BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?

Subject: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM

Is this true of us?

"Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and tough-guy actor on television's "Law and Order," gets 68 percent of his support from males as he edges toward a run for the GOP presidential nomination, far more than other hopefuls, according to recent Associated Press-Ipsos polling.

"He seems to be closer to the conservative that I am," said Richard Bussa, 60, a Thompson supporter and retired newspaper writer from Minford, Ohio. "Playing on the police shows he's on, he does present a hard-nosed, law-and-order-type guy."

"The New York senator and former first lady gets 63 percent of her support from women and has more than twice the female backing of her nearest rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in AP-Ipsos surveys.

"She's competent, she's tough," said Diana Roberts, 54, a teacher from Edison, N.J. "And I think it's time" for a woman to be president."



Source Here

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:34 PM

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the female partners of Mr. Thompson's 68% male supporters rank among Ms. Clinton's 63% female backers. Or maybe it's just that women, even women Republicans, aren't necessarily attracted to the macho-man-actor type. Not being a Republican, or particularly conservative on most issues, I cringe a bit when I remember the last time we elected a macho-man-actor.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:39 PM

"...the last time we elected a macho-man-actor."

That'd be Dubya wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:40 PM

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the US is ready yet for prez that isn't a white, male good ole boy. People don't like things to be very different in their candidates. I doubt even a candidate sporting a moustache could get elected. And the US electroate has sure as hell shown they distrust intelligent politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

But it would be nice to think the best person for the job at the time would get elected.

Even if he is a white male.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM

McGrath, I was thinking of Reagan...B-movie actor and presidential disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:57 PM

...said Richard Bussa, 60, a Thompson supporter and retired newspaper writer from Minford, Ohio. "Playing on the police shows he's on, he does present a hard-nosed, law-and-order-type guy."

Oh, geez, are people still stupid enough to think a character on a tv show is WHO they are voting for?! Do they understand the concept of acting?!

I don't care what someone's gender is but I would love to see a woman in the White House just to break down all of the barriers and stereotypes, but I am not that fond of Hillary. I am upset at her AND Obama for being so hawkish. I'd like to see reporting done on the basis of the substance of a person, not their gender, what they are wearing, how much cleavage shows or NOT, whether he wears a jock strap or not, etc. It has gotten so trivial and personal it's ridiculous!

And for the record, I don't even know who Thompson is...don't watch that tv show, whichever one it is.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:01 PM

Then there's Michael Moriarty.

What is it about that Law & Order series?

And whatever happened to Ed Asner?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:12 PM

Kat, that was my thought too. Although as Helen Hayes, the veteran actor and no admirer of his said of Reagan: I didn't know he was such a good actor!

Sometimes they surprise me though. I was scornful of Schwartzenegger when he was running for governor of California- and he seems to have turned out pretty well.

I've never seen Fred Thompson act nor have I ever watched 'Law and Order' but I would hope that most Americans wouldn't confuse his role in it for the real life person. As John Wayne said, Every man would like to be John Wayne; hell, I would like to be John Wayne.

I've been reading Thompson's pronouncements and watching him in speeches. The man appears to be a total conservative and I disagree with just about every one of his stances.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:26 PM

I still have a sneaking suspicion that Homer Simpson will get elected.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM

I am not yet a fan of the Simpsons but I know a good many people who are. For that reason I have watched it a few times. So far, what strikes me positively is that the little girl seems fairly sane. :)

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:43 PM

What we are more than gender voters is a nation on the brink of accepting a monarchy. This time around we're just going to decide if we want a Mommy or a Daddy. :^D

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:20 PM

ho, ho, ho, John.

Although I would be in favor of examining and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of instating a tripartite government.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM

It is a sad commenttary on the state of our democracy when folks get votes because or gender... What happened to ideas and positions on important issues???

Tom Jefferson would be reall pissed off at what has occured here...

We no longed have an "informed electorate"... What we have is a "slam book" mentality electorate that is so misinformed that I no longer see anything that even at long distance looks like a democracy...

This is a joke...

This is how we got all the bad prsidents we've had for the last 30 or so years... And make no miastake about, there hasn't been a good one...

I don't give a flyin' fig what gender someone is... I just want to know what they are going to do in Iraq, with the budget deficts, with restorng civility to our governemnt and to bringing about a new paradyme in how we go about solving problems...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 08:33 PM

I'm with you, Bobert. I sincerely hope that these are not the good old days.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Janie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 08:38 PM

I don't doubt that gender may play a role in a voter's decision about who they support, but I would guess it to be of tertiary rank in terms of how it might influence our preferences. For many of us, it may also be more of an unconscience influence than not.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Janie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 09:11 PM

I find myself wondering if it is even possible to effectively lead this country.

The world is so small and complex now. It seems there is no room left for mistakes. No chance for recovery from missteps. No backtracking possible, because the way back is flooded, or covered by an avalanche. We are so closely packed that the slightest motion sends out ripples in all directions that gather speed and height as they travel outward. A deep breath, a sigh of relief, even, in one place, will put in motion events that culminate in an earthquake or tsunami somewhere else. Whether one considers political, economic, social, or environmental arenas, it is no longer possible for the energy of a deed, event, decision, to finally and simply dissipate. Attempts to mitigate in one direction cause catastrophe or conflict in another.

This is true for every person and every country now, or soon will be as population increases and resources decrease. But a big country like ours can not help, I think, but be a bull in a china cabinet.

Sorry for thread drift. And ain't I a cheery soul.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 09:29 PM

Well, Janie, IMHO the answer is "yes"...

It is possible to lead this country... Just not with the current paradyme... The current paradyme is based on division... There are a lot of reasons why our nation has found itself in this position but when one strips off the smoke and mirrors it's all about money...

I don't think that the Founding Fathers were all that concerned about money but here we are with a governemnt that is purchased by the folks with the most money... It is not a governemnt of the people and for the people... It is a governemnt that is owned by the monied class...

Tom Jefferson warned us of such a scenerio where the "people" would have to stand up to the governemnt on occasion...

We are long overdue...

But, at least with you, Janie, I am preachin' to the chior...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 10:29 PM

(I'm guessing, Janie, that you are using 'tertiary' in the sense of "third in rank". I had to look it up, because that is not the most common meaning to me.

"I don't think that the Founding Fathers were all that concerned about money but here we are with a governemnt that is purchased by the folks with the most money... It is not a governemnt of the people and for the people... It is a governemnt that is owned by the monied class..." Bobert

I tend to disagree with you a little, Bobert- 200plus years ago, only the comparatively rich could vote. Only land owners. No women, no slaves. "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" had limited application.

Capitalism- the government of making money to make one's dreams come true, you know. Today's capitalism has a lot of safeguards that it used not to have. In some ways, we have gotten better.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Janie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:11 PM

Yeh, Ebbie. Now I have to go look it up to see what other meanings it has! Residual, maybe? don't tell me, I'll go look.

And I don't want to hijack your thread. When elections are won by such small margins, anything that influences how a person chooses to vote is significant. (As is anything that influences a decision to not vote.)

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:32 PM

No problem with hijacking any of my threads, Janie. As much as I waltz around a subject!

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:51 AM

"I find myself wondering if it is even possible to effectively lead this country."

I tend to agree at least to the extent that:

1. Expectations are too high. People have come to believe that the government is capable of making life painless and struggle-free. For every single difficulty that an American comes up against -- even natural occurances -- there is an immediate and very vocal, "SOMEBODY OUGHTA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!"...and what they mean is that the government oughta do something about it (with just the slightest implication that it was, after all, the government's fault that it happened in the first place).

There is an ever encroaching public numbness to the notion that everything the government "gives" us: 1) costs us something, and 2) diminishes our freedom.

There is a rampant, horrible economic misunderstanding in the USA today -- that the government is a net producer of goods and services. It is not. It is a net consumer that needs constant production or it will fail -- even if its intentions seem honorable.

2. The balance of power MIGHT still be intact, but the perception of the balance of power is severely distorted. The President is NOT a king. He is the "executive". He is supposed to execute the laws of the legislative branch. The real power should be in the legislative branch which, by its very nature of being a power divided over 435 representatives, naturally protects (from despotism) the people from whom that power derives.

If Bush had adhered to the constitutional dictates of where the power lies, he would probably either have avoided the Iraqi debacle altogether, or we would have won the war decisively as a congressionally declared (and therefore not useful as a political football on the homefront) war. Instead, now a defeat of Bush on the Iraqi front affords great power to an opposition party. "Screwed up" is what that is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:13 AM

Well, John... It is said that folks vote their pocketbooks and though Iraq has given folks pause to examine their political affiliations it is MO that Bush and the current batch of Congressional Repubs were going to be in trouble anyway... The working class has come to realize that the "fix is in" and the Repubs, being in power for so long, are being seen as the bad guys...

It isn't about governemnt making life painless... It's about being treated fairly and not being taken advantage of by the ruling class...

Janie,

Of course you are correct in the reality that the monied class held power in the early going... It's just, in some ways, gotten worse as more folks have been franchised only to see the monied class trying to take it back, piece by piece...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:06 AM

Y'know, Bobert, maybe if you asked nicely for the wealth and product, the production of which you had nothing to do with -- either by labor or by risk -- rather than demanding it as your right, it wouldn't bother people so when it is confiscated to give it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:43 AM

"Informed electorate"... Yep. I see. Thanks John.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:45 AM

well, I'm the only "John" who has posted to this thread. But I don't understand your sarcasm. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:02 AM

I think he was addressing Bobert, as Bobert was the one who used the term.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:03 AM

Thanks, Jeri. That makes sense now. I need a little help now and then. And a lot of help most of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

Insofar as any organisation, such as a corporation can be described as "a net producer of goods and services", that can just as readily apply to a government and its agencies. It may be that the US government is not "a net producer of goods and services", but if so that is a political decision, not anything intrinsic to governmental as opposed to corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM

huh? If that is so, then why would a government need to tax its people (to oversimplify the complex)? If the Government is a producer of wealth, rather than a consumer of wealth, then every government on the face of the earth would run a surplus and have no need of taxation.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:56 PM

I'm not entirely sure what "net producer of goods and services" actually means but, if it refers to an organization converting various inputs (raw materials, skilled labor and equipment are the ones normally referred to in classical economics) to a consumable product, than the federal government certainly is one.

For example, it produces health care - for all the inadequacy of its funding and the resulting inability to do everything it would like to do, the Department of Veterans Affairs manages a medical care system that is both high quality and cost effective. And no, I'm not going to argue the point; look it up if you'd like, and I'd suggest starting with the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:59 PM

"...for all the inadequacy of its funding"

then it is, by definition, not a net producer.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:21 PM

Now, when I took my Masters in Economics in 1974, that term was not used. If one assumes that "net producer" means that the organization produces more than it consumes, it would be more than foolish to say that the item produced must be identical to the item consumed...else why have the organization in the first place? On the other hand, if the organization takes a variety of inputs and creates something that did not exist before, is that not a net product? If inputs, such as funding and professional and nonprofessional staff, increase than the net production will increase as well (in the health care context, that would be more patient encounters in a discrete period of time), subject to the normal rules of marginal output.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:37 PM

Not so, John...

Your statement that I have had nothing to do with the creation of wealth from either my labor or my capital is not accurate... I haven't spent my entire working life in social work... No, just the first half of it... Since 1982 I have owned 3 different successful businesses, employed people, paid taxes and created my little share of the colletcive wealth that our nation enjoys... And I'm still at it... That what small business people do...

So I find your comment to be degrading not only toward me but toward every small business man or woman in the country... But it foes well beyond just degrading: it is elitist, smug and downright paternal...

The working class ain't demandin' much more than its ***fair share***... Over the last 20 or so years the rich have gotten obscenely rich while the working class has been left to tread water...

Tell ya what... If the working class were to pull off a national strike those of you who think that the working class does not have a stake in the creation of wealth will get a good lesson in reality...

Like I've said over and over, the rich are going to have to learn to share the bounty... History is repleat with rich people having to learn and relearn this lesson...

And please don't bore me with the usual right wing argument about how much the rich pay in taxes... It's not what they pay in taxes but what they have afterwards that we are talking about here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:58 PM

who said the item produced had to be the same as the item consumed?

That sounds like very fancy doubletalk. MofH said there was no difference between how a corporation works and how a government works re:production and consumption. It really doesn't matter how fancy the wording -- if the government was a self-sustaining, wealth-producing entity, it would not need to tax its people.

Corporations cannot tax people (though they can and do manipulate the government to tax the people for them -- a discussion for another day). They, therefore, must produce a good or a service that is demanded by the people in order to induce people to freely give their money to them in exchange for those services.

If a corporation does not produce a product that is demanded, or the product ceases to be demanded, the corporation either ceases to exist, or finds a new product or service to offer under its corporate label. But it must be profitable to continue to exist. That doesn't mean it needs to produce a surplus -- just a profit -- pay for the cost of production plus labor.

If a government offers services it's because its populace demands that service -- and has decided that the service is one better served by government -- for any number of reasons. But the service is paid for by coersion of the people -- taxation. A completely different arrangement.

So, to that extent -- given your model that a government is the same thing as a corporation because it provides a service that is paid for -- well, hell's bells -- the government could also run a service at a substantial surplus, given your defintions that that which is coerced is the same as that which is volitionally demanded. The government could just demand a greater percentage the people's wealth (a surplus to the expense of the theoretical service). Viola! A profitable business and the government is a net producer!

But it's "profitablility" belies its nature. It is a consumer. It requires taxation. Corporations do not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:00 PM

As you say: very fancy doubletalk.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:01 PM

My point is, there's no intrinsic difference between a large corporation and a government agency, so far as "production of wealth" is concerned.

There can clearly be arguments about the relative efficiency of each, or about other advantages and disadvantages they may have, but whether the label is public or private, the manufacturing processes involved etc etc are the same.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:40 PM

MofH,

How does a government "produce wealth"?

If you mean because it can print money then, well .... holy shit.   I guess in the game of life you are playing Chess, while I'm engaged in Parchesi -- 'cause I don't even know how to discuss further if you think that printing money is creating wealth.

And if it is "producing" it, then what in the hell are taxes for?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:00 PM

Well, one thing that both the governemnt and the corportions do is extract labor from the working class as well as a share of whatever small share of the wealth the working class is able to corral, which ain't much...

I'll go a step further and say that I have never heard an argument that will hold water that the monied class has had very much to do with the creation of wealth... No, it is the working class who has built this country, maintains it, feeds it, clothes it, etc., etc...

Next time your water heater goes out just tell a dollar to do that... Next time a bridge needs to be built put the dollar on the job...

No, a dollar never did a day's work and being an artifical medium is totally incapable of doing anything... It's a friggin' piece of paper... It has no more real value than Kleenex or Charmin...

I mean, let's get real here...

Real wealth is not created by paper but by labor...

Now TO WIT: It's time for those who are creating this wealth to not be subjetced to ridicule when they point out that their share of the wealth remains the same while the corportists continue to buy politicans who keep it just that way...

95% opf elected people in Congress are there because they spent the most money on their campaigns... Where does most of this money come from??? Not the working class who is slammed but the corportists...

No, the governemnt is not the smae as the corporations... Just owned by them...

The current crop of presidential wantabees is Exhibit A... The ones who have the highest pol numbers are the ones who are taking the most cash from the corporations... P)lus, the corporations own the media and airwaves and use them to further thier agendas thru subtle, yet very effective, propaganda...

In the words of Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..."

Everyone konws it... Those who are benefiting from this corrupt system defend it... Those who aren't are very much powerless to change it...

It's a crooked game...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:46 PM

"Corporations cannot tax people (though they can and do manipulate the government to tax the people for them -- a discussion for another day)." John Hardly

It may not be called a tax but whenever their own expenses go up corporations most certainly get more money from the people. Nicht wahr?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:14 PM

Yes, but people can then choose not to buy the product, or they can go to a competing corporation.

And things are WAY more fluid than Bobert's model of worker vs. wealthy. The workers are quite capable of having their own wealth-producing industry. They can (and most often do) own the corporation for which they work. Many people have made themselves quite wealthy by their labor -- or their knowledge (a commodity that Bobert also ignores in his model of worker vs. wealthy)

I am probably below the poverty line myself. I work for myself, not a corporation. When it came time to decide whether to incorporate myself, there was no value in it for me. But I own a small amount of stock as part of a mutual fund (in a retirement account that hasn't grown in over ten years). Most people -- workers -- own way more stock than I.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:47 PM

They (Workers) can (and most often do) own the corporation for which they work." Little Hawk

If that is so, then why is it considered news when workers buy their place of business?

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 02:47 AM

Sorry John, I should have said "thanks Bobert", I was indeed referring sarcastically to the "informed electorate" he mentioned, because in my view to be informed you need to be first educated to a reasonable level, so as to have access to sufficient sources of information and to be able to assimilate it. And the average educational levels both in the US and in the UK where I live have been steadily dropping over the last 30 years. Ergo, our electorates on average are as informed as parrots and slightly more than sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:13 AM

"If that is so, then why is it considered news when workers buy their place of business?"

Because it's a crowd-pleaser of a story, and it's different from the normal case -- that being that most of the time a corporation's "workers" own their piece of the corporation by owning stock in it.

That's an idea, incidentally, that is proving to be not such a great idea -- not because it shouldn't be done -- I like it -- but because it is often the only stock a person owns and that lack of diversification can be very bad. Also, many corporations are run by moral reprobates (like the leaders of our country) who don't bat an eye to steal their worker's earned pensions and give themselves bonuses with the booty. That's not the rule, but when it happens (like United Airlines) it sure makes for a juicy news story.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:42 AM

This dream model of the working class owning the corporations is not accurate... 82% of the stock market is owned by the upper 5%... The working class has been marginalized in that with the cost of living and stagnant wages it is now borrowing heavily just to make ends meet... The savings rate in the country is the lowest since 1927...

This is the reality and this is why we are seeing a populist movement accross the country... The Dems can't stop it... They can join it but they won't stop it... And if they think angry working class will automatically vote for them, they need to rethink their position... The country has never been riper for a third party populist movement in my life time... If the Dems don't get their collective heads outta the corportiats posteriors they will be the party that will be back in the minority... Yeah, they might fool the people in '08, maybe not, but their days are numbered if they don't stop playing stupid politics and stand up for the working class...

And, yes, this is "demanding" something from the governemnt... It's demanding that the playing field be leveled...

And this ain't just one ol' hillbilly's opinion... I live in Republican territory and I'm hearing the same thing from the folks around here... Yeah, thay might not *like* the Dems too much but they are furious with the Repubs...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:02 AM

But they aren't "furious with the Repubs" because the Republicans won't vote them the largesse from the treasury. The new Republicans have been doing just that. That's the problem.

What has most Americans furious with the Republicans is that they are not an alternative to the Democrat habit of spending more than the government takes in (the government NOT being a producer).

The Americans I know want the government to stop spending on pork programs, and redundant programs, and corporate welfare, and social welfare that requires no moral judgement, and politician's pay raises, and expensive campaigns wherein politicians can promise more spending.

The Republicans have offered no more of an alternative to fiscal responsibility than the Democrats gave us.

You think that people are furious because neither will promise to bust open the national treasury and give all the "money" to the working class.

I disagree. Sure, the Democrats will always have a greater appeal to those who think the government is the best means for all to gain economic security -- for those who believe the major function of government is to redistribute wealth.

But that's not why Americans are furious with Republicans.

Republican's major electoral appeal has historically been to those who believe that government is an economic drain when its major function is to redistribute wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

Geeee, the last two Democratic administrations (Clinton's and Carter's) were the only two administartions in the last 40 years that cut the deficits that the previous administartions (all Repub, BTW...) left for them???

Another Repub "Big Lie" is exposed...

As for a "largesse to the treaaury", what a joke... It ain't the working class with their hands out... They just want to stop the corporations from using their ownership of the governemnt to rip off the working class...

That's the real deal...

And another Repub "Big Lie" goes *thump*...

Guess it's back to the Dems will make yer kids marry gays and/or the Dems are baby killers...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:56 PM

1. During Clinton's years it was a Republican congress controlling the spending.

2. The budget was not balanced during those years anyway.

Take your pick, but neither adds up to a fiscally responsible Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

fact: Every year Bill Clinton was president, the US national debt went up. In 2000, his administration spent 22 bilion more than the government took in. That was as close as Clinton came to a surplus. The "Clinton surplus" is a hoax.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:29 PM

22 billion? Documentation, please.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:43 PM

I believe there are several places where the National Debt graf is shown. Try Google.

Remeber, 'budget' is propsed spending and is never the same as actual spending. Actual spending will (by definition) raise the National Debt when expenditures exceed the money taken in.

Even worse, the excess money taken in under the guise of Social Security is dumped into the General Fund and spent each year. There are only IOU's left. That (Social Security) surplus is not accounted for in the same way as taxes, but it is used to make annual debt figures look better than they really are.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

National debt is a red herring stat... What I said was the deficits were cut during these two Dem administrations...

If either of you have hard evidence that contridicts almost every credible news source out there then bring it on... I'm sure the Washington Post and the New Times will get in a fist fight over who get to hire you to expose stuff that practically no one one earth knows...

And for the record, it is not the Congr5ess that proposes the budget, John... It's the president... In Clinton's case, who IMO was the purest Repub since Richard Nixon, what he did was listen to Alan Greenspan early and often... There's a good book on the subject... I think it's called "Miestro"...

I recall Greensapn's initial reactions to the Bush tax cut and it wasn't supportive at all... Greenspan initially said it was wrong for the economy but then was taken to Dick Cheney's torture chambers and it wasn't long before he was singing the company fight song... Okay, I was jus' funnin' about Greenspan being water-boarded... I have no evidence that happened but something happened because one day Greenspan was sayin', "Not a good idea" and the next day it was, "Great idea"??? Kinda like Tenent sayin' to Bush one day that there was no credible evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger and then later givin' Bush the green light to say it though we now learn that no new evidence surfaced to support the claim???

This is waht I love about you Bushites... You can make shicken salad out of chickensh*t... Just pull another meaningless stat outta yer posteriors and smugly post it as if 1.) it was true and 2.) evn when they are somewhat true are really not relavent to the conversation...

Like Nation debt v. deficits...

BTW, before anyone thinks a have any warm and fuzzies for Bill Clinton, think again... I didn't vote for him. and I won't vote for his wife because they are both Nixon Republicans...

BTW, Part 2... The 2 biggest spenders in modern times have been Ronnie Reagan and the current guy... But neither of them cared too much for having the revenue to support their shopping sprees... Clinton and Greenspan cleaned up Ronnie's mess and whomever is the next presiedent, unless it is Neocon Thommie Gun, will get stuck havin' to clean up after Bush...

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM

The national debt is the amount the US government has in outstanding securities, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the budget deficit/surplus. Every time you invest in US Savings Bonds, you are loaning the government money (at a pretty poor rate of interest) and contributing to the national debt.

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:29 PM

Every year we have a budget deficit because the US government always spends more than it takes in. The sum of all those annual debts is the National Debt. I find no evidence that the National Debt has gone down in modern times, say since the 1929 stock market crash. Selling bonds is just a mechanism to generate money to pay current bills. The man who built the bridge gets paid on time, as per contract. When the money runs out, some must be borrowed, which is where the securities come in. That pushes the debt forward and allows the politician to point a a shiny new bridge and say "look what I did for you".

Subject: RE: BS: US Politics- Are We Gender Voters?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:47 PM

I must correct myself...I was being too simplistic. The national debt does relate to the annual budget surplus/deficit in the sense that, when there is a surplus some of the debt is retired (or, in practical terms, the government needs to sell fewer bonds) and when there is a deficit the government needs to borrow more (to make up the shortfall) and the debt increases. The annual Federal budget always includes bond "sales" as income and bond retirement (purchase price plus interest) as expenses.