If Kerry lied, would it matter?

Alexis de Tocqueville, the damn french! a lawyer and a liberal to boot.

Yeah. But it's such a great quote.

Actually he wrote some good stuff.

So, are you saying that the prices in groceries have only risen in my area of Kentucky? That the cost of colleges have only risen in Kentucky? That the prices for Health care have only risen in Kentucky? What about car insurance, house insurance, they have only risen in my area? Gas prices have only risen in my area? Perhaps I should move into that big world out there where all those ugly realities don't exist.

Funny, I seem to be hearing Judy Garland right now. I wonder if Bush or Karl Rove or Cheney is the fake wizard?

foxfrye, when I mentioned Clinton it was mostly to establish a time. Although, yes I do think Clinton would have done a heck of a lot better after 9/11. Although that is just my opinion.

Revel are you saying that you have seen the price of groceries, the cost of health care, and/or the cost of college tuition rise only in the Bush administration?

**
US Inflation - 20 years
1983 3.8% Reagan years
1984 3.9%
1985 3.8%
1986 3.8%
1987 4.5%
1988 4.4% George the 1st elected President in November
19894.6%
1990 6.1%
1991 3.1%
1992 2.9% Bill Clinton elected President in November
1993 2.7%
1994 2.7% GOP Congressional majority - 1st time in 40 years
1995 2.5%
1996 3.3% Bill Clinton elected 2nd term in November
1997 1.7%
1998 1.6%
1999 2.7%
2000 3.4% George W. Bush elected in November
2001 1.6%
2002 2.4%
2003 1.2%

**Consumer Price Index Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004.
http

does it matter if he lied???????
Of course it matters if he lied. It would be irrational to expect politicians not to change, but to fib is a big no no. If the only thing John Kerry lied about, was his throwing away of his medals, I dont think anyone would care. It is the fact that he lies all too frequently. He is an extreme socialist democrat, that cannot win an election on his record. He is just trying to win an election on false pretenses, by saying one thing to get elected and then doing another.

no foxfrye that is not what I was saying, what I was saying that the cost of those things have naturally risen but the average wage a person brings home has not risen enough to keep up with it recently. Some have taken jobs with less pay, some are laid off entirely and some just have not had significant wage increases to keep up with the cost of living.

The interest rates have been really low these last couple of years so I know a lot of people that have been really refinancing and living off credit cards. Alan Greenspan said that soon we will have to raise the interest rates. All those loans that people have been making are going to come home to roost soon. It is like Bush silly tax cuts, he expected to do it all, have wars, homeland security (police and firemen) schools, libraries and still give huge tax cuts in some kind of outlandish trickle down theory that has already been tried and tested and failed but for some odd reason no one seems to have learned from it. Now people are thinking that if we just give more time his tax break thing will turn things around. Well, I hope so. Because if I was a betting person, I would bet that Bush is going to win and the house and senate remain in the control of congress.

Kerry is hardly extreme, and he's by no means a socialist.
Revel, You are right. keep it up!

suzzy, sorry I added more on while you were posting your post.

Hi Revel,
Some will try to muddy the waters with statistics and quotes, while others actually KNOW and experience what has been occuring and how it affects the average Joe.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is the people! When WE start seeing real improvement, we'll let you know if the righty pundits are right.
Until then, Foxfyre, you're arguing against the current reality. I have seen nobody address the fact that I paid a lot more tax than I ever have before, either. In addition to paying more for everything else!
Blatham, nice posts, as usual.

Blatham, I KNOW this because however much you think I read the wrong things, I do read. And I do live in the real world. Nobody tells me what to think. Maybe you are unduly influenced by what you read or listen to and therefore assume everybody is?

Revel, I can keep posting statistic after statistic to show you how the economy has been steadily improving. A natural recession had begun at the end of Clinton's second term and was rebounding nicely the first year of GWB's term when 9/11 hit. We did go through a rocky financial time after that but in the last year, personal income has been up and has been exceeding the rate of inflation and continues to do so. I can understand how you may personally be having a rough time of it. I had to come out of retirement and go back to work because I wasn't making ends meet. I know how it is.

I also know that GWB's policies have done nothing but help the situation and he is not to blame for your or my financial difficulties.

Im glad to hear that you and your husband can go back to work. I wish I could because I sure could use the extra income. Unfortunately not all of us are healthy enough to do so.

Nah girl. It's what you say and argue. It is, very often, straight party line.

Take for example your comments above on welfare. About the only cliched idea you haven't tossed in is "welfare queens" (the black woman ripping off the system... lazy, crack-smoking and rolling down main street in her Caddy...but you did toss the Caddy in with Kerry).

This is all straight out of Gingrich, repeated by Limbaugh and Coulter, and by a hundred right wing web sites and spokespersons. One can sit down at a typewriter and duplicate this stuff with one's eyes shut.

The thing of it is, I wouldn't even mind if there was some real attempt by even one percent of the folks who repeat this stuff to find out if it has any truth at all.

What is back of your notions here? Perhaps the 'common sense' intuition that folks who are aided become dependent upon that aid? Perhaps you take this as an axiom of human behavior, assume its truth because it seems like it really could be so. And therefore a nation who has such a generous social system will inevitably begin to feed on itself until it's all chewed and gone.

But what of those European states which have 'social safety nets' far beyond what anything the US has ever had? What of the fact that incredible US growth and affluence in this century came coincident with New Deal policies and values?

Many such cases argue against the simplistic (not to mention merciless) ideology of folks like Gingrich and Norquist and Scaife. And here, I won't even get into the other sorts of things these two guys (and those linked to them) have said and done.

There are a number of folks here from Europe...bright, well-educated people with political opinions at greater or lesser variance with each other. But every one of them will tell you (do a survey if you like) that American political discourse has a CENTRE (not a fringe) which falls far to the right of any European state. This is true compared with Canada as well. And you are getting worse. Ask a European or a Canadian or an Australian if they conceive that your media is 'liberal' or balanced in tone, and they will laugh out loud.

Now, everyone is free to hold whatever political notions they find compelling or convincing. But the degree of unreflective acceptance I see coming out of the modern american right is scary.

It's not too tough to get some feeling for how this has come about, even if the picture is incomplete and subject to errors in all sorts of specifics...eg which of those three men noted above has been most influential in this political shift? What are the relationships historians will find between the AEI and Straussian followers? How does the structure of modern media facilitate unreflective concensus? Hard, complex questions...but the general landscape is real and recognizable.

So it isn't you personally I aim at. Except insofar as I perceive you swallowing too much when you should be more skeptical. It's why I jump on McG or tarantulas as well. You folks down there are in jeopardy of becoming something quite unAmerican, and as your influence in the world is so great, you are possibly about to jeopardize a lot of other folks too.

I loves loves loves America. I had a coonskin cap and wanted to be Davy Crockett. I think the US has produced a golden age comparable to fifth century BC Athens. But now you are screwing up and in danger of forgetting that it has been diversity and independence of mind that has made you the incredible country you are.

And of course, that's the fault of The Current Administration, right? Look, nobody says you don't have problems, or that your problems may not be worsening, or that your problems don't matter. I'm certain everyone here wishes things were better for you. What also is certain is that things are better for a few hundred million Americans than they were a year or so ago. Thats what all those statistics show ... not how your life is going, but how The Nation is doing. And they show The Nation is doing quite well, with promise of continuation of the trend.

blatham write:


Well here you and I finally found some common ground except that I disagree on HOW we are screwing up. I have never said that a safety net should not be provided nor have I ever said that a compassionate people does not take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Nor will you find me saying that no government beneficiaries are deserving of the aid they receive. Nor will you find me criticizing necessary social programs that are accomplishing good things.

But at the risk of being accused (again) of self aggrandization, I have some hands on experience with some less successful social programs addressed by government social services. I've seen first hand the damage that can be done when money is thrown at programs with no real concern that the problems be solved. I rail constantly against politicians who take credit for massive increases in education and various kinds of assistance programs when a large lion's share of that money never gets to the kids or the people who would benefit from it. At the same time the massive bureaucracy becomes even more bloated and incompetent administrators become even more overpaid.

I agree that it was independence of mind that helped make America great, but I disagree that it was our diversity. I think it was our common sense of individual reponsibility and shared values that made us great. That we were able to learn and grow and mature as a nation and have learned how to be more inclusive and more tolerant and do most things better is a testament to those shared values. (Admittedly some have had to be dragged along kicking and screaming.) But when mostly free of government interference, we went right to the top in innovation, intellectual creativity, productivity, and prosperity.

I now think we are in danger of losing that quality because of the very intolerance of those who claim to be the champions of tolerance along with an unhealthy dependence on government to be the provider of all we need and the solution to all that is wrong.

As far as FDR's New Deal, he would roll over in his grave if he knew what a mess we've made of it. Simply put, it started out two pronged: to provide a small pension to the elderly and to provide short term food and assistance, mostly in the form of employment, so that out-of-work men could feed their families during the Great Depression. He would be horrified that it has become the behemoth of entitlement that it has become. We've thrown many trillions of dollars at the problems and there is no appreciable reduction in poverty and underemployment, no reduction in the homeless on the streets, and an enormous permanent underclass has been created. Our people are less secure and our children are far less well educated. I just think we can do it better than that. I think we need to rethink it and do it differently.

I suppose Canada, many European countries, and some other democracies are happy with a higher degree of socialism and, if it works for them, power to them. I do not believe it is a good plan for the USA. I think, for us, an intelligently regulated capitalism with a return to individual responsibility and shared values is in the long run the most profitable and the most compassionate way. A compassionate society takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. And I think sometimes tough love is a critical component of a compassionate society.

foxfrye,

I disagree that any kind of improvement started before 9/11. I don't know if I say all the blame for 3 million jobs loss can be laid soley on George Bush and company, a lot of it was due to terrorist and the technology bubble bust.

However, giving huge tax breaks to companies who in turn laid people off just made absolutely no sense whats so ever. So, we created some new jobs, we are still way short of what was projected and there are still a lot of people without jobs, or jobs with less pay or their pay has not increased enough for the standard of living.

As for welfare, I agree totally that it should not be something that a person should lean on as a form of wage if they can help it. The republican controlled congress and clinton white house made a lot of improvements with jobs program and various things like to help people get training and/or find jobs to get off welfare.

With the attack of 9/11 I agree the whole country suffered economically and with human lives. As a result the states became over stretched. Since Bush gave those rebates (his reasoning was at the time that since we had so much money we should give it back, so we must of have been doing pretty good to have the money to give back at the end of the clinton era) and other things like that, the federal government couldn't help out the states. So those programs have been put on freeze, child care and things like that. Now the schools and other government run things are having a hard time which is why tuition and things like that have gone up so much, not to mention grants and scholarships have gone down. Greenspan kept lowering the interest rates so people could get loans and things to live on and buy things which is what turned things around a little now. But how long can the country manage on credit card budgeting? He is raising interest rates, now all those loans where people have bought houses and cars, the interest on the payments are going to go up. Put all that with ever rising cost of house, health and car insurance and it is just not a rosy picture in my own opinion. Most ordinary people are living like the federal budget, in debt and ignoring it. Personal debt has risen, you can check it I am sure, but I don't need to, I have enough conversations with everyday people to know that is how a lot of people are living. But like suzzy said, the proof will be in the pudding.

Just as a personal note so that it does not get slyly thrown in my face, I don't have credit cards. I learned my lesson on that the hard way about 10 years ago. Our family has refinanced a few times, and I know a lot of people do live off credit cards.

Just quickly, while it is in mind, on the conservative Republicans' aim at New Deal values and policies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/national/28SPEC.html

I guess I miss how that ties in with the New Deal, Blatham. As I tried to point out in my previous post, social and fiscal conservatism is not synonymous with dismantling the New Deal. If anything, these days it would be more consistent with restoring the New Deal to its original intent.