Halperin asserted, despite polling to the contrary, that Republicans have "an advantage" over Democrats on "national security and taxes"
In an October 17 ABCNews.com online article titled "Down but Not Out, GOP Still Has a Chance," ABC News political director Mark Halperin asserted that Republicans have "an advantage" over Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections on "national security and taxes." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here and here), recent polls suggest that Democrats actually hold an advantage over Republicans on both issues. Additionally, during the October 16 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Halperin asserted that Democrats "are more liberal in many cases than they want to admit" and are "basically just trying to hide what they want to do, knowing full well that the country, a lot of the country, will vote for change, even without specifics."
In his analysis on ABCNews.com, Halperin wrote:
NATIONAL SECURITY and TAXES: On these two issues that inspire emotion among loyal Republicans and many swing voters, Republicans have long had an advantage, and President Bush and other prominent figures in the party will be pushing those messages hard.
But, as Media Matters has noted, recent polling shows Americans trust Democrats more on taxes than they do Republicans, a finding that is reaffirmed in the most recent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll on the subject, which showed a 46 percent-to-35 percent Democratic advantage on taxes in February 2006 and an advantage of 45 percent to 30 percent in September.
Further, recent polling also indicates that Democrats hold an advantage over Republicans on dealing with national security issues, such as terrorism and Iraq. For example, a CNN poll conducted October 6-8 found that 45 percent of respondents felt Democrats "would do a better job" in dealing with terrorism versus 40 percent who indicated a preference for Republicans on that issue. The poll's margin of error was +/- 3 percent. Similarly, a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted October 6-8 also gave Democrats a five-point advantage over Republicans -- 46 percent to 41 percent -- on "who would best handle terrorism"; a Newsweek poll conducted October 5-6 gave Democrats a seven-point advantage -- 44 percent to 37 percent -- on the question of "which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror"; and an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 5-8 gave Democrats a six-point advantage -- 47 percent to 41 percent -- on the question of "which political party" would "do a better job handling [t]he U.S. campaign against terrorism."
Democrats also hold a significant advantage over Republicans when respondents are asked which party they prefer to handle the situation in Iraq. For instance, the October 6-8 CNN poll found that Democrats held a 17-point lead over Republicans -- 51 percent to 34 percent -- on which party respondents felt "would do a better job of dealing with ... [t]he situation in Iraq." Likewise, the Gallup/USA Today poll gave Democrats a 17-point advantage -- 52 percent versus 35 percent -- over Republicans on who "would do a better job of dealing with" Iraq. The Newsweek poll gave Democrats a 13-point advantage, with 47 percent of respondents indicating that they "trust" the Democrats "to do a better job handling" Iraq; 34 percent indicated a preference for Republicans on the issue.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Halperin is the co-author of The Way To Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, October 2006), purporting to explore the reasons for the Democrats' defeats in recent elections, as well as White House senior adviser Karl Rove's role in George W. Bush's and the GOP's political successes to date.
From the October 16 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
HALPERIN: Well, the Democratic Party is not targeting you. They have too many divisions.
BECK: No kidding!
HALPERIN: They're for big government in a lot of areas, including health care. They're for withdrawal from Iraq, in a lot of cases. They're divided. They're more liberal in many cases than they want to admit. They're basically just trying to hide what they want to do, knowing full well that the country, a lot of the country, will vote for change, even without specifics. It is a recipe for some serious gridlock if the Democrats take control of Congress and have to work with President Bush.
Why do people like Halperin, Chris Matthews, and others continue to say that Republicans have an advantage on national security and taxes when current polling indicates that the advantage is clear-cut for the Democrats? This is like the Americans who still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Of course, a lot or most of those people continue to lazily believe that because of the Bush Administrations use of deceptive language and insinuations to fool the dim-witted who make up their core nerve center or supporters.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
That idiot 33% will believe whatever Karl Rove feeds them. They still believe that they will somehow personally benefit from repeal of the Estate Tax, though only the top 2% will ever pay it. They also believe that only the Republicans can protect them from the Evil Turrists, and they must give up their Constitutional protections in order to survive. Such profound ignorance is the result of black and white thinking, typical of the Hyper-Religious.
Apparently Halperin believes that a Congress which acts as a rubber stamp for Bush is preferable to one which exercises its constitutional oversight duties.
If this guy was saying false or distorted things in favor of Democrats in his current capacity as Director of political affairs at a major network, Republicans would be going insane.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Gridlock is what we need. If there was a Democratic Senate and/or a Democratic House, there would be no Sam Alito, maybe even no John Roberts, that terrorism bill which strips habeus corpus rights for detainees would not have been passed, and tax cuts for the top 1% would not have happened, and we would get some much needed oversight, investigations, and subpoenas regarding the crimes and corruption of this criminal administration.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
But the Democrats voted FOR Roberts and Alito.
Actually, in today's political climate there is very little difference really between the Dems and Reps anymore. So this all may be just moot anyway.
However, reading many of the posts here by rank and file Democrats, or at least liberals, it is very clear which mindset or opinion is pervasive on the left. Generally speaking, reagarding national security, they fear Christians far more than Islamic fanatics - although the last I heard Christians weren't flying airplanes into buildings and beheading prisoners.
On taxes, they believe we, or so they say, the rich, are undertaxed and need a tax hike in order to level the playing field. Dismissing that higher taxes trickle down and nobody escapes government's expansion.
That being said, I am going to take my chances and throw out my local Republicans because they don't deserve re-election - I am voting for a Democrat or two for they can't do worse.
I am just hoping if the Democrats get elected they don't share the views of many posters here, that they are more reasonable and pragmatic when it comes to taxes and national security.
I am hoping.
Democrats are not in bed with the Christofascists, and are not likely to be.
As for your national security straw man; bunk. Terrorism is a threat to our national security, but invading other countries is not the way to deal with it. As we've seen, that only makes the situation worse. The Christofascists are not a national security issue, but a political issue. The point I've made and Rosey O'Donnel has made, which you have yet to refute, is that the Islamofascists DO NOT have the power to conquer us or diminish our freedoms; we can only do that to ourselves. In that respect, the regressive agenda of our own Christian Fundamentalist is a bigger threat TO OUR REPUBLIC than the Islamic terrorists.
Rosie O'Donnell on national security - the standard bearer for the left. Now why would anyone question her authority or her grasp on global terrorism?
I have debated the idiotic hysteria that the left continues, in vain, regarding the unfounded Christian bashing, so there is no point.
As I said, mainstream Democratic candidates do not share your view, thankfully. It is a far left fringe fear mongering nutty notion that will never garner any traction. Reasonable people know who are real enemies are. Which is why I will split my votes this November..........oh, is Rosie on the ballot?
In your condescention, you HAVE YET to demonstrate how the Islamofascists can take down our country, though you seem to believe they can. They can wound us, but they cannot conquer us. The internal threat of extremist Christians has been demonstrated by the Bush administration. Read their websites; don't take my word for it.
It is your opinion, fine. You feel Christians are more dangerous than fanatical Islam, then by all means vote for candidates who share your view.
Nice try, that is not what he said.
At least you are consistent in your distortions.
Christian fanatics have the potential to be as dangerous. Go to the Army of God website and tell me these Christian fundies are no threat. I will not provide a link because their homepage is absolutely vile. Instead take a look at this story (courtesy of SASAMI).
[link to www.newsday.com]
Normally you get shredded. Straw man arguments like your ludicrous assertion about national security do not really impress most people. Most liberals were all for getting Al Queda and not so big on ADD Bush losing interest in going after those who actually DID attack us to fight a more profit friendly war in Iraq. As for trickle down only the more extremely brainwashed still buy that bilge. We tried it twice and there wasnt that much benifit to the bottom of the economic ladder. Strawmen and false dichotimies are your standard practices and they are not effective debating techniques.
We dont have to hanker after a Holy War to want effective National Security. ( see how easy the false dichotomy is?) Because we want a different tactic to fight terrorism doesnt make lefties wrong on National Security and guess what the polls show most Americans agree with us lefties on that one.
For someone who "shreds" me constantly in debate, you are glaringly defensive. Why?
You have only confirmed what I said above about how out out of touch you and the far left fringe are with your mainstream candidates. None of them, that I have heard, talk about how the Christians are our real fear. Have you?
And even Charlie Rangel said no tax hikes. Didn't he?
So, before you blast me with your tired strawman accusations, tell me who you will vote for that shares your extremist views.
And stop being so defensive when the truth hits you between the eyes.
"None of them, that I have heard, talk about how the Christians are our real fear. Have you?"
This suggests that terrorism is not a genuine fear compared to Christians. Nobody's saying that. Funny you talk about strawmen when propping up one of your own.
And why would anyone say that? What a ridiculous concept. You seem to think that because people aren't coming out and denouncing Christians that they don't recognize the threat of mixing church and state.
Seriously, think about what you just said for half a second. Who would say anything even remotely like that, no matter what they believed? It would be plastered over every right-wing site within seconds, no matter how they qualified it.
What are you thinking here?
This suggests that terrorism is not a genuine fear compared to Christians. Nobody's saying that.
**********************************
Read the posts again, don't try and backpeddle and defend your fellow liberals. That is exactly what they are saying.
But your real frustration shouldn't be with me, it should be within your own party. The way Bush and the Republicans have messed everything up, the Democrats should be basking in a huge majority, yet they will barely be one in just the House if the polls are correct. And that is sad.
No, it's not what they're saying. They're two completely different kinds of threats, Tommy, both which require diligence and commitment to prevent. The point is that so many right-wingers talk about "islamofascists" and act as if they're trying to take over America. They're not. They can't. Evangelicals, however, can get a foothold in government and change the system.
Terrorists try to kill people. Evangelicals want to change our government and laws so that they are inconsistent with both the words of the Founding Fathers and the will of the vast majority of Americans. Terrorists can't change our system unless we do it ourselves out of fear.
Terrorism, to an extent, is out of our control. We can take preventive measures as much as possible, but after that you just have to relax and hope for the best. The threat from radical Christians, however, can be stopped outright if people understand it, and that's why it's important to make note of it. So terrorism is a genuine concern, but it gets blown out of proportion as to the intent and capacity it holds. The threat of evangelicals in government, meanwhile, is understated.
Does that help you understand it a little bit, I hope?
I note you don't explain what your point was about candidates making that comment.
In the long run, I fear the Christofascists more than the Islamofascists. The Islamofascists cannot destroy our Republic; the Christofascists can, and will, if we let them. * - nerzog / Wednesday October 18, 2006 11:17:20 AM EST
********************
This is just a sample of the sentiment by many here, posted on another thread from today. In all your doublespeak, nerzog is saying exactly what I said. I did not infer or misrepresent him or the prevailing mindset of many here. So don't sit there and parse words, it's in black and white. Fear is fear, he is very clear on which is the bigger threat to this country.
"In all your doublespeak, nerzog is saying exactly what I said."
No, that's not what you said.
"Generally speaking, reagarding(sic) national security, they fear Christians far more than Islamic fanatics"
"This suggests that terrorism is not a genuine fear compared to Christians. Nobody's saying that. ********************************** Read the posts again, don't try and backpeddle and defend your fellow liberals. That is exactly what they are saying."
Nerzog was talking about the long run, and he didn't say it had anything to do with national security. This doesn't mean that terrorism isn't a threat now, obviously, it means that the meddling in government by religious interests poses a threat for our entire system of government for decades to come. This obviously doesn't preclude the idea that the death of Americans is a serious threat. In fact, Nerzog is saying very much what I just did. They're both threats, but they're different in nature. And the one posed by evangelicals has further-reaching effects.
Are you ever able to think outside of binary mode?
Just answer a simple question and spare me the apologetic, backpeddling nonsense.
Which poses a bigger threat to America today - the Christian fanatics, or the Islamic fanatics?
Nerzog said what he believes, at least he was honest in his opinion. How about you?
You're a liar. You post a quote from me, then equate it with your own straw man, when everyone can see the difference. It is this type of brazen dishonesty that has driven me beyond the point of civil discourse with conservatives.
Don't accuse me of lying, do you not stand by your own quote? Talk about no credibility.
Then be a stand up guy and clarify what you meant, because the way I read it was exactly what I said. You exactly said "In the long run, I fear the Christofascists more than the Islamofascists. The Islamofascists cannot destroy our Republic; the Christofascists can, and will, if we let them".
Now you call me a liar, spare me.
From your earlier post:
"This suggests that terrorism is not a genuine fear compared to Christians. Nobody's saying that.
**********************************
Read the posts again, don't try and backpeddle and defend your fellow liberals. That is exactly what they are saying."
That is not exactly what I or anyone else is saying. I realize that nuance is difficult for Conservatives, but if you're going to paraphrase what someone else is saying, please try to get right.
You know that I never said terrorism is not a threat.
I DID say, however, that "the Islamofascists DO NOT have the power to conquer us or diminish our freedoms; we can only do that to ourselves."
I stand by that, and you have yet to refute that.
I never said that you said terrorism is not a threat. I said that you said when compared to "Christianfascists", the term you used, Islamic fanatics are not a greater threat - in comparison.
And we are talking about national security since that is the context in which Islam fanatics are relevant.
So, which is the greater fear in America today? Islamic nuts or Christian nuts? Why can't you answer a simple question instead of some nuanced spinning?
Because your question is not an "either or" question. They are two different kinds of threats. Here, you answer one of these questions. Which is a bigger threat to you; Cancer or Islamic Terrorism? Which is a bigger threat to you; drunk drivers or Islamic Terrorists?
I specifically stated that the Islamofascists are a national security issue, and Christofascists are a political issue. Political threat vs. physical (national security) threat. See the difference? Take your time. Thinking in shades of gray is hard work.
Then if they are so different and have no relation threat-wise, as you say, then why did you include them together? You did that, not me.
to your assertion that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I'll repeat the point, and try to clarify...Republicans are enthralled to Christian extremists; they can't win without them. Democrats have their faults, but they owe nothing to the Christofascists. Now, as far as I know, the Democrats are not likely to turn this country into an Islamic theocracy, whereas Republicans could easily turn it into a Christian theocracy given enough time.
If we become a theocracy, our Republic ceases to exist. If we are attacked again by Islamic terrorists, the Republic will survive. Understand?
In response... to your assertion that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
************************
This statement of yours was on another thread altogether, it was NOT in response to me at all. You said, and I repeat > ""In the long run, I fear the Christofascists more than the Islamofascists. The Islamofascists cannot destroy our Republic; the Christofascists can, and will, if we let them".
You compared them, you did it. Not me. Now you are backpeddling and try to say something else, or something?? I have no clue. Apparently you don't want to now, fine. You said which you fear more, that is what you said. Obviously if you fear one more than the other, then the one you fear is the greater threat?
If you want to change your mind, then just say so. Otherwise you just look disingenuous trying to "change" what you said.
I was responding to Boortz assertion that Fundamentalis Islam is a virus and therefore, presumeably, a grave threat. I ALSO said in that very post...
"While fundamentalist Muslims may pose a more serious physical threat, fundamentalist Christians pose an even greater political threat."
Note the juxtaposition of "physical" and "political". Please go back and check if you don't believe me. It's still there.
Thanks for playing.
One more time. OK, I will play your word games with you. Tell me then, although you have already said it but let's see if you change your mind.
Which is bigger threat, the physical threat from Islamofanatics, or the political threat from Christianfanatics? You had them in the same sentence saying which you feared more, earlier, so be careful how you parse your answer. THAT"S ALL I WANT, is an answer to a simple question. Why won't you answer it?
Why do I need to say it again? If you must compare the two threats, the threat of the United States becoming a theocracy frightens me more than the physical threat posed by the terrorists. How's that?
Yes, the terrorists can kill me, but the Christofascists can ruin this country forever, which will affect my children and their children. I do not believe that the Islamic terrorists can conquer this country. Do you?
This is just a variation of the old principle that the threat from within is greater than the threat from without. It's really not that hard to understand, but you just want to get someone on the record saying that Christians are more dangerous than Muslims.
I'm not going to give you a bumper sticker answer, but I'm sure you'll condense it to that, anyway.
If you must compare the two threats, the threat of the United States becoming a theocracy frightens me more than the physical threat posed by the terrorists. How's that?
********************
How clever. That's like me saying, OK the threat of 100,000 people dying by chemical weapons scares me more than a few Christian bible thumpers. You are putting forth a hypothetical of America becoming a theocracy as the benchmark. Unless you have concrete evidence of that, because our Constitution emphatically states that can never happen, you are just engaging in the ultimate straw fear mongering, and you know it............but, hey if that's all you've got.........
But you answered the question and my original post from way back has just been documented. Thank you.
Also states the the writ of Habeus Corpus will not be suspended except in time of invasion or rebellion. That didn't stop Bush, did it?
I have no concrete proof that the Christofascists will create a theocracy, but their own websites prove that they want to. You also have no concrete proof that the terrorists will conquer the United States.
So all you've "documented" is your willingness to twist other people's words and toss out Straw Men.
Nothing new there.
You also have no concrete proof that the terrorists will conquer the United States.
************************
Wow, OK, time to move on here..............(the twilight zone)?????????????????
Run awaaaaaaaaay....run awaaaaaaaaaay.
Run away? Go ahead and try and defend what you said. You make some crazy comment and then accuse me of running away because I won't discuss it. That's rich.
OK, you have no proof that when elected liberals won't jail every Christian in this country, do you? Come on, don't run away now.
"I said that you said when compared to "Christianfascists", the term you used, Islamic fanatics are not a greater threat - in comparison."
No, you said that people were saying that it wasn't a "real threat". That says nothing about relative measures. Read it again.
"And we are talking about national security since that is the context in which Islam fanatics are relevant."
Then why did you bring up Christians? Nobody ever mentioned them in that context except for you. Let me get this straight;because someone compared two groups of people, one of which is a national security concern...even when they made the distinction of passage of time...you assumed that they must also believe the the second group is also a national security concern? That would explain your obvious confusion...
Good Lord.
Then why did you bring up Christians? Nobody ever mentioned them in that context except for you.
**************************
Nobody? Try nerzog's post, and nearly every post in this website when liberals try to dowmplay the Islamofanatic threat. Christian fanatics are ALWAYS brought up in comparison.
Nice reading comprehension! Nobody brought them up in that context. Meaning, in the context of national security which you specifically mentioned.
Nobody has ever tried to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism by suggesting that radical Christians are likely to fly planes into a building. The point has always been that radicals of any faith are dangerous, but nobody ever said it was in the same context. That was your bizarre assumption.
What other context would Islamic fanatics be taken if it wasn't national security, for crying out loud?? This is getting ridiculous.
And so typical of liberal doublespeak. Say some outlandish fear mongering statement, and then when cornered say "that's not what I meant, or something?"
The question stands but never answered? Which do you fear more, Christian nuts or Islamic nuts? If you won't answer it, then let's just move on.
Whew!!
"Then why did you bring up Christians? Nobody ever mentioned them in that context except for you."
Your response:"Nobody? Try nerzog's post, and nearly every post in this website when liberals try to dowmplay the Islamofanatic threat."
"Nobody brought them up in that context. Meaning, in the context of national security which you specifically mentioned."
So now, when I say "them" in the quote directly above, you're thinking I'm talking about Islamic fundamentalists...why? We were both talking about Christians. You mentioned the context of national security, and I questioned why you brought up Christians in that context. Are you pulling my leg, or are you just completely out of it?
"The question stands but never answered? Which do you fear more, Christian nuts or Islamic nuts?"
I did answer it. You didn't reply, for what seem to be obvious reasons.
As for "doublespeak", I guess that's what everything looks like when you can't follow a simple conversation. Maybe you should take a nap, then try again.
If you can demonstrate to me how Islamicfanatics and the threat they pose are in any context other than national security, you are wasting my time.......and yours.
They were directly compared in previous posts, and now you are trying to split them. Don't bother, as I said you and many leftists fear Christianfanatics more than Islamic ones.
My original statement in my first post on this thread is absolutely correct. You have only made that abundantly clear, over and over.
"If you can demonstrate to me how Islamicfanatics and the threat they pose are in any context other than national security, you are wasting my time.......and yours."
I've never claimed, or suggested in the least, that Islamic terrorists are not a matter of national security. We were talking about Christians in the context of national security! What is your major malfunction here?
"They were directly compared in previous posts, and now you are trying to split them."
No, you were the one who put them in the same context, and I wanted to know why. Yes, Islamic terrorists are a matter of national security. Christian fanatics are not. I'm the one who said "They're two separate things", remember? They've always been separate types of threats, even though they were mentioned in the same sentence, and that has been explained to you more than adequately.
You cannot be this thick. If I said, I fear Cancer more than a car accident, then I would be the one comparing the two and it would be perfectly legitimate for someone to ask me why? Nerzog and many others say they fear Christian nuts more than Islamic ones. HE put them in the same sentence, thereby using one as a comparative example vs. the other. Why is it so hard for you here? Geez. Come on, it's not rocket science.
I simply asked if he really feels that way, then all the backpeddling came about. How ridiculous.
"If I said, I fear Cancer more than a car accident, then I would be the one comparing the two and it would be perfectly legitimate for someone to ask me why?"
Fine, and then when you explained they were two different things, and one was a more serious long-term risk than the other, then that should be the end of that conversation. Now imagine the person kept blathering about how you were talking about cancer in the context of auto safety, because that's the only context a car accident makes any sense in. Are you imagining that? Good. Hold that impression. Now you have some glimmer of an idea of how every thinking person is looking at you at this very moment.
Seriously - are you drinking? I mean, alcohol? I am serious. Stop, please.
Tommy, I'm bookmarking this thread, and linking anyone who claims you are a "reasonable" person to it. You have no arguments. You are misinterpreting everything. You are sticking to your ridiculous assumptions like flypaper. Then, after all that, all you have are ridiculous insults, when you are the one who has failed repeatedly to make any sense whatsoever.
You should really, honestly take a good long look at this thread tomorrow, and next week, and next month. Maybe it will do you some good.
I welcome whatever you feel you must do to keep me in your "Bookmarks". Do you want a picture to go along with that? Sounds a little creepy to me, but hey........
Have a nice evening.
So, which is the greater fear in America today? Islamic nuts or Christian nuts? Why can't you answer a simple question instead of some nuanced spinning? - tommy / Wednesday October 18, 2006 03:04:58 PM EST
I'll answer: YES! Nuts!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Which poses a bigger threat to America today - the Christian fanatics, or the Islamic fanatics?"
This isn't the question Nerzog answered though, because he said "in the long run". Not "today". We're more likely to get hit by terrorists tomorrow than to have mandatory Christian prayer in schools tomorrow. To suggest that was the question Nerzog was "at least honest" about is, in fact, completely dishonest. Or, more likely, you're just brain-addled here.
Again, they're two separate things. If you're young, a car wreck is more likely than a heart attack now, but their both things you need to try to prevent in different ways.
Exposing your confusion is not "dancing". Explaining simple distinctions is not "backpedalling". There's simply no basis for saying that Nerzog means that Christians are going to threaten our national security, or that Islamic terrorism is not a threat, both of which you've suggested.
Sure I shred you regularly but I am far from the only one. You get your head handed to you regularly from many posters on this site. You call the strawman argument tired because it is inherent in the majority of your posts and for that reason you get CALLED on it a lot. You seem to think you can wear us down. That if you KEEP up with a logical fallacy we have some obligation to come up with new and exciting rebuttals instead of just showing they are the same tired strawman (and false dichotomy) tactics. I do see some Christian bashing on this site. Being a Christian myself I sometimes get uncomfortable. You havent seen me do it however so in this context its irrelevant.
As to who I would LOVE to vote for who shares my views that YOU can only TRY to define as extremist. Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich ( a very religious man by the way) Are right there with me on most issues. The late Paul Wellstone is another example. I dont have to be defensive, I take you apart like a cheap watch day after day. As for the truth, living on the fantasy world of Planet Wingnut as you do, you know less about the truth than my gerbil knows about quantam mechanics.
What exactly are you referring to? Since you constantly use phrases like "strawman argument" and "logical fallacy" and "false dichotomy"..........yet you are never specific. Put your facts where your incoherency is and stop talking in such meaningless phrases.
Give me an example contained in this thread? Come on, take me apart as you puff your chest and post with such insecure blubbering. It doesn't impress me much, but let's see it anyway.
Those that like to talk about how big they are, usually are pretty small. Is that you too?
Are you serious? Well ok here is one from THIS thread right at the beggining
it is very clear which mindset or opinion is pervasive on the left. Generally speaking, reagarding national security, they fear Christians far more than Islamic fanatics - <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is a definitive strawman. You have no hope of showing that generally speaking it is a pervasive mindset on the left that we fear Christians (note the general term, so that would be Christians in general) MORE then Islamic fanatics. It is not just a run of the mill strawman its ludicrous beyone description.
As for blubbering how big I am or whatever your fantasy is about my insecurity. I thought I was stating an indisputable fact that I and several other posters on this site destroy your arguments regularly. THIS became an issue when YOU brought up your debating here. Yes you debate here. You also usually lose those debates badly, THAT is the point. Its not my fault that you debate here regularly but arent very good at it. I think its pretty self evident this is true. You assume that means I have a very good opinion of MYSELF because I regularly defeat your weak logic and logical fallacies. Actually I am only average. YOU on the other hand are pathetic. I am amazed you still dont get how absolutly easy you are. Your capacity for self delusion is near infinite
Yeah, try and sell that to your fellow leftists on this site who say constantly how much they fear the Christian right more than Islamic fanatics? Are you actually saying that many here don't feel that way? Maybe you don't, but don't look foolish and deny it - read all the posts from today or the recent past.
As for my debating skills vs yours, I have one thing to say on that. Which one of us is more fearless and likely to jump in and debate those with differing points of view? Me - who discusses issues with people with very different viewpoints than mine........or You - who discusses issues here with people who agree and parrot everything you say?
You tell me which of has more cajones, and which of us doesn't depend and need their views reinforced constantly for validation?
Keep trying, it's the weak and shallowness of your views that are your ultimate worst enemy, not me.
"As for my debating skills vs yours, I have one thing to say on that. Which one of us is more fearless and likely to jump in and debate those with differing points of view? Me - who discusses issues with people with very different viewpoints than mine........or You - who discusses issues here with people who agree and parrot everything you say?"
So the assumption here is that the most fearless is the most skilled, is that right? That's simply absurd. You enter the arena and get pummeled day after day. Or is your argument "I don't have skills but I don't let that get in my way!"?
And how is it that you argue with Solon all the time, but he only discusses things with people who agree with him? This is bizarre, to say the least. Solon challenges all opposing viewpoints without any sign of fear, and his conversation with you at this very moment is a sign of that! You seem to think you're formidable because you take on everyone, yet Solon doesn't seem afraid of you in the least. What does that suggest to you, if "fearless" means anything at all?
What's really funny is that to defend your ability to argue, you forward...an absurd argument. Well done!
Why do you feel the paternal need to jump in and defend your fellow posters all the time from me? They are more than able to defend themselves, do they need your reinforcement?
And please, it's not too tough to be a liberal poster on this site, give me a break. Many of you are like parrots giving high fives to one another, wow - that's real thought provoking dialogue, isn't it? And when another point of view comes up, the troll label is usually right out of the gate. Tolerant liberals, that is the most hysterical and false notion around.
I am here to point out how weak most arguments are from the left, it actually is pretty easy for me for the most part too, to be honest.
But you are like a big brother always coming to the rescue.........well, if they need you and you need them, that's OK.
Oh I had no doubts that Solon would defend himself. I just couldn't get over the irony of asserting your brilliance with a piece of pure idocy.
As for the ease of being a liberal poster, you're almost right. The thing is that the opposition arguments are so weak that they provide no challenge. You, on this very thread, are the perfect example.
And at a certain point, "troll" becomes a compliment. Because at least with a troll, you have to suspect that they're really smarter than what they act like. It's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're just messing around, that you know your arguments are absurd, as opposed to actually believing in them.
Oh, and it's funny to note that the fearless one who is so quick to jump in the ring failed completely to justify their own arguments as to why they were so skilled. Surely, someone with any argumentative abilities would have supported their own position, instead of going off on silly tangents.
"I am here to point out how weak most arguments are from the left, it actually is pretty easy for me for the most part too, to be honest."
So, today must just be an off-day, then? Do you really think you're winning any debates today? I'm curious if you have any self-perception at all here.
I don't determine whether I win debates or not by the number of people who parrot my views, such as you on this website. If that's your personal barometer, then go for it.
I don't expect validation here, as a matter of fact, when the opposition is so vitriolic and manic, then I know I have won the argument.
Thank you for helping me win another today. You are my new friend.
"I don't determine whether I win debates or not by the number of people who parrot my views, such as you on this website."
Neither do I. I determine it based on your arguments you fail to support and my arguments you fail to refute. Go through the thread and count them up, if you like.
Oh just re-reading this I noticed this headline of yours:"Good Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many exclamation marks in there?
But I'm the "manic" one. LOL.
The proposition is ludicrous. This is you once again failing to understand that everything isnt one sort of false dichotomy or another. What has been said ad naseum is that they pose different kind of threats. Just because Muslim extremists and terrorists are more of a physical threat to kill us, which everyone has reason to fear, doesnt mean there is no threat from the rightwing Christians. See they can both be threats. Everything isnt either you fear Islam and love Christianity or you dont.
Your second paragraph shows why your debating skills are weak. It was logic free. Hey I give you credit for wading in and being fearless, just none for making good arguments, because you rarely do. A gladiator might be the bravest man who ever lived, IF he doesnt have skill with that sword a less courageous man can still skewer him like a piece of meat on a shish-kabob, or like you get skewered daily. Also are the majority of my posts backpatting to my fellow liberals or are they challenges to the conservatives that argue here? So the second part of your paragraph fails from its a fallacious premise.
Your last paragraph ALMOST makes a good point. Obviously you cannot be my worst enemy at all. First you are not an enemy second you are no threat to me whatsoever. Until you gain substantial ground on your ability to make a cogent argument I answer you in autopilot. I would be more challenged in a 7th grade debate class. However you have not shown, nor even attempted to show how my views are weak OR shallow. I dont think they are. I doubt that most people would agree with you. However since I along with those who agree with me (or restated those with the same weak and shallow views according to you) take you to school so regularly, which we do what does that say about YOUR views, what can its say about them unless its that either they are weaker and shallower or you are just congenitally pathetic at this?
It's funny that anyone could think that arguing anonymously on the comments section of a website is being "fearless." This really is the funniest thread ever.
"Try nerzog's post, and nearly every post in this website when liberals try to dowmplay the Islamofanatic threat. Christian fanatics are ALWAYS brought up in comparison."
No, that's a strawman. You're creating a position that doesn't actually exist. Christian fanatics are not brought up to downplay Islamic fanatics, they're brought up when people try to lump ALL Muslims into the same fanatic category(see Boortz, Savage, Coulter) or argue that Christianity is peaceful by nature and Islam is violent (Robertson). That's when the point comes up that Christian religions have their fanatics too. Therefore, the issue is not the religion specifically but the nature of religion in itself, that it can be twisted to suit one's own ends and make the most devout do just about anything.
Someone mentions that Christian fanatics present a political threat of some kind. A right-winger invariably responds "well, Christians aren't flying airplanes into buildings" or "I don't see Christians cutting off people's heads." As if that somehow rebuts the original point.
On a side note, this has been one of the funniest threads ever. I've been sitting here chuckling all day.
What is even more side splitting is when leftist fear mongering liberals say that the US of America will be a full blown theocracy someday unless we reign in the Christian fanatics from the 700 Club. Now that is hysterical.
Since you are a lawyer and know the Constitution pretty well, maybe you even laugh harder than the rest of us on that one!!!
(doubling over while LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
What happens if the Supreme court gets five fundamentalists? If the body that interprets the Constitution turns out that way, then how does the Constitution itself protect the system?
"Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."
The Supreme Court does not make laws, the Congress does. They do interpret the Constiution which clearly states separation of church and state. So if you are actually afraid of us becoming a theocracy, which I know you are not, it's just a far left fringe tactic to scare people that nobody, NOBODY with any credibility takes seriously.......
But what happens if the Supreme Court gets five aliens from Mars???? Better buy property now.
"They do interpret the Constiution which clearly states separation of church and state."
Um, yes. And if five fundamentalists are interpreting the Constitution, then they can interpret that separation of church and state any way they want, can't they? Clearly stated doesn't make any difference if the people involved have a religious interest in interpreting things their own way. How are you refuting that, exactly?
There is no point in entering into the "Land of liberal fear mongering hypothetical zero chance of happening because our system is set up with checks and balances to prevent even the most outrageous hypothetical your leftist brain can dream up!"
So find a fringe website that wants to bash Christianity and puts forth these nutty theories, and bounce them off one another. Maybe you'll get some traction there?
That Islamic fundamentalists will make my wife wear a burka. Yet I HAVE seen that argument. Since the chance of Islamic Fundamentalists, invading, conquering and turning the US into a Caliphate is also approximately ZERO. I would call that one a wash. The point is we must look to threats both within and without. Not ignoring either.
What checks and balances? You mean the Republican president and the Republican congress? You must be kidding me.
Your point was that it was not possible because of the Constitution. A few seconds' worth of thought showed why you were wrong. You simply can't refute what I said, so you have to flail about wildly, which seems to be your mode of the day.
Oh, and this:"There is no point in entering into the "Land of liberal fear mongering hypothetical zero chance of happening because our system is set up with checks and balances to prevent even the most outrageous hypothetical your leftist brain can dream up!""
One word:"Manic".
They ARE however one of the checks and balances you mentioned. So the argument about how that check COULD be subverted IS relevant.
Notice I never said they made the laws. This is what I said:
"If the body that interprets the Constitution turns out that way, then how does the Constitution itself protect the system?"
Then in a post titled "You not serious"(sic), Tommy responds "The Supreme Court does not make laws, the Congress does. They do interpret the Constiution which clearly states separation of church and state."
"They do interpret..." after I specifically said "the body the interprets the Constitution". This is Tommy's concept of "correction", apparently. What a remarkable performance.
Another example of a strawman argument. Changing your argument from one he DIDNT want to argue into an easier one to argue.
That Rosie O'Donnell is now your foreign global terrorism expert. Whos' next - The Penguin from Batman as your global warming Czar?
Alert. Who is claiming Rosie as OUR foriegn policy expert? No one? Imagine my suprise
I do believe some people are more afraid of Christians than the REAL enemy which in my belief is RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. I realize that Radical Islamic Fundamentalists are an enemy, however this is not a country; we fight wars with a country, not an idea. It is impossible to destroy this enemy, just like it is impossible to destroy racism. What we have to do as Americans is show the Muslim people that we are compassionate, reasonable people. I present that we can do this by withdrawing from Iraq, and stop torturing "Enemy Combatants".
Dems are in bed and making love to the far-right religious fanatics...can you say AIPAC?
"Generally speaking, reagarding national security, they fear Christians far more than Islamic fanatics - although the last I heard Christians weren't flying airplanes into buildings and beheading prisoners."
Simplistic in the extreme. You only recognize one type of threat, when both are obvious. There is next to no threat for any significant political influence from Muslims, but evangelicals in public office are a different story.
"That being said, I am going to take my chances and throw out my local Republicans because they don't deserve re-election - I am voting for a Democrat or two for they can't do worse."
How are you "taking your chances" if Democrats "can't do worse"? 100% seems like pretty good odds to me!
"I am just hoping if the Democrats get elected they don't share the views of many posters here, that they are more reasonable and pragmatic when it comes to taxes and national security."
Huh? It's perfectly reasonable to believe that "trickle-down" economics is not the best option. And where is anyone here "unreasonable" regarding national security? We said Iraq wasn't helping, and we were right. We want better border inspections. We want better shipping inspections. And considering how often your illogical arguments get shot down by all sorts of people here, your suggestion that we are "unreasonable" on almost any topic is highly suspect.
I'm glad to hear you're voting against Republicans, but must you mix in such nonsense with your reason? Even when you're right on something you have to be wrong about something else.
To be honest, I do not trust democrats in economic situations. That IS their weakness, however I vote on character and ideals so I typically ignore that weakness. I may be willing to vote a moderate, antibush, antireligiousright, republican if one even exists(except Chafee). I hope Democrats don't spend hard, but in all honesty I would do ANYTHING to get order back in Congress, even if it means higher taxes(which may not happen anyways).
No, the Christians are just trying to destroy the Bill of Rights and kill arabs in the false hope that Jesus will return and genocide the rest of the non-believers....and them crazed Christians have OUR nuclear bombs and military to do it with. Damn right I'm scared of them.
"Generally speaking, reagarding national security, they fear Christians far more than Islamic fanatics - although the last I heard Christians weren't flying airplanes into buildings and beheading prisoners."
I, like most sane people, fear religious extremists and fantatics of ALL types.
"On taxes, they believe we, or so they say, the rich, are undertaxed and need a tax hike in order to level the playing field. Dismissing that higher taxes trickle down and nobody escapes government's expansion."
Yes, the rich are undertaxed just as corporations are undertaxed in this country. This is a fact, if you look at historical tax rates. This has been going on for decades this flattening of the progressive tax system. If you choose to act like it is not happening that is your chose but facts are facts.
Taxes are trickling down now. As a result of the tax cuts for fat cats, State and Local governments have to raise their taxes to make up for the lost federal revenue. Guess who picks up the slack? The middle class. My property taxes have sky-rocketed since Bush took office. And yes, I know the rich guy down the street is paying more in local taxes, too, but it has little or no impact on his lifestyle or his spending habits. Since I pay more in property tax, I have less to spend on consumer goods.
Don't trickle down my back and tell me it's raining.
Higher and higher and raising and raising taxes is another notion and idea that never wins. It has been tried since Walter Mondale announced it in a national debate over 20 years ago, and he lost every state except D.C.
So, keep dreaming of more government expansion through higher taxes. Reasonable people know the government has plenty of our money, when they learn not to waste it and spend it wisely. Until then, the gravy train of higher taxes has run dry.
...stop spouting right wing talking points about taxes as if they are facts. This whole "tricke down" or my favorite "voodoo" economics doesn't work and it didnt' work 20 years ago. You know it and the facts including the huge defecits show it, just as you know I and everyone else has said taxes on the rich and corporate taxes. And by rich I mean those making 200k a year or more not the working class (I prefer the check to check class myself) which the vast majority of the population is.
I noticed you didn't try and refute my statement of fact that there has been a flattening of the progressive tax system over the last few decades.
Let's go back to the golden 1950's which conservatives talk about with such romantic sentimenality and the exact same taxes they had back in the "good old" days.
You would hear the howls of "class warfare" if we did it.
Has been tried by Raygun and Bush both with sad effect. Corporations and the wealthy do great the rest of us not so much. We all know what trickles down except the most severely brainwashed.
...and "wrong again" Tommy can't refute the facts so he keeps repeating the kool aid right wing talking points on taxes which don't have anything to do with the facts.
You can't even find a candidate that shares your views, tax hikes are never, ever admitted to even by Democrats, yet you liberals insist that they are the way to go. Why is that?
Rangel said no tax hikes, I didn't. Don't blame the right and the "talking points", I am only repeating what many say here every day.......
1) Fear the Christians, not Islamic fanatics.
2) Taxes are too low, raise them up.
And you accuse me of talking points. Nice try.
As I have said before and stated in other posts in the last half hour I am for raising the taxes on those making 200k or more and raising corporate taxes. You repeat talking points that you have memorized very well but you don't refute the fallacy of "trickle down" economics or the huge defecits they have created.
The reason is simple because you can't.
Why can't you address my point? What candidate is saying they will raise taxes. Rangel certainly did not. So if your tax hike platform is such a populist idea, why are more Democrats embracing it and running on it? Or could it be that it is only the far left fringe that want to raise taxes and most Dems no that cannot get elected if they advertise that?
That's it, and you know it. Don't blame me.
...wants the tax cuts to lapse in 2010 when they are due to expire and leave them at that rate.
In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, during a September 26 interview with host Neil Cavuto on Fox News' Your World, Rangel, who is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if Democrats gain a majority in the House after the November election, stated that a House controlled by the Democrats "would not raise taxes" and "would not roll back" President Bush's tax cuts enacted by Congress and set to expire in 2010.
***********************
Then take it up with this website. I said Rangel is saying he will not raise taxes. I ask you again, and you continue to avoid it, why will he not raise them?
As for trickle down tax debates, that is not the issue here. You and I disagree, so do many economists. The issue is now and what the candidates are saying. You want taxes raised, Democrats say otherwise.
Who will you vote for and why won't the Dems raise taxes? You tell me.
...and yet you have brought up "trickle down" economics which is very much part of the now because that is what Bush has done with his tax cuts to the rich and created this huge defecit which was a surplus when he got in office as you well know.
I advocate raising taxes on the rich as I have stated before or if you prefer this language better rescinding the Bush tax cuts.
But don't accuse me of blabbering right wing talking points when all I did was compare the difference in the Democratic candidates running with no tax hike pledges, vs. those that share your view.
Let's review:
"On taxes, they believe we, or so they say, the rich, are undertaxed and need a tax hike in order to level the playing field. Dismissing that higher taxes trickle down and nobody escapes government's expansion...I am just hoping if the Democrats get elected they don't share the views of many posters here, that they are more reasonable and pragmatic when it comes to taxes and national security."
And now:
"As for trickle down tax debates, that is not the issue here. You and I disagree, so do many economists."
Funny, how before the lack of faith in trickle-down economics proved that liberals were not "reasonable" or "pragmatic" regarding taxes. But now, it's not the issue, and it's a fair disagreement. It's not so clear-cut one way or the other, all of a sudden, while before taking one of the positions qualified a liberal as "unreasonable".
I was saying that raising taxes on one group inevitably means higher costs will be felt by all. You can't raise taxes on the "rich" and think it will stop there. That is naive.
But the alternative point of view is that if you CUT taxes on the wealthy the government gets less revenue (or, in times of war, the government just needs more anyway), which has to be made up somewhere else. And taxing the middle-class or poor lowers consumer confidence. The idea that raising taxes on people who have money to burn is going to seriously hurt everyone else is somewhat debatable, while the alternative, that raising taxes on the middle-class and poor will hurt corporate profit margins, is obvious. At the very least, it's perfectly arguable, and not in the realm of the "unreasonable". There may be something to be said for both cases, but the suggestion that taxing the rich is simply not reasonable is, itself, not reasonable when you consider the alternatives.
Will you admit that much, at least?
I believe, and many economists, that when you cut taxes on EVERYONE, revenues to the government actually increase. There is more money in the private sector to spend and invest, therefore jobs are created and the tax base is increased.
Of course the middle class is being squeezed in this country every which way. They don't need more tax increases for sure. But when you have this notion that increasing taxes on the rich will stop with them, that is just shortsightedness, in my opnion. Costs and taxes are always passed down and yes, trickle down. It is just common sense.
Example - raise taxes on a wealthy car dealership owner; He could either swallow it, not likely, or raise prices on his cars, most likely, or cut employees in his dealership, the mechanics or the Salesperson, also quite likely. This will be paid by the people buying those cars and those looking for re-employment elsewhere. The tax hike "trickled down" to those whose taxes weren't raised, but got stiffed anyway.
The answer is keep the tax burden fair, equitable and low so as to not to hurt the economy.
"when you cut taxes on EVERYONE, revenues to the government actually increase."
You may believe that, but it's not true. At least, it's not true in the way you mean it. There is no demonstrable causal relationship. Government revenues are always going up, so I can equally assert that raising taxes causes revenues to go up. I can also assert that revenues go up when an American League team wins the World Series.
Don't worry, I would never expect you to ever admit something so simple. Because it flies in the face of the tax raisers, that's why?
Let me ask you, if you owned a business and your costs were raised, what do you do? Pass them along to customers, or eat them yourself until you're forced to close your doors? Either way your customers and emplyees get shafted.
Deny it all you want to, I am not surprised.
I don't denyy that tax increases on business is passed along to consumers. Any increase in expense will be passed along.
What I was commenting on was your regurgitation of the Republican myth that lower taxes causes increased revenue. There is no empirical evidence to support that supply-side fable. If that's not what you meant, please clarify.
It is based on the false assumption that the cost of making a thing is the basis for the cost of a thing. When in fact businesses charge what they can GET not what they feel is necessary based on what the cost of the product is. Though often there is a corolation there isnt always or necessarily a correlation. For instance at a time when the Philedelphia Eagles had the third lowest payroll in the NFL they also had the second highest ticket prices. IF there were always a direct cost/price ratio they would have had one of the lowest ticket prices in the NFL.
Lowering taxes lowers revenues, raising them raises revenues. The Reaganites have no clue what they're talking about.
What's interesting to me about this example is that when rich people have more money they're going to invest and spend it - but when their taxes are raised, they will cut jobs or raise prices instead of...spending money. Why is it they're greedy in one scenario and benevolent in another? And I do mean greedy, because you admitted yourself the car dealer was wealthy, and that they could pay the taxes if they wanted. But all of a sudden, the same person who would spend extra money if they had it would rather put people out of jobs or gouge customers instead of losing money.
I simply find it hard to believe that this sort of person is going to increase the tax base, if they can get by with less employees. The psychology of this just doesn't ring true.
Anymore than you getting your wages cut would increase YOUR revenue: In other words tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Okay, so let's review this issue with the help of some experts. I'd like to cite Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because his work inspired this column. But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large." How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt. Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office. In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss. So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up. The Republicans' only argument is that tax receipts have boomed in the years since the 2003 tax cut. But the question is whether tax receipts increased because the tax cuts worked some kind of magic or because the economy was headed up anyway after the recession, thanks maybe to low interest rates resulting from the Asian savings glut. Friends, the reason we have economists is so that they can solve these puzzles for us. Ignoring their solutions is like ignoring the judgment of medical science in favor of faith healers and quacks. Politicians are always speechifying about how the United States must lead the world in research to maintain its edge. But having the world's best economics research isn't particularly helpful if those same politicians are silly enough to tune it out. The truth is that American business excels at turning university research into world-beating products; the paranoia on this score is overdone. But American government is often lousy at turning research into policies. That's what we should fret about.
You have not refuted any of the facts I have stated about taxes, the debt or your beloved "trickle down" economics.
Don't blame the right and the "talking points", I am only repeating what many say here every day.......
1) Fear the Christians, not Islamic fanatics. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is both a strawman in that it is NOT what you read here everyday in fact I doubt you have read it very often at all AND a false dichotomy. Are you claiming it is impossible to fear both? The fear would not have to be equal nor in the same context.
My wife's student loan has gone from 3.9% to 7.9% in the last couple of years even though we were told it wouldn't get that high, all due to the Bush administration. One of the first things the Democrats will do besides raising the minimum wage is to cut the interest rate on student loans in half to what it was before Bush raised them.
Bush needed to pick up the slack for the tax cuts for the rich so he decided student loans were a good place to do it so that no one would notice.
Wasn't the mid and late 1990's the greatest and longest lasting economic expansion in history? And didn't that begin when Clinton took office in 1992 on the heals of a recessionduring a Republican administration? And didn't Clinton campaign on and then immediately raise taxes?
I guess that cutting taxes is not the miracle economic cure-all that Tommy and the other right-wingers would have us believe.
And in 2000 didn't Bush dismiss concerns about the re-emergence of budget deficits if his proposed tax cuts were enacted? I think the term he used was "fuzzy math" And if I remember correctly, we had budget surpluses back then
And that conservative Alan Greenspan was actually worried about paying down the debt too fast as well.
If it hadn't been for the commercialization of the WWW in 1993 and the mad rush for everyone to download porn online, the 1990's would have been economically stagnant. Same thing happened in the 1980's with VCRs. There's no tech boom right now, all US creativity is going into new ways to play with cell phones.
"They're basically just trying to hide what they want to do,"
Does this remind you of Bush campaigning in 2000 as a "moderate" "compassionate" conservative or what?
I seen this guy and his co-author in a couple of interviews, but don't remember if he was asked (or answered) if either had any specific party affiliation.
Anyone know the answer to that one?
Surely Bush will "work together with republicans and democrats" and 'be a uniter, not a divider" if dems take congress?
In the first years of the Bush tax cuts, I and I'm sure the rest of the $25,000 or less/ year crowd got our taxes cut from 10% down to .....10%. OH I did get a "tax rebate" , or as I call it a "Bush bribe" of less than $200.00. But you know what I got the next year? A tax BILL of over $600.00. Anyone want to read a comparision of Supply side (Reagan/Bush II) v. Demand side (Clinton) economics? go here: [link to www.commondreams.org]
As to terrorism ... Democrats will not be "tough" on terrorism, they will be smart on terrorism. How can they be anything else? They won't start wars because some country gave us a dirty look.
Republicans have lot of dirty tricks up their sleeves. Besides out and out tampering with voting machines this year, they have already began their strategy of purging likely Democratic voters from the voter rolls. In fact many voters won't even know it happened. Their votes will simply be rejected and the votes that they cast invalidated. Make sure you're really registered and read [link to www.freepress.org]
Republicans are planning to kidnap voters as they attempt to enter polling stations....only releasing them the day after following injections of GBH supplied by the DEA....they won't remember a thing and believe that they actually cast theit votes!