The economy is in worse shape than when daddy was in office... and to top it off... Iraq isn't going well at all.
I won't use the word quagmire. I don't think it's a quagmire... or another vietnam. But it is a mess.
So why should the son do better than the father?
Even after all the crap the right put Clinton through in his first term he still got elected again... by a huge margin. And he remained very popular at the end of his tenure. Polls showed he would have probably been re-elected by a wide margin again had there not been a term limit.
It's much more about the man and his record and what goes down in the campaign. I think people have felt the need to cut Bush some slack... but that won't last for much longer... if people's concerns fall on deaf ears or only get lip service... which is the impression people got from Bush 1... than Bush will be a 1 termer.
So stop lying yourself...or better yet watch for the chapter on bunge in my new upcoming book. Liars who call others liar while telling even more lies, "It's A Good Thing."
"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Gee, moving the retirement age, cutting, I mean GUTTING Medicare and balancing the budget on veterans pensions.
Sounds like a really heartfelt compassionate guy.
Also note to bunge... he is talking about the unbalanced budget... in 1995...how is that possible? I mean wasn't it balanced by then?
You're lie is to equate Clinton receiving a deficit with Bush receiving a surplus and creating a deficit. That's dishonest.
Clinton received a deficit and had it go into surplus after his party lost both houses and the Republicans took charge. John Kasich, among others were total budget hawks and held down the growth. Clinton benefitted from it and the record stock run.
However when having his own party run the show they were predicting nothing but deficits running up to 450 billion dollars in his last year in office.
Likewise if you are going to call it a lie, cite, link or do something besides the first grade liar, liar routine.
Clinton received a deficit and had it go into surplus after his party lost both houses and the Republicans took charge
We've seen what Republicans do when they have control of both the White House and the Congress.
Largest Federal Government in history (has grown more in Bush's 3 years than in Clinton's 8), Largest Federal Government Spending in history, a greatly increasing federal deficit, and no end in sight.
The job market is in the tank, and even though this is supposed to be the 'lagging indicator' and the last thing to recover from a recession, it is almost 18 months behind schedule for where it should be for the economy to make any kind of significant rebound in the next 12 months. What's the current administration's plan? Another tax cut? \
The next administration is going to inherit many difficult problems, including Iraq, the economy, the deficit, homeland security, a damaged diplomatic reputation, and more. The Democrats that are running now have to really get the message out as to what they will do to fix these problems. Universal Health Care, the nation's Infrastructure, etc. unfortunately have to take a back burner to those other issues for the time being.
So years in advance they predicted a deficit and were wrong, and that's somehow as bad as Bush actually creating a deficit? You're not making sense.
The point is that the Republicans came to power and the internet stock boom occurred. They were not part of his masterplan to end the deficit. (I'm sure the Republican power part was his plan though )
The stock market has taken a tumble. Bush has addressed that with a dividend tax cut. It has risen back up, but I doubt it will get to the height of internet hysteria it was at.
Dean and others will have to show how they would have helped stocks rise in a better fashion to get elected.
Dividends are what you are supposed to focus on when buying stocks, not manipulation of the stock price.
Bush may not have predicted as large a deficit as there is now, but he also didn't predict a war in Iraq or planes flying into buildings.
We've seen what Republicans do when they have control of both the White House and the Congress.
Largest Federal Government in history (has grown more in Bush's 3 years than in Clinton's 8), Largest Federal Government Spending in history, a greatly increasing federal deficit, and no end in sight.
The job market is in the tank, and even though this is supposed to be the 'lagging indicator' and the last thing to recover from a recession, it is almost 18 months behind schedule for where it should be for the economy to make any kind of significant rebound in the next 12 months. What's the current administration's plan? Another tax cut? \
The next administration is going to inherit many difficult problems, including Iraq, the economy, the deficit, homeland security, a damaged diplomatic reputation, and more. The Democrats that are running now have to really get the message out as to what they will do to fix these problems. Universal Health Care, the nation's Infrastructure, etc. unfortunately have to take a back burner to those other issues for the time being.
I assure you that I have been no fan of Bushes spending. Yet amazingly enough the Democrats have been screaming for 3 years that it wasn't enough. The massive growth in education spending has them screaming that "No Child Left Behind" wasn't fully funded, etc.
The next administrations... I think that is a bit presumptuous.
Bush may not have predicted as large a deficit as there is now, but he also didn't predict a war in Iraq or planes flying into buildings.
The deficit can't be blamed on 9/11. Those costs are an order of magnitude less than the deficit. Don't try and play to people sympathies with the tragedy because it's disgraceful.
He didn't predict a war on Iraq? That's very trusting of you. I bet many in his administration did predict it. Besides, Bush did too, many months in advance. It's his doing, it wasn't necessary, and he should pay for the fallout.
Bush ran up huge deficits while underfunding essential programs. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand. Your claim that democrats are complaining because Bush isn't spending enough is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You're pretending that Democrats would prefer higher deficits so we shouldn't complain about the ones Bush has created. That's just a lie.
With one quarter of Bush's deficit we could have made Social Security and Medicare solvent forever. Always. Fixed. That's why people are complaining. A war in Iraq so the government can pay US companies to rebuild a bridge the US army blew up with ammunitions built by US companies, when Iraqi engineers have plenty of experience rebuilding Iraq after a war and can do it for many orders of magnitude less money.
The deficit can't be blamed on 9/11. Those costs are an order of magnitude less than the deficit. Don't try and play to people sympathies with the tragedy because it's disgraceful.
He didn't predict a war on Iraq? That's very trusting of you. I bet many in his administration did predict it. Besides, Bush did too, many months in advance. It's his doing, it wasn't necessary, and he should pay for the fallout.
Bush ran up huge deficits while underfunding essential programs. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand. Your claim that democrats are complaining because Bush isn't spending enough is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You're pretending that Democrats would prefer higher deficits so we shouldn't complain about the ones Bush has created. That's just a lie.
With one quarter of Bush's deficit we could have made Social Security and Medicare solvent forever. Always. Fixed. That's why people are complaining. A war in Iraq so the government can pay US companies to rebuild a bridge the US army blew up with ammunitions built by US companies, when Iraqi engineers have plenty of experience rebuilding Iraq after a war and can do it for many orders of magnitude less money.
As for SS and Medicare being solvent forever, those pyramid schemes can be saved for another thread. They are not true investments and anyone who believes so has been lied to. They are pay as you go and are defined as such. That is why they are never truly off budget for Republicans or Democrats.
You need to stop taking anyone who has a national security concern and assuming they would send people to die and blow up another country for a some bucks. We could just pave over the country much like Japan has done with endless coporate/government spending to stimulate our economy. It doesn't take a war.
Yes, they want more spending on some programs, but less on war and other worthless expenses. You are lying. I never said democrats want to cut everything to lower the deficit. They want less deficit with increased spending on programs they consider important.
6.1 billion? What would the deficit be if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, but did spend even 12.2 billion on education? Why, we'd still have a surplus!
Yes, they want more spending on some programs, but less on war and other worthless expenses. You are lying. I never said democrats want to cut everything to lower the deficit. They want less deficit with increased spending on programs they consider important.
6.1 billion? What would the deficit be if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, but did spend even 12.2 billion on education? Why, we'd still have a surplus!
I could go on with other examples. They criticized the president when the child tax credit exemption kicked in for some folks who hadn't paid taxes and wanted the tax cut grown. They have proposed a huge prescription drug benefit even larger than our spendy president.
The Democrats have been no bastion of thrift. Their plans are always bigger and better than the Republican alternatives. Even Dean wouldn't take the tax cuts back to eliminate the deficit, he would use them to pay for what he estimates a large increase in national health insurance would cost.
Give me a link to a Democratic or Dean plan for balancing the budget. I assure I want balaned budget and balanced trade. I desire those beyond even party affiliation. You show me the candidate that has a believable plan and they would have my vote.
However Dean wants free trade, and doesn't balance the budget. He just grows the spending, just like Bush.
However Dean wants free trade, and doesn't balance the budget. He just grows the spending, just like Bush.
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to prove he's interested in balancing the budget, is bunk?
The surplus didn't exist for Clinton's entire first term. I suppose you will give Bush the same luxury.
As for the whole complex solutions thing, you have proven that you are unwilling to forgo strawman attempts to change what I have said. So whatever... people will understand it even if you don't.
Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the start of the internet spending boom. Bush was handed a recession, 9/11 and the mess made from years of non-policy from Clinton regarding terrorism.
You are welcome to see exactly how many years the government has run a surplus in the last say...oh 50 years. Bush is doing nothing new, and even then I have stated that I disagreed with his lack of spending cuts.
Funny enough, chu links to an article that discusses why Bush can't get elected and it mentions a book, The Two Income Trap, which shows that two incomes isn't really two incomes once you add additional wardrobe, car payments, eating out, etc.
Their solution, school vouchers, hardly a Democratic priority even though it is associated with the why Bush can't get elected article.
And no, they aren't advocating the repression of women, nor am I.
Dean will have to explain in a credible manner why almost the entire Democratic voted for that war as well, how he would have handled AL Queda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea differently without any of it sounding like Monday morning quarterbacking or following a course of action that sounds to similar to Bush. If he is able to do this and have it sound credible to the majority of the electorate then he will have a chance and it will be an issue.
However anything less than that and it won't get him a vote because people would rather a leader overreact to planes flying into buildings than do nothing.
The only thing more compelling than the overreaction is of course the perfect course of action which Dean will have to convince he would have taken from the get go and not just in hindsight.
Well SDW is welcome to believe what he wants and so are you. Unemployment is a lagging indicated and we do have economic growth. How much growth and how low or high the unemployment will be are unknown. Since Bush had literally record low unemployment when he entered office, it will be hard to know if he is toast for 6% unemployment. Likewise it could play out differently because unemployment seems higher along the coastal regions while it is as low as 3% in the interior states.
I personally don't think ol'George will get the door just because we don't have articles about 23 year old internet millionaires anymore. I think some families might be going from that two income crunch to one and realizing they like it better than a two person rat race. I think some boomers are retiring. There are lots of variables and I suppose we will all see who is right in 2004.
That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland)
So basically even when all was well (by your definitions) even if they could claim credit for it all, they still couldn't get him elected.
So to defeat Bush they have to prove that peace was going to continue on (even with Somalia, Iraq, the Twin Tower van bombing occuring during Clinton as well) that the stock market was going to keep going up, (what goes up must never come down) that unemployment and the economy were going to continue on record runs. (even though all economies have periodic downturns)
Then they also have to convince those that don't believe in fairy tales that when those things didn't continue as they did, that their solutions would be better than Bush.
I'm not saying is impossible. It is entirely possible. I just don't see that sort of thing coming from Dean or any other Democratic candidate. Perot pulled it off some but I don't see how anyone else could.
I myself argued in a thread some of the issues that could put Dean over Bush. Fair trade is considered pro-union. Immigration reforms could be considered an inexpensive way of protecting national security. School choice could free families from having to buy an expensive house to get a better school since they have no other choice.
If you had Dean adopt these measures, some of which are very third party, others which are actually very traditionally Democratic (fair trade for example) he could have a shot.
However until then, he is just a more rousing, better spoken critic of Bush. However being a critic won't get you elected. Proving you are not beholden to special interests, have a better plan and would better leader would.
Nick
God, that tired old argument that Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the largest running Bull market in history was a coincidence!
Just like you would have us believe one of the longer running slumps, largest deficit increase in history, longest job slump since world war II, lowest intrest rates in 40 years is just a coincidence.
" That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland) "
Gore wasn't elected because of his connection to Clinton as I've previously stated ( I guess you weren't listening ). He did however win the popular vote ( just thought I'd fill in the blank for you ).
When the time comes people aren't going to care about facts and figures. They aren't going to care about spin doctoring. They aren't going to care about the democrats proving something.
All their going to care about is how much can they stretch what's in their wallets. They're going to care that the president made up a story so we could go to war for his agenda. In the process he worsened our relations with countries that were supposed to be our allies and costed us a ton of money.
He hasn't done a thing to rectify either situation.
They will remember what times were like under someone else.
Given your age ( I looked it up ) I've seen quite a few more presidents than you. I know what people will do.
Bush has had his shot. Now he has to be held accountable for his actions.
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to prove he's interested in balancing the budget, is bunk?
I believe I have made myself quite clear that Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
How about that is it clear enough now?
However I don't see Democrats claiming they will slow or stop spending. I see Dean for example adding new programs while also raising taxes.
Honestly if you told me Dean just wanted to reverse the tax cut and attempt to balance the budget, I would give it full credibility. However he is proposing spending more.
As for my assertion that Bush would balance the budget. I don't believe I said that. You are welcome to quote where I did or where you think I even inferred it. I believe Bush spends too much. I believe Democrats will spend even more. I wish there were some real fiscal conservatives that would beat Bush over the head and balance the budget.
Nick
I have clearly said I do not consider Bush to be fiscally conservative enough. I think the first thread in which I mentioned that was called something like "Cut and spend Republicans" or something of that nature.
I even said I don't consider Bush especially conservative.
So I guess if I have a choice between Democratic Lite or Democratic, I take the lite version.
I even said I don't consider Bush especially conservative.
That's problematic because it implies that he represents something other than conservatism-- which is clearly not the case. He's a different kind of conservative: neo-conservative, more accurately-- as opposed to "old guard" conservatism.
So it can be misleading to leave it just as you did...
Comments
I won't use the word quagmire. I don't think it's a quagmire... or another vietnam. But it is a mess.
So why should the son do better than the father?
Even after all the crap the right put Clinton through in his first term he still got elected again... by a huge margin. And he remained very popular at the end of his tenure. Polls showed he would have probably been re-elected by a wide margin again had there not been a term limit.
It's much more about the man and his record and what goes down in the campaign. I think people have felt the need to cut Bush some slack... but that won't last for much longer... if people's concerns fall on deaf ears or only get lip service... which is the impression people got from Bush 1... than Bush will be a 1 termer.
Originally posted by trumptman
The surplus didn't exist for Clinton's entire first term.
Why do you have to lie so?
Originally posted by bunge
Why do you have to lie so?
Tired of being wrong so you have to call names huh?
I could be wrong but this little source I call.. the Congressional Budget Office shows that the first year of surplus was 1998.
CBO deficit
So stop lying yourself...or better yet watch for the chapter on bunge in my new upcoming book. Liars who call others liar while telling even more lies, "It's A Good Thing."
Nick
Lies from a liar
?CNN's Crossfire , Feb. 28, 1995
"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Gee, moving the retirement age, cutting, I mean GUTTING Medicare and balancing the budget on veterans pensions.
Sounds like a really heartfelt compassionate guy.
Also note to bunge... he is talking about the unbalanced budget... in 1995...how is that possible? I mean wasn't it balanced by then?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Tired of being wrong so you have to call names huh?
Wrong, where? When?
You're lie is to equate Clinton receiving a deficit with Bush receiving a surplus and creating a deficit. That's dishonest.
Originally posted by bunge
Wrong, where? When?
You're lie is to equate Clinton receiving a deficit with Bush receiving a surplus and creating a deficit. That's dishonest.
Clinton received a deficit and had it go into surplus after his party lost both houses and the Republicans took charge. John Kasich, among others were total budget hawks and held down the growth. Clinton benefitted from it and the record stock run.
However when having his own party run the show they were predicting nothing but deficits running up to 450 billion dollars in his last year in office.
Likewise if you are going to call it a lie, cite, link or do something besides the first grade liar, liar routine.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
However when having his own party run the show they were predicting nothing but deficits running up to 450 billion dollars in his last year in office.
So years in advance they predicted a deficit and were wrong, and that's somehow as bad as Bush actually creating a deficit? You're not making sense.
Clinton received a deficit and had it go into surplus after his party lost both houses and the Republicans took charge
We've seen what Republicans do when they have control of both the White House and the Congress.
Largest Federal Government in history (has grown more in Bush's 3 years than in Clinton's 8), Largest Federal Government Spending in history, a greatly increasing federal deficit, and no end in sight.
The job market is in the tank, and even though this is supposed to be the 'lagging indicator' and the last thing to recover from a recession, it is almost 18 months behind schedule for where it should be for the economy to make any kind of significant rebound in the next 12 months. What's the current administration's plan? Another tax cut?
The next administration is going to inherit many difficult problems, including Iraq, the economy, the deficit, homeland security, a damaged diplomatic reputation, and more. The Democrats that are running now have to really get the message out as to what they will do to fix these problems. Universal Health Care, the nation's Infrastructure, etc. unfortunately have to take a back burner to those other issues for the time being.
Originally posted by bunge
So years in advance they predicted a deficit and were wrong, and that's somehow as bad as Bush actually creating a deficit? You're not making sense.
The point is that the Republicans came to power and the internet stock boom occurred. They were not part of his masterplan to end the deficit. (I'm sure the Republican power part was his plan though
The stock market has taken a tumble. Bush has addressed that with a dividend tax cut. It has risen back up, but I doubt it will get to the height of internet hysteria it was at.
Dean and others will have to show how they would have helped stocks rise in a better fashion to get elected.
Dividends are what you are supposed to focus on when buying stocks, not manipulation of the stock price.
Bush may not have predicted as large a deficit as there is now, but he also didn't predict a war in Iraq or planes flying into buildings.
Nick
Originally posted by Fran441
We've seen what Republicans do when they have control of both the White House and the Congress.
Largest Federal Government in history (has grown more in Bush's 3 years than in Clinton's 8), Largest Federal Government Spending in history, a greatly increasing federal deficit, and no end in sight.
The job market is in the tank, and even though this is supposed to be the 'lagging indicator' and the last thing to recover from a recession, it is almost 18 months behind schedule for where it should be for the economy to make any kind of significant rebound in the next 12 months. What's the current administration's plan? Another tax cut?
The next administration is going to inherit many difficult problems, including Iraq, the economy, the deficit, homeland security, a damaged diplomatic reputation, and more. The Democrats that are running now have to really get the message out as to what they will do to fix these problems. Universal Health Care, the nation's Infrastructure, etc. unfortunately have to take a back burner to those other issues for the time being.
I assure you that I have been no fan of Bushes spending. Yet amazingly enough the Democrats have been screaming for 3 years that it wasn't enough. The massive growth in education spending has them screaming that "No Child Left Behind" wasn't fully funded, etc.
The next administrations... I think that is a bit presumptuous.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush may not have predicted as large a deficit as there is now, but he also didn't predict a war in Iraq or planes flying into buildings.
The deficit can't be blamed on 9/11. Those costs are an order of magnitude less than the deficit. Don't try and play to people sympathies with the tragedy because it's disgraceful.
He didn't predict a war on Iraq? That's very trusting of you. I bet many in his administration did predict it. Besides, Bush did too, many months in advance. It's his doing, it wasn't necessary, and he should pay for the fallout.
Bush ran up huge deficits while underfunding essential programs. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand. Your claim that democrats are complaining because Bush isn't spending enough is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You're pretending that Democrats would prefer higher deficits so we shouldn't complain about the ones Bush has created. That's just a lie.
With one quarter of Bush's deficit we could have made Social Security and Medicare solvent forever. Always. Fixed. That's why people are complaining. A war in Iraq so the government can pay US companies to rebuild a bridge the US army blew up with ammunitions built by US companies, when Iraqi engineers have plenty of experience rebuilding Iraq after a war and can do it for many orders of magnitude less money.
Be honest.
Originally posted by bunge
The deficit can't be blamed on 9/11. Those costs are an order of magnitude less than the deficit. Don't try and play to people sympathies with the tragedy because it's disgraceful.
He didn't predict a war on Iraq? That's very trusting of you. I bet many in his administration did predict it. Besides, Bush did too, many months in advance. It's his doing, it wasn't necessary, and he should pay for the fallout.
Bush ran up huge deficits while underfunding essential programs. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand. Your claim that democrats are complaining because Bush isn't spending enough is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You're pretending that Democrats would prefer higher deficits so we shouldn't complain about the ones Bush has created. That's just a lie.
With one quarter of Bush's deficit we could have made Social Security and Medicare solvent forever. Always. Fixed. That's why people are complaining. A war in Iraq so the government can pay US companies to rebuild a bridge the US army blew up with ammunitions built by US companies, when Iraqi engineers have plenty of experience rebuilding Iraq after a war and can do it for many orders of magnitude less money.
Be honest.
Well sorry for you I substanciate my lies.
Byrd wants 6.1 billion more for education
I'm not pretending.
As for SS and Medicare being solvent forever, those pyramid schemes can be saved for another thread. They are not true investments and anyone who believes so has been lied to. They are pay as you go and are defined as such. That is why they are never truly off budget for Republicans or Democrats.
You need to stop taking anyone who has a national security concern and assuming they would send people to die and blow up another country for a some bucks. We could just pave over the country much like Japan has done with endless coporate/government spending to stimulate our economy. It doesn't take a war.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well sorry for you I substanciate my lies.
Byrd wants 6.1 billion more for education
I'm not pretending.
Yes, they want more spending on some programs, but less on war and other worthless expenses. You are lying. I never said democrats want to cut everything to lower the deficit. They want less deficit with increased spending on programs they consider important.
6.1 billion? What would the deficit be if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, but did spend even 12.2 billion on education? Why, we'd still have a surplus!
Originally posted by bunge
Yes, they want more spending on some programs, but less on war and other worthless expenses. You are lying. I never said democrats want to cut everything to lower the deficit. They want less deficit with increased spending on programs they consider important.
6.1 billion? What would the deficit be if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, but did spend even 12.2 billion on education? Why, we'd still have a surplus!
I could go on with other examples. They criticized the president when the child tax credit exemption kicked in for some folks who hadn't paid taxes and wanted the tax cut grown. They have proposed a huge prescription drug benefit even larger than our spendy president.
The Democrats have been no bastion of thrift. Their plans are always bigger and better than the Republican alternatives. Even Dean wouldn't take the tax cuts back to eliminate the deficit, he would use them to pay for what he estimates a large increase in national health insurance would cost.
Give me a link to a Democratic or Dean plan for balancing the budget. I assure I want balaned budget and balanced trade. I desire those beyond even party affiliation. You show me the candidate that has a believable plan and they would have my vote.
However Dean wants free trade, and doesn't balance the budget. He just grows the spending, just like Bush.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
However Dean wants free trade, and doesn't balance the budget. He just grows the spending, just like Bush.
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to prove he's interested in balancing the budget, is bunk?
Originally posted by trumptman
The surplus didn't exist for Clinton's entire first term. I suppose you will give Bush the same luxury.
As for the whole complex solutions thing, you have proven that you are unwilling to forgo strawman attempts to change what I have said. So whatever... people will understand it even if you don't.
Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the start of the internet spending boom. Bush was handed a recession, 9/11 and the mess made from years of non-policy from Clinton regarding terrorism.
You are welcome to see exactly how many years the government has run a surplus in the last say...oh 50 years. Bush is doing nothing new, and even then I have stated that I disagreed with his lack of spending cuts.
Funny enough, chu links to an article that discusses why Bush can't get elected and it mentions a book, The Two Income Trap, which shows that two incomes isn't really two incomes once you add additional wardrobe, car payments, eating out, etc.
Their solution, school vouchers, hardly a Democratic priority even though it is associated with the why Bush can't get elected article.
Two Income Trap
And no, they aren't advocating the repression of women, nor am I.
Dean will have to explain in a credible manner why almost the entire Democratic voted for that war as well, how he would have handled AL Queda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea differently without any of it sounding like Monday morning quarterbacking or following a course of action that sounds to similar to Bush. If he is able to do this and have it sound credible to the majority of the electorate then he will have a chance and it will be an issue.
However anything less than that and it won't get him a vote because people would rather a leader overreact to planes flying into buildings than do nothing.
The only thing more compelling than the overreaction is of course the perfect course of action which Dean will have to convince he would have taken from the get go and not just in hindsight.
Well SDW is welcome to believe what he wants and so are you. Unemployment is a lagging indicated and we do have economic growth. How much growth and how low or high the unemployment will be are unknown. Since Bush had literally record low unemployment when he entered office, it will be hard to know if he is toast for 6% unemployment. Likewise it could play out differently because unemployment seems higher along the coastal regions while it is as low as 3% in the interior states.
I personally don't think ol'George will get the door just because we don't have articles about 23 year old internet millionaires anymore. I think some families might be going from that two income crunch to one and realizing they like it better than a two person rat race. I think some boomers are retiring. There are lots of variables and I suppose we will all see who is right in 2004.
That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland)
So basically even when all was well (by your definitions) even if they could claim credit for it all, they still couldn't get him elected.
So to defeat Bush they have to prove that peace was going to continue on (even with Somalia, Iraq, the Twin Tower van bombing occuring during Clinton as well) that the stock market was going to keep going up, (what goes up must never come down) that unemployment and the economy were going to continue on record runs. (even though all economies have periodic downturns)
Then they also have to convince those that don't believe in fairy tales that when those things didn't continue as they did, that their solutions would be better than Bush.
I'm not saying is impossible. It is entirely possible. I just don't see that sort of thing coming from Dean or any other Democratic candidate. Perot pulled it off some but I don't see how anyone else could.
I myself argued in a thread some of the issues that could put Dean over Bush. Fair trade is considered pro-union. Immigration reforms could be considered an inexpensive way of protecting national security. School choice could free families from having to buy an expensive house to get a better school since they have no other choice.
If you had Dean adopt these measures, some of which are very third party, others which are actually very traditionally Democratic (fair trade for example) he could have a shot.
However until then, he is just a more rousing, better spoken critic of Bush. However being a critic won't get you elected. Proving you are not beholden to special interests, have a better plan and would better leader would.
Nick
God, that tired old argument that Clinton was handed a recovering economy and the largest running Bull market in history was a coincidence!
Just like you would have us believe one of the longer running slumps, largest deficit increase in history, longest job slump since world war II, lowest intrest rates in 40 years is just a coincidence.
What a crock.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" That is your view, let me tell you mine. The Democrats couldn't get Gore elected with 5.5% unemployment, a record stockmarket, a budget surplus, and little wrong in the world (meaning no terrorist attacks on our homeland) "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gore wasn't elected because of his connection to Clinton as I've previously stated ( I guess you weren't listening ). He did however win the popular vote ( just thought I'd fill in the blank for you ).
When the time comes people aren't going to care about facts and figures. They aren't going to care about spin doctoring. They aren't going to care about the democrats proving something.
All their going to care about is how much can they stretch what's in their wallets. They're going to care that the president made up a story so we could go to war for his agenda. In the process he worsened our relations with countries that were supposed to be our allies and costed us a ton of money.
He hasn't done a thing to rectify either situation.
They will remember what times were like under someone else.
Given your age ( I looked it up ) I've seen quite a few more presidents than you. I know what people will do.
Bush has had his shot. Now he has to be held accountable for his actions.
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
That's it.
Bottom line.
You can rant all you want.
It won't change a thing.
Originally posted by bunge
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to prove he's interested in balancing the budget, is bunk?
I believe I have made myself quite clear that Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
How about that is it clear enough now?
However I don't see Democrats claiming they will slow or stop spending. I see Dean for example adding new programs while also raising taxes.
Honestly if you told me Dean just wanted to reverse the tax cut and attempt to balance the budget, I would give it full credibility. However he is proposing spending more.
As for my assertion that Bush would balance the budget. I don't believe I said that. You are welcome to quote where I did or where you think I even inferred it. I believe Bush spends too much. I believe Democrats will spend even more. I wish there were some real fiscal conservatives that would beat Bush over the head and balance the budget.
Nick
I have clearly said I do not consider Bush to be fiscally conservative enough. I think the first thread in which I mentioned that was called something like "Cut and spend Republicans" or something of that nature.
I even said I don't consider Bush especially conservative.
So I guess if I have a choice between Democratic Lite or Democratic, I take the lite version.
Given the choice between a monkey or Bush I'd take the monkey.
At least if you give the monkey enough bannanas he's predictable.
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe I have made myself quite clear that Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
Bush spends too much.
How about that is it clear enough now?
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to right his wrongs, is bunk?
Originally posted by trumptman
I even said I don't consider Bush especially conservative.
That's problematic because it implies that he represents something other than conservatism-- which is clearly not the case. He's a different kind of conservative: neo-conservative, more accurately-- as opposed to "old guard" conservatism.
So it can be misleading to leave it just as you did...