southsider2k5

Was that before or after Edwards tribute to the Cheneys?

I think this smilie desribes this thread best.

They both did that. John Kerry has passed off his 1.6 million lost jobs so many times he thinks it is fact. Actually that number is about 585,000. To say that only Bush did it is inaccurate.

You are soooo getting your house egged this halloween.

Except Dick Cheney didn't bring up his daughter. John Edwards did.

Interesting that you mentioned the UN, France, and company. I wonder why they were against the war? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...91280_1,00.html

http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3820905/detai...994&dppid=65192

But if it is a state where Kerry is an automatic winner like California, it hurts Bush more (because Bush cannot possibly win CA).

I want nothing to do with a guy who lies to his team, has surgeries in secret in a forgein country, and may never play right again.

Depends on what state you are in. Its different in places like IL or CA, vs places like TX that lean the other way.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Maggs has been willing to lie, cheat, and steal with all of this injury stuff, it makes sense to go to the agent who can lie, cheat, and steal with the best of them :fyou Maggs, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

I spent a half hour to type that, and you seemingly ignored everything I said. Thanks.

Deficits have to be in an acceptable ratio to current GDP. Unless the entire economic system was collapsing, there is no way to sustain borrowing at incredible ratios of GDP. Debt is an inevitable accumulation of those deficits. I never said that the economy only grows when the government spends. I am not quite sure where you got that from. When the private sector is contracting, the government needs to step in and provide growth either through spending or tax breaks. Tax breaks are the most cost effective way of putting money into the private sectors hands, as it means the government doesn't get a chance to waste your money. The most important factors are current economic conditions. There is no exact answer as economic conditions are perpetually changing. I would use deficit spending as a tool to stimulate the economy when an inordinate amount of people are losing their jobs. When the tax base starts to shrink the government is going to run a deficit, unless the government runs itself like a company and starts to fire people. Personally I don't want the government firing people and tightening spending at a time when a stimulus is needed to revive the private sector. That is what the great depression was all about. The government raise interest rates, and cut spending at a time when it needed to stimulate things. That is why the new New Deal was key to reviving the economy. It put money in peoples pockets at a time when the private sector was unable to do so. If the private sector is healthy, there is no need for government stimulus, see the 90's economic policy of the Fed for further evidence there. People weren't going to lose there jobs to pay down the debt. I am saying pretty clearly that the overall health of the American economy is more important than deficits. Approximately 2 million people lost jobs as a result of 9-11 and the stock market bubble bursting. If we would have said sorry, this isn't a big enough occurance to merit deficit spending, we would still be in a recession. People don't work, people don't pay taxes. The government would have had to shrink to meet that. You do understand the mulitplier effect right? Taking money out of the economy has a ripple effect. If you have two million less tax payers, that is two million people who aren't supplying money for things like SSI, education, homeland security, etc. We can't just fire those people because a terrorist group attacked us. Because the government put itself in the business of managing the economy in the 1930's, it has a responsibilty to make sure that a small group can't cause a world wide depression. And if the government doesn't make up the slack of those lost tax payers, and instead starts cutting spending and services to stay within its smaller budget, more people, not less will lose their jobs. We had 25% unemployment in the 1930s from an economic scenario that was remarkably similar except it was sans the terrorist attack. That is history. You can go back and read what balanced budgets during economic crisis do to our economy. Yeah the numbers are big and intimidating. It is easy to toss out numbers and say ooooh $400 billion. Every one of those dollars has a real person behind it. Those are people's jobs, that is people's education, that is people's health care. $2.1 trillion is a number that you or I can't fathom, and it is easy to say well $1.7 trillion should be enough. The economic reality of what happened in the stock market crash saids something completely different. People of the pyramid effect that the stock market wealth created on our system, the pullback was going to be huge and ugly. The overvaluations in the markets were reminisiant of the tulip bulb craze in Holland where people were selling their brewerys for a field of tulip bulbs. When everyone planted tulips, the price crashed and people lost their livelihoods. The samething was going to happen, and did to some extent, here. People bet their retirements, they bet their kids college funds, and many jobs were involved in this industry, and the effects of that spending created many other jobs. That is why our unemployment levels fell through numbers that many had deemed impossible. That is why we were able to run surpluses is because everyone possible was working. Once that bubble burst the return to deficits was inevitable unless the government exaserbated the problems by firing more people to balance thier own budget. Or cut services to people who depended on the government for whatever. If we hadn't deficit spent there would still be a pile of rubble sitting on the WTC site, because no private sector companies would have paid what the government did to get everything done. There would still be rampant unemployment in the financial industry, especially in NYC. If we as simple as saying poof the budget is balanced and everyone has free health care, don't you think someone would have done it by now?

And one reason that I was the only person from Michigan City Elston to go to Manchester was the exact samething. I hated my HS, I was so glad to start all over in college.

And I still haven't heard what you plan on doing to balance the budget. How do you plan on saving almost $400 billion?

Bush had an excellent night last night. he finally had some facts and figures to back up his contentions against John Kerry's plans. Instead of just relying on cute sound bytes, he actually had some solid stuff to back up his contentions. Bush finally won a debate. All though it was interesting to see Kerry finally adress his religion. He has basically been mum on it all along. Finally he piped up last night with the bible verse about faith being dead if it isn't accompanied by works. It was interesting that he left out the parts about the world being able to see God in him, and following the teachings of the church.

Paint a picture all you want, I am just curious how you plan on getting from point A to point B. Its nice to point to what we could do with an extra $400 billion, heck I like to dream what life would be like if I won the powerball. But the fact is the government doesn't have that money, and unless they plan on crippling the world economy to do it, that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Are those people being gassed? Are those people being bombed? Are those people being tortured? Are we not spending any money on the poor now? What do we spend on education? What do we spend on welfare? What do we spend on umemployment? What do we spend on jobs programs? Do you think Kerry's $5 trillion health plan will do the trick for health care?

So who do you fire to get the $400 billion? What programs do you cut? What countries do you cut off? Or are you just advocating that the US default on its loans?

John Kerry has made an obvious effort to ditch the east coast accent. "idears" really slipped out, like GW would butcher a word. It isn't a big deal, just not the person I expected to do that.

How about idears? I couldn't believe I heard Kerry talk like GW.

$400 billion? What kind of affect would taking 20% of your budget away have?

Wow John Kerry also finally laughed at himself

No we can't pull it now. But the system is going to collapse upon itself. The sheer numbers will insure that. Look at the airlines and the steel mills to prove that. When not enough people are paying for too many people, it does not work. We need to make sure that people our age take care of themselves because there will not be the money to give us SS. It is just not economically possible.

Social Security = the worlds largest pyramid scheme. Next topic.