TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bad news for you liberals
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby sorry what I meant to say was that at the height of the recession i believe it stood at a little less than 30 percent of gdp according to a newspaper article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press a year and a half ago. |
| quote: |
So yeah thanx for filling me in on the new figures, 9 percent deficit what the fuck you complaining about, and the deficit is shrinking. |
| quote: |
The passing of the buck? Dec 2nd 2004 From The Economist print edition America's policies are putting at risk the dollar's role as the world's dominant international currency Get article background FORECASTING exchange rates is an inexact business. As Alan Greenspan, the chairman of America's Federal Reserve, once said, the activity �has a success rate no better than that of forecasting the outcome of a coin toss.� Recent years have borne this out: most currency forecasters would actually have done better if they had simply tossed a coin�at least they would have been half right. Yet over the next few years it seems an excellent bet that there will be a large drop in the dollar. Since mid-October the dollar has fallen by around 7% against the other main currencies, hitting a new all-time low against the euro and a five-year low against the yen. The dollar has lost a total of 35% against the euro since early 2002; but it has fallen by a more modest 17% against a broad basket of currencies, including the Chinese yuan, which is pegged to the greenback. The dollar wobbled badly this week, having fallen for five successive days after Mr Greenspan said that America's current-account deficit was unsustainable because foreigners would eventually lose their appetite for more dollar-denominated assets. Mr Greenspan may not be the only central banker to have become bearish on the dollar. Markets have been rattled by concerns that foreign central banks might reduce their holdings of American Treasury bonds. Last week, officials at the central banks of both Russia and Indonesia said that their banks were considering reducing the share of dollars in their reserves. Even more alarming were reports that China's central bank, the second-biggest holder (after Japan) of foreign-exchange reserves, may have trimmed its purchases of American Treasury bonds. This combination of events has led some economists to ponder the once unthinkable: might the dollar lose its reserve-currency status? Over the past 2,000 years, the leading international currency has changed many times, from the Roman denarius via the Byzantine solidus to the Dutch guilder and then to sterling. The dollar has been the dominant reserve currency for more than 60 years, delivering big economic benefits for America, which can pay for imports and borrow in domestic currency and at low interest costs. The dollar's share of global foreign-exchange reserves has already fallen from 80% in the mid-1970s to around 65% today. And yet does the dollar really risk losing its status as the world's main currency? The same question was asked in the early 1990s after the dollar's previous long slide, but the dollar's pre-eminence survived. Then, however, there was no alternative to the dollar. Today the euro exists, and could yet emerge as a rival to the greenback. The requirements of a reserve currency are a large economy, open and deep financial markets, low inflation and confidence in the value of the currency. At current exchange rates the euro area's economy is not that much smaller than America's; the euro area is also the world's biggest exporter; and since the creation of the single currency, European financial markets have become deeper and more liquid. It is true that the euro area has had slower real GDP growth than America. But in dollar terms the euro area's economic weight has actually grown relative to America's over the past five years. Where the dollar has failed is as a store of value. Since 1960 the dollar has fallen by around two-thirds against the euro (using Germany's currency as a proxy before 1999) and the yen (see chart 1). The euro area, unlike America, is a net creditor. Never before has the guardian of the world's main reserve currency been its biggest net debtor. And a debtor may be tempted to use devaluation to reduce its external deficit�hardly a desirable property for a reserve currency. Those bearish on the dollar are asking why investors will want to hold the assets of a country that has, by its own actions, jeopardised its reserve-currency position. And, they point out, without the intervention of central banks, which have been huge net buyers of dollars, the dollar would already be lower. If those same central banks were to begin to sell some of their $2.3 trillion dollar assets, then there would be a risk of a collapse in the dollar. However you look at it, America is likely to find it increasingly hard to finance its huge current-account deficit. The deficit is at the heart of this issue. Various economists have put forward at least four arguments why the deficit does not matter and the dollar's reserve status is safe. First, the deficit is a sign of America's economic might, not a symptom of weakness. Second, sluggish demand overseas is a big cause of the deficit, so it is reversible. Third, the deficit exists largely because of multinationals' overseas subsidiaries. And fourth, central-bank demand for dollars creates, in effect, a stable economic system. It is not difficult to demolish each argument in turn.  Why the deficit matters Start with the first argument, which has been favoured by America's Treasury. Foreigners want to invest in America, it is claimed, because it offers higher returns than Europe or Japan; and if America runs a capital-account surplus, it must by definition run a current-account deficit. There may have been some truth to this argument in the late 1990s, when America enjoyed large net inflows of direct and equity investment, but over the past year or so, there has actually been a net outflow from America of such long-term investment. Moreover, in the past few years America has had lower returns on foreign direct investment, equities and bonds than Europe or Japan. The current-account deficit is now being financed by foreign central banks and short-term money. In the year to mid-2004, foreign central banks financed as much as three-fifths of America's deficit. The recent purchase of reserves by central banks is unprecedented. Global foreign-exchange reserves (65%, remember, are denominated in dollars) have risen by $1 trillion in just 18 months. The previous addition of $1 trillion to official reserves took a decade. These purchases of dollars have nothing to do with the prospective returns in America, but are aimed at holding down the currencies of the purchasing countries. Worse still, in recent years capital inflows into America have been financing not productive investment (which would boost future income) but a consumer-spending binge and a growing budget deficit. A current-account deficit that reflects a lack of saving is hardly a sign of strength. What about the second argument, that sluggish demand in the rest of the world is to blame for America's external deficit? If only Europe and Asia would save less, spend more and so import more from America, it is argued, the deficit would simply vanish. Martin Barnes, an economist at the Bank Credit Analyst, a Canadian investment-research firm, reckons that this is much exaggerated*. In 2001, when domestic demand did grow slightly faster in Europe and Japan than in America, America's deficit barely budged. The problem is that America's imports are 50% bigger than its exports, so if exports and imports simply grow at the same pace, the trade deficit automatically widens. If imports rise by, say 10%, then exports need to grow by 15% just to prevent the deficit from widening. This means that while stronger foreign demand would undoubtedly help, it would be virtually impossible for America to reduce its deficit significantly through stronger exports alone. Li Ruogu, the deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said last week that America should put its own house in order�ie, save more�and stop blaming others for its problems. He was right. The third argument is that fretting about the current-account deficit is outmoded because a large slice of the deficit reflects transactions between American multinationals and their foreign subsidiaries. Thus, it is claimed, importing an IBM computer from China is not the same as importing a Toshiba from Japan. Outsourcing by American firms boosts their profits. The problem with this argument, as Mr Barnes points out, is that the total trade between multinationals and their foreign subsidiaries still creates a deficit even allowing for the return of profits and dividends, and this gap must still be financed by borrowing from abroad. Last, but not least, last summer's favourite explanation of why America's deficit is not a problem is the notion that the world now enjoys the equivalent of the Bretton Woods system (the system of fixed exchange rates after the second world war), in which Asian governments happily buy the Treasury bonds that finance America's deficit in order to maintain cheap currencies to support their own export-led growth. In turn, Asia's purchases of bonds hold down interest rates in America, and so support consumer spending and imports. This cycle, it has been argued, could last another decade. One big difference is that under the original Bretton Woods system America ran a current-account surplus and the value of the dollar was officially pegged to gold. No wonder, perhaps, that today's �system� is already starting to creak as some Asian central banks start to worry about the value of their dollar reserves. To sustain the current arrangement, they will have to keep buying more and more dollars as America's current-account deficit widens. Asian central banks are already exposed to enormous potential losses in local-currency terms should their currencies appreciate against the dollar. It would be prudent for them to diversify their reserves, but that could send the dollar tumbling. Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under President Clinton, calls this the �balance of financial terror�: in effect, America relies on the costs to Asian central banks of not financing its deficit as assurance that financing will continue indefinitely. For almost two decades, economists have worried about America's current-account deficit and predicted a plunge in the dollar and a hard landing for the economy. The dollar did indeed fall sharply in the late 1980s, but with few ill effects on the economy. So why worry more now? One good reason is that the current-account deficit, currently running at close to 6% of GDP, is almost twice as big as at its peak in the late 1980s, and on current policies it will keep widening. Second, in the 1980s America was still a net foreign creditor. Today it has net foreign liabilities and these are expected to reach $3.3 trillion, or 28% of GDP, by the end of 2004 (see chart 2).  Some economies, such as Australia and New Zealand, have built up bigger debt ratios without obvious adverse economic consequences, but they are small countries so their current-account deficits absorb only a tiny fraction of global saving. This year alone, America's new borrowing from abroad will mop up a massive 75% of the world's surplus saving. So far America's hefty debt has not been a burden on its economy, mainly because it has pulled off an extraordinary trick. Although it is a large net debtor, it does not have to make net payments of interest and dividends to the rest of the world. Instead, America still enjoys a net inflow of investment income because it earns a higher average return on its foreign assets than it pays on its liabilities. Returns on foreign direct investment and equities are higher abroad than at home, and America has benefited from unusually low interest rates on its borrowing in recent years. Unlike in previous periods of dollar decline, bond yields have remained low�largely thanks to those huge purchases by foreign central banks. But as interest rates rise in future and net foreign debt mounts, America's net investment income is likely to turn negative, probably next year. Not only will that swell its current-account deficit, but it will also exert an increasing drag on the economy. America has enjoyed another huge advantage in its ability to borrow in its own currency. A normal debtor country, such as Argentina, has to borrow in foreign currency, so while a devaluation will help to reduce its trade deficit, it will also increase the local currency value of its debt. In contrast, foreign creditors carry the currency risk on America's $11 trillion-worth of gross liabilities. Its net foreign investment position actually improves as the dollar declines, because this boosts the dollar value of overseas assets. This makes devaluation an attractive option for America. The dollar's position as the world's main reserve currency allows it to attract finance on exceptionally favourable terms. However, this is a mixed blessing. It encourages America to borrow excessively, which increases the eventual cost of adjustment. The issue is not whether America can afford to take on more debt, but whether the rising debt burden will make investors less willing to finance future deficits at current exchange and interest rates. A recent paper� by Nouriel Roubini, of New York University, and Brad Setser, of Oxford University, estimates that, if the real trade-weighted value of the dollar remains close to its average in 1990-2003 (slightly above current levels) and there is no change in domestic policy, America's current-account deficit would rise to 8% of GDP in 2008, and its net debt would increase to over 50% of GDP. In practice, such levels are unlikely to be reached because private investors would be unwilling to finance debts of that size without much higher interest rates and/or a lower dollar, both of which would help to shrink the current-account deficit. Despite its recent drop, the dollar is far from cheap. After adjusting for inflation differentials, the dollar's real trade-weighted value against a broad basket of currencies is close to its average level over the past 30 years. Although it has barely fallen against most emerging-market currencies, the greenback is already below most estimates of its �fair value� against the euro. But that should be no surprise. Typically, a currency needs to undershoot its fair value by a wide margin in order to reduce a country's large external deficit. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has so far fallen by only 15% since early 2002, compared with a drop of 34% from its peak in 1985 (see chart 3). Yet America's current-account deficit is much bigger today than in the 1980s, so the dollar is likely to fall more sharply. Some economists reckon that it needs to fall by at least another 30%. That would imply a rate of over $1.80 for one euro, compared with today's $1.33.  The less the dollar falls against emerging-market currencies, such as the Chinese yuan, the more it is likely to drop against the euro. China accounts for one-quarter of America's total trade deficit. Speculation has mounted in recent weeks that the yuan will soon be revalued against the dollar. But Beijing has indicated that it will not be rushed into changing its exchange rate, especially if pressured by America. In any case, the current-account deficit cannot be corrected by a fall in the dollar alone: domestic saving also needs to rise. The best way would be for the government to cut its budget deficit. That would reduce America's need to borrow from abroad, and so mitigate the fall in the dollar and rise in bond yields that will otherwise be demanded by investors. If combined with stronger growth abroad, then the current-account deficit could slowly shrink. America's growth would be depressed by tax increases or spending cuts, but there would be no need for recession. If, on the other hand, the government fails to cut its budget deficit, the dollar will fall more sharply and bond yields will rise. America's housing bubble might then burst and consumer spending would certainly slow sharply. That combination would reduce the external deficit, but only at the cost of a deep recession. A history lesson In 1913, at the height of its empire, Britain was the world's biggest creditor. Within 40 years, after two costly world wars and economic mismanagement, it became a net debtor and the dollar usurped sterling's role. Dislodging an incumbent currency can take years. Sterling maintained a central international role for at least half a century after America's GDP overtook Britain's at the end of the 19th century. But it did eventually lose that status. If America continues on its current profligate path, the dollar is likely to suffer a similar fate. But in future no one currency, such as the euro, is likely to take over. Instead, the world might drift towards a multiple reserve-currency system shared among the dollar, the euro and the yen (or indeed the yuan at some time in the future). That still implies a big drop in the long-term share of dollar assets in central banks' vaults and private portfolios. A slow, steady shift out of dollars could perhaps be handled. But if America continues to show such neglect of its own currency, then a fast-falling dollar and rising American interest rates would result. It will be how far and how fast the dollar falls that determines the future for America's economy and the world's. Not even Mr Greenspan can forecast that. http://www.economist.com/displaysto...21%23%40%238%0A |
| quote: |
Kerry proposed national healthcare sorry, but don't call my argument a red herring. |
| quote: |
The last budget I was talking about is the budget just put before congress not long ago. That budget did keep government spending below inflation rate. Previous budgets, the President had other fish to fry, with a democrat senate. Gee all conservative government and we get a budget that is the first in a century to reduce government, and we had a 2/3 conservative government(Exe and House-con, liberal senate) and government grew. That is a testament to that previous liberal senate more than anything else. |
| quote: |
After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A01 For President Bush, the budget sent to Congress last week outlines a painful path to meeting his promise to bring down the federal budget deficit by the time he leaves office in 2009. But for the senators and governors already jockeying to succeed him, the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office. Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags, but those huge costs began coming into view in Bush's latest spending plan. Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures. Bush's extensive tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit and, if it passes, his plan to redesign Social Security all balloon in cost several years from now. His plan to partially privatize Social Security, for instance, would cost a total of $79.5 billion in the last two budgets that Bush will propose as president and an additional $675 billion in the five years that follow. New Medicare figures likewise show the cost almost twice as high as originally estimated, largely because it mushrooms long after the Bush presidency. "It's almost like you've got a budget, and you've got a shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more expensive," said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University. By the time the next president comes along, some analysts said, not only will there be little if any flexibility for any new initiatives, but the entire four-year term could be spent figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush's policies. "That president would have to face a very fundamental decision as to whether he would want to do what was right and be a one-term president or continue to play the same game and push it onto his successor," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as budget director and later White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. "That's really the choice that's going to face the next president." The knowledge of what's ahead is hardly lost on some of those eyeing Bush's job. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been among those raising concerns about the long-term costs of current financial policies. "Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed between now and the time we have a new White House resident so that occupant isn't faced with some very expensive chickens coming home to roost," said John Weaver, a McCain adviser. "There are some things that we can do, but unfortunately in the political world kicking down the road is often seen as leadership." Bush advisers argue that he is tackling problems long ducked by other presidents and that his solutions will pay off in the long run. Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, predicted last week that making the Bush tax cuts permanent could have positive economic consequences that would mitigate their costs. And he expressed hope that the Medicare prescription drug law may still result in health care savings not captured in the current cost estimates. As for Social Security, Bush aides said that the president's plan would wipe out a long-term structural deficit facing the nation in coming decades and that the transition costs in the next decade or so will ultimately be overshadowed by the benefits. "People in the future are going to benefit from that decision," said budget office spokesman Chad Kolton. If Congress were to pass Bush's Social Security plan and permanently extend his tax cuts, the budget deficit would bottom out at $251 billion in 2008, then climb steadily to $335 billion by 2015, according to an analysis by The Washington Post and the House Budget Committee's Democratic staff. Those figures assume, however, that Bush will secure all of his proposed spending cuts, that he will need no more emergency war spending and that there will be no changes to the alternative minimum tax, which Bush and other politicians want to rewrite to keep it from affecting more middle-class families in coming years. The AMT originally was designed to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid paying some taxes. With a fix to the AMT, deficits in a decade would likely reach $650 billion to $700 billion, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "The days of being everything to everybody are quickly coming to a close," he said, adding that a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts would make it politically impossible to borrow the full cost of a Social Security fix. "We have to look at the deficit in a holistic way." The White House's own 10-year costs of the Medicare drug benefit, the president's tax cuts and the plan for personal Social Security accounts are beginning to jar Republicans into rethinking the budget's trajectory, Graham said. June O'Neill, a Republican former director of the Congressional Budget Office, agreed that the current trajectory is no longer sustainable. "I don't think that people should waste too much time on probing the details of current policy, which just can't last," she said. "I think some adjustments need to be made," said Don Nickles, the recently retired Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Nickles said the drug law will need to be reopened to address problems of skyrocketing costs. He also said that Congress will have to be selective in extending the tax cuts, dropping some of the cuts and perhaps modifying the estate tax repeal to keep some of the revenue. The looming problems were easily foreseeable, said Joyce, the public policy professor. The White House and Congress vowed last year to keep the 10-year cost of a prescription drug bill to $400 billion. But to do it, the 2004 law did not come fully into effect until 2006. Hence, legislation once priced below $400 billion over 10 years now will cost at least $724 billion over a decade, simply because the law would then be fully in effect. Tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 were held to $1.7 trillion through an array of slow phase-ins, phase-outs and a Dec. 31, 2010, end date when all of the tax cuts would vanish. Now, Bush wants them made permanent, but according to White House numbers, a five-year extension beyond 2010 would cost nearly $1.1 trillion. Likewise, Bush is proposing a Social Security restructuring that would cost $754 billion through 2015, including added interest costs for the government. But like the tax cuts and drug benefit, the proposal would begin slowly, with initial borrowing in 2009. The plan would be fully effective in 2011. Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on Wednesday that the first full 10 years of the program would cost $1.4 trillion, rising to $3.5 trillion in the second decade. One tax proposal alone underscores the problem. A Bush plan to establish broad new tax-free savings accounts would actually raise $17 billion in the first five years, as savers cash out other tax-free accounts, pay taxes on their withdrawals and roll the money into the new accounts. But in the second five years, the proposal would cost $15 billion, according to Treasury figures. And the cost would rise sharply from there, as the accounts began shielding virtually all American savers from capital-gains, dividend and interest taxation. "That's a time bomb," said James Horney, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Congress has long gamed the budget system to make its legislation look less expensive in the short run, Joyce said. But the scale of the drug benefit, the tax cuts, the new tax proposals and the Social Security plan are unprecedented. Their coming convergence would be a "budgetary perfect storm," Joyce said. "You can't hide from it forever." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Feb13.html |
. Fiscal conservatives indeed.| quote: |
You know I am starting to think that maybe you are lying out of your ass when you said you used to be a republican, the idea that you actually think that democrats are going to spend less is far fetched. And you are from fucking Washington D.C. for crying outloud. Apparantly you were the only Republican in that town in the 90s. |
. And a Democratic president can't POSSIBLY do any worse than Bush with a respect to spending less. Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill remember??? At the very least, a democratic President would perform JUST as well by passing every single goddamned spending bill that crosses his desk.
Hey I know there are many people pissed off about spending, and I want spending to go down too. But seriously government spending was low during the Clinton years because of a Republican House. Remember Hillary Care? That is spending. The fact is that you know that you will get less spending with a conservative government than a liberal. I mean health savings accounts and private investment accounts are necessary means in convincing future generations to stop government spending.
By the way this thread has trailed from the topic quite a bit if you want to discuss this more set up a new thread okay. I'm going to repost the first post and that will put this thread back on its original topic.
Heres how much trouble you guys are in.
Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.
Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.
Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.
Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.
Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.
Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.
This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.
So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby Heres how much trouble you guys are in. Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys. Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters. Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters. Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie. Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex. Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates. This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined. So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.