's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Are serious Demo candidates conceding '04 to Bush?(13 posts)

Are serious Demo candidates conceding '04 to Bush?Spoiler
Jan 22, 2004 8:36 AM
Along the same lines as Hoo's deficit/math post:
Why on earth would Demo candidates spend millions of their own money to fight for a chance to inherit responsibility for the world's largest deficit?

The most damaging effects of Bush's foreign and domestic policies will have a time-released effect. By the middle of his second term, he'll be asking American's to tighten their belts. Even the most ignorant person will realize Bush has been feeding them the junk food that got them fat in the first place.

I'd guess serious democratic candidates, like Hillary, are conceding the '04 race. Instead, they wait till the decrepit state of our ecomony is visible to even the most blind conservative. By that time even the republican candidates will have to put as much distance between themselves and Bush as possible.
they conceded in 92, and look what happened nmgtx
Jan 22, 2004 8:54 AM
I don't see Hilary as a serious candidateColnagoFE
Jan 22, 2004 10:00 AM
but then again I never thought GWB would get in either. He suprised me.
That was the genius of Bill Clinton ...HouseMoney
Jan 22, 2004 10:36 AM
He knew in '92 that the brief recession under Bush #1 would be ending prior to his inauguration so he'd get the credit for a rising economy. And with perfect timing, he left office when the economy was already showing signs of a downturn, so his Democrat buddies could then assign blame for the recent brief recession to Bush #2, instead of himself! Sheer genius. He rivals Wile E. Coyote!

Nice try.
That was the genius of Bill Clinton ...Spoiler
Jan 22, 2004 11:00 AM
So Clinton takes eight years to create a recession while it only takes Bush eighteen months. Wait, didn't Bush himself blame 9/11 for the recession? Is Clinton responsible for both the recession and 9/11?
I see you couldn't comprehend my point ...HouseMoney
Jan 22, 2004 11:30 AM
... so I'll make it again. Bush #2 is not to blame for the recession ... that we are no longer in, btw. The bubble burst (i.e. the economy started its decline) in the spring of 2000, when WJC was still in office. Now, I don't know which economists you're listening to, but the ones I've observed are pretty much unanimous in the opinion that 09/11 prolonged the slowdown. Furthermore, it was one of the briefest & shallowest recessions in recent memory.

Clinton "responsible" for 09/11? No, Muslim Fundamentalists were responsible for 09/11. However, there are many instances where Clinton could have, and should have, been more proactive under his watch.
Is Bush responsible for the recovery?czardonic
Jan 22, 2004 11:51 AM
The jobless, wage-stagnant, rich-getting-richer-and-poor-getting-the-shaft recovery, that is? The bubble did indeed burst under Clinton. The question is, what has Bush done about it?

If Clinton was not proactive on terrorism, Bush was even less so. He has been since 9/11, but that is reactive, not proactive (a.k.a. "too little, too late").
how do you explain the huge deficit under both Bushes though?-nmColnagoFE
Jan 22, 2004 11:01 AM
Easy!!Jon Billheimer
Jan 22, 2004 11:36 AM
They spent more money than they collected in taxes. I know, I know, that's a smartass answer:)-
Jan 22, 2004 12:16 PM
The Big Lie of the New GOP: You can have America without the taxes to pay for it.
You can if you take America away from the undeserving! nmczardonic
Jan 22, 2004 12:27 PM
Sure it's hypocrisy...but people keep buying it.Cory
Jan 22, 2004 12:46 PM
Somebody, I think Richard Reeves, said the "Whole point of Reagan's election (in 1980) was the avoidance of pain." He told people it was morning in America, everything would be fine, there was nothing to worry about, and they desperately wanted to believe it. Even his successes were enormously costly, but voters are never reluctant to focus on the BMW in the garage rather than the disaster coming in 20 years. Subsequent winning candidates have played pretty much the same tune ("the politics of hope"). Pretty hard for a realist to compete with that.
I could be a prime exampleSpoiler
Jan 22, 2004 5:20 PM
I grossed a bit over $5,000 last year as a student aide. I'll get about $600 back. Bush can use the $600 dollar figure to add to his quoted positive stats.

"Last year, xxx Americans received xxx dollars in their pocket as a result of my tax plan."

I'm sure as hell not going to refuse the refund. But then again, I need it because I've yet to find a job after graduating. You won't find me among the homeless stats cause I'm fortunate enough to have an older brother to house me. I'm not eligible for unemployment, so you won't find my situation reflected in the jobless negative stats.