Another Day Another Position

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Another Day Another Position
30
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 7:08pm

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:05pm
Yes, a tax increase WAS a part of the original resolution. How can you possibly hope to finance a war WITHOUT increasing taxes???? I can't recall any president cutting taxes in wartime, it makes no sense! If our country wants to go to war, we should be willing to foot the bill ourselves, that's called fiscal responsibility----- I thought that was one tenet that conservatives held near and dear! That is the resolution that passed thru Congress, and Kerry voted for. Mr. Bush had it modified during the joint resolution, to drop the tax increase, and that's the version that Kerry voted "nay" on. Because Mr. Bush had the SWELL idea of borrowing money from the Chinese!!!!! Hey, great idea, let's be in debt to a giant COMMUNIST country........well, that IS good thinking! Now this debt will be on the shoulders of our children......I have two, how about you?

Oh no, wait, I forgot, Communism was eliminated by Ronald Reagan........ooops, wrong again..... ;-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:13pm
And yet he said what, two, three weeks ago, that he would have voted the same for sending troops into Iraq even knowing what we know now. Once again he's trying to have it both ways, criticizing the decision to go into Iraq while defending his vote to do so.

The man has the consistency of quicksand.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:21pm
Three weeks ago he said he would have voted the same, to go into Iraq even knowing what we believe we know about about the situation there. He knew at the time that Bush planned to go in with force, so his vote to approve the authorization of force was an approval to go into Iraq. And yet now he claims that it was the wrong war in the wrong place. If that's the case, why does he still say he would do the same thing all over again? The only qualifier I've heard him use in regards to Iraq is that he would "do it better than Bush".

The "deal" Kerry approved through his vote was the use of force in Iraq. He approved it then, and claims that he would vote the same again. He helped "make the deal", and is now trying his level best to wiggle out of it while still giving the impression that he stands by his decision.

He can't have it both ways any more than Bush can. That's why I have such a problem with him... even when he's wrong, or screws up, at least Bush stands by his decisions, his convictions. Kerry refuses to do so, instead trying to rationalize his swaying every way possible in even the slightest of political breezes.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:24pm
This explains it pretty well: (but you have to read fast)

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/87billion.wmv

At the end, when it says to ask yourself if the troops have gotten their body armour yet? That would be NO.......

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:31pm
Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, period. There were no solid qualifiers such as "last resort" in the senate document, since the "last resort" means different things to different individuals... it's entirely subjective in nature. And whether there was oversight or not, whether there was or was corresponding tax increases or a cutting back of the tax breaks already in place, he still voted against the funding in question.

People can rationalize it (just like Kerry) all they want, the basic facts of the matter are that...

A: Kerry did vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq;

B: He has stated that he would still vote the same even knowing what we think we know now about the situation in Iraq;

C: He now claims that it was the wrong war in the wrong place which he authorized the use of force in regards to;

D: He voted against the funding necessary in regards to that use of force, after voting to authorize the use of force itself.

Now, that can be twisted and spun all sorts of interesting directions, but at their very base those are the facts of the matters under discussion. He's still Kerry, still telling people what they want to hear in spite of the contradictory nature of his statements.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:38pm

Kerry said that if his bill didn't pass, it would be IRRESPPONSIBLE for any senator to vote against the Republican bill.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=3497.116

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 8:46pm


We are willing to foot the bill, and run the budget at a deficit the same way we have during every other war. The problem w,ith your assertion that we need to raise taxes in order to pay for a war is that historically higher taxes have meant job losses, meaning shrinking tax base, meaning LESS, not MORE revenue. Causing a deeper wartime recession would hardly be fiscally responsible.

< Now this debt will be on the shoulders of our children......I have two, how about you?>

I have three, and people will try to scare me into taking more of my money the same way they tried to scare my parents into taking more of their money-luckily Reagan held the line on taxes and their dire predictions that I would be paying off my parents'deficit proved false, as the normal ebbs and flows of the economy (when not screwed up by the government halting economic growth in its tracks with tax increases) have always taken care of deficits, and always will.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:19pm
I guess I have a problem with your assertion that higher taxes mean job losses. If that were true, how were 20 million or so jobs created under the Clinton administration, when they raised taxes, didn't cut them? And wouldn't large tax CUTS also mean "a shrinking tax base" and "LESS, not more revenue?" And we're not paying for Reagan's deficits because of the financial stewardship of the Clinton years. Clinton had the first balanced budget since LBJ without cutting taxes and throwing us into massive unemployment and deficits. The economy was moving SO fast, interest rates were raised several times, to try to slow it down!

In 1930-31, taxes were brought down to 16% by the Republicans (only on the rich, who were the only ones paying taxes then). Then the Great Depression occurred, the collapse of the economy.....FDR came in and eventually got the tax rate raised to 91%. This is what financed WWII, got people out of soup kitchens, no more phony promises about "a chicken in every pot", etc. So WWII was financed by raising the taxes on the ultra-rich, brought the U.S. out of the Depression and into the financial stability of the 1950s.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 10:15pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 1:16am
All I can tell you is to re-read my post, because you obviously didn't understand it.

Pages