Can presidents really do anything about the economy? The economy was on its way up when Clinton took office and on its way down when Clinton left office. Does that really mean anything? Well, if his tax cut does nothing for the economy but does create a huge amount of new debt, that's not a real plus for Bush, is it? Are you saying you believe the Bush tax cut has had and will have no effect on our economy? I want to assure you that this is *not* the Masterpiece Post. While I would certainly consider this to be a Classic Post, the Masterpiece Post will be far more thought provoking and detailed. I hope so, because if you spent much time on this rubbish, I was going to be very disappointed in you. The number of holes in this analysis is just plain embarrassing.
dammit Jeff stop being so calm and rational, that's not how these bbs political debates work. now post something really far to one side or the other or be gone!
Give me a break. If you really want to help the Republican Party, you would give an HONEST and REALISTIC assessment. If the Republicans deceive themselves (like you are doing) then they will end up making the WRONG political decisions. The term for this is "cocooning." And you are living in a cocoon where everything is just nice and dany for the GOP, when in fact it isn't.
Blah, blah, blah, Alan Greenspan, yada, yada, yada... Yes, I know that Presidents get the lions' share of the blame (or credit) for economic changes, but we all know who really runs the economy. What's more significant - a piddly tax cut (or hike), or interest rates (which are the driving force behind market dynamics)? It is either childish or a display of ignorance to blame the president for "steering" the economy - for better or worse. The Fed does that. And BTW, I wouldn't expect Bush to make the same mistakes his father did. He's already correcting one of them.
People who are predicting the collapse of the Democratic party are seriously underestimating Carol Moseley-Braun, and don't realize what a force she will be after she remembers what her college major was.
I haven't seen you dispute any.... Sorry, I didn't have the time or interest yesterday... For starters: Once again, the Democrats have allowed their leftwing radical fringe to be the voice of the party – and once again the Democrats are in the severe minority amongst Americans on the issue of the day. The latest polls show that 71% of Americans support military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. Only 4% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein is completely complying with existing U.N. resolutions. A whopping 74% of Americans feel that the United States, not the United Nations should make the final decision on security matters for the United States. Nice, but not nearly the whole story. From the latest Gallup Poll: <I> At the same time, while support for military action may be fairly widespread, it's not deep. Almost 50% of Americans say they could change their minds about support for or opposition to military action. It's also clear that war with Iraq is not the highest priority for Americans at this time. Terrorism and the economy are equally as important as, if not more important than, the Iraqi situation. Americans also recognize that many other countries disagree with the U.S. approach to Iraq. Fifty-five percent say that leaders of other countries around the world don't have much respect for President Bush, up from 48% in early February and only 21% last February. It thus may not be surprising that most polls have shown that Americans prefer to slow down the progress toward war in order to accommodate the views of U.S. allies and the United Nations. Many polls have shown that -- given a choice -- Americans favor United Nations endorsement of military action. </I> When a majority of Americans think the world has no respect for your leader, that's not a particularly good sign for his re-election. Recent history has shown support for the war to balloon as the conflict unfolds, as was the case during the Persian Gulf War. Leading Democrats were strongly in opposition to the Persian Gulf War until overwhelming military victory and 90% pro-war approval ratings forced the party to admit they were on the wrong side of the issue. History is repeating itself once again. Somehow, this is used in support of the Democratic Party being on the verge of collapse, even though it had no effect the last time it happened. Gulf War I had no long-term benefits for Bush Sr. With many Jews strongly in favor of military force to disarm Iraq, the issue threatens to steal the Democrats’ power base right out from under them. It could also swing New York’s important 33 electoral votes towards the Republicans in November 2004. This could have disastrous consequences for the Democrats. If Iraq is still on people's minds in 2004, that means Bush failed miserably in his goal. He timed his "war" badly as far as politics go. If all goes well in Iraq, the voters will be far more concerned about the economy and other domestic issues in 2004 than Iraq. War is not the only issue going against the Democrats. With Venezuela, Iraq, low storage volumes and harsh winter weather driving the price of oil and natural gas to high levels, the issue of drilling for the over 7.7 BBOE (mean estimate – it could be as much as 11.8 BBOE) of reserves in ANWR has been gaining significant momentum in Congress. This is exactly the kind of unpopular crap that hurt Democrats in 1994. When one party controls Congress and the White House, they tend to do stupid stuff that's unpopular and easily attacked - ie, the Clinton health care proposal. If they pass drilling ANWR, it will be hell for the Republicans in 2004. The third issue which threatens to go against the Democrats is the economic stimulus package. With Wall Street and the stock market firmly in favor of tax relief, expect the compromise which is eventually reached on the issue to be much closer to the Bush’s initial proposal. You know, when you propose a massive tax cut, and less than 50% of Americans think its a good idea, you're probably on the wrong path. Support for the Bush economic plan was 45% to 40% -- for a freaking massive tax cut. http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030303.asp When you can't even get Americans to rally behind a tax cut , you know your plan is baaaaaaad. The midterm elections were just the beginning of the collapse of the Democratic Party. The disarming of Saddam Hussein, energy policy, and economic policy threatens to further marginalize the Democratic Party’s influence and render their power inconsequential. During a time of crisis and pending war in Iraq, the Democrats barely lost (consistently about 52-48%?) a number of races. Anyone who thinks this is the end of a party is nuts. It's no more then end of the Democrats than 1992 was the end of the Republicans or 1994 was the end of the Democrats. As far as the Presidency goes, unnamed Democrat trails Bush 47%-39%. From Gallup: <I>Among registered voters, Bush's support is now at 47%, just 8 points more than the support expressed for an unnamed Democrat. A rule of thumb for an incumbent is that any figure below the 50% mark signals trouble. The current numbers suggest that the rally effect of 9/11 has greatly diminished. A month after the terrorist attacks, registered voters supported Bush over the unnamed Democratic candidate by 27 percentage points. Today, the margin is just 8 points. </I>. Presidential elections are determined primarily by two things, neither of which were even mentioned in this "analysis": (1) Charisma (2) Vision A leader who people like and who makes people believe in their future wins Presidential elections. The last two popular Presidents - Clinton and Reagan had these characteristics. Bush Sr. had vision, but not charisma. Bush has neither - fortunately for him, Gore had neither also. If the Democrats find a candidate with both, he's likely to win - especially if the economy hasn't really gotten going all that much. Bush's numbers are at their lowest since 9/11. People's views of the future & the economy are the lowest in a decade. All it takes is a person with vision.
The tax cut is good for me personally (as I pay taxes) but will we ever truly know whether or not it helped, hurt or had no significant impact on the economy? The economy is far too complex for a single person or entity to make a few changes and then know that those changes were responsible or not for any longterm shift or trend. Think about how much debate goes on about how so and so did this and it was great but at the same time other side will say that whatever so and so did was anything but great and its amazing we survived it. If your "guy" is in power you will lay praise or make excuses while the other side lays blame. In the mean time no one really knows the truth. Nor do I think they really want to as then you couldn't take credit or lay blame for something as completely out of human control as the weather. Think about it... If people REALLY knew what to do to make the economy "good" then wouldn't every president make it good? What advantage would there be in making it bad? Also, what constitutes "good". The '90's were "good" for a lot of people but also very bad as well. Think about all the people who were suckered into the stock market (who had no business being there) because the dot.com thingy and the over-reporting of earnings by a bunch of crooks artificially inflated it? It sure seemed good while it lasted but what goes up must come down and many people found out the hard way what the realities of the stock market are.
Well his name is Jorge and He twists and He jukes. He rolls into town with his wagon of fruit. He'll sell you and apple he'll sell you an orange. And what you do with it ain't of his concern.
When was the last time you fill up your car with gas? When was the last time you check the stock market out? In both cases, the pending war with Iraq is putting a hurt on both.
Over 70% of Americans are fully behind using military force to disarm Saddam. Bush is acting with support of the American electorate. The Bush Administration has charted a course much different than that of his predecessor. You see, they do what Americans support, not what France, Germany, or Chili supports – and they do it with conviction. I seem to have difficulty recalling that ever important “what do foreigners think of America” issue dominating previous presidential debates. The correlations you draw are spurious and unfounded. The coincidence of the timing of a trough in the business cycle in 1992 and the presidential elections led to a Bush defeat. An overwhelming military success in Iraq defined the first Bush Administration, it did not lead to his defeat. The issue to highlight this time around is the growing divide within the Democratic Party on the topic of using force to disarm Saddam. Jews are strongly behind President Bush on the issue. The Democrats must find a way to appease this part of their constituency, because if they do not, they have lost their most important power base. Are you insinuating that the Bush Administration’s “goal” is to keep war on people’s minds? This is ludicrous and you know it. The goal of the Bush Administration is to protect the American people. Disarming Saddam and bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people will have benefits that far exceed any type of short-term political gain that results from having war “on people’s minds”. “Unpopular crap”. Great analysis. “….it will be hell for Republicans in 2004”. Baseless opinion. Americans need relief from high energy prices. Americans need relief from their dependency on foreign oil. Americans need a larger tax base which will result from economic development of our own natural resources. Americans need more jobs and more capital investment to spur economic growth. Drilling in the ANWR accomplishes these goals and provide tangible benefits to 100% of those who participate in our economic system – and can be done in an environmentally safe manner. My initial assertion was that Wall Street and the stock market are firmly behind the Bush Administration’s economic proposal. I then made the linkage between stock market gains and an overall increase in economic health. These assertions stand. Debate on the topic of tax relief has thus far been limited to typical Democratic Party demagoguery and class warfare. With a changing of the guard in the Bush Administration’s economic team, expect more substantial debate to take place on the issues themselves. Alan Greenspan backs the President’s plan. For some reason, I tend to give him much more credibility than I give to leftwing extremists intent on imposing their social agenda on Americans – at the expense of our collective wallets. Thanks for the softball, Major. Yet another example of a 10-cent rebuttal to a million-dollar post.
I usually don't respond to political posts on this board because I don't waste my time with novice armchair political analysts. Congratulations, Jorge, your post was absurd enough to force me to respond. Any credibility you might have had was lost by the following quote: My guess, Jorge, is that you don't know any Jews (not to mention very few, if any, Democrats). You also know nothing about national politics if you believe the following: 1. Any party can form its "bedrock" on a voting bloc that currently consists of 5.2 million people in the US. That number's even less when you figure out the percentage of registered Jewish voters, and even less when you whittle the registered voters down to "likely voters." You simply cannot win national elections if your party's primary base of support is such a small percentage of the population. 2. A group that voted 79% for Gore in 2000 and, since 1972, has only once voted under 64% for a Democratic Presidential nominee (Carter in 1980) is going to abandon the Democratic Party en masse based on the comments of an obscure Congressman from Virginia. Or maybe you think the fact that Democratic Party leaders immediately condemned Moran's remarks and strippied him of a leadership post will have no bearing on how Jews will evaluate the incident? But what really kills your credibility is your assertion as fact that Jews control Hollywood, TV and the print media. That's a very dangerous road you're walking, Jorge. The rest of your "analysis" is pure drivel but not really worth my time. I just couldn't let your "Jews control the media and the Democratic Party" diatribe slip by as undisputed fact. Next time leave the analysis for the professionals. And no, in case you're wondering, I'm not Jewish.
Did anybody else here like an echoing shout of "Khaaaaaan aan aan aan aan" ringing accross the state? It didn't sound like Bill Shatner.
Khan, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Trader Jorge did not say that Jews "control" anything. Nice attempt to label him as some sort of right wing anti-Semite, but I for one see through your transparent and despicable attack.
They're both on my ignore list, so I can't comment on the substance of his dual posts, but isn't it odd that he is posting with both of his monikers (Trader_Jorge and johnheath)? Is that really allowed? Again, I don't mind, but I'm a little worried about some sort of mental disassociative break going on. I hope somebody checks in on him occasionally in his real life. I guess at least Republican fund raisers call once a week or so. That's comforting.
Oski, the charge that Jews "control" the media and Hollywood is the normal verbage used by Nazis and Racist Hate groups. Lets be honest here, and admit that Khan obviously picked his words carefully to attack Trader Jorge in a contemptable way. "Control" is a conspiritorial code word. American Jews are an incredible success story, and they are VERY influential in Hollywood and our mass media. This is due to the fact that Jewish families take education and social networking seriously. Jews in America help eachother become successful, and are a model for other minorities in the United States. Their influence is undeniable, and because Jews traditionally have voted for the Democrats, the Jewish influence is typically Liberal. This is VERY different from saying that Jews control anything. Read the quotes you posted, and quit being so damn disingenuous.
Ok, I want to make clear that I am *not* the same person as johnheath. Jeff made a remark a couple of days ago which insinuated that we were the same person. This remark is simply untrue. Jeff please set the record straight. As an admin, you should have enough information to know that we are separate people. By the way, I think johnheath is an excellent poster.
