America had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans. And most of us, almost all of us, from Republicans to independents and Democrats, we wanted to be asked to do our part, too. But all they asked us to do was to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. Now, if you like these choices and you agree with them, you should vote to return them to the White House and the Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats. We've got a different economic policy.

In this year's budget, the White House this year wants to cut off all the federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police officers under the COPS program we've had for 10 years. Among those 88,000 police are more than 700 members of the New York Police Department who put their lives on the line on 9/11.  With gang violence rising, and with all of us looking for terrorists in our midst and hoping they're not too well armed or too dangerous, the president and the Congress are about to allow the 10- year-old ban on deadly assault weapons to lapse.  Now, they believe it's the right thing to do. But our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street. And it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence. Their policy is the reverse. They're taking police off the streets while they put assault weapons back on the street.  Now, if you agree with that choice, by all means, vote to keep them in office. But if you don't, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter and stronger again.  

On homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It cost $1 billion. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all 200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300 million Americans safer.  The measure failed. Why? Because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our ports and airports.  If you agree with that, by all means, re-elect them. If not, John Kerry and John Edwards are your team for the future.

These policies have turned a projected $5.8 trillion surplus that we left, enough to pay for the baby boomer retirement, into a projected debt of almost $5 trillion, with over $400 billion in deficit this year and for years to come.  Now, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough.  So then they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and the Japanese government.  Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on.  So if you think - if you believe it is good policy - if you believe it is good policy to pay for my tax cuts with the Social Security checks of working men and women and borrowed money from China and Japan, you should vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Of all the speeches I heard at the Dem Convention, the best was by Bill Clinton. And the following excerpt was the most substantial:

Quote[/b] ]At home, the president and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices, which they also deeply believe in. For the first time when America was in a war footing in our whole history, they gave two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent of us. Now, I'm in that group for the first time in my life. And you might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me. But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress. I almost sent them a thank you note for my tax cuts until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it. And then I thought better of it.

Now look at the choices they made, choices they believed in. They chose to protect my tax cut at all costs while withholding promised funding to the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving 2.1 million children behind. They chose to protect my tax cut, while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their after-school programs when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school, learning, going to college and having a good life. They chose - they chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising the out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests. Now, in this time, everyone in America had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans. And most of us, almost all of us, from Republicans to independents and Democrats, we wanted to be asked to do our part, too. But all they asked us to do was to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. Now, if you like these choices and you agree with them, you should vote to return them to the White House and the Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats. We've got a different economic policy.

In this year's budget, the White House this year wants to cut off all the federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police officers under the COPS program we've had for 10 years. Among those 88,000 police are more than 700 members of the New York Police Department who put their lives on the line on 9/11. With gang violence rising, and with all of us looking for terrorists in our midst and hoping they're not too well armed or too dangerous, the president and the Congress are about to allow the 10- year-old ban on deadly assault weapons to lapse. Now, they believe it's the right thing to do. But our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street. And it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence. Their policy is the reverse. They're taking police off the streets while they put assault weapons back on the street. Now, if you agree with that choice, by all means, vote to keep them in office. But if you don't, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter and stronger again.

On homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It cost $1 billion. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all 200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300 million Americans safer. The measure failed. Why? Because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our ports and airports. If you agree with that, by all means, re-elect them. If not, John Kerry and John Edwards are your team for the future.

These policies have turned a projected $5.8 trillion surplus that we left, enough to pay for the baby boomer retirement, into a projected debt of almost $5 trillion, with over $400 billion in deficit this year and for years to come. Now, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough. So then they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and the Japanese government. Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on. So if you think - if you believe it is good policy - if you believe it is good policy to pay for my tax cuts with the Social Security checks of working men and women and borrowed money from China and Japan, you should vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

very true, his speech was very powerful...I like how he said him, cheney and dumbass (whoops I mean bush) had the option to go to war and serve their country and didn't while Kerry chose to and became a hero in the process. I also liked how he included himself in the top percent of those people who actually got a tax cut...makes it so die hard republicans can't be like "oh he's just being political". I can't wait till the debates start I wonder how many times Bush is gonna stumble over his words and mis pronounce words this time around...what a freakin idiot..Kerry is going to eat him alive same with Edwards vs Cheney... I thought the best speeches were Obama's, Clintons and Kerrys..I missed Rev. Sharptons speech but I'm sure he got a couple of good points in...usually does...

[walker 0]

Hi all

For me the best speach of the confernce was that given by Barack Obama.

Here is the text of the speach but I recomend watching it as his power of Oratory was the best I have seen.

http://www.newsday.com/news....adlines

Like many I see him as a future president of the USA he speaks with a power of Oratory I can only compare to the best of Dr. Martin Luther King with shades of Bob Dylan and vintage Clinton thrown in.

Watch it! It requires Real Media.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vot....CD=DEMS the video is in the left Convention events pannel at the bottom.

Or just paste this URL into your RealPlayer

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/c04/c04_dnc072704_obama.rm

If that link dont work go here.

You can see more links to the speach and learn more about Barack Obama on the ObamaBlog

http://www.obamablog.com/index.php

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Of all the speeches I heard at the Dem Convention, the best was by Bill Clinton. And the following excerpt was the most substantial:

I particularly enjoyed Al Sharpton's totally unscripted response to Bush.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Of all the speeches I heard at the Dem Convention, the best was by Bill Clinton. And the following excerpt was the most substantial:

I particularly enjoyed Al Sharpton's totally unscripted response to Bush.

Akira, do you know of a link that has his speak or maybe even video of it?..I really wanted to see it but I missed it...Al Sharptons speeches are usually top notch

[Bernadotte 0]

Rev Al's speech

And the unscripted portion responding to remarks Bush had made in Detroit:

Quote[/b] ]Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African- American voters. And you asked the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.

You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.  That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.  We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey* as far as it would take us.

Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats.

Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.  This vote can't be bargained away.  This vote can't be given away.  Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.

*edit:  For those who may not know, the donkey is the nationally recognised symbol of the Democratic Party.  The elephant is the symbol of the Republicans.

[Pathy 0]

What i saw of Kerry's speech was....."back when i was in nam"........."there in the Mekong delta"..............."In that gunboat patroling that vietnamese river".............