2004 Democratic Primary

[Nym90]

I'd say that it's a bit premature to say that Bush's reelection is a given. For one thing, the Q3 growth will have to be sustained for a couple more quarters such that we actually start to see an increase in jobs, which we have not yet seen. Also, even if the economy starts to turn it around, it'll still almost certainly be worse in Nov. 2004 than it was in Nov. 2000, so the old "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" argument still holds. The deficit is still a problem for Bush, as is Iraq. While a turn around in the economy is definitely good for Bush, by no means does it guarantee his reelection.

[Nym90]

Reagan trailed Mondale by 30% in 1983? I had no idea Mondale was that far ahead in the polls. 65-35? Wow.

[Nym90]

If job growth is understated by the employer survey, than how many jobs were created in the Clinton years? Maybe it was even more than the official figures of about 20 million from the employer survey. Even if Bush has created 130k jobs in 3 years, that's still pretty bad compared to 20 million in 8 years under a Democratic administration.
The deficit is still a problem for Bush. The budget is about $600 billion or so behind where it was when Bush took office ($200 billion surplus or so to $400 billion deficit). Thus it's costing us more than $4 million per job created. So unless these are all CEO positions being created here, it seems like that's not too efficient. Supply-side economics does not work, never has. It may give the economy a small short-term boost, but that is more than offset in the long run by the negative effects of higher budget deficits (greater amount of budget spend on interest payments, higher interest rates as the government competes with businesses for loans, etc). Demand creates supply much more than supply creates demand.
Things are getting better in Iraq? How so? The pace of casualties among American troops hasn't slowed. Your opinion of the situation is definitely more optimistic than Donald Rumsfeld's.
The WMDs will be traced to Syria? I suppose anything is possible, but I don't see any evidence to support that as of yet. If the WMDs, Saddam, and Bin Laden are all still at-large next year at this time, that's a problem for Bush.

[Nym90]

Well, I don't much care for explaining clear and recent history to you either.
Unemployment started going up dramatically after Bush's tax cuts took effect. Unemployment had not been above 4.5% for 3 years before June 2001, and it hasn't been as low as 4.5% since June of 2001. Jobs are what matter to most people, not GDP growth. GDP growth indicates how well corporations are doing, but unemployment indicates how well the middle class and poor are doing since they need jobs, not corporate profits. Corporate profits that don't lead to hiring don't help the poor and middle class much. True, as more people own stocks the effect becomes greater than it once was, but most of the poor and middle class still don't own stocks, or if they do, they don't own very large quantities.
Now, it's true that Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit for the boom, nor does Bush deserve all the blame for the recession. Yes, there are factors in the economy which are out of control of the President. However, when you look at the economic records of the past 25 years, it is obvious (to any honest person, as you would like to say) that the economy has performed better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations. You are correct that the very strong economy of the Clinton years wasn't sustainable forever, and to a certain extent things were bound to slow down a little bit, since they had been so good for so long. Percentage GDP growth is somewhat misleading, since the larger the economy gets, the more difficult it is to have high percentage growth, and likewise large increases in GDP percentage growth are more likely if the economy has been poor. Total growth independent of percentage would also be a useful number to look at. Even in the summer of 2001, after 2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage, the economy was still doing decently well (still much better than it had been when Clinton took office). Unemployment had crept up slightly but was still, as I noted, lower than it has been at any time since Bush's tax cuts took effect. As for the other reasons that you state for the poor economy, if the long lead up to war is to blame for the economy, that's still Bush's fault since this is his war. As for corporate scandals, Enron had close ties to Bush and the GOP. As for 9/11, yes, obviously that hurt the economy, but the large increases in defense spending are helping the economy.
As for the deficit, yes, when the economy slows down the budget surplus is bound to shrink as a result, and likewise the strong growth of the 90's created the surplus. But yet, at the same time that Bush was warning that the economy might slow down, as you say, he was saying we could afford a tax cut because of the surplus. Then, when the economy became poor, he argued that we needed a tax cut to spur the economy...it seems as though Republicans want tax cuts for the wealthy no matter what, and are willing to change the justification to meet the circumstances. Bush has used entitlement theory, supply-side economics, and Keyensian economics as his justifications at different times, depending on the situation. If Bush really believes that people are entitled to keep their money and shouldn't give it to the government, that's a reasonable moral argument to make, but this old saw about how tax cuts pay for themselves and balance the budget has been clearly proven to be bogus, both under this administration and under Reagan. The large surpluses that we had in the Clinton years were not entirely sustainable, but that's all the more reason not to cut taxes so that we can at least maintain as much fiscal responsibility as possible. Yes, 9/11 and the increase in defense spending hurt the deficit, but again, all the more reason not to cut taxes if you are going to have to increase government spending. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts, which Bush and the Republican congress have not been willing to do. At least the Contract with America Republicans had a consistent philosophy...Bush wants the best of both worlds, fiscal responsibility be damned.
As for the war, indeed, combat deaths are not the only way to measure success, but, it is still a situation where benefit to Iraqis is weighed against a loss to Americans. If Bush's argument all along had been a humanitarian one, that this was the right thing to do for the people of Iraq and for the world to bring democracy to Iraq, I, and many others I suspect, would have been much more willing to go along with it. But Bush's alientation of most of the rest of the world has a lot to do with our current troubles. Other countries would be much more willing to help us now if we hadn't antagonized them earlier this year. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and although I applaud any effort to humanitarianly aid the Iraqi people, the reality is that we can't afford it at this time when we have our own pressing needs at home (and once again, if we hadn't had massive tax cuts, we would be much more able to afford the costs of the war).
Certainly, there is some progress being made, but stopping or at least significantly slowing the killings of Americans should be our first priority, followed by helping build the Iraqi infrastructure.
And, of course, the Dems are only playing politics with this whole thing, while Bush only has the nation's best interests at heart...please. Almost all politicians desire power, of course, if they didn't they would be in a much higher paying profession, which almost all of them could be. But, the great majority of them also care about people and the country as well, and see aspiring to higher office as a way to fulfill their obligation to society. It is far too simplistic to paint the character of politicans or certain interest groups in such black and white terms.
And I don't know what your last statement is supposed to mean...I don't see any liberals out there trying to make morality illegal.

[Nym90]

No, I'm not 12 years old, I'm actually twice that, and I don't understand why you feel it necessary to resort to such inane tactics as insulting me personally and assuming that I must be stupid because I am liberal. Educated people can have differences of opinion and hopefully still respect each other's views even if they disagree.
Yes, I realize that growth is necessary for jobs, but growth does not necessarily automatically lead to jobs...corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need. Or, as Ryan pointed out in the article he cited, corporations could be moving factories overseas where labor is cheaper. Yes, the only thing that matters to the farmer is the harvest, not the planting. Planting is needed for harvesting, but ultimately, all that matters to the farmer is how many crops he harvests, not how many he plants. I understand that GDP growth is more likely to lead to hiring, but it isn't necessarily always going to lead to it. There are other factors to consider. How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?
Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term, until the last 3 months when it has dipped down from 6.4% to 6.1% If this trend continues, it will help Bush's reelection chance immensely, no doubt. But despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.
Supply-side economics doesn't work. Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand. (Or, to the extent that it does create demand for a particular product, it takes away demand from other products). Why would corporations invest the money they get from a tax cut into producing more goods and hiring more workers unless they could be assured that there would be sufficient demand? It wouldn't make good business sense; if the economy is poor, it would make more sense for corporations to use the money in some other way. Unemployment is a lagging indicator because demand creates supply; the economy has to get moving first before businesses will start producing more goods and hiring more workers. Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving. Corporations won't produce supply unless there is demand because it's not in their best interests. And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.
Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect, and the recession had already begun before Bush raised taxes. What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recoving fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high, the record budget deficits, and the abandonment of him by conservatives who were angry about the tax increases. Another key factor was that Bush appeared to be out of touch with the nation's problems, a perception which was probably not entirely correct, but this perception hurt consumer confidence (which is partly fueled by such perceptions). Bush, by choosing to attack Clinton as a potential tax raiser in order to try to regain his base was unable to defend his own economic policies.
As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well. The economy didn't start to go south until Vietnam started sapping away much of our resources, and then the Arab oil embargo hit in the mid 1970's which had a devastating effect. Granted, the economy was poor under Carter, but it was also pretty bad under Nixon and Ford, as well.
Clinton did not take office in a recession, true, but unemployment was much higher when Clinton took office then it was in June 2001. (I realize that we have fundamental disagreements about which is more important, you favoring GDP growth, me favoring unemployment). Yes, I know it's a lagging indicator, but unemployment went continually down throughout Clinton's entire term, and has gone up throughout Bush's entire term, in both cases extending well after the lag effect from the previous administrations would have worn off.
Yes, I know that Bush isn't entirely responsible for Enron's troubles. And of course, we'll never find out just how much of a relationship there was, since the meetings of Dick Cheney's energy task force will be kept secret.
As for the war in Iraq, part of the reason that it took Bush longer than his father was probably because he didn't have nearly as much international backing from the UN. (Certainly, one could argue that he should have moved faster and not even bothered trying to get the UN's support) It's also worth noting that Bush 41 delayed a vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq until after the 1990 midterm elections because he didn't want to make it a partisan wedge-issue, he wanted the nation to come together around the war effort, while Bush 43 did the exact opposite. There could have been a much better united national and international consensus on fighting the war against terrorism if Bush hadn't been so eager to use it for political gain (i.e., saying that Dems are unpatriotic for actually expecting airport security employees to have the fair employment protections of a union). And if Bush really is going to clean house and dispose every Middle Eastern government, that's a process that will use an enormous amount of our government's time and resources (and is it going to continue to be payed for by borrowing from our future?).
I find the article you cited very interesting, Ryan. The comparison between cyclical and structural job losses is not one that I had been familiar with, but it makes sense in context and further serves to illustrate one of the key differences between this recession and those of the 1970's and early 80's (and even that of the early 90's, in which the trend toward more structural losses had begun but not nearly to the extent it is now).

[Nym90]

I agree that West Virginia is fairly likely to go Dem. As for the rest of the South, Florida has changed dramatically even since 1988 to become much more competitive, and could be won by any of the serious Dem candidates. Other than that though, Clark and Edwards are probably the only Dems who could win any other Southern states. Of course, Florida is the only Southern state that the Dems really need to win, and they don't even need Florida if they can win someplace like Ohio.
Clark I believe would win Arkansas, and be competitive in Louisiana and possibly Tennessee. Edwards would be competitive in North Carolina and Arkansas, and maybe also Louisiana and Tennessee. Gephardt and Lieberman also would both be competitive in Arkansas. Dean and Kerry would lose the entire South except maybe West Virginia and Florida (which are both quite unlike the rest of the South, and as we've said earlier West Virginia probably shouldn't be considered the South...it doesn't really fit into any region.)

[Nym90]

Indeed, there are a lot of wealthy voters in the North who are liberal and thus also perhaps vote against their own economic interest, as well. Elections in the US turn just as much, if not more so, on culture than they do on economics. Democrats are out of step culturally with much of the white vote in the South, it isn't just racism that costs the Dems in the South. But, if the Dems nominate a candidate who the South can relate to (like Carter or Clinton) they can be very competitive there. Clinton was reasonably competitive in every southern state, even the most conservative ones like South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas. He was within 10% in every southern state in both 1992 and 1996. Clark and Edwards, likewise, would not get blown out in the South, even in the states they lost.  They would be able to at least come within 10% in every southern state, i think, except Texas. But, the South clearly leans Republican, even the more Democratic southern states such as Arkansas and Louisiana.
Conversely, in the Northeast, unless he wins a landslide victory, Bush has no chance to win any states except New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania, and the last 2 would still probably require a reasonably solid Bush victory. New Hampshire is really the only swing state in the entire Northeast (defined by me here as everything north and east of, and including, DC). Republicans are out of step culturally with the Northeast just as badly as Democrats are out of step culturally with the South.

[Nym90]

Good analysis, NcLib. Indeed, the Northeast pretty much balances out the South politically, leaving the Midwest and West as the battlegrounds. In Congress, the GOP advantage in the House is due largely to their relatively strong performance in the Midwest, where GOP congressional candidates have been able to outperform their presidential nominees. In the Senate, the GOP advantage derives largely from the Mountain states.

[Nym90]

I also think that Clark could do well in the South.
I also don't think that the Democrats look South and say it can go to hell. Democrats are in many ways out of step culturally with the South, yes, but Democrats don't hate the South. As a northern Democrat myself who has travelled much in the South, I very much appreciate the friendliness and hospitality of the Southern people. I do agree with Dean that many of them are not voting for what is in their economic self interest, but there is more to politics than just economics, plus a lot of people may vote based on which party's economic theories sound best for the whole country rather than just for their own personal self. Cultural issues matter too, and northern Democrats come off as out of tune with the South culturally. The same can be said for many wealthy suburbanites who vote Democratic; they aren't voting for what is in their own personal economic self interest, but there are other factors for them that override that.

[Nym90]

Actually Clinton won New Hampshire in 1992 and 1996. Other than that it hasn't gone for a Dem since Johnson though.

[Nym90]

Or you could ask Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, which of course doomed his chances of reelection....

[Nym90]

I agree that raising taxes on the middle class is a bad idea.

[Nym90]

I agree that raising taxes on the poor would be an even worse idea.

[Nym90]

Dean wants to break up GE and Fox? I'd like to see the specific quotes on those.
It depends on what kind of regulations he is proposing, but regulations could definitely make the market place fairer for small businesses and be very beneficial to consumers. Yes, regulations usually hurt the pure bottom line of the corporations in question but we have lots of regulations on corporations designed to create a fairer and thus freer market for all. Corporate monopolies, collusion and the like are some of the biggest threats to a free market.

[Nym90]

I agree that allowing greater dominance of ownership of the media by just a few sources, as the FCC has recently done, is a VERY bad idea.

[Nym90]

I feel that the media leans neither left or right, but rather in favor of profits (since they are after all businesses). Sometimes the pursuit of profits leads them to temporarily lean left or right, but no media outlet can afford to let its political leanings consistently come ahead of profits.

[Nym90]

Right, and so since both sides think the media is biased against them, that would seem to be pretty good evidence that the media is right in the middle.

[Nym90]

Great movie.

[Nym90]

I agree, I like the names of the districts. Keep up the good work RealPolitik!
By the way, you've moved to the US now? I'm guessing you probably haven't, and are just identifying with the state and party that you feel most at home with.

[Nym90]

Bingo. The only way to add more value to the company then the 3rd-world workers offer is to be willing to work for very low wages, often below the U.S. minimum wage even. That's not fair to expect people to take a huge cut in their standard of living just to be able to maintain their jobs.

The reason that we are such a great nation is because of the great wealth of the poor and middle class relative to other countries, not the great wealth of the rich.

It's unpatriotic for corporations to move their factories overseas and show no loyalty whatsoever to American workers. How can they expect any loyalty from us as US consumers if they show us no loyalty in return?

[Nym90]

Well, yes, I admit I'm guilty of not being willing to take the risk of working for $1/hour.

[Nym90]

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You are right that the poor have a much higher standard of living in this country than in others, and higher than we had in the past. That is what makes America a great nation, the relatively high standard of living that everyone, even those on the bottom, have. We shouldn't be expected to have to sacrifice that so that the corporations can make a few more dollars.

[Nym90]

I think that you are getting Macfarlane and I confused. I never mentioned the Bible. While I am a Christian I do not take every word of the Bible as literal truth, because it was written by men and not by God himself and thus I think that the men who wrote it probably made a lot of mistakes in their interpretation of what God was trying to tell them. But if you wish to discuss that further we should start a new thread.

If you buy a product because it is cheaper, you are showing a favortism towards cheaper products. Why is that any better than showing favoritism towards American products, or towards any other cause? My point is that there are other values besides money that can be taken into account when deciding what to purchase. Many people show brand loyalty because they have had good luck with a particular brand in the past. Or they choose to shop at a store with higher prices because they get better service and the people are friendlier there. Whichever value you choose to emphasize is favoritism for that particular value.

Personally I feel that corporations have an obligation to the less fortunate to show loyalty and not move overseas. All of us have this obligation to society to help the less fortunate, I believe. I do not think that they should be forced to remain here, but there should be government policy to provide incentives to keep them here. I feel that government has an obligation in this case to do the right thing because having corporations stay in this country rather than fleeing overseas is in the best interests of America.

I agree that workers need to improve themselves to stay competitive, but why do only the workers have a responsibility to improve themselves? Shouldn't the corporations also have a responsibility to the workers and to their country to provide them with a high enough wage to keep up the standard of living that they have that helps to keep America strong and vital? Corporations and workers are both dependent on each other for livlihood--it shouldn't be a one way street.

[Nym90]

Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.

[Nym90]

I never said that my moral choices were better than anyone else's, I was merely pointing out that it isn't foolish to buy a product that isn't the cheapest. There are other moral values that one can consider in spending one's money, not just the pursuit of the cheapest products. You were the one who said that it was foolish to buy a product that wasn't the cheapest, and I was trying to point out that there are other values that one can invoke in making that decision.