Hi everyone! I am new here, have read some of the politics forum, and I see there are are many smart people but not so many good discussions. Many clever insults though! :) I am personally a centrist, don't like extremism on either side. But in this election I am strongly against Bush, for many reasons. I will take it one reason at a time. The first is the economic policy. If we can get a good discussion going, I will post my other problems with Bush later. Looking forward to positive and negative comments! :) A successful economy is always driven by the middle class. In most countries generally considered “successful”, the middle class comprises the majority of the population. The internal order of these countries is generally favorable to the middle class (such as tax policies). If the middle class shrinks or grows, so does the economy. There are many reasons why this is true, but the main one is probably that the middle class is a consistent and potent fuel for national economies because of consumer spending. The “trickle down” economic policies backed by the Republicans over the last 20-30 years (sometimes called “Reaganomics”), displace this favorability from the middle class to the upper class, through redistribution of the tax burden and the resulting disparity between lower- and upper-end wage growth (this side effect is well-documented). The main argument in support of these policies is that the upper class provides jobs to the average people, and if corporations have more money, they will hire more people. This is a huge oversimplification of the true picture. Corporate hiring is not fueled by “spare” funds. A healthy corporation’s hiring activity is dictated primarily by the demand for the product or service produced, leaning more heavily on factors such as revenue projections rather than availability of funds. In fact, corporations who do not have the funds to hire, will take out loans to do so when the demand is growing. Many of the largest corporations in the U.S. did this in the 90s. Without corporate funds, and with negative profits in most IT companies, the entire information technology revolution STILL took place. These companies grew explosively – all on BORROWED money! You cannot bribe corporations into hiring people. Conversely, with money available through tax cuts, and evidenced by sky-rocketing white collar wages in this country, stunningly low federal interest rates, and increased government spending (historically-wars help the economy), we still have not seen anything near the economy of the 90s. Admittedly, we have seen a bounce, but with the conditions as listed above, we are in a fairy tale world - the economy should be incredible. But soon, the interest rates have to go up. Also someone will have to pay off this deficit sooner or later. Tax revenues are the government’s sole source of income, so the deficit WILL be paid off and it WILL be paid off with our taxes. How will the economy perform during those conditions? And what if other emergencies come up, such as a major terrorist attack? We have already used up all our economic ammunition in order to make a bad economy look good, and that makes our economy the most vulnerable in recent times. In my view this was a very serious strategic error, which regardless of future economic conditions will weigh in for many years to come. Another serious economic error of the Bush administration is allowing the trade deficit to grow beyond anything we have ever seen before. The argument for this is that we get cheaper goods. Not a bad argument in high school economics, but again, the world is more complex. The classical cycle of money around which all capitalist societies are built is interrupted. The money should cycle very simply: the employer pays the worker, and the worker spends the money at walmart, and walmart pays their workers who spend the money, at mcdonalds, etc. If money begins to leak from this cycle, the economy suffers long-term. There are currently two leaks that the Bush administration is ignoring. The first one is the American consumer buying goods from companies that do not employ Americans. Therefore, this money is never seen again in the U.S. – it is sucked out into the economic cycle of the country running the company – and for us it ceases to exist. This would be perfectly fine if trade was multilateral and balanced. The second leak is the outsourcing of jobs, which perhaps is fine in moderation (just like the first leak), but is now getting out of hand. The money collected by corporations from the American consumer, is again, sent overseas to pay consumers who will not spend it on U.S. goods because we sell nothing to them. Additionally, this policy is making us dependent on other countries. China is becoming our drug dealer, and we are becoming VERY addicted. Our factories are rusting. This is dangerous, especially with countries that do not share our interests in the world. Which brings me to the Republicans consistently blocking any efforts to developing an energy policy and our other dangerous addiction: OIL. Clinton is the only president with any activity on this over the last 30 years, but his energy policy did not pass the republican controlled congress, which in turn was heavily lobbied by the U.S. oil cartels. This is a much more serious mistake than just an economic one, but I am only focusing on the economy now.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Do you favor protectionist policies?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: Do you favor ...

---

Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: Do you favor protectionist policies?

---

I support open trade in principle, so I am not protectionist. But I believe that we should use our economic leadership and power in the world to make this trade profitable for us. Or at least not harmful.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

I am personally against protectionist policies. Protectionist policies will do alot of harm to the US economy in the long run. I mean, if a foreign country levies tarriffs and doesn't allow a fair playing field for american companies to compete than I think it is fair to resort to levies against this particular foreign country's goods and services in the US. Alot of buzz has been made about outsourcing and how the American worker cannot compete against cheap foreign labor markets...but even so...in the long run... it is better to not have protectionist policies so long as foreign countries allow us access to their markets as well. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

i also would like to add that cutting federal taxes for the upper income braket (during wwi and wwii taxes on those people were increase and economy still boomed after each war) in a time of war (i.e. high federal spending) is very dangerous... that lead to overall increase in taxes, cuts in many imortant programs (education, science, job training, health care, epa etc), and in huge deficit which (as was noted) will be paid by taxes (i.e. federal tax increase)... ps egor, zdorovo lyosha ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

outsoursing is a natural thing.. it's always been going on... it just needs to be coupled with investment in job training, education, and development of new technologies... as for the free traid - it needs to be really free... what bothers me is 1) countries have different ecological standard... i think there should be some minimal standard - it should be as expencive to pollute in china as in usa... at this point it is not the case and it is another reason to move "dirty" industries (chemical plants, metalurgy etc) to "third" world countries; 2) "rich" countries (i.e. europe and usa) heavily subsidies agriculture.. so there is no real free traid in that area - poor countries (where yeild can be much higher trhen in usa and europe) can't compete with those huge corporate (and most of the agriculture is in corporate hands, not small farmers) give away (paybacks by both major parties in usa)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mestiza: I am personally against protectionist policies. Protectionist policies will do alot of harm to the US economy in the long run. I mean, if a foreign country levies tarriffs and doesn't allow a fair playing field for american companies to compete than I think it is fair to resort to levies against this particular foreign country's goods and services in the US. Alot of buzz has been made about outsourcing and how the American worker cannot compete against cheap foreign labor markets...but even so...in the long run... it is better to not have protectionist policies so long as foreign countries allow us access to their markets as well. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

lyosha ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mestiza: I am personally against protectionist policies. Protectionist policies will do alot of harm to the US economy in the long run. I mean, if a foreign country levies tarriffs and doesn't allow a fair playing field for american companies to compete than I think it is fair to resort to levies against this particular foreign country's goods and services in the US. Alot of buzz has been made about outsourcing and how the American worker cannot compete against cheap foreign labor markets...but even so...in the long run... it is better to not have protectionist policies so long as foreign countries allow us access to their markets as well.

---

mestiza, I agree with everything you said. Like I said I support free trade, but in most countries we trade with, the governments get to control the process in order to profit their nation. We, on the other hand, let individual corporations control the trade agreements. As a result, corporations choose what is most profitable for them. And what is most profitable for U.S. corporations is not to hire Americans, and to produce NOTHING at home. Our economy and the mighty dollar, gives us a huge advantage and authority in the world trade-wise. An advantage that no other country has. It is a more powerful weapon than our military strength. And we have wasted it. Our trade policy is a joke.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: cuts in many imortant programs (education, science, job training, health care, epa etc), and in huge deficit which (as was noted)

---

agreed 100%. More to come on this if u people dont get sick of me! :)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: cuts in many imortant programs (education, science, job training, health care, epa etc), and in huge deficit which (as was noted)

---

agreed 100%. More to come on this if u people dont get sick of me! :)

---

One don't need "many imortant programs" (snake's quote) if he or she is dead... Here is what one wise democrat thinks: "While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has ... proven his ability to fight this war ... .Kerry [has been] surrounded by radical politicians like Carter and Kennedy. ... I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected. Ed Koch (D) former mayor of New York.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: One don't need "many imortant programs" (snake's quote) if he or she is dead...

---

мда... аргумент, конечно, весомый. То есть, если поддерживаем прогрессивность страны, мы все умрём. Я правильно понял?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Here is what one wise democrat thinks: "While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has ... proven his ability to fight this war ... .Kerry [has been] surrounded by radical politicians like Carter and Kennedy. ... I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected. Ed Koch (D) former mayor of New York.

---

Ed Koch - специалист по внутренней политике, и в этом он прав. Но он абсолютно не авторитет во внешней политике. Много разных людей говорят много разных вещей, если бы Koch присутсвовал на форуме, я бы с удовольствием это с ним обсудил. Но мне более интересны Ваши, граждане, аргументы. Не надо пугать нас смертью, этого хотят только террористы. А у нас, намерения посерьезней. И не надо цитировать того с кем не можем тут дебатировать. Или будем вести счёт, сколько бывших мэров поддерживает Буша, и сколько нет? Кто выиграет, значит, тот прав? Егор

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

egor reshil perenesti nashi politicheskie spori na internet.. :) :) unfortunately you are absolutely right about insults not discussions.... esli ento vse tvoi mysli (or even copied from somewhere) : NICE ..

---

As far as I remember it was Reaganomics who took this country out of economic slump. But your argument is useless on majority of forum members - most of us are for "fair tax" initiative anyway. So we don't like both parties stand on this. But me personaly liked tax credit I got from Bush As for outsourcing and free trade. You either for free trade and support everything that brings (outsourcing, unbalanced trade with Asia) or you against it. You can't call trade free if there are restrictions The natives are restless. Падонки. Capt. James Cook, Sat. Feb. 13th 1779, aboard HMS Discovery.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Agree with KGBMan.. ----------------------- “If your parents never had children, chances are you won’t either." - Dick Cavett II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: As far as I remember it was Reaganomics who took this country out of economic slump.

---

Just because two things coincide, that does not necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. Because if we play that game, look what happened when Clinton taxed the rich and doubled the minimum wage. The economy was not terrible under Reagan, but it got worse every year, through Bush 1, and through Clinton's first term. I personally have much less trouble with Reagan than Bush. At least Reagan fought for a balanced buget. Tax cuts are fine with me, as long as you decrease government spending proportionally. This is what "conservative" really means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: As for outsourcing and free trade. You either for free trade and support everything that brings (outsourcing, unbalanced trade with Asia) or you against it. You can't call trade free if there are restrictions

---

I strongly disagree here. It is a misconception - most people have no idea what free trade means. It does not mean letting your corporations make your foreign policy decisions for you. Corporations are not democratically elected, and therefore do not represent the interests of American plurality. "Free trade" is a process, not a policy. I am not suggesting tariffs of any kind. But trade agreements are conducted by the rest of the world IN ORDER TO IMPROVE their economic positions in the world. They buy only what they don't have and cannot produce, and sell what they are good at or have a lot of. That is FREE TRADE. That is not what we are doing.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher