|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 73 of 536:
| 
Sep 29 22:09 UTC 2003 |
new report on the WMD's suggest tha the people running Saddams program were
fakeing it. They told him how well the program was going, and how they needed
more money, and all they did was run a minor program and pocket the money.
|
richard
|
|
response 74 of 536:
|
Sep 30 02:31 UTC 2003 |
Also, as Dean regularly points out, Bush must be held accountable for all
the huge defecit spending that has been doing on. Under Clinton, the
national debt was paid down, they even turned off the national debt clock
that was keeping a running total of the national debt over on sixth
avenue. But three years of Bush and we now have a huge, record national
defecit. Bush has put us deeply in debt? And why? Because he pushed
through huge spending progams for the military and homeland security, and
at the same time promised tax cuts. How do you spend money AND cut taxes
at the same time? Same way Reagan did it, go DEEPLY into debt. Dean says
flatly that as President, he will push-- as he did in Vermont for years--
for balanced budgets and to pay off the national debt. This is why he is
promising to reverse Bush's tax cuts-- those tax cuts were irresponsible,
they only really helped those in the very high income brackets, while for
the rest of us the benefits were minimal, and the consequences-- this huge
debt-- could be crushing in years to come.
|
klg
|
|
response 75 of 536:
|
Sep 30 02:58 UTC 2003 |
So How-weird is gonna to repeal the tax cuts and use the $$ for health
care? What's he want to cut, then, to balance the budget? Like all
those other Dems, their only policy is to criticize the current admin.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 536:
|
Sep 30 03:11 UTC 2003 |
But justifiably, right? Do you REALLY approve of the enormous deficits
that are being run up? You'll be paying for them in the long run (or
your progeny). They will prevent having many needed domestic programs.
Do you like the US National Parks? They are being heavily deprived of
needed maintenance. I don't see why you WANT such huge government payments
for nothing but interest on the national debt.
|
i
|
|
response 77 of 536:
|
Sep 30 04:12 UTC 2003 |
Is there anyone who thinks that a Democratic candidate who's message
amounts to "Bush is bad. I'm not Bush. [repeat]" has much chance of
beating the President, his savvy campaign managers, his large and
dedicated organization, and his huge pile of money in the '04 general
election? I don't.
In spite of how poorly a similar strategy worked in '02, i think it's
all too likely that the Democrats will nominate such a candidate.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 78 of 536:
|
Sep 30 04:16 UTC 2003 |
Actually, no, I don't think that will, or should, be enough to get elected.
|
richard
|
|
response 79 of 536:
|
Sep 30 05:55 UTC 2003 |
#77...i, it worked in 1992, george bush's father, with just as savvy campaig
managers, just as much money, and just as large and dedicated an oranization,
was BEATEN. He was voted out of office. By a small state governor that a
year before the election, few people outside of political circles had heard
of. It has happened before.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 536:
|
Sep 30 06:05 UTC 2003 |
The candidates won't just say "Bush is bad". They will say that Bush is
both incompetent and dangerous, and lay out the enormous number of reasons
why Bush and his administration are causing ruin to our nation and insults
and deprivations to our people. I presume you know the word for
"right-wing authoritarianism": fascism.
|
i
|
|
response 81 of 536:
|
Sep 30 11:45 UTC 2003 |
Re: #79
I seem to recall Clinton having a great deal to say about his visions,
plans, policies, programs, etc. in '92. To judge by the Democrat's big
mid-term gains in the House & Senate in '02, that sort of stuff just
might matter to potential voters.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 536:
|
Sep 30 14:07 UTC 2003 |
Re #49: I think Bush definately has a good chance, but I don't think
it's a given anymore. He's polling behind at least two of the
Democratic candidates at the moment. Unless he does some really
brilliant stuff in the next year, he's going to have an uphill battle in
the campaign. Yes, he has a big war chest, but money isn't as important
in Presidential campaigns as it is in other races because you get so
much free media coverage.
|
klg
|
|
response 83 of 536:
|
Sep 30 16:12 UTC 2003 |
re: "#80 (rcurl): The candidates . . . will say that Bush is
both incompetent and dangerous, and lay out the enormous number of
reasons why Bush and his administration are causing ruin to our nation
and insults and deprivations to our people. I presume you know the word
for "right-wing authoritarianism": fascism."
Fortunately, however, we are confident most Americans know enough to
reject such "arguments" (particularly that over-the-top bit about
fascism).
|
scott
|
|
response 84 of 536:
|
Sep 30 16:33 UTC 2003 |
Enough Americans get laid off, they'll start to accept reality.
If not, there's always the Nixon option - massive landslide, eventual
disgrace.
|
klg
|
|
response 85 of 536:
|
Sep 30 16:59 UTC 2003 |
Fortunately, Mr. scott, BLS data, you'll be glad to know, show
employment trending up and unemployment trending down.
Quarterly
averages Monthly data
__________________________________________July-
Category 2003 2003 Aug.
__________________________________________chng
I II June July Aug.
______________________________________________________________
HOUSEHOLD DATA Labor force status
Civ labor force. 145,829 146,685 147,096 146,540 146,530 -10
Employment.... 137,430 137,638 137,738 137,478 137,625 147
Unemployment.. 8,399 9,047 9,358 9,062 8,905 -157
|
tod
|
|
response 86 of 536:
|
Sep 30 17:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 536:
|
Sep 30 17:35 UTC 2003 |
You really are dense, if not mentally blind, klg. The site I gave shows
clearly that unemployment went from 4.1% on 1 Jan 01 to 6.1% on 1 Aug 03.
The numbers you are only willing to look at are local monthly blips in the
rate - the "noise" in the data - not the overall effect of the miserable
Bush economic policies over his term in office.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 536:
|
Sep 30 17:42 UTC 2003 |
Re #86: add to that list the suppression of peaceably assembled opponents
at public forums, the holding of "enemies" in secret and without charges
or access to legal representation, and more etc etc etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 536:
|
Sep 30 19:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 90 of 536:
|
Sep 30 19:57 UTC 2003 |
GWB and company think they have this election licked. They have a lock on
the South, the military, the money, and the powers of incumbency. Gore
had at least a claim on each of those things; most of the current crop of
Democratic candidates have none.
But one of the things about having a two-party system is that each party
offers an alternative to the other. At some level, it hardly matters to
voters what the "out" party stands for. The obvious way to vote "no" on
the "ins" is to vote for the "outs". History shows that opposition
parties have a way of coming back from the dead, and showing unexpected
strength in elections, even opposition parties that advocate preposterous
things like outlawing the Masons or taking Quebec out of Canada.
Money and organization can take you only so far. There is absolutely
nothing the Bush campaign can do to increase GWB's name-ID. My rule of
thumb is that the more money a political campaign has, the higher the
percentage that is wasted: the campaign eats better food, stays in more
expensive hotels, takes lots of anxiety-relieving but otherwise useless
polls, and so on.
And now suddenly we have the Valerie Plume scandal, which looks like it
might bring down Karl Rove. GWB without Karl Rove is going to be as
helpless as his father was without Lee Atwater.
|
murph
|
|
response 91 of 536:
|
Sep 30 20:24 UTC 2003 |
In a combination of your "the current crop has no claim on the military" and
"a vote for the 'out' party is a 'no' for the 'in' party", I think that I
have a lot of conservative (for religious reasons) relatives who may be
switching to the Democratic ticket because of the reservists in the family.
Obviously, reservists can't expect complete safety from being called up, but
when GWB has the troops holding down two countries already and is
saber-rattling at at least three more (Syria, Iran, NK), the likelihood of
a reservist dying gets to be much much higher than the likelihood they had
in mind when they signed up. Already our forces are strained, high school
recruiters are worried, reservists and National Guardsmen are dying, and
nobody knows when their family members are going to come home--I'd say the
Dems can make a pretty strong case that Bush has misused the military.
|
dah
|
|
response 92 of 536:
|
Sep 30 21:09 UTC 2003 |
Uh, it's certainly not absurd to take Quebec out of Canada, and when the PQ
was elected a huge number of people agreed with their platform; it wasn't
simply that they didn't like the other party whatever that was.
|
bru
|
|
response 93 of 536:
|
Sep 30 22:56 UTC 2003 |
We all know what the democratic platform is (in general). Yes the president
has run up the defecit, but it was due to the condition the economy was in
when he was elected. He had to give back money to the people via tax cuts,
or we would have been in one hell of a recession.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 536:
|
Sep 30 23:33 UTC 2003 |
I question that. Why would we be in more of a recession than we are
now? The *recession*, such as it is, began after Bush took office.
The tax cuts also do not seem to have had any important effect,
probably because they gave most of the money to the rich, who don't
spend it the way money given to the lower end of the pay scale gets
spent. Also, tax cuts are just another euphamism for the *government printing
more money*.
|
dah
|
|
response 95 of 536:
|
Oct 1 00:13 UTC 2003 |
Kulak.
|
slynne
|
|
response 96 of 536:
|
Oct 1 00:23 UTC 2003 |
resp:94 - I agree with you that as far as fiscal policy goes, the Bush
tax cuts and deficit spending have not improved the economy. However,
tax cuts arent really a euphamism for "printing more money." The
government increases the money supply by having the Fed Open Market
Committee buy treasury bonds.
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 536:
|
Oct 1 00:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
