Who would you vote for President?

[Chilicat]

I'm gonna kick myself in the *** for injecting a bit of logic into Farmer Fred's ramblings, but tax cuts to stimulate the private sector economy and increased government spending that cause deficits are two different topics. To constantly try and blend them into the same argument is simply wrong. Can one exacerbate the other vis a vis deficits? Yes. Are they the same topic however? I think any rational person can see they are not.

I will also stipulate that only a percent of "I" in Y = C + I + G + X will be in the form of capital investment and a portion (no doubt more significant for middle income wage earners) will be put into deferred spending i.e. savings. However, the US consumer, notably in the lower income brackets, are not known for deferred spending so that will fuel consumer product demand. However, "G" will stimulate the economy even though I am not intrinsically a fan of such spending in the wake of deficits.

Anyways, regretting this post already. If you're an educated centrist the only good posting on these topics does is to get you flamed from the fringes of both the left and right.

[Optimist]

Originally Posted by Chilicat

I'm gonna kick myself in the *** for injecting a bit of logic into Farmer Fred's ramblings, but tax cuts to stimulate the private sector economy and increased government spending that cause deficits are two different topics. To constantly try and blend them into the same argument is simply wrong. Can one exacerbate the other vis a vis deficits? Yes. Are they the same topic however? I think any rational person can see they are not.

I will also stipulate that only a percent of "I" in Y = C + I + G + X will be in the form of capital investment and a portion (no doubt more significant for middle income wage earners) will be put into deferred spending i.e. savings. However, the US consumer, notably in the lower income brackets, are not known for deferred spending so that will fuel consumer product demand. However, "G" will stimulate the economy even though I am not intrinsically a fan of such spending in the wake of deficits.

Anyways, regretting this post already. If you're an educated centrist the only good posting on these topics does is to get you flamed from the fringes of both the left and right.

Chilicat, I think it was me who was rambling. Wish I could say I’ve been drinking but I can’t, perhaps I should start? Thanks for the clarification.

[Farmer Fred]

Kerry voted to cut back on:
the Patriot missile system,
Tomahawk cruise missile,
Trident missile system,
B-1 bomber,
B-2 stealth bomber,
the Apache helicopter,
the F-15, F-14A, F-14D, F-16, AV-8B Harrier jet,
the M1 Abrams tank,
Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
In 96, he voted to freeze defense spending for 7 years to or a loss of $34 billion.

Most of these oft-repeated talking points were one vote against one giant spending bill.

I'm gonna kick myself in the *** for injecting a bit of logic into Farmer Fred's ramblings, but tax cuts to stimulate the private sector economy and increased government spending that cause deficits are two different topics.

I agree, but when you mention Reagan's voodoo economics or the current Bush economic policy, both are happening at the same time. You cannot point to unemployment improvements during the Reagan years without mentioning the government spending increases that helped put people back to work.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are actually tax deferrals, and can cause deficits all by themselves.

Tax cuts coupled with increased spending are a recipe for huge deficits (like we have now).

[pluckyew]

this poll's frozen at Bush =16 vs. Kerry = 6. Lets re-open the polls and see if the trend continues. I've already polled for Kerry.

p.s. hey Arnold (the Governor), how about promoting looser Concealed Carry Permits (CCP) rules in California, like they have in Arizona?

[pagerdaddy]

Originally Posted by pluckyew

this poll's frozen at Bush =16 vs. Kerry = 6. Lets re-open the polls and see if the trend continues. I've already polled for Kerry.

Pluckyew,

If you start a new poll, I would leave the Titan stuff out of it, maybe
add Ralph Nader and a "none of the above".

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to own firearms in California.
Twenty years ago, in Tennessee we had to wait two weeks after a gun
purchase before we could take possession. Now, you can buy it, load it,
stick it in your pocket and walk down the street with it (with permit of
course). If nothing else, the gun control debate has forced voters in
each state to take a stand.

I actually thought about voting for Clinton when he first ran. In his second
term, he tried to replace Congress with the American Trial Lawyers Assoc.
I joined the NRA and have voted Republican ever since.

[37L1]

[quote=Farmer Fred]Most of these oft-repeated talking points were one vote against one giant spending bill.
QUOTE]
So what defense spending has he ever voted for? What and when?

What's his voting record regarding National Security? For or against, when and what?

How about some factual answers?

37L1

[shleprock]

Originally Posted by pagerdaddy

Pluckyew,

If you start a new poll, I would leave the Titan stuff out of it, maybe
add Ralph Nader and a "none of the above".

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to own firearms in California.
Twenty years ago, in Tennessee we had to wait two weeks after a gun
purchase before we could take possession. Now, you can buy it, load it,
stick it in your pocket and walk down the street with it (with permit of
course). If nothing else, the gun control debate has forced voters in
each state to take a stand.

I actually thought about voting for Clinton when he first ran. In his second
term, he tried to replace Congress with the American Trial Lawyers Assoc.
I joined the NRA and have voted Republican ever since.

Almost impossible for a law abiding citizen with no record to get a conceal and carry permit in this state(Md).Been a member of the NRA for 4years and I dont plan to not become1..

[BigJoe_Titan]

Originally Posted by Optimist

You say.Soft on terrorism? Kerry actually fought in a war, Bush was National Guard that never showed up. Kerry was for the war in Afganistan, and for Iraq if WMD (of course none found).
I say. But everyone on both sides even Saddam himself professed they existed but now the issue is politicized. “And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. “If you Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” -Kerry, 2003

Kerry was mislead like everyone else, Even I beleived the governement that Saddam had WMD, Now that isn't the case.

I say. Without debating service or lack of “passivity or direction given reactive of order” I’m concerned with the proactive role, the direction either has taken politically in history.
Kerry is soft, he has consistently sided against the US in it’s ability to react, provide, gather intelligence & build as a form of response (as a reiteration).
Kerry voted to cut back on:
the Patriot missile system,
Tomahawk cruise missile,
Trident missile system,
B-1 bomber,
B-2 stealth bomber,
the Apache helicopter,
the F-15, F-14A, F-14D, F-16, AV-8B Harrier jet,
the M1 Abrams tank,
Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
In 96, he voted to freeze defense spending for 7 years to or a loss of $34 billion.

Farmer Fred answered this. Remember Cheney voted against these too. Oh wait, isn't Cheney (Haliburton) the Vice, what the heck has he done since he has been in office - HIDE!!

You say.We all know that Bush only wanted to get Saddam cause Saddam tried to assasinate his father.
I say. I thought it was oil? & That would be the France and Germany. We need to provide and invigorate alternative energy & get away from dependency on the bubbling crude. Weapons of mass destruction & the role against harboring terrorists had nothing to do with our actions and our intelligence didn‘t support this?

Thanks, Your correct it was also for Oil. I agree with you and alternate energy would be Awesome.

You say. I agree Saddam needed to be removed sooner or later but this should have been a multi-nation effort or heck, they should just have assasinated Saddam (cheaper).
I say. So the benign partially thug run UN was going too eventually tackle this, like a decade wasn‘t long enough, how many resolutions unchecked?

Why didn't Daddy push get him when he was there the first time? Heck he was already in town, finish it! the first time. Now, your response will be the
democratic senate force Daddy Bush from doing this. May have a point there.

You say. Agree with Farmer Fred, either bin laden is already on "ICE" or this just shows that the focus to go after Iraq and to leave bin laden and his sucide squad to roam about is a total failure. That should have been the first thing completed. Use 125,000 troops to get the ones still waging terrorism.
I say. Suggest they were already roaming. Isolation to the degree that remained was & is still contained, but this is a supposed partial passive US role to ease local diplomatic relations while attributing credit to the foreign involvement, but what was there in my opinion is still contained. I suspect more is taking place then we publicly should be privy to. Reporting is very quite, while the objective “your suggestion” is currently being sought whether or not he is a Popsicle. Exactly what has Mr. Freeze boy & the like done to US interests lately? Doesn’t seem like a total failure to me.

My point is simple. Saddam was contained, We didn't have to jump on Iraq right away. Use our forces to bring in the jerk responsible for 9/11.

The reason i bash bush on this is for this reason. Right after 9/11 President Bush made a comment about Clinton fired missles at camel butt or something like that. Well, more than 3 years after 9/11 and President Bush had full military war capability to bring in the evil ones. He hasn't done that yet! So he should keep his trap shut. He is finding out that its harder to get him than he thought. And NO, I do not consider a complete failure. Our superior Military as usual was awesome in running out the taliban and creeps in afganistan. Then all of a sudden, send forces to Iraq on a made up WMD claim, thus less forces for the cause. THE MAIN CAUSE, BRING in or destroy the ones that caused 9/11.

[Farmer Fred]

There's some facts about Kerry's voting record on defense here:

facts

Some highlights:

Bush’s campaign chairman Marc Racicot on Feb. 22 accused Kerry of “voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror” and says Kerry was for "canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser." Another Bush campaign spokesman said Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems" (a clear impossibility since Kerry has been in office less than 20 years.)

It's true Kerry expressed opposition to those weapons 20 years ago as a candidate, voted against Pentagon budgets several times as a senator in the early and mid-1990's, and proposed cuts in military and intelligence budgets as deficit-reduction measures as recently as 1996.

But Kerry's votes against specific military hardware were mostly against strategic nuclear weapons including the B-2 bomber, Trident missile and anti-missile items, not against conventional equipment such as tanks. And Kerry has a point when he says “I've voted for some of the largest defense and intelligence budgets in our history,” which is correct. He's voted for military spending bills regularly since 1997.

Throughout Kerry's early Senate years he often voted against specific weapons systems and sometimes against the entire Pentagon budget. He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in 1989 , 1991 (twice ) and 1992 . He voted against the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile in 1994 and 1995. And he voted repeatedly to cut funds for the Strategic Defense Initiative (ballistic missile defense) in 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1995, and 1996. He also voted for across-the-board cuts in the military budget in 1991 and 1992, as Congress struggled to deal with mounting federal deficits and the former Soviet Union disintegrated.

Republicans shouldn't make too much of these votes, however, since President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

It is true as Republicans say that in 1993 (Bill Clinton's first year as President) Kerry specifically proposed cutting the size of the military, including reductions in numbers of submarines, jet fighters and soldiers. But what Republicans fail to mention is that it was a very broad measure aimed at cutting federal spending by $85 billion at a time when the federal deficit was roughly $300 billion. Kerry's measure -- the "Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 1993" -- targeted not only military spending but also would have eliminated federal subsidies for cotton, wool and mohair production, eliminated the superconducting super collider and the space station, and raised fees for grazing or mining on public land. That bill died without a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.

Sounds more like fiscal responsibility to me. The Republicans should look into that concept.

[37L1]

1990 Iraq invades Kuwait

S.1389: 1990, Passed 79-16, Kerry voted Nay (B-1, B-2, F-15, F-16, Patriot, Aegis Cruiser, Trident, M-1 Abrams, Bradley, Tomahawk Cruise Missle)

H.R. 5803: 1990, Passed 80-17, Kerry voted Nay, (F-14)

1991 Gulf War, Kerry votes Nay

In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2%, 21 senators voted with him, the cut was defeated.

In 1991 Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift funds to social programs, the cut was defeated.

In 1992 Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense, cut was defeated.

1993: First World Trade Center Bombing

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut number of submarines, reduce tactical fighter wings, terminate coastal mine hunting program, force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one.

H.R. 2126: 1995, Passed 59-39, Kerry voted Nay, (Harrier, Apache)

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for SEVEN years (Through year 2002), cutting over $34 billion from defense.

In 1995, Kerry was the sole sponsor of S.1290,which would cut $1.5 billion from intelligence funding over 5 years, $80 million from the FBI. (Through year 2000)

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut $6.5 billion from defense and intelligence funding, but he couldn't get a co-sponsor.

In 1996, Kerry voted Aye on a budget resolution to freeze defense spending for SEVEN years (Through year 2003) and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. Resolution defeated 71-28.

1998 U.S. Embassies Bombings

2000 USS Cole Attack

Fred is apparently correct that Kerry has recently voted Aye on several defense related measures since 1997, including an increase in military pay for our armed services personnel.

Where would we be if he had been successful on his votes prior?

Guess that doesn't matter because Kerry has changed with the times, indicating what? That his core beliefs have changed or is realisticaly dealing with the situation or something else?

Kerry has also cast two votes to loosen trade controls over "dual-use" technology such as U. S. made high-speed computers that can be used to build high tech weaponry.

I searched for the number of bills/legislation sponsored by Kerry and passed for his 20 years in the Senate and couldn't find any. Can someone advise if this is correct?

37L1

[Farmer Fred]

Where would we be if he had been successful on his votes prior?

Even more in debt than we are now?

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Fred

Even more in debt than we are now?

Fred:

Not sure I understand your last post.

If Kerry had been successful in his prior votes, you're saying we'd be even more in debt now? Or do you mean that we couldn't be more in debt then we already are? Kerry wasn't going to save the money in most cases, he was earmarking it for social programs, job training and education.

Sorry if I misunderstand what you are trying to say, I'm a little under the weather today.

If his votes had been successful, it appears to me that we wouldn't have had the weapons and personnel that were so successful in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. and our intelligence services would have been under funded and in worse shape then they were prior to 9/11.

Wouldn't have had those cruise missles fired off at Afghanistan in 1998 for example.

37L1

[cshaw]

Cheney Proposed Cutting Weapons Programs That Were Important to Success in Iraq. In 1990, Cheney proposed cutting 90 C-17 Air Force cargo transport planes and 14 B-52 bombers. Cheney also sought the retirement of two Navy battleships, two nuclear cruisers, and eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. In 1991, Cheney scrapped the Navy’s A-12 Stealth attack plane, a fighter that was proclaimed to be a key part of the future of navy aviation in advanced stealth technology. [Newday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]


C-17s and B-52s Vital to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to Defense Daily, “From January through mid-April C-17s in the Central Command's Middle East theater of operations conducted 2,600 missions, carrying more than 23,000 personnel, and more than 73 million pounds of cargo.” An analysis by Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies showed that the Air Force B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers dropped nearly two-thirds of the total bombs in the war. [Defense Daily, 5/21/03; Copley News Service, 7/3/03]


Cheney Cut Thousands of Active-Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Forces. In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]


Reserves Being Used at “Unprecedented Rate” in Iraq. National guardsmen and reservists will soon make up 40 percent of the total U.S. force in Iraq. Reservists are being used at “unprecedented rate,” according to Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the Army National Guard. Tasked with homeland security missions and combat rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of the part-time soldiers mobilized in the first days after September 11 have yet to be deactivated. An internal Army National Guard survey of 5,000 soldiers in 15 states recently presented a disturbing forecast: The rate at which Army Guard members leave the force after extended deployments could nearly double to 22 percent. [U.S. News & World Report, 2/9/04; Chicago Tribune, 2/9/04]

THE TRUTH ABOUT KERRY AND CHENEY RECORDS

Kerry is a Strong Supporter of America’s Military; Has Supported More Than $4.4 Trillion in Defense Spending & Voted for “Largest Increase in Defense Spending Since the Early 1980’s. He has support 16 of the 19 defense authorization bills since elected to the Senate. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget. This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. This measure includes $71.5 billion for procurement programs such as $4 billion for the Air Force's F-22 fighter jets, $3.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter and $279.3 million for an E-8C Joint Stars (JSTARS) aircraft. Kerry’s vote also funded a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel, $160 million for the B-1 Bomber Defense System Upgrade, $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine, more than $630 million for Army and Navy variants of the Blackhawk helicopter, $3.2 billion for additional C-17 transports, $900 million for R&D of the Comanche helicopter and more than $800 million for Trident Submarine conversion. The current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner (R-VA) stated: “The defense spending increase for FY03 is the largest increase in defense spending since the early 1980's-reflecting the importance of defending the homeland and winning the global war against terrorism” [2002, Senate Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of U.S. Senators Warner, Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03]


A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PROGRAMS JOHN KERRY IS BEING ATTACKED ON


APACHE HELICOPTER: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported $13 billion in defense authorizations for the Apache


THE CHENEY RECORD: Terminate The Apache; According to the RNC, AH-64 Apache Helicopters Were Crucial to Operation Iraqi Freedom.In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, “This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera.” In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, “The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64…I forced the Army to make choices…So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out.” [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Cheney Testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 7/13/89; Kerry’s Military: As He Would Like It,” 7/18/03]


AEGIS SHIPS: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported at least $53 billion defense authorizations for the Aegis program

THE CHENEY RECORD: Cheney Cut Program, Costing Jobs. Cheney plan cut 9 of original 25 ships planned, putting shipyard in jeopardy [States News Service, 8/14/90; Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/24/90]


BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for the Bradley program

THE CHENEY RECORD: Bush-Cheney Budget Terminated The Bradley. “Major weapons killed include the Army's M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Navy's Trident submarine and F-14 aircraft, and the Air Force's F-16 airplane. Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons.” [Boston Globe, 2/5/91]


BLACKHAWK HELICOPTERS: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk.

THE CHENEY RECORD: Terminate The Black Hawk. The Pentagon’s internal budget deliberations recommended termination of the Black Hawk program under Secretary Cheney.” [Aerospace Daily, 5/15/90]


B-2 BOMBER: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported over $16.7 billion in defense authorizations for the B-2 program

THE CHENEY RECORD: Cheney Proposed Cuts to B-2 Program, According to the RNC, B-2s Were Crucial to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, “Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback… of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75…” [Boston Globe, 4/27/90; From RNC Research Memo, “Kerry’s Military: As He Would Like It,” 7/18/03:


C-17 CARGO JETS: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $34.5 billion in defense authorizations for the C-17

THE CHENEY RECORD: Cutting C-17 Program. In 1990, Cheney proposed cutting 90 C-17 Air Force cargo transport planes [Newsday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]


F/A-18 FIGHTER JETS : The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $60 billion in defense authorizations for the F/A-18 and F-18

THE CHENEY RECORD: Cutbacks Hit Industry Hard: Workers and the industry were hit hard by Cheney’s decision for “major cuts” in the F/A-18 program and upgrades to the F-18 in the late 1980s [Flight International, 6/27/90; Los Angeles Times, 12/17/89; Aerospace Daily, 5/26/89; Aviation Week and Space Technology, 5/1/89]


F-16 FIGHTER JETS: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $25 billion in defense authorizations for the F-16.

THE CHENEY RECORD: Cheney Proposed Cutting F-16 Aircraft, According to the RNC, F-16s Were Crucial to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, “If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s…The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s.” According to the Boston Globe, Bush’s 1991 defense budget “kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $ 11.9 billion…Major weapons killed include[d]….the Air Force's F-16 airplane.” [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91; From RNC Research Memo, “Kerry’s Military: As He Would Like It,” 7/18/03.]


TOMAHAWK MISSILES: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $6 billion in defense authorizations for the Tomahawk missile program.


THE CHENEY RECORD: No New Missiles Requested Even As Stocks Depleted Before Gulf War, Cutbacks Lead To Layoffs: Cheney’s defense budget was so pared-down that it didn’t include any funds for more Tomahawk missiles in 1991, despite stocks rapidly diminished by the military action in the Persian Gulf. Cuts in 1990 led to layoffs throughout the nation. [Washington Post, 2/5/91; Aerospace Daily, 1/23/91; AP, 6/20/90]


C-130 CARGO JETS: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $12 billion in defense authorizations for the C-130

THE CHENEY RECORD: Move Hurricane Plane Out of Dept. of Defense, Move Considered Dangerous. In 1990, Cheney pushed a potentially dangerous move by trying to shift the WC-130 Hurricane Hunter planes from the Department of Defense and into the Department of Commerce. The WC-130 is used to track Hurricanes and warn coastal residents in time to evacuate the area. In July 1990, Cheney ordered that the Air Force halt all WC-130 flights by October 1, 1990 and turn the mission to the Commerce Department. Reed Boatright, a spokesman for the Commerce Department said, “we are not in a position to accept planes either financially or infrastructure wise.” According to Jerry Jarrell, deputy director of the National Hurricane Center, “It would be devastating” if the Commerce Department was unable to pick up the WC-130 after Cheney released it from Defense. Today, the WC-130 remains at Defense. [UPI, 7/11/00]


PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $10 billion in defense authorizations for the Patriot program.


SOURCES ON KERRY SPENDING: Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 – present

[37L1]

So which will you have, Kerry voting against these systems thereby being fiscally responsible regarding the National Debt (Fred) or Kerry voting for these systems and being fiscally irresponsible considering his voting record for spending on social welfare programs as well (Fred/cshaw)?

How do you pay for both without increasing the debt and raising taxes, the argument Fred has used regarding Bush?

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

Personally, I am glad to see that Kerry has been such a long time and generous supporter of the military. When did this start, 1997? It sure wasn't evident before then. How about referencing bills/dates/votes?

Did he ever explain his apparent radical change in voting habits?

This information about Kerry's voting record definitely does impress me! Thanks, cshaw.

All your referenced Cheney cuts in defense date from 1989-1991, none after, (most likely because he was no longer Secretary of Defense once Clinton took office in 1992).

What was Kerry's record during that same time?

From what I've been able to find, he was seeking the same cuts plus even more additional cuts until 1997 and not only military cuts but cuts in funding for intelligence services as well.

Kerry isn't running for Vice-President. How about comparing apples to apples, if at all possible?

Any Kerry sponsored legislation passed in his 20 years as a Senator? He has had to have done something. (Or did he have to leave it to the Senior Senator from Massachusettes?)

37L1

[BigJoe_Titan]

Cheney, isn't he the Vice president. Hard to remember, never see him do anything, I only hear about him and haliburton. You know - Cheney's company that is overcharging the governement. The company that got all the contracts in Iraq. Hmmmmm...