John Kerry vs GOP Congressmen

[Guest EricMM]

Again, let me repeat, is there any proof that directly because of Bush's actions the economy was impacted so that joblessness increased to record highs, or is it that something decided in 99 and 00 led towards a messed up economy in 01. I just don't get the feeling that the pres can rush anything especially when he had a dem congress. I'm guessing that had Gore won that election, we'd still have had the worsened economy we're in now.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Might want to take the chip off your shoulder after you extract it from your brain.

 

Nice to meet you, too.

 

Look, kid, I understand from your other posts in this forum that you have this mental image of me as your Nemesis, but the fact is that I don't know who you are and I don't really care.

 

I consider neoconservativism as, perhaps, the biggest danger to our country's health and prosperity. Perhaps that could be definied as my nemesis, but nothing more. If you act like a neocon (which that article is... well, rather a great example thereof), then perhaps that prophecy will come true. As of right now, though, I don't really care either. You made a "sharply funny LOLZ" comment, and I responded with a like-minded sharp response. Okay, perhaps not sharp, but angry. Forgive me.

 

The article is obviously humourous, and adequately summarises the chances of any Democratic candidate in 2004.

 

Not hardly. It's typical neocon humor which, sadly, is rather misguided.

 

It's tasteless in the same way as if I posted an Onion article.

 

As for "trickle-down economics..." no one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, or President Reagan's superb leadership, would bother to use that term.

 

What term would you use, then? Supply side economics? It's the same evil, just with different terminology.

 

or President Reagan's superb leadership, would bother to use that term.

 

It's hardly a Reagan creation or a knock on him (although, he did employ it as a theory, sadly).

 

It simply doesn't refer to anything that was ever real.

 

So, in other words, giving the majority of tax cuts to the rich is... a liberal conspiracy? I thought we banned Rob.

 

Try dropping melodrama class and taking something worthwhile in your college instead, if you're really in one.

 

Ah, ad hominem. How I missed thee.

 

Congrats on being a belligerent knee-jerk twit. Lose the attitude and there's a chance that might change.

 

Someday.

 

Ibid.

 

Welcome back.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Again, let me repeat, is there any proof that directly because of Bush's actions the economy was impacted so that joblessness increased to record highs, or is it that something decided in 99 and 00 led towards a messed up economy in 01.

 

Fiscal irresponsibility leads to stagnation in the economy. It happened to Reagan (albeit, far more delayed in that it actually hurt Bush I), and it's happening to Bush II. He's also got a piss poor team of economic advisors, which helps little to none. Perhaps you may believe that a president can't actually *hurt* an economy (which is debatable), but he's sure as HELL not helping it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Forgive me.

Okay.

giving the majority of tax cuts to the rich is... a liberal conspiracy?

The vast majority of taxes are paid by the rich; therefore, the vast majority of any even vaguely reasonable tax cut will go to the rich. I believe someone else already explained this to you in an earlier thread.

And a balanced budget isn't necessarily desirable in the first place. It tends to weaken the currency and the country rather than strengthening either; it is in geopolitical terms the converse of a trade imbalance. The economy continues to grow at a perfectly healthy pace, considering that it comprises well over 40% of the world GDP. Our global dominance is literally rewriting the rules of economics day by day.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, and the logic behind it (that they're re-invest the money into corporations, creating more jobs) really doesn't happen in practice. I've made this argument in other threads, and since you're reading up in them, it doesn't need to be said again.

 

However, a better solution would be to cut payroll taxes, which would in effect give the consumers more money to spend and buy said products. This would, in itself, create more jobs too... one would think. It also doesn't waste as much potential revenue.

 

Also, even if you argue that a balanced budget isn't good (which defies some logic, but regardless), you can't deny that OVERSPENDING is still a very bad thing. We're being swarmed with debt, and that needs to be addressed.

[Guest EricMM]

That's one of the things I haven't been able to form an opinion on as of yet.

 

The talking heads on the news argue at each other forever and ever about the economy. It's better to give the money to investors. No, it's better to give the money to the spenders, the middle class and the poor.

 

It's confusing when both sides have people that are paid much more than I am to think about these things, yet mightn't one of them be totally wrong?

 

It does make sense that if companies have more money they will use that money to promote R&D so that they can produce more goods at a cheaper rate, or advertise more, or something like that. Basically companies can't horde money they have to spend money to make money.

 

It also makes sense that if people have more money they will spend it on things they can afford, ergo buying more things, ergo helping out the Targets and the K-Marts out there, which in turn help out the producers, etc etc.

 

It's all very confusing. Can we figure it out?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No.

 

 

The problem with the reinvestment theory is that it doesn't take into account the sheer fact that business is used as a medium for profit... thus, the owners of the business often absorb the extra profit given by tax breaks.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

cut payroll taxes, which would in effect give the consumers more money to spend and buy said products. This would, in itself, create more jobs too....

Also, even if you argue that a balanced budget isn't good (which defies some logic, but regardless), you can't deny that OVERSPENDING is still a very bad thing. We're being swarmed with debt, and that needs to be addressed.

Oh, absolutely. I believe taxes should be cut across the board - corporate, gains, payroll, everything. Let's get rid of all the bloodsucking leeches in Congress creating National Peanut Appreciation Days and Byrd Byproduct Buildings. Overspending isn't something you should be blaming the President for, of all people.

 

Incidentally, the total number of unemployed people in the United States is estimated at 8.4 million by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is nowhere near as bad as it may sound because it corresponds to a mere 5.8% of the population. Any other country in the world would be begging for that statistic on its knees. Furthermore, the working week has increased by 0.2 hours to 34.3 hours, which obviously has an impact on employment figures.

[Guest EricMM]

That doesn't make any sense at all though. Maybe if it was some sort of huge conspiracy(~!) but in the COMPETITIVE economy, if you just sit on your money, or embezzle it, or whatever, and I use it to increase my production or decrease my costs, in a few years I will have a total edge over you. You will start losing money to me. And I will still be making money off tax cuts and you won't. But it won't just be me doing this. Business is constant competition, and even if I beat a company, there's always someone else to compete with.

 

So a business that sits on money will fail. You may think that C.E.O.s will just soak up the money and take million dollar golden parachutes when their companies fail, but I think that those are the exceptions.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

in the COMPETITIVE economy, if you just sit on your money, or embezzle it, or whatever, and I use it to increase my production or decrease my costs, in a few years I will have a total edge over you.  You will start losing money to me.  And I will still be making money off tax cuts and you won't...

So a business that sits on money will fail.

Absolutely correct: this is called the judgement of the free market. The economic theories didn't fail; corporate oversight failed. CEOs &c must be made accountable to their shareholders, and this is one of the few areas in which I believe the government has a legitimate and constitutionally defensible interest in private enterprise.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fair enough. We agree on something; that may be rare. I think anyone with a brain can document the dangers of pork barrelling and overspending to increase departmental budgets... but it'll never be curtailed, because after all, the constituents love their congressmen bringin' home the bacon.

 

If we took ahold of that, we could, feasibly, afford cutting taxes across the board and ensuring that we keep spending under wraps.

 

In regard to the unemployment issue, it does look good when compared to other countries. However, if we contain the scope to our own nation, these numbers are still quite high (the highest in 9 years, as documented by the article I posted earlier). Even the most hardcore supporter of the current economic policy would have to concede that this is, at the very least, a reflection on the state of the economy right now.

[Guest MrRant]

Some of the people I know who are unemployed still are unemployed not because there are NO jobs.

 

They just don't want to work them because they feel it is "beneath" them.

 

I call them lazy fucks and they deserve to be poor.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Then why did BLS report more jobs being created under Clinton than Reagan/Bush (who subscribed to supply-side)? It was a relatively substantial number (I believe 3-4 million more jobs created under Clinton's 8 than Reagan-Bush's 12), which is somewhat contradictory to the typical supply-side theory. Even if you give the credit of that extra 4 million to the internet jobs, Clinton still created about the same or even more jobs under his administration in 8 years as did Reagan-Bush in 12. Perhaps giving him sole credit for this is unwise, and I'd credit his economic team more than anyone, but regardless...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Some of the people I know who are unemployed still are unemployed not because there are NO jobs.

 

They just don't want to work them because they feel it is "beneath" them.

 

I call them lazy fucks and they deserve to be poor.

They were obviously laid off or fired at some point in time, though.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We agree on something; that may be rare.

Doesn't have to be.

In regard to the unemployment issue, it does look good when compared to other countries. However, if we contain the scope to our own nation, these numbers are still quite high... Even the most hardcore supporter of the current economic policy would have to concede that this is, at the very least, a reflection on the state of the economy right now.

That's not an unfair statement, as long as we keep the state of the economy and current economic policy separate.

[Guest MrRant]

Fuck them. They aren't taking a $25,000 job because they think they still deserve their old $30,000 job and won't settle for less while I as a tax payer am giving them a check? Fuck that shit.

 

I'm all for giving some help in a tranistion but I'm not going to finace ANYONE for 6 months.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Hmmm. You raise an interesting point.

 

I'd probably respond by saying I disagree with most/all administrations who employ a supply-side economic policy, and it's my opinion that it will not improve the economy much, if at all. I think the president's economic team, in addition, is rather inadequate. However, I concede that this is just my opinion (and is shared by about half of the economists out there... the other half, of course, agree with Mr. Bush and his theories), and since I don't exactly have a degree in economics, I can't really say with any certainty that this is true. All I can do is cleverly spin statistics in my favor, as is likely the case with anyone not named Alan Greenspan.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fuck them. They aren't taking a $25,000 job because they think they still deserve their old $30,000 job and won't settle for less while I as a tax payer am giving them a check? Fuck that shit.

 

I'm all for giving some help in a tranistion but I'm not going to finace ANYONE for 6 months.

How long are you willing to support them, then?

[Guest MrRant]

1 - 2 months. It doesn't take that long to get a job even if you have to work retail for a little bit.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fair enough.

 

However, there ARE some industries in which recovery is tougher and may require more than 1-2 months... and from personal experience with relatives, it's hard to sustain a living based on a retail job.

[Guest MrRant]

Cut your expenses. I have had to do it before. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to get that $45,000 dollar Expedition.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Haha, but when you've already bought it and your luck runs out, you're fucked.

[Guest MrRant]

Trade it in. Get something cheaper if you know you may not have that job. I know some who have done that and some that haven't. Even simple things like maybe reducing your cable tv to just basic and going back to dial up.

 

Haha.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The debt monster still haunts you in the end, even if you trade it in

 

Agreed overall, it's possible to cut expenses and move on... but that's not to say everyone's smart enough to do that.

[Guest EricMM]

And that is the public's responsablility how?

 

I think one of the things taught in highschool should be basic business and money sense. People need to understand things like investing and taxes and CREDIT CARD DEBT.

 

I mean since we're teaching NSL Govt, basic business sense is just as important.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I think one of the things taught in highschool should be basic business and money sense.  People need to understand things like investing and taxes and CREDIT CARD DEBT.

Since there's so many people who don't manage their money correctly. That' s not a bad idea.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ok getting this topic back on track. As far as Kerry's comments. It was most likely a dumb move to refer to the administration as a "regime" but besides that blunder, the message behind the statement was simply what ever hopefull candidate says every 4 years. No more, no less. Anyone candidate trying to oust the current president is gonna call for a change of the administration currently occupying the whitehouse. What is so "unpatriotic" about that? I thought we lived in a democracy. I guess the rules change and opposition is not allowed when we are at war.

 

As far as Democrats winning in '04. If they are smart all they need to do is ask ONE SIMPLY QUESTION. Is america in better shape now, then it was when Bush took over in 2000. Obviously the answer is no. You see, that question will defeat Bush, because how is Bush going to respond, "umm, I have a war to worry about, how can I do both at the same time?" Also, when we are finished with Iraq the 6-8 months following will play a huge role in 2004 elections.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Again, I'll remind you --- far-left candidates DON'T win.

 

They haven't in a long, long time.

 

If the Dems wish to push a non-moderate, feel free.

 

I hate close elections.

            -=Mike

Yeah, but ideally Kerry could change the minds of the moderates.

"Sure, we may disagree on the war, but can't we agree that (social security) (campaign finance) (corporate reform) (economy)?"

The war should have nothing to do with the election, seeing as the war will be over in a week or two. Sure, he can have a stance on it, but making more out of it than it should be will do more harm than good.

BUT --- it appears he'll have to run hard left to win the Democratic nomination. He can try to backtrack after the fact --- but that wouldn't be ideal.

 

That's going to be a huge problem for him --- especially with idiots like Sharpton and Mosely-Braun in the field.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Take the late Mr Kelly's advice, gentlemen. Any Democratic candidate in 2004 will be nothing more than a waste of time, money, and vast amounts of hot air.

[clue]What was Bush I's popularity rating during and after GW1? Hint: Higher than Dubya's.[/clue]

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Take the late Mr Kelly's advice, gentlemen. Any Democratic candidate in 2004 will be nothing more than a waste of time, money, and vast amounts of hot air.

[clue]What was Bush I's popularity rating during and after GW1? Hint: Higher than Dubya's.[/clue]

Yes, it was. And that is why I don't say Bush is guaranteed to win.

 

However, the Dems have a REAL weak field. They got lucky that many of their "top dogs" decided to sit out in 1992 because they probably would've smoked Clinton --- but Cuomo would NEVER have won a national election.

 

That isn't the case here.

 

Edwards is nothing special. Dean is nothing special. Kerry will be lambasted. And the rest of the field is just a series of bad jokes.

-=Mike