Democratic standstill

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I don't see the problem with preventing global warming.

 

Except for the fact that we can't prevent it. Recent studies suggest that carbon dioxide does not drive climate change, but actually the reverse. Warmer temperatures lead to more carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a pretty lousy greenhouse gas anyways, and doubling it wouldn't affect global temps more than 0.5 degrees or so. Water is much worse, which is why during El Nino years when there is more water vapour in the atmosphere it delivers sort of a sauna effect on the earth. Lowering the amount of CO2 emissions wouldn't do dick. CO2 actually aids in plant growth. If we ever get the Brazillians to stop cutting down the Amazon, it would help us bring the rainforest back that much quicker.

 

The temperature increase over the past hundred years can largely be attributed to the increase in sunspot activity. Actually, if you trace the sunspot cycles back through time you will notice that the temperatrue mimics it. More sunspots means that the sun gives off more radiation.

 

The other main cause for global warming is the increase in large cities which create heat sinks. The albedo of concrete is very low, and ends up absorbing most of the energy from the sun, thus increasing the temperature over the surrounding countryside. Unless we stop living in cities, the temperature will increase.

 

Also, global warming doesn't affect summer temperatures much at all. The warmest summers on record occured in the 1930s. The change is in winter, where the temperature doesn't get as cold on average as it used to. At the equator the temp doesn't change (it was the same there during the last Ice Age as it was during the hothouse world of the Cretaceous) because of air circulation. Temperate regions would actually improve with global warming because of a longer growing season. The problem occurs with the poles. Antarctica's Circumpolar Current will prevent it from warming up enough to mean anything (it will be for example -30 instead of -32 or something similar). It is still too cold to melt. The polar ice caps are on the ocean so melting them wouldn't mean anything aside from the local wildlife population. Greenland is a concern, but it isn't big enough to do much.

 

In short, Kyoto is based off twelve year old climate models and needs to be updated and revised before anything is implemented. There are ways to help combat regional warming (global warming is pretty much out of our hands), but Kyoto does not address them at all.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I will submit to your superior knowledge about Kyoto, but I also believe we should have drawn up a counterproposal instead of pointing our noses at the sky and saying "NO!!!"

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I will submit to your superior knowledge about Kyoto, but I also believe we should have drawn up a counterproposal instead of pointing our noses at the sky and saying "NO!!!"

I agree. They need to get more knowledgable people on the subject. It is too early to draft a new accord. More research needs to be done on it first, but just to say 'No!' is rediculous.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm in the process, as are you.

 

Unfortunately, I seem to be more informed on quite a few issues than you do. Go figure. Guess age doesn't matter much, does it?

Cute. Untrue but cute.

 

He is also a liar. Bush's $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut has nothing to do with the downfall in teh economy, know why? Because the vast majorit of it has not been instated yet and won't be until '08. 

 

 

"And yet, the portions of it which have been instituted have been utterly destructive."

 

In what way? Everybody who pays taxes got a rebate. No one got more than $500. The only problem is that we haven't cut spending enough. Bush signing Ted Kennedy's education bill was a big mistake.

 

Prisons alone don't work, and even you know that. They have to be coupled with treatment. (especially in drug-related crimes).

 

Another condesending flame.

 

I dont' think there is any realistic or effective wat to get criminals to stop breaking the law. Drug treatmetn is ok, but most of the prisoners just go to meetings to get "good time" so they can get out and do drugs again. I've seen and I know many people who have been in and ou of jail. Most of them are beyond help because they can't control their most animalistic impulses. Ane th first thing they do when they get out is to go get drunk and do whatever drugs they were doing before they went in and then shitting their pants when their parole officer gives them a drug test.

 

The circumstances were quite different. Tax cuts aren't the way to go for our nation right now, unless they're payroll tax cuts (which immediately give more money in the hands of consumers).

 

Explain the difference between Vermont's situation and America's current one.

All taxes should be cut IMO. The more money that everyone has to spend the better for the ecomony.

 

He's not speaking about Vermont.

 

What is he speaking about then? It is even harder to believe that the country has lost 20% of its wetlands in just 2 years.

 

Really had nothing to do with the war. It's more of a stance on Global Warming, which was... well, what the topic at hand happened to be. Perhaps we front the bill, but even if we do, it's going to help the environment. I don't see the problem with preventing global warming.

 

"Unilateral" has been the buzz word for the Dems to throw around at Bush about the war for the last 6 months. It's untrue but that has never stopped them before. Presumably he wrote this stuff in the last few months and chose to pop the buzz word in. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

Kahran put down the whoe Kyoto thing so there is no use in that. This whole concept of "saving the environment" is unbeleivably arrogant.

I think that we should reduce some of our pollution but imposing all these expensive standards on the 3rd world would kill any business they have going, even with our help.

 

I don't think it'll be as tough as you think.

 

Bush's re-election numbers, even facing an unnamed-as-of-yet democrat, are only at 55% right now. It's going to be a close race either way, and I think Dean is the way to go.

 

We'll see what happens. "Unnamed Democrat" means very little. Once they name one and the numbers start to come out I'll pay attention to the polls.

 

Assuming that the Iraqi war goes well, which is has so far dspite some people claiming otherwise, it's only been a week. The President never said that this would be a cake walk, in fact he's said just the opposite many times but that's neither here nor there. The ecomony starts to turn around, which it will. Reagan built it up, Clinton, Gore's whining, and 9/11 have torn it down. Give it a little time. Nothing happens over night.

If those 2 things happen then Bush will go on for another 4 years. I'd be very suprised if they don't and he doesn't.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Cute. Untrue but cute.

 

Spouting off Limbaugh rhetoric does not make you informed.

 

In what way? Everybody who pays taxes got a rebate. No one got more than $500. The only problem is that we haven't cut spending enough. Bush signing Ted Kennedy's education bill was a big mistake.

 

No one got more than $500? What about the Capital Gains Tax rebate, which returned BILLIONS of dollars in back taxes to companies like Enron? Oh, must've forgotten about that, right?

 

Hmm, it's amazing how those things slip your mind. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOVERNMENT MONEY going STRAIGHT back to the companies which abuse it the most. Wonderful decision, eh? I'm sure that really helped the economy.

 

Another condesending flame.

 

Not hardly.

 

Who's complaining about "AD HOMINEM" attacks now?

 

I dont' think there is any realistic or effective wat to get criminals to stop breaking the law. Drug treatmetn is ok, but most of the prisoners just go to meetings to get "good time" so they can get out and do drugs again. I've seen and I know many people who have been in and ou of jail. Most of them are beyond help because they can't control their most animalistic impulses. Ane th first thing they do when they get out is to go get drunk and do whatever drugs they were doing before they went in and then shitting their pants when their parole officer gives them a drug test.

 

In the state of California's test of this system, not only did prison expenses go down, so did drug-related crimes. I'm in class and can't document the actual source, but I am very confident it was the case.

 

Explain the difference between Vermont's situation and America's current one.

All taxes should be cut IMO. The more money that everyone has to spend the better for the ecomony.

 

1. Vermont was not at war.

 

2. Vermont managed to balance their budget with this tax cut as well. Bush sure as hell can't manage that.

 

What is he speaking about then? It is even harder to believe that the country has lost 20% of its wetlands in just 2 years.

 

How is that unbelievable? Bush favors business over the environment. It's a well known fact.

 

"Unilateral" has been the buzz word for the Dems to throw around at Bush about the war for the last 6 months. It's untrue but that has never stopped them before. Presumably he wrote this stuff in the last few months and chose to pop the buzz word in. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

You're wrong. Look at the context.

 

Kahran put down the whoe Kyoto thing so there is no use in that. This whole concept of "saving the environment" is unbeleivably arrogant

 

So we should continue to DESTROY it? It's one extreme or the other, really.

 

I think that we should reduce some of our pollution but imposing all these expensive standards on the 3rd world would kill any business they have going, even with our help.

 

Not really, they just push the costs onto the consumer.

 

Assuming that the Iraqi war goes well, which is has so far dspite some people claiming otherwise, it's only been a week. The President never said that this would be a cake walk, in fact he's said just the opposite many times but that's neither here nor there.

 

It's a little early to assume the war will play a large, or even any, role in the election. Frankly, our nation is not comprised of chicken-hawks; they're not going to push for another war no matter what. Providing the war doesn't fail or isn't still going on, the only way that this will be an issue is if the Dem candidate completely and utterly ignores national security. I can't see that happening.

 

The ecomony starts to turn around, which it will. Reagan built it up, Clinton, Gore's whining, and 9/11 have torn it down.

 

What the fuck ever. That's an utter cop-out, and a bad one at that.

 

While Reagan did a great job to make short term boost in the economy, it was his spending which lead to the stagnation in Bush I's reign of power. Clinton inherited that, balanced the budget, and created more jobs than any other administration in history. Even taking into account inflation, the average salary for all Americans increased more than in the 12 Bush-Reagan years. Ditto the jobs.

 

He even cut taxes (although not as radically as Bush) and managed to keep the budget in check! He put us in position to eliminate the national debt by 2009.

 

The economy is cyclical, and yet, Bush has still done an utterly piss poor job. Pass the blame all you want; remember, when you point the finger, four point right back to you.

 

Bush has as much himself to blame as anyone.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I know I'm late on the subject, but I think right now a Lieberman/Edwards ticket has the best shot at beating Bush...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The economy was not bad when Bush took office, though. It was in a slag, yes, but it was not horrible. 9/11 sure didn't help, but all Bush offered for the economy was telling people to go shop. Those were his words of wisdom. Oh and the tax cuts that didn't really help one bit, yet Bush wants to further that plan.

 

As far as running a liberal candidate. I am not saying the Democrats should go get a lefty liberal, but the one HUGE ISSUE that will probably still be stuck in everyone's mind is the war, and there NEEDS TO BE OPPOSITION. I'd say the War and the Economy are two things that the Democratic candidate should be critical of, since that is what most americans are gonna identify most with in the 2004 elections(barring something else major going down before then). Other than that, the democrats and republicans can stick to their middle of the road agenda.

The stock market was already in total freefall. Economic growth was miniscule. Unemployment was on the rise. The economy was bad and, remember, Bush got BLASTED for even mentioning it in 2001.

 

The economy isn't really in "terrible" shape. The economy isn't great --- but the entire world isn't doing well. We're doing better than almost anybody at present. And more tax cuts will ONLY help.

 

America doesn't support anti-war candidates. Vietnam was, easily, our least popular war and the anti-Vietnam War candidate in 1972 got curb-stomped. This war IS popular (and the press no longer gets the free pass from slanting the news that it got back then) and that won't change.

 

And, until the Dems provide an alternative idea outside of carping, they will get no traction whatsoever.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Where did I ever take the stance that "REPUBS RULE, YO!!!!!!!!!!!". Hell where did Iever say I was a Republican?

 

I commented on Kerry, because I have seen the guy as Senator of my state. I didn't comment too much on the others because I don't know all that much about them. Besides that from what I've seen of them they are uncharismatic and boring. I read the Dean website and I'm unimpressed with him. he seems like just another tax and spend Dem. Universal healthcare doesn't work and is not popular. Remember Clinton losing big on that one?

 

I do know that he is a doctor though, as he sees fit to remind us in every other sentence.

 

Dean runs an uncomplicted and very small state. They have low crime because they have very few people and no large cities.

 

Gay unions is another unpopular stance that he supports.

 

What exactly is "creative diplomacy"? Carter/Clinton style appeasement? He says in tha National Security section that we ahould use the military as well to protect ourselves from terrorism, well that what's the President is doing. Why does he oppose it?

Here's why:

If a policy of containment, coupled with UN inspections, is sufficient to protect our interests, that is preferable to the inherent bloodshed and unpredictable consequences of war. If war does prove necessary in self-defense, we must lay out the evidence in advance and do all we can to minimize civilian casualties and protect our troops and allies from the risks of chemical and biological attack. We must also forge the broadest possible coalition not only to win the war, but also to create a secure, stable, united and democratic Iraq in its aftermath.

 

Containmetn didn't work, the UN refused to back it's own laws and we have the broadest coalition possible. Bush laid out the evidence way in advance of the attack and teh UN still refused to be a part of this. We are also minimizing civillian casualties as well as our own. He's full of shit.

 

He is also a liar. Bush's $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut has nothing to do with the downfall in teh economy, know why? Because the vast majorit of it has not been instated yet and won't be until '08.

 

He cut taxes in Vermont, yet argues that tax cuts are bad for the country. Huh?

 

He says that prisons don't work. What are we supposed to do with criminals then?

 

I tend to agree with him on gun laws. It's a state decision to make, not a national thing.

 

I assume he's pro-choice (the link won't work) and that's fine with me.

 

And this Administration has gutted the Clean Water Act, resulting in a loss of 20% of our wetlands.

 

I find it very hard to believe that Vermont (presumably) has lost 20% of it's wetlands during int eh last 2 years.

 

That is why we must take another look at the Kyoto Protocol to find ways to cooperate with other countries instead of opposing them on issues as monumentally important to the earth's future as global warming. In an act of diplomatic and environmental petulance, the Bush Administration wrongly refused to look at the agreement. While there are legitimate concerns about provisions of the agreement - particularly with regard to the level of commitment of developing nations - such a foolish, unilateral move was the wrong way to achieve our long-term objectives.

 

I'm sure that Bush never looked at it. Bullshit. he read it and decided that AMerica would pay virtually the whole bill and get little in return. Clinton never signed it and neither did any other country for that matter. In what otehr way than "unilateral[ly]" can one country refuse to sign a treaty? That was a pot shot at the war, an incorrect pot shot but it was one nonetheless.

 

Lieberman is another waving Dem, like Clinton he changes his mind depending on who is in front of him.

 

I really think that Sharpton is the way to go. The Dems are going to have a hard time winning and sending out a sure loser will help their party in teh long run. It will shut up Sharpton (assuming anything could shut this clown up), who the Dems hate and give them four more years to get these other guys known on a national level.

 

EDIT:

"Birthday: 16 May 1984 "

 

Assuming that is your birthday it would make you 18. How did you manage to get a college degree at such a young age?

1) Dean comes across as, well, a prick. He's like Gore in that regard. I, personally, would love to see him win the nomination. Again, I hate those close races.

 

2) Carter/Clinton appeasement was an absolute disaster. Clinton's appeasement has left us with the current wave of problems we have internationally right now.

 

Heck, that mainland Europe loved him so should show how inept he was internationally.

 

3) Thank you for finally mentioning that. Bush's tax cut really hasn't taken ANY effect since it was backloaded. It was MAJORLY backloaded. Tax cuts NEVER lead to weaker economies. Not once in history has that been the case.

 

4) Wetlands? Well, when you consider how absurd the definition of what a "wetland" was (Arizona had numerous wetlands), I MIGHT buy it. That's largely because the definition has been made more realistic. It's no longer simply a means for the gov't to take away one's right to use one's land without providing ANY compensation.

 

5) Bush opposed the Kyoto Accords (which, again, A LOT of countries haven't exactly followed) because it was bad for the U.S.

-=Mike --- since this is almost becoming an issue for others, I'm a double degree holder in Political Science and History from the Univ. of S. Carolina

[Guest Crazy Dan]

If history serves me right, in Sept of 1987, the stock Market came crashing down. This has been attributed to the huge deficit that Reagan ran up. Bush Sr was also a victim of this, as he looked over a recession after the war, and on top of it signed one of the biggest tax hikes in US History, which in turn ensured him losing to Clinton. The Clinton years saw a balance of the budget and a actual improvement in the economy. Towards the end of Clinton's presidency, our economy began to come back down to earth.

 

And Bush Jr is not to blame for it. But when Bush Jr looks like he is going to explode the deficit, it reminds me of Reagan. There might be a short term relief, but it will come a crashing down, and more than likely the youth of America will have to front the bill. To me, when you offer huge top-heavy tax cuts, and run up a huge deficit, it going to spell trouble for who ever is President is at the time. And if this happens on Bush's watch, he is to blame. That can be a problem when you have Congress and the Senate compile a majority, you can't use the "well he had "insert opposition party name" Congress/or Senate to deal with."

[Guest NoCalMike]

The stock market fall could have been attributed to the Bush/Gore election fallout because there was uncertainty in the country, the same uncerntainty that arose right before we went to war because we kept hearing a different story everyday about what was going to happen. Once we actually went to war the stocks rebounded, but now they are going back down again. So I think it is safe to say the stock market has been on shaky ground for the last 2 years.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

If history serves me right, in Sept of 1987, the stock Market came crashing down. This has been attributed to the huge deficit that Reagan ran up. Bush Sr was also a victim of this, as he looked over a recession after the war, and on top of it signed one of the biggest tax hikes in US History, which in turn ensured him losing to Clinton. The Clinton years saw a balance of the budget and a actual improvement in the economy. Towards the end of Clinton's presidency, our economy began to come back down to earth.

 

And Bush Jr is not to blame for it. But when Bush Jr looks like he is going to explode the deficit, it reminds me of Reagan. There might be a short term relief, but it will come a crashing down, and more than likely the youth of America will have to front the bill. To me, when you offer huge top-heavy tax cuts, and run up a huge deficit, it going to spell trouble for who ever is President is at the time. And if this happens on Bush's watch, he is to blame. That can be a problem when you have Congress and the Senate compile a majority, you can't use the "well he had "insert opposition party name" Congress/or Senate to deal with."

In '87, yes, there was a huge one-day loss.

 

The market ALSO quickly rebounded. It was a correction -- the same thing we've been dealing with now, just that the '87 correction was resolved much quicker because the market wasn't as WILDLY overvalued (heck, internet are just now making profits) and there wasn't as much fundamental mistrust as there is now.

 

And Reagan passed a tax HIKE in '86 --- let's not forget that.

 

Clinton never balanced a budget. Clinton's budgets had $200B deficits for, well, forever. The REPUBLICANS in the Hous balanced the budget. Clinton's last budget proposal before the GOP takeover featured nothing but $200B deficits. He happened to be in office when the economy rebounded (which it did in 1992, contrary to what Clinton said at the time).

 

The economy will ALWAYS have ups and downs. We cannot eliminate that, though we do try. Cutting taxes works --- worked for Kennedy, worked for Reagan, and will work for Bush when they finally actually go into effect. The deficits will go up now because the military and intelligence was gutted over the last 8 years and we're in a war --- so we have obligations to deal with now.

 

ANY tax cut will be "top-heavy" because the top pay the most taxes. You cut EVERYBODY'S taxes 5% and the top tax payers will get the biggest cut in terms of dollars because they also pay the most. It's hard to cut taxes for the poor since they don't really pay anything --- ditto the middle class.

 

Quite honestly, I'd rather us eliminate the income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The stock market fall could have been attributed to the Bush/Gore election fallout because there was uncertainty in the country, the same uncerntainty that arose right before we went to war because we kept hearing a different story everyday about what was going to happen. Once we actually went to war the stocks rebounded, but now they are going back down again. So I think it is safe to say the stock market has been on shaky ground for the last 2 years.

The market was falling all during 2000 (as somebody pointed out, the Enron employees who griped about losing their retirement money when the company went belly-up didn't really have MUCH to complain about since they had already lost the vast majority of their money before then) and it was largely because venture capitalists realized that most internet companies were unprofitable. When they started pulling back the money, the dot-coms faltered and died and it killed NASDAQ and severely injured the NYSE. Add in the Microsoft anti-trust problems and you had a recipe for disaster.

 

And, I still place most of the current problems on the fact that people don't TRUST the revenue reports of big companies anymore. There is a deep, fundamental mistrust and until that gets handled --- and I have no clue how it CAN be handled --- the market won't be robust.

-=Mike

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Bush got BLASTED for even mentioning it in 2001."

 

I remember Snoozeweek's Johnny Alter raking Bush over the coals -- the column was titles "Thanks ever so much, President poor-mouth" (or something like that).

 

I wonder if Alter did the same when Clinton said in '92 that we were in the worst economy in 40-something years...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Clinton never balanced a budget. Clinton's budgets had $200B deficits for, well, forever. The REPUBLICANS in the Hous balanced the budget. Clinton's last budget proposal before the GOP takeover featured nothing but $200B deficits. He happened to be in office when the economy rebounded (which it did in 1992, contrary to what Clinton said at the time).

 

Support that.