1
   

Bush vs. Kerry

 
 
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:48 am
Ok, let's try to keep this thread on topic and insult free. It would be nice to talk about the actual platforms of each candidate in regards to the next four years. Things like Taxes, healthcare, jobs, terrorism, future military endeavors, foriegn policy.

This is not intended to be a Bush/Kerry bashing thread, but an actual discussion about the candidates. Obviously I can not speak for everyone, but I will do my best to keep this civil.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,019 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:52 am
Jobs & The Economy

The economy is strong and getting stronger. The President's pro-growth policies have helped drive the economy and move the recovery forward, putting more money in the pockets of America's families and laying a foundation for robust growth and job creation now and for years to come.

* The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades.
* Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years.

Providing bold and active leadership to end the recession and helping people find work - From 2000 to 2003, America's economy experienced an unprecedented combination of shocks: the stock market bubble bursting; an economic recession; the terrorist attacks of September 11th and subsequent War on Terror including the war in Iraq; and the discovery of corporate accounting scandals, years in the making, that undermined confidence in corporate America. President Bush acted promptly and aggressively to address these shocks.

Creating Jobs - The President acted decisively to help create jobs and get Americans back to work. Just one year after the President signed the Jobs & Growth bill, there is widespread evidence his policies have worked.

Raising America's standard of living - The President's economic policies have allowed Americans to weather the stock market bubble, the recession, the terrorist attacks, and the corporate scandals, and have resulted in higher incomes and living standards for American workers.

I see no reason why this upward trend in the economy should tumble if Bush remains in office.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:02 pm
Education

High Standards and Accountability - Since President Bush signed NCLB into law, all states have developed a plan to ensure that every student becomes proficient at reading and math and that achievement gaps are closed between students of different socio-economic backgrounds. States, districts, and schools are using their unique accountability plans to measure the progress of student achievement, report student and school progress to parents, identify for improvement those schools not making adequate yearly progress, provide support for the improvement of schools and districts, and provide options - including public school choice and tutoring - for children in underperforming schools.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:03 pm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/speech050804.cfm
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:12 pm
Wow. Very good speech, cjhsa. Quite profound in dealing with todays political discussion on the internet.

Let's keep those windows unbroken.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:17 pm
Yes, an excellent piece. BM

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:45 pm
A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change - President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, or greenhouse gas intensity, by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002. The United States is sponsoring, with international and private-sector partners, a $1 billion, 10-year demonstration project to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant (FutureGen). This project is designed to dramatically reduce air pollution and capture and store greenhouse gases. The President has also called for tax incentives totaling $4.1 billion through 2009 to spur the use of clean, renewable energy, and energy-efficient technologies, such as hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating systems, renewable energy produced from landfill gas, wind, or biomass, and efficient combined heat and power systems. The President's FY 2005 budget includes nearly $2 billion for the Federal scientific research program on global climate change, focused on reducing significant uncertainties in climate science, improving global climate observing systems, and developing resources to support policymaking and resource management. On transportation issues, through the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by pollution-free fuel cells. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership will provide $1.7 billion over five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies that emit no air pollutants or greenhouse gases. And for the first time in a decade, the Administration raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs, vans and pick-up trucks. Reforms are also underway that will save more fuel while protecting consumer safety and American jobs.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:54 pm
Not to be nit-picking, but while those numbers sound good, they aren't good.

Why? Because 8-9 billion dollars is chump change. This does not represent a serious attempt to make a difference in the environment from any standpoint; hell, we spend more than this on any 2 of our most modern stealth planes.

Let's not even talk about the Clean Skies act. Bush is hardly an environmental champion, please don't attempt to present him that way.

I'm not trying to bash Bush per se; just inject a little sanity into the discussion.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:58 pm
Please do so by explaining what Kerry is planning to do. The idea here is to get the platforms of each candiate in perspective. I am sure that each stage can probably be blown out into seperate threads and discussed.

What is something Kerry is planning to do about the environment?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:01 pm
Okay. Let me see what I can scare up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:15 pm
The economy has been slightly improving, but the President does not have complete control over the economy, as any economist would know. The President does set broad fiscal and regulatory policy, however, they do not control the business cycle. Much depends on timing. Clinton had the good luck to inherit a recovery, and Bush the bad luck to inherit a recession. I have studied Business Cycle analysis so I do know a little about this. Basically the economy has normal ups and downs as a result of business cycles. The only control a President has through fiscal policies is to try to minimize these cycles. In other words, the President has no control on whether the country is in a recession or inflation, but they can control the severity of it.

"The fact is the business cycle is the business cycle, and the Bush administration is no more responsible for what we see now than the Clinton administration was responsible for the recession that came on us in the second half of 2000," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics Inc., a forecasting firm.

"The most important thing to understand here is that we are in a genuine business cycle recovery and have been for some time, as we all know," said Anirvan Banerji, director of research for the Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent group that studies the business cycle. "It's also been a recovery where we've had significant structural shifts on the job front, which means that this has been a recovery by and large deficient in job growth -- unusually so, more than practically any recovery in memory."

But "the unusual feature of this recovery has been the deficiency in job growth," Banerji said. "Even as you had the strongest GDP (gross domestic product) growth since (Ronald) Reagan's first term, you also had the longest average duration of unemployment. These two occurred simultaneously."

Another thing to note is that workers are not feeling the benefit of rising compensation costs, because so much of what employers are paying is being eaten up by soaring health insurance premiums and pension shortfalls. "Labor compensation has actually been increasing, but it's going into items that people don't see in their paycheck," Nigel Gault (U.S. economist) said. "That's another reason why most people might not perceive the economy to be as good as the top- line numbers would indicate."
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 05:12 pm
John Kerry has actually made conflicting statements about the environment. For example,he claimed that a house in Salem NH was highly contaminated
Here are his exact words,and the actual facts...
Fact Check: Contaminated home uses city water, not bottled
FACTCHECK on Water Contamination: John Kerry left a misleading impression when he tried to personalize a water-pollution issue:
KERRY: There's a couple in Salem called Lisa and Randy Denuccio. They live next to a lake. They can't drink the water. Their kids can't make lemonade now. They don't take showers with the water. They have to buy bottled water.

FACTCHECK: But when an Associated Press reporter called the family after the debate, Lisa Denuccio said the family does in fact take showers: "We can't do without that." The AP did quote her as saying they now use water from the city rather than their well. Kerry's statement that they can't shower with "the water" might be literally correct- but might easily have led many listeners to think the Denuccio family is worse off than is the case. He should have come clean.

Source: FactCheck.org: 2004 Primary Presidential Debate in Durham NH Dec 9, 2003


For a real idea of where each candidate stands,AND quotes from each candidate and the context of the quotes,I suggest you look at this site.

http://www.issues2000.org/Issues.htm

That site seems to be,IMHO,the most informative on where each candidate stands on each issue

For example...
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction.
Bill HR.4444 ; vote number 2000-242 on Sep 13, 2000

Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)74; N)22; NV)4
Reference: Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996


Those are 2 of Kerry's votes about foreign policy.

Here are his votes on gun control...

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.
Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

As far as affirmative action goes,here are his comments...

Questions the ultimate practicality of affirmative action
'The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms,' Kerry said. Insisting that he still supported affirmative action, Kerry outlined its costs, particularly the white resentment that racial preferences had fostered. Kerry went on to state, 'We cannot lecture our citizens about fairness and then disregard legitimate questions about the actual fairness of federal regulation and law.'
Source: Complete Biography By The Boston Globe, p.279-280 Apr 27, 2004

Supports federal DOMA, but not Massachusetts DOMA
Q: You say you oppose gay marriage. You also oppose the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do you think other states should have to recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts?
KERRY: I said very clearly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But notwithstanding that belief, there was no issue in front of the country when that was put before the US Senate.

Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional.

KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states.

Q: So would you support the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act?

KERRY: No, because the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004

Here are some of what Bush has done about civil rights...

Instinct on gay issues: do not touch them
Bush's instinct on gay-rights issues was clear and emphatic: Do not touch them. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont's civil unions. They were, he said, a local issue for local officeholders. He refused to accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans-and then met with a dozen prominent homosexuals in Austin after he had clinched the nomination. In office, he retained Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy and named an openly gay man to run it. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for homosexual federal employees. He did not object when some of his cabinet secretaries participated in Gay Pride events in their departments-and he did not object when others did not.
Bush tried to strike a formula of "morally traditional and socially inclusive." Gay issues demanded a choice between those two imperatives, and for that very reason Bush wished to have nothing to do with them.

Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.103-4 Jun 1, 2003

Local control with consequences if racial profiling occurs

BUSH: I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and harassed. That's just flat wrong. So we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize local police. I believe in local control of governments. Most officers are dedicated citizens who are putting their lives at risk, who aren't bigoted or aren't prejudiced. I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and say to the local folks, get it done and if you can't, there'll be a federal consequence.

Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Those quotes are taken right from the website I linked.
I think everyone will find it interesting,and helpful in finding out exactly where each candidate stands.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 05:22 pm
I have to say that one of the things I've been curious about was the Bush campaign/RNC attack on Kerry's Senate record, accusing him of ignoring it during the convention speech as if it were something to run from.

Of course, Kerry's Senate record is something to run from -- something for the Busheviks to run from.

One of Kerry's biggest contributions during his time was his investigation into BCCI.

Do you remember the scandal surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?

Well, if you don't, that's OK; David Sirota has a piece in Washington Monthly which tells us all about it:

Quote:
Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

<snip>

Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.

But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.

And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."

By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."


John Kerry busted the terrorists' global bank, the same bank that arranged a loan for Dubya.

Imagine that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 05:45 pm
Nice find, PD
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 05:46 pm
PDiddie,
I have to ask.Are you insinuating that Bush somehow knew what the bank was doing?
Thats what it appears that you are saying with your comment..."John Kerry busted the terrorists' global bank, the same bank that arranged a loan for Dubya.

Imagine that. "
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 07:28 pm
as many conservatives like to say "where there's smoke, there's fire"
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 07:31 pm
mysteryman wrote:
PDiddie,
I have to ask.Are you insinuating that Bush somehow knew what the bank was doing?


Oh no, of course not, m-man.

I have had quite a few years to observe the Dim Son up close and I can say with all confidence that he couldn't find his ass if you spotted him the full-length mirror.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 07:43 pm
PDiddie wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
PDiddie,
I have to ask.Are you insinuating that Bush somehow knew what the bank was doing?


Oh no, of course not, m-man.

I have had quite a few years to observe the Dim Son up close and I can say with all confidence that he couldn't find his ass if you spotted him the full-length mirror.


So what you are saying is that one man knewq EVERYTHING an international bank was doing,in EVERY country and at every office.

From your own link...
"Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world. "

That sounds like a bank I would want to do business with myself.
Do you know EVERY action your bank is doing,in EVERY office?
If you dont,and they get busted for some sort of crime,does that mean you knew and approved of it?
I dont think so,and I dont thinjk you should apply that same "logic" to Bush in this case.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 08:01 pm
mysteryman wrote:
That sounds like a bank I would want to do business with myself.


Then you better not be planning to run for President, because I doubt you have a Poppy powerful enough to get your business affairs with known terrorists swept under the rug.

mysteryman wrote:
If you dont,and they get busted for some sort of crime,does that mean you knew and approved of it?


If I found out my bank was financing terrorism (and in this case I am not referring to the Bushes), I would change banks immediately.

Yeah, Bush is responsible all right. He's sitting in the Oval, after all.

But that really isn't the point of your latest diversion, is it?

The point is that GOP lickspittles cannot touch John Kerry's Senate record, so, as with his Viet Nam service, you must obfuscate and prevaricate.

Bush got NUTHIN' to run on.

And that's why he will lose.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 02:09 am
There was no diversion.
If you wanna talk about Kerry's Senate record,then lets do it.
I was just trying to make a small point,that I guess you missed.

About his Senate record...
Why did Kerry vote to not sanction a country selling WMD? Why did he vote AGAINST a tax cut for the middle class?
Why did he miss most of the open meetings of the Senate committee he was on?

If you really want to talk about his record,we can do that.
Of course,it will be difficult,seeing as he has not done all that much.
NO legislation of any consequence is a good place to start.
So,tell us all what major legislation he has sponsored,what did it accomplish,when did he do it,and who asked him to.
This is a fight you wont win.
Answer this one question first.Why did he miss almost all the votes in congress?
Is he not required to do his job just because he is campaigning?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush vs. Kerry
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 01:24:46