Bush haters rejoice...

[2ndAmendment]

Geez, read some of the past posts.

When you deduct something from your taxes that means you itemize... well it only benefits you to itemize if your going to get back more through itemization, then through the traditional route.

Follow your own advise.

3.New health insurance deductions will make coverage more affordable to millions of Americans whose employers don't provide health benefits. The President's proposal will allow individuals who establish HSAs to deduct the premiums they pay for their high-deductible health insurance policies. This new deduction will be available to taxpayers whether or not they itemize. It will reduce the net cost of these policies and encourage the use of HSAs for making wise, cost-effective health care choices.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Hey Pancake, check out THIS WEBSITE

I think everyone needs to check out this website.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Under Bush our Government Agency's have become bigger...... not smaller. He's the first President to be elected who hasn't reduced Government Agency's. That says a lot about his conservative values.

Did you miss Of course the Republicans are almost as guilty of expanding the Federal government.?

 

[UrbanPancake]

Intellect showing. The words are "they're" (contraction of they are) and "than". "Then" is a point in time; "than" is used in comparisons. Of course you are not the only one that makes that mistake on this board.

What???? Who cares this is an online post. Wow, I guess when your a right wing conservative and you support BUSH, you really start to lose supporting arguments about your candidate, except for insulting someone elses intelligence. By the way Im really not paying to much attention to my writting. I feel the issues speak for themselves.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is quite intellectual of you as well.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Thank you, I was hoping you would find my arse intellectually stimulating.

 

[T.Rally]

I think everyone needs to check out this website.

I could of swore I heard Senator Edwards as well as Senator Kerry claim it was $200 billion. Talk about prevaricators. As far as the costs go, you think Kerry is going to change that how? As I said "insidious lies and spurious accusations."

 

[UrbanPancake]

I think Kerry will implement a functional government in Iraq that the citizens can feel proud to back. I also believe Kerry will do this in much more rapid fashion then Bush could ever do it. Kerry will not leave Iraq until he fixes the mess Bush created.

 

[Pete]

I think Kerry will implement a functional government in Iraq that the citizens can feel proud to back. I also believe Kerry will do this in much more rapid fashion then Bush could ever do it. Kerry will not leave Iraq until he fixes the mess Bush created.

How he certainly hasn't explained how so how do you purpose he will do it since he doesn't know?

 

[jlabsher]

I could of swore I heard Senator Edwards as well as Senator Kerry claim it was $200 billion. Talk about prevaricators. As far as the costs go, you think Kerry is going to change that how? As I said "insidious lies and spurious accusations."

The $200B includes what is budgeted through FY2005. (time.com)

 

[T.Rally]

The $200B includes what is budgeted through FY2005. (time.com)

Funny, no mention of that by Kerry\Edwards. Senator Kerry and the DNC are running ads which claim the war in Iraq is at "200 Billion" in cost and 'counting'. Kerry also mentioned it 14 times in a stump speech.

The facts are 119 billion has actually been spent, there is 25 billion in emergency appropriation, and 60 billion in assumed spending next year which is the total cost of the war on terrorism not just Iraq. Somehow 9 billion to be picked up by Iraq doesn't count.

119 billion is obviously nothing to sneeze at ... but its not "200 billion and counting" by any stretch. And while the war in Iraq may indeed cost 200 billion or more, its not there yet and the Democrats should quit saying it is.

 

[SamSpade]

The $200B includes what is budgeted through FY2005. (time.com)

That's a little disingenuous, don't you think? Like using job figures and ignoring 2004 - which has added 1.8 million jobs? Including 96,000 just this past month? If the job situation is so gloomy, how is it we've created more jobs than Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada, and France combined?

 

[UrbanPancake]

Funny, no mention of that by Kerry\Edwards. Senator Kerry and the DNC are running ads which claim the war in Iraq is at "200 Billion" in cost and 'counting'. Kerry also mentioned it 14 times in a stump speech.

The facts are 119 billion has actually been spent, there is 25 billion in emergency appropriation, and 60 billion in assumed spending next year which is the total cost of the war on terrorism not just Iraq. Somehow 9 billion to be picked up by Iraq doesn't count.

119 billion is obviously nothing to sneeze at ... but its not "200 billion and counting" by any stretch. And while the war in Iraq may indeed cost 200 billion or more, its not there yet and the Democrats should quit saying it is.

You know what this means? This means he will have spent 200 billion. Then Bush is going to ask for more money. Haven't you learned yet?

 

[UrbanPancake]

That's a little disingenuous, don't you think? Like using job figures and ignoring 2004 - which has added 1.8 million jobs? Including 96,000 just this past month? If the job situation is so gloomy, how is it we've created more jobs than Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada, and France combined?

Most of these jobs that have been ceated are temporary jobs or contractual jobs. Meaning they don't have job security, and they don't receive benefits such as health insurance, vacation and sick leave.

 

[SamSpade]

Most of these jobs that have been ceated are temporary jobs or contractual jobs. Meaning they don't have job security, and they don't receive benefits such as health insurance, vacation and sick leave.

That's BS, and you know it.

 

[T.Rally]

You know what this means?

It means your capacity for discerning information is scant, to say the least? :shrug:

"And while the war in Iraq may indeed cost 200 billion or more, its not there yet and the Democrats should quit saying it is."

 

[mojorisin]

The only reason Bush went to war with Iraq is to fight a war that his father couldn't win, to make Haliburton a little bit richer, and because he's Dick Cheney's puppet. Also, in case you did't know, the Bush's have made their money on oil, that could be another reason why we went to war with Iraq?That's the truth wether you like it or not.
Before Bush was elected, was anybody even thinking or worried about going to war with Iraq? NO. Bush should have focused on a real terrorist (OSAMA) but instead he redirected our forces and resources on a harmless Iraq. The excuse that we got dictator out of control is stupid. If that was the case then we should have invaded China and North Korea a long time ago. Bush hasn't done anything to North Korea and Iran even though they have NUKES! Iraq didn't even possess nukes. He may have had a few missles, which is nothing compared to Nuclear Bombs. Now Bush has created a mess in the Middle East. Iraq was a secular country before we went to war, and now that Saddam is out of power the country has become a safe harbor for terrorist. We are now building bases on Iraq soil. This further implicates the Muslims idea that America is colonizing Iraq, and preparing to exploit the oil fields that are within its borders. Bush has made bad decisions in the last 4 years, and he needs to be held accountable for his inefficiency, lack of global diplomacy, and his disinterest in domestic issues such as the economy, stem cell research, and gay marriage. When will he learn that our government wasn't meant to pan handle the religious right?! Our government was created to protect the rights of everyone, not just the ideology of a select few.

This November vote Kerry!!!!!!

Technically we never had to comply with the cease-fire agreement with Iraq if you read the UN Resolutions.

Haliburton made more money under the Clinton administration. Were you #####ing about them then? I doubt it. Plus the reason they got the no bid contract is because they are the only company that could perform all the required duties requested.

What do you see that is so great about Kerry?

He has been wrong about everything in the last 30 years, it is very troublesome.

BTW, cut the crap about how he volunteered for the war. He only volunteered after his deferment got disapproved.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think Kerry will implement a functional government in Iraq that the citizens can feel proud to back. I also believe Kerry will do this in much more rapid fashion then Bush could ever do it. Kerry will not leave Iraq until he fixes the mess Bush created.

You misunderstand the role of the United States in Iraq. It is not our role to "implement a functional government". The government that is formed in Iraq is the purview of the Iraqis.

 

[Hessian]

Facing the facts...

I will tell you what I find frustrating trying to reason/debate with liberals...they seem to love topic jumping.

When you make a solid point about the Constitution & intention...the very next post is about losing allies...or debt. It proves that evrytime you build a case--the liberal opponent goes squeeling off into new issues or resorts to name calling. Sometimes they start to parse words like "is....?"

Or how about their bewilderment that so many Americans support Bush. That is probably MY exact reaction with some American's fixation with Clinton. He could do no wrong...yet all around the evidence pointed to mismanaging issues with NK, illegal campaign donations, & "coffees at the White House", ignoring terror attacks, screwing any skirt that swooshes by, pardoning hundreds of felons, hiding files, and the list goes on & on...and they just adore him.
I find that baffling.

That said...it becomes obvious that trying to bring a liberal to his senses is generally a lost cause...they'll just scream "Halliburton" and start foaming at the mouth.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I will tell you what I find frustrating trying to reason/debate with liberals...they seem to love topic jumping.

Kerry and Edwards do the same thing as do most lawyers if they are loosing a point in an argument. It is a debate technique that is taught. I hate it. It was nice in the "old days" (before my time) when lawyers and public servants had moral integrity. The founders said that when the morals of the people and leaders of the nation were lost, then liberty would soon be lost.