What is wrong with the American Voter?

As we move closer to Novemner 2, the polls continue to show a 50/50 split in America. If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.

Polls show that 60% want major changes in our policies and 89 % want some changes. Part of the 50% that are supporting Bush must be part of the 60% and 89% that want change. These Bush supporters must know he will not change in a second term and by voting for him they will get what they claim they do not want - more of the same!

The events in Iraq clearly show the way Bush conducted this war was an error. Even if you supported going to war, few can say he has done the job well. His choices have increased the danger to our military and have turned the Iraq people against the U.S. Why would we want to reward Bush with another term or run the risk of another conflict in which he applied his inept choices.

Look at the economic results:

Job growth that has not produced the jobs needed for our growing population. Bush tells us about the 1.5 million new jobs created during the past 15 months and Kerry tells us about the net loss of 800,000 jobs since Bush took office. What about the over 5 million new workers that enteted the work force in America since Bush took office? Where are the jobs for them? We are 6 million jobs short and the Bush economic policies and tax cuts have not stimulated the economy to create the needed jobs.

We have gone from a national debt of $5.8 Trillion when Bush took office to $7.5 Trillion today. If you turn to OMB and the Bush budget projection, you will find the president predicts that by the end of FY 2008, we will have a national debt of just short of $10 Trillion and never shows a balanced federal budget. His next action is to make all his tax cuts permanent and create even more debt.

Look at the Trade deficit and the jobs that keep going out of this country. What have his policies done to stem that loss?

Look at oil prices. Have we moved away from dependence on foreign oil? NO. Rather then supporting an energy policy that would require increased fuel efficiency, Bush insists on drilling in Alaska that would not produce as much oil as increasing average mileage by one mile per gallon. In addition, drilling in Alaska would take 10 years before any amount of added oil would be produced.

The above are all facts about our situation on October 8, 2004. How can half of America want to continue this by re-electing George W?
23,376 views 77 replies
Reply #1 Top
You gotta remember, COL Gene, Jesus wants George Bush to be President. And a lot of the fanatical religious wackos will vote for anybody as long as they repeat over and over "I love Jesus." Evangelistic Christians are consistant, if not very bright.
Reply #2 Top
"The above are all facts about our situation on October 8, 2004. How can half of America want to continue this by re-electing George W?"

and how can the other half of Americans convince themselves that Kerry is really going to change all of this?
Reply #3 Top
People refuse to get past there age-old bias of refusing to vote for the best person for the job; instead they would rather vote for their party representitives because they are so set in their ways. People would rather do it the "easy" way of just voting straight Republican, or straight Democratic. They don't want to take the time to really educate themselves without their mud-colored bias afflicting their view.
Reply #4 Top
People are divided by cultural battle lines this year. Some seem to feel that by voting Bush, it is a statement of their wish for America to take a culturally conservative route that entails the right to life, an agressive world stance, and the ability to hunt turkey with an assault rifle, while many people voting for Kerry seem to believe that though Kerry harbours relatively similar policies (social issues such as abortion aside), he'll do a better job at carrying them out and be the "our boy on the inside". With the current administration's foreign policy attitude of impulsiveness and inconsistancy, along with their failure to address domestic issues, and their insistance in "tort reform", supposedly touted to keep down healthcare costs, we simply can't afford to "stay the course".
Reply #5 Top
and how can the other half of Americans convince themselves that Kerry is really going to change all of this?

So it's better to do nothing at all, right? Give change a chance and maybe you'll get it.
Reply #6 Top
If Jesus tells me to vote for George, I will. If I do not hear from him, I will vote for Kerry as a Moderate Republican of over v40 years.

I am not sure Kerry has the answers, but I KNOW GEORGE W. does not have them!

The Hell with party loyalty. How about what is best of the majority of Americans long term!
Reply #7 Top
The Hell with party loyalty. How about what is best of the majority of Americans long term!


Wish there were more people like you!
Reply #8 Top

Some of us think Bush had done an adequate job and that Kerry would be a poorer choice.

As someone who's not religious, I could care less that you wish to smear those who believe in God as "whackos". But I think it demonstrates the small mindedness of the far left.

If you want to start impugning voters, how about this - let's only allow those who pay taxes to vote. Or better yet, let voting be proportional to taxes paid. If the "Jesus freaks" are worthless voters, why stop there? Let's dump off the parasites of the country from voting too. Want to take a guess who would win if only tax payers were allowed to vote?

Reply #9 Top

So it's better to do nothing at all, right? Give change a chance and maybe you'll get it.

Change for the sake of change is a fool's errand. Especially in a time of war.  The economy is in pretty good shape, the nation hasn't been attacked again since 9/11, and America's two biggest enemies are either in jail or have had their organizations largely taken down.

Reply #10 Top
The economy is good for whom? Not the poor, not most of the middle income people, not the unemployed. It is good for everyone at the top. When interest rates return to historic norms, as they will, see how everyone likes to pay the interest that will be required beacuse of the Bush deficit. It will grow and grow and grow and give us NOTHING in return! How will you like sending $200 billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR out of America like our jobs?

Those who believe Bush knows what he is doing have got a real shock comming!
Reply #11 Top
have had their organizations largely taken down


Wow. This is so completely false, it would take more time than I've got right now to refute.
Reply #12 Top
Some of us think Bush had done an adequate job and that Kerry would be a poorer choice.

I really think this is the "sticking" point that distinguishes our [Kerry and Bush supporters] opinions on the candidates when laying hot button social issues aside. I have a hard time believing your are sincere in your opinion, but I have to take your word for it.
Reply #13 Top

The economy is good for whom? Not the poor, not most of the middle income people, not the unemployed. It is good for everyone at the top. When interest rates return to historic norms, as they will, see how everyone likes to pay the interest that will be required beacuse of the Bush deficit. It will grow and grow and grow and give us NOTHING in return! How will you like sending $200 billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR out of America like our jobs?

We have positive GDP growth, the unemployment rate is less than it averaged during the 90s, and interest rates are low.  You can sit around worrying about your cherry picked statistics. I'll work with reality as I see it. I don't like deficits either. However, I dislike tax increases even more.

Reply #14 Top
If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.


That's classic liberal bias .

What about the over 5 million new workers that enteted the work force in America since Bush took office?

What about them? At worse, we have 5 million new discouraged workers. Discouraged workers have never been counted in unemployment statistics. It's hardly objective to start counting them now. Or maybe you have a 40 year record of tracking discouraged workers you would like to share?
Reply #15 Top
The unemployment rate is low only because millions of unemployed have not been counted. Many people have been unemployed for so long they are not included in the unemployment rate calculation. You will tell me that the we had other unemployed in the 90's that were not counted but it is the number which are much larger today. Given the 5 million new workers for which the economy has not produced jobs plus the net 800,000 less jobs than in 2001, we can not have the same unemployment rate. In addition, many of the 1.5 million jobs that have been created during the past 15 months pay less then the jobs that were lost and have fewer benefits.

You also do not address the deficit. It will be a major issue when interest rates return to normal levels and the interest in the annual budget goes off the scale. It will take money from everything or will require massive tax increases. That increase in the interest will kick in about the same time as Medicare begins paying out more that it takes in in taxes. Add our growing defense needs, education and the real fun is yet to come! Please do not forget, we some how must repay the national debt some day or par interest forever. Since 1980, the American taxpayer has paid $6.5 Trillion in interest that has bought us nothing. 40% of the interest on the debt held by the public is paid to foreign companies and individuals. That should please the American taxpayer.
Reply #16 Top
Are we going to see statistics on discouraged workers throughout the decades?
Reply #17 Top
I too am not sure Kerry will be great. The reason I will vote for a Democrat is as follows:

The policies we are following are in the long term distructive. The GOP has been taken over by the conservatives and the supply side BS. If Bush and the Republicans continue to control congress and the White House, they will make all the tax cuts permanent which we can not afford. By splitting the power, the GOP can not do that and Kerry can not pass more spending progams so lons as the GOP controlls at least one house of Congress. WQe should not be goverened from the right or the left. Most Americans are toward the center and that is not where Bush and his cohorts are.

I was a Republican that supported the balanced budget ammendment. We either cut spending, increase taxes and a combination of the two. We do not continue the CHARGE AND SPEND policy of the current Republican leadership. Republicans are critical of the TAX AND SPEND Democrats, they are worse with the CHARGE AND SPEND policy because we must pay both for what we buy and the interest from the Charge part.
Reply #18 Top
Kerry is going to spend hundreds of billions in new health coverage beyond what Bush wants to spend.

Both candidates have made essentially the same pledge regarding the deficit, to cut it in half in (5 Bush, 4 Kerry) years. I don't like either candidates position on the deficit, but I don't see how Kerry can reign it in while adding another huge health care program.
Reply #19 Top
You are correct. But Kerry can not spend what congress does not pass. If Bush and the GOP make the tax cuts permenent, the deficit will not be cut in half. The impact of making the tax cuts perminant is to cut three times more revenue from the Fed then during the first ten years. That is becaure the tax cuts were phased in and in the second ten years (if the GOP makes it permenent) will knock the lid goes off the tax revenue. WE have $7.5 Trillion in debt without another cent. WE need to balance the budget and begin generating a surplus to pay down this amount. If the GOP will not approve new spending that Kerry wants and the tax rates return to the pre 2001 levels on the wealthy, we have a shot at balancing the budget. If we make all the tax cuts permenent, especially the estate tax and the cuts in dividends and the top two income brackets, the ends do not meet. I agree with the tax cuts that removed the marriage penalty and gave a larger deduction for children. Although that does not help me, I would think that part of the tax cuts should be made permenent. The tax rates on the wealthy must go back to the pre 2001 level because we need that revenue to meet our expenses. We could also try and cut the PORK, which is higher under the GOP than under the Democrats.
Reply #20 Top
Vote for the Chaotic Neutral Party this November!!


Heh that's like Bruster's Millions saying none of the above.

Kerry has yet to make a solid point on any of the issues at hand. He explained to me loud and clear he's the anti-bush but he has failed to explain to me what he stands for. I am not in the Kerry camp because he's the Anti-Bush. I'm not totally sold on Bush's policies either. Right now I feel closer alligned with Bush's policies then Kerry's because with Bush I know what they are and with Kerry, 3 weeks to go before elections has yet to solidify his stances.
Reply #21 Top
Knowing you are headed off a cliff is not where I want to be. We are not safer, the economy is not getting better for the majority of Americans and the fiscal situation with the deficit is off the scale. We have the conservatives who represent 30% of Americans calling the shots for 100% of us. That is not good for this country and I hope either Kerry wins or one house of congress goes to the Democrats. I do not want to see the White House and congress go to the control of the Demoocrats because that will be as wrong as the Conservatives having control. We need the checks and balances on our policies and we do not have that now.
Reply #22 Top
The deficit is the biggest issue.  Good god he (Bush) has to go!  (Even if Jesus wants him to be President.  Jesus probably sucked at economics, he was more of a charismatic type.)
Reply #23 Top

By: COL Gene
Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 on Bush Truth
Message Board: Politics
As we move closer to Novemner 2, the polls continue to show a 50/50 split in America. If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.


Problem is that we can't and he ain't!
Reply #24 Top
Having only, tax payers, being allowed to vote?

Now there's a plan. Just put most of the, middle class, out of work, ergo, the big guys will always win.
What???
.............and the poor? Well that's out of the question.
They should not be allowed within a six block radius of a voting booth.

Oh, and lets get rid of all the voters that happened to be left-handed as well. I mean, the, left, is the, left, and you never know what, left-handers might be thinking.

Sometimes when trying to make our point, we step over the edge, just a little.




Reply #25 Top
Well, "COL Gene", so much of what you have stated is FLAWED, that I really don't know where to start.

First of all, just because YOU believe what you say are FACTS does not make it so. How much more ARROGANT can you be?

The unemployment rate is 5.4%, which is LOWER than it was during this same period in your hero Bill Clinton's first term.

Are you aware that the unemployment rate calculated by our federal government bean counters do NOT include self-employed people? I just wonder how many of the umemployed people that you claim have "given up" looking for jobs have actually gone into business for themselves. I have a difficult time believing that any RESPONSIBLE adult would just throw his hands up, give up looking for a job, and watch his family starve to death. Just a thought.

Are you aware that the unemployment rate does NOT include any new start-up businesses from the past TWO YEARS? Of COURSE you are not aware of that. It takes 2 years for the unemployment business survey to catch up to these new businesses.

You criticize "trickled-down economics", but Ronald Reagan presided over the largest economic expansion in the HISTORY of the United States during the 1980s, or were you too young to remember much about the 80s?

Did you forget that we were ATTACKED on September 11, 2001, "COL Gene"? Our economy took a HUGE hit when that happened. The Dow lost 2500 points OVERNIGHT. The airline industry was almost destroyed, with many airlines STILL either bankrupt or teetering on bankruptcy.

Did you forget that we are AT WAR, in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Wars cost a LOT of money.

Did you forget that a whole new cabinet-level department was created as a result of 9/11? Does the Department of Homeland Security ring a bell? BILLIONS of dollars have been spent by our government to beef up homeland security, hire more airport screening personnel, beef up fire and police departments nationwide, and the list goes on and on and on.

Have you bothered to understand that we have not had ONE attack on American soil SINCE 9/11? Why do you suppose that is?

Well, I could write a BOOK on all of the errors and lies and political rhetoric and half-truths that you spewed in your RANT, but I am not going to waste any more of MY time on you. It wouldn't do any good anyway, because you are just a typical leftie SHEEP, too lazy to spend the time seeking the TRUTH, and too unintelligent to understand the big picture.