Now ya'll know why I don't watch major networks for political coverage. Most (not all) of the statements above are normative. I was trying to provide empirical data from which you should form an educated opinion on whom to vote for. Please folks, don't believe the hype. Vote on issues, not feelings. You'll be a lot happier in the long run. ------------------ The truth is out there.
Nice start there. Besides me being ignorant, what other criticisms do you have? No, you're not ignorant. But if you think Clinton had little effect on the economy, you just don't understand the macro-economics that drive the economy. It's not a big deal -- most people don't. Yes, Clinton's push of George Bush's NAFTA was certainly something he deserves credit for. Yes, he does. Especially with so many Republicans and Democrats against it. Bush, because of his limited popularity, would have had incredible difficulty getting this passed. However, as of yet, [mostly due to the Mexican economic crises] NAFTA has not had too much of an impact. That will increase over the coming 5 to 10 years. Beyond that, don't underestimate the effects of consumer confidence, and more importantly, debt reduction. By reducing the deficit substantially [this process began before the Republican Congress] -- both with spending cuts as well as the rising tax revenues -- you increase capital available for business investment and create a natural economic boom. The increased capital and reduced number of bonds issued also lower interest rates which also increases the infrastructure-growth side of the economy (capital expenses such as housing, etc). Again, I'm not saying Clinton and the Demo/Rep congresses are solely responsible for the economy, but these types of policies have incredible synergies with natural growth. If not for these policies, it is very likely we would already be in the next lull. The result of these policies is essentially the same supply-side economics thar Reagan's tax cuts provided. If Reagan had cut spending simultaneously, the economy would have likely had an incredible boom. Unfortunately, that wasn't really a political option due to the early 80's recession -- increasing government spending creates jobs *now* and thus was a necessity for him to be successful. The unfortunate result of the short-term pop is long-term weakness, which is partially what bogged down Bush. But most voters didn't understand Bush's response. That was my point. That's the thing, though. Bush just didn't have a response. There are plenty of things you can tweak to improve an economy without just spending more money, but he didn't do them. Instead he raised taxes to combat the debt, which just wasn't the solution that was needed. Again, he had a Democratic Congress, so that didn't help either. But all of these guys (Bush, Clinton, Reagan) did much of their work with an opposing congress. They certainly are, when they're used to back bad legislation. In place of logic, they're extremely horrible. Sure, but the ideas themselves aren't horrible. I'd rather have good intentions with bad logic than bad intentions with good logic. This is a possibility, but the American people are so fat, happy, and lazy after eight years under Clinton that my position is that a serious economic failure under a Republican president would marginalize the GOP. The American people are fickle. 8 good years under Reagan didn't marginalize the Democrats. As soon as things went south with Bush, people were quick to dump him. The same would happen in reverse, I think. First, those "wish list" items were intended to indicate just how far to the left the political pendulum would be able to swing if Bush was elected and the economy tanked. Don't take them so literally. I disagree. Our federal government has always kept swinging back to the center. The majority of people don't like radical left or right ideas when it comes down to details and reality [see Clinton's Health Care Plan], and if Democrats are stupid enough to try to implement them, they'll be deservedly dumped out of office, just as the backlash in 1996 occurred with the Republican Congress. Second, you're wrong re: handguns, unless you're pretending Charlie Rangel doesn't exist. Ask Congress how many people would vote for an outright ban, and less than 20 would agree. Unless you plan to replace 200 congressmen and 50 senators with gun-banners [and given that only a tiny percentage of the populace supports this, I'm not sure how this would happen], nothing like this will be seriously considered barring an amazing political change like 50 Littletons in a row. Third, taxes... are you kidding? The Democratic position is almost unanimously in favor of using the imaginary surplus to pay down the debt and "save" Social Security. Actually, the more common Democratic position is limited tax cuts and using the remainder of the funds to pay down the debt. And, if you talk to most economists, you'll see the immense value of paying down that debt [again, this is a major reason for the extension of this economic boom]. Both Bush & Gore constantly blab about saving Social Security. Ignorant, too, right? No, just silly. Wow, you've changed my mind! All I have to do is count on our politicians behaving responsibly and for the economy to continue humming along for an unprecendented number of years, and all my reasons for worrying about a Bush victory are for naught. No, actually politicans can regress quite a bit and still get a huge positive effect out of keeping the debt flat, if not reducing it. And an expansion is not really necessary, just a relatively flat and low growth rate. A recession would be a problem, but as long as you add a few hundred billion dollars to the economy each year (debt reduction), you severely limit the length, scope, and likelihood of a recession. No thanks. You spend your vote the way you want, and I'll do likewise. That's fine, but if you believe there is recession looming, I would hope you'd vote for the candidate that you think could minimize it (I assume Bush for you) rather than just letting it happen so a political party can benefit in the long-run, at the expense of hurting the people effected by a recession in the short-term. ------------------
Don't LaRouche Me, I Blamed For Vote! copyright 1998, Chucky Brown Fan Club Enterprises pps. I'm writing in Clinton. ------------------
CB, hilarious. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so!
pppppppps: If Al Gore invented the internet, how come he lost out on www.algore.com to a missouri company called "market vision"? They have electricity in Missouri? Those buttons of him and tipper are mind-erasingly great - I may order some now. check it out www.algore.com Chucky Brown Fan Club pppppppppppppppppppppppppps: Go Clinton ------------------
Don't buy that hard-to-get act for a minute, Mr. Governor. Put Wayne LaPierre on your ticket this afternoon, and Kagy will be licking envelopes at your campaign HQ tomorrow morning.
In conclusion, I like Clinton. I think he did alot in his 8 years. Both Republicans and Democrats give him alot of credit for his hard work and strong will. They might not all agree with him, but the people of this country give him extremely high job approval ratings. That must mean something. Like I said, I happier now than 8 years ago. Is Clinton responisble for that? I don't know. But, every morning, I wake up, I got money in my pocket, I have a nice place to stay. I go outside, I hear the birds chirping, I get into my car, go to a job that has to overpay me because the economy is so good that they know I can leave and find something else in 2 hours. There is mostly peace. There is mostly stability. There is mostly good stuff happening. The country is fine. Sure, there are problems. But this is still the best nation in the world without a doubt. For that, I thank God and the President. If Bush gets elected and does the same thing or better...good. I am not partial to one party. I am partial to leadership and peace.I would then continue to vote Republican. For now, I am voting Democrat. And most of you should realize this. Since Clinton has been in office, we have had 2 world championships, a couple of WCF's, and traded for a big time PG for the future. Shouldn't that obligate us to be Democrats? ------------------ Live Rocketball. Breathe Rocketball. Die with Rocketball.
