NFB: What is your political party affiliation?

[TimeLord]

NONE !!!!

I am mature enough to not need the FCC[or in Canada/s case CRTC] as to what I can or cant watch or listen to!!

Goverments are usually a lot worse at handling our money than we are so the less they have the better.

The country that got outraged at Janet's boob is the biggest producer of porn on the planet and the SOAPs are way lewder than a little nudity is.

Marriage for me is man / woman , civil unions for gays should be enough and equal to marriage.

Not into guns[Canadian],we settle things with hockey sticks.

All high ranking politicians have been corrupted to some point,be it free travel/junkets/gifts etc .So trust of them.

The last great president was Regan,before that Johnson[he actually got a lot done that he doesn't get credit for].

Abortion is up to the parents,goverment has no business legislating.

Soft drugs are a lot safer than Hard liquor.

U.N. sucks and needs to be reformed[GOOD LUCK].

White collar criminals[TYCO/Worldcom/Enron] should do hard time on chain gangs],,,

The Catholic church has used $100,000,000s of dollars to cover it's A$$ and other body parts to settle law suits against priests,talk about not practicing what you preach.

Organised religion,politics and organised crime=1

Thank you for the rant!!!!!!

[AmericanZ28]

True, people with high incomes can spend the money on something personal, resulting in more job creation due to the higher demand in that particular product. However, the same holds true for people making low incomes. If they are given tax breaks, they too will use that additional money to buy themselves a car, or re-model their house. Now does that not help improve the economy just as well? You can argue that it may not help in the degree that a high income tax cut will as they get more back, and in turn, spend more, but dont forget, the low income people far out number the high. Tax time was always a good time for the dealer where I worked at as they got a lot of business during that time, and as a side note, 98% of the customers were all low to middle income families and the vast majority bought new trucks and SUV's.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FireFinder20
Didn't hear anyone complaing about Donkeys in the mid 90s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6

You can address your thank you letter to George Bush, Sr. or Ronald Reagan.

They say you're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a fact. In 1988, Bush Sr. promised that if elected, he would create 20 million jobs. By the third year of his administration, the U.S. economy had sank into a shallow recession. In 1999, the Clinton Administration had already created over 20 million jobs and achieved remarkably high levels of economic expansion with historically low unemployment and low inflation. On top of that, these jobs were mostly high wage, not low wage, and were full time, not part time.

Can Reagen, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. make this kind of claim? Maybe its time Economics 101 be seriously revised, because although foolproof in theory, its not working in the real world.

Ive seen a lot of people in here give credit to Bush Sr. for Clintons success, and blame Clinton for Bush's not so impresive run as president. These statements clearly contradict one another. You can maybe blame Clinton for Bush's economy glitch, but give credit to Bush Sr for Clintons great economy? Both Clinton and Bush Jr. started with a pretty unstable economy with Clinton not having as good a start as Bush Jr., but unlike Bush Jr. Clinton prospered, and at a much higher rate than Reagen and both Bushs'. I still believe its time to remove the religious right from office, goverment and religion do not go well in hand, and Bush doesnt seem to understand this. Ok, thats enough.. Rant, rant..........

I can see what Ken C means when he says these types of conversations should be avoided

Hey Jeff, have you ever fired an HK-5? I got to fire the fully Auto HK-5 in Vegas, and man, what a rush! I had fired many different semi-auto guns, but never a full auto.

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by AmericanZ28
True, people with high incomes can spend the money on something personal, resulting in more job creation due to the higher demand in that particular product. However, the same holds true for people making low incomes. If they are given tax breaks, they too will use that additional money to buy themselves a car, or re-model their house. Now does that not help improve the economy just as well? You can argue that it may not help in the degree that a high income tax cut will as they get more back, and in turn, spend more, but dont forget, the low income people far out number the high. Tax time was always a good time for the dealer where I worked at as they got a lot of business during that time, and as a side note, 98% of the customers were all low to middle income families and the vast majority bought new trucks and SUV's.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FireFinder20
Didn't hear anyone complaing about Donkeys in the mid 90s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6

You can address your thank you letter to George Bush, Sr. or Ronald Reagan.

They say you're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a fact. In 1988, Bush Sr. promised that if elected, he would create 20 million jobs. By the third year of his administration, the U.S. economy had sank into a shallow recession. In 1999, the Clinton Administration had already created over 20 million jobs and achieved remarkably high levels of economic expansion with historically low unemployment and low inflation. On top of that, these jobs were mostly high wage, not low wage, and were full time, not part time.

Can Reagen, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. make this kind of claim? Maybe its time Economics 101 be seriously revised.

Ive seen a lot of people in here give credit to Bush Sr. for Clintons success, and blame Clinton for Bush's not so impresive run as president. These statements clearly contradict one another. You can maybe blame Clinton for Bush's economy glitch, but give credit to Bush Sr for Clintons great economy? Both Clinton and Bush Jr. started with a pretty unstable economy with Clinton not having as good a start as Bush Jr., but unlike Bush Jr. Clinton prospered, and at a much higher rate than Reagen and both Bushs'. I still believe its time to remove the religeous right from office, goverment and religion do not go well in hand, and Bush doesnt seem to understand this. Ok, thats enough.. Rant, rant..........

I can see what Ken C means when he says these types of conversations should be avoided

Hey Jeff, have you ever fired an HK-5? I got to fire the fully Auto HK-5 in Vegas, and man, what a rush! I had fired many different semi-auto guns, but never a full auto.

First off, you cannot give tax cut to poor people because they dont really pay much in terms of taxes. In many cases, a tax cut would be impossible because many people dont pay any income tax. What are you going to do, stop charging poor people taxes, and give people in the zero bracket a subsidy? That sounds like welfare to me.

Check out this link... the data is from the Congressional Budget off and is kinda old (1999) but things have not changed that much.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

Second... Presidents did not cause the recession, or the boom. The internet revolution caused the boom, and the .com bust along with 9/11 caused the recession. There was no presidential involvement. No credit to Clinton, no blame on Bush. Clinton got lucky, and bush has been cursed, and is trying to do his best by cutting taxes to stimulate growth. The added spending from the Homeland Security Department has helped the economy too, but is causing big defecits.

I think the biggest domestic issue we have today is health care and drugs. Drug companies are ripping us off, and their lobbys are soo powerfull we cant stop them. Malpractice awards are out of hand and doctors are using that as an excuse to overcharge. My insurance policy for my family is $1500 per month. My employer pays 2/3 of it.

If lawsuits were limited, and drug companies prices more reasonable healthcare could be affordable. Then medicare costs would drop too, and the taxpayers would benefit.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by TraceZ


Second... Presidents did not cause the recession, or the boom. The internet revolution caused the boom, and the .com bust along with 9/11 caused the recession. There was no presidential involvement. No credit to Clinton, no blame on Bush. Clinton got lucky, and bush has been cursed, and is trying to do his best by cutting taxes to stimulate growth. The added spending from the Homeland Security Department has helped the economy too, but is causing big defecits.

Exactly. Even if the President does everything to let the free markets work themselves out, there will ALWAYS exist business cycles. Economics 101 is still incredibly sound.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Here is some info about our economy under G-Dub versus Clinton:

The gross domestic product -- the figure for the total output economy -- grew at an 8.2 percent rate in the third quarter of 2003, and at a 4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. The GDP is forecast to grow at a 4.5 percent rate in 2004. As economist J. Edward Carter writes: "For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States." (-According to the Democrats, we're supposed to model ourselves after those countries).

Non-farm productivity -- a crucial indicator of economic efficiency that corresponds over the long term with higher wages and greater national wealth -- grew at a healthy 4.2 percent rate in 2003. During Bush's first three years in office, productivity has been increasing at a 4.1 percent annual rate, the best start to any presidential term in roughly 50 years.

The numbers highlight a booming housing market. The rate of homeownership hit 68.6 percent during the past three months of 2003, an all-time high. Sales for new and existing homes were also at all-time highs last year. Housing starts have jumped 26 percent since 2001, and the 30-year fixed mortgage rate has dropped 20 percent, from 7.06 percent to 5.66 percent.

Manufacturing production has increased 2.3 percent since January 2003. There was a 10 percent increase in equipment and software spending in the fourth quarter of 2004, the third consecutive quarter of strong growth in such investment. In January, retail sales were up a robust 5.8 percent over a year earlier. Profits among companies that are part of the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index increased by 26 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003.

The numbers trumpet a stock market that has recovered from the Clinton era bubble. Since the trough of October 2002, the stock market's value has increased by more than $4 trillion. The market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ has grown roughly 40 percent since October of 2002.

What do the numbers say about those tax cuts that are either irresponsibly large or laughably small, depending on which Democrat is attacking them? Personal tax payments have declined 19 percent since 2001, and disposable income has thus increased 11 percent. In 2004, U.S. households are expected to receive $300 billion more in income-tax refunds than in 2003 (yes, the budget deficit has gone up, but it is economically inconsequential, and Democrats don't have any serious plans for reducing it anyway).

Since reaching a high of 6.3 percent in June 2003, the unemployment rate has dipped to 5.6 percent, lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

The numbers even like George Bush more than Bill Clinton. According to J. Edward Carter's calculation, during the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

[gimp19]

Bush is a complete idiot. The reason we went into recession right when he was elected is because so many people were worried about the future of America with him in charge.

Not even a year after he was in charge my dad lost his job of over 10years. My family is now struggling to get by due to the fact that that idiot is sending all our jobs overseas. Republicains dont pay attention to anything but big corperations
and the rich.

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by gimp19
Bush is a complete idiot. The reason we went into recession right when he was elected is because so many people were worried about the future of America with him in charge.

Of course it was GW's fault that the .com companys over estimated demand, and went bust... and it was him that planned 9/11. the resulting recession was all his fault, and you can justifiably blame GB for your fathers job loss.

Are you serious? The *exact* same thing would had happenned if Gore were to have been in office. Would you be complaining then?

GW had nothing to do with the recession. It is his tax cuts, and the extra spening resulting from 9/11 that are helping our economy recover.

Some people are just hell-bent to hate GW and I dont understand it. Hate is not a good thing to have. The guy is actually doing a good job given the mess that has unfolded in front of him.

Please try to gather facts and think things through a little before judging someone so harshly. and... sorry about your dads job... I wish him the best of luck.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

That's it! Economics needs to be taught as a staple of our education system.

This is too important of a topic for people to be so ignorant about. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and economics...

People need to know that tax cuts stimulate growth, and create jobs. They need to know that the deficit, although it doesn't set a great example for private spending, has very little real-world effect on our daily lives. They need to know that if they want to complain about jobs going overseas, they shouldn't be complaining about the deficit -- because without the deficit, even MORE jobs would be leaving. They need to know that you CANNOT create barriers to entry/exit into markets by forcing corporations to keep jobs in America. And more than ANYTHING, people need to get their facts straight that over the last few years, America has imported 2 to 3 TIMES the number of jobs that it has exported. Yes, you read that right -- more jobs are COMING IN from overseas than are leaving.

Gimp, I am sorry about your father's job, I really am. But to put the blame for that on Bush's shoulders is neither fair, nor correct.

[AmericanZ28]

Originally posted by AmericanZ28
I still believe its time to remove the religious right from office, goverment and religion do not go well in hand, and Bush doesnt seem to understand this. Ok, thats enough.. Rant, rant..........

Does anyone have any comment on this?

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by AmericanZ28
Does anyone have any comment on this?

If you are talking about removing Bush from office BECAUSE he is Christian, then no I don't agree.

If you are suggesting only Atheists or Agnostics should be elected into positions, then no I don't agree.

If you think that the government should not impose religious beliefs, or try to make laws based on religious beliefs, then I definitely agree with you.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by gimp19
Bush is a complete idiot. The reason we went into recession right when he was elected is because so many people were worried about the future of America with him in charge.

Not even a year after he was in charge my dad lost his job of over 10years. My family is now struggling to get by due to the fact that that idiot is sending all our jobs overseas. Republicains dont pay attention to anything but big corperations
and the rich.

The recession started a year before Bush took office. That is a fact that even Clinton admits. I saw an interview with BC on TV. He talks about it. He also talked about how he did not agree with Kerry, Dean and all the rest except Lieberman on the Iraq conflict. I was kind of shocked that he stood up for what is right.

Bush is not sending jobs overseas. Companies are. Bush has nothing to do with it. Here are some facts for you. ~6 million low paying jobs like textiles and IS support have gone over seas since 1/1/2002. About 9 million higher paying jobs have come to the US like car manufacturing and software development. We have netted a GAIN of 3 million jobs in these transfers. Don't listen to the BS that the politicians spew out. Both sides do it. Research the facts.

BTW here is another interesting fact for you. John Kerry is married to the air to Heinz ketchup. They operate I think it was 57 manufacturing plants in total. Over 2/3rds of them are not in the United States. John Kerry talks about bringing jobs back to the US. He needs to start with his wife.

Also I am sorry your father loosing his job but just for the record, it is not "his" job. The company owns the job. People make a choice as to what they are going to work at to make money. If you choose a career that there isn't a demand for, who's fault is that. It isn't the presidents fault. It's not Bush's or Clinton's fault. We live in a society where you make the decisions that govern your life not the government. It's called free market.

"I still believe its time to remove the religious right from office, government and religion do not go well in hand, and Bush doesnt seem to understand this. Ok, thats enough.. Rant, rant.........."

What are you referring to? What has Bush done that has been so religious in government?

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
"I still believe its time to remove the religious right from office, government and religion do not go well in hand, and Bush doesnt seem to understand this. Ok, thats enough.. Rant, rant.........."

What are you referring to? What has Bush done that has been so religious in government?

I do not think he is talking about actual religous actions, but rather decisions and values that have a religous base. I'm a non-religous conservative, so I differ from the right on these issues... But I'm still smart enough to know we need conservatism, and vote that way... even though we disagree on some things... I'm willing to live with it.

Like... opposition to gays getting married, and abortion.

I strongly believe gays are born gay. It is not like they decide to be gay. A gay friend of mine has said he would love to be strait, life would be so much simpler. I could never simply decide to be gay any more than he could decide to be strait. My friend deserves to take a life companion. Call you what you want... Civil union... Marriage.

And as much as abortion sucks, and every single one is a tragedy, we need to keep it legal. Forcing people to have children they are not capable of caring for promotes big problems like poverty and abuse. There are also rapes and occasions of incest that we need to deal with. You cannot force women to have those babies resulting from rape and incest. It would emotionally destroy those women. Abortion is a necessary evil. Can you imagine spending 9 months carrying the child of your rapist, or your father and not knowing to love it or hate it?

[TimeLord]

Bingo !!

[AmericanZ28]

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
If you are talking about removing Bush from office BECAUSE he is Christian, then no I don't agree.

If you are suggesting only Atheists or Agnostics should be elected into positions, then no I don't agree.

If you think that the government should not impose religious beliefs, or try to make laws based on religious beliefs, then I definitely agree with you.

C.

[Dave M]

I'm running for President in 2014 if anyone wants to support me. Wouldn't it be nice to have an F-body owner in the White House?