The truth about Kerry’s $87 billion vote

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lately my television set has been bombarded with ads from Republican President George W. Bush. One ad that came into my living room was a little shocking: It said John Kerry did not support the troops overseas. What this ad was referring to was Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry’s vote against a bill that would allocate $87 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ad doesn’t explain why he did not vote for the legislation. We are left with the impression that Kerry voted against our troops and that he is a jerk.

Well, this is only a half-truth. Kerry did not vote for the $87 billion for a reason. Before the bill came to a vote, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Joseph Biden had proposed an amendment to delay some of the “tax cuts for the wealthy.” This was struck down. Sen. Kerry was displaying fiscal responsibility on behalf of the country. With a soaring budget deficit, the country can’t afford to be giving money to the rich and fund two wars.

The story runs a little deeper though. Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman, said this about the vote in October 2003: “The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the Presidents failures would be discovered.” For instance, how was the government planning to pay for the additional funding? What was Bush’s exit strategy in Iraq?

Cutter also said that the White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion package, if the Kerry-Biden amendment had been adopted. Kerry decided a presidential veto would be worse, because the troops needed the money. He also realized that the Republicans would back their president and not allow the bill to get through. So he did not choose to fight for this amendment. Instead, he opted to vote against the bill in protest. As informed readers know, Kerry has consistently supported our troops. What is ironic is that Kerry is painted as abandoning the troops.

Yet, if the amendment had passed to postpone Bush’s tax cuts for Bush’s friends Bush would have carried out his threat to veto the bill—for his millionaire buddies. Taking care of the top 10% seems to be a recurring theme in his presidency.

Kerry proposed a plan that was fiscally responsible, while also providing the military with the necessary funding they required. Kerry supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the bill. Someone who is able to stand up for what they believe in on such a grand scale is nothing less than…presidential.

http://nicholasnolan.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=6

[watermock]

Cutter also said that the White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion package, if the Kerry-Biden amendment had been adopted.

Next.

[watermock]

Kerry supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the bill.

Hey listen you Dimwit. Kerry Supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the Bill?

Your an idiot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_operation_liberation.jpg

[RaiderH8r]

Lately my television set has been bombarded with ads from Republican President George W. Bush. One ad that came into my living room was a little shocking: It said John Kerry did not support the troops overseas. What this ad was referring to was Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry’s vote against a bill that would allocate $87 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ad doesn’t explain why he did not vote for the legislation. We are left with the impression that Kerry voted against our troops and that he is a jerk.

Well, this is only a half-truth. Kerry did not vote for the $87 billion for a reason. Before the bill came to a vote, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Joseph Biden had proposed an amendment to delay some of the “tax cuts for the wealthy.” This was struck down. Sen. Kerry was displaying fiscal responsibility on behalf of the country. With a soaring budget deficit, the country can’t afford to be giving money to the rich and fund two wars.

The story runs a little deeper though. Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman, said this about the vote in October 2003: “The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the Presidents failures would be discovered.” For instance, how was the government planning to pay for the additional funding? What was Bush’s exit strategy in Iraq?

Cutter also said that the White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion package, if the Kerry-Biden amendment had been adopted. Kerry decided a presidential veto would be worse, because the troops needed the money. He also realized that the Republicans would back their president and not allow the bill to get through. So he did not choose to fight for this amendment. Instead, he opted to vote against the bill in protest. As informed readers know, Kerry has consistently supported our troops. What is ironic is that Kerry is painted as abandoning the troops.

Yet, if the amendment had passed to postpone Bush’s tax cuts for Bush’s friends Bush would have carried out his threat to veto the bill—for his millionaire buddies. Taking care of the top 10% seems to be a recurring theme in his presidency.

Kerry proposed a plan that was fiscally responsible, while also providing the military with the necessary funding they required. Kerry supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the bill. Someone who is able to stand up for what they believe in on such a grand scale is nothing less than…presidential.

http://nicholasnolan.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=6
What a load of sh!t. Bluelemur.com...more like dumblemming.com. Do you take sugar with your Kool Aid?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What a load of sh!t. Bluelemur.com...more like dumblemming.com. Do you take sugar with your Kool Aid?

What?

A bush lemming merely attempting to discredit a source w/o actually refuting its facts?

Who woulda thunk?

[Rascal]

What a load of sh!t. Bluelemur.com...more like dumblemming.com. Do you take sugar with your Kool Aid?

What?

A bush lemming merely attempting to discredit a source w/o actually refuting its facts?

Who woulda thunk?


^^^^^ Hypocrite

You've lost all credibility. When "a bush lemming" posts something from a website you don't approve of you do the same damn thing, yet here you are telling them to address the facts.

What a hypocritical moron.

[RaiderH8r]

Lately my television set has been bombarded with ads from Republican President George W. Bush. One ad that came into my living room was a little shocking: It said John Kerry did not support the troops overseas. What this ad was referring to was Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry’s vote against a bill that would allocate $87 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ad doesn’t explain why he did not vote for the legislation. We are left with the impression that Kerry voted against our troops and that he is a jerk.

Well, this is only a half-truth. Kerry did not vote for the $87 billion for a reason. Before the bill came to a vote, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Joseph Biden had proposed an amendment to delay some of the “tax cuts for the wealthy.” This was struck down. Sen. Kerry was displaying fiscal responsibility on behalf of the country. With a soaring budget deficit, the country can’t afford to be giving money to the rich and fund two wars.

The story runs a little deeper though. Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman, said this about the vote in October 2003: “The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the Presidents failures would be discovered.” For instance, how was the government planning to pay for the additional funding? What was Bush’s exit strategy in Iraq?

Cutter also said that the White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion package, if the Kerry-Biden amendment had been adopted. Kerry decided a presidential veto would be worse, because the troops needed the money. He also realized that the Republicans would back their president and not allow the bill to get through. So he did not choose to fight for this amendment. Instead, he opted to vote against the bill in protest. As informed readers know, Kerry has consistently supported our troops. What is ironic is that Kerry is painted as abandoning the troops.

Yet, if the amendment had passed to postpone Bush’s tax cuts for Bush’s friends Bush would have carried out his threat to veto the bill—for his millionaire buddies. Taking care of the top 10% seems to be a recurring theme in his presidency.

Kerry proposed a plan that was fiscally responsible, while also providing the military with the necessary funding they required. Kerry supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the bill. Someone who is able to stand up for what they believe in on such a grand scale is nothing less than…presidential.

http://nicholasnolan.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=6
So funding the troops to fight a war and making improvements to their equipment was an issue to be used as a political football for the Senator? The bottom line is that he voted against the funding and he has to take responsibility for that. Silly lemming. Kerry supported the troops and the rest of our country by voting against the bill. Somehow, I think the troops may see it differently.

[Raider Bill]

Tax reciepts went up after the Bush tax cuts,(as supply side/Laffer curve theory suggests) not down. Kerry's fiscal responsibility is a load of horse sh!t

[Exile_In_SJ]

LABF can spin all he wants, and list all the excuses why Kerry didn't vote for the bill, but the end result is what counts. When Kerry had a chance to support the troops, he voted no.

Kerry voted against the 87 billion for the troops and Iraq. He decided against supporting the troops. That is the result of what he did. Excuses mean nothing

Kerry did not support the troops when he had the chance, plain and simple. The troops know this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kerry did not support the troops when he had the chance, plain and simple. The troops know this.

Another desperate winger spin job.

Bush himself threatened to veto the bill if it meant rolling back those tax cuts for his millionaire buddies and if it included funding veterans. Talk about not "supporting the troops!" And the only way Bush was willing to "support the troops" was if the $87 billion tab was passed on to your grandchildren.

Kerry was smart enough to know that, with a huge budget deficit, funding two wars while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires would spell disaster for our economy.

Looks like he turned out to be right.

The Unelected Idiot could have very easily chosen to fund the appropriations bill with the same money he instead opted to give away to his super-rich friends, but God forbid that dubya should ask the weathiest Americans and big corporations to contribute or to shoulder their share of the burden during wartime!

Tax reciepts went up after the Bush tax cuts,(as supply side/Laffer curve theory suggests) not down. Kerry's fiscal responsibility is a load of horse sh!t

Is that why Gigglekill's own economic advisor (whose book is regarded as a definitive economic text) said that the supply-side economics of Reagan and Bush 41 were responsible for the massive deficits of the 80s? Is it why all those Nobel Prize-winning economists have called Smirk's economic policies "disastrous?"

So funding the troops to fight a war and making improvements to their equipment was an issue to be used as a political football for the Senator?

I'd say the question of where $87 billion is going to come from is hardly a "political football." It would be more accurate to call it a tremendously important economic issue that is going to have a far-reaching impact on our economy for generations to come.

But we already know that for republicans, every issue is a "political football."

[Raider Bill]

What do you propose LABF, raising rates? Tax revenues went up despite lower marginal rates. They did in the 80's too. Tip O'neil had a lot more to do with the deficit than tax cuts. Get a clue. Or do you long for the 23% mortgage and gas lines out the azzz.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What do you propose LABF, raising rates?

I propose doing what Kerry plans to do, i.e., roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cutting taxes on the middle class.

I would also propose returning the $5 trillion budget surplus Bush and his gang of crooks stole from the treasury, but I guess it's too late for that.

[Raider Bill]

And watch reciepts to the treasury plummet. One part of me wants Kerry to win, he's going to be a friggin disaster. Go ahead roll back those rates and watch the capital formation in this country dry up.

Christ almighty every economic theory (including Marxism) believes that capital formation is the key to growth/standard of living improvement. Jamming it to the rich sounds good and all but in actuallity it's disasterous for everyone involved.

[Raider Bill]

According to you we should have been sailing along nicely under Carter with a 90% top marginal rate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And watch reciepts to the treasury plummet.

Riiiiiight. That's just what happened during the Clinton years.

That's how we ended up with record surpluses.

Kerry's economic plan would basically be the same as Clinton's.

BTW, when Reagan/Bush 41 took office, all of the public trust funds were fully funded. By the time they left, all of the same funds had been looted to death and were deep in the red.

Our economy always works better when the Democrats are in charge. This is just a plain fact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's really funny is that even moderate republicans are on record as being aghast at Bush's out-of-control borrowing and spending. What does that say about right-wing fringe nuts (like Exile, etc.) who claim to be moderates?

[Raider Bill]

Clinton lowered the Capital Gains rate from 28 to 20%. Where was the outcry? Weren't we taking food out of peoples mouths by doing this? My gosh did he lower taxes to benefit the wealthy? Face it, the lowering of taxes stimulates the economy from the top down. Putting a couple of hundred bucks in the average guys pocket will provide some stimulus from consumption spending but it will be short lived. Lowering rates at the top either capital gains or income, will cause a cascade of new dollars into the capital markets. Since wages tend to mirror capital invested per worker this is a good thing for all involved.


..... Why the hell do I even bother, you'll probably respond with a gif of Bush holding a beer or something.

[Exile_In_SJ]

LABartcop probably thinks Carter was a good president, instead of the disaster he truly was.

Kerry is a far left whacko, Clinton was a center lefty....Kerry would be unmitigated disaster, he hasn't done anything in his life outside of 4 months in vietnam whcih may or may not have occured as he stated. otherwise he's pretty much been a non-entity whos sole ability is marrying rich women

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton lowered the Capital Gains rate from 28 to 20%. Where was the outcry? Weren't we taking food out of peoples mouths by doing this?

Um, a quick glance at the record will answer your question.

Take a particularly close look at the number of new jobs created and the number of people lifted out of poverty as a result of Clinton's policies.

And, in just three short years, the court-appointed monkey has reversed all this.

LABartcop probably thinks Carter was a good president, instead of the disaster he truly was.

The smart money says Exile from Sound Judgment wasn't even an itch in his daddy's Wranglers when Carter was president.

And he probably thinks Red Ink Ronnie was the greatest president ever.

Kerry is a far left whacko...

Yeah, when I think of "far left whacko," a former prosecutor who is pro-military, and pro-law enforcement is the first thing that springs to mind.

If Exile were actually familiar with Kerry's voting record in the Senate and not merely parroting the latest Sean Insannity talking points, he might not come off as such a clueless retard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kerry is a far left whacko...

Is that why twelve generals, admirals, and former joint chiefs of staff all broke with their parties to endorse Kerry? (Something which has never happened before in a US presidential election.)

Is that why the police union endorsed Kerry?

Yep, those admirals, generals, and cops know a "left wing whacko" when they see one, alright.

Done embarrassing yourself yet?

[Raider Bill]

"I voted for that 87 billion, before I voted against it".

[Raider Bill]

Clinton lowered the Capital Gains rate from 28 to 20%. Where was the outcry? Weren't we taking food out of peoples mouths by doing this?

Um, a quick glance at the record will answer your question.

Take a particularly close look at the number of new jobs created and the number of people lifted out of poverty as a result of Clinton's policies.

And, in just three short years, the court-appointed monkey has reversed all this.

Sure conviently leave out 9-11, Enron, Global Crossing, etc. These things didnt spring up overnight, Bubba's coddling of terrorists and wink wink enforcement of SEC rules helped to bring this on. Contrary to what you parrot on here revenue to the Treasury is up after the Bush tax cuts. The stimulative effect to the economy cannot be discounted. I would hate to see what happened if Bush didnt cut taxes. Kerry's babbling about fiscal responsibility is a load of donkey crap. We are taking in more money now then prior to the Bush tax cuts. The economy isn't a finite pie e.g. when you lower rates for one group it doesnt take away from another. The entire pie just grows.

LABartcop probably thinks Carter was a good president, instead of the disaster he truly was.

The smart money says Exile from Sound Judgment wasn't even an itch in his daddy's Wranglers when Carter was president.

And he probably thinks Red Ink Ronnie was the greatest president ever.

Why not jack the top rate to 100% LABF, that should solve everything. Those damn rich deserve it. As far as Regan, the DEMS controled the legislature. Liberal rewriting of history has shifted the blame for the deficit from Tip O'neil to Regan. Regan's tax cuts caused a near tripling of revenues to the treasury. Congress spent all the Jack.

Kerry is a far left whacko...

[Yeah, when I think of "far left whacko," a former prosecutor who is pro-military, and pro-law enforcement is the first thing that springs to mind.

If Exile were actually familiar with Kerry's voting record in the Senate and not merely parroting the latest Sean Insannity talking points, he might not come off as such a clueless retard.

Nah he's no liberal

1. Against the death penalty in almost all cases.
2. Voted many times against tax cuts.
3. Supported killing military programs, including the B-1 and B-2 bombers.
4. Voted against banning "partial-birth" abortions and against parental notification when minors have abortions.
5. Voted against Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to refuse to recognize gay marriages in other states.
6. Voted against the 1991 Gulf War.
7. Voted against $87 billion to support U.S. troops and rebuild Iraq.
8. Called for taxing guns and ammunition to pay for anti-crime programs.
9. Pushed to cut CIA funding - then griped about poor intelligence after 9/11.
10. Supported furloughs for first-degree murderers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sure conviently leave out 9-11, Enron, Global Crossing, etc.

Ah, just a few of the disasters that have happened on Bush's watch but for which, naturally, Clinton is to blame if you believe Rush and O'Liely.

Bubba's coddling of terrorists...

Um, is that why only 34 Americans were killed by terrorism (mostly overseas) on "Bubba's" eight-year watch while how many thousands died during AWOL Boy's first year alone? (To say nothing of the 200+ marines who died in that terrorist bombing of those barracks in Lebanon on St. Ronnie's watch.)

Gotcha.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kerry is a far left whacko...

Here's proof that you don't know what you're talking about:

The 11th Most Liberal Senator

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19507/

[Rohirrim]

Why doesn't somebody on the right answer this question: Why was the $87 billion bill even necessary? Why did Congress need to pass a funding bill to properly armor our troops who were already in battle?

Two questions:
1. Why didn't they have body armor and armored vehicles going in?
2. How many died because they didn't have the armor going in?

What you'd rather do is attack a guy who made a protest vote against a bill that everyone knew was going to pass, rather than question a leader who sent American soldiers into war under-equipped - and had to go to Congress to ask for funding after the fact.

Doesn't that just support Kerry's assertion that this administration "Rushed into war?" "Without a plan?" "Without an endgame?"

One of two things is happening, from what I can see of the deaths of our soldiers now slipping to page 10 of the paper - and off the screens of network news:

1. Bush, for some reason, is getting a free ride. No hard questions. No accountability. I base this on the fact that we all know now that the reasons for this war were utter :bs:. So, where's the outrage of the duped American populace? Where's the anger that over 900 of our soldiers might have died for a lie? Silence.

or

2. We just don't give a shiite about our soldiers. They're expendable as long as our political team wins.

[Rascal]

The national journal, a bipartisan magazine unlike your source, says he is the most liberal. Besides wouldn't you of all people want him to be as liberal as possible?

For all i know your source could of doctored the data, heck moore did so why shouldn't this source?

And its pretty pathetic when a senator, and I don't give a damn what party they are, miss enough votes for that alleged situation mentioned in that article to happen. They were voted to serve for their consituents by voting for bills and such, looks like to me that Kerry and numerous other senators are failing in that area.

[TomServo]

Because thats just the way it is.
and when it came down to giving the troops the funding no matter how it was in the end.......kerry wanted to outDo edwards and voted no.... to funding the troops who gives a crap @ taxes give the troops the Money.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is that why Dim Son threatened to veto the bill if it included funding for veterans and if it meant asking millionaires to pay their fair share?

The Unelected Idiot has axed benefits for veterans (as well as for military folk and their families) time and time again, and yet he "supports the troops?"

What a crock of sour owl sh!t.