Why do we line up like so many political sheep?
 

Habit?

joeclarke, your assumption regarding the "sharing of demographic slices", in my case, anyway, is incorrect. Rural, working poor, and dumber than a bag of hammers. As for age, you can check my profile, if interested.

Say, maybe I don't fit in here!

I've been pleasantly surprised to find other members' viewpoints that are more closely aligned to my own, despite the (seemingly) singular commonality of appreciation for a German sports car.

Ed

And the alternative budget??If Kerry only keeps campaign promises he has made so far… There is over a $1 Trillion Deficit over ten years in known costs alone....

Am I missing something? Isn't that $4 trillion LESS than Bush plans to increase national debt by (presumably through deficits) over only 7 years?

umm...at least it looks like Kerry has some ideas on things to do other than "fix" Iraq...

Yeah, we don't want to increase NSF funding...don't want to support basic research and try and maintain (?) a competitive advantage while we bleed expertise...

No, these are in addition to current planned spending.

:D Yeah, he'll "fix" us all, reel-gud.

not doing something about health care will "fix" this country all on its own.

The sky IS falling. Time to secede from the union and hide out in my Y2K bunker.

Both your parties are right of centre......I can still recall the lat Labour Government, no not Toy town Tony....and the tax rate at the time.....90% top rate tax payer.....

The power of the Unions to topple the government etc etc.

And that's only 25 years ago.

If you want Left Wing look at the French Socialists or even the German ones.

These guys have serious designs on taxes etc which would make anything the Democrats want to do look real light.

So from that point of view one could consider you 'undertaxed' in view of what you expect from Government.

As for why people follow groups of one kind or another, its a pretty strong human trait to 'belong' to a group of like minded opinioned individuals. We're all doing it right now, hanging out on the board with a group of fellow P-car owners, chewing the fat.

No, these are in addition to current planned spending.

But not, I don't think, in addition to Bush's revised budget.

I'm out of my depth here. You guys will get plenty of information on it from your media, but I'd be really, really surprised if democrats are heavily criticising huge deficits and not proposing something less damaging.

Also, I still don't know that I believe tax cuts lead straight to long term economic growth. I searched around a bit and found this (I trust the Economist):

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1812317

In any case, I tend to take the view that if there becomes a significant increase in the availability of funds for investment in the economy, but a lack of good opportunity, then the money is invested poorly. I guess it depends on whehter the economy is constrained by a lack of investment.

This article makes some arguments that the tax cuts may not work while backhandedly acknowledging that it has before and this time it was just poorly executed. Every time this country has cut income tax rates...total tax revenues went up sharply...most recently under Kenedy and Reagan. Some would argue that under Reagan...that the deficit actually went up. It did, in spite of greater revenues...due to greatly increased spending. Reagan needed money to rebuild our military (which had almost been destroyed by Carter...much like the damage done under Clinton) to finally end the cold war. Funny how being stronger works better than being weaker. Seems to be working now too.

Funny...terrorists have been at war with us since for more than 20 years....and at least partially harbored, supported, and funded by Iraq. After 20 years of having our people murdered, we find the nads to fight back...and we are warmongers....go figure. Only in the USA!

ironically, even this thread just ends up sounding like reps from the two campaigns duking out as to who has or had or will have the best platform and why the other guy's platform suks.

It's too bad the dems are such blind sheep and it's a good thing us conservatives are free thinkers - not constrained by party lines. (that's a feeble attempt at sarcasm, btw)

Aren't we coming up to an election that will pick the most powerful human on the planet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...etc? GWB has taken America out of some very important boxes, particularily how the US interacts with the world. I don't want to be appocolyptic (sp?), but 2004 may be a critical turning point for the future of both the US and by logical extension - the entire world.

I think we should take this election much more seriously than most. Probably the most fundamental question is whether GWB's approach to terror management is really sustainable. Set aside the moral/ethical debates of Iraq-nam and think about north Ireland, Isreal/Palestine, etc, etc, (even the French resistance in WW2) and ask whether wacking hornets with a bazooka can be a cost and human tragedy effective solution on a long-term basis.

This just in - insider note to finstone: Sounds like you've been a well behaved sponge for the Whitehouse spin on Iraq. Your statement shows a total lack of understanding about Iraq or Saddam or how he came to power or continued to hold power.

America's track record on "meddling" with the internal affairs of countless sovereign nations over the past fifty years leaves little or no room for the "pitty poor us" argument. Even basic math works against you finstone - 10000+ dead Iraqis thanks to the US invasion to "free" them.

Joe
Insider note to you.....Get a grip. Or at least a few true facts. I was an military analyst for many years with access to information that you could only dream of....and served during the war.....what exactly are your sources of information and expertise that lead you to know more than a trained expert.....or your own government? National Inquirer or Star...of worse yet...the New York Times? People like you play into the terrorists hands by failing to support your own government. The terrorists only continue because they know they can count on your support. That is why so many lives are lost....Hussein only continued to defy the UN resolutions because he was sure he could count on liberals to turn against their country. He was right there....but he didn't count on a president who used his nads for something other than interns.

Well said fintstone!

One ex analyst to another. When the OSA expires, there WILL be a bunch of interesting books coming out that will blow the Clarkes and the Kerrys of the world away.

Yep Singpilot
Difficult to toe the line sometimes, isn't it! Fortunately there is enough out there in the public domain already to convince anyone with the least bit of an open mind.

People like you play into the terrorists hands by failing to support your own government.

Gimme a break. You aren't exactly giving off a "I would support the decisions of a liberal Government" vibe.

I still don't believe your view on cutting taxes - as the article said, the taxes had to be put back up again to reduce the deficits.

Besides, think about it, your country (and most in the world, including mine) needs to start thinking about how it is going to fund the future burden of an aging population. Cutting taxes doesn't seem like a good start (it is much harder to put them up again...).

"Dr. Kevorkian, your patient is waiting in exam room #7."

Only to counter increased spending...Revenue has always increased significantly..and in approximate proportion to tax cuts!

Ahh...all the insiders (and I was one as well)

"Trust us; we know the truth, and you don't"

I laugh at myself, too.