If the election were held today

[grbh]

Our very own dallas-mavs.com straw poll.

Results accurate to +/-3.5%

[TheBaron]

even at 3-3 right now with one person going independent. Who is the independent?

[grbh]

Green, Reform, or Liberatarian I would imagine. I don't know who or if tese parties have any nominees yet.

[Evilmav2]

Where's Sharpton?

[grbh]

Oh he is on there, you must have missed it[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[TheBaron]

Holy crap! Sharpton has a vote.





oh wait, no. That was a smudge on my screen.

[Evilmav2]

Oh he is on there, you must have missed it

It's About Damned Time Mutha*****'s!

[Chiwas]

Total Votes: 22


Bush
12 (votes) 54.55 (%)
Kerry
9 (votes) 40.91 (%)
Other
1 (votes) 4.55 (%)

[madape]

Kerry is planning to run his campaign on a program of raising taxes to pay for expensive entitlement programs. This is the same program that Walter Mondale ran on in 1984, and he lost 49 out of 50 states. The truth is that no winning presidential candidate has ever run on a program of raising taxes. Even Clinton and George H.W. Bush, who both raised taxes in their respective terms as president, never told America beforehand that they were going to do it. Kerry is telling America that he is absolutely GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. There is no doubt about it. It's going to happen.

Bad move John.

[TheBaron]

Im glad we have non-partisan discussions of politics on D-M.com [img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

All I can say is that at least Kerry is honest. At least he isnt asking people to read his lips while he lies.

A travesty of a budget isnt going to fix itself without restoring taxes to pre-W levels, eh Madape? Bush kinda dug us a nice little hole with his tax-cut and spend policies.

[dude1394]

Kerry is a bigger waffler than they serve at waffle house.

I'm just a gigilo, everywhere I go.....

[Mavdog]

A travesty of a budget isnt going to fix itself without restoring taxes to pre-W levels, eh Madape? Bush kinda dug us a nice little hole with his tax-cut and spend policies.

All I can say is that the current administration has put forth federal budgets that include the greatest level of deficits since the Reagan years. All the surplus that was realized in the 98-01 timeframe has been fumbled away. And we still haven't fixed Social Security...

Isn't it ironic that there are many who claim the Bush administration is for reducing government? The current administration has, in its first 4 years, increased the federal deficit greater than Clinton's administration did in 2 terms! There's a good chance that if reelected Bush will have the opportunity to acheive the title of the greatest deficit president in our nation's history.

[madape]

All this bullshit whining about the deficit is making me sick. Reagan proved that responsible deficit planning can not only revive a depressed economy, it can lead to economic boom times. Lowering taxes grow the economy. It's that simple. As long as we also pursue a pro-growth spending policy, I have no problem with running moderate deficits. Massive entitlement programs such as social security and health care do nothing to grow the economy (in fact, they encourage workers to stay home and live off the dole, thereby stifling growth). Defense programs, education spending, and space programs DO in fact, grow the economy.

The deficit is one of those invisible crisises made up by doomsday liberals to scare uninformed people into voting for them. They did the same thing in the 70s and 80s with ecological fantasy terms like "Ozone Layer", "DDT", and "garbage barge", when absolutely no evidence ever existed that the world was about to end. Now they are scaring morons with veiled threats that our children will have to pay 80% in taxes in order to fix the mess we've gotten ourselves into UNLESS you vote for a democratic candidate (who will increase taxes, but will also increase spending - doesn't sound like a solution to me, but I digress).

History will prove that the people who beleive this lie are just as stupid and off-base as the acid dropping hippie who thought we'd all be swimming in garbage by now and wearing gasmasks to work. The truth is that the only ills that a modest deficit will bring to our economy is that it will a) moderatly increase our debt burden, and b) have an upward pressure on interest rates. The truth is, the debt in this country never comes due. There is never a time in which we'll need to "pay-out" on our national debt. It constantly rolls over, just as it has for centuries. The only effect it has on taxpayers is the amount that must be paid out to service the debt. By all accounts, our debt burden is incredibly low.. certainly lower than any other country in the civilized world. Just look at how the world views our treasury notes. They have the lowest yield of any country on the planet, and some of the lowest yeilds in US history. The international community is of the opinion that we can easily finance a little more debt... easily, especially when interest rates are as low as they are now. As for the upward pressue on interest rates... well, lets just say that when inflation is higher than your overnight Fed rates, you MIGHT not have a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think big deficits are inherrently a good thing. But the world is not going to end if we run a deficit for a few years. In fact, I'd say that running a moderate deficit is healthier than running a surplus, because in a deficit you don't run the risk of a bubble in which money supply grows so fast that assets become dangerously overvalued, leading to a hard fall when things go back to normal... sound familiar? The big goal here is price stability, jobs, and economic growth. Reagan proved that all three goals can be had by financing growth through deficit spending. How is Bush doing? Well, according the FOMC, there is very little threat of inflation. The GDP is growing at the highest rates since Reagan. Once the jobs start coming (and the latest forecast is that we'll add over 3 million in 2004), Bush will have won the economic triple crown.

So keep crowing about the deficit, I won't think any worse of you than I already do. But while your saving up your cash for that forthcoming WWII level tax increase, you might want to think about spending $40 bucks for a nice gasmask.

[Mavdog]

It is interesting to see that the premise of deficit spending not injuring the nation's economy is tied to the phrase "modest" deficits. The current level of deficits are at 4% of the US GDP (and growing greater). That is alarming, not only do I believe so but so do the economists. The following from the conservative CATO Institute:

Cato fiscal policy analyst Veronique de Rugy said today, "We knew all along that in five years, the 'Baby Boomer' generation will start to retire. The Bush administration should have been pruning the budget for the massive increases in entitlement spending that would result; but instead, it started spending more on all areas of government. Democrats, however, have little room to criticize the president, since they have not done their part to limit spending in Congress."

The deficit is one of those invisible crisises made up by doomsday liberals to scare uninformed people into voting for them. They did the same thing in the 70s and 80s with ecological fantasy terms like "Ozone Layer", "DDT", and "garbage barge", when absolutely no evidence ever existed that the world was about to end.

uh, the ban on DDT was wrong? Tell that to mothers who cannot produce milk due to their contamination by DDT, or to those who have immunilogical failure for the same reason.

The FACT that there are growing holes in the ozone layer is "fantasy"? Tell that to those who live in or near Antartica where the depletion of the ozone layer has increased the incidence of skin cancer.

No, the world is not about to end (or at least the world as we know it...) but if we are not observant of how our actions could produce negative results we might very well face a greater threat to our environment than anyone could imagine.

Does this endorse the Kyoto Protocol? Absolutely not. The Protocol IMHO was flawed in many respects, although I agree with the intent of the agreement. It just was not well crafted...

The truth is that the only ills that a modest deficit will bring to our economy is that it will a) moderatly increase our debt burden, and b) have an upward pressure on interest rates. The truth is, the debt in this country never comes due. There is never a time in which we'll need to "pay-out" on our national debt. It constantly rolls over, just as it has for centuries. The only effect it has on taxpayers is the amount that must be paid out to service the debt. By all accounts, our debt burden is incredibly low.. certainly lower than any other country in the civilized world. Just look at how the world views our treasury notes. They have the lowest yield of any country on the planet, and some of the lowest yeilds in US history. The international community is of the opinion that we can easily finance a little more debt... easily, especially when interest rates are as low as they are now. As for the upward pressue on interest rates... well, lets just say that when inflation is higher than your overnight Fed rates, you MIGHT not have a problem.

Yes, yields are low because central banks are keeping borrowing costs low to stimulate business. Currently Japanese debt can be had for 1% interest. As long as the rest of the world continues to buy aur government's notes they can continue to "roll" the debt...but what happens when they decide to stop? Currently the largest holder of US currency is China...not a good situation long term. The ONLY reason that inflation has been low to non-existant is the Chinese marketplace, which by 1) low wages are able to produce lower cost goods, and 2) by peging their currency to the dollar have maintained the low cost advantage esp. as the $ has declined in value. We are seeing the first signs of inflationary pressure as the cost of commodities are rising faster than in recent times, which will clearly mean higher cost of goods made from those commodities...which will mean higher costs of debt...which means higher interest rates for borrowers...which means higher debt service expense to our government....which means greater deficits if that debt is not reduced.

In fact, I'd say that running a moderate deficit is healthier than running a surplus, because in a deficit you don't run the risk of a bubble in which money supply grows so fast that assets become dangerously overvalued, leading to a hard fall when things go back to normal... sound familiar?

Are you suggesting that the tech wreck was due to a high money supply? Nothing validates this...

The big goal here is price stability, jobs, and economic growth. Reagan proved that all three goals can be had by financing growth through deficit spending. How is Bush doing? Well, according the FOMC, there is very little threat of inflation. The GDP is growing at the highest rates since Reagan. Once the jobs start coming (and the latest forecast is that we'll add over 3 million in 2004), Bush will have won the economic triple crown.

Well, we have relative price stabilty, but no real job growth, and economic growth is unstable. The threat of inflation is growing (see above comments on China), there was more GDP growth under Clinton than Reagan, and the idea that "we'll add over 3 million jobs in 2004" is a fantasy when one looks at the number of job seekers who have just given up and are not seeking jobs (and conveniently not included in the unemployment stats after, in frustration, they flee the job market).
The "economic triple crown" is very, very far from realization, unless one looks at the triple crown of historic deficits, return of inflation and more lost jobs than any administration of the last 70 years. From the data today that dubious crown might just be placed on our current administartion's head...

[TheBaron]

It's funny. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss in jobs. Unless he creates nearly 1,500,000 jobs in the next couple of months he will be a historically important president. The stock market can be favorable right now but the fact is the US economy has been scarred. The manufacturing sector has been hit hard, and in the last fifty years when jobs were lost from manufacturing and agriculture they were made up in the service sector but under Bush the sevice sector has had very limited growth which can be attributed partly to the Bush polocy of supporting the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. Bush's labor secretary is now taking flak for his speech that openly supported such actions.

There is no evidence that "supply side economics" works. Tax cuts for the rich only worked once and that was a fluke under the Kennedy administration. Nobel prize winning economists (Gary Becker, Rudiger Dornbusch as well as Milton Friedman, Merton Miller, Robert Mundell and Sir Alan Waltersit) all have found that since the Kennedy era, tax cuts for large companies and rich people do not work. The money is very rarely reinvested into the economy and when it is, it is ofen invested in technology which many times will replace jobs. Another alarming trend is that companies are using extra income to invest in foreign outsourcing. While companies were strained under taxes and just waiting for relief to bring their companies into modern times in Kennedy's era, now we are in a global economy where technology most often replaces jobs instead of creating them.

[madape]

There are so many insane ideas being bantied about in this thread, it's impossible to keep track. I can't possibly take the time to address each one of these, but a few can't go without comment.

The banning DDT may be the single most destructive thing humanity has ever done to itself. It could have wiped malaria off the face of the Earth. In comparison, the atomic bomb killed 90,000 japaneese. Hitler killed 6 million jews. But over one million people EACH YEAR die of malaria. In the past 30 years, that's over 30 million lives needlessly pissed away in the name of environmentalism. Almost all of these lives could have been saved with DDT. The ironic thing is that there has never been any proof that DDT poses any kind of health threat to humans. Even environmentalists now acknoledge that it is relatively harmless. Look it up.

As for the penguins getting a sunburn down at the south pole... well, maybe they should read up on their scientific literature. Humans have about as much impact on the ozone layer as they do the rising of the tide. And as for the link between the Ozone Layer and armageddon... well, let me just say I'm not keeping myself up at night worrying about it.

The protectionist trade policy is clearly a myopic view of the world. I don't think there is a single scholar in any university in the US who will argue against the benefits of free trade. It's just a message that politicians convey to thier disgruntled out of work constituents in order to gain support for an election. I don't think Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, or any solicalist democratic politician can in good faith shut down access to foreign markets. Open markets mean greater global growth. Not just for our trading partners, but for us too. This is not a zero sum game. As the pie gets bigger, our peice of the pie grows as well. The principles are this: We stop doing things we are not efficient in, and we increase our production in things that we are efficient in. India is more efficient at low-level computer programming and technical support than we are here in the US. China is more efficient than us at manufacturing. But we are more efficient in innovation, health care, science, space, telecommunications, and a number of other industries. We will be a richer and more well off nation if we concentrate our resources on what we are GOOD at, and purchase goods and services which we AREN'T good at from other countries. By reducing the cost of software, we allow millions of other US industries to utilize customized software solutions. Whole industries that could not afford software in the past will finally be able to enter the 21st century.. adding efficiency and profitability across the board. If that means that software jobs go overseas, so be it. Those people should be better utilized in a more profitable venture. It's not a politically correct thing to say. It pisses people off who have lost their jobs. But it is the right thing to do.

[Mavdog]

The banning DDT may be the single most destructive thing humanity has ever done to itself. It could have wiped malaria off the face of the Earth. In comparison, the atomic bomb killed 90,000 japaneese. Hitler killed 6 million jews. But over one million people EACH YEAR die of malaria. In the past 30 years, that's over 30 million lives needlessly pissed away in the name of environmentalism. Almost all of these lives could have been saved with DDT. The ironic thing is that there has never been any proof that DDT poses any kind of health threat to humans. Even environmentalists now acknoledge that it is relatively harmless. Look it up.

Follow your own rec Madape...

Here's the CDC info:
DDT affects the nervous system. People who accidentally swallowed large amounts of DDT became excitable and had tremors and seizures.

A study in humans showed that women who had high amounts of a form of DDE in their breast milk were unable to breast feed their babies for as long as women who had little DDE in the breast milk. Another study in humans showed that women who had high amounts of DDE in breast milk had an increased chance of having premature babies.

In animals, short-term exposure to large amounts of DDT in food affected the nervous system, while long-term exposure to smaller amounts affected the liver. Also in animals, short-term oral exposure to small amounts of DDT or its breakdown products may also have harmful effects on reproduction.

Here's the EPA info:
What harmful effects can DDT have on us?
Probable human carcinogen
Damages the liver
Temporarily damages the nervous system
Reduces reproductive success
Can cause liver cancer
Damages reproductive system

DDT has a half life of 8 years.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to have ANY of that near me, my family, or my country.

From your logic on the incidence of malaria being reduced by applying DDT, it is obvious that the "cure" would be as bad as the disease; to have cancer, sterility and nervous system disorders but not have malaria. Fine choice you seem to propose...there are alternatives to DDT and they should be used rather than polluting our world with a probable carcinogen that causes sterility, premature births and internal organ damage.

As for the penguins getting a sunburn down at the south pole... well, maybe they should read up on their scientific literature. Humans have about as much impact on the ozone layer as they do the rising of the tide. And as for the link between the Ozone Layer and armageddon... well, let me just say I'm not keeping myself up at night worrying about it.

The problem is we don't know why the ozone layer is decreasing, but it is. That's a FACT jack. These are people, not penguins (penguins BTW have skin protection) who have to wear full covering of clothing to protect themselves. But then, we could just act like nothing bad is happening and keep doing what we'v been doing, and the hole could get larger, and more skin cancer could develop, when we could act responsibly to limit those activities that COULD be contributing to the problem. Which do you prefer, having yourself in harms way or to work to get out of harm's way? Smart people would prefer to get out of harm's way...

edit: I couldn't miss mentioning what DDT does to the animals it enters, and it inevitably does as it sticks to their fat, which is ingested, destroying their reproduction #'s...I actually can't believe that I need to defend the banning of this stuff!


BTW I am a free trade advocate.

[seelenjaeger]

Originally posted by: madape

As for the penguins getting a sunburn down at the south pole... well, maybe they should read up on their scientific literature. Humans have about as much impact on the ozone layer as they do the rising of the tide. And as for the link between the Ozone Layer and armageddon... well, let me just say I'm not keeping myself up at night worrying about it.

Living in a nutshell you sure don´t care about it I assume.

Actually humans have quite alot of impact on the detoriation of the Ozone layer, which is supported by most scientific data on the subject. What exactly to you need to prove that it´s linked? There´s not much dispute on this item outside the US, and even IN the US most organizations and even quite alot politicians agree on that, but well, I guess erasing all Humans from the World and watch the Ozone layer PROBABLY recover to some degree would be the only way to show, huh?

[Dooby]

I am a nut for polls. the CNN poll has Kerry with a double digit lead. Other polls show a dead heat. One poll shows Kerry's lead collapsing.

[Mavdog]

Yeah, Kerry doesn't have this in his pocket yet. Remember when some thought Dean had it sewn up?

comment by Safire in today's NYT on that very subject:

Kerry's momentum is now checked. The surprise was John Edwards's powerful showing, especially among independents, followed lamely by Dean. If Dean had taken the Grossman gas pipe and announced he would quit, I believe his anti-establishment vote would have split two to one for the Southerner Edwards, snatching victory from Kerry — and in Wisconsin, by yimminy, where voters can hardly understand a word he's saying.

If Edwards is smart (and a trial lawyer who got $25 million for himself out of the medical profession must have an agile mind) he will carry an empty chair around New York, Ohio, Georgia and California, demanding that Kerry debate him one on one about Nafta, where he is a genuine Smoot-Hawley protectionist and Kerry merely a primary-conversion protectionist.

Kerry would probably refuse to debate unless Dean was included, to steal the debate spotlight like Ross Perot. But if Dean wanted to get even, the embittered Vermonter would accept and then back out at the last minute to let the two frontrunners have at it. Oh, boy.

Did I just say "two frontrunners"? How can that be — when Edwards starts from so far behind? And when Kerry is belatedly lionized by Clintonites who thought a Dean debacle would pave the way for Hillary in 2008? And when Kerry's Kennedy acolytes turn ashen-faced only at the rumor that an Al Gore endorsement is imminent?

Here's how: Although Dean is not a kingmaker, he can be the frontrunner-maker. By staying in through Super Tuesday, this anti-Warwick could ensure Kerry's nomination. By throwing his waning strength (and Web fund-raising) to Edwards, he could help transform a routine Boston coronation into a neck-and-neck race down the homestretch.

There's a consummation devoutly to be wished. It would mean the weekly Kerry victory parade would be over and the media pendulum could swing again — and that the pressure would be on Edwards to cut the class warfare lest he expose the deep economic split in the Democratic Party.

[TheBaron]

Originally posted by: Dooby
I am a nut for polls. the CNN poll has Kerry with a double digit lead. Other polls show a dead heat. One poll shows Kerry's lead collapsing.

Republican, Democrat or independent, its obvious that polls are bullsh*t. Thats why I never believe anything that says "the majority of Americans..." Anyone can find a poll that supports what they want to think.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: TheBaron

Republican, Democrat or independent, its obvious that polls are bullsh*t. Thats why I never believe anything that says "the majority of Americans..." Anyone can find a poll that supports what they want to think.

Isn't the trick then to sift through and find which have legitimate predictive value, and which are merely propaganda?

But yeah, polls are definitely manipulable by the wording and presentation of the questions. The discerning reader must learn to interpret.

The poll in this thread, for example, is kind of interesting to me, because on a site of farily vocal Bushites, Kerry is running even with him (small N acknowledged). Interesting to see what (if anything) this foretells.

One of the most interesting poll results I ever saw was not a direct poll, but was a real-time measurement of listeners' responses to the Bush v. Gore presidential debates of 2000, at speakout.org (may that site rest in peace). The setup was that people registered a real-time response via internet (registering from strong agreement to strong disagreement with a mouse click) to Bush's and Gore's responses, as they talked about different issues.

At the end of the debate the results were immediately available to participants. The results showed that participants who identified as Republicans were much, much, much more supportive of Bush and agreed with him to a much stronger degree than participants who identifed as Democrat supported and agreed with Gore. And when post-election push came to shove, the Republicans were much more prepared to go to the mat for Bush than the Dems were for Gore, and the activities in Florida and Washington rather bore this out.

For poll junkies, this could be an interesting kind of thing to participate in in the upcoming election.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: TheBaron

Republican, Democrat or independent, its obvious that polls are bullsh*t. Thats why I never believe anything that says "the majority of Americans..." Anyone can find a poll that supports what they want to think.

Polls, if done properly, are (i) very accurate; and (ii) very effective.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: madape
There are so many insane ideas being bantied about in this thread, it's impossible to keep track. I can't possibly take the time to address each one of these, but a few can't go without comment.

The banning DDT may be the single most destructive thing humanity has ever done to itself. It could have wiped malaria off the face of the Earth. In comparison, the atomic bomb killed 90,000 japaneese. Hitler killed 6 million jews. But over one million people EACH YEAR die of malaria. In the past 30 years, that's over 30 million lives needlessly pissed away in the name of environmentalism. Almost all of these lives could have been saved with DDT. The ironic thing is that there has never been any proof that DDT poses any kind of health threat to humans. Even environmentalists now acknoledge that it is relatively harmless. Look it up.

As for the penguins getting a sunburn down at the south pole... well, maybe they should read up on their scientific literature. Humans have about as much impact on the ozone layer as they do the rising of the tide. And as for the link between the Ozone Layer and armageddon... well, let me just say I'm not keeping myself up at night worrying about it.

The protectionist trade policy is clearly a myopic view of the world. I don't think there is a single scholar in any university in the US who will argue against the benefits of free trade. It's just a message that politicians convey to thier disgruntled out of work constituents in order to gain support for an election. I don't think Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, or any solicalist democratic politician can in good faith shut down access to foreign markets. Open markets mean greater global growth. Not just for our trading partners, but for us too. This is not a zero sum game. As the pie gets bigger, our peice of the pie grows as well. The principles are this: We stop doing things we are not efficient in, and we increase our production in things that we are efficient in. India is more efficient at low-level computer programming and technical support than we are here in the US. China is more efficient than us at manufacturing. But we are more efficient in innovation, health care, science, space, telecommunications, and a number of other industries. We will be a richer and more well off nation if we concentrate our resources on what we are GOOD at, and purchase goods and services which we AREN'T good at from other countries. By reducing the cost of software, we allow millions of other US industries to utilize customized software solutions. Whole industries that could not afford software in the past will finally be able to enter the 21st century.. adding efficiency and profitability across the board. If that means that software jobs go overseas, so be it. Those people should be better utilized in a more profitable venture. It's not a politically correct thing to say. It pisses people off who have lost their jobs. But it is the right thing to do.

Good discussion, ape. I think it should also be added that job protection strategies such as tarrifs, quotas, subsidies are one of the greatest contributors to third-world countries staying third world countries. That is why the WTO was so pissed at the US for raising steel tarrifs. If you are a dairy farmer in s. america and the US ships free cheese by the ship load, it is impossible to make a living. Why would you try to farm corn to make a living when you have to compete with FREE corn from the US and Europe?