How Can President Bush possibly lose in November?

[Dari]

I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, an ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this the man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this a man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

I'm voting for Kerry

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this a man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

I'm voting for Kerry

Let me guess, because you're desperate to see Bush go, right? Hell, either you don't know Kerry's history or you don't care, so long as Bush is out of office, right? Do you think America feels the same as you?

 

[Dissipate]

I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this a man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

I'm voting for Kerry

Let me guess, because you're desperate to see Bush go, right? Hell, either you don't know Kerry's history or you don't care, so long as Bush is out of office, right? Do you think America feels the same as you?

I know that Bush was either criminal or criminally incompetent with Iraq. I also know that the emphasis on investigating it is on everyone else but the White House. "Buck stop here? Hey we never got it!"
Others beside myself see this "proud and confident Texas Republican" as an incompetent at best.
Yes, a large portion of the voters want to see him go. If more want him out than in, then he is gone. That is how he can lose the election.
NEWS FLASH- Karl Rove tactics notwithstanding, this is not going to be a romp for Bush.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

 

[beer]

1) Patriot Act
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
4) $500 billion deficit
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
8) $500 BILLION DEFECIT
9) Not fixing social security
10) Immigration propositions
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
14) "Shock and Awe"
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
16) As a successor to #15, pulling out of the ABM treaty and wasting hundreds of billions on a ballistic missile shield when our enemies now are just going to bring a nuke on a container ship and level the western port cities.
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
19) Making enemies out of just about every former ally, including Western Europe powers such as Germany, France, the general population of the UK (who are going to vote Labour out and there goes the UK' official support of us)
20) Did I mention a $500 billion deficit?

And and FYI, Bush did absolutely nothing in the Israel/Palestinian thing. Clinton and Carter did.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this a man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

I'm voting for Kerry

Let me guess, because you're desperate to see Bush go, right? Hell, either you don't know Kerry's history or you don't care, so long as Bush is out of office, right? Do you think America feels the same as you?

I know that Bush was either criminal or criminally incompetent with Iraq. I also know that the emphasis on investigating it is on everyone else but the White House. "Buck stop here? Hey we never got it!"
Others beside myself see this "proud and confident Texas Republican" as an incompetent at best.
Yes, a large portion of the voters want to see him go. If more want him out than in, then he is gone. That is how he can lose the election.
NEWS FLASH- Karl Rove tactics notwithstanding, this is not going to be a romp for Bush.

I seriously doubt that a large portion of Americans want to see him go. I'm a Democrat and most Democrats hate him either because of Ashcroft or Iraq. The deficit isn't even on their radar because it has never been on their radar. As for Iraq, it may have been based on faulty intel given by the CIA but we're there now. Actually, may be a God-send for the United States if we play this right. One, we will become friend with a country that has the second largest reserves in the world. Second, it's a friendly reminder to Iran that we have her cornered. Third, it makes us less dependent on Saudi oil. Fourth, it gives America an upper-hand against Israel and her lobbyists because she will have less of an excuse to play nice with her neighbors since we will be securing the realm for the peace-loving nations in that region.

As for your answer, it just shows that you hate Bush more than you know (anything) about Kerry.

 

[ReiAyanami]

a large scale terrorist attack would plumment the economy like it did last time. it would prove bush lost the war on terror, and a bad economy would be on the minds of voters.

other than that, there's no way Bush can lose the election unless he falls off a scooter into a crowd of kindergarteners and crushes them while eating a bag of pretzels

 

[TitanDiddly]

I like Bush. I think he's the best candidate for controlling the country. He's done a good job so far, despite the efforts of many, and I think that he will continue to do so.

 

[RabidMongoose]

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
I like Bush. I think he's the best candidate for controlling the country. He's done a good job so far, despite the efforts of many, and I think that he will continue to do so.

I never liked the man until I met him back in '99. Then, as today, he looked and acted confident. He also has that "reality distortion field" that people believe Steve Jobs exerts. Unless you're an ultra-liberal, it's really hard to hate the President. In fact, he embodies most Southerners I meet: honest, proud and cool (in a cowboy sort-of way). My gf and some of her gay (male) friends love to hate him. Her gay friends think he's too straight. I think deep-down, they admire him:Q.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

OMFG, you're more radical than I thought. However, you have to realize something, whether they're a congressman, president, federal judge, or a cabinet member, all these people work for the Federal Government. Hence, why would they want to reduce their plate? So long as the states have little to no say in federal matters, the people that work for the federal gov't will always favor bigger (federal) gov't, even though they "represent" the states. It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
I like Bush. I think he's the best candidate for controlling the country. He's done a good job so far, despite the efforts of many, and I think that he will continue to do so.

I never liked the man until I met him back in '99. Then, as today, he looked and acted confident. He also has that "reality distortion field" that people believe Steve Jobs exerts. Unless you're an ultra-liberal, it's really hard to hate the President. In fact, he embodies most Southerners I meet: honest, proud and cool (in a cowboy sort-of way). My gf and some of her gay (male) friends love to hate him. Her gay friends think he's too straight. I think deep-down, they admire him:Q.

I think deep down, you want to have his babies.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Productivity and efficiency means companies can do more with less workers. Productivity is not going to force companies to start hiring workers, it will allow them to cut workers.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for.

This country is as much if not more politically polarized as when Bush took office.

It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Minor issues being limited federal government and fiscal responsibility.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

The medicare bill is giving a key to the US treasury to the pharma industry. No child left behind is a debacle. It's better if teachers teach the majority of the students some marketable skills than teaching the totality of the students how to pass a federal governent test. What about Israel did he turn into law?
And of course, depending on how you define "Middle America" you can attribute whatever you want to them.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

Good, keep thinking that. Dean's problem was he was too emotional for a media that lives from soundbyte to soundbyte.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, an ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this the man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

Good, if Bush is proud of his 500B deficit and confident that people will forget the 2.3M jobs lost and a war in Iraq whose justification just seems to have evaporated, then let him run on his record.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: beer
1) Patriot Act
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
4) $500 billion deficit
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
8) $500 BILLION DEFECIT
9) Not fixing social security
10) Immigration propositions
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
14) "Shock and Awe"
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
16) As a successor to #15, pulling out of the ABM treaty and wasting hundreds of billions on a ballistic missile shield when our enemies now are just going to bring a nuke on a container ship and level the western port cities.
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
19) Making enemies out of just about every former ally, including Western Europe powers such as Germany, France, the general population of the UK (who are going to vote Labour out and there goes the UK' official support of us)
20) Did I mention a $500 billion deficit?

And and FYI, Bush did absolutely nothing in the Israel/Palestinian thing. Clinton and Carter did.

:beer:

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

That's a fallacy that was proven wrong by an economist named Laffer in the '80s. When the government cuts the marginal tax rates tax revenue actually increases in a lot of cases. This happened during Reagan's administration. The tax rates were cut and tax revenue doubled. Whether or not this will happen now isn't really the main issue for me though, I want government expenditures as a % of GDP to be slashed in half.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

That's a fallacy that was proven wrong by an economist named Laffer in the '80s. When the government cuts the marginal tax rates tax revenue actually increases in a lot of cases. This happened during Reagan's administration. The tax rates were cut and tax revenue doubled. Whether or not this will happen now isn't really the main issue for me though, I want government expenditures as a % of GDP to be slashed in half.

If revenue doubled, why didn't Reagan's deficits go away?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

That's a fallacy that was proven wrong by an economist named Laffer in the '80s. When the government cuts the marginal tax rates tax revenue actually increases in a lot of cases. This happened during Reagan's administration. The tax rates were cut and tax revenue doubled. Whether or not this will happen now isn't really the main issue for me though, I want government expenditures as a % of GDP to be slashed in half.

If revenue doubled, why didn't Reagan's deficits go away?

Partly because of the Cold War defense spending hikes, partly because Congress was controlled by Democrats and the Dems traded increased spending for Reagan's tax cuts.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

That's a fallacy that was proven wrong by an economist named Laffer in the '80s. When the government cuts the marginal tax rates tax revenue actually increases in a lot of cases. This happened during Reagan's administration. The tax rates were cut and tax revenue doubled. Whether or not this will happen now isn't really the main issue for me though, I want government expenditures as a % of GDP to be slashed in half.

If revenue doubled, why didn't Reagan's deficits go away?

Partly because of the Cold War defense spending hikes, partly because Congress was controlled by Democrats and the Dems traded increased spending for Reagan's tax cuts.

So you are saying spending more than doubled?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not voting for Bush because of the huge deficit he racked up and the fact that his administration has done nothing about Social Security in spite of Greenspan's urges to do so.

Actually your two statements have a lot in common. First off, Greenspan just made that statement less than a week ago. I doubt that either the President or Congress moves that fast. Second, if you listened to what Greenspan said, you'll understand that he hates tax increases. The answer than would be to cut federal expenses. That would lower the deficit. As the economy grows bigger, the higher tax revenues will lower the deficit further. Bush has promised to cut expenses. John Kerry only promises to shift the tax cuts, away from people and more towards universal this or that.

That brings us to Social Security. No one is going to touch the SS issue this year because it is a very sensitive issue. That's why you will find Kerry, Edwards, and Bush on the same page. They've all promised to not touch SS. However, the baby boomers are going to be retiring pretty soon. Congress will eventually have to deal with this.

I'm not voting for John Kerry either. I'm voting for whichever Libertarian is on the ballot. I used to be a Republican but I have come to realize through my own research that there is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure there are more tax cuts under a Republican administration BUT the truth of the matter is the overall size of government has not really gone down under any administration within the past few decades and the fundamental flaws of government still plague our nation and will continue to plague our nation under the administration of Democrat or Republican.

I want drastic earth moving changes in government. I want government OUT of the banking industry and a value backed currency, I want the IRS to be abolished along with the income tax and replaced with a consumption tax, I want the U.S. to stop playing nanny to the rest of the world in the form of military protection to countries, I want the war on drugs to end and drug use legalized(but regulated) and most of all I want Social Security to end as soon as possible. I'm 20 years old and I hope that younger voters my age can see the light as I have and understand that the Democrats and Republicans are NOT on our side, its time for the old fashioned ways of government to end. For some reason younger voters think that the Democratic Party is the party of change and that the Republican Party is the party of old people. This couldn't be further from the truth. They are both parties of decadence. Unfortunately, I think younger voters have been brainwashed by the liberal media such as MTV. Truly a shame.

It's sad but there's no denying it. Your best chance for smaller government is through the Republican party because when they cut taxes, they force the feds to go on a diet sooner or later. Democrats just reduce the deficit by increasing taxes.

That's a fallacy that was proven wrong by an economist named Laffer in the '80s. When the government cuts the marginal tax rates tax revenue actually increases in a lot of cases. This happened during Reagan's administration. The tax rates were cut and tax revenue doubled. Whether or not this will happen now isn't really the main issue for me though, I want government expenditures as a % of GDP to be slashed in half.

If revenue doubled, why didn't Reagan's deficits go away?

Partly because of the Cold War defense spending hikes, partly because Congress was controlled by Democrats and the Dems traded increased spending for Reagan's tax cuts.

So you are saying spending more than doubled?

I am not sure because when I say tax revenue doubled I mean income tax revenue. You can look up the numbers yourself, I'm sure its just a Google away.

Edit: I know that spending did go way up during the Reagan Adiminstration though.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Productivity and efficiency means companies can do more with less workers. Productivity is not going to force companies to start hiring workers, it will allow them to cut workers.

Did you even read the last sentence? Eventually, companies will be forced to hire more workers as demand increase.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for.

This country is as much if not more politically polarized as when Bush took office.

The country is polarized because Congress is about even in representation. When something like that happens, it is the fringe movement of each party that gets to set the agenda. This is common sense.

It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Minor issues being limited federal government and fiscal responsibility.

No. Minor issues being throwing Democrats some crumbs so that major policies ride the day. I've never seen an Administration do it so effectively.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

The medicare bill is giving a key to the US treasury to the pharma industry. No child left behind is a debacle. It's better if teachers teach the majority of the students some marketable skills than teaching the totality of the students how to pass a federal governent test. What about Israel did he turn into law?
And of course, depending on how you define "Middle America" you can attribute whatever you want to them.

Those are your opinions. Nurture them, even if they're wrong

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

Good, keep thinking that. Dean's problem was he was too emotional for a media that lives from soundbyte to soundbyte.

No, Kerry stole Dean's fire by leaning towards Dean's base, which are the angry fringe of the Democratic Party. It has infected him

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, an ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this the man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

Good, if Bush is proud of his 500B deficit and confident that people will forget the 2.3M jobs lost and a war in Iraq whose justification just seems to have evaporated, then let him run on his record.

For someone who claims to understand economics, your understanding of the deficit and the 2.3 million jobs "lost" is laughable and plays into politics moreso than truth. Those 2.3M jobs lost would've been lost whether or not Bush came to office. And they started to get lost after the Microsoft verdict of April 2000. Hell, if we keep the loss of jobs due to outsourcing out of the picture (which has less to do with Presidential policy than corporate policy and globalization) you'll see that many of the "bubble" jobs that were created in the 1990s were lost just a couple of years later. No President can keep www.dogfood.com or any of its sibling companies that sprang up in the bubble years of the 1990s from going out of business if the company itself had no real business plan other than to realize profit via IPOs and the hope of internet users spending like crazy. As for the deficit, a slowing economy (think "bubble"), catastrophic terrorist attacks, and a global war on terror meant that spending was about to go through the roof.

If you're a sincere fiscal Democrat, then my apologies. But if you're a cynical opportunist then you have nothing to stand on

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Productivity and efficiency means companies can do more with less workers. Productivity is not going to force companies to start hiring workers, it will allow them to cut workers.

Did you even read the last sentence? Eventually, companies will be forced to hire more workers as demand increase.

>> Sure did read it. You can't have it both ways. If the economy is growing because of productivity, then it's not going to "force" companies to hire workers. For that to happen it would have to grow beyond productivity increases.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for.

This country is as much if not more politically polarized as when Bush took office.

The country is polarized because Congress is about even in representation. When something like that happens, it is the fringe movement of each party that gets to set the agenda. This is common sense.

>> So Bush is part of the Republican fringe, since he does not seem to have any significant disagreements with the GOP house? Not one veto so far.

It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Minor issues being limited federal government and fiscal responsibility.

No. Minor issues being throwing Democrats some crumbs so that major policies ride the day. I've never seen an Administration do it so effectively.

>>If a new Medicare entitlement is crumbs, I wanna know what you define as major policies?

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

The medicare bill is giving a key to the US treasury to the pharma industry. No child left behind is a debacle. It's better if teachers teach the majority of the students some marketable skills than teaching the totality of the students how to pass a federal governent test. What about Israel did he turn into law?
And of course, depending on how you define "Middle America" you can attribute whatever you want to them.

Those are your opinions. Nurture them, even if they're wrong

>> Please elaborate How are they wrong? Not giving the government the ability to negotiate lower prices for drugs that it pays for? Do you think teachers should put on hold teaching the 90% of kids who want to learn to make sure the 10% who don't give a damn pass the federal government test?

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

Good, keep thinking that. Dean's problem was he was too emotional for a media that lives from soundbyte to soundbyte.

No, Kerry stole Dean's fire by leaning towards Dean's base, which are the angry fringe of the Democratic Party. It has infected him

>>Your epidemiological observation has been noted

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, an ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this the man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

Good, if Bush is proud of his 500B deficit and confident that people will forget the 2.3M jobs lost and a war in Iraq whose justification just seems to have evaporated, then let him run on his record.

For someone who claims to understand economics, your understanding of the deficit and the 2.3 million jobs "lost" is laughable and plays into politics moreso than truth. Those 2.3M jobs lost would've been lost whether or not Bush came to office. And they started to get lost after the Microsoft verdict of April 2000. Hell, if we keep the loss of jobs due to outsourcing out of the picture (which has less to do with Presidential policy than corporate policy and globalization) you'll see that many of the "bubble" jobs that were created in the 1990s were lost just a couple of years later. No President can keep www.dogfood.com or any of its sibling companies that sprang up in the bubble years of the 1990s from going out of business if the company itself had no real business plan other than to realize profit via IPOs and the hope of internet users spending like crazy. As for the deficit, a slowing economy (think "bubble"), catastrophic terrorist attacks, and a global war on terror meant that spending was about to go through the roof.

If you're a sincere fiscal Democrat, then my apologies. But if you're a cynical opportunist then you have nothing to stand on

>> I was not the one pushing tax cuts as job creation package. Bush was. We are running $500B deficit with nothing to show for it except more debt. I am sorry Clinton set the economic bar too high for republicans to clear.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Productivity and efficiency means companies can do more with less workers. Productivity is not going to force companies to start hiring workers, it will allow them to cut workers.

Did you even read the last sentence? Eventually, companies will be forced to hire more workers as demand increase.

>> Sure did read it. You can't have it both ways. If the economy is growing because of productivity, then it's not going to "force" companies to hire workers. For that to happen it would have to grow beyond productivity increases.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for.

This country is as much if not more politically polarized as when Bush took office.

The country is polarized because Congress is about even in representation. When something like that happens, it is the fringe movement of each party that gets to set the agenda. This is common sense.

>> So Bush is part of the Republican fringe, since he does not seem to have any significant disagreements with the GOP house? Not one veto so far.

It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Minor issues being limited federal government and fiscal responsibility.

No. Minor issues being throwing Democrats some crumbs so that major policies ride the day. I've never seen an Administration do it so effectively.

>>If a new Medicare entitlement is crumbs, I wanna know what you define as major policies?

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

The medicare bill is giving a key to the US treasury to the pharma industry. No child left behind is a debacle. It's better if teachers teach the majority of the students some marketable skills than teaching the totality of the students how to pass a federal governent test. What about Israel did he turn into law?
And of course, depending on how you define "Middle America" you can attribute whatever you want to them.

Those are your opinions. Nurture them, even if they're wrong

>> Please elaborate How are they wrong? Not giving the government the ability to negotiate lower prices for drugs that it pays for? Do you think teachers should put on hold teaching the 90% of kids who want to learn to make sure the 10% who don't give a damn pass the federal government test?

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

Good, keep thinking that. Dean's problem was he was too emotional for a media that lives from soundbyte to soundbyte.

No, Kerry stole Dean's fire by leaning towards Dean's base, which are the angry fringe of the Democratic Party. It has infected him

>>Your epidemiological observation has been noted

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, an ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this the man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

Good, if Bush is proud of his 500B deficit and confident that people will forget the 2.3M jobs lost and a war in Iraq whose justification just seems to have evaporated, then let him run on his record.

For someone who claims to understand economics, your understanding of the deficit and the 2.3 million jobs "lost" is laughable and plays into politics moreso than truth. Those 2.3M jobs lost would've been lost whether or not Bush came to office. And they started to get lost after the Microsoft verdict of April 2000. Hell, if we keep the loss of jobs due to outsourcing out of the picture (which has less to do with Presidential policy than corporate policy and globalization) you'll see that many of the "bubble" jobs that were created in the 1990s were lost just a couple of years later. No President can keep www.dogfood.com or any of its sibling companies that sprang up in the bubble years of the 1990s from going out of business if the company itself had no real business plan other than to realize profit via IPOs and the hope of internet users spending like crazy. As for the deficit, a slowing economy (think "bubble"), catastrophic terrorist attacks, and a global war on terror meant that spending was about to go through the roof.

If you're a sincere fiscal Democrat, then my apologies. But if you're a cynical opportunist then you have nothing to stand on

>> I was not the one pushing tax cuts as job creation package. Bush was. We are running $500B deficit with nothing to show for it except more debt. I am sorry Clinton set the economic bar too high for republicans to clear.

Clinton had an amazing economic team. But Bush's tax cuts were the right moves. The deficit is a short-term issue. Hell, it's not that serious since. It's nothing for you to worry about. That thing will be cut in half by 2007. Kerry has no intention of cutting the deficit.