| The American election.. | |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Good or bad that Bush won? Discusssssss! |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Quote: Bush now can hike up gas prices Oh noes, the possibility of having HALF THE PRICES we have in Europe. Fear. Oh, horror. Etc. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
I do not believe it takes four years for the economy to change. When incentives change, people's behavior changes pretty much instantly. But sure, Bush certainly inherited a recession from Clinton. The "official" numbers didn't mark it a recession until a couple days into Bush's term, but remember those numbers are collected over a period of months and reflect changes in the economy that have been happening for a while. But the economy can change quickly when incentives change, or it can change only very slowly if that change is delayed. Take the Bush tax cuts, for example. The 2001 tax cuts hardly cut taxes at all. The Democrats claimed they cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, but what they actually did was reduce the (questionably) projected tax revenue over the next ten years by that much, which was actually a drop in the bucket. Moreover, the 2001 tax cuts hardly cut any taxes at all in 2001--they simply promised to cut taxes in future years. Nonetheless the Democrats whined about how the (virtually nonexistant) "cuts" in 2001 supposedly caused deficits--couldn't have had anything to do with the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now the idea behind the tax cuts is that when taxes are lower, investment is more attractive, people work harder, save more and consume less, so the economy grows faster. This is sound economic reasoning and is vindicated by the Kennedy tax cuts of the 60s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s--tax rates went down, yet tax revenues mysteriously went up, or not so mysteriously since lower tax rates obviously result in much faster economic growth. The Bush tax cuts of 2001, unfortunately, mostly just promised tax cuts in the future...meaning Congress could change its mind before those cuts actually happened. But worse, even if investors at the time had expected the cuts to happen in the future, the fact that they were delayed until the future was a strong disincentive to invest and start/expand business in that year. Think about it this way: You're a car dealer selling cars for $20,000, and next week you plan to have a sale and sell them for $15,000. Do you announce this fact in advance? How many people do you expect to come buy cars for $20,000 when they know they can buy them for $15,000 next week? Same with tax cuts as incentive for investment. Why start a new business in 2001 when tax rates are still outrageously high from the Clinton years, when you know that in 2003 or later they will be lower? So the recovery was sluggish, too sluggish in my opinion. Arguably the delayed tax cuts actually slowed the recovery. But when incentives change quickly, behavior does change quickly. Big tax cuts can stimulate very rapid economic growth in little time, just as big tax increases can clobber the economy in short order. But Bush did not have a strong majority in Congress in 2001, so he pushed through the best tax cut package he could get. I wasn't happy with it, but it was better than nothing. Politics is the art of the possible. As an example of how quickly things can change, note the Dow bounce on Bush's victory. A Kerry victory would have motivated me to dump all my stocks before he and Edwards could tax those companies to death, and many middle-class investors like me would do the same (half of American households have a stock portfolio). Investors were understandably jittery about the election, but when Bush won, bang, investors bought up the market. Change the incentives, change the conditions. Instantly. No four-year wait necessary. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Gradius you might want to check the $200,000 payment. I believe during Clinton or Bush it went up by mandate, because the vice president gets a raise on some basis and based on that raising it was soon going to be that the vice president would make more than the president. I'm not 100% confident on this though so you might want to look. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Dicemaster - Student 
|
They say that the econmy takes an average of four years to truely change. So basically we were seeing clintons mistakes and good things while bush was president. Over the next four years, technically speaking, we should be seeing what bush has done. So personally i don't think its bush's fault that all those jobs were lost. ALSOOOO Plo, your comment about Bush making as much money as he can? thats bull crap. I am currently taking an American Government class at my High school, and basically, the President gets $200,000 a year....NO MATTER WHAT he does. Granted he gets a lot of other great benefits, as well as a $148,400 pension after he retires from office. Thats right all living presidents who have left office are currently being paied 148,400 dollars a year. Besides that money, they get free ofice space and $60,000 a year for highering office staff. Upon there death, there spouses get $20,000 a year. THATS AWESOME.....lol they get like to live for free the rest of there lives. Not to mention that half of them make considerable amounts of money in other ways, for example Bill Clinton was gaurenteed 5 million for his book, so I mean its not like our past presidents are poor, so i highly doubt Bush is trying to raise gas money to put money in pocket -Dice _______________ Dicemaster |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
[EDIT: Plo actually said three trillion, not five as I originally wrote. That doesn't change my point a bit, but for the sake of acuracy I correct.] [2nd EDIT: Fixed my italics tags!] I find it fascinating that Plo feels qualified to call millions of people stupid when he has irrefutably proven that he himself cannot grasp second-grade arithmetic. Let's go over the budget "surplus" under Clinton, okay? According to Plo, it was three trillion dollars during the Clinton administration. The budget surplus is revenue minus cost (if revenue is greater than cost, otherwise there's a deficit which is cost minus revenues). Revenues under the Clinton administration peaked at $2.105 trillion for fiscal 2001*, about two trillion. This means that according to Plo, two trillion minus the money the Federal government spent that year is three trillion! WOW! Can I learn to do that kind of math? The arithmetic they taught me is a lot less fun--if I have ten bucks, I can only spend that much or less. But seriously... More than grade-school arithmetic, I'd really like to see Plo learn some manners. People of good conscience can disagree about whom to vote for, but the discussion should really be based on facts and reason, not name-calling. Plo began his little tantrum with a posting of "data" about political figures' military careers that he (almost certainly) copy-pasted from the urban legend e-mail we all got a couple months ago beginning with the all-caps entreaty to "FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!" Yes, Plo, almost everybody got that e-mail the first time it went around, but most people know to hit the delete button as soon as they see those messages. It's a good habit to get into and will save you the embarassment of warning all your friends about Mickey Mouse tatoos with LSD in them. After his, um, "data" were countered with actual facts, he kind of lost it. Oh no, people didn't agree with him! And they use facts! The horror! Only one thing to do: Bring out the name-calling. Not only will that never win any arguments with thinking people, Plo, it won't win you any friends, either. I know a lot of Kerry supporters who are willing to discuss their views calmly and rationally using real facts, even if we disagree on how to interpret the facts. They don't make up "facts" that don't even jibe with the laws of arithmetic, much less evidence, as you do. They may never convince me, and I may never convince them, but at the end of the discussion we still go for beer together and are still friends. I suspect you're still very young, and I know this is a lot to take in, but take it from someone who pissed off and alienated a lot of people in his reckless youth: calm and rational and armed with facts is the way to go, and even those who disagree with you will respect you for it. Best of luck. JavaGuy ---------------- *It was actually less, because the $2.105 trillion figure was arrived at by the Clinton administration's counting of money borrowed from the Socialist Security surplus as "revenue," which is like borrowing money on a credit card and calling it "income." Imagine going to a bank to apply for a loan and having the following conversation: You: I'd like to borrow $100,000. Banker: You'll have to make monthly payments of $733. How much money do you earn? You: Six thousand dollars a month. Banker: How do you make that money? You: Well, I make $1,500 a month at my job, and I borrow $4,500 a month on my credit card. Think you'd get the loan? That's the "accounting" method by which the Clinton administration got its "surplus." And BTW, in years where Socialist Security runs a deficit, no, they do not count that as a cost (it's magically "off-budget"  nor subtract it from revenues in any way. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. This comment was edited by JavaGuy on Nov 05 2004 02:57am. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student 
|
Quote: Yeah 50 million voted for Kerry and 52 mil. voted for Bush,I believe the people who voted for bush are sadly stupid or ill-educated or brought up a certain way by their parents,Bush now can hike up gas prices and harm the environmant to make as much money as he can before the next 4 years are over  I would have voted for Bush... I am sadly stupid and ill-educated I take it? He can't hike up gas prices, since our gas comes from Venezuela, not Iraq, and the prices are only raised by state taxes, last I heard (being from Belgium) Bush has no relations to the gas prices. To make as much money as he can... When his time is over, he's isn't getting a percentage of the money he made you know. He gets money, no doubt, but he's the President of the United States here. Personally I think you were very insulting with your last comment, as there are a lot here who would have voted for Bush. But that's a different subject, now isn't it. You voted for Kerry, yes, but you have no right at all to judge other people's opinions, at least, that's what I think _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Yeah IQ by state, that's kind of bogus since people in each state voted for both candidates. For all you know in Connecticut, There are a bunch of really high IQ people who voted Republican that give that state such a high IQ. It went 54% Kerry 44% Bush. Maybe the 44% are the smartest people in the state. You don't know. And maybe there are some really stupid democrats in the states that went for Bush. You don't really know and that's a crap attempt at a statistic. And congratulations Plo, you've just insulted 52 million people by calling them stupid. I didn't call anyone voting for Kerry stupid. Grow up and learn some tact before you start talking next time. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Nov 05 2004 01:16am. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
Yeah 50 million voted for Kerry and 52 mil. voted for Bush,I believe the people who voted for bush are sadly stupid or ill-educated or brought up a certain way by their parents,Bush now can hike up gas prices and harm the environmant to make as much money as he can before the next 4 years are over _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
But, wasn't Kerry exactly that, an intellectual? |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: Everyone at my school hates Bush. Even my 'clever' art teacher accidentally called him a retard. But I don't see whats so bad about him. I happen to have the exact same opinion as you Everybody  Quote: I have to honestly say that I completely disagree with this site. I think it's those who have checked out the facts about both contestants, (and this is entirely my opinion) voted for Bush, for good reasons in my opinion too And checking your facts, is in my opinion, a sign of intelligence, so ... Note: This was entirely my opinion ... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. This comment was edited by Bail Hope of Belouve on Nov 04 2004 10:39pm. |
|
Malk - Student 
|
http://geekgossip.net/2004election_by_iq.png This website says it all really  _______________ You swing too hard, ass. I Swear!!! This comment was edited by Malk on Nov 05 2004 06:08pm. |
|
Smilykrazy - Retired 
|
I wanted Bush to win and I am glad he did.  _______________ RIP MOM 06/29/58-07/31/08 Married to Koyi Donita 4/30/11 |
|
Everybody - Student 
|
Everyone at my school hates Bush. Even my 'clever' art teacher accidentally called him a retard. But I don't see whats so bad about him. It's good that the UK (my country) has links with America, although it will make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. _______________ Signature, schmignature. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: Kerry has come up with a campaign a president worthy, he did not try to bully Bush down instead he gave his own ideas on stuff. Allthough a large part of it was just marking the errors and not giving any solutions he did something, while Bush was only speaking about him being a good leader and telling Kerry just sucked. You contradict yourself. You said Kerry's main plan was pointing out errors and not giving solutions. That's pretty much just saying Bush sucks. They ran about the same. The difference was Bush ran on his record and could point out things that some people thought he did good and play on the fact that people thought he would be stronger than Kerry on National Security. Kerry ran on his military record that he refused to completely release to the public, and not using his 20 year record in the senate. Of course the Republican campaign was more than happy to use it. The point is that both parties tried running the "The other guy is horrible" campaign, and at the end of the day Bush is the president. You can be happy, you can be disappointed and move on, or you can be like some morons out there whining about wanting to put it in the courts forever to try and cheat a win or call for civil war. I'd recommend moving on. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Aayla Secura - Ex-Student 
|
In a word. BAD _______________ IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE! |
|
Nero - Student 
|
Must say I had rather seen Kerry winning this election. With the being a president thing I think they aren't very different, I think the relation with Iraq is screwed anyway and none of them both can change the economical situation more than the other can. So... why would I vote Kerry? Basicly because two things, First: Kerry has come up with a campaign a president worthy, he did not try to bully Bush down instead he gave his own ideas on stuff. Allthough a large part of it was just marking the errors and not giving any solutions he did something, while Bush was only speaking about him being a good leader and telling Kerry just sucked. Second: I absolutely H-A-T-E this Cheque system that the Bush government uses, in a country in Africa the Navo would send 5000 men to make sure it remains democratic while Bush can just do it without anyone complaining... So mainly it's not because Kerry is better than Bush, but the way Bush made campaign is just... Wrong edit:/ I think Kerry is more aware of the position of the USA in the rest of the world too _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? This comment was edited by Nero on Nov 04 2004 05:26pm. |
|
Duffman - Student 
|
Quote: Your social security would have been gone under kerry as well plo. It will disappear eventually because of the baby boomers. And it was never meant to be the sole source of income for retiring people anyways. And the $3 trillion dollar surplus or however much it was actually didn't exist. It was a figure based off of so many years. Its not like Bush suddenly went and spent all of it. And the way Clinton was all about shrinking the military I wouldn't be all that shocked to find out that the surplus was based on an ever shrinking military for the US. combine that with the fact that kerry's opinion of bush's plan for iraq is the draft, which no republican brought up, that was all the democrats. And Kerry's "plan" for Iraq? We're out in 6 months after he's in office. Thus leaving our mess there, and thus making iraq the next north korea? You honestly want another country in that area pissed at us? I think you will find your friend not fast to rush by your side if they knew what that ment. There is more then 2 issues that made/lost this election for both sides. Dont get all crazy because of a few things said to do nothing but scare you and make you crazy. and fyi (coming from someone who was raised in the military) A drafted army works a hell of a lot worse than one that is all volentary. _______________ *Sigh* Married to Mirael D'kana, Former master to Shangri Stomwind and Crash D'Kana, Owner of Gil-Galad's 100th post, Khâ D'Kana's 700th post, and friend to just about everyone |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Your social security would have been gone under kerry as well plo. It will disappear eventually because of the baby boomers. And it was never meant to be the sole source of income for retiring people anyways. And the $3 trillion dollar surplus or however much it was actually didn't exist. It was a figure based off of so many years. Its not like Bush suddenly went and spent all of it. And the way Clinton was all about shrinking the military I wouldn't be all that shocked to find out that the surplus was based on an ever shrinking military for the US. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
SaberWeildinKow - Student 
|
Quote: Bad,No social security for me,I'm gonna have to put on my battle fatigues and crawl through the mud once I graduate High school. I really can't believe how people can vote for someone who screws up the country and says its going to get better. He comes in,takes a 3 trillion dollar surplus (extra money) and turns it into a negitave 3 trillion dollar deficit and says its gonna get better after he's the one who made it bad in the first place! Plo, social security will be over once the baby boomers hit retirement age. |
|
DJK - Student 
|
They both sux. there, its said. This comment was edited by DJK on Nov 04 2004 12:52am. |
|
Dicemaster - Student 
|
I voted for bush this time around, but I must safe in this election i truely believed that he was the lesser of two evils. I thought they were both not very good for president, but I thought kerry was worse. -Dice _______________ Dicemaster |
|
Flux - Student 
|
I'm pro-Bush. Like everyone's said, he's not afraid to take a stand on terrorism and threats to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Many people are pro-Kerry because of the whole Iraq thing, but you've got to remember that Kerry (and the majority of Congress) were pro-Iraq towards the opening of the whole war. The whole war may have been a mistake, but if there's anyone to blame, Bush isn't the only one. He's done a pretty fine job of re-building the weakened economy and military from the Clinton-era as well as managing 9/11. Another thing I like about him is that he cares about the common man. He was there for the people of New York after 9/11 and he was there to help with the Florida hurricanes (a thing that Kerry discouraged because he said that Bush would just "get in the way" in Florida). His speeches seem to come more from the heart as opposed to Kerry's perfectly memorized Bush-bashing monotone. So what if Bush messes up sometimes? It just shows that he is more closely-related to the people. The real issues are what need to be focused on, not the little details such as how a President wears his hair or if he sometimes stumbles a bit in his wording. Kerry just doesn't seem to have strong views. Whether it's completely changing his views on Iraq or leaving Vietnam to criticize his brothers-in-arms that were still fighting, he just doesn't seem strong on anything. During his campaign he hardly offered much of his plans and instead focused on Bush-bashing. Just my two cents. _______________ When great gentlemens come together in a place. It could happen. All these gentlemen are Howard's family. Everybody knows them, but nobody knows. Why they come together.......... Just play cards. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Quote: To summarise, I like seeing Bush in office, because: 1) He dares to take a stand at a subject and sticks with it. Can't say that for Kerry (imo) 2) He's more kinder than I could possibly imagine Kerry ever being. Case in point, the girl who had lost her mother in the World Trade Center, and how he saw her, and gave her a hug, and asked how she was doing. Personally, I don't see Kerry doing that all of a sudden. 3) Kerry only won at the beginning because he wasn't Bush. No honor in that fight, and to be honest, I'm glad that the American People saw it too :-) 1) He takes a stand, even if that means pissing off every other country in the world. And while Kerry may or may not have been changing his mind too much (I wouldn't know, haven't read all that much about his supposed stance changing), but it is a fact a clever man should always be able to take a new stance, when new and better intel is on the table. Taking a stand and sticking with it is alright at times, but sometimes you must be flexible. 2) Now, this isn't just solely Bush I'm talking about, but I distrust a lot of politicians.. and so, I'm not too sure on whether they would have hugged/kissed/whatever the mum/child/etc if it wouldn't have been good for their overall image. And then there's just those who do not do those kind of things - I'm one of them. 3) While the majority in America may be for Bush, I feel it's far from a good thing when the other half goes "Bush vs Anyone But Bush" mode. Something's messed up then. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
okay, in my opinion, which I'll keep short due to time reasons () I think it's great that Bush won I have recently won a debate against 12 people who were all Pro-Kerry. I actually convinced more than half of them to vote for Bush, if they had the chance of voting. We're from Belgium, and that's the other side of the world, but still, I like seeing Bush in office. He isn't always serious, he doesn't mind being mocked (which is essential for a leader in my opinion), and him having dyslexia is just another way of showing, he's just human, like all (or most) of us. Personally, I loved it when the debate started and immediately someone said: "Because he's stupid, I don't like him! He can say the dumbest things... EVER!" All I had to do was bring up his dyslexia problems, and well, that fight was won. I also hate seeing people arguing about something when they haven't done their research, or don't even know what the hell Kerry looks like. Personally, I admit that almost half a year ago, I was contra-Bush, until I had the facts laid out before me by several people in the JA. This hasn't only given me a huge interest in politics, which I'm intending to teach later on, when I get my degree, but has also clearly opened up my view about the world. To summarise, I like seeing Bush in office, because: 1) He dares to take a stand at a subject and sticks with it. Can't say that for Kerry (imo) 2) He's more kinder than I could possibly imagine Kerry ever being. Case in point, the girl who had lost her mother in the World Trade Center, and how he saw her, and gave her a hug, and asked how she was doing. Personally, I don't see Kerry doing that all of a sudden. 3) Kerry only won at the beginning because he wasn't Bush. No honor in that fight, and to be honest, I'm glad that the American People saw it too :-) _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Sared - Retired 
|
Booyah!  _______________ I'm crazy, not stupid. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |