Are democrats generally negative?

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
  • #26
kat
39
0
Zero said:
I stand by it, since I was using the word "conservative" in its true meaning, not the mongrelized use of the word in today's politics. Kerry is a pretty conservative guy.

I've offered a respected (and left leaning, I might add) source to support my statement that Kerry leans way towards the left. I'd rather not take your word for it, maybe you can support it with facts, figures or a respected source.
 
  • #27
Zero
kat said:
I've offered a respected (and left leaning, I might add) source to support my statement that Kerry leans way towards the left. I'd rather not take your word for it, maybe you can support it with facts, figures or a respected source.
So reality isn't good enough for you? I've made an effort to spell out that I am not using the word "conservative" in its political sense, but in its common sense definition: the opposite of radical. Bush isn't conservative by that standard, and Kerry is.
 
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839
schwarzchildradius said:
We did it in 1992, the first year that I voted, to change a failed economic system with one that is superior.
We were in a recession in '92. That's nothing new and it was a relatively mild recession. There was nothing fundamentally different about the economy 8 years later - unless of course you include the internet, which the gov't had little to do with anyway, and itself contained the only flaw in the economy: the bubble.

Anyway, I did use the word "perception." Its an important word. Even in a recession, when the short term numbers are actually looking "bad," its still a short term - and therefore flawed - perception. That's right, even in 1991, the US economy was fundamentally sound. If you don't believe me, just have a look at the history of the economy. There were some fundamental flaws that led to the great depression, for example - not just the perception of flaws.

And again, my cynical view: selling the economic perception is generally what wins/loses elections. It worked for Clinton in '92 and '96 and it didn't work for Gore in '00 - he couldn't sell it. It again is the focus here.

But therein lies Kerry's problem, and I really think he's making a mistake (he's quite welcome to it). Kerry should know that with the economy booming (and increasing) he comes off looking pretty lame trying to argue that its not. He should be trying to shift the focus from the current economic status. He should be focusing on Iraq.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839
Zero said:
I've made an effort to spell out that I am not using the word "conservative" in its political sense, but in its common sense definition: the opposite of radical. Bush isn't conservative by that standard, and Kerry is.
Doesn't that make your usage completely useless? This is a politics forum, Kerry and Bush are politicians, and an election is a political event.
 
  • #30
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
Negative political campaigns have always been the most effective. The only exception is when your opponent has no name recognition. Even those in power use them. The most famous attack ad ever was President Johnson's "flower" ad portraying Goldwater, the challenger, as a nuclear warmonger.

Voters claim to dislike negative advertising, but continue to put the most negative candidates into office election after election.

Njorl
 
  • #31
member 5645
Njorl said:
The most famous attack ad ever was President Johnson's "flower" ad portraying Goldwater, the challenger, as a nuclear warmonger.Njorl

That really was a well done ad :redface:
 
  • #32
schwarzchildradius
RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839
schwarzchildradius said:
RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.
What, exactly, did each of them do (actual changes in the economic structure made by each) and how did it manifest itself(economic data that shows a clear, non-cyclical, non-internet bubble related, non-9/11 related difference)?

The unfortunate thing for Clinton in his quest for a legacy, was that the internet bubble burst before he left office and the cycle re-asserted itself. When he left office, the stock market was a bear and the economy was in recession. As a result, he cannot claim that he made any cycle defying changes.

Just to get it out of the way, there is one important fact that is usually brought up for the purpose of this argument that I'll stipulate to right off the bat:

Fact: economic indicators on average were better during the Clinton admin than so far in the Bush admin.

This fact does not, however, have anything to say about actual policies or economic trends.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
schwarzchildradius
Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.
 
  • #35
schwarzchildradius said:
Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

Hocus-pocus. All of it. If you ever have the opportunity to get involved in a government budget projection you will never be the same again. It will scar you for life...LOL. First you see how much money you will need to balance the books, then you figure out if it is good for your party to have that much money coming in or not, then you call all your people and tell them how much money to "find" or how much money to "lose". Amazingly, when the numbers come back, they match what you have already written down weeks in advance. It's a joke. Don't buy it, no matter what party you're in, or what country you're in. Don't buy it now, or in the future. It is a crock, always was, always will be.
 
  • #36
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
hughes johnson said:
Hocus-pocus. All of it. If you ever have the opportunity to get involved in a government budget projection you will never be the same again. It will scar you for life...LOL. First you see how much money you will need to balance the books, then you figure out if it is good for your party to have that much money coming in or not, then you call all your people and tell them how much money to "find" or how much money to "lose". Amazingly, when the numbers come back, they match what you have already written down weeks in advance. It's a joke. Don't buy it, no matter what party you're in, or what country you're in. Don't buy it now, or in the future. It is a crock, always was, always will be.

The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong. The revenues turned out to be in surplus. Do you think that they both intentionally low-balled the revenue estimates for political gain?

While the 10 year budget projections are just voodoo, the 5 year and shorter projections have some accuracy and use. They are subject to both political manipulation, and some genuine error, but they are not useless. It is in the interest of some people to make them seem useless. Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB. Unfortunately, our current president happens to be among them.

Njorl
 
  • #37
member 5645
Njorl said:
The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong. The revenues turned out to be in surplus. Do you think that they both intentionally low-balled the revenue estimates for political gain?

While the 10 year budget projections are just voodoo, the 5 year and shorter projections have some accuracy and use. They are subject to both political manipulation, and some genuine error, but they are not useless. It is in the interest of some people to make them seem useless. Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB. Unfortunately, our current president happens to be among them.

Njorl


The only reason clinton had a surplus was including social security revenues in with the rest of the budget. This same tactic was used to cover the cost of the vietnam war. IT's bull****.
Clinton did a good job on keeping things a near level point, but the surplus we 'had' never existed.
 
  • #38
Njorl said:
The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong.

Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB

I wouldn't want to discredit someone who was wrong. This is interesting reasoning. Do you work for the government?

You have proven my point better than I could.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
5
0
Is there any way to criticize the president without it seeming partisan?
 
  • #40
If there is, I'm sure you'll find it.
 
  • #41
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
hughes johnson said:
I wouldn't want to discredit someone who was wrong. This is interesting reasoning. Do you work for the government?

You have proven my point better than I could.

So you believe that budget predictions for a multitrillion dollar budget need to be correct to the penny to be worthwhile?

Yes, I do work for the government.

Are you in middle school?

Njorl
 
  • #42
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839
schwarzchildradius said:
Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.
Trillion dollars, eh? Nice, round sounding - and meaningless - number. Clinton never even claimed that except in projections (and that's not his projection, you just pulled that number out of thin air), which aren't hocus pocus, they're just meaningless.

In any case, this isn't what I asked for. I asked for:
What, exactly, did each of them do (actual changes in the economic structure made by each) and how did it manifest itself(economic data that shows a clear, non-cyclical, non-internet bubble related, non-9/11 related difference)?
Clinton did make some policy decisions that had an impact here, schwarz. Some of which I agreed with, some I didn't. Some helped, some didn't. Some succeeded, some failed (to the vast benefit of the economy). But I'm not going to help you with your argument. If you have one, make it.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Zero
phatmonky said:
The only reason clinton had a surplus was including social security revenues in with the rest of the budget. This same tactic was used to cover the cost of the vietnam war. IT's bull****.
Clinton did a good job on keeping things a near level point, but the surplus we 'had' never existed.
So why did Bush give out a tax cut based on a surplus that wasn't even there? See how that works?
 
  • #44
Njorl said:
Yes, I do work for the government.

Lucky guess. LOL
 
  • #45
member 5645
Zero said:
So why did Bush give out a tax cut based on a surplus that wasn't even there? See how that works?

Why do I borrow money to start a business???
 
  • #46
Njorl
Science Advisor
267
15
hughes johnson said:
Lucky guess. LOL

I answered your question. Why are you avoiding mine?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Are democrats generally negative?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Z
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top