Debates last night

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

"People just need to wake up, grow up, and take responsibility for their actions, and find some intelligence concerning action and consequence."

This is where most of the problems in america could be fixed. No one wants to be responsible for anything.

I didn't see the whole debate but from what I saw on a local news station afterwards I thought Edwards did a better job. I found that Edwards brought up some of the decisions Bush made.

All that Cheney and Bush have to do is use economics to explain how Kerry and Edwards plain with hurt america. For example Edwards talked about medical going up. It's going up and will continue to go up because more things are being covered by insurance companies. Then edwards will bring up socialized health care and this can be shot down by saying that the money will still have to come from somewhere and this somewhere is the pockets of americans. THen edwards would say we'll tax corporate america and the rich and then Cheney can simply bring up the longterm set backs that this causes in economic expansion and Cheney could bring up examples in Europe. Then edwards would say well we'll bring down the costs by importing canadian drugs. Then Cheney could say this is essentially outsourcing because because american drug companies that get these drugs passed by the FDA and creates these drugs will have a huge disadvantage because of all the costs involved in this process which the canadian drug companies could avoid would hurt the american companies. Essentially Edwards and Kerry would help the outsourcing of drug companies. Then Cheney could say we have two options if we take this path that Kerry has. Option1 is eliminate the process of getting drugs approved by the FDA or Option 2 have the government pay the companies to create drugs. Now breaking it down to these two options is enough for some americans to see the problems ahead but for most it is not. Unfortunately I don't feel like typing anymore so I'll leave it at that. Both options have problems. It's like people see the goods of an idea but don't do a longterm cost benefit analysis of it.

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

Yeah, I go to Case. The debate here was infinitely more entertaining than the Presidential debate, Cheney did a great job. He never got flustered, used actual facts and statistics to back up what he said, and consistently threw Edwards mistakes back in his face. Edwards didn't do as well as I expected, and he did a particularly bad job of differentiaing himself from Kerry....although that might have been his agenda. Plus for as much condemning he did of Cheney, I'm surprised he didn't call him out when Cheney said he had never met him before....although he was probably too focused on dodging the issue of him missing 90% of the votes in the Senate to make a quick retort

Never got flustered my as.s, Cheney looked like an baffoon (sp?) Let me explain this before you reef on me. He was much better prepared than Bush, and is a great deal better at speaking; he did however get very angry and scew statistics in such a way that the average american (not very intelligent) would believe...like you did. Now, when I am able to see things like this it really jerks my chain.

I once worked with a guy who was so dead set in his view and analysis of statistics that he became arogant about it even when he was wrong. This is exactly what Cheney did last night and made an idiot of himself to anyone paying attention. I am still waiting for recognition of a mistake in the Iraq situation from the Bush admidistration too.

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

War + recession = deficit. I don't know why you're trying to call it an excuse, it's simple economics

Take some economics courses before you make a simplistic analysis of a complex situation. Enough said with that point, it is not simple economics that this is true, and when you want to discuss economic princlples and theories, let me know.

Secondly, this is just an extremely scewed statement in general. The point still stands that although war and recession create deficit, they cannot come close to explaining a deficit the size of the current one. World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam war, in addition to the cold war (although not really a war, it was much more clear than this poorly run "war" that we're in now) all showed us this.

Since the great depression in the late 20's and early 30's Bush is the first president to have a loss in net jobs. Bush has also cut taxes 4 times now since he's been in office. Tax cuts, paired with less people paying taxes creates the deficit that we're in today, not war by any stretch of the imagination.

The Bush administration's tax cuts are not an economic plan, they are a smoke screen to make the average dumb american citizen like a man who has no concept of the repercautions of his actions.

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

cause if iraq gets up and running and becomes useful to america in some way bush will have made the right decission regardless of WMDs or not

If Iraq gets up and running and BECOMES USEFUL TO AMERICA then it was the right decision? Are you telling me that we have the right to go in to a country, disrupt their whole way of doing things (which was working fine if you asked the average Iraqi) just to benefit us in some way? Wow, that is the worst excuse for going to war that I've ever heard.

To extend on this even further, setting aside the complete assinine nature of the statement, your reasoning still does not justify GOING to war.

Bush told us that Iraq had WMDs which in my opinion, seeing how we have the largest stockpile in the world, is still not an excuse to go to war. Even on that point, however, he lied and we know that now.

Next...We were - the general populas - led to thinking that Iraq had at least something to do with 9/11 OR terrorists, WRONG AGAIN!

Iraq was a nation with a dictator, a dictator that did things differently than our christrian president thought was moral, and we bombed him for that reason paired with oil money. These two reasons are not suffiecient to go to war. Also, we are "liberating" the Iraqi people...it's just too bad that every liberation in the history of the world (out of the successful ones) has come from within. Liberation needs to be a desire of the majority before it can happen. The US could have aided if it was requested, but we have no right telling those people what they want.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

I think your all dumb, Bush is dumb, Kerry's dumber, Edwards looks like a joker with a sarcastic ars hole smile, This war is the dumbist, The world is even dumberer, And I'm the king of Dumbo heads.

Its fun being stupid.

Really no one knows who does what or what gets done by whom in our government. How can any one argue on issues they see on the news, or read in the paper. I mean come on now. Trying to argue over politics that no one trully understands is so dumbfounding to me.

Would have been funny if Cheney drew a picture of Edward's and put horns on it. Then held it up to the camera...

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Check out this link, it's pretty funny

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Take some economics courses before you make a simplistic analysis of a complex situation. Enough said with that point, it is not simple economics that this is true, and when you want to discuss economic princlples and theories, let me know.



Secondly, this is just an extremely scewed statement in general. The point still stands that although war and recession create deficit, they cannot come close to explaining a deficit the size of the current one. World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam war, in addition to the cold war (although not really a war, it was much more clear than this poorly run "war" that we're in now) all showed us this.

Since the great depression in the late 20's and early 30's Bush is the first president to have a loss in net jobs. Bush has also cut taxes 4 times now since he's been in office. Tax cuts, paired with less people paying taxes creates the deficit that we're in today, not war by any stretch of the imagination.

The Bush administration's tax cuts are not an economic plan, they are a smoke screen to make the average dumb american citizen like a man who has no concept of the repercautions of his actions.

I've seen states that said 1.1 million net jobs have been created I believe. I'll have to look this back up some time. As for economics. You don't have to run a deficit during a war and recession but if you don't you're going to end up even worse off with people's standard of living dumping. Like I've said before Fiscal policy was used to through cutting taxes and increasing government spending. When these two actions are taken the economy receive a huge jump start. If only one action is taken the effect isn't as strong. Now there will be times when the economy is strong to take monetary action or fiscal action to prevent overheating of the economy (high inflation). Now if our economy gets strong and Bush continues this action while the reserve doesn't take any action with rates then we're going to have problems. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is low. Once the economy is strong again taxation can be increased and spending can be decreased to get out of the deficit. The danger of taking activity now to reverse the deficit is that the economy will suffer. War is definitely plays a role in the deficit afterall you have to fuel the planes and supply the ammunition for the soldiers. We've lost a few helicopters which aren't cheap. Combine that with the repairs required from flying over there in a very dusty climate and the cost keeps going up.

Something that scared me about edwards is he said we are going to get every child in america to have health care. He didn't say we are going to get every american child health care. So we are going to let illegals **** even more money out of the system. If any of their kids are sick all they have to do is ship them over here for free treatment.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

The best part is you have people like me giving their view to a lost cause. People want this country to be like the EU and Canada and if that's what they want that's what they will get. I just hope that somehow as a nation we will actually create a successful European/Canadian nation.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

The best part is you have people like me giving their view to a lost cause. People want this country to be like the EU and Canada and if that's what they want that's what they will get. I just hope that somehow as a nation we will actually create a successful European/Canadian nation.

Hahaha is that even possible Successful Canadian nation ahahahah.

 

[Gauntlet 5,000+ posts]

Secondly, this is just an extremely scewed statement in general. The point still stands that although war and recession create deficit, they cannot come close to explaining a deficit the size of the current one. World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam war, in addition to the cold war (although not really a war, it was much more clear than this poorly run "war" that we're in now) all showed us this.

First, it's not apt to compare this situation to WW2, Vietnam, etc. Second, to understand why we have this deficit, you have to understand why we had a surplus in the first place. Clinton slashed government spending, the number of tax-paying citizens increased at a much higher rate than the population, the stock market was booming with 30% growth which worked it's way into significantly higher capital gains, and the tax legislation passed in '93 resulted in much higher revenues than expected. Soon after it was passed, many members of Congress lost their seat because the move was politically unpopular, but in the end helped the US reach it's first surplus since '69. Anyways, in '99 the economy was reaching a standstill, and the CBO predicted that the surplus would be cut almost in half by the end of the 2000 fiscal year, and perhaps as low as 1/4 of the $200+ billion by 2002. Couple this with increases in social security and medicare payments, a war and a recession, and you get a deficit. Is the deficit unreasonably high? Yes. But there are reasons for it, and nothing within either candidates platform suggest that we will reach a surplus anytime soon.

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

I agree with you to a great extent there....I do believe however that although neither ticket will create a surplus, the Kerry/Edward campaign is much more intelligent with their money and will slow the increase in deficit.

 

[zane 10+ year member]

I agree with you to a great extent there....I do believe however that although neither ticket will create a surplus, the Kerry/Edward campaign is much more intelligent with their money and will slow the increase in deficit.

I honestly doubt it. Both of their records do not support the best money management.

Curious though, where did you find that tidbit of information?

I'd love to give it a read.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

First, it's not apt to compare this situation to WW2, Vietnam, etc. Second, to understand why we have this deficit, you have to understand why we had a surplus in the first place. Clinton slashed government spending, the number of tax-paying citizens increased at a much higher rate than the population, the stock market was booming with 30% growth which worked it's way into significantly higher capital gains, and the tax legislation passed in '93 resulted in much higher revenues than expected. Soon after it was passed, many members of Congress lost their seat because the move was politically unpopular, but in the end helped the US reach it's first surplus since '69. Anyways, in '99 the economy was reaching a standstill, and the CBO predicted that the surplus would be cut almost in half by the end of the 2000 fiscal year, and perhaps as low as 1/4 of the $200+ billion by 2002. Couple this with increases in social security and medicare payments, a war and a recession, and you get a deficit. Is the deficit unreasonably high? Yes. But there are reasons for it, and nothing within either candidates platform suggest that we will reach a surplus anytime soon.

I agree. Your last few lines are key. Did you check out the link I posted?

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

Make sure you have your speakers on.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Well I saw the whole debate last night. I think Bush won. So in my book it's 1 win Bush and 1 win for Kerry. The last question was so loaded (dnc had to have a part in this, or the time keeper is biased). President Bush name three mistakes you've made and what you would have done differently. Then kerry gets to say what three mistakes Bush made and what Bush should have done differently. That's crap.

 

[zane 10+ year member]

Agreed.

Mr. Kerry was completely disrespectful in his statements and attitude towards Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush was pissed off.

Just like the previous debate, a good chunk of the questions were solidly left biased.

Mr. Bush took the victory on this one. Likely will the next time too.

It's awful hard for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards to defend their own records.