The Presidency has become nothing more than a carnival show for whoever happens to be the most appealing on tv. In my opinion, it wouldn't matter who becomes president. Whatever 'sells' to the American public, the president will do. One big difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton polled before he did anything, and Bush polls afterwards. It doesn't make any difference either way.
I'm totally in agreement with BAC when he said "gridlock is good." I've been saying that since I can remember. The best thing that can probably happen in America at this point in her history, in my opinion, is to change presidents every 4 years. Thus, there's simply not enough time to make any significant changes.
Gridlock on the Federal level is good in more ways than one. As long as the Feds aren't screwing things up, that makes it so the States have more control over legislation. In Montana, that is a good thing, because our State is yet small enough in population where one person, or a few people have a voice that can be heard. Unless you are one of the 1% ultra-rich (and there are dems and reps in that category), YOU have no voice when it comes to presidential elections and federal policies. Second, if the Feds are gridlocked, they won't be spending your money as fast as they usually do. The bottom line is, Bush spends a trillion-two, and Kerry spends a trillion-2.1 or a trillion-1.9 - big friggin' deal. If the deficit really mattered, Greenspan wouldn't keep printing money. He would make the hard decision and turn off the tap. I wonder who will be the one who sends the U.S. economy into a 20-year tailspin? That ought to be very interesting.
The current Administration is capitalizing on the fear factor in America. Federal laws are passed that take away your personal freedoms because they say it makes you safer - B.S. The Feds will again use your fear against you as the election draws closer. Someone tell me that we won't have a higher terrorism alert level between now and November.
With respect to Iraq, there is a huge majority of the armed servicemen and women who believe Bush is way better than Kerry. The reason is two-fold. Moral was at it's lowest under Clinton because of the cuts he made in military spending - not only in hardware, but also that spent on the people. They are too wary of Kerry sending them to battle without the necessary resources. Second, Kerry's record is not one that supported the military in the past, and he is now saying that force reduction is the goal. Not good if you happen to be one of the "forces" in Iraq right now, because, if anything, we have to stay there, militarily, for the better part of 5-10 years. That's when the 10-year-old Iraqi children will enter the working class.
All that said - for the first time in a long time, I think both main candidates really care about the Country they serve. They just have different ways of showing it. I thought Clinton was always about Clinton, and Bush Sr. was just happy to be there.
I'm leaning Bush, and hoping for a Democratically controlled Senate. I could just as easily vote Kerry and shoot for the Republican Senate. Although I think republican Senators are just a bunch of tight a$$es. I think it works best the first way. The House can be whatever it wants - They are a complete joke as a governing body.
2004 Presidential Election
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
Bleedinbluengold
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3427
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: Belly of the Beast
-
soccertodd
- BobcatNation Redshirt
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:28 pm
- Location: Silverdale, WA
- Contact:
Well said, I would have to agree that while I am personally voting for Bush I would not feel horribly about Kerry being president. I think both candidates will do a fine job. I am just frustrated by people going after Bush for things that are completely out of his control. One example is outsourcing. Outsourcing is a by-product of free trade and while I have heard some candidates say we need to back out of NAFTA, etc. I think they will find that impossible to do. Kerry has said he will stop outsourcing but honestly that is nothing more than political rhetoric because he will not be able to stop it either. That being said, I think attempting to stop it will be good for the American worker even if it is not a direct success.
-
CatfaninGA
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 795
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: Sandy Springs, GA
Bush ' 04
Not only is he doing a great job, he will continue to do a great job for 4 more years!
Kerry is a very scary individual, if he were to somehow win, I'm moving to Mars.
Kerry is a very scary individual, if he were to somehow win, I'm moving to Mars.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23961
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
Re: Bush ' 04
What makes you think he is scary? I'm not being abrasive, I'm just curious. He seems bland to me -- not threatening in any real way, but not inspiring in the least, either. What policy changes do you think he would (be able to) implement that would lead to fear and other versions of scariness?CatfaninGA wrote:Not only is he doing a great job, he will continue to do a great job for 4 more years!
Kerry is a very scary individual, if he were to somehow win, I'm moving to Mars.
At least he doesn't think that he was chosen by God to be President of the U.S. Now that's a little scary to me.... Of course, God did tell me to go to the bar just now -- and he sounded quite passionate about it. I guess I better obey that order.
-
BWahlberg
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: Missoula
- Contact:
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
I, too, was going to keep a low profile, but...I can't any longer. First off, let me apologize for the length of this post--you know me, BAC...!
Although John Kerry has told numerous stories about his "Christmas in Cambodia" over the years, said the memory was "seared in me", his own campaign now admits that wasn't the truth. Furthermore, another frequently told story, about how John Kerry's boat turned into an ambush to save a man in the water while all the other "swift boats (were) evacuating from the area" has been revealed to be untrue as well. In fact, as the Kerry campaign now admits, all the other boats stayed while John Kerry's boat temporarily left the area.
It also appears to be almost a certaintythat John Kerry fraudulently obtained his first and third Purple Hearts, which allowed him to leave Vietnam almost a full year early. Not only are there eyewitnesses from the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who say that's the case, John Kerry's own biography disaffirms Kerry's explanations of how he earned his Purple Hearts. Of course, the Kerry camp denies those allegations, but John Kerry has chosen not to explain the huge discrepancies in his story or to release his military records. Rather than address this issue head on, the Kerry campaign has simply chalked it up to partisan politics and has declared the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group which brought these allegations to light, to be liars.
However, that groupis composed of more than 250 Vietnam Vets including John Kerry's entire chain of command up to an admiral who has passed away, 17 of the 23 officers who served with Kerry, and 60 out of 100 men who served in the field with Kerry in Vietnam. That begs an obvious question: Why should anyone vote for a candidate who is declaring himself to be qualified for the presidency based in large part on his Vietnam experience, when the man who served on his boat for the longest period of time (Steve Gardner), the majority of men who fought beside him in combat, and his own chain of command all say he's a liar and "unfit for command"?
After Kerry left Vietnam and he came home, he joined and later led an anti-war group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". While in this group, Kerry did meet with the North Vietnamesein 1971, even as our troops were fighting and dying in the field, and endorsed their "peace plan".
That was not the last time John Kerry was to be of use to our enemies either. During John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, he recounted stories from the "The Winter Soldier Investigation". That event was organized, in part, by his group, Vietnam Veterans against the War, and it featured large amounts of fraudulent testimony from "fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans". Kerry repeated their lies in front of the world and accused our troops of torture, rape, and acting like the hordes of Genghis Khan among other things. Kerry's speech caught the ear of the Vietcong, who actually played his testimony to our soldiers in POW camps in an effort to break their will.
Later in life, John Kerry became a big man in Massachusetts politics. After a short stint as Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry went on to a largely uneventful 20 year run as Ted Kennedy's sidekick in the Senate. Kerry, whose time spent in the Senate has been so unremarkable that he barely even mentioned it during his 55 minute acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, was mostly notable for his timid record on national security issues & his liberal voting record -- when he bothered to even show up at all. In 2003, John Kerry missed 64% of all votes and so far this year, Kerry has missed a whopping 90% of all votes cast. But, given the paucity of accomplishments John Kerry has in the Senate, perhaps the people of Massachusetts didn't even notice the difference.
Kerry also opposed the invasion of Grenada, Desert Storm, has called National Missile Defense a "fantasy", & after voting for the war in Iraq, he then voted against funding the troops and the rebuilding effort. The whole image of John Kerry as a gung-ho hawk who's going to go after the terrorists directly contradicts 30 years of history, from the time that John Kerry was an anti-war activist through the present day. It's nothing but an election year fiction designed to fool voters who are serious about the war on terrorism into trusting John Kerry with the job of commander-and-chief.
Speaking of "election year fiction," the same could be said of the claim that John Kerry is a "moderate". Come on folks, he's a Senator from Massachusetts, he was Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, and he referred to Ted Kennedy as his "mentor" earlier this year. Given that, is anyone really going to argue that John Kerry isn't a liberal?
If so, they're going to have a hard time making their case given his Senate record. A Washington nonpartisan policy magazine, National Journal, said John Kerry had the most liberal voting recordin the Senate for 2003 (Incidentally, his running mate John Edwards had the 4th most liberal record). Furthermore, Kerry's lifetime rating from the Liberal Americans For Democratic Action is 92% out of a hundred. Even two politicians long considered to be ultra-liberals, Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy, scored 90%!
Kerry's liberal record is actually what has caused him to acquire his well deserved reputation as a flip-flopper. It's not that John Kerry can't make up his mind; it's that he would rather try to trick voters into supporting him by telling what they want to hear rather than tell the truth about his liberal record.
That's why John Kerry, a man who "perennially receives a 100-percent rating from (anti-abortion groups like) NARAL and Planned Parenthood," has affirmed that he believes "life does begin at conception," which is the central tenet of the pro-life movement. It also explains why Kerry, an anti-gun advocate, recently waved around a shotgungiven to him by supporters at a West Virginia campaign stop and called it a "beautiful piece" even though he supports legislation that would ban people from hunting with that very same weapon.
Then there's John Kerry's indecipherable position on the Iraqi war which seems to change almost depending on who he's talking to. One month he calls it "critical to the outcome of the war on terror," the next month he responds in the affirmative when Chris Matthews asks him if he's an "anti-war candidate". In February of 2003, Kerry was saying, "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me", but earlier this month Kerry said the war in Iraq was, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
Of course, that statement really doesn't make any sense given that Kerry said just last month that he still would have given the President the authority to go to war even "knowing what I know today". On the other hand, that statement contradicts what Kerry said this month, that the "only legitimate reason was the weapons of mass destruction question". You can go on and on like this, trying to make sense of Kerry's constantly shifting positions on the war, but there is no logical consistency to Kerry's position. It's just like when John Kerry said of his vote to fund our troops in Iraq, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry wants as many people as possible, pro and anti-war, to believe that he's "on their side" and he's willing to pretend to take both sides of an issue simultaneously if necessary. Quite frankly, that sort of duplicitousness isn't a very attractive trait for a man who wants to be the next leader of the free world.
Summing this up, if you want a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal who lied about his war record and made a name for himself by smearing our troops to become President despite the fact that there is sparse evidence to go on in his Senate career that shows he is up for the job or capable of effectively waging the war on terror, then John Kerry is your man.
Although John Kerry has told numerous stories about his "Christmas in Cambodia" over the years, said the memory was "seared in me", his own campaign now admits that wasn't the truth. Furthermore, another frequently told story, about how John Kerry's boat turned into an ambush to save a man in the water while all the other "swift boats (were) evacuating from the area" has been revealed to be untrue as well. In fact, as the Kerry campaign now admits, all the other boats stayed while John Kerry's boat temporarily left the area.
It also appears to be almost a certaintythat John Kerry fraudulently obtained his first and third Purple Hearts, which allowed him to leave Vietnam almost a full year early. Not only are there eyewitnesses from the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who say that's the case, John Kerry's own biography disaffirms Kerry's explanations of how he earned his Purple Hearts. Of course, the Kerry camp denies those allegations, but John Kerry has chosen not to explain the huge discrepancies in his story or to release his military records. Rather than address this issue head on, the Kerry campaign has simply chalked it up to partisan politics and has declared the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group which brought these allegations to light, to be liars.
However, that groupis composed of more than 250 Vietnam Vets including John Kerry's entire chain of command up to an admiral who has passed away, 17 of the 23 officers who served with Kerry, and 60 out of 100 men who served in the field with Kerry in Vietnam. That begs an obvious question: Why should anyone vote for a candidate who is declaring himself to be qualified for the presidency based in large part on his Vietnam experience, when the man who served on his boat for the longest period of time (Steve Gardner), the majority of men who fought beside him in combat, and his own chain of command all say he's a liar and "unfit for command"?
After Kerry left Vietnam and he came home, he joined and later led an anti-war group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". While in this group, Kerry did meet with the North Vietnamesein 1971, even as our troops were fighting and dying in the field, and endorsed their "peace plan".
That was not the last time John Kerry was to be of use to our enemies either. During John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, he recounted stories from the "The Winter Soldier Investigation". That event was organized, in part, by his group, Vietnam Veterans against the War, and it featured large amounts of fraudulent testimony from "fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans". Kerry repeated their lies in front of the world and accused our troops of torture, rape, and acting like the hordes of Genghis Khan among other things. Kerry's speech caught the ear of the Vietcong, who actually played his testimony to our soldiers in POW camps in an effort to break their will.
Later in life, John Kerry became a big man in Massachusetts politics. After a short stint as Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry went on to a largely uneventful 20 year run as Ted Kennedy's sidekick in the Senate. Kerry, whose time spent in the Senate has been so unremarkable that he barely even mentioned it during his 55 minute acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, was mostly notable for his timid record on national security issues & his liberal voting record -- when he bothered to even show up at all. In 2003, John Kerry missed 64% of all votes and so far this year, Kerry has missed a whopping 90% of all votes cast. But, given the paucity of accomplishments John Kerry has in the Senate, perhaps the people of Massachusetts didn't even notice the difference.
Kerry also opposed the invasion of Grenada, Desert Storm, has called National Missile Defense a "fantasy", & after voting for the war in Iraq, he then voted against funding the troops and the rebuilding effort. The whole image of John Kerry as a gung-ho hawk who's going to go after the terrorists directly contradicts 30 years of history, from the time that John Kerry was an anti-war activist through the present day. It's nothing but an election year fiction designed to fool voters who are serious about the war on terrorism into trusting John Kerry with the job of commander-and-chief.
Speaking of "election year fiction," the same could be said of the claim that John Kerry is a "moderate". Come on folks, he's a Senator from Massachusetts, he was Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, and he referred to Ted Kennedy as his "mentor" earlier this year. Given that, is anyone really going to argue that John Kerry isn't a liberal?
If so, they're going to have a hard time making their case given his Senate record. A Washington nonpartisan policy magazine, National Journal, said John Kerry had the most liberal voting recordin the Senate for 2003 (Incidentally, his running mate John Edwards had the 4th most liberal record). Furthermore, Kerry's lifetime rating from the Liberal Americans For Democratic Action is 92% out of a hundred. Even two politicians long considered to be ultra-liberals, Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy, scored 90%!
Kerry's liberal record is actually what has caused him to acquire his well deserved reputation as a flip-flopper. It's not that John Kerry can't make up his mind; it's that he would rather try to trick voters into supporting him by telling what they want to hear rather than tell the truth about his liberal record.
That's why John Kerry, a man who "perennially receives a 100-percent rating from (anti-abortion groups like) NARAL and Planned Parenthood," has affirmed that he believes "life does begin at conception," which is the central tenet of the pro-life movement. It also explains why Kerry, an anti-gun advocate, recently waved around a shotgungiven to him by supporters at a West Virginia campaign stop and called it a "beautiful piece" even though he supports legislation that would ban people from hunting with that very same weapon.
Then there's John Kerry's indecipherable position on the Iraqi war which seems to change almost depending on who he's talking to. One month he calls it "critical to the outcome of the war on terror," the next month he responds in the affirmative when Chris Matthews asks him if he's an "anti-war candidate". In February of 2003, Kerry was saying, "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me", but earlier this month Kerry said the war in Iraq was, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
Of course, that statement really doesn't make any sense given that Kerry said just last month that he still would have given the President the authority to go to war even "knowing what I know today". On the other hand, that statement contradicts what Kerry said this month, that the "only legitimate reason was the weapons of mass destruction question". You can go on and on like this, trying to make sense of Kerry's constantly shifting positions on the war, but there is no logical consistency to Kerry's position. It's just like when John Kerry said of his vote to fund our troops in Iraq, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry wants as many people as possible, pro and anti-war, to believe that he's "on their side" and he's willing to pretend to take both sides of an issue simultaneously if necessary. Quite frankly, that sort of duplicitousness isn't a very attractive trait for a man who wants to be the next leader of the free world.
Summing this up, if you want a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal who lied about his war record and made a name for himself by smearing our troops to become President despite the fact that there is sparse evidence to go on in his Senate career that shows he is up for the job or capable of effectively waging the war on terror, then John Kerry is your man.
-
CARDIAC_CATS
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7854
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:37 am
Re: Issues??
Wow, someone finally talking about Domestic issues and not Iraq .. Kudos to WolfPtCat. Our countries has a lot of problems currently and I for one do not think Iraq is one of them. We should not be there (I don't care who the president is) ... PERIOD!WolfPtCat wrote:I am torn on these 3 issues:
Healthcare: I think the system is nearly unfixable. Doctors cannot afford malpractice insurance. Insurance companies dictate where customers can go. I recently caught a charter flight from Steamboat Springs CO to Anaconda for under $2000, my grandfather needed a medical flight from Wolf Point to Billings and was charged $30,000. MedicAid then picked up the tab. I'm starting to think that Canada might have the right idea. Edge-Kerry
Personal Freedoms: I think the Patriot Act is a step in a dangerous direction. Maybe I grew up too close to the Freemen, but I don't like Big Brother watching me. Don't give me that "If you don't have anything to hide....." argument. That is BS. Edge-Kerry
Abortion: This one is a deal-breaker. I cannot bring myself to back anyone who does not stand up for babies. To me, abortion is nothing more than adults murdering babies for convenience. Edge-Bush
If anyone can convince me to overlook Kerry's stand on abortion, I will consider changing my vote.
The Bush adminstration has done nothing but alienate the US to the rest of the world. If you don't think so, I say take a trip around the world this next year and wear an I'm an American T-shirt each day and see how you are treated. Oh, thats if you aren't kidnapped during that time and beheaded.
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
-
velochat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
- Location: Bozeman
-
CARDIAC_CATS
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7854
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:37 am
Awesome, "DIPLOMACY isn't even in their vocabulary" Excellent quote Velo, that pretty much sums up the entire Bush administration for me too. Its their way or the highway. We have aliented almost every ally we used to have except for Britian. How this is 'making' the United State safer I would sure like an explanation on. Can any Bush fans out there explain that to me?velochat wrote:Iraq was, is, will be a tragic mistake. The administration uses it to obscure their corrupt, scary, shenanigans at home. I don't think it would be possible to run the country in a more inept, arrogant fashion. Diplomacy isn't even in their vocabulary.
Last edited by CARDIAC_CATS on Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7177
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
I see HonoluluCat's diatribe on why he thinks people shouldn't vote for Kerry. What I'm looking for is why anyone should vote for Bush. Just one reason...anyone? I think the Prez should run on what he's done that anyone else wouldn't have done over the last four years and the challenger should run on what he's going to do.
It isn't that Bush himself is necessarily so bad, but Cheyney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and his dad and his dad's oil buddies are scary as hell. GW couldn't do anything right if he wanted to while hanging with this cast of reincarnated Nazis.
I don't mind HonoCat's opinion Kerry, but as bad as he thinks Kerry is GW is worse along that line of thought. Military record: Bush is much worse as it is obvious he is a sniveling coward unless you compare him to VP Cheyney. Can you imagine if something happens to Bush and Cheyney takes over?
It isn't that Bush himself is necessarily so bad, but Cheyney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and his dad and his dad's oil buddies are scary as hell. GW couldn't do anything right if he wanted to while hanging with this cast of reincarnated Nazis.
I don't mind HonoCat's opinion Kerry, but as bad as he thinks Kerry is GW is worse along that line of thought. Military record: Bush is much worse as it is obvious he is a sniveling coward unless you compare him to VP Cheyney. Can you imagine if something happens to Bush and Cheyney takes over?
-
BWahlberg
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: Missoula
- Contact:
A few issues that I also think need to be addressed:
1. Education. I've said this before, the No Child Left Behind act should be changed to the every child left behind act. My wife is currently getting her education degree, and has learned and seen quite a bit of what this policy has done to schools nationwide. She votes republican more than not, but this has her so frustrated she's voting for Kerry this year.
2. The deficit and the spreading gap between upper and lower class. Poverty is growing rapidly in the US, and the wealthy have just seen better tax breaks over the past 4 years. Doesn't seem right to me... Also remember when Bush & Gore were arguing over what to do with the surplus??? Wow...look at us now.
3. Unemployment. Montana kind of "lucks out" with this, but a lot of the East Coast doesn't. We're lucky because we're a tourist and service based state, those numbers remain steady. Our national economy has been crap for 4 years now. Hundreds of thousands of working class americans have lost thier jobs. One of the reasons, exporting the work overseas. Reps think this is a great idea! We have someone in China/India/Europe do the work at half the cost, and thats saving money! When the truth is thats costing US jobs, and we're rapidly loosing consumers, which hurts the economy.
1. Education. I've said this before, the No Child Left Behind act should be changed to the every child left behind act. My wife is currently getting her education degree, and has learned and seen quite a bit of what this policy has done to schools nationwide. She votes republican more than not, but this has her so frustrated she's voting for Kerry this year.
2. The deficit and the spreading gap between upper and lower class. Poverty is growing rapidly in the US, and the wealthy have just seen better tax breaks over the past 4 years. Doesn't seem right to me... Also remember when Bush & Gore were arguing over what to do with the surplus??? Wow...look at us now.
3. Unemployment. Montana kind of "lucks out" with this, but a lot of the East Coast doesn't. We're lucky because we're a tourist and service based state, those numbers remain steady. Our national economy has been crap for 4 years now. Hundreds of thousands of working class americans have lost thier jobs. One of the reasons, exporting the work overseas. Reps think this is a great idea! We have someone in China/India/Europe do the work at half the cost, and thats saving money! When the truth is thats costing US jobs, and we're rapidly loosing consumers, which hurts the economy.
-
velochat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
- Location: Bozeman
The British, Italian, Spanish, Australian, etc., people are just as unhappy with us. Tony Blair went totally against his public's opinion in supporting W's recreational war.CARDIAC_CATS wrote:Awesome, "DIPLOMACY isn't even in their vocabulary" Excellent quote Velo, that pretty much sums up the entire Bush administration for me too. Its their way or the highway. We have aliented almost every ally we used to have except for Britian. How this is 'making' the United State safer I would sure like an explanation on. Can any Bush fans out there explain that to me?velochat wrote:Iraq was, is, will be a tragic mistake. The administration uses it to obscure their corrupt, scary, shenanigans at home. I don't think it would be possible to run the country in a more inept, arrogant fashion. Diplomacy isn't even in their vocabulary.
-
Bleedinbluengold
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3427
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: Belly of the Beast
iaa - based on why how you think a president should campaign, you wouldn't vote for any incumbant. And I understand that you're trying to make your point by referring to the Administration as "reincarnated Nazis." But please, such references are completely ridiculous.
velo - If Iraq is a mistake, then the world should look the other way in Sudan, am I right? And the Balkans was another horrible mistake?
Cardiac - Diplomacy really worked out well in Iraq. It also worked well in Somalia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Tibet, Cambodia, North Korea, Iran, etc. My point is this: How long do you try to have dialogue with people who are simply bad guys. Or do we just continue to dance around the May pole as if nothing bad is happening anywhere in the world? Sometimes, diplomacy just doesn't succeed.
All I'm saying is that liberal zeolousy is no more productive than right wing zeolously. These types just end up screaming at each other, not really ever accomplishing much. Which, I guess, is something good after all.
velo - If Iraq is a mistake, then the world should look the other way in Sudan, am I right? And the Balkans was another horrible mistake?
Cardiac - Diplomacy really worked out well in Iraq. It also worked well in Somalia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Tibet, Cambodia, North Korea, Iran, etc. My point is this: How long do you try to have dialogue with people who are simply bad guys. Or do we just continue to dance around the May pole as if nothing bad is happening anywhere in the world? Sometimes, diplomacy just doesn't succeed.
All I'm saying is that liberal zeolousy is no more productive than right wing zeolously. These types just end up screaming at each other, not really ever accomplishing much. Which, I guess, is something good after all.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23961
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I get highly suspicious whenever I hear statements about growing poverty, etc. Generally, when you look behind those numbers, they aren't what the headline makes them out to be. Especially in terms of the "growing gap between rich and poor." If poor people are becoming wealthier, but not as fast as rich people, is this a bad thing? It seems that it would be positive all the way around. I say this only because we were hearing that same argument during the boom, when everybody was getting wealthier. Since the economy really isn't tied to who is President (at least, not immediately), I generally discount these arguments when the election rolls around. Outside of commandeering rich people's money and giving it to the poor people (which has very negative long term implications), there is not much that a President can do in the short term to change this disparity. Also keep in mind that your first generation immigrants are generally going to be poor (due to the lack of education, language skills, etc.) regardless of what government does. However, their children, through the educational opportunities provided in the U.S., will generally be much, much wealthier. That's the way this country has been since the beginning. There will always be people of lesser wealth in the U.S. It's just the way it works.Re/Max Griz wrote:2. The deficit and the spreading gap between upper and lower class. Poverty is growing rapidly in the US, and the wealthy have just seen better tax breaks over the past 4 years. Doesn't seem right to me... Also remember when Bush & Gore were arguing over what to do with the surplus??? Wow...look at us now.
The tourist economy was actually the part of the economy that was hurt the worst. That's the first level of discretionary spending that it cut when people make less money. Montana's economy wasn't hurt because it hadn't participated in the boom. (You can't really go down if you never went up when the rest of the U.S. went up).3. Unemployment. Montana kind of "lucks out" with this, but a lot of the East Coast doesn't. We're lucky because we're a tourist and service based state, those numbers remain steady. Our national economy has been crap for 4 years now. Hundreds of thousands of working class americans have lost thier jobs. One of the reasons, exporting the work overseas. Reps think this is a great idea! We have someone in China/India/Europe do the work at half the cost, and thats saving money! When the truth is thats costing US jobs, and we're rapidly loosing consumers, which hurts the economy.
As for the outsourcing thing -- it's a bit more complicated than anyone seems to think. What are you going to do, ban companies from having overseas operations? That would be stupid. Kerry had a really bad idea for a tax plan that would totally muck things up for any U.S. company doing business overseas. The tax code in that area is really complicated (a full semester's worth of studying just to master the basics), but just trust me when I say that Kerry's idea would be bad for the U.S. companies (which means less U.S. jobs and bad things for the U.S. economy). He has shelved them since then, so I think someone whispered something into his ear about that stuff and convinced him that populism for the sake of populism hasn't worked for years, as Al Gore managed to prove.
In reality, we have more "insourced" jobs in the U.S. than we do "outsourced" jobs. Lots of foreign companies have employees in the U.S., which makes sense as we are the largest consumer market in the world. If we start doing any silly isolationist crap to limit the oursourcing of jobs, we are in serious danger of shooting ourselves in the foot.
-
Bleedinbluengold
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3427
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: Belly of the Beast
BAC - good comment on the deficit. My thought is that if the deficit was such a serious issue, then the U.S. wouldn't operate with one. And the last time I checked, which was long ago mind u, the deficit was shrinking as a percentage of GDP.
The more serious issue, economically speaking, in my mind, is the money supply. If Greenspan ever has to turn the tap off, there will be serious misery in the land of milk and honey.
The more serious issue, economically speaking, in my mind, is the money supply. If Greenspan ever has to turn the tap off, there will be serious misery in the land of milk and honey.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23961
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
Actually, on the current deficit itself, I would have preferred a bit more restraint on the part of Bush. It's nice politically to lower taxes (who can be against that, except those who will complain that theirs weren't lowered by as large an amount as those who pay more taxes than they do), and it is also generally a politically popular move to spend more money (especially when trying to bribe the AARP with additional medical benefits regardless of need). Bush has managed to do both, which might have gained a lot of happy people in the short term, but can't last very long.Bleedinbluengold wrote:BAC - good comment on the deficit. My thought is that if the deficit was such a serious issue, then the U.S. wouldn't operate with one. And the last time I checked, which was long ago mind u, the deficit was shrinking as a percentage of GDP.
The more serious issue, economically speaking, in my mind, is the money supply. If Greenspan ever has to turn the tap off, there will be serious misery in the land of milk and honey.
It's true that most of our deficit is due to the the cyclical recession (much like the previous surplus was mainly the result of huge amounts of taxable income arising from stock options during the boom), but simultaneously lowering taxes (for everyone, it should be noted) while ramping up spending isn't the kind of fiscal management I'd like to see going forward. At some point, some pain has to be inflicted, either in lower spending (preferably) or higher taxes (good luck).
The worry around the deficit is that it will trigger higher inflation (leading to higher interest rates) and stall the economic growth. That hasn't started to happen yet, so hopefully that means that our deficit won't turn into a huge problem. It would be nice to have a surplus again, though. Of course, that would lead to a stronger dollar, which would hurt our exports... it's all such an interconnected hodge-podge that I don't think anyone can really manage it (the economy) effectively. It seems to me that all the government can really do well is screw it up -- fixing it has to happen organically.