f_vo

Will Bush be elected for a third time?

Recommended Posts

LOL where do these people come from?

How do they know how to turn on a computer?  :lol:

210175[/snapback]

LOL, typical republican response. He does not have the intelligence to think of a rebuttal, so he offers an ad hominem argument. That is, a personal attck on the person while offering nothing to rebut the content. Oh, you probably don't even know what rebuttal means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible&db=*

210207[/snapback]

Hey Picard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=read

Just like the SR members get real thread, read the entire thread before posting, you would then see they were the ones making empty remarks. :)

Not to mention you would already know we now know who SC and FS are. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before Bush is elected a 3rd time, he will have to be elected a FIRST time.  That hasn't happened yet, the 2004 election was a sham just like the 2000 one.

209970[/snapback]

What do we have, Plagues(ie, aids, sars, ebola, west nile, etc) Hurricanes, Earhtquakes, tsunami's, famine, war, etc.  Yeah, sounds a lot like the apacolypse, as discribed in the Book of Revelations.  If Bush does get another term, or any republican gets the next seat, it's nailed.  The mark of the beast looks a like like an elephant, the symbol for the republican party.

210174[/snapback]

LOL where do these people come from?

How do they know how to turn on a computer? :lol:

210175[/snapback]

Picard not to mention, if you are republican, democrat, liberal, or conservative you have to admit these were pretty weak and insane arguments. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Udaman:

"I'm voting for Arnie the Govenator, to become the 1st foreign born 'Presinator'?"

But they do need to change the law has well for this to happen, right?

B.A.:

No, i was not confusing with Roosevelt, i truly believed Eisenhower was in the "hottest" seat for 3 x 4 years.

If he was the one to make it impossible for any other to "reign" for 12 years, then i am confusing with that....

Many dislike Bush, saying he is loosing popularity, BUT give him the opportunity to go for it for a third time and it will be hard to beat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
give him the opportunity to go for it for a third time and it will be hard to beat him

Beat him at what? Alienating allies? Pointless invasions? Looking generally stupid, insincere, arrogant and self-righteous? Guess you've got a point here. The man's simply a disaster, the worst threat to world peace since the Cold War ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I have never voted straight ticket, now that’s for people who don't 'use brain' study up on the candidates and make an informed decision people.  I am a conservative but I vote Democrat often as well as Republican.  I agree that a 'middle of the road' solution is best, the two sides keep each other in check and weed out the extremists.  I have always been in favor of a Democrat majority Congress with a Republican President or vice versa.  If you have a mix in the president, house, senate, and Supreme Court, they can keep each other in check and keep things running the middle of the road.

:blink: I had you pinned for an extreme right-wingist. Perhaps I haven't paid enough attention to your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we have, Plagues(ie, aids, sars, ebola, west nile, etc) Hurricanes, Earhtquakes, tsunami's, famine, war, etc.  Yeah, sounds a lot like the apacolypse, as discribed in the Book of Revelations.  If Bush does get another term, or any republican gets the next seat, it's nailed.  The mark of the beast looks a like like an elephant, the symbol for the republican party.

210174[/snapback]

Are you serious?

Do you know how many apocalyptic predictions have failed (well, all of them obviously)? Every time groups of religious people get hot and bothered about a "very reliable prediction", it passes and they seem to forget all about it and go onto the next. Then the next generation of "believers" rolls around and they never look at their history.

How many thousands of years is it going to take for this idea to go away?

"Humans are just as capable of managing their own destruction as a deity. A self-realized apocalypse warrants more vigilance than a god-induced one, don't you agree?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm not serious. Except that I do think bush and is the most evil person ever to run this country. But apacolypse? No, just food for thought. Hence the link to the definition of gullible for styx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I'm not serious.  Except that I do think bush and is the most evil person ever to run this country.  But apacolypse?  No, just food for thought.  Hence the link to the definition of gullible for styx

210262[/snapback]

Its XSTLX, but Styx is a good group. :)

Well all I can say is (since there is no way to have a decent conversation with someone as close minded as yourself) try to open your mind and learn some facts to back up outlandish reflection.

Do you really think flaunting "Bush is bad" continually, never offering a sage opinion exhibits intelligence?

In some circles this might be a valid argument perhaps at university or in a union hall, the poor oafs having been brain washed. Darned liberal propagandists neglected to install erudite debate into your mind along with the sentence "Bush is bad".

You have great belligerence, however, I will not partake in fracas with someone so fallacious. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udaman:

"I'm voting for Arnie the Govenator, to become the 1st foreign born 'Presinator'?"

But they do need to change the law has well for this to happen, right?

B.A.:

No, i was not confusing with Roosevelt, i truly believed Eisenhower was in the "hottest" seat for 3 x 4 years.

If  he was the one to make it impossible for any other to "reign" for 12 years, then i am confusing with that....

Many dislike Bush, saying he is loosing popularity, BUT give him the opportunity to go for it for a third time and it will be hard to beat him.

210243[/snapback]

f_vo, IIRC Roosevelt died on this 4th term. Short answer is that the law will not be changed, remember Reagan was starting to show signs of Altzheimers disease, and would have to be replaced had he been elected for a 3rd term (there was much more talk of changing the law at that time to allow Reagan to run for a 3rd term).

I was using a bit of tongue 'n cheek humor for those who are more informed and know that on one of this trips to Congress/Wash DC shortly after being elected the Govenator, there was talk of changing the law to allow a foreigner(say after being a citizen for 20yrs) to become the Pres. Just an implied suggestion that it would be more worthwhile, better for that to happen that changing the 2 term limit. No way Bush would get elected for a 3rd term, even if the law allowed for it. uninformed and biased individuals who do not 'use brain' (Picard, I must be xSTLx's idol ;) on SR as he frequently quotes my phrases)--- like xSTLx for example; are the people politicians love, pandering to 15min attention spans of their constituents.

give him the opportunity to go for it for a third time and it will be hard to beat him

Beat him at what? Alienating allies? Pointless invasions? Looking generally stupid, insincere, arrogant and self-righteous? Guess you've got a point here. The man's simply a disaster, the worst threat to world peace since the Cold War ended.

210247[/snapback]

"Looking generally stupid, insincere, arrogant and self-righteous?"... oh sorry, my bad, you were referring to Bush? 'And you too, are easily pleased.

Honestly HTMK, it's not nice to make personal attacks at whussy, immature, overly sensitive types like xSTLx.

'How's it going xSTLx, you're so cute' (quoting 'Boomer', hottie actress Grace Park..someone with an actual level of intelligence in comparison to xSTLx that is shocking; mimicking sarcastically the feminine voice to her crewmate, about some bimbo that hits up on him in BattleStar Galactica... which I'm watching on TV right now while multitasking... hehe, Grace Park just puked, she's so hot/sexy.... j/k, j/k 'Fracking, Fracked up world' ).

Actually I have never voted straight ticket, now that’s for people who don't 'use brain' study up on the candidates and make an informed decision people.  I am a conservative but I vote Democrat often as well as Republican.  I agree that a 'middle of the road' solution is best, the two sides keep each other in check and weed out the extremists.  I have always been in favor of a Democrat majority Congress with a Republican President or vice versa.  If you have a mix in the president, house, senate, and Supreme Court, they can keep each other in check and keep things running the middle of the road.

:blink: I had you pinned for an extreme right-wingist. Perhaps I haven't paid enough attention to your posts.

210260[/snapback]

"people who don't 'use brain' study up on the candidates and make an informed decision people." Spoken like the true 'duplicitous hypocrite' xSTLx is.

"I have always been in favor of a Democrat majority Congress with a Republican President or vice versa.  If you have a mix in the president, house, senate, and Supreme Court, they can keep each other in check and keep things running the middle of the road." Standard truly ignorant, lack of understanding of how government works and does not work, mindset.

Better to have Congress run by intelligent people in government, those who don't cater to special interest groups LOL trying to get them elected. This is why I mentioned the Govenator, who has dropped way down in Calif. 'popularity' ratings due to the 'informed' public like xSTLx, who don't take the time to see the special interest lobbies like the powerful teachers union etc, etc, stymie efficient government at state and national levels in the USA--- but blame for everything is put on the leader. A Congress of majority of Democrats in the currently and past climates is the worst kind of government we could have in the USA---and we've had that before. Let us make it clear, Bush had little to do with the current and growning $185$Billion deficit trade the USA has with China and other nations, you can blame that on Clinton administration (in part only, Republicans did not block the trade agreement Clinton brought with China, and in the end US or multinational businesses and stockholders are the ones who benefitted in the US from that---Rep/Dems what is the difference).

Better to have 'moderate/liberal' Republicans and 'conservative' liberal Democrats(ah well, sounds like an oxymoron, but think about if for a while) who don't cater to special interest groups in their own states. Democratically controlled Congress would be worse now, than Republican controlled Congress... even though it is not so good now with all of the religioius/conservative Reps v. McCain type Republicans.

Sivar, "dont feed the trolls"; paying too much attention to xSTLx's teenage emotional mentally trolls/posts, will guarantee an immediate drop in your IQ of at least 10 points... a study shows, ;)

Of course I'm not serious.  Except that I do think bush and is the most evil person ever to run this country.  But apacolypse?  No, just food for thought.  Hence the link to the definition of gullible for styx

210262[/snapback]

Sorry Picard, i don't see how you see Bush as inherently 'evil'. Poor policies, leadership (we don't need those lousy Euro allies that like the US are equally, if not more responsible for putting economic interests before all in the Middle East and else where) Bush is not really smart enough or dumb enough to be truly evil. Now Clinton on the other hand, is dangerously sophisticated/intelligent; not withstanding his sex addict flaws... so did anyone read up on my link to how US funds are the main contributor to Afghanistani women get educations... where are our Friggin EU allies pouring in aide and coalition of UN back forces in Afghanistan? We go it alone the USA, when there are no economic interests for them hypocritical EU nations??? Answer me that HTMK. It's typical though, of the duplicitous hypocrite xSTLx is Picard, he goes around saying everyone is 'crazy', 'insane', and 'idiots'... pot calling the kettle black; complains when people insult him for his juvenille antics on SR computing threads.

See, xSTLx hasn't read all 260 posts of mine, so he's still rather ignorant (not that I expect he will ever change, staying at emotional mentally of a teenager for at least several decades or more... just go read his comments in the DUT thread, about his Cadillac STS, re: Dependability survey rankings of automobiles.

Oh but for Picard, here is a nice representation of xSTLx's likeness beater.jpg along with a link I provided long ago to a shockwave flash 'yo yo yo gameboy' violent vid humor clip, entitled the "end of the world"... what with the current misguided focus on minor terrorist attack, lack of attention span on more dangerous nuclear possibilities and now nationalistic ever growing tensions with/about the globalization of the world's economies, current USA congressional 'China bashing' (same for the EU, Prof. Wiz, xSTLx and other people ignorant of the full and complete realities involved v. simplistic 15min attention span researching).

If you only have an 56k connection, this 3.6MB flash animation may fail to load, sometimes it works, sometimes not.

http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.swf

"One day. We decide those Chinese sons of bitches are going down" So we launch a nuke at China"

"Mean while Australia is down there, like ^^WTF."

And jtr still thinks ;-) California can break off of the west coast of the USA (damn, doesn't anyone understand plate tectonics?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes Udaman how I envy you, see as an alien Udaman can spend innumerable hours on forums, disregarding employment, watching public tele, and toons.

Oh my yes, can't live without Udaman's crackerjack quotes. :wacko:

"No way Bush would get elected for a third term, even if the law allowed for it."

Oh thickheaded Udaman, I was surprised by this, even from you.

Oh I see, now he is a future seeing alien.

BTW Udaman I have a CTS not STS. So for you. Udaman wins boat trip with Picard, with all that grey matter flying you might need a microscope or perhaps urban dictionary.

Also for you.

Link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=read

I actually cracked a smile at the Udaman toon link, I hate giving him the tad of credit, however it is pure fiction of course and to bestow it any credibility would be Udaman / Picard style uninformed.

Udaman eh :lol: -- oh well here he is, on his way back to mars, after what he sees in toon depicts world ending, perhaps he forgot why he left, the extraterrestrial atmosphere is unable to support life.

Link:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html

Perhaps he will remember (forgot because of 15 min attention span) when he gets there.

Here he is Udaman. Thought Udaman could use more mindless toons for his collection.

Link:

http://www.ronald-dupont.com/alienson.zip

Edited by xSTLx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
give him the opportunity to go for it for a third time and it will be hard to beat him

Beat him at what? Alienating allies? Pointless invasions? Looking generally stupid, insincere, arrogant and self-righteous? Guess you've got a point here. The man's simply a disaster, the worst threat to world peace since the Cold War ended.

210247[/snapback]

But he could be there for another 4 years if he was allowed to go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Udaman:

"No way Bush would get elected for a 3rd term, even if the law allowed for it"

Never say never again. Nobody believed he would make it a second time. Even the "Moore film" could not harm him. So if he could go for it a third time, he would win even easier.

-No Moore film

-No extra bad publicity (he already had them all)

-Obvious many, many voters like him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udaman:

"No way Bush would get elected for a 3rd term, even if the law allowed for it"

Never say never again. Nobody believed he would make it a second time. Even the "Moore film" could not harm him. So if he could go for it a third time, he would win even easier.

-No Moore film

-No extra bad publicity (he already had them all)

-Obvious many, many voters like him

210289[/snapback]

Being from a foreign country, perhaps you've missed most of the recent pollings here: GWB is losing popularity. His numbers consisently decrease. If an election were held today, he would have a tougher time than he did in 2004. Especially if he faced a real opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being from a foreign country, perhaps you've missed most of the recent pollings here: GWB is losing popularity. His numbers consisently decrease. If an election were held today, he would have a tougher time than he did in 2004. Especially if he faced a real opponent."

I think the opposite, try taking a open minded approach, not a page from the Democrat textbook, and you will see.

911 helped George W, although the terrorists did not intend for it to have that effect, they seem to have '15 minute attention span' because they attacked London this time. They did this at the worse possible time for their cause. They have won the next election for the Republicans and Blair. How? Because the Democrats are still running on a anti-war platform, weather you deep-seated Democrats can see it or not, the moderate Democrats, borderline liberals, will possibly vote Republican next time because many of them do support the war, and might see some of the way they feel in a conservative candidate, sorry sometimes propaganda fails, I know, I know, but sometimes people can think for themselves.

That covers 2008.

Now what about 2012?

Yet they will probably win then to. How? When you freshen minds 'attention spans' get expanded. The London Olympics will be in 2012, what event will shadow these games, the terrorist attacks, because the attacks were the day after London was awarded the Olympics, heck they may have the 2012 games in honor of the London attack victims. People will remember the attack, remember how they want to blow the bastards to kingdom come. So anti-war platform? No. Again they will vote for someone they hope will blow them off the face of the earth.

I wonder about something, they attacked London the day after they were awarded the Olympics. If New York had been awarded them, would they have attacked New York? Did they have a cell in place to carry out attacks on New York?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far more likely that they would be interested in disrupting the G8 than the Olympic news.

xSTLx, for someone who talks a lot about open-mindedness, you certainly like to play the same Democrat/liberal-bashing song over and over, regardless of circumstance. You also have your eyes completely closed to the fact that our president's popularity is currently on a significant down-trend.

sr040210_1.gif

The London tube bombings of themselves will have exactly zero effect on the next US election, and are relatively unlikely to change the next UK election...but that remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911 helped George W, although the terrorists did not intend for it to have that effect,

Don't be too sure of that. Everyone knew by then that Bush wasn't a good diplomat and neither were his Seceraries. With Bush in power, the terrorists were almost guaranteed to have a US with fewer allies against them than, say, with a president like Clinton who was actually respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911 helped George W, although the terrorists did not intend for it to have that effect,

Don't be too sure of that. Everyone knew by then that Bush wasn't a good diplomat and neither were his Seceraries. With Bush in power, the terrorists were almost guaranteed to have a US with fewer allies against them than, say, with a president like Clinton who was actually respected.

210333[/snapback]

So respect the guy who cheated on his wife and denied it to a nation, not to mention NAFTA, over a guy who is protecting our country? You live in Belgium, you get a slanted view of American poloitics controlled by your media, hell I think you said you took Moore's movie for truth :lol: better let the American's handle our own politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B.A.

"Being from a foreign country, perhaps you've missed most of the recent pollings here: GWB is losing popularity. His numbers consisently decrease. If an election were held today, he would have a tougher time than he did in 2004. Especially if he faced a real opponent. "

Polling is what it is "polling.

He (Bush) can change people's mind with a finger snap. He proved he can do anything he wants in his second win.

It is nice to have polls indicating that he is loosing popularity, but he could and probably would win a third time.

What i mean is: when zeroing in to the climax of an election, he could do it again.

But, we probably will never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So respect the guy who cheated on his wife and denied it to a nation, not to mention NAFTA, over a guy who is protecting our country?

Cheating on his wife is irrelevant to determine wether Clinton was a good president. That the Republican party deems it necessary that in some cases only campaigns of slander can get them, say, a president or a governour, is more worrying to me. Reminds me of a certain party at home.

And Bush protecting your country? Kiddo, get real...

You live in Belgium, you get a slanted view of American poloitics controlled by your media

Of course the US media isn't biased at all. Or censored.

better let the American's handle our own politics.

Fine. Then tell your prez to stop meddling in EU affairs like stupidly insisting that Toekey should join the Union. Better he offers the Turks membership in the US. That he can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush's popularity ratings are at all time lows, and will probably get worse in his 'lame duck' 2nd term. I predict we get a Democratic president next term (which will make Q very happy).

I'm voting for Arnie the Govenator, to become the 1st foreign born 'Presinator'? :)

209948[/snapback]

Ah yes but he is a Republicanator.

I think the Democrats have alienated to much of the country with the liberal anti-patriotic propaganda, I don't see any Democrat Presidents anytime soon, the democrats have to come back to the middle of the road, sorry extreme liberals, most of the country has not been brain washed, we don't go for flag burning, and we don't think 9/11 is our fault, as you say it is, because we were not multicultural enough. :blink:

209952[/snapback]

The democrats have sought to strip people of the dignity they derive from working through their big government policies far too much to ever be in office again. Thomas Jefferson who founded the democratic party thought that government should be small and that "governments are not masters of the people, but servents of the people governed." The democrats used to support this, but in the 1930s, all of that changed when the democrats began to bring America on a path to a socialist state in which people do not work and government does not work, all to benefit themselves. Various government departments pay supervisors mostly on how many people they supervise, so if anyone even suggests that certain people are expendable, he or she is looked upon as if they he or she is insane, as the supervisors are looking to increase their salaries, not decrease them, and all this is at the expense of US tax payers. Sadly whenever anyone tries to reduce the size of the federal government to lower taxes or the deficit, the democrats get angry and say all sorts of terrible things opposed to it. The fact that we should run for high ground to bury the family silver whenever the democrats discuss tax reform, is testament to this. Their usage of tax expenditures to refer to what we call deductions doesn't help either.

Sadly, now that the democrats have lost their bid to make America a socialist state the formal way, they've drafted plans to do it anyway by passing a new consitution through the justice system without any formal vote or discussion. Their new consitution will ensure that people are highly taxed, taken care of and void of all incentive. America is at a cross roads, we can either fight the democrats to maintain our freedom or one day tell our children and our children's children about what America was like when people were free.

Edited by Shining Arcanine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The democrats have sought to strip people of the dignity they derive from working through their big government policies far too much to ever be in office again. Thomas Jefferson who founded the democratic party thought that government should be small and that "governments are not masters of the people, but servents of the people governed." The democrats used to support this, but in the 1930s, all of that changed when the democrats began to bring America on a path to a socialist state in which people do not work and government does not work, all to benefit themselves.

Umm, you DO realize that the last major welfare reform act, which reduced welfare recipients by 1/3 over the decade following, HAPPEND UNDER PRES. CLINTON?!?!? That he endorsed it and signed it?

I've posted that highly relavent news item previously, it's searchable in the B&G...

The Democrats don't want people not to work - they DO want to ensure that people can actually get paid a living wage for doing that work (unlike, say, WalMart, which endorses it's cashiers collecting unemployment and welfare while working so that they don't have to pay them more). They want to ensure that should you be out of work you don't starve, nor does your family.

But the REAL thing that the Democrats want to ensure is that 90% of the wealth doesn't end up in the hands of 5% of the population. Right now, 50% of the wealth is in the hands of <1% or so of the population, so we're not all that far off. A democracy CANNOT SURVIVE such a skewed income slope - you end up with massive social unrest, and a military police state to enfore order. But it's a slippery road down towards that income inequity, for once those at the top get most of themoney, they can buy the politicians to get what percentage they haven't yet gotten. Scarily, that seems to be the path the US is headed down, especially with Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy. Point of fact: the wealthy ALREADY paid a much lower percentage of income in taxes in the US than in any other industrialized nation.

I'm not here to lecture about morality, helping those that can't help themselves, feeling good about helping others. The historian and political scientist in me don't give two craps about that (the human in me might, but that's a seperate discussion). The historian and poli sci guy in me thinks about Brazil, early Rome, Mexico, the new Russia, and a host of other countries ruined (i.e., not functioning democracies) by over-concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Where the police don't carry pistols, they carry assualt shotguns and AK-47s - to patrol the streets. Not the military, the constables. Because you can't ensure social order once a good percentage of the society has given up hope of getting ahead, because radical differentiation of inherited factors (i.e., wealth passed along, social connections, etc.) only ensures a malignant underclass, etc., etc., etc.

It doesn't MATTER that some economics professors revel in the Laffer Curve, and intone that "a rising tide carries all boats." What matters is what the middle and lower classes think - because once they give up hope of making it upwards, you have a revolution on your hands. Time, after time, after time...history repeats...

Future Shock

P.S. - and having just gotten back from consulting in India, I could write several threads about the threat of offshoring to the working population in the States and elsewhere...a practice that does nothing but enhance the wealth of people fortunate enough to own stocks and bonds in companies, but drives down the incomes of those that have little wealth to invest, but work for a living. I am not against offshoring, but we need to recognize that it DOES affect our social stability and income distribution curves, and take steps to mitigate that. Traditionally, that would be corporate taxes paying for worker re-training, unemployment benefits, etc. That's not government (or the Dems) creating dependants - that's corporate POLICY creating government dependants. It's only the Dems that want to ensure that any economic "network effects" are actually taxed to the corporations that cause society to incur them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The democrats have sought to strip people of the dignity they derive from working through their big government policies far too much to ever be in office again. Thomas Jefferson who founded the democratic party thought that government should be small and that "governments are not masters of the people, but servents of the people governed." The democrats used to support this, but in the 1930s, all of that changed when the democrats began to bring America on a path to a socialist state in which people do not work and government does not work, all to benefit themselves.

Umm, you DO realize that the last major welfare reform act, which reduced welfare recipients by 1/3 over the decade following, HAPPEND UNDER PRES. CLINTON?!?!? That he endorsed it and signed it?

210388[/snapback]

He also signed in NAFTA which has sent millions of US jobs over seas.

We have a bureaucracy of tax and spend government officials and we have it because the democrats were so open to change that they changed their values on a whim, only to benefit themselves and no one else.

The Democrats don't want people not to work - they DO want to ensure that people can actually get paid a living wage for doing that work (unlike, say, WalMart, which endorses it's cashiers collecting unemployment and welfare while working so that they don't have to pay them more).  They want to ensure that should you be out of work you don't starve, nor does your family.

210388[/snapback]

Then why do they support more government as the omnipotent solution to our problems? People needs jobs, more government, people need higher wages, more government, people need lower prices, more government. More government isn't the answer to our problem, more government is our problem.

But the REAL thing that the Democrats want to ensure is that 90% of the wealth doesn't end up in the hands of 5% of the population.  Right now, 50% of the wealth is in the hands of <1% or so of the population, so we're not all that far off.  A democracy CANNOT SURVIVE such a skewed income slope - you end up with massive social unrest, and a military police state to enfore order.  But it's a slippery road down towards that income inequity, for once those at the top get most of themoney, they can buy the politicians to get what percentage they haven't yet gotten.  Scarily, that seems to be the path the US is headed down, especially with Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy.  Point of fact: the wealthy ALREADY paid a much lower percentage of income in taxes in the US than in any other industrialized nation.

I'm not here to lecture about morality, helping those that can't help themselves, feeling good about helping others.  The historian and political scientist in me don't give two craps about that (the human in me might, but that's a seperate discussion).  The historian and poli sci guy in me thinks about Brazil, early Rome, Mexico, the new Russia, and a host of other countries ruined (i.e., not functioning democracies) by over-concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.  Where the police don't carry pistols, they carry assualt shotguns and AK-47s - to patrol the streets.  Not the military, the constables.  Because you can't ensure social order once a good percentage of the society has given up hope of getting ahead, because radical differentiation of inherited factors (i.e., wealth passed along, social connections, etc.) only ensures a malignant underclass, etc., etc., etc.

210388[/snapback]

The only thing that the democrats want to ensure is the health of the bureaucracy that gathers wealth into its own hands. Once a decent democrat arranged for wealthfare recipients to receive temporary jobs so that they would have better living conditions and one day be able to leave the welfare system. His program worked until no would accept a job from him. After some digging, someone finally told him that his jobs were too expensive as whenever he took one of his jobs, he lost his welfare benefits, and he had mouths to feed. If these people are ever to leave the welfare system, they're going to need jobs while they're on welfare. If the democrats actually care about them, the democrats will eliminate the bureaucracy that prevents them from having jobs.

It doesn't MATTER that some economics professors revel in the Laffer Curve, and intone that "a rising tide carries all boats."  What matters is what the middle and lower classes think - because once they give up hope of making it upwards, you have a revolution on your hands.  Time, after time, after time...history repeats...

Future Shock

P.S. - and having just gotten back from consulting in India, I could write several threads about the threat of offshoring to the working population in the States and elsewhere...a practice that does nothing but enhance the wealth of people fortunate enough to own stocks and bonds in companies, but drives down the incomes of those that have little wealth to invest, but work for a living.  I am not against offshoring, but we need to recognize that it DOES affect our social stability and income distribution curves, and take steps to mitigate that.  Traditionally, that would be corporate taxes paying for worker re-training, unemployment benefits, etc.  That's not government (or the Dems) creating dependants - that's corporate POLICY creating government dependants.  It's only the Dems that want to ensure that any economic "network effects" are actually taxed to the corporations that cause society to incur them.

210388[/snapback]

If you want people to buy American made products, give them more money to do so, instead of ranting and raving whenever there is a tax cut and in turn, a federal revenue increase. Tax cuts have traditionally increased government revenue. They did so under Ronald Reagan's administration and they did so under Calvin Coolidge's administration. So rather than rant and rave about how expensive they are, support more of them. If you want to talk about re-training, you should talk about the training program the government had that cost tax payers 70% more to train a person than it would to send that person to Harvard. Now that was expensive.

Edited by Shining Arcanine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't bother to respond line by line, but:

1) NAFTA was the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. It was between the US, Mexico, and Canada. By definition, it didn't send a single job OVERSEAS, unless you count the Gulf of Baja as an ocean. And last I looked, neither Mexico nor Canada was in line to rival the US in job creation or economic might...

2) Do you actually KNOW the f*cking percentages of US taxes that are utilized for transfer of income payments, your supposed "tax and spend" culture? HINT: It's way less than the Defense budget, and more in line with what we pay in interest on the national debt. You want to get rid of the cost of the transfer of income payments to the US economy? Get rid of the national debt, and you can have that money for free...WITHOUT any social unstability.

3) The largest bureaucracy in the US is the military-industrial complex, by far, in terms of both number of government employees and dollars spent. The functionaries for medicare, medicade, welfare, etc. don't really amount to a hill of beans in the overall staffing structure of Washington. They could be made leaner still, but only at the cost of fewer checks and balances, i.e., more fraudulent claims, more corruption, etc. Hard to say which is worse, eh?

4) I am not against tax cuts - they are a useful financial management tool for the government. Properly used, they can stimulate demand, or stimulate production. The problem is WHICH taxes Bush cut - we didn't NEED a supply-side cut to stimulate production, not with the prime rate at historic lows. Any business that needed money to invest was having it thrown at them, at very low interest rates. What Bush did was not a financial management tax cut to help the economy - it was to "play to his base" and enrich businessmen and investors. It helped ensure that wealthy families would be able to STAY wealthy families over generations and form dynasties. It was political, not economic. And the economy has borne this out...with pretty lackluster results ever since. Wall St. is mired in neutral, job creation is at nearly an all-time low...where's the beef?

5) It is the REPULICANS that have pushed through reductions in benefits when someone on assistance actually is working - there have been numerous Democrat bills to eliminate or reduce the reductions, which have been defeated by the Republican majority. Ummm, stop aiming that gun in the mirror...

4) And not a SINGLE WORD from you about social stability, which basically was the meat of my entire post? In fact, it would appear that your entire reasoned response to my post was simply to repost your point of view from your prior post, without comment or refudation of my point of view. Hmmm....guess you can't argue with history, huh?

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Do you actually KNOW the f*cking percentages of US taxes that are utilized for transfer of income payments, your supposed "tax and spend" culture?

Minor point-on the federal level it may be relatively small but on the state and local levels it is huge. Medicaid is the single largest line item in the state and city budgets. Medical entitlements in general threaten to bankrupt the government far faster than welfare. This is what really needs to be looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now