New to U.S, plz exxplain

[miko2d]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
the sad thing about the democratic party is that while it was intended to represent (and most of it's members are) working people. we are mostly at work. busy lifes and whatnot so the people who are also in the same party (welfare types, activists) seem to have more time to devote to having a louder voice.

 They are compensating for being a "pro-slavery" party?

 miko

[SC-Sp00k]

More Politics. How do you Americans propogate the species?

A glass of wine, some candlelight mood music, a box full of chocolates and the annual government budget report at your side?

Do your females hold this bizarre fascination as well?

[miko2d]

Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
More Politics. How do you Americans propogate the species?
 A glass of wine, some candlelight mood music, a box full of chocolates and the annual government budget report at your side?
 Do your females hold this bizarre fascination as well?

 Oh, you are making me nostalgic. I remember living in a socialist country myself...
 No concerns or choices to make. Just stand in line or procreate...

 P.S. When it comes to politicians spending our hard-earned tax money, the process has some things in common with initial procreation - at least the initial stage.

 miko

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by 10Bears
You really think that the president has omnipotent power to control the economy?


Yes, any administration can greatly effect the economy. Reagan wasn’t lying back in the 80’s when he said his administration created 10 million new jobs. Research and development funding, trade missions, loans for small business startups, keeping interest percentages low all have an effect.

The government can positively influence the economy by tax cuts (like John Kennedy advocated)

It sure can! especially tax cuts targeted to the greatest number of tax payers. Unfortunately the current administration was able to get passed tax cuts that benefit the top tire of tax payers. For the majority of Americans a $90 to $150 a year tax cut doesn’t do much to stimulate the economy.

Alan Greenspan has much greater power to influence the economy than the president or congress does; all he has to say is irrational exuberance, and the stock market takes a dive. Add or subtract a 1/4 point, and see what happens.

You must be referring to what Greenspan said back in ’96, luckily we had four more years of what he calls “irrational exuberance” As it is now, with a deficit of 165 billion and rising, if the Fed cuts interest rates any more you’ll have deflation. It can only go up. Are you old enough to have bought a new car back in the 80s like I did?.

And yes, the president has a pen that he can use to sign or veto the laws that congress writes

And so the question remains --- why didn’t he veto this over bloated budget? His own party sent over a budget for him to either veto or sign-- who in the end of the day takes responsibility?

Republicans = Personal responsibility


Yes this is one of the great Republican mantras. Can you point out an example of these Republicans taking responsibility for anything?

300 billion surplus turns to 165 billion deficit in one year.. Um sorry, Clinton’s fault, the economy started to falter on his watch.
911 could have be prevented if the FBI and CIA hadn’t dropped the ball or anti terrorism proposals shelved.  Urm.. so sorry.. Clinton’s fault.. He had a chance to get Bin Ladin back in ’94..
Enron, Duke, Reliant, Worldcom, some of the current President’s financial backers are up to their neck in fraud and corruption. An example is the phony energy crisis in California in which the administration conspired with these thieves. Er not our responsibility Clinton’s fault.. He set the tone back in the ’90s with his dandelions with Lewinsky.

Enron sent money to the Demos too.

It's amazing that you swallow the propoganda that the National Democratic Party shovels your way.

The truth is in between.  You have to throw out most of what the Demos and Repubs tell you, and use whatever innate intellegence you may have left to make an informed opinion.  You have much study ahead.

[popeye]

Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats.  Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.

No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by popeye
Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats.  Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.

No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.

This is only true in the present. I believe there should be no argument that Clinton had little trouble focusing the Country on his agenda for most of his 8 years.

[popeye]

Newt would be offended.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by midnight Target


This is only true in the present. I believe there should be no argument that Clinton had little trouble focusing the Country on his agenda for most of his 8 years.

Sorry Midnight, but if your fishin' I have to bite;

Argument #1

Clinton proposed government administered health care.  Clinton's first major policy proposal, went down to dismal failure.

Argument #2

1994 "Contract with America"  successfully brings Republicans to the leadership of the house, partly as a reaction to the first two years of the Clinton presidency.  The first Democrat in the white house to see the legistative branch switch sides in 50 years.

Clinton thought to be a one termer for a time, and pundits declare him (prematurely and incorrectly) obsolete. (But perception is 9/10 of politics.)

Argument #3

Even though the comeback kid recovers to win his second term, some thing else cuts his second term in half.  As I remember, something about a blue dress and impeachment.

Whether you think that it was his fault or the fault of the vast right wing conspiracy, much of the second term was wasted with this issue, and he did could have handled the situation much better than he did.

I think that his skill in keeping his agenda on the table was lacking.

[10Bears]

Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats. Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.

No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.

Hehehe isn't this a fancy way of saying "wag the dog"?

[H. Godwineson]

10 Bears,

My friend,  are you serious?  Are you actually saying that the threat from Iraq is contrived?  That Saddam Hussein's ties to and support of Muslim terrorists isn't real?  Do you believe that this murderous dictator has no interest in developing nuclear and biological weapons?  Or that he wouldn't allow his terrorist friends access to these weapons so that they could use them against the U.S.?  You can't possibly mean that you think the President created this threat just to make a few political points in order to influence an election?  Can you?

Even if this wasn't an election year, the threat would remain, and we would have to deal with it.

Regards, Shuckins