It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Dean Can't win

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Dean is going to raise taxes, that's about all I need to know.




posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
I suggest anyone with a brain cell starts to explore how they can back initiatives for:

a) open format debates without foreknowledge of questions, with at least several to take place.

b) verified voting results

It's the only way to avoid another theft of the presidency. If he's the nominee, and we have open debates and we have verified ballots....Dean will win, with the largest swing Demographic being "Republicans for Dean".


Excellent analysis, Bout Time.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Republicans for Dean? You've gotta be kidding me, BT.
Republicans voting for a candidate who wants to increase taxes? Are you sure you work in IT? (must be a cobol programmer, or somethin)



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Republicans for Dean? You've gotta be kidding me, BT.
Republicans voting for a candidate who wants to increase taxes? Are you sure you work in IT? (must be a cobol programmer, or somethin)


Yo Bob88, there are alot of Repubs who have been sidelined by the neocon express and are very pissed off concerning the direction we're heading in. Check out Republicans for Dean on the web.

The fact is that Dean is a fiscal moderate to conservative and is about balancing the budget. That is exactly what we need now.

The Bush administration is responsible for the biggest exansion of government since FDR and Johnson. It is they who should be called the big government liberals.

Everyone within the establishment from the right to the left are attacking Dean because he's not the annointed Democratic candidate. He actually represents real people who want real change. Like him or not, he can win.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Republicans for Dean? You've gotta be kidding me, BT.
Republicans voting for a candidate who wants to increase taxes? Are you sure you work in IT? (must be a cobol programmer, or somethin)


I worked for a living I was in Systems!

Pretty good VTAM & CICS guy if I do say so myself .

You can beat the snot out of that straw man all you want, but we'll get a balnced budget with less to none "Drunken Sailor Spending" from Dean.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
CICS, that explains it!


What's funny here is Dems (not you guys, per se) are bashing the spending. It seems it's OK only if they do it.

Of course the budget can be balanced by Dean, he is after all going to raise taxes. (oh, wait, he's going to 'repeal' them, as if there is a difference). But, when do voters care about the budget, deficits, and what not when they go to the polls? It's still the 'economy stupid', right? So, if this economy keeps improving, what's going to happen with Dean? What if the infighting keeps him from getting the nomination? He's not getting the blessing of the DNC, DLC, or Clinton. How is Hillary going to run in 08?? What if he runs indy, and there is a Dem, and possibly Nader? Bush will win. And, what happened to Kerry? I've seen polls that put him behind Sharpton.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
CICS, that explains it!


What's funny here is Dems (not you guys, per se) are bashing the spending. It seems it's OK only if they do it.

Of course the budget can be balanced by Dean, he is after all going to raise taxes. (oh, wait, he's going to 'repeal' them, as if there is a difference). But, when do voters care about the budget, deficits, and what not when they go to the polls? It's still the 'economy stupid', right? So, if this economy keeps improving, what's going to happen with Dean? What if the infighting keeps him from getting the nomination? He's not getting the blessing of the DNC, DLC, or Clinton. How is Hillary going to run in 08?? What if he runs indy, and there is a Dem, and possibly Nader? Bush will win. And, what happened to Kerry? I've seen polls that put him behind Sharpton.


I'd be bashing any type of spending like this, as would you or anyone not political to the bone.
He's not going Indy.
Hillary ain't running, so stop talking 2008 strategy.
That same 'Independence' of the Old Guard is what makes him electable to many Dems & Repubs.
That repeal won't effect the IT tax bracket!
Those same 'simple folks' going to the polls are concerned about one thing - JOBS. That improving economy is another Bush family jobless recovery. Or did those software guys NOT get their jobs outsorced overseas?
Seems unless there are massive headcount increases to the payrolls out there, Bush is sunk.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
BushCo. sent me a little check. They said it was tax relief. Tax time came around and I wound up having to pay. More than ever. None of it adds up. Economically speaking, Dean's record in Vermont is impressive. More people should stop listening to the pundits - who are paid to blow the correct smoke up our azzez - and look at what he actually did. If he wins the white house, he will apply the same corrective formulas on a national scale. And be successful.

One thing I like about him is that when he screws up, he admits it and then fixes the problem.

This Republican will be voting for Dean after he wins the Democratic nomination. I hope others will at least consider him, too.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Dean, or his predecessor?

CICS
I didn't think you were that old


That repeal won't effect the IT tax bracket! are you sure about that?



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
And raising taxes is going to "create" jobs BT?
I mean, according to you, "JOBS" will be the number one issue, huh? Wait till they read on what Dr. Dean is proposing and they will be thinking of how the # taxes are going to help improve their chances for a job.

Balanced budget? Bah......Never will be a "balanced budget".

Btw....ran across this on those "JOBS", reported by the AP:
"Economists Predict Drop in Unemployment in 2004"
Link:
ap.tbo.com...

Excerpt:
"NEW YORK (AP) - Companies are expected to step up hiring in 2004 after a year in which household spending boosted the economy more than business investment, according to a group of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.
The 54 economists surveyed for the Journal's 2004 economic-forecast report said they thought the unemployment rate could fall to 5.5 percent by November.

Hiring fueled by increasing corporate profits and economic growth could lead to as many as 1.5 million new jobs, the Journal said.

Though they did not predict a boom, the respondents said they expected the recovery to continue, with strong growth in the first part of the year expected to slow toward the year's end.

"The economy will be producing a message that employment is growing at a pretty good pace, but not booming," Richard Rippe, chief economist at Prudential Equity Group Inc., told the Journal.

Real gross product was expected to grow at an annual rate of 4.5 percent in the first quarter, 4.3 percent in the second quarter and 4 percent in the second half of the year, the economists said."




All "projections and jibberish" but I'm sure that if this even comes close to fruitition....Dean and Democrats and those that support them will be "crying" on those voters concerned about "JOBS" come 2004 election time:





regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And raising taxes is going to "create" jobs BT?

It worked under Bush the first and Clinton.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

"Economists Predict Drop in Unemployment in 2004"


Sounds like a Pat Robertson Prediction. Been hearing it for 3 #ing years now.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
That's how I make my daily bread!
It won't, however.
I don't know how many grown ups are on the board here, but take an informal poll of your own work place, if you happen to be white collar/professional.
Of the downsized headcount groups, how many were replaced?
How many replacements for folks who left on their own?

But hey, it's been a highly productive term as president, Mr Bush, please lead us with your vision for four more years! America's Dollar-Investments-Children-Soldiers have you to thank for our real prosperity as it exists now , and not that phony kind we had to endure under Clinton!



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I hope it improves too, BT.
But, is raising taxes, er, I mean, repealing a tax cut going to help??

(heck, didn't I just hear Clinton on Cspan saying he would have supported larger tax cuts)

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Bob88]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL

Originally posted by Seekerof

"Economists Predict Drop in Unemployment in 2004"


Sounds like a Pat Robertson Prediction. Been hearing it for 3 #ing years now.





That may well be true DD.
I found this today. Its the annual average US unemployment from 1948 to present. This has a chart on it and one can even figure a unemployement average......

Link:
www.bls.gov...



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It's hard to listen to Dean when he doesn't even entertain the idea that more taxes on the middle class is not a good thing. He wants to pay for programs and government we don't need. But...they all do. To pick the best we have review which program is the best. Dean's not talking about the real issues of corporate control and tax evasion, but at least he's being fair. The others are talking about switching the burden. If you want to repeal the tax cuts you gotta repeal them all not just the ones on the upper class. He has the fairest tax plan of the dems running.

At the same time...I don't believe it's better than Bush. He's still playing to corporate control in a way because he wan't address the things that Edwards is talking about, the corporate loop holes. If he went after corporations that don't pay their fair share and cut subsidies and government contracts they recieve instead of focusing on the tax cut policy of Bush he'd prolly have stronger legs to stand on with the american public.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join