This oughta be fun.
...again, if you were anywhere in the US anytime in the past few years, or you read this thread, you should understand that Bush spent a ****load of money on the war. GET IT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Yet you used the deficit problem in your arguments to defend Bush:
The war was voted on and authorized, thus it's a non-issue. Hindsight is not only 20/20, but it's irrelevant. If, as a voter, your concern is the deficit, neither Bush nor Kerry will disspell your fears. The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that is in favor of balanced budgets, estimates that when all is said and done, both Bush and Kerry's economic plans will raise the deficit by over one trillion dollars by 2014, when their respective tax plans would reach fruition. Neither candidates plan is significantly better than the other.
The point is that Bush will put us further and further into debt more than Kerry will if he is elected. That IS pretty simple. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I hope so, I wouldn't want you posting more nonsense because you can't understand that what you are saying.
No one knows this. In Kerry's 10 year plan for the economy, he has $650 billion allotted to health plans, and $207 billion allotted to education, among other things. Some estimates say he would put us in debt over $1 trillion more than Bush, others say the complete opposite. We can't predict the future. What we can do is make assumptions based on their respective plans. Kerry's budget plan is set in stone - no matter what happens with the economy, his figures will remain constant. Bush's plan is partly based on economic growth, meaning his deficit reduction plan has the potential to be lower. Whether it actually would be, I don't really think so....just about every article I've read on the issue says that their deficit plans will be about equal. Again, back to my original point - if you truly want to reduce the deficit, government spending is not the way to go, and I would say nearly $1 trillion already devoted to specific plans would count as government spending.
There are plenty of tax cuts for them elsewhere. There are many loopholes and allies in congress that let businesses pay vastly lower taxes than they should. Don't pretend it isn't a problem.
I never said it wasn't problem. I said there are good aspects of it, which you seem to deny.
I was speaking generally here. Speaking generally means that you refer to something in a broad sense, and in this case, I refer to anything George Bush is being a stubborn *** on. If the president is wrong, he needs to stop doing what is wrong and fix it, not continue to do it because he thought that it was right at one time.
Then what's the point of even saying it, aside from filling up the empty void in your sense of ego? We are having a discussion here about issues, not intangibles.
This is supposed to make you understand the situation or see the situation from the world's viewpoint.
Which I did. Your point?
Also, Iraq was in no way, shape or form a threat to us.
You can't be serious, everyone who had any say in anything, and the majority of those who didn't, believed Iraq was a threat, independent of their party. During procedural inspections, the UN found SCUD missiles, chemical weapons, and biological warheads buried in sand dunes. Not a threat? Hell, even the man you will be voting for thought so. From congressional record:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
"While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is time for a resolve."
Bill Clinton thought so:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tommorrow."
Al Gore thought so:
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
John Edwards thought so:
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
Would you like me to continue?
He would have been destroyed if he had tried to attack us. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. Period. Argue that, please.
1) Would you want to take the risk of waiting for him to attack us before you made a decision?
2) No, there weren't (yet, however, who knows what is buried underground or has been shipped off to Syria). However, all intelligence reports stated that the possibility of WMD's being there was very real, as evidenced by the quotes above. Given the track record, how could you
not take the threat seriously? I'm not sure what point you are you trying to make.
I'd continue, but I'm losing my mind addressing your assinine arguments.
