# News Predictions for four more years?

1. Nov 1, 2004

### wasteofo2

If Bush wins, will it be, as Kerry has put it "4 more years of the same", or will Bush and his administration finally admit some mistakes and take some measures opposite to previous actions to correct them?

I'm really worried that the Bush administration is so ideological that they simply won't change course, but you never know, didn't Reagan quietly sign some huge tax-hike in his second term?

2. Nov 1, 2004

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
If a lame duck president doesn't think he's done anything wrong in his first term, why would he bother to change anything in his second term? I think it's pretty obvious it will be four more years of the same, or maybe less; the question is whether or not you think that's a good thing. There are voters out there who think the status quo is okay, but if they are expecting anything different out of Bush in the next 4 years than what he's already shown he will do, then I hope they aren't holding their breath.

3. Nov 1, 2004

### phatmonky

Bush has sweeping domestic reform planned. I look forward to much of it.

4. Nov 2, 2004

### Smurf

what, you think bush is gonna do that when he can fight another war and extend the US sphere of influence? pfffft.

5. Nov 2, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
(In reference to phatmonky's hope) I agree. I think there's going to be big (attempts at) changes : in Social Security, Government Spending and Taxation, but I can't see very mush else changing.

What changes have been promised ?

6. Nov 2, 2004

Honestly, it doesn't matter who will become president. America is #)($(#@ anyway. 7. Nov 2, 2004 ### phatmonky Yes, a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever(while the GDP this year was still the highest we've ever had), a war in Iraq, and a steady growth economy is truly the signs of total decline 8. Nov 2, 2004 ### Gza I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history. 9. Nov 2, 2004 ### BobG You're both right. The budget deficit is the highest in history in raw numbers. As a percentage of the GDP, it's extremely high (around 4.2%), but not even close to the record. The record deficit as a percentage of the GDP was in World War II, when the percentages ranged from 14.2% to 30.3%. World War II was a major exception, though. Not counting World War II, the highest deficit by percentage was 1983 at 6%. 2004's 4.2% (projected) would barely crack the top 10 non-WWII years. Still, "a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever" is pretty faint praise for a very mediocre economic 'recovery' (job growth is almost high enough to match population growth, now). Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2 Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017 10. Nov 3, 2004 ### phatmonky There's a reason I mentioned percentage. My point is, it's not doomsday And America isn't @#$@#$@#$@#\$@#

11. Nov 3, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Here's my concern.

Bush is on a second term and Cheney is not going to run for President after this. That in itself is a little scary.

There's one, and likely more, Supreme Court spots to fill.

The GOP more than controls the House and Senate.

Rummy and Wolfie are not getting shafted.

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

12. Nov 3, 2004

### tumor

All those numbers about how good US economy is doing might not be real,remember guys they lied to the World about WMD in Iraq.

13. Nov 3, 2004

### Dooga Blackrazor

I'm not very familiar with the foundations of America but isn't the country supposed to support secularism?

14. Nov 3, 2004

### wasteofo2

Here're some of my concerns:

1) Republicans now control the whole government.

Their narrow majority in the Senate has become a larger majority, with less likelyhood that there will be enough Republicans who might vote against insane policies Bush wants, and more that may just tow the party line.

Their control on the Legislative Branch will only tighten.

How can a government controlled by one party be expected to check and balance itself?

2) People say the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is insane, that we won't need a draft etc. However, Iraq is slowly degrading, as Vietnam did. Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam in '62, and the draft didn't start up until '68. These things take time, but with more and more Americans dying, it seems there's no way to a resolution besides pulling out or sending more troops. Bush's made lots of promises that he couldn't keep before. He said he didn't want to participate in Nation Building, and we're building 2 nations. Of course, with that, times changed, but the same thing could happen with the draft. I have no problem picturing Bush saying "In 2004, when I said there would be no draft, things were different, times change, things have become much more dangerous in Iraq and dangerous times require somewhat drastic steps. This is why I'm re-instituting a draft".

3) Bush isn't showing any signs of realizing anything he's ever done has ever been wrong in any way. He's simply blind to reality. I'm gonna have to pay off this damned debt in the form of taxes, and I'm gonna have to suffer under it in the form of higher rates of damned near everything.

15. Nov 3, 2004

### phatmonky

expand on this.

16. Nov 3, 2004

### graphic7

I've posted this statistic 3 times. 90 percent of the people that voted for Bush in my state voted because of his 'faith.' I fail to see what Gokul is suppose to expand on.

If this statistic doesn't tell you that the American people are wanting faith, specifically Chrstianity, to be an important part of the government, I don't know what to tell you.

17. Nov 3, 2004

### phatmonky

1>I voted for ( and he won) a local replublican congressman because he was a Republican vocal about the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington. Don't be so sure that there will be just towing of the party line. There is also a realistic plan to pay down the deficit coming forth from Bush himself. A steady growth, steady paydown is exactly what we need - that is being offered.
2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support

3>You'd have to worry a lot more if we implemented an awful tax and spend policy in the middle of a recession. Our GDP has grown every year. It did last year, it is this year. the deficit will start to decline. Things could be better, but this is not doomsday, and Bush is a better economic choice than Kerry (a mediocre plan vs. NO PLAN.)

18. Nov 3, 2004

### phatmonky

I've never seen this statistic.
He didn't reference this statistic.

He is to expand on what he meant by it, where he got the info from, etc.

19. Nov 3, 2004

### graphic7

Go to CNN, click on TN, click on exit poll information and take a look. Don't play dumb.

20. Nov 3, 2004

### phatmonky

Get off my nuts Graphic. I asked for an expansion on a VERY broad statement. I answered your questions, and I didn't know what state you were from.
There's no need for you to start acting like a little kid.