Dean leftists? How? Perhaps the way he runs his campain (the grassroot feel) and his attitude. And perhaps if having a balanced budget is considered leftist.
Read the time article on him, compare him to Kuchinich (or however you spell his name) and hear him talk about Nafta, healt care and other stuff and he really isn´t that much to the left.
Unless the new yard stick in politics are the neo-cons...
It is strategic for Republicans to rhetorically minimize the differences between its candidate and the Democratic candidate-- then Republicans can win on wedge issues like abortion. It is also nothing but strategy for one side to claim the other "doesn't have a plan"--
About Dean- he's indeed "centrist" with regard to the whole of his political ideology, but he energizes the anti-Bush, progressive grassroots of the left. That's significant. The only real voter-mobilization problem with Dean is that he lacks real support from traditionally Democratic-voting minorities. That's not to say they won't vote for him-- it's only that he needs to reach out to them- eventually.
If anything I have heard multiple complaints on the left about various candidates attempting to be "Bush-lite" and not stating strong difference between their own actions and Bushes. "Well I'm for tax cuts too, but just not the ones Bush has proposed," is a good example.
Clinton, and the whole DLC is just a Karl Rove/Republican plot to minimize the differences between Republicans and Democrats? I suppose Ralph Nader and the Green Party running from the true left is part of that plot as well. Clinton signing welfare reform, and declaring the era of big government over is, again I suppose just him operating as a Republican operative.
Likewise I asked SPECIFICALLY what the differences between Bush and Dean were. I didn't seek to minimize them. I seek to know exactly what the differences are.
Leave it to you Shawn to take even seeking information and attribute it to political motives.
As for wedge issues how is abortion a wedge issue? Because folks are evenly divided on it? Are affirmative action, homosexual rights, "wedge" issues just because the country is divided fairly evenly about them? What is your definition of wedge? Is something "divisive" when 50% of the people disagree with you on it?
To me a wedge issue is something that peels off a group and attempts to pit them against others within that same party. I don't see how abortion "divides" the Democratic party.
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
In these forums I have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton did well because he was very clear. He had a 5-7 point plan for everything. He was also the master of the targeted tax cut while raising taxes overall. Asking for specifics isn't playing politics.
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
In these forums I have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton did well because he was very clear. He had a 5-7 point plan for everything. He was also the master of the targeted tax cut while raising taxes overall. Asking for specifics isn't playing politics.
Nick
I don´t know if you are arguing that Dean is leftist or you don´t know his poliics so I´ll adress both.
1) The tax cut is (extreme) conservative politics and of course other parties (in the case of US: party) will change that according to their priorities. If altering anything any previous president have done is leftist then no future president can do anything without being labelled as leftist or rightwinged hawk. For the other bullets there is absolutely nothing leftist about them (unless we count in the neo-con factor mentioned above).
2) So you find four bullets somewhere on Deans webpage and that becomes his full agenda? A bit of clicking would present this to you on healt care as one example.
I don´t know if you are arguing that Dean is leftist or you don´t know his poliics so I´ll adress both.
1) The tax cut is (extreme) conservative politics and of course other parties (in the case of US: party) will change that according to their priorities. If altering anything any previous president have done is leftist then no future president can do anything without being labelled as leftist or rightwinged hawk. For the other bullets there is absolutely nothing leftist about them (unless we count in the neo-con factor mentioned above).
2) So you find four bullets somewhere on Deans webpage and that becomes his full agenda? A bit of clicking would present this to you on healt care as one example.
First I am not arguing what Dean is or is not. My point is that he has to stand for something.
I went to the page you linked to and here is what I found.
Quote:
As President, he will work to undo the policies of the Bush Administration that attack America's working families. He will fight for a tough ergonomics standard and reverse the Bush Administration's soon-to-be-finalized regulations eroding the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He will amend federal law to expand the number of workers who can unionize.
First sentence, basically, I'm not Bush. He doesn't even say which policies "attack America's working families." They we have a fight for...tough ergonomics standards? Okay, not really on my top...oh... 1000 priorities. He states Bush is eroding the right to overtime pay... but again no how Bush does it, or what he would do different. He just will "reverse" whatever Bush is doing, again he is just saying "I'm not Bush."
The last sentences says he will amend the law to expand the number of workers, but doesn't say how it is prohibiting them from unionizing. He doesn't say that Bush passed the law so we have to assume he is changing a practice that has been in place a while. We should know what practice and why.
There is a smaller link on that page to which I went hoping for some more specifics. There it finally got a TINY bit more specific but mostly repeated itself.
Quote:
As President, I would work to undo the harsh anti-labor policies of the current Administration. For example, we need a tough ergonomics standard, not just another scientific study. Additionally, I would reverse the Bush Administration?s soon-to-be-finalized regulations eroding the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Would it be so hard to say what those policies are or what you believe the "tough ergonomics standard" should be?
Quote:
In addition, federal law should be amended to expand the number of workers who can unionize. Tens of millions of workers are unjustifiably denied the right to unionize. The ban on unions for supervisors, agricultural workers, and independent contractors is too broad and should be narrowed. The rights of state employees to unionize should be strengthened.
How are they unjustifiably denied? How is it too broad and how would you narrow it? State employee rights should be strengthened how?
Finally I found this bit of specificness..
Quote:
As President, I will make job creation a top priority. Good jobs are the result of sound fiscal policies, progressive tax practices, and practical, necessary investments in our communities. To this end, I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts. I will work to eliminate tax policies that provide incentives for American firms to move manufacturing jobs offshore. And I will propose new ways to help small businesses access the capital they need for growth, job retention, and plant modernization so that they can compete successfully in the global economy. I will also support increased funding for workforce training.
Even this is still pretty sketchy. New ways for small businesses to access capital....
The only thing that is quite clear is that he will revoke all tax cuts. I would hope he would revoke all tax credits like the child tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit as well. I can appreciate his candor here at least. I am glad to know where he stands on the tax cuts and can make a decision off that information as opposed to "new ways, or I support initiatives, etc.
He does list some clear initiatives on labor day, for labor.
Quote:
Card Check. Federal labor law should be amended to declare that a union is established whenever a majority of workers have signed cards stated that they wish to unionize. This would avoid protracted and divisive campaigns in which employers use intimidation and coercion to block unionization. Republicans in Congress are proposing to ban even discretionary card-check procedures. As President, I would veto such mean-spirited anti-worker legislation.
I would have to disagree with this. There should be a supermajority since once a union is formed, it very rarely can be disbanded.
Quote:
Ban on captive audience / mandatory anti-union meetings. Under current law, employers may schedule meetings that employees MUST attend at which employers advocate against formation of a union. Federal law should ban such practices.
I disagree, if they pay you to be there, you listen. Speech shouldn't be against the law.
Quote:
Ban on one-on-one anti-union meetings. Current law permits employers to pull individual workers off the job to attend one-on-one anti-union propaganda sessions. Such inherently coercive one-on-one meetings should be banned as an unfair labor practice.
This one I can understand a bit.
Quote:
Streamlined NLRB procedures. The process by which the National Labor Relations Board certifies unions is subject to endless appeals and delays. Employers should have only one opportunity to challenge the validity of a new union, and the process must be streamlined so that workers can form a union in a timely way.
I think owners should get the same number of appeals criminals do. Why should they be limited to one appeal when a criminal can have multiple appeals?
Quote:
New civil penalties for failure to negotiate in good faith. Right now there are no serious consequences if an employer ignores a newly formed union. There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union.
What is the definition of "good faith?" Are we talking about unions that have been formed but are in the midst of appeals? That haven't been certified yet? What?
Thanks for the link, hopefully I can get even more specific information soon.
Trumphman please ignore the first link I gave you. It was not the one I intended but the front page that is updated all the time. That of course is a more agitory update, not the place for the more detailed program. Sorry to have made you write your analysis on a web page that wasn´t part of my argument \ Let me try again:
You claim that Dean doesn´t give specifics. One example you give is healt care. Look here for his plan:
Of course you won´t be able to find his agenda if you only look for things to back up your own claims or follow wrong links from me. I´m sure that you will be able to find like papers on other issues on his agenda on his web page.
UPDATE: it wasn´t me who was fcuking with the link. Its Deans page taht wants to link to the front page all the time.
Clinton, and the whole DLC is just a Karl Rove/Republican plot to minimize the differences between Republicans and Democrats? I suppose Ralph Nader and the Green Party running from the true left is part of that plot as well. Clinton signing welfare reform, and declaring the era of big government over is, again I suppose just him operating as a Republican operative.
I think you're deranged.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I asked SPECIFICALLY what the differences between Bush and Dean were. I didn't seek to minimize them. I seek to know exactly what the differences are.
"wahhhhhhh!"
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Leave it to you Shawn to take even seeking information and attribute it to political motives.
Because you're so innocent...
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for wedge issues how is abortion a wedge issue? Because folks are evenly divided on it? Are affirmative action, homosexual rights, "wedge" issues just because the country is divided fairly evenly about them? What is your definition of wedge? Is something "divisive" when 50% of the people disagree with you on it?
To me a wedge issue is something that peels off a group and attempts to pit them against others within that same party. I don't see how abortion "divides" the Democratic party.
Wedge issues are not only intra-party.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
Like that's a valid, "gotcha!" point? I don't consider him progressive because he's just not.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
Like that's a valid, "gotcha!" point? I don't consider him progressive because he's just not.
Wow. Why didn't Dean think of that?
My goodness, your serious of dismissive, sarcastic comments will certainly be persuasive.
You call yourself liberal and then wonder why I never would want to associate with that if you are the example.
I mean gee, look at your reasoning. You holier than thou attitude so helps as well but what could I expect from someone who treats his issues as religious beliefs.
In part you are right. But, it was also Bush 41's total lack of acknowledgement we were in a recession. He took no real action. He also broke his tax pledge and ran a lousy campaign.
Bush 43 has not and will not do those things. There is no Clinton, who was runnning a much more centered campaign than Dean is now. There is no Perot. The economy IS improving, and it's now getting really entertaining to hear you claim that it isn't.
Here's some more entertainment for you. We have a long way to go before people will feel good about the state of the economy. Some of the things Bush is doing now we will paying for the rest of our lives. Like the national debt that he's built up from what was a surplus. SDW people are aware of this.
The thing about Clinton and Perot is that they didn't become key players until the primarys. We aren't there yet but will be soon. Then we'll see what's shaking out there. I for one can't wait because I've talked to a lot of people who vote for anyone just to get Bush out of there.
I also to be fair saw positive links on the same page but CNN has to say something positive sometimes otherwise their negative reporting might effect things.
Oh we'll come out of this eventually. In time to make Bush smell like a rose? I really don't think so.
Trumphman please ignore the first link I gave you. It was not the one I intended but the front page that is updated all the time. That of course is a more agitory update, not the place for the more detailed program. Sorry to have made you write your analysis on a web page that wasn´t part of my argument \ Let me try again:
You claim that Dean doesn´t give specifics. One example you give is healt care. Look here for his plan:
Of course you won´t be able to find his agenda if you only look for things to back up your own claims or follow wrong links from me. I´m sure that you will be able to find like papers on other issues on his agenda on his web page.
UPDATE: it wasn´t me who was fcuking with the link. Its Deans page taht wants to link to the front page all the time.
Thank you for the link and I would concur that in health care (his obvious area of expertise) he does have some specifics. However I would add that his proposals actually don't sound very progressive. He considers "universal" healthcare to be 96% of children (in Vermont) and obviously a lower percentage of adults.
However at least it does state what he will do and how he will fund it. I do appreciate that point.
I just wish he, as a doctor, had mentioned something about creating more doctors, and having the AMA give up more doctor type responsibilities to well trained nurses. (Stitches, setting casts, etc.)
Perhaps he is showing his own self interest there though.
Here's some more entertainment for you. We have a long way to go before people will feel good about the state of the economy. Some of the things Bush is doing now we will paying for the rest of our lives. Like the national debt that he's built up from what was a surplus. SDW people are aware of this.
The thing about Clinton and Perot is that they didn't become key players until the primarys. We aren't there yet but will be soon. Then we'll see what's shaking out there. I for one can't wait because I've talked to a lot of people who vote for anyone just to get Bush out of there.
I also to be fair saw positive links on the same page but CNN has to say something positive sometimes otherwise their negative reporting might effect things.
Oh we'll come out of this eventually. In time to make Bush smell like a rose? I really don't think so.
Jimmac,
It honestly seems to me like you are hoping for the economy to worsen or at least linger in its current semi-growth state.
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
Then when the economy recovers, amazingly the gap grows even more between the rich and poor.
How about taking a third view. For example unions use to be able to demand a living wage easier when they knew only one member of the household was going to be working. This idea was sacrificed in the name of feminism. Record immigration has also made it impossible to let workers unionize.
These issues are true regardless of who is currently in office and are unlikely to change with any of the current candidates. Productivity gains eventually kill jobs. We need new jobs to replace them, but eventually productivity gains should make it so we all have to work less.
Instead we have the Democratic party declaring that we should be funding day care and sending everyone off to work even longer. I'm not saying the Republicans have all the answers here either. I'm just saying rooting for a bad economy hurts the poorest first and likewise you don't seem to be examining issues in any other context than Republicans bad, Democrats good yourself.
There are issues from all sides that are holding down wages. Immigration changes need to not instantly be called racism. Feminism, when advocating longer working hours for all and no need for partners or family in child rearing doesn't help anyone. Likewise productivity gains should mean less work per HOUSEHOLD and not more suffering for kids.
Go ahead. Keep mocking. Dean leans too Left for the general election.
I just love watching you guys froth at the mouth and shudder with anticipation at the thought that Bush might lose.
Oh, please! That's rich. Conservatives to this day "shudder with anticipation" at any opportunity to slam the Clinton era whenever and wherever possible.
Quote:
And the Left Wing media will continue its assault on conservatives....
While this may have been true before, it no longer has any validity. Just like labeling liberals as "tax and spend?" is no longer accurate, there is no longer a liberal media. Why? Because conservatives won. The conservative media has successfully convinced Americans that CNN et al have a liberal biase and that's supposedly "bad". Only conservative bias is good. So, out of fear of continued salvos from Fox News and their ilk, CNN actaully tries to be fair and balanced? (please don't sue me). Fox on the other hand has no checks-and-balances regarding their commentary-rich reporting (man would I love to watch just one episode with Sephard Smith that didn't contain all his personal jabs and stupid commentaries). So, while Fox News has the liberal media on the run, they are eating their cake. I mean, they're fair and balanced? right? So anyone reporting anything different will automatically be written off as invalid or erroneous simply because they report a differing opinion. You may want to write this off, but I believe this to be true.
Quote:
And BTW, Leftist Limousine Liberals do exist. We have at least one running.
Sure they do. Congress is full of rich as#holes. But, using Anne Coulter's blame-shifting techniques won't magically erase the fact that there are more uber-millionaire Republicans than Democrats in this country. To insist otherwise is complete disengenuous. Other than ideology, Bush is no different than Kerry. Does this mean we shouldn't consider re-electing him because he's wealthy and well connected? Please.
Quote:
Are you telling me all the GOP ads wil contain "lies, un-truths and fabrications", while the Democratic ones will spread the good word for the poor hard working people? Fight the power, man!
The difference here is that Drudge can hawk Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden" with inpunity (and doesn't even try to be balanced by offering the left's POV), but if the liberal media even dared to push an ultra leftist book without also offering the right's POV, they would be skewered and propped up as yet another shining example of the liberal media.
Quote:
Listening to you guys talk about Dean is like witnessing some sort of manic depression . First, you are forlorn at the probability that Bush will be reelected. Then, you go into a state of illogical mania when you see Dean's numbers. BTW, the average number of Democrats polled that believe Bush will likely be reelected is arround 65%.
Come on, SDW. I can't believe you're actually pointing your finger at Democrats who are actually getting excited about a candidate. Since when has that been a crime? I didn't realize only conservatives were allowed to rally around a candidate. Excuse us for taking a good hard look at a Democratic potential because he has the right qualifications for the job. Yes, some of us do not like Bush. And yes, some of us would like to see someone new in the white house. So what?
Oh, and believe it or not, I actually believe Bush WILL get re-elected. I don't like it. But, it will probably come true.
My goodness, your serious of dismissive, sarcastic comments will certainly be persuasive.
You call yourself liberal and then wonder why I never would want to associate with that if you are the example.
I mean gee, look at your reasoning. You holier than thou attitude so helps as well but what could I expect from someone who treats his issues as religious beliefs.
"...too LEFT"... You say it as if it's the worst insult you can think of.
The truth is, many Republicans have no idea how Democrats think. the Democrat mindset is beyond the ultra-right's scope of understanding.
I would argue that Gore lost because he wasn't "left" enough. Gore lost much of the swing vote because he was too boring, and because of Monica's Legacy. Had Gore been more "left", many more Democrats would have gone out to cast their vote, and Bush would have lost, even with even more of the swing vote going to Bush. Perhaps what the Dems need this time around is someone who gets the working class to the polls, and a moderate won't have that effect.
Indeed.
Much of Dean's appeal is his style-- Gore was perceived as boring, dull, and condescending for a man with the best credentials in the country to be President. On the contrary, Dean can motivate voters with his own style-- and that's good for the Democratic Party to have a winner on its hands. Republicans definitely underestimate him-- brushing Dean off as "TOO LIBERAL."
Finally the political parties stopped pandering to the middle. Of course now we're going to see some real differences I hope-- but also real negative consequences for the loser. (Like the Bush Administration without the doublespeak)
It honestly seems to me like you are hoping for the economy to worsen or at least linger in its current semi-growth state.
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
Then when the economy recovers, amazingly the gap grows even more between the rich and poor.
How about taking a third view. For example unions use to be able to demand a living wage easier when they knew only one member of the household was going to be working. This idea was sacrificed in the name of feminism. Record immigration has also made it impossible to let workers unionize.
These issues are true regardless of who is currently in office and are unlikely to change with any of the current candidates. Productivity gains eventually kill jobs. We need new jobs to replace them, but eventually productivity gains should make it so we all have to work less.
Instead we have the Democratic party declaring that we should be funding day care and sending everyone off to work even longer. I'm not saying the Republicans have all the answers here either. I'm just saying rooting for a bad economy hurts the poorest first and likewise you don't seem to be examining issues in any other context than Republicans bad, Democrats good yourself.
There are issues from all sides that are holding down wages. Immigration changes need to not instantly be called racism. Feminism, when advocating longer working hours for all and no need for partners or family in child rearing doesn't help anyone. Likewise productivity gains should mean less work per HOUSEHOLD and not more suffering for kids.
Nick
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.
One more time......... I knew ahead of time ( the night Clinton apologized on TV ) what we were in for. I told my friend just watch we're going to have a republican in the white house next time so get ready for serial recession and bad economic times for the middle class and poor. Now how did I know that back then? I'm not psychic.
The truth is lately republican presidents only care for one thing......themselves. I'm sure I'll get blasted by the conservatives here. I'm sure they'll bring up the Clinton sex scandal ( again ). But geez guys just look around! The thing is even if the economy improves significantly by election time what's to keep it from sliding back into bad times right afterwards? I think this is most likely. Bush doesn't have a clue on how to manage the economy. He's had 3 years to do something about it and he's done all the wrong things. Also he broke Reagan's record for the largest deficit increase in history. Quite an accomplishment.
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 ".
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
There's a reason why poor and rich also function as adjectives.
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 1 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted in the Chicago Tribune
Breaking open the lockbox to pay for war in Iraq
By R.C. Longworth
If Americans wonder whether their country is diving into another Vietnam, the answer is yes - economically if not militarily.
The Johnson and Nixon administrations fought the war in Vietnam with deficit spending. Rather than raise taxes to pay for the war, they paid for it out of federal budget deficits. The result, which lasted long after the war ended, was double-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, a lost decade for investors and a good, stiff recession.
We're doing it again. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress, having already turned the biggest surplus in U.S. history into the biggest deficit, are fighting an increasingly expensive war-after-the-war in Iraq by dipping into government funds that aren't there, making the deficit even bigger.
Whatever happens in Iraq, Americans will be paying for this policy for decades to come.
The Clinton administration inherited the Reagan-era deficits but actually ran surpluses in its last three years. In its last year, 2000, it bequeathed a huge surplus of $237 billion. Partly this resulted from some serious cooperation between the administration and Congress. Partly it resulted from major cuts in programs like welfare. partly it reflected the post-Cold War peace dividend. But mostly it was the lucky result of the stock market boom, with investors paying taxes on vast capital gains.
When President Bush came into office in 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting surpluses well into the future - $360 billion this year, $395 billion next year. In the 2000 election, both parties promised to put these surpluses into a "lockbox" to ensure the future of Social Security for Baby Boomers and beyond.
Some lockbox.
The surplus in 2001 was down to $127 billion. By the next year, it had turned into red ink, with a deficit of $158 billion. This year the deficit is expected to be $455 billion - that's almost a half-trillion dollars - with more of the same next year, the CBO says, when the projected deficit will be $480 billion. The independent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says these deficits will go on and on- more than $325 billion for each of the next 10 years, or a total of no less than $4.1 trillion over that time.
And this doesn't count the $50 billion the government admits it is spending in Iraq, a figure that seems sure to rise. nor does it count the cost of Afghanistan, nor any Medicare prescription drug benefit.
At this point, most people's brains simply turn off. Most of us can balance our checkbooks and handle next month's rent. Some of us hope to be millionaires, and we can even understand a billion dollars - that's one fortieth of what Bill Gates is worth. But deficits in the trillions are too huge to be meaningless.
They mean a lot.
Gene Sperling, President Bill Clinton's director of the National Economic Council, says the difference between the $395 billion surplus the Clintonites projected for next year and the $485 billion deficit that is likely now is $844 billion. That's an $844 billion swing from money in the national pocket to money out of pocket.
That $844 billion is a little more than 8 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. What could we have done with that money instead? Sperling notes that it would take about one-quarter of that money to fix Social Security and Medicare so they would be solvent forever. Considering that the Bush administration wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, not fix it, this may be the point.
Comments
Read the time article on him, compare him to Kuchinich (or however you spell his name) and hear him talk about Nafta, healt care and other stuff and he really isn´t that much to the left.
Unless the new yard stick in politics are the neo-cons...
Originally posted by Anders
Unless the new yard stick in politics are the neo-cons...
DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It is strategic for Republicans to rhetorically minimize the differences between its candidate and the Democratic candidate-- then Republicans can win on wedge issues like abortion. It is also nothing but strategy for one side to claim the other "doesn't have a plan"--
About Dean- he's indeed "centrist" with regard to the whole of his political ideology, but he energizes the anti-Bush, progressive grassroots of the left. That's significant. The only real voter-mobilization problem with Dean is that he lacks real support from traditionally Democratic-voting minorities. That's not to say they won't vote for him-- it's only that he needs to reach out to them- eventually.
If anything I have heard multiple complaints on the left about various candidates attempting to be "Bush-lite" and not stating strong difference between their own actions and Bushes. "Well I'm for tax cuts too, but just not the ones Bush has proposed," is a good example.
Clinton, and the whole DLC is just a Karl Rove/Republican plot to minimize the differences between Republicans and Democrats? I suppose Ralph Nader and the Green Party running from the true left is part of that plot as well. Clinton signing welfare reform, and declaring the era of big government over is, again I suppose just him operating as a Republican operative.
Likewise I asked SPECIFICALLY what the differences between Bush and Dean were. I didn't seek to minimize them. I seek to know exactly what the differences are.
Leave it to you Shawn to take even seeking information and attribute it to political motives.
As for wedge issues how is abortion a wedge issue? Because folks are evenly divided on it? Are affirmative action, homosexual rights, "wedge" issues just because the country is divided fairly evenly about them? What is your definition of wedge? Is something "divisive" when 50% of the people disagree with you on it?
To me a wedge issue is something that peels off a group and attempts to pit them against others within that same party. I don't see how abortion "divides" the Democratic party.
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
In these forums I have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton did well because he was very clear. He had a 5-7 point plan for everything. He was also the master of the targeted tax cut while raising taxes overall. Asking for specifics isn't playing politics.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
In these forums I have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton did well because he was very clear. He had a 5-7 point plan for everything. He was also the master of the targeted tax cut while raising taxes overall. Asking for specifics isn't playing politics.
Nick
I don´t know if you are arguing that Dean is leftist or you don´t know his poliics so I´ll adress both.
1) The tax cut is (extreme) conservative politics and of course other parties (in the case of US: party) will change that according to their priorities. If altering anything any previous president have done is leftist then no future president can do anything without being labelled as leftist or rightwinged hawk. For the other bullets there is absolutely nothing leftist about them (unless we count in the neo-con factor mentioned above).
2) So you find four bullets somewhere on Deans webpage and that becomes his full agenda? A bit of clicking would present this to you on healt care as one example.
Originally posted by Anders
I don´t know if you are arguing that Dean is leftist or you don´t know his poliics so I´ll adress both.
1) The tax cut is (extreme) conservative politics and of course other parties (in the case of US: party) will change that according to their priorities. If altering anything any previous president have done is leftist then no future president can do anything without being labelled as leftist or rightwinged hawk. For the other bullets there is absolutely nothing leftist about them (unless we count in the neo-con factor mentioned above).
2) So you find four bullets somewhere on Deans webpage and that becomes his full agenda? A bit of clicking would present this to you on healt care as one example.
First I am not arguing what Dean is or is not. My point is that he has to stand for something.
I went to the page you linked to and here is what I found.
As President, he will work to undo the policies of the Bush Administration that attack America's working families. He will fight for a tough ergonomics standard and reverse the Bush Administration's soon-to-be-finalized regulations eroding the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He will amend federal law to expand the number of workers who can unionize.
First sentence, basically, I'm not Bush. He doesn't even say which policies "attack America's working families." They we have a fight for...tough ergonomics standards? Okay, not really on my top...oh... 1000 priorities. He states Bush is eroding the right to overtime pay... but again no how Bush does it, or what he would do different. He just will "reverse" whatever Bush is doing, again he is just saying "I'm not Bush."
The last sentences says he will amend the law to expand the number of workers, but doesn't say how it is prohibiting them from unionizing. He doesn't say that Bush passed the law so we have to assume he is changing a practice that has been in place a while. We should know what practice and why.
There is a smaller link on that page to which I went hoping for some more specifics. There it finally got a TINY bit more specific but mostly repeated itself.
As President, I would work to undo the harsh anti-labor policies of the current Administration. For example, we need a tough ergonomics standard, not just another scientific study. Additionally, I would reverse the Bush Administration?s soon-to-be-finalized regulations eroding the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Would it be so hard to say what those policies are or what you believe the "tough ergonomics standard" should be?
In addition, federal law should be amended to expand the number of workers who can unionize. Tens of millions of workers are unjustifiably denied the right to unionize. The ban on unions for supervisors, agricultural workers, and independent contractors is too broad and should be narrowed. The rights of state employees to unionize should be strengthened.
How are they unjustifiably denied? How is it too broad and how would you narrow it? State employee rights should be strengthened how?
Finally I found this bit of specificness..
As President, I will make job creation a top priority. Good jobs are the result of sound fiscal policies, progressive tax practices, and practical, necessary investments in our communities. To this end, I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts. I will work to eliminate tax policies that provide incentives for American firms to move manufacturing jobs offshore. And I will propose new ways to help small businesses access the capital they need for growth, job retention, and plant modernization so that they can compete successfully in the global economy. I will also support increased funding for workforce training.
Even this is still pretty sketchy. New ways for small businesses to access capital....
The only thing that is quite clear is that he will revoke all tax cuts. I would hope he would revoke all tax credits like the child tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit as well. I can appreciate his candor here at least. I am glad to know where he stands on the tax cuts and can make a decision off that information as opposed to "new ways, or I support initiatives, etc.
He does list some clear initiatives on labor day, for labor.
Card Check. Federal labor law should be amended to declare that a union is established whenever a majority of workers have signed cards stated that they wish to unionize. This would avoid protracted and divisive campaigns in which employers use intimidation and coercion to block unionization. Republicans in Congress are proposing to ban even discretionary card-check procedures. As President, I would veto such mean-spirited anti-worker legislation.
I would have to disagree with this. There should be a supermajority since once a union is formed, it very rarely can be disbanded.
Ban on captive audience / mandatory anti-union meetings. Under current law, employers may schedule meetings that employees MUST attend at which employers advocate against formation of a union. Federal law should ban such practices.
I disagree, if they pay you to be there, you listen. Speech shouldn't be against the law.
Ban on one-on-one anti-union meetings. Current law permits employers to pull individual workers off the job to attend one-on-one anti-union propaganda sessions. Such inherently coercive one-on-one meetings should be banned as an unfair labor practice.
This one I can understand a bit.
Streamlined NLRB procedures. The process by which the National Labor Relations Board certifies unions is subject to endless appeals and delays. Employers should have only one opportunity to challenge the validity of a new union, and the process must be streamlined so that workers can form a union in a timely way.
I think owners should get the same number of appeals criminals do. Why should they be limited to one appeal when a criminal can have multiple appeals?
New civil penalties for failure to negotiate in good faith. Right now there are no serious consequences if an employer ignores a newly formed union. There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union.
What is the definition of "good faith?" Are we talking about unions that have been formed but are in the midst of appeals? That haven't been certified yet? What?
Thanks for the link, hopefully I can get even more specific information soon.
Nick
You claim that Dean doesn´t give specifics. One example you give is healt care. Look here for his plan:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ click on "on the issues", then healt (left) and then "healtcare for america" (right)
Of course you won´t be able to find his agenda if you only look for things to back up your own claims or follow wrong links from me. I´m sure that you will be able to find like papers on other issues on his agenda on his web page.
UPDATE: it wasn´t me who was fcuking with the link. Its Deans page taht wants to link to the front page all the time.
Originally posted by trumptman
Clinton, and the whole DLC is just a Karl Rove/Republican plot to minimize the differences between Republicans and Democrats? I suppose Ralph Nader and the Green Party running from the true left is part of that plot as well. Clinton signing welfare reform, and declaring the era of big government over is, again I suppose just him operating as a Republican operative.
I think you're deranged.
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I asked SPECIFICALLY what the differences between Bush and Dean were. I didn't seek to minimize them. I seek to know exactly what the differences are.
"wahhhhhhh!"
Originally posted by trumptman
Leave it to you Shawn to take even seeking information and attribute it to political motives.
Because you're so innocent...
Originally posted by trumptman
As for wedge issues how is abortion a wedge issue? Because folks are evenly divided on it? Are affirmative action, homosexual rights, "wedge" issues just because the country is divided fairly evenly about them? What is your definition of wedge? Is something "divisive" when 50% of the people disagree with you on it?
To me a wedge issue is something that peels off a group and attempts to pit them against others within that same party. I don't see how abortion "divides" the Democratic party.
Wedge issues are not only intra-party.
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly even you declare him a "centrist" which means you don't want him declared a liberal/progressive, etc.
Like that's a valid, "gotcha!" point? I don't consider him progressive because he's just not.
Originally posted by trumptman
I took this from Dean's OWN WEBSITE.
* 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.
Aside from the very specific remove the tax cuts, is there anything specific in there?
Set the nation on the path?
Assure funding...
Create a fairer, simpler system...
How How How? Specifics would be nice. Most of the time the specifics come down to, well but Bush did this, and wants to do that, and I'm saying I'm not going to to that, I stand against that plan..etc. People want to vote FOR something, not against someone.
Wow. Why didn't Dean think of that?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think you're deranged.
"wahhhhhhh!"
Because you're so innocent...
Wedge issues are not only intra-party.
Like that's a valid, "gotcha!" point? I don't consider him progressive because he's just not.
Wow. Why didn't Dean think of that?
My goodness, your serious of dismissive, sarcastic comments will certainly be persuasive.
You call yourself liberal and then wonder why I never would want to associate with that if you are the example.
I mean gee, look at your reasoning. You holier than thou attitude so helps as well but what could I expect from someone who treats his issues as religious beliefs.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
LOL.
In part you are right. But, it was also Bush 41's total lack of acknowledgement we were in a recession. He took no real action. He also broke his tax pledge and ran a lousy campaign.
Bush 43 has not and will not do those things. There is no Clinton, who was runnning a much more centered campaign than Dean is now. There is no Perot. The economy IS improving, and it's now getting really entertaining to hear you claim that it isn't.
Here's some more entertainment for you. We have a long way to go before people will feel good about the state of the economy. Some of the things Bush is doing now we will paying for the rest of our lives. Like the national debt that he's built up from what was a surplus. SDW people are aware of this.
The thing about Clinton and Perot is that they didn't become key players until the primarys. We aren't there yet but will be soon. Then we'll see what's shaking out there. I for one can't wait because I've talked to a lot of people who vote for anyone just to get Bush out of there.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/28/news...look/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/29/news...ages/index.htm
Yup! I can't wait!
I also to be fair saw positive links on the same page but CNN has to say something positive sometimes otherwise their negative reporting might effect things.
Oh we'll come out of this eventually. In time to make Bush smell like a rose? I really don't think so.
Originally posted by Anders
Trumphman please ignore the first link I gave you. It was not the one I intended but the front page that is updated all the time. That of course is a more agitory update, not the place for the more detailed program. Sorry to have made you write your analysis on a web page that wasn´t part of my argument
You claim that Dean doesn´t give specifics. One example you give is healt care. Look here for his plan:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ click on "on the issues", then healt (left) and then "healtcare for america" (right)
Of course you won´t be able to find his agenda if you only look for things to back up your own claims or follow wrong links from me. I´m sure that you will be able to find like papers on other issues on his agenda on his web page.
UPDATE: it wasn´t me who was fcuking with the link. Its Deans page taht wants to link to the front page all the time.
Thank you for the link and I would concur that in health care (his obvious area of expertise) he does have some specifics. However I would add that his proposals actually don't sound very progressive. He considers "universal" healthcare to be 96% of children (in Vermont) and obviously a lower percentage of adults.
However at least it does state what he will do and how he will fund it. I do appreciate that point.
I just wish he, as a doctor, had mentioned something about creating more doctors, and having the AMA give up more doctor type responsibilities to well trained nurses. (Stitches, setting casts, etc.)
Perhaps he is showing his own self interest there though.
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
Here's some more entertainment for you. We have a long way to go before people will feel good about the state of the economy. Some of the things Bush is doing now we will paying for the rest of our lives. Like the national debt that he's built up from what was a surplus. SDW people are aware of this.
The thing about Clinton and Perot is that they didn't become key players until the primarys. We aren't there yet but will be soon. Then we'll see what's shaking out there. I for one can't wait because I've talked to a lot of people who vote for anyone just to get Bush out of there.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/28/news...look/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/29/news...ages/index.htm
Yup! I can't wait!
I also to be fair saw positive links on the same page but CNN has to say something positive sometimes otherwise their negative reporting might effect things.
Oh we'll come out of this eventually. In time to make Bush smell like a rose? I really don't think so.
Jimmac,
It honestly seems to me like you are hoping for the economy to worsen or at least linger in its current semi-growth state.
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
Then when the economy recovers, amazingly the gap grows even more between the rich and poor.
How about taking a third view. For example unions use to be able to demand a living wage easier when they knew only one member of the household was going to be working. This idea was sacrificed in the name of feminism. Record immigration has also made it impossible to let workers unionize.
These issues are true regardless of who is currently in office and are unlikely to change with any of the current candidates. Productivity gains eventually kill jobs. We need new jobs to replace them, but eventually productivity gains should make it so we all have to work less.
Instead we have the Democratic party declaring that we should be funding day care and sending everyone off to work even longer. I'm not saying the Republicans have all the answers here either. I'm just saying rooting for a bad economy hurts the poorest first and likewise you don't seem to be examining issues in any other context than Republicans bad, Democrats good yourself.
There are issues from all sides that are holding down wages. Immigration changes need to not instantly be called racism. Feminism, when advocating longer working hours for all and no need for partners or family in child rearing doesn't help anyone. Likewise productivity gains should mean less work per HOUSEHOLD and not more suffering for kids.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead. Keep mocking. Dean leans too Left for the general election.
I just love watching you guys froth at the mouth and shudder with anticipation at the thought that Bush might lose.
Oh, please! That's rich. Conservatives to this day "shudder with anticipation" at any opportunity to slam the Clinton era whenever and wherever possible.
And the Left Wing media will continue its assault on conservatives....
While this may have been true before, it no longer has any validity. Just like labeling liberals as "tax and spend?" is no longer accurate, there is no longer a liberal media. Why? Because conservatives won. The conservative media has successfully convinced Americans that CNN et al have a liberal biase and that's supposedly "bad". Only conservative bias is good. So, out of fear of continued salvos from Fox News and their ilk, CNN actaully tries to be fair and balanced? (please don't sue me). Fox on the other hand has no checks-and-balances regarding their commentary-rich reporting (man would I love to watch just one episode with Sephard Smith that didn't contain all his personal jabs and stupid commentaries). So, while Fox News has the liberal media on the run, they are eating their cake. I mean, they're fair and balanced? right? So anyone reporting anything different will automatically be written off as invalid or erroneous simply because they report a differing opinion. You may want to write this off, but I believe this to be true.
And BTW, Leftist Limousine Liberals do exist. We have at least one running.
Sure they do. Congress is full of rich as#holes. But, using Anne Coulter's blame-shifting techniques won't magically erase the fact that there are more uber-millionaire Republicans than Democrats in this country. To insist otherwise is complete disengenuous. Other than ideology, Bush is no different than Kerry. Does this mean we shouldn't consider re-electing him because he's wealthy and well connected? Please.
Are you telling me all the GOP ads wil contain "lies, un-truths and fabrications", while the Democratic ones will spread the good word for the poor hard working people? Fight the power, man!
The difference here is that Drudge can hawk Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden" with inpunity (and doesn't even try to be balanced by offering the left's POV), but if the liberal media even dared to push an ultra leftist book without also offering the right's POV, they would be skewered and propped up as yet another shining example of the liberal media.
Listening to you guys talk about Dean is like witnessing some sort of manic depression . First, you are forlorn at the probability that Bush will be reelected. Then, you go into a state of illogical mania when you see Dean's numbers. BTW, the average number of Democrats polled that believe Bush will likely be reelected is arround 65%.
Come on, SDW. I can't believe you're actually pointing your finger at Democrats who are actually getting excited about a candidate. Since when has that been a crime? I didn't realize only conservatives were allowed to rally around a candidate. Excuse us for taking a good hard look at a Democratic potential because he has the right qualifications for the job. Yes, some of us do not like Bush. And yes, some of us would like to see someone new in the white house. So what?
Oh, and believe it or not, I actually believe Bush WILL get re-elected. I don't like it. But, it will probably come true.
Originally posted by BRussell
Candidates (including the president) don't have many specific programs at this point. None of them do, probably for another 9 months at least.
DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!DING!!!
Originally posted by trumptman
My goodness, your serious of dismissive, sarcastic comments will certainly be persuasive.
You call yourself liberal and then wonder why I never would want to associate with that if you are the example.
I mean gee, look at your reasoning. You holier than thou attitude so helps as well but what could I expect from someone who treats his issues as religious beliefs.
Nick
Well you know what they say about us liberals...
Originally posted by tonton
"...too LEFT"...
The truth is, many Republicans have no idea how Democrats think. the Democrat mindset is beyond the ultra-right's scope of understanding.
I would argue that Gore lost because he wasn't "left" enough. Gore lost much of the swing vote because he was too boring, and because of Monica's Legacy. Had Gore been more "left", many more Democrats would have gone out to cast their vote, and Bush would have lost, even with even more of the swing vote going to Bush. Perhaps what the Dems need this time around is someone who gets the working class to the polls, and a moderate won't have that effect.
Indeed.
Much of Dean's appeal is his style-- Gore was perceived as boring, dull, and condescending for a man with the best credentials in the country to be President. On the contrary, Dean can motivate voters with his own style-- and that's good for the Democratic Party to have a winner on its hands. Republicans definitely underestimate him-- brushing Dean off as "TOO LIBERAL."
Well, that's fine.
I raise SDW $100.
EDIT: Political Parties Shift Emphasis to Core Voters (NYTIMES)
Finally the political parties stopped pandering to the middle. Of course now we're going to see some real differences I hope-- but also real negative consequences for the loser. (Like the Bush Administration without the doublespeak)
Originally posted by trumptman
Jimmac,
It honestly seems to me like you are hoping for the economy to worsen or at least linger in its current semi-growth state.
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
Then when the economy recovers, amazingly the gap grows even more between the rich and poor.
How about taking a third view. For example unions use to be able to demand a living wage easier when they knew only one member of the household was going to be working. This idea was sacrificed in the name of feminism. Record immigration has also made it impossible to let workers unionize.
These issues are true regardless of who is currently in office and are unlikely to change with any of the current candidates. Productivity gains eventually kill jobs. We need new jobs to replace them, but eventually productivity gains should make it so we all have to work less.
Instead we have the Democratic party declaring that we should be funding day care and sending everyone off to work even longer. I'm not saying the Republicans have all the answers here either. I'm just saying rooting for a bad economy hurts the poorest first and likewise you don't seem to be examining issues in any other context than Republicans bad, Democrats good yourself.
There are issues from all sides that are holding down wages. Immigration changes need to not instantly be called racism. Feminism, when advocating longer working hours for all and no need for partners or family in child rearing doesn't help anyone. Likewise productivity gains should mean less work per HOUSEHOLD and not more suffering for kids.
Nick
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.
One more time......... I knew ahead of time ( the night Clinton apologized on TV ) what we were in for. I told my friend just watch we're going to have a republican in the white house next time so get ready for serial recession and bad economic times for the middle class and poor. Now how did I know that back then? I'm not psychic.
The truth is lately republican presidents only care for one thing......themselves. I'm sure I'll get blasted by the conservatives here. I'm sure they'll bring up the Clinton sex scandal ( again ). But geez guys just look around! The thing is even if the economy improves significantly by election time what's to keep it from sliding back into bad times right afterwards? I think this is most likely. Bush doesn't have a clue on how to manage the economy. He's had 3 years to do something about it and he's done all the wrong things. Also he broke Reagan's record for the largest deficit increase in history. Quite an accomplishment.
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would anyone do that? You think the rich are hurting at all during downturns? If anything they wipe up the floor with gains that the middle and poor have to suddenly give up since they need to just get by. Those houses that get behind. They buy them as repos. The stocks they need to sell, they pick them up cheap.
There's a reason why poor and rich also function as adjectives.
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 1 of 3
Originally posted in the Chicago Tribune
Breaking open the lockbox to pay for war in Iraq
By R.C. Longworth
If Americans wonder whether their country is diving into another Vietnam, the answer is yes - economically if not militarily.
The Johnson and Nixon administrations fought the war in Vietnam with deficit spending. Rather than raise taxes to pay for the war, they paid for it out of federal budget deficits. The result, which lasted long after the war ended, was double-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, a lost decade for investors and a good, stiff recession.
We're doing it again. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress, having already turned the biggest surplus in U.S. history into the biggest deficit, are fighting an increasingly expensive war-after-the-war in Iraq by dipping into government funds that aren't there, making the deficit even bigger.
Whatever happens in Iraq, Americans will be paying for this policy for decades to come.
The Clinton administration inherited the Reagan-era deficits but actually ran surpluses in its last three years. In its last year, 2000, it bequeathed a huge surplus of $237 billion. Partly this resulted from some serious cooperation between the administration and Congress. Partly it resulted from major cuts in programs like welfare. partly it reflected the post-Cold War peace dividend. But mostly it was the lucky result of the stock market boom, with investors paying taxes on vast capital gains.
When President Bush came into office in 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting surpluses well into the future - $360 billion this year, $395 billion next year. In the 2000 election, both parties promised to put these surpluses into a "lockbox" to ensure the future of Social Security for Baby Boomers and beyond.
Some lockbox.
The surplus in 2001 was down to $127 billion. By the next year, it had turned into red ink, with a deficit of $158 billion. This year the deficit is expected to be $455 billion - that's almost a half-trillion dollars - with more of the same next year, the CBO says, when the projected deficit will be $480 billion. The independent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says these deficits will go on and on- more than $325 billion for each of the next 10 years, or a total of no less than $4.1 trillion over that time.
And this doesn't count the $50 billion the government admits it is spending in Iraq, a figure that seems sure to rise. nor does it count the cost of Afghanistan, nor any Medicare prescription drug benefit.
At this point, most people's brains simply turn off. Most of us can balance our checkbooks and handle next month's rent. Some of us hope to be millionaires, and we can even understand a billion dollars - that's one fortieth of what Bill Gates is worth. But deficits in the trillions are too huge to be meaningless.
They mean a lot.
Gene Sperling, President Bill Clinton's director of the National Economic Council, says the difference between the $395 billion surplus the Clintonites projected for next year and the $485 billion deficit that is likely now is $844 billion. That's an $844 billion swing from money in the national pocket to money out of pocket.
That $844 billion is a little more than 8 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. What could we have done with that money instead? Sperling notes that it would take about one-quarter of that money to fix Social Security and Medicare so they would be solvent forever. Considering that the Bush administration wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, not fix it, this may be the point.
So much for the lockbox.