So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
Part 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by the Chicago Tribune
Worse in the long term
The long-run economic fallout is even worse.
If we're going to be running $400 billion deficits for years to come, the money has to come from somewhere. It comes, of course, from borrowing. The government sells bonds, more and more each year, to foreigners and to Americans. With borrowing financing about one-fourth of all government spending, that's a lot of bonds.
Will foreigners keep lending? Well, so far so good. During the '90s and into the '00s, the U.S. economy remained the strongest in the world and the best place to invest. Even as deficits piled up, the foreign money kept coming in.
But foreigners are already financing another American deficit - the trade deficit - to the tune of an additional $500 billion per year. In economics, nothing lasts forever. Sooner or later the rest of the world economy will pick up, or the U.S. economy will turn down, or foreigners will just decide they don't want to risk buying still more American debt. Then they will stop lending. At some point, this is sure to happen; it always does, when a country's debt - even America - becomes too great.
But the debt will still be there, so we'll still need their money. To get it, we'll have to pay more for it, perhaps a lot more. The price of borrowing, of course, is the interest rate. When lenders want to lend, they interest rate can be low. When they don't want to lend, the rate has to go up.
But it has to go up for everybody - for American businesses and homeowners as well as foreign lenders. Businesses will have to pay more when they borrow to invest, which means they will invest less. This means slower growth, less expansion and fewer jobs. It means a stagnant stock market. It could mean a recession.
it also means that mortgage rates will go up, which means fewer people will be buying houses. A strong housing market is the main things keeping the U.S. economy afloat right now; take that away, and this, too, could mean a recession.
Again, it's happened before - back in the '70s, when the Vietnam deficits piled up and lenders stopped buying government bonds. Inflation went to nearly 15 percent. To control it, interest rates went to nearly 20 percent. The problem was solved, but at the cost of a lost decade of economic growth.
There's another downside to this growing need to borrow. Some lending will come from overseas, but most will come from American savings. But we are not a nation of savers: The national savings rate is only about 3 percent of the GDP. Even given the size of our GDP, that's a relatively small pool of available cash, which has to finance lending to government and to private business.
So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
Part 3 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by the Chicago Tribune
Crowding Out
Obviously, the more government borrows, the less there is for private business. This is called "crowding out," and it means the money that would normally go to business gets crowded out by government borrowing. Once again, business borrows less and invests less and hires fewer people, who buy fewer goods.
Of course, business can still borrow. But money will be scarce and more expensive - those interest rates again. This always happens when there are too many borrowers competing for too little money. When money is more expensive, business becomes more expensive, so less of it gets done.
How did we get into this mess? Some of it probably would have happened anyway. That stock market boom and the taxes it generated couldn't have gone on forever. The congressional Budget Office figures that cost the government about $30 billion this year.
The administration says it got caught in a perfect storm of recession and war, and that accounts for all of that sharp turnaround from surplus to deficit.
But this isn't true. most of this pain is self-inflicted.
Apart from the recession, the war on terrorism and other post-Sept. 11 spending have added about $90 billion to the budget, the CBO figures. Other increased governmental spending has also gone up, by about $80 billion, but much of that has gone to the Pentagon.
Blame the Tax Cut
The lion's share of the turnaround - $375 billion this year, $515 billion next year - is the result of Bush's tax cuts.
These cuts have been justified as the best and quickest way to stimulate the economy and create jobs, but this isn't true either. Some 80 percent to 90 percent of the cuts benefit the wealthiest 10 percent, who are more likely to save the money, while the bottom 60 percent, who are more likely to spend it, get only 7 percent of the benefit. Critics charge that the purpose of the cuts is redistributive - that is, to take money from the poor and give it to the rich - not stimulative.
Certainly, the cuts haven't done much for jobs. The unemployment rate has climbed from 4.1 percent to 6.2 percent in the past two years. As things stand now, Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in private-sector jobs.
There will be a lot of talk about this job record over Labor Day weekend. But the real pain lies down the road, when the deficits begin crippling the nation's economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow has warned that, at some point, the deficits may even force the U.S. government to do something it has never done: default on it's loans.
This can't go on.
As the late economist Herbert Stein said, if something can't go on, it won't.
Given unending deficits, something has got to give. Perhaps taxes will be raised, but it will take a brave politician to do it. More likely, spending programs will be cut. To repair the Reagan deficits, Clinton decimated welfare, and some later president may destroy Social Security, or unemployment pay, or Medicare, or education, to wipe out the Bush deficits before they wipe out the economy.
This is the time bomb beneath the U.S. economy. Like most time bombs, it will go off, sooner or later.
Yup! And all they look at is " The economy's improving ( just for election time ) ". The things Bush is doing now will effect the american people for years to come no matter who's the next president. And not in a good way.
The thing that gets me is that they can't figure this out. What happens when you're in debt already and you use your charge card too much to pay for things?
This is typical republican stupidity. Look I've previously stated ( to SDW because he tried this tact ) I am the last person to want the economy to remain in the horse latitudes. However what we have here is a prime example of what happens to the economy when we have republican rule.
To imply that I hope the economy doesn't improve ( so Bush loses the election ) is just a childish low blow and an example of someone who just wants to win an argument at any cost.
So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
By the way blaming bad times on minorities and women who want a voice in society is really dumb but not atypical.
I'll leave this with a quote from one of the signs a protestor had here in Portland during Bush's recent visit : " Help! My president's a moron ".
Yeah they love him out there.
Well I am glad to see you don't want the economy down in the dumps. As for the causes I will be happy to debate them in a thread in which that is the topic.
As for blaming minorities and women, I suppose that is what you could say if you wanted a simpleton view on matters. I prefer to not be racist and thus I assume illegal immigration occurs from more than just Mexico. Your racist assumptions are your own. Secondly your assumption that by one worker per family, I mean only men is again, your own. I am for less working hours per family and one living wage per 40 hours worked per family. If mom and dad want to split the job, that is fine with me. If she wants to work it entirely, fine as well. Unions use to be able to argue for this, but it became harder with a growing pool of labor.
I don't consider that view oppressive.
I would ask you to consider this though. Employers only have to pay what they need to attract a worker to that job. Imagine if one worker from every family quit working tomorrow. How large would the labor shortage be and what would it do to the salaries of those still working? It doesn't have to be a gender issue. To say that the boss gets two employees for what use to cost one is not "empowerment" for women or men.
I do see Dean has some strong union issues, but if you don't address record immigration, groups like farm workers, service based industries (read Walmart type jobs) and custodial type workers will never be able to unionize. Likewise if you keep suggesting government programs (read Day Care) for which two members of the family must work to pay the taxes instead of just creating conditions where the employer must pay one living wage, how is that beneficial for the common person over the rich employer?
I don't believe we can create a society in which we ask the rich to care for his or her fellow humans while asking working folks to ignore their children in day care to run off and be richer with two incomes. The callousness that a parent would show to their own child is going to likewise be shown from an employer to an employee.
However you are welcome to simplify my thinking into whatever terms you need to understand it and if they sound racist or sexist, it is your problem.
If you're really worried about illegal immigrant workers keeping unions at bay, fine every company guilty of hiring them the salary of 10 legal union workers for every illegal they have hired.
If you're really worried about illegal immigrant workers keeping unions at bay, fine every company guilty of hiring them the salary of 10 legal union workers for every illegal they have hired.
Well that would be all good and fine except for the illegals often give false documentation that makes the employer think they are legal. How would you solve that one? There have been dozens of documented stories where reporters were able to buy all the documentation necessary to pass for a legally employable immigrant. Likewise would you exempt the employer from racially motivated lawsuits when various groups declare they are disportionately affected by the attempts to check their backgrounds and thus sue their racist employer?
Well that would be all good and fine except for the illegals often give false documentation that makes the employer think they are legal. How would you solve that one?
Well I am glad to see you don't want the economy down in the dumps. As for the causes I will be happy to debate them in a thread in which that is the topic.
As for blaming minorities and women, I suppose that is what you could say if you wanted a simpleton view on matters. I prefer to not be racist and thus I assume illegal immigration occurs from more than just Mexico. Your racist assumptions are your own. Secondly your assumption that by one worker per family, I mean only men is again, your own. I am for less working hours per family and one living wage per 40 hours worked per family. If mom and dad want to split the job, that is fine with me. If she wants to work it entirely, fine as well. Unions use to be able to argue for this, but it became harder with a growing pool of labor.
I don't consider that view oppressive.
I would ask you to consider this though. Employers only have to pay what they need to attract a worker to that job. Imagine if one worker from every family quit working tomorrow. How large would the labor shortage be and what would it do to the salaries of those still working? It doesn't have to be a gender issue. To say that the boss gets two employees for what use to cost one is not "empowerment" for women or men.
I do see Dean has some strong union issues, but if you don't address record immigration, groups like farm workers, service based industries (read Walmart type jobs) and custodial type workers will never be able to unionize. Likewise if you keep suggesting government programs (read Day Care) for which two members of the family must work to pay the taxes instead of just creating conditions where the employer must pay one living wage, how is that beneficial for the common person over the rich employer?
I don't believe we can create a society in which we ask the rich to care for his or her fellow humans while asking working folks to ignore their children in day care to run off and be richer with two incomes. The callousness that a parent would show to their own child is going to likewise be shown from an employer to an employee.
However you are welcome to simplify my thinking into whatever terms you need to understand it and if they sound racist or sexist, it is your problem.
Nick
An expected response. You just don't see it that way.
Sometimes the simplist aspect is the most telling on any given subject.
Speaking of employment it seems Bush's support from the unions isn't what it used to be.
Yes except you can buy a drivers license, Social Security card, green card, birth certificate, etc.
When the illegal immigrant can give false documentation to prove his legality, I don't think that employers should be able to be sued when they acted in good faith and were lied to.
Yes jimmac, I'm sure you expected me to advocate a pro-union perspective, a living wage, and people spending more time with their families. It's interesting that from your view those positions are racist and sexist.
So here we have a thread dedicated to the democratic nominee....and just one passing reference to Wesley Clark (from SDW).
General Clark is a progressive and a pragmatist. He has the potential to attract liberals, moderate Democrats, swing voters, independents and even moderate Republicans. He has a terrific resume: His military record is impeccable. He is a seasoned diplomat and a distinguished public servant (winner of The Presidential medal of Freedom 2000). He is an internationalist and pro U.N. He has business acumen. He has Masters degrees in economics, philosophy and politics (Oxford University). He is pro-choice, pro affirmative action, pro environment, pro fair, equitable and prudent fiscal policies, There are "Draft Clark" groups and websites springing up all over the country, and he's not even a candidate (yet).
It is comparatively late to jump into the presidential race...but Robert Kennedy was far later.....
My intuition is...if he joins the race, he will emerge as by far the strongest candidate, and he should win the Democratic nomination.
He is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.
On September 19, Clark will make his decision, public, that is .
Yes jimmac, I'm sure you expected me to advocate a pro-union perspective, a living wage, and people spending more time with their families. It's interesting that from your view those positions are racist and sexist.
Nick
When will you learn? It's your other statements that are in question.
About the unions read the last paragraph of the article I linked to.
Interesting that you equate low wages, not spending enough time with your family with women and minorities.
When will you learn? It's your other statements that are in question.
About the unions read the last paragraph of the article I linked to.
Interesting that you equate low wages, not spending enough time with your family with women and minorities.
Yes and you equate day care, no family time and divorce with progress. Likewise you promote levels of immigration so high that the rich bosses have an unending supply of ever cheaper labor to divide and pit against each other as progress.
Yes and you equate day care, no family time and divorce with progress. Likewise you promote levels of immigration so high that the rich bosses have an unending supply of ever cheaper labor to divide and pit against each other as progress.
It's interesting what you equate with progress.
Nick
If you're trying to goad me into calling you a racist and have gender bias so you can complain about it and get me kicked you're wasting your time.
If you're trying to goad me into calling you a racist and have gender bias so you can complain about it and get me kicked you're wasting your time.
Look, you are the one taking clear, but complex views and attempting to disparage them with inane associations with repression of certain groups.
If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned.
Thanks for the link. Wow! What a fantastic article. Of course, it will be summarily written off as "liberal media" hogwash. It does, however, completely encapsulate my problems with Geedub and his administration.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
Part 2 of 3
Originally posted by the Chicago Tribune
Worse in the long term
The long-run economic fallout is even worse.
If we're going to be running $400 billion deficits for years to come, the money has to come from somewhere. It comes, of course, from borrowing. The government sells bonds, more and more each year, to foreigners and to Americans. With borrowing financing about one-fourth of all government spending, that's a lot of bonds.
Will foreigners keep lending? Well, so far so good. During the '90s and into the '00s, the U.S. economy remained the strongest in the world and the best place to invest. Even as deficits piled up, the foreign money kept coming in.
But foreigners are already financing another American deficit - the trade deficit - to the tune of an additional $500 billion per year. In economics, nothing lasts forever. Sooner or later the rest of the world economy will pick up, or the U.S. economy will turn down, or foreigners will just decide they don't want to risk buying still more American debt. Then they will stop lending. At some point, this is sure to happen; it always does, when a country's debt - even America - becomes too great.
But the debt will still be there, so we'll still need their money. To get it, we'll have to pay more for it, perhaps a lot more. The price of borrowing, of course, is the interest rate. When lenders want to lend, they interest rate can be low. When they don't want to lend, the rate has to go up.
But it has to go up for everybody - for American businesses and homeowners as well as foreign lenders. Businesses will have to pay more when they borrow to invest, which means they will invest less. This means slower growth, less expansion and fewer jobs. It means a stagnant stock market. It could mean a recession.
it also means that mortgage rates will go up, which means fewer people will be buying houses. A strong housing market is the main things keeping the U.S. economy afloat right now; take that away, and this, too, could mean a recession.
Again, it's happened before - back in the '70s, when the Vietnam deficits piled up and lenders stopped buying government bonds. Inflation went to nearly 15 percent. To control it, interest rates went to nearly 20 percent. The problem was solved, but at the cost of a lost decade of economic growth.
There's another downside to this growing need to borrow. Some lending will come from overseas, but most will come from American savings. But we are not a nation of savers: The national savings rate is only about 3 percent of the GDP. Even given the size of our GDP, that's a relatively small pool of available cash, which has to finance lending to government and to private business.
Originally posted by jimmac
So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
Part 3 of 3
Originally posted by the Chicago Tribune
Crowding Out
Obviously, the more government borrows, the less there is for private business. This is called "crowding out," and it means the money that would normally go to business gets crowded out by government borrowing. Once again, business borrows less and invests less and hires fewer people, who buy fewer goods.
Of course, business can still borrow. But money will be scarce and more expensive - those interest rates again. This always happens when there are too many borrowers competing for too little money. When money is more expensive, business becomes more expensive, so less of it gets done.
How did we get into this mess? Some of it probably would have happened anyway. That stock market boom and the taxes it generated couldn't have gone on forever. The congressional Budget Office figures that cost the government about $30 billion this year.
The administration says it got caught in a perfect storm of recession and war, and that accounts for all of that sharp turnaround from surplus to deficit.
But this isn't true. most of this pain is self-inflicted.
Apart from the recession, the war on terrorism and other post-Sept. 11 spending have added about $90 billion to the budget, the CBO figures. Other increased governmental spending has also gone up, by about $80 billion, but much of that has gone to the Pentagon.
Blame the Tax Cut
The lion's share of the turnaround - $375 billion this year, $515 billion next year - is the result of Bush's tax cuts.
These cuts have been justified as the best and quickest way to stimulate the economy and create jobs, but this isn't true either. Some 80 percent to 90 percent of the cuts benefit the wealthiest 10 percent, who are more likely to save the money, while the bottom 60 percent, who are more likely to spend it, get only 7 percent of the benefit. Critics charge that the purpose of the cuts is redistributive - that is, to take money from the poor and give it to the rich - not stimulative.
Certainly, the cuts haven't done much for jobs. The unemployment rate has climbed from 4.1 percent to 6.2 percent in the past two years. As things stand now, Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in private-sector jobs.
There will be a lot of talk about this job record over Labor Day weekend. But the real pain lies down the road, when the deficits begin crippling the nation's economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow has warned that, at some point, the deficits may even force the U.S. government to do something it has never done: default on it's loans.
This can't go on.
As the late economist Herbert Stein said, if something can't go on, it won't.
Given unending deficits, something has got to give. Perhaps taxes will be raised, but it will take a brave politician to do it. More likely, spending programs will be cut. To repair the Reagan deficits, Clinton decimated welfare, and some later president may destroy Social Security, or unemployment pay, or Medicare, or education, to wipe out the Bush deficits before they wipe out the economy.
This is the time bomb beneath the U.S. economy. Like most time bombs, it will go off, sooner or later.
The thing that gets me is that they can't figure this out. What happens when you're in debt already and you use your charge card too much to pay for things?
Just a microcosmic example.
Originally posted by jimmac
This is typical republican stupidity. Look I've previously stated ( to SDW because he tried this tact ) I am the last person to want the economy to remain in the horse latitudes. However what we have here is a prime example of what happens to the economy when we have republican rule.
To imply that I hope the economy doesn't improve ( so Bush loses the election ) is just a childish low blow and an example of someone who just wants to win an argument at any cost.
So here we are with a president that has turned a surplus into a record breaking deficit that I and other's of my age will be paying on for the rest of our lives ( I'm 50 ). Just imagine what he can do with another 4 years? That's what I'm pointing out when I bring up the economy and the election. We have got to get him out of there.
By the way blaming bad times on minorities and women who want a voice in society is really dumb but not atypical.
I'll leave this with a quote from one of the signs a protestor had here in Portland during Bush's recent visit : " Help! My president's a moron ".
Yeah they love him out there.
Well I am glad to see you don't want the economy down in the dumps. As for the causes I will be happy to debate them in a thread in which that is the topic.
As for blaming minorities and women, I suppose that is what you could say if you wanted a simpleton view on matters. I prefer to not be racist and thus I assume illegal immigration occurs from more than just Mexico. Your racist assumptions are your own. Secondly your assumption that by one worker per family, I mean only men is again, your own. I am for less working hours per family and one living wage per 40 hours worked per family. If mom and dad want to split the job, that is fine with me. If she wants to work it entirely, fine as well. Unions use to be able to argue for this, but it became harder with a growing pool of labor.
I don't consider that view oppressive.
I would ask you to consider this though. Employers only have to pay what they need to attract a worker to that job. Imagine if one worker from every family quit working tomorrow. How large would the labor shortage be and what would it do to the salaries of those still working? It doesn't have to be a gender issue. To say that the boss gets two employees for what use to cost one is not "empowerment" for women or men.
I do see Dean has some strong union issues, but if you don't address record immigration, groups like farm workers, service based industries (read Walmart type jobs) and custodial type workers will never be able to unionize. Likewise if you keep suggesting government programs (read Day Care) for which two members of the family must work to pay the taxes instead of just creating conditions where the employer must pay one living wage, how is that beneficial for the common person over the rich employer?
I don't believe we can create a society in which we ask the rich to care for his or her fellow humans while asking working folks to ignore their children in day care to run off and be richer with two incomes. The callousness that a parent would show to their own child is going to likewise be shown from an employer to an employee.
However you are welcome to simplify my thinking into whatever terms you need to understand it and if they sound racist or sexist, it is your problem.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
If you're really worried about illegal immigrant workers keeping unions at bay, fine every company guilty of hiring them the salary of 10 legal union workers for every illegal they have hired.
Well that would be all good and fine except for the illegals often give false documentation that makes the employer think they are legal. How would you solve that one? There have been dozens of documented stories where reporters were able to buy all the documentation necessary to pass for a legally employable immigrant. Likewise would you exempt the employer from racially motivated lawsuits when various groups declare they are disportionately affected by the attempts to check their backgrounds and thus sue their racist employer?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well that would be all good and fine except for the illegals often give false documentation that makes the employer think they are legal. How would you solve that one?
By not accepting a drivers license, silly.
Originally posted by BlueRabbit
WTF is this? Howard Dean Switch Ads
"My Name's Steve. I just got laid off two weeks ago. I'm taking my country back!"
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I am glad to see you don't want the economy down in the dumps. As for the causes I will be happy to debate them in a thread in which that is the topic.
As for blaming minorities and women, I suppose that is what you could say if you wanted a simpleton view on matters. I prefer to not be racist and thus I assume illegal immigration occurs from more than just Mexico. Your racist assumptions are your own. Secondly your assumption that by one worker per family, I mean only men is again, your own. I am for less working hours per family and one living wage per 40 hours worked per family. If mom and dad want to split the job, that is fine with me. If she wants to work it entirely, fine as well. Unions use to be able to argue for this, but it became harder with a growing pool of labor.
I don't consider that view oppressive.
I would ask you to consider this though. Employers only have to pay what they need to attract a worker to that job. Imagine if one worker from every family quit working tomorrow. How large would the labor shortage be and what would it do to the salaries of those still working? It doesn't have to be a gender issue. To say that the boss gets two employees for what use to cost one is not "empowerment" for women or men.
I do see Dean has some strong union issues, but if you don't address record immigration, groups like farm workers, service based industries (read Walmart type jobs) and custodial type workers will never be able to unionize. Likewise if you keep suggesting government programs (read Day Care) for which two members of the family must work to pay the taxes instead of just creating conditions where the employer must pay one living wage, how is that beneficial for the common person over the rich employer?
I don't believe we can create a society in which we ask the rich to care for his or her fellow humans while asking working folks to ignore their children in day care to run off and be richer with two incomes. The callousness that a parent would show to their own child is going to likewise be shown from an employer to an employee.
However you are welcome to simplify my thinking into whatever terms you need to understand it and if they sound racist or sexist, it is your problem.
Nick
An expected response. You just don't see it that way.
Sometimes the simplist aspect is the most telling on any given subject.
Speaking of employment it seems Bush's support from the unions isn't what it used to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...s.ap/index.html
Originally posted by bunge
By not accepting a drivers license, silly.
Yes except you can buy a drivers license, Social Security card, green card, birth certificate, etc.
When the illegal immigrant can give false documentation to prove his legality, I don't think that employers should be able to be sued when they acted in good faith and were lied to.
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
An expected response. You just don't see it that way.
Sometimes the simplist aspect is the most telling on any given subject.
Speaking of employment it seems Bush's support from the unions isn't what it used to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...s.ap/index.html
Yes jimmac, I'm sure you expected me to advocate a pro-union perspective, a living wage, and people spending more time with their families. It's interesting that from your view those positions are racist and sexist.
Nick
General Clark is a progressive and a pragmatist. He has the potential to attract liberals, moderate Democrats, swing voters, independents and even moderate Republicans. He has a terrific resume: His military record is impeccable. He is a seasoned diplomat and a distinguished public servant (winner of The Presidential medal of Freedom 2000). He is an internationalist and pro U.N. He has business acumen. He has Masters degrees in economics, philosophy and politics (Oxford University). He is pro-choice, pro affirmative action, pro environment, pro fair, equitable and prudent fiscal policies, There are "Draft Clark" groups and websites springing up all over the country, and he's not even a candidate (yet).
It is comparatively late to jump into the presidential race...but Robert Kennedy was far later.....
My intuition is...if he joins the race, he will emerge as by far the strongest candidate, and he should win the Democratic nomination.
He is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.
On September 19, Clark will make his decision, public, that is .
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes jimmac, I'm sure you expected me to advocate a pro-union perspective, a living wage, and people spending more time with their families. It's interesting that from your view those positions are racist and sexist.
Nick
When will you learn? It's your other statements that are in question.
About the unions read the last paragraph of the article I linked to.
Interesting that you equate low wages, not spending enough time with your family with women and minorities.
Originally posted by jimmac
When will you learn? It's your other statements that are in question.
About the unions read the last paragraph of the article I linked to.
Interesting that you equate low wages, not spending enough time with your family with women and minorities.
Yes and you equate day care, no family time and divorce with progress. Likewise you promote levels of immigration so high that the rich bosses have an unending supply of ever cheaper labor to divide and pit against each other as progress.
It's interesting what you equate with progress.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes and you equate day care, no family time and divorce with progress. Likewise you promote levels of immigration so high that the rich bosses have an unending supply of ever cheaper labor to divide and pit against each other as progress.
It's interesting what you equate with progress.
Nick
If you're trying to goad me into calling you a racist and have gender bias so you can complain about it and get me kicked you're wasting your time.
Originally posted by jimmac
If you're trying to goad me into calling you a racist and have gender bias so you can complain about it and get me kicked you're wasting your time.
Look, you are the one taking clear, but complex views and attempting to disparage them with inane associations with repression of certain groups.
If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned.
Nick
Bush posing with black children and saying he's compassionate doesn't undo the fact that he has no interest in helping the poor in any meaningful way.
Bush's answer to everything is a TAX-CUT and underfunding programs he says he endorses.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...&c=1&s=conason
Both Dean or Kerry would make great presidents. The race has just begun...
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Dean is much more centrist that Bush has ever been.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...&c=1&s=conason
Thanks for the link. Wow! What a fantastic article. Of course, it will be summarily written off as "liberal media" hogwash. It does, however, completely encapsulate my problems with Geedub and his administration.