Landslide 2004....

[g5man]

November 13, 2003, 8:29 a.m.
Red America
How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."

There's been a lot of talk about recent studies showing a decline in the percentage of American voters who identify themselves as Democrats.

Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, "the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.

That's very bad news — if you're a Democrat — but what does it actually mean?

Just who are those voters who have switched party affiliation? And perhaps more important, where are they?

As it turns out, many are right where Democrats don't want them to be — in the swing states that could determine the winner of next year's presidential election.

In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it's 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it's 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it's 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.
Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it's 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

And in the most important swing state of all in 2000, Florida, Democrats used to enjoy a 38-33 advantage. Now, it's 37-36 in favor of Republicans. That means Bush might be able to build on his 537-vote landslide.

"Republican gains have come across the board, both geographically and demographically," the Pew report says. "There have been increases in Republican party affiliation in nearly every major voting bloc, except among African-Americans."

And even though Democrats still have a tiny 31-30 advantage nationwide, that may be of little use next year.

"Because Republicans traditionally turn out to vote in higher numbers than do Democrats, the current division in party affiliation among the public could provide the GOP with a slight electoral advantage," the Pew report says.

Much of the discussion about the study has emphasized its conclusion that the United States remains deeply divided politically.

Some commentators have suggested that the study says the country is even more deadlocked than it was in 2000. "The red states get redder, [and] the blue states get bluer," wrote the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne.

Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

Why is it happening? Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie has an obvious partisan stake in the situation but nevertheless offered a cogent analysis in a recent memo to party leaders.

"As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote, "and as it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry, it gets smaller."

Ask Democrats and they'll tell you the Pew numbers don't reveal much about anything. The Democrats point out, reasonably, that party affiliation will not matter if more and more people decide not to vote for Bush.

"The number we'll be watching is the number of people who vote for or against President Bush," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch.

Welch pointed to a recent Marist College poll that found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year, while 38 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him.

"Unless you're a bean counter worried about registration, this is what matters," says Welch.

Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him.

And the trends in party affiliation in the swing states that went to Gore in 2000 suggest that it's going to be harder for a Democrat to win those states in 2004.

Count all those beans together and they could mean big trouble for the next Democratic nominee.

— Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where this first appeared.

[Dont Hurt Me]

add to that a very liberal Howard Dean and it dont look good for the demo's. i would rather big Al run again and i dont mean Al Sharpten though he is a cool mac user.

[Thanatoast]

A Republican accused Democrats of being elitist? What?

Pot. Kettle.

Unfortunately, the guy might have a point. I didn't realize so many states were so close last election. Well, I suppose as long as Bush keeps pandering to business interests, lying about Iraq, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy I really shouldn't worry. But I do.

BTW, I would vote for Al Sharpton, if for no other reason than that he scares the bejeezus out of the establishment. :D

[mactastic]

Shows the need for more than a 2 party system.

[pseudobrit]

Hmm. I wonder where this trite dreck was dredged up from -- freerepublic?

Sanfelipe the propagandist strikes again, and I still ain't buying it.

How about some reputable news, instead of bubblegum nonsense?

Besides, we all know Bush will win the election when Diebold makes sure those Democratic votes never get counted and can't be recounted.

[toontra]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Sanfelipe the propagandist strikes again, and I still ain't buying it.

pseudo - have I missed something here?
Do we have a morphed member in our midst?

[mcrain]

I'm not a pollster, nor am I involved in the political process as I used to be, but there definately seems to be a trend of republicans showing distate for Bush and his policies.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by mcrain
...but there definately seems to be a trend of republicans showing distate for Bush and his policies.

Where's that? I haven't seen any major breaks between Republicans and Bush. I see mostly party unity or lockstep obedience, whatever you want to call it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by toontra
pseudo - have I missed something here?
Do we have a morphed member in our midst?

I'm pretty sure Rower fingered g5man as actually being ovisanfelipebond a while back.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by toontra
pseudo - have I missed something here?
Do we have a morphed member in our midst?

ovi=sanfelipe=g5man...a moderator mentioned all the ip's match.




DNFTT

[Durandal7]

There are way too many variables to even begin trying to guess the '04 outcome at this point. Both parties are in potentially bad situations and we don't even know who the Dems will run.

I don't think that '04 will be as close as '00 but I have no idea which way things will sway.

[wwworry]

I think Ovi posted the same thread topic. Same IP, Same pointless topics.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by g5man
November 13, 2003, 8:29 a.m.
Red America
How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."

There's been a lot of talk about recent studies showing a decline in the percentage of American voters who identify themselves as Democrats.

Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, "the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.

That's very bad news — if you're a Democrat — but what does it actually mean?

Just who are those voters who have switched party affiliation? And perhaps more important, where are they?

As it turns out, many are right where Democrats don't want them to be — in the swing states that could determine the winner of next year's presidential election.

In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it's 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it's 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it's 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.
Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it's 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

And in the most important swing state of all in 2000, Florida, Democrats used to enjoy a 38-33 advantage. Now, it's 37-36 in favor of Republicans. That means Bush might be able to build on his 537-vote landslide.

"Republican gains have come across the board, both geographically and demographically," the Pew report says. "There have been increases in Republican party affiliation in nearly every major voting bloc, except among African-Americans."

And even though Democrats still have a tiny 31-30 advantage nationwide, that may be of little use next year.

"Because Republicans traditionally turn out to vote in higher numbers than do Democrats, the current division in party affiliation among the public could provide the GOP with a slight electoral advantage," the Pew report says.

Much of the discussion about the study has emphasized its conclusion that the United States remains deeply divided politically.

Some commentators have suggested that the study says the country is even more deadlocked than it was in 2000. "The red states get redder, [and] the blue states get bluer," wrote the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne.

Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

Why is it happening? Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie has an obvious partisan stake in the situation but nevertheless offered a cogent analysis in a recent memo to party leaders.

"As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote, "and as it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry, it gets smaller."

Ask Democrats and they'll tell you the Pew numbers don't reveal much about anything. The Democrats point out, reasonably, that party affiliation will not matter if more and more people decide not to vote for Bush.

"The number we'll be watching is the number of people who vote for or against President Bush," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch.

Welch pointed to a recent Marist College poll that found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year, while 38 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him.

"Unless you're a bean counter worried about registration, this is what matters," says Welch.

Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him.

And the trends in party affiliation in the swing states that went to Gore in 2000 suggest that it's going to be harder for a Democrat to win those states in 2004.

Count all those beans together and they could mean big trouble for the next Democratic nominee.

— Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where this first appeared.

even though i am a democrat, i have to applaud the long and arduous effort of the gop to capture many of the working class and lower class american citizens

while that demographics was once solidly democratic in the 70s and before, many of the unions which supported them in the past have diminished somewhat and the workers of america on the lower end of the pay scale were without a representative

while the dems were so busy pushing gay rights, womens rights, pro choice, and tax reform to help the middle class, the gop moved in on democratic territory and were able to capture enough of them to gain a foothold in the west and midwest and this last election showed that bush got "just" enough to win

if bush had captured even one less tiny state, we would have gore as president

for the democrats to get back, they will have to keep a conservative stance and yet at the same time bring back the lower and middle class working people who have been ditched by the unions of america

and if the dems put up a wax figure of a boring person up there in 2004, no matter how good their ideas, the charismatic bush, with his direct style, will definitely have another four years and if he succeeds ultimately in the war and in t returning the bull market to a decent level...he will be hailed as the greatest republican president since lincoln having followed clinton who had the longest period of economic growth in us history and routing the japansese who outpaced the usa in the 80s with their high tech, statiscial approach to manufacturing

i make no predictions now since politics is like the computer hardware market...a lot can happen in 12 months

that being said, i would like to see another democrat in the oval office

[Taft]

This is pure (and ridiculous) speculation.

Look here: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=285

The percentage of people identifying themselves as Democrats has been in decline since the late sixties. And yet Carter and Clinton were both elected in declining (yearly) Democratic identification. Heck, you could even say that the Democratic party has been in decline since FDR left the presidency. It wouldn't be too far from the truth.

But none of this matters in the least when talking about the potential of a single candidate's electability. Even within the those who identify with a particular party, there are *tons* of swing voters who vote for whichever candidate they like best.

Until a democratic candidate and his/her platform is known, you have no idea whether or not Bush can beat them. And with a full year until election time, you have no idea what happen to the economy, the Iraqi situation, the terrorist situation, our international standing, the Patriot Act situation, the questionable dealings Bush has with industry, etc. Bush could lose standing with the American people in that time frame just as easily as he could gain.

This kind of analysis serves little purpose and is, historically, about as accurate as exit polls in predicting race outcomes. And the funniest part is: we don't even know which candidate Bush will run against! As hard as it is to predict election results when the candidates are known, it is that much harder to predict the election when a candidate isn't known and hasn't even gotten his message to the American people yet.

This is FUD, pure and simple.

Taft

[toontra]

Originally posted by Taft
This is pure (and ridiculous) speculation.
This is FUD, pure and simple.


Now I am aware that g5man is in fact sanfelipe (amongst others) everything is clear. Expect further reactionary, puerile, inflammatory and ill-considered posts of this sort from him (them).

The use of multiple identities to post to the same forum speaks for itself (there may be a valid reason for doing so but I can't think of one at the moment).

[IJ Reilly]

If the numbers are to be accepted, they indicate that the proportion of the electorate who don't identify with either major party is about the same as those who do. In that event, the real deciding factor in a national election are the independents, not the people who tend to vote for their party no matter who they field, because they more or less cancel out.

[vniow]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'm pretty sure Rower fingered g5man as actually being ovisanfelipebond a while back.

I think you're talking about the wrong person, I just did a quick search and didn't find any reference to anyone saying that g5man was sanfelipe/Ovi before this post, I believe you're talking about another member who posted awhile back, bond003, who's IP adress matched sanfelipe's exactly.

Just don't want any unneccecary crap thrown around...

[Taft]

Originally posted by vniow
I think you're talking about the wrong person, I just did a quick search and didn't find any reference to anyone saying that g5man was sanfelipe/Ovi before this post, I believe you're talking about another member who posted awhile back, bond003, who's IP adress matched sanfelipe's exactly.

Just don't want any unneccecary crap thrown around...

Not that I think this matters (as long as Ovi/g5man doesn't go postal, I don't care), but the thread which this first came up in was here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45128

Rower_CPU matched g5man's IP with Ovi's. Rower's post is about halfway down the page.

Taft

[vniow]

Originally posted by Taft
Rower_CPU matched g5man's IP with Ovi's. Rower's post is about halfway down the page.


Ah, ok then, guess I missed it, whoops....

[jefhatfield]

man, i am glad that i am a democrat

since the postal, psycho, baby eating, poo eating posters here have all been right wing republicans

but there is no reason for them to be postal...W runs the show and they have the senate and the house of repsentatives

when i was a kid in the 60s, it was the ultra liberals you had to watch out for, anti war but armed with M-16s, bombs, and a scarier presence than any police department...and they had a way of brainwashing white upper middle class girls who had no trouble carving up movie stars or holding up banks:p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by vniow
Ah, ok then, guess I missed it, whoops....

No prob. I tried to search for that thread too to confirm before I posted but couldn't find it either, so you had every right to question what I said.

I was confident enough that my memory served me correctly, and I guess I was right :)

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by toontra
Now I am aware that g5man is in fact sanfelipe (amongst others) everything is clear. Expect further reactionary, puerile, inflammatory and ill-considered posts of this sort from him (them).


I fail to see how this is especially inflammatory aside from the fact that a few members diasagree with it.

Of course the article is bunk, but most of what gets posted in this section is bunk.

Addressing the article itself, it is merely pointing out the obvious. Membership of both parties is plumetting as more people classify themselves as independent. The reality is that both parties are disgraces and the numbers reflect this fact.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
...and giving tax cuts to the wealthy I really shouldn't worry. But I do.


I like my tax cut. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mcrain
I'm not a pollster, nor am I involved in the political process as I used to be, but there definately seems to be a trend of republicans showing distate for Bush and his policies.

Well... when you have an administration start doing things like violating rights with abominations like the PATRIOT Act...

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
that being said, i would like to see another democrat in the oval office

I'd settle for a strict constructionist in the oval office.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'd settle for a strict constructionist in the oval office.

No, really? :p

[mactastic]

Ah yes, the belief that a group of men over 200 years ago were infallible, and wrote a document that is equivalent to God's eternal and unchanging word. Let's go back to that time when only white men could vote. Let's strip the Bill of Rights and all the amendments from the Constitution as well, they were all added after the infallible writers were finished, by mortals such as ourselves.

I'd settle for an actual moderate from any party.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah yes, the belief that a group of men over 200 years ago were infallible, and wrote a document that is equivalent to God's eternal and unchanging word. Let's go back to that time when only white men could vote. Let's strip the Bill of Rights and all the amendments from the Constitution as well, they were all added after the infallible writers were finished, by mortals such as ourselves.

I'd settle for an actual moderate from any party.

No, the group of men from 200 years ago were not infallible, but if things should change, then the document should be amended as well. If not only to codify what are the limitations of government and what freedoms and liberty are still retained by the people.

Think of it as a contract.

Strict constructionist does not mean they are not averse to amending.

[mactastic]

So how does a strict constructionist, who from my understanding wants to interpret the law soley on the basis of what is in the constitution, get all hot and bothered about putting something else into the document that they see as the totality of the "rules" governing our republic? Doesn't the definition of a strict constructionist mean they only go by what is literally in the constitution? All other rights and responsibilities are delegated to the states correct?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So how does a strict constructionist, who from my understanding wants to interpret the law soley on the basis of what is in the constitution, get all hot and bothered about putting something else into the document that they see as the totality of the "rules" governing our republic? Doesn't the definition of a strict constructionist mean they only go by what is literally in the constitution? All other rights and responsibilities are delegated to the states correct?

Yes. Interpret the law solely on the basis of what is in the Constitution. If its not there, then its part of the powers delegated to the states, or rights belonging to the people (states and federal govt do not have rights... only people have rights).

If the people want more powers delegated to the state or the feds, then the Constitution should be amended to reflect the wanted change. And if the proposed changes are defeated or not ratified, then that is the end of it, unless another amendment is proposed. But none of this 'creation of powers from thin air' garbage. That is what the phrase 'general welfare' has been perverted to, same with the 'commerce clause'.

[mactastic]

People wern't in favor of giving women the right to vote, nor African-Americans. Those rights were both created "out of thin air". Do you support repealing either of those?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
People wern't in favor of giving women the right to vote, nor African-Americans. Those rights were both created "out of thin air". Do you support repealing either of those?

Rights created out of thin air? Those rights were in existence. They were just denied. Now, they are in the US Constitution, and they enjoy federal protection.

Rights do not come from the government. Government sole duty is to protect those rights from encroachment. Unfortunately, government is more likely to be the one encroaching on people's rights. One of the drawbacks for having a Bill of Rights, as mentioned by the anti-Federalists, that enumeration of rights could lead to denying of others that are not enumerated.

But the Federalists were correct as well. If it were not for the Bill of Rights, we would probably be worse off.


Oh, btw, you really need to take reading comprehension lessons. Reread my post. I did not say anything about 'rights being created out of thin air'. I said ''creation of powers from thin air'. There is a distinction between the two. Rights belong to people, and only people. Powers originate from the people, and are delegated to government. The Constitution is clear on this. Reread the 9th and 10th amendments.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Rights created out of thin air? Those rights were in existence. They were just denied. Now, they are in the US Constitution, and they enjoy federal protection.


Ok thanks for giving me my "lesson". Now how say you about the rights of gay people to marry? A right denied?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Ok thanks for giving me my "lesson". Now how say you about the rights of gay people to marry? A right denied?

Yes.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, and somehow, government has seen fit to give married parties certain special privileges. That should not have been. Equal protection under the law. Single people are not given the same privileges, and so government should be out of the business of treating married folks as something special.

There should be no special people in the eyes of government.

I have been saying all along that if people with a marriage contract are allowed to pass along their assets without taxes when one dies, or are given discount rates for certain services, that I should get the same privileges. What if I want to pass my assets (tax free) to my cat Fluffy when I pass away? ;)

[mactastic]

Then you should marry Fluffy!

Wonder how Rick Santorum and his crowd would feel about that... :p

Oh and btw, I don't think it's considered "passing it on" when your spouse has a half interest in your joint assets. If you die, you're just forfeiting your half to him/her/it, not the government.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Then you should marry Fluffy!

Wonder how Rick Santorum and his crowd would feel about that... :p

Oh and btw, I don't think it's considered "passing it on" when your spouse has a half interest in your joint assets. If you die, you're just forfeiting your half to him/her/it, not the government.

How about the death tax? When children have to sell their parents estate because the taxes incurred on it by the government mandate that it be liquidated? Sounds very wrong to me.

Nah. Don't want to marry Fluffy... she's not faithful. She will go with anyone able to open a can of Fancy Feast. :D

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How about the death tax? When children have to sell their parents estate because the taxes incurred on it by the government mandate that it be liquidated? Sounds very wrong to me.

The "death tax" is a fiction. It does not exist. What is being taxed are the inheritors of the estate; eg, the people who did nothing to earn the money.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The "death tax" is a fiction. It does not exist. What is being taxed are the inheritors of the estate; eg, the people who did nothing to earn the money.

Death Tax is not fiction. It is just another name for Estate Tax. Also I think that it is the estate that is taxed not the inheritors. there for the inheritors are not being taxed it is the dead persons estate that is taxed. Taxed when it was earned, then again taxed when owner died.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The "death tax" is a fiction. It does not exist. What is being taxed are the inheritors of the estate; eg, the people who did nothing to earn the money.

And typically only liquid assests are subjected to high estate taxes.

Don't think for a minute that the family farm or mom & pop business has to be sold to pay the "death taxes."

The quote in my sig shows why the conservatives want the estate tax repealed.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Taxed when it was earned, then again taxed when owner died.

Boo ****ing hoo.

I pay income tax on the money I earn at work and then pay sales tax when I spend what's left over -- I'm taxed again too, and I'm still alive. We're all taxed over and again for the same money every day.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Death Tax is not fiction. It is just another name for Estate Tax. Also I think that it is the estate that is taxed not the inheritors. there for the inheritors are not being taxed it is the dead persons estate that is taxed. Taxed when it was earned, then again taxed when owner died.

It is a 100% synthetic name, created to make the tax sound awful. I am not persuaded by silly, politically-motivated word games designed to play on my emotions. As you have admitted, it is estates which are being taxed, not death. The estate is created for the purpose of transferring assets to living persons. As for the implied double-taxation, that's a phony issue. It that was a real issue, our entire tax system would need to be scrapped -- as it stands, income is often double, triple and even quadruple-taxed.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Boo ****ing hoo.

I pay income tax on the money I earn at work and then pay sales tax when I spend what's left over -- I'm taxed again too, and I'm still alive. We're all taxed over and again for the same money every day.

Somehow, you don't think there is anything wrong with that. Why don't you just give it all to the government the moment you earn it? Wouldn't that be better? (end_sarcasm)

[Frohickey]

Lets see...
Income tax, taxed at 33%, used to be 39%
Sales tax on goods and services bought with whats left off after the income tax, taxed at 8.5%. Different or nonexistent in some states.
Estate tax, taxed at 55%.

So, if you save everything you ever earn, and never spend it, after you are dead, and you wish to will it your relatives or offspring, 69.85% of that goes to the government (other 30.15% goes to your offspring). If you bought stuff with it, and you will it, your offspring gets even less... 27.58%!

$100, $33 goes to government as income tax.
$67 left over, $36.85 goes to government as estate tax.

There is definitely something wrong with this picture.

pseudobrit, instead of succumbing to envy and resentment, turn it around. What if it was you, a rich you, or a rich parent that was willing you their estate because you happen to peel their banana just the right way when they were nearing the end of their lives...

Maybe you do want to give everything to the government when you die, but couldn't you will everything you have to the government instead? Give everyone else the freedom to do with their property as they please... they earned it to begin with!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Lets see...
Income tax, taxed at 33%, used to be 39%
Sales tax on goods and services bought with whats left off after the income tax, taxed at 8.5%. Different or nonexistent in some states.
Estate tax, taxed at 55%.

So, if you save everything you ever earn, and never spend it, after you are dead, and you wish to will it your relatives or offspring, 69.85% of that goes to the government (other 30.15% goes to your offspring). If you bought stuff with it, and you will it, your offspring gets even less... 27.58%!

$100, $33 goes to government as income tax.
$67 left over, $36.85 goes to government as estate tax.

I'm calling ************.

This only works if the deceased kept their assets totally liquid and above a certain amount. Otherwise, it's all invested, gifted, or untaxable.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
pseudobrit, instead of succumbing to envy and resentment, turn it around. What if it was you, a rich you, or a rich parent that was willing you their estate because you happen to peel their banana just the right way when they were nearing the end of their lives...

No envy or resentment here. I dislike money in general. I hate what it does to people.

Besides, that's unearned income. I don't deserve that money anymore than I deserve to win the lottery.

Maybe you do want to give everything to the government when you die, but couldn't you will everything you have to the government instead?

I'd be bloody dead! I'll likely have better things to do than worry about what happened to my stupid bank account I left back among the living!

[zimv20]

can someone point me to some actual data about the Estate Tax? or an anecdotal example?

all this conjecture is, imo, way off. gimme some real data.

[IJ Reilly]

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/11/gates-w.html

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/11/gates-w.html


Only estates worth more than $1 million (or $2 million for couples) are subject to the tax -- and the bulk of it is paid by the fewer than 3,000 estates with assets in excess of $5 million.


gee, call me insensitive to the plight of kids of rich parents, but i'm not about to go to bat for this issue.

let the kids pay the damn tax. i'd friggin' LOVE to have the oppportunity to write _that_ check.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Death Tax is not fiction. It is just another name for Estate Tax. Also I think that it is the estate that is taxed not the inheritors. there for the inheritors are not being taxed it is the dead persons estate that is taxed. Taxed when it was earned, then again taxed when owner died.

So if a person is dead why would that person care if he was taxed? How could he pay a tax if he was dead?

If no inheritors claimed the dead persons assets then no inheritors would have to deal with the taxes. Only when an inheritor claims the assets do taxes on the exchange of assets have to be paid.

I don't hear any dead people complaining about being taxed, only inheritors. If an inheritor never claimed the $10 million inheritance they would not be taxed. However that would be stupid. Why not take the free money?

Why not take the free money and stop being so greedy? You'd probably try and cut your sister out of the loot as well.

[mactastic]

Reasonable people would agree to raise the exemption level on the Estate Tax, but only the super-rich in their ivory towers (borrowing a slur from the right) and their golden Hummers want to repeal it.

Raise the exemption to $5 million, or even $10 million and call it good. Stop the aristocracy from accumulating all the wealth.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
can someone point me to some actual data about the Estate Tax? or an anecdotal example?

all this conjecture is, imo, way off. gimme some real data.

Estate tax rates (http://www.706accountant.com/estate-tax-rates.htm)

Ask, and google search shall give it to you.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
I don't hear any dead people complaining about being taxed, only inheritors.

That is what wills do. It divvys up the inheritance according to the will of the owner of the property.

As to not hearing any dead people complaining about being taxed. Well, that goes without saying. Dead people can't talk, they can vote though, usually for the Democrats. :D :p

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Estate tax rates (http://www.706accountant.com/estate-tax-rates.htm)


danke

so why does this data indicate differently from the article to which IJReilly linked?

i'm confused

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
danke

so why does this data indicate differently from the article to which IJReilly linked?

i'm confused

From the list:


Taxable
Amount
Over

You forgot about exemptions.

It's like in federal income taxes where if you make $6001, only $1 is taxed at the 10% rate because $1 is the "taxable amount over."

[IJ Reilly]

Quite right. I believe the currently nontaxable portion of an estate is $1m, or will soon rise to that amount. So the effective tax rate on a $4m estate is 32%, which leaves the heirs with a measly $2.7m for accomplishing nothing more then being born to the right parents.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
That is what wills do. It divvys up the inheritance according to the will of the owner of the property.

As to not hearing any dead people complaining about being taxed. Well, that goes without saying. Dead people can't talk, they can vote though, usually for the Democrats. :D :p

Really Frohicky, if you don't want to pay inheritance taxes, don't take the free money. You did not earn it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Really Frohicky, if you don't want to pay inheritance taxes, don't take the free money. You did not earn it.

Free money? Its not the government's money. Its not even your money. The closest person still alive that has claim to the money is me, since its my ancestors that made it.

Your claim that its free money and that I should be grateful that I even get part of it is ludicrous. Government and complete strangers have less of a claim on it than I. The only reason that they end up taking it is because that group outnumber me. What if I said that because you are wwworry, and you are one individual versus the state, that the state has claim over your life, your property and your rights? How would you feel?

People here treat property rights as less than that of human rights, or civil rights. Why the distinction?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Quite right. I believe the currently nontaxable portion of an estate is $1m, or will soon rise to that amount. So the effective tax rate on a $4m estate is 32%, which leaves the heirs with a measly $2.7m for accomplishing nothing more then being born to the right parents.

Who sets the amount?
By what right are people who DID NOT toil or through providence acquire the property setting the amount?

Thats like my neighbors and I telling you that you cannot give your son that Tickle Me Elmo doll that he wants. That our reason for being able to tell you what to do is that there are more of us that there are of you.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Who sets the amount?
By what right are people who DID NOT toil or through providence acquire the property setting the amount?

Thats like my neighbors and I telling you that you cannot give your son that Tickle Me Elmo doll that he wants. That our reason for being able to tell you what to do is that there are more of us that there are of you.

You're dead, who gives a ****?

When people defend their stuff -- and that's all money is, another form of stuff -- as aggressively or moreso than they defend their life, friends, family and the really important things in life, I start to wonder how shallow a person I'm dealing with.

Frohickey, why aren't you as vehement about the equal access to healthcare as you are about the equal access to money you never earned and isn't yours?

[mactastic]

Cause it's not spelled out in the constitution for him!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Who sets the amount?
By what right are people who DID NOT toil or through providence acquire the property setting the amount?

Thats like my neighbors and I telling you that you cannot give your son that Tickle Me Elmo doll that he wants. That our reason for being able to tell you what to do is that there are more of us that there are of you.

Who sets any tax rate? What are you arguing for now, a complete absence of taxes? A complete absence of taxes on the people who can afford to pay them? A complete absence of taxes on unearned income? Do we have anything in common left to discuss?

[mactastic]

I don't recall hearing the words "power to tax" in the constitution, so I have to assume he wants zero taxes. Perhaps the government can run on what people are willing to donate charitably to them...

[wwworry]

Free money? Its not the government's money. Its not even your money. The closest person still alive that has claim to the money is me, since its my ancestors that made it.

Well it wasn't France's land to sell or England's land to take if you want to use the ancestor argument. The other argument about ancestral inheritance is one made by THE FOUNDERS OF AMERICA. America is not some inheritance nobility place where kingdoms depend on birth. If you want money you have to earn it. What are you, some kind of English?

When your ancestors made money or received money they had to pay tax on it. Why are you so special, and don't have to pay tax on income, just because your daddy is rich?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Well it wasn't France's land to sell or England's land to take if you want to use the ancestor argument. The other argument about ancestral inheritance is one made by THE FOUNDERS OF AMERICA. America is not some inheritance nobility place where kingdoms depend on birth. If you want money you have to earn it. What are you, some kind of English?

When your ancestors made money or received money they had to pay tax on it. Why are you so special, and don't have to pay tax on income, just because your daddy is rich?

Because the tax on that income was already paid, when it was earned by my dad, or whoever earned it in the first place.

Maybe the best thing is to give the money to a corporation, and give the stewardship of the corporation to your heirs, that way, the money doesn't ever change hands, only the stewardship of the company. Corporations don't die, so no death tax.

[Thanatoast]

Constitution
Article 1
Section 8

The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...

The Democrats need to get their message out better. The Republicans are driving the debate. They say that the estate tax is against rights that America stands for, when in fact the Founding Fathers they so love to quote were for an estate tax to prevent the building of an aristocracy.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Frohickey, why aren't you as vehement about the equal access to healthcare as you are about the equal access to money you never earned and isn't yours?

Because property, and the free exercise thereof determines the quality of life. That is directly involved in the phrase '...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...'.

Equal access of health care, health care is one of those things that are purchased or gain from the exchange of property, so in being vehement about property rights and money, health care is included.

What I am against is if 'equal access to health care' involves taking some of my property rights in order to supply health care to others.

My health care, my 'pursuit of happiness' is tied up in my property rights. My property rights is in turn gained from my labors (or my fortune to be born in a wealthy family that planned or was lucky), which is part of my life.

When the state or 51% of the population have seen fit to take some of my property in order to provide for their 'equal access to health care' WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, that is robbery.

Especially if the stated purpose of the 'theft' is for items that are not specified in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), or in the state Constitution.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Constitution
Article 1
Section 8

The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...

The Democrats need to get their message out better. The Republicans are driving the debate. They say that the estate tax is against rights that America stands for, when in fact the Founding Fathers they so love to quote were for an estate tax to prevent the building of an aristocracy.

Could you please give me quotes of the Founding Fathers espousing an estate tax in order to prevent the emergence of aristocracy?

Only thing I could find are some blogs and articles arguing that the Founding Fathers didn't like aristocracy, which is documented in the US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8. If they wanted to go further, which they did not, they could have added an estate tax in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, BUT THEY DID NOT.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I don't recall hearing the words "power to tax" in the constitution, so I have to assume he wants zero taxes. Perhaps the government can run on what people are willing to donate charitably to them...

As posted already... Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Have you read the US Constitution recently? Its the law of the land, at least in the United States. Though, somehow, its not in Gitmo, even though its being run by agents of the government. (Gitmo is Cuban territory.)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

When the state or 51% of the population have seen fit to take some of my property in order to provide for their 'equal access to health care' WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, that is robbery.


it costs money to live in a society. we all pay for things we think are a waste.

i firmly believe our society will be a better place to live once everyone is insured. and, if done right, everyone's health care costs should come down.

also, there is a growing crisis in this country wrt the so-called uninsurable. i am, overall, in pretty good health, but i'm THIS CLOSE to not being insured (once Illinois kills its program to insure the uninsurable [into which i pay a high premium for not much healthcare], i'm toast).

it's not that i can't afford high premiums, it's that the healthcare industry has decided i'm not worth insuring, at whatever premium.

there are a lot of people in my situation.

edit: i'm not asking for free healthcare (Sensible Party), i'm asking the gov't to ensure that _someone_ will insure me. (Responsible Party)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Because the tax on that income was already paid, when it was earned by my dad, or whoever earned it in the first place.

So? Double taxation occurs all the time. Wouldn't you agree the most fair time to tax someone's estate is after the person is dead and has lost all use for their fortunes?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As posted already... Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Have you read the US Constitution recently? Its the law of the land, at least in the United States. Though, somehow, its not in Gitmo, even though its being run by agents of the government. (Gitmo is Cuban territory.)

Rats. See I knew there was a reason I should read through the whole thing more than once a decade.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Because property, and the free exercise thereof determines the quality of life. That is directly involved in the phrase '...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...'.

Equal access of health care, health care is one of those things that are purchased or gain from the exchange of property, so in being vehement about property rights and money, health care is included.

What I am against is if 'equal access to health care' involves taking some of my property rights in order to supply health care to others.

My health care, my 'pursuit of happiness' is tied up in my property rights. My property rights is in turn gained from my labors (or my fortune to be born in a wealthy family that planned or was lucky), which is part of my life.

So if you are unable to gain those property rights (money), then you don't deserve health care (the pursuit of happiness)?

That's awfully selfish and anti-Christian.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Because property, and the free exercise thereof determines the quality of life.


really? property determines the quality of life? i've always felt the ability and willingness to share property based upon need affected my quality of life far more than the ability to amass, control and maintain possession of my property.

just a different philosophy. but since the issue is healthcare...please remember we're talking about people, humans with souls, children who have no control over their place in the grand scheme, those who maybe have made unwise decisions ( and we all do at some point ).

Originally posted by Frohickey
When the state or 51% of the population have seen fit to take some of my property in order to provide for their 'equal access to health care' WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, that is robbery.


it's not like anyone's taking your big screen tv...truly, what is it you're afraid to lose?

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Because the tax on that income was already paid, when it was earned by my dad, or whoever earned it in the first place.

Maybe the best thing is to give the money to a corporation, and give the stewardship of the corporation to your heirs, that way, the money doesn't ever change hands, only the stewardship of the company. Corporations don't die, so no death tax.

Your Dad paid income tax on the money he got. Why don't you want to pay income tax on the money you get?

If someone hires me to mow their lawn they are paying me with money that has already been taxed. I go to the store with my money (that I have paid taxes on) and I pay sales tax. That dollar has been taxed 3 times. The it goes to the store owner. There is no "fresh money". You make an income - you get taxed. It seems rich people want some sort of royal exemption to taxes on income.

One guy earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. One guy is given a million dollars by his rich daddy and pays no taxes. Does that make sence? (and if your answer is that no one should pay taxes then please leave this country - in America we pay taxes)

[Rebel]

Originally posted by wwworry
If someone hires me to mow their lawn they are paying me with money that has already been taxed. I go to the store with my money (that I have paid taxes on) and I pay sales tax. That dollar has been taxed 3 times. The it goes to the store owner. There is no "fresh money". You make an income - you get taxed. It seems rich people want some sort of royal exemption to taxes on income.

One guy earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. One guy is given a million dollars by his rich daddy and pays no taxes. Does that make sence? (and if your answer is that no one should pay taxes then please leave this country - in America we pay taxes)

Your correct, money is taxed multiple times. It is a never ending cycle. Unless you implement an INCOME TAX ONLY system.

As for the Daddy who worked his ass off making his million bucks, then dies and leaves his spoiled brat all he worked for in life, that money should NOT be taxed. But everything that the spioled brat earns on that money, should. If the brat is smart, he is going to use that money to make more money - which would be considered income, and taxable under an income tax only system. If he is not smart, he will spend it and help the economy to keep thriving under this system.

[Inu]

Hm, yes. Lets implement a taxing system where a clan of rich individuals not only keeps making more and more money (while earning more and spending less) and can accumulate it at eternum.

Wouldnt it be nice, if they could amass all the money they never need, and never pay tax for the blockaded Money anymore? Of course, this would apply to the normal People with their ****ty 200'000 Dollar Shacks too, but they never had to pay the evil nastybad death tax!

Edit: added a "Dollar"

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
As for the Daddy who worked his ass off making his million bucks, then dies and leaves his spoiled brat all he worked for in life, that money should NOT be taxed.

Why? Where is the justice in that? I pay 15.3% of my earned income in "self employment tax" even before I start paying my income taxes to both the state and federal government. After I pay those taxes, I pay sales tax on the part that's left over when I go to spend it.

I'm always amazed and mystified by people who believe that unearned income should be more favorably treated by the tax codes then money a person actually works to earn. This sounds to me suspiciously like an argument against productivity and for inherited privilege.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Why? Where is the justice in that? I pay 15.3% of my earned income in "self employment tax" even before I start paying my income taxes to both the state and federal government. After I pay those taxes, I pay sales tax on the part that's left over when I go to spend it.

I'm always amazed and mystified by people who believe that unearned income should be more favorably treated by the tax codes then money a person actually works to earn. This sounds to me suspiciously like an argument against productivity and for inherited privilege.

There is no justice in the current tax system, so don't look for one. The current tax system is used to keep the rich politicians, rich. If you want it changed, then you have to revolt.

As far as the brat. I have two brats. I am working my ass off to give them the best chance in life that I can. And when I die, I want them to have everything I earned in life without the government sticking their hands in it. I earned it. They are my children, and they should have it tax free "period".

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
There is no justice in the current tax system, so don't look for one. The current tax system is used to keep the rich politicians, rich. If you want it changed, then you have to revolt.

As far as the brat. I have two brats. I am working my ass off to give them the best chance in life that I can. And when I die, I want them to have everything I earned in life without the government sticking their hands in it. I earned it. They are my children, and they should have it tax free "period".

There's no justice in the current system, so there should be no justice in the system? I hope I never become so cynical as to cease believing in justice.

You're welcome to work off whatever body parts you wish for your brats, secure in the knowledge that the children of the affluent will always have life advantages over the children of the poor. But perhaps you should have enough confidence in the way you are raising your children to feel that the boost you can give them while you're alive will be enough for them to succeed. I'd hate to think any child of mine needed a fat trust fund to succeed and live a comfortable life.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
I firmly believe our society will be a better place to live once everyone is insured. and, if done right, everyone's health care costs should come down.

it's not that i can't afford high premiums, it's that the healthcare industry has decided i'm not worth insuring, at whatever premium.

there are a lot of people in my situation.

edit: i'm not asking for free healthcare (Sensible Party), i'm asking the gov't to ensure that _someone_ will insure me. (Responsible Party) [/B]

What timeframe do you have in mind when we can determine if this 'equal access to healthcare' has not made EVERYONE's health care costs to come down? 1 year? 6 months? Or is it until we have poured enough money into it?

I bet I could come up with an insurance company that will offer you a policy at a premium where they would insure you. It could very well be that the premium is equal to the cost of the health care itself, or more. So making a blanket statement saying that the health care industry has decided you are not worth insuring is incorrect. Its that in their assessment, X dollars is what they would want to insure you, but you are only willing to pay X-Y dollars.

Where is it said that government has the power to ensure that someone will insure you for healthcare? I thought that taking private property for public use is illegal without just compensation? I thought that life, liberty or property cannot be taken without due process?

If you are healthy now, do you have a condition that would make you unhealthy in the future? Is there a reason that the insurance company do not feel it can insure you for X dollars in insurance premium?

I bet if Bill Gates were to get 72 hour Ebola, he could get an insurance company to provide health care insurance for him... might cost a mint, but he could get it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So if you are unable to gain those property rights (money), then you don't deserve health care (the pursuit of happiness)?

That's awfully selfish and anti-Christian.

What is selfish is FORCING me to provide you with health care.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
making a blanket statement saying that the health care industry has decided you are not worth insuring is incorrect.


???????

you don't know that. i had two health insurance brokers try to find me policies. i'm healthy, but have a pre-existing condition. in the end, both brokers told me i'm uninsurable -- no market-provided insurance for me at _any_ price.

then the state program saved my ass. it's not free, like i said. the premiums are high, the coverage low, but that's better than nothing. at least if i had a car wreck or something, i'm covered. the maintenance stuff i take care of myself (Responsible Party).


Where is it said that government has the power to ensure that someone will insure you for healthcare?


nowhere, but i want it. millions of uninsured americans want it. you're making the mistake of thinking the insurance companies are being reasonable. so here's an anecdote, happened to someone i know:

he had his annual checkup, one test came back inconclusive. they sent him for another test, it was negative. everything is fine. but, because he simply _had_ the test, he's now uninsurable. i call ************ on the insurance companies and call on the gov't to do something about the ************, 'cuz the insurance companies are not dealing w/ this themselves.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I thought that taking private property for public use is illegal without just compensation?

But if you got health insurance for the money they took from you, wouldn't that be just compensation?

We all chip in for the highway system, and you don't consider that a taking. Do you? We all chip in for things like police and fire protection. Would you rather that only those who could afford to purchase protection be safe? Would you prefer to hire your own private building inspector to make sure every building you enter meets some kind of saftey standard, or would you rather just trust that the builder did things right? Or your own food inspector with you to check each time you go to the supermarket?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
really? property determines the quality of life? i've always felt the ability and willingness to share property based upon need affected my quality of life far more than the ability to amass, control and maintain possession of my property.

just a different philosophy. but since the issue is healthcare...please remember we're talking about people, humans with souls, children who have no control over their place in the grand scheme, those who maybe have made unwise decisions ( and we all do at some point ).



it's not like anyone's taking your big screen tv...truly, what is it you're afraid to lose?

Who said anything about big screen TV?

Health care, food, shelter, clothing, good education,etc these are all the issues that liberals harp upon in their quest to have government take more and more to provide for the ones unable to provide for themselves. What you seem to not understand is that government does not have its own resources. The resources it has, is provided to it by taxpayers. Taxpayers that paid the tax for the constitutionally mandated costs, and nothing more.

Each person determines the fashion to which their quality of life is improved. Yours could be giving to the needy, or as you say "ability and willingness to share property based upon need". Mine could be "the ability and self-reliance to not require the assistence of others, despite the need".

There are multiple kinds of people in the country. Some are self-reliant, and take umbrage when their assistance is MANDATED. Some are dependent on others, and take umbrage when their pleas for help are unanswered, or rebuffed.

Both would like for the other to adopt their philosophy. But both are mutually exclusive.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
One guy earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. One guy is given a million dollars by his rich daddy and pays no taxes. Does that make sence? (and if your answer is that no one should pay taxes then please leave this country - in America we pay taxes)

One guys earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. Same guy saves it and passes whats left of the million dollars after taxes to his son, and son pays NO taxes. Dad already paid taxes on it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rebel
Your correct, money is taxed multiple times. It is a never ending cycle. Unless you implement an INCOME TAX ONLY system.

As for the Daddy who worked his ass off making his million bucks, then dies and leaves his spoiled brat all he worked for in life, that money should NOT be taxed. But everything that the spioled brat earns on that money, should. If the brat is smart, he is going to use that money to make more money - which would be considered income, and taxable under an income tax only system. If he is not smart, he will spend it and help the economy to keep thriving under this system.

Wow. Someone that actually understands!!! :D

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wow. Someone that actually understands!!! :D

That privilege should be inherited instead of earned? Yeah, some of understand that thinking, we just don't happen to agree with it.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
One guys earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. Same guy saves it and passes whats left of the million dollars after taxes to his son, and son pays NO taxes. Dad already paid taxes on it.

My boss's clients already paid taxes on the money they pay him to design for them, he pays taxes on that money, gives me some, that I pay taxes on, which I turn around and give to a store of my choice, who pays taxes on it, who pays their employees who pay taxes on that who then go to another store, the process repeats and more taxes are paid. Income gets taxed all over the place all the time.

How is that different from paying taxes on your inheiritance that was taxed already?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly You're welcome to work off whatever body parts you wish for your brats, secure in the knowledge that the children of the affluent will always have life advantages over the children of the poor. But perhaps you should have enough confidence in the way you are raising your children to feel that the boost you can give them while you're alive will be enough for them to succeed. I'd hate to think any child of mine needed a fat trust fund to succeed and live a comfortable life.

Parents should be allowed to raise their children the way they see fit, as long as there is no harm done to another party.

Your comment about hating "to think any child of mine needed a fat trust fund to succeed and live a comfortable life" is your philosophy as to how you should raise your child. Other parents have differing philosophies. Theirs is no less valid than yours.

Somehow, you feel that a parent giving their children an inheritance is a harm done to the child of a parent that squandered or never gave their child an inheritance. Have I read your intentions clearly?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
you don't know that. i had two health insurance brokers try to find me policies. i'm healthy, but have a pre-existing condition. in the end, both brokers told me i'm uninsurable -- no market-provided insurance for me at _any_ price.

nowhere, but i want it. millions of uninsured americans want it. you're making the mistake of thinking the insurance companies are being reasonable. so here's an anecdote, happened to someone i know:

he had his annual checkup, one test came back inconclusive. they sent him for another test, it was negative. everything is fine. but, because he simply _had_ the test, he's now uninsurable. i call ************ on the insurance companies and call on the gov't to do something about the ************, 'cuz the insurance companies are not dealing w/ this themselves.

Money talks. If you had _any_ price, then you could probably convince an insurance company to insure you, or you can found your own insurance company to insure you.

Insurance companies have competition. You could always go to the hungrier insurance company and see if they would take your business. If not, then none of the insurance companies are hungry enough, and that seems to be a market opportunity for people like you and the other millions of people like you. You could be the CEO of that hungry insurance company!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic But if you got health insurance for the money they took from you, wouldn't that be just compensation?


Maybe I don't want health insurance.
Maybe I'm healthy and I'll get health insurance later in my life.
Maybe I already have health insurance.
Maybe rather than have health insurance, I would rather get a big screen TV with it? :p

Okay, how about this. You can take my money to pool in for health insurance for people. But I can OPT-OUT, and get my money back. How's that? If I don't pay into it, then I don't get health insurance. Pretty equitable to me. You still get your healthcare from everyone else that opted-in the program.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
That privilege should be inherited instead of earned? Yeah, some of understand that thinking, we just don't happen to agree with it.

I don't understand your train-of-thought. You understand but you don't agree? You don't agree that a parent should be able to leave their lifes accumulation to their children, tax free?

I tremble to think what the future will hold for our decendants.

Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. A few months after he made this comment, he was assaniated. Hmmm, it makes me wonder.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign"' by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

[mactastic]

You want to opt out of the highway system too?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Rebel
I don't understand your train-of-thought. You understand but you don't agree? You don't agree that a parent should be able to leave their lifes accumulation to their children, tax free?

A parent should be able to leave something on the order of $5 million to a child tax free. Beyond that it should be taxed.

I tremble to think what the future will hold for our decendants.

Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. A few months after he made this comment, he was assaniated. Hmmm, it makes me wonder.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign"' by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

Sounds like Abe was for a death tax to prevent the aggregation of wealth in a few hands!

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
A parent should be able to leave something on the order of $5 million to a child tax free. Beyond that it should be taxed.



Sounds like Abe was for a death tax to prevent the aggregation of wealth in a few hands!

I can agree with your first comment. It is a fair compromise.

Thanks for the laugh on the 2nd.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Money talks. If you had _any_ price, then you could probably convince an insurance company to insure you, or you can found your own insurance company to insure you.

Insurance companies have competition. You could always go to the hungrier insurance company and see if they would take your business. If not, then none of the insurance companies are hungry enough, and that seems to be a market opportunity for people like you and the other millions of people like you. You could be the CEO of that hungry insurance company!

sigh.

i had two insurance _brokers_. if they couldn't find me health insurance, what hope did i have?

i understand you're applying your own special brand of logic to the situation, but that logic doesn't fit w/ reality. no private insurance company would insure me. that is, until i joined the state plan (actually provided by Blue Cross/Blue Shield). the lobbying efforts of the state were greater than my individual lobbying efforts, and suddenly i was ensured by one of the groups that had originally turned me down.

you're making the mistake of thinking pure market economics will solve my problem. it won't, because businesses exist to make money, not to risk money on the little guy (me). so, BC/BS will insure who they feel will make them money, and turn away the rest. that's the reality.

it is one of the gov't's functions to ensure our society works for the little guy. that's the concept that is missing in the pure capitalistic arguments. and it's approaching the argument you're making.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
My boss's clients already paid taxes on the money they pay him to design for them, he pays taxes on that money, gives me some, that I pay taxes on, which I turn around and give to a store of my choice, who pays taxes on it, who pays their employees who pay taxes on that who then go to another store, the process repeats and more taxes are paid. Income gets taxed all over the place all the time.

How is that different from paying taxes on your inheiritance that was taxed already?

.....

Man. I'm in the wrong line of business working for a fruit company. I should be in government! :eek:

Difference here is dad could be buying for me everything that I needed when he was alive. He and mom could have had me when he was in their 50s, and then he died. He knew he was going to die so he saved up to provide for me. Now, government is gonna take a cut of it because dad died. Your example was of commerce which is a power given to government as enumerated. Dad and I are not engaged in commerce.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Frohickey
.....

Man. I'm in the wrong line of business working for a fruit company. I should be in government! :eek:

Difference here is dad could be buying for me everything that I needed when he was alive. He and mom could have had me when he was in their 50s, and then he died. He knew he was going to die so he saved up to provide for me. Now, government is gonna take a cut of it because dad died.

The most financially lucrative business currently in existance are political offices and non-profit organizations.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
The most financially lucrative business currently in existance are political offices and non-profit organizations.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

Anyway, what were we talking about...?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
it is one of the gov't's functions to ensure our society works for the little guy. that's the concept that is missing in the pure capitalistic arguments. and it's approaching the argument you're making. [/B]

Only function of government is to protect the rights reserved to and enjoyed by the people.

In your situation, where I pay for your equal access to health care, hasn't government just made it so that you get your health care, but I'm out of some of my hard-earned cash? I don't want health care, and its not one of the governmental functions, but I still have to pay for it?!!!

If I develop heart disease, I would try my darnest to get good health care, and do some exercises to alleviate it, but I still wouldn't think it fair to saddle my next door neighbor who exercises regularly and is 1% body fat Iron-Man every month with my health-care bill.

Same with lung cancer, AIDs, leukemia, etc.

If he hands me $100 and says 'Here bud, use it for your heart medication.' I would thank him, but I would not lobby my Congresscritter to FORCE him to give me $100.

One thing I took out of college PolySci class is that everything government does, EVERYTHING is done with force. What do you think would happen if my neighbor did not give $100 to me as mandated by congress? Fines, jail time, death? IRS agents have full-auto guns too.

I doubt that you are advocating that I should be killed in order to provide you with equal access to health care.

Now, if you were advocating special tax cuts for health care companies that provide equal access to health care to people such as yourself, I could be for it, but then that would be against tenet #1 of the Responsible Party, or the Sensible Party. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
I don't understand your train-of-thought. You understand but you don't agree? You don't agree that a parent should be able to leave their lifes accumulation to their children, tax free?

I tremble to think what the future will hold for our decendants.

Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. A few months after he made this comment, he was assaniated. Hmmm, it makes me wonder.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign"' by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

Interesting. You think that quote makes your case?

Along with Abe, I agree that when "wealth is aggregated in a few hands ... the Republic is destroyed"

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Frohickey
One thing I took out of college PolySci class is that everything government does, EVERYTHING is done with force. What do you think would happen if my neighbor did not give $100 to me as mandated by congress? Fines, jail time, death? IRS agents have full-auto guns too.

I doubt that you are advocating that I should be killed in order to provide you with equal access to health care.

Your right - it is time for arevolution (http://www.ucanation.org) in this country. Not the musket and bayonet type, but the financial type. The combined financial might of the American people vs. unfair, corrupt government.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Only function of government is to protect the rights reserved to and enjoyed by the people.


i'd maintain that healthcare is one of those rights, even if it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution.


In your situation, where I pay for your equal access to health care, hasn't government just made it so that you get your health care, but I'm out of some of my hard-earned cash?


aside from the fact this is an Illinois program, no, i don't think it's costing you extra.

i pay high premiums. the only thing Illinois did on my behalf was to lobby BC/BS to insure me. when you consider that uninsured people end up costing society more in the long run (according to many), the Illinois program actually saves money.


I don't want health care, and its not one of the governmental functions, but I still have to pay for it?!!!


can i ask who is providing your healthcare?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Along with Abe, I agree that when "wealth is aggregated in a few hands ... the Republic is destroyed"

The wealth is already aggregated in the hands of the few. Unfortunately most Americans are too blind to see it. Did you know that a recent survey asked Americans if they felt they were in the top 1% income earners in the nation. 19% said yes.

The Roman empire collasped due to many of the same corrupt political issues that are rampant through our system today. Our country and system will not reign for as many years as they. We are close to the end - unless we enact immediate change.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
.....

Man. I'm in the wrong line of business working for a fruit company. I should be in government! :eek:

Difference here is dad could be buying for me everything that I needed when he was alive. He and mom could have had me when he was in their 50s, and then he died. He knew he was going to die so he saved up to provide for me. Now, government is gonna take a cut of it because dad died. Your example was of commerce which is a power given to government as enumerated. Dad and I are not engaged in commerce.

Well first off, unless both parents go, you won't see an inheiritance when your dad dies. Your mom gets it tax free AFAIK. Half of it was hers to start with anyway though. Once she goes you need to pay the taxes. I'm ok with something like a $5 million dollar exemption from the estate tax, but beyond the first free $5 million, you need to start paying taxes on what you get.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Article I, Section 8 says Congress can lay and collect taxes, but the only mention of commerce I see is here:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;
Also I see that the 16th Amendment states:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration.
(emphasis mine)

I could be wrong, but the phrase "from whatever source derived" seems to indicate that an estate tax is constitutional.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
The wealth is already aggregated in the hands of the few. Unfortunately most Americans are too blind to see it. Did you know that a recent survey asked Americans if they felt they were in the top 1% income earners in the nation. 19% said yes.

The Roman empire collasped due to many of the same corrupt political issues that are rampant through our system today. Our country and system will not reign for as many years as they. We are close to the end - unless we enact immediate change.

What you are arguing for anymore, I don't know. If you agree that the concentration of wealth threatens the future of the republic, then it hardly makes sense to argue in favor of eliminating the inheritance tax.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Also I see that the 16th Amendment states:

(emphasis mine)

I could be wrong, but the phrase "from whatever source derived" seems to indicate that an estate tax is constitutional. [/B]

Might be academic, but if you want, you could do a little research on the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Some groups have as well, and their findings are surprising.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What is selfish is FORCING me to provide you with health care.

You live in a civilised society. A commonwealth.

You're going to pay for things you never use, just as well as you'll benefit from certain services that you yourself could never afford pay for alone.

I have never called the police. Should I not be FORCED to pay for them until I need them?

I have never driven on the roads in California. Should I not be FORCED to pay to pave them until I drive out there?

[Frohickey]

Police services, as well as fire fighting services are done at the state level.

Road construction, is part of the federal powers.

Equal access to health care is neither one.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Police services, as well as fire fighting services are done at the state level.

Road construction, is part of the federal powers.

Equal access to health care is neither one.

Why can it not be done at the state level then?

You're about to run out of reason to oppose it other than the fact that you don't like being forced to sacrifice for the greater good of society.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Police services, as well as fire fighting services are done at the state level.

Road construction, is part of the federal powers.

Equal access to health care is neither one.

I just love generic ideological arguments --

Right-wing: "The government should not provide any services I don't use."

Left-wing: "The government should solve all of my problems."

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Article I, Section 8 says Congress can lay and collect taxes, but the only mention of commerce I see is here:


Also I see that the 16th Amendment states:

(emphasis mine)

I could be wrong, but the phrase "from whatever source derived" seems to indicate that an estate tax is constitutional.

Article I, section 8 was originally writen by great men with great vision. Our forefathers. It states "originally"

No captivation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Meaning that they cannot tax citizens without a citizen census being taken first.)

This was change 200 years later by not so great men, with little to no vision, except to place more dollars into their own pockets.

Amended in 1977 to: Amendment XVI The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Meaning that they could care less what the citizens think if they want to tax us, they can and there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it.)

If it was changed once, it can be changed again.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
One guys earns a million dollars with hard work and pays taxes. Same guy saves it and passes whats left of the million dollars after taxes to his son, and son pays NO taxes. Dad already paid taxes on it.

We have been through this before. No money is "clean". I have to pay sales taxes on my already taxed income.

Either your for an inheritance based system where by luck of birth you get out of paying taxes or you're for an American system where it doesn't matter who you are - income is taxed.

[pseudobrit]

If I win the lottery (akin to a windfall inheritance) should I pay taxes?

That money was already taxed several times -- income tax on those who earned the money to put into the jackpot, income tax on the money I bought my ticket with, then the lottery commission takes half the total dollar amount of bets to benefit older Pennsylvanians... I could go on.

Now you could say I earned that money. I did take a risk and buy a betting slip. In fact, that's what happens; the government treats lottery winnings as earned income. You didn't do much to earn it, but technically you did enough, as does the hands-off owner of a business who hires a manager to run the show and simply collects the profits.

What happens when I don't earn income? I've done less to deserve that money than normal people making income. Enough less that the government treats it differently. Capital gains taxes are on a different schedule because one did so little work to acquire the money gained that it's considered unearned.

Estate taxes are nothing more than another unearned income tax. The person acquiring the assests has done no work and taken no risk to justify that they've earned the money. Only because of simple tradition is it passed down from generation to generation at all. There is no natural law that children are to get their parent's fortune when they die.

You're advocating the end of unearned income taxes, quite possibly the most fair and underapplied taxes in the nation.

[Dont Hurt Me]

there was no income tax at one time until they had to start building war machines, now people and the Govt think your money is theirs. Govt has become a tax dollar eating machine and wether republicans or democrats they all want our tax dollars for their special programs and war machines. vote libertarian and get rid of both these clowns.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
there was no income tax at one time until they had to start building war machines, now people and the Govt think your money is theirs.

I don't understand why so many people have this strong feeling of ownership, be it with money or property. The only things truly worth defending as vehemently as we typically defend our money are thing things you don't leave behind when you die.

Govt has become a tax dollar eating machine and wether republicans or democrats they all want our tax dollars for their special programs and war machines. vote libertarian and get rid of both these clowns.

I think many of these programs are worthwhile. The key is to get someone to kill the special interest aspects.

There's only one party feeding the war machine.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I think many of these programs are worthwhile. The key is to get someone to kill the special interest aspects.

Get someone to do it? Who? What politician will make the changes neccessary? NONE. If we want things changed, we have to force it.

Our Founding Fathers would be appalled if they could see the controversies we are dealing with today and witness the things that have happened to this nation. Have we become too complacent or resigned ourselves to the fact that we have to give up some of our rights or no longer want to fight for what is just and right? That all people are created equal with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That our Bill of Rights does not become a bill of wrongs.

Perhaps it is time for a new awakening of our true American spirit and old-fashioned patriotism. That belief in our credo, "One nation under God," and "In God We Trust" become more than words we say during our Pledge of Allegiance or that are found on the back of our dollar bills. They become words we live by each and every day. Do we allow them to strike these words from our vocabulary or do we stand by them, every man, woman and child?

Should we ban playing "The Star-Spangled Banner," too, since it offends our enemies, especially when we cheer at the conclusion during the verse "O long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave"? We need a return to the American spirit of "can-do," replacing the mood of the people today. People are tired of not having a decent job, or not having hope for a better future for themselves and their children. Once Americans put their mind to the task, they can and should do it.

The new economy and our nation's future is what lie ahead, and with proper care, it can be developed into a better America for all our people. A nation our Founding Fathers could look at and say: "Go for it, you are right on track. We weren't wrong when we started this nation in 1776." It is time for us as Americans to return to President Kennedy's words, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," and do it.

Do not wait for the government to solve our problems. It is up to enterprising individuals to create a new economy and a new focus for the country.

United Citizens of America (http://www.UCAnation.org)

[pseudobrit]

Please stop pushing your pyramid scheme. Your persistence getting a little annoying now.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Please stop pushing your pyramid scheme. Your persistence getting a little annoying now.

It is not a scheme, friend. It is a revolution. The only one we are capable of fighting in our modern era.

I wonder if your same words were sung when when our founders started the idea of our nation. I'm sure the English monarchy were wondering what the peasants were scheming.

It is an idea and ideal, nothing more.

[g5man]

A great debate, and to add a little more spice to it I will say my 2 cents.

The revolution is happening and it is led by the conservatives. It will not lead to big changes argued by Rebel, but positive changes never the less.

This week the DNC decided to attack the AARP for supporting the RNC Medicare Bill. In the past the AARP a strong 30 million member organization has been a vocal supporter of most Democratic causes. With Medicare and Social Security being the central issues dear to their hearts. As a result most AARP members have voted Democrat.

For the Democrats to turn on their own people is a sign of desperation or complete ignorance. Republicans will benefit considerably if the AARP begins to vote in their favor.

Landslide 2004 looks more possible 12 months from the election. I can't imagine how many more issues will the Democrats decided to loose voters on as the election gets into full swing.

On a side note, In Israel the more the terrorists attacked and killed both civillians and soldiers the more popular the Likud and Hawkish Sharon became. We have lost more soliders in Iraq this last month and the President's approval rating went up. The American People know what is going on and understand what we are fighting for. Iraq will be a losing issue for Democrats. Taxes will be a losing issue. Medicare will be a losing issue. Hillary knows it and that is why she is not running.

[IJ Reilly]

Outside of New York, who cares what Hillary thinks?

For the record, a lot of AARP's membership is wondering why the group backed this Medicare bill, and probably even more will question their position when the details of the program become better understood (assuming it passes the Senate).

As for all of your amateur political spin efforts, I can only say you have no more idea how the electorate will move a year from now then anyone else. Not only is the election a long time off in political terms, the Democrats haven't even begun the process of selecting their candidate. Even the pros are hedging their bets. So let's just say, I find your "insights" to be less than persuasive.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Rebel
I wonder if your same words were sung when when our founders started the idea of our nation. I'm sure the English monarchy were wondering what the peasants were scheming.

Before you go insinuating that I'm some sort of coward, let me point out that the Revolutionaries didn't get cash bonuses for bringing in new members. As a matter of fact, membership didn't cost any money at all.

It's a pyramid scheme. Please stop peddling it here.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Before you go insinuating that I'm some sort of coward, let me point out that the Revolutionaries didn't get cash bonuses for bringing in new members. As a matter of fact, membership didn't cost any money at all.

It's a pyramid scheme. Please stop peddling it here.

I would never call another American a coward. However, the cash bonuses do not equate to a pyramid scheme. It is simply a marketing tactic aimed to reward Americans for spreading the word. A very legal way to promote membership in todays day and age.

Revolutionairies did not get cash bonuses, and membership did not cost money, but many paid with their life to fight an over burdonsom monarchy tax system. A cost that Americans obviously will not pay today.

I will quit preaching the UCA organization, but I will continue to raise points that this organization is fighting for.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Rebel
Perhaps it is time for a new awakening of our true American spirit and old-fashioned patriotism. That belief in our credo, "One nation under God," and "In God We Trust" become more than words we say during our Pledge of Allegiance or that are found on the back of our dollar bills. They become words we live by each and every day. Do we allow them to strike these words from our vocabulary or do we stand by them, every man, woman and child?

Time for a history lesson from the bureau of engravingIn God We Trust
1957
The use of the National Motto “In God We Trust” on all currency has been required by law since 1955. It first appeared on paper money with the issuance of the $1 Silver Certificates, Series 1957, and began appearing on Federal Reserve Notes with the 1963 Series.

just like "one nation under god" appeared to differentiate ourselves from those godless communists.

The founding fathers were not into all that god stuff.

http://www.frbsf.org/currency/independence/initial/s85fr.jpg
http://www.frbsf.org/currency/independence/initial/s85bk.jpg

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
On a side note, In Israel the more the terrorists attacked and killed both civillians and soldiers the more popular the Likud and Hawkish Sharon became. We have lost more soliders in Iraq this last month and the President's approval rating went up. The American People know what is going on and understand what we are fighting for. Iraq will be a losing issue for Democrats. Taxes will be a losing issue. Medicare will be a losing issue. Hillary knows it and that is why she is not running.

And, if you'll take note, the great wall of Israel is proving less and less popular as some very obvious comparisons are made to the European ghettos of the middle ages. Sharon is a man past his prime and as emigration increases and immigration decreases, the Israeli economy has shrunk two years in a row, and fewer int'l. firms are willing to invest it is likely that the 6.6 mil jewish israelis will soon find themselves overtaken by the palestinians. The tale here is that raw force always fails in the end. gw will go down in history as the man who squandered millions of people's hard earned savings on a dishonest disgraceful war which benefitted his east coast elitist buddies. The economy is not going to recover like you so desperately want it to and I assure you now, gw will not spend another 4 years in the WH unless he pays Diebold enough that is....

[Thanatoast]

Ugg, thanks for posting those pictures. I love the front side, where it says "mind your business". I think we should print that on our notes today, instead of "this is your god", waitaminuteimean "in god we trust" :)

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1092103,00.html)

The factor giving the euro an unexpected edge is the ballooning US trade deficit. Even the septuagenarian billionaire, Warren Buffett, the sage of Omaha, has confessed that for the first time in his life he has holdings in currencies other than the greenback. Mr Buffett cites the parlous state of the US current account - the broadest measure of trade - as evidence that the US may be living beyond its means.

Warren Buffet has been amazingly prescient when it comes to the markets. For him to admit that he is investing outside the US dollar means that the dollar is in bad shape. Temporary? Maybe, but the fact that the US must import so much of its daily consumption is probably an indication that the ballooning deficits under gw are here to stay.

What happens if the world stops financing gw's follies? The phenomenal growth of the US is due less to American sweat and ingenuity than it is to the pricing of oil in dollars and the willingness of the world to invest in US Inc. Given that gw has been willing to sacrifice the post 9/11 goodwill for short term financial gain the picture isn't very pretty. As anyone knows the most important figure on most companies balance sheets is the goodwill, the difference between what a company is worth and what investors are willing to pay for its stock.

g5man and all those who support gw, let's hear you explain away this.

[wwworry]

foreign investment in the us is way down as a matter of fact.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
On a side note, In Israel the more the terrorists attacked and killed both civillians and soldiers the more popular the Likud and Hawkish Sharon became.

True, it did go up when people believed his version of the "bring 'em on" speech, but now he is losing support because all of his hard-line blustering and targeted assasinations have not reduced the threat against Israelis. Their economy is in shambles, foreign investment is fleeing the country and Sharon is seen not only as powerless to stop it, but even making it worse with his actions.

If the military could be used to crush terrorism, the Israelis would have done it by now. You need a police force to deal with terrorism.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Ugg
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1092103,00.html)



Warren Buffet has been amazingly prescient when it comes to the markets. For him to admit that he is investing outside the US dollar means that the dollar is in bad shape. Temporary? Maybe, but the fact that the US must import so much of its daily consumption is probably an indication that the ballooning deficits under gw are here to stay.

I take it you are refering to the trade deficit. This will improving as the dollar regains strenght. And it will, but it might take a few years. I am surprised the Euro is as strong as it is given the poor shape of the European economies.

Originally posted by Ugg
What happens if the world stops financing gw's follies? The phenomenal growth of the US is due less to American sweat and ingenuity than it is to the pricing of oil in dollars and the willingness of the world to invest in US Inc. Given that gw has been willing to sacrifice the post 9/11 goodwill for short term financial gain the picture isn't very pretty. As anyone knows the most important figure on most companies balance sheets is the goodwill, the difference between what a company is worth and what investors are willing to pay for its stock.


The question should be what happens if America stops buying the world's goods and services? It will never happen and if anythng the US will import more and more each year. We just need to improve in our ability to produce more of our own goods and services. A company's goodwill becomes meaningless if it fails to provide its investors with profits on a regular basis.

[wwworry]

way way down as a matter of fact.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
I take it you are refering to the trade deficit. This will improving as the dollar regains strenght. And it will, but it might take a few years. I am surprised the Euro is as strong as it is given the poor shape of the European economies.

Just the opposite, actually. A weak dollar curtails imports and boosts exports. A stronger dollar generally results in larger trade deficits.

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
The question should be what happens if America stops buying the world's goods and services? It will never happen and if anythng the US will import more and more each year. We just need to improve in our ability to produce more of our own goods and services. A company's goodwill becomes meaningless if it fails to provide its investors with profits on a regular basis.

Why could that never happen?

All it would take is the American middle class to lose their buying power. How could that happen? Let me see...

1) They are in too much debt.
2) They don't have jobs due to economic downturn.
3) They have lower paying jobs.

You make it sound impossible, when really it could very well happen. All it might take is (for example) the majority of IT jobs outsourced overseas in a short time period (similar to the manufacturing downturn of the 70s) to send the middle class into a state of disrepair.

We are not untouchable. Our economy has weaknesses. If we are smart we will work to turn those weaknesses into strengths.

Taft

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Taft
Our economy has weaknesses. If we are smart we will work to turn those weaknesses into strengths.

There is only one weakness. Taxes are too high. Cut them and we are invincible. [/bush]

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Taft
Why could that never happen?

All it would take is the American middle class to lose their buying power. How could that happen? Let me see...

1) They are in too much debt.
2) They don't have jobs due to economic downturn.
3) They have lower paying jobs.

You make it sound impossible, when really it could very well happen. All it might take is (for example) the majority of IT jobs outsourced overseas in a short time period (similar to the manufacturing downturn of the 70s) to send the middle class into a state of disrepair.

We are not untouchable. Our economy has weaknesses. If we are smart we will work to turn those weaknesses into strengths.

Taft

The original thought was; in losing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries it would create more high tech jobs for the less skilled American worker in the United States. Now Americans are seeing these high tech jobs leaving the country also. About 30,000 technology jobs have moved to the foreign arena already, and you can bet that more will be moving in the near future. American firms have been targeting data entry, telemarketing, and technical support jobs to countries like India and the Philippines, and now the higher-level positions in IT such as computer programming and design work. Why? Because a computer programmer in India earns less than half of what the same programmer would earn in America thus increasing corporate profits. The question is, if the United States gives up its technology edge as we gave up our manufacturing edge, what will be left for Americans? The current prediction is - by the year 2015, more than 3.3 million white-collar jobs will be shipped overseas. The Americans losing their jobs to foreign laborers are some of the most talented and highly educated members of our work force. When your best and your brightest are out of work, we will have a huge problem.

A “Dateline” program about Americas homeless covered four families from coast to coast. The message? Americans are hurting and so many have no jobs. 16 million un-employed Americans are struggling to keep their families together, a roof over their heads and food on the table. Our government seems to be very concerned about the rest of the world but not our own people! Why do we have troops in 130 countries? Are we trying to control everyone to feel important? I’ll give you one way to feel important – bring back the manufacturing jobs that have scattered all over the world. American corporations, in search of the almighty buck, have turned their backs on Americans and the way of life these dedicated employees helped create in this great country of ours. Consider one major point - the shortages of federal and state funding today. No jobs, and no funds with which those workers can buy merchandise. Congratulations, our current political leaders have just brought the greatest country in the world to its knees!

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
There is only one weakness. Taxes are too high. Cut them and we are invincible. [/bush]

Now your talking. Did you know that every president who has ever slashed taxes, has presided or turned-over a thriving economy?

Reagan tax cuts sparked the longest and largest economic expansion in American history, one that lasted, with a minor interruption in the early 90s, for nearly 20 years. His economic policies also encouraged a free-market driven massive restructuring of American industry that squeezed out inefficiencies and laid the groundwork for an astounding increase in productivity. Until NAFTA.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Rebel
Now your talking. Did you know that every president who has ever slashed taxes, has presided or turned-over a thriving economy?
Now wait a minute. Reagan handed George Bush an enormous spending deficit that forced him to raise taxes, setting the stage for Bill Clinton, who also raised taxes (to cover Reagan's spending habits) and he also presided over one of the largest economic expansions in history. Taxes in and of themselves do not destroy industry or initiative. Overtaxation, unfair taxation, and misuse of tax dollars can do this, but the issue is not so black and white.

I would also point out that Bush's tax cus have brought on record deficits and the worst job creation record since Hoover. Just because corporate profits were up last quarter does not mean the economy is healthy. It just means that Bush's targeted tax cuts are working. How much of that money do you think is being re-invested into the firms themselves, and how much is being pocketed?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Now wait a minute. Reagan handed George Bush an enormous spending deficit that forced him to raise taxes, setting the stage for Bill Clinton, who also raised taxes (to cover Reagan's spending habits) and he also presided over one of the largest economic expansions in history. Taxes in and of themselves do not destroy industry or initiative. Overtaxation, unfair taxation, and misuse of tax dollars can do this, but the issue is not so black and white.

I would also point out that Bush's tax cus have brought on record deficits and the worst job creation record since Hoover. Just because corporate profits were up last quarter does not mean the economy is healthy. It just means that Bush's targeted tax cuts are working. How much of that money do you think is being re-invested into the firms themselves, and how much is being pocketed?

It was President Reagan, working in tandem with a reinvigorated Federal Reserve, who tamed inflation and brought interest rates and inflation under control. Which sparked a sluggish America.

Many corporate executives care only for themselves now-a-days. They take what they can get, and could care less that the little guy is what is making them successful. We are seeing this first hand with all the scandals. Another question is; how much American citizen money are our piliticians placing into their pockets? They talk tough about corporations, but do the slight-of-hand with their own abuses.

Bottom line, the world is seeing a job boom the likes of which will dwarf all other booms we have seen in this country. Unfortunately, it is not a good time to be an American worker. Unless you are willing to live in India, China, Pakistan, Chile etc...

[jonapete2001]

Everyone who knows anything about presidential economics knows that the economy of one presidential period is the result of economic plans enitiated many years in advance. The job market and the GDP/DNP are not determined(for the most part) by policy of the now, they were determined years ago. The economy now can be blaimed on any number of things, including(but not limited to) President Clinton, President Bush Sr., a democratic congress(pre 94, or a republican congress(post 94), 911. In 4-5 years start blaming things on our current representation.

911 is one of the main contributors to the economic slow down that is now over.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, I guess I can safely admit to not knowing anything about "presidential economics," since I've never heard of such a thing before.

Gee, does that mean I can start throwing out non sequiturs, and then claim to be an expert on the subject? Well all-righty, then -- it just so happens that I can easily whip every one of you at transcendental ice hockey. Who's gonna be first?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
it just so happens that I can easily whip every one of you at transcendental ice hockey. Who's gonna be first?

I have a Synergy. I'll go first.

Oh, you said transcendental ice hockey. I've yet to afford a Transcendental Synergy.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yeah, I guess I can safely admit to not knowing anything about "presidential economics," since I've never heard of such a thing before.

Gee, does that mean I can start throwing out non sequiturs, and then claim to be an expert on the subject? Well all-righty, then -- it just so happens that I can easily whip every one of you at transcendental ice hockey. Who's gonna be first?

Does your insult mean you concede to the point or are you just being funny. And yes presidential economics is the term i used to describe how the president effects the economy. Why are you so confrontational?

[SPG]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I have a Synergy. I'll go first.

Oh, you said transcendental ice hockey. I've yet to afford a Transcendental Synergy.

After the second period of transcendental Ice Hockey I suffered a displaced paradigm of my synergy...I'll be off the ice for two weeks.

[SPG]

Originally posted by g5man
I take it you are refering to the trade deficit. This will improving as the dollar regains strenght. And it will, but it might take a few years.
...
The question should be what happens if America stops buying the world's goods and services? It will never happen and if anythng the US will import more and more each year. We just need to improve in our ability to produce more of our own goods and services. ...
You're actually contradicting yourself here. For one the trade deficit only gets worse with a strong dollar, then you say we will import more and produce more domestically...which is it? It's like saying I'm going to spend more and save more. Unless I also can suddenly earn more there needs to be a choice.

I often look at the Wal Mart model when it comes to modern american economics. Trim costs to the bone, including labor costs, remove through competition anyone unable to lower their own costs.
Result: Lots of people with reduced buying power buying at reduced prices. It's a very short sighted plan in that eventually if all business/society goes this route there will be a shrinking of the economy as a whole. Efficiency's pricetag if you will.
Another thing about the Walmartization is the effect of where the profits actually go, not back into the pockets of business owners in the community where the store is, but back to the pockets in Bentonville Arkansas.

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Just the opposite, actually. A weak dollar curtails imports and boosts exports. A stronger dollar generally results in larger trade deficits.

You are correct. But we are dealing with a unique situation. Our economy is significantly stronger than the rest of the world, so even with a weak dollar we continue to import at a record pace. As the dollar increases along with the economy Americans will be willing to pay higher prices for things made here in the USA. It is a stretch but a theory never the less.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
You are correct. But we are dealing with a unique situation. Our economy is significantly stronger than the rest of the world, so even with a weak dollar we continue to import at a record pace. As the dollar increases along with the economy Americans will be willing to pay higher prices for things made here in the USA. It is a stretch but a theory never the less.

The Buy American campaign didn't work. When faced with a 30% price reduction most people will buy from abroad. Plus, recent legislation approved by gw & co. has denied American consumers from knowing where their food comes from. I for one will not purchase produce grown outside the US. It's increasingly difficult to identify it though so I make a point to buy from the local farmers market and food co-op. Most people don't or can't though and seek out the lowest possible price.

Once again our "strong" economy is based on the fact that foreign investors are financing it. America is no stronger than Europe or Japan/Korea, it is simply perceived as such.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Does your insult mean you concede to the point or are you just being funny. And yes presidential economics is the term i used to describe how the president effects the economy. Why are you so confrontational?

I was merely pointing out that if you create a subject out of whole cloth, you will automatically be the undisputed expert on that topic. And here I thought I was being a nice guy about it, especially considering your position was that anybody who knows anything must agree with you.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Ugg
The Buy American campaign didn't work. When faced with a 30% price reduction most people will buy from abroad. Plus, recent legislation approved by gw & co. has denied American consumers from knowing where their food comes from. I for one will not purchase produce grown outside the US. It's increasingly difficult to identify it though so I make a point to buy from the local farmers market and food co-op. Most people don't or can't though and seek out the lowest possible price.


Government cost estimates of a new program that will require meat packages to be labeled with their countries of origin are "questionable and not well supported," congressional auditors said in a report released Wednesday. The Agriculture Department had estimated the cost of record-keeping and paperwork for the first year of the program would be $1.9 billion across the food industry. The report said the USDA "could provide no documentation to support its estimates" when it assumed an hourly rate of $50 to develop a record system - more than double the rate it used in recent estimates for other programs. Higher costs will lead to higher prices in the supermarket, said Dan Murphy, a spokesman for the American Meat Institute. "None of us want to pay more for food, especially when there is no added benefit other than a sticker on the label." Senator Tom Daschle said the labeling rules would serve consumers by allowing them to know where their food was produced and help ranchers by creating a demand for U.S. meat. Enzi agreed. "On shoes, they tell you what the country of origin is. On underwear they tell you what the country of origin is," he said. "But I tell you those things that you wear can't hurt you nearly as much as the things you put in your body." I agree. Americans want to eat American meat.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Rebel
I agree. Americans want to eat American meat.

Well, not all the time, but I at least want to be able to know I have a choice which this govt. seems to think is anti-american. Even though that choice means more money in the pockets of the little guy. Hmmm, maybe that's what this is all about after all, ensuring the money stays with the oligarchs rather than the common man.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What happens when I don't earn income? I've done less to deserve that money than normal people making income. Enough less that the government treats it differently. Capital gains taxes are on a different schedule because one did so little work to acquire the money gained that it's considered unearned.


Since when does 'deserve' have anything to do with it? Since when is it right for a legislative body to consider that 'deserve' is a criteria for someone keeping their money?

What if 51% of the people consider that you do not 'deserve' to live in your middle class average priced home? What if 51% of the people consider that you do not 'deserve' to live in your lower middle class rental apartment? What if 51% of the people consider that you do not 'deserve' to live in a low income housing project? What if 51% of the people consider that you do not 'deserve' to live?

[SPG]

Originally posted by Rebel
I agree. Americans want to eat American meat.

The american meat industry has become so lax in its regulation that I'd do just the opposite...except that Canada just recently had a case of mad cow...and then Europe had it too...ah the heck with it, it's time to become a vegetarian.

[SPG]

Originally posted by g5man
You are correct. But we are dealing with a unique situation. Our economy is significantly stronger than the rest of the world, so even with a weak dollar we continue to import at a record pace. As the dollar increases along with the economy Americans will be willing to pay higher prices for things made here in the USA. It is a stretch but a theory never the less.

Business and consumers always go after one thing...their best interest. It is the rare individual who will (or even can) put the interest of others ahead of himself.
Why do we drive so many SUV's that we know use more fuel and are dangerous to others? Why do we shop at Wal Mart where we know that the employees are paid minimum wage (or less), and where the very presence of the store is designed to run the small mom and pops out of business? Why do we keep building houses in the suburbs? Why do we support tax cuts at the expense of those less fortunate?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by SPG
The american meat industry has become so lax in its regulation that I'd do just the opposite...except that Canada just recently had a case of mad cow...and then Europe had it too...ah the heck with it, it's time to become a vegetarian.

You've got a point and that is why increasingly my food is bought from local producers as much as possible. Having grown up on grass fed beef it is impossible to eat that awful plastic-wrapped, anti-biotic ridden stuff that is sold in most grocery stores. But vegetarians are subject to the same problems the meat producers are if you can't tell where your produce came from as has been well-documented by the Hep A outbreak at Chi Chis.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I don't understand why so many people have this strong feeling of ownership, be it with money or property. The only things truly worth defending as vehemently as we typically defend our money are thing things you don't leave behind when you die.

I think many of these programs are worthwhile. The key is to get someone to kill the special interest aspects.

There's only one party feeding the war machine.

Did you know that a long time ago, horsethieves were shot. The person that had their horse stolen from them might not be able to work without it, and its akin to stealing their life and livelihood...

As to programs, you think that many of these programs are worthwhile. But others do not think so. The fair thing to do then is to not even have the program, especially if the program is not one of the 17 tasks of federal government.

One party feeds the war machine.
Other party feeds the entitlement machine.
Us taxpayers are stuck in the backseat, footing the bill.


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

[SPG]

Whenever I go to Japan I'm amazed at the quality of the food there. granted some things like beef cost more, but the quality is just so much better, tastier.
When the Japanese come here they all compllain about the poor quality of meat and produce. Luckily I have a really good Asian supermarket in town where you can get a lot of the fish and other goodies to keep my guests from starving to death.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
You've got a point and that is why increasingly my food is bought from local producers as much as possible. Having grown up on grass fed beef it is impossible to eat that awful plastic-wrapped, anti-biotic ridden stuff that is sold in most grocery stores. But vegetarians are subject to the same problems the meat producers are if you can't tell where your produce came from as has been well-documented by the Hep A outbreak at Chi Chis.

How economical is it to raise livestock where you would have to give them antibiotics in order to make a profit?

Or is it because of today's land-use policy that mandates that livestock be limited to less and less ground that the use of antibiotics came into vogue.

I was out in the field, when I came upon a cow on the ground. She couldn't seem to get up, and had a strange thing behind her (turned out to be her uterus, she had a bad delivery of a calf). Marked her location in my GPS and drove to the rancher's house. Talked with the rancher and brought him to the down cow. A few yards away, the newborn calf was found, half eaten by coyote. Asked if the cow was gonna make it. Rancher looked at the cow, said that she was probably down for a week, lost a lot of weight, dehydrated, and even with antibiotics, would not survive with having the uterine prolapse (http://beef-mag.com/ar/beef_prolapse_problems/). This does not seem to me like the use of antibiotics is as widespread.

Not having many cowboy friends, I think that shrinking the feed range of cattle, or penning them up and feeding them grain is because of land-use policies that are limiting to ranchers. Or the reintroduction of predator animals such as wolves (http://www.natureswolves.com/livestock/ely.htm), or the protection of others from hunting such as mountain lion, have caused ranchers to limit the areas so that the livestock can be protected.

The rancher put down the cow before leaving. With a 1911. :D On the way back to the ranch house, I asked how much does a cow bring. He said that if the one that he just killed was healthy and brought to market, she'd fetch $2000. :o :eek: But after the cost of leasing the land, or paying for the mortgage for the land, costs of ranch help, fuel, land improvements to provide for water to the cows, transportation when a particular area is done for feeding, etc, that $2000 came right out of the rancher's pocketbook.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Did you know that a long time ago, horsethieves were shot. The person that had their horse stolen from them might not be able to work without it, and its akin to stealing their life and livelihood...



Did you know that only about a century ago there was a group of men called the Robber Barons? They consolidated their wealth and destroyed the competition and forced people to work for almost nothing, virtually enslaving them. They cared nothing for the country only their own power and wealth. That is why we have the programs we do today, to ameliorate the effects of such greedy, grasping men. Are you suggesting they too should be shot like the horse thieves of old?

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Did you know that a long time ago, horsethieves were shot. The person that had their horse stolen from them might not be able to work without it, and its akin to stealing their life and livelihood...
Under sharia a thief of even an apple has his hand cut off. If you are going to prosecute property crimes using that scale than most "white collar" criminals would be executed on the spot instead of being sent up to minimum security prisons on the rare occasions they are convicted. Pseudobrit has a point that too often property is valued above life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Before the French revolution if a nobleman killed a peasant he was expected to throw a few coins to the heirs, not required to mind you. In Israel if a settler shoots a Palestinian they are almost never prosecuted for it. After the civil war in the South countless Blacks were lynched for not being born white.
The punishment so often does not meet the crime that any anology to "justice" is moot.

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to programs, you think that many of these programs are worthwhile. But others do not think so. The fair thing to do then is to not even have the program, especially if the program is not one of the 17 tasks of federal government.

One party feeds the war machine.
Other party feeds the entitlement machine.
Us taxpayers are stuck in the backseat, footing the bill.
Give me a freaking break! The entitlement machine? Did you see who benefits with the medicaire drug bill that just passed? It ain't senior citizens, it's the drug companies and insurers to the tune of hundreds of Billions. Did you see the pork in the "energy bill" that thankfully got rejected? Tens of billions for the oil companies to keep on making profits and almost nothing at all for any kind of renewable energies since they're not big campaign donors.
Entitlements? What do you mean? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Disability? I'd hate to live in the society you'd suggest without "entitlements", as I think it would look something like Mad Max or Liberia.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How economical is it to raise livestock where you would have to give them antibiotics in order to make a profit?

Or is it because of today's land-use policy that mandates that livestock be limited to less and less ground that the use of antibiotics came into vogue.



What land-use policy is that?

Just as in any other business, labor costs are the largest expense of any farm/ranch operation. The larger the spread, the more help you need to fence it, the more vehicles you need to manage it, the more labor you need to keep an eye on the herd. Feed lots are less expensive due to the fact that an animal can be allotted a finite amount of space, feeding and waste disposal can be automated and the meat ends up tasting like the average tennis shoe. This is only possible with massive amounts of capital and couldn't be accomplished by the average rancher.

The use of antibiotics isn't because the animals are sick or are confined to small spaces but because they increase the weight of an animal despite the fact that the casual use of antibiotics has been proven to reduce the effectiveness of them over the long term. So, the corporate farmer once again is ignoring the long term health of not only his animals but also his fellow Americans. You will find little antibiotic use on small, family owned farms. Just like Monsanto's GM seeds, antibiotics are too expensive for those on the bottom rung.

Nobody is forcing farmers to give their animals antibiotics, but the meat packers have left them little choice. The biggest pork producers don't actually produce the pork, they subcontract it out to small farmers who are forced into a contract that says they will be paid x amount of dollars for x amount of meat. If they don't deliver x amount of meat, they end up paying the meat packer and many have gone bankrupt. It's not market forces at work but the increasing power of the packers and distributors of meat. Add in a little globalization and the end result is low prices couple with the lowest possible quality.

I know you want to blame the environmentalists, but it is not possible in this case.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How economical is it to raise livestock where you would have to give them antibiotics in order to make a profit?

Or is it because of today's land-use policy that mandates that livestock be limited to less and less ground that the use of antibiotics came into vogue.

This is a wrong asumption. In fact, the government leases land to ranchers at way below the going rate of private land. The reason meat animals are given antibiotics, by and large, is profit and feedlots. Just before an animal is slaughtered it is sent to a feedlot to be fattened. This last bit of weight gain is extra profit.

In the feedlots the animal is jamed in with thousands of others, eating and sleeping in their own waste and the waste of the other animals. It's unhealthy, spreading and promoting sickness. That's why they are given antibiotics. Also the pure grain diet of the animals last days changes the chemical balance in the cows stomach and promotes e-coli growth. A study showed that if instead of feeding the cows grain for the last 5 days they fed the cows hay 95% of all e-coli related illness and death (in humans) could be stopped.

Of course the cattle industry wants the extra profit so it's OK if we get sick. It's OK that children are entering puberty sooner than ever before. It's OK that resistance to tomorrows diseases are compromised for todays profit.

[g5man]

In Florida Bush won by 537 votes.

A new poll shows him leading most Democratic Candidates by 20 points or more.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/7343228.htm

The anger against him for his win there seems to have subsided. Add this to my earlier post showing other states where the GOP has gained people, it is easy no to predict a landslide next year.

[IJ Reilly]

The polls also show him loosing to an unnamed Democratic opponent. None of these polls are very meaningful.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by SPG
Give me a freaking break! The entitlement machine? Did you see who benefits with the medicaire drug bill that just passed? It ain't senior citizens, it's the drug companies and insurers to the tune of hundreds of Billions. Did you see the pork in the "energy bill" that thankfully got rejected? Tens of billions for the oil companies to keep on making profits and almost nothing at all for any kind of renewable energies since they're not big campaign donors. Entitlements? What do you mean? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Disability? I'd hate to live in the society you'd suggest without "entitlements", as I think it would look something like Mad Max or Liberia.


New Medicare Bill

UCA Analysis = OK for Seniors – Great for Drug Companies – Bad for Taxpayers.

This is the biggest expansion of a government program, and very much needed, but it favors more the Drug Maker and politician than the people who need it.

For the majority of seniors it is an OK deal, but not a great one. The new drug benefit does not take effect until 2006. It only covers about a quarter of the average seniors’ total spending. If you already get good coverage through employer plans, or through a generous state Medicaid plan, it could turn out to be a bad deal.

This deal was a sell-out to the pharmaceutical industry. The deal prohibits the government from negotiating directly with drug companies. This bill could have done more to control drug prices. It could have called for new efforts to dismantle price controls overseas, or for new spending on research into the cost effectiveness of drugs, and deeper research into drug side affects. Many drugs such as SSI’s, have severe side effects that are dangerous to individuals and society.

This was not a good deal for taxpayers. It will cost $400 billion over ten years, and nobody knows where that money is going to come from. Nevertheless, politicians from both parties had promised a prescription drug benefit, and to garner the all-powerful senior vote and still keep the drug company campaign contributions flowing, this was as far as they were willing to go. The question is – can this system be “reformed” before the vast majority of baby boomers retire. If not, then this system will crush the American workers who will have to support them and it, with more and more taxes.

FACT:
"45-50 Million boomers will be heading into retirement in the next 15-20 years. They will be demanding all of their government benefits - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Who is going to pay for all of this? Certainly not them - it will be the under 25 group. Prepare for your taxes to skyrocket to the moon.


SPG - Rise-up!

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The polls also show him loosing to an unnamed Democratic opponent. None of these polls are very meaningful.

Who is that unamed democrats? There is none.

They are meaningful because they provide us with a glimse of the present and the future.

I have said it in the past. Bush will be behind in the polls sometime next year, but will bonce back.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Bush will be behind in the polls sometime next year, but will bonce back.

\Bonce\, n. [Etymol. unknown.] A boy's game played with large marbles.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
\Bonce\, n. [Etymol. unknown.] A boy's game played with large marbles.

Well, it's good to know that he has marbles, or is it that he is just playing with someone else's.... Hmm whatever the case may be his "bonce" is over and the reins will be in someone else's hands next year. Of that there is no doubt.

[g5man]

Here is a good article that also leads me to believe that Bush will win a landslide.

I don't agree with the first sentence. Talk about a close race is used only to ensure that the party faithful will go and vote.

The hatred for Bush is strong but the love and respect for this president is even stronger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20936-2003Nov29.html

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Did you know that only about a century ago there was a group of men called the Robber Barons? They consolidated their wealth and destroyed the competition and forced people to work for almost nothing, virtually enslaving them. They cared nothing for the country only their own power and wealth. That is why we have the programs we do today, to ameliorate the effects of such greedy, grasping men. Are you suggesting they too should be shot like the horse thieves of old?

Horse thieves of old were shot as they were committing their horse thieving. Usually by the owner.

Forced people to work...slavery went out after the civil war.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
Pseudobrit has a point that too often property is valued above life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Give me a freaking break! The entitlement machine? Did you see who benefits with the medicaire drug bill that just passed?

Entitlements? What do you mean? Social Security? Medicaid? Unemployment? Disability? I'd hate to live in the society you'd suggest without "entitlements", as I think it would look something like Mad Max or Liberia.

Not too often. How about the people that bought Tahoe property that can't develop their property for their retirement? Sounds like their property is not valued above liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As to the Medicare drug bill... that was a bad idea to begin with. I was rooting for the bill to go down in flames on that one.

Entitlements, Social Security is the biggest one of them all. It would be nice to be able to opt out of any of these programs. A society without these entitlements? Think of low taxes, being able to retire early, and low work hour weeks.

When is Tax Freedom day these days? In May or June?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
A society without these entitlements? Think of low taxes, being able to retire early, and low work hour weeks.


that's wishful thinking. as evidence, i cite how many people have a negative net worth. is it because of taxes? no -- it's because they spend more than they make, period. a few points off taxes won't change that behavior.


When is Tax Freedom day these days? In May or June?

not sure, but that's why i always take the first half of the year off :-)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
that's wishful thinking. as evidence, i cite how many people have a negative net worth. is it because of taxes? no -- it's because they spend more than they make, period. a few points off taxes won't change that behavior.



not sure, but that's why i always take the first half of the year off :-)

Okay. What do people with negative net worth have to do with me? If they are not responsible to live within their means...

Here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html) is the link to Tax Freedom Day.

Wow. Connecticut is #1, followed by Taxachusetts, New Yawk and Kalifornia!

New Mexico, Alaska, Alabama and Tennessee are the last 4.

[g5man]

Bush gets bounce in polls after troop visit.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/02/national1730EST0659.DTL&type=printable

Most would consider the situation in Iraq pretty bad right now. Things have been described as such for over 7 months. And in light of that fact, Bush continues to have solid approval numbers even when most are not happy with his handling of Iraq. Ten months from now, if things remain the same, it is hard to fathom much change in the polls. Thus we can safely assume he will win re-election. As you well know I am predicting a landslide.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Thus we can safely assume he will win re-election. As you well know I am predicting a landslide.

You can assume all you want, sanfelipe.

As you well know, we don't have much regard for your predictions.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man
As you well know I am predicting a landslide.

ovi/sanfelipe/g5man,

i'm also familiar with your prior rosey predictions about the war...under your former user names. too bad you deleted those posts. you have ZERO credibilty here.

here's my prediction: you'll continue to prattle on with your pointless posts and mindless lockstep dogmatic tripe until you're banned again. then you'll resurface with another user name and pretend your history doesn't exist.

i wish there was such an easy bet in vegas.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
ovi/sanfelipe/g5man,


how do jonpete2001 (sp?) and G5ROCKS fit into this mess?

[Rower_CPU]

I'm pretty sure jonapete posted as mactacular for a bit (IPs matched).

Other than that, no connection I can see.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm pretty sure jonapete posted as mactacular for a bit (IPs matched).


for a second, i thought you meant mactastic. i was having a hard time believing that one.

thanks for checking

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
for a second, i thought you meant mactastic. i was having a hard time believing that one.

thanks for checking

Hehe... thought I came up with a right-wing alter ego huh? I didn't realize how much Jonapete disliked me. I wonder if mactacular was aimed at me now..... Oh well, like it matters. Just keep us posted when he posts under a new name again. Thanks for the info Rower!

[g5man]

Why are you guys so fixated with former members?

I keep getting called different names, and I have yet to figure out why. Oh well.

It appears you don't like other points of view and like to keep this forum as a click. Since being here for a short time I have seen many of you bait people by taking cheap shots and then laugh as they respond and get banned.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by g5man
Why are you guys so fixated with former members?

I keep getting called different names, and I have yet to figure out why. Oh well.


why would anyone join a mac rumors site just to talk politics?

[g5man]

I read macrumors every day. Maybe rowercpu can track down what pages I have read. Someone told me about the political area and I was facinated by what I was reading and felt the need to join.

There is nothing for me to comment on in the other forums, and I just don't have the time to get into long debates like many of you.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
It appears you don't like other points of view and like to keep this forum as a click. Since being here for a short time I have seen many of you bait people by taking cheap shots and then laugh as they respond and get banned.

I actually enjoy hearing other points of view, rationally discussed. The people who are here long term are the ones who have learned that the one thing you don't do in here is to call people names. This isn't a democratic forum, the mods and Arn are the law. The rules that apply to you on the street do not apply here necessarily.

And I think you would have to agree that some of the liberal posters here are not the only ones who post inflammatory things.

If you can stick to attacking the argument and not the person you will be able to have a long and productive time here. If you can't, all bets are off and your likelihood of being banned is high.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
...
I keep getting called different names, and I have yet to figure out why. Oh well.
...

The preponderance of evidence shows that you are posting from the same/similar IPs as the posters mentioned. Your post style, tone, and location also bolster indications that you are a returning poster.

Convince me otherwise and I'll stop saying it.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The preponderance of evidence shows that you are posting from the same/similar IPs as the posters mentioned. Your post style, tone, and location also bolster indications that you are a returning poster.

Convince me otherwise and I'll stop saying it.

Post style and tone. You must be kidding.

I cannot tell a difference between zimv20, psudeo, wworry, mactastic, RPG, 3rdpath, but that is just me.

A few have wondered if I was other posters who are active.

Personally you can call me who ever you seem to think I am so I have no desire to convince you.

I just think too many people seem to be too fixated with user names, identities and locations.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

I cannot tell a difference between zimv20, psudeo, wworry, mactastic, RPG, 3rdpath, but that is just me.


in what way do i resemble a rocket propelled grenade?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
I cannot tell a difference between zimv20, psudeo, wworry, mactastic, RPG, 3rdpath, but that is just me.

C'mon, now. There's a certain difference. zim and I are the sarcastic bastards of that bunch (see zim's post above for proof). And I can all but guarantee none in that list have matching IPs.

Personally you can call me who ever you seem to think I am so I have no desire to convince you.

As you wish, Ovi/sanfelipe.

I just think too many people seem to be too fixated with user names, identities and locations.

And some people seem too fixated with hiding theirs. It's just f'in creepy if you ask me.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
I cannot tell a difference between zimv20, psudeo, wworry, mactastic, RPG, 3rdpath, but that is just me.

I just think too many people seem to be too fixated with user names, identities and locations.

Some people here worry about posting style and other things such as locations and IP address. That just detracts from the debate. If someone were to be dishonest enough to double login in order to make their arguments more valid, then there is something wrong with the argument as it stands.

I might post from a different IP, but this is the only login that I have, and I don't repost as another. If I 'repost', its when I repeat my argument in different wording because some of the 'liberals' here are hard to get through. zimv20, psedobrit, wwworry and mactastic come to mind. :D :p

[g5man]

Ok lets see if we can clarify something.

wworry posted this.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of overone billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost theirjobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice


And yet I have shown over and over again that most people like this president.

So perhaps the hatred for Bush can only be explained as a fact devoid of reason and reality that it comes across and shows rather clearly even here.

The only answer given to why Bush will win a landslide is that he will cheat with the new voting machines. Too many are listening to Krugman instead of good old common sense.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I have shown over and over again that most people like this president.

So perhaps the hatred for Bush can only be explained as a fact devoid of reason

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

you're saying that if some hold A to be true, then everyone else lacks reason.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I don't repost as another.


speaking for myself (hidden joke intended :-) i never thought you had.

some of the 'liberals' here are hard to get through. zimv20, psedobrit, wwworry and mactastic come to mind. :D :p

ah, cheap shot. i like that i'm a quote-unquote liberal, though.

[g5man]

zimv20,

Did you not read what I write? Don't answer that.

I said perhaps.

I am not sure but other than bitter partisanship the only other explanation is just a devoid of reason.

Assuming that everything that wworry posted was true and correct, how would you explain that a majority of people likes this president?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
Post style and tone. You must be kidding.

I cannot tell a difference between zimv20, psudeo, wworry, mactastic, RPG, 3rdpath, but that is just me.

A few have wondered if I was other posters who are active.

Personally you can call me who ever you seem to think I am so I have no desire to convince you.

I just think too many people seem to be too fixated with user names, identities and locations.

You'd be surprised how identifiable people are by the way they communicate online. I have found it quite easy to peg return users by their post style.

Way to ignore the IP address issue.

I'm not concerned about you being other active posters. I'm concerned about you being posters that have been banned for their inability to follow forum rules and who repeatedly come back to this same forum.

I'm already convinced as to who you are. I was giving you the opportunity to clear up any possible misconception, but it looks as if you're declining that chance.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

Assuming that everything that wworry posted was true and correct, how would you explain that a majority of people likes this president?

link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=572789#post572789)

[g5man]

OK you have managed to stump me.

But then you must be willing to admit that if people were influenced by republicans to vote their way, then you must also agree with me that Bush will easily win re-election.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
you must be willing to admit that if people were influenced by republicans to vote their way, then you must also agree with me that Bush will easily win re-election.

'easily' is a pretty subjective term.

imo, it's going to depend a lot on what's going on at the time and who gets the democratic nomination.

i find it nearly impossible to predict how the populace will respond to current events. let's say there's another terrorist attack -- will people rally around bush, or will they blame him for not doing enough? i suspect the former, but i'm not willing to make any bets on it.

will the dem candidate be able to rally support and get good voter turnout? i certainly don't know. the GOP is much better at getting their voters to turn out. (and if everyone voted every election, i don't think the GOP would win anything)

as it stands now, i think bush has a good chance at re-election. there's certainly enough data out there to demonstrate he's not at all worthy of it and has grossly misused the office. the fact that so few people have picked up on it makes me lose a lot of faith in the american public, hence the analysis i did that i recently linked to.

[jywv8]

Originally posted by g5man
Assuming that everything that wworry posted was true and correct, how would you explain that a majority of people likes this president?

Yes. a lot of Americans like the president. Polls have also shown that 70 percent of Americans believe in angels, 60 percent believe in literal Armageddon, and more than half reject Charles Darwin.

Perhaps that people like Bush is itself devoid of reason and reality.

[g5man]

Originally posted by jywv8
Yes. a lot of Americans like the president. Polls have also shown that 70 percent of Americans believe in angels, 60 percent believe in literal Armageddon, and more than half reject Charles Darwin.

Perhaps that people like Bush is itself devoid of reason and reality.

Help me understand what you just wrote.

Are you saying that those who do not like this president are usually not Christians or church going people?

In a nutshell it appears that you basically implied that anyone who believes in what most Christians believe are devoid of reason and reality.

[mactastic]

Ok, how about a secular example. A majority of Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. A majority also think we found WMDs in Iraq. Are those not positions devoid of reason at this point?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I might post from a different IP, but this is the only login that I have, and I don't repost as another. If I 'repost', its when I repeat my argument in different wording because some of the 'liberals' here are hard to get through. zimv20, psedobrit, wwworry and mactastic come to mind. :D :p

You'd be easy to pick out if you posted under a different name!

And you are about as hardheaded as conservatives come. Ain't no getting through to you.;)

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, how about a secular example. A majority of Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. A majority also think we found WMDs in Iraq. Are those not positions devoid of reason at this point?

Yes I would agree that those positions are devoid of reason.

That still does not fully explain why people are willing to trust Bush despite what the other sides says about him. Nor does it answer the question I posted regarding Christians.

The White House has never said that Iraq was responsible for Sept 11 nor have they said that WMD have been found in Iraq.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
The White House has never said that Iraq was responsible for Sept 11 nor have they said that WMD have been found in Iraq.

Obviously, there's a hundred ways to hades to respond to this point, but the administration absolutely did try to connect Saddam to Al Qeada and also said on numerous occasions that they'd either found evidence of Saddam's WMDs or were about to find it. They dropped that line of attack only recently, when it became too embarrassingly counterfactual to sustain. If the American people have some weird and wrongheaded ideas about Iraq, look no further then the administration feeding the nation disinformation for months on end.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
Yes I would agree that those positions are devoid of reason.

That still does not fully explain why people are willing to trust Bush despite what the other sides says about him. Nor does it answer the question I posted regarding Christians.

The White House has never said that Iraq was responsible for Sept 11 nor have they said that WMD have been found in Iraq.

You're going to have to get jywv8 to answer you about the Christian part.

And yes the official line from the WH is that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. However there have been many statements from people as high up as Cheney that definetly make that line fuzzy.
Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml)
Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.
Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.
Emphasis mine.

[IJ Reilly]

"What I have said is a fact -- that there are al Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, August 21, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
—Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002

".. there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented... [but] no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 26, 2002

[jywv8]

Originally posted by g5man
Help me understand what you just wrote.

Are you saying that those who do not like this president are usually not Christians or church going people?

In a nutshell it appears that you basically implied that anyone who believes in what most Christians believe are devoid of reason and reality.

Most Christians I know do not believe in angels, literal Armageddon, and creationism. So, no, that was not my point. My point was that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean that those who disagree with them are devoid of reason and reality.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
speaking for myself (hidden joke intended :-) i never thought you had.

ah, cheap shot. i like that i'm a quote-unquote liberal, though.

shots are expensive... at least with smileys. :D

Actually, liberal is the incorrect term, as liberal should mean one that is liberal in the application of rights. About the only true liberals are the libertarians (http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Libertarians.html), and I say that with a small 'l' instead of the Libertarian party. I tend to be libertarian in my beliefs.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
About the only true liberals are the libertarians (http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Libertarians.html), and I say that with a small 'l' instead of the Libertarian party. I tend to be libertarian in my beliefs.

I was going to comment on this when mac called you a conservative.

You're one of those crazy libertarians, not one of those crazy conservatives. :D :rolleyes: :D

I think a lot of people on these boards tend to be libertarian-leaning on social issues and liberal-leaning on financial/budget/federal program type issues. There are a few brave souls arguing for the conservative-leaning quarters, and a few libertarians, but I actually wish there were more of both. It might make for some more grounded conversations.

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Actually, liberal is the incorrect term, as liberal should mean one that is liberal in the application of rights.

i'm not even sure what it means to be liberal. i've chosen my beliefs based on what i think is correct.

e.g. i'm:
1. pro-environmental protection
2. pro-social democracy
3. pro-fiscal conservatism
4. pro-international law
5. pro-choice
6. anti-capital punishment
7. pro-diplomacy
8. pro-campaign finance reform
9. pro-civil rights
10. pro-gun control, but anti-no-guns-at-all

[IJ Reilly]

When in doubt about the meaning of a word, try the dictionary:

lib·er·al
adj.

1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

n.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.

[pseudobrit]

Thanks, IJ.

That's why the right have hijacked and confused the term "liberal" with less noble ideas.

After all, who the hell would want to freely admit they're the opposite of the true meaning of "liberal?"

Which is:

Conservative
a: limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; bound to bigotry.
b. Opposing proposals for reform, closed to new ideas for progress, and intolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; closed-minded.

:D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
When in doubt about the meaning of a word, try the dictionary:

deek-sho-naaaaarrrrryyyyyyy??????

:-)

yes, but the word 'liberal' is used so liberally i'm not sure exactly which political views and in what combination qualify anymore.

if feeling a need to support the disadvantaged in this country now qualifies as 'liberal', i think it's a testament to how far right the mainstream has swung.

[jywv8]

Originally posted by zimv20
yes, but the word 'liberal' is used so liberally i'm not sure exactly which political views and in what combination qualify anymore.

if feeling a need to support the disadvantaged in this country now qualifies as 'liberal', i think it's a testament to how far right the mainstream has swung.

Unfortunately, after decades of relentless disinformation and a simple lack of critical thought, many Americans associate the word "liberal" with a series of negative stereotypes: spendthrift, immoral, unpatriotic, "politically correct" and elitist, among others. Demagoguery has convinced more than a few people that liberals are essentially no different from Communists or terrorists. Without real Communists around in sufficient number to frighten anyone, the right-wing opposition focused and intensified its attack on liberalism.

Demonizing liberals is a conscious strategy of the Republican right, where such demagoguery is not only a political style but a career path, a technique that dates back to Joe McCarthy and the early Nixon, and it hasn't changed much since then. The right prefers to demonize liberals and set up fights with "politically correct" straw men rather than debate with real progressives. By "defining" and discrediting their opponents, they can substitute invective for argument and images for facts. It's the big lie, repeated and repeated until the truth is obliterated and the lie is legitimated.

The most basic, core liberal values are political equality and economic opportunity. Liberals value the dynamism and creativity of democratic capitalism, but they also believe in strong, active government to protect the interests of society. They understand that markets function best when properly regulated, and they also know that unchecked concentrations of private power encourage environmental pollution, financial fraud, and labor exploitation. Liberals see a broad social interest in ensuring real opportunities and decent standards of living for everyone, while requiring basic responsibility from everyone.

Well, that's the kind of "liberal" I am anyway.

[g5man]

Originally posted by jywv8
Most Christians I know do not believe in angels, literal Armageddon, and creationism. So, no, that was not my point. My point was that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean that those who disagree with them are devoid of reason and reality.

I will take the time and counter each and every one of those statements. The point will be made that many of them can not be backed by simple reality.

It all boils down to how one party and how GOP is about to dominate this nation. The opposite party in their attempts to counter the GOP is quickly not only losing power but their ability to articulate a reasoned approach based on reality.

And by the way, a Christian who does not believe in angels and creationism is not a Christian.

[Sayhey]

G5man, your agruments boil down to premature gloating. If you have a crystal ball and can tell the outcome of elections a year in advance, I'm sure there are quite a few campaigns that would like to put you to work. However, barring supernatural information, any student of politics will tell you how quickly politics can change.

The single most important factor in the election will be just who the Democrats pick to be their nominee. Right now, it looks like Dean, but I'm not placing any money on it. I don't think you have any great insight into Democratic politics in order to say just how that will play out.

What will the economy and the war look like in one year - do you know? I don't and I know an awful lot of very educated folks who would not bet on what either will look like.

In short, you victory dance is just obnoxious and very unpersuaive.

PS - nice way to dismiss millions of Christian's religious beliefs - that's good politics!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jywv8
Well, that's the kind of "liberal" I am anyway.

Very well spoken. It's axiomatic, that to control the language is to control the debate. The efforts, and successful ones at that, to besmirch the entire concept of liberalism at least borders on the despicable, especially given that we live in a classically liberal democracy founded by liberally-minded individuals. One has to wonder what people are thinking when they attempt to destroy the fundamental legitimacy of liberalism -- our nation's guiding philosophy from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, liberals in this country have allowed themselves to be hemmed in on this debate, by being associated for decades with all manner of "big government" solutions to problems. These programs resulted in runaway government spending claiming larger and larger segments of our economy, a trend which conservatives once resisted. Ironically, conservatives no longer seem to mind runaway government spending, so long as it feathers the nests of their campaign contributers. So conservatives have sacrificed their best and most philosophically potent issue on the alter of political expediency. They're hoping nobody notices.

If liberals can get their philosophical act together, I think the balance of power in this nation will shift, and possibly quite rapidly, because this nation is fundamentally liberal and founded on liberal principles. Maybe a refresher course in classical liberalism is in order.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
And by the way, a Christian who does not believe in angels and creationism is not a Christian.

Way to go. You just called the Pope a pagan and insulted quite a few Christians.

Think before you open your mouth, sanfelipe. You've had a problem with this kind of offensive crap before.

[wwworry]

I suppose a guy who changes his identity all the time necessarily does not see a problem with a president who lies all the time.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
G5man, your agruments boil down to premature gloating. If you have a crystal ball and can tell the outcome of elections a year in advance, I'm sure there are quite a few campaigns that would like to put you to work. However, barring supernatural information, any student of politics will tell you how quickly politics can change.

I don't believe I am gloating but rather calling it as I see it. There have been a few times when I have pointed out that I do not have a monopoly on this view point. This election does not require a cyrstal ball, for as I said before it was decided Sept 12, 2001.

True politics can change quickly, but if things continue to move as they are I just can not see anything but total domination of the GOP over the political landscape.

Originally posted by Sayhey
The single most important factor in the election will be just who the Democrats pick to be their nominee. Right now, it looks like Dean, but I'm not placing any money on it. I don't think you have any great insight into Democratic politics in order to say just how that will play out.

That important factor will only determine by how much the democrats lose. I too am not ready to say Dean will be nominated.

Originally posted by Sayhey
What will the economy and the war look like in one year - do you know? I don't and I know an awful lot of very educated folks who would not bet on what either will look like.

Yes I do. The economy continues to improve and things in Iraq will be slightly better then they are today.

Originally posted by Sayhey
In short, you victory dance is just obnoxious and very unpersuaive.

Sorry I affect you that way.


Originally posted by Sayhey
PS - nice way to dismiss millions of Christian's religious beliefs - that's good politics!

How many of you here are Christians?

I would agree with you that I am dismissing the the religious views of Christians if a majority of them did not believe in Angels and Creation, but I don't think I am.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man
I will take the time and counter each and every one of those statements. The point will be made that many of them can not be backed by simple reality.


i think you mean your simplistic reality.

ovi, i remember some of your past predictions. you can delete them...but your lack of accuracy is well documented.

c'mon, tell us again how quickly this war will be over...the gifts of flowers and dancing in the street. all the secret plans you knew of....

i just love your stories.

it's a sad person who has to deny their past personas, can't own their previous predictions and can't restrain themselves from borderline trolling.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 3rdpath

c'mon, tell us again how quickly this war will be over...the gifts of flowers and dancing in the street. all the secret plans you knew of....


oh, but it's not his fault. the administration _was_ predicting to be out of iraq by, well, this very month. and we can't expect ovi to think for himself, can we?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
How many of you here are Christians?

I would agree with you that I am dismissing the the religious views of Christians if a majority of them did not believe in Angels and Creation, but I don't think I am.

I'll go you one better than Christian. I'm Catholic.

Your remark was offensive to Catholics.

You don't need to be a creationist to be Christian.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'll go you one better than Christian. I'm Catholic.

Your remark was offensive to Catholics.

You don't need to be a creationist to be Christian.

What you are telling me is that most Catholics believe in evolution and not in Angels.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
What you are telling me is that most Catholics believe in evolution and not in Angels.

Other way around. The Pope himself has recognised that creationism is unrealistic.

Angels are a matter of faith, not science.

[g5man]

It feels good to know that the insight that I have can be backed up by others. Stanley Kurtz said this.

The boost to the president’s stature from the capture of Saddam Hussein goes far beyond the sense that the violence in Iraq may now decrease. The deeper gain for the president will be in the way the public perceives him. In an age of instant news cycles, constant political positioning, and wars that last mere days or weeks, it is rare for our nation to have to cope with violence and woe over a substantial period of time. President Bush has now done this in Iraq. A feeling that the president has the courage and resolve to make bold moves and stick with them, even when the going gets tough, will now take root. Nothing that has happened up to now–neither 9/11, nor Afghanistan, nor the actual war in Iraq, compares to the occupation in either difficulty or scale. To have seen this through until a corner was turned means that the president’s reputation for leadership has now been deepened immensely. This is something more serious than even the president’s “transformation” after 9/11. There is no substitute for the proof of time, and time has now cemented a bond between the president and the public. I’ve heard it said that the president’s reelection could be threatened by a major terrorist attack on American soil. I don’t believe that. Any major attack would help the president and hurt his Democratic rivals. Who now would trust a Democratic candidates over president Bush to see us through a crisis with courage and resolve? In a post-9/11 world, personal stature, will, and leadership count for even more than they ordinarily do. Combine this with what is likely to be a deadly civil war among the Democrats over Iraq, and the fundamentals for the Republicans in the next election are looking very good indeed.


And this
The key political question today is not which Democratic candidate is helped or hurt by Saddam’s capture. The important point is that all the Democrats are hurt. This is less because the president has gotten a boost than because the Democrats will now be torn apart by their differences. America’s divide over this war runs right down the middle of the Democratic party. Most of the Democratic candidates have managed to suppress that divide through their own prevarications. Dean and Clark made progress by playing to the anti-war types. Lieberman was stranded in right field. Now we’re in a new dynamic. Although they’ve been weakened, the anti-war types won’t relent. Lieberman is energized (and desperate), while Kerry and Gephart are primed to move right. But here’s the problem. Because the Democrats’ differences over the war are so deeply felt, neither side can win, no matter who gets nominated. If Dean or Clark grab the nomination, the new dynamic in Iraq will have weakened them fatally. They will be isolated from majority sentiment, and will go down to defeat. But if Kerry, Gephart, or Lieberman win by attacking Dean and Clark on the war issue, the anti-war Democrats will stay home out of resentment. So our improved situation in Iraq has sharpened the divide among the Democrats to the point where neither side can win without fatally alienating the other. And if Democratic divisions really do lead one side or the other to stay home on election day, it could give a critical boost to the Republican majority in Congress. This is why the problem for the Democrats is profound.




Their problems will become even worse since things will only get better in Iraq, the economy will continue to improve, and the GOP will get more money and more voters by Nov. Please note my earlier thread. Predicting a landslide is too easy.

Dean and his people better pray that we don't have another terrorist attack, WMD are confirmed having been or found in Iraq, or Bin Ladin is caught.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
It feels good to know that the insight that I have can be backed up by others.

No stopping that ego, eh?

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
No stopping that ego, eh?

I take your response to mean that you too agree with my insight in this matter, but it would be too difficult for you to express since it might affect my ego.:D

Please tell me where I am wrong in my opinion. How can one not see a major Landslide regardless of how things go in Iraq?

And the US public is stupid and easily moved by the threat of terror and patriotism and will vote for Bush or he will rig the voting machines will not suffice as persuading answers.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Please tell me where I am wrong in my opinion.

I can't. It's an opinion. My opinion is different. You can't tell me where mine's wrong either.

You've been posting page after page of other people's opinions to try to support yours, but in the end it's just that -- a whole lot of opinion.

You have no facts to support your opinion because you have no crystal ball. This thread was dead from post #1 because of this fact.

[g5man]

I only posted three articles. The first was an opinion piece, but it gave very good data regarding certain states which Bush lost.

The second was this.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/7343228.htm

The third was a news piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20936-2003Nov29.html

But I agree with you that in the end one can not prove that I am right until the event does take place.

I do not agree with most of you in the way you characterize this administration and its policies. Despite numerous article posts and threads not one has been instrumental in showing that Bush is in trouble and would have a hard time winning re-election. And if everything is true about him being a lier and an idiot then he should be in big trouble. Especially if one reads all the titles and articles.
All evidence points to a growing economy and a growing GOP dominace of the political map next year as polls indicate.

You can call me names and deny the truth, but I stick to my views because I simply follow the news and call it as I see it. My crystal ball is the pattern I have seen for the last three years.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

All evidence points to a growing economy and a growing GOP dominace of the political map next year as polls indicate.

You can call me names and deny the truth, but I stick to my views because I simply follow the news and call it as I see it. My crystal ball is the pattern I have seen for the last three years.

if you're betting on the GOP's ability to control the opinion of a great number of americans too stupid to form their own opinions, then i'd say you've got a good bet.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
if you're betting on the GOP's ability to control the opinion of a great number of americans too stupid to form their own opinions, then i'd say you've got a good bet.

I am betting on the DNC not being able to persuade a very intelligent US public how they would be better off under their leadership.:)

Please refer to my earlier post about the the argument that the US public is stupid. It only leads to more losses for those who make them. But then again I don't think any of you are democrats so you really don't care who wins next year.

zimv20,

I just wanted to add that I enjoy going back and forth with you when I find the time to do so.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
I do not agree with most of you in the way you characterize this administration and its policies. Despite numerous article posts and threads not one has been instrumental in showing that Bush is in trouble and would have a hard time winning re-election. And if everything is true about him being a lier and an idiot then he should be in big trouble.

Polls showed that Clinton would have wiped the red and blue off the map with GWB in 2000 if he had been allowed to run again, and that was despite his recent (at the time) impeachment and very public scandal including lying, and being called an idiot and worse by many right-wingers. So I don't think you can say GWB "would be in trouble" if he lied a little. That doesn't mean Dubya is terribly vulnerable just yet, but I can see why the Republican party is campaining as hard as they can for Howard Dean. If Shrub has to go toe to toe with a 4-star general who also happens to be a Rhodes scholar in a debate he will look mighty... well, shrubish.

It's a good thing for Dubya that the American public seems to have forgotten about the WMDs though. Nice bit of sleight-of-hand on their part.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Polls showed that Clinton would have wiped the red and blue off the map with GWB in 2000 if he had been allowed to run again, and that was despite his recent (at the time) impeachment and very public scandal including lying, and being called an idiot and worse by many right-wingers. So I don't think you can say GWB "would be in trouble" if he lied a little. That doesn't mean Dubya is terribly vulnerable just yet, but I can see why the Republican party is campaining as hard as they can for Howard Dean. If Shrub has to go toe to toe with a 4-star general who also happens to be a Rhodes scholar in a debate he will look mighty... well, shrubish.

It's a good thing for Dubya that the American public seems to have forgotten about the WMDs though. Nice bit of sleight-of-hand on their part.

Look at some recent data.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031216-122357-3571r.htm

Anything positive in Iraq helps Bush and hurts the Democrats regardless of who is nominated.

Don't assume the issue of WMD in Iraq is not relevant just because Bush does not bring it up. As many here remind me that a great deal can happen in 11 months, I too remind you that this issue will come up before the election. The WMD may not be found but evidence of their existence will come out.

On a side note 5 democratic senators are not running for re-election next year. Bush won all of those states comfortably with the exception of Florida. But we saw what happend with Jeb's re-election last year. He won by big margins so we can safely assume the republicans will pick up those senate seats. The GOP is in danger of losing two. The senate will have more republican senators but how many more I am not ready to predict. If the democrats loose 7 seats they will be in dire shape and will be unable to filibuster GOP legislation will less than 41 senators.

The writing is on the wall.

[Inu]

Originally posted by g5man
The writing is on the wall.

I have to agree with you. The writing is on the wall, but it says something different. As far as i can read it from the europe it says: "We are so going down, baby".

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
On a side note 5 democratic senators are not running for re-election next year. Bush won all of those states comfortably with the exception of Florida. But we saw what happend with Jeb's re-election last year. He won by big margins so we can safely assume the republicans will pick up those senate seats. The GOP is in danger of losing two. The senate will have more republican senators but how many more I am not ready to predict. If the democrats loose 7 seats they will be in dire shape and will be unable to filibuster GOP legislation will less than 41 senators.

The writing is on the wall.

g5man,

I know your crystal ball is working overtime, but how can you make a statement that, "we can safely assume the republicans will pick up those senate seats" before the candidates for the seats are even chosen? Do you think that even with a Republican advantage in the South that just who is running might have an effect on the outcome?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
On a side note 5 democratic senators are not running for re-election next year. Bush won all of those states comfortably with the exception of Florida. But we saw what happend with Jeb's re-election last year. He won by big margins so we can safely assume the republicans will pick up those senate seats. The GOP is in danger of losing two. The senate will have more republican senators but how many more I am not ready to predict. If the democrats loose 7 seats they will be in dire shape and will be unable to filibuster GOP legislation will less than 41 senators.

The writing is on the wall.

Doesn't matter if those Senate seats are picked up by Republicans, if those Republicans are RINOs.

California got a RINO for governor. Same playbook... but now, its $15 billion in bonds.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
RINO

not sure i know that term

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
not sure i know that term

Republican in name only (RINO) - Arnie's not conservative enough for Frohickey.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Arnie's not conservative enough for Frohickey.

<<shudder>>

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Republican in name only (RINO) - Arnie's not conservative enough for Frohickey.

Not conservative enough? He's not even one.

Didn't you notice that he's reading the same EXACT playbook as Davis read from? It was $10 billion in bonds during Davis... now its $15 billion in bonds.

Same exact thing, and you think he's a conservative because he's got an 'R' at the end of his name? :confused:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
you think he's a conservative because he's got an 'R' at the end of his name? :confused:

it's all the programs he cut. especially in light of his determination to encourage the citizens of CA to buy bigger cars.

big biz: 1
social programs: 0

but if you mean that schwarzenegger cutting the budget is more liberal-like, then i'll have to concede that point.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Didn't you notice that he's reading the same EXACT playbook as Davis read from?

btw, i'm enjoying the recall irony here

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
btw, i'm enjoying the recall irony here

zim, that's easy for you to say from Chicago! Arnie jumped all over Davis for his attempts at solving the budget crunch and then tries to employ some of the same techniques. I'm not one of those who think more and more bond measures is the answer. Something about having children who will have to pay them off. In that regard, Frohickey, you and I agree. However I think the solution has to be a combination of cuts in some limited programs (prisons comes to mind) and tax increases. With those last two words I know Frohickey's blood pressure just jumped!

[mactastic]

Sure Arnold's a republican! He's following the lead of the chief republican, GWB. Cut taxes, increase spending, and blame factors beyond his control for having to do it. Push off all the tough decisions for another administration to deal with later. Sounds like a republican Dubya could really enjoy. Plus he's got that macho image that Bush just drools over. Fiscal conservatives are the RINOs these days, the real republican party is showing just how much they are like the democrats they detest when it comes to fiscal policy.

Now if Arnie will stop following the Bush playbook before he invades Oregon we might be ok.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
g5man,

I know your crystal ball is working overtime, but how can you make a statement that, "we can safely assume the republicans will pick up those senate seats" before the candidates for the seats are even chosen? Do you think that even with a Republican advantage in the South that just who is running might have an effect on the outcome?

The reason I feel confident about a statement like that is because I follow most races closer than most. All the early data in each one of those states show the democrats at a disavantage in all areas; money, good candidates to replace the outgoing senators, and a look at the past elections in the area.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
The reason I feel confident about a statement like that is because I follow most races closer than most. All the early data in each one of those states show the democrats at a disavantage in all areas; money, good candidates to replace the outgoing senators, and a look at the past elections in the area.

be careful what you wish for. a GOP-controlled congress that can override filibuster would eventually scare even you.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
be careful what you wish for. a GOP-controlled congress that can override filibuster would eventually scare even you.

You may be right but I think those on the left will have more to be scared of.

Personally I hope we cut spending but I am not that confident we will. Oh and I forgot, we need progress in Social Security, tort reform, better judges, and energy.

[mactastic]

Looks like we will have to wait for a Democratic administration to get a balanced budget huh?

Many republicans are going to be voting against their better judgement if they vote for Bush and his cut-taxes-and-boost-spending policies. If the ideological core of fiscal conservatives sit out this election knowing they have no alternative, but unable to bring themselves to vote for Bush the way they did in 2000 the landslide may go the other way. I know a lot of republicans who are quietly shaking their heads at the damage Bush is doing to their party's reputation as the fiscally responsible party. They surely won't support a democratic candidate, but they have told me they might just sit this one out in protest.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Looks like we will have to wait for a Democratic administration to get a balanced budget huh?

Many republicans are going to be voting against their better judgement if they vote for Bush and his cut-taxes-and-boost-spending policies. If the ideological core of fiscal conservatives sit out this election knowing they have no alternative, but unable to bring themselves to vote for Bush the way they did in 2000 the landslide may go the other way. I know a lot of republicans who are quietly shaking their heads at the damage Bush is doing to their party's reputation as the fiscally responsible party. They surely won't support a democratic candidate, but they have told me they might just sit this one out in protest.

I don't think that will happen. Given the DNC position on taxes, spending, and defense most GOP backers will vote for Bush regardless. The increased spending was due mostly to increases in the military budgets and homeland defense. This area most republicans will back.

I think the backlash will come in 2008 if spending domestically is not better controled.

The balanced budget will not come because Clinton achived it wilth big cuts in the military with which I partially agreed. Bush will not do that while we are at war. If the economy booms for about 5 years at the present pace we may see a balanced budget based on increased revenue instead of cuts.

[mactastic]

You haven't heard any dissatisfaction among the ranks of the republican members of Congress about how GWB has caused them trouble when it comes time to explain to their hometown constituents why increasing spending while cutting taxes is sound fiscal policy?

Or from fiscal conservatives in general?

I know the social conservatives are solidly behind Bush, he has them like his father never did. But the fiscal conservatives abandoned Bush I after his lips lied to them, and they may very well do the same to his son.

[jefhatfield]

i have seen bush's presidency as a failure economically and in the war in iraq

but due to recent good news about a possible recovery and the capture of saddam, i think on the fence voters will go for bush and if the election were held today, i think he could win an electoral landslide

of course i wouldn't be happy but people only remember the latest good news that a president, dem or gop, can take credit for and the shortsightedness of americans in general would be good for bush...if the election were held today:p

but it's in novermber of 04

[g5man]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

but due to recent good news about a possible recovery and the capture of saddam, i think on the fence voters will go for bush and if the election were held today, i think he could win an electoral landslide


but it's in novermber of 04

jef,

I am glad to read that someone other than myself can see the future.

Now your last sentence indicates that between now and Nov 04 there could be plenty of bad news to trip Bush. I don't see that happening.