bush's lead over kerr shrinks

[yoMAMA]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5971162/site/newsweek

bush 49%

kerry 43%

Also, I thought this was interesting:

(The sudden shift in the NEWSWEEK poll from last week’s results is dramatic but not unprecedented-in 1988 Michael Dukakis’s 17-point lead dropped to 10 points within two weeks.)

[Mr.Lum]

I really hope Bush does not win. I hope Cheney has a heart attack. Evil, evil.

[truMp]

Man this election is going to be close again.

[Arex]

Man this election is going to be close again.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. There aren't that many multi-millionaires that actually benefit from Bush's presidency for him to even be in the running.

RX

[Yeahman]

Which is absolutely ridiculous. There aren't that many multi-millionaires that actually benefit from Bush's presidency for him to even be in the running.

RX
*Sigh* More left-wing propoganda.
Everybody benefited from Bush's tax cut. The Democrats make it seem like Bush cut taxes for the rich and raised taxes for the poor. A lot of poor people are thankful for their tax cut.

[kitty]

yeah, and the entire economy is in the toilet because Bush apparently skipped that third grade math lesson where they covered the whole concept of "if you have nothing, add nothing, and subtract lots, you end up with a negative number". Bush's tax cuts might benefit Americans by adding a few pennies on the dollar earned, but he's still spending like a Democrat and giving the country the a mind-boggling deficit. In the long run, NO ONE is helped by his tax cut.

[yoMAMA]

yeah, and the entire economy is in the toilet because Bush apparently skipped that third grade math lesson where they covered the whole concept of "if you have nothing, add nothing, and subtract lots, you end up with a negative number". Bush's tax cuts might benefit Americans by adding a few pennies on the dollar earned, but he's still spending like a Democrat and giving the country the a mind-boggling deficit. In the long run, NO ONE is helped by his tax cut.

And that's exactly why true conservatives should never vote for George W. Bush.

This guy is a walking hypocrite.

[nola]

Didn't most get $300 while the rich got $70,000 or something? I know there was a HUGE difference.

[Filiprish]

*Sigh* More left-wing propoganda.
Everybody benefited from Bush's tax cut. The Democrats make it seem like Bush cut taxes for the rich and raised taxes for the poor. A lot of poor people are thankful for their tax cut.
Most likely India and China benefited the most from Bush's tax cuts.

[yoMAMA]

Most likely India and China benefited the most from Bush's tax cuts.

How so?

More like wal-mart and haliburton.

[Craig]

How so?

More like wal-mart and haliburton.If Wal-Mart benefits, then some of that trickles into China. :rolleyes:

[Filiprish]

How so?

More like wal-mart and haliburton.
B/c most of that money probably got invested into overseas markets, mainly India and China, not the US.

If Wal-Mart benefits, then some of that trickles into China. :rolleyes:
Through manufacturing jobs.

[kitty]

How so?

More like wal-mart and haliburton.

outsourcing

[Yeahman]

yeah, and the entire economy is in the toilet because Bush apparently skipped that third grade math lesson where they covered the whole concept of "if you have nothing, add nothing, and subtract lots, you end up with a negative number". Bush's tax cuts might benefit Americans by adding a few pennies on the dollar earned, but he's still spending like a Democrat and giving the country the a mind-boggling deficit. In the long run, NO ONE is helped by his tax cut.
See this I agree with. Except for the "few pennies" part. But I know you were trying to be facetious.

The rest of the garbage posted here is just that; garbage.
The tax-cuts led to outsourcing? Whenever multinationals have money some of it will find its way to other countries. That is a good thing! If they have less money they'll spend less overseas AND in the US! Possibly move even more resources overseas to save money. Why do you people want this?

And why do you people believe in trickle-down only when it works for other countries and blaspheme it when Republicans try to envoke it in the US? How about this; Lower taxes tickles down to India and China who in turn invest in America? That's how it works. We send a call-center job overseas and they use the money to buy American goods.

Besides, most of the money DID NOT get sent overseas. That is just a baseless claim. An American gets a $400 tax rebate. He spends it at Wal-Mart to buy a computer made in China. So far the consumer, Wal-Mart employees, and Chinese employees have benefited. The computer parts are made by Intel, Western Digital, and Samsung. More American employees have benefited as well as Korean. The parts for the Intel parts come from Taiwan. The Taiwan factory needs to use engineering software designed in the US. The engineering software company uses computers serviced by call-centers in India.....
You get the point.

The people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts are the people who got the tax cuts! There is no school of economics that says that fiscal expansion in the form of personal income tax relief benefits manufacturers and not consumers. That is a purely political school of thought (if it can even be dignified as a coherent thought). Whether or not the tax cuts were the most efficient use of resources, is where the real contention should lie. I contend that the tax cuts were largely a waste and I argue against the tax cuts on that front.

Finally, how can you sit there and say that taxes should be cut in real numbers and raised as a percentage of income? Of course the rich are going to get more income tax relief in real numbers even though they got a smaller cut as a percentage of income! The poorest Americans saw their income tax reduced by a third! The rich by less than 3%!

You're arguing against the wrong thing! You're essentially arguing against your own precious progressive tax!

Now it is true that because income tax deductions are in real numbers, the poorest Americans end up paying so little in taxes anyway that a reduction from 15% to 10% has little overall impact. Still, that's not something to argue against. What should be argued against is the reduction of the capital gains and dividend tax which do favor the rich, not only by virtue of the fact that it's much less progressive (which I'm not against, since I'm for a flat tax anyway), but that the rich have MUCH more assets that yield capital gains and dividends. The poor can't even take advantage of this portion of the tax cut. They don't invest!

[Filiprish]

ye11owman, you do know that Democrats oppose economic policy that's favorable to outsourcing, something Republicans support? Btw, you're slowly but surely coming out of the closet. You oppose outsourcing, Bush's tax cuts and the reduction of the capital gains and dividend tax -- you're a liberal (the neocon quiz is further evidence).

[Yeahman]

I've always opposed the Bush tax cuts just not the mythical reasons most liberals oppose them for. Liberals are on the right side of the issue here but for all the wrong reasons.

But I do not oppose outsourcing. Well I oppose it on a personal level. I want a good job too! But in the grand scheme of things outsourcing is not a bad thing. We can't keep the rest of the world poor forever.

[kitty]

I've always opposed the Bush tax cuts just not the mythical reasons most liberals oppose them for. Liberals are on the right side of the issue here but for all the wrong reasons.


uhm. what?

And why do you people believe in trickle-down only when it works for other countries and blaspheme it when Republicans try to envoke it in the US? How about this; Lower taxes tickles down to India and China who in turn invest in America? That's how it works. We send a call-center job overseas and they use the money to buy American goods.


uhm... if american goods are made outside of the u.s., and more jobs are outsourced... countries could wisen up and... y'know... stop buying from american companies.

[hooligan]

ye11owman, you do know that Democrats oppose economic policy that's favorable to outsourcing, something Republicans support? Btw, you're slowly but surely coming out of the closet. You oppose outsourcing, Bush's tax cuts and the reduction of the capital gains and dividend tax -- you're a liberal (the neocon quiz is further evidence).
yellowman might be what's known as a socially conservative and economically liberal. which is usually the opposite of many conservative minorities. lol.

[Yeahman]

uhm... if american goods are made outside of the u.s., and more jobs are outsourced... countries could wisen up and... y'know... stop buying from american companies.
Wisen up? People will buy whatever they perceive to be the best value (value including economic status). Doesn't matter if it's American or not. At the present moment foreign companies are going to buy American software, Coca-cola, McDonald's, etc...
That is the way things SHOULD work. You want people to opt for inferior or more expensive goods and services?

yellowman might be what's known as a socially conservative and economically liberal. which is usually the opposite of many conservative minorities. lol.
I don't think so. Like nearly all economists, I'm for free trade and a consumption tax (which would inevitably more regressive than the system we have now) and I'm opposed to raising the minimum wage but I also think that the Bush tax cuts were not a wise allocation of resources. Now some economists supported Bush tax cuts but only as a means to an end (Bush's mysterious 2nd term fiscal overhaul).
I think that these days, the labels "liberal" and "conservative" in terms of economic leaning is practically useless. It can be argued that Clinton was economically conservative and Bush is economically liberal.

[kitty]

no, because if things are made more cheaply in other countries, why not just skip the middle man and buy from them directly?

[Yeahman]

no, because if things are made more cheaply in other countries, why not just skip the middle man and buy from them directly?
What middle man?
Countries should specialize in what they can produce most efficiently in this ever-increasing global market. You want us to regress to attempted self-sufficiency while the rest of the world passes us by? Previous attempts all over the world have all failed. What makes you think that we can maintain high prices through protectionism and still stay ahead globally in the long-run? And for how long do you want to keep the 3rd world down by restricting foreign investment?

[kimpossible]

I think kitty means to try to buy direct thinking you can skip wholesalers and resellers and subcontracted work not realizing that even though transactions between exporter and importers can be very direct in a sense, it's not possible to cut out the so called middle man though I don't like that term because it means something very specific in trade terms.

I think she also is working under the slight misunderstanding about country of origin determination in regard to having foreign parts and/or assembly. Specifically, US goods.

But I really don't know so we should wait for her to respond.

[kitty]

yeah, i don't claim to understand economics very well. here's what i mean. if America has a rubber band company, that creates great rubber bands for export. But the rubber band company actually manufactures its rubber bands in China. Then, another company in Malaysia start producing rubber bands also in China, why would people import their rubber bands from the U.S. if the rubber band company in Malaysia has about the same quality for much cheaper?

What product could the US of A offer if all of their production is outsourced... does that make sense?

(i actually don't understand this... so i'm looking forward to someone explaining this to me)

[Yeahman]

A lot of the manufacturing industry should be, and has been, outsourced. We just aren't very efficient at it. I'm not too familiar with the rubber band industry but I would imagine that in the US it's pretty much a waste of capital resources. There are other things that money could be used for that would generate greater profits. Give it up to Malaysia. Good for them. Let's take it a step futher and import rubber bands from Malaysia to the US rather than bother it ourselves. They have proven themselves to be more efficient in making rubber bands. And when the Malaysians' standard of living rises, they will demand Microsoft Windows, Coca-Cola, and McDonald's which are much more profitable for the US than rubber bands.

Outsourcing isn't condemned just by those losing their jobs, it is also critisized by the traditional protectionists in India and other nations. What is happening is a rapid growth of a young middle-class. That in and of itself is not what is being critisized but what these youth are spending their money on. They're buying Levi's jeans and KFC. So not only are American consumers getting their computers for cheaper (which means they can spend money on other stuff further stimulating the economy and raising the standard of living) through outsourcing but the money is coming right back to us! Economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because India's economy is growing faster relative to our's does not mean that they're taking our money. The great thing about commerce is that everyone stands a chance to gain! A dollar changing hands 10 times adds $10 to the GDP (well it's more complicated than that but that's a simplified view). This revelation is at the crux of capitalism and is the reason why we were able to raise the standard of living more in the last 200 years than in the preceeding 2000 years.

On a related issue, I truely believe that what the middle east and Africa and in particular sub-Saharan Africa need most is foreign investment. Of course to achieve this they first need a stable government conducive to foreign investment and that is by no means an easy task. But how much more would a clothing factory help these people living in poverty than humanitarian relief (which is also important but only temporarily)? Give a man a fish...

Not only that but trade partners are much less likely to resolve their conflicts on the battleground. On the face of it, China should be America's greatest threat. And I'm sure we wouldn't be so buddy-buddy if we didn't have just a vital economic relationship with them.

[nola]

Two New Polls Show Deadlocked White House Race

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two national polls on Thursday showed the race between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry deadlocked as Bush's convention bounce faded, although the president has made headway in key swing states.

In polls certain to buoy the spirits of anxious Democrats, the Pew Research Center and Harris Interactive found equal levels of support for the White House contenders as Kerry rebounded from the withering attacks he faced at the Republican convention that ended on Sept. 2.

The new surveys followed two other polls in recent days, by Investor's Business Daily and a Democratic group, Democracy Corps, that found the race essentially even again, just as it was for months before the two parties held their nominating conventions.

"Some of the negative attacks against Kerry are wearing off and he has stayed in the game because people are discontent with Bush on Iraq and the economy," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

"Unfortunately for Kerry, he's been unable to tap into that unhappiness, especially on Iraq," Kohut said, noting Bush still beats Kerry 52-40 percent on who was favored to lead the war in Iraq. "It's a mixed picture for Kerry, but that's better than what he had a few days ago."

Several other recent polls have shown Bush, who bounced to a double-digit lead in two polls after the Republican convention, holding a four- to seven-point lead over Kerry.

A flurry of new state polls, meanwhile, showed Bush moving ahead in key states like Florida and Nevada and challenging Kerry in Democratic strongholds like New Jersey.


Yeeha!!

[Mr.Lum]

I don't think so. Like nearly all economists, I'm for free trade and a consumption tax (which would inevitably more regressive than the system we have now) and I'm opposed to raising the minimum wage but I also think that the Bush tax cuts were not a wise allocation of resources. Now some economists supported Bush tax cuts but only as a means to an end (Bush's mysterious 2nd term fiscal overhaul).
I think that these days, the labels "liberal" and "conservative" in terms of economic leaning is practically useless. It can be argued that Clinton was economically conservative and Bush is economically liberal.

He didn't say economists. He said minorities.

[yoMAMA]

kerry is leading bush by 7-9% in minnesota, a swing state [used to be solid democratic with hubert humphrey and mondale/wellstone...etc].

Let's send dumbya packing and back to crawford!

:D

[Yeahman]

He didn't say economists. He said minorities.
I was responding to the first part of his remarks about me.

-----------------
And Bush is still a 2-to-1 favorite over Kerry in the markets.
Using intrade.com here's the breakdown...

I defined definate as at least 70%.
Bush's definate electoral votes: 242
Kerry's definate electoral votes: 200

I defined leaning heavily as 65-70%. Leaning as 60-65%. Toss up as 40-60% Electoral votes are in paranthesis.
Florida (27) leaning heavily towards Bush
Iowa (7) is a toss up
Minnesota (10) leaning Kerry
Nevada (5) leaning heavily Bush
New Hampshire (4) leaning Kerry
New Mexico (5) is a toss up
Oregon (7) is leaning Kerry
Pennsylvania (22) is a toss up
Wisconsin (10) is a toss up

I did this same analysis in May. Since then Ohio went from toss up to definately Bush, Missouri went from leaning Bush to definately Bush, Florida went from a toss up to heavily Bush, Iowa went from leaning Kerry to a toss up, Minnesota and Oregon went from definately Kerry to leaning Kerry

On the flipside, Michigan went from leaning Kerry to definately Kerry and New Hampshire went from a toss up to leaning Kerry.

IT DOES NOT LOOK GOOD! Bush has 242 definates and Florida is leaning heavily Bush. If he wins Florida, that gives him 269 electoral votes. Just 1 shy of a win and Nevada would put him over the top. Kerry must either win every contested state except for Florida, or he MUST win Florida. The chips would be stacked against him if he doesn't win Pennsylvania too. If Kerry can turn Florida and Pennsylvania around, he would be the favorite.

[yoMAMA]

I was responding to the first part of his remarks about me.

-----------------
And Bush is still a 2-to-1 favorite over Kerry in the markets.
Using intrade.com here's the breakdown...

I defined definate as at least 70%.
Bush's definate electoral votes: 242
Kerry's definate electoral votes: 200

I defined leaning heavily as 65-70%. Leaning as 60-65%. Toss up as 40-60% Electoral votes are in paranthesis.
Florida (27) leaning heavily towards Bush
Iowa (7) is a toss up
Minnesota (10) leaning Kerry
Nevada (5) leaning heavily Bush
New Hampshire (4) leaning Kerry
New Mexico (5) is a toss up
Oregon (7) is leaning Kerry
Pennsylvania (22) is a toss up
Wisconsin (10) is a toss up

I did this same analysis in May. Since then Ohio went from toss up to definately Bush, Missouri went from leaning Bush to definately Bush, Florida went from a toss up to heavily Bush, Iowa went from leaning Kerry to a toss up, Minnesota and Oregon went from definately Kerry to leaning Kerry

On the flipside, Michigan went from leaning Kerry to definately Kerry and New Hampshire went from a toss up to leaning Kerry.

IT DOES NOT LOOK GOOD! Bush has 242 definates and Florida is leaning heavily Bush. If he wins Florida, that gives him 269 electoral votes. Just 1 shy of a win and Nevada would put him over the top. Kerry must either win every contested state except for Florida, or he MUST win Florida. The chips would be stacked against him if he doesn't win Pennsylvania too. If Kerry can turn Florida and Pennsylvania around, he would be the favorite.


Looks like brother jeb is trying to help dumbya again by allowing nader to be on the ballot...although a circuit court has ruled that he's not eligible to be on the ballot.

:mad:

[Yeahman]

Today's Gallup poll has Bush up by 14 points.

[hooligan]

Looks like brother jeb is trying to help dumbya again by allowing nader to be on the ballot...although a circuit court has ruled that he's not eligible to be on the ballot.

:mad:
didn't nader announce that everyone that was going to vote for him, vote for kerry?

[Mr.Lum]

I think he said "if you think a vote for me is a vote for Bush then vote for Kerry, it's very simple" I remember it from C-SPAN.

[yoMAMA]

Today's Gallup poll has Bush up by 14 points.

I think there was another poll yesterday showing the race has become dead even again.

This is gonna be a close one......

[nola]

On November 2, tell five of your friends to vote.

"Arrive with Five" is another strategy. Drive five friends to the polls if you have to.

If you've got five friends, that is!

[Yeahman]

AP Poll: Bush has 7 point lead
CBS Poll: Bush has 8 point lead
Gallup Poll: Bush has 8 point lead
NBC Poll: Bush has 3 point lead

In the AP poll, Bush has the highest job approval rating of the year.
Unless Kerry does something to turn it around fast, I don't think this election will be close. As of now, it looks like Bush will likely win a majority of the popular and electoral votes.

On November 2, go to Florida and drag Democrats to the polls. Remember, Bush wins the election if he wins Florida.

[deez nuts]

this election we will be forced to choose not really the lesser of two evils. but, more the evils of two lessers.