Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

[SDW2001]

[flame suit on]

As insane I am about to be called, I still think this could happen. No, it's not just wishful thinking. With the electoral college and it's winner-take-all system, it could happen. Reagan won 49 in 1984. It's not impossible.

Here is the question: IF the economy is strong by election day, could Bush win all 50 states (but lose the District of Columbia)?



[another flame suit put on]

[coats self in asbestos]

[stands in tank of water]

[tmp]

I can't really see him taking California.

[pfflam]

luckily people ae not all dupes, Pink Boys or mediocretins . . . .no he won't win every state . . . .some pople see through the wall of lies attitude and bullsht

[sammi jo]

Its quite possible that this may just happen. The new electronic voting machines are manufactured by the Diebold Corporation. Whoever writes the software has a potential say in the way elections are handled (read rigged). With electronic voting machines there is no paper trail...just the perfect way to rig elections.

from journalist Lynn Landes:

ES&S, the largest voting machine company in America, claims to have counted 56% of the vote in the last four presidential elections. Again, it's owned by the
ultra-conservative Omaha World-Herald Company, the McCarthy Group, and former owners of Business Records Corporation. ES&S was created from a merger
between American Information Systems (AIS) and Business Records Corporation. Bob and Todd Urosevich founded AIS in the 1980's. Bob is now president of
Diebold-Global, while brother Todd is a vice president at ES&S. Business Records Corp. was partially owned by Cronus, a company that seems to have a lot of
connections to the notorious Hunt brothers from Texas, as well as other individuals and entities, including_ Rothschild, Inc.. Right wing Republicans Howard Ahmanson
(who financed AIS) and Nelson Bunker Hunt have both heavily contributed to The Chalcedon Institute, an organization that mandates Christian "dominion" over the
world.

Sequoia Voting Systems appears to be the second largest voting machine company, accounting for about 1/3 of the voting machine market. As of May 2002, Sequoia was
purchased by Great Britain's De La Rue from Ireland's Jefferson Smurfit Group, who retain a 15% share. Smurfit was just bought by Madison Dearborn Partners, a
private equity investment firm. De La Rue owns 20% of the Great Britain's national lottery. In 1995 the Security and Exchange Commission filed charges against four
employees of Sequoia, alleging that they inflated revenue and pre-tax profits. In 1999 the Justice Department filed federal charges against employees of Sequoia alleging
that during a 10-year period $8 million in bribes were paid out. Louisiana's Commissioner of Elections Jerry Fowler had run up some big gambling debts in Atlantic City,
according to reporter Daniel Hopsicker. In all, 22 people were indicted, 9 plead guilty. Fowler went to jail, but big fish Pasquale "Rocco" Ricci of New Jersey got one
year of home detention.

Advanced Voting Solutions is the new name of another scandal-ridden voting company, Shoup Voting Solutions. Their current top management, Howard Van Pelt and
Larry Ensminger, were executives for Diebold-Global until late last year. Officers of Shoup Voting Machine Co. were indicted for allegedly bribing politicians in Tampa,
Florida in 1971, according to the San Francisco Business Times. Ransom Shoup was convicted in 1979 of conspiracy and obstruction of justice related to an FBI inquiry
into a lever machine-counted election in Philadelphia._ Shoup got a three-year suspended sentence. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has bought new voting machines from
Danaher-Guardian, which appears to only sell voting machines formerly known as the_ "Shouptronic."_

Danaher-Guardian is owned by billionaire brothers Steven M. and Mitchell P. Rales, who were described by columnist Jack Anderson in 1988 as "a pair of corporate
raiders out of Washington DC." Again, Danaher-Guardian appears to only sell formerly Shouptronic voting machines .......

More at:
http://prorev.com/votecount.htm
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm
http://www.securepoll.com/Archives/Archive37.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20021107-73408676.htm

[SDW2001]

Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record.

what did you expect seeing how the topic was fairly absurd as it is?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record. The thread wasn't absurd with the first post?

I feel like we've all just walked into SDW's private fantasy.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by BRussell
The thread wasn't absurd with the first post?

I feel like we've all just walked into SDW's private fantasy.

i thought that was his deck.

[thuh Freak]

i dont think he will win every state. i wsan't conscious around reagan, so i missed out on his winning 49 states, or what led to that. bush hsan't done that good, i dont think. the main thing he's done, is the war in iraq. and i, and far too many americans, have problems with that war. the only way i see him getting such an overwhelming amount of electoral college is if the democrats dont put up a strong enough candidate, or if the independants get more votes than usual.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
i dont think he will win every state. i wsan't conscious around reagan, so i missed out on his winning 49 states, or what led to that. bush hsan't done that good, i dont think. the main thing he's done, is the war in iraq. and i, and far too many americans, have problems with that war. the only way i see him getting such an overwhelming amount of electoral college is if the democrats dont put up a strong enough candidate, or if the independants get more votes than usual.


BTW, the deck pictures were put up there for the people that sold me the wood....who happen to be friends/associates of my Dad (they wanted pictures) I just never got around to taking them down....

Fantasy? Not really. I just think it could happen. Notice I said "IF the economy improves...". thuh freak mentions the democrats not putting a strong enough candidate up....

Does anyone mean to tell me that the Democrats HAVE a strong candidate? One of the reasons I think it's possible is this one! Here's my reasoning:

1) If the economy improves, it will take a major issue away from the Democrats...if not the only one.

2) Their candidates are extremely weak this time.

3) Bush is seen as a strong leader by many because of 9/11, Iraq.

4) If #1 occurs, Bush's tax cut will be seen as the reason (whether you think it is or not....it will be seen that way).

5) Bush's popularity has not fallen below 50% since his election. This includes times before 9/11.

6) Bush's image makers are better than even Reagan's were. The people coordinating and choreographing his appearances are masterful.

7) Bush will raise, perhaps, DOUBLE the money of his opponent.

8 ) He will not have to spend a lot during the primary phase, whereas the Dems will be ripping each other's guts out and depleting their war chests.

9) He has learned from his father's lousy reelection campaign. He'll run a world-class campaign with the full advantage of incumbency.

10) Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is a genius.

[groverat]

The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have, and luckily for them there is no stronger or more dominant issue than the economy.

[mrmister]

It's kind of a silly question--the answer is obfviously "MAYBE", with a lot of time needed to see how it turns out.

[billybobsky]

do you really want to see bush with that sort of "mandate"? he is already power hungry as is...

[sammi jo]

[Here's my reasoning:

1) If the economy improves, it will take a major issue away from the Democrats...if not the only one.

A major issue...but not the only one.

2) Their candidates are extremely weak this time.

Agreed, they *are* weak. Why are they weak? The better known ones (Liebermann etc) are pretty much "republican lite" and have all but abandoned the traditional democratic voter base. Th traditional democrats (Kucinich etc) are pretty much unknown, they are being ignored by the media and will never get the kind of funding it requires to buy the exposure. Al Sharpton is black. A black president? Thats fine, but a total no-no most of "Middle America"..

3) Bush is seen as a strong leader by many because of 9/11, Iraq.

Despite Fox and Clear Channel and the corporate media, you can fool some of the public all of the time, but not all of the public, all of the time. Bush is seen as a "strong leader" because thats the way the US media has been portraying him, and some 65% have been blinded to reality. 35% of the the rest of the US people, (despite the media's "tongue up Bush's ass" alignment), and 80% of the rest of the world see Bush and this administration as an unmitigated disaster and a huge setback to any value that is remotely civilized. The Iraq war has been regarded in many countries as nothing better than a hugely expensive act of international terrorism, supported and "justified" by lies and foreign policy gone beserk. The US majority may just wake up before November 2004.

4) If #1 occurs, Bush's tax cut will be seen as the reason (whether you think it is or not....it will be seen that way).

For most people that tax cut isn't worth squat....specially for the 2.5 million people who have lost their jobs since Bush arrived in the White House.

5) Bush's popularity has not fallen below 50% since his election. This includes times before 9/11.

Daddy Bush's popularity was around 90% in the wake of the Gulf war. He lost the 1992 election.

6) Bush's image makers are better than even Reagan's were. The people coordinating and choreographing his appearances are masterful.

Agreed. They have to be! Bush's entire presidency is devoid of ethics, substance (and legality). Image and marketing, for this White House crew is everything, just like a prepackaged baby formula pop-group for young pre-teens.

7) Bush will raise, perhaps, DOUBLE the money of his opponent.

Now we're talking. It's all about who can afford to purchase the "presidency". Who said it's "The best democracy that money can buy"?

8 ) He will not have to spend a lot during the primary phase, whereas the Dems will be ripping each other's guts out and depleting their war chests.

See above.

9) He has learned from his father's lousy reelection campaign. He'll run a world-class campaign with the full advantage of incumbency.

Don't forget the support of the media...thats essential to a successful election campaign.

10) Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is a genius. [/B]

I agree...genius he is. What a shame that he's an ethical dwarf.

[Towel]

I just don't see Bush taking states like CA, WA, NY, MA, no matter how good the economy is or how terrible the Democratic candiate is. Too many people dislike Bush on general principles for him to win a Reaganesque landslide. Ironically, not so different from his immediate predecessor. :)

[tonton]

Not every state. Just the stupid ones. ;)

[groverat]

Dean in 2004.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by groverat
The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have, everybody seems to assume that because we won fast in the war with Iraq and because Saddam was a bad guy that it was a good idea . . . despite the fact that it was founded on patent lies

And what about this reconstruction or the rehabilitation of Afghanistan
these are real issues that are merely growing daily

and by the way grover . . . . hasn't there been a strange rise in global terrorism lately?!?!?!?!
any connections o our brilliantly subtle and nuanced foriegn diplomacy?!?!?!?!

The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country

[pfflam]

Originally posted by groverat
Dean in 2004. Yeah . . . Im all for that

[Chinney]

Bush: The End of the Republic...and the Rise of Empire. Hail!

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Towel
I just don't see Bush taking states like CA, WA, NY, MA, no matter how good the economy is or how terrible the Democratic candiate is. Too many people dislike Bush on general principles for him to win a Reaganesque landslide. Ironically, not so different from his immediate predecessor. :) Don't forget MN and WI - very liberal midwest states full of farmers . . . proving that not all farmers buy the image lie of corporate-conservatism as some down-home goodness value politics

[Outsider]

Anyone see the creepy smile contest on the Daily Show with the Democratic candidates?

[zounic]

If he doesn't makes it, he can still try to be elected here in France !
We've had Mr Le Pen (as the 'fascist' candidat) last year against Chirac, Bush would be a good candidat for the next french elections ;-)

(Ok fine; that was a private joke...)

[groverat]

pfflam:

everybody seems to assume that because we won fast in the war with Iraq and because Saddam was a bad guy that it was a good idea . . . despite the fact that it was founded on patent lies

Everybody?
exaggerate much?

And beside that, liberation isn't worthy? I don't think I want your type in power.

And what about this reconstruction or the rehabilitation of Afghanistan
these are real issues that are merely growing daily

It's an issue, but it's not a strong one for the Democrats.

and by the way grover . . . . hasn't there been a strange rise in global terrorism lately?!?!?!?!
any connections o our brilliantly subtle and nuanced foriegn diplomacy?!?!?!?!

Lots of puncuation marks make lame and ambiguous arguments strong and clear.

A strange rise? No. How short memories are, it's like there was never terrorism before.

The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country

A card-carrying member of the Drama Queen Party.

You're talking to groverat here, pfflam, emotional politik ranting will get you nowhere. Use some logic and take a reasonable tone. Or I will eat your face off. :)

[Fellowship]

groverat That was great stuff!

:lol:

Fellowship;)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by groverat
. Use some logic and take a reasonable tone. Or I will eat your face off. :) You won't eat my face off . . .

but you will regress to comments about punctuations marks and ad hominem attacks

[mrmister]

SJO, Al Sharpton's problem isn't that he's black--it's that he is AL SHARPTON.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by mrmister
SJO, Al Sharpton's problem isn't that he's black--it's that he is AL SHARPTON.

No KIDDING!

I would love to see an African American as President but never Al Sharpton.

Fellowship

[Chinney]

As long as he keeps America's guns blazing at reasonably frequent intervals, Bush will win. I am feeling pessimistic tonight, but I think that base human instincts have changed little: providing that there is at least an aura of victory, WAR SELLS TO THE PUBLIC. I am willing to believe that war will even trump the economy as an issue, as indeed it has done, so far, in the opinion polls. And keep in mind that the "War Against Terrorism" has been sold as an endless war.

[SDW2001]

:lol:

This is rich.


" The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country"


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jimmac]

This one's just too stupid for words.

Earth to SDW, Earth to SDW..........:lol:

[sCreeD]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
No KIDDING!

I would love to see an African American as President but never Al Sharpton.

Fellowship

Dennis Haybert (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Haysbert,%20Dennis) for President!!

Screed

[agent302]

Originally posted by tmp
I can't really see him taking California.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

2000 Presidential Election Results (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/popular_vote_2000.html) in California:

Bush/Cheney: 4,567,429
Gore/Lieberman: 5,861,203

That, I have to say, is a large vote differential that is not going to be easily overcome.

Edit: And even if, by some miracle, Bush wom all 50 states, he still wouldn't get all the electoral votes because he won't win DC. Gore got 85% of the vote in DC.

[ColanderOfDeath]

I don't think there is really any way he can Washington either. The left is annoyed and energized by most everything he has done and they are stronger than the right in this state anway recently. Beyond that he lost any chance at catching the center of our state with weak support in 2002 for unemployment benefits and the situation with Boeing's commercial aircraft business going in the shitter post-9/11 which has been dragging down the whole regional economy. Not visiting during his term probably hasn't helped him either, he'll get hammered for ignoring the state.

He won't win Massachusetts. Pretty much all of the Eastern seaboard from Maryland North will still be tough. I doubt he can win Hawaii even in a best case for Bush scenario either. I kind of doubt that he can win Oregon either even though Oregon was pretty close. Libertarian plays better than religious conservative there and he's not really too much of the former. I suppose it could depend on Nader again but I think Nader is dead.

New York I dunno about, normally I would think not but maybe 9/11 will carry votes to an extent in that state that it won't elsewhere. I don't have a good sense of how that will come into play there.

I dunno about pfflam's statement about the politics of Wisconsin and Minnesota. While that was historically true, I'm not sure it is really true anymore. Wouldn't be a surprise at all if both of those states went to Bush even in a fairly close election. Both were real close in 2000 IIRC.

Of course, just by virtue of being a Republican in a presidential election he can pretty much chalk up Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho. Even if the economy worsened he would still win at least those states in a worst case scenario.

[Towel]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
New York I dunno about, normally I would think not but maybe 9/11 will carry votes to an extent in that state that it won't elsewhere. I don't have a good sense of how that will come into play there.

That's a good point, but my feeling has been that 9/11 won't translate into support for Bush's re-election, so long as the Dem nominee is reasonably hawkish. I left a lot of family and friends back there (LI, NYC). They generally still dislike and are frightened by Bush, but they grimly support his proactiveness in foreign policy. It shouldn't be hard to assure them they can get the latter without the former. I think someone like Lieberman could win NY in a landslide.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I think it's a shame if this is true:

Originally posted by groverat
The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have

Or rather, it's the Democrats' fault if they don't make an issue of the environment, the role of the United States in international affairs and the question of export subsidies and aid.

If these aren't issues, either the Democrats are incompetent or the right wing has a very hard grip indeed on the American body politic.

[billybobsky]

what we need is some sort of state mandering...

With the republicans in control of both the senate and the house they can just start redrawing the states so that Georgy Porgy can win all 50 and their power is maintained. Once King George VI becomes crowned by the incumbant Palimentaries, the US can abandon its feigned republican democracy and give the sun king his dues. Long live the bush dynasty. To King George and Princess Barbara...

[serrano]

You can dew eet!

:rolleyes:

[ColanderOfDeath]

Or rather, it's the Democrats' fault if they don't make an issue of the environment, the role of the United States in international affairs and the question of export subsidies and aid.

This sounds very much like a platform that could successfully defeat Bush if he were running in Europe. I suppose "defeat Bush" and "if he were running in Europe" is perhaps redundant but nevertheless there it is. It is not surprising that a European like yourself might mention the American issues which Europeans care about but they aren't the ones that most Americans care about in a presidential election. This platform would have little traction in the US.

The environment is all fine and dandy but you can find just as many Americans who loathe what the perceive as the big govt regulation of the environment as you can find people who would cast a vote mainly on the environment. And the Europress may not have pointed this out but in case you were wondering I should mention that even if someone else were president Kyoto would be dead to the Senate. It never was a US political issue on which people would vote anyway. There might be some isolated political issues that really grab people like the Klamath Basin water uproar but those are mostly regional/local issues that don't resonate nationally.

As for the role in US affairs, which of Bush's actions do you think the American public didn't support? The heavy handed tactics of executing his policy causes some unease but only with people who would not vote for him anyway. The Afghanistan war is a no-brainer. Iraq was supported by 75% of the US. You can find a number of people including myself, many of them moderate by US standards who think that the UN is a worthless cabal of third world dictators and handwringing Europeans who join together to glorify beaurocracy. US military presense abroad is not controversial or even an issue. War on terror is scoring points for the Shrubbery. I'm sure there are some other things to talk about here but you must of course remember that Bush's foreign policy is fairly popular in the US.

As for export subsidies and trade and such, what? Steel will play well in Pennsylvania which was the main of that anyway. I doubt that Bush will win British Columbia with the soft lumber situation but that's probably OK with him since BC has the same number of electoral votes as Jacques Chirac. Farm stuffs, we love our farm stuffs. Glory be to the voters in Iowa, Minnesota and the holy goats. Corporate Shelters? Pshaw. No one is gonna vote for someone else cause he didn't forgive Eritrea's debt or something.

I don't see anything in what you listed that would get anyone anywhere. Economy, Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drugs and Education will probably be the main issues as always.

If these aren't issues, either the Democrats are incompetent or the right wing has a very hard grip indeed on the American body politic.

This should not be an "or" statement but rather an "and" statement since both are true.

[SDW2001]

Colander:

That was an excellent post. In all seriousness, I really enjoyed reading it. Sadly others cannot separate their personal feelings from fact.

And on the facts, I agree with you 100%. Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole. The other issues aren't viable in a national election...that was dead on!!! Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Those are the facts.

In this thread I am primarily interested in facts. This will not be 1992 all over again. There are simply too many variables. There is no Ross Perot, the economy is a different point in the cycle than 1992, there is no viable democratic candidate, Bush has CUT, not raised taxes (twice actually), he has strength to a majority of Americans as a war leader and leader during 9/11's aftermath. Most importantly, one can assume Bush knows his father's campaign was ridiculously bad and over confident. It is said that Bush constantly looks at the picture of John Quincy Adams...the one term President many years ago. He is also fond of history. I can't believe he would be overconfident. All signs point to him running a word-class campaign. His image makers, as I said, seem to be terrific.

The only issue is the economy. It is the one weakness he has, unless it improves. That being said, it's also not as bad as in 1992. The numbers don't lie.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Colander:

That was an excellent post. In all seriousness, I really enjoyed reading it. Sadly others cannot separate their personal feelings from fact.

And on the facts, I agree with you 100%. Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole. The other issues aren't viable in a national election...that was dead on!!! Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Those are the facts.

In this thread I am primarily interested in facts. This will not be 1992 all over again. There are simply too many variables. There is no Ross Perot, the economy is a different point in the cycle than 1992, there is no viable democratic candidate, Bush has CUT, not raised taxes (twice actually), he has strength to a majority of Americans as a war leader and leader during 9/11's aftermath. Most importantly, one can assume Bush knows his father's campaign was ridiculously bad and over confident. It is said that Bush constantly looks at the picture of John Quincy Adams...the one term President many years ago. He is also fond of history. I can't believe he would be overconfident. All signs point to him running a word-class campaign. His image makers, as I said, seem to be terrific.

The only issue is the economy. It is the one weakness he has, unless it improves. That being said, it's also not as bad as in 1992. The numbers don't lie.

What's the title of your next thread? Oh wait! I know " REPUBLICANS TAKE CONTROL OF THE UNIVERSE IN 2008 ". :lol:

[SDW2001]

Good one, jimmac.

Some others:



All Democrats resign in 2004

Clinton admits he knows what the definition of "is", is

Jimmac votes republican after hell freezes over

Democrats support national defense

[pyr3]

I think that Bush's foreign policy might become an issue if by election time there are still no 'weapons of mass destruction' found in Iraq.

[agent302]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Good one, jimmac.

Some others:





Democrats support national defense

Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by agent302
Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread. Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine

. . .yes, from a Democrat

[SDW2001]

Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.


No one is arguing that Democrats of years past weren't strong on defense. We're talking about today. That's the whole point. The party is just not the same since Kennedy.

I do have to disagree with your missile defense comment. I support that...even if it isn't 100% workable yet.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine

. . .yes, from a Democrat


So Reagan had nothing to do with it? Please.

[pfflam filter engaged]

[Fran441]

I don't see Bush winning all 50 states in 2004 and the election is still quite aways off.

But the Democrats need a front runner here if they plan on defeating Bush. After all, the Democrats have a shot of retaking the White House if they actually get a strong candidate out there with a consistant message.

A Democratic candidate should have come out wholeheartedly against the war in Iraq, in my opinion, and that didn't happen. Also, they can't run on a 'me too' platform. They need to come out with a solid platform that sets them apart from the pack. Besides Gephardt's national health insurance plan, most candidates seem to have a similar message.

Unless a candidate can set themselves apart, it's going to be a tough run against Bush, that's for sure. But it's still very early in the race and plenty will happen between now and next year.

It's too bad someone didn't have anything to say about the war though or they could question why there haven't been any WOMD found in Iraq yet.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So Reagan had nothing to do with it? Please.

[pfflam filter engaged]

The real reason is their economy went to hell. Too much military spending. Ironic isn't?;)

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by agent302
Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.
Even Donna Brazile knows (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003520) that when it comes to national defense today's Democrats don't have much in common with FDR, Truman and JFK.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

If Bush's opponent is Kerry, maybe he would win all 50 states. (link (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2218073/detail.html))

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by pfflam
Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine

. . .yes, from a Democrat
The Monroe Doctrine (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm) had something to do with the fall of Communism? How so? I mean if it did, it was because Reagan took it seriously in places like Nicaragua. Most of the Democrat party fought him on that one.

[SDW2001]

jimmac,


I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that. He first demonstrated that the US could not be ouptspent on defense. He built up the military and negotiated from a position of strength. He literally explained to Gorby that we would simply not allow them to outspend us denfensively speaking.

Reagan certainly saw the writing one the wall. There were others at the time and imediately before (late 1970's) who didn't. Some people were actually saying that Soviet occupation of the Western Hemisphere (not all of it...but some) was just a matter of time. Reagan drew the line in the sand...or more speciffically, recut it and made it deeper.

[SDW2001]

BTW, the above poll is one reason I think Bush could do it. He's beating guys like Kerry on their own turf.

What I'm saying is that IF the economy gets better than it is, we could have a whole new era of Reagan Democrats. It really could happen.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,


I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that. He first demonstrated that the US could not be ouptspent on defense. He built up the military and negotiated from a position of strength. He literally explained to Gorby that we would simply not allow them to outspend us denfensively speaking.

Reagan certainly saw the writing one the wall. There were others at the time and imediately before (late 1970's) who didn't. Some people were actually saying that Soviet occupation of the Western Hemisphere (not all of it...but some) was just a matter of time. Reagan drew the line in the sand...or more speciffically, recut it and made it deeper.

:no:

[keyboardf12]

Ah Reagan. We will FOREVER be in his DEBT.

[agent302]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that.

It wasn't Reagan's economy. It wasn't Bush's economy. Hell, it wasn't Clinton's economy. Presidents are all very good at taking credit for things that they have very marginal control over. Good and bad economies do not result from the actions of the incumbent presidents.

[keyboardf12]

Junior will take California when they pry the very last fiber of common sense from our cold dead hands.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Even Donna Brazile knows (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003520) that when it comes to national defense today's Democrats don't have much in common with FDR, Truman and JFK. Yeah it used to be that Democrats had wars and Republicans had recessions. Now with W., Republicans have both.
:p

There's just no way, post-9/11, that a dovish Dem can win, nor should he win. And as far as I can tell, the only unequivocal hawk is your fine Senator Lieberman, zaphod.

[ena]

I just heard it on NPR, they are shining up Daschle with the "news" that he supports our troops. No doveishness there.

I think if GWB (and I think we all know Codi is the one who is whacking the international pee-pees) pulls a hat trick on the economy AND the Palestinian thing then might make emporer in '04.

But since Daschle couldn't stop the tax cut--he may have to strap on one of those Sintex vests from Iraqi military surplus and try to divert the peace process personally.

We can only hope.

[Scott]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Its quite possible that this may just happen. The new electronic voting machines are manufactured by the Diebold Corporation. Whoever writes the software has a potential say in the way elections are handled (read rigged). With electronic voting machines there is no paper trail...just the perfect way to rig elections.


....

:lol: Funny as always. In Chicago the "Daley Machine" included the voting booths too. Democrats are the kings of rigging elections. The real vote fraud story in 2002 had nothing to do with Florida. But the ****** media never pushed that to the front page. NYT was too busy making it up to get it right:lol:

[Chinney]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole.

I rarely agree with SDW, but I have to agree with him here. Regardless of all the reasons that Bush should be unpopular, he went to war and that seems to be good enough to put him on top.

Americans, it seems, like war providing it is foreigners who are dying.

Further, this is not like 1992, because this time the Republicans have a continual war scenario. Lucky them.

[zounic]

Originally posted by Chinney
Americans, it seems, like war providing it is foreigners who are dying.

Further, this is not like 1992, because this time the Republicans have a continual war scenario. Lucky them. Couldn't say it better !
And that really sucks 8-(

[jimmac]

Originally posted by zounic
Couldn't say it better !
And that really sucks 8-(

I'm banking ( no pun intended ) on the idea that the economy ( by 2004 ) will be all that matters to the voting public. Unlike SDW I'm not so optimistic about things turning around by then.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
Ah Reagan. We will FOREVER be in his DEBT.

Ain't that the truth!:lol: :lol: :lol:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
Junior will take California when they pry the very last fiber of common sense from our cold dead hands.

Yes I'm sure the Davis poll numbers and Democrats allowing uncontrolled spending to blow a 35+ BILLION dollar hole in the budget is going to help a Democratic candidate.

Likewise if Condi Rice or Ar-nald are running for governor at the same time, it could be very interesting.

Nick

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Ain't that the truth!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Come one. Reagan was only half responsible for the deficits. He contributed by pushing military spending...which I argue was necessary at the time. The other part, perhaps MORE than half actually, was the democratically controlled Congress spending like it was X-mas.

You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.

[ena]

Originally posted by SDW2001

You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.

I agree---I distinctly remember Tip O'Neil telling The Gipper to shove it on several occasions.

[SDW2001]

It doesn't matter how many times I post it though ena....

People don't listen. It's either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty. Revenue went up. Congress spent it. Now we have the Left blaming Reagan for deficits..

Interesting.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Come one. Reagan was only half responsible for the deficits. He contributed by pushing military spending...which I argue was necessary at the time. The other part, perhaps MORE than half actually, was the democratically controlled Congress spending like it was X-mas.

You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.


They also show the debt tripleing during his time in office. A result of bad decisions and way too much military spending. We've already been over the Fed. Savings and Loan thing ( yes, yes, I know the criminal liberal media blames him for this ). You can think of the 80's as a feel good ( have a tax cut ) decade that was living on credit. What happens when you only make the minimum payments on your credit card but keep buying? It could end only one way.......

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It doesn't matter how many times I post it though ena....

People don't listen. It's either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty. Revenue went up. Congress spent it. Now we have the Left blaming Reagan for deficits..

Interesting.

Or maybe you're wrong.:lol:

[SDW2001]

No, Jimmac: Those are....wait for it....THE FACTS.


Fact #1: Reagan increased military spending, which contributed to the deficits. You don't hear me arguing otherwise, because I know the FACTS.
I fully admit this had something to do with deficits. Other than this, Reagan wanted LIMITED government. He wanted CUTBACKS in spending.

Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.

Fact #3: Congress was controlled by the Democrats. They controlled the purse strings.

Fact #4: GOVERNMENT REVENUE DOUBLED DURING THE 1980's. Read that part again jimmac, and hopefully it will sink in for once. It doubled AFTER his tax cut. Yes, jimmac, even after his "tax cut for the rich" government revenue went UP. Say it with me....UP!!!


And who is to say what "too much' military spending is? At the time, Reagan's position was that we needed to negotiate from a position of strength. We therefore needed a more modern military. This cost money. This by itself did not cause the huge deficits.

Once again, the facts are in direct opposition your point, whatever it is.

[DigitalMonkeyBoy]

Word to pfflam.

However, national unity is WAY up.

Of course that is at the expense of international unity.

[trick fall]

Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.



I sort of remember Reagan asking for more money in his budgets than congress would give him. Of course Republicans seem to forget things like that, sort of like when that great proponent of limited gov't, New Gingrich, had more per capita federal dollars spent in his district than anyone. But hey, why demand value from your federal dollar when you can just cry about how taxes are too high and government too large.

Here's a question, if there's so much waste in gov't and we spend so needlessly on things how come when it comes time for budget cuts it's things like fire houses and education dollars that get cut? Shouldn't there be all that waste to get rid of? Why aren't you screaming about that instead of endlessly droning on like some wannabe pundit about the awful Democrats?

[Towel]

Originally posted by jimmac
Or maybe you're wrong.:lol:

In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2).

Spending as %GDP
Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic
1980 - 4.9 - 4.7
1981 - 5.2 - 4.5
1982 - 5.8 - 3.9
1983 - 6.1 - 3.8
1984 - 5.9 - 3.5
1985 - 6.1 - 3.5
1986 - 6.2 - 3.3
1987 - 6.1 - 3.1
1988 - 5.8 - 3.1
1989 - 5.6 - 3.1

See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).

So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.

[/rant]

[709]

Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
However, national unity is WAY up.

Of course that is at the expense of international unity.
Word to DigitalMonkeyBoy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Fact #1: Reagan increased military spending, which contributed to the deficits. You don't hear me arguing otherwise, because I know the FACTS.
I fully admit this had something to do with deficits. Other than this, Reagan wanted LIMITED government. He wanted CUTBACKS in spending.

Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.

Fact #3: Congress was controlled by the Democrats. They controlled the purse strings.

Fact #4: GOVERNMENT REVENUE DOUBLED DURING THE 1980's. Read that part again jimmac, and hopefully it will sink in for once. It doubled AFTER his tax cut. Yes, jimmac, even after his "tax cut for the rich" government revenue went UP. Say it with me....UP!!1. Congress controls spending? Reagan could have vetoed any spending bill he wanted.

2. Congress was not controlled by Democrats in the 1980s. The Senate was Republican during almost all of Reagan's presidency (except the last two years). The Senate and the House have to agree on a bill before it gets sent up. (And now, Bush and the Republicans have control of everything, and the same thing is happening.)

3. Revenues doubled - so what does that mean? Did Reagan's tax cuts and lack of spending cuts double that revenue? Of course not. Revenues increased because the economy grew, and the population increased, etc., just as it always does, regardless of what politicians do. It grew even more under Clinton, and he raised taxes. If anything, most economists believe that higher deficits raise interest rates in the long-term, which will hurt economic growth. One thing for sure is that increased debt adds to the federal budget through increased interest payments.

4. According to links I've posted in the past, they claim now that they knew tax cuts would decrease revenue. Reagan even raised taxes in 1982 when they saw what was happening after his 1980 cut.

I just really don't understand why Republicans like you SDW buy into this nonsense. You have to pay for what you spend. Real spending cuts are hard, and Republicans don't have the political will to do it. Or maybe they just don't really believe in cuts, I don't know. It's fine if you say you'd like "spending cuts" to go along with the tax cuts, but at least admit that that's not what Reagan did and Bush is doing. (I put spending cuts in quotes because it seems like no one ever says where those cuts are going to come from.)

What ticks me off is just the fundamental dishonesty and cynicism of the whole thing. Republicans can do what's politically popular with tax cuts, obtain short-term political benefit, and let others do the hard work with spending cuts and/or tax increases somewhere in the future.
:mad:

[edit]Towel that's a nice link. It's now in my bookmarks bar.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Towel
In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2).

Spending as %GDP
Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic
1980 - 4.9 - 4.7
1981 - 5.2 - 4.5
1982 - 5.8 - 3.9
1983 - 6.1 - 3.8
1984 - 5.9 - 3.5
1985 - 6.1 - 3.5
1986 - 6.2 - 3.3
1987 - 6.1 - 3.1
1988 - 5.8 - 3.1
1989 - 5.6 - 3.1

See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).

So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.

[/rant]

Have you noticed the little fault with your reasoning here regarding the debt. Do a little math.

Percentage of GDP right? Defense and nondefense right?

So we take 1980.... 4.9+4.7 and that gives us 9.6% of GDP spent on both defense and nondefense...

So then we take 1988...5.6+3.1 and that gives us 8.7% of GDP being spent on both defense and nondefense...

This would point to deficits exactly how? Looks to me like by your own numbers less is being spent.

Oh wait... there is this little area of the budget you aren't looking at called...

Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending

It encompasses little things like.. medicaid, medicare, unemployment, social security, etc.

Those happen to be some pretty important things.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Oh wait... there is this little area of the budget you aren't looking at called...

Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending

It encompasses little things like.. medicaid, medicare, unemployment, social security, etc.Yeah I was thinking that was probably what was going on there. But still, the deficits didn't occur because of "out of control spending by congress" if the spending increases were in the mandatory category. Blaming it on "Democrats in congress" suggests it was due to some kind of pork barrel or other discretionary spending initiated by those Congresses.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Towel
In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2).

Spending as %GDP
Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic
1980 - 4.9 - 4.7
1981 - 5.2 - 4.5
1982 - 5.8 - 3.9
1983 - 6.1 - 3.8
1984 - 5.9 - 3.5
1985 - 6.1 - 3.5
1986 - 6.2 - 3.3
1987 - 6.1 - 3.1
1988 - 5.8 - 3.1
1989 - 5.6 - 3.1

See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).

So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.

[/rant]

While I won't question your figures' accuracy, we cannot rely on % of GDP alone. It's a valid number to use, but not the only one. I agree defense spending was a part of the deficits. But to say that it was only Defense spending and tax cuts is just factually inaccurate.

Tax cuts acutally had NOTHING to do with deficits. They doubled revenue. I'm not sure how doubling revenue increases debt. Are you? the very same link you use proves the revenue issue. Scroll down a bit...

You numbers are valid, but they also don't include "entitlements" and "mandatory" spending, and/or pork-barrel spending. Reagan couldn't veto a lot of things because if he did, he would have stricken the whole spending bill. That's why we need a line-item veto.

The point is it's very difficult to blame deficits on Reagan alone. One must include Congress. Reagan WAS primarily responsible for the Defense spending increases, which DID contribute to the deficit...I agree. As I have argued though, I believe such spending was necessary at the time. The military was in pretty bad shape when he took office, and the Soviet Union was beginning to sense it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah I was thinking that was probably what was going on there. But still, the deficits didn't occur because of "out of control spending by congress" if the spending increases were in the mandatory category. Blaming it on "Democrats in congress" suggests it was due to some kind of pork barrel or other discretionary spending initiated by those Congresses.

And tell me that Democrats don't fully support these things....

This is the party that tried to nationalize healthcare. If that happened, it would be lumped in with "mandatory" spending. I think you'd be suprised at what the government calls "manadatory" spending.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You numbers are valid, but they also don't include "entitlements" and "mandatory" spending, and/or pork-barrel spending. Reagan couldn't veto a lot of things because if he did, he would have stricken the whole spending bill. That's why we need a line-item veto.

Mandatory spending remained constant through the 80s at about 10-11% of GDP. Actually, it dipped a bit from 1980-1989. The only spending that increased was defense. Renvenue dropped, relative to GDP, because of the tax cuts. I'm not saying that the pot wasn't bigger in absolute terms by 1989 - the economy did grow. But defense spending grew far faster, while other spending dropped slightly.

As for revenues increasing because of the tax cut, that's not so cut and dried either. In nominal dollars, revenues rose from $517.1B to 991.2 from 1980-1989. According to the DoL, the CPI rose 155% from 1980-1989. So inflation alone would have boosted revenue to 801.5, all else being constant. Social insurance taxes (whose rates actually increased and which are not used for general spending) rose from 157.8 to 359.4. Adjusting for inflation, that increase accounts for another $114.8B. So we're left with general revenues outpacing inflation by only $74.9B (991.2-801.5-74.9) in nonimal dollars by 1989. So, if we're generous and give Regan credit for ALL economic growth in the US in the 1980s, his tax cuts boosted general revenues by $75B a year. If tax rates remained constant, then the economy would have had to outpace inflation by only 1% a year to match that increase in revenues. Verdict? Tax cuts did not increase revenues beyond that which would have happened with middling economic growth. Controlling inflation by the Fed was far more important in assuring future revenue than cutting taxes.

As for spending, let's adjust everything for inflation so it's clearer. Defense spending increased by $96B, after adjusting for inflation. Non-defense domestic spending dropped by -$14B. Mandatory spending increased by $97B, but almost all of that (90.5) was from SS and Medicare, and was facilitated by FICA rate increases in the 80s to put the SS fund well in surplus. The only thing that increased significantly was defense spending (and, of course, interest payments).

Please realize that I'm not making a moral judgement that this was "bad". But it has to be judged on its own merits, based on real numbers and what actually happened. It's clear that whatever merits the cut-taxes-and-spend-on-defense paradigm has, raising government revenues is not one of them.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And tell me that Democrats don't fully support these things....Of course they did, as did Republicans. But you're suggesting that Democrats were responsible for the social spending increases that caused the deficits. To me, that implies that Democrats were increasing spending on new programs, or that they were at least voting on increasing spending on existing programs. Neither of those are true. As Towel's data show, discretionary spending, i.e., the spending that the Congress controlled and actually voted for, decreased. All the increases were in either military or auto-pilot spending.

That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan. At best, you can say that previous Democrats are at fault for starting the programs in the first place, or that the government as a whole (Reagan and the Congress) were at fault for not sufficiently reforming social security and health care.

And that's even putting aside the fact that Republicans controlled the Senate.

Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.

[SDW2001]

Oh My God.


"Verdict? Tax cuts did not increase revenues beyond that which would have happened with middling economic growth. Controlling inflation by the Fed was far more important in assuring future revenue than cutting taxes."


Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?



That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan.

:lol:



Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.

I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!

I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!

But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?


Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?

I can't even pretend to be able to understand the economics that goes into deciding how much of an impact a tax cut has on the economy. AFAIK, from a layman's perspective, it's open to debate, with the debate leaning towards tax cuts having a modest positive effect on the underlying business cycle, if done properly, and a larger psychological effect.

But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.

Again, I' not making moral judgements or saying it's a bad thing to grow the economy while government revenues stay nominally level and shrink as %GDP. Long-term, you want to grow GDP as much as possible while not compromising essential government functions. But if you're gonna sell a plan like that, it has to be on its merits, not as the "cures everything plus the common cold" tax cut plan.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh My God.


"Verdict? Tax cuts did not increase revenues beyond that which would have happened with middling economic growth. Controlling inflation by the Fed was far more important in assuring future revenue than cutting taxes."


Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?





:lol:





I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!

I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!

But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?


Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.

There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by jimmac
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work. ummm . . . but starwars won the Cold War . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :err: :wow:

..not

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.

Yes, jimmac, and there is an abundance of facts in this post. "You never heard of anything but the growing debts".



:lol:

pfflam:

No one ever said Star Wars won the cold war. At least, I didn't, Are you arguing against it now?

[SDW2001]

But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.

But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?

I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?

I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?

Ha, ha! I'll show them all! I'm right and they're wrong. The fools! Black really is white! I'll show them all!

:no:

Still in check. ;)

[trumptman]

Oh..oh..looks like the economy is starting to really roll and grow again. No amount of jumping on Reagan is going to help the Democratic candidates now.

Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.:lol:

Rolling, rolling, rolling... (http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/29/cx_aw_0529halffull.html)

:lol:

Nick

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by trumptman
Oh..oh..looks like the economy is starting to really roll and grow again. No amount of jumping on Reagan is going to help the Democratic candidates now.

Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.:lol:

Rolling, rolling, rolling... (http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/29/cx_aw_0529halffull.html)

:lol:

Nick


:lol:


See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".

trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?

Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.

[BRussell]

I really don't get the point of this thread. IF the economy improves, then Bush SHOULD win the election handily. OK. So all the conditions will (or should) be there for Bush to win.

In other words, that would just make it that much more telling if he loses. He should win, by all objective standards. Bush has won two wars and pushed through huge tax cuts - it's hard to imagine anything more politically popular than that ( whether they are good or bad policy...). He should be in the upper 90s in approval. Instead, he's right around where Clinton was after the sex scandal.

Clinton's approval rating immediately after impeachment for a sex scandal? 73%. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/)
Bush's approval rating after the fall of Baghdad? 72%. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-18-bush-poll_x.htm)
:err:

All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.

Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
:lol:


See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".

trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?

Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.

Come on I can't believe you're that shallow. I think I've mentioned this before. I used to own a book called : " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me a lot about how the world and persuasion works. Numbers can be bent to the shape of any argument. I could travel the web looking for numbers to counter your arguments. But I know it wouldn't persuade you. Even when other's here present you with well thought out arguments backed by numbers you still don't accept it. It's like you have a blind spot for the truth. It could be George is screwed by then. We'll just have to see. However I think it's to early to make a broad statement like " The economy is already improving " and translate it into a full recovery or even a minor one.. The experts ( not you ) aren't even doing that.


Still in check;)

[SDW2001]

Brussell:

All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.

Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.



1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.

2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.

3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.

4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. :wow: Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.

Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:

1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.

2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.

3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!

4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.


These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Brussell:




1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.

2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.

3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.

4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. :wow: Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.

Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:

1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.

2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.

3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!

4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.


These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.


George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.

Still in check.:lol:

[jwri004]

Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?

Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)

Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.

What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.

Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.

Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!

Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math. :D

[jimmac]

Originally posted by jwri004
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?

Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)

Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.

What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.

Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.

Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.

Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke. :lol:

[BR]

SDW says...

Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals.
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.

Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!

Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!

Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.

Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.Absolutely. That's why the Republicans are far to the right of mainstream right-wing parties in our peer countries, and Democrats are only a little bit to the right. The question is whether the Democrats or the Republicans are the right amount of conservative. Frankly, I don't care either way. I have my beliefs and they certainly aren't determined by where the rest of the population stands on things.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.Bush lost Hispanics 62 to 35% in 2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.president.html). And I'd bet you right now that he'll lose them much worse in 2004.

It's interesting to look at the exit polls from last time. He lost Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and women, all by sizable margins. He won whites, but broken down by gender he was tied on white women. The only demographic Bush won were white males.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible. I think the demographics suggest that it will be close, no matter how good the economy is or how good the wars go.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. :wow: Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.Yes, that's my opinion. But, as you have said numerous times, this Karl Rove is very important to Bush, and by all accounts this administration is more political than Clinton's. Supposedly, Karl Rove has unprecedented access to all types of policy-making. Bush is on permanent campaign.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:

1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.

2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.

3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!

4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period. I wasn't saying H. W. was thrown out for those reasons. Perhaps it was poor sentence structure on my part. But I disagree that Perot got Clinton elected. Every study I've seen suggests Perot took more from Clinton than Bush. Clinton and Perot split the "we hate Bush" vote.

[SDW2001]

I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.

Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!

Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!

Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.

Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.


That is compeltely and totally unsupported. That is simply not how things are with his admin. If anything, they should probably listen to public opinion a little MORE. You're nuts.

jimmac:


Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke.

No, jimmac, if Bush loses there will be a clear reason. Of course, gore might try and steal it again! :lol:


jwri004:





Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?

Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)

Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.

What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.

Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.

Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.

I like Bush. I don't worship him or think he infallable. You can call me a Bush apologist if you'd like, but it's not true.

As far as the next election, the facts don't support your statement. I have already listed my reaosns ofr thinking a sweep is possible. Disagree if you'd like.

As far as you not living here: Your idiotic impression of our country shows how incredibly narrow minded you must be. I suppose everyone from, say, Canada drinks Molson Ice and rides an Elk? I suppose all Russians live in a building that looks like the Kremlin and like to play with nutcrackers made out of wood? I'd like to go on more about your ridiculous stereotypical view of Americans, but I have to go eat my Big Mac and still have time to pick up a case of Bud, all so I can drink myself into a stupor at the demolition derby tonight! 8)

As far as getting my head out of my ass, my scenario is possible. Reagan nearly did it, and he didn't have 9/11, two wars, two tax cuts, etc. to run on. I'm wasting my time with you, though.


George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.



The ecnonomy was, I agree, the #1 reason. It was not the only one though. All of those factors contributed.


Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math.

I was wrong. It was 43%, now that I actually looked it up.

http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node19.html

I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That is compeltely and totally unsupported. That is simply not how things are with his admin. If anything, they should probably listen to public opinion a little MORE. You're nuts.

Yup, you sure stick to facts and figures.

YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE NUTS! LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.
It's not like Bush the Firste got more than 43%. Are you suggesting that there should be a runoff if a president wins without getting the popular vote?

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.

I was just poking fun at your fuzzy math, which wound up reducing Clinton's vote total from 43% to 33% ("two-thirds didn't vote for him") by a few innocent-looking roundings and fractions. There is definitely a future for you in politics. ;)

[SDW2001]

Two thirds was inaccurate. I apologize. It was actually thinking Clinton got like 39% of the vote. I'm not sure why. That would mean 61% voted against him...which is pretty damn close to two thirds.


It's not like Bush the Firste got more than 43%. Are you suggesting that there should be a runoff if a president wins without getting the popular vote?

No, I'm suggesting that I hate when Dems bitch about Gore's majority of the popular vote. The fact is that 57% of voters did not want Clinton to be President. That's a huge percentage. I'm not saying it invalidates anything....except the aformentioned Gore hysterics.

BRussell:



Yes, that's my opinion. But, as you have said numerous times, this Karl Rove is very important to Bush, and by all accounts this administration is more political than Clinton's. Supposedly, Karl Rove has unprecedented access to all types of policy-making. Bush is on permanent campaign.



That's pure rhetoric on your part. Rove wil and has joined the campaign. That's all.

jimmac:

Come on I can't believe you're that shallow. I think I've mentioned this before. I used to own a book called : " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me a lot about how the world and persuasion works. Numbers can be bent to the shape of any argument. I could travel the web looking for numbers to counter your arguments. But I know it wouldn't persuade you. Even when other's here present you with well thought out arguments backed by numbers you still don't accept it. It's like you have a blind spot for the truth. It could be George is screwed by then. We'll just have to see. However I think it's to early to make a broad statement like " The economy is already improving " and translate it into a full recovery or even a minor one.. The experts ( not you ) aren't even doing that.




Jimmac, any reasonable person or even economist would tell you we are experiencing slow economic growth. That's not great, but it's not bad either. All relevant indicators point to an improving economy. I don't see how that can even be argued. I agree numbers can be made to lie, but GDP estimates? The stock market being 1000 points off its lows? Consumer Confidence Index? Fairly low unemployment? Those are pretty difficult numbers to bend. By your argument, it seems you are saying ALL numbers are meaningless. The ones I've referenced aren't.


BR:

Yup, you sure stick to facts and figures.

YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE NUTS! LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!


Please. That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I said BRussell was nuts because it is a well accepted fact that Bush tends to make decisions based on his own moral code (whether or not you agree with it). It's interesting that the Bush administration is called out for being unilateral by the same folks here who then turn around and say it's every move is for political advantage and is based on polling. The two don't generally go hand in hand.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by BR
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.

Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!

Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!

Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.

Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages. and what about that "Free Trade" idea

and then the Tarrifs for US steel Companies (ot that I maind the idea of tarrifs . . . but that goes for other countries too . .)

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
it is a well accepted fact that Bush tends to make decisions based on his own moral code
Which is quite frankly bullshit if you look at the stem cell research decision.

[jimmac]

By SDW,

" Jimmac, any reasonable person or even economist would tell you we are experiencing slow economic growth. That's not great, but it's not bad either. All relevant indicators point to an improving economy. I don't see how that can even be argued. "

Oh god what was I thinking! Let's all go out and vote for Dubbya twice right now!

You really expect us to accept that? Oh that's right republicans believe we'll never again have too much growth like in the 60's ( now you can substitute the 90's ). That's what they were telling us in the 80's. That's how you get serial recession. You get a little better then you slide back. The rich just get richer of course.:lol:

Ps. " By your argument, it seems you are saying ALL numbers are meaningless. "

No, it's your interpretation I find faulty.

[SDW2001]

jimmac:


Oh god what was I thinking! Let's all go out and vote for Dubbya twice right now!

You really expect us to accept that? Oh that's right republicans believe we'll never again have too much growth like in the 60's ( now you can substitute the 90's ). That's what they were telling us in the 80's. That's how you get serial recession. You get a little better then you slide back. The rich just get richer of course.



So don't vote for him. I couldn't care less. "We'll never again have too much growth? First, I have never heard a Republican say that. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what you mean. It doesn't matter anyway, because while you continue to claim that Republicans cause serial recession (:lol: ), you have still not cited any Bush administration policy that you feel is contributing to the economy now. How would you stimulate the economy, is all seriousness? You never have an answer because you are too interested in bashing Bush and all Republicans in general. You have no concrete reasons for you dislike of them on the economy.

As far as the rich getting richer, I'm sure how that has a damn thing to do with this. The government's job is NOT to redistribute wealth. "Rich" people, contrary to popular to idiotic liberal working clas beliefs, PAY THE TAXES in this country. They must be the ones to receive tax relief because they pay a higher dollar figure, not to mention obscene rates to start with, See, jimmac, it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's their money. You know what? They SHOULD get richer. Good for them. Again, though, it doesn't matter that you say only the rich are getting relief, because it's not true. With the last two tax cuts combined, I'll get $100 per paycheck more than I did before the first one passed. So, go don't go telling me it's only for the rich. I am definitely middle class and I have seen the benefits first hand. This class warfare shit is one of the main reasons the Dems are in the spot that they are now.


No, it's your interpretation I find faulty.

My interpretation? How does one misinterpret 2-3% GDP growth, unemployment 2.5% below historical averages, consumer confidence index increases, falling energy prices, low interest rates and stock market gains? Really....if these numbers don't represent "the economy" then what IS the economy? How should we measure it? Is there something you'd like to add? Are you going to tell me we should measure it by the "number of unhappy people out there"? What the **** kind of indicator is that?

What, in your opinion, qualifies as economic growth? What contributes to a good economy? All of the above do. And those numbers are "OK" numbers by ANY reasonable person's judgement.

I can't see how even YOU, jimmac, can argue that the economy is a disaster and that Bush caused it. You have been unable to point to even ONE example of an economic policy that you think caused the recession or the current slowdown.

"My interpretation". Jesus. How about you tell us yours?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:




So don't vote for him. I couldn't care less. "We'll never again have too much growth? First, I have never heard a Republican say that. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what you mean. It doesn't matter anyway, because while you continue to claim that Republicans cause serial recession (:lol: ), you have still not cited any Bush administration policy that you feel is contributing to the economy now. How would you stimulate the economy, is all seriousness? You never have an answer because you are too interested in bashing Bush and all Republicans in general. You have no concrete reasons for you dislike of them on the economy.

As far as the rich getting richer, I'm sure how that has a damn thing to do with this. The government's job is NOT to redistribute wealth. "Rich" people, contrary to popular to idiotic liberal working clas beliefs, PAY THE TAXES in this country. They must be the ones to receive tax relief because they pay a higher dollar figure, not to mention obscene rates to start with, See, jimmac, it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's their money. You know what? They SHOULD get richer. Good for them. Again, though, it doesn't matter that you say only the rich are getting relief, because it's not true. With the last two tax cuts combined, I'll get $100 per paycheck more than I did before the first one passed. So, go don't go telling me it's only for the rich. I am definitely middle class and I have seen the benefits first hand. This class warfare shit is one of the main reasons the Dems are in the spot that they are now.




My interpretation? How does one misinterpret 2-3% GDP growth, unemployment 2.5% below historical averages, consumer confidence index increases, falling energy prices, low interest rates and stock market gains? Really....if these numbers don't represent "the economy" then what IS the economy? How should we measure it? Is there something you'd like to add? Are you going to tell me we should measure it by the "number of unhappy people out there"? What the **** kind of indicator is that?

What, in your opinion, qualifies as economic growth? What contributes to a good economy? All of the above do. And those numbers are "OK" numbers by ANY reasonable person's judgement.

I can't see how even YOU, jimmac, can argue that the economy is a disaster and that Bush caused it. You have been unable to point to even ONE example of an economic policy that you think caused the recession or the current slowdown.

"My interpretation". Jesus. How about you tell us yours?

Well I've got a question for you. I don't claim to be an economist. I just know what's been the results of republican economics of the past ( many times ). So why don't you tell me ( since you're so versed in this ) what's Bush doing right to stimulate economic growth?

[SDW2001]

Well I've got a question for you. I don't claim to be an economist. I just know what's been the results of republican economics of the past ( many times ). So why don't you tell me ( since you're so versed in this ) what's Bush doing right to stimulate economic growth?


Before I answer, I should point out that we of course disagree on the "result of republican economics". But anyway....it's a reasonable question.

Answer: The only thing I think the President can do is alter fiscal policy by cutting taxes. He's done that twice now. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, and It think it will work again. I know you probably disagree. What Bush has to watch out for is over spending, which I believe is a weakness of his (e.g. more limited government). There really isn't a lot more he can do.

Before you explode: Please don't even bother saying it's a tax cut for the rich only. I've already disproven that as meaningless politcal rhetoric by showing the actual increase in my middle class, personal paycheck. It's also important to keep in mind that the rich pay the taxes in this country as I said. They are naturally going to get the most money back, dollar wise.

I'd ask that you please answer MY questions now.

1) What policy do you disagree with on the economy?
2) If you do';t like my numbers, how should we (or would you) measure economic growth? How would you measure a "good" economy vs. a "bad" economy?


Some recent indicators of things improving:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-econ04.html

Greenspan has not really been a Bush cheerleader...


http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/retirement/newswire/2003/06/04/rtr990932.html

Dow going up, up, up....


http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/markets/dianehess/10091550.html


just FYI :)

IMO, the Dow needs to go up to 10,000 and unemployment needs to dip below 5.6% before I say things are "good" again.