Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (10705)	3/30/2004 6:58:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush MUST be voted out of office...he is the worst president in my lifetime (and I'm including Nixon in that list)...Let's look at some of Bush's promises and what he has really delivered... ON THE ECONOMY: GEORGE BUSH: "... we will not pass along our problems to ... other generations." THE TRUTH: $1.9 trillion in new debt over 5 years, with deficits continuing thereafter. Office of Management and Budget-Mid-Session Report. July 15, 2000 whitehouse.gov ________________ ON TAX CUTS: GEORGE BUSH: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes ... Americans will keep, this year, and average of almost $1,000 more of their own money." THE TRUTH: More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100. And 31% of all taxpayers get nothing at all Citizens for Tax Justice, "Bush 2003 Tax Plan a Big Fat Zero for a Third of Nation's Taxpayers," January 27,2003 ctj.org ___________________ ON SOCIAL SECURITY: GEORGE BUSH: "... we continue to work together to keep Social Security sound and reliable ..." THE TRUTH: The costs of the Bush tax cuts exceed by three times the entire projected shortfall in Social Security Center for Budget and Policy Priorities-"The Administration's Tax Cuts and the Long-Term Budget Outlook" March 19, 2003 cbpp.org _______________________ ON JOBS: GEORGE BUSH: "Our first goal is ... an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job." THE TRUTH: Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them - more than 2.9 million since 2001. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Data Query-seasonally civilian unemployment; Feb. '01 (5.99 million), Aug '03 (8.905 million)-net unemployment is 2.915 million. data.bls.gov _____________________ ON THE ENVIRONMENT: GEORGE BUSH: Environment: "[My] Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70% cut in air pollution form power plants over the next 15 years." THE TRUTH: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020 than alternative legislation developed by theEnvironmental Protection Agency. The plan does not regulate carbon emissions and allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions. National Resources Defense Council-"Clean Air & Energy: Air Pollution: In Depth: Testimony Hearings on S. 485. 'Clear Skies Act of 2003.'" April 8, 2003. nrdc.org ____________________ ON EDUCATION: GEORGE BUSH: "... we achieved historic education reform - which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom ..." THE TRUTH: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for education. House Committee on Education and the Workforce-"Broken Promise: the GOP Record on Education. August 2003 edworkforce.house.gov

To: steve harris who wrote (10705)	3/30/2004 7:18:57 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

Kerry solidifies his Iraq strategy By Thomas Bray / The Detroit News Sunday, March 21, 2004 detnews.com The dim outline of a John Kerry plan for dealing with the Iraq war is beginning to emerge: Send more troops to Iraq, then internationalize the conflict. “Having gone to war,” he said in a major speech last week, “we have a responsibility and a national interest to achieve a stable and peaceful Iraq.” This is a vast improvement on Howard Dean’s primal scream strategy. Kerry understands that voters aren’t interested in simply bugging out. And he is counting on George Bush’s loss of credibility over such issues as weapons of mass destruction — and Bush’s “stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies” — to turn the electorate towards him as the man best suited to finding a way out of Iraq. But assuming he is serious about seeing Iraq through, can Kerry credibly advance himself as the man to do so? And would the Kerry strategy in fact work? There are reasons for doubt on both scores. Not so long ago, after all, Kerry was voting against an $87 billion supplemental bill to do exactly what he now says needs doing. As for his plan to “share the authority and the burdens with other nations,” that seems a tad fanciful. France, Germany and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan may be whispering in his ear about the desirability of getting rid of George Bush, but getting them to pony up troops and resources for Iraq is likely to be another matter. The strongest part of the Kerry message is the need for more American troops — up to 40,000, says Kerry. That places him neatly to the right of Bush, undercutting claims that Kerry is soft on defense. He got a big assist on that point last week from none other than Republican and fellow Sen. John McCain. But if Kerry is going to persuade the “international community” to share more of the burden, why would more American troops be needed? More U.S. troops in Iraq might only mean more targets — and more unhappiness among Iraqis about the occupation. The big picture is that Kerry is now arguing less about the underlying merits of the Iraq invasion than about how best to manage the aftermath. Kerry’s argument seems to boil down to this: I would do a more competent job. Maybe so, but competence is precisely the argument put forth at the Democratic National Convention in 1988 by another Massachusetts presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis — who went on to get smoked by an earlier Bush. Americans tend to resent the notion that they have elected incompetent people to high office. And they no doubt understand that resolve is more likely than intellectual brilliance to produce a good result in Iraq. In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House after a campaign in which he promised “new leadership [to] end the war and win the peace in the Pacific.” Nobody doubted Nixon’s competence in foreign policy, and by ratcheting up the violence he did succeed in getting the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. But the North Vietnamese knew strategic weakness when they saw it. They were willing to negotiate — and negotiate and negotiate, until the weary Americans finally accepted a face-saving deal and went away. Communist tanks were soon rolling into Saigon. Today’s terrorists are no more interested in compromise than the North Vietnamese. The recent act of appeasement by Spanish voters is only likely to embolden them. Kerry last week called on the new Spanish government to keep its troops in Iraq, but his chatter about the need to involve the international community is likely to be seen — particularly by nervous Iraqis — as another face-saving strategy to cover yet another American retreat. It’s clear that there is a good deal of unease at home and abroad about the war in Iraq. Kerry no doubt hopes that by straddling the issue he can persuade voters to trust him with the White House. But such a nuanced position has the weakness of raising more questions than it answers. And it leaves Bush, for the time being at least, in command of the more certain trumpet.