|
Common Sense (For a New American Century) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by 3xx3r7
Well, Dean is the most promising candidate out of the whole bunch. If Bush gets re-elected, the economy of the country will be even in larger strain. |
What? What the hell are you talking about? :rolleyes: Dean is the most promising candidate? Dean's main strategy was to simply rip Bush off of his pedestal (which that was amusing- for a while) and to insult Bush and his tactics throughout his campaign. He avoids answering major questions dealing with the economy and decisions he would make and goes around in circles. Take a look here, Gephardt brought up some good points, although he himself is candidate bashing.
That's a ridiculous statement. Dean and Bush are by far on the lowest points for qualified candidates. Neither of them should be in office. It's begging America to be ruined quicker than the pace it's already going at.
Clark all the way. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by 3xx3r7
If these graphs were relevant, then people with accreditations experience would not whine about not being able to get a job in this crappy job market. |
The unemployment rate (5.9%) is already one of the lowest in the Western world. It continues to fall. Jobless claims are dropping. The rest of the economy has been strongly up for at least 6 months. Employment always comes last - the "lagging indicator," because businesses look to productivity gains before hiring more workers. Now that we've had sustained growth, the unemployment rate is falling into line.
I'm looking for a job myself, for when I finish law school in May. I can tell you already that there's much more out there now than even 6 months or a year ago. I have no idea what's making people think this economy's getting worse, other than tired old rhetoric from Democratic candidates who continue to recycle Congressional speeches from 2 or 3 years ago. |
|
|
| occrider |
Another reason to like clark:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...axes/index.html
I'm all for this tax plan. Especially since he specifically stated that the increased taxes on the top 1% would not go towards new spending. Time to start tackling that debt (without impeding economic recovery). |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| I haven't liked Clark... he is a CNN whore... and from what I have heard, not too popular with his former colleagues in that job of his... ya know... NATO Commander... I dunno... he is an attractive candidate, and maybe more so than Dean these days... Id certainly vote for him over Bush, thats a no-brainer... but he is a weasel like any other... I guess if his policies aren't too rightist I'd go for him. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
Clark: another socially moderate southern Democrat...hhmmm sounds awfully like the two previous Democratic presidents, Clinton & Carter.
I guess the southern flava wins elections for the Dems:D |
|
|
| occrider |
Moderates are the way to go ;). If Bush were actually the "compassionate" conservative that he claimed to be and actually subsribed to some of the core traditional republican beleifs than I would vote for him. The fact of the matter is, is that he's more of a democrat than most people realise.
Go Clark ... I've known from the get-go that he's not a true democrat ... nor republican for that matter :). Which makes him all the more attractive.
Here's a topic for discussion, what do people dislike about Clark? I can think of many reasons to dislike Bush and Dean but I'm curious as to why some people on this forum may dislike Clark relative to their favored candidates. It would appear to eliminate most of the rhetoric that is touted according to pary lines/popularity. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
I agree that Bush has been expanding the gov't at a rate that would make even some Dems uncomfortable. Hence Bush, in a matter of opinion, would be classified as a neo-conservative because of the very socially conservative stance but yet involve and expand the gov't.
It would be fair to say that Clark is the epitome of "Bush-lite". I can't say that I don't like Clark, but yet not wild about him either. Clark would be a perfect Democratic candidate against Bush, he has all the credentials and well thought plans that are necessary for a presidential candidate. The real problem with Clark is that he doesn't inspire people to take action, which can be seen in the Dean camp. For some reason, Dean has been able to mobilize a large chunk of voters that usually would not partake in an election (young voters). Clark needs to have that hardcore grassroots base in order to challenge Dean in the primaries, and since he has such a massive appeal it can be pretty much anybody.
I dunno...politics is something that many could care less about but yet have to remain mindful about. Kinda like (in my view) religion. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
I agree that Bush has been expanding the gov't at a rate that would make even some Dems uncomfortable. Hence Bush, in a matter of opinion, would be classified as a neo-conservative because of the very socially conservative stance but yet involve and expand the gov't.
It would be fair to say that Clark is the epitome of "Bush-lite". I can't say that I don't like Clark, but yet not wild about him either. Clark would be a perfect Democratic candidate against Bush, he has all the credentials and well thought plans that are necessary for a presidential candidate. The real problem with Clark is that he doesn't inspire people to take action, which can be seen in the Dean camp. For some reason, Dean has been able to mobilize a large chunk of voters that usually would not partake in an election (young voters). Clark needs to have that hardcore grassroots base in order to challenge Dean in the primaries, and since he has such a massive appeal it can be pretty much anybody.
I dunno...politics is something that many could care less about but yet have to remain mindful about. Kinda like (in my view) religion. |
which is why both will be on the ticket somehow... i wouldn't be surprised if Clark gets the nod for prez. and Dean VP... |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
(And don't you be one of those "liberals" rejecting this idea to advocate for more restrictions on guns, increased taxes, and more market regulations :p ) |
I don't advocate more restrictions on guns at the federal level and would leave that up to the states, I don't favor taxing those who can least afford to pay as the current administration has done (directly or indirectly), and furthermore, if we had no government regulation over matters economic, 10 year olds would be working 15 hour days in dangerous American factories for one dollar a day as they once did in times past, and as young children are working presently in many third world countries that American companies outsource jobs to in order to exploit the indigenous people for the increased wealth of a few at the top. Answer me this Occrider, who is going to be able to afford Nike shoes, Levi's jeans, SBC internet service, AT&T phone service, or Dell PCs if all of our American jobs are sent overseas to exploit the workforce there? It's not even solely manufacturing jobs anymore, but now public service, hi-tech, and engineering jobs as well.
If we had no government regulation, industry would have carte blanche as they do in Texas to pollute as much as they want without accountability to the health of the air, water, land, and therefore to public health. Of course the Bush Administration in 3 years has almost completely dismantled, or rewritten all of our Nation's environmental laws, and has tried its best to impose the failed Texan pollution model on America. Please spare me the bull about how all market regulations are bad and harmful to the people, because I just came back from the most polluted city in America (Houston), where grass hardly even grows, and you can barely see the full moon at night through the brown choking cloud that you can smell miles before entering the city (let alone the stars). Thank you President Bush for your wonderful "voluntary compliance" gubernatorial mandate for big industry. Those people in Houston who drink the Radon contaminated drinking water, those with asthma, emphysema, chemical allergies and sensitivities, those mothers bearing children with horrible birth defects due to pollution are all so much better off. Thank you President Bush, you truly are a man's man.
it, I'd still vote for Dean or even Sharpton. It's still better than having our energy bills written by oil companies behind closed doors, our National parks and other supposed conservation areas opened to drilling, mining, and clear-cutting, and the public health of America and the world being put in jeopardy due to the dismantling of laws meant to hold those who corrupt our health accountable for their actions. Remind me again Occrider how "free markets" are truly free if they are rigged against the health, safety, and prosperity of the common man, woman and child? I’d love to hear it.
;)
| quote: | Originally posted by NYGblue
which is why both will be on the ticket somehow... i wouldn't be surprised if Clark gets the nod for prez. and Dean VP... |
I would love to see that. Clark would be the man that gets things done, and Dean his conscience. Actually Dennis Kucinich would make a better "conscience." |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Another reason to like clark:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...axes/index.html
I'm all for this tax plan. Especially since he specifically stated that the increased taxes on the top 1% would not go towards new spending. Time to start tackling that debt (without impeding economic recovery). |
i watched his speech earlier today on cspan and ill agree with you there. he needs to be on more, not be awol from debates and be harder on bush.
also i havnt watched the latest debate but i will tomorrow just to hear and watch this:
| quote: | Pottsdam came out of the closet to say:
Dean: "And I'm going to balance the budget on the 6th or 7th year of my presidency."
Dean: :what: |
:D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I don't advocate more restrictions on guns at the federal level and would leave that up to the states, I don't favor taxing those who can least afford to pay as the current administration has done (directly or indirectly), and furthermore, if we had no government regulation over matters economic, 10 year olds would be working 15 hour days in dangerous American factories for one dollar a day as they once did in times past, and as young children are working presently in many third world countries that American companies outsource jobs to in order to exploit the indigenous people for the increased wealth of a few at the top. Answer me this Occrider, who is going to be able to afford Nike shoes, Levi's jeans, SBC internet service, AT&T phone service, or Dell PCs if all of our American jobs are sent overseas to exploit the workforce there? It's not even solely manufacturing jobs anymore, but now public service, hi-tech, and engineering jobs as well.
|
Outsourcing is an inevitable necessity needed to modernize and facilitate economic development and productivity of the work force. Essentially one must think of it this way ... if an American company were to not outsource unecessary labor that could be accomplshied far more cheaply overceas, what would become of that company in the face of competition with foreign firms that possess that distinct competitive advantages? One could simply look at the failing steel industry that has attempted to maintain jobs in the US as an example of what would happen. In the end the only result are unproductive industrities and inefficient markets that arose as a result of misconceived trade protectionism policies. Bush tried it and it failed. Are we to criticize bush on every policy except the ones that go against typical party doctrine? Here's a somewhat decent analysis of what exactly goes on with outsourcing that I posted in another thread:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/inve...,565912,00.html
| quote: |
If we had no government regulation, industry would have carte blanche as they do in Texas to pollute as much as they want without accountability to the health of the air, water, land, and therefore to public health. Of course the Bush Administration in 3 years has almost completely dismantled, or rewritten all of our Nation's environmental laws, and has tried its best to impose the failed Texan pollution model on America. Please spare me the bull about how all market regulations are bad and harmful to the people, because I just came back from the most polluted city in America (Houston), where grass hardly even grows, and you can barely see the full moon at night through the brown choking cloud that you can smell miles before entering the city (let alone the stars). Thank you President Bush for your wonderful "voluntary compliance" gubernatorial mandate for big industry. Those people in Houston who drink the Radon contaminated drinking water, those with asthma, emphysema, chemical allergies and sensitivities, those mothers bearing children with horrible birth defects due to pollution are all so much better off. Thank you President Bush, you truly are a man's man.
Remind me again Occrider how "free markets" are truly free if they are rigged against the health, safety, and prosperity of the common man, woman and child? I’d love to hear it.
;)
|
I never stated that all market regulations are bad. As a matter of fact, I think that if you would care to do a search for my history of economic analysis on this forum I always took note of the theory of market externalities. Market externalities being that when the activity of one entity (person or firm) directly affects the welfare of another in a way that is not transmitted by market prices, that effect is called an externality, and as a result, reuglations need to be put in place to compensate for said externalities(and in actuality, market incentives would be a far better approach towards acheiving change rather than regulation). Any accredited economist who does not take into account this clearly established economic theory is an idiot. Trust me, I majored in Public Finance which specializes in the theory of public goods and when the government should involve itself in free markets ;).
With respects to your last statement:
| quote: |
"Remind me again Occrider how "free markets" are truly free if they are rigged against the health, safety, and prosperity of the common man, woman and child? I’d love to hear it."
|
I love a challenge ... so allow me to explain. Free markets are rigged against health, safety, and "prosperity" of the common man because they are inherentely flawed and not truly "free" to their full economic extent. Fundementaly, an externality is a consequence of the failure or inability to establish property rights. If a company were to pollute a river, it would have no incentive to NOT pollute that river because it is not owned. If someone owned that river, a price would have to be paid for its use and no externality would materialize.
For example, if Lisa owned the river, she could charge Bart, the factory owner, a fee for polluting that river reflecting damage done to her catch. Bart would then take these additional costs into account when factoring in decisions to emitt wastes. As long as someone owns a resource, its price reflects the value for alternative uses, and the resource is therefore used efficiently (in the absence of other market failures). In contrast, resources that are owned in common are abused because no one has incentive to economize their use. Therefore free market technically propogate the well being of all parties involved ... the fact of the matter is that the application of free markets are inherentely flawed and therefore SOME government intervention is needed. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
It seems I misjudged you and your position Occrider. ;) Your fortune link doesn't work. :( You're right about Clark though, I doubt Karl can do as much against the guy.
-Also don't assume I agree 100% with the democratic or any party platform. I don't, and I think anyone who does is a member of the sheeple class as far as I'm concerned. Also, most of my sources concerning Bush's environmental record are non-partisan. Oh yeah, and I live in the state he helped corrupt, so I also happen to breath the air and drink the water here. |
|
|
|
|
