Chances of a Democrat win in '04?

A couple of times I have been responding and by the time i get done there are 5 more posts that have occured while I was typing......

 

I know you are a college student who doesn't want to hear from his elders but it is not wise to go around assuming that those that disagree with you have no idea about how the world works. I know that is a common right wing rhetorical tool, but it's hogwash. People disagree, yes. But there is rarely a correct view on issues of politics and economics - there are just differences of approach. You will find very educated economists and political scientists, even Nobel laureates, who will disagree with your opinion and surely that can not be out of their ignorance. It scores you no points and makes you no friends to present your case by telling others they have no idea what they are talking about.

Having said that, I suspect there is no such thing as "natural cyclical swings of an economy". Nothing moves without a force acting on it. Sure, part of it is simply bad luck for Bush, bad timing. But fear of change to a Bush administration was one such force that acted on foreign investors to get out of u.s. markets: whether you like it or not, they prefered Clinton's policies and had more confidence in his intelligence and abilities, were afraid of Bush's and what they'd do to their investments here and so bailed out. Many Americans started doing the same. When people are not confident in the economic future, they won't invest/spend.

Anyway, it's a very complicated subject on which many experts have written books. You can surely find one saying that none of the current economic problems are Bush's fault and surely I can find one saying it's all his fault. The truth, if there is one, is probably in the middle, as usual.

It's always good to see a right winger use Warren Buffet to support their argument, since Buffet is a liberal democrat who said he'd give up every dime of his fortune if it would guarantee a Bush loss in the election, ha! (yeah, yeah, we know he wasn't serious because it would probably only cost him 1/4 of his fortune to guarantee a Bush loss).


-Slim

 

Thanks Ya redneck Cracker

 

Oops. Sorry for confusing Tifosi and Nibblesworth. I just assumed that anyone who spoke like that must be young. Most of us, as we get older, realize that the most important thing we've learned is how much we don't know. And then the mr. know-it-all attitude falls away. It never crossed my mind that an "old dude" would play the "you don't know anything about anything" card to pump up his own position.

Oh well.

-Slim

 

Well since we're on the subject, a few more things to clear up for Tifosi:

You've got to be joking. Sure, the USA does provide opportunity for go getters. But we are not unique in that. Have you lived anywhere else in the world? I have.

I don't know where you got that. I haven't had a "boss" since 2000. I work for myself. Though at the moment I'm more interested in other things than seeking wealth and so don't work all that much. I pick and choose my projects pretty carefully and go all out on the ones I do take but when they are done, I slack again and hang with the kids and my wife and play in my band and go surfing and whatever. You know, live. In other words, I don't particularly have the "dream" you mention.

-Slim

 

Don't worry about nibbles views much, he's just an ex-marine that still hasn't learned to think for himself.



Here's the natural swing of the economy.

 

randall, good chart. guess the apple does not fall far from the tree!! looks like another failed bush business endevour. tifosi, i assure you there are lot's of folks on this site that have a fair understanding general ecconomics. i am one that has a bit of backround in finance but am curious as to how you see the growing nat. debt handled? who and how will it be paid for...and at whose expense.

also explain to me the difference between reaganomics and credit card spending? seems to me that you can spend all you want but there does come eventually..the bill!

i did my grad work at wharton but admittedly did not have the endurance to stay or go to complete my p.h.d. shine some light please.

pcb

 

>remain as neutral as my stomach allows

The phrase "co-conspirator is anything *but* neutral!
It is always used in a criminal context.
And that makes you intellectually dishonest. Period.

>someone says something is FACT

So where are your *facts* about criminal conspiracies??
Plu leeze, give me a break. Next you'll have Bush hiding behind the grassy knoll.

And, FYI, I *did* read All the President's Men. Long ago. I did not support that Rebublican president - I support this one.
And I will vote for him.

 

I know Warren Buffett is a liberal, however he has the sense to know that you have to have a real business to BE in business. Nevertheless, it was George Soros who said that by the way.

 

nice chart. funny how that seems to coincide with the start of medicare. hmmm. a govt program that exceeded projected costs by over a 100x's. anyway its meaningless unless compared to a chart of US GDP. the chart for mortgage debt would also look the same.

one could also argue that the spike was the effect of the "huge" bubble engineered under the clinton adm. of which we have been seeing the results of the past few years. we want quality sustainable growth. what happened to all those jobs, stock market gains, tax revenue??


here's my response rants:

george soros is a felon convicted of insider trading in france... of which he dismisses their rule of law on that subject but suggest we should take their advice elsewhere

warren buffet - has cryed foul on all sorts of subjects but ironically in many instances fails to follow in berkshire corporate practice, ex. no stock options for many employees, doesnt pay a dividend, ridiculed the govt for issueing a specific type of debt and then berkshire later issued it itself.

as far as the environment, its cleaner or as clean as it has been in the last 50 years. seems to be no reasoning with these environmental types who insist on only their way. the bush adm has reversed a very simple executive order issued under the closing months of the clinton adm that forced utilities/plants to upgrade to the most recent standards by classifying items such as normal maintanence/parts replacements as "major modifications" (which had not been common policy for the past 20+ yrs). clintons didnt like the fact that these plant were continuing to operate under the "grandfather" clause and were not updating. in response, and in way to avoid the regulation, plants were doing only minimal items to underskirt the regulations. plants were also not expanding because to do so would have subject the entire plant to the newer regs. the bush adm addressed this. all of which has been labeled "a gutting of our enviromental laws"

they complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs (of which they have been steadily dropping for decades) as they should as we move from an industrialized nation to a service/information one. want to go back to the early 1900's and complain about the loss of farmers? want to see jobs really move overseas - implement the "kyoto protocol" - would have put us at a HUGE disadvantage to the rest of the world.

henry ford jr - a man in pursuit of power for powers sake. biggest problem with this country is career politicians - do anything, say anything to stay in power. why would say sen corzine from NJ spend $40 MILLION to get elected. hmmm, former goldman sachs guy, should know a good return on investment when he sees it.

as far as the comment of my wanting to take us back to the middle ages. not quite. i want my fellow americans to take responsibilty and shoulder the burden that they are quite able to and refuse. the little guy is being looked out for in this country. our poor are rich compared to world standards. we are fatter and lazier than ever. they have tv, $100 sneaker, escalades and the Dish.

didn't hear anyone ***** about SUV's when clinton was in power. funny, my expedition is a '98. that'd mean ford started design in lets say '95. did marketability, design studies '93 to '94. clinton elected '92, hmmm.

the clinton's were offered osama by the sudanese. they passed.

social security is a pyramid scheme backed by the US govt.

as far as the dollar. it is well within historical ranges and has only dropped significantly against the euro. not the yuan, yen, aud. all are major trading partners

there are more "created millionaires" in this country vs, the inherited ones (ie kennedys)

NUMBER 1 FERRARI CHAT FALSEHOOD

high taxes hurt the rich. Wrong !! THEY STOP YOU FROM BECOMING RICH. good ole ross perots sits atop billions invested in tax free munis. joe blow making $100k a year trying to save his money gets taxed out the ass at 60% plus rates. while the bottom 50% lay claim to his hard work. go figure.

thats all.

 

That could not have been stated more eloquently !!! It's always amusing to me how the ultra-wealthy leftists (aka Marxists/Communists) think that the plight of those "left behind" (I heard Russell Simmons utter these words last night in an interview) dictates that we need to REDISTRIBUTE wealth to "those less fortunate" by threat of government force. Yet at the same time, all the do-good liberals who are SO compassionate, SO feeling, SO understanding have no compunction whatsoever about there own wealth, whether it be made by the sweat off their own brow, or inherited (like the son of the bootlegger, the true gangster that gets an eternal pass while guys like me with names ending in a vowel have to suffer the ignorance of hearing Godfather and Sopranos jokes 24 hours a day, but old Teddy, the murderer, is part of the American Royalty --- pull-eeze), or they married into it like John F.Kerry (notice how he started using the F, as if that makes him a de-f facto member of that liberal fantasy known as "Camelot")

The left believes everyone who has succeeded, except for themselves of course, has done it through lying, cheating and stealing, and therefore are obligated to take what they have EARNED and GIVE it to someone that has not. Which jackass said a year or so ago, that the rich are "winners of life's lottery"? I think that pretty much sums it up, don't you? I have been in business and on the earth long enough to know that there are rotten apples in EVERY barrell, however, I believe that the basic tenets of political philosophies are fairly set in stone and they are only altered when some candidate needs to court some new newly emerged fringe element, the kind that are constantly springing up in this politically correct country daily now. TRUE, both right and left candidates kiss ass and in doing so often compromise their principles. I am VERY OBJECTIVE, I am very dissappointed in SOME of the spending programs the Bush administration are implementing. However, I believe that at the end of the day, the principles the right extolls: rugged
individualism, pick yourself up by the bootstraps, work your ass off and you can accomplish MANY great things, do not tax to death ANY person, whether they make $10,000 or $10,000,000 because the person who knows what's best for their money is the one that EARNED it, are indeed the best principles. I believe the President is feeling the need to cave to a degree to a lot of special interests, that's unfortunately politics today. Have any of you dems read the Federalist papers? Alexander Hamilton wrote to be wary of FACTIONS, for in placing the needs of a few over the needs of the many, we can surely bring about our own destruction as a nation (I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the point)

 

Tifosi sure is a big fan of the old straw man, ain't he?

 

Actually SLIM, I am not enamored with the "straw man" as you call him. I am smart enough to know ALL candidates from either side of the aisle have there own weaknesses, drawbacks, and usually in the case of Dems, VERY STRANGE pecadillos. Nevertheless, I believe in the Republican tenets, NOT a particular man, and as such feel that the conservative agenda most closely resembles my own philosophies and is better prepared to serve not only the best interests of me and my family, but also the country as a whole.

 

I was refering to "straw man argument" in which one argues against a position the other person (e.g. democrats) don't actually hold. By refuting this other position - usually easier to dispute and/or more extreme - it is imagined that the real position was also refuted. But you have not described the "left" as I experience, nor the beliefs of the democratic party.

For example, you say "The left believes everyone who has succeeded, except for themselves of course, has done it through lying, cheating and stealing, and therefore are obligated to take what they have EARNED and GIVE it to someone that has not." I know that's kind of a cute thing to say but it's an unfair rhetorical tool because the "left" does not actually believe that. Similarly, should I say that the "right" believes "that the government, instead of asking people to pay their way through taxes, should borrow all the money it wants right now and burden our children with the results," it might score some points with those on the left but I don't think those on the right would recognize that as something they'd consider to be an accurate description of their true beliefs and policies.

-Slim

 

I suppose those are the tenets of the right, but let me make a few comments:

Sounds great. However, where the right and left differ is in what to do about the playing field. Rather than favoring those yet to make their riches, the right often leans towards protecting those who have already gotten there. The left, on the contrary, seems to believe at a certain point, enough is enough and it's time to put some emphasis on allowing others to get rich or simply provide for a decent standard of living in a country with cleanish air and water and access to health care. The left has also worked to bring others into a position where they have the chance to work hard and get ahead (the civil rights movement for example), while the right seems to be satisfied with a more "old boys club" approach. Once they reach the top, individuals will say things like "what the hell do i need public education for or medicare or affirmative action or property taxes or corporate audits?" and, yes, they don't need them. But they benefitted from them on their way up and the dems are just asking for these things to be left in place for others to utilize on their way up.

Until it comes to what they can and can't do with their bodies in the privacy of their own home or what they can express in art, music, cinema, and so on. Right? Until the Republicans distance itself from the religious element, they will always be seen as the moral big brother trying to tell us what to do with our lives.

Sure. The difference comes in what individuals are allowed to spend them on. Often times, the elite are tempted to spend their monies in ways that are negative to the population at large. In fact, it's almost natural for them to do so, especially on the corporate scale where maximize profits is the purpose of business. Therefore the left seeks to grab a few of their dollars to support programs that attempt to provide for the common good, such as the EPA, the national park system, public education, etc.

There are those who will argue that the current world situation that is requiring the spending is at least somewhat due the actions of our government and the past administrations as well (I'm not Bush 1st or Clinton cheerleader). As I always say, everyone loves Norway. I'm all for spending money on the war on terrorism. I just think that Iraq had little to nothing to do with that. Pushing Iraqi oil back onto the dollar from the euro might have some positive effect on our economy in the long run and prevent the domino effect of the rest of opec going to the euro and if so, that's a possible positive effect of our adventure in Iraq. About the only one I can think of.

 

Oddly enough, I was watching Fox News the other day.. something I rarely do, but it was one of their financial round tables where they were just talking stocks. One of the guests said something I'd never thought I'd hear someone say... to paraphrase: "One thing I really like about this economy that no one has mentioned is that the companies are really doing everything to improve profits, including outsourcing jobs. This is good for the shareholders and helps the bottom line...." I had to laugh, then of course I turned it off.

-R

 

Good points Slim, and I agree wholeheartedly about the religious right !! Anchors around the necks of the Republican party. I do not agree however, that the right doen't want to let you do with your body what you want. Obviously we are talking abortion here: let's be a LITTLE intellectually honest, shall we. You cannot say that the state's right to execute someone who has taken another life is morally wrong and reprehensible and then in the same breath say a woman "has the right to choose, the power over her own body, reproductive "rights" (funny, I missed that clause of the Bill of Rights) blah , blah, blah and all the other Dem mantra. 'Splain that one Lucy !!

We can both agree to disagree but let's be fair with eachother and admit the basic platforms of the left are filled with far more intellectual holes than that of the right.

 

Any reactions to the Bush interview on MTP yesterday?

god_amn does he come across as a gigantic idiot or what?

Even you Right Wingers have to admit this man is no speaker and certainly no intellectual.

And if you're going to dodge the war --and I don't blame you for it -- then do it right. Go study in England and smoke some weed, don't join the National Guard and then work out an early discharge to attended Yale. _ussy <cough> _ussy <cough>

Luke.

 

Does that make any more sense than saying "no man has the right to kill a fetus, but man can kill a fellow man if he has committed a crime?"

Isn't a life a life in God's eyes? Certainly all the bible thumping Right Wingers believe that basic tenant??

Luke,