2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

i can be pretty cereal myself (usually bran flakes)

Fishin' -- You could be right after all! His ol' buddies may not be as willing to support "four more years," from the sound of this:

Wednesday, March 5, 2003; David Broder:
From the heart of the business establishment comes a statement criticizing and rejecting the Bush tax cuts -- a stunning repudiation of the president's fundamental economic strategy delivered by the very corporate leaders who make the investment decisions on which recovery and growth turn....
"All told, the new budget proposals, if enacted, would raise the 10-year deficit by about $2.7 trillion and annual deficits 10 years from now by about $500 billion," the report says. And none of this, by the way, factors in the costs of a possible war with Iraq and its aftermath....Deficits of this scale, over that many years, would spell economic peril at any time, the business executives say, because they reduce the pool of national savings, diminish needed investments and make us more dependent on foreign creditors.... Over the decades ahead, considering the demands of an aging population, the threat of terrorism and the growing international obligations of the United States, the Committee for Economic Development says it is "extremely unlikely that the long-term budget problem can be solved without additional revenues. We therefore urge the administration and Congress to forgo at this time any additional tax reductions," including any move to make permanent the tax cuts passed in the make-believe atmosphere of projected budget surpluses in 2001.It is a sobering message and, considering the source, not one to be ignored.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42842-2003Mar4.html

But Bush is still going to leave us with one awful mess, even if he's yanked out of the White House PDQ...

Tartar, Your post touched onto the primary reason the baby-boomers should be alarmed. There is no way they are going to get government funded benefits with less workers to pay for their benefits and this multi-billion dollar war with Iraq. The national debt is going to go up into the stratosphere, and many retired folks are going to wonder how they're going to pay for medical care and food. c.i.

Cicerone -- Do you ever idly try to link the movement of the Dow to an event external to the market? Because I keep noticing that every time there's a slight indication that we may be able to avoid war, the Dow edges up a tick or two. Of course, there are too many influences to count, but I don't think the war is nearly as popular as the media would have us believe (and even they are pulling back).

Tartar, From my observations of the stock market, I never even make an attempt to guess which way the market will swing from day to day, or hour to hour. It's an impossible task. Even the pundits try to give explanations of why the market is up or down - which is an attempt to sound they know what they are talking about, but ofcoarse they don't. However, I do try to peg the longer term trends of what I think the market will do. In that regards, I've been pretty accurate. When the financial pundits were saying our market will be up in 2002 during 2001, I knew they were blowing wind. At that time, it was my opinion that the market will not see any stabilization for another two or three years. I think my guestimate is still correct. c.i.

As a matter of fact, I met a banker from Philadelphia on our trip to Egypt last year in March. He recommended that I buy some shares of Berkshire Hathaway at $2,500. I told him that I saw BRK B going down below $2,000 after we returned from our trip. Guess what? I was right. He belongs to an investment club, and asked if I wanted to join. After looking at their portfolio, I said "no." c.i.

Cic -- I wasn't thinking in terms of prediction. Simply looking back at each day's trading in terms of external events. I was with you on 2002 (though had no idea about 2003).

Tartar, Gotcha. For 2003, it's gonna still be volatile, because of many reasons, not least of which is the impending war with Iraq. Although many pundits are saying that our economy is plugging along, it's because housing and automobiles were selling very well during the past couple years. This is gonna change, and more people are going to be seeing pink slips. Consumer confidence is at its lowest in a long while. Increased cost of energy is like a increase in our taxes, and it takes away from consumer spending - the fuel that's been keeping our economy afloat. Doesn't look too good for the next couple of years, and when it does stabilize, the growth in our economy will be painfully slow - especially for those folks looking for jobs. c.i.

I think you're pretty much nailed it, though I share the worry (with economists and others I hear or read occasionally) that IF the full tax cuts go through, we may be in for a very, very long haul. I've heard 2010 and 2012 as prospective recovery dates for war+tax cuts+extended war. Now there's the question. What do you think the likelihood is of a "quick" war and a smooth postwar cleanup with the help of friendly allies and the UN? (Me? I think it's a pipe dream.)(Pipe nightmare...)

Nice story about the Philly banker! That is SOO-O-O satisfying...! I guess you've seen Buffett's gloom and doom.

Tartar, Warren Buffet lost 13 percent last year from his investments. We lost half of that, but our 6.2 percent loss includes my personal spending. Just goes to show when you have billions, your pocket money doesn't make a dent in your 'savings.' A quick war is more than likely probable, but the aftermath is where the big question lies. Two years, ten years, fifty years? Look at South Korea, Japan and Germany. We still have troops stationed there since the end of those wars. c.i.

Whats up I'm joining this thread....I wanna talk about the democratic candidates and not the invasion of Iraq...but ya I'm sure the exit from iraq will be quick....go in...blow up everything and everyone...contract out to haliburton to rebuild and go back in 10 more years and do it all over..hah...but really now...you just have to look at Afghanistan to see how quickly the exit will be...and how little support will be offered....in terms of Germany, Korea etc...troops are there because the military puts them there for reasons not because they have to stay to keep some sort of peace...its strategic in my opinion...

but anyways how about Dean...do you see him as being hurt by his stance on healthcare?? Do you think he has a more leftist ideology (whatever the hell that means but you get my drift) and do you think it will be better for a democratic candidate to look much different than bush in what he supports as to provide an alternative to Bush's extreme right wing corporate ideology?

Marc, Don't you think the MIddle East is a hot spot which requires the permanent basing of our troops? c.i.

Which "DOW" are you looking at? On March 5--the date you made this statement--Powell made strong statements that suggest the war will happen, and the DOW went up. Maybe you're talking about a different DOW? :wink:

I'm not sure cicerone....I'll have to think about that ...I don't think permanent military presence from a foreign power is good ....eventually they will have to go ....but I don't want to talk about Iraq...just the Democratic candidates.. here's an interesting interview with Bob Graham http://www.thememoryhole.com/911/911-graham-admits.htm

Marc,
When I lived in Georgia, Senator Graham was the Governor of Florida. We ocassionally read the Tallahassee Democract and watched Channel 6, a Tallahassee TV station (CBS). We had positive feelings about his administration. Whether that translates into a Presidential candidency, I don't know.

So as of now...any of you who would vote democrat....which candidate would you pick and why?

Marc, I do not vote on the basis of party affiliation, but for the individual I feel best meets my subjective qualification as our president. My current favorite is Howard Dean. c.i.

yes Dean looks ok....He seems a bit too much like the imperialist/militaristic type for me and I'm not sure his universal health care is really that universal but who knows....

Anyone got any good dirt or anything we should know about any of the candidates?? any good articles that would make me go hmmm...??

Marc, did you read through the thread? There are numerous links.

yes...mapleleaf....I read em all...now I just wanted individual opinions.....oh you are talking about the dirt.....After reading this thread I'm wondering if anyone has any info on how much money each candidate has or may raise?? Considering money is a huge factor who has the edge....besides kerry and edwards whom I read about in the thread as having personla wealth...