Results 1 to 20 of 29
Finally, someone besides Gore and Lieberman is up for the Democratic nomination, a bright young star, an attractive candidate, and a potential winner. John Edwards announced earlier today his bid for the Democratic nomination. He seems like he has the capacity to upset Bush like Clinton did in 1992. What do you guys think?
Looks like another Kennedy-esque pretty boy who'll probably win over 70% of the female vote. He's one of those people you find really hard to dislike or hate, and that makes him dangerous in my opinion.
But on the issues, he's basically the same run of the mill democrat we're used to seeing in washington these days.
(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 11:39 pm on Jan. 2, 2003)
Edwards in hardly a new candidate the liberal pundits have been pushing him even before Gore dropped out. The irrational excitement around his campaign largely based on one factor, he has an authentic southern drawl. Ridiculous as it may sound his appeal among Dems is geographical. They know they cannot win the presidency in 04 if they loose every state in south as they did in 2000 and 02.
To be even handed I will say this he is very articulate and people magazine did label him the sexist politician a couple of years back, being easy on the eyes never hurt. In terms of actual substance it’s clear he’s a typical democrat in many respects (he’s a trial lawyer) but he benefits from being wet behind the ears (only a senator since 1998). Because he does not have a long voting record he is free to remake his ideology to suit the times. This could be a big help because now he can come across as being tough on the war on terror, unlike Kerry who has a record of voting to cut defense spending and voted against the Iraq War in the early 90’s. On economic matters he is now trying to come of as a moderate, coming out for repealing the “Big Bush tax cut” in favor of “middle class tax cuts”. His agenda really doesn’t differ much from Lieberman. He’s a classic New Democrat cut from the Clinton mold.
In the final analysis I don’t see Edwards winning the nomination, because he’ll try and stake out a middle of the road position that wont appeal to the liberal base of the party. He’s very young and a rising star in the party he wont through away his future by running too far to the left to try to take down a popular incumbent president. No, he knows he's better off running in 2008 when there is a clear field. It will be either Kerry or Lieberman with Edwards as a likely Vice president. All of this might prove to be irrelevant because the only way the Dems can win 04 is if the War goes poorly (unlikely as bush has committed the full force of the military) or if the economy tanks (again unlikely as long as the congress passes much needed tax relief next year). All in all the Its going to be a tough couple of years for the dems.
(Edited by Crusader 4 da truth at 10:04 pm on Jan. 2, 2003)
free·dom:
Pronunciation: 'frE-dom
1 : the absence of coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Much needed tax cuts? Taxes on the rich here in America is negligable...a tax cut won't do a thing just like every other time it was tried.
What liberal base of the DNC is this? Was there a huge shift in the last 10 years or what?
this land is our land
Antieverything do you pay taxes? I suspect you do not because if you did you would notice those hefty deductions form your check. Taxes are completely out of control in the US. Here in New York the leftists are even trying to tax your movement! They want to institute a “commuter tax” to be levied on people that live outside the city but come in to work everyday. To bad the commuters don’t have a say they can’t vote on this tax or vote out the pols that are proposing it because they don’t live in the city. This is the most ridicules example of taxation with out representation since British Colonial rule in America.
“Taxes on the rich here in America is negligible” I have no idea where you get that statement from the fact is that in America 2.7% pay 49.7% of the taxes in 2001 according to IRS.
“...a tax cut won't do a thing just like every other time it was tried.” Again you should look back and check your facts every time we have had a serous growth oriented tax cut revenues to the federal treasury went up. Happened in the late 60’s after the Kennedy Tax cut and again in 80’s with the Reagan cut. But more importantly the people that earned the money actually got to keep more of it.
free·dom:
Pronunciation: 'frE-dom
1 : the absence of coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
We had growth during Reagon because Carter put us into an intentional and necessary recession to make the growth happen...not because of tax cuts. Taxes ARE negligable here in America...we have lower tax than almost any other comparable country and some of those social-democracies' economies were still outgrowing the American one for quite some time...fuck the USSR was outgrowing us for most of its existance but that isn't that important because they were rapidly industrializing...Western Europe outgrowing us should raise some red flags though.
this land is our land
And so what if the top 2% pay 50%...the top 5% of the population owns 99+% of all nonresidential capital! I guarantee you that you feel the burn from taxes more than the richest do.
Here is an important statistic to remember about American society. The polarization of wealth is WORSE than it was in Europe when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto.
this land is our land
Anti I don’t mean to be rude but your last two posts make very little sense, let me try and point out some of the fallacies in your thinking.
“We had growth during Reagon because Carter put us into an intentional and necessary recession to make the growth happen...”
To your credit this statement is half right Jimmy Carter certainly did mismanage the American economy, but to suggest he did so intentionally? That’s just nuts, what possible motivation would he have for trying perform poorly? Damaging his legacy and his party’s credibility when it comes to economic issues? Then you go on to state recession is necessary to make growth happen I’m not sure what you mean by this (I’m not even sure you know what you mean). Recession is the contraction phase of the business cycle where the GDP declines by 10% or so and unemployment rises.
“…not because of tax cuts. Taxes ARE negligable here in America”
Maybe you should look at the data, when you make a claim it should match the evidence. If it doesn’t then you have problem you’ve made incorrect statement. Here are the facts tax freedom day (that’s the day of the year when you stop working to pay off your taxes) is currently May 7 for the typical American taxpayer This means the average American must work form January 1 thru May 7 to earn enough money to pay all federal state and local taxes.
“The typical American family pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. That's over 38 percent for total taxes vs. 28 percent for food, clothing and housing.” (Tax Foundation)
I’m not sure what evidence you can point to demonstrate that taxes are “negligible.”
“social-democracies' economies were still outgrowing the American one for quite some time...fuck the USSR was outgrowing us for most of its existance but that isn't that important because they were rapidly industrializing...Western Europe outgrowing us should raise some red flags though”
I’m not sure you understand the meaning of your words “growth” is an economic term that describes an increase in an economy's ability to produce goods. There are a number of indicators you can point to demonstrate growth (what are you using?) the most common is an increase in the GDP and America far and away has the largest GDP of any nation (its not even close Japan is number two). The US accounts for only 4.7% of the population of the world but produces a staggering 31.2% of the Global GDP (United Nations stats)
The USSR was not “out growing” the United states by any economic measure in 1950 its GDP was a only 35% of Americas they improved slightly in 1985 moving to a GDP that is 39% of Americas. They never did come anywhere near equaling America’s economic output.
“And so what if the top 2% pay 50%...the top 5% of the population owns 99+% of all nonresidential capital”
Again nonresidential capital is not an economic indicator nor the bases of our tax system. In America we have an income tax system and currently in that system according to the IRS 2% of the people are paying close to 50% of the taxes. Are you trying to argue for a national tax based on “nonresidential capital”???
“Here is an important statistic to remember about American society. The polarization of wealth is WORSE than it was in Europe when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto”
Here you have no evidence to back up your claim. Marx saw the world divided into two classes the Proletariat and the Owners. His claim was that as the owners accumulated more and more wealth and the people would eventually rise up and dispose their rule. He never predicted the rise of the middle class, which has totally invalidated his theories. How could he, at the start of the industrial revolution their size was negligible unlike today in America where they are the majority of Americans. Along with their rise as percent of population since the 1800’s was a corresponding rise in their standard of living.
I suggest you when you get to high school or college you take an economics course if you can fit into your schedule, it will give you a solid scientific base from which to argue your principles.
free·dom:
Pronunciation: 'frE-dom
1 : the absence of coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
who cares
1)The recession of 1982 hit during Reagan's second year in office. Double-digit inflation was well on its way to being defeated by this time, and Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation policies were already in effect. Blaming Carter's tax and regulation policies for this recession is therefore pretty stupid. Inflation had been snowballing for fifteen years before Carter and it began to drop while Carter was in office.
In late 1979, Chairman Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve sought to defeat rising inflation by tightening the money supply -- that is, he put the U.S. economy through an intentional recession. There was a brief and unintentional recovery in 1981, so, with inflation still high, he tightened the money supply again, resulting in the unusually severe 1982 recession. By the end of that year, inflation looked beaten, so Volcker flooded the economy with money and fueled the subsequent recovery...so you were right to a point about me being a little bit confused about the facts but Carter did not ruin the economy, Reagan did.
2)There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and until recently they were outgrowing us.
But, before we examin the effect of tax cuts on growth, it should be noted that the very premise of the conservative myth that growth is good is false. The population explosion is adding approximately 1 billion people to this planet every decade. That's nearly the entire population of China. Under the attendant threats to the environment, including global warming and ozone depletion, economists and environmentalists today are increasingly calling for a sustainable economy. It is a sign of how backwards we actually have it that we consider an economy healthy only if it grows, and the faster the better. examining this issue is important, because conservatives see growth as an economic goal, and tax cuts as the best way to achieve that goal. So we should study tax cuts for their efficacy in achieving desirable outcomes.
A review of American history makes the opposite case that conservatives would like it to make: high growth usually coincides with high taxes. During both world wars, taxes soared to record heights. And the supercharged economies that resulted produced high growth for decades afterwards. World War I was followed by the Roaring 20s; World War II was followed by the boom times of the 50s and 60s. The reason why wars are good for the economy is a matter of controversy--one likely theory is that war compels government to invest heavily in manufacturing. Whatever the reason, the point is that these economic boosts occur during a period of unusually high taxation.
For Example...
During World War II (from 1940 to 1945), the size of the U.S. economy roughly doubled -- the fastest period of growth in U.S. history. And during this era, the top tax rate soared to 91 percent, and the bottom rate to 18 percent -- again, the highest in U.S. history. In 1944, federal taxes reached 21.7 percent of the GDP -- again, the highest in U.S. history.
When the U.S. emerged from World War II, it had the largest and best-functioning economy in the world. The other industrialized nations lay destroyed, and had to start rebuilding from scratch. Although the U.S. has remained the most prosperous nation in the world ever since, these other nations have, until the recent European recession, been growing faster than the U.S. And they have been doing so with far higher tax rates!
Here is a nice table I found...
Country % GDP
----------------------
Sweden 53.2%
Denmark 48.3
Norway 47.1
Netherlands 47.0
Germany 39.2
Finland 37.7
Canada 37.3
Japan 30.9
United States 29.8
Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%)
Country 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990
------------------------------------------------
United States 100% 100 100 100 100
Canada 77.1 80.1 84.2 92.8 95.5
Italy 30.8 43.9 66.4 80.9 85.5
France 36.8 46.0 61.7 80.1 85.3
Germany 32.4 49.1 61.8 77.4 81.1
United Kingdom 53.9 54.3 58.0 65.9 71.9
Japan 15.2 23.2 45.7 62.6 70.7
[hr]I hope you enjoyed this as it took me several hours to do and I should be doing my college applications. By the way, I'm only 16...graduating early and will almost certainly be a national merit scholar. Currently I am a contender for full scholarships to two of Texas' leading liberal arts schools and am almost guaranteed a full ride to Texas Tech's Honor College...but I still can't punctuate correctly. Damn.
3)The rise of the middle class does in no way invalidate Marx's theories...the middle class rose after the fall of Feudalism, actually, the middle class is what marked the end of Feudalism. You will notice that when markets are left alone, things tend to progress to the rigid 2 class form...the middle class being a more priviliged class of worker. Regulation saved capitalism. Things would have progressed in the way Marx foresaw--capitalism collapsing devolving into a monarchy--if it weren't for government intervention and wealth redistribution programs.
Oh, and yes, I am planning on taking economics courses in college.
I hope you will take me more seriously from now on.
this land is our land
good you know how to copy and paste
Actually, aside from the tables, I paraphrased that from multiple sources...good you know how to post one liners that add nothing to the discussion.
this land is our land
Why would i want to argue in endless circles of what kind of "government" to have?, how much , or how to fund it,or what kind of economic theories or military/foriegn policy to favor.ZZZZZZZZZZ.
its just pointless because its doesnt exist.
Antieverything, you are my new hero
*sigh*
Perhaps someone who actually can represent the people of America will run for office. I don't see this being to likely considering you need about 10 million or USDs to establish yourself.
\"I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.\"
-Mohandas Gandhi
Is it just me, or is this person a dip shit? This quote will be forever remembered in my Hall of Fame!
(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:46 am on Jan. 4, 2003)
Excellent analysis, Crusader 4 the truth. You are 100% correct in your assessment of John Edwards campaign.
In addition, thanks for taking up that issue with antieverything, another job well done.
I've seen some pretty clueless people before but peoplenotprofits takes the cake.
this land is our land
peoplenotprofits can eat a dick. Sounds like the typical "anarchist". Crazy.
Crusadah fo-ah da troof and aniteverything I want to say bravo as this was one of the most informative and civil "debates" I've seen around these parts for quite some time. Well done.
Of course, I call it a draw.
But good sportsmanship, gentlemen. We should all take a page out of this book.
-AK
"...I was drivin' across the valley floor/ Goin' past a scene of gore/ Something that had ended here/ Then I stopped in at a porno store/ And I saw among the pictures there/ A vision that was...very fair.../ Just a moment from yesteryear/ ...All I could do was stare..." ------ Frank Black
Ak is right, and I should give credit where credit is due. Antieverything did a good job. Although I completely disagree with his stance, he did do a decent job presenting it. I was surprised how well you defended Carter's economic debaucle. Of course your wrong about that, but I was impressed that you were able to come back with a defense.
I've shown you the facts of my position, you show me your's.
I think that I have disproved the myth that Carter caused the huge inflation...it started because of deficit spending during Nam, in fact he (well, the Fed during his term lead by his nominee) put a stop to its rise. The recession WAS induced by the Fed to combat inflation and the market was again flooded with money during Reagan's term but by the same man who was still in charge of the Fed. The market recovered and expanded for 7 years afterwords because of the market being flooded.
The Reaganite argument is totally wrong...no nice way to say it. The capitalists had their tax cuts already. Worker productivity continued to rise at THE SAME rate as it had in the 70's and Capitalist investment didn't rise...the jobs didn't get created.
I forgot to mention another cause of the bullshit Carter came into: Stagflation caused by Capitalists lining their pockets when the Fed flooded the market with money instead of creating new jobs like you guys say they always do.
(Edited by antieverything at 6:40 pm on Jan. 3, 2003)
this land is our land
