Which president do you want to vote for on a financial stand point?

[speedy-v6-camaro]

I'm paying the lowest taxes I ever have while making the most I ever have....Bush brought down taxes, I voted for him.

[MustangEater8251]

Originally posted by Th3 RiCk:
Bush isn't to blame for the economy taking a hit. It was bound to fall on its face after the tech stock boom in the mid 90's came to a screeching hault. It's not only the US that's suffering from a bearish economy. Basically the entire world has been affected by a bad economy, with deflation playing a major role.
Anyone who plays the market knows that stocks move on patterns and news. If companies aren't making any money for any reason then people will sell. The tech stock crash coupled with 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back. Stocks with high volumes such as !Yahoo can't sell for $400+ very long before it's brought back to the ground. Here's something to remember, "What goes up, must come down."

As far as who I think would be better for the economy, I'm leading towards Bush. Only because I still think that if the government spends a lot of money it will stimulate the economy. Something must be working because there have been 1.9 Million new jobs created since August 2003.

Kerry is just too unrealistic with things. For instance, he wants to cuts taxes for middle class families in hope of them spending more. But the only way to pay for his healthcare plan is to tax the hell out of everyone. It just doesn't add up. He's only telling people what they want to hear. Laborers hear the words "wage increase" and they jump on the bandwagon. The unions already have outrageous wages as it is.

Honestly thats alot of my thoughts too... I am still indecisive on who exactly I will vote for but its leaning towards bush... Kerry just seems to be the type of person who says what people want to hear. Which worries me, what people like to hear isn't always what is good.

[phoenix64]

Originally posted by Th3 RiCk:
Bush isn't to blame for the economy taking a hit. It was bound to fall on its face after the tech stock boom in the mid 90's came to a screeching hault. It's not only the US that's suffering from a bearish economy. Basically the entire world has been affected by a bad economy, with deflation playing a major role.
Anyone who plays the market knows that stocks move on patterns and news. If companies aren't making any money for any reason then people will sell. The tech stock crash coupled with 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back. Stocks with high volumes such as !Yahoo can't sell for $400+ very long before it's brought back to the ground. Here's something to remember, "What goes up, must come down."

As far as who I think would be better for the economy, I'm leading towards Bush. Only because I still think that if the government spends a lot of money it will stimulate the economy. Something must be working because there have been 1.9 Million new jobs created since August 2003.

Kerry is just too unrealistic with things. For instance, he wants to cuts taxes for middle class families in hope of them spending more. But the only way to pay for his healthcare plan is to tax the hell out of everyone. It just doesn't add up. He's only telling people what they want to hear. Laborers hear the words "wage increase" and they jump on the bandwagon. The unions already have outrageous wages as it is.

No offence, but your facts about numbers of jobs added are missleading, its not jobs added its jobs re-gained, which still leaves him 600,000 in the hole from when he took office. Again, factcheck.org.

As for kerrys healthcare plan how can you be against children getting healthcare? Its not impossibly expensive like bush wants you to beleive. 95.7% of amaericans healthcare wouldn't be effected at all. Its a fairly small plan really. It only effects children with no healthcare.

If you look at Bush's record of running for different offices, its him that looks like he will say anything to get elected.

He claimed John McCain had an Black child out of wedlock, and he also lied about john McCains war record. He became Governor of texas by claiming the crime rate was skyrocketing when it had been decreasing steadly for years. 75% of what comes out of his mouth is half truth, the rest is complete lies. Not that kerry is much better.

[ October 20, 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: phoenix64 ]

[Dan M]

Boo politics boo.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by MustangEater8251:
And Bush's tax cut does help S Corporations and Partnerships.

True but irrelevant--take an accounting class.

Small business owners--be it a sole proprietorship, partnership, S-Corporation, or LLC--are only taxed on net income after all expenses are deducted. Operating expenses (salaries, plant and intangible assets, insurance premiums, interest paid on small business loans, etc.) are not taxed.

Therefore, if you are the sole owner of a non-C-Corporation business and have $200,000+ of net income after all expenses are paid, yes, Bush's plan does benefit you. But if that's the case then you are in the wealthiest top few percent of the country. Most small business owners don't come near that amount. Bush's idea of the struggling small businessman being taxed under Kerry is skewed.

Also, the idea of small businesses only being able to expand thanks to Bush is simply not true. You hire whoever you need to hire, pay whatever expenses you have to pay, and then are taxed after all is said and done on the net income that is left over.

And frankly, if you are covering all of your business' expenses and STILL have $200,000+ of net income then you have no reason to *****.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by DrSquirts:
Boo politics boo.

Eh... this is a relatively educated debate so far.

Everyone--let's stop yapping about black kids out of wedlock and stick to talking about this nation's deficit and taxes.

[MustangEater8251]

Good points Stefan...


As for still being 600,000 jobs in the hole... Recession, 9/11, and Enron still mean anything? I still feel any president would have had these, and heck I didn't vote for Bush last election.

[imported_admin]

Yes, there were bad things that happened that had nothing to do with Bush. He didn't cause the cost of housing to skyrocket over the past twenty years, for example.

But he isn't doing anything to stop it. The three big escalating costs that he's doing nothing to control that come to mind are housing, health care, and college tuition.

[GrigoryRasputin]

9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

Thats the stupidest comment ever.

Stefan: Home ownership is at its highest level ever, housing costs can't really be controlled either, as you should know it supply and demand. But lower mortgage rates basically increased the amount you can now afford on the same monthly payment so housing prices went up.

MustangEater: Agreed...Bush stepped in something that wasn't really his fault. There is no way a recession can occur in less than 6 months and be your fault, most policies and laws can't even start to be passed in that amount of time.

[MustangEater8251]

Not sure where it fits in 100% but I know here in FL, hosuing is skyrocketing do to the concrete and raw material shortages because of China, and of course, all the workers out fixing houses instead of bulding new ones.(Hurricanes)

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by Pheonix64: As for kerrys healthcare plan how can you be against children getting healthcare? Its not impossibly expensive like bush wants you to beleive. 95.7% of amaericans healthcare wouldn't be effected at all. Its a fairly small plan really. It only effects children with no healthcare.

I never said I was against children getting healthcare. Where are you getting numbers that say 95.7% of Americans won't be affected? Kerry said himself he wants to save Americans $1000 a year in healthcare.

John Kerry "The plan I've offered will save Americans $1,000 a year in their health care costs."

So does that mean only 4.3% of the people will save $1000 dollars or he'll deduct $1000 from the entire trillian dollar plan? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Stefan:
But he isn't doing anything to stop it. The three big escalating costs that he's doing nothing to control that come to mind are housing, health care, and college tuition.

If you're talking about interested rates and such with housing that is Greenspans problem. That's what the Federal Reserve Board was created for. If you want to fix that problem get Greenspan out.

As far as healthcare, it is Bush's fault and he hasn't done a whole lot with it. I'll give you that.
How can you control college tuition? Financial aid and grants can only go so far. All this money comes from your taxes.

Originally posted by GirgoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

You're kidding I hope. The airline companies alone have had to lay of nearly a million employees since 9/11 due to people not wanting to fly. If Bush could have put 1,000,000 people into jobs through those two programs then bravo.

[memphis_raines]

Originally posted by MustangEater8251:
Not sure where it fits in 100% but I know here in FL, hosuing is skyrocketing do to the concrete and raw material shortages because of China, and of course, all the workers out fixing houses instead of bulding new ones.(Hurricanes)

You think China's bad now? Wait until the free trade thing opens up next year.

I normally go with the Republican side of things, unless there's a Bush in office. Nothing has ever changed with them. They're all about the oil and that almighty dollar. I will say this though....he must be very well hung, because not too many guys can f*ck a whole country at once.

[GrigoryRasputin]

Originally posted by speedy-v6-camaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

Thats the stupidest comment ever.
</font>[/QUOTE]Expert analysis tiger. Too bad you dont know what the **** youre talking about.

[phoenix64]

Originally posted by Th3 RiCk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Pheonix64: As for kerrys healthcare plan how can you be against children getting healthcare? Its not impossibly expensive like bush wants you to beleive. 95.7% of amaericans healthcare wouldn't be effected at all. Its a fairly small plan really. It only effects children with no healthcare.

I never said I was against children getting healthcare. Where are you getting numbers that say 95.7% of Americans won't be affected? Kerry said himself he wants to save Americans $1000 a year in healthcare.

John Kerry "The plan I've offered will save Americans $1,000 a year in their health care costs."

So does that mean only 4.3% of the people will save $1000 dollars or he'll deduct $1000 from the entire trillian dollar plan? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by GirgoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

You're kidding I hope. The airline companies alone have had to lay of nearly a million employees since 9/11 due to people not wanting to fly. If Bush could have put 1,000,000 people into jobs through those two programs then bravo. </font>[/QUOTE]One last time, seriously go check out factcheck.org, I was talking about Bush's cliam that Kerry is going to "federalize" Health care. Kerry's only intention is to give healthcare to children. As far as healthcare reform I have no idea what kerrys plan is.

As for adding jobs with 9/11 That exactly what bush did. Of the 1.9 million jobs recoved, 1.6 million are government jobs. I just assumed that a lot of those were related to homeland security type programs. Therefore byproducts of 9/11.