Us presidential election 2004

[ralphwiggum 6]

It seems like the issue of who will be occupying the whitehouse is getting discussed despite being 8 months away.

To accomodate the pundits and keep forum posts in one thread, I'd like to ask all members to discuss US presidential election issues here. The concept is like that of Iraq thread, ME thread, and War against terror thread.

Please follow all forum rules, especially ones regarding flaming and going offtopic. It is expected that issue of Iraq war would be placed in the spot light. Please try to discuss the war in the Iraq thread. If you have political commentary that includes Bush, please keep it so that posts for this thread is about the effects of the war on this election, not about the war itself.

Let me start with,

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,588762,00.html?cnn=yes

Quote[/b] ]There was a time when the Republicans could effectively paint the Democrats as "tax and spend" liberals, while portraying themselves as the party of fiscal restraint. This election, however, that logic will be turned on its head, as President Bush is likely to face a Democrat whose credentials as a deficit hawk are surprisingly strong.

Meanwhile, President Bush has his own deficit deficit. Since he took office, the record budget surpluses built up during the Clinton administration have turned to record red ink, and government spending has expanded at its fastest clip in 40 years. As a result, the GOP has lost most of its edge over the Democrats on the issue of fiscal responsibility. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 33% of respondents said the Republicans did a better job controlling government spending—just 2% more than said Democrats were better at cost control.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has a long history of fighting deficits. He co-sponsored the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act, which triggered automatic spending cuts if the President and Congress failed to reach predetermined targets (but which ultimately failed to balance the budget). He also backed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which helped Clinton achieve those surpluses. Now Kerry says that if he's elected he'll halve the deficit during his first term in office.

Bush, meanwhile, has been scrambling to restore his credibility with fiscal conservatives. In his State of the Union address, he matched Kerry's pledge to halve the deficit, although Bush gets there through spending cuts rather than by repealing tax breaks for those making more than $200,000 a year, as Kerry would do.

As a first step, Bush has unveiled an austere 2005 budget proposal that seeks to hold the increase in domestic discretionary spending to a mere 0.5%. But there are reasons to doubt whether the Bush budget represents a realistic solution to the country's fiscal woes. For one thing, the 2005 budget doesn't include spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's own budget director says the cost for Iraq might top $50 billion. And, in order to achieve the goal of paring the deficit to $237 billion by 2009, Bush proposes keeping total discretionary spending virtually flat for the entire four-year period, a goal that budget experts say is politically unachievable. What's more, beyond 2009, the deficit is projected to explode when most of the $936 billion in tax cuts kicks in and the first baby-boomers become eligible for early-retirement Social Security payments.

Kerry, who several polls predict would beat Bush if the general election were held today, has already begun attacking Bush's budget. While it's unlikely that many fiscal conservatives would vote for a Democrat, if they remain disgusted they might stay away from the polls entirely. "The lack of spending discipline is starting to alienate a significant portion of the fiscal-conservative base," says Stephen Bainbridge, a UCLA law professor who runs a conservative website. And if one had any doubts that budget politics have gone through the looking glass, just guess which former GOP punching bag would get the largest funding increase in 20 years under the Bush budget: the National Endowment for the Arts.

[ozanzac 0]

Personally, vote in whoever is most likely to keep the value of the greenback down! All of a sudden, my measley currency is worth something on e-bay. And I'm picking up bargains left right and center.

Reflecting on what Bush has done to and for the economy. Would he be able to fix it, or at least slow its decline? Do other candidates have what it takes to do so?

[killagee 0]

While I am keen to see Bush lose the next election, I dont think that there will be much difference whoever has the "hot seat" at the white house. They are subject to the same Corporate sponsorship, Lobbyists and there strings are pulled by the people who live beyond the Administration.

Ozanzac, when you say "Would he be able to fix it, or at least slow its decline? Do other candidates have what it takes to do so?" are you talking about the ease of making things better for Americans or the difficult job of making things better for everybody?

I think you will rue the day you guys signed that free trade deal...

[ozanzac 0]

I was talking about the american economy, and whether any candidates are in the position to slow it's decline for the American people.

But I also get the feeling it won't matter whose in the 'hotseat'.

BTW, with that free trade agreement we signed, when it comes into effect, we might not rule the world. Only the region!    

[killagee 0]

hehe! Them's fighting words! Its a pity all your unskilled manufacturing will go off shore for cheaper labour... Might end up cheaper for the Aboriginals to start making their Digiridoo's in Otara eh?

[shinRaiden 0]

My biggest concern is that people on both sides are talking a lot not about voting FOR someone, rather voting AGAINST someone, ie "Anyone but Bush" or "Anyone but Dean."

A report last week said that previous wave's of mexican immigrants that came north legally for work, are now getting squeezed because their factories are going south, and they can't compete with those who cook their papers.

Then you have the city attorney's in San Fransisco who when asked about the legality of the recent Gay marriages said that "the local jurisdicitions are entitled to exercising their own interpretation of constitutional law."

Bush is saying "We're all going to die, so we got to plug them first." Kerry is saying "Bush is a liar and incompetent." And the voters in general are suckers that get strung along and vote however OprahW and Dr. Phil tells them to.

[theavonlady 2]

"Anyone but Dean."

One down. One to go.

AP NewsBreak: Dean to End His Campaign

Quote[/b] ]AP - 28 minutes ago

Howard Dean will end his campaign for the presidential nomination and oversee a new effort to keep his issues alive and his supporters organized on behalf of Democratic causes, two party officials said Wednesday.

[denoir 0]

Too bad Dean was the kind of man America needed to catch up with the modern world (in term of politics, ethics, social structure and civil liberties).

So, Kerry vs. Bush. Frankly, I don't know. I have no special love for Kerry, he is classical case of a self-serving career politician. Kerry is not a man of principles, except for one - do what's best for Kerry. I would not such a man take care of my dog (if I had one), much less run a country.

Bush on the other hand started an illegal war, insulted most of the world, withdrew from various international agreements. He also represents a line of Christian fundamentalism and a big threat to civil liberties. He has lied, cheated and hurt a lot of innocent people.

So, from that perspective Kerry is better. Furthermore I'd also like for Bush and his supporters to lose badly.

On the other hand, from a practical perspecitve, Bush may not be a bad choice. He has shot the US economy to hell letting the EU take the place as the world's strongest economy. With four more years we'll be using the US dollar as toilet paper

Also, Bush provides a good "bad guy" that Europeans can rally against. And we badly need a common cause.

And third, I like space programs, and Bush seems to in one way or another support them more than the Dems would.

So if I wanted what is good for America, then it's Kerry probably. If I want what is good for me, it might be Bush.

[bn880 5]

You know how it is, the media actually controls who gets elected currently... how so? Well, as soon as Dean is behind a little all they have to do is create some huge fuss that he will pull out. That in turn means nobody wants to vote for the man who will quit anyway.

My personal belief is that people should be much more in control of the media and WTF they focus on, as it brainwashes people and sets certain presumptions on their behalf.

But hey, it's a free country and nobody is going to assume the media has any power right?

[havocsquad 0]

For international stability, the U.S. economy must be improved to keep other nations doing business with the U.S. from tanking.  That's why a "War President" as Bush claimed is no longer useful in the current time of crisis.

You can only scare the public a certain number of times with words referring to "Might, could have, and is developing or coordinating" in relation to Al Queda.  Don't get me wrong, the little @#$!!$#@ need a good military boot to squash them for good, but the Executive branch turning the war against terror into a propoganda message aimed of scaring the public against progressive change and punishing people for questioning the actions that the political leaders make by calling them "Unpatriotic" is horrible policy that should never be allowed to form.  (Which it has under the current administration in the EPA, FBI, SEC, Dept. of Energy, State Dept., etc., etc.)

Actually, what is bad economic policy for the U.S. is plague for the rest of the international community.

If the U.S. can't afford to buy foreign products from the EU or Asia because of mass outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations, those businesses in Asia and especially the EU will suffer and go under quickly because of lack of market for their products.  (Basically, cheap crap made in sweatshops)

When people can't regularly afford to buy the proper enough goods/services needed, it will create another recession or something far worse than what happened in 2001.  

Remember, if many Americans can't afford to buy products abroad because the U.S. isn't selling enough domestically and internationally, that means other people can't pay their bills and a chain reaction of job loss, cutbacks, and business failures.  What negative trends happen in the U.S. economy, multiply greatly to other countries.

I am sure the general public of the U.S., especially the middle class and working poor are tired of the current government's focus on threats percieved as "imminent" and yet widely ignore working on legislation that would strengthen homeland security and the economy.  

On the Economy side:

The U.S. is already in the biggest deficit it has been in over 50 years.  That includes adjusting the amount currently spent for comparsion of past congressional spending.  

For example:

If you have a very urgent invoice bill that needs paid immediately and you own this business, you don't go giving away a large chunk of your operating funds back to the workers when your bill demands payment immediately.  You can only borrow so much much before you go out of business.  Now governments don't go out of business this way, but the value of the currency will dramatically drop and inflation will soar.  That will create another economic crisis and just cause more problems for the U.S. and the global economy.

Not to mention that the current U.S. tax cuts are PROVEN fact to primarily benifit only those individuals with extremely high income.  (Million to Millions of dollars earned per year)  The middle class and lower get stuck with the bill and if the current U.S. tax cuts are kept, the middle class and lower will be stuck with the bill in 5 years or less from now.  

It's a proven fact that people just starting out in the U.S. workforce will be stuck with a LOT more taxes and less government services five years from now because big corporate lobbists and powerful donators got their way by blackmailing opponents of about the tax cuts by saying they didn't support working families if they didn't pass the Republicans version of the tax cut.

On the Homeland security issue:

It's a good chance that if someone organized a well planned operation, a non-U.S. nuclear weapon could easily be smuggled in thru cargo ship transport and used for a terrorist attack against a city.  Not to mention the deplorable security at most Civilian nuclear warhead disposal and stoarge sites, and at most nuclear weapons material sites. (Where they storage weapons grade plutonium for nuke making.)

I'm tired of the current U.S. administration haiving an overly aggressive and forceful foriegn policy against, worrying about the "Axis of Evil" countries while this adminstration can't even get the their own domestic issues resolved adaquately.  (For the White House:  Don't bitch about or to Iran, Iraq, or North Korea if you can't keep your own shit in order at home.)

The U.S. is still meddling in Afganistan and Iraq because of the "War on Terror" while domestically the U.S. has left the door wide open for terrorists to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction and haven't fully taken a firm position on how to deal with firms taking U.S. jobs to foreign countries.

[denoir 0]

Actually, what is bad economic policy for the U.S. is plague for the rest of the international community.

If the U.S. can't afford to buy foreign products from the EU or Asia because of mass outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations, those businesses in Asia and especially the EU will suffer and go under quickly because of lack of market for their products.  (Basically, cheap crap made in sweatshops)

When people can't regularly afford to buy the proper enough goods/services needed, it will create another recession or something far worse than what happened in 2001.  

Remember, if many Americans can't afford to buy products abroad because the U.S. isn't selling enough domestically and internationally, that means other people can't pay their bills and a chain reaction of job loss, cutbacks, and business failures.  What negative trends happen in the U.S. economy, multiply greatly to other countries.

I think you need a bit of a reality check. The EU market is bigger than the US market. And the EU is richer (both in GDP and GDP/capita).

The relationship isn't quite symmetrical as there is a trade imbalance. The EU imports more goods from the US than vice versa. The only risk that I see is that higher quality European products will face competition from cheaper US ones. But that's the nature of assymetrical import/export conditions.

You are very much overestimating the importance of the US economy and its impacts worldwide. From an EU point of view, watching the US economy go down the drain can only be benificial. We import more stuff from you, so we'll get things cheaper. The strength of the Euro guarantees lower interest rates. While that strenght is internal, getting a helping hand from the failing US economy ain't so bad  

As for losing the US market for export, while it's negative it's actually not very important. The cheap imports from the US more than make up for it. And for markets, both Europe and Asia are bigger so finding buyers that can afford more expensive products is no problem.

I agree with the rest of your post

Edit: I'm surprised that the Democrats havn't used this development to score more political points. In the last three years the US has fallen from its first place as the world's strongest economy and the dollar as the strongest currency. Most Americans seem to be blissfully unaware of this and still think that the US is the biggest, strongest economy in the world. And that's not the case. Thanks to the strong Euro and the free-falling dollar, the EU has a larger GDP, both total and per capita. Now, had I been American, I would have found it a very good argument for overthrowing Bush and his merry men.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

That is incorrect. The GDP of the US lies around 10,000billion whereas europe has maybe 8000-9000 billion. And sine we even have a larger population our GDP per capita is even lower. Data

And a participation of poland wont change much since their GPD7capita is barely half ot that of portugal

And the US is richer indeed. But due to polarisation their ultra rich possess a lot, middle class barely exists and many possess little to none.

The US is the initiator of trends in the world economy. Its large import and export capacities set the speed and intensity of world trade. Europe is not much of a power as far as the economy is concerned.

[denoir 0]

That is incorrect. The GDP of the US lies around 10billion whereas europe has maybe 8-9. And sine we even have a larger population our GDP per capita is even lower. Data

And a participation of poland wont change much since their GPD7capita is barely half ot that of portugal

And the US is richer indeed. But due to polarisation their ultra rich possess a lot, middle class barely exists and many possess little to none.

2002 numbers baby. Time to get in synch Albert

US government source.

Quote[/b] ]The combined economies of the current EU are slightly smaller than the U.S. economy ($9.6 trillion purchasing power parity gross domestic product (GDP) for the EU in 2002 versus $10.1 trillion for the United States), while the EU population of 379 million significantly exceeds the U.S. population of 289 million. With ten new countries expected to join next year, both the EU's population and its combined GDP will grow (The combined GDP of the EU and the 10 accession countries reached an estimated $10.4 trillion in 2002; see Table 1). The United States has extensive trade relations with the EU. In 2002, 21% of U.S. exports ($144 billion) went to EU members, and 19% of U.S. imports ($226 billion) originated in EU countries.

Incidentally $9.6 trillion = 11.2 trillion euros (2002 value) = $14.1 trillion (today's value).  So you see, currency exchange rate does indeed matter.

In 2002 euro/dollar = 0.85 today euro/dollar = 1.25.

Even if you take into account that the EU has a larger population:

14.1 trillion/ 390 million = 36,000 USD/capita  (EU)

10.1 trilloon/290 million = 34,000 USD /capita (USA)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay, my facts and figures might stem from 2002. But still I must insist on the information that our GDP is lower. Not to speak about the per capita calculation. Whether or not we will be able to beat the US is questionable. Poland is not realy a great industrialised nation.

And the exchange rate calculation, well denoir,

[denoir 0]

Okay, my facts and figures might stem from 2002. But still I must insist on the information that our GDP is lower. Not to speak about the per capita calculation. Whether or not we will be able to beat the US is questionable. Poland is not realy a great industrialised nation.

And the exchange rate calculation, well denoir,  

What are you talking about, it's black on white. You have the proof right in my post and it fully agrees with your data.

In 2002 euro/dollar = 0.85 today euro/dollar = 1.25. You do understand the consequences of that, don't you?   The EU has the Euro, the US had the dollar. Their relative value has changed drastically. Do you understand that a person who in 2002 had a pay of 40, 000 euros, back then had 34, 000 dollars. Today the same pay is worth 50,000 dollars.

What don't you understand about it?

If you are going to say that GDP is an inaccurate way of measuring economic strength, I'll agree with you as it doesn't relate to the domestic market prices. The GDP and GDP/capita numbers are however crystal clear.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You formulate everything so nicely Denoir but one thing is currently a status quo for all economists. Our GDP is lower and our GDP per capita even more. You can twist it and turn it.... as long as 90% of the journalists havent changed their mind...

I point out later what I mean!

[denoir 0]

I point out later what I mean!

Please do as you are right now saying that 2+2=5

[havocsquad 0]

The EU might now be the leader in economic growth now, however the U.S. is STILL the leading economic power in the world. How else is the U.S. is generally able to fund it's huge defense spending and still be able to pay for other needed budget issues.

Right now the U.S. is still in a major recession, despite positive spin said by the Bush administration. That heavily eats into a country's GDP and in addition, the EU does NOT count as it's own "country". The EU is an organization, not a single political entity with sole control over all states in it. If it was, the EU would be a political and economic "WARSAW Pact" in nature to what happened at the beginning of the Cold War.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

okay, there is only one reliable source for information concerning EU statistics which is EURO-STAT (main reference for the stock-markets)

right click, download PDF file

The mid-segment is the english version and contains the required information. (but as I know denoir, he gonna twist it and turn it )

[llauma 0]

The EU might now be the leader in economic growth now, however the U.S. is STILL the leading economic power in the world.  How else is the U.S. is generally able to fund it's huge defense spending and still be able to pay for other needed budget issues.

Right now the U.S. is still in a major recession, despite positive spin said by the Bush administration.  That heavily eats into a country's GDP and in addition, the EU does NOT count as it's own "country".  The EU is an organization, not a single political entity with sole control over all states in it.  If it was, the EU would be a political and economic "WARSAW Pact" in nature to what happened at the beginning of the Cold War.

EU doens't have to be counted as a single country. The EU is the world strongest market, at least right now.

The statement that US economy isn't as important anymore has nothing to do with single countries. The EU is a open market just as a country.

The warsaw pact?! All I have to say is accept the truth

[denoir 0]

okay' date=' there is only one reliable source for information concerning EU statistics which is EURO-STAT (main reference for the stock-markets)

right click, download PDF file

The mid-segment is the english version and contains the required information. (but as I know denoir, he gonna twist it and turn it   )

Albert, those are exactly the same numbers from start of 2002. Identical. The same thing that I said before applies. In 2002 euro/dollar = 0.85 today euro/dollar = 1.25. Convert the values of the table into today's values and you'll get the same conclusion. There is nothing mystical or magic about it.

[denoir 0]

The EU might now be the leader in economic growth now

 

Actually, we're not. You had a better growth relative your own currency than we did. The reason for the US dropping to the second place in the GDP and GDP/capita is the big drop of the dollar and the rise of the Euro.

Quote[/b] ], however the U.S. is STILL the leading economic power in the world.

It depends how you define "leading economic power". If you measure it by GDP then it's not. GDP is however a very primitive way of measuring economic strenght as it doesn't relate to domestic market prices.

Quote[/b] ]How else is the U.S. is generally able to fund it's huge defense spending and still be able to pay for other needed budget issues.

You answer your own question later in your post. The EU isn't a centralized country as the US. A lot of resources are spent on making things all over again in each country. The military is a perfect example. Overall (I don't have numbers now), I would not be surprised if the EU spends more money on military than the US, but the whole thing is less than the sum of its parts, so to say.

Quote[/b] ] the EU does NOT count as it's own "country".  The EU is an organization, not a single political entity with sole control over all states in it.

True (sort of). It's a union of European states. It is a very loose confederation. My passport has both EU and Sweden written on it. We have common laws within the union and a common political structure (with legislative powers). We don't have borders etc. We'll very soon have a common constitution. So while its not as much a country as USA is, it is still much more than a common interest organization.

Quote[/b] ]

 If it was, the EU would be a political and economic "WARSAW Pact" in nature to what happened at the beginning of the Cold War.

Explain.

[havocsquad 0]

What I meant was if the EU was to be considered as ONE economic entity, it would have to have sole ownership and authority over all member states.  

I meant if the EU was to be compared to the U.S. in GDP as the EU as a nation itself, it would require that the EU become more like the WARSAW pact in nature.  That means that the EU would have to become a tightly run economic and polictical system like during the beginning of the Cold War when Stalin said work with us and we'll protect you, except he made the WARSAW Pact European countries choose with a gun to their heads.  The U.S.S.R was one political and economic entity, no matter how much the Russians said differently in the Cold War.

In no way am I referring the EU now to Communism, or Stalin's brutal rule during the 1950's.  All I'm saying that it is extremely biased to use the EU as a unit of comparison of GDP because it is a group of independent countries, not one country.  The EU would have to dissolve all soverignity of all member states in order for a GDP comparision to the U.S.'s GDP to be fair.

If I've confused you more now, then I think my mind has taken a 2 week vacation.

Anyways, hope this clears things up and gets this thread back to topic.

[Schoeler 0]

Actually, what is bad economic policy for the U.S. is plague for the rest of the international community.

If the U.S. can't afford to buy foreign products from the EU or Asia because of mass outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations, those businesses in Asia and especially the EU will suffer and go under quickly because of lack of market for their products.  (Basically, cheap crap made in sweatshops)

When people can't regularly afford to buy the proper enough goods/services needed, it will create another recession or something far worse than what happened in 2001.  

Remember, if many Americans can't afford to buy products abroad because the U.S. isn't selling enough domestically and internationally, that means other people can't pay their bills and a chain reaction of job loss, cutbacks, and business failures.  What negative trends happen in the U.S. economy, multiply greatly to other countries.

I think you need a bit of a reality check. The EU market is bigger than the US market. And the EU is richer (both in GDP and GDP/capita).

The relationship isn't quite symmetrical as there is a trade imbalance. The EU imports more goods from the US than vice versa. The only risk that I see is that higher quality European products will face competition from cheaper US ones. But that's the nature of assymetrical import/export conditions.

You are very much overestimating the importance of the US economy and its impacts worldwide. From an EU point of view, watching the US economy go down the drain can only be benificial. We import more stuff from you, so we'll get things cheaper. The strength of the Euro guarantees lower interest rates. While that strenght is internal, getting a helping hand from the failing US economy ain't so bad  

As for losing the US market for export, while it's negative it's actually not very important. The cheap imports from the US more than make up for it. And for markets, both Europe and Asia are bigger so finding buyers that can afford more expensive products is no problem.

I agree with the rest of your post

Edit: I'm surprised that the Democrats havn't used this development to score more political points. In the last three years the US has fallen from its first place as the world's strongest economy and the dollar as the strongest currency. Most Americans seem to be blissfully unaware of this and still think that the US is the biggest, strongest economy in the world. And that's not the case. Thanks to the strong Euro and the free-falling dollar, the EU has a larger GDP, both total and per capita. Now, had I been American, I would have found it a very good argument for overthrowing Bush and his merry men.

Denoir, where did you take your macroeconomics courses?

The United States via foreign investment spending is responsible for more than 60% of foreign economic growth abroad in the last 50 years.  America owns 30% of the world's GDP.

Here, have a look at this:

Quote[/b] ]“Flying On One Engine† The Economist September 20, 2003

The statistics are startling. Since 1995 almost 60% of the cumulative growth in world output has come from America, nearly twice America's share of world GDP (see chart 1, next page). America's disproportionate contribution to global growth reflects an extraordinary rise in American spending. Domestic demand in America has risen, on average, by 3.7% a year since 1995, twice the pace of the rest of the rich world.

Just as flying on one engine is inherently risky, so a one-engined world economy is more likely to crash. Global prosperity depends overwhelmingly on American demand. If it were to drop significantly, the world would tumble into recession.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yes, Denoir, you are totally correct, those are the LATEST figures (even if so from 2002). If you consider them obsolete due to their age then provide me a newer one and explain to me why those are being used in the 2003 PWC EU economy forecast? You just need to explain to me why those figures are still being used then by the ECP?? same stats ECP 2004 report

Currently the theorie is that in case we realy might turn to 25 countries we will be just about breakeven with the US. Then we have a GDP of around 11,1 Bio Euro (euro). And we have a population of 451.  Proof me wrong. Show me a reliable source (statistic if possible) of the year 2003!