It would be interesting that the first time US will have a woman sitting on that 'most powerful seat on earth'.
Her qualities in my opinion, she is not too extreme, by the same token she is tough on terror.

hello Someone

welcome to sciforums and thank you for the thread...

God forbid if HC becomes president!!

she won't be. i don't even think she will get the nomination. honestly, running her would be an automatic loss for the democrats and they want the presidency pretty bad, so i think even they won't make that mistake.

Jerry Falwell recently said that Hilary Clinton running for president would energize the Republican base more than Satan himself running on the Democratic ticket.

I believe the first women, black, etc president will all be conservatives. As a member of some minority group, they'll get a lot of minority votes. As a conservative, they'll get conservative votes. It's a win/win.

A liberal minority, on the other hand, gets the liberal and minority votes. But those are the same votes. There's no cross over appeal.

First black president, first female president will both be conservatives.

Condi Rice?

Condi Rice?
hi Nickel

i hope you are good

this would be bad also not sure which would be the worst..

My worry about a woman president is that to "prove themselves" they will be a lot more "trigger happy" then a bloke

Hillary vs. Condi. Could happen. The GOP could put up a minority female as an attempt to woo all the voters they've alienated.

Nope, Condi isn't going to run, and she's not presidential material at this point. Madanthonywayne, do you think Jerry Falwell has the slightest credibility, especially after what he said following 9/11?

Nope, Condi isn't going to run, and she's not presidential material at this point. Madanthonywayne, do you think Jerry Falwell has the slightest credibility, especially after what he said following 9/11?
It's not a question of credibility. It's a matter of knowing the Republican base. Which he does. Hillary would energize the Republican base like nothing you've ever seen. Remember the angry white males from ninety-four? Same deal.
My worry about a woman president is that to "prove themselves" they will be a lot more "trigger happy" then a bloke
I think the same thing. This logic might even apply to any Democrat that somehow managed to get elected president given Democrats reputation for being weak on defence.

Ugh.

The Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot– no, they would be feeding their party to a woodchipper, were they to choose Hilary to run for president.

The Republicans have fucked up majorly. Fucked up real bad. Only Democratic ineptitude will lose them '08.

Remember the angry white males from ninety-four? Same deal.

I don't. What was the deal there?

Doesn't matter who's the president next term as they'll all still be controlled by the same people and weaknesses -- greed, money, and corporations.

- N

Doesn't matter who's the president next term as they'll all still be controlled by the same people and weaknesses -- greed, money, and corporations.

- N
If Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush, will the US be in Iraq right now?

Doesn't matter who's the president next term as they'll all still be controlled by the same people and weaknesses -- greed, money, and corporations.

- N


Godbless America!

Ugh.

The Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot– no, they would be feeding their party to a woodchipper, were they to choose Hilary to run for president.

The Republicans have fucked up majorly. Fucked up real bad. Only Democratic ineptitude will lose them '08.



I don't. What was the deal there?

The Democrats will have permanent minority status. It's simply, Republicans are better politicians, smarter organizers, stronger on national security.

The main reason the Democrats can't win is because Democrats have no ideas, and Democrats have no political power. The House is Republican, the Senate is Republican, the President is Republican, so it's safe to say that this country is Republican, and there are Democrats who still hang on to the old ideas, but the old ideas aren't capable of beating the Republican big/new ideas.

I cannot imagine the Republicans losing the mid-term elections, I think it's highly unlikely, I do think Democrats may win a seat here or there but Republicans will win over all. I think even if Democrats win the house the Republicans will maintain control of the senate.

Democrats just, they do politics all wrong. There seems to be no libertarian Democrats, or conservative Democrats, or at least conservative as in fiscal conservative. This is the main reason Democrats can't win.

The person to target in politics, is the white male CEO voter, or stock broker, or business man vote. The Republicans do a great job targeting people who have money, or who are successful, by offering tax cuts and other incentives to vote for them, and the poor vote Republican because the Democrats only want to raise taxes and seem to have no real plans beyond this.

I don't think we will ever see a female President in this country, but if we ever did see one, I think Hilary would be the first. I think if Hilary ran in this polarized environment, even if Bill Clinton were selected as Vice President, I don't think she could win the southern vote.

Let's face it, America is trending conservative, we are a conservative country, and most people are either fiscally conservative (libertarian), or social conservative (neo-conservative). In general though, the Democrats don't even try to win the libertarian vote which I think they could have won, but Democrats are busy trying to promote gun control and ban violent video games, so libertarians are better off voting Republican.

The prediction, Democrats will not win Presidency anytime soon, the country is becoming more and more conservative as we speak, and is uniting in the war on terrorism. The Democrats have strong candidates, but no organization at the base, and no the netroots idea, it's silly.

The Democrats literally are toothless, and weak, and it does not matter what their policies are, people will always vote for the stronger party.

Now I'm sure my post has pissed off many liberals, there are some policies I'm sure we can agree on and disagree on, but the point I'm making is that Democrats are the weaker party and no one votes for weakness, ever. Leadership is supposed to be strong, fearless, and people would rather vote for the strong bully, than the weak bullied. It's just human nature to gravitate towards strength as fear increases. Hilary Clinton may be very strong, but the fact that she is female is enough to make people think she is weak, because most males think females are the weaker sex.

If Barack Obama runs, he might be intelligent, he might have charisma, and he might be capable, but his race will be his weakness, as people once again view the black race as weaker than the white race. So the key is strength and weakness, and Republicans have all the strength. Republicans are the party of strength.

Doesn't matter who's the president next term as they'll all still be controlled by the same people and weaknesses -- greed, money, and corporations.

- N

The reason is, Democrats talk very well, and communicate well, but they don't act. The government is run by actors, not talkers. Republicans are live actors, they go out and they do stuff, while Democrats talk about the problems.

Personally, I think Giuliani would make a good President. He is a Republican, but he is a man of character, he understands security and has a proven track record. The Democrats, where is the Democrats Giuliani?

I think if Giuliani were to run for office, he would win. He is strong enough. It's not even about the party, it's about strength really.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944039_mz011.htm

Personally, I don't think that our country is yet ready for a woman president or a black president. Although we like to think of ourselves as more advanced and politically correct than other countries, I feel that the truth is we have not come as far as we think we have. Democracy is questionable. We see that other countries are run by women and they fare well. Other forms of government fare well also. Yes I am a woman, but I honestly don't think that a woman has what it takes to run this country. I would like to see John McCain become president.

If Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush, will the US be in Iraq right now?

I'd have to say definitely not. The whole War in Iraq is ALL part of the Project for a New American Century -- a think-tank whom most of Bush's administration belongs to.

As for Gore perhaps stirring up trouble elsewhere, that all depends on who he'd have working under him in his administration. I'd say we'd still definitely be in Afghanistan though, assuming 9/11 would have still happened.

Currently with the Bush Adminstration, they're the ones playing a larger role in current day politics than Bush himself. Bush makes his decisions off the information given to him by those people. Information is power. Manipulate or hide information you tell him which he bases his decision off of and you can make the president do what you want. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz should be shot. So if Gore had some of those powerful fucks under his controlling him, then hey, maybe he could have been manipulated to make a decision to go to war with Iraq.

- N

Personally, I think Giuliani would make a good President.

Personally, I don't trust any of the recent leaders of New York. Guiliani, Bloomberg, or senators like Hillary.

I would like to see John McCain become president.

He's prolly the least corrupt of all current politicians so he's the only one I'd vote for. Myself, I'd rather see no president ever again. Let our state leaders run the show themselves.

- N

I don't. What was the deal there?
When Bill Clinton was elected, pretty much his first act was to allow gays in the military. This started things off on the wrong foot. From that point on, it seemed there was a constant stream of outrages. Usually just minor things, but in the early days Clinton wasn't such a smooth operator and his actions antagonized the right more and more. Hilary wasn't much help, often putting her foot in her mouth such as the time she derided stay at home moms with an off the cuff comment about how she didn't stay at home baking cookies.

Then Clinton decided to "reform" healthcare and put Hilary in charge {during his campaign he said if you elected him, you also got Hilary, a buy one, get one free}. She came up with a Bysantine system from hell. I still remember the Republican campaign ads that showed a schematic representation of her heath care plan. It looked like a Rube-Goldberg device and included provisions making it illegal for a physician to accept payment for services from anyone but the government.

Anyway, the constant antagonism of "Redstate" America by the early Clinton administration had average white guys quite pissed off. I remember reading an article predicting an electoral doomsday for Democrats that year.

Newt Gingerich came up with his "contract with America" which was a conservative wish list of, mostly, good ideas he promised to immediately put to a vote. Republican candidates signed pledges to vote for the contact. This allowed the election to be nationalized and served as a rallying point.

The result: a tidal wave of Republican voters swept Republicans into power. Republicans won practically everywhere. Even the Democratic speaker of the house was defeated, something that had not happened since the eighteen hundreds.

Democrats are hoping for a similiar sucess this year, but it seems increasingly unlikely. Their only hope right now lies in this recent sex scandal.

He's [McCain] prolly the least corrupt of all current politicians so he's the only one I'd vote for.
- N
McCain will never get the Republican nomination. He and Lieberman should trade parties. I'd vote for Lieberman before McCain.

Don't forget that he was motivated to "clean up" campaign finance because he was one of the "Keating five". So he's not so pure.

And the campaign finance reform law is far more damaging to civil liberties, specifically freedom of speech, than anything the Bush administration has done. The political section of this, and every, website could be shut down by the government in the name of campaign finance "reform". That it didn't happen is just a matter of regulatory discretion. They could change their minds and free speech would be dead on the internet. All thanks to Mr. McCain. Fuck him.

Personally, I don't trust any of the recent leaders of New York. Guiliani, Bloomberg, or senators like Hillary.

Guiliani or Hillary would be fantastic, Hillary would be relentlessly attacked by people with low moral's so not sure if the country need's that. pricks.

The main reason the Democrats can't win is because Democrats have no ideas...
Not so. Maybe they have too many ideas, and not enough conformity to one unified message.

Republicans get more than double the amount of money to spend on campaigns, because they tend to side with large corporations on issues like the environment, global warming, pollutions, and using up the wilderness.

Hillary, Guiliani, Lieberman and to some extent, McCain--no thanks.

One of Bush's outright strengths is that he does not vacillate, ever. It's his way or the highway everytime. Even if people don't agree with him (I'm one of those people), they always know where he stands on the big issues of the day. Always. There's never any doubt in their minds what Bush thinks on a given subject, even if the thought is "not much."

As spidergoat says (to paraphrase), the biggest hurdle Democrats are facing is they have no central thought to rally around. There's too many shades of gray within the party for anything to coalesce into something solid for others to uphold and get excited about. I don't hold much hope in ousting either the Repub majority in Congress this coming election or even in putting in a Democrat as president. It's not 2008 yet, but c'mon Democrats, kick it in gear.

Their only hope right now lies in this recent sex scandal.


Actually, we are spoiled for choice with Republican scandal and bad news within.

Actually, we are looking pretty good, but a juicy sex scandal helps. They tried to sink Clinton with it (and that was legal), they deserve a taste of their own medicine.

What sex scandal is this?
I'm out of touch with American politics.

spidergoat, proof that the sex scandal was the reason that the bill of impeachment was brought, no were in the bill that was forwarded did is say anything about his affair with Monica.

What sex scandal is this?
I'm out of touch with American politics I second that :p

Did I suggest that, BR? I only said they tried to sink Clinton with sex because they are sexually repressed hypocrites.

One of Bush's outright strengths is that he does not vacillate, ever. It's his way or the highway everytime. Even if people don't agree with him (I'm one of those people), they always know where he stands on the big issues of the day. Always. There's never any doubt in their minds what Bush thinks on a given subject

Reagan was the same. His program was cutting taxes, a strong defense, and less regulation. Every time he appeared, same message. The complete opposite, John Kerry and his "actually I voted for it, before I voted against it". How can someone vote for you if they have no idea what you stand for?

If Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush, will the US be in Iraq right now?

Actually the US would not be in Iraq rght now, in fact the US would not be anywhere, not even history books.

Reagan was the same. His program was cutting taxes, a strong defense, and less regulation. Every time he appeared, same message. The complete opposite, John Kerry and his "actually I voted for it, before I voted against it". How can someone vote for you if they have no idea what you stand for?

The Kerry quote is proof of right wing bias in the media. Kerry CLEARLY explained himself yet the media did not air it 1/10000 of the times they aired that quote and implied he was "flip-flopping".

Kerry was going to vote for something, but the GOP made additions to the bill, making it a different thing to vote on altogether. Anyone who considers this flip-flopping, or indicative of anything like it, is too stupid to be allowed to vote.

It is also a good example of bias because Bush has contradicted himself HUNDREDS of times (you can actually watch a video of 2000 Bush arguing with 2004 Bush). Bush does not get any deliberate misinterpret and muddying of his quotes to make him look like a flip flopper, despite numerous and significant ones available.

The Kerry quote is proof of right wing bias in the media. Kerry CLEARLY explained himself yet the media did not air it 1/10000 of the times they aired that quote and implied he was "flip-flopping".

Kerry was going to vote for something, but the GOP made additions to the bill, making it a different thing to vote on altogether. Anyone who considers this flip-flopping, or indicative of anything like it, is too stupid to be allowed to vote.

It is also a good example of bias because Bush has contradicted himself HUNDREDS of times (you can actually watch a video of 2000 Bush arguing with 2004 Bush). Bush does not get any deliberate misinterpret and muddying of his quotes to make him look like a flip flopper, despite numerous and significant ones available.

The right-wing media? :confused:

All media leans towards profits, not towards politics. Some of them have found it profitable to cater to Republicans (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, US News and World Report, Talk Radio) and some outlets have made profits by catering to Democrats (CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Time Magazine, most Prime-time local news outlets)

To pretend that the media has any agenda other than making a buck is ludicrous. The fact that they model themselves to appeal to their taget audience is not a sign of conspiracy, it is good business. Bad reporting, but good business.


Besides... I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him.

Not so. Maybe they have too many ideas, and not enough conformity to one unified message.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmVmMjYxYjA5MWVjOTY4MzE2MDY2NjE5ZjRmOWE4OWE=


Republicans get more than double the amount of money to spend on campaigns, because they tend to side with large corporations on issues like the environment, global warming, pollutions, and using up the wilderness.


Alright, show me a Democrat idea that does not increase taxes, that supports the troops, that improves national security. Show me a Democrat idea, I mean, are Democrats going to remove the income tax? Are Democrats going to shrink the size of government to a manageable size? Are the Democrats going to increase military spending? What about increasing the spending on law enforcement at least?

What are Democrats going to do? The Democrats are running on the basis that Republicans are corrupt, this is not getting through to fiscal conservative libertarians.


For a moment, put yourself into the body of a rich white male, you are a CEO, you run a business that just happens to be involved in say, the security industry, or the energy industry, or the drug industry. Democrats are offering to raise your taxes to help people you don't know. Democrats are trying to give more power to the government.

Democrats focus too much on old issues, or cultural issues. Democrats have no tactical or political ability. If you ran a company in the security industry, why would you support the Democrats? Maybe if Democrats offered some incentives, like all security companies being able to operate tax free, then they'd win the support they want. If Democrats decided to allow all CEO's to be tax free they'd win a lot of support. Why should CEO's have to pay taxes for services they don't need?

In fact, if Democrats just came out and said it, and said "We want to remove the income tax forever and instead insert a federal sales tax." This would be a good idea. If Democrats just made it so people still paid the same exact amount in taxes as they do now, or even more than they do now, but they allowed each person to check off on a list exactly where their tax money goes, this would be a good idea.

There are good ideas, and Democrats keep searching for the ideas of FDR, it's over, it's impossible to go back to FDR in this lifetime, it's never going to be a socialist country. I think Democrats would be better off going libertarian. This means Democrats have to go fiscally conservative. Everyone wants either a tax cut, or at least the transparency and the ability to see and control where their tax money goes, if Democrats refuse to give these two things, how are they going to prove they are any different from Republicans?

The Republicans win on cultural and social issues, because Democrats don't offer improved fiscal policies. It's all about quality of life, and if Democrats can offer quality of life to the poor, and tax cuts to the rich, they'll have a chance. The rich don't want to pay for services they don't use. The poor want a higher quality of life. Since you seem to be a Democrat

What is the Democrat plan for increasing quality of life? What is t he Democrat plan for lowering taxes? What is the Democrat plan for stimulating economic growth? Answer:

One thing that I guess Democrats do not understand, is that people only care about immediate gains that benefit them. Offer a tax cut, and people will support you. Democrats almost never run on "tax cuts". Democrats almost NEVER run on privitization of say, public schools. The public school system has failed, the more federal dollars you put into it, the worse it gets, and regulations like standardized tests do not help, as federal dollars also means federal control. Democrats could run on vounchers, and privitizing public schools. Public schools can be replaced by private corporate run internet schools. All of these school shootings, and bullying, and these inner city urban schools with no funding, this is what Democrats want to promote? Democrats could win a lot of votes just by offering to privatize education, allowing individuals the freedom to be educated whereever they want, Harvard, Yale, anywhere, as long as it's over the internet it should be completely free, the state can pay for this through vouchers. Vouchers can also be used to send kids to private schools. Finally, military school should be an option for bullies, or for kids who want or require this sort of discipline, we seriously need to bring this idea back and put kids who bully, into military schools. The idea is, it's better that they join the military and defend the country, than join a gang or terrorist group.

What say you about these ideas?

The right-wing media? :confused:

All media leans towards profits, not towards politics. Some of them have found it profitable to cater to Republicans (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, US News and World Report, Talk Radio) and some outlets have made profits by catering to Democrats (CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Time Magazine, most Prime-time local news outlets)

To pretend that the media has any agenda other than making a buck is ludicrous. The fact that they model themselves to appeal to their taget audience is not a sign of conspiracy, it is good business. Bad reporting, but good business.


Besides... I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him.

I said right wing bias in the media, not right wing media. I was describing the end result, not the motives. I don't really think many high in Fox news believe what they put out, but that does not change what they are doing.

I'm sure there are a lot of factors, and money is the primary one. When it comes to politics, I think there are plenty of significant factors involved besides money, e.g., such as fear of challenging republicans/government.

Money is definitely the broad, corporate objective, but there are substantial, smaller scale cases where individuals can lean a certain way.

edit: And I find the idea that CNN being lefties amusing.

No Hillary in '08! This conservative centrist is nothing but a lightning rod for the Right. She would be the GW of the Democrats and we'll have to listen to 4 or 8 years of them bitching & moaning again. Had my fill in the first Clinton years, no thanks. If I were forced to vote for a candidate from each corrupted capitalist party it would be Guiliani for the Republicans and Bill Richardson (NM) for the Democrats. Either candidate is superior to Hillary or her husband, or Gore for that matter.

What sex scandal is this?
I'm out of touch with American politics.No shit :rolleyes:

What are Democrats going to do? The Democrats are running on the basis that Republicans are corrupt, this is not getting through to fiscal conservative libertarians.
Add on top of that the Dems' petty Nanny-Statism and you have a most unlibertarian melange! :eek:

Ummm, fiscal conservative Libertarians wouldn't be voting for a Democrat anyway. Are all candidates to appease everyone? You conservative/lib whatever's vote for your own candidate!

Add on top of that the Dems' petty Nanny-Statism and you have a most unlibertarian melange! :eek:To me a Nanny State is a big government that intrudes on private life. Like forbidding certain citizens from marrying, bringing religion into government, pushing for religion in public schools, censoring books, movies and media, deciding women shouldn't have access to abortion or birth control and denying teens the access to abortion and birth control. The biggest government in history is the conservative/lib government we have right now. The Ultimate Nanny State. Big Brother is Watching so is Jesus!

The Kerry quote is proof of right wing bias in the media. Kerry CLEARLY explained himself yet the media did not air it 1/10000 of the times they aired that quote and implied he was "flip-flopping".

I'm sorry, there's no explaining that quote. Mr. Kerry was simply too clever by half and the American people didn't buy it.

Ummm, fiscal conservative Libertarians wouldn't be voting for a Democrat anyway. Are all candidates to appease everyone? You conservative/lib whatever's vote for your own candidate!

This is exactly why Democrats don't win elections. Yes a party is supposed to appeal to whoever has the money and power. A politician can only win an election if that politician has lots of powerful friends and allies. Democrats lose allies when they talk about raising taxes, or at least the fiscally conservative rich libertarian elite.

The only way to win, is with a populist agenda. Populist meaning, you give everyone a treat, or at least everyone who voted you in. Tax cuts are the direct form of payback. The indirect form of payback is to pass laws.

As long as the Republican party, is the part of money, power, strength, what the hell do Democrats have left to run on? If they take the Libertarians at least they can say they are for freedom, but they'd be even worse than Republcians with gun control and censorship, which likely will lead to thought control. I'm not really comfortable with Democrats censoring video games, and trying to take away guns, and the raising taxes, and totally inefficient government services, and the bigger and bigger government.

Democrats will be a permanent minority party at this rate. They might win back the house but thats it. Republicans have this country locked.

To me a Nanny State is a big government that intrudes on private life. Like forbidding certain citizens from marrying, bringing religion into government, pushing for religion in public schools, censoring books, movies and media, deciding women shouldn't have access to abortion or birth control and denying teens the access to abortion and birth control. The biggest government in history is the conservative/lib government we have right now. The Ultimate Nanny State. Big Brother is Watching so is Jesus!

The abortion debate should be left up to the individual states, along with gambling, prostitution, drugs, polygamy, or anything else. I'm for true marriage freedom, not marriage for gays, but civil unions. A person should be able to have as many wives or as many husbands as they want, and groups of people should be legally able to form a civil union. This includes gays as a side effect, but it also means polygamy should be legal, so if you are one of these people who expects freedom for gays but who hates polygamy, you are not a Libertarian.

Public schools only exist because Democrats prefer the inefficient big government to run schools. Government has never been good at education, NEVER. There is no history recent, past or in the future which you can cite as evidence that public school is the best form of education. Technology is changing education, and while I was once a strong believer in public school, it's idealism at it's best. Why tax rich people and force them to pay for your childs education? They aren't responsible for your kid, they might not even have a kid, do you like paying for their wars? do you like paying for their servies? NO. So don't expect them to like paying for your public schools, if the people decide that public schools arent worth paying for, thats it, move to the voucher system. I think it's safe to assume that America has decided on the voucher system, or at least corporate America.

Libertarians believe that the market is more efficient than the government. But if you must have public schools, only registered Democrats should pay for it. I don't think this could fly politically, it's unrealistic, but really, people should have the ability to select what to pay for individually or in groups. If as a group Democrats decide they want their tax dollars to go to public schools, the tax system should allow you to put all your tax dollars into it.

The reason it's not like this, is because Congress and Senate has control of the budget, and the income tax basically just takes your money away before it even exists. So you don't even know what you'll be paying for next year, or in the next 20 years.

McCain will never get the Republican nomination. He and Lieberman should trade parties. I'd vote for Lieberman before McCain.

Yes, I'm sure no Republicans would back McCain after the ungodly political and character assassinations they did to him in 2000 to make it so Bush would win the primary. Even going so far as to call him unAmerican and unpatriotic due to being a POW. :rolleyes:

The Kerry quote is proof of right wing bias in the media. Kerry CLEARLY explained himself yet the media did not air it 1/10000 of the times they aired that quote and implied he was "flip-flopping".

Kerry was going to vote for something, but the GOP made additions to the bill, making it a different thing to vote on altogether. Anyone who considers this flip-flopping, or indicative of anything like it, is too stupid to be allowed to vote.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes

Yeah, I know. I'm so tired of that misquote. I mean, hey, go ahead and attack Kerry for other things he said, but don't stoop so low as to misquote him and take it out of context. Surely they could have attacked him in other ways, or could they? Oh wait, I forgot about the Swiftboat vet lies, the same people behind the character assassinating of McCain back in 2000. Heh, and these same people complain about what was done to Lieberman.. the same way they complain about democrats and their opinion on our war in Iraq the same way republicans did with Clinton in Kosovo.

Ahh, politics; gotta love it -- nothing but bullshit. Please Al Qaeda, nuke Washington D.C. so we can get rid of the corrupt people that have ruined this country. And hey, they'll also be doing us a favor of removing one of the highest crime-infested cities in the U.S. -- not even counting political white-collared crime. And yes, guns are banned there. ;)


I'm sorry, there's no explaining that quote. Mr. Kerry was simply too clever by half and the American people didn't buy it.

Uh, no, because the whole quote wasn't even given. It's a selective quote. That'd be like me saying "You can't say "I hate niggers" because that's wrong. I hate niggers? What kind of idiot are you to say that thing!" only to go and quote the middle part of me saying "I hate niggers" and then bam, I'm gone.

- N

I'm sorry, there's no explaining that quote. Mr. Kerry was simply too clever by half and the American people didn't buy it.

This response stuns me. I do not think you are borderline retarded, but at the same time I cannot see how else you came to that conclusion.

It is like an IQ test question. Bob is for "A", and Bob is against "B", and Bob is against "A+B", so is Bob against "A"?

If you said yes, you probably also need assitance in feeding and clothing yourself.

Neildo

Oh wait, I forgot about the Swiftboat vet lies,

Can you prove this, these guys were there, on the same boats and doing the same missions, and all it will take for Kerry to prove them wrong is release his DD-214, and Service file like he promised, why hasn't that been released if the information the Swiftes brought foward is so wrong? is the truth in there that supports the Swifties, if they were so wrong, I surely would have released the information rather than loose the election? and I think it would be great fun to have exposed them for the liars that they have been accused of being. So if Kerry was so pure in his military career why didn't he defend himself with his records?

I'm sorry, there's no explaining that quote. Mr. Kerry was simply too clever by half and the American people didn't buy it.
Two different bills. See? The truth takes 2 seconds to tell.

Alright, show me a Democrat idea that does not increase taxes, that supports the troops, that improves national security. Show me a Democrat idea, I mean, are Democrats going to remove the income tax? Are Democrats going to shrink the size of government to a manageable size? Are the Democrats going to increase military spending? What about increasing the spending on law enforcement at least?

What are Democrats going to do? The Democrats are running on the basis that Republicans are corrupt, this is not getting through to fiscal conservative libertarians.


For a moment, put yourself into the body of a rich white male, you are a CEO, you run a business that just happens to be involved in say, the security industry, or the energy industry, or the drug industry. Democrats are offering to raise your taxes to help people you don't know. Democrats are trying to give more power to the government.

Democrats focus too much on old issues, or cultural issues. Democrats have no tactical or political ability. If you ran a company in the security industry, why would you support the Democrats? Maybe if Democrats offered some incentives, like all security companies being able to operate tax free, then they'd win the support they want. If Democrats decided to allow all CEO's to be tax free they'd win a lot of support. Why should CEO's have to pay taxes for services they don't need?

In fact, if Democrats just came out and said it, and said "We want to remove the income tax forever and instead insert a federal sales tax." This would be a good idea. If Democrats just made it so people still paid the same exact amount in taxes as they do now, or even more than they do now, but they allowed each person to check off on a list exactly where their tax money goes, this would be a good idea.

There are good ideas, and Democrats keep searching for the ideas of FDR, it's over, it's impossible to go back to FDR in this lifetime, it's never going to be a socialist country. I think Democrats would be better off going libertarian. This means Democrats have to go fiscally conservative. Everyone wants either a tax cut, or at least the transparency and the ability to see and control where their tax money goes, if Democrats refuse to give these two things, how are they going to prove they are any different from Republicans?

The Republicans win on cultural and social issues, because Democrats don't offer improved fiscal policies. It's all about quality of life, and if Democrats can offer quality of life to the poor, and tax cuts to the rich, they'll have a chance. The rich don't want to pay for services they don't use. The poor want a higher quality of life. Since you seem to be a Democrat

What is the Democrat plan for increasing quality of life? What is t he Democrat plan for lowering taxes? What is the Democrat plan for stimulating economic growth? Answer:

Republicans have not really lowered taxes, they just replaced it with borrowing, which we will have to pay back in the future. Democrats have consistently voted for increased spending on the military, but throwing money at contractors isn't a panacea. They waste money, too. Sometimes bills have a poison pill that has nothing to do with the main issue. Under Clinton, the size of the Federal Government did shrink, and under Bush, it expanded. If you are a fiscal conservative, you must hate Bush.

If you are a rich person in the drug or security industry, you should probably kiss Republican ass, because Democrats are going to make it possible to negotiate with drug companies on a federal level, we aren't going to let them profiteer from sick people. We aren't going to throw away billions on unnecessary wars, so mercinaries will have to do their dirty business somewhere else, we will leave security where it belongs, with our military.

The rich got rich on the basis of an infrastructure paid for with taxes. If they want to reap the rewards of the US, they can't hide their wealth in phoney offshore mail drops. Democrats will repeal the "tax cuts", and make more money available to the common people, who's interests are our interests.

Thank you for your support.

Republicans have not really lowered taxes, they just replaced it with borrowing, which we will have to pay back in the future.

You don't have to pay it back if there IS no future.

Democrats have consistently voted for increased spending on the military, but throwing money at contractors isn't a panacea.

All government spending should be security related.

They waste money, too. Sometimes bills have a poison pill that has nothing to do with the main issue. Under Clinton, the size of the Federal Government did shrink, and under Bush, it expanded. If you are a fiscal conservative, you must hate Bush.

I'm not really a big fan of Bush or Clinton, You are focused on all the wrong issues. Bush is good at certain things, Clinton is good at certain things, but neither are Libertarian.


If you are a rich person in the drug or security industry, you should probably kiss Republican ass, because Democrats are going to make it possible to negotiate with drug companies on a federal level, we aren't going to let them profiteer from sick people. We aren't going to throw away billions on unnecessary wars, so mercinaries will have to do their dirty business somewhere else, we will leave security where it belongs, with our military.

You are going to need better ideas than this, seriously.

The rich got rich on the basis of an infrastructure paid for with taxes. If they want to reap the rewards of the US, they can't hide their wealth in phoney offshore mail drops. Democrats will repeal the "tax cuts", and make more money available to the common people, who's interests are our interests.
Thank you for your support.


That's a problem, repeal the tax cuts? That's not likely to win many votes. Maybe the Democrats should give better tax cuts. Get rid of the Income tax, no one likes the Income tax. We all universally agree on it. The sooner Democrats start talking about the removal of the Income tax the quicker they'll win the fiscal conservative base.

Democrats want to repeal the tax cuts, this is raising taxes, this is a bad move. You should never repeal the tax cuts, they should be permanent, there is nothing good about high taxes. Instead, if you want to raise taxes, use a sales tax, tax new things, and most importantly, tax the people based on behavior and not based on Income. Why should a good person, who happens to be rich, but who gives money to charity, and who has no criminal record, and is a great citizen be forced to pay taxes? Taxes should be used to alter behavior, not to punish good behavior. You should not tax a person simply for being rich!

The problem with Democrats, they want to divide the world into rich and poor. This is why they never win. Instead, Democrats should focus on ethical government, open government, smaller more limited government, a more decentralized structure, and then yes they will win the Libertarian vote.

Instead Democrats want to run on making the government bigger and less efficient by raising taxes, this makes the beast bigger, as once taxes are raised it's almost impossible to cut them. Do you see? Taxes have to be cut. This is not a partisan issue, we have too many taxes, period. If you get rid of the Income tax, that would be a good start, as most people who pay the Income tax are actually the poor. Democrats could also endorse a Negative-Income tax, and I'd support this idea as well. The Negative-Income tax could be indexed to the cost of living, so that everyone is taken care of, if thats what you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax


Jump to: navigation, search

In economics, a negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a method of tax reform that is popular among economists but has never been fully implemented. It was developed by Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States economist Milton Friedman in 1962. Negative income taxes can implement or supplement a guaranteed minimum income system.

A negative income tax would replace the current progressive income tax system used throughout most of the Western world. This would be replaced by a flat tax of, say, 25%, but each taxpayer would also be given $10,000 by the government. Thus a person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes, but overall would receive a net gain of $9,000 from the government. A person making $40,000 would be at the break-even point and would neither pay taxes nor receive any benefits. A person making $1,000,000 per year would pay close to the full 25% tax, as the $10,000 would count little towards relieving the tax burden.

Under a negative income tax, you'll be guarenteed the ability to live above the cost of living and that's it. You won't be able to profit, you won't get any benefits, but you'll be able to afford food and water. If you want more than this then you'll have to work for it, but you wont pay any taxes at all, and all your services can be cut federally and you'll simply recieve the cash and be allowed to buy them yourself. What's wrong with this? It's better for the market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

The earned income tax credit will allow Democrats to give tax benefits to people who exhibit good behavior. So that tax cuts can be used as an incentive. Whats wrong with this?

The idea of a negative income tax (NIT) is commonly thought to have originated with economist Milton Friedman, who advocated it in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom. Others, notably the late Joseph Pechman, long-time tax dean of the Brookings Institution, credited the University of Wisconsin's Robert Lampman with at least simultaneous discovery and with bringing the concept to the attention of government policy planners in 1965.

In its purest form a NIT promised a revolution in American social policy. Gone would be the intrusive and costly welfare bureaucracy, the pernicious distinctions between "worthy" and "unworthy" recipients, the perverse disincentives for work effort and family formation. The needy would, like everyone else, simply file annual—or perhaps quarterly—income returns with the Internal Revenue Service. But unlike other filers who would make payments to the IRS, based on the amount by which their incomes exceeded the threshold for tax liability, NIT beneficiaries would receive payments ("negative taxes") from the IRS, based on how far their incomes fell below the tax threshold.

The NIT would thus be a mirror image of the regular tax system. Instead of tax liabilities varying positively with income according to a tax rate schedule, benefits would vary inversely with income according to a negative tax rate (or benefit-reduction) schedule. If, for example, the threshold for positive tax liability for a family of four was, say, $10,000, a family with only $8,000 of annual income would, given a negative tax rate of 25 percent, receive a check from the Treasury worth $500 (25 percent of the $2,000 difference between its $8,000 income and the $10,000 threshold). A family with zero income would receive $2,500.

Very neat. So attractive that researchers in the Office of Economic Opportunity, the brain trust for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the midsixties, began planning a large-scale field experiment of the idea. Several sites in New Jersey were ultimately selected for the test, which was launched in 1968 with the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty in charge of the research and a Princeton-based firm, Mathematica Inc., in charge of field operations and data collection.

The primary purpose of the experiment was to address the concerns of labor-supply theorists. These labor economists worried that providing the working poor with a basic income guarantee if they quit work, and then reducing that guarantee at a fairly steep rate as income from work increased would damage work incentives and ultimately swell NIT costs. They feared that NIT would reduce work effort in two ways. First, by giving a family with no outside income a guaranteed minimum income, NIT might, at the extreme, discourage family members from working at all. And even if workers didn't quit entirely, they might work less since they could satisfy their basic needs with less work effort. Economists call this an income effect. Second, by reducing benefits some fraction of a dollar for every dollar earned, NIT would, along with payroll and state and local income taxes, reduce the net value of wages and induce recipients to "substitute" leisure for work. Economists call this a substitution effect.

Using a complicated model intended to minimize program costs for a given sample design, the New Jersey experimenters set out to measure the strength of these two effects. Potential participants were assigned to a variety of "treatment" cells, with the treatment being a particular combination of basic guarantee and negative tax rate. The sample included a "control" group of families not eligible for any experimental payments. Thus, a treatment might offer a guarantee equal to half the poverty line, which was then about $8,000 for a family of four, with benefits being reduced by 50 percent of the family's income. When income was zero, the family would receive the full $4,000 (50 percent of $8,000). When income reached $8,000, the benefit would be reduced to zero and the family would "break even" (i.e., neither receive negative taxes nor pay positive taxes).

The experimenters—and the planners in what was then called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (myself included) who drew upon their work in designing President Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan of 1969 (FAP)—quickly encountered a host of problems, both conceptual and administrative. These continue to haunt negative tax advocates to this day.

The first and most basic problem is that it is currently fiscally—and perhaps administratively—impossible to construct an NIT that simultaneously

1. provides an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States,

2. provides an ostensible incentive to work (a far greater concern when benefits are to be extended beyond the traditional welfare population dominated by female-headed families), and

3. restricts coverage to any manageable proportion of the population—the so-called "break-even" problem.

These constraints are, in fact, irreconcilable as long as the median income remains within striking distance of the poverty line—a situation that has barely improved over the last two decades of slow average economic growth.

The McGovern plan proposed by the Democrats' 1972 presidential candidate starkly illustrated this problem. With a guarantee determined by the candidate's promise of $1,000 per person, and a benefit reduction rate limited to 33 1/3 percent at the behest of economic advisers worried about imposing work disincentives on a sizable proportion of the labor force, the plan had a break-even of $12,000 for a family of four—roughly the median income at the time. Thus, it would have converted roughly half the population into federal tax beneficiaries while the other half of the population would have paid for these transfers along with the cost of all other federal activities.

The second problem with a NIT is that the welfare system already provides a package of cash and in-kind benefits that, in many states, is worth considerably more than any likely NIT (though at the cost of excluding large groups of the poor—such as two-parent families—from eligibility). Political and humanitarian considerations prevent reducing these benefits, thus vitiating one of the NIT's attractions—the possibility of abolishing the welfare system.

Competition from welfare was a severe problem for the New Jersey experimenters. Many of the families in the study were actually receiving welfare benefits worth more than the experimental payments. Therefore, some experts questioned the experimenters' findings that the NIT had only a minimal effect on work incentives, and indeed questioned whether the experiment had really measured anything at all. HEW attempted to solve these problems by launching subsequent income-maintenance experiments in Seattle and Denver (SIME/DIME). These experiments more carefully integrated existing welfare programs and offered more generous NIT plans. But the generosity of most of the tested plans made them unlikely to be replicated on a national scale, and more complicated to analyze.

The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives. This was not as scary as some NIT opponents had predicted. But it was large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under a NIT might go to replace lost earnings. They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.

The SRI researchers—Michael T. Hannah, Nancy B. Tuma, and Lyle P. Groeneveld—hypothesized that the availability of the income guarantee to some families reduced the pressure on the breadwinner to remain with the family, while the benefit-reduction rate also reduced the value to the family of keeping a wage earner in the unit. Other researchers, notably the University of Wisconsin's Glen G. Cain, disputed the analytical strength of these findings. But at the very least the results were discouraging to those who promoted an NIT as a boon to family stability.

A third set of problems is administrative. One is the matter of the appropriate income-accounting period, which spawned a whole literature (to which I contributed my share). If income for NIT purposes is measured over a year, as in the positive tax system, families in great, but temporary, need may be denied benefits. If the accounting period is shorter, say a month, as in the welfare system, and income reporting procedures are lax, potential costs and caseloads might be as much as 70 percent higher than those predicted by the annual income-based models used to estimate the costs of FAP and its early successors.

The income accounting and reporting analysis—backed up by an HEW administrative experiment in cooperation with the Denver welfare department—also drew attention to the fact that many negative tax participants cheat on income reports. To be sure, many taxpayers cheat too. But the irregularity of income sources and shifting family arrangements at the lower end of the distribution make it unlikely that the IRS could prevent widespread fraud unless it converted itself into a facsimile of the much-detested local welfare offices.

Some indication of the difficulty that the IRS might experience in administering a large-scale NIT is provided by the Earned Income Credit (EIC), a hybrid version of an NIT that was slipped into the tax code in 1975 by Finance Committee Chairman Russell Long. Long saw it as a way to offset the regressive effect of payroll taxes on low-income earners. The EIC works like this (using 1993 rules for a family with one qualifying child): For every dollar of earned income, the family receives a refundable tax credit of 18.5 percent, up to a maximum credit of $1,434 (not including additional credits for young children and health insurance costs) for a family with earnings of $7,750. The credit is phased out at a rate of 13.21 cents for every dollar of adjusted gross income (AGI) above $12,200, until it reaches a zero value for a family with AGI of $23,050.

One attraction of the EIC is that because its benefits rise positively with earnings up to the phase-out point, it has a positive rather than negative effect on work incentives for workers earning a very low income. In the phase-out range, however, its substitution effects are identical to those of a comparable NIT. More important, a 1990 IRS study revealed that owing in part to the complexity of the EIC rules, almost 40 percent of EIC benefits were paid to families who were not eligible for them. Yet the finding of such a high error rate did not deter Congress from both enlarging and further complicating the EIC in the fall of 1990.

To these problems must be added the messy reality of the day-to-day stresses and strains of many of America's poor. Data from another HEW experiment revealed that many of the low-income population's problems are not readily addressed by the provision of an extra few hundred dollars in annual income. Indeed, recent revisionist social welfare thinking has questioned the central premise of the NIT planners—that a nonintrusive income-maintenance system is preferable. More recent policy has stressed direct interventions to improve family functioning and self-reliance, including eligibility rules that require work effort.

Nonetheless, the NIT is still popular among many researchers and politicians. Nixon's FAP, which compromised with both the conceptual and administrative problems by essentially retaining the current welfare system and grafting on to it a low-level income-maintenance benefit for the working poor, pleased neither academics nor welfare advocates. Nor did it please the big-city mayors and governors, who looked at welfare reform as primarily a way to reduce their share of the system's cost. (Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan's Politics of a Guaranteed Income, is the definitive text on this point.) The Ford administration floated a reworked version of FAP, but it foundered on the same concerns as FAP.

President Jimmy Carter set out to develop a welfare reform that would have zero additional cost. Although Carter's plan emphasized work alternatives to welfare, HEW's analysts quickly shifted the emphasis to a more generous reworking of the FAP concept. Forced to compromise with analysts at the Department of Labor—myself, by then, included—who were promoting a low-wage guaranteed job approach, the reformers ended up with the unwieldy Better Jobs and Income Plan (BJIP), which would have cost many billions more and pleased neither liberals nor conservatives in Congress.

The Reagan administration put its efforts into cutting back, rather than extending, income benefits, though the eighties witnessed both an expansion of earned-income tax credits and the 1988 welfare act, which tried, at so-far modest cost and effect, to direct more welfare recipients into jobs. More recently, some "middle-income tax relief" proposals floated in Congress in 1991 would convert the current positive tax personal exemption into a "refundable" credit, paid out in cash to families with incomes below the tax-liability threshold. These proposals, thus, would incorporate a full-bodied NIT into the Internal Revenue Code. The appeal of a negative income tax lives on. And so do its many problems.

http://www.brook.edu/

So if Kerry was so pure in his military career why didn't he defend himself with his records?

Because Bush was intended to win.

Kerry's nomination was the biggest joke ever. He played his role well.

- N

Because Bush was intended to win.

Kerry's nomination was the biggest joke ever. He played his role well.

- N


Come on now, are you serious?

No, it's because he doesn't have to answer to those bastards, he served and Bush didn't. It was a fake controversy, answering them means they controlled the agenda of public discussion.

You don't have to pay it back if there IS no future
Let's assume the USA has a future.

All government spending should be security related.
Education, energy, trade, these are all security related.

Why should a good person, who happens to be rich, but who gives money to charity, and who has no criminal record, and is a great citizen be forced to pay taxes?
Because they benefit more from the commons. They didn't get rich on their own, but because of the roads, rail, ports, police, courts, education, all the things taxes pay for. I'm not against being rich at all, but they should pay more taxes. This nation costs money to run, there is no getting around that. Cut funding for education, and we will all suffer from increased poverty and crime. Our way of life is based on the existence of a middle class and social mobility. It's the American dream that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can increase your standard of living. Republicans want this to end, and create a class of elites living off the permanent working poor.

Money Talks, Bullshit Walks :)

I'm a veteran, and if Kerry wanted my vote by claiming that he was a Honorable veteran, he does have to answer to me for his conduct in the war and after.

I think the problem is "after the war", from all accounts i have read he was someone i would want with me when the shit hits the fan. Seems to me John Kerry was looking to save American Lives.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1

Personally I like her.

John99, really? that wasn't the opinion of his fellow combatants, and as Captain of a Swift Boat what is his job, to Command, not jump ship to chase down insurgents, as Captain he is responsible for commanding his crew, and the safety of his ship, how could he do that by going over the bow, and personally chasing down the enemy, that is a failure of command decision, and endangers the crew and the Ship, this ain't Star Trek, and he wasn't Captain Kirk, and when he was in a ambush that damaged a vessel, and left it in need what did he do? leave and only return after the danger was over. You may want a commander like that me I'd shoot him for putting my people in danger.

Do you scrutinize the actions of all prominant veterans in such detail, BR?

I'd shoot him for putting my people in danger.

:eek:

You're a manly man.