FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A new direction for the US: Vote Democrat!





S3nd K3ys
The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in midair over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, keep in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House. It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.

What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try.
ocalhoun
It is true; I see nothing in the democratic campaigning but 'we need change' or 'doing things a different way'.
I notice that most of the time they do not say what this different way is.
My favorite is 'we need a plan for Iraq'
1: we already have a plan
2: the people saying that have either no plan, or a plan that basically consists of 'run away, and fast'.

Basically, the problem I have with their message is that it says mostly 'we're not Bush!'.
I think they're banking too much on Bush's low popularity.

Also, I love to see them out there talking about lowering taxes; since when have democrats been known for that?

Sure there are exceptions to this, but I don't see any in my local candidates.
Soulfire
Agreed that they're banking on Bush's low popularity ratings. I see nothing but "We're not Bush" in democrats ads which tell me nothing about what they want to do, what their plans are, etc.

They are then using Bush (who is Republican) to fight against the entire Republican party.

Partisan politics... gotta love it. All it is is bashing between parties, and the constant bickering leaves all of our problems unsolved and a population who has little to no faith in the government.
hlavco
You're a good person, S3nd K3ys.

And what's with this recent Internet-wide forum trend of making fun of Bush in completely off-topic situations? You must've seen conversations like this:
User1: It's stupid how my NES won't work.
User2: You know what else is stupid? People who voted for Bush.

I've been seeing stuff like that everywhere for the last few months. It's really annoying.

Nice to see some facts.
coolclay
S3nd K3ys did you make that yourself? If you did may I send it around in an email? If not where did you get it from?
the1991
vote independent. politics in the us is a joke. this 2 party system is sickening.
a.Bird
I don't understand it... You are just perpetuating the blame game. Stop it. Stop this madness.
Davidgr1200
If taxes are at a 20-year low why are tax revenues at an all time high?
mschnell
How about the fact that the first recession in ten years started during his term. Unemployment's been low in the US for a long time and a certain level of unemployment is good for a country (total unemployment-cyclical unemployment). Taxes being lower doesn't necessarily help people overall. Lowering taxes is a way for the government to offset reductions in planned investment (as far as raising the GDP and getting an economy out of a recessionary gap goes). If federal tax revenues are at all time highs, it must just mean we're producing more...which makes sense, because our GDP goes up year to year unless we're in some sort of major recession. And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now? You do realize we were running a surplus with Clinton. We can only run a deficit because of foreign investment. It's all well and good until we hit bad economic times and have to pay the money back.

Oh, by the way, a quick google search finds tons of results for possible places this came from. Perhaps don't just copy and paste?
ocalhoun
mschnell wrote:
And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now?

Because it used to be even more huge!
(more huge? Is that grammatically correct?)
mschnell
ocalhoun wrote:
mschnell wrote:
And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now?

Because it used to be even more huge!
(more huge? Is that grammatically correct?)


Again, go back to the last time a democrat was in office and you'll see that there was actually a surplus.
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:
How about the fact that the first recession in ten years started during his term. Unemployment's been low in the US for a long time and a certain level of unemployment is good for a country (total unemployment-cyclical unemployment). Taxes being lower doesn't necessarily help people overall. Lowering taxes is a way for the government to offset reductions in planned investment (as far as raising the GDP and getting an economy out of a recessionary gap goes). If federal tax revenues are at all time highs, it must just mean we're producing more...which makes sense, because our GDP goes up year to year unless we're in some sort of major recession. And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now? You do realize we were running a surplus with Clinton. We can only run a deficit because of foreign investment. It's all well and good until we hit bad economic times and have to pay the money back.


Yeah, he turned the almost certain recession/depression after 9/11 around to a record DOW. Un-employment is a good thing? Taxes low is good for everyone. Was good for everyone I know, anyway. The deficit has been huge before, and Clinton's budget cut Social Investment Programs to historic lows.

Anything else you'd like to exagerate our ot proportion?
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:
mschnell wrote:
How about the fact that the first recession in ten years started during his term. Unemployment's been low in the US for a long time and a certain level of unemployment is good for a country (total unemployment-cyclical unemployment). Taxes being lower doesn't necessarily help people overall. Lowering taxes is a way for the government to offset reductions in planned investment (as far as raising the GDP and getting an economy out of a recessionary gap goes). If federal tax revenues are at all time highs, it must just mean we're producing more...which makes sense, because our GDP goes up year to year unless we're in some sort of major recession. And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now? You do realize we were running a surplus with Clinton. We can only run a deficit because of foreign investment. It's all well and good until we hit bad economic times and have to pay the money back.


Yeah, he turned the almost certain recession/depression after 9/11 around to a record DOW. Un-employment is a good thing? Taxes low is good for everyone. Was good for everyone I know, anyway. The deficit has been huge before, and Clinton's budget cut Social Investment Programs to historic lows.

Anything else you'd like to exagerate our ot proportion?


Yah, you should take an econ class or two. There needs to be a certain level of unemployment for the system to work at all. Try frictional unemployment, for example. Low taxes is not necessarily good for everyone. It has broader effects than you just getting back a larger check in the mail. What are these social investment programs you're talking about in capital letters?

If there's anything I really, really want to exaggerate, it's that you posted this as if it's your own, when in actuality it's all over the web. You've been around long enough to know you shouldn't do that.
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
mschnell wrote:
And if our tax revenues are so high, why is the deficit so huge right now?

Because it used to be even more huge!
(more huge? Is that grammatically correct?)

I always heard the opposite, to be honest. Care to back this up with numbers? By the way, please notice the huge difference between Clinton and Bush junior!



Of course the % of national debt vs the GDP is a different case. It used to be higher twice due to 1) the second world war and 2) George Bush senior.

ocalhoun
eggg
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.


Of course. There's no need to come to the United States when we've shipped our army right into their backyard. A new direction means not expending thousands of American lives in order to create anarchy in foreign countries.

This idea that we have the right to change another country's government at our discretion? That we can pick and choose which brutal dictator should be encouraged and which should be overthrown? That it's better to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, be they women, children, man, or insurgent, than be attacked ourselves? That civil liberties can be ignored so long as the president starts a war first? These ideas are tyrannous, they are un-American, they are the very root of terrorism, and our founders would be sickened.

Voting Democrat will not correct all these problems, no, but it will send the message that tyranny is not welcome in our government, that Americans still have some notion of what freedom means. I do not care about taxes when thousands of people are being slaughtered in my name. Which, incidentally, is why I voted for Aaron Dixon and not Maria Cantwell...
ocalhoun
eggg wrote:

A new direction means not expending thousands of American lives in order to create anarchy in foreign countries.
Sure, that was exactly what we intended by invading Iraq...
Bush: 'Let's create anarchy in a foreign country!'
Advisor1: 'Sounds like fun! Hey, Iraq looks like it would be a good place.
Advisor2: 'It'll cost thousands of American lives...'
Bush: 'You're fired, Advisor2.'
Advisor1: 'After we invade Iraq, let's goad some other country start a nuclear war...'
Bush: 'sounds good...'

I'm sure that's exactly the way it went, right?
eggg wrote:

, that Americans still have some notion of what freedom means. I do not care about taxes when thousands of people are being slaughtered in my name.

Incidentally, taxes have more to do with our freedom than people being 'slaughtered' overseas. (Just gotta love that melodramatic wording.)
dz9c
yea dude democrats all the way. anybody here of the presidential canidates coming up in 08? a african american dude named obama or somthing and hillary clinton. that will be interesting, a black man and a white woman. how ironic
TomGrey
However, Bondings, the slow changing National Debt as a % of GDP is not usually as important as the current gov't budget deficit as a % of GDP.

The big gov't surplus under Clinton was due to a) the dot.com bubble (that popped in his last year, the recession momentum started around May, 2000), plus b) the reduced gov't expenditures on the military, plus c) the successful Republican based welfare reform, which Clinton first opposed, then accepted, plus d) the acceptance of NAFTA and a larger free trade area.

S3nd K3ys (or is that Devious Riders?) had fine posts about how good America has it now.

I agree that some unemployment is good for an economy, and in economics there is a concept of balanced budget 'natural rate' of unemployment, often considered about 5% in America.

The big-gov't big spending Reps and their disgusting pork, which the Dems never really fought against, is also a partial reason for a bit higher deficit and lower current unemployment -- and the Reps deserved loss.

The Reps, and Bush, deserved to win on Iraq. Since Kerry talked about his 'plan' in 2004, we haven't seen nada of what the Dems really think should be done, just Bush bad, Bush bad, bad, bad, baaahh baaahh.
More troops, less troops.

Let's be honest. More troops costs more, means more Americans are targets, means more US deaths.
Less troops, and pulling some out now, means more Iraqi deaths.

So what deaths do the Dems want?

Contrast to Darfur -- no US troops, no casualties, on-going slo-mo genocide of black Muslims by murderous Arab Muslims.
I fear the Dems think Darfur, like Cambodia in 1976, is a good model.
I hate it.

Surprised and delighted to see such pro-Bush comments; I expected to be lonely.
ocalhoun
TomGrey wrote:

Surprised and delighted to see such pro-Bush comments; I expected to be lonely.

It may be cool nowadays to be a Bush-hater, but there are those of us who don't care about such things.
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
TomGrey wrote:

Surprised and delighted to see such pro-Bush comments; I expected to be lonely.

It may be cool nowadays to be a Bush-hater, but there are those of us who don't care about such things.


There are also those of us who look beyond the rhetoric spewn by the MSM and radical left wing of the democrats bashing bush at every turn, and actually see at least some good that he does. Though if I EVER see him face to face, I won't let him leave until I get a straight answer about the border. Perhaps with the dems pulling more weight, we'll get this serious problem addressed.
mschnell
ocalhoun wrote:
TomGrey wrote:

Surprised and delighted to see such pro-Bush comments; I expected to be lonely.

It may be cool nowadays to be a Bush-hater, but there are those of us who don't care about such things.


Maybe this is because he's proven himself a fairly incapable president. I don't think anyone's going to look back in 20 years and admire Bush Jr. What's frustrating is that conservatives are constantly trying to put people like me in a box and say we're incapable of coming up with our own thoughts and that conservatives such as themselves are in fact capable (look at the implications of your response). TomGrey, I enjoy your post, but I'd like to hear more about the first statement you make. Isn't the current government's budget deficit as a % of GDP pretty huge (granted both are growing)?
ocalhoun
^Don't even try telling me that there is nobody out there Bush-bashing because it's cool to do so. (I know one personally.)
mschnell
ocalhoun wrote:
^Don't even try telling me that there is nobody out there Bush-bashing because it's cool to do so. (I know one personally.)



I'm sure there are--there are people out there doing things much harder to believe than that. I'm just saying, that's a generalization and as such, it's not fair.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.