They portray themselves as "friends of Bush" so that the US will be their ultimate protector... at our expense... and the other countries won't have to waste their resources on military and defense.
Not only that - did you see the "exit poll" question in Texas, asking "which candidate can best solve your problems?" 2/3 chose Hillary. Even more disturbing is that the question would even be asked in the first place and anyone would actually be waiting around for someone to "take care" of their problems. What does that say about our electorate? Our European and Canadian friends should be happy...we're becoming more like them. How about taking control of your life and achieving something rather than sitting around waiting for Hillary or Obama to send you a check? I reailze this is highly unorthodox - but it just may work.
I agree with you, it is mind-blowing how thick the idiocy and self-victimization are with people these days. It makes me want to throw up. The key to winning an election has simply become trying to offer more "free" shit than your competitor. Of course we (ie the people who actually pay taxes) know this garbage is anything but free.
Don't knock give aways. Bush won two elections doing it for the rich and the oil companies at the expense of the middle class.
I'm not sure how you define rich but poor people don't create jobs. I have never been hired by a poor person.
Uh - no. This implies that government tax revenues decrease because of reduced tax rates. This is a liberal myth that is not supported by the facts. President Kennedy deeply cut taxes in the early sixties and government revenues continued to grow each year. Ronald Reagan severely cut taxes in the early eighties and government revenues almost doubled by the end of the eighties. The deficit was caused by enormous spending increases, on the military by President Reagan to defeat the USSR, and by the Democrats on social programs (the trade-off Reagan had to make with them). But revenues increased, not decreased. The economy eventually grew out of the deficit in the mid nineties with help from the Republican Contract with America which held back government spending, and the defeat of HillariousCare. President Bush again seriously cut taxes early in his first term and government revenues have continued to increase each year (except the first - until the effect of the cuts kicked in), even though Bush inherited a recession from the Clinton administration, and the impact of 9/11 on the economy alone was almost two trillion dollars. And don't forget the stock bubble crash of /00, and the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. fiascoes - all included in President Clinton's legacy I might add. If these had happened in the early nineties it is likely there would have been much less growth throughout that decade. Growth through the impact of the tax cuts (without increased spending) would eliminate the deficit within a few years. Again however, increased spending on entitlement programs (a new drug program has been added, and Katrina) have hampered the reduction of the deficit. Tax cuts do not cause deficits - excessive government spending does. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush have demonstrated that tax cuts on a national level increase government revenue through economic stimulus.
They provide the consumption that enables most economic activity to take place....ask Wal-Mart. Their business model would fail if applied to Rolex watches and designer shoes.
My question has always been with regards to tax cuts: how is allowing people to KEEP more of THEIR money a "give away?" It's just like when the left demagogue republicans by saying they want to "cut" Medicare because they want to increase the budget for it by x% as opposed to y%. In other words, an "increase" is actually a "cut" according to some.
The Iraq war could not have happened without deficit spending. If made to actually pay for a war to bring democracy to countries with lots of oil, the nation would have booted Bush out of office for gross idiocy, since it's much cheaper just to buy the oil then to spend the next 100 years fighting for it.