The W
Views: 100792466
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.11.07 0232
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Anyone Catch the debate?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(1626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (45 total)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 111/330
EXP: 395070
For next: 9705

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3864 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#1 Posted on 4.5.03 1403.44
Reposted on: 4.5.10 1405.07
Anyone catch the Democratic debate last night? I don't think Gephart has a chance in hell...he got hammered last night on his new big health care plan. As a side note, it's really annoying when Democrats promise to
"save" social security...everybody knows it's going to go bankrupt when the baby boomers retire. In polls, over 74% of Americans say they want to choose what they do with their social security money...any candidate that tried to push a move to Chile's system could get a big boost. Oh well....If I had to pick now, I think John Edwards is going to win the primary.

(edited by Michrome on 4.5.03 1407)
Promote this thread!
Cerebus
3-time W of the Day!
Level: 109

Posts: 798/3486
EXP: 13636006
For next: 323684

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#2 Posted on 4.5.03 1456.18
Reposted on: 4.5.10 1457.31

    Originally posted by Michrome
    Oh well....If I had to pick now, I think John Edwards is going to win the primary.


Hehehe... I guess all those conversations with the dead have helped him.

IT'S A JOKE!!!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1363/3033
EXP: 11319933
For next: 151512

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 4.5.03 2033.39
Reposted on: 4.5.10 2034.38
Edwards? I doubt it. Personally, if the primary was tomorrow, I'd vote for Dean, but I hope Kerry gets it. Those two are the only two I think will actually fight back next fall. (Well, Sharpton will fight, too, but, well, come on...) I'm worried it's going to wind up going to Lieberman, though.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 83/274
EXP: 301438
For next: 6675

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3883 days
#4 Posted on 4.5.03 2258.20
Reposted on: 4.5.10 2259.01
Anyone catch the Democratic debate last night?

Yeah. In order:

Most Electable: Tie between Howard Dean and Bob Graham, who both made their electoral stance clear - Dean is the "social progressive/fiscal conservative with actual leadership experience" candidate and Graham is the "I'm conservative but not George Bush's personal dick-sucker" candidate. Either could pose a serious challenge to Bush if they get the nomination.

Biggest Surprise: Al Sharpton was actually coherent. Weird. He's not a leader or anything, but he made a few good points, which for him is practically a miracle.

Dullest: Three-way tie between Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Carol Mosely-Braun.

Most Full of Shit: John Edwards. (Not necessarily a detriment to being elected - Clinton was always full of shit - but Edwards doesn't have Clinton's charm or style.)

Most Well-Defined Platform: Dennis Kucinich, which isn't surprising because he doesn't have a chance in hell so he can afford to not waffle.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1396/4700
EXP: 21659956
For next: 176706

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#5 Posted on 5.5.03 0559.33
Reposted on: 5.5.10 0601.41

    Originally posted by godking
    Most Electable: Tie between Howard Dean and Bob Graham

OK, Graham I'll give you, but Dean? Are you serious? Dean is from the far left-wing of the Democratic PArty; not as far as Kucinich, but out there in the rarified air of George McGovern. Dean doesn't stand a chance because the electorate is trending conservative as a whole, and while that doesn't necessarily mean a GOP rout, what it does mean is that the voters want strong conservative military policy. Dean hung himself with that ocmment about "not always having the strongest military in the world" even if it is out of hte Clinton playbook.

Dean has a good chance to win the nomination. What worries me about Dean is not 2004. I worry that he will be undertaking a suicide mission a la Goldwater 64 that pays off in the long run for the Dems.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 85/274
EXP: 301438
For next: 6675

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3883 days
#6 Posted on 5.5.03 0949.33
Reposted on: 5.5.10 0953.30
OK, Graham I'll give you, but Dean? Are you serious? Dean is from the far left-wing of the Democratic PArty; not as far as Kucinich, but out there in the rarified air of George McGovern.

I'd disagree. Remember that Dean is very much a fiscal conservative - his arguments for a smaller military are entirely along the lines of "look, we really can't afford to keep paying for this," and his Medicare arguments are likewise predicated along lowest-cost arguments - a single-payer system is cheaper and more efficient than the multiplayer system the USA uses right now, so why not try it out on kids and see how it works out?

Dean doesn't stand a chance because the electorate is trending conservative as a whole

The electorate, I'd argue, is moderate, but appears to skew conservative because of support for the war in Iraq being adopted as a "conservative" position. Drop that, and the electorate starts to go seriously left. And, if you match up a fiscal conservative like Dean versus a economic idiot like Bush, whose monetary policies have actually caused a rift between the Republicans and Alan Greenspan, Dean looks better.

Furthermore, the Republicans also have the "Santorum problem" - they're betting that race- and gay-baiting won't hurt them. They made the same bet in 1996 and lost big - the reason Bush did so well in 2000 (IE, slightly less than half the popular vote) is because he spent the entire campaign downplaying his fundamentalism and saying he wouldn't touch abortion rights and stuff like that, and he's spent three years now attempting to turn the government into a near-theocracy. Most people really aren't comfortable with the social aspects of the far-right wing of the Republican party, and they're playing that up this year - which historically backfires on them.

Finally, there's the "just plain folks" thing. Dean and Graham are the only guys who have the same folksy "I could sit down with this guy for a beer" thing that Bush (and Clinton) can summon at will. That counts for a fuck of a lot.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 133/810
EXP: 1529055
For next: 48500

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#7 Posted on 5.5.03 1053.34
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1055.20
And, if you match up a fiscal conservative like Dean versus a economic idiot like Bush, whose monetary policies have actually caused a rift between the Republicans and Alan Greenspan, Dean looks better.

Fiscal conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with monetary policy. The Fed sets monetary policy so Bush's feelings about monetary policy are irrelevant. Furthermore, Bush Sr. had a pretty rocky relationship with Greenspan and criticized him fairly often (mostly by trying to pin the brief recession on the Fed in order to avoid blame). Clinton, on the other hand, seemed to get along well with him. Greenspan has been nonpartisian all along, and I would expect that to continue as long as he's chairman.

If you're going to call someone an economic idiot, you should support that assertion with at least a little substance. Even more importantly, you should not mix up your economics' terminology while doing so.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1037/2042
EXP: 6331176
For next: 61623

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3065 days
Last activity: 279 days
#8 Posted on 5.5.03 1105.02
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1112.23
Regarding Dean, how many "far-left-wingers" have gun-control stances like this?

"If you say "gun control" in Vermont, Tennessee or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California."

"I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want."
(clipped from deanforamerica.com)

Dean's a little harder to pigeonhole as "liberal" or "moderate" than many politicians. Depends on what issues you're talking about. So far, he's got my primary vote (not that it won't be long decided by the time I get my say), and he's got my monetary donation.

EDIT: As for the others...

KERRY: I'm not sold on him yet. He's the favorite right now, but I can't think of anything that make me sit up and say "YES! I MUST vote for that man!" He and Dean are taking shots at each other regularly (Kerry's hearing footsteps behind him), which will be interesting as the months go by.

LIEBERMAN: Holy Joe has one thing and one thing only going for him -- name recognition, from the 2000 run. He will fade, and fade big. If he somehow manages to snag the nomination, I will write in either Carrot Top, John Elway or Johnny Knoxville (haven't decided yet), and the progressive of the Democratic voter base will stay home in droves.

EDWARDS: Is having enough problems staying over 50% approval in his home state. His sizable war-chest will keep him in the fight for a while, but he won't win.

GEPHARDT: Dick did such a good job leading the Democrats to gains in the House over the last decade, didn't he? He'll poll well in Iowa, fare decently in New Hampshire, then drop like a stone.

SHARPTON: Must be wondering when the clock will strike twelve, his chariot will turn back into a pumpkin, and people will go back to not taking him at all seriously.

GRAHAM: Will be a front-runner for Veep, not for the Presidency. As soon as he explains himself for being a primary author of the PATRIOT Act, he'll have my attention.

KUCINICH: America says "Who?", drinks and goes home.

My money (at this very early stage) is on Kerry-Graham or Dean-Graham as the ticket.


(edited by vsp on 5.5.03 0915)
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 87/274
EXP: 301438
For next: 6675

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3883 days
#9 Posted on 5.5.03 1526.58
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1529.02
Fiscal conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with monetary policy. The Fed sets monetary policy so Bush's feelings about monetary policy are irrelevant.

Certainly - I was being inaccurate. Let me rephrase - Bush is an idiot whose economic policies in general - as opposed to the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve in specific - are driving the United States into economic ruin.

If you're going to call someone an economic idiot, you should support that assertion with at least a little substance.

The unemployment rate has increased steadily for the last three months, he's calling for tax cuts at the same time as he hyperinflates government spending, and thirty-seven of fifty states are bankrupt and he won't authorize transfer payments. How's that for substance?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1401/4700
EXP: 21659956
For next: 176706

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#10 Posted on 5.5.03 1551.43
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1555.27

    Originally posted by godking
    thirty-seven of fifty states are bankrupt

What does Bush have to do with states that overspend? The reason that Maryland is in the red is because the budget exploded during his administration due to the Democrats "Spend and Tax" policy.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 89/274
EXP: 301438
For next: 6675

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3883 days
#11 Posted on 5.5.03 1611.33
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1612.23
What does Bush have to do with states that overspend?

The point being that the federal government, in times past, has maintained a reserve specifically to help the states if this ever happens and Bush is refusing to use it now. Mostly because he can't afford to do it.

Incidentally, a few more stats for you:

- Over the last three years: 26% loss in Dow Jones Industrial Average, 48% loss in NASDAQ, 33% loss in S&P 500.

- 9% increase in consumer debt to all time high of $1.74 trillion.

- 25% increase in overall bankruptcy filings, 8% increase in business bankruptcy filings, 26% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

- 2.5 million jobs lost in the last three years.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 135/810
EXP: 1529055
For next: 48500

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#12 Posted on 5.5.03 1612.04
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1612.33
The unemployment rate has increased steadily for the last three months, he's calling for tax cuts at the same time as he hyperinflates government spending, and thirty-seven of fifty states are bankrupt and he won't authorize transfer payments. How's that for substance?

I realize it doesn't seem this way, godking, but I really don't mean to pick on you. First off, I'm not a fan of Bush's economic policies so, to a large degree, I agree with your basic premise.

However, having said that...First off, I don't think a rise in the unemployment rate for 3 months is cause to label someone an economic idiot. That is an extremely short time frame and many of the things that cause these type of fluctuations are beyond the control of the President. Secondly, hyperinflation is used to describe a monthly increase of at least 50 percent. Bush is not increasing government spending at that rate. Thirdly, just because 37 states are going bankrupt does not mean that he should send them money. If they were more fiscally responsible and managed their higher tax revenues of the 1990s more responsibly then they would not be having these type of problems. Lastly, you are misusing the term transfer payments. Transfer payments are direct payments from the government to citizens (welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc.) and have nothing to do with payments from the federal government to the state government. I guess I'm just saying that you need to be a little more careful in the terminology you use.

If you want to criticize Bush's policy, here are some salient points. First off, his international trade policies are a nightmare. He increased the steel tariff, he has increased farm subsidies (even past what Congress requested) and did both of these things within a week of telling Peru, Argentina and other South American nations about the importance of free trade and open markets. He has talked about using free trade and ending tariffs as a tool of promoting democracy. Yet, his actions do not match this (I posted a thread about this).

In regards to his tax cut, Bush either does not understand it or he misrepresents it. He talks about the policy creating jobs and allowing our economy to grow. However, the proposal will not help the economy in the short-run. Around 2% of the benefits of the policy will be realized in the first year after it is passed. Yet, he continues to sell the law as an economic stimulus package that Americans need now.
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 213/743
EXP: 1385268
For next: 12917

Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 780 days
Last activity: 780 days
#13 Posted on 5.5.03 1831.01
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1836.07
godking, I'm just wondering. If you're from Toronto, why do you have a particular interest in US politics?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1402/4700
EXP: 21659956
For next: 176706

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#14 Posted on 5.5.03 1918.25
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1924.54

    Originally posted by godking
    The point being that the federal government, in times past, has maintained a reserve specifically to help the states if this ever happens and Bush is refusing to use it now.

The point exactly. The stats are spending so goddamned much that they are relying on nonexisting sources of income as justifications for paying for it i.e. federal help, tax increases that are yet to be passed, etc. Which leads me back to the original question; why is it Bush's fault if states overspend?


    Originally posted by godking
    Over the last three years: 26% loss in Dow Jones Industrial Average, 48% loss in NASDAQ, 33% loss in S&P 500.

    - 9% increase in consumer debt to all time high of $1.74 trillion.

    - 25% increase in overall bankruptcy filings, 8% increase in business bankruptcy filings, 26% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

    - 2.5 million jobs lost in the last three years.


If memory serves me correctly, three years ago the President was William Jefferson Clinton...
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 112/330
EXP: 395070
For next: 9705

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3864 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#15 Posted on 5.5.03 1922.43
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1927.29
"a single-payer system is cheaper and more efficient than the multiplayer system the USA uses right now, so why not try it out on kids and see how it works out?"

There are many reasons, but how about this one: It is unconstitutional.

And by the way, all Greenspan said was that any tax cuts have to come with spending cuts as well. This is just a basic conservative fiscal position, something Bush seems unable to grasp.

Bush's fiscal problems have nothing to do with the tax cuts, the problem is that he spends more than Democrats, and is unwilling to cut anything. Name a program he has destroyed since coming into office. He passed the biggest farm subsidy ever, and he is supposedly a conservative. In addition, he expanded Title 1, a program that is absolutely not working (a common trend).

Greenspan said just the other day that the economy is poised for growth, and while the stock market is generally not directly related to the status of the economy, the fact that it has been up for 3 weeks straight is a good sign. Of course, Bush could let people actually keep their money and save for their own retirement, but that would bring out the big 4 letter word...wait for it...privatization. It is working brilliantly in Chile, and with the rate of return on the stock market over the last 45 years, people turning 65 today would have hundreds of thousands of dollars, instead of paltry social security checks coming in monthly.

In addition, it's absurd to act as if this recession started when Bush came into office. It started in March 2000.

(edited by Michrome on 5.5.03 1723)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1040/2042
EXP: 6331176
For next: 61623

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3065 days
Last activity: 279 days
#16 Posted on 5.5.03 1955.23
Reposted on: 5.5.10 1955.54

    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    godking, I'm just wondering. If you're from Toronto, why do you have a particular interest in US politics?


If YOU had a next-door neighbor who was big, rowdy, prone to violent and unpredictable behavior, known to have violent enemies, and who generally had an I-rule-the-world-so-get-outta-my-way attitude most of the time...

...wouldn't YOU want to keep a close eye on him, at least so you'll know when to duck?
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 91/274
EXP: 301438
For next: 6675

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3883 days
#17 Posted on 5.5.03 2151.59
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2153.52
Grimis:

Which leads me back to the original question; why is it Bush's fault if states overspend?

The federal government is supposed to send some money the states' way to begin with. That's why there are federal departments for, among other things, education, housing, health, the environment, and social services - despite that most of these things are handled on a lower level primarily by the states. Bush tightened the valve, which is fine and his perogative.

BUT, times are shitty, and it's also the perogative of the federal government to send money to the states when times suck ass. One of the reasons for massive unemployment right now is huge public sector layoffs that the private sector simply can't absorb, and we're not talking useless union bulk but rather key jobs like teachers and social workers.

You can say "it's not Bush's fault that the states overspend" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's been done, and the state economies are a shambles, and now it's his job to pitch in and help out and he's refusing to do it.

If memory serves me correctly, three years ago the President was William Jefferson Clinton...

The actual stats in question go back to Bush's inauguration. Saying "three years" sounds better than "two and a half" - and frankly, most of the statistics are better for Bush if spread out over three years rather than two and a half anyway.

Michrome:

There are many reasons, but how about this one: It is unconstitutional.

On what grounds? Is this the point where you trot out "states' rights" again? That's easily circumvented, as you well know.

If you're from Toronto, why do you have a particular interest in US politics?

Two reasons.

1.) What vsp said - American politics directly influence Canadian politics. The major reason we haven't legalized marijuana yet is a series of thinly veiled threats from the USA, for example.

2.) The same reason I watched WCW circa 2000-2001. Flashes of brilliance amidst a swirling morass of yick, and it's curiously fascinating, both the good and the bad. We don't have outright crazies like Rick Santorum here. We have to make do with yogic flyers.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 115/330
EXP: 395070
For next: 9705

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3864 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#18 Posted on 5.5.03 2321.00
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2322.22
It's unconstitutional because healthcare is not listed as an issue the federal government has jurisdiction over in Article 1, Section 8. Of course, by this definition, welfare and social security are unconstitutional as well. We do a lot of things that are unconstitutional, and I wish that would change.

I don't think we will ever have a government takeover of healthcare in America. In fact, I think a reduction in government interference in healthcare will occur before further involvement. If we moved to a nationalized health care system (like the Hillary one), that would mean that the government would take over 1/7 of this nation's private industry, and Americans won't accept that. Look at the backlash when Hillary tried it early in the Clinton years, it lead to a huge Republican sweep in 94. More than anything else, this principle remains strong in America: While we want to help the destitute, the average citizen should have to earn whatever goods or services he wants, and is not entitled to anything outside of his/her inalienable rights. As long as that principle remains, a socialized healthcare system will never exist here.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 136/810
EXP: 1529055
For next: 48500

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#19 Posted on 5.5.03 2327.20
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2329.03

    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    godking, I'm just wondering. If you're from Toronto, why do you have a particular interest in US politics?


I can't speak for a Canadian here, but I'm guessing it's for similar reasons that the average person (that I know) in Mexico City seems to follow U.S. politics more than the average person I know in Dallas. Not only do the politics of the U.S. influence the politics of the rest of North America, but the economic performance of the U.S. is probably has a bigger impact on our neighbor's economic performance than any other variable (and please correct me if I'm mistaken about the impact of this on Canada--I know that Mexico's economic performance is largely driven by their northern neighbor. My guess is that this is true for Canada as well, albeit to a lesser degree).

Personally, I wish that I knew half as much about Canada, its history and its politics as most Canadians know about the U.S.
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 463/948
EXP: 2002641
For next: 94522

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2481 days
Last activity: 2481 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on 5.5.03 2328.25
Reposted on: 5.5.10 2329.04
Guys....

The stock market (and measuring sticks) really don't have much of a direct effect on the economy. It's a great measure of consumer confidence, though. The only thing you'd be able to conclude from it (at least to me) is that consumer confidence has gone down since Bush has taken office (among other things, such as 9/11, a prolonged growth spurt (think bubble-bursting), etc.).

And godking, there is NO amount of money that the federal gov't could give Tennessee that would get this state out of the crapper. None. Heck, we had monetary problems during the late 90's.

Only 56 days until the state shuts down again....
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: The religious right and the environment
Next thread: Palestinian diplomat exposes Israel's crimes in Iraq
Previous thread: This can't be good
(1626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Anyone Catch the debate?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.203 seconds.