Dem-onomics--The Democrats are departing even from Clinton's economics.

Wall St Journal ^ | 11-4-03

[SJackson]

Notwithstanding the third quarter's 7.2% growth boom, Democrats seem undaunted in attacking President Bush's economic policies. Well, that's politics, and it is always possible that a year from now one of them could win.

The taxman cometh, again and again. All nine of the candidates are proposing to raise taxes, the only difference being how much and on whom. Among the non-crank candidates, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean are the bravest, or the most suicidal, depending on your politics. They're proposing to repeal every dime of the Bush tax cuts, regardless of income.

[.cnI redruM]

A picture worth 1,000 words.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Someone explain to me how the public interest is served by a "Great Debate" rule that the candidates rely strictly on their own memory, and their own verbal skills, to convey the facts as indicated in the chart with the article. That rule is strictly to provide "gotcha" moments for journalists to exploit. Why should our future president be demeaned in that way?

Far better would be to require that candidates provide such graphs and the references upon which they are based. But that would make it harder slippery evasions to carry the day--and this article indicates, liberalism is about slippery evasions.

If Bush is in as strong a position as I hope next fall, he would do a signal service by demanding that any debates be designed to produce light rather than heat.

[Dr Warmoose]

all of the candidates now accept the AFL-CIO-Sierra Club diktat that any new trade deals must impose U.S. labor and environmental standards on the rest of the world. Since few important countries are likely to accept these terms, this is a recipe for ending all future trade deals.

Loath these demoncats as we may like, at least on this point they are consistant. The US is not competitive when the rest of the world demands that they can pollute as much as they want and only the US must voluntarily cripple itself with over-the-top environmental worship.

[The Great RJ]

The Democrats should look to Europe for what economic growth is engendered by high taxation and protectionist trade policies coupled with a lavish welfare state. The US GDP grew more in the last quarter than the GDP in Sweden did nearly the last decade. Rates of unemployement in countries like Germany (characterized in a Pravda article as a "tax hell")are at least double the US rate. Is this the kind of economic growth people would want?

[GaryL]

Thanks for posting this "matching set" of two great economics articles from the WSJ. These articles are keepers!

[dangus]

Dem-onomics?

Dang punctuation... I think the word is "Demon-omics"

[SJackson]

Far better would be to require that candidates provide such graphs and the references upon which they are based. But that would make it harder slippery evasions to carry the day--and this article indicates, liberalism is about slippery evasions.

The Dem-9 might well assume their audience to to stupid to understand simple graphs, and presenting facts certainly complicates the job of their friends in the media. Better media quotes come from simply yaping about the Clinton markets.

Of course, they're wrong. Remember Ross Perot. If one of the 9 were to latch on to the idea, perhaps highlighting the Reagan-Bush-Bush deficits, it might get some traction.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

...the "wealthy," which Joe Lieberman defines as a couple earning more than $150,000.

Here in Montgomery County, Maryland (a liberal Mecca) $150,000 equals a school teacher and an engineer. Or, two school teachers that have been teaching for more than 20 years each. An **average** three bedroom house sells for $350,000 here. The "rich" can barely afford to buy an average house yet the demoncRATs want to take half, of more, of their income.