Us presidential election 2004

[shinRaiden 0]

Foriegn policy -

1) you have crazed fundamentalists (belabored in another thread) that refuse any and all negotiations, and also happen to be recognized nation-states.

2) Demographic CF's in Asia, and later in Europe. Japan is considering that garnishing EVERY salary in about 20 years will not be enough to take care of the senior citizens. China through their one-child program and cultural desire for boys has a massive imbalance of boys with only pr0n and nothing to do but listen to communist fundamentalism.

3) Everyone (except Tony Blair and a few other brown-nosers) hate us. Although ultimately you can never compel someone to like you, it still looks bad in the press regardless of whether you snub or kiss-up.

4) Economically, Japan has made their money this way: The Yen normally trades between 105 to 120 to a dollar. US buys and sells in packs of US 10's, Japan buys and sells in packs of 100 yens. Company pockets the difference. Rather simplistic, but suffiecient for the discussion. Japan picks up work from US, dollar goes down, Japanese make less and less profit, they tank, and the crap flushes to the next drain.

5) Europe. Thank goodness you're finally started to get off your fractured arse and put together a cohesive blended economy. Now deal with your bluebloods and show us how the money really works.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Tex,

while your point is well made, and i agree on many points, the problem with TBA is that they gambled in terms of dealing with economy, and again failed to keep themselves out of political alteration.

The US recession started during the first few months of Bush's term. considering the amount of financial activities that were made during the 90s it's pretty amazing that the crash was not as big as it was thought to be.

However, TBA managed to take advantage of that. Instead of going for fiscal cut, they relied on tax cut, which would work under under toughest circumstances, such as gov't spending still maintaining it's level and not exceeding what comes in, consumer debt under control.

by doing so they added a few billion dollar deficit on top of budget already over the top thanks to Iraq war. This may not seem like an imminent problem(it isn't) but it will bite us back sooner or later and will be more difficult to tackle later on.

on top of that FRB seems to be partialy bounded. the interest rate(lending rate) is lowest in a few years(decades), and it is worrying that we might not have more options of interest rate change than we had before.

on top of that, consumer spending is stagnant, while debt is same. but bear in mind that debts tend to increase thanks to interest rates. so the tax cuts gave money to people, it is not achieving the effect it was claimed to have.

Times like this is a good chance to get better degree, but that's also a very contestable thing since people are not that dilligent some people will do it, but others will have hard time paying bills as is.

to make this topic more on topic,

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- The Democratic race for the White House turned largely into a two-man matchup Wednesday with Howard Dean's withdrawal from the field, leaving John Kerry and John Edwards battling for delegates as more state contests loom.

guess he had his share of fun and adventure.

Quote[/b] ]Dean, his wife Judith behind him, announces that he is no longer a candidate.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

@ Feb. 19 2004,06:00)]I beg to differ on this one. In fact, of all of his current policies, Dubya's economic policy is the least vulnerable to attack. The massive economic stimulus of the last three years has finally started taking effect, productivity is up, and the capital investment of the late 1990's is beginning to pay big dividends. Last fiscal quarter our GDP expanded by over 8%, and this quarter we're on track for an equally solid but not quite as alarming 4%. Most estimates of GDP growth for the coming year lie between 4-5%. Although job creation is still nil, unemployment did drop a quarter of a percent last quarter, suggesting that our current unemployment problems are more due to structural and frictional unemployment rather than the more worrying cyclical unemployment.

Not that there aren't weaknesses, of course. Depending on your perspective, the increased outsourcing of American jobs is either a good or bad thing- ironically enough the current round of outsourcing is actually contributing to our current economic uptick. The jobs being outsourced, such as call centers and basic industrial production, can be done cheaper and just as well overseas- American workers are simply no longer competitive in these markets. There are only two alternatives to going with the structural shift that this outsourcing represents. One is pursuing protectionist policies such as tariffs and tax incentives that have been shown, especially in the case of the steel industry during the last quarter of the 20th century, to only delay the inevitable. The other is forcing the American market to be competitive, but this is clearly an unacceptable solution, because to become competitive would require American workers to take huge salary cuts- something Americas don't take well. Of course, there is one more possibility: in the case of the back-office services that have become the most publicized instance of outsourcing in the past few years, this exporting of jobs may be just a temporary phenomenon. Take for instance, basic IT and tech support services. Right now, humans are still needed for these jobs, and the humans offering their services at the cheapest rates don't live in America. However, advances in high-tech IT is creating a situation in the very near future where those jobs will be done even more cheaply by a combination of a couple hundred code writers and a few server farms situated in Washington. In other words, the jobs that we are currently complaining about being lost are probably going to dissapear altogether in the next 20 years anyways. To use a crude analogy, what does the job market for blacksmiths look like these days?

The fact is that our economy is evolving at a nearly unprecedented rate, and structural unemployment is going to happen- it's just inevitable. We can choose to protect our workers in the short term, which will most likely cripple our ability to compete in the long term (just like in the steel industry), or we can choose to embrace the evolution and endure the costs that are going to occur because of it. To be perfectly frank, the solutions to a significant portion of our employment problems lie on the individual level. In our current adjustment, most of the jobs being exported are semi-skilled and unskilled workers. This could be a blessing in disguise, because those unskilled workers can now use some of their new time off to attend a community college and become a skilled worker. Rather than trying to hold on to subpar jobs, in the interest of our future welfare we should be constantly raising the bar and attempting to nurture our workforce's abilities.

As for other problems, such as possible future inflation precipitated by onset growth and a weak dollar, those are issues that need to be addressed by the Federal Reserve, not the President. Overall, for this presidential race, it's not the economy, stupid.

You are talking about effects, you are talking about a increase in market activity.

You are forgetting that this little boom in the US is stimulated through governmental funds. In other words the government pays to get the country going, e.g. by building roads/schools/military bases, keeping the interest rates low, enabling credits, keeping exchange rates low, keeping taxes. low.. but this boom is like a debt, it needs to be repaid one day. One day this reduced governmental "regular" income needs to come back, either by huge interest rates or large taxe increases.

(the recent boom is not due to reviatilisation of ANY industry, nor has it to do with recoverage from 9/11, it is an artifical boom)

You cant blame Bush for the low economy, but he is creating a dangerously artifical athmosphere, he is trying desperately the get the machine going but wastes too much fuel.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Fair enough, Ralph. However, I'd say that the thesis of my arguments has been more or less proven. Remember I said that Bush's economic policy is the least vulnerable to attack- not necessarily that they are founded in good solid economics. I wish you luck as a presidential candidate whose economic plank is anything less simplistic or glamorous than increased employment, economic recovery, or continuation of good times. In other words, while your arguments against Bush's fiscal irresponsibility are certainly valid, they are more or less totally irrelevant in terms of political debate.

Albert, you're wrong on a few counts, unfortunately I don't have the time right now to elaborate- I have to be out the door in five minutes. Hopefully the thread will still be on this topic when I get back this afternoon.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]In other words, while your arguments against Bush's fiscal irresponsibility are certainly valid, they are more or less totally irrelevant in terms of political debate.

remember, if the people are hungry they will vote against incumbents.

anyways,

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry both hold leads of 10 percentage points or more in hypothetical match-ups against President Bush, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

The survey marks the first time Edwards, a U.S. senator from North Carolina, has topped Bush in a one-on-one poll of likely voters if the election were held today.

In a head-to-head contest, 55 percent said they would choose Kerry for president over Bush, who drew the support of 43 percent. Edwards led the president 54 percent to 44 percent.

The poll of 1,006 adults, including 568 likely voters, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was conducted Monday and Tuesday -- before the returns came in from the Wisconsin primary, where Edwards finished a strong second to Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts.

it's too early to tell right now, but my advice to Bush's campaign is that they should get nervous.

[WhoCares 0]

They might try the same strategy that made the reelection of germanys cancellor Schroeder: a strong opposition to the Iraq war

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

@ Feb. 19 2004,15:24)]Albert, you're wrong on a few counts, unfortunately I don't have the time right now to elaborate- I have to be out the door in five minutes. Hopefully the thread will still be on this topic when I get back this afternoon.

THREAD CLOSED

But this is hwo the discussion goes, one scratches an issue, the other ellaborates.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You are talking about effects, you are talking about a increase in market activity.

You are forgetting that this little boom in the US is stimulated through governmental funds. In other words the government pays to get the country going, e.g. by building roads/schools/military bases, keeping the interest rates low, enabling credits, keeping exchange rates low, keeping taxes. low.. but this boom is like a debt, it needs to be repaid one day. One day this reduced governmental "regular" income needs to come back, either by huge interest rates or large taxe increases.

Of course it's stimulated through government funds- that's the entire point. Sometimes the economy needs a swift kick in the ass now and then, and a president can't be effective unless he's willing to put that principle into effect. However there is a massive difference between stimulating an economic recovery and pulling one out of your ass, so to speak. This recent uptick is an instance of the former, rather than the latter. The entire idea of stimulating an economic recovery is grounded in liberal, even socialist doctrine- the most notable examples being the massive federal works programs President Roosevelt enacted during the 1930's. The entire idea is that the cost of stimulating the economy now is less expensive in the long run than forgoing the possible benefits of a prompt economic recovery. At this point I'd also like to point out that in some ways the current weakness of the US Dollar has been a blessing in disguise, as it has enticed many foreign, especially Asian investors, to invest in the US economy and help foot the bill for our rebound.

Quote[/b] ]

(the recent boom is not due to reviatilisation of ANY industry, nor has it to do with recoverage from 9/11, it is an artifical boom)

You cant blame Bush for the low economy, but he is creating a dangerously artifical athmosphere, he is trying desperately the get the machine going but wastes too much fuel.

This is patently untrue. The current boom has everything to do with increased productivity, increases in business inventories, and an increased willingness on the part of businesses to start taking chances again. Take a look at the LEI's from the last year and a half, and you'll see that there was very little wrong with the US economy's fundamentals to begin with- it just needed a catalyst to pull it out of the business cycle's doldrums. To be perfectly honest, this latest recession was one of the (if not the) mildest in US history, and was preceeded by absolutely enormous capital investment in high tech markets. Take that into account, and you'll see that the only surprise was how long it took the economy to start this rebound.

[Balschoiw 0]

So why is that Tex ?

Both highly respected newspapers:

Quote[/b] ]For Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung what is most worrying about the United State's record budget deficit of $521 billion is "not so much the sheer amount of money missing but its composition." The paper observed that the massive hole now gaping in the budget is, above all, the result of massive tax cuts in the past as well as uncontrolled spending by the Government and the Congress. And, as the paper noted, the risk of a large budget deficit will remain, because no one in Washington wants to increase taxes or cut spending on defence and internal security.

"The financial policy in the US seems to have got out of control", opined the Financial Times Deutschland. The paper based in Hamburg doubted the credibility of Bush’s suggestions to reduce the gap, "If and when the budget will ever be consolidated are totally open questions, politicians in Washington won’t dare to increase taxes and will spend even more money for military and security in the future," wrote the daily and maintained that, "Bush’s critics are right in arguing so strongly against this `budget of mass destruction´."

I like the `budget of mass destruction´ expression.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Valid point, however I challenge you to find an instance where budgetary issues ever made more than a ripple in election-year politics. As I already pointed out, debt is probably the single largest problem facing the US economy today, however, it is not a problem that Americans are either willing or able to confront at this time. Besides, the Democrats aren't shaping up to be a bed of roses either, when it comes to the deficit. Neither Kerry nor Edwards have added a balanced-budget plank to their platforms, neither one is in favor of rolling all of Bush's tax cuts back, both are in favor of a nationwide healthcare system which would force the US to dip even further into the financial coffers, and both are in favor of medium to large targeted tax cuts for lower and middle income families. Not to mention neither one can possibly have the wherewithal to trim back military spending at this particular stage of events. Once again, I don't deny that the US economy faces significant challenges, however these issues are going to be more or less moot in this coming election. The only area in which Democrats can conceivably mount an attack is on the employment front, but I've already demonstrated how the predictable action from pro-labor Democrats could end up hurting America's economy more than helping it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

from The Home Office in Wahoo, Nebraska,

Quote[/b] ]Top Ten Signs Bush Is Considering Dumping Cheney

10. Cheney's desk has been replaced by President's new air hockey table.

9. There's a listing on Monster Dot Com for a Vice-Presidential position in a "Large North American Government."

8. Cheney's so depressed he's only eating 12 KFC drumsticks a day.

7. There is a "For Rent" sign on the front lawn of the undisclosed location.

6. When Cheney says, "We're gonna win in November," Bush snarls, "What's this 'We' crap?"

5. White House interns are no longer required to know CPR.

4. The CIA says they have reliable information Cheney won't be dumped.

3. Bush asked Trump if he could come to Washington and fire Cheney.

2. Yesterday a tearful Cheney sang "I Will Survive" on the White House lawn.

1. Bush called Daddy looking for Quayle's number.

also, some more fun

check out

"Top Ten Things Never Before Said by a Presidential Candidate" as presented by Senator John Edwards

http://www.cbs.com/latenig....s.shtml

and

Howard Dean Top Ten List

http://www.cbs.com/latenig....s.shtml

[walker 0]

Hi all

Here is a bit of fun. Lets make this song No 1 for the elections.

Edit link Removed

[EDIT]It has come to my attention that on the same site as the above there are some disturbing images. May I suggest you exersize caution if you visit the rest of the site.[/EDIT]

Kind Regards Walker

[red oct 2]

ok this has me really pissed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....=GOOGLE

these are the same stupid assholes that promised that over a million jobs would pop up in the U.S. this year. obviously it didn't happen so now there plan is to call "making french fries", a manufacturing position. its going to be very interesting to see them try and convince all the unemployed people w/ CDL's, PHDs, Degrees, and other advance job training skills that they worked hard to earn, are now worth shit and they will have to be flipping hamburger patties from now on.  

im voting for edwards!

[denoir 0]

Manufacturing? Everybody knows that fast food is nutritional engineering!

No but seriously, it sounds like a thing that we had here in the early '90s when our economy was down the crapper. They started government sponsored education programmes that unemployed people would get paid to attend. And those that did were automatically not counted as 'unemployed' in the statistics... Well, it didn't last for long.

[ralphwiggum 6]

w00t! more fun! more hectic times to come!

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate and former Green Party presidential candidate, said Sunday he will run for president as an independent in the 2004 election.

"After careful thought and my desire to retire our supremely selected president, I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," Nader said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Nader's announcement was widely watched by Democrats, many of whom blame him for siphoning off votes in Florida in the 2000 election that might have gone to Democratic nominee Al Gore, who lost the state and the overall election in a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The possibility of Nader allowing a Bush victory in 2004 by drawing votes from the left side of the political spectrum is troubling some Democrats.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, on CBS' "Face the Nation," called Nader's decision "very unfortunate." But he said he believes Nader's candidacy "will be different from 2000."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie told CBS that Nader's candidacy would make no difference to Bush's re-election bid. "If Ralph Nader runs, President Bush is going to be re-elected, and if Ralph Nader doesn't run, President Bush is going to be re-elected," Gillespie said. (More reaction to Nader announcement)

Nader said he is jumping into the race to "challenge the two-party duopoly" that he said is damaging American democracy. He lashed out against what he called the treatment of third-party and independent candidates as "second-class citizens."

Nader, who will turn 70 this month, ran as a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000.

"The liberal intelligentsia," he said, "has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests."

[EiZei 0]

Let the blame game begin..

[denoir 0]

He gave the victory to Bush last time and I wouldn't be surprised if he will turn around quite a number of anti-Bush republicans that have a difficulty voting for the Dems.

Actually, I think Nader is a republican agent provocateur. He clearly knows that the only thing he can accomplish is to sabotage for the Democrats..

[brgnorway 0]

I wonder how much they pay him?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/23/elec04.prez.bush/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With his poll numbers slipping and Democratic candidates hammering him from the campaign trail, President Bush will strike back at his critics Monday night and open up his campaign treasury for television ads next week.

The Democrats "have been distorting his record, distorting their own positions, and we need to set the record straight," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Monday. "And I think the time has come for that."

Bush is scheduled to go on the offensive Monday night with a speech to Republican governors, and his campaign will air its first TV ads March 4 in what a campaign aide called a "new period of engagement."

Labeling the move a "tactical shift," Gillespie said it is "not an indication of major concern." But it follows a slide in Bush's approval ratings in several surveys, including a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll last week that showed the president trailing the top two Democratic contenders, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, in hypothetical head-to-head matchups.

Quote[/b] ]Aides did not say how much they would spend on the initial ad buy, which will include Spanish-language television stations.

Campaign officials are sending out daily talking points to GOP members of Congress, Republican governors and other surrogates.

The first accuses Kerry of advocating higher taxes and new regulations "that would derail our economic recovery and weaken our ability to win the war on terror."

"President Bush provides steady leadership in these times of historic change," the memorandum states. "He has an optimistic vision and agenda that will move America forward toward greater prosperity, greater security, greater freedom and greater compassion."

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]He has an optimistic vision and agenda that will move America forward toward greater prosperity, greater security, greater freedom and greater compassion

Haha , give me a break. I´m falling of the chair right now

Praise G.W , praise G.W , praise G.W

[EiZei 0]

GWB will move america to "greater compassion and freedom"?

[denoir 0]

Ok, this isn't really directly related to the presidential elections, it is related to the previous economics discussion we had here, and ultimately it will have effects on the US economy, which in turn will affect the choice of presidential candidate for some. How's that for a justification?

No, but here are the news: If you are European and looking to buy US Jewellery, Roller skates or Nuclear reactors, the price just went up:

Open US/EU trade war (BBC)

It was just a question of time, but the EU has imposed sanctions on the US.

Quote[/b] ]

The European Union (EU) has imposed escalating tariffs on US companies that will cost American business hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is the first time that the EU has hit US firms with sanctions as part of a trade dispute. The EU is imposing a 5% increase in duty on a range of goods, from honey to roller skates to nuclear reactors.

The aim is to force the US Congress to change a law that gives an unfair tax advantage to US exporters.  The EU sanctions will increase by a further 1% each month until they affect US exports worth $666m (Å356m, 533m euro) a year.

John Disharoon, of the American Chamber of Commerce, said that it was "a sad day for trade relations between the US and Europe". The trade row is just one of a growing number of disputes between the EU and the US, the world's largest trading partners.

The US was forced to withdraw sanctions against EU and other steel producers after the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled them illegal in the autumn. However, the US is still pursuing a trade case against the EU at the WTO, concerning Europe's reluctance to import GM foods and crops.

And trade is threatening to become an election issue, with both leading Democratic candidates for president, claiming they will get tough over trade and consider protectionist measures.

Tax breaks

The current dispute has been simmering for years.

In 2002, the WTO, which polices world trade, ruled a tax break given to American exporters, such as Boeing and Microsoft, gives them an illegal unfair advantage. The trade body authorised up to $4bn in punitive sanctions in compensation.

On Friday, EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy visited Washington in a last-ditch attempt to persuade American legislators to end the deadlock on revising the corporate tax law.

"We have been extremely patient, but there is no way we can avoid these sanctions which will hopefully concentrate minds on the urgency of passing legislation," Mr Lamy said.

Steve Woolcock, a trade expert at the London School of Economics, said the sanctions would initially have relatively little impact.  "I don't think the impact will be that great because the dollar is weak at the moment, so an extra 5% on duties may not have that much effect to start off with," he told the BBC's World Business Report.

The weak dollar has already hit European exporters hard by making their goods more expensive in American markets. With jobs an issue for US elected officials, there will be grassroots pressure not to back down to an international body like the WTO or to what they will see as European politicians. And while the US adminstration has urged Congress repeatedly to change the tax law, Congressional leaders are deadlocked over whether to offer additional corporate tax breaks to US companies in compensation.

Last week, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick warned Congress that "the retaliatory tariffs on American exports pose a threat to... growth and may retard the creation of jobs in certain sectors of the economy".

[Pipski 0]

Anyone else noticed that Ralph Nader is an anagram of `rap handler'? Was hoping it was going to be `panhandler'. One letter out.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It was just a question of time, but the EU has imposed sanctions on the US.

Yes and now all US people will scream: "Down with the EU!!"

But they will not ask for the reasons that lead to the sanctions.

It was about time that EU did that. Same with steel some time ago. The WTO slapped the US for their government sponsored steel already.

Hehe, I just want to know what Bush will do now.

Declare war on "nations opposing the interests of the USA"

He´s used to that expression maybe he will use it again.

[Pipski 0]

Quote[/b] ]Same with steel some time ago. The WTO slapped the US for their government sponsored steel already.

Yup. But there were a couple of other motivators for TBA in reconsidering their steel tariffs: 1. To reward TBA2 for UK participation in the Gulf - even though iirc the tariffs didn't affect `specialist' steel exports from the UK, it still made TB look a bit better in Europe generally. 2. They didn't work worth diddly squit in terms of helping the US steel industry! This new situation is going to be an interesting one to watch though.