WHY IT'S HARD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Todd Smyth has written a very interesting editorial about issues involving the reality of being a Democrat. He lists both our shortcoming and our strengths. This article also provides some historical comparisons on the performance of past administrations. It's also filled with thought provoking quotes, one of my favorites is not even from a Democrat...

This article also illustrates how Republicans are masters of marketing and can change public perception with catch phrases. For example:

You can also see many interesting ideas about the Bush War On Terror. For Example:

So I urge you to take a few minutes out of your life to consider what this author has to say and don't forget the links...it might just help the nation.

[Edited on Sep 08, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

an excellent read.

whats this democrat word?

Nothing you'll hear on cable news or AM radio...

The only thing that makes it hard for me to be a democrat is that the party is now dominated by wishy/washy moderates. If there was a viable party to the left I would be there.

You also have to look at your pay check say 'I don't pay enough taxes.' If FDR and Truman were alive they would have ripped Kerry a new corn shoot like Zell Miller did. As would have Kennedy. I was already aware of that speech he made before you posted it. I would ask you to tell me when it was given to try to determine whether or not kerry was in favor of the war in Iraq at that time. But then now that I thing of it Kerry's flip flopped enough on that issue that it would be to hard to ascertain. You might check the weather report to help you. All of his postions seem to change with the wind.

And what does this have to do with the article...and if Zell Miller is your political hero... Did you read this... Combine that with terrible job loss and I would say the tax cuts have been a bad idea. What is the benefit of a tax cut with an huge increase in spending? It's too bad people would prefer a stubborn president who makes bad decisions and refuses to admit it...rather than someone who is willing to reconsider bad ideas.
Do I need to remind you of the Bush flip-flops?

If only we weren't such pussies

i agree - mostly clinton's doing

well exacltly, he is a wishy/washy moderate. and I hate it. However if I have to choose between someone who espouses sensible ideas some of the time and someone who espouses sensible ideas none of the time, well as much as I hate it I am going to have to choose the former.

And to be frank I would pay more income tax if the rest of the people who should be taking the brunt of the burden would as well. I make a lot of damn money and it is ridiculous for me to complain about my tax burden when there are people who shouldn't have a tax burden at all struggling under theirs. And the burden on those people has far more to do with right wing tax policies than the tax policies of the left.

I think it started long before clinton but he didnt help. really it has more to do with politics inside the party than any president or other elected official.

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by thejuanupsman]

Love,
Lain

It's hard to be a Democrat. The Repuglicans keep tealing all those "elections" they allegedly "won".

who was the last non-moderate democrat president?

vs.

who was the last moderate republican president?

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by scrantonian]

I feel like it isnt even fair to respond to that until Stock has had a chance to edit.

The GOP: The party for smug people who cant do math.

Hate to break it to you, but unless you've got a trust fund, while your marginal income tax rate has been unchanged by Bush, your aggregate tax burden has increased by about 13 %. That's before interest on the 400% increase in deficit spending. Your chances of getting a good job are about 60% smaller. The financial sector lost 78,000 jobs last quarter. Those will hopefully be equalized by the likely creation of 113,000 new jobs next quarter. Seasonal jobs. Picking fruit. Education? Legislated for with national standards but as yet unfunded. Marriage penalty? Still there, but hey if you've got $60,000 to spend on an SUV, you can deduct the whole price in year 1. Prescription drug benefit for grandma: doesn't do shit, but costs 25% more than the White House claimed (after burying the true cost estimates).

For those of you too dumb to figure out the answer to "Is you doing better under Bush?": If you don't make a healthy six figures Bush just gave your kid's college fund to people who do.

Its that simple. We don't even need to bother explaining how to read a voting record.

Almost all of that is defense spending. The increase in discretionary spending has been reduced to less than 2%. Bush is fighting the war Clinton didn't. That's why we have a deficit. Put the deficit in perspective. Look at it as a % of GDP. I already knew all of this though. you think you're the only one who reads?

I have a job because of the Bush tax cuts. The accelerated right off gave business owners the ability to make more capital investments and do it sooner. I work in a factory that make reuseable plastic dunnage. Guess what I have health insurance plus two weeks vacation in my first year of employment. Not one of those McJobs you libs like to complain about.

I see you've studied in the Stockula debate school...

factory workers who don't recognize that the Bush's of the world are doing far more to help liberal attorney's like me than they will ever do to help you are one of the strange paradoxes of american politics. I should thank you I guess. Except that I don't want to get any wealthier off the backs of the working man. No matter how much some of them seem to want me to.

Here's a taste of the graduate school

heh both parties have plenty of crybabies. That is why they both suck.

Ummmm, yes, the majority is "defense" spending, because the administration hasn't fucking funded a single domestic initiative. Does that mean we don't need to pay it?

If by that you include none of the costs of the "war on terror" as discretionary. I seem to recall something about an education presidency and health care benefits and how we could have those and a whopping tax cut for the wealthy.

Yes, because Clinton isn't so fucking stupid as to bog us down in a trillion dollar occupation of an impotent foe.

4.2%. 2.5 times the 40 year average.

And yet you omit the salient facts, any actual support of your position and haven't actually addressed 75% of my points. How convenient.

In this exchange? Frankly, yes.

Please do cite this "right" off, as I'm disinclined to accept any tax analysis from somebody who invents his own spelling of basic accounting terms.

Lucky you. Some of us remember when that wasn't a remarkable claim. You know the good old days before net zero job growth and a million new people in poverty. That you're not one of them doesn't mean Bush isn't doing a sucky job, Mr. Braddock.

So the advanced version is posting pictures instead of ill-supported arguments? Gotcha.

But only one party has This Guy...lol

edit: Link...

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Look, the Deficit is at $422 billion dollars. That is down from the $478(?) billion all the "experts" predicted in January. Adjust for inflation, and this deficit is SMALLER than what we were running in the early 90's and most of the 80's. It is still a sizable deficit, and if adjusted for said inflation, would be the 4th largest deficit in American History. If adjusted then compared to the GDP, it is the 17th largest. Things are not nearly as bad as Kerry is letting on.

John F. Kerry, and "F" stands for Fish, as in the more he stays in the light, the more his story stinks!