Are you better off than 4 years ago?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

In this election year, it is time for the age old question coined by Ronald Reagan:

"Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

I am interested in what the response is on this poll. I for one would say yes, but I am not sure about others.

[SackAttack]

Sort of a loaded question.

Better off than four years ago? Sure. Better off than two years ago? Not so sure.

Then again, when pressed on 'why,' my elaborations to each half of my answer would entail different things.

Sorta like a fella whose wife has a baby, and yet he loses his job. Hard to say that his life is somehow poorer for having a child in it, but at the same time, it's not all peaches and cream, either.

"Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"

The only honest answer to that question is "In what respect?"

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Are you better off than 4 years ago in terms of what your President has or has not done for you. IOW, the question is a fairly political one, and not with respects to events unrelated to politics and the impact of your President. That said, you must judge yourself on how broad that spectrum is.

[SackAttack]

I'll answer it this way.

The Democratic candidates haven't done any more or less for me than Bush has, so why should I regard their claim with any greater or lesser veracity?

FWIW, I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Bush, but I'd say the same thing.

[Peregrine]

I said yes, but it's will I be better off in another two or four years that I worry about.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm another guy for whom this question isn't really fair. Four years ago, my wife was in her final year of graduate school (which for her included like 15 client-hours a week) and therefore not even working part-time. Now, grad school is paid for and she's working full-time, so sure, we're better off. Back then, we cut corners by doing stuff like not having cable/satellite TV (but we did have DSL ), by her keeping her hair long (far fewer of those expensive Atlanta haircuts that she now gets every couple of weeks), by waiting a few years to record my CD, and by virtually never eating out. Lots has changed since then.

On a bigger level, I work for a ministry that has to rely on donations to survive, and have been in the same place since June 1994. I can say this much: we've done a little better financially in the last four years than we did in the 5 1/2 years previously (although the 5 1/2 years previously weren't particularly difficult either.)

There are times in our nation's history when Presidential and Congressional actions have had a large direct impact on the U.S. economy, but I don't think that has been the case in the last 10 years. I place little praise/blame on Dubya or Clinton for the ups and downs of the economy from the mid 90's to now. Neither had very much to do with technology stocks booming, then rightsizing immediately prior to some big economic scandals coming out, followed by a general slow-but-sure recovery. MAYBE Dubya's tax cuts help massage an already-beginning-to-recover economy, but my guess is that the less-than-high confidence in the economy that his spending fosters virtually cancels out whatever effect the tax cuts have had.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The Democratic candidates haven't done any more or less for me than Bush has, so why should I regard their claim with any greater or lesser veracity?

"Born in the U.S.A!"
"Living in America!"

[CamEdwards]

I voted yes, but again, much of it was due to my own hard work, rather than the President's policies.

However, we sat down to do our taxes last night, and will be paying about 2k less than we did last year (before the tax cuts). I think my wife (a lifelong Democrat) is now much more likely to vote for Bush.

[QuikSand]

My equity portfolio would answer "no," but I answered "yes," without any particular reference to politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Absolutely yes.

[corbes]

Well, yes.

But I'd hesitate to give George Bush credit for things I've done to improve my life.

(Edit: And I hope I don't blame Bush when I'm unhappy. That wouldn't be fair, either.)

[Ksyrup]

There's no question I'm better off in pretty much every aspect of my life, but aside from paying less taxes, I can't really pinpoint one thing that I would credit our government with doing to make my life better in a tangible sense.

[revrew]

What the HELL does this question have to do with the President? Since when is it the President's job to make individual lives better? That's horse shit. (Y'all who know me know how pissed off I have to get to use language like this. I don't do it often.)

Now, I know Reagan started it. (His Alzheimer's must have been kicking in already ) But electing a President, or even guaging my feelings on a President, on whether or not my life is better is symbolic of everything that is wrong with American voters. Even "paying less on my taxes" is a horseshit way to determine whether or not a candidate deserves re-election. In other words, whoever can pork spend and tax cut the most for your location, industry, or profession gets your vote? No wonder we have a national debt and stupid congressmen.

The President (or Congress, for that matter) is responsible for leading and doing what is best for the country, not me, myself, and I. The ONLY questions that merit consideration in reelecting a President concern whether he has done what is best for the country. Do his values and decisions reflect the values most important in our country? Do I have confidence in his leadership, integrity, etc. Questions like that.

And the old "it's the economy, stupid" line is just as symbolic of what is wrong. My industry is downsizing right now, big time. I lost my job this year. But is that the President's fault? NO! It's the fault of changing economic and technological factors.

No, my life is not better now than it was 4 years ago. But if I supported Bush's leadership, values, integrity, and priorities in decision making, the fact that my life is worse off wouldn't prevent me from voting for him. That would be ignorant.

[Samdari]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with who was president.

[Ben E Lou]

Well said revrew.

This really kicked into high gear with Reagan's statement. It was smart thing for him to say politically, but probably bad for the country as a whole.

[QuikSand]

Something to consider - ask this question to a group largely in their 20s and 30s, and they had better damned well be saying yes. People at that age are expected to be getting promotions, getting married, having children, and all other things on the "upswing" of a life cycle. Again, aside from any politics, you would expect that the overwhelming share of people in this forum's general demographic would answer affirmatively here.

Ask the same thing of people in older age groups, and we'd get a different range of answers... with a closer parallel to things like the overall state of the economy, their sense of security, and so forth -- issues that many voters actually do use as a foundation for their immediate political opinions.

[corbes]

Maybe we should rephrase this question.

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?

[Buccaneer]

Absolutely yes. But I am fortunate since no national/global policies or events have any direct effect on me or my family personally. Taxes still creep, have to do more bureaucratic redtape and watch the ups and downs of daily life, health and economy. In other words, the same it has been for me for many years. But there are others who have been hurt, lost loved ones and went through crises and we should share our blessings for which we should be thankful.

[Flasch186]

Wrong wrong wrong

Why is the industries downsizing? cuz the jobs are being shipped off. Why? Nafta. cant wait for Cafta. Who would want all of this cheap labor? Biz owners. Who owns the businesses? mostly the wealthy.

The admin. says different jobs will replace the old ones. Greensapn says, that could take a while. Lets all bank on it. Start training for those new jobs. what will they be? no one can tell, cuz theyre too busy setting up a call center in Bangladesh.

By the way how many Mexican's in Mexico can afford to buy the goods theyre making for .50 / hour? i dunno, i dont live there.

I will pay more in taxes (democrat) if they will spend my money better.

Not stand in forn tof congress pass a medicare bill that most seniors hate, tell congress itll be 400 million and then 2 weeks later say sorry, 550 instead.

Halliburton having a non-compete bidding process for rebuilding Iraq (see Cheney on the board, still getting paid)

try to pass a budget that puts 0 dollars in it for Iraq and Afghanistan saying, "who can tell how it will be 8 months from now? Its possible we wont need to be there at all then." Horse shit. The budget is already going to set record deficits scaring the shit out of the rest of the world (see concerns about Dollar) without the military money in it. Imagine that. Even republicans are up in arms.

What did Clinton hand Bush, other than a infidelity platform to stand on? Record surpluses, a wonderful relationship witht he world, information that Osama Bin LAden was the greatest threat to America, an economy that was wonderful......cant wait For Kerry.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wrong wrong wrong

This must be another of those "non-discussion threads."

[Draft Dodger]

am I better off?

yes.

does it have anything to do with the POTUS?

no.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wrong wrong wrong

Why is the industries downsizing? cuz the jobs are being shipped off. Why? Nafta. cant wait for Cafta. Who would want all of this cheap labor? Biz owners. Who owns the businesses? mostly the wealthy.

The admin. says different jobs will replace the old ones. Greensapn says, that could take a while. Lets all bank on it. Start training for those new jobs. what will they be? no one can tell, cuz theyre too busy setting up a call center in Bangladesh.

By the way how many Mexican's in Mexico can afford to buy the goods theyre making for .50 / hour? i dunno, i dont live there.

I will pay more in taxes (democrat) if they will spend my money better.

Not stand in forn tof congress pass a medicare bill that most seniors hate, tell congress itll be 400 million and then 2 weeks later say sorry, 550 instead.

Halliburton having a non-compete bidding process for rebuilding Iraq (see Cheney on the board, still getting paid)

try to pass a budget that puts 0 dollars in it for Iraq and Afghanistan saying, "who can tell how it will be 8 months from now? Its possible we wont need to be there at all then." Horse shit. The budget is already going to set record deficits scaring the shit out of the rest of the world (see concerns about Dollar) without the military money in it. Imagine that. Even republicans are up in arms.

What did Clinton hand Bush, other than a infidelity platform to stand on? Record surpluses, a wonderful relationship witht he world, information that Osama Bin LAden was the greatest threat to America, an economy that was wonderful......cant wait For Kerry.

You do realize that Kerry voted for NAFTA, right? In fact, Kerry has voted to give Bush fast-track authority to set up the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

I don't understand the theory of "I'll pay more in taxes if they'll spend it more wisely". When has that ever happened? Besides, you'll still be dealing with an evil Republican controlled Congress.

The Halliburton no-bid contract blah blah blahbiddy blah story is currently unfounded. The GAO says the bid was properly awarded, the Army Corps of Engineers has said there's no evidence of wrongdoing, and I'm pretty positive that the Pentagon investigation will conclude the same. But if you're worried about cronyism, what do you think of Kerry's Big Dig deal and the fact that (according to the AP) "at least three times in his Senate career, (Kerry) has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees."?

When it comes to budget, you're right on. Many conservatives are annoyed by the size of the budget (including me). But if you think Kerry's going to be more fiscally conservative, you're deluding yourself. The National Taxpayers Union says Kerry hasn't offered a single idea to reduce spending, and his proposed ideas would cost $265 billion dollars. Even repealing all the Bush tax cuts wouldn't cover that.

You might be ticked off at President Bush, but if you're voting with your wallet, you're going to be just as pissed at Kerry four years from now.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You do realize that Kerry voted for NAFTA, right? In fact, Kerry has voted to give Bush fast-track authority to set up the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

I don't understand the theory of "I'll pay more in taxes if they'll spend it more wisely". When has that ever happened? Besides, you'll still be dealing with an evil Republican controlled Congress.

The Halliburton no-bid contract blah blah blahbiddy blah story is currently unfounded. The GAO says the bid was properly awarded, the Army Corps of Engineers has said there's no evidence of wrongdoing, and I'm pretty positive that the Pentagon investigation will conclude the same. But if you're worried about cronyism, what do you think of Kerry's Big Dig deal and the fact that (according to the AP) "at least three times in his Senate career, (Kerry) has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees."?

When it comes to budget, you're right on. Many conservatives are annoyed by the size of the budget (including me). But if you think Kerry's going to be more fiscally conservative, you're deluding yourself. The National Taxpayers Union says Kerry hasn't offered a single idea to reduce spending, and his proposed ideas would cost $265 billion dollars. Even repealing all the Bush tax cuts wouldn't cover that.

You might be ticked off at President Bush, but if you're voting with your wallet, you're going to be just as pissed at Kerry four years from now.

Cam, I have the feeling your post/response will just go in one ear and out the other.

[CamEdwards]

you're right... but that hasn't stopped me from talking to my wife either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It'll be alright Flasch, I voted for some Dems when I was in my 20's too.
You'll grow out of it

[Butter]

You may notice that your federal tax bill is decreasing, but your local/property/state taxes are probably going up.

And, as most have said, I don't necessarily believe that anything I've done to improve my life in the last 4 years are thanks to Bush.

[BishopMVP]

I voted yes, but as Quiksand said, I'm 18. My life should be better than it was 4 years ago.

Do I think my family and I will be better off in 4 years with Bush or Kerry? I don't know. We'd probably pay less taxes under Bush, but Kerry would probably bring a lot of pork to Massachusetts. Either way, I don't think it will make much difference.

Do I think the country as a whole will be better off in 4 years with Bush or Kerry? Again, I'm unsure. I'm hopeful that Bush stops a lot of the buying off of different groups once he doesn't have to worry about re-election, but even if he doesn't I don't think Kerry would be an improvement.

Do I think the world as a whole will be better off in 4 years with Bush or Kerry? Bush, no question. This is the only place I could see really any big difference in 4 years between the two candidates, and I think Bush is better. I know others disagree, but I'm pretty much in line with neoconservative foreign policy, and I still believe that if Gore/Kerry were president the last 4 years, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wrong wrong wrong

Why is the industries downsizing? cuz the jobs are being shipped off. Why? Nafta. cant wait for Cafta. Who would want all of this cheap labor? Biz owners. Who owns the businesses? mostly the wealthy.



What did Clinton hand Bush, other than a infidelity platform to stand on? Record surpluses, a wonderful relationship witht he world, information that Osama Bin LAden was the greatest threat to America, an economy that was wonderful......cant wait For Kerry.

Two points:

Clinton also handed Bush NAFTA, which is what you claim is wrecking the economy (I don't know enough about the topic to argue the point one way or the other, just pointing out that Clinton gave us NAFTA, so you can't blaim Bush for its results).

Clinton passed on the Bin Laden problem to Bush after passing on several opportunities to deal with it himself.

Of course, I'm also pretty sure Bush Sr. handed Clinton Somalia, so I guess they're even

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Something to consider - ask this question to a group largely in their 20s and 30s, and they had better damned well be saying yes. People at that age are expected to be getting promotions, getting married, having children, and all other things on the "upswing" of a life cycle.

I turn 27 in April. I had to go with "even steven." I have had the same job the whole time, and made less money in 2003 then the previous 2 years. This is mainly because my company, which regulary increased the pay scale once a year, has not done so for about three years now. They also cut a couple of the things we used to get paid for, mainly live load/unload pay.

The government in place, has passed new Hours of Service regulations for truck drivers. Something most drivers are pissed about. The ricin poison "attacks" have even been linked to a possible trucker who is bitching about the HOS regulations, and that is a shame. Thankfully Bush (or whoever is keeping it from happening) has not allowed the mexican trucks complete access to the US yet. Another deadline has passed and they aren't here, that one is one you all need to be thankful for.

I would have to say my job is no better, probably worse then it was for years ago. My personal life on the other hand has gone to shit and my marriage has been breaking down and is about to take a nose-dive straight down. My little girl is beautiful though, and is happy. So personally i am fine i guess, nothing the government has done anyways has screwed it up or made it much better.

But Bush scares me.....always has. The Dems are not much better though in my eyes, if better at all which i doubt.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Something to consider - ask this question to a group largely in their 20s and 30s, and they had better damned well be saying yes. People at that age are expected to be getting promotions, getting married, having children, and all other things on the "upswing" of a life cycle. Again, aside from any politics, you would expect that the overwhelming share of people in this forum's general demographic would answer affirmatively here.

Ask the same thing of people in older age groups, and we'd get a different range of answers... with a closer parallel to things like the overall state of the economy, their sense of security, and so forth -- issues that many voters actually do use as a foundation for their immediate political opinions.

Well, I'm 29 years old. From a personal standpoint, my life is better. I have a wife and two kids I didn't have 4 years ago. I'm also in a much better place spiritually. I'm pretty sure Dubya has nothing to do with any of that.

From a financial standpoint, at this moment, I'm worse off. I work in the technology sector, and many of us have been getting our asses kicked for the last 3 years or so. However, I knew long before Bush was elected that the booming economy of the mid to late 90's was all smoke and mirrors, and we were in for a whuppin'. Dubya had nothing to do with that, either.

He did, however, lower my taxes considerably. That helps a lot, whether you like him or not.

However, this question is really irrelevant with regards to who I'll vote for in November.

[sachmo71]

In what way?

[GrantDawg]

I would agree with the statement that the POTUS isn't responsible for making my life better, BUT I will say that in regards to taxes my life is much better. I went from paying a few hundred dollars a year to receiving a few thousand dollars in child credit that has gone a long way into helping my household to be more financially sound.

Of course, only the rich benefit from tax cuts, so that must mean I'm rich. I'm waiting for the Rolls Royce and huge mansion to be handed to me at any time now.

[wig]

LIGHTNING BOLT!

LIGHTNING BOLT!

LIGHTNING BOLT!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wrong wrong wrong

Why is the industries downsizing? cuz the jobs are being shipped off. Why? Nafta. cant wait for Cafta. Who would want all of this cheap labor? Biz owners. Who owns the businesses? mostly the wealthy.

The admin. says different jobs will replace the old ones. Greensapn says, that could take a while. Lets all bank on it. Start training for those new jobs. what will they be? no one can tell, cuz theyre too busy setting up a call center in Bangladesh.

I here with you, but I think I'm more likely to side with Greenspan than you on this one.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I will pay more in taxes (democrat) if they will spend my money better.

I think the best way they could spend it better is to generally spend less. I am also a democrat, but if you raise my taxes I'll never vote for you again. Check with George Sr. on that one.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Not stand in forn tof congress pass a medicare bill that most seniors hate, tell congress itll be 400 million and then 2 weeks later say sorry, 550 instead.

This one I think you have wrong. I think the medicare bill will definately help seniors out. I mean it will pay for SOME of their medication expenses. My parents, lifelong, die hard, party line democrats tried to debunk it, but eventually had to admit it would help them. After that the only bad thing they could say about it was that it gave the drug companies a free pass. A purely partisan argument, especially since the Democratic leadership didn't offer a plan that addressed this either. The plan, in my opinion, should have worked out better negotiated rates for medications. The bottom line is that people will be better off with this coverage, than without it.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Halliburton having a non-compete bidding process for rebuilding Iraq (see Cheney on the board, still getting paid)

Pretty much bogus argument here. Halliburton has been providing support and logistical services to the millitary for some time. They are the company the government uses, and has been using. Presiden Clinton and Vice President Gore are both on the record praising Halliburton, actually Brown and Root, for their work. The democrats are pretty much reaching for straws on this issue. Almost as far as saying that President Bush was AWOL.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

try to pass a budget that puts 0 dollars in it for Iraq and Afghanistan saying, "who can tell how it will be 8 months from now? Its possible we wont need to be there at all then." Horse shit. The budget is already going to set record deficits scaring the shit out of the rest of the world (see concerns about Dollar) without the military money in it. Imagine that. Even republicans are up in arms.

I have to call this business as usual here. This is the way it is done. Wartime budgets never include the cost of the war. I don't think anyone has said it's possible there won't be any of those costs incurred in 9 months, just that they don't belong in the initial budget.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What did Clinton hand Bush, other than a infidelity platform to stand on? Record surpluses, a wonderful relationship witht he world, information that Osama Bin LAden was the greatest threat to America, an economy that was wonderful.......

I don't think that Bush actually made the infidelity thing an issue. So are you saying that America was fed up with having a sleazy president? I don't actually think Bush Jr. compares favorably to Gore on that scale. The Osama bin Laden thing isn't really something that you can praise Clinton and beat up Bush Jr. on. Fact of the matter, they both dropped the ball by not taking him out. Regarding the economy: You heard that the non-partisan(I believe) committee that tracks the economy issued a report last month that showed the economy slipping into recession during the last quarter of President Clinton's teure right? They haven't decided whether or not to officially change their official starting point of the recession, but are considering it.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

......cant wait For Kerry.

I can't wait to see what happens. I am gonna be wait and see. If Kerry is more reasonable than I believe him to be, I might just vote for him. The president has done some things well, and done some things poorly. I don't like the idea of spending into oblivion, but most economists are actually saying that deficit spending right now is not something to overly worry about, so that concern is tempered a bit. If Kerry takes the wrong position on taxes, I am all for "four more years".

[Flasch186]

I shouldve clarified, Im assuming Kerry will be the only legitimate alternative to Bush who i disdain. I'm not ecstatic about Kerry either but Ill take him over Bush....I actually would've liked Lieberman but that wont happen ever.

Um, Halliburton DID have a no bid contract as the Army Corps of Engineers stated unequivocally that no OTHER company in the world couldn't have handled all that Halliburton couldve done in one deal. Im sorry, but thats like saying since Microsoft is on a great majority of the computers worldwide we SHOULDNT AT LEAST examine alternatives. Sketchy, No doubt.

Why has the Admin. absolutely been UNCOOPERATIVE with the 9/11 committee. While I don't think that there was anything that they couldve done to prevent it, IM NOT NAIVE, I believe that this admin. has been horrible at presentation and image. They shouldve just come out in the beginning to show what sanfus there were

For them not to say the reason were going to war in Iraq is the same as afghanistan (we have a leader here who is involved in killing of potentially millions of people in his own country) is a shame. I supported the war and still do, under that line of thinking (mind you Im Jewish and believe that it is the duty of the world to prevent Genocide or anything close to it [need not explain i hope]) but to say its based on an imminent threat to us is either ignorant, misguided (which im sure theyll claim), or silly. In hindsight Im not surprised by the handling, this admin. has done nothing but kick around their own fumble but at least before Bush the whole world didnt hate us. Axis of Evil? Genius. Talk about polarizing the whole world. Whether intended or not, the choice of 3 countries that rest in heavily muslim parts of the world (Korea may be a stretch but Im connecting more to SouthEast Asia) was prob. a mistake. Doesnt help much that under Clinton the North Koreans had shut down their Nuclar facilities and were working towards more moderation and YES more financial support. The famine is inevitable so lets just stand on the other side of the demilitarized zone and watch as millions hunger to death. Not the best choice in my opinion.

Legalize millions of Illegal Aliens (Not Undocumented Workers). Illegal because they crossed the border illegally. Silly!!!! How about enforce the immigration laws? Bush's appointed man in charge said, "its unenforcable." NO IT IS NOT. Use some of the billions Bush wants to spend on the moon landing and keep the legal lines of entry open while shutting down the illegal lines. Studies show that while those lines are kep open the drug trafficking lines look very similar. Enforce those too, while youre at it. Some would argue that George doesnt mind seeing drugs poor in over the border becasue it MOSTLY infiltrates the inner most poor, but I hesitate to buy into that line of thinking. It is a stretch but the lack of enforcement of the borders leaves this line of question open.

Im sorry but I have a hard time seeing another 4 years of Republican control of the head office or more, as the deficit continues to climb (someone will have to pay it eventually IT WILL NOT JUST GO AWAY), jobs continue to go overseas, we continue to fight war after war (whether through military or divisiveness), Co. owners continue to pad their own pockets (and not reinvest as Trickle down economics says they will), the gap b/w the rich and poor continues to widen exponentially, and counties CONTINUE TO NOT IMPLEMENT BILLS THAT ARE PASSED AS "UNFUNDED", and watch bills continue to be passed that alienate people for their sexual preference (who cares if 2 people want to get married? good for them. doesnt effect me in the least) or abortion rights. It is a shame.

Now I am 27 and make Plenty of money (6 figures) so I refuse to give into the idea that at some point I will change my views and become more republican. Some might say you become jaded with money, Well I havnt and I wont. I love this country and understand that to pay taxes is a priviledge. It is misguided to believe that this country will be better off paying less taxes and having less gov't. WE cannot turn back the clock to the days before gov't agencies and gov't funding of programs like welfare (which is run horribly). You cannot turn off the faucet and think welp, let them fend for themselves lest we have millions of homoeless and millions of uneducated.

Im sorry, youre right to say, I wont change my views but I do listen, Obviously, and I could retort exactly the same. Neither one will change our views but thank god for the Motor Voter bill the Republicans so vehemently opposed. It a terrible thing when they make it easier to bring voters to the polls, god forbid.

now ill breathe

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

For them not to say the reason were going to war in Iraq is the same as afghanistan (we have a leader here who is involved in killing of potentially millions of people in his own country) is a shame. I supported the war and still do, under that line of thinking (mind you Im Jewish and believe that it is the duty of the world to prevent Genocide or anything close to it [need not explain i hope]) but to say its based on an imminent threat to us is either ignorant, misguided (which im sure theyll claim), or silly.

I'm cherry-picking here and need to rush to dinner, so I didn't even read most of what you wrote, but this has to be one of the most asinine anti-Bush/pro-Kerry arguments I've ever heard. You like what Bush did, and Kerry probably wouldn't have done, but because of the presentation it would be better if it wasn't done at all.

[Flasch186]

Clinton said to Bush, "Bin Laden is the #1 threat to America." after he tried to missle strike him in Nigeria? (not sure of location) [Plus Clinton Pre and Post Yugoslavia plan looks pretty darn good to me]

Bush doesnt seem to have had a Post-Iraq plan. At least thats the way it looks (see changing of the gaurd = Bremer)

Most Seniors are Outraged by the medicare plan in that they now cannot buy drugs from Canada if they are cheaper and now medicare CANNOT negotiate for the lowest price on drugs. No good no matter how you look at it.

[Glengoyne]

A few things. I am a democrat, albeit a conservative one, but still a democrat. I was no fan of George W., but honest to goodness when he stood up on the back of that fire truck in NYC I became a believer. I don't think he is an idiot, and well really never have. I was plenty satisfied when he said "you are with us or you are with the terrorists". In fact I still believe it. I knew when the administration played the WMD card regarding Iraq, that they were making it the poster boy issue to garner support. I had no clue they would regret that decision so. Principally because I had no freaking clue our intelligence agencies, whether they were fooled or not, were so inept. What you say about Halliburton...I certainly haven't seen anything like what you describe. I have heard a number of folks, including National Public Radio coorespondents (The Fox News of the Left), say that Halliburton was essentially going to get the contract anyway, and that the entire deal was business as usual. I have not seen a single source report that Cheney pushed for or was even remotely involved with the award of that contract to Brown and Root. The president and administration have done more than enough wrong. I think it is pointless to make something out of nothing to show them at fault.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Bush doesnt seem to have had a Post-Iraq plan. At least thats the way it looks (see changing of the gaurd = Bremer)

Most Seniors are Outraged by the medicare plan in that they now cannot buy drugs from Canada if they are cheaper and now medicare CANNOT negotiate for the lowest price on drugs. No good no matter how you look at it.

The post Iraq planning is among the list of things I cannot fathom regarding the administration's master plan. We do have experts on nation building. As you cited, we used them in parts of the former Yugoslavia. On the surface at least, it doesn't look like we planned to bring them in on Iraq. It boggles my mind, it does. This is the thing that should be a campaign issue, not whether or not we should have gone in.

Regarding the Seniors and Canadian drugs thing. A lot of seniors don't get their drugs from Canada in the first place. Secondly, I am in the pharmaceutical insurance business, and there are a number of reports, not all funded by drug companies (though some are), that show that when you order drugs from Canada from a number of outlets, you aren't getting equivalent products. That is right, there are companies out there unscroupulously taking advantage of people looking to save a buck or two. I guess saving a buck or a fifty would be more appropriate case. I also don't know why you say that "now" medicare can't negotiate pricing. I don't think they have ever been able to do so. Well they could and still can, AFAIK, set a maximum allowable cost for a drug. So nothing has really changed on that front. I do agree though that the U.S. should negotiate lower rates for medication. It is outrageous to me that other countries get so much better pricing.

[Flasch186]

I'm cherry-picking here and need to rush to dinner, so I didn't even read most of what you wrote, but this has to be one of the most asinine anti-Bush/pro-Kerry arguments I've ever heard. You like what Bush did, and Kerry probably wouldn't have done, but because of the presentation it would be better if it wasn't done at all.

Yes I was for the war, based on what I said, but I am allowed to differ....my wife doesnt work for the CIA. I have a hair trigger based on this based on my heritage, as I explained, so you can write it off to that or whatever.

I am not Pro-Kerry, I am pro-Democratic party. I am anti-Fox News Channel. Anti Bush. Pro Environment. Pro Vote. Anti NCAA. Anti Tax loopholes like the car over 6000 lbs. loophole. I should do this, but I dont. Why? Cuz it was aimed to help farmers. Not big gas guzzling SUV's like I drive. Mine was a hand me down mind you. Im pro estate TAX. Why? cuz most of that money was never taxed to begin with (see investments, homesteads, stocks, bonds, capital gains tax) [ I am only for this above a certain threshold, ie. 10 million or whatever is deemed necessary to keep those farmers from getting hit], pro choice (not pro abortion), pro-marriage PERIOD (couldnt care less whether theyre gay or not, pro competition, Anti Laissez Faire (SP?), anti nafta, anti cafta, pro trade restrictions against China (where they break International Trade restrictions like it was not even there to begin with) [I buy nothing made in China], pro free speech, pro FCC restriction (Janet was deplorable), Pro FOF, Anti Madden, Pro NFL, Anti Figure skating, not a metrosexual, anti hunting, pro gun restrictions in almost every form, pro more funding for local police departments and fire departments, Pro Patriot act ina much smaller form than it currently exists, Pro INS, Anti Bush....................this is why I am a democrat and feel very strongly about it. BUT I LOVE the banter and appreciate all points of view and dissent....cuz again, if I were put in jail I could see my lawyer and my family would know where I am, unlike in Camp Xray (which violates the Geneva accord but....)

[Flasch186]

If any of what I have said is unfounded or unproven I will always stand corrected (unlike Bill O'Reilly - who says he is a independent but it has been dhown that he is a registered Republican, when pressed he called the rport a lie and the person a liar - see Al Franken) [ no i dont believe everything i read and that could be bogus too but you eventually have to believe some stuff you read ] However, Medicare, as I have heard cannot negotiate for lower prices and that those are set in stone and the seniors will pay those rates, even though they are too high.

I never stated that Cheney had to push for the Halliburton contract, what i said was that there were other companies who wouldve liked to have bid on those contracts but were not allowed to do so as Halliburton was awarded them w/o a bidding process. Good thing theyve agreed to pay back the military their overcharge....im happy about the auditing mind you.

[Flasch186]

the news never stops coming:

from yahoo NOW:

President Bush's economic advisers said on Monday that an overhaul of Social Security favored by the administration would sharply increase the nation's debt load in the next several decades. Tapping the bond markets to pay for personal retirement accounts and other reforms would increase the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio by up to 23.6 percentage points in 2036, Bush's Council of Economic Advisers said in its annual Economic Report of the President

nicely add that to the tab

[BishopMVP]

I'm not sure how much the neo-conservatives control Bush's foreign policy, but they constitute the hawks in the administration, and if you want to see their strategy, read An End to Evil, How to Win the War on Terror, by Richard Perle and David Frum. Here - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/bo...d=all&position= - is a review of it, by a writer from Newsweek who doesn't agree with them.

Basically, in your middle rant there, you take all your positions (some of which are anti-Republican, some of which are anti-Democratic) and, in my mind, it can be summed up thusly.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I am{...}Anti Bush....................this is why I am a democrat and feel very strongly about it.

IMO, if you just approach it from this perspective without looking for better alternatives, it's not a good thing, but at least you'll find a lot of company.

[Flasch186]

kinda feel slapped for having my quote screwed with...but eh, no biggie. Hence why I find myself in the camp of Lieberman but unfortunately due to the anti-semitism or sheer hatred towards jews and divisiveness b/w Jews and Arabs I cant in good conscience vote for him unless i vote to invite war. True, i have feelings on both sides of the coin which means I'm not so converted that I MUST believe in the Admin. or not. I do Not believe in the admin because they have lied to me and you far too much, and done what I believe to be more bad than good. That it is why Im an american (or I was born here), so I can feel however I want to feel. I actually plan on running for a local office in the future so I am not just someone who stands back and says, "oh well". I believe in honesty above all else and transparency which apparently this admin. fears the most. I believe in what I say and I encourage all people to make up their own minds but I cannot stand it when people just follow the admin. or anyone else without analyzing, investigating, and forming their own opinion......Then vote. It doesnt matter who you vote for BUT VOTE. That is first and foremost how we can express our thanks to those who fight for our freedoms and have in the past. (off the soapbox now) I believe this admin. has lied more than most.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

kinda feel slapped for having my quote screwed with...but eh, no biggie.

I didn't change the order of anything, and I put brackets around the first ellipses now to show where I removed stuff. The second ellipses were yours.

I believe in honesty above all else and transparency which apparently this admin. fears the most.

(Oversimplification) - So would you prefer Clinton, who was impeached for lying under oath, or Kerry, who changes his positions based on which way the (political) wind is blowing. Lieberman was the closest thing to an honest politician (and hawk) in the Democratic primaries, and we all saw what happened to him.

I believe this admin. has lied more than most.

There is just much more information out there now. If JFK (just to pick an example) were president now, do you really think he would have less to answer for? Every administration has lied, but now people are reporting on it more.

[Flasch186]

whether or not it is reported more doesnt change the way my stomach churns when i see it. Reporting it more is a good thing. Transparency wouldn't be so scary if they dealt honestly, IMO. No doubt other admin's. have lied but Clinton's was cheating on his wife....I think I would cut a guy a break if he were called out about cheating on his wife in front of his workplace let alone the world. I can understand that and while Im not necessarily approving I would rather have my Pres. show he's human (lying to about a BJ) vs. lying about a War, or lying about all the other crap i already cited. Yes I was for Lieberman and unfortunately most people who are vocal in this country are on the extremes which is not a fair representation of America, I think.

[CamEdwards]

does the six figure salary include a decimal point somewhere?

Seriously, my friend, I think I did a fairly decent job of pointing out that Kerry's policies on many of the same issues are either the same as Bush's or more costly. Immigration, for instance. Bush has his foreign worker program. But what's the proposal of your sacred Democratic party? Blanket amnesty. You find that more acceptable?

As to the Social Security plan, I think you were a little dishonest. I assumed that you were talking about the deficit as a percentage of the GDP. Having read the story, I found this:

The Council of Economic Advisers said increasing government borrowing to finance the transition was not a problem from an economic perspective. While the deficit would increase initially, it would fall as the reforms are phased in.

At its peak in 2022, the incremental deficit increase would be less than 1.6 percent of gross domestic product, they said. By comparison, Bush is projecting this fiscal year's deficit at 4.5 percent of GDP and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 38.6 percent.

The Council of Economic Advisers played down the implications of such large increases in government borrowing, asserting the cost of doing nothing would be even greater.

I feel better now.

By the way, less ranting and more periods might make your arguments a little more palatable.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bush views the world in Judeo-Christian terms. This drives the secular globalists absolutely insane!!! Four more years with the Good Lord willing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Bush views the world in Judeo-Christian terms. This drives the secular globalists absolutely insane!!! Four more years with the Good Lord willing.

I think this deserves a...

[Peregrine]

Are there really people who describe themselves as secular globalists? Because it sounds like something that would be kinda cool to have on a business card.