Off topic, but for you Missouri residents, here

[SluSignGuy]

nod, the media loves slip ups, on both Sides... How many times did everyone see the SCREAM.

Steve

[MUTGR]

I have a co-worker who doesn't understand why I think Bush has an advantage over Kerry when it comes to expressing himself out on the campaign trail. I concede that Kerry is more articulate than Bush, but Bush is more genuine. His "likability" ratings have remained high even though his overall poll numbers had dropped. I think that's because people generally like him and feel he's telling them the truth.

It appears to me that democrats are hiding Kerry. You just don't see him out there speaking that much. I believe it's because he's wooden, uninspiring, and prone to contradicting himself. Plus there's that 20 year liberal voting record in the senate they don't want coming out.

I think despite his grammatical errors and mispronunciations, Bush will stack up quite well in the general campaign and in the debates.

[SluSignGuy]

I think the more "hiding" of Kerry can be attributed to:

1) Fundraising (That made him Disappear somewhat in later March and Early April)

2) Bush's Rough Time (Why attack your opponent and potentially look bad, when things are bad enough for him (It would have been hard to treat the prisoner situation from Kerry's perspective)

3) Reagan (As soon as Bush was getting over his rough times, and Kerry needed to come on the offensive, he had to take a week off)

4) Clinton (Clinton's book is tying up the headlines)

If you notice now, Kerry is announcing more things, like some Education plans and such.

Hopefully we will see more of Kerry, but that is what I blame the hiding on. Hopefully now that money is raised and such, Kerry will get more headlines.

Steve

[billiken_roy]

steve, while it is true that on day to day comments, president bush seems to keep david letterman and jay leno supplied with material, when the chips were down, in the days after 9/11, how can anyone deny that president bush said all the right things and pretty much held the country together with his on the air performances? as mu alluded, maybe president bush couldnt sell a used car, but i believe him. it is the rare politician that doesnt contradicts himself at some point. but he hasnt topped that one famous contradiction of kerry where in the same sentence kerry proudly states he waffled on a vital issue.

[SLUWX]

I am glad to hear the Mighty Billiken Roy has never changed his mind on anything.

[aj_arete]

but Alonzo, you take the trophy in that area. Excuse me if I don’t address all of your points.

By the way, you don't need to give me a primer on Economics 101, but I see you know your stuff.

To address your first point, it is true that you DON’T have to have a balanced budget. If that’s the case, the US economy would have deteriorated a long time ago. However, please be aware that there are costs associated with deficit spending. These costs can be reflected in higher borrowing costs that ultimately will filter down to the businessman, consumer…that is, the whole economy. Due to the strength and depth of the most productive economy of the world, we continue to have foreign and national investors invest in our country, so it’s not a major problem YET. This has helped us to keep borrowing costs down.

BUT PLEASE BE AWARE, deficits don’t go away and we as taxpayers will continue to bear the brunt of deficit spending now or later. If foreign investors decide that investing in our country is not in their best interest, we as Americans should be very afraid. This could result in significant dollar devaluations and severe upward interest rate changes from the Federal Reserve. The result would be significant devaluations on Wall Street, significantly higher rates on loans, and declines in business investment due to higher borrowing costs…which all means less jobs and lower costs of living.

I am fully aware of the benefits of both increased government spending and lower taxation. Both methods have historically produced greater results in the SHORT TERM. Yes, the Reagan tax cuts provided impetus for a great economic recovery in the 1980s. However, his deficit spending eventually caught up and bit the senior Bush in the behind. While the Kennedy/Johnson era created another economic upsurge with their increase in government spending, we suffered miserably when deficit spending caught up to the Carter administration. Unfortunately, I see the same thing happening with the current Bush administration. There’s no doubt that tax cuts will increase economic productivity, assuming no significant terrorist attack. However, I have my doubts on its sustainability. By the way, we must not discount the terrorist risk which I think has increased primarily to our invasion of Iraq.

In summary, I think there’s a reason why the Clinton administration observed one of the longest economic upswing in history. For one, they were able to provide an impetus to the economy through effective government spending, but also rein in costs by downsizing defense and other governmental programs.

With the current structuring of the US constitution and its checks and balances, it will be nearly impossible for any political party to fully advance their cause at the expense of their adversarial party. It is easy for any individual or individual state to focus on how to solve the budget crisis. You just fund your needs and not your enemies. Unfortunately, we have elected representatives, who have to deliver for their constituents. For example, let's consider the following hypothetical situation:

New York with a high urban population with many social needs such as welfare, job skill development, transportation, education and health cost issues could hypothetically call for increase funding for those areas, while calling for a decrease in defense spending. However, there will always be a state such as Texas or California, whose economy may be heavily dependent on defense contractors. There’s no way congressmen or senators would sacrifice their constituents for the good of New York. Also, there are other constituents across America, who rightly value their security.

So how do we solve the conundrum? We simply fund both special interests. Hence, a deficit develops. It’s funny how politicians always say they can fund their platforms and ideas, while dismantling others. It’s politically impossible. So people, please stop wishing for welfare and other vital social services to go away. It’s not going to happen. There are too many people, such as myself, that see the intrinsic and extrinsic value in those programs. Also, people who wish to see defense and anti-terrorism spending to decline, stop dreaming. Americans value their security too highly. There’s no way the escalation on terrorism is going away any time soon. I just hope that both sides can compromise and fund both initiatives in a more responsible way.

It’s time that Bush must go. He has unnecessarily started a war on Iraq, when we don’t have the necessary resources to effectively offer a better alternative to Saddam Hussein. If he had only focused his aggression on the real perpetrators of the 9/11 fiasco, his reelection would have been a slam dunk. Our economic recovery would have been more sustainable and we would have been more safe because we would have significantly curtailed the terrorism risk through the dismantling of Al-Queda.

OK, this message was longer than I thought…Oh well…enjoy.

[aj_arete]

the escalation of our military. Defense spending counts for the largest portion of our GDP. Granted, there were some obvious benefits to the buildup. It brought down the Great Empire and provided a strong impetus for our economy. But this area is the greatest contributor to our deficit.

However, let's not minimize the benefits of Social Security, welfare and other social programs. I'd hate to see the level of poverty without these government programs...

Yeah, I know the Republican rationalization... By creating disincentives to work and savings, you provide a certain segment of people with a sense of entitlement and lack of enticement to broaden and enhance their skills. There's some truth to that.

However, you also neglect to realize that there could be another, more damaging outcome. You can create a feeling of desperation, disillusionment and bitterness from that segment, who realize that there are too many environmental barriers to overcome their disadvantages. These disadvantages include inequitable educational funding (don't be fooled by $ per pupil figures, that's another discussion, but for simplicity sakes, it costs more to educate a diverse urban population than it does a more homogeneous, rural population), lack of role model figures in employment, more unstable family structures and less community support.

I'm sorry for supporting greater transportation, more educational funding and social services. I realize that these initiatives result in less crime, greater opportunity and lesser economic gaps between the rich and poor. Let's remember that our urban areas declined significantly under the Reagan administration and I do think they correlate with each other for the reasons described above.

[billiken_roy]

of course i do. but, i dont brag about it like kerry does in his "i voted for before i voted against" statement. and i am not running for president of the greatest country in the world either.

p.s. i am so glad i gave you my table at harpos the day of the big game in columbia missouri to make sure you could get to the game on time even though there was quite a line of people in front of you. thanks for the returned kindness.

[billiken_roy]

aj said, "It’s time that Bush must go. He has unnecessarily started a war on Iraq"

this is one point that the democrats keep screaming that befuddles me. why wasnt this outrage screamed when bush first announced his intended war on terrorism after 9/11? HE NEVER ONCE said, i will only go after bin laden. he said then that it was a war on terrorism that would take a long time. but nothing was said then.

[billiken_roy]

i dont remember saying a word about social welfare negative or positive in any of my above statements. however, imo whatever welfare program is put into place, it should be a radical change from what is in place now. there should be movement to include some form of work or payback with any money paid out. let those recipients pick up trash, work in soup kitchens, provide daycare for other workers, go to school, something. there has to be a movement of some sort to get off of the charity. otherwise let the true charities take care of the needy. there could be incentives for churches and other benevolent groups for taking care of the poor instead of the government. but get the government out of the pure charity business.

[SLUWX]

That's Billiken basketball. I'll always respect you when it comes to my (and your) team.

Politics is something else.

At least we can agree on the most important thing on this board.

[aj_arete]

because making a statement of 'ending all terrorism' is akin to 'ending all poverty'. Both objectives can be achieved, but only if you have the will and resources to follow through. The US is rich, but not that rich...