How Can President Bush possibly lose in November?

[Martin]

How? I see two ways:

1. External factors: if iraq turns sour, another terrorist attack, economy goesn't grow much. If something like these things were to occur and if Dems capitalize on them, Bush could easily lose
2. Internal politics: barring any major external events, the campaign would be a PR fight and nothing more. Bush probably has a slight upper hand, but both parties have large (and pretty much equal) number of supporters and over the last few months Dems have shown that they too can fight. Thus, it'll all be up to how convincing each party is.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

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.

What a surprise, he doesn't reply to this post to defend his god.

 

[chess9]

Bush has fewer supporters, but they vote. A lot of Dems will be toked out on election day. Bush by 1 to 2 points. But, that's fair. I WANT to watch Bush get kicked around for 4 more years. In particular, I really enjoy his Academy Award winning performances on Russert. A comedian is the next best thing to a real President....

-Robert

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

This daydream authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Iraq a God-send for the US? Like Vietnam was a God-send for the US. Like 9-11 was a God-send for the US. Like outsourcing to India is a God-send for the US. Only Republican tools believe this stupidity.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: 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.

Thanks for the laugh.

No kidding. No one outside Dubya's adminstration can make his numbers work. Independent analysis shows the deficit dipping only slightly by 2007 if there is no new spending. In 2008 the deficit starts climbing due to Dub's deferred handouts. The projected 10 year deficit is $5 trillion. Dubya will increase the deficit.

 

[Ldir]

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.

You do not know what you are talking about. Reagonomics was a fraud. It has been completely discredited outside a few partisan economists. It was the Federal Reserve's new policies, not Reagan's tax cuts.

 

[DoubleL]

Can Bush lose

Anything can happen, You have the Bush haters that are pushing hard to try and get Bush out, Even if it takes lies to do it and you have some Rep. That are not happy with Bush, They say he is way to liberal and works to much with the Dem., I think Bush is to liberal but also think he is the best man for the job, It is going to take more than the Dem. to get him out, They have to not lose any and bring some Rep. over, That might be hard to do but like I said anything can happen

 

[Dman877]

GWB is an ass-clown. Snowmobiles in yellowstone? what a dumbass.

 

[Insane3D]

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::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer:

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

Wow, didn't think I ever would have a post I agree with Beer.

A lot missing but a good start.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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.

Third, it makes us less dependent on Saudi oil.

You sure you want to stick by that in light of the ever shrinking on purpose supply and rising prices?

What's the matter, you don't like paying $100 to fill your SUV?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
I think Bush is to liberal but also think he is the best man for the job,

I hope you mean you think he's the best out of two main contenders because if he is the best man for the job then we as a country have become pathetic.

LOL, I love the term "Bush Hater". Of course in the 90's you didn't need to say "Clinton Hater" all you had to say was Republican

 

[Nitemare]

As much as I dislike Bush I dislike Kerry more. If Bush is endanger of losing the election to Kerry I will be voting for Bush

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
As much as I dislike Bush I dislike Kerry more. If Bush is endanger of losing the election to Kerry I will be voting for Bush

LOL. I live in MA so it wouldn't matter is If wanted Bush to win or not, Kerry's going to get the Electoral Votes of his home state.

I actually think it would be good for the Republicans in the long run for Kerry to win. Another 4 years of Bush could do irrepairable damage to the image of the Republican Party where as 4 years of Kerry can only make them look better and possibly enable a more qualified man like John McCain to get elected.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: beer
1) Patriot Act
This has a sunset clause. It was a bi-partisan effort that was strangely ready days after September 11. Does it have issues? Yes, but the Act done more good than harm. I don't understand the paranoia among liberals about this law. Nevertheless, it's a catch-up law that can be mended to adapt to our society
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
I disagree with this. I see no reason to explicitly halt homosexuals from getting married. But, this proposal is a non-starter so I doubt that the President will get anywhere with this resolution, even though he may strongly believe in it.
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
I don't know what you're talking about here but I doubt it doesn't have anything to do with politics. Furthermore, it's had no major effect on the scientific and economic industries.
4) $500 billion deficit
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
Blame the CIA for the missing WMDs. But why attack the President for carrying out official American policy (the removal of Hussein)? the Iraq war may have had some inconstanticies, but was a just war if you care about international peace and stability. As for nation building, the President believe what he said at the time. But when fate throws you some hard curves, you have to respond. I guess you believe that the President should've have invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, then leave it to some international institution to do the nation-building, right? Well, like it or not, things would've turned out far worse had we left after winning the battles.
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
Give me a better reason than "Appointing John Ashcroft."
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
That's an incredibly bias statement. What the President was wholly legal and Congress was playing politics. Come back with a better reason
8) $500 BILLION DEFECIT
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
9) Not fixing social security
Social Security is an incredibly sensitive issue that no one really wants to touch. The Republicans came up with a market-oriented solution a couple of years ago, but retreated when the Dow Jones went down. Not everyone will be happy with a remedy but the market one was better than having the gov't pay for all of it. BTW, IMHO, SS shouldn't even be the government's problem. It should be an individual problem. Let people save for their future.
10) Immigration propositions
This isn't Europe. This is America, a nation of immigrant. IF you are against immigrant, then you should be the first to return to whever you came from. Fact is, the new law brings illegal immigrant out of the shadows and into the light, where it is safer. BTW, if you have to compete with illegal immigrants over the same jobs then you aren't taking advantage of all the subsidies and grants the gov't gives you when it comes to education. Either you're too stupid or too lazy, which one is it?
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
It's better to keep politics out of science if you ask me. Besides, the feds only do about 10% of all scientific research in this country. I doubt that the stem cell controversy will have a major impact. Furthermore, it's better to let the private sector deal with the environment than have the gov't regulate everyone to hell.As for defense, why don't you tell the victims of terror and the military that the gov't is spending too much on providing them world-class security and equipment.
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
Prove that it's illegal. BTW, why stop at Texas? Look at what the Democrats in Cali have done? Is that legal?
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
Prove that it is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. As for American POWS, I don't know where you're from but in my humble opinion, it would be blasphemous for any President or American citizen not to put our own first.
14) "Shock and Awe"
That's a military-public relations term. I noticed it earlier but you seem to be an ultr-liberal, who hates everything about the military while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over their loss. You're pathetic.
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
It may be hyporcisy, but it's in our self-interest. I see nothing about putting American interests first and ordering others to heed our words, do you?
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.
But, but, but, I thought you were complaining about security spending? You're the one that's being hypocritical. Fact is, NK can lob a nuclear missile towards Xanadu (Cali). Did you even know that? Or does it not matter so long as America's defense is underfunded, right?
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
Jobs are being creating left and right. But you won't get www.iwetmypants.com, www.petstore.com, www.i'mstartingacompanywithnobusinessplan.com, or www.i'vedugallthisfiberbutihavenouseforit.com. True, we've lost 2.3M jobs, but most of those were "bubble" jobs that would've eventually been lost. As for the outsourcing, it has been happening for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it except stop the engines of international trade. This brings out another liberal hyporcisy: they care about those living in the Third World so long as it doesn't affect their jobs at home. Can't have it both ways, stupid
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
You've got issues. Me thinks you need to get laid.
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)
Enemies? You're not only a liberal, but a liberal moron.
20) Did I mention a $500 billion deficit?
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.


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

The invasion of Iraq did more than you could possibly understand. Like the invasion of Iraq in 1991, the ousting of Saddam has created a new paradigm in the Middle East. It gives the Israelis less of an excuse to reach agreements with their neighbors. We've put the ball squarely in the Israelis' court. If they fail to make amends with Syria or the Palestinians, then it is no one else's fault. I doubt that you've understood what I just said, but we'll leave it at that.

I didn't want to answer any of the question because of the lack of intelligence in them. But, nevertheless, you have your answers.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: beer
1) Patriot Act
This has a sunset clause. It was a bi-partisan effort that was strangely ready days after September 11. Does it have issues? Yes, but the Act done more good than harm. I don't understand the paranoia among liberals about this law. Nevertheless, it's a catch-up law that can be mended to adapt to our society
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
I disagree with this. I see no reason to explicitly halt homosexuals from getting married. But, this proposal is a non-starter so I doubt that the President will get anywhere with this resolution, even though he may strongly believe in it.
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
I don't know what you're talking about here but I doubt it doesn't have anything to do with politics. Furthermore, it's had no major effect on the scientific and economic industries.
4) $500 billion deficit
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
Blame the CIA for the missing WMDs. But why attack the President for carrying out official American policy (the removal of Hussein)? the Iraq war may have had some inconstanticies, but was a just war if you care about international peace and stability. As for nation building, the President believe what he said at the time. But when fate throws you some hard curves, you have to respond. I guess you believe that the President should've have invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, then leave it to some international institution to do the nation-building, right? Well, like it or not, things would've turned out far worse had we left after winning the battles.
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
Give me a better reason than "Appointing John Ashcroft."
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
That's an incredibly bias statement. What the President was wholly legal and Congress was playing politics. Come back with a better reason
8) $500 BILLION DEFECIT
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
9) Not fixing social security
Social Security is an incredibly sensitive issue that no one really wants to touch. The Republicans came up with a market-oriented solution a couple of years ago, but retreated when the Dow Jones went down. Not everyone will be happy with a remedy but the market one was better than having the gov't pay for all of it. BTW, IMHO, SS shouldn't even be the government's problem. It should be an individual problem. Let people save for their future.
10) Immigration propositions
This isn't Europe. This is America, a nation of immigrant. IF you are against immigrant, then you should be the first to return to whever you came from. Fact is, the new law brings illegal immigrant out of the shadows and into the light, where it is safer. BTW, if you have to compete with illegal immigrants over the same jobs then you aren't taking advantage of all the subsidies and grants the gov't gives you when it comes to education. Either you're too stupid or too lazy, which one is it?
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
It's better to keep politics out of science if you ask me. Besides, the feds only do about 10% of all scientific research in this country. I doubt that the stem cell controversy will have a major impact. Furthermore, it's better to let the private sector deal with the environment than have the gov't regulate everyone to hell.As for defense, why don't you tell the victims of terror and the military that the gov't is spending too much on providing them world-class security and equipment.
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
Prove that it's illegal. BTW, why stop at Texas? Look at what the Democrats in Cali have done? Is that legal?
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
Prove that it is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. As for American POWS, I don't know where you're from but in my humble opinion, it would be blasphemous for any President or American citizen not to put our own first.
14) "Shock and Awe"
That's a military-public relations term. I noticed it earlier but you seem to be an ultr-liberal, who hates everything about the military while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over their loss. You're pathetic.
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
It may be hyporcisy, but it's in our self-interest. I see nothing about putting American interests first and ordering others to heed our words, do you?
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.
But, but, but, I thought you were complaining about security spending? You're the one that's being hypocritical. Fact is, NK can lob a nuclear missile towards Xanadu (Cali). Did you even know that? Or does it not matter so long as America's defense is underfunded, right?
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
Jobs are being creating left and right. But you won't get www.iwetmypants.com, www.petstore.com, www.i'mstartingacompanywithnobusinessplan.com, or www.i'vedugallthisfiberbutihavenouseforit.com. True, we've lost 2.3M jobs, but most of those were "bubble" jobs that would've eventually been lost. As for the outsourcing, it has been happening for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it except stop the engines of international trade. This brings out another liberal hyporcisy: they care about those living in the Third World so long as it doesn't affect their jobs at home. Can't have it both ways, stupid
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
You've got issues. Me thinks you need to get laid.
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)
Enemies? You're not only a liberal, but a liberal moron.
20) Did I mention a $500 billion deficit?
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about

will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.


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

The invasion of Iraq did more than you could possibly understand. Like the invasion of Iraq in 1991, the ousting of Saddam has created a new paradigm in the Middle East. It gives the Israelis less of an excuse to reach agreements with their neighbors. We've put the ball squarely in the Israelis' court. If they fail to make amends with Syria or the Palestinians, then it is no one else's fault. I doubt that you've understood what I just said, but we'll leave it at that.

I didn't want to answer any of the question because of the lack of intelligence in them. But, nevertheless, you have your answers.

You forgot about palestinian thing dari. Since he seems to want to give clinton and carter the thumbs up on a job well done, why the fvck are they still blowing up isrealis?

KK

 

[sandorski]

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, 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?

You started out ok "....this election is Bush's to lose", that is true. Unfortunetly he lost it a couple years ago. His defeat is now just a formality.

 

[ITJunkie]

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::beer::beer:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: sandorski

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, 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?

You started out ok "....this election is Bush's to lose", that is true. Unfortunetly he lost it a couple years ago. His defeat is now just a formality.

I hope you're right!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Ldir

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.

You do not know what you are talking about. Reagonomics was a fraud. It has been completely discredited outside a few partisan economists. It was the Federal Reserve's new policies, not Reagan's tax cuts.

No, you do not know what you are talking about. Take a look at page 310 of the book Macroeconomics Public and Private Choice 9th Edition. The graph that says: "How have changes in marginal tax rates affected the share of taxes paid by the rich?" There is a very clear and very sharp jump in the graph starting exactly in 1981 when the top rate was cut from 70% to 50%.

Here is what the description of the graph says:

The accompanying graph indicates the share of the personal income tax paid by the top one-half percent of earners during 1960-1996. There were three major reductions in the top marginal tax rate during this period. First, the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut reduced the top rate from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent in 1965. During the Reagan administration, the top rate was reduced from 70 percent in 1980 to 50 percent in 1982. In 1986, the top rate was sliced still futher to approximately 30 percent. Interestingly, the share of the tax bill paid by these "super rich" earners increased following each of these tax cuts. Perhaps suprisingly to some, these high-income taxpayers paid a smaller portion of the tax bill when inflation pushed more and more taxpayers into high tax brackets during the 1970s and when rates were increased again (to 39.6 percent) during the Bush and Clinton years. This suggests that, at least for this group of high-income recipients, there were strong supply-side effects associated with the changes in marginal rates.

Edit: I think you are very confused about your economic terms. Reaganomics is not something that can be "proven wrong", this is merely the term that is used to describe Reagan's economic policy. What I believe you mean by Reaganomics is really supply-side economics.

Let's take a look at the definitions:

supply-side economics
An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.

Link

Reaganomics
Economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, low social services spending, and high military spending. Contributed to low interest rates, low inflation, and large budget deficits.

Link

The theory of supply-side economics has been denounced by many an economist but that's not what we were talking about now were we?

 

[AEB]

I only have a few things to say.

The economy is in deficit becasue of the special intrest spending. Medical, welfare etc the government shouldn't be nosing around in this. Also, note that the government gave a lot of money to farmers and airline companies because they were going to go broke. So what? thats capitalism, it was a waste of our money to support airlines. Does the government give money to an entrapenaur who opens his own computer shop but then goes out of business because someone out sells him? of course not. Thats congress's fault not bush's.

Tax cuts were the right thing ask any economist.
As for the isralli thing KK i dont see how you can expect the US to step in there but not in IRAQ. (iraq was in acuall violation of resolution 1441 and others by having missles that travled greater than the legal limit) In Isrial it is a religious thing, and we dont need more religions hating us.

As for the jobs, a lot of companies went bankrupt thanks to liberls pushing for more required worker health care, higher wages, and new regulations that companies must follow. When companies like Kmart go bankrupt jobs will be lost, but it certainly isnt bush fault if people arent shopping at Kmart or spendng at all. Ths was the purpose of the tax cuts and Bush is just starting to fix the economy after clintion increased spending so much.

Summary: Social programs are ruining the economy. The government isnt supposed to give us healthcare or garuntee a job.

There are plenty of jobs at McDonalds. In Lerry Elder's book Showdown he tells of how a Mexican-American speaking very little english got a job mopping up McDonalds. He now makes over 60k a year as manager. He attribute its to hardwork and dedication. Not aff action, not welfare, not government fueld medical coverage. Imagine that, an employer paying a hard-working and reliable employee more!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AEB
I only have a few things to say.

The economy is in deficit becasue of the special intrest spending. Medical, welfare etc the government shouldn't be nosing around in this. Also, note that the government gave a lot of money to farmers and airline companies because they were going to go broke. So what? thats capitalism, it was a waste of our money to support airlines. Does the government give money to an entrapenaur who opens his own computer shop but then goes out of business because someone out sells him? of course not. Thats congress's fault not bush's.

Tax cuts were the right thing ask any economist.
As for the isralli thing KK i dont see how you can expect the US to step in there but not in IRAQ. (iraq was in acuall violation of resolution 1441 and others by having missles that travled greater than the legal limit) In Isrial it is a religious thing, and we dont need more religions hating us.

As for the jobs, a lot of companies went bankrupt thanks to liberls pushing for more required worker health care, higher wages, and new regulations that companies must follow. When companies like Kmart go bankrupt jobs will be lost, but it certainly isnt bush fault if people arent shopping at Kmart or spendng at all. Ths was the purpose of the tax cuts and Bush is just starting to fix the economy after clintion increased spending so much.

Summary: Social programs are ruining the economy. The government isnt supposed to give us healthcare or garuntee a job.

There are plenty of jobs at McDonalds. In Lerry Elder's book Showdown he tells of how a Mexican-American speaking very little english got a job mopping up McDonalds. He now makes over 60k a year as manager. He attribute its to hardwork and dedication. Not aff action, not welfare, not government fueld medical coverage. Imagine that, an employer paying a hard-working and reliable employee more!

Hmm, there was a Surplus not too long ago with the same Social Programs in place. Nice try.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AEB
I only have a few things to say.

The economy is in deficit becasue of the special intrest spending. Medical, welfare etc the government shouldn't be nosing around in this. Also, note that the government gave a lot of money to farmers and airline companies because they were going to go broke. So what? thats capitalism, it was a waste of our money to support airlines. Does the government give money to an entrapenaur who opens his own computer shop but then goes out of business because someone out sells him? of course not. Thats congress's fault not bush's.

Tax cuts were the right thing ask any economist.
As for the isralli thing KK i dont see how you can expect the US to step in there but not in IRAQ. (iraq was in acuall violation of resolution 1441 and others by having missles that travled greater than the legal limit) In Isrial it is a religious thing, and we dont need more religions hating us.

As for the jobs, a lot of companies went bankrupt thanks to liberls pushing for more required worker health care, higher wages, and new regulations that companies must follow. When companies like Kmart go bankrupt jobs will be lost, but it certainly isnt bush fault if people arent shopping at Kmart or spendng at all. Ths was the purpose of the tax cuts and Bush is just starting to fix the economy after clintion increased spending so much.

Summary: Social programs are ruining the economy. The government isnt supposed to give us healthcare or garuntee a job.

There are plenty of jobs at McDonalds. In Lerry Elder's book Showdown he tells of how a Mexican-American speaking very little english got a job mopping up McDonalds. He now makes over 60k a year as manager. He attribute its to hardwork and dedication. Not aff action, not welfare, not government fueld medical coverage. Imagine that, an employer paying a hard-working and reliable employee more!

Hmm, there was a Surplus not too long ago with the same Social Programs in place. Nice try.

Umm - no there wasn't.

CkG

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski


Hmm, there was a Surplus not too long ago with the same Social Programs in place. Nice try.

Umm - no there wasn't.

CkG

I AGREE with CAD (slaps my forehead in disbelief). There ISN"T the same spending in social programs in place as before.
We have under GWB and a Republican Congress MORE social program spending than ever before. They greatly reduced tax revenues BUT at the same time, sharply increased social spending and defense spending and everything other kind of spending. Surpluses as far as the eye can see are now DEFICITS for well into the future. The great borrow and spender is GWB and the Republican Congress.