US Elections '04

[RMadd]

i'll talk about kerry later, b/c i'm on my way to church in a few here....

[DekWannaBFlea]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

I love the people who keep saying one of Bush's "faults" is that he has the largest deficit in history. Yea, that may be so, but I believe he's the only president to go through 9/11 as well. He inherited a lousy, failing economy. He dealt with terrorist attacks. And yet our economy is growing now, and we have the lowest unemployment rate since early on in Clinton's term.

1. He didn't address the deficit, he just ignored it and gave tax cuts to the riches of people.

2. He could cut spending in order todeal with the deficit

3. He didn't inherit a "lousy" econ it was slowing down but it wasn't lousy.

4. He didn't address this "lousy" econ even before 9/11, so i doesn't matter.

5. Bush has nothing to do with the recent incresing econ (even though it is slowing, but that doesn't matter) Alan greenspan has everything to do with the increasing econ, his low interest rates helped out the econ.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

thanks steve... and what's the big deal w/ a deficit? it's money we owe ourselves. it's basically like a big national credit card. that's deficit spending, using money you don't have. so are you against credit cards?

Are you kidding me? Why are you asking this question, any econ major would tell you why, because it hurts the econ in the long run....Ill say more iff nessesary

i'll agree that the patriot act is too strong, but we still need the good parts of it. and have your freedoms been violated by the act itself in the two years or so since it was passed?

Not my rights but the rights of others, and even if you make the claim that nobody's rights have been violated by the patriot act it is still the principle that counts. Giving too much power to one branch of the government is a very bad idea. (I.E. Checks and Balances)


thank god you didn't make a bunch of "shitty economy" remarks because, believe it or not, there are other factors at work in the economy's state other than the president. in fact, in my political science 101 class, we learned: the president really has nothing to do with the economy. honest-to-god, he doesn't.

Right, but he can have an influence, somewhat lol

as for north korea, i'd say kim jong-il has done a pretty good job of isolating his country himself, what with declarations of nuclear capabilities and all.

But we didn't help the situation by saying we wouldn't do bilateral talks, and saying that we are going to restarting nuclear testing, which bush wants to do.

ignoring social security? bush said he wants to privatize it. i don't know about you, but i'm sick of paying a good chunk of my paycheck to a bunch of seniors. the social security act took the elderly and made them from one of the poorest groups in society to on of the wealthiest. and i'm sick of hearing all this talk that, what with people living longer and all, and collecting social security for 20-30 years or so, that we young'ns might not get all that much. i'd much rather be able to put my social security tax dollars (or a rough equivalent) into something i have more control over, rather than relying on the federal government for my stipend. it's like welfare for people who already have money.

What about those people who can't afford to save right now? What about those people who live on paycheck to paycheck? How are they going to survive when they are old and unable to work? Believe it or not there are people in this country who aren't well of like you or me. And plus the fact is that the government has no right to just open up social security like it has. I doubt it will pay everybody back.....

Bush's plan is a bad idea......

"WHY PRIVATIZATING SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA

There are four major hidden flaws of privatizing Social Security: the enormous transition from a "pay as you go" to a pre-funded system, the costs associated with purchasing equivalent life and disability coverage (or maintaining the current disability and life insurance program in the context of a 16% cut in revenue), market risk, and higher administrative costs.

* Transition Costs. Privatizers face a costly transition period lasting 40-70 years. If pre-funded individual accounts were to be adopted, the generations living through the transition would have to pay for two systems at once, saving for their own retirement while paying for the Social Security benefits of their parents and grandparents.

* Replacing Disability' and Life Insurance. A sleight of hand used by many privatizers is to compare "returns" from Social Security -- a social insurance and retirement program -- to returns from private savings that provide only retirement benefits. Social Security taxes pay for disability and life insurance as well as retirement benefits. The program provides life and disability insurance to American workers and their families at an estimated value of a $230,000 disability policy and a $354,000 life-insurance policy for a typical worker. Privatizers argue that individuals can purchase disability and life insurance from private insurance firms. However, evidence from other countries' experiments with privatization suggests that insurance similar to Social Security would be costly. For people with pre-existing conditions, private disability and life insurance may not be available at any price.

* Overly Optimistic Returns on Stocks. Another problem with privatization is the assumption that the stock market will perform as well in the coming decades as it has in the recent past -- a risky assumption. In fact, many economists believe that the stock market may be at a peak, and many stocks may be overvalued. Privatizers can't have it both ways -- either the economy will be strong and the solvency problem projected for the current system wont materialize, or the economy will slow and the rate of return on stocks will drop, lowering the balances of individual accounts. Even if the stock market does well on average, individual accounts mean that there would be winners and losers. People who have greater knowledge and more money to invest will get higher returns than others. For low earners, who have less to invest and are less able to take risks, attaining average rates of return is unlikely. People who are unlucky or unwise could end up losing most or all of their money, placing additional burdens on SSI and other government programs that provide some safety net to poor people.

* Administrative Costs. Another problem with the privatizers' arithmetic is the failure to account for administrative costs. It costs a lot more to administer 150 million individual accounts than a single centralized system like Social Security. Experts conservatively estimate that it would cost about $25-$50 per participant per year to administer on top of the current system, which costs about $16 per person. Even small increases in management costs that are assessed monthly or annually can result in a large loss of value over one's lifetime. For example, if the costs of operating a system of individual accounts were 1% of account balances each year (a conservative estimate of the administrative costs of a 401(k)plan), these costs would consume approximately 20% of funds in personal accounts over a 40-year career, in addition to (not instead of) the current costs for administering Social Security. For lower income workers who have smaller accounts, administrative costs would absorb a greater percentage of th eir total value.

Source:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...ov/ai_66938046

My responses are bolded

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

1. He didn't address the deficit, he just ignored it and gave tax cuts to the riches of people.

ahhhhhhh, there's the good ol' Democrat rhetoric... if I'm not mistaken, everyone received a tax cut. after all, it is a lot easier to make reductions from a 39+% rate than from a 10-15% rate.

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

2. He could cut spending in order todeal with the deficit

but why is it that important that we have a perfectly balanced budget? clinton did it, big freakin' deal. remember FDR? massive deficit spending (along w/ the war) helped us out in the Depression. i've never really heard a halfway decent explanation as to why deficit spending is so damn bad, let alone a good explanation. so if anyone thinks they can dazzle me, i'm waiting.

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

3. He didn't inherit a "lousy" econ it was slowing down but it wasn't lousy.

regardless, you should read my previous post. it gives a little bit of insight into presidents and their effect on the economy. and i do remember Bush, and not Al Gore, proclaiming, during the '00 campaign, we need to be prepared for an economic recession. seems as though bush's economic advisors might know a thing or two more than those on "the other side"

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

4. He didn't address this "lousy" econ even before 9/11, so i doesn't matter.

i'd assume that by "address", you mean "pass legislation". if you mean "mention", read my previous remark. second, how is 9/11 a mark for the economy? wait, check that. read this following headline (the headline proves you're wrong) http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ see the date? i'm not trying to be an asshole, but when you go spouting off info without doing any research, well that just pisses me off.

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

5. Bush has nothing to do with the recent incresing econ (even though it is slowing, but that doesn't matter) Alan greenspan has everything to do with the increasing econ, his low interest rates helped out the econ.

i guess the economy is slowing. after all, we're not experiencing the same through-the-roof inflation of 8 years ago or so. that's just bad, when there's that much inflation. this here is what I like to call, alternatingly, "reality" and "the economy correcting itself". even greenspan doesn't have that much to do w/ it. if you look at the stock market dating back to its inception, you'll find it, more or less, runs in cycles. the economy runs in cycles. http://www.thestreet.com/basics/gett...ed/999841.html

[RMadd]

Dek: Bush is against bilateral talks, yes, but in case you didn't watch the debate and, quite frankly, he beat this point into the ground: multilateral talks. other influential major countries and us have talks w/ kim jong-il.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/cgi-bi...ncial_ crisis
http://www.socialsecurity.org/cgi-bi... urity_reform
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/a...ggs020603.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/a...ggs020530.html
i see where you're coming from & why you don't want to privatize social security. me, i'm a hardcore conservative, and i don't want big government programs like this, particularly wasteful failures. sure there's risk to the employee involved, but i simply would prefer to have greater control.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Ill respond tommorw because i an essay to write.

In the mean time you still haven't answered my arguments about ABM, nuclear testing and such.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Dek: Bush is against bilateral talks, yes, but in case you didn't watch the debate and, quite frankly, he beat this point into the ground: multilateral talks. other influential major countries and us have talks w/ kim jong-il.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/cgi-bi...ncial_ crisis
http://www.socialsecurity.org/cgi-bi... urity_reform
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/a...ggs020603.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/a...ggs020530.html
i see where you're coming from & why you don't want to privatize social security. me, i'm a hardcore conservative, and i don't want big government programs like this, particularly wasteful failures. sure there's risk to the employee involved, but i simply would prefer to have greater control.

That such a biased source......CATO is so freakin libertarian that it makes bush look like a moderate.......get a new source and then maybe i will read it.

[Shadow]

I am Bush supporter all the way.

[BobbyMcGee]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

the reason Kerry has so many supporters is not because they necessarily think he's a great guy and all, but because he's not Bush, plain and simple. it's unfortunate, but who needs a defined moral compass, anyway? i sure as hell hope Kerry isn't elected b/c this country will go to hell in a handbasket reaaaaaaaaal quick.

My husband came across a union worker from the local GM plant who had a button on that said "anyone but Bush" now does that tell you anything. I can't believe that people are that lame to think that way. But that's JMHO
________
Magic flight launch box review
________
The Cigar Boss

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee)

My husband came across a union worker from the local GM plant who had a button on that said "anyone but Bush" now does that tell you anything. I can't believe that people are that lame to think that way. But that's JMHO

agreed.... b/c when you go w/ that mentality, then you'll just end up voting in another idiot into office... i'm really hoping that in 2008, we have some über-qualified people running for president. don't get me wrong: i like bush and all, but i feel there are others out there (not running in the election) who would be better for the job. hey, maybe Jack Ryan (the guy who was running for IL Sen. against Barack Obama) will run some day.

[Mulletman]

Quote:

But we didn't help the situation by saying we wouldn't do bilateral talks, and saying that we are going to restarting nuclear testing, which bush wants to do.

The reason we dont have to and the reason North Korea wont do anything is, accroding to the UN, if North Korea does any Nuclear testing - it is China's, South Korea, Japan, and Russia's obligation to strike him back. Even if his nuclear tests were dont on his own land, it is thier obligation to strike him back with the same nuclear weapons.

Quote:

1. He didn't address the deficit, he just ignored it and gave tax cuts to the riches of people.

That has got to be one of the stupidest argument i've heard of yet. To make things worse, no one can provide evidence to back that up.

Quote:

Not my rights but the rights of others, and even if you make the claim that nobody's rights have been violated by the patriot act it is still the principle that counts. Giving too much power to one branch of the government is a very bad idea. (I.E. Checks and Balances)

There is nothing new with the Patriot Act, that Washington hasnt seen before. For the uninitiated... everything in the contents of the Patriot Act has been introduced into both houses of Congress by the FBI in the past. The FBI has requested these specific rights and at one point or another they were either shot down or edited. In reality YES the FBI does need the Patriot Act. The problem with that is that when the FBI requested those rights, it was during a time in which it needed them and it only requested a select few at a time. So those that question what is the deal about the Patriot Act, the big deal is that it has now recieved everything is has requested in the past -- just this time all at once.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

ahhhhhhh, there's the good ol' Democrat rhetoric... if I'm not mistaken, everyone received a tax cut. after all, it is a lot easier to make reductions from a 39+% rate than from a 10-15% rate.

Did i say that everybody didn't get a tax cut? I guess you dam bush supporters like puting words in peoples mouth. THE TAX FOCUS IS THE RICH, ITS CALLED REGANOMINCS. And it isn't a good way to help the econ for that long term as i have stated before.

but why is it that important that we have a perfectly balanced budget? clinton did it, big freakin' deal. remember FDR? massive deficit spending (along w/ the war) helped us out in the Depression. i've never really heard a halfway decent explanation as to why deficit spending is so damn bad, let alone a good explanation. so if anyone thinks they can dazzle me, i'm waiting.

hmmmm why don't we just over spend what we have in our budget and destory out econ.......Ask anybody in politics why deficit spending is bad and they will tell you that it hurts the econ in the long run. What are you saying we should spend more money than we have? .....I love it when the FDR example is brought up, FDR's programs put us further in the depression, it's the war that saved us, learn history.


regardless, you should read my previous post. it gives a little bit of insight into presidents and their effect on the economy. and i do remember Bush, and not Al Gore, proclaiming, during the '00 campaign, we need to be prepared for an economic recession. seems as though bush's economic advisors might know a thing or two more than those on "the other side"

And yet during clintons era we had the best econ out of both the bush's.....hmmm i wonder who knows more about econ.


i'd assume that by "address", you mean "pass legislation". if you mean "mention", read my previous remark. second, how is 9/11 a mark for the economy? wait, check that. read this following headline (the headline proves you're wrong) http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ see the date? i'm not trying to be an asshole, but when you go spouting off info without doing any research, well that just pisses me off.

I can't read the link, but ill take it back, he did do something for the econ, but not for the long term econ.

i guess the economy is slowing. after all, we're not experiencing the same through-the-roof inflation of 8 years ago or so. that's just bad, when there's that much inflation. this here is what I like to call, alternatingly, "reality" and "the economy correcting itself". even greenspan doesn't have that much to do w/ it. if you look at the stock market dating back to its inception, you'll find it, more or less, runs in cycles. the economy runs in cycles. http://www.thestreet.com/basics/gett...ed/999841.html

1.If the econ runs in cycles how can bush effect it? That controdicts your post.

2. Inflation is still rising during the bush term.....and oil prices are the highest they have ever been in the 90's.


Sorry i haven't gotten to this before, i have been very busy. I don't like Kerry or bush. But i would rather have kerry than bush.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mulletman)

The reason we dont have to and the reason North Korea wont do anything is, accroding to the UN, if North Korea does any Nuclear testing - it is China's, South Korea, Japan, and Russia's obligation to strike him back. Even if his nuclear tests were dont on his own land, it is thier obligation to strike him back with the same nuclear weapons.

That doesn't matter, we have an obligation to to SK and Japan to defend them if NK goes after em. That means if they invade SK, we nuke them. Hard to face the facts but thats true.

That has got to be one of the stupidest argument i've heard of yet. To make things worse, no one can provide evidence to back that up.

Ummmmmmmm he could have vetoe bills that overspent......its not stupid, even after the Iraq war he hasn't addressed it (neither has congress) If you call your self a convervative, you would argree that W has increased government spending soooo much.....

There is nothing new with the Patriot Act, that Washington hasnt seen before. For the uninitiated... everything in the contents of the Patriot Act has been introduced into both houses of Congress by the FBI in the past. The FBI has requested these specific rights and at one point or another they were either shot down or edited. In reality YES the FBI does need the Patriot Act. The problem with that is that when the FBI requested those rights, it was during a time in which it needed them and it only requested a select few at a time. So those that question what is the deal about the Patriot Act, the big deal is that it has now recieved everything is has requested in the past -- just this time all at once.

....So he introduced it to congress and wanted it passed, and why the patriot act is bad....

1)gives to much power to exec branch
2) parts may ruled unconsitutional next year

[Mulletman]

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

That doesn't matter, we have an obligation to to SK and Japan to defend them if NK goes after em. That means if they invade SK, we nuke them. Hard to face the facts but thats true.

Yes, key word being defend. It is our obligation to defend our allies. But unlike Iraq, first strike has been passed down to those other countries.

Quote: (Originally Posted by DekWannaBFlea)

Ummmmmmmm he could have vetoe bills that overspent......its not stupid, even after the Iraq war he hasn't addressed it (neither has congress) If you call your self a convervative, you would argree that W has increased government spending soooo much.....

No sir, I will not deny that spending has gone up, but my comment has nothing to do with government spending. You originally said he gave tax cuts to the rich, the same rhetoric that has been regurgitated over and over, and that is what I am refering to as absurd.

[BobbyMcGee]

Quote: (Originally Posted by creedsister)

I Dont Vote

Yeah why not? It's your right to vote. Be thankful that we live in a country that we CAN vote and are able to express our opinions without fear of being gunned down.

In my opinion if you don't vote don't whine about the way the country is being run.
________
Essential vaaapp vaporizer
________
UNIVERSAL HEALTH WAREHOUSE