Poll: Voting predictions Jan/Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
If it is any kinnd of strategy it is to make sure that Clark is not the candidate . . . .
Kerry has NO chance against Bush
Dean has NO chance against Bush
Edwards has NO chance against Bush
Lieberman has NO chance against Bush
Sharpton has NO chance against Bush
Only Clark would get the people who wouldn't automatically vote Democrat . . . only Clark has Republicans worried
Originally posted by pfflam
If it is any kinnd of strategy it is to make sure that Clark is not the candidate . . . .
Kerry has NO chance against Bush
Dean has NO chance against Bush
Edwards has NO chance against Bush
Lieberman has NO chance against Bush
Sharpton has NO chance against Bush
Only Clark would get the people who wouldn't automatically vote Democrat . . . only Clark has Republicans worried
I disagree completely. None of these candidates need the moderate Republican vote to win. Any of these candidates can win the support of the independent voters. No moderate Democrat would vote for Bush over any of these candidates.
From another angle, there are countless people who voted for Bush in 2000 who will not vote for him in 2004, no matter who the Democratic candidate is. They are fed up with the lies and the war, the horrible budget crisis and the stalled economy.
I estimate that there are very few people who voted against Bush in 2000 who would vote for him this time around.
I know AI is certainly not representative of the American voters, but out of curiosity, are any of you AI posters voting for Bush this time who didn't vote for him in 2000? I'd be surprised.
Likewise, how many of you here voted for Bush last time, and will vote against him in November?
Comments
I'm still rah-rah for Kerry as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned. We'll see from there...
Originally posted by tonton
Thanks for your response. So... are you saying you'd vote for Bush over Clark or Dean, or would you vote for a third-party candidate?
I would vote for Bush over Clark or Dean. Clark *is* a Republican. He's only a Democrat because that's what the paperwork says so. Dean on the other hand would be a fiscal nightmare for America though of course I know you won't agree.
Originally posted by Eugene
I would vote for Bush over Clark or Dean. Clark *is* a Republican. He's only a Democrat because that's what the paperwork says so. Dean on the other hand would be a fiscal nightmare for America though of course I know you won't agree.
not to play the typical role, but could you provide a hard-to-dispute piece of evidence showing dean as anything but the definition of fiscally responsible?
of course, we know how fiscally responsible our current president is...
If Dean does not win the nomination, I'm voting Nader again.
Originally posted by progmac
not to play the typical role, but could you provide a hard-to-dispute piece of evidence showing dean as anything but the definition of fiscally responsible?
of course, we know how fiscally responsible our current president is...
My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
#1 That is fiscally irresponsible. Where do the funds from repealed tax cuts go? To the government. Where do you rank the following in terms of efficient spending? Government agencies, corporations with exclusive government contracts, other private corporations, the tax-payer.
#2 is pure rhetoric. The fiscal foundation of this country isn't sound? Why, because there are poor people?
#3 "Rich people shouldn't make a dollar for every 2 dollars they make just because." Ideally, the IRS needs to go. A flat income tax is simple, is it not? Admittedly that leaves a hole to be filled...so I'll give you higher sales/service taxes, taxes on imports, VAT, etc. The rich buy more, they pay more taxes. The rich import more, they pay more taxes. Meanwhile, people are encouraged to buy domestic goods.
#4 Yes, we all love Ponzi schemes.
If you want to point to him voting for Nixon or Regan in the 70s and 80s, remember that he was under no obligation to say how he voted, no one would ever have known how he voted except for the fact that he told people. I think it shows that Clark is an honest and straightforward candidate with nothing to hide. If the worst thing people can say about Wesley Clark is that he voted for Republicans a few times or that he wouldn't bash Michael Moore for calling Bush a deserter, then that's saying a lot, because those are MINOR compared to the sins of the President and some of the other Democratic Presidential candidates.
I was proud to vote for General Clark today, and I can only hope that his third place finish in NH will make people give him a second look in the primaries to come.
Originally posted by tonton
No... uh... mebbe it's because the national debt is unmanageable, and the deficit is out of control? We do not have unlimited credit, but GWB sure seems to think so.
Hate to break it to you but as long as Japan wants to keep its currency from strengthening to the point where they can no longer effectively export products to the US, Japan and Europe to some extent will continue to bankroll our deficit.
Originally posted by tonton
Dude! You support flat tax and think it's fair? You think VATs are fair because the rich spend more, therefore they get taxed more? Geezus you obviously don't know anything about economics.
What model do you suggest is fair? Even distribution of wealth among everyone? *snicker* Yes, I think something similar to the VAT and other service oriented taxes is fair. Yes, I think taxing imported goods to encourage buying domestic would force some balance into the trade deficit and keep money circulating here rather than elsewhere.
I'm not saying a flat tax is doable anytime soon either. We're obviously decades away from any sort of an answer to the current mangled system we have.
Originally posted by tonton
Some day, the cost of supporting the irresponsibility of US Republican Presidents will outweight the trade benefits.
Ah yes, whereas I said Dean is fiscally irresponsible, you're saying US Republican Presidents are fiscally irresponsible.
But I thought Dean claimed he was a fiscal conservative? That was my main point, eh? Why should I vote for him if he's saying he's something he's clearly not...or is he? In that case you should hate him because he'd just be allowing that Republican irresponsibility to persevere.
Originally posted by BRussell
Eugene? Tap tap tap. Hello? Is this on?
Hello there.
Originally posted by tonton
What I'm saying is that flat tax, and service-spending based taxes are unfair. The current system is more fair than that.
People earning less than $15K a year are generally in debt (therefore already paying a "tax" to their bank) and spend 100% of their post-tax income, saving nothing. Therefore, under your idea, they would be taxed for 100% of their post-tax income.[/b]
That assumes $15K is somewhat fair. That's minimum wage, a 10 hour work day, 300 days a year. That also assumes there cannot be a lower cut-off.
And the poorer brackets are spending on things they NEED while the rich are spending on luxuries.
Great! So how do we fix this...? I'll let you come up with the solution.
Then there's the fact that management salaries have increased exponentially in comparison with general salaries. It's no longer the case that if you work twice as hard and have twice as many people you're responsible for, you earn twice as much. That would theoretically be fair, but it's simply not the situation. The VP should not earn 50 times more than his secretary. He's not 50 times more important nor does he work 50 times as hard. That's just an excuse for the rich ("I've earned it!") Yeah, right.
So you're saying the solution to unfair wages/salaries is to tax that money away for no other reason than to level the playing field? That's a conflict of interests. That's like rubbing crap in a wound. It's not even a fix. If the VP has the ability to give himself a wage 50x higher than his secretary, he'll just increase his income to combat the tax...Great.
If people are going to be paying taxes, they should at least get something for it. Right, let's send the money directly to the bureaucracy. Better yet, let's put it into a pyramid scheme.
Originally posted by Eugene
What model do you suggest is fair? Even distribution of wealth among everyone? *snicker* Yes, I think something similar to the VAT and other service oriented taxes is fair. Yes, I think taxing imported goods to encourage buying domestic would force some balance into the trade deficit and keep money circulating here rather than elsewhere.
I'm not saying a flat tax is doable anytime soon either. We're obviously decades away from any sort of an answer to the current mangled system we have.
Should *anyone* advocating this platform come along, they would receive my automatic support.
Originally posted by Eugene
If people are going to be paying taxes, they should at least get something for it.
Flipside: If we are to demand tax cuts, then we are demanding a cut in services, too. I don't understand how people can argue for tax cuts and yet want better education, health care, etc...
Originally posted by bauman
Flipside: If we are to demand tax cuts, then we are demanding a cut in services, too. I don't understand how people can argue for tax cuts and yet want better education, health care, etc...
Efficiency?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Efficiency?
Like the private healt care system?
Originally posted by Anders
Like the private healt care system?
What about it?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Efficiency?
Yes, cutting teacher salaries and having 35 kids in a class makes for a more efficient school.
Originally posted by bauman
Yes, cutting teacher salaries and having 35 kids in a class makes for a more efficient school.
Maybe you really believe your euphemism. You call them schools. But you know they're nothing more than glorified daycare centers. How many students in your first year University class?