For Third Party voters on ATS

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Well then Im open for suggestions, its easy to talk about standing for your convictions, thats great, but please explain to me how you will divert the sheep. They will continue to rule your life. George W Bush's team probably planted Nader just to steal your votes, because the majority of you, while liking neither Kerry nor Bush, probably like Bush least. And he will get your "protest" votes anyway. So enjoy four more years of Dubya. I guarantee he will put more walls up against your causes then Kerry will. Skadi, you of all people should do whatever you can to get that Bible-thumper out of office, given your stand on religion. Youre cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by 27jd]




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Not at all. My nose and face are on good terms.

Seeing how I would have never voted for Bush or Kerry in the first place, i dont see how any third party would steal my vote. They never had it in the first place.

My vote has always and shall always go to whatever third party I feel is the best choice.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
And Skadi puts a perfect voice to it here!
The stoned kicker to this bulls**t? The "third party" die hards are sharing the same mental condition with the hard right wingers, leading both groups to vote out of spite.
I'd love for the US to have a system that sends regular wake up calls to the politicos via party vote, but it's not happening in this or any forseeable election.
If John McCain would have not taken the s**t lying down in 2000 & ran, we would have had a 3rd party president. If he did it this year, we could have had a 3rd party president.
Now, you'll have the Krazy Jethro Republicans voting 3rd party. You'll have the Skadi's voting third party. It WILL GIVE the Bush campaign ( which both groups despise) votes.
Have any of you looked at Basnerick's economic plan? Is any of that even remotely possible to gain any type of traction in TWO TERMS, much less ONE?

No, I won't kiss anyone's @ss in saying that they're throwing away their vote - battefields are not places for idelistic stands.
Yes, I will tell you all that you've fed too fully into the hype against Kerry & HAVE NOT done anything close to enough research on the guy.
Yes, I will tell you all to get a grip, understand that "movements" within parties are deadly, while actual parties are benign - the NeoCon movement has taken over the GOP via largasse to the buyable & intimidation to the logical.
Get Bush out of office is step ONE.
Get active in electing 3rd party officials to local gov. and the House of Reps. is step TWO.
Taking higher office with those 3rd parties is the Coup d'Grace.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
You're obviously a strong willed person and thats cool. Im alot like you in many ways, I dislike mainstream society as well. But my approach to change is different, unlike people who buy one Nine Inch Nails album (not meaning you) and decide to suddenly rage against all injustices in the world at one time, I go one step at a time. First step is we need Bush out, or else we could be headed into WWIII, then all of our causes will be meaningless. Personally Im not fond of Kerry either, but I view him as the lesser of two evils, and the only other choice at this time. He will at least support scientific research and not pass Biblically inspired laws. So I'm just trying to point out that your stand is totally justified, both parties are crap. But again until we can somehow convince enough people of this and move forward, we should make sure we will not continue to go backward with Bush in office. Tell me you at least see my point somewhat.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Excessive quoting.....I quoted a all of his paragraphs because I believed them to be relevant to my point.

PS- I think moderators dont need your help to point things out.


I don't think you understand the rules on excessive quoting.

ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

I am not pointing anything out to the moderators. I didn't submit a complaint. If a moderator reads this thread, you will probably get a warning for excessive quoting.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Well put, BT.

I would probably vote Libertarian if they had a snowballs chance in hell (if it exists).
As it is, I am forced to vote for the party that I trust will not try to disarm my family. I will probably gag as I place the vote...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
But again until we can somehow convince enough people of this and move forward, we should make sure we will not continue to go backward with Bush in office.


The question then becomes how are people to be convinced of this if no one is willing to put their vote where their mouth is first.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, no matter how you cut or slice it. I've been told that by voting for a third party I will be wasting my vote. Frankly, it is my vote to "waste" in such a way if I see fit. World History is full of instances where the majority was just plain wrong and the examples of a few pointed the way to something better. I'm sure people like Galileo and the Wright Brothers had similar difficulties. Oh, but that was science some will say. Well this is social science so the anaolgy applies.

An avalanche often starts with just a few small rocks. I'm content to be one of the little rocks for now.

So, vote for the evil ones if you don't mind being part of the problem and the system that maintains it. One thing is certain. Voting for the Democrats or the Republicans will change nothing. Everyone seems to be screaming for change but most will continue to make the choice that practically guarantees no change. How does that work? How do you expect change to happen if you won't choose it?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Originally posted by 27jd
But again until we can somehow convince enough people of this and move forward, we should make sure we will not continue to go backward with Bush in office.


The question then becomes how are people to be convinced of this if no one is willing to put their vote where their mouth is first.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, no matter how you cut or slice it. I've been told that by voting for a third party I will be wasting my vote. Frankly, it is my vote to "waste" in such a way if I see fit. World History is full of instances where the majority was just plain wrong and the examples of a few pointed the way to something better. I'm sure people like Galileo and the Wright Brothers had similar difficulties. Oh, but that was science some will say. Well this is social science so the anaolgy applies.

An avalanche often starts with just a few small rocks. I'm content to be one of the little rocks for now.

So, vote for the evil ones if you don't mind being part of the problem and the system that maintains it. One thing is certain. Voting for the Democrats or the Republicans will change nothing. Everyone seems to be screaming for change but most will continue to make the choice that practically guarantees no change. How does that work? How do you expect change to happen if you won't choose it?


But again, the problem is that even if we all vote for the third party, IT WON'T MATTER. I guarantee you that. The political system will need a complete overhaul before any third party candidate can win. So you can cast your vote for some third party candidate and throw your vote away, youre right its your perogative. And what if, just what if some third party candidate won? How can you be sure that person would be able to be president? Are you willing to stake our countries future on that? Its a nice thought, but its an untested one. What kind of advisors would he/she have? What kind of decisions would be made in a time of crisis? Im not willing to put my young sons future on the line for your "political avalanche", because it could land right on our heads. Change must be calculated, and things will change with the future, but slowly. So right now, I will choose the lesser of two evils, because I've grown up under these evils, and I've lived a pretty decent life thus far, but I dont like where Bush is taking us, so instead of stomping my feet and voting for some joke third party candidate like a teenager throwing an "im not voting for either of you" tantrum, Im gonna vote for the man who has a chance to win, and isnt Bush. Do what you want with your vote.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Voting third party sends a powerful message that neither of the two major parties is representing your beliefs. And it can make a difference. Perot's 30 minute economic lessons in 1992 got everyone talking about the dangers of the deficit.

I'm excited to vote for Badnarik. It sure does feel good to look through a platform and think, "yes. yes. yes. yes," instead of, "maybe. yes. no. maybe."

Now We're Talking!



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba
Voting third party sends a powerful message that neither of the two major parties is representing your beliefs. And it can make a difference. Perot's 30 minute economic lessons in 1992 got everyone talking about the dangers of the deficit.

I'm excited to vote for Badnarik. It sure does feel good to look through a platform and think, "yes. yes. yes. yes," instead of, "maybe. yes. no. maybe."

Now We're Talking!



What kind of experience does Badnarik have leading a nation? How would he handle a major terror attack? Whats his plan for the deficit? What makes you think, "yes. yes. yes. yes."? Im just curious. Does a candidate have to have all of your interests and beliefs in mind? I would think being as big a country as this, it would be hard to cover everyones interests and beliefs as there are so many. So I will choose Kerry, because at least he doesnt blatantly represent only the wealthy and Christians, and I believe he will be more proactive in the rest of the world, and rebuilding our alliances. But Im not ready for some untested administration in these times. Before I had my son I would vote for whoever promised to legalize pot and hookers, but now I cant just think about myself.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
But again, the problem is that even if we all vote for the third party, IT WON'T MATTER. I guarantee you that.


I'm not sure how you can guarantee that.


The political system will need a complete overhaul before any third party candidate can win.


Perhaps that is exactly what is needed.


So you can cast your vote for some third party candidate and throw your vote away, youre right its your perogative. And what if, just what if some third party candidate won? How can you be sure that person would be able to be president?


How can you be sure that anyone is unless they have the opportunity to prove what they can do? As it stands now, both main parties have proven that they are not capable of governing well or responsibly, otherwise we wouldn't be choosing the from lesser of two evils. I'll take an untested uncertainty over a proven negitive any day.


Are you willing to stake our countries future on that?


Yes, I am.


Its a nice thought, but its an untested one. What kind of advisors would he/she have? What kind of decisions would be made in a time of crisis?


So, you are comfortable with the advisors and decisions they are making now? Ya, I know. You expect Kerry to be different. I say it will just be more of the same and nothing I have seen the Democrats say or do leads me to believe any different. A valueless coin is still valueless, no matter which side you look at it from.


Im not willing to put my young sons future on the line for your "political avalanche", because it could land right on our heads.


Yes, if you and your sons insist on standing at the base of the hill (ie: putting your faith in the state) while the first little pebbles fall, it could land right on you. It might not either, if you have sense enough to get out of the way, and the falling rock could reveal a vein of gold in the mountain that no one knew was there.


Change must be calculated, and things will change with the future, but slowly.


The problem is, you are letting unscrupulous people do the calculations and control the schedule. They like things just like they are. Why do you think they will bring change when that change means they lose their power?


So right now, I will choose the lesser of two evils, because I've grown up under these evils....


As will your sons, unless the changes you fear take place. I'm glad the people who pioneered this nation had more courage than your attitude displays. America is a nation of risk takers and wouldn't even be a nation otherwise. That is part of our greatness, or at least it used to be.


.... and I've lived a pretty decent life thus far, but I dont like where Bush is taking us, so instead of stomping my feet and voting for some joke third party candidate like a teenager throwing an "im not voting for either of you" tantrum, Im gonna vote for the man who has a chance to win, and isnt Bush.


Frankly, you don't know me well enough to accuse me of throwing a tantrum and I haven't been a teenager in over 20 years. My political opinions have been formed by watching the same political scams and inequities take place in both parties since the days of Nixon. Some of the same people have been entrenched in Congress for as long as I can remember. The slow change you speak of is not happening, or if it is, it's in the wrong direction.


Do what you want with your vote.


That has always been my intention and my duty as an American.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Get Bush out of office is step ONE.
Get active in electing 3rd party officials to local gov. and the House of Reps. is step TWO.
Taking higher office with those 3rd parties is the Coup d'Grace.


Ah, perhaps. The thing is, is isn't taking from the Republican base a good thing? On the other hand, I honestly would like Bush in office than Kerry (which is sick because I really dislike the thought of either in office, but such is life). Personally I would prefer the movement to move faster. The people pissed will be much happier with Kerry and will not vote third party in the next election either (meaning 2008). It'll be 2012 before someone will take him out, and all the backing and grips will be about the libs, so third party there is tanked.

BTW, my "Kiss my..." post was only a joke. It gets annoying to hear this crap, regardless of how "true" it might be. Battlefields are not the place for the lesser of two evils either. I'd rather have a good plan and work towards it regardless of how hopeless it might be.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   


I'm not sure how you can guarantee that.


Its easy, watch: "I guarantee that". See, thats how i do it.



Perhaps that is exactly what is needed.


Well, lets hear some ideas, how do we upheave the system by November?



How can you be sure that anyone is unless they have the opportunity to prove what they can do? As it stands now, both main parties have proven that they are not capable of governing well or responsibly, otherwise we wouldn't be choosing the from lesser of two evils. I'll take an untested uncertainty over a proven negitive any day.


The stakes are too high in these times, it would be like letting a student driver drive in a snowstorm, I'll wait til driving conditions are better, thanks.



Yes, I am.


Good for you, Im not, I wont go to Vegas unless I can afford to lose the money



So, you are comfortable with the advisors and decisions they are making now? Ya, I know. You expect Kerry to be different. I say it will just be more of the same and nothing I have seen the Democrats say or do leads me to believe any different. A valueless coin is still valueless, no matter which side you look at it from.


Yeah, I expect Kerry to be different, America did well under Clinton for the most part, regardless how you feel about his personal life. Kerry at least has seen combat and knows what hes sending kids into.



Yes, if you and your sons insist on standing at the base of the hill (ie: putting your faith in the state) while the first little pebbles fall, it could land right on you. It might not either, if you have sense enough to get out of the way, and the falling rock could reveal a vein of gold in the mountain that no one knew was there.


Me and my son cannot help but be at the base of the hill, THE HILL IS MY COUNTRY, MY ECONOMY, MY LIVING. And once your upheaving of the government is finished, I hope your new government is prepared to run a country as complex as the USA, and we can all partake in this wonderous vein of gold. I see a stock market crash, a depression, probably even a civil war. Good luck assembling the different factions that make up this country into your "avalanche of change", this country is divided on so many complex levels, there could be no unity, it would be just like Iraq if we overthrew the government as you suggest.

[


The problem is, you are letting unscrupulous people do the calculations and control the schedule. They like things just like they are. Why do you think they will bring change when that change means they lose their power?


That proves my point exactly, they will not stand to lose their power, nothing short of violent revolution, or slow deliberate change as those who are older and more narrow minded die off.



As will your sons, unless the changes you fear take place. I'm glad the people who pioneered this nation had more courage than your attitude displays. America is a nation of risk takers and wouldn't even be a nation otherwise. That is part of our greatness, or at least it used to be.


It still is, they fought for indepenence, they got it. All governments become corrupt, so what do you suggest, anarchy? Do we overthrow this government at the cost of many more lives than we could imagine, for what, a devastated country? A possibly even more corrupt goverment?What courage do you speak of? The evils my son will live under have up until this point done nothing wrong to me, I disagree with alot they have done but as an American citizen I have never been mistreated the way I have seen governments mistreat people around the world. I want change, but I am patient, the opportunity will come, all things change.



Frankly, you don't know me well enough to accuse me of throwing a tantrum and I haven't been a teenager in over 20 years. My political opinions have been formed by watching the same political scams and inequities take place in both parties since the days of Nixon. Some of the same people have been entrenched in Congress for as long as I can remember. The slow change you speak of is not happening, or if it is, it's in the wrong direction.


Im sorry you assumed I was accusing you directly of throwing a tantrum, perhaps I worded it that way, its been 8 yrs since I've been a teenager and I can admit I've probably thrown some tantrums since then, but anyways I guess this magical new "corrupt free" government is going to take charge and lead us in the right direction out of sheer nobility, they will not be driven by any personal agendas, and will live to serve 'we the people'. Well I gotta tell ya, Im sold, where do I sign up?




That has always been my intention and my duty as an American.


I salute you sir.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Third parties are actually an important vehicle for change historically. Usually the larger parties will adopt the platform of the smaller ones in order to get more votes. Examples:

1. Prohibition and Socialist Parties first had the platform of the female right to vote. (1800's)

2. The Socialist Party first had the platform for child labor laws. (1904)

3. Populist and Socialist Parties first had the platform for 40 hour work weeks (1890's)

4. The Socialist Party first had the platform of social security. (1920's)

Not only that, but when a major political party dies, usually one of these guys will take its place. (What ever happened to the whigs? :-P) The last time a major political party died was when it didn't support a war (war of 1812) -- a war we happened not to do well in. Lack of support in a current war that isn't doing well hasn't historically been too wise. Not that it matters, the democratic platform explicitly claims they support the war in Iraq (lessons learned?).

There exists a couple of states and places (okay, many) where the minority of 3rd party voters couldn't make a dent in the major parties if they were to vote anything else. For example, I think D.C. is 89% Kerry, 4% Bush -- or something along those lines according to the last poll. Which leaves no reason to vote at all if you are a minority party (save idealistic reasons). EXCEPT!

In some states if you get a certain amount of votes, then you don't have to go through all of the usual trouble to get on the next year's ballot (and that costs a lot of money sometimes!). In these states, there is every reason to support your third-party; the less money it needs to waste to get on the ballot, the more money it has to get its message out. If nothing else, while your vote won't elect a third-party, it could help it out in a very literal way.

But should there be more than two major parties at one time? I'm not really sure. When there are more than two major parties, some bad things can occur: We can have leaders elected into office with just around 30% of the vote (it occurs often in Europe -- and a little known fact is that Hitler was first put into office from a minority vote --somewhere in the 30% range). These situations happen because people are split between 3 or 4 major parties.

Some people groan that our current president had a little less than 50% of all votes -- image what the outcry would be if the president only had 30% of all votes.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Before I had my son I would vote for whoever promised to legalize pot and hookers


" I promise a POUND and a PUTA for every American............".

Man, when did I miss THAT speech!?!?


On thread........................

Consider the danger that our economic future is in, maybe as a sole consideration for just a moment. Capital expenditures are no where near what they need to be to support the cycle of keeping professionals employed AND the constant influx of new graduates & of age adults entering the workforce for the first time.
Do you think that this gloves-off rampant hubris & arrogance of policy making ( which has brought us to this current state) will subside or increase in a second term?
DO you think that we can have across the board growth when only key industries ( and just the monoliths of those industries) curry favor & cronyism from this administration?
Do you think that fear mongering inspires investment in anything BUT weapons systems!?!?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Consider the danger that our economic future is in, maybe as a sole consideration for just a moment. Capital expenditures are no where near what they need to be to support the cycle of keeping professionals employed AND the constant influx of new graduates & of age adults entering the workforce for the first time.


What dangers? Try taking government hands off the labor market and let a free market maintain itself in terms of employment. The U.S.' unemployment rate right now is 5.6% (as of June). Compare that to more socialist countries around the world (France has been around 9% for some time!). The "baby boomers" don't have much more time until most/all of them are retired, too, which leads to a good promise to new comers, imo.



Do you think that this gloves-off rampant hubris & arrogance of policy making ( which has brought us to this current state) will subside or increase in a second term?


Objectively, the economy has improving in record breaking ways. This policy making seems to be working -- like it or not.



DO you think that we can have across the board growth when only key industries ( and just the monoliths of those industries) curry favor & cronyism from this administration?


First, the congress has the final say for any monetary allocations to any industries.

Second:

No, probably not across-the-board growth. Why? Our economy is changing into more of a service based economy. Just like a bunch of candle makers went out of business when lightbulbs became popular, a lot of factory jobs will be lost when more automated ways are made. If you want industrial jobs to be maintained, you need to do one of two things: Make labor cheaper than it would be to have it automated, OR ban the technology that makes it cheaper.




Do you think that fear mongering inspires investment in anything BUT weapons systems!?!?


People still invested in other things than bomb shelters in the 1950's. Don't be so cynical. Although, defense contractors may be a good stock to buy right now.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
There has to be a policy first, no?
"record Breaking"?

I'm talking about precisely those service sector jobs. I've been in the IT industry since I was 17 & have owned an IT Services Company since 1993.....the shifts in this industry of been tremendous and has had nothing to do with an untrained or change resistent work force; to the contrary, few professions have such consistent learning cycles.
Take any of the professions apt to outsource....you'll see the same trends.
As a service based economy, we need the world market more critically than ever. This administrations has successfully closed vastly more doors than they've opened.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
There has to be a policy first, no?
"record Breaking"?


Bush's policy has been to reduce taxes to put money back into the pockets of every citizen. This has been done.


First of all, talking about personal experience is a big no-no when talking about the macroeconomy; it's out of context. Second, there is a reason outsourcing occurs: cheaper labor -- and that's how the free market works. Moreover, some companies have used outsourcing to create more jobs:

" The outsourcing of prized information technology jobs overseas has created tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States, according to a recent study commissioned by the information technology industry. "

money.cnn.com...

"Savings from outsourcing allowed companies to create 90,000 new jobs in 2003, with more than one in 10 of them in Silicon Valley or elsewhere in California, researchers said. The report predicts that in 2008, outsourcing will create 317,000 jobs -- 34,000 in California."

moneycentral.msn.com...

Not that you care, right?



This administrations has successfully closed vastly more doors than they've opened.


Are you sure? It seems you are just taking political slogans without actually looking at the news.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by radardog]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
radardog says


Objectively, the economy has improving in record breaking ways. This policy making seems to be working -- like it or not.


Objectively, you don't know what you are talking about. You are just mouthing Republican talking points.

Sure, Bush claims the economy has turned the corner. As Kerry pointed out, the last President to talk about the economy turning the corner was when Herbert Hoover said that prosperity was just around the corner.

I am aware that you can cite statistics to show the economy is in good shape. I can cite many more to show it is not. Consumer spending is 2/3 of all economic activity. Consumer spending has been down two months in a row. Another leading economic indicator, new factory orders, has been down two months in a row. The stock market, a reliable leading economic indicator, is down for the year, and for Bush's entire Presidency.

After three months of good job creation, the latest month showed only 112,000 new jobs created, not enough to cover growth in the labor force. Analysis of employment statistics shows that real wages, adjusted for inflation, are declining, and that the new jobs being created pay less than the jobs that were lost. Even after the recent good numbers on job creation, more than a million jobs have been lost since Bush became President. Contrast that with the 22 million jobs created during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency.

In four years, Bush has taken the federal government from a budget surplus of over $200 billion to an estimated budget deficit of $445 billion. After declining during the Clinton years, the national debt as a percentage of GDP is once again rising. Adding to the already massive national debt is foolishly mortaging the country's future for short-term gain. The huge deficits created by Bush's irresponsible tax cuts are going to create serious long-term problems for the economy.

Finally, oil futures are now hovering around $44/barrel. High energy prices create intractable problems for the economy. Higher energy prices mean consumers have less to spend, thus further reducing consumer spending. Higher energy prices mean higher costs, thus lower profits for businesses.

The reality is that the economically illiterate George Bush has driven the economy into a ditch. Are we going to trust his assurances that he knows how to get us out of the ditch, or are we going to hire a new driver?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Objectively, you don't know what you are talking about. You are just mouthing Republican talking points.


I don't own a copy of any talking points. I'm just citing what has been floating around in the news.



the last President to talk about the economy turning the corner was when Herbert Hoover said that prosperity was just around the corner.


So? And the last person that used "help is on the way" on a campaign is Cheney. These points are nonsensical.



I am aware that you can cite statistics to show the economy is in good shape.


GDP is the way the judge a nation's wealth/economy ala Adam Smith. We have had GDP gains of almost 8% in a single quater.


Analysis of employment statistics shows that real wages, adjusted for inflation, are declining, and that the new jobs being created pay less than the jobs that were lost.



Are you suggesting that low paying jobs are worse than no-paying jobs? Wages depend on the wage market, not the government.



Even after the recent good numbers on job creation, more than a million jobs have been lost since Bush became President.


It doesn't follow that they were lost because of Bush being president. Remember, the economy started showing signs of decline in late 1998, and after 9/11, all industries were hurt in some way.



Contrast that with the 22 million jobs created during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency


What comes up, must come down. The "dot-com-bubble" was a moment of temporary inflation, where the nation was actually over-employed. Not that it matters -- we're not trying to re-elect Clinton, are we?



In four years, Bush has taken the federal government from a budget surplus of over $200 billion to an estimated budget deficit of $445 billion.


Yes, wars tend to cost a lot of money. If you're going to vote for Kerry because of a deficit, I would recommend actually looking into his comments: Kerry wants to give health care to every person in the unitedstates to which he states he doesn't care if it makes the US go red. Moreover, he wants to bring more troops to Iraq (that costs money, too).




After declining during the Clinton years, the national debt as a percentage of GDP is once again rising.


Clinton didn't fight a war where most of the resources were coming directly out of the US' pocket.




Adding to the already massive national debt is foolishly mortaging the country's future for short-term gain. The huge deficits created by Bush's irresponsible tax cuts are going to create serious long-term problems for the economy.


Not in keynsian economics; the tax less and spend more philosophy is intended to create jobs, and therefore more tax payers. It all evens out in the long run.



Finally, oil futures are now hovering around $44/barrel. High energy prices create intractable problems for the economy. Higher energy prices mean consumers have less to spend, thus further reducing consumer spending. Higher energy prices mean higher costs, thus lower profits for businesses.


Bush doesn't control oil prices. He can only encourage getting more sources for oil (domestic -- which he has done), or alternative power supply funding (which he has done). Kerry has wanted to impose even more taxes on gasoline in the past, and that would increase the cost for gasoline.



The reality is that the economically illiterate George Bush has driven the economy into a ditch. Are we going to trust his assurances that he knows how to get us out of the ditch, or are we going to hire a new driver?


What Bush has been doing has made perfect sense in the Keynsian economic school of thought. It seems you have a superifical view of macroeconomic principles.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join