| Author | Message | ||
     joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 90 Registered: 8-2001  |
South, Looking through my posts, it's hard to find where I've "disparaged entire parts of the country," but even if I have, it's clear from tone that I have nothing against the formal and beautiful state of Kansas, per se, as I do the predominance of political and scientific ignorance that often comes out of there. Truth is, looking at the country electorally is now a waste of time because as you point out, that's only relevant in elections. When Bush refers to a mandate, however, he really should be looking at how the people stand behind him on an individual, not electoral basis. It's clear from that perspective that just over 50% is no mandate. But Bush has always drunk his own kool-aid -- firing staff who don't agree, filling "town hall meetings" with only pro-Bush Republicans, paying off "reporters" and "commentators" to promote his messages instead of report fact -- so it may not matter who supports him or not among the general population. I think one thing to understand is that, it's easy for the party in power to say, "Well, it's just two sides of a coin. We can agree to disagree. Colors don't mean anything. People are all good and hardworking at their core. Debate is fun and healthy," but to many of us, right-wing policies are destroying the fabric of our country's character, as we define it (and each person defines it for him or herself). So you can understand how passion plays a part in the debate. Same is true for many in the other side. For my family and friends and colleagues -- for maybe the clearest time since I've been aware of politics -- these aren't simply Republican vs. Democratic issues. It really has devolved into right vs. wrong. In our opinion. Does that make me or anyone else universally right? I don't know, but it sure makes me mad. . | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 82 Registered: 2-2004 |
Joel, I agree with your last post. I wish both sides were much better, but I guess I'm just to cynical to think it will get any better. I understand that those of you who dislike this Admin are very passionate because you think he's taking us in the wrong direction. However, a lot of us believe he is taking us in the right direction and are just as passionate. I can remember during the Clinton years I kind of felt like you do now, however, I knew back then that politics is cyclical so I didn't worry to much as I had faith in our system of checks and balances. As far as Bush's mandate, again, I hate to get on another high horse but we as citizens don't vote on bills in Congress. So why should any Admin care if say approval ratings are at 45% when they have enough votes in Congress to get their bills passed? I'll agree that if every bill had to be voted on by the public at large then this Prez wouldn't have much of a mandate. However, that's not how it works. All he needs is to convince a certain percentage of Senators and a certain percentage of the House. He doesn't have to worry about convincing individual citizens. That's just the system we have. Why should this admin care if millions of people in the Northeast or California don't like his plan when all he has to do is convince a few Senators from smaller states to vote his way. Of course, it would be nice if we all agreed but that's not going to happen. Clinton played this strategy during his terms and he worked it pretty effectively to get his agenda passed. This is the game we call politics and I enjoy watching from the cheap seats. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 93 Registered: 8-2001 |
"Why should this admin care if millions of people in the Northeast or California don't like his plan when all he has to do is convince a few Senators from smaller states to vote his way" That is indeed a cynical view. Though accurate, it's just plainly sad when millions of people could get financial relief, oe healthcare, or NCLB could get funded, or arts programs could be funded, but instead the administration chooses to reward a tiny majority of fabulously wealthy people or very big corporate interests with tax breaks. Clinton's agenda was never about helping rich people at the expense of people who really need that money. It was also never about using his religious views and the encouragement of a religious minority (i.e. evangelicals) as a foundation for setting public policy for the entire country. But you're right, we don't set or vote for legislative policy; we can only complain. But without the complaints of say, the 9/11 widows, things like the 9/11 commission, which Bush fought tooth and nail, would never have happened. I disagree about the word "mandate". When Bush talks about it, and talks about "political capital", he's not just talking about votes in Congress. He's talking about the will of the people, like when he implied that the election settled the argument of whether or not the country supported his War. My point is that he has the legislative votes, but not the will of the country at large when he sets policy. In the case of social security, he clearly has neither. I don't oppose Bush simply because he's a Republican in charge; there are a lot of very qualified and popular Republicans I'd rather see in that office. Bush and his administration in particular are a big blight and personal humiliation. I look forward to getting past these next four years, no matter WHO comes next. | ||
| Mr. NiceGuy Citizen Username: Lifeisgood Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2005 |
There you go again (liberals) Where are the alternatives to some of the Presidents policies? If liberals and/or democrats disagree with a plan they have the right to oppose it. What I cannot stand is when it is nothing but Bush Bashing with no alternative solutions. Disagreement is fine, but with no alternatives or "better" solutions brought to the table.... Why must the left be so vicious and destructive? | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3323 Registered: 5-2001  |
"Why must the left be so vicious and destructive?" the right isn't?  | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4461 Registered: 10-2001  |
Meanwhile (just in case you missed it) The libs biggest argument that Bush is the first President to take office and lose jobs (since Hoover), no longer applies. As of yesterday, there has been plus side job growth since Jan of 2001. How about that? Another liberal argument down the drain. Not to bad considering the Clinton recession, Bush inherited. | ||
| Andrew Zorn Citizen Username: Andrewzorn Post Number: 153 Registered: 1-2002 |
Net? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1038 Registered: 8-2003  |
More important than net job growth is participation in the labor force, which continues its downward trend, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:  | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1039 Registered: 8-2003 |
Even more interesting is the 30 year trend which shows an upward trend in labor force participation with exceptions during 2 periods - the late '80s and the early '00s. A Bush was president during both of those periods. Coincidence? Or causation? I report. You decide.  | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4464 Registered: 10-2001 |
uh.nice try 200,000 jobs created during Bush 2001-2004... Libs, always getting it wrong, always looking to justify their stupidity. Amazing that somehow, someway they'll still try and argue their pointless argument. 200,000+++ jobs...period.. end of story.. Clinton recession over. THANK GOD THE DUMBOCRATS NO LONGER MATTER. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 83 Registered: 2-2004 |
Joel, I respect your opinion. Obviously I disagree with your entire first paragraph in your last post but that's what this board is for - articulation of your view. Why does it bother you when Bush says he has a mandate. Just because he says it doesn't mean it is true. I could care less about words from any politician (even ones I tend to agree with). All I care about are the votes. I hope this admin continues to do what it takes to pass this SS legislation (in whatever form it ultimately takes). I hope they use whatever political pressure they can bring to bear on those swing votes and I hope the mid term elections really put the pressure on some of these senators opposed. My personal opinion is that some sort of deal will ultimately be worked out allowing for both sides to claim a victory. I can already hear the President declaring that the younger generation now has another avenue in which to invest and I can hear Pelosi and Kennedy claiming that they have saved the system from the Republican onslaught and that we won't have millions of elderly homeless. It's the nature of the game. The current situation is that the Republicans have the ball and are picking up 4 yards per carry while the Democrats are strickly playing defense at this point. It reminds me of the days of Tip O'Neil when the opposite were true. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1040 Registered: 8-2003 |
uh, nice try strawberry, but you're comparing apples to my oranges. I suspect this might too difficult for you to comprehend, but you can go to http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&ser ies_id=LNS11300000 for the data. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2001 |
Here's a number: 1400+ U.S. Soldiers dead for a preemptive war the justification for which President "Bring 'em on!" Bush just happened to be -- whoops! -- wrong about. Oh, but look at all those blue fingers. That makes me feel a whole lot better now! Strawberry, save some of the kool-aid for fellow right-wingers. You're hogging it. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 95 Registered: 8-2001 |
Southie -- No substantial disagreement there. It's a system, a game, with terrible consequences, but that's just my 3 cents. Thanks for demonstrating and modeling civility in debate. I will pose one question related to your comparison of eras of political power: who suffered during the Clinton or Tip O'Neill era like a poor gay individual without healthcare now suffers under Bush? Oh, I know the answer -- a rich CEO who wanted to be richer  | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4465 Registered: 10-2001 |
Doc with the ultimate liberal spin. You libs are so silly, always changing your tune.. Does anyone remember Kerry saying "More important than net job growth is participation in the labor force."? Of course not, it was net job loss...net job loss, net job loss..WELL THERE WAS NO NET JOB LOSS!!!!.. END OF STORY..THE LIBS WERE WRONG AGAIN.. REMEMBER FOLKS IF YOU'RE A LIBERAL, CHANCES ARE YOU'RE JUST NOT THAT BRIGHT. (and your ideology is dead).. and you root against America. | ||
| luv2cruise Citizen Username: Luv2cruise Post Number: 319 Registered: 12-2002 |
I'd rather be not bright than be YOU! | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5362 Registered: 1-2003  |
What is wrong with an "anybody but Bush" policy? Wasn't an "anybody but Saddam Hussein" attitude one of the chief reasons for invading a sovereign country and killing thousands? Are you saying that that isn't vicious or destructive? Oh I forgot; they were threatening us. Oops, they weren't but we thought we were. Oh we made a mistake. So sorry. Oh, actually, we didn't make a mistake, it was for the better. Damn straight. Bush doesn't make mistakes. Claiming he does: now that's vicious. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4466 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tom, Not sure what you're getting at, but it sure seems as if somehow you believe Bush is no better then Saddam. If that's the case, then there's nothing anyone can do to help you short of therapy. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1041 Registered: 8-2003 |
straw, only a partisan hack would trumpet a four-year net job increase of 200K (and I don't even know where you get that number, because the BLS data shows a net of 89K from 1/01 to 1/05 inclusive) and say it's a good thing. And even then, you need to go through Jan 05 to nudge into positive territory. And then of course, there's the fact that Dec. '04 and Jan '05 figures are still preliminary (but let's give you the BOTD there and say they'll hold up). is it any wonder that Americans are so badly misinformed when someone who claims to be a news producer comes up with an interpretation of this jobs data and concludes it's a reason to cheer for W? and fyi, here are the data, which can be accessed at: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&ser ies_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth Net jobs (000) Jan-01 -30 Feb-01 92 Mar-01 -35 Apr-01 -297 May-01 -27 Jun-01 -158 Jul-01 -88 Aug-01 -138 Sep-01 -254 Oct-01 -377 Nov-01 -293 Dec-01 -174 Jan-02 -124 Feb-02 -103 Mar-02 -37 Apr-02 -106 May-02 -9 Jun-02 51 Jul-02 -100 Aug-02 18 Sep-02 -45 Oct-02 59 Nov-02 6 Dec-02 -154 Jan-03 86 Feb-03 -122 Mar-03 -218 Apr-03 -54 May-03 -26 Jun-03 27 Jul-03 3 Aug-03 2 Sep-03 94 Oct-03 123 Nov-03 96 Dec-03 83 Jan-04 117 Feb-04 94 Mar-04 320 Apr-04 337 May-04 250 Jun-04 106 Jul-04 83 Aug-04 188 Sep-04 130 Oct-04 282 Nov-04 132 Dec-04 133(p) Jan-05 146(p) NET 89 | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1042 Registered: 8-2003 |
and of course, this gem:
duh. Since that was was the data showed then, that's what Kerry said. If the data showed what it's showing now, it would have been just as easy to say we have the lowest % of people with jobs in 10 years. This stuff ain't rocket science, it's just arithmetic. But I guess in Bush World, facts are stupid things. |
