Republican/Democrat

[Tprince]

I was just curious to see the political side of dyestat. Who would anybody vote for, and would it be because they were the lesser of two evils?

[TI83]

I really get angry in school when kids who know nothing about politics or the candidates say "I like Kerry becuase he's the lesser of two evils." I wouldn't say either Bush or Kerry were particularly evil. Pretty much all of my anger in society today comes from people who preach about things they know nothing about and when they are corrected they say "But Still." I mean come on, "but still" what? i just proved you wrong :mad:

god how i hate that saying...

[TI83]

o ya, and to answer your first question

Bush all the way

[gesser]

I really get angry in school when kids who know nothing about politics or the candidates say "I like Kerry becuase he's the lesser of two evils." I wouldn't say either Bush or Kerry were particularly evil. Pretty much all of my anger in society today comes from people who preach about things they know nothing about and when they are corrected they say "But Still." I mean come on, "but still" what? i just proved you wrong :mad:

god how i hate that saying...

How people choose to pick who they will vote for is a personal issue IMO. However, I do agree with you that it's sad when people know nothing about anything going on and make some profound statements.

But, picking on the 'lesser of two evils' is actually a decent method of choosing. Neither are evil really, but some may argue otherwise. It's just a term. And if you think about it, people use the 'lesser of two evils' method in picking between two options almost daily.

I think of it as more like a process of elimination to come up with the candidate you'll vote for.

I voted Kerry, lesser...but I would vote for anyone besides Bush. Time for a change, Republican, Dem, Lib, Indy, "Dixiecrats"...well maybe not them.

[xcrider]

voted Bush all the way. Don't agree with everything he has done, but could not come close to even thinking about the other guy.

[KenA55]

Since Bush is bankrupt in the area of economic policy, and will look the other way as America continues down the road to becoming an economic has-been as long as his financial supporters' fortunes rise; since he will cynically continue the policy of pandering to America's family-values sector while carefully selecting nominees that insure no change in the status quo should supreme court positions open up-

There was never the slightest reason to vote for Bush unless you were pro-choice and at the same time quite wealthy and tired of supporting a strong America with a piece of your wealth, built here; or you were so pissed off about the Al Qaida acts of terrorism that you needed some bloodshed and any Arab nation would do, going after the guys making the most anti-american noise would do just as well as actually rooting out the problem at its sources.

[Zat0pek]

As a moderately conservative Republican, I giggle at the incompetence of Democrats on the national stage. They are so utterly out of touch with their core base it is astounding. I think they honestly have no idea why they are in the situation that they are in.

But as an American, I am terrified, furious and horrified of having such a weak opposition party. The two party system only works when there are, well, two parties. Right now there are only about one-and-a-half parties. Such a concentration of power is an ugly, ugly thing, even if my party is the one that has it. No good comes of unchecked power, and the Democrats right now are woefully lacking in the ability to check it.

But NOTHING will change unless and until the Democats become capable of actually putting forth viable alternatives instead of simply opposing Republican policies and candidates. What I said last fall is still true: until Democrats wake up and reconnect with working-class families and their values and rediscover national defense, they will remain largely insignificant on the national stage. Were they still the party of Truman and JFK, there's a reasonable chance I would be a Democrat. In the words of former Democrat Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. They left me."

[xcrider]

That fits me to a tee. Uncountable wealth(as an educator), blindy following anyone that professes to have morals(whether they do or not is open to debate, of course), and as I think you meant to say anti-abortion.

[Jwaksman]

Since Bush is bankrupt in the area of economic policy


See, that is called a bad economic analysis. By declaring that everything is wrong, and Bush is an idiot, you make it impossible to have a debate. It's why so many people are opposing Bush's Social Security Plan because he is behind it, even though it's basically what Democrats have been asking for the last couple of decades (progressive payouts).


Bush had some good moves, and some bad moves. The income tax and dividend tax increases have been good policies. It did a good job of keeping investment up and bouying the markets. On the other hand, his Prescription Drug Bill has been a huge increase to our future debt. He also has been unable to cut discretionary spending. Economic-associated spending is fine, because both Keynesians and Classical economists agree that tax cuts and deficit spending are the best ways to get you out of a recession. However, they also agree that the budget has to balance in the long run, and we don't have a plan for that.


This shutting down of military bases is pointless. It's saving $48 Billion over 20 years??? That is less than 1/10th of 1% of what our government will spend over the next 20 years (when we'll spend well over $50 Trillion total). There are few things that can be done to actually have real reductions to the budget:

1) End corporate welfare - everyone talks about it but no one does it. Even leaving in some (arguably) necessary spending, we could save over $100 Billion a year.

2) End the prescription drug bill - it will eventually cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and will basically just make drugs more expensive for everyone. More than 99% of people over the age of 65 are already covered with medical insurance. Enough!

3) Private social security - it will hurt the budget in the short run, but the budget is not too bad in the short run. Budget deficits (in real terms) are actually not that bad (only about 3% of GDP). But long term, the only way to keep things solvent (by the dictionary definition of the word) is to get some return on our SS investment.

4) Fix medicaid - this has a much larger unfunded liability than even social security has. Hopefully we'll learn soon from the disaster that is the European health care system, so we don't make the same mistakes...



Even though Bush has presented any real fixes, atleast I respect the fact that he's bringing them up. It proves that he actually cares about the issues, since most politicians are way more worried about re-election and are deathly afraid of touching SS & medicaid. Democrats right now are just worried about hurting Republicans in the polls, and are ignoring this great advantage with the SS bill. As some smart moderate democrats have written, Democrats will never get a better opportunity to pass a SS bill. It's basically what they've always wanted, but it's being passed by Bush, which means that it's his fault. Someday, people will have to accept lower payouts (or higher taxes), it's simply mathematically impossible to maintain the current system. Whichever politician is responsible for this, however, will get a hit in the polls. By passing the SS bill, Democrats can make Bush into that politician, and can score points for 2006 while also getting the SS bill they want.

[KenA55]

No, I most certainly did not mean to say anti-abortion- the Republicans nationally have been in the business of exploiting the issue while carefully delivering nothing since the Reagan administration first rode that horse into town twenty-five years ago. That's how they get the support of so many ardently pro-choice and wealthy- these people know that nothing is going to change, certainly not at the hands of the Bush clan, who's history back before this was a burning national issue leaned pro-choice. They still are pro-choice, as was the Reagan & Bush I groups were- despite all the rhetoric. The rhetoric is about swinging a large block of the votes toward what was previously the minority party. The reality is there will be no rocking what has been a very lucrative boat thereby changing the scenery, since the status quo is working beautifully for them. All of the pro-Republican pro-choicers know exactly what their support is buying; all of the pro-Republican pro-lifers will continue to get no change from them, they will replace conservative high court members with more of the same, but you'll also get less conservative nominees to replace less conservative justices, though possibly after first nominating a wildly unpalatable conservative, a Bork- to allow the appropriate finger-pointing at the Dem's afterwards for standing in the way of the man they really wanted (but of course didn't and knew going in that he'd be rejected). This is the shell game the Rep's have been playing with family values for two-and-a-half decades now, and they'll keep the game going as long as it keeps paying off.

The real agenda is to keep Americans frozen and polarized over this stuff while they're being fed an economic pill they'd never swallow if they weren't focused elsewhere. Hence the mess today, the near-bankrupt schools, cities, townships, counties, states, and of course, federal picture. And we're doing it to ourselves in our ignorance over what's actually taking place, because we won't stop focusing on what we want to occur long enough to look at what's actually going on.

[xcrider]

No, I most certainly did not mean to say anti-abortion- the Republicans nationally have been in the business of exploiting the issue while carefully delivering nothing since the Reagan administration first rode that horse into town twenty-five years ago. That's how they get the support of so many ardently pro-choice and wealthy- these people know that nothing is going to change, certainly not at the hands of the Bush clan, who's history back before this was a burning national issue leaned pro-choice. They still are pro-choice, as was the Reagan & Bush I groups were- despite all the rhetoric. The rhetoric is about swinging a large block of the votes toward what was previously the minority party. The reality is there will be no rocking what has been a very lucrative boat thereby changing the scenery, since the status quo is working beautifully for them. All of the pro-Republican pro-choicers know exactly what their support is buying; all of the pro-Republican pro-lifers will continue to get no change from them, they will replace conservative high court members with more of the same, but you'll also get less conservative nominees to replace less conservative justices, though possibly after first nominating a wildly unpalatable conservative, a Bork- to allow the appropriate finger-pointing at the Dem's afterwards for standing in the way of the man they really wanted (but of course didn't and knew going in that he'd be rejected). This is the shell game the Rep's have been playing with family values for two-and-a-half decades now, and they'll keep the game going as long as it keeps paying off.

The real agenda is to keep Americans frozen and polarized over this stuff while they're being fed an economic pill they'd never swallow if they weren't focused elsewhere. Hence the mess today, the near-bankrupt schools, cities, townships, counties, states, and of course, federal picture. And we're doing it to ourselves in our ignorance over what's actually taking place, because we won't stop focusing on what we want to occur long enough to look at what's actually going on.

ok I understand your point. And I agree to some extent. Sorry for not getting the meaning of what you said about that. That is why I said the thing about morals being professed whether they are or not. If nothing else the guy I voted for will at least publicly profess to be opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc. that I believe is wrong. Certainly that is not my only reason to vote for him.

[Tprince]

I'm a Libertarian. I hate both.

Yeah, good call. I like Dean because he's not really a democrat, but he recognizes you pretty much need to be a democrat/republican if you're going to get anywhere, let alone into the Oval Office. Howard Dean wants a change and was the only guy who actually stood up for his ideals when it mattered, and not just during his campaign like Kerry. Also, everybody thinks Dean's crazy because of his "ranting and raving" after getting third in the Iowa Caucus. I met him last year, he's not crazy, and he's just a weird, typical American. I think it's ridiculous that he got so much criticism during his campaign for wearing cheap suits, and got such little attention for his intent on changing the face of American politics.

[Jwaksman]

How is Dean not a Democrat? He's the Chairman of the Democratic Party!!!

[makelldog]

See, that is called a bad economic analysis. By declaring that everything is wrong, and Bush is an idiot, you make it impossible to have a debate. It's why so many people are opposing Bush's Social Security Plan because he is behind it, even though it's basically what Democrats have been asking for the last couple of decades (progressive payouts).
Bush had some good moves, and some bad moves. The income tax and dividend tax increases have been good policies. It did a good job of keeping investment up and bouying the markets. On the other hand, his Prescription Drug Bill has been a huge increase to our future debt. He also has been unable to cut discretionary spending. Economic-associated spending is fine, because both Keynesians and Classical economists agree that tax cuts and deficit spending are the best ways to get you out of a recession. However, they also agree that the budget has to balance in the long run, and we don't have a plan for that.

I for one like people who can economically argue the economic issues. The United States is not bankrupt. It will not go bankrupt. Too many other countries rely on us buying their imports, rely on our financial markets, rely on our companies to allow the US to go bankrupt. But since I just destroyed the AP Econ exams I totally understood the jargon Jwaksman was using and thoroughly enjoyed the analysis he gave. Although I don't agree with my Columbian Lyon poster a good portion of the time I respect his ability to intelligently analyze the fiscal policy of the United States government, specifically that of President Bush.

[makelldog]

No, I most certainly did not mean to say anti-abortion- the Republicans nationally have been in the business of exploiting the issue while carefully delivering nothing since the Reagan administration first rode that horse into town twenty-five years ago. That's how they get the support of so many ardently pro-choice and wealthy- these people know that nothing is going to change, certainly not at the hands of the Bush clan, who's history back before this was a burning national issue leaned pro-choice. They still are pro-choice, as was the Reagan & Bush I groups were- despite all the rhetoric. The rhetoric is about swinging a large block of the votes toward what was previously the minority party. The reality is there will be no rocking what has been a very lucrative boat thereby changing the scenery, since the status quo is working beautifully for them. All of the pro-Republican pro-choicers know exactly what their support is buying; all of the pro-Republican pro-lifers will continue to get no change from them, they will replace conservative high court members with more of the same, but you'll also get less conservative nominees to replace less conservative justices, though possibly after first nominating a wildly unpalatable conservative, a Bork- to allow the appropriate finger-pointing at the Dem's afterwards for standing in the way of the man they really wanted (but of course didn't and knew going in that he'd be rejected). This is the shell game the Rep's have been playing with family values for two-and-a-half decades now, and they'll keep the game going as long as it keeps paying off.

The real agenda is to keep Americans frozen and polarized over this stuff while they're being fed an economic pill they'd never swallow if they weren't focused elsewhere. Hence the mess today, the near-bankrupt schools, cities, townships, counties, states, and of course, federal picture. And we're doing it to ourselves in our ignorance over what's actually taking place, because we won't stop focusing on what we want to occur long enough to look at what's actually going on.

Somehow Ken I can't believe you are this cynical. True Bush has not done anything about abortion (other partial-birth) or family values in appointing justices, mainly because he has not had much of an opportunity to have an impact. But the Republicans as a party are promoting the family values they preach in terms of gay marriage; agree with it or not states are passing marriage amendments largely due to Republican legislators putting them up for public vote. I simply will not and cannot lose my youthful optmisim that some politicians do care about our well-being and do mean what they say.

[UpstateRunner]

Somehow Ken I can't believe you are this cynical. True Bush has not done anything about abortion (other partial-birth) or family values in appointing justices, mainly because he has not had much of an opportunity to have an impact. But the Republicans as a party are promoting the family values they preach in terms of gay marriage; agree with it or not states are passing marriage amendments largely due to Republican legislators putting them up for public vote. I simply will not and cannot lose my youthful optmisim that some politicians do care about our well-being and do mean what they say.

while perhaps not a "stated" policy, I am quite sure it is understood. If you don't mind sifting through the bias, I would recommend reading "Whats the Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank if you find this topic interesting.

[KenA55]

I wouldn't expect Bush, should the opportunity arise, to do anything to tip the present supreme court balance on Roe V. Wade, for the reasons mentioned above. Cynical perhaps, but solidly based upon the realities of the Republican national game plan as it's played out the past 25 years. A very successful one, I might add, and I wouldn't expect to see it get scrapped when it's working so well. It has not only transformed a clear minority party into the more dominant party nationally, but has transformed that party itself from one that sought economic moderates (Eisenhower, Nixon) in order to win national office to one that has been free to unleash economic extremism on the nation. The more laissez-faire economic candidates of old, the Goldwaters and Reagans of the sixties stood absolutely zero chance- because they lacked a Roe V. Wade to drive their campaigns. Today Republican candidates can be as extreme as they please in regard to domestic and international economic policy because they will have a family values constituency pulling the wagon regardless. This is what has skewed both parties into a no-win alignment for the average American for a long time now- you can vote republican in national elections in order to see the line held (but never moved) on the variety of family-values issues that people are passionate about, and brace yourself against the economic hits that invariably accompany that outcome; or vote democrat for a thriving economic picture and grit your teeth in worry over which social structures will crumble next as we lose ourselves in self-congratulation over our proclaimed enlightenment. One helluva choice.

The states picture is a different picture; 50 different pictures as a matter of facet. There things can get done with greater accountability, though in the end the national scene still looms large as the courts on that level hold final say. But even on that level we're forced to make these sorts of unproductive trade-offs, Jon. Today in our state we're witnessing schools and essential services in inner city and rural communities in particular whither so that the wealthier can have minimized tax burden; as elsewhere, opportunity for the hs grad dwindles while at the same time the state continues to gradually slide the rug out from under post-secondary funding. The proposed closing of the U of Mn's general college is a perfect snapshot of that scenario.

[makelldog]

Today Republican candidates can be as extreme as they please in regard to domestic and international economic policy because they will have a family values constituency pulling the wagon regardless. This is what has skewed both parties into a no-win alignment for the average American for a long time now- you can vote republican in national elections in order to see the line held (but never moved) on the variety of family-values issues that people are passionate about, and brace yourself against the economic hits that invariably accompany that outcome; or vote democrat for a thriving economic picture and grit your teeth in worry over which social structures will crumble next as we lose ourselves in self-congratulation over our proclaimed enlightenment. One helluva choice.

.
I fail to see how the democrats offer a "thriving economic picture" whereas the Republicans offer an "extreme" eonomic policy. You clearly believe this and you are pretty good at finding stats so I am interested in what you point to in favor of the Democrats (historically) and against the Republicans. I see a pretty mixed bag from both parties a lot of the time from counteracting monetary and fiscal policies. What I would point out is the increase of the income gap, which has occurred in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The unemployment rate has hovered around the natural rate (which I think is around 4-5% although with supposed "New Economy" it has decreased to between 3-4%), which is about the best we can get again according to Keynesians and Classical economists. Inflation has been rather mild for most of my life. These would be the major indicators for me and they don't seem terrible. What are you looking at Ken?

[Jwaksman]

makelldog, you have to realize that for a lot of people out there, it's "extreme neoconservatism" everytime Bush sneezes. Think about it, just about everything that Bush has done was done by Clinton. Middle class tax cut. Attacks on gay rights (Defense of Marriage Act, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", anyone?). Unilateral war (there was even more international objections against Bosnia). Cuts to entitlement programs. Et cetera...


But so many Democrats love Clinton & hate Bush. And so many Republicans love Bush & hate Clinton? Why? Because people are highly partisan.


The fact is that Bush is pretty much doing economics by the book. Tax cuts & deficit spending are the way we've gotten out of recessions for the past 200 years. Anyone remember John Kennedy?


It's important to keep partisanship out of the picture. Whenever you're about to criticize a Republican, a good tool is to pretend that the person is a Democrat. And see if you'd still criticize them for proposing the same thing. And vice versa, of course.


That would eliminate Democratic criticism of Bush's Social Security plan, for example, which is nearly identical to what Clinton had talked about late in his second term. It's far closer to the historical Democratic proposal than to what fiscal conservatives have asked for (it hurts the middle & upper classes a lot, and does not solve all of the long term solvency issues).



But for too many people, there is absolutely nothing that Bush can do that would be right. If Bush announced, tomorrow, that he wanted to legalize gay marriage, I bet you'd find that overnight support of gay marriage among democrats would plummet. That's just how our country is right now...

[KenA55]

I fail to see how the democrats offer a "thriving economic picture" whereas the Republicans offer an "extreme" eonomic policy. You clearly believe this and you are pretty good at finding stats so I am interested in what you point to in favor of the Democrats (historically) and against the Republicans. I see a pretty mixed bag from both parties a lot of the time from counteracting monetary and fiscal policies. What I would point out is the increase of the income gap, which has occurred in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The unemployment rate has hovered around the natural rate (which I think is around 4-5% although with supposed "New Economy" it has decreased to between 3-4%), which is about the best we can get again according to Keynesians and Classical economists. Inflation has been rather mild for most of my life. These would be the major indicators for me and they don't seem terrible. What are you looking at Ken?

Well first of all I'd note that Clinton is a product of much of the same thinking that Republicans have put forward since 1980. He failed to hold the line on free trade pacts with the third world, helping to further open the door towards the loss of American jobs that produced median and above incomes, leading towards further erosion of America's middle class and tax base. But he did stay in touch with the idea that tax relief for those without huge excess discretionary income during times of surplus would spur an economy, certainly with much better results that his successor's tax relief aimed at the very wealthy for the most part, who already had plenty of excess discretionary income for such spending, and during times of sever deficit.

Inflation has been low-to-mild, because a listless economy insures that. But most buy into the fallacy of the lower the better. Very high inflation is a killer for the retired, and destabilizes everything. Very low inflation indicates and in fact helps insure economic malaise by making debt buydown burdensome throughout the entire term of debt. Moderate inflation, on the other hand, makes debt smaller across the term, which encourages borrowing and investing for those reasons. Moderate inflation is a good indicator as well as stimulator of the thriving economy.

Unemployment rates are famous for indicating one thing with precision- numbers of open claims. They don't indicate well beyond that 6-12 month window. They don't shed light on the benifits of employment. If I, for any reason, lost my ability to work in my current trade, and ended up flipping burgers at 32 hours per week and zero fringes, unemployment rates would in no way reflect that.

Statistical areas that are worth delving into, which I don't make a habit of generally, stats often occlude what's really happening more than illuminate. These are the things that have changed drastically across the past thirty-some years of my adult lifetime-

The quantity and dollar value of various tariffs we applied then in industries we were interested in insuring as a thriving entity here. These didn't just yield revenue because of the much stronger tax base, they generated revenue at the port as well on the products coming in.

The number of median income and above blue-collar type jobs that paid good bennies & retirement, and sustained middle class America and her tax base.

The percentage-of-total-cost funding provided at any public university by the state.

Minimum wage levels then and now, adjusted to today's dollars by any private industry cost of living estimates; stay away from the census bureau's numbers on that one, they're unrealistic, we've been through that one already, here.

Same for individual median income.

Same for number of preschoolers in daycare while both parents work.

Same for union membership, union jobs, in the private sector.

Stock market index levels, beginning and end of term, for the various administrations since Republicans began driving us towards the present extremes- 1981.

The percentage of school referendums passed then vs. now.

The percentage of hs grads making above median income levels, then vs. now.

I could keep adding indefinitely- but if a stat doesn't hold a piece of what's actually changed, and reflects nothing but averages or the like, it doesn't tell anything about the massive and extreme changes we've undergone and are undergoing due to people being given reasons to vote against their own economic well-being, as a political ploy, and being given precious little in return on that vote.

[MoMo]

I for one like people who can economically argue the economic issues. The United States is not bankrupt. It will not go bankrupt.

From the Washington Post:
The timing could not have been more apt. On the eve of a titanic partisan clash in the Senate, eggheads of the left and right got together yesterday to warn both parties that they are ignoring the country's most pressing problem: that the United States is turning into Argentina.

While Washington plunged into a procedural fight over a pair of judicial nominees, Stuart Butler, head of domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Isabel Sawhill, director of the left-leaning Brookings Institution's economic studies program, sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to bemoan what they jointly called the budget "nightmare."
...

With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.

"The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt," Walker said. "The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina."

"All true," Sawhill, a budget official in the Clinton administration, concurred.

"To do nothing," Butler added, "would lead to deficits of the scale we've never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country. We've seen them in Argentina. That's a chilling thought, but it would mean that."

Each of the three had a separate slide show, but the numbers and forecasts were interchangeable.

Walker put U.S. debt and obligations at $45 trillion in current dollars -- almost as much as the total net worth of all Americans, or $150,000 per person. Balancing the budget in 2040, he said, could require cutting total federal spending as much as 60 percent or raising taxes to 2 1/2 times today's levels.

Butler pointed out that without changes to Social Security and Medicare, in 25 years either a quarter of discretionary spending would need to be cut or U.S. tax rates would have to approach European levels. Putting it slightly differently, Sawhill posed a choice of 10 percent cuts in spending and much larger cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or a 40 percent increase in government spending relative to the size of the economy, and equivalent tax increases.

The unity of the bespectacled presenters was impressive -- and it made their conclusion all the more depressing. As Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official and current Brookings scholar, said when introducing the thinkers: "If Heritage and Brookings agree on something, there must be something to it."

Yet that is not how leaders of either party talk. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill recounted how Vice President Cheney told him that "deficits don't matter." President Bush projects deficit reductions in the coming few years but ignores projections that show them exploding after that. And Democrats, fighting Bush's call for cutting Social Security benefits through indexing changes, are suggesting that only tinkering with the program is indicated.

---

[Jwaksman]

People have been sounding this same "The world is going to end! We're going bankrupt!" for over a hundred years now. I have books from 1980 that wonder how we'll still be able to afford the budget within 10 years. I have science books from when I was a child that say that we'll be all out of oil by 2005. You can read Scientific Americans from the 1970's that swear that an ice age will destroy the world within the next 50 years.



Trying to use scare tactics to get your agenda passed is wrong. Talk rational, not in exclamations. That's the mature, intelligent way to do it.

[KenA55]

True; the world's not going to end even if we do go bankrupt, and all we really need to do to prevent that is tax at a level that pays the current freight and allows a healthy public sector tax base, while at the same time putting measures in place to insure growing rather than declining US industry and private tax base. Sprinkle in some moderate inflation and todays bear becomes tomorrows gerbil.

[MoMo]

The article basically says:
If we continue to spend more than we take in,
we'll be in trouble down the road.
The more we overshoot our revenue,
the greater the trouble we'll be in.

Which part of this logic is flawed or alarmist?

[Jwaksman]

I quote:

"With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago."


If that's not scare tactics, then what are?

[MoMo]

O.K., the riots in the streets part was probably a bit much.

The only reason I found this interesting is that it reflected a consensus view of a left-leaning economist, a right-leaning economist and a current Bush administration official.

[Jwaksman]

Well, everyone agrees that in the longterm the budget has to balance. But the problem with that article is what is typically wrong with leftwing-biased, and sensational-oriented media like the Washington Post.


There is a way to discuss budget deficits calmly, intelligently, and rationally. But talking about bankruptcy, and using all of these scare tactics, are exactly the wrong thing to do. People get scared into passing crazy laws and then, once those laws are on the books, they're almost impossible to get rid of.

[MoMo]

So, you apply that logic to Bush's approach on Social Security?

[Jwaksman]

Bush is using scare tactics also. Although in the case of Social Security, atleast he's using facts (the year that SS will no longer bring in enough money) instead of speculation (future bankruptcy and riots).

[MoMo]

Indeed. But I'm not sure why his projections about SS in 2042 are any more solid than those of the economists I just quoted.

[Tprince]

How is Dean not a Democrat? He's the Chairman of the Democratic Party!!!

I didn't mean to phrase it the way I did. Most Democrats nowadays are Republicrats, and Dean is a true Democrat. Many people think of him as independent, just with the benefit of an actual party backing him.

[KenA55]

It's the same kind of speculation, that far out into the future. But it would still be a great idea to make SS stand on its own apart from the general treasuries and begin to get some solid accounting in place, and let reserves be invested and grow during times of surplus contribution/payout. That's how you get through times of deficit contribution/payout.

[Jwaksman]

Actually, even though they're using scare tactics, they're still not being honest. Of course, neither are Democrats. Both sides have been playing this game with the federal budget, by counting Social Security surpluses against the deficit. Our debt last year wasn't like $420 Billion, it was more like $600 Billion. So, the Social Security crunch isn't 2017, or 2042, it's now. If we have $1 less in surplus then that's $1 more against the deficit.


The 2042 date is especially absurd, because it assumes that we have $1 Trillion in some lockbox. But we don't. We have paper that says "The government owes people $1 Trillion" - because all of that money has already been spent on health care and welfare and wars...

[makelldog]

Unemployment rates are famous for indicating one thing with precision- numbers of open claims. They don't indicate well beyond that 6-12 month window. They don't shed light on the benifits of employment. If I, for any reason, lost my ability to work in my current trade, and ended up flipping burgers at 32 hours per week and zero fringes, unemployment rates would in no way reflect that.

Statistical areas that are worth delving into, which I don't make a habit of generally, stats often occlude what's really happening more than illuminate. These are the things that have changed drastically across the past thirty-some years of my adult lifetime-

The quantity and dollar value of various tariffs we applied then in industries we were interested in insuring as a thriving entity here. These didn't just yield revenue because of the much stronger tax base, they generated revenue at the port as well on the products coming in.

The number of median income and above blue-collar type jobs that paid good bennies & retirement, and sustained middle class America and her tax base.

The percentage-of-total-cost funding provided at any public university by the state.

Minimum wage levels then and now, adjusted to today's dollars by any private industry cost of living estimates; stay away from the census bureau's numbers on that one, they're unrealistic, we've been through that one already, here.

Same for individual median income.

Same for number of preschoolers in daycare while both parents work.

Same for union membership, union jobs, in the private sector.

Stock market index levels, beginning and end of term, for the various administrations since Republicans began driving us towards the present extremes- 1981.

The percentage of school referendums passed then vs. now.

The percentage of hs grads making above median income levels, then vs. now.


I think these show differences in what we care about. I am not interested in Unions though I was formally in one and will be joining one this summer, I find them ultimately outdated and worthless to me the blue-collar worker. As for school referendums I think people are tired of spending their money on systems that don't work. Both sides have their chance to "implement their program" the program doesn't work too well and then the other party takes over and changes it five years later. I think the public school system needs major work or actually I believe in vouchers because private schools to me use the small amount of tuition they receive use it very efficiently to consistently outperform the public schools.
I think it is good that some industries are no longer protected because for the nation as a whole prices are lowered and consumers can buy at more competitive prices. As for the jobs that those people may lose I say we should re-educated and advance skills so that our nation becomes more of a white-collar society. Granted, tariffs need to remain in order to discourage some very unfair and inhumane labor practices, but ultimately in the very, very long run tariffs will be eliminated and most blue-collar jobs will be automated. I don't see that as a bad thing.
I think America as a whole is less about economic equality than it is about equality of opportunity. I, for one, support this notion as well. I think we need to improve the education systems so everyone has the opportunity to go to college. But I don't think there should be equality in levels of income. I think everyone should be provided for and given the opportunity to succeed but they need to work for their bread rather than give it to them whether they work or not.

[Jwaksman]

The problem with a lot of people here is that they worry more about the means than the ends. Take, for example, income inequality. In absolute terms, it doesn't mean anything, it's a completely relative concept. What matters is how much the average person has, and how much the poorest people have. How much the rich people have is really irrelevant.


Another example is unions & "school referendums". Those things, by themselves, should only be means to an ends. A lot of people just want unions for the sake of unions. But unions are really just supposed to be a means to an end - workplace conditions, salaries, hours, benefits, etc. If you can get those things without a union, then that's better off than a union that is doing nothing for you. At least to me. But to others it's not.


If we're talking about the ends, then all things like productivity, employment, & wages are doing fine in this country right now. The end of unions (which are almost wiped out in the private sector at this point) is not a problem as long as the things that unions are supposed to be dealing with (detailed earlier) are taken care of. And, in fact, I think that's why unions are dying out. People are simply much wealthier and in much better jobs now. Not too many people left digging in coal mines...

[MoMo]

As a moderately conservative Republican, I giggle at the incompetence of Democrats on the national stage. They are so utterly out of touch with their core base it is astounding. I think they honestly have no idea why they are in the situation that they are in.
But as an American, I am terrified, furious and horrified of having such a weak opposition party.

Zat (or should I say, Mr. Moderate Conservative): I'm not sure the Repubs are as well-entrenched as your post implies. Recent polls show public discontent with Congress at high levels -- which usually redounds to the disadvantage of the incumbent party -- and particularly unhappy with Republicans, reminiscent of the situation before the GOP was pitched out in the 1994 midterms. They may regain some ground, but they seem headed in the same direction. See below:

Washington Post: A Pew survey released this week found that 39% of Americans gave positive marks to Democrats in Congress, with 41% disapproving of them. For congressional Republicans, the results were bleaker. Of those polled, 35% said they approved of the GOP's performance, with 50% disapproving.

Wall Street Journal: A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that disapproval of Congress's performance is higher than it has been since 1994, the year voters swept Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill. Americans have grown gloomier about the nation's direction, the economy and Iraq, and by 65%-17% they say Congress doesn't share their priorities.
While the survey contains warning signs for members of both parties, it is especially problematic for Republicans as the party in power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The poll of 1,005 adults, conducted May 12-16, shows that the greatest erosion in congressional approval has occurred among self-described Republicans.

[jersey_guy]

Yes and according to exit polls, Kerry won the election too. Polls are a joke, you might as well go to a psychic.

The only poll that matters is the one in November, and I wouldn't be so optimistic about retaking the Congress with a 39% approval rating.

[MoMo]

... I wouldn't be so optimistic about retaking the Congress with a 39% approval rating.

39%? I thought polls were a joke!

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, all of 2004 I heard how polls of Republicans showed an even bleaker picture than 1994. How the polls showed that voters were tired of Bush, that they wanted something new. That it was obvious that Democrats were going to sweep into power.


... and the Democrats had their worst election in more than 2 decades...


One thing to keep in mind is that generic Congressional polls mean nothing. The reason why? Over 95% of incumbents are going to win anyway. A much bigger effect on the House in 2006 will be demographic shifts and rewritten congressional seats.


It's nice that you have hope, but even Harry Reid admits that it would take "a miracle" to take back the Senate in 2006. And, if you objectively look at the upcoming horseraces for 2006, Republicans are actually going to gain even more ground. The structure of the races is just horrible for Democrats, with almost nowhere to make gains, and many places that they could easily lose.

[MoMo]

We shall see.

The tendency to overconfidence -- or to an unquestioning projection of current trends into the future -- has been punished by events before.

[Jwaksman]

Yes.... you said that in 2004 also.


Look, just in Senate seats, Democrats are in serious trouble in Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington. You tell me what seats the Democrats are going to steal back.



Edit: Following this closely, I see a lot of Democrats talking about how they're going to do so great in 2006, but very few doing anything about it. For one thing, Ken Mehlmen is a spectacular head to the RNC while Howard Dean has been a disaster. I'm not talking about policy, but about raising money and getting the right candidates and saying the rights things. Republicans have launched a huge campaign to gain ground among African Americans that seems to be working. Howard Dean seems to just like making speeches at MoveOn.org rallies about how stupid and evil Republicans are...


Another Edit: This (http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/05/16/daily33.html?t=printable) is the type of stuff that is killing Democrats in elections right now. It was a horrible mistake to put Dean in charge of the Party, he's going to set them back years...

[jersey_guy]

One thing to keep in mind is that generic Congressional polls mean nothing. The reason why? Over 95% of incumbents are going to win anyway.


Let's try 99+ percent. Outside of redistricted Texas, only 3 incumbents lost their seats in the last election. So unless your district changes, you pretty much would have to kill your intern like Gary Condit to get voted out.

[jersey_guy]

Democrats have so many Senate vulnerabilities next year, it's not even funny. Bill Nelson (Florida) could be their biggest casualty, along with elderly Robert Byrd (W. Va.) who spends most of his time on the floor of the Senate spitting at the Bush administration. They also have a few senators up for reelection in the heartland, e.g. Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Kent Conrad in North Dakota. And Jeff Bingaman in New Mexico will be crushed if the Republicans run a candidate who actually cares about securing the Mexican border.

[Jwaksman]

Byrd probably won't lose. And Republicans do not yet have a decent candidate to put against the Nebraskan Nelson, or Bingaman or Conrad.

The thing to remember is that Statewide elections are much different from national elections. Robert C. Byrd is far, far, far to the left of the average West Virginian, he is still an institution in that state. He's been there so long that he fillibustered against the Civil Rights Amendments and got elected back when they didn't care that he was a former KKK member. Polls have him up pretty big.


The opportunity to actually knock out an incumbent is rare. I believe that only one Senate incumbent lost in 2004 (Daschle). Nelson (D-FL) could lose re-election in 2006, as could Santorum (R-PA) & Chafee (R-RI). Other potential pickups are Burns (R-Mt) and Cantwell (D-WA).


But the real opportunities are on open seats - that's where big gains were made by Republicans the last couple of elections. Assuming Corzine becomes the next NJ governor, the Democrats will have two open seats to defend (NJ and MN) while Republicans will have only one (TN).

So, as of right now, advantage: Republicans.

[jersey_guy]

Yes, it is hard to defeat an incumbent Senator, but there is also another trend in the Senatorial elections because of the increased red-blue polarization of the country. The Democrats are practically nonexistent in the South (22 of the 26 Southern senators are from GOP, which could also hurt Nelson), and with Daschle's demise they are also getting kicked out of office in the Midwest/Plains.

If they keep filibustering, obstructing, and badmouthing anything the administration proposes and if Dirty Harry Reid keeps calling the President a loser, we might see a bigger number of incumbents kicked out of office than usual.

[Tprince]

Bush has basically trashed American ideals as well, and done it with a complete lack of logic. In his mind, we need to suspend civil liberties in order to maintain them. We also need to create peace in Iraq by starting a war there. We started the UN, so let's not listen to it, despite its past success.

Bush is a shame to our country, and our presence in Iraq is as well. I respect the soldiers fighting the war, however, and I think Bush owes it to them to get them back home. If this war was important as he makes it seem, he, as well as other politicians would be willing to fight and/or send their children to fight the war. A politician has no right to declare a war which others will be fighting and dying in unless he/she is willing to do the same. This war has cost Bush nothing other than his reputation, but has cost the country its reputation, unity, freedoms, honor and pride.

[jersey_guy]

Bush has basically trashed American ideals as well, and done it with a complete lack of logic. In his mind, we need to suspend civil liberties in order to maintain them. We also need to create peace in Iraq by starting a war there. We started the UN, so let's not listen to it, despite its past success.

Bush is a shame to our country, and our presence in Iraq is as well. I respect the soldiers fighting the war, however, and I think Bush owes it to them to get them back home. If this war was important as he makes it seem, he, as well as other politicians would be willing to fight and/or send their children to fight the war. A politician has no right to declare a war which others will be fighting and dying in unless he/she is willing to do the same. This war has cost Bush nothing other than his reputation, but has cost the country its reputation, unity, freedoms, honor and pride.

I don't even know where to start, so I won't at all. All I have to say is that if T-princes ran this country during the Cold War, I would be a slave laborer in a Soviet gulag today instead on enjoying my freedoms.

[Tprince]

I don't even know where to start, so I won't at all. All I have to say is that if T-princes ran this country during the Cold War, I would be a slave laborer in a Soviet gulag today instead on enjoying my freedoms.

1. You would not be enjoing freedoms because crap like the Patriot Act has taken many freedoms away.
2. The Soviets had bombs and were a potential threat. The Iraqis has no WMDs, and were about as threatening as the Polish soldier representing Poland in our "grand coalition of the willing."
3. The Soviet citizens as well as those under the Iron Curtain wanted help and freedom from oppression, while no usurpations have been done unto the Iraqis to the point where they were willing for their lives to be revolutionized.
4. We still have not given the Iraqis much freedom. Think about their recent election, for example. Everybody who voted in it would be a supporter of candidate favored by the Americans, as they are favoring America by voting in an election sanctioned by America
5. When we attack some other random country (with oil of course), PM me so I can laugh at you.
6. There will be a draft in the next 5 years. That sucks.

[Jwaksman]

Bush is a shame to our country, and our presence in Iraq is as well. I respect the soldiers fighting the war, however, and I think Bush owes it to them to get them back home. If this war was important as he makes it seem, he, as well as other politicians would be willing to fight and/or send their children to fight the war. A politician has no right to declare a war which others will be fighting and dying in unless he/she is willing to do the same. This war has cost Bush nothing other than his reputation, but has cost the country its reputation, unity, freedoms, honor and pride.



Okay, your first paragraph is okay, but this paragraph.... come on...


Politicians need to be willing to go off to war?? Are you mad that FDR didn't go over to Europe to fight in World War II? And how about how LBJ didn't go pick up a rifle in Vietnam. Where was Clinton firing machine guns in Somalia and Bosnia?? That's just a silly argument.


And, you may disapprove of this war, but for many others the war is a good thing. Many people like Bush a whole lot more because of this war. And it really hasn't had too much of an effect overseas, it's not like Iran & Syria didn't hate us beforehand.


We don't go to war to make other countries happy. We go to war for our self defense. That is the ONLY question that matters.

[jersey_guy]

1. You would not be enjoing freedoms because crap like the Patriot Act has taken many freedoms away.
2. The Soviets had bombs and were a potential threat. The Iraqis has no WMDs, and were about as threatening as the Polish soldier representing Poland in our "grand coalition of the willing."
3. The Soviet citizens as well as those under the Iron Curtain wanted help and freedom from oppression, while no usurpations have been done unto the Iraqis to the point where they were willing for their lives to be revolutionized.
4. We still have not given the Iraqis much freedom. Think about their recent election, for example. Everybody who voted in it would be a supporter of candidate favored by the Americans, as they are favoring America by voting in an election sanctioned by America
5. When we attack some other random country (with oil of course), PM me so I can laugh at you.
6. There will be a draft in the next 5 years. That sucks.


1. Yes it's a real shame I can't wire money to Hezbollah anymore and I can't stockpile explosives at home anymore without worrying that the FBI will do a little sneak and peek.

2. Iraq was a threat to our interests too (invasions of its neighbors and sponsorship of terrorism).

3. You're clearly either lying on purpose or being totally ignorant. I advise you to read up on the 1991 Shiite rebellion and how it ended.

4. Rhetoric straight from al Zarqawi, does he pay you for writing this? I didn't know we support parties like the Supereme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (winner of the election), not to mention Sunni parties loosely tied to the insurgency.

5. North Korea doesn't have oil.

6. I'm willing to bet $10,000 that there will not be a draft in the next 5 years. PM me your address so I can collect it when applicable.

[jersey_guy]

Jersey_Guy, he's right in saying that the Patriot Act is horrible. Come on, now.

Except for some minor details (like checking library records), which should be rejected when PA is renewed, it is a good piece of legislation that helps the FBI in terrorist and criminal investigations and does not in one bit change anything in the life of the average law-abiding American.

[Jwaksman]

Okay, let's break up the partisanship here. Jersey_Guy is just arguing Pro-Bush everything because it's pro-Bush and TPrince just hates Bush.


1) It's true, the Patriot Act should be repealed.

2) Our intelligence, as well as the intelligence from every country said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Iraqi Generals and Saddam himself thought that they had weapons. Iraqi generals talked about how they had expected chemical weapon support, but none of it came...

3) The Iraqi citizens did want out. Right after the Gulf War the Kurds tried to gain independence. Saddam brutally put down the rebellion, murdering tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of innocent Kurds. That sent notice to any future group that wanted out. There's no question that Iraqis are thrilled to have Saddam gone. But that, in itself, is not a reason for us to go to war.

4) You obviously didn't pay attention to the Iraqi elections, when the candidate that the US preferred lost...

5) We are not attacking any country anytime soon. Right now we're too stretched out. We won't attack Iran, we're going to let Israel take care of that. The only potential enemy is North Korea. And they don't have any oil. Besides, the whole "blood for oil" thing certainly fell through since oil prices went up due to the war...

6) There will be no draft anytime in the near future. It came up for vote last year in Congress, and I believe only 2 of the 435 congressmen voted for it. Or maybe it was 1... And the only people who have proposed or voted for a draft in the last 20 years have been Democrats - not Republicans...

[jersey_guy]

Layla, you're correct when it comes to the draft. I also must add that the draft is the LAST thing the Pentagon wants because a professional volunterer army is obviously more motivated and has better morale.

Don't worry, we are already working on an army of robots that will take the humans out of the equation. Pilotless, remote-controlled Predators that bomb enemy targets are just the first step.

[cnick]

Voted Republican.

[Sebrle]

We started the UN, so let's not listen to it, despite its past success. .

An interesting statement, what would you consider to be the UN’s top successes pooled with its top disappointments, in your honest opinion.

[MoMo]

Well, just like the doctor who gains a notorious reputation for losing a famous patient, despite having saved countless ordinary people, the UN is known much more for its failures -- which are obvious, and are several -- than for its below-the-radar everyday successes.

It has had successes in the fields of AIDS and many other health concerns, child protection and assistance, food and humanitarian aid, refugee assistance, demining, schools and education, election organizing and monitoring, disaster relief assistance, population issues, science promotion, promoting women's rights, etc., etc., etc.

Its peacekeeping record clearly is mixed -- with dramatic failures like Somalia -- but it has also made contributions in Lebanon, Gaza, former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, East Timor, India/Pakistan, Haiti, El Salvador, Chad, Angola, etc., etc., etc.

Its failures are generally failures of its member-states, since it is nothing without their clout, resources, determination and power. The withdrawal from Iraq, for example, was directly attributable to the lack of security at a time when we were responsible for security.

It needs reform (the question of having gross human rights offenders on the human rights commission is one of the glaring problems), and reform efforts have begun, but it will never be made into an American tool, the way a John Bolton would like to do. What point would it have for the rest of the world if the rest of the world could not line up, at least on occasion, to express disagreement with the U.S. position?

[jersey_guy]

It has had successes in the fields of AIDS and many other health concerns, child protection and assistance, food and humanitarian aid, refugee assistance, demining, schools and education, election organizing and monitoring, disaster relief assistance, population issues, science promotion, promoting women's rights, etc., etc., etc.



Gee I wonder which country paid for most of that? And how much money could be saved if we did it directly, without greasing the hands of the UN-crats?



Its peacekeeping record clearly is mixed -- with dramatic failures like Somalia -- but it has also made contributions in Lebanon, Gaza, former Yugoslavia,


Hahaha yea like in Srebrenica where the heroic UN troops stood by watching mass executions of thousands of civilians in a city they declared a "safe haven" under UN protection - for all it's worth.


Its failures are generally failures of its member-states, since it is nothing without their clout, resources, determination and power.


Translation: UN is useless because whatever it does, we can do better.

[MoMo]

We're the biggest contributor. We're hardly the only one.

It's ridiculous to say that we alone would have done ALL the good things the UN has done if it hadn't existed.

That's breath-takingly self-centered. You, j_g, are another person who needs to get off your couch from time to time to see the world.

[jersey_guy]

We're the biggest contributor. We're hardly the only one.

It's ridiculous to say that we alone would have done ALL the good things the UN has done if it hadn't existed.

That's breath-takingly self-centered. You, j_g, are another person who needs to get off your couch from time to time to see the world.

Yes, if the UN did not exist then Kofi and Chiraq and their buddies wouldn't make millions in bribes from Saddam and dozens of African girls wouldn't get raped by UN pisskeepers, and many other such tragedies would multiply.

As for the personal comment, I would like to remind you I've lived most of my life abroad and it's largely a sh*thole.

And now for something completely different.

During a deep economic crisis, the Israeli Knesset was debating what could they do to get the country out of the disastrous depression. After a long discussion and many proposals, one of the members exclaimed: "Let's declare war on America!"

Surprised, other members of Knesset asked him why would he do such a thing. The guy said, "Look, Japan declared war on America and lost and was occupied and rebuilt by Americans and is now incredibly rich. Germany did the same thing and is now the richest country in Europe. It's clearly the only way to make our country prosperous!"

Other members nodded in agreement, and they were almost ready to pass a declaration of war and moboilize the military when one of the smart backbenchers yelled:

"****, and what happens if we win!?!?"

[MoMo]

Well, I shouldn't have gotten personal, but I find it surprising that you can so bitterly condemn the entirety of the rest of the world based on whatever unfortunate experiences you had yourself.

No one has found that Annan profited from oil-for-food. No one, including our own congressional investigators, has asserted that, even if his son is messed up in it.

Not to excuse those who were gaming the system, but we continue to be extraordinarily hypocritical about oil-for-food, considering that the bulk of the moneys lost were in oil that went to our allies like Jordan and Turkey while we looked the other way. This is part of the U.S. congressional finding -- there's no doubt that this happened. The latest report details one U.S. company involved in such an oil transfer asking the State Department about shipping banned oil through the Gulf. The State Department basically said don't bother us about that, and U.S. naval ships looked the other way.

[jersey_guy]

I don't condemn the rest of the world, but I want America to learn from the world's mistakes. Our sovereignty is what allows us to control our own fate.

The Clinton administration clearly did not do much about the embargo violations, which only emboldened Saddam. One thing is for sure - thanks to our liberation of Iraq, instead of bribing western officials Saddam is now parading in his underwear on the front pages of newspapers.

[mzungu]

i'm curious, if saddam was emboldened by embargo violations, what was he emboldened to do? his army was in shambles, his WMD programs were defunct, and he was threatening no other nations.

[mzungu]

jg, you have got to say where in the world you lived, because i've travelled all over the place and not too much of it isn't worth going to.

u.s. companies were the greatest profiteers in the un-u.s. oil for food scandal.

[jersey_guy]

i'm curious, if saddam was emboldened by embargo violations, what was he emboldened to do? his army was in shambles, his WMD programs were defunct, and he was threatening no other nations.

Saddam was threatening Israel through his continuing financial support of Hamas and other suicide bombers.

Saddam was threatening Iran through his sponsorship and training of a terrorist organization MEK, which plotted terrorist attacks inside Iran (as an extension of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980s).

Saddam was also threatening the United States indrectly by giving support to various other terrorist groups as well as giving shelter to known terrorists who already had attacked the United States (such as the first WTC bombing in 1993).

And Saddam was emboldened to corrupt Russian and French politicians to push for the lifting of the embargo by the UN Security Council. If we did not stop him, who knows what weapons would he have obtained by now from the Frogs or Russkies.

[MoMo]

Wouldn't it be abnormal if a nation's leader DIDN'T try to get an embargo that was hurting his country lifted?

[jersey_guy]

jg, you have got to say where in the world you lived, because i've travelled all over the place and not too much of it isn't worth going to.

u.s. companies were the greatest profiteers in the un-u.s. oil for food scandal.

I lived most of my life in Europe, half of it under hardcore socialism. I know first-hand how socialist food rationing works or how long you have to wait in bread lines. And there is a big difference between "going somewhere" and actually living and working there.

And the biggest profiteer in Oil for Food was Saddam himself who made billions from illegal oil sales.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/640mcodm.asp?pg=1

[jersey_guy]

Wouldn't it be abnormal if a nation's leader DIDN'T try to get an embargo that was hurting his country lifted?

Saddam was not trying to lift the embargo very hard - mostly just ostensibly for propaganda reasons. The smuggling of oil brought him billions of dollars while he let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starve to death so he could blame their deaths on the West and gain the moral upper hand.

[MoMo]

if you're talking about food rationing, i'm guessing you're not referring to france or germany....

[jersey_guy]

The Democrats appear to be in trouble as Howard Dean is not a good fundraiser, so Republicans now rake in more twice as much money as Dems and have 4 times as much money in the bank:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_23/c3936057_mz013.htm

[exjersey1]

And now for something completely different.

During a deep economic crisis, the Israeli Knesset was debating what could they do to get the country out of the disastrous depression. After a long discussion and many proposals, one of the members exclaimed: "Let's declare war on America!"

Surprised, other members of Knesset asked him why would he do such a thing. The guy said, "Look, Japan declared war on America and lost and was occupied and rebuilt by Americans and is now incredibly rich. Germany did the same thing and is now the richest country in Europe. It's clearly the only way to make our country prosperous!"

Other members nodded in agreement, and they were almost ready to pass a declaration of war and moboilize the military when one of the smart backbenchers yelled:

"****, and what happens if we win!?!?"


I apologize if you were being tongue-in-cheek about this, but ever since the release of "The Mouse That Roared" this story has been attributed in one way or another to just about every country in the world.

[Jwaksman]

The Democrats appear to be in trouble as Howard Dean is not a good fundraiser, so Republicans now rake in more twice as much money as Dems and have 4 times as much money in the bank:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_23/c3936057_mz013.htm



That story has been going on for months now. Even before he got nominated, a number of leading Democratic fundraisers swore that they would stop donating if Dean was elected to the post. Clearly it's not for fundraising reasons that he was given that job.

[jersey_guy]

The opportunity to actually knock out an incumbent is rare. I believe that only one Senate incumbent lost in 2004 (Daschle). Nelson (D-FL) could lose re-election in 2006, as could Santorum (R-PA) & Chafee (R-RI). Other potential pickups are Burns (R-Mt) and Cantwell (D-WA).


Congresswoman Katherine Harris just announced her run for the Senate seat in Florida, trying to unseat Nelson. Should be an interesting and heated battle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700749_pf.html

[Jwaksman]

Republicans have to be pissed. Karl Rove kept her out of the 2004 election (which could have turned the state against Bush), but I guess they couldn't keep her out of elections forever. If she hadn't run I'd have said that Republicans were favored to steal that seat, but now I'd say that Democrats have the advantage. Harris is just such a lightning rod that Democrats will have huge turnout.



If you really are a Republican, JG, you will hope that Harris loses in the primary. Personally, I think Nelson is a pretty good Senator. So maybe this is a good thing...

[Jwaksman]

Sorry, I should have backed that up with data:

The most recent poll I could find was a Strategic Vision poll, taken from April 20th to 24th. It showed this for the Republican primary:


Harris 35%
Crist 20%
Gallagher 18%
Jennings 9%
Others 10%

Things look even better for Harris when you consider that Crist is the frontrunner to be the Republican Gubernatorial candidate for 2006, so he might not even end up running for Senate at all.


Now, here are the general election matchups, from the same poll:

Crist beats Nelson, 46% to 45%
Gallagher beats Nelson, 46% to 44%
Nelson beat Harris, 48% to 41%


Clearly, while Harris has the support of Republicans, she is also the target of scorn by Democrats who are still bitter over the 2000 election.

[MoMo]

Saddam was not trying to lift the embargo very hard - mostly just ostensibly for propaganda reasons. The smuggling of oil brought him billions of dollars while he let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starve to death so he could blame their deaths on the West and gain the moral upper hand.

you think he took in more money WITH the embargo than he would have WITHOUT? you think saddam --- with his dozen or so ENORMOUS palaces --- really was feeling so hard up?