Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Don't be cynical, be positive. Not really... He has to appear that way to get voted in. This is Bush's baby (Iraq) plain and simple. I think Kerry would have no problem at all in securing funds from other sources. Bush... Forget about it. The road with Bush is a dead-end. He burned too many bridges. He painted himself in a corner like his old-man did. To his old-man's credit, admitted his mistake ("read my lips") and the American populace roasted him... Too bad. Does he deserve the sympathy? He can only play the fear and patriot card which might win him a second chance? What is worse? Making a bad choice and sticking to it? Or making a bad choice and excepting that you made a bad choice and changing? Are we gonna wait 15-20 years to know it isn't going to work? Again, no man is an island. This is classic, "fools rush in where wisemen fear to tread." Yet, in todays America, any semblance of wavering is preceived as weak? Life isn't perfect. How in the heck is anybody gonna change if they continually stick to the same bad choice? 19837[/snapback] Yeah, John Kerry is going to form tremendous alliances and the world will suddenly be a shining place where all will get along. Can't wait until the UN starts leading the world - that's worked pretty darn well in the past. Both candidates are playing the fear card. Apparently you've missed that - and I'd hardly call him a wise man (watching him campaign tells me all I need to know about his "leadership"). I'm not sure what is worse, nor do I care all that much because we'll end up screwed pretty good with either of them. I know I ain't voting for either of them.
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 still undecided between Bush and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 A hold-nose vote for Kerry. Labor Day Weekend was great! THANKS MICHIGAN for the $$$$
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I would not be suprised to see that either yet I also would not have a problem with it. Especially when we know that two of the most liberal states with highest population, Calif. and NY will go to Kerry. Two States with the most fiscal problems with the most people looking for the free handout programs that the liberal politicians seem to love to promote. 19739[/snapback] Yet they both have Republican governors Seriously NYS Senate and Assembly are worthless, Dem or Rep. And "Kahl-ee-fornya" has screwed itself with all its voter initiatives.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Two States with the most fiscal problems with the most people looking for the free handout programs that the liberal politicians seem to love to promote. Two states that also seem to recognize that when the going gets tough, it's time to send the Dems packing and bring in Republicans to handle the man's work -- e.g., Arnold, Pataki, Guliani. Unfortunately they can't quite comprehend that concept on the Federal level yet.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Two states that also seem to recognize that when the going gets tough, it's time to send the Dems packing and bring in Republicans to handle the man's work -- e.g., Arnold, Pataki, Guliani. Unfortunately they can't quite comprehend that concept on the Federal level yet. 20639[/snapback] ???? Have you paid attention to fact that the Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency? NYC is a different example, and Giuliani's policies have been successful, albeit with the double-edged sword of skyrocketing rents, gentrification and police tactics that were not appreciated by the minority community. But I fail to see how things are any better in the states of NY or California. Pataki certainly hasn't done stevestojan for WNY.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Have you paid attention to fact that the Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency? ... But I fail to see how things are any better in the states of NY or California. Pataki certainly hasn't done stevestojan for WNY. Have you paid attention to the fact that the Democrats are obstructing most everything of substance in the Senate and the Republicans don't have the 60 votes needed to break a fillibuster? When something gets passed you guys treat the handful of Dems who side with the Republicans as traitors. As far as WNY goes, the region still hasn't figured out how to sustain economic development. For that matter, it hasn't even figured out how to initiate economic development... People in the area don't seem to want to "lower" themselves to doing the things that other states are doing to attract and retain jobs. The time will come when people don't see it as "lowering" themselves any longer. Then the economy of the region might turn around. Liberal taxing and spending will do nothing to help this process and only will delay it that much longer. Government projects like building a new bridge do not offer sustainable jobs if there isn't a plan to do something with the improved access. I only hope the Bills can hold on while the region learns a long and painful lesson. Seems to me Pataki has at least helped out with that. I hate to talk about my hometown in such a way, but when you go to areas that are flourishing economically and then go to the Buffalo area, it is like night and day. I don't know anything about the politics in these areas, I just know that when you talk to the average blue collar guy you hear two different ideologies on work.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I would not be suprised to see that either yet I also would not have a problem with it. Especially when we know that two of the most liberal states with highest population, Calif. and NY will go to Kerry. Two States with the most fiscal problems with the most people looking for the free handout programs that the liberal politicians seem to love to promote. 19739[/snapback] Actually it is the tax money collected there that keeps the lazy and sparsely populated midwestern states afloat. California and NY routinely get reamed in terms of how much of their taxes get spent in their states. They are tax creditors while states like Kansas and Wyoming are tax debtors. But that is okay. Welfare that helps people in cities is creeping socialism while welfare that helps farmers and rural folk is the American way.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Actually it is the tax money collected there that keeps the lazy and sparsely populated midwestern states afloat. California and NY routinely get reamed in terms of how much of their taxes get spent in their states. They are tax creditors while states like Kansas and Wyoming are tax debtors. But that is okay. Welfare that helps people in cities is creeping socialism while welfare that helps farmers and rural folk is the American way. 20690[/snapback] Simply put, the system sucks. Most people don't actually know what subsidies are out there and how much is wasted. They continue to throw the same rhetoric back and forth because it's alot easier than actually looking at the root of the problem. NYS is an interesting study. Were it not for the city's financial district, the entire state may have declared bankruptcy long ago. WNY refuses to adapt to the changing world, preaching the same tired rhetoric that got them into the mess in the first place.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Liberal taxing and spending will do nothing to help this process and only will delay it that much longer. Government projects like building a new bridge do not offer sustainable jobs if there isn't a plan to do something with the improved access. I only hope the Bills can hold on while the region learns a long and painful lesson. Seems to me Pataki has at least helped out with that.20679[/snapback] Pataki has 'helped out with that' by giving the Bills government funds! Those come from taxes. This for a league where you pay $7 for a beer, $6 for a hot dog, $40 at least for a seat, $7 for parking. What gives? NFL teams crying poverty are a joke. I love this team but seeing them cry for more pork is ridiculous. I'm of the mindset that NYS taxes are too high, too, but that's just part of the issue. A lot of towns have "lowered" themselves for businesses and end up getting screwed. Dunkirk gave every break imaginable for business and now people who live there are paying enormous property taxes because the businesses don't pay any. Similar situations abound everywhere in WNY. If the state would just cut the crap, and that goes for Pataki and the assembly and senate, it would go a long way. There are too many failed programs, too much waste and excess for both those in need and companies who don't need it, and there is too much secrecy at the state gov't level. Anyway, in summation, I think we were a lot less fiscally reckless under Clinton. And I think we can expect the same of Kerry, one reason I'm voting for him. The days of Republicans being fiscally conservative are over, and I only need to point to the (lack of) war funding and numerous new programs Bush is talking up while advocating tax cuts for the wealthy.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I think we were a lot less fiscally reckless under Clinton. And I think we can expect the same of Kerry, one reason I'm voting for him. The days of Republicans being fiscally conservative are over, and I only need to point to the (lack of) war funding and numerous new programs Bush is talking up while advocating tax cuts for the wealthy. 20824[/snapback] No we weren't. We were just fortunate that the internet/technology boom happened (putting a record number of people to work), the investment class blossomed because of ridiculous stock market overvalue, and the complete flattening of energy prices. None of those things are likely to happen again, much less at the exact same time. The "Clinton Economy" was the equivalent of all the stars lining up just right and had little to do with any particular policy of either party at the time. The government was still extremely reckless, borrowing a ton of money from Social Security to balance the budget in a kind of uber case of Enron scale accounting.
SD Jarhead Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 No we weren't. We were just fortunate that the internet/technology boom happened (putting a record number of people to work), the investment class blossomed because of ridiculous stock market overvalue, and the complete flattening of energy prices. None of those things are likely to happen again, much less at the exact same time. The "Clinton Economy" was the equivalent of all the stars lining up just right and had little to do with any particular policy of either party at the time. The government was still extremely reckless, borrowing a ton of money from Social Security to balance the budget in a kind of uber case of Enron scale accounting. 20841[/snapback] Exactly. It cracks me up to hear JK spew about how Bush squandered the "Surplus he inherited"...and people actually believe that stevestojan...too funny.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Dunkirk gave every break imaginable for business and now people who live there are paying enormous property taxes because the businesses don't pay any. More businesses=more jobs=more tax revenue Why did they need to raise propertly taxes? Why couldn't they restrain themselves to the increased revenues that came with job creation? Was it businesses fault or was it politicians creating a bigger bureaucracy to congratulate themselves for attracting more business?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 More businesses=more jobs=more tax revenue Why did they need to raise propertly taxes? Why couldn't they restrain themselves to the increased revenues that came with job creation? Was it businesses fault or was it politicians creating a bigger bureaucracy to congratulate themselves for attracting more business? 20961[/snapback] Snow removal?
Mickey Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 No we weren't. We were just fortunate that the internet/technology boom happened (putting a record number of people to work), the investment class blossomed because of ridiculous stock market overvalue, and the complete flattening of energy prices. None of those things are likely to happen again, much less at the exact same time. The "Clinton Economy" was the equivalent of all the stars lining up just right and had little to do with any particular policy of either party at the time. The government was still extremely reckless, borrowing a ton of money from Social Security to balance the budget in a kind of uber case of Enron scale accounting. 20841[/snapback] Actually, I think I should get the credit. I was very fiscally sound over those 8 years. I aggresively moved towards a policy of growth, investment and opportunity. I wisely invested in the future and in America. I harnessed the synergy of imagination and capital to build a brighter future for you, me and every American.
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Actually, I think I should get the credit. I was very fiscally sound over those 8 years. I aggresively moved towards a policy of growth, investment and opportunity. I wisely invested in the future and in America. I harnessed the synergy of imagination and capital to build a brighter future for you, me and every American. 21225[/snapback] That is actually something I agree with in principle. The American people and their ingenuity deserve a ton of credit for the economy, as well as some of the blame for their investment "strategy."
Recommended Posts