Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Kerry and Bush; will vie to be the next US President.
Topic Started: Mar 2 2004, 11:05 PM (438 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
This is good. This is really very good.
Well folks, looks like it is going to be Kerry vs. Bush this November. B} Should be an exciting, fun-filled, mud-slinging 8 months (approx). :D :rolleyes: :P :)

Kerry Celebrates Claim to Dem Nomination

Super Tuesday Sinks Edwards


I think the Economy and Jobs are going to be the two key issues for this year's campaign. Iraq, Social Security, Education will all be discussed, but I think the Economy drum will be beaten the loudest. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
24thcentfan hits on an important point: in this election, the agenda that is set will determine the winner.
If jobs, the economy,the war in Iraq, and Bush's job performance become the issues Kerry will carry the day (get it?).
If the threat of terrorism, gay marriage, or social issues grow to import Bush will win.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
24,
I'm not so sure about the Economy and Jobs part. The Democrats will probably try to set those at the two key issues, but Bush's camp has to know that won't be good for them. So they will try to divert attention back onto the anti-terrorism/making America safer theme. After all, that's about all Bush can even attempt to brag about.

Well, at least that's my unbiased view. :wow: ;) :angel: :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
This is good. This is really very good.
^^IE

No, not biased at all! :P You make a good point though. I can see the Bush camp possibly campaigning the hardest on anti-terrorism/homeland security. Early campaign signs in this speech today: President Marks Homeland Security's Accomplishments at Year One
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
How the economy improves or fails to improve during the months leading up to the General Election in November will be what turns out to be the overriding factor for most voters. It is getting better, but seems a more typical recovery than compared to the recover following the 91/92 dip. In the mid-90's too many people believed the headlines touting the "New Economy", the one supposedly immune to recession. Joe Sixpack got burned in this last down turn that began in March of 2000, and is not jumping back into the stock markets with wild abandon. We will see how happy people are with the economy in a couple of months.

Finally, a late congratualtions to Howard Dean. He finally won one(Vermont)! :wave: :woohoo: :clap: This might just be the boost his campaign needs :D :angel: :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Swidden
Mar 3 2004, 03:20 AM
Finally, a late congratualtions to Howard Dean. He finally won one(Vermont)! :wave: :woohoo: :clap: This might just be the boost his campaign needs :D :angel: :whistle:

That's a good one! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Adrian
Mar 2 2004, 11:58 PM
24thcentfan hits on an important point: in this election, the agenda that is set will determine the winner.
If jobs, the economy,the war in Iraq, and Bush's job performance become the issues Kerry will carry the day (get it?).
If the threat of terrorism, gay marriage, or social issues grow to import Bush will win.

Yo Adrian:

I guess you haven't noticed, but the economy is booming right now. We've average over four percent growth for over a year, and the recession has been over since the end of 2001. (Average economic growth is 2.5% per year)

Bush's job performance is a matter of opinion, isn't it? Aside from steel tariffs and the senior drug prescription bill, I think he's done a phenominal job considering the opposition from the left.

I guess you also hadn't noticed that WE WON the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gone, and the Iraqi governing council agreed on a constitution over the weekend? While we see pockets of resistance from a FEW, and I mean few, disgruntled Baathist with CURRENT ties to the remnants of al Queda, a LARGE supermajority of Iraqis actually want us there.

Lastly, the 2.3 million jobs lost figure is just a lie. Factors never taken into consideration: people starting new jobs, people starting their own businesses, and people choosing new careers. Hell, I've been off the job rolls since 2000 since I own my one sole proprietership. Considering the unemployment rate is five and a half percent (damned near what economists call "full employment"), manufacturing capacity in use is nearing 20 year highs, and we have the most efficient workforce on Earth, things look pretty good.

What can John Kerry do? "Roll back" Bush's tax cuts? Roll back capital gains rates to the Clinton era levels? He should be honest and say he'll RAISE TAXES on just about every one, not the so-called "rich." Other than that, he can be against Bush, but in a dishonest way, which has been what his campaign is all about, and the treasonous left wing media has not called him on it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Fleet Admiral
Quote:
 
HUME: On the economy, the Democrats, led by John Kerry, are saying that the tax cuts manifestly haven't worked, the economy has failed to recover in a way that would generate job creation of the kind that everybody obviously wants. What's your answer to that?

CHENEY: I think that the economy is significantly improved. I think all the data point in that direction. We inherited a recession, a recession that began either shortly before or about the same time that we got into office. We'd had the economy complicated by the attacks of 9/11 and all the disruption that that put in. The president put forward with his tax cuts in spring of '01 and '02 and again in '03, and I think it's precisely the right medicine for the economy. We're now to the point where the last half of last year we grew at better than 6 percent with the highest rates in 20 years. All the indicators are headed in the right direction. We are creating more jobs, not as fast as we'd like, we need to continue to work on that. But the fact of the matter is we've made major progress and what the Democrats are offering at this point are tax increases, at exactly the wrong time. The kind of tax increases that would choke off the recovery.

HUME: The deficit has obviously grown, it looks huge. There are those who say that it is a real threat to the economy at these levels and, put together with vast, unfunded entitlements that lie out there in the future about ready to hit, that the Administration has really not effectively dealt with that issue. What's your response?

CHENEY: We have inherited a situation in which it's been necessary, it's in effect been driven by the economy into a deficit status, the budget has. The falloff in federal revenues, primarily due to the recession, accounted for about half of the increase in the deficit. We're also at war. We've had to spend a lot more on defense and homeland security, and those are all legitimate reasons for running a deficit. I think we'd be subject to legitimate criticism if we didn't go forward on those initiatives. And the fact is, over the course of the next several years, the president's budget calls for cutting the deficit in half, by 50 percent. The deficit today, relative to the total size of the economy, is not as big as it was back in the '80's or early '90's, so to cast this as some sort of economic crisis is not true.


This what Cheney had to say about the economy and deficit in a recent interview, if you are interested in the Bush/Cheney camp's perspective.

The rest of the interview, which can be found here, talks of wmds and the presidential campaign.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
In the newspaper recently they were showing that President Bush is the first President since before WW2 where the US economy has lost jobs over his term. Whatever other economic indicators are doing if people are out of work they are not going to be happy and are likely to want to blame someone.

I saw a picture of Kerry and Edwards sharing a joke recently, the jist of the article was that it is not now beyond credibility to think that those two men could dominate US politics for the next 16 years. To Conservatives that must be the nightmare scenario.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
According to exit polls, the majority of Democratic voters who voted for Kerry are not only unhappy with Bush, but angry with him. There's no doubt that a lot of that is due to the enormous job losses during his administration.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
16 years? Really? Isn't that the same prediction that was had for Clinton/Gore in 92?

The one major in play state that the Democrats are seriously hopeful about seems to be Ohio (Side note to Wichita: Better bake some cookies or stop by a bakery, you might have company coming... :D ;) :angel: :whistle: )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
16 years? Really? Isn't that the same prediction that was had for Clinton/Gore in 92?


That scenario only got derailed by the narrowest of margins in 2000. Plus, from what I have seen of the two, if it were me I would find Edwards a more interesting candidate than Gore could ever be. I'm not saying its going to happen or is likely but that it can be suggested with even a little credibility is a major shift from the Bush 'shoe in' predicted just a couple of months back.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Mar 3 2004, 12:00 PM
^^^
According to exit polls, the majority of Democratic voters who voted for Kerry are not only unhappy with Bush, but angry with him. There's no doubt that a lot of that is due to the enormous job losses during his administration.

Good, I hope that this smacks them in the face when they are presented with FACTS.

As for the tremendous job losses, where are they? Our unemployment rate is 5.6%. The exact same amount that Clinton claimed was so phenominal when he re-ran in '96. I've stated it before, and I shall state it again... the 2.3 million jobs lost is A LIE. Get over it, Dems.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^^
Try telling those 2.3 million people that they really didn't lose their jobs. I'm sure every one of them will say "yup, I lied - sorry!"
[/sarcasm]
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Is it too much of a stretch to believe they got NEW jobs? Only if you are a Democrat? Hell, I'd be one of them. I took a job in February of '01... lasted 4 months. I've been self-employed since. I'd be, by your reckoning, one of those 2.3 million... although I'm gainfully employed.

This happens all the time... and has ever since we started tracking employment. Some jobs GO AWAY. It is a part of the evolutionary process of technology. Others ARE CREATED.

As I said, IT IS A LIE to say that 2.3 million jobs vanished and nothing else happened. Why is it that libs have so much of a problem with this? This is (once again, for about the fiftieth time) BASIC ECONOMICS.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that the left has a problem with truth, and will DO ANYTHING, including lie, cheat, and steal (elections) to get their man in the White House.

I'm tired of this... if you can't BE HONEST (I mean you, John Kerry), then just pi$$ right off.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply