The downfall of Republicans -- needed defense.

Me | Me

[Naspino]

How come the party that supposedly "cares" for the people is so driven for re-election that it is purposefully putting off reform of two major, failuring, programs.

How come the same party is purposefully trying to weaken consumer confidence for re-election. In the 90's the Republicans were in the congress and oversaw the strongest economy in history. In 2001 the Democrats are trying to see to the wrecking of the economy for 4 years in order to win elections in 2002 and 2004.

We need to remind voters in 2002 and 2004 that the Democrats weakened the economy to make Republicans look bad and to get their vote.

[Bush2000]

Bush and his spokesmen should spend every waking moment talking about the "Clinton downturn". This thing started before Bush even got into office. But Americans have a short memory and, by 2004, some of them will be stupid enough to believe the Democrats' lies about the economy.

[Naspino]

Here is how people vote: (1) Loyalists. If Al Gore had murdered a 2 year old in cold blood they'd voted for him anyway. (2) Single-Issue. Environmentalists and Abortionists, and Amoralists. (3) Philisophical. Republicans are against Democracy. (4) Pocket-book. Who's president -- how am I doing? (5) Who looks cooler?

The number 1,2, and 3 lines have been drawn. The number 5 group consists of a small number of twits. The number 4 crowd is HUGE and is what swings the election; however, I don't think most pay any attention to how the economy works and what role the government has.

Altough they will talk up the social security "deficit" and "raids", they will subtly place into every interview the "downturn", the "loss in investments", and the need to "cutback spending". I mean _MY GOD_ we just ran the second largest surplus in the history of the country and the DEMOCRATS are already talking about how they'll have to cut government programs. Its as if the word surplus didn't have a logical meaning.

[Bush2000]

Agree 100% with your thinking. The (4) group is also the most dangerous. They know practically nothing about how the economy works. They think of their 401Ks as a kind of bank account. ("Gee, I put money in -- it's supposed to get some kind of return.") They don't understand how the capital and bond markets work. They don't know how interest rates are set -- or by whom. They don't understand how tax rates affect government revenues -- or that cutting taxes increases revenues. They don't care. All they do care is that the money keeps rolling in. All that they know is that they did well under Clinton. They credit Clinton with giving "good economy". They will be hard on Bush. They will blame everything that's happening right now on him, even though the economic downturn started 2 years before Clinton even left office. His economists were clever. They hid the downturn in fudged productivity numbers. GDP was flat or declining.

[RLK]

In the 90's the Republicans were in the congress and oversaw the strongest economy in history.

-----------------------

Somebody's knowlege of history isn't very good. I wish to God somebody would consult the figures for the last 60 years instead of trying to make unsupported political arguments that play into leftist hands with leftist premises.

There has never been a complete recovery from what is erroneously called the 91-92 recession, which according to figures for people out of work for more than three and six months, lasted well into 94. In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973. This has been a continuing process for nearly 30 years. The absence of regnition of this fact, and the reasons for it, is one reason conservatives are losing political leverage.

We have been in a state of deterioratin economic condition since the early 70s. Every figure shows it. The Reagan era reduced the rate of decrease, but did not end the fundamental problem.

[Naspino]

It really infuriates me that the Democrats pretend to be for these working people all the while stalling economic reform in favor of political advantage. After all, what good would it be for them to have a strong economy in 2002. I just didn't see this with the Republicans during the Clinton era. The chairman of the Budget Committee (D) Sen. Kent Conrad (a former North Dakota state tax commissioner) pretended to understand NOTHING of government economics, even that social security HAD accounts and said:

"I think those who have been driving the car, grabbed the wheel and proceeded to run it right into the ditch have the first obligation."

"I think it defies logic and defies truth"

"I do believe they have an affirmative obligation to come up with spending cuts or new revenue to prevent us from raiding the Medicare and Social Security trust funds."

From Townhall.Com: "Implicitly, Conrad wants to impose higher taxes on a shaky economy."

[Naspino]

In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973

Adjusted for inflation I presume. :-) You are most likely right -- but that arguement wouldn't hold water with voters.

[ladyinred]

Remember when during the campaign Bush said the Clinton economy was about to tank? The media went after him full force saying he was scaring people, and that by saying such things he would make the economy weaken?
Hmm, now who is doing this? The media of course, using it as another tool to undermine the President to the brainswashed public who do not realize that this is still the Clinton economy.
This is of course, all by design, President Bush must be made to pay for having the audacity to win the election and keep their fair haired boy from continuing the socialsist agenda the media so agrees with.

[Economist_MA]

In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973. This has been a continuing process for nearly 30 years.

Where do you have this number from? All statistics I have seen show an increase in real incomes for all socio-economic groups except the bottom 20% over the last 30 years. I may certainly be wrong, but please give a source for your claim. Thanks in advance!

[Naspino]

Oh yes, I remember. I was working for two startup companies in 2000, drawing full salary in each. Both had completely overestimated their consumer market and both went under in November. The key was that both had been looking for investors and that market COMPLETELY dried up in 2000 (NOT in 2001).

[Darheel]

'The downfall of Bush will be the economy (no matter its condition).'

Taking swings at Bush ain't gonna help. This is a threadful of whine, hurts the Conservative cause. If you must kick your own asses, do it privately. Thanx for not breaking the 11th commandment (sarcasm off).

[RLK]

Adjuste for inflation, correct. It won't appeal to the voters if you don't tell them what is happening, but instead attempt to take credit for something that doesn't exist. If we want to appeal to voters instead of driving them off, we must stop engaging in fantasy island politics.

[Naspino]

'The downfall of Bush will be the economy (no matter its condition).' Taking swings at Bush ain't gonna help. This is a threadful of whine, hurts the Conservative cause. If you must kick your own asses, do it privately. Thanx for not breaking the 11th commandment (sarcasm off).

I think you didn't understand. No other issue will remove Bush from office than the economy. Even if its doing great (as it still is) it will be the "worst catastrophe for working Americans in history" which is why we need economic education. If you ignore it -- you're sure to suffer from it.

[Economist_MA]

Mmmmmh, I guess you were trying to reply to somebody else. Right?

[Economist_MA]

Median real (white) income has been rising since 1972

... which per se doesn't negate your claim that median white male income has fallen. But I think you need to back it up.

[Naspino]

Mmmmmh, I guess you were trying to reply to somebody else. Right?

He was trying to respond to me. But come on -- do you think the Dems will run based on the Stem Cell issue in 2002. We're not far off and the odds are the economy will not significantly recover, we're most likely looking at another quarter below or right at 0% growth. With all the reporting, I would guess just below 0% and then the trumpets will really start sounding because we'll be in a "recession". If we do manage to have significant recovery in 2002 I doubt it will have much attention compared to the fallout of the former. This will be the #1 issue for the races in 2002 and we'll have to deal with -- the best way is to dispell the myth now.

[Economist_MA]

I agree - it will be the big issue for 2002, even though most mid-term races are more about personality than politics. Most likely the economy will be in gear again by 2004.

[Naspino]

I agree - it will be the big issue for 2002, even though most mid-term races are more about personality than politics. Most likely the economy will be in gear again by 2004.

I think it was Drudge that had a link to Daschel's 2002 strategy meeting -- basically discouraging any collaboration on Bush economic plans to keep Democrat fingerprints off the economy -- essentially let it die and then we'll say "We told you -- Republicans will destroy the economy".

[x]

Bush and his spokesmen should spend every waking moment talking about the "Clinton downturn". This thing started before Bush even got into office. But Americans have a short memory and, by 2004, some of them will be stupid enough to believe the Democrats' lies about the economy.

Bush isn't as brazen as Clinton. Plus, the media hold his feet to the fire as they never did for Clinton.

[Naspino]

Maybe Laura needs to go on the Today Show and tell the audience she thinks its a Huge Left-Wing Conspiracy trying to discredit her husband. Then maybe she can be elected a Senator too.