John Adams Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Phew. I feel better now. Snow said the administration was "strongly committed" to reducing a budget deficit, which is projected to reach a record $427 billion this year. Other G-7 nations said lowering that deficit was essential to reducing Washington's need for foreign financing of both the budget and trade deficits. I am excited to see Bush actively seek to cut the size of the government, maybe by 5-10%.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Phew. I feel better now.I am excited to see Bush actively seek to cut the size of the government, maybe by 5-10%. 306964[/snapback] Necessary though it may have been, I'd be a lot more impressed if he hadn't created it to begin with.
beausox Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Does it matter? A trade is a trade. We trade dollars for goods. If the value of the goods justifies the price paid then our outflow $,s equals value of commodity. Poor nations trade raw material for dollars with us all the time. We continue to get richer and they remain underdeveloped. Not to even mention the disparity in service/finance we enjoy. Foreign countries and investors will always favor US markets and financial instruments because we dont expropriate companies.
John Adams Posted April 17, 2005 Author Posted April 17, 2005 Necessary though it may have been, I'd be a lot more impressed if he hadn't created it to begin with. 307012[/snapback] I jest. The Republicans won't shrink that size of government. But they may give it lip service. At least the Democrats raise taxes when they increase spending. There's something intellectually honest about that.
Terry Tate Posted April 17, 2005 Posted April 17, 2005 I jest. The Republicans won't shrink that size of government. But they may give it lip service. At least the Democrats raise taxes when they increase spending. There's something intellectually honest about that. 307349[/snapback] I find little (personally, actually no) solace in being told up front that I'm being robbed. Lied to and robbed is worse, but I'm still getting robbed either way. I want another choice. I'd talk to my congressman about it, but I'd have to stand in line with 639,295 other people.
nobody Posted April 18, 2005 Posted April 18, 2005 On the robbed theme: Reducing the budget deficit is like a robber saying there going to take your wallet but let you keep your watch. We're all still losing out. How about a budget surplus again?
John Adams Posted April 18, 2005 Author Posted April 18, 2005 How about this pledge: "For every dollar in tax decreases I propose, I'll propose two dollars in spending decreases."
Alaska Darin Posted April 18, 2005 Posted April 18, 2005 How about this pledge: "For every dollar in tax decreases I propose, I'll propose two dollars in spending decreases." 308238[/snapback] That's likely.
John Adams Posted April 19, 2005 Author Posted April 19, 2005 That's likely. 308396[/snapback] Sadly, that pledge is right out of the West Wing- from the Conservative candidate played by Alan Alda.
Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I jest. The Republicans won't shrink that size of government. But they may give it lip service. At least the Democrats raise taxes when they increase spending. There's something intellectually honest about that. 307349[/snapback] Recently, I was at a meeting with a group of people which included two Democrat Congressman. One of them stated that a majority in his district favor lower taxes. He went on to state that if the average person knew how the government spent their money, they would actually WANT a tax increase. He went on to state that it is our job to get the message out to the people that tax increases are not a bad thing. I would not blame you if you dont believe me, but I offer this as the truth. Intellectually honest? I suppose, but stupid by any stretch of the imagination. I think that this particular congressman represents the bulk of the dem politicians. It really is a shame, because idiocy such as this limits the choice that voters have, as if things were not limited enough. I would like to vote for a democrat. This administration is too anti-labor for my taste, but look at the dem candidates: Mondale Gore Dukakis Kerry The primary candidates look even worse It is almost as if they WANT to lose. Anyway, this post is not aimed at you. Please consider it more of a vent.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 He went on to state that if the average person knew how the government spent their money, they would actually WANT a tax increase. 308703[/snapback] I would love to hear someone explain the reasoning behind this.
John Adams Posted April 19, 2005 Author Posted April 19, 2005 It is almost as if they WANT to lose. Anyway, this post is not aimed at you. Please consider it more of a vent. 308703[/snapback] No argument from me. The Democrats are in big trouble. The Republicans have taken all their issues- they now are the party of spend and spend, and the left just clings to a few issues like civil liberties and abortion.
Terry Tate Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I would like to vote for a democrat. This administration is too anti-labor for my taste, but look at the dem candidates:Mondale Gore Dukakis Kerry I'd still put Gore in the lower first round/high second round. Kerry would be a second-day pick, and Mondale and Dukakis would be undrafted free agents.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Here's a guy that the more I read about 'im, the more I like 'im. Life of the Party: Brian Schweitzer A native Montanan who spent time in the Middle East before returning to start his own business, Schweitzer espouses a political philosophy that combines the class-based populism of a John Edwards with the budgetary pragmatism of a Howard Dean, all wrapped up in sh---kicking Western dialect that the Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas Zúniga calls "a genuine version of Bush's fake ranch." Salon spoke with Schweitzer late last week in his office in Helena. To get to the governor, you park your car on the curb out in front of the State Capitol -- there are no parking meters here -- and walk straight into the governor's office, unmolested by bureaucratic gatekeepers or security personnel. Helena is a long way from Washington, but maybe not for long: Before I can even compose a question, Schweitzer is offering his prescription for what ails the Democratic Party. "You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history?" he asks. "Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on. "We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better -- and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats -- the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."
Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 No argument from me. The Democrats are in big trouble. The Republicans have taken all their issues- they now are the party of spend and spend, and the left just clings to a few issues like civil liberties and abortion. 308723[/snapback] Yes, and we all know what a great job dems are doing wrt protecting our civil liberties. Their answer is to ban or limit things, stupid things, such as fat content at Burger King, smoking in bars, loud bells on ice cream trucks, etc. Compelling "issues," wouldn't you say? My daughter told me the other day that Bill Clinton insulted a person for pushing "family values" yet wanting to marry his gay lover. Great, thanks for the "civil liberty." In America, we have problems with terrorism, jobs, illegal aliens and crime, yet a case could be made that the last presidential election was decided on the "issue" of gay marriages. I wish I had the answer.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 In America, we have problems with terrorism, jobs, illegal aliens and crime, yet a case could be made that the last presidential election was decided on the "issue" of gay marriages. I wish I had the answer. 308811[/snapback] So, whose fault is that? The politicians will pander to whatever issue is on the minds of the public. If people are talking about gay marriages, the politicians will pander to that crowd. If the people are talking about crime, then the politicians will pander to that crowd. Right now, the discussions among the Hot Pockets crowd is whatever the media tells them is the "issue of the day." The politicians latch on to that. If you want to talk about issues like terrorism, crime, jobs, etc, you need to make your voice heard and make the media focus on those topics. As mentioned in other threads, the media consists of whores. They will discuss whatever generates ratings, sales, etc.
Terry Tate Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Here's a guy that the more I read about 'im, the more I like 'im. Life of the Party: Brian Schweitzer 308792[/snapback] That is a perfect example of what I mean when I say people don't vote for plans or policies, they vote for people. Governors and Senators are two completely different political animals. If they had taken different career paths, I believe a Governor Kerry could've defeated a Senator Bush.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 That is a perfect example of what I mean when I say people don't vote for plans or policies, they vote for people. Governors and Senators are two completely different political animals. If they had taken different career paths, I believe a Governor Kerry could've defeated a Senator Bush. 308826[/snapback] I doubt it. Kerry sucked at communicating, tried to be all things to all people, and he wasn't in a postion/didn't want to attack Bush on his weaknesses. Those things go to the core. Would it be wise for them to run a governor, just because executive --> executive? The track record for congressmen becoming president hasn't been very good. That, and they ran a just-left-of-center guy in Gore that alienated the "base", and then a just-right-of-Teddy-Kennedy guy in Kerry that alienated the centrists. Do they actually try for a middle-of-the-spectrum guy or gal this time 'round? Trouble was that Iowa picks someone like Kerry b/c they make the Ethanol Pledge and the party and media made him the nominee. It'd be a lot nicer if they did the primaries more clustered than they do. I just hope the Dem candidates in '08 will be honest and able to talk to people about their ideas. It will be a better campaign b/w the two parties b/c one of them won't have to explain how he would do each specific thing different than the current guy. My short list includes Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Barak Obama tho it's probably too soon.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I doubt it. Kerry sucked at communicating, tried to be all things to all people, and he wasn't in a postion/didn't want to attack Bush on his weaknesses. Those things go to the core. Would it be wise for them to run a governor, just because executive --> executive? The track record for congressmen becoming president hasn't been very good. That, and they ran a just-left-of-center guy in Gore that alienated the "base", and then a just-right-of-Teddy-Kennedy guy in Kerry that alienated the centrists. Do they actually try for a middle-of-the-spectrum guy or gal this time 'round? Trouble was that Iowa picks someone like Kerry b/c they make the Ethanol Pledge and the party and media made him the nominee. It'd be a lot nicer if they did the primaries more clustered than they do. I just hope the Dem candidates in '08 will be honest. My short list includes Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Barak Obama tho it's probably too soon. 308855[/snapback] Clark was a dismal failure in the primaries. I do not see him running again. Obama needs more time, but he will be a VERY formitable candidate for the Dems. Richardson is a possibility. Reid seems to be positioning himself for a run. I also agree that primaries should be closer together. I think it should be one day for ALL primaries for the party. No one or couple of states should determine the nominee. I disagree with your assertion that Kerry was not in the position/did not want to attack Bush. The problem is that he was just opposing anything Bush was for, then when questioned on it and forced to give specifics his opinions were not much different from Bush. As you said, he tried to be all things for all people, which means that he had no message. In order to be an effective communicator, you need to start with a message. "Bush Bad, vote for me because I am not Bush" is not going to cut it.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Clark was a dismal failure in the primaries. I do not see him running again. Obama needs more time, but he will be a VERY formitable candidate for the Dems. Richardson is a possibility. Reid seems to be positioning himself for a run. I also agree that primaries should be closer together. I think it should be one day for ALL primaries for the party. No one or couple of states should determine the nominee. I disagree with your assertion that Kerry was not in the position/did not want to attack Bush. The problem is that he was just opposing anything Bush was for, then when questioned on it and forced to give specifics his opinions were not much different from Bush. As you said, he tried to be all things for all people, which means that he had no message. In order to be an effective communicator, you need to start with a message. "Bush Bad, vote for me because I am not Bush" is not going to cut it. 308869[/snapback] Reid comes across as an ass to me. I don't know how he and Pelosi got into leadership roles, just like you wonder about DeLay, Lott, etc. The thing that killed Kerry was he did not stand up forcefully enough to the "flip-flopper" attack. Something where he raised his voice, and quote from the 2000 debates about "No nationbuilding" etc. Make it clear that *ahem* other people have changed their minds as well.... *ahem* We never saw that on the evening news, b/c it wasn't being said. Kerry was also weak on this issue b/c the parties are in the middle of a SERIOUS policy swap re: playing World Cop, which I agreed w/ the Repubs before about not getting involved in other people's crap and taking care of our own business and I agree w/ the Dems now about not getting involved in other people's crap and taking care of our own business. I want someone like Schweitzer who'll say what we all want to say: "I'd personally put OBL's head on a stick." Kerry refused to attack on this point (which, let's be honest, it was the point in the election) b/c of his voting record and past statements. I'm looking for a much better slate in '08 with people who aren't afraid of a fight.
Recommended Posts