So what happens when Bush/Kerry take the office?

[lowpost]

After all the fuss in this forum, I give up on choosing who's better by thier past.

What will these candidates do while they are president? Will thier propaganda be put into action, and will it be a feasable plan? Do both of these candidates have thier heads in the clouds when it comes to running this country?

Help me out here by commenting on plans that have actually been presented by the candidates and if they are theoretically possible.

 

[Stunt]

I'm not american, but from what i have heard, the republicans own the senate and house down there, so the policies bush has implemented will stick. Whatever kerry tries to implement will be shot down, toned down and eventually passed. Changing government policies are what causes problems, if status quo is maintianed, it is hard for things to go wrong. Taxing more and giving money to the poor is basically the same as giving tax breaks and allowing the economy to take off and getting more workers to pay tax. Same number of people, same comsumption, same tax revenues, same services. It is when the economy has to adapt that problems arise, ie. implementing tax breaks etc. We now have to wait for the economy to hire more ppl and generate the tax revenues. A pure leftest society does work, look at norway who is debt free and loans the US their money. In terms of bush and kerry, the mindset will be different, kerry seems to be more of a bridge builder willing to discuss invasions with the UN and allow for more effective plans with respect to iraq. This is the major issue this time around. Either u take the bush stance and throw more money, lives, and weapons at iraq; or u let kerry in there where he will take a more democratic stance in my opinion. Either way the bush policies will stick b/c of the republican dominance in both houses.

 

[chrisms]

I think you make a good point, Stunt, that I haven't heard much about yet. Even if Kerry is the better man to be president, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing to elect him because less things will get done with a Republican house and a Democratic president.

I still dislike Bush very much though.

 

[Stunt]

That all depends, a do nothing kerry may be safer than a doing everthing bush.
For the economy it is better to have status quo rather than many changes.
From a international relationshion point of view, it is a clear choice.
I say look at bush's latest proposed polices and decide based on that.

 

[chrisms]

It's really a toss-up. It doesn't matter who is elected because either way, there is a 50% chance that it was a great decision for the country, and a 50% chance that it was a horrible decision.

If Nader was elected I imagine a perfect world, but of course the way our system works that won't happen (I am a liberatarian).

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm not american, but from what i have heard, the republicans own the senate and house down there, so the policies bush has implemented will stick. Whatever kerry tries to implement will be shot down, toned down and eventually passed. Changing government policies are what causes problems, if status quo is maintianed, it is hard for things to go wrong. Taxing more and giving money to the poor is basically the same as giving tax breaks and allowing the economy to take off and getting more workers to pay tax. Same number of people, same comsumption, same tax revenues, same services. It is when the economy has to adapt that problems arise, ie. implementing tax breaks etc. We now have to wait for the economy to hire more ppl and generate the tax revenues. A pure leftest society does work, look at norway who is debt free and loans the US their money. In terms of bush and kerry, the mindset will be different, kerry seems to be more of a bridge builder willing to discuss invasions with the UN and allow for more effective plans with respect to iraq. This is the major issue this time around. Either u take the bush stance and throw more money, lives, and weapons at iraq; or u let kerry in there where he will take a more democratic stance in my opinion. Either way the bush policies will stick b/c of the republican dominance in both houses.

Where in God's green earth does thinking like this come from?

 

[Stunt]

what is wrong with that reasoning, it is the basis for all liberalist and conservative governments.
liberals pro government (more tax, more social programs and assistance)
conservatives anti government (less tax, more ppl working, more money from tax and less ppl on social assitance)
both work and both get the same results socially.
used norway as an example of a socal government that works well.

On bush/kerry side of things, even bush as he rules the senate and the house, has a tough time passing legislation, u think kerry would, heh, im saying if u get kerry, u keep todays polices and a better international deligate. I also like how kerry is into deficit reductions, more so than bush, now that is some policy that republicans will have no problem passing.

 

[Czar]

i think its more a surprise to see an intelligent post here

 

[lowpost]

so at this point, its a tossup

More opinions, anyone?

 

[Stunt]

i think bush will want a lot more money for iraq as his buddies in texas will want in on the oil field and will be too stubborn to give the country up.
he will kill many more soldiers, get nothing accomplished and run massive deficits, $500 billion is nothing compared to what it could be.
trust me a do nothing president is far better than an active bush.
after seeing the address to the nation, i just shook my head over how horrid his policies are.
the GOP is tending to special interest groups and are implementing the nuttiest stuff i have ever seen.
i can't believe how you guys can keep him in there, rallying around your leader in any circumstance.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: chrisms
It's really a toss-up. It doesn't matter who is elected because either way, there is a 50% chance that it was a great decision for the country, and a 50% chance that it was a horrible decision.

If Nader was elected I imagine a perfect world, but of course the way our system works that won't happen (I am a liberatarian).

A libertarian for Nader?!?!?! I didn't know such a creature was possible...

 

[chrisms]

Nader, while a longshot, is at least in the news. Libertarians don't have a canidate picked, so screw them (I'm not involved in the party I just support almost all of their views). He is for more individual rights and anti-war, which automatically puts him above Kerry and Bush. Plus he doesn't seem as corrupt.

At this point I can give up some other issues that I disagree with Nader on, because on the important ones I feel he is right on.