Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

He's the man. Period. The people of this country said so on 11/02/04.

Quote:

He's the man. Period. The people of this country said so on 11/02/04.

51% of the country did. The rest of us still think he's an idiot.

Cycloptichorn

Name any social program the GOP has cut, much less eliminated, in the last four years Freeduck? And name any anti-poverty program initiated by the Democrats that has eliiminated poverty for any but a tiny minority of the beneficiaries? There simply has to be a better way to do it.

If you feel you are too stupid to invest your social security wisely, the long range plan is for those who don't want to invest any of their social security to be able to stay on the existing system. How the government has used the social security fund is immaterial and has had zero affect on the beneficiaries of the program.

And if it is more important to you to punish investment firms or see that they do not benefit than it is to improve the quality of life for retiring seniors, I don't know what to say to that except that it sounds awfully irrationally liberal. Stocks and bonds invest in companies, services, and municipalities and help those who in turn provide the jobs and services for the people. It is simple economics. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats except those securely anchored to the bottom.

I have suspicions about the privatisation plan. One is, that first and foremost it benefits investment firms. Second, how many people who work blue collar jobs are going to take advantage of it? Doesn't it require quite a bit of education to ensure that it's not done foolishly? And how many who work higher paying jobs need to? Don't most of those people have 401Ks anyway? What burden does it put on the government to sort it out? How will it affect people who are receiving benefits right now? Look, if it comes out good, I'll congratulate him for it, but right now I am mostly suspicious.

The biggest problem with the current social security system is that as we pay in, the government has taken out -- and spent. The benefits get cut and retirement ages extended because the money's been spent on other things. Period. This administration's first 4 years were no exception.

But what of the other programs? Will there be no cuts or eliminations of any social programs? What can you tell me that will relieve my uneasiness that this administration is trying to bankrupt us in order to cut these programs entirely?

Well I was only responding to your own comments Freeduck, and I long ago accepted that you are anti Bush, anti GOP, and anti conservative policies. I for many MANY reasons believe my side is more right than yours for reasons stated here. I base my opinions on long experience and observations about what works and what doesn't. I believe you're wrong on almost all counts, and I believe you are sincere in your beliefs while you do not care to challenge them.

And I am now late for my appointment and must go. Will be back later.

here's an extremely telling piece of exit polling data from yesterday: Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, [Kerry] also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how'd Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000--a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.)

I hope somebody was able to come up with a good demographic map that will show how mainstream most the GOP vote is and out of the mainstream most of the Dem vote is.

I thought on another thread, the graph showed that it was mostly likely Democrats jumping ship and voting for Bush that was the deciding factor though.

Wowza, indeed! She must be pretty tough.