I like Ralph Nader a lot. He has ethics, specifically concerning our environment (a much huger issue than most make it out to be). The Republicans never do a thing about trying to fix the environment and the Democrats say they're going to fix the environment, but hardly do a thing. Global warming is a huge issue and we're currently doing nothing to address it (under Clinton and Bush, auto makers haven't been pushed to create cars that get better MPG). The North Pole has melted, FFS! As much as I like Nader, I would not vote for him (this election). No non-Republican/Democrat is going to win a Presidential election for a long time. I would rather make my vote count in removing President Bush from the White House than vote for the person I truly think would do a better job. I think it's a sorry state when I have to say that.
Unfortinately, just because the president is a Christian doesn't mean that he can change the things in our country that don't agree with his faith. To be very honest, America is becoming a modern day Babylon. And those of you know your history should be able to guess what that means. So happy you guys are satisfied with the crap the liberal media is feeding you... As for Kerry being the lesser of two evils, give me a break. Kerry's opinions shift back and forth like a revolving door. He says one thing, does another. So how do you really know he isn't going to do the things you're accusing President Bush of doing?
Decisions, decisions. Bush/Cheney Bush: Good intelligence, firm to his beliefs, has vision for future, did wonders for our economy, looks like a monkey... BUT: Passed Patriot Act, otherwise known as Alien and Sedition Act 2: Revenge!, did wonders for our economy, walked a thin line between democratic and totalitarian... Cheney: Speaks his mind, incredibly intelligent, hard-working, badmouths his enemies... BUT: Awesome... Kerry/Edwards Kerry: Smart, crafty, married to Heinz ketchup lady, great debater and orator, great advisors, always admits his mistakes, plans to fund some areas that BADLY need it... BUT: Flip-flopper, swayed quite often, going to raise taxes, looks like a cadavre... Edwards: Supposedly very handsome and charismatic... BUT: ? I don't know yet. I wouldn't feel bad voting for either candidate, but I would feel good voting for Bush.
Are you kidding me? When asked what his favorite childhood book was, he replied: The Very Hungry Caterpillar (written one year after he graduated college). How did he do wonders for our economy? We have a $5T deficit versus a $4T surpus when he entered office (IIRC). And you shouldn't vote on a Pres based on how they look. "badmouths his enemies" isn't a good thing IMO. Again, this is just the media and the Republicans spinning things. I believe the media has misinterpretted some of Kerry's decisions. I'd also point out that it's not good to be so stubborn, getting lots of our troops killed.[/quote] I think this might be the Texan in you speaking, because I don't believe you can still be so supportive of him after what people have said (in other threads). But under Bush as Governor, Houston passed LA as the most polluted city because Bush allowed several companies to disregard pollution laws (and he changed many laws to make it easier). Also, what about all the executions? Under him, more people have been executed than ever before. IIRC, 7/10 death row cases that are reviewed are found that those people were wrongly accused/punished. I can't think of some of the other things off the top of my head, but I've read about many more things (not to mention he traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs )
Indeed. And according to Private Eye this week: Wall Street During the first terms of: Richard Nixon +16% Jimmy Carter +26% Ronald Reagan +39% George Bush, Sr +67% Bill Clinton +82% George W Bush -16% Way to go, Dubya! Sam
Bush inherited a over-inflated economy from the Clinton administration. You can't be expected to fix everything right as soon as you are elected, economic change takes time.
Yep. Those statistics are a teensy bit off. The internet fiasco was a direct result of the economic policies of Clinton, not Bush.
Of course, you're right. It's not like he's had 4 years to change anything, is it? C'mon, blaiming previous administrations for this kind of thing is a load of bull. Bush can't have it both ways- I've seen him claiming that the economy is in a good state- is that Clinton's "fault" too? Sam
It's pretty much always been that way. That's why politicians talk about their "5" or "9-year plans". The economy does take that long to stablize one way or another.
Well thats fine and I can appreciate that- but they can't have it both ways- if Bush wants to claim that the bad things are all Clinton's fault then he can't very well claim all the good things as his own. Actually, hang on. He's a politician, and is therefore a hypocritical lying arsehole. My mistake. ;-) Sam
It's more complicated than that. There is not "status" of the US Economy. There is no SI unit for economic stability. It isn't as simple as (CNN says economy blows) + (Bush in office) = (Bush's fault). The economy isn't particularly strong right now, but that's not entirely Bush's fault. Under Clinton, the internet thing got way out of hand. Money flowed into this country faster than we could keep up with it and the economy became incredibly unstable. But it was rich! Well, there's a diference between having a load of money in the states and having a stable economy. So now, our economy "is in ruins." That's completely false. Our wealth is fading, as it should. We've seen the trend of globalization spread medical improvement, followed by social change, so why would it not make sense for money to follow? If we hadn't been so dependent on outsourcing work to Maquiladoras with - you guessed it - NAFTA or to Chinese cottage shops, we would have more money in the states right now, so stop complaining and make a diference.
But he's not entirely absolved of blame either, is he? Frankly, the less money you guys have to spend on wars the better... Sam
The money Chrizzle is referring to wouldn't actually be in the federal coffers. If we didn't have NAFTA, or the WTO for that matter, the money would be in the private sector and with individuals. True, but eventhough the economy is a bit low, it is stable which is a better economic indicator than wealth.
What Bush inherited was a nice healthy fiscal surplus. What he's created in his 4 years in office is a huge gaping fiscal deficit. Politicians can't really claim all the credit/take all the blame for the state of the economy, but there are stupid things they can avoid doing, and that's one of them. His politically motivated tax cuts did not stimulate the economy like they were supposed to, and it wasn't hard to see that they were never going to. All that's happened is that America has a big deficit to finance, which translates directly into less money for the American people. Such huge levels of borrowing come with hearty interest payments which are met of course by the US taxpayers. Aren't you glad you've got someone so competent in charge of your economy?
Yes, I am glad I have someone competent to run the country. As we've stated in numerous other threads, Bush has taken a once unstable-but-rich economy and created a stable one. Our "surplus" under Clinton was so inflated it was laughable. I was twelve years old during the latter years of his presidency, and my 7th grade reading class could see that our economy wasn't in good shape. The internet thing poured money into our country at ridiculous rates. Our wealth soared, but it wasn't stable. Three months into Bush's presidency, it collapsed. A strong, stable domestic economy is based on tangible goods. Bush understands this and tries to "create" American jobs that result in goods. Our economy is getting more stable (our GDP has increased at its highest rate in thirty years) but this isn't enough. NAFTA is literally draining money from our country at a rate comparable to the rate it came in the 90's. This is a problem. As long as we are dependent on foreign labor, money will leak from our economy. In Human Geography last year, we had an essay prompt: "Is America Turning into an Empire". Yes, we are in so many ways. But I'm not talking about our military or the globalization of our culture, I'm talking about these economic satellite countries that we are so dependent on, and them on us. Last year, the production of American goods was responsible for 54% of Mexico's income. This is ridiculus and not healthy for either country. It's about time the world gets its act together. The world economy can't survive with a policy of dependency: dependency on oil, dependency on outsourcing, dependency on one country's economy. We need to return to a policy of complementarity. PS: In my opinion, neither of the candidates have a plan to take this economy forward, but we'll see Friday.
