Actually, most Americans when polled also rate Kerry as having a better economic policy. You know, the issue that put Clinton in the White House and made a one-termer out of GHW Bush. :hihi:
That tells you all you need to know about polls, Red: What Kerry economic policy? What are his plans (aside from raising taxes-that much we can be pretty sure of)? How do we know it's a better policy when it hasn't been implemented yet?
Typically, the Democrat's economic policy is to save money by cutting defense (Carter, Clinton). Then after we get our *sses in a crack a Republican has to come in and make up for it(Reagan, G. W. Bush), while the Democrats moan and whine about the deficit and spending. It would be interesting to know how Kerry will manage to do this since he is going to increase the size of the military by 40,000 and provide health care coverage to everyone. When the Democrats complain about Bush's spending, they always forget to mention the costs of Afghanistan and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, both which would have been incurred regardless who was president at the time (at least I hope so ,anyway). I say the cost of the war in Iraq could also be included, but I guess that is debatable considering Al Gore would have been the alternative and, given his weakness, probably wouldn't have had the nerve to go after Iraq.
Well, you might try looking in the obvious place. It's all laid out for everyone to see. JohnKerry.com Economic Policy I think the answer is: We know the policy of the incumbent and we don't like it. Therefore we are voting for a change. If it's not a better policy we have the opportunity to change again--every four years. This election is not really about Kerry, amigo. It is a referendum on Bush.
That site's a whole lot of talk about what he wants to do, without laying out a plan for implementing any of it. Typical political BS. George Bush has at least been strong on national security. If we're not safe, then nothing else (the economy included) matters. And if you're just looking to vote for anybody but the incumbent, no matter how bad of a candidate that other person may be, then you're approaching the voting booth with the wrong attitude, "amigo".
Hmmm. Actually post-Cold War military cuts were mostly a bi-partisan affair driven by congress, not the president. But . . . funding for national defense declined by about 16.9 percent during the George HW Bush Administration budget (FY 1989-1993). These cuts were the deepest of the post-Cold War period. By comparison, under the Clinton Administration, funding for defense declined by about 13.1 percent between FY 1993 and FY 1998, when funding for defense bottomed out, and rose 6-7 percent after that. (Post Cold War Spending Cuts, A Bipartisan Decision--Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.)
Defense spending would have decreased naturally after the end of the Cold War. It would be logical that this would be the period with the steepest decline. Clinton gutted it, as you show, in 1993 - 1998. Unfortunately, this was the time we should have been restocking our military supplies in recovery from the Gulf War and developing technology to aid in fighting this new type of war. He did realize his mistake and increase it after that. Unfortunately, you don't increase your military capability as soon as you obligate funding, it takes time to manufacture weapons systems and equipment and recruit and train soldiers. The shortage of military personel you hear Kerry crying about began during the Clinton years with his cuts and has yet to recover. So we are to expect another Democrat will fix that?
You didn't actually read it did you? :lol: I approach the voting booth the attitude that I can vote for whoever I want for whatever reasons I choose. Just like you. Not everybody that disagrees with you has a "wrong attitude"? Some of us think the "bad" candidate is the incumbent.
