#1. Does Rudy have a tax plan?
#2. If the 9/11 and Katrina disasters to happen on the Democrats watch, how would they have been handled?
2007-08-03
18:36:42
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
That should have been "were handled"
My bad, I have a bad habit of leaving out words, you'll have to pardon me there.
Thanks
2007-08-03
18:38:14 ·
update #1
I mean "were to happan"
Geez, I can't get anything straight.
2007-08-03
18:38:55 ·
update #2
#1 - All I've heard is that he intends to give tax credits to cover the cost of private medical insurance to both singles and families. A great idea!
#2 - If 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, cameras would have probably zoomed in to find him at his desk, in the company of Monica, zipper down and angrily telling the nation that we'd have to wait until he 'finished.' Then, upset with being interrupted, he would have most likely elected to just forget about it.
#3 - See #2.
2007-08-03 18:55:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
1)Rudy will over tax the middle class and lower taxes for the wealthy.
2) Are you for real, you act as though President Clinton didn't have his share of disasters. Did you forget the Missouri flood of 1993. He was 7 months as the President when multiple levies broke and flooded towns along the Missouri River. You know why you don't remember because that flood was handled masterfully. 20 million acres in nine states, and Bush can't manage a flood in one state.
Here is the link
http://mo.water.usgs.gov/Reports/1993-Flood/index.htm
2007-08-04 02:18:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by King Midas 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not all democrats would have handled it the same, just as all republicans wouldn't have done what bush did. It's a very individualized answer. Ron Paul who's a Texas Republican voted against going to war, while some democrats voted for it (albeit under the influence of falsified information).
No one really knows who would have done what, but we can be pretty certain that anything would have been better than what we got in both instances.
2007-08-04 01:43:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by TJTB 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
1. I've not heard anything, but then again I have not followed his campaign.
2. Depends on the democrat. It's not about a party, it's about personal views. I have no doubt that there are republicans within their party that would've done a MUCH better job than Bush.
2007-08-04 01:43:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's okay Jeremy...don't sweat the small stuff (they say). As for an answer to your question, #1...I don't know...and....#2 nobody knows. I'm a Democrat and Giuliani is never going to be President anyway, so the questions are moot.
2007-08-04 01:51:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by ArRo 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
There is no difference between democrats and republicans, on the whole.
2007-08-04 01:43:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
1. who cares, the man is an idiot.
2. why, are you trying to feel better about how bad the republicans did?
2007-08-04 01:41:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by RedsForever 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
1. no
2. better
2007-08-04 01:53:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Fretless 6
·
1⤊
2⤋