NationStates Jolt Archive

Folks, just 2 for tonight. I feel mellow.

- Well, the slowly leaking ship called the Kerry campaign seems to have sprung another leak. Adam Nagourney, writing in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/campaign/02KERR.html?ei=5062&en=31a497ef31033e42&ex=1084075200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=), reports on the latest developments inside the left. Can Kerry develop, and stick with, a message? So far he has tried 6 (six!) different ones since declaring his candidacy, proving the old adage "if you don't like Kerry's (position/message/opinion), just wait, it will change."

- And, another foreign leader seems to have come out supporting Kerry. Unfortunately for Kerry, it is General Nguyen Giap, the military leader of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/1/110432.shtml) (did I mention that Kerry fought in Vietnam?) Now, granted, General Giap did NOT mention Kerry specifically, but when you read what he (General Giap) had to say recently, you will have no choice but to admit that he might as well have mentioned Kerry by name.

Why did John Kerry cross the road?





It doesn't matter, he's already back on the side he started from! :lol:

It's amazing how quickly the Republican spin machine has gotten all their minions repeating their message of Kerry being a flip-flopper. I guess they figured it worked on Gore, so why not use the same tactic against Kerry.

The hypocracy of that amazes me since they're running George Bush, who has never taken one side of any issue. This is the guy who said we wouldn't get involved in nation building, would balance the budget, protect the environment, expand health care coverage, and who failed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Act. Bush flip-flopped more during the 2000 campaign than Kerry has in his entire life.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

You know, Panhandlia, if anyone took you seriously, they'd be convinced that John Kerry is the anti-christ and is personally responsible for global warming (even though they would still claim it doesn't exist), psoriasis, the federal trade deficit, the Valerie Plame outing, and the Macarena.

If Kerry loses his message in October, I'll worry. Meanwhile, he has a message and a well-defined campaign that is getting hidden by all the problems in Iraq and the continual spewing of crap that comes out of the Bush administration. Until then, I'd rather defend Kerry's record than Bush's when it comes to election time.

Blah blah blah blah blah blahUh oh, you're spending too much time listening to Err America...you're starting to sound like Al Franken!
You know, Panhandlia, if anyone took you seriously, they'd be convinced that John Kerry is the anti-christ and is personally responsible for global warming (even though they would still claim it doesn't exist), psoriasis, the federal trade deficit, the Valerie Plame outing, and the Macarena.Obviously YOU take me seriously. But no, I don't think anyone would believe him to be responsible for any of those...especially the Macarena. To be responsible for any of those would require him to stick to one position, and I can already visualize him saying "I actually invented the Macarena...before I declared myself against it."
If Kerry loses his message in October, I'll worry. Meanwhile, he has a message and a well-defined campaign that is getting hidden by all the problems in Iraq and the continual spewing of crap that comes out of the Bush administration. Until then, I'd rather defend Kerry's record than Bush's when it comes to election time.He can't lose his message, because he doesn't have one that he's settled into! And that is his real big problem, even bigger than his absolute failure to relate to the common American (sorry, even I don't spend $1000 plus travel expenses for a haircut, and I don't own a ski vacation home in Idaho...I DO own my SUV, though.) When your candidate's opinion on any issue varies depending on the day of the week and the location, that candidate has problems. ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/The New York Times might help hide that ugly little fact, but the fact remains (and will be duly reported on by Fox News/The Washington Times/Drudge Report.)

Blah, the Drudge Distort. What a nightmare.

Can anyone tell me exactly what Bush's all-important "message" is? I mean, other than, "Do what I say or else."

Guys stop. This is turning into a flame war here. Let's stop this sillyness and sit down and play D&D Ok?

If Republicans wanted to convince me that George Bush is better than John Kerry, then I would be much more easily swayed if they could tell me why Bush is BETTER, instead of telling me why Kerry is worse (since all of those reasons are flimsy enough as it is).

I think I can help the Republicans out. Here are a few things George Bush has done that make him a good candidate for President.

Uh, well... hmm.... oh! Here's one! Well, he did dodge the draft! Oh, wait that's no good.... Oh yeah! He got a cushy Air National Gaurd job protecting the airspace of Texas from the Vietcong, and then skipped out on that too! Wait, wait, I messed up again. That's no good either... okay, here's one. He... snorted coke. Oh, jeez, I'm so bad at this! Okay, okay, I've definitely got one. Once, he drove drunk into a hedge. ...Oh, man. I'm sorry. I just can't do this right.

Sorry, Republicans. Guess I'm just not as big a help as I thought I would be.

Blah, the Drudge Distort. What a nightmare.Why is The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com) a nightmare? Maybe because it has the whole news, instead of just what the Liberal Media wants you to see?

Can anyone tell me exactly what Bush's all-important "message" is? I mean, other than, "Do what I say or else."Actually, the Bush message (regarding war) is, "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists...make a choice."

Forget the analysis for a moment. The story is, several liberal publications are getting fidgety with kerry.. it won't make any difference, but that's the story. Non-story, more like, but its campaign news nonetheless..

Guys stop. This is turning into a flame war here. Let's stop this sillyness and sit down and play D&D Ok?


I don't like suing my big voice but when i'm Ignored I use it. Besides if you listen to me you won't get DEETED

It's amazing how quickly the Republican spin machine has gotten all their minions repeating their message of Kerry being a flip-flopper. I guess they figured it worked on Gore, so why not use the same tactic against Kerry.

well, if the democrats would come up with a candidate that didnt flip flop on issues constantly, the republicans wouldnt bring it up. once again Bush is looking to be the "least worst". all we need is another clinton-like president thats going to ignore terrorism while they plan something big and rebuild what the US has destroyed in the recent years, and then whoever comes next would once again be stuck with a 9-11 like event. of course thats the worst case senario, but is still very likely if Kerry wins...bush in only strong in defense (though, he's turned it into offense).

Guys stop. This is turning into a flame war here. Let's stop this sillyness and sit down and play D&D Ok?


I don't like suing my big voice but when i'm Ignored I use it. Besides if you listen to me you won't get DEETED

80% of threads this week have been 'flamewar' threads. What's the problem?

Obviously YOU take me seriously.

Actually, I don't. You're a pathetic little tool of the smear machine. Your posts never have any substantive content, even when they're original, which is rare. You cut and paste Newsmax articles ot emails from the Free Republic or some other source and then act as if you have the slightest clue as to what's going on. I'll give you this much--you're persistent. After being busted for inaccuracy as much as you have, you'd think that you'd have gone into another line of argument, but you just keep at it, day after day.

He can't lose his message, because he doesn't have one that he's settled into! And that is his real big problem, even bigger than his absolute failure to relate to the common American (sorry, even I don't spend $1000 plus travel expenses for a haircut, and I don't own a ski vacation home in Idaho...I DO own my SUV, though.) When your candidate's opinion on any issue varies depending on the day of the week and the location, that candidate has problems. ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/The New York Times might help hide that ugly little fact, but the fact remains (and will be duly reported on by Fox News/The Washington Times/Drudge Report.)And so Bush, coming from an equally priviliged background, is somehow more able to connect with the common man? Do you see how ridiculous the charges you make against Kerry sound? And did you realize that while your first post quoted a NY Times article that slammed Kerry, your last sentence still accuses the NY Times of basically aiding the Kerry campaign? You can't even get your charges of who's liberal and who's working together straight. And you expect to be credible? Learn how the media world and the political world really works and then come back with some substance of your own--not just parroted lines from Worldnet Daily.

Blah, the Drudge Distort. What a nightmare.Why is The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com) a nightmare? Maybe because it has the whole news, instead of just what the Liberal Media wants you to see?

Er, no, he's a right-wing Republican pundit and media whore who only endorses propoganda that is approved by the Party, yet still calls himself a journalist regardless of his obvious bias.


Can anyone tell me exactly what Bush's all-important "message" is? I mean, other than, "Do what I say or else."Actually, the Bush message (regarding war) is, "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists...make a choice."

So, in essence, what I said was correct. Gotcha. So, does he have any other messages or what?

[quote="Celack"]...Let's sit down and play D&D Ok?

noooooooooo not D&D...how about 5 card draw, jokers wild? :lol:

texas stud?

And who really cares anyways? Bush, Kerry, and all others running for President totally suck.

http://www.stewarts.net/zac/propaganda2.jpg

eh I'm not familiar w/ that...unless thats what you call 5 card draw w/ the jokers wild...*wonders*

Obviously YOU take me seriously.

Actually, I don't. You're a pathetic little tool of the smear machine. Your posts never have any substantive content, even when they're original, which is rare. You cut and paste Newsmax articles ot emails from the Free Republic or some other source and then act as if you have the slightest clue as to what's going on. I'll give you this much--you're persistent. After being busted for inaccuracy as much as you have, you'd think that you'd have gone into another line of argument, but you just keep at it, day after day.
I insist, you do. If you didn't take me seriously, you would have walked away a long time ago, since, in your words, I have no substantive content. But no, you're so deeply involved with a philosophy that has been proven wrong time and again, and which has been proven to make its case by force, you just can't stand it when someone like me refuses to drink the Kool-Aid and shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism and its standard bearers. After all, the #1 tenet of faith among liberals like you is, "we know better than you, therefore just shut up and color." It ain't happening here, buster. You're stuck with me for the duration.

He can't lose his message, because he doesn't have one that he's settled into! And that is his real big problem, even bigger than his absolute failure to relate to the common American (sorry, even I don't spend $1000 plus travel expenses for a haircut, and I don't own a ski vacation home in Idaho...I DO own my SUV, though.) When your candidate's opinion on any issue varies depending on the day of the week and the location, that candidate has problems. ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/The New York Times might help hide that ugly little fact, but the fact remains (and will be duly reported on by Fox News/The Washington Times/Drudge Report.)And so Bush, coming from an equally priviliged background, is somehow more able to connect with the common man? Do you see how ridiculous the charges you make against Kerry sound? And did you realize that while your first post quoted a NY Times article that slammed Kerry, your last sentence still accuses the NY Times of basically aiding the Kerry campaign? You can't even get your charges of who's liberal and who's working together straight. And you expect to be credible? Learn how the media world and the political world really works and then come back with some substance of your own--not just parroted lines from Worldnet Daily.Bush DOES have a more tangible connection to the common man than Kerry can ever dream of. Bush spent quite the amount of time in the 70's and 80's working like you and I (ok, maybe just like me) outside of any government job. Bush has been CEO of his own company. Bush made himself up from a working class man into the money he has nowadays. Kerry, on the other hand, went into the government as soon as he was able to after his 4 months in Vietnam (how many common men were able to come home from Vietnam, alive, after only 4 months??) Oh by the way, he tried to avoid Vietnam by going to school in France (hmmmm?) Kerry has married himself into more than $1 billion, between his two (or is it only one, since the other one was conveniently annulled?) marriages. How many "common men" can say that they married into that kind of money? Oh, and given how The New York Times openly roots for Kerry, the article is simply another way for the NYT to insert itself into the Kerry campaign. You can deny it all you wish...the fact remains, the NYT is an ultra-liberal newspaper, which also found its failures exposed for all to see lately. Truly a liberal rag.

And who really cares anyways? Bush, Kerry, and all others running for President totally suck.

Amen. Vote for me instead :D

And who really cares anyways? Bush, Kerry, and all others running for President totally suck.

Amen. Vote for me instead :D

Aaaaaaaaaah-yah!

There is a difference between bush and kerry, probably the same difference between bush and clinton, about 38 billion dollars of defecit. Just because mommy buys your skateboard and you look really cool using it doesn't mean that the economy doesn't matter. If you're too cool to care, shut up and dont.

TAJ

So, what person on this whole forum compilation has made an accurate, defnitive description of "liberal" and "conservative" here?
If it's about labeling anything one or the other, it should be backed up with facts.
The media is as liberal or conservative as the parent company that allows/pays for its material to be broadcast.
Anybody have any good answers for that?

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that?? All I see you doing is bashing a war hero.. :roll:

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that??

Settle down for a long wait, methinks.

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that??

Settle down for a long wait, methinks.

*nods*

You I looked at the title "Kerry doesn't need this"

Two things

1. it sounds pro-Kerry to me

2. No offence but the General Forum doesn't need this Liberal/conservative/whoever bashing. We have too many already.

So, what person on this whole forum compilation has made an accurate, defnitive description of "liberal" and "conservative" here?
If it's about labeling anything one or the other, it should be backed up with facts.
The media is as liberal or conservative as the parent company that allows/pays for its material to be broadcast.
Anybody have any good answers for that?

I'd say that the media is as liberal or conservatife as the journalist that does the reporting. Everyone has their own opinions, but some of them seep through when a person is reporting the news.

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that?? All I see you doing is bashing a war hero.. :roll:
You mean one of those guys who ACTUALLY fought in a war and has injuries to prove it?

There is a difference between bush and kerry, probably the same difference between bush and clinton, about 38 billion dollars of defecit. Just because mommy buys your skateboard and you look really cool using it doesn't mean that the economy doesn't matter. If you're too cool to care, shut up and dont.

TAJ

yes, so when the economy went down the tubes in the first few months of bush's administration, thats his fault? give me a break, this began with clinton and his economic policies, which were quick fixes, led to what we have now, additionally 9-11 which was a result of mistakes durring the '80's and allowing the CIA to train bin-laden and the rest of his bunch. oh, and by the way, wars cost money, just to clue you in. also, I ride a mountain bike, not a skate board...just leave the personal commentaries out of it and just debate on an intelectual level, as difficult as that may for someone with your level of inteligence and class.

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that?? All I see you doing is bashing a war hero.. :roll:
You mean one of those guys who ACTUALLY fought in a war and has injuries to prove it?

There is a difference between bush and kerry, probably the same difference between bush and clinton, about 38 billion dollars of defecit. Just because mommy buys your skateboard and you look really cool using it doesn't mean that the economy doesn't matter. If you're too cool to care, shut up and dont.

TAJ

yes, so when the economy went down the tubes in the first few months of bush's administration, thats his fault? give me a break, this began with clinton and his economic policies, which were quick fixes, led to what we have now, additionally 9-11 which was a result of mistakes durring the '80's and allowing the CIA to train bin-laden and the rest of his bunch. oh, and by the way, wars cost money, just to clue you in. also, I ride a mountain bike, not a skate board...just leave the personal commentaries out of it and just debate on an intelectual level, as difficult as that may for someone with your level of inteligence and class.

wait so clinton made mistakes in the 80s? and I thought he was president 92-2000...oh wait the other bush was president in the 80s. Yeah its clintons fault, after all he faught a war without a single casualty. Who got us into this vietnam? first iraq bush, second iraq bush, how many till you see the pattern toughguy

Bush will win thank God

shines a critical light on the failures of liberalism

Ok, I'm waiting still for you to do that?? All I see you doing is bashing a war hero.. :roll:
You mean one of those guys who ACTUALLY fought in a war and has injuries to prove it?

Yeah, I know, the irony.. :wink:

yes, so when the economy went down the tubes in the first few months of bush's administration, thats his fault?

Actually, first off, the official recession wasn't announced until November of 2001, after Bush's first tax cut. It can be argued that this alone might not have pushed our economy down as far as it's gone, but when coupled with the 9/11 attacks, it certainly didn't help.


give me a break, this began with clinton and his economic policies, which were quick fixes, led to what we have now,

Everyone says this and yet no one ever clearly illustrates exactly which Clinton era policies caused a recession which has now lasted four years since the man left office.


additionally 9-11 which was a result of mistakes durring the '80's and allowing the CIA to train bin-laden and the rest of his bunch.

Agreed. Regan and Bush Senior made a lot of mistakes in the 80s.


oh, and by the way, wars cost money, just to clue you in.

Yes, they do. What's particularly distressing about this war is that we have handed him a blank check and have absolutely no idea how much it's going to cost us. Consequently, as we have a huge deficit already and are in what appears to be an expensive, open-ended military campaign, why is Bush advocating for further tax cuts? As someone in another thread pointed out, this is the exact sort of voodoo spending that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Bush will win thank God

If he doesn't, will you still "thank God"? Or God only gets the credit when it's some thing you want?

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.

*runs in. Shows badge*

I'm here from the general forum fire department to stop this flame war.

And now for something completely different, a monkey in a tutu


OOK,OOK,ACK!

:shock:

Now that makes me laugh

*runs in. Shows badge*

I'm here from the general forum fire department to stop this flame war.

And now for something completely different, a monkey in a tutu


OOK,OOK,ACK!

Celack don't! Not a good idea!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

okay. i'll stop and keep from spamming or trying to stop a flame war....


i personaly feel that the media is not purely liberal or purely conservative as people claim. it is a mix each with their own spin. The only way to get the truth is to take both sides and find the similarities.

uh oh...2 mods...ok guys lets just go out back, into the ally and fight it out like in the good old days

I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy.

Okay, fair enough, but I ask you again, which exact policies are those? While in office, Clinton oversaw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. 18 million plus new jobs were created. Inflation fell to 2.5% from a 4.7% average from the previous 12 years. Economic growth averaged around 4% a year, compared to 2.8% total growth during the 12 years of the Regan/Bush administration. George W. actually inherited a fiscal surplus of $127 billion, which was gone within his first year. Which of the policies that Clinton instituted gave us this unparalleled economic growth which has now plunged us into the worst economic performance since the Great Depression?

I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy.

Okay, fair enough, but I ask you again, which exact policies are those? While in office, Clinton oversaw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. 18 million plus new jobs were created. Inflation fell to 2.5% from a 4.7% average from the previous 12 years. Economic growth averaged around 4% a year, compared to 2.8% total growth during the 12 years of the Regan/Bush administration. George W. actually inherited a fiscal surplus of $127 billion, which was gone within his first year. Which of the policies that Clinton instituted gave us this unparalleled economic growth which has now plunged us into the worst economic performance since the Great Depression?I guess you could argue that after such a long, sustained run of good economies, we were bound for a slow period, but that's about the only way I see that you could blame the 01-03 period even partially on Clinton.

But Bush has been in power for over three years now--the economy we're in is the one he's helped create, and that economy features the highest levels of federal and trade deficits, the highest levels of personal debt and bankruptcy in history, and general stagnation in the job market. Nope--this is Bush's baby. I know that his personal history suggests that someone will step in and buy him out and thus protect his investment, but I don't think even the Saudis can afford to bail him out completely this time.

Edit: I should note that I don't personally buy the argument that we were due for a major recession after Clinton--just that it's an argument that can be made. We certainly weren't going to continue to grow at the speed of the late 90s, but some fiscal sanity might have kept the recession from being as bad and extended as it has been.

I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy.

Okay, fair enough, but I ask you again, which exact policies are those? While in office, Clinton oversaw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. 18 million plus new jobs were created. Inflation fell to 2.5% from a 4.7% average from the previous 12 years. Economic growth averaged around 4% a year, compared to 2.8% total growth during the 12 years of the Regan/Bush administration. George W. actually inherited a fiscal surplus of $127 billion, which was gone within his first year. Which of the policies that Clinton instituted gave us this unparalleled economic growth which has now plunged us into the worst economic performance since the Great Depression?I guess you could argue that after such a long, sustained run of good economies, we were bound for a slow period, but that's about the only way I see that you could blame the 01-03 period even partially on Clinton.

But Bush has been in power for over three years now--the economy we're in is the one he's helped create, and that economy features the highest levels of federal and trade deficits, the highest levels of personal debt and bankruptcy in history, and general stagnation in the job market. Nope--this is Bush's baby. I know that his personal history suggests that someone will step in and buy him out and thus protect his investment, but I don't think even the Saudis can afford to bail him out completely this time.

Or, one could maybe argue it was the collspae of the dot coms that were highly over-valued in the 90's, but again, this would have nothing to do with Clinton, nor can he be blamed for it.

I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy.

Okay, fair enough, but I ask you again, which exact policies are those? While in office, Clinton oversaw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. 18 million plus new jobs were created. Inflation fell to 2.5% from a 4.7% average from the previous 12 years. Economic growth averaged around 4% a year, compared to 2.8% total growth during the 12 years of the Regan/Bush administration. George W. actually inherited a fiscal surplus of $127 billion, which was gone within his first year. Which of the policies that Clinton instituted gave us this unparalleled economic growth which has now plunged us into the worst economic performance since the Great Depression?I guess you could argue that after such a long, sustained run of good economies, we were bound for a slow period, but that's about the only way I see that you could blame the 01-03 period even partially on Clinton.

But Bush has been in power for over three years now--the economy we're in is the one he's helped create, and that economy features the highest levels of federal and trade deficits, the highest levels of personal debt and bankruptcy in history, and general stagnation in the job market. Nope--this is Bush's baby. I know that his personal history suggests that someone will step in and buy him out and thus protect his investment, but I don't think even the Saudis can afford to bail him out completely this time.

Exactly! People will swear up and down that Clinton was in league with the devil and that he's the cause of all the mess today, but when I ask exactly what he did to put us here, no one ever gives me an answer. So far, Incertonia, your initial argument is the only one I've been able to come up with and you nicely put it in perspective with your second paragraph. I just want to know what policies were so terrible. Why is this such a hard question to answer when people who can't even find their own state on a map of the US seem to know it?

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.

uhhh clinton balanced the budget, how did he destroy the economy, and who was in charge of the CIA in the 80s and why was the president at that time allowing them to slip up? Isn't the president responsible when he's a republican too?

then bush cannot be blamed for the dot com crash either..and therefore its an act of God! or perhaps stupidity on our parts...

Or, one could maybe argue it was the collspae of the dot coms that were highly over-valued in the 90's, but again, this would have nothing to do with Clinton, nor can he be blamed for it.The collapse certainly hurt the overall economy, especially where I now live, and perhaps more could have been done to rein in the exuberance in the market, but it must be noted that, for those who were listening, there were plenty of people talking about a bubble as early as 1998. Few were listening, however.

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.

uhhh clinton balanced the budget, how did he destroy the economy, and who was in charge of the CIA in the 80s and why was the president at that time allowing them to slip up? Isn't the president responsible when he's a republican too?

did I say he wasnt? we're talking about bush and kerry, not regan

I'm no moderator, but if people want to quote lies out of ann coulter and sean hannity books, can they at least explain their facts instead of broad sweeping baseless opinion. I can turn on fox news if i want to be brainwashed, I come here to listen to factual data.
TAJ (we're the bad guys)

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said CLINTONS economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.

uhhh clinton balanced the budget, how did he destroy the economy, and who was in charge of the CIA in the 80s and why was the president at that time allowing them to slip up? Isn't the president responsible when he's a republican too?

did I say he wasnt? we're talking about bush and kerry, not regan


umm bush had two of othose years too, the 80s were all republican. Also you mentioned clinton hes right there, dont you read what you write?
You like to shift the topic but I'm not allowed to? Why is it such a bad idea to compare and contrast presidents and their acomplishments? Bush has blood on his hands and Kerry has a clean slate. That alone makes him far better, although not as free to express himself as ralph nader.

then bush cannot be blamed for the dot com crash either..and therefore its an act of God! or perhaps stupidity on our parts...

But he can be blamed for tax cuts that only benefit the upper 10% of incomes to the tune of over $40 billion by 2006. He can be blamed for turning a fiscal surplus into $600 billion in debt in only two years. He can be blamed for establishing tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs. He can be blamed for doing nothing but making empty promises of job creation when his policies clearly only make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The dot com crash was bound to happen sooner or later and isn't a blame game. However, Bush's inaction since he took office is evident.

And I ask again, which policies of Clinton account for the current economic state of the US?

then bush cannot be blamed for the dot com crash either..and therefore its an act of God! or perhaps stupidity on our parts...

But he can be blamed for tax cuts that only benefit the upper 10% of incomes to the tune of over $40 billion by 2006. He can be blamed for turning a fiscal surplus into $600 billion in debt in only two years. He can be blamed for establishing tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs. He can be blamed for doing nothing but making empty promises of job creation when his policies clearly only make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The dot com crash was bound to happen sooner or later and isn't a blame game. However, Bush's inaction since he took office is evident.

And I ask again, which policies of Clinton account for the current economic state of the US?
Isn't it funny how people who like clinton base their love of him on facts, and his detractors seem to bring up god alot and have shifty eyes...

then bush cannot be blamed for the dot com crash either..and therefore its an act of God! or perhaps stupidity on our parts...

But he can be blamed for tax cuts that only benefit the upper 10% of incomes to the tune of over $40 billion by 2006. He can be blamed for turning a fiscal surplus into $600 billion in debt in only two years. He can be blamed for establishing tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs. He can be blamed for doing nothing but making empty promises of job creation when his policies clearly only make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The dot com crash was bound to happen sooner or later and isn't a blame game. However, Bush's inaction since he took office is evident.

And I ask again, which policies of Clinton account for the current economic state of the US?You won't get an answer. That's because no one can, not the conservatives; not the liberals. I don't think you'll ever get that question answered. They'll just conveniently ignore you.

Or, one could maybe argue it was the collspae of the dot coms that were highly over-valued in the 90's, but again, this would have nothing to do with Clinton, nor can he be blamed for it.The collapse certainly hurt the overall economy, especially where I now live, and perhaps more could have been done to rein in the exuberance in the market, but it must be noted that, for those who were listening, there were plenty of people talking about a bubble as early as 1998. Few were listening, however.

Yes, I totally agree.. there was much talk about it in fact, many of us who run sites that made good money from affiliate programs..seen it coming.. after the collapse.. it is hard now to make any money on the net. However, it is bouncing back, but slowly..

Isn't it funny how people who like clinton base their love of him on facts, and his detractors seem to bring up god alot and have shifty eyes...

Sigh. I know. I think I'm trying to have a rational debate with someone who's more interested in flaming. More the fool me, I suspect.

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.
Ummm some pictures for you might help you to understand the truth?

First picture is US Deficit 1972 to 2003. Remember now Clinton was 1992 to 2000, and Bush was 2001 to present:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/graphs/socecon/deficit.gif

Bush's Economic Record:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Bush will be the 1st President in 70 years to have a Net Job loss for his term in office. Last guy was Herbert (Crash) Hoover (also a Republican).

Actually the top 5 administrations that created jobs was ALL Democrat administrations.

Ohhh and Bush Jr. is on target for presiding over the largest budgetary deficit in US history.

And to boot, this comes when interest rates are at an all time low!!

did NAFTA not encourage offshore jobs as well? and did Kerry not vote for nafta?
more and more I see less difference between dems and republicans besides a willingness to go to war...frightening to think its almost like having one big party made up of the nation's wealthiest. I'm too tired for this debate, I've been up since 5 and its 12, adios

Bush DOES have a more tangible connection to the common man than Kerry can ever dream of. Bush spent quite the amount of time in the 70's and 80's working like you and I (ok, maybe just like me) outside of any government job. Bush has been CEO of his own company. Bush made himself up from a working class man into the money he has nowadays.

Are you on crack? I mean really. Do you not remember who Bush's father is? Bush's grandfather was a rich Senator who did business with the Nazis. Bush's father was a President who does business with the Bin Laden family. Dubya worked his way up from a family of oil money millionaires and had everything in life handed to him. The saddest part is that I think you probably believe some of the lies you tell.

By the way, Kerry REQUESTED service in Vietnam. That took balls. Kerry volunteered for service in war, and Bush couldn't even bother showing up for service before he got released early to attend Yale. Do you know anything about Bush at all?

Or, one could maybe argue it was the collspae of the dot coms that were highly over-valued in the 90's, but again, this would have nothing to do with Clinton, nor can he be blamed for it.The collapse certainly hurt the overall economy, especially where I now live, and perhaps more could have been done to rein in the exuberance in the market, but it must be noted that, for those who were listening, there were plenty of people talking about a bubble as early as 1998. Few were listening, however.

Yes, I totally agree.. there was much talk about it in fact, many of us who run sites that made good money from affiliate programs..seen it coming.. after the collapse.. it is hard now to make any money on the net. However, it is bouncing back, but slowly..

True. It was too long and wide an expansion not to have a contraction of equal potency. Additionally, the unreasonable ease that people could make money on the Internet in the 90s gave rise to some very...distorted business models. When the contraction occured, suddenly these models that worked during a boom couldn't stand the real pressures of a bust and collapsed heavily. Still, this couldn't be the only legacy of the Clinton administration that is affecting the US economy of today, at least to the extent that people like CKG seem to think.

TAJ actually READ what I posted this time you mook, I said 9-11 was a result of mistakes in the 1980's and that contributed to todays economy. I also said clintons economic policies contributed to today's crappy economy. next time get what was said straight before you open your mouth.
Ummm some pictures for you might help you to understand the truth?

First picture is US Deficit 1972 to 2003. Remember now Clinto was 1992 to 2000, and Bush was 2001 to present:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/graphs/socecon/deficit.gif

Bush's Economic Record:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Bush will be the 1st President in 70 years to have a Net Job loss for his term in office. Last guy was Herbert (Crash) Hoover (also a Republican).

Actually the top 5 administrations that created jobs was ALL Democrat administrations.

Ohhh and Bush Jr. is on target for presiding over the largest budgetary deficit in US history.

And to boot, this comes when interest rates are at an all time low!!

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Bush DOES have a more tangible connection to the common man than Kerry can ever dream of... Bush has been CEO of his own company.

Bush made himself up from a working class man into the money he has nowadays.

*blink*

er wha?

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

Excellent graph illustrating a point people are too full of themselves to see these days. Stuff like that should be on the front page of the paper every day instead of britney spears' new clothing line. Then people who are exposed to the media won't be so brainwashed by it, they'd just be informed.

TAJ

did NAFTA not encourage offshore jobs as well? and did Kerry not vote for nafta?
more and more I see less difference between dems and republicans besides a willingness to go to war...frightening to think its almost like having one big party made up of the nation's wealthiest. I'm too tired for this debate, I've been up since 5 and its 12, adios
Actually NAFTA created jobs for the US, as many large US investors shut down "branch plants" in Canada. Canada at the time suffered many job losses to the US.

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.

Exactly! People will swear up and down that Clinton was in league with the devil and that he's the cause of all the mess today, but when I ask exactly what he did to put us here, no one ever gives me an answer. So far, Incertonia, your initial argument is the only one I've been able to come up with and you nicely put it in perspective with your second paragraph. I just want to know what policies were so terrible. Why is this such a hard question to answer when people who can't even find their own state on a map of the US seem to know it?Part of the problem stems from the attitude--and it's almost an act of faith on the part of the punditry on the right--that Clinton was bad. Just that--bad. So therefore anything that springs from Clinton is also bad and anything that happened that was beneficial during his tenure was either blind luck or the result of policies enacted before he became president. The extension is also an act of faith--that if we're in bad shape today, it's because of disastrous policies enacted by Clinton.

The problem is that those conclusions are indeed an act of faith, because the evidence just doesn't back the claims up, not in the slightest. And there were plenty of places where Clinton failed. Offshoring of jobs, which began back during the Carter/Reagan years, continued during the Clinton years, largely because of policies like NAFTA that rewarded companies for sending jobs across the border or overseas.

I'm no protectionist, and I think in the end, NAFTA will do more good harm than good, but not until it's linked to environmental quality requirements and fair labor laws. As Howard Dean said on the campaign trail, we've globalized corporate rights but nor worker's rights, and we need to change that.

But in the end, Clinton's policies were successful more often than not. And if you look at it, Bush's have been successful as well--he's rewarded those who helped put him in office. He's made the rich even richer and he's given the cultural radicals some symbolic legislation that will never stand up to Constitutional challenge. He's hooked his buddies up. I just don't happen to be one of his buddies. But, economically speaking, I was one of Clinton's buddies, and I'll be one of Kerry's if he gets elected, because he'll owe me and the millions of others from the lower rungs of the economic ladder who put him in office.

did NAFTA not encourage offshore jobs as well? and did Kerry not vote for nafta?

Actualy, no, NAFTA did not encourage offshoring and certainly not in the droves we're seeing today with companies looking for the next Low Cost Country. US imports AND exports increased under NAFTA and new jobs were actually created in the US.

Bush DOES have a more tangible connection to the common man than Kerry can ever dream of... Bush has been CEO of his own company.

Bush made himself up from a working class man into the money he has nowadays.

*blink*

er wha?Yeah--sometimes the statements are so dumb you just have to shake them off and move on.

But Bush has been in power for over three years now--the economy we're in is the one he's helped create, and that economy features the highest levels of federal and trade deficits, the highest levels of personal debt and bankruptcy in history, and general stagnation in the job market. Nope--this is Bush's baby. I know that his personal history suggests that someone will step in and buy him out and thus protect his investment, but I don't think even the Saudis can afford to bail him out completely this time.

Edit: I should note that I don't personally buy the argument that we were due for a major recession after Clinton--just that it's an argument that can be made. We certainly weren't going to continue to grow at the speed of the late 90s, but some fiscal sanity might have kept the recession from being as bad and extended as it has been.

There's at least one aspect of the poor economcy that Bush did effect even before taking office. 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. Consumer confidence has a profound effect on the state of the overall economy.

Doesn't anyone remember what Bush did before he even took office? He started warning of a coming recession. He said we just HAD to pass tax cuts because there were warning signs of a coming bad economy. He used the power of the bully pulpit to send consumer confidence plummiting downward and everyone knew the economy was going downhill. Consumer spenidng went down, and invester mood went down too.

There are very few things a President can do to strongly impact the economy in the short term, but using the position of the presidency to convince people that the economcy is getting worse is one of those things. So, yes Bush CAN be blamed in part of the economic downturn that happened shortly after he took office. He started it by badmouthing the economy and as a result consumer spending and investor mood were seriously damaged. That put us into bad economic shape heading into 911.

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.
Perhaps this picture will help you get your head around the job picture:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_pvtjobs70.gif

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.
Perhaps this picture will help you get your head around the job picture:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_pvtjobs70.gif

I don't know what my comments about off-budget spending have to do with jobs, except for the loss of government revenues due to decreased payroll tax amounts. But the chart didn't relate to my comments that much.

did NAFTA not encourage offshore jobs as well? and did Kerry not vote for nafta?

Actualy, no, NAFTA did not encourage offshoring and certainly not in the droves we're seeing today with companies looking for the next Low Cost Country. US imports AND exports increased under NAFTA and new jobs were actually created in the US.

Last year the last factory in America that made Docker's pants shut down when the plant moved from Tennessee to Mexico. Maybe you should tell that to the workers who lost their job, and the millions of others who were put out of work when their job got exported.

Yes, new jobs were created under NAFTA and the WTO. The problem is that they are lower paying jobs in the service industry at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Thousands of families who were being supported by good paying union jobs are now living off minimum wage and welfare. In truth that is a major purpose and goal of the WTO and NAFTA: to lower wages around the world, including in the US.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.

Yes, but with the help of a Republican Congres, he can get access to the Social Security trust fund that pays out benefits and has done so to pay for his tax cuts. Additionally, his reformation of both SS and Medicare focusing on privitization has left many elderly Americans out in the cold when it comes to making ends meet and affording medical treatment and perscription drugs.

There's at least one aspect of the poor economcy that Bush did effect even before taking office. 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. Consumer confidence has a profound effect on the state of the overall economy.

Doesn't anyone remember what Bush did before he even took office? He started warning of a coming recession. He said we just HAD to pass tax cuts because there were warning signs of a coming bad economy. He used the power of the bully pulpit to send consumer confidence plummiting downward and everyone knew the economy was going downhill. Consumer spenidng went down, and invester mood went down too.

There are very few things a President can do to strongly impact the economy in the short term, but using the position of the presidency to convince people that the economcy is getting worse is one of those things. So, yes Bush CAN be blamed in part of the economic downturn that happened shortly after he took office. He started it by badmouthing the economy and as a result consumer spending and investor mood were seriously damaged. That put us into bad economic shape heading into 911.You've got a point. One would hope that the general population would understand that any politician trying to unseat an incumbent--and Gore was an incumbent of sorts--has to talk down the economy to a certain extent. But hell--20% of the general population still thinks that Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9-11 attacks, so some of them will believe anything if you tell them long enough.

Of course, the difference between now and 2000 is that in 2000, the economy was only slowing down after 7+ years of growth. Today, there really are serious problems in the economy and there have been for a while now. Kerry doesn't have to talk the economy down because it's already there.

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.
Perhaps this picture will help you get your head around the job picture:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_pvtjobs70.gif
What I find most interesting about this picture is the overall trend. All the years when job growth was highest were during Democratic administrations, and all the years when job growth was the worst were during Republican administrations. You'd think more people would have learned their lesson by now.

There's at least one aspect of the poor economcy that Bush did effect even before taking office. 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. Consumer confidence has a profound effect on the state of the overall economy.

Doesn't anyone remember what Bush did before he even took office? He started warning of a coming recession. He said we just HAD to pass tax cuts because there were warning signs of a coming bad economy. He used the power of the bully pulpit to send consumer confidence plummiting downward and everyone knew the economy was going downhill. Consumer spenidng went down, and invester mood went down too.

Absolutely right. I remember him saying all of this before he was even officially in office.

Last year the last factory in America that made Docker's pants shut down when the plant moved from Tennessee to Mexico. Maybe you should tell that to the workers who lost their job, and the millions of others who were put out of work when their job got exported.

Yes, all right, I was perhaps too hasty to defend NAFTA as some sort of godsend with no downside, although I do believe that overall it will prove to do more good than harm. At the very least, it gives us more economic stance in the face of a growing EU trading bloc.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.

Yes, but with the help of a Republican Congres, he can get access to the Social Security trust fund that pays out benefits and has done so to pay for his tax cuts. Additionally, his reformation of both SS and Medicare focusing on privitization has left many elderly Americans out in the cold when it comes to making ends meet and affording medical treatment and perscription drugs.

The tax cuts decreased revenues, and affect only the on-budget programs.

The problem with Social Security is that the system is pay-as-you-go, and not funded. We have to change that, or SS won't be worth anything to us in about 40 years. The old people without benefits should have had more children to bear the burden of giving them a fixed monthly income.

The tax cuts decreased revenues, and affect only the on-budget programs.

The problem with Social Security is that the system is pay-as-you-go, and not funded. We have to change that, or SS won't be worth anything to us in about 40 years. The old people without benefits should have had more children to bear the burden of giving them a fixed monthly income.

Agreed, but I don't see how Bush's reforms or his dipping into the existing trust fund to finance his tax cuts and now his war are helping matters any.

Go Kerry!!!!!!!!

Over 99% of the Clinton surplus was off-budget, money tied up in the Social Security and medicare.

Which have now both been raided and looted by the Bush administration.

You cannot raid and loot something like SS. It is something called "mandatory" on the budget for a reason. And Congress controls it, not the President. As with all spending.
Perhaps this picture will help you get your head around the deficit picture:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_cbo_surplus.gif

I don't know what my comments about off-budget spending have to do with jobs, except for the loss of government revenues due to decreased payroll tax amounts. But the chart didn't relate to my comments that much.
Sorry I posted the wrong picture and comment.

The tax cuts decreased revenues, and affect only the on-budget programs.

The problem with Social Security is that the system is pay-as-you-go, and not funded. We have to change that, or SS won't be worth anything to us in about 40 years. The old people without benefits should have had more children to bear the burden of giving them a fixed monthly income.

Agreed, but I don't see how Bush's reforms or his dipping into the existing trust fund to finance his tax cuts and now his war are helping matters any.

Technically...

The government doesn't raid the SS trust because the Treasury Dept. takes the revenues from payroll taxes and puts Treasury bonds into the SS account. They pay the money to those who deserve the benefits, and the Treasury Department deducts an equivalent amount of bonds. The rest of the cash goes to different programs. The leftover bonds still stay in the SS trust to cover any shorttfalls.

The tax cuts decreased revenues, and affect only the on-budget programs.

The problem with Social Security is that the system is pay-as-you-go, and not funded. We have to change that, or SS won't be worth anything to us in about 40 years. The old people without benefits should have had more children to bear the burden of giving them a fixed monthly income.

Agreed, but I don't see how Bush's reforms or his dipping into the existing trust fund to finance his tax cuts and now his war are helping matters any.
Agreed, especially when you see the effects of the "tax cuts".

I do believe that Kerry stated that he would keep the "tax cut" for those earning $200,000 and LESS, if I am not mistaken? If so, see the affect that this policy gives the high income earner. It is more exaggerated than a Bell Curve!!

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Thats a lot of dough!!

The tax cuts decreased revenues, and affect only the on-budget programs.

The problem with Social Security is that the system is pay-as-you-go, and not funded. We have to change that, or SS won't be worth anything to us in about 40 years. The old people without benefits should have had more children to bear the burden of giving them a fixed monthly income.

Agreed, but I don't see how Bush's reforms or his dipping into the existing trust fund to finance his tax cuts and now his war are helping matters any.
Agreed, especially when you see the effects of the "tax cuts".

I do believe that Kerry stated that he would keep the "tax cut" for those earning $200,000 and LESS, if I am not mistaken? If so, see the affect that this policy gives the high income earner. It is more exaggerated than a Bell Curve!!

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Thats a lot of dough!!

What Bush or Kerry say doesn't really matter. Congress does all the tax raising/cutting. All the President does is ask real politely for them to do whatever he wants.

The question is: Would a Republican Congress raise taxes to make Kerry look bad, or keep taxes the same to get reelected/make the economy better?

did NAFTA not encourage offshore jobs as well? and did Kerry not vote for nafta?
more and more I see less difference between dems and republicans besides a willingness to go to war...frightening to think its almost like having one big party made up of the nation's wealthiest. I'm too tired for this debate, I've been up since 5 and its 12, adios
Actually NAFTA created jobs for the US, as many large US investors shut down "branch plants" in Canada. Canada at the time suffered many job losses to the US.

Yeah, NAFTA is a poor excuse.. What's it been in Canada here Canuk? 8 years in a row (maybe 9 now) of budget surplus? Trade surplus has been running at a surplus for about a decade. Out-sourcing of jobs are not coming to Canada either.. they're going to India and places like that. Our minimum wage is also higher then the United States, even after you take into account the difference in the dollar. So, NAFTA doesn't explain it.

Has any one thought yet of the obvious reason? Umm, maybe it's Bush?

I do believe Steph that this year will be the 6th straight year of Debt decline in Canada. That is a pretty good record considering increased federal expenses for health care, tax cuts, and education improvements.

What Bush or Kerry say doesn't really matter. Congress does all the tax raising/cutting. All the President does is ask real politely for them to do whatever he wants.

The question is: Would a Republican Congress raise taxes to make Kerry look bad, or keep taxes the same to get reelected/make the economy better?
That is what I like about politics in Canada. When you elect the government, it comes as a complete package. If at the end of 4 or 5 years tops, you don't like the package you change it.