While it is right to point out the shortcomings of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, it should be noted that The Current Administration has in fact been addressing the issues proactively, with historic budget increases ($1.2 billion FY '03 over '02) for the department, and sweeping organizational changes. The simple neglect and active depredations of The Previous Administration cannot be undone overnight, particularly given the challenge of countering and reversing the damage The Previous Administration did to the economy in general, while in the face of a yet-divisive Legislative Branch. The coming Republican Landslide Victory will go far to limit The Democrat's ability to obstruct and delay much-needed reforms, and to accellerate the pace of critical appointments, both in Washington and in Statehouses throughout The Nation. Republican ascendance is nothing but aided by the successful and ever-increasing efforts of The Democratic Party to marginalize itself by act of submitting itself to the factionalization of its more activist fringe. The way to The Whitehouse is right up the middle, with just a little hook at the end, while The Democrats concentrate on perfecting their gutterball.
A mild dip in the middle of Bush I? I don't buy that for a second.
In the campaign for the Presidential nomination of Bush II, there was the usual radical right wing of candidates. Bush II passed himself off as moderate with his self-labeling as a Compassionate Conservative among other platform planks (the debate with Gore prompted me to think, aw, guys -- go get a room!) When it all comes down to the nitty-gritty, there's less difference between the two parties than hardly anyone wants to admit.
LW wrote:there's less difference between the two parties than hardly anyone wants to admit
Something which dismays the more ideologically aligned Dems no end. They're doing their damndest to alter at least the perception, if not the reality. It should not be dismissed that in politics, perception generally trumps reality.
Lightwizard wrote:A mild dip in the middle of Bush I? I don't buy that for a second.
As I wrote... some people care nothing for facts.
There was a really good piece in the Week In Review section of the NYTimes by Richard Stevenson on the economy and how unemployment and economic dips have affected previous presidential elections. Go to the link and then also click on "charts" on the right hand side...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/weekinreview/19STEV.html
U.S. ECONOMY
c.i. : this in reply to you posting under another thread; just thought my reply might fit better here. personally we are indeed lucky to be living in these (for us) "prosperous" times. but when i refer back to tonight's news reports i am beginning to have a few doubts. apparently there are 40(FOURTY)million american citizens without adequate health-insurance - is it their fault ? i saw that workers in california are (again i must say "apparently" - because i am taking the news reports at face value) striking NOT for higher wages, but to retain their medical benefits. i know that quite a few united states seniors travel to canada to buy medical supplies that (apparently) they can not afford to buy stateside; others are buying drugs over the internet from canadian suppliers. and here is a litttle sidebar : the u.s. suppliers want to restrict the supply of their drugs to canadian wholesale buyers, in the hope to restrict the total supply of drugs and make it more difficult for americans to buy cheaper drugs in canada; canadians might presumably resent it if american seniors snap up drugs at "bargain" prices. on the other hand, american(and canadian and german and british ....) companies think it is quite acceptable to shift production facilities offshore to take advantage of lower production costs. don't get me wrong, i like visiting the united states and americans; hope to be in south carolina for the month of march. PLEASE DON'T BLACKBALL ME ! am i wrong in wondering what's going on here ? it seems to me that everyone is entitled to adequate healthcare. i realize that we cannot afford million-dollar healthcare for every person, but there should be solid and good basic healthcare for all citizens. in canada we have of course different levels of health services also. as an example, i have "extended health benefit coverage" through my former employer, to cover such things as : private room, dental benefits, home nursing care, additional prescription drug coverage for drugs NOT LISTED(that is, not paid for through the provincial health insurance). i pay about can$ 1,000 per year to cover mrs. h and myself. why does the united states (the richest and most powerfull country in the world; and i don't think there is any doubt about it) have such difficulty in giving all its citizens good and adequate health coverage? perhaps i've got it all wrong ? would appreciate some enlightening comments. hbg.
hbg, Everything in your post is correct. We have 70,000 supermarket workers on strike in Southern California, because their share of health care insurance is going up while their pay is being cut. The same thing will happen next year in Northern California. The issue of Americans buying drugs in Canada is a case where our government is siding with the drug companies so that Americans often pay over fifty percent for the same drugs "made in the US." The drug companies are trying to convince congress that letting Americans buy drugs from Canada increases the danger of buying sub-quality, and sometimes, dangerous drugs that will not meet US standards. Many elderly in our country either don't buy the drugs, or they end up taking the partial dosage required by the prescription. When it comes to the issue of universal health care in the US, I'm a far left liberal. My liberal bent is moderate on most issues. I don't understand why the US spends the most for health care, but do not provide universal health care. Part of the problem is all the paperwork required under the present system. When my wife and I visited Costa Rica a few years ago during our cruise to the Panama Canal, we learned that they have universal health care, but no military. I like that idea, but that will never be. We're spending over 150 billion dollars on this war on Iraq that should have never started. That money could have been well spent for a universal health care program plus improve our schools. Many people still think GWBush is doing a good job, so we must place some of the blame on ourselves. As for my wife and I, I'm covered under Medicare and my wife's employment at Kaiser Permanente as a nurse. Our insurance also covers dental, and new specs every three years. With my 'double' coverage, I have no co-pay for visits to the hospital, and all my drugs are free. Although my wife could have retired last year, she claims she's going to work another year. When she retires from her job at Kaiser, our co-pay will increase by about $100 per month for each. We should be able to manage that okay from our retirement savings and social security. The first thing I'm going to do is plan a trip to Japan soon after she retires, because she loved our visit to Japan in 1982.
the u.s. economy
hi, c.i. : i think i've known for some time where you stand (and perhaps we have to share that position on the "liberal" side!). just thought i 'd throw in a bit of canadian news. just had an election here in ontario(provincial election). the reigning conservatives promised all kinds of tax reductions and "further streamlining" of government functions. they did this after they got elected previously by declaring a $200 TAX DIVIDEND; of course it did fool quite a few people(but you know the old saw "you can't fool all the people all the time"). shortly after the tax dividend the provincial government started downloading some of their responsibilities to the municipalities !!! it was called COMMOM SENSE REVOLUTION !!! have a good laugh (or cry). when this election rolled around there were, as i said, more promises of tax cuts. the liberal opposition stated quite clearly that there would NOT be any tax cuts. the provincial debt was already skyhigh and hospitals and schoolboards were running out of money and had to borrow from the banks(ooperating loans). want to guess who won the election ? it turned out that the voters had all the tax cuts they could afford and the conservatives got kicked out of office. finally people started to realize that good hospital services and education aren't for free but must be paid for. of course, the incoming liberal government is having to manage a huge debt that they inherited. it'll be pretty tough slogging getting out of the hole. we'll have to see how they manage. (earlier watched your presidential candidate howard dean who seemed to have a similar message : you can't have a tax cut AND more spending on health, education ...). c.i. : don't fall off the cliff ! hbg ... i'd still be interested in comments from others on this subject
That's exactly right, hamburger. Everything you get has to be paid for, by yourself, your parents, or your children. Tanstaafl. I am shocked to hear this presented as a liberal concept, but so much for labels.
Come on, roger, you know how the rhetoric works! Liberals say "more services for everybody," and the conservatives say "no new taxes." Guess what? GWBush gave tax breaks to the richest in this country, and is spending billions on the war in Iraq - to be paid for by future generations. I'm like a lot of moderates in this country; I'm willing to pay more taxes - to be spent at home for OUR NEEDS: for universal health care and improving our schools for our children.
I dunno. . . . I always thought the Democrats were "borrow an spend", while the Republicans were "tax and spend." And yes, I did switch Republican and Democrat for conservative and liberal. I noticed that myself.
they both say spend to your hearts content and blame someone else when the bill comes in.
dyslexia wrote:they both say spend to your hearts content and blame someone else when the bill comes in.
hmmm, sounds like my wife
Gotta get some socks first......
shoes and eveything else that "matches" them
Apparantly there are people her who have forgotten about Black Monday and the ensuing severe downturn of the economy during Bush I. Hint: it's the reason he lost the election. California never fully recovered -- Orange County declared bankruptcy and if one actually lived here, they would have seen the depressed economy firsthand. I am more inclined to believe the prosperity of the 90's was more on paper than in reality but there were other rising economic indicators that made it a financially successful decade. The stock market went up about twenty times its value (if one got in in the early Nineties and stopped buying when the market became overheated, they are definitely okay). The greed spawned by the advents of technology and the Internet was classic American snake oil but this is going on right now as well. It's just a great deal more tempered.
Where do you see the 'snake oil' at this point?
Ask your friendly neighborhood stock broker -- I'm sure he has the magic cure.
I just sense a slow grinding forward as money is freed due to confidence. I don't see any over inflated 'bubbles' coming up to go pop later causing an undesirable correction. Anything could happen as we've recently seen.
