Originally Posted By fkurucz >>This is true. The GOP wants to keep their majorities so they can keep pushing the country in the direction they feel is best for America.<< FWIW, the GOP is very divided on immigration. Bush and the Senate want to continue flooding the labor market with cheap foreign labor. I have never understood how importing poverty is what's best for America. At least Tom Tancredo and most of the House Republicans seem to know better.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Christians are usually Republicans because the GOP comes closest to their values.<< As far as I am concerned the GOP gives lip service to Christian concerns. Many conservative christians are starting to realize this, and only continue to vote GOP because it is the lesser of two evils.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If we had a nuclear attack our country would be devistated. 9-11 when you think about it, was a couple of buildings and airplanes and that alone brought the country to a halt. Since terrorism is happeneing all over the world every day ( India today ), we need to keep attacking the terrorists before they attack us. We need to keep using the programs that bust these people before they can hurt us. We need the NY Times and the people like them to stop undermining our efforts by telling our national secrets to the terrorists and by demanding a terrorist bill of rights. The economy is very good. The deficit has shrunk. How do the " tax the rich " people explain this when they complain about the Bush tax cuts that have worked like a charm as conservatives said they would all along.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << FWIW, the GOP is very divided on immigration. >> Most in the GOP want to secure the border first then deal with the illegals who are here now destroying the country. Bush is not with most conservatives on this issue but seems to be coming around. <<As far as I am concerned the GOP gives lip service to Christian concerns. Many conservative christians are starting to realize this, and only continue to vote GOP because it is the lesser of two evils.>> As long as Democrats are outright hostile towards Christians as is the case so often with them, Christians will be in the GOP where their values are respected and acted on. It's funny to see the Demcrats act religious to get some votes back. You have to live it not just talk it come election time. The American public understands this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The $300 billion projected deficit does not include military spending in iraq. So it's even higher than it appears. And yet bush actually stood in front of a microphone to boast about the $300 billion deficit (actually closer to half a trillion - just for twelve months). This is a GOP accomplishment? The deficit had been eliminated during clinton's term. Bush is also firing up the old SSI privatization plan. Good - every time he speaks about it the greater the rejection by the public. This administration continues to pretend that it enjoys the support and good will of the american people. We're asked to trust them on any number of matters. We're also expected to conveniently forget about the appalling incompetence and cronyism that has been their hallmark - both in iraq and at home. The best I can figure is that they're playing to the hardcore twenty-something percent base that still supports them, and everybody else is just irrelevant. >> The deficit has been shrunk due to all the revenue that is coming in from the tax cuts and the booming economy. << What a fun quote. All that revenue coming in from the - tax CUTS. This only makes sense to republicans.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<What a fun quote. All that revenue coming in from the - tax CUTS. This only makes sense to republicans.>> Gadzuux, the deficit has shrunk and the governemnt is getting much more tax revenue than they ever expected. Why? Because the "rich" and people like you and me are spending their money and creating jobs for all of us. Supply side economics always works when you let the people keep their money so they can let capitalism work it's magic.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>As long as Democrats are outright hostile towards Christians as is the case so often with them, Christians will be in the GOP where their values are respected and ****acted on.*****<< I disagree with the "acted on" statement. The GOP has not delivered the goods. As far as I am concerened the left has continued to make progress in forwarding its social agenda.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The economy is very good. The deficit has shrunk. How do the " tax the rich " people explain this when they complain about the Bush tax cuts that have worked like a charm as conservatives said they would all along.> How? Easy. They HAVEN'T really worked like the conservatives have said "all along." (This is from the AP. I found it on aol, but the link won't work if you're not an aol member): "Even before the release of the figures, critics poked at the White House figures, citing, for example, how they are at odds from Bush's original budget released in 2001, which predicted a $305 billion surplus for the current year, even after accounting for tax cuts. Some budget experts say the steep rise in tax receipts looks more impressive than it really is since revenues are bouncing back from a three-year decline during Bush's first term, drops not seen since the Great Depression. "The current so-called revenue surge is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank. That's after accounting for inflation and population growth." So Bush predicted a 300B surplus, we actually have a 300B deficit, and he's actually touting it. And some people are actually buying it! Plus, if gadzuux is right, the 300B deficit doesn't even include the huge spending on Iraq. So they're not even being honest about it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Most in the GOP want to secure the border first then deal with the illegals who are here now destroying the country. Bush is not with most conservatives on this issue but seems to be coming around.<< You mean he's being dragged kicking and screaming into the secure the border crowd. Ditto with most of the Senate. But they haven't given up on their amnesty programs and unlimited (no quotas) visa dreams. And Tom Tancredo is still persona non grata at the White House.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>If we had a nuclear attack our country would be devistated.<< Here I agree with you. Unfortunately, with our current open borders policy, its only a question of time before something really bad happens.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The deficit has not shrunk. It has gone from nil to half a trillion dollars. You're putting too much faith in GOP math - they lie to you. All the time. About everything. Don't believe the hype.
Originally Posted By barboy Unfortunately, the answer to the original question is a resounding "NO". When the real attack comes we had better do more than just stick miniature US flags on our cars and drive around as if we have unlimited oil resources. As horrific as 911 was I'm afraid that was just the hors doeuvres and the main course has yet to be served.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I notice that nobody is actually coming out and declaring their cards on this. What's being called for (by some) are atrocities against civilians - all in the name of a "get tough" policy that would actually just make the problem worse. The problem is that our military is currently structured to invade countries and defeat armies. That doesn't help much against fanatical muslim extremists. You hear a lot about the "war on terror" but they're awfully short of specifics. Mostly it means battling insurgents in iraq. Their also used to be a separate team that was specifically hunting for bin laden. But the bush administration recently disbanded it - they're not even trying anymore. But we're never going to win hearts and minds while we're killing civilians, or participating in crimes of humanity. If our actions in iraq are ineffective now, I can't imagine being even more brutish is going to improve our safety.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Some budget experts say the steep rise in tax receipts looks more impressive than it really is since revenues are bouncing back from a three-year decline during Bush's first term, drops not seen since the Great Depression.>> Who are these " experts "? Liberals like Paul Krugman of the NY Times. If the person you quoted Dabob doesn't bother telling us that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and that something called 9-11 happened to the economy he is not going to be taken very serious. I will put my trust in a guy like Lawrence Kudlow anyday over some doom and gloom liberal who had never got it right regarding the economy. -- Eating Crow Back in the spring of 2003, shortly before President Bush signed tax cuts into law and unleashed this remarkable economic boom, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had this to say: “None of these tax cuts is affordable. None of them creates jobs, and they are not fair. All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth and contribute to the national deficit.†Huh? Mrs. Pelosi could not have been further off the mark if she tried. Let’s break down that ridiculous statement. “None of them creates jobs…†Actually, since the passage of Bush’s tax cuts, over 5 million jobs have been created in the U.S. Unemployment dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.6 percent. Simply put, Americans are working. “All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth…†Wrong. The economy has grown at a 4.0 percent annualized rate, way above historical averages. $13 trillion of new wealth has been created during this time. “All of them…contribute to the national deficit.†Wrong again. Amid a surge in tax collections, the Bush administration cut its estimate of this year's budget deficit today by 30 percent to $296 billion. The projected shortfall is down from the $423 billion deficit the White House forecast five months ago and represents 2.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to the OMB. Government revenue has risen 13 percent so far this year, driven by higher than expected tax receipts as the economy grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter, the fastest in almost three years (when the tax cuts were introduced). Individual tax receipts were almost $60 billion higher than expected because of the rise in personal income. Corporate tax receipts were over $50 billion higher than expected. Despite stubborn naysayers like Mrs. Pelosi, the pro-growth, supply-side tax cut formula is a winner. It has been proven right, yet again. The numbers tell it all. American workers thrive and businesses flourish when they’re able to keep more of their income. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was absolutely right in his confirmation hearings, low taxes really do change behavior. And, as the New York Sun pointed out yesterday, “It’s official – Arthur Laffer wins.†Perhaps now, after analyzing the overwhelming evidence against them, Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the high-tax aficionados will finally see the light. <a href="http://www.kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kudlowsmoneypolitic s.blogspot.com/</a> I won’t hold my breath.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<But we're never going to win hearts and minds while we're killing civilians, or participating in crimes of humanity. If our actions in iraq are ineffective now, I can't imagine being even more brutish is going to improve our safety.>> We need to kill them Gadzuux, simple as that. We can win hearts and minds later. Can you tell me what the left brings to the table regarding terrorism that is striking all over the world? Is America somehow responsible for the attack in India? I'm sure the left can make that reach somehow.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> We need to kill them Gadzuux, simple as that. We can win hearts and minds later. << After we kill them? Good plan. >> Is America somehow responsible for the attack in India? I'm sure the left can make that reach somehow. << Is america doing anything in repsonse to it? Not really - a couple of speeches and some sympathy. But I'm sure the right will make the reach to say that our actions in iraq are helping the victims in india. When bush talks about the "global war on terror"? He means iraq.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<When bush talks about the "global war on terror"? He means iraq.>> No, he means the entire planet. Terror attacks are happening all over the planet gadzuux. I know that doesn't help the liberals who want to blame America for the current terror problem, but the fact is that Islamic facists are the cause along with their religion, not us. The only thing that can stop these animals, you know, the guys who put a video out today showing our soldiers being slaughtered, is to kill them and not take them prisioner. I guess it's going to take a few hits at home to get some people to understand the reality of the situation. As long as certain people hate Bush more than they hate the terrorists, and we know who these people are, then they will never get any support or win any elections.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Terror attacks are happening all over the planet gadzuux. << Yeah - and we're battling insurgents in iraq. And n-o-t-h-i-n-g else. That's bush's "global war on terror". Do you suppose that the iraqi insurgents had something to do with the india train bombings? Or will killing just any old islamic fascists satisfy you?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>“None of them creates jobs…†Actually, since the passage of Bush’s tax cuts, over 5 million jobs have been created in the U.S. Unemployment dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.6 percent. Simply put, Americans are working.<< FWIW, we need to create 2-3 million jobs a year just to absorb new entrants to the work force. We have been creatig them at only half that pace, and the bulk of the new jobs are low paying and are being taken by illegal immigrants (as Ed Rubenstein has carefully documented using Dept. of Labor data). Here in Colorado there are still fewer jobs that pay more than 40K than there were in 2000. We only just caught up with total Colorado 2000 employment last year. To be fair, job growth in Colorado has trailed the national average since 2000, but even our national numbers are way below historical averages.
