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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

response 95 of 536:

Oct 1 00:13 UTC 2003

Kulak.

response 99 of 536:

Oct 1 01:24 UTC 2003

I consider the government spending more than its income to be equivalent
to "printing more money", even though the money is created through debt. 
The effect is similar - there is more money in circulation without a
growth in collateral. 

response 101 of 536:

Oct 1 01:49 UTC 2003

Answer:  "#94 (rcurl):  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*. "

Question:  How many untruths is Mr. rcurl able to stuff into one 
response?


Furthermore, Mr. rcurl, it is rather well-documented that the recession 
for which you blame Mr. Bush was well under-way during the Clinton 
presidency.  Also, we believe there was that matter of September 11 - 
or, perhaps, you are a adherent of the Germanic belief that the attacks 
were planned under the direction of Mr. Bush.

All-in-all, Mr. rcurl, we find your arguments rather disappointing, to 
say the least.  Do try to improve.  Thank you.

response 103 of 536:

Oct 1 02:28 UTC 2003

I've said it once and I'll say it again:  Bush is not responsible
for the sudden disappearance of the surplus.  The surplus was a
fiction based on the continuation of the bubble economy; when the
bubble burst, the surplus disappeared with it.  Bush had nothing
to do with that.

The bubble economy was at least partly due to the shenanigans of
promoters of stocks with no visible means of turning a profit
(which, remarkably, people bought anyway) and outright crooks
like Kenneth Lay.  Clinton has to bear some of the blame (yes,
I said BLAME) for this; the loose standards in the Oval Office
hardly made him an effective spokesman for tight accounting
and disclosure requirements.  But the worst was yet to come...

On the other hand, Bush is clearly in the pocket of Kenneth Lay
and his corporate ilk.  The only cure for the economy lies in
fairness and transparency, and the only power I see going after
the miscreants right now is Elliot Spitzer.  People are still
afraid (justifiably) of having all their hard earned money
disappear into the pocket of some scammer or self-dealing
corporate CEO; to really get things cleaned up so we can go
on, we need real watchdogs in Washington.  Bush is never,
ever going to do this because it means turning on his main
supporters and the source of his own fortune.  He IS the
problem, and he's gotta go.