Which is the better choice for sport fishermen and why?

How big a factor in considering your choice does the environmental policy of the candidate play? There are obviously more important life and death issues to consider.....does it even matter?

I have environmental protection about fifth on my list of importance in this election year....numbers one through four are so overwhelmingly important that my choice is made before I even get to sportfishing......

Luckily for me I choose Kerry. Democratic environmental values are more closely representative of my own.....I'm grateful not to be in Rich G's shoes right now. Pretty tough sledding trying to defend Bush on his policies toward fisheries management and the environment....... :p

If we keep the conversation limited to how the policies of each affect steelhead and salmon it should be interesting....

H2O I agree with you about the Democrats and there conservation of the outdoors. They have done a good job in the past.

Look at what bush had tried to do over the last few months concerning salmon and rivers. I didnt like the idea it left a real bad taste in my mouth. At this point though I have heard nothing on Kerries view for conservation.

With Edwards as a running mate though I am going Kerry. While I am also from Mass also that persuades my vote a little bit also.

I just hope that the next president can protect our resources.

Aunty do you have any links that show Kerries views on conservation or does anybody know of any place that I could go and view his Ideas or what he wants to do

Thanks Aunty I think that little article right there has really gotten me thinking more towards Kerry. You would think a person like Bush who grew up hunting and fishing would be more into the conservation than what he is.

I remember seeing something on this board not to far back about Bush wanting to tap into the mountains of Idaho for oil and other precious minerals has anybody heard more about this or you think it is a dead subject know. I have been and hiked and fished for High country bows on the fly and I tell you what it would be horrible to see that stuff happen.

Check this out also. All reports will have their own bias's so at least read both sides.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/

I haven't decided yet but I think it's only fair to hear both sides. I will say that the Kerry thing was interesting but very biased but I guess that's what happens in an election year.

Kramer, thanks for posting that WhiteHouse site. It was very imformative by HOW LITTLE of substance there actually was - and that, unfortunately, sums up this administration's attitude toward the environment and conservation.

Even some of the 'accomplishments' listed are very controversial with little support outside of the industries that will profit.

Regarding fish...

From not actively fighting and appealing the Judge Hogan decision, to the Feds now reducing spill on the Columbia (and a very long list in between), this administration is as anti-fishing and hunting as any ever seen.

We are all able to see exactly what we wish to see in a presidential candidate.

In a quote like this: "Democratic environmental values are more closely representative of my own."

I see: The dams were built by Democrats, the NW states have long been controlled by Democrats, the local loggers and commercial netters are represented and protected by Democrats, the US House and Senate have been controlled by Democrats until very recently.....

And yet, the Republicans are the cause of all environmental destruction and the Democrats the source of all conservation efforts.....Hogwash!

We all see it as we wish to. Rose-colored glasses!

This had better stay civil

ET :

How can any sportsman in clear thinking vote for a liberal democrat? Remember these are the people that want to take your gun rights from you. They want to close down public lands so you can't access them. Liberals are supported by groups like Earth First, Sierra Club, Earth Liberation Front, and Greenpeace. They view sporstmen as second class citizens who commit mortal sins. Do you really think that an elitist aristocrat from Massachusetts is going to have any insight into the mind and heart of the outdoorsmen of the Pac-NW???

Bush is the greatest liberal environmentalist president ever. The salmon and steelhead are rebounding because of his dam policies. Cheney is the biggest environmentalist and is saving prime habitat by letting the timber companies promote forest conservation.

Hydroelectric power cleans the air so the fish can breath less polluted air. Dams promote salmon and steelhead recovery.

"Dam" Right Steelheadman.

Jerry, do you really expect a political discussion to stay civil. As soon as I read the title my reaction was "here we go". That's why I stay out of them.

just wish we'd have somebody in the middle. dems seem to want HANDS OFF anything in nature, and the republicans seem to want to bulldoze things in

In reference to what Luke said -

Kerry is on record of supporting and protecting the Second Amendment. He has also stated that he will open up thousands of acres of public land to hunters and fishers.

Conservatives are supported by groups like the KKK, White Supremesists, strip miners, commercial fisherman, and clear-cutters. They think democratic Americans exercising their First Amendment rights are "second class citizens who commit mortal sins." Do you really think a draft-dodging alcoholic Texan that can't ride a Segway "is going to have any insight into the mind and heart of the outdoorsmen of the Pac-NW???"

Guess it all depends on your perspective, eh?

KKK and clearcutters are equivalent now?

clear-cutters

"draft dodger" your prize liberal pres Clinton was a draft dodging, dope smoking, guest of the KGB during war times. Now he was a freekin traitor!

"earth first we'll log the other planets later" :p

Jimh and luke bet me to it. good jobs guys. you that vote dem. can sit around while they take away more and more of are rights to the out doors and allow the forest to burn to the ground "naturaly" if you want but I would would rather vote for some one who wants to manage the out doors for all the citizens then for some one bakced by the likes of peta and the seirra club and trout only with a guide for lots of money unlimited.
bush has seen the damage done by not managing the forest and just letting it burn and part of that failed policy was the closing of roads by clinton. He is allowing companys to do the work (thinning)for no cost to the tax payer while providing greatly needed jobs to small towns across the west.
thank god gore loss. yes he loss. other wise the u.n. would be running are national parks just like other countries( vietnam and cambodia to name a few).
hopfully the federal goverment will step in to correct the lack of a plan to control the cougar population in californa before some one else gets killed and the state runs out of deer.( another attack last week). ... I will take a hunter and fisherman over a tree hugger who cant make up his mind on anything any day.

His voting record says otherwise.
See for yourself at Vote-smart.org Scroll down to gun issues. He has routinely voted against gun rights. In 2000 and 2004 he voted to throw gun manufacturers under the bus.
Kerry does not believe that the second amendment applies to individuals.

Jim, Timber, Tom, and Cupo -

Beautiful execrated diabtribe filled with hyperbole. Wonderfully done, gents.

I heard an interesting poll the other day that indicated 76% of the likely voters have already made their decision as to who they are voting for in November. These folks were characterized as being "set" in their decision. So, the 24% that are undecided will decide this election. My feeling is that there are very few of the 24% that is on this website, so, we can have this debate all we want and I would guess that it will change no one's mind.

So, For What its Worth, I can not see how anyone who considers themselves a sportsman, could vote for GW. (Just thought I'd weigh in on the hyperbole)

John Kerry has the most liberal voting record in congress, Edwards is 4th on the list. I can't tell GoHarley, are you just trying to pull someone's leg or do you really believe a clown like Kerry who can't even decide what color shirt to wear in the morning? Kerry is far to the left where the counter culture also dwells. The KKK and White Supremacist groups are far to the right, also counter culture. How can you group hard working business men like fishermen and loggers with scum like the KKK? That is completely ridiculous.

I don't really see the problem with clearcut logging, it obviously isn't problem with low returning fish, since we have had some of the best returns of all time in the last couple years. Not all the vegetation is taken out anyway in a clearcut, and a couple years later the new trees are well rooted. On the other hand devastating fire caused by decades of misuse of public forests does cause serious problems, all vegetation is completely stripped from the land and heavy winter rains cause serious runoff and erosion. You can't do selective thinning when roads are not allowed in a forest (nice going Slick Willy). A fire that goes through a well managed forest will be much less devastating. It's a pretty simple formula that even a liberal should understand...less fuel=less intense fire.

"How can you group hard working business men like fishermen and loggers with scum like the KKK?"

Easy....its just as silly as trying to group Kerry in with earth firsters, ELF and the like.....if you're silly enough to believe THAT kind of hyperbole then the kkk comparison should make perfect sense to you, unless of course you are wearing your 'rose colored glasses'.



Someone brought up the fact that it was the dems who built the dams....if I'm remembering my history correctly that's true. Keyword: History....the past. We can analyze it , Monday morning quarterback it and beat it to death but we aren't going to change the or influence the past.

What we CAN do something about is the future. We have to analyze the policies of the PRESENT candidates to determine what might be best for the country, more specifically in the context of this thread what's better for us as individuals when it comes to their industrial and environmental policies.

Again, for me its easy. When it comes to my personal outdoor policy I want to protect native steelhead in every way possible. I own all the guns I need to protect my property and hunt so restrictions on their purchase won't affect me. I'm not planning on overthrowing the government by force any time soon so I can't think of too many reasons why some restrictions on the sale of dangerous or easily modifiable firearms isn't reasonble.....

I wish those people who so ardently defend their constitutional rights when it comes to guns would also take a close look at the patriot act and object just as strenuously to having 'their constitutional rights stripped'.

I'm just starting to research the Bush vs. Kerry decision that I'll have to make in November, and one thing that has distressed me about Kerry's voting record (love the Vote Smart link above) is his record on animal rights issues. According to what I see, he's pretty much followed the party line of ASPCA and other, similar groups. I also did a quick search on the PETA website for Kerry, and that organization will be appearing at Kerry/Edwards rallies with characters in costume.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Kerry approves of PETA's stand or supports the group, but it appears that PETA is confident of a friendly reception.

With PETA's track record of protesting all kinds of "animal cruelty" including fishing, that linkage is worrisome.

I really would like to see Kerry's stand on major issues beyond campaign rhetoric, but he didn't reply to a series of requests for a statement, based on the Vote Smart website.

That makes me wonder.

Keith

Incredulous terminological inexactitude such as that will beget the same.

I can't tell if you truly suffer from credulous naivety or if you just play the part here.

"...I would would rather vote for some one who wants to manage the out doors for all the citizens "

So would I, but the options usually are one that either wants to manage it for profit, or one that wants to manage it for squirrels. There is no political middle ground, and clearly there is no middle ground for most of you posting.

Seems like there is a group of people out there that can't get past whether someone is nominally liberal or conservative long enough to think about the underlying ideas.

When the dams were built, largely during the time of democratic administrations, they were built to further economic prosperity, enable farms to grow and factories to be built. Sounds to me like a fairly reasonable set of objectives. While I regret their impact on fish, I like cheap power and what it has done for our region. If you want to tar the democrats with providing jobs and helping the region to build wealth, go ahead.

Kerry has a fairly liberal voting record, because, surprise, he comes from one of the most liberal states in the nation. One interpretation of that might be that he feels obligated to support the policies that his constituents want. Which is a sharp departure from Bush, whose stated style is to do what he thinks is right, regardless of what the US voter wants. There are pros and cons to either style. However, in the area of the environment, the vast majority of voters want clean water, clean air and a healthy environment. Kerry's style is more likely to support that goal than Bush's. For better or worse, Bush's record has been to roll back clean air and water protections, and to support partisan pressure on scientific opinions.

From my knothole, Bush's record thus far has shown that he and his team do a poor job of collecting hard data to support their opinions, and have often shown selective vision towards facts, using only those that support their position. This, plus their basic dishonesty (e.g., taking credit for recent salmon runs which spawned years before Bush was even thinking of running for president) would make me wary of him, even if I didn't think he was unintelligent, uninformed, and reckless.

Oops, now you know what I really think.

Excuse me for using something like his voting record to form my opinion. You obviously didn't explore the link I provided. Kerry is no friend of gun owners. Don't agree? Think I'm full of BS? Then prove me wrong.

Ya know what always puzzles me... The whole "democrats are going to take my guns" way of thinking.

Can anybody cite a law that has been passed in the last 50 years or so that ACTUALLY has taken guns away from, or even limited law-abiding citizens from legally obtaining hand guns?

Anybody... ?????

Cupo -

See Aunty's post. Kerry is a gun owner. How can he not be a friend to gun owners? Now if you're including those that use guns for criminal or terrorists acts, well then, yeah, I guess he's not a friend to them.

I did go to the site you posted and read every one of the bills he voted on. I still don't see what your concern is. His record seems to be requiring dealers to have a license and doing background checks on buyers; handguns sold with trigger locks; no assault weapons to juveniles; or large capacity ammunition clips for anyone. So what's the big deal? Where is that stopping you, or any law abiding citizen, from owning a gun? If the trigger locks, background checks, and large capacity clips stop one child's accidental death, a terrorist act, or a gun related domestic crime, isn't it worth it?

I can't see where a responsible gun owner would have a problem with those requirements.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by goharley:

Conservatives are supported by groups like the KKK, White Supremesists, strip miners, commercial fisherman, and clear-cutters. They think democratic Americans exercising their First Amendment rights are "second class citizens who commit mortal sins."--goharley

------------------------------------------------------------

I'll exercise my First Amendment right by asking you a question goharley.


Isn't there something on the Lifetime Network you should be watching?

This comes down to another election where I'm forced to try and choose the lesser of evils. They both have limited upside in my opinion. Bush has had plenty of blunders, and there is nothing in the wind that looks like that will change. Flip Kerry, er, I mean John Kerry, reminds me greatly of the same crap that Willy spewed 12 years ago, followed by the lamest presidency I can recall (except Carter, he doesn't even qualify). Hard to believe in the semi modern, post Watergate era, there have been 5 presidents. 2 Dems and 3 Reps. Out of those, the only one I respect is now dead. I probably don't fall into the 24% that is undecided, but I will fully admit that I don't care for the guy I will be voting for. For me, it also comes down to prioritizing what is truely important in this life, and fish are not in the top few slots. Safety and prosperity for my family is, and one of the choices is better suited to make the hard decisions I think are ahead of our great country.

Yeah, what goharley said. If just one childs life is saved from an accidental shooting due do large capacity clips, then whats the problem? Tongue poking through cheek. The gun issue is my main hang up on Kerry. He will not actually say the second amendment is for individual rights. I would vote for him in a second if he would stand with the 2nd amendment as he does the others. Him shooting clay pigeons will not convince me. He wont touch the gun issue in depth, because he dosent want to alienate swing voters like myself, which may be his downfall if Iraq works out and the economy continues its upswing.

web page

Hes for "reasonable gun control" Like banning cop killer bullets? Like your hunting rounds? I like specificities when it comes to gun control measures. Why should i trust Kerry, a politician BTW?. We need tougher gun crime laws, not more regulation against law abiding citizens that criminals ignore. Use a gun in a crime, whammo its a mandatory ten years on top of the original charge. We could release small time drug users from our prisons to make more room.

The fact that he (Kerry) does not show his opinion on several key topics is what has me puzzled. He may have an optinion in his campaign speeches but when it comes to his voting record he leaves a lot of the real sensitive issues alone. I'm not real up on politics so can someone explain this? Maybe this is common for someone running for commander in chief, I'm not sure. If you are wondering what I am referring to just follow the Kerry link above and look at his voting record for the past 18 months or so.

Absolutely amazing how many responses over this topic. Why is it that more Americans vote to crown the next American Idol than for Presidency of the United States of America?

If someone would explain to me how any of the gun control measures voted for by Kerry negatively affect my ability to hunt this fall I'd have an ear for the logic.

Before we go any further I'd just like to put it on the record that any one who doesn't agree with 'wackos' is soft, effeminate and probably gay. You know...like Phil Donahue.

Any way we can move past this kind of stuff and just have a friendly conversation where we disagree but stop short of
calling each other gay or nazis??

Geez, the guy is legislating with personal responsibility in mind and the conservatives have a problem with that? I thought that's what the right was all about.

Racerdan - what are you really afraid of? What gun owning right have you lost in the last 15 years of legislation? The only thing Congress has even discussed are personal owner's responsibility issues. The only ban has been assault weapons, which in today's world of terrorist threats is pretty smart.

The conservative's gun control concern sounds more like a red herring everyday.

What happened guys...get tired of talking to each other on the politics board?

We missed ya and came lookin' for ya, Gandpa.

And now we found ya Grandpa, how's fishing been? Getting any work done?

Actually there is no assault weapons ban. You and i can go and buy an AK-47 or an AR-15 Mini 14 etc. as we speak. Its just the cosmetics(bayonet lug, oh, my) and the ten round clip, which you can buy high capacity clips under the pre-ban banner. Thats why we need kevlar vests to walk the park or go grocery shopping. The problem is, is there is no problem.

my favorite bumper sticker. "millions of leagal gun owners shoot no one today."
Iam for everyone owning what ever they want and carraying it where every they want. but when some one commites a crime with a gun, hang him.

cute gun story. last year my wife and I when to the queen ann hill yard sale. the whole place is one big yard sale for blocks. at one yard in the back of the garage I stop a 303 enfield. the guy only wanted 40 bucks and the barral was in good shape so i got it. well after walking for blocks with the wife she says her legs and knees hurt and will i go get the car.
so i walk on up to the main street of quen ann hill to look for the car becouse i cant remember where it is after walking around all those streets for 3 hours. as iam walking past the coffe shopps and book stores( non of which carry "guns and ammo") I notice some people in the shoppes and stores are looking at my funny and speed dialing their cell phones. then i hit me Iam still carrying a large rifle in my hand. i made it to my truck before the cops showed up but i did see 6 cop cars cruzing the area on my way out.

I can't even read this stuff..been fishing at LaPush in calm seas with sun....lots of fish and fun...slept in the boat for a few days...liked my own bed last night so well I stayed in it and stayed home another day. NO news no tv and no papers for 5 days....real nice.

Owning a shotgun does not make him a friend of gun owners. I find it hard to believe that you really look at politics so simply.
There is a strong anti-gun lobby with the ultimate goal of eliminating guns in the hands of private citizens. They're trying to do it step by step, model by model, and state by state. One of their efforts in the last few years was to hold gun manufacturers liable for the actions of individuals who commit crimes with guns, essentially trying to bankrupt the gun industry. Kerry supported this effort in 2000 and 2004. Individually, Kerry's votes don't stop me from owning firearms. It's the potential sum of those votes that worry me.
England and Australia have already lost most of their firearms, including many hunting rifles and shotguns. The most popular shotguns for bird hunting in the U.S. are illegal under their laws.
The issue of children and guns is grossly exagerated by the anti-gun lobby. How many of the gun deaths they cite are from suicide, defensive situations, police shootings, or drug/gang related activity? For ideas on that thought, read THIS ARTICLE . While you're there, check out the link to the CDC statistics on causes of death and fiddle with the numbers and causes there.

...just like catch and releasers are really just fly fishermen in disguise, waiting for their chance to use their enormous influence with wdfw to change all the rivers to fly-fishing only.....section by section, river by river, watershed by watershed.

Neither argument holds water.

There is also this group called 'reasonable people with no particular affiliation whatsoever'...some of whom happen to believe that we both have a right to bear arms and an obligation to do so responsibly. If we are failing as a society to fulfill that obligation then we think reasonable legislation is warranted.....

I'm still not seeing which bill Kerry voted for that would affect my right to bear arms responsibly or have a successful hunt this year.

GW,Cheney,Haliburton,Enron, Bad economy,Iraq........HMMMMMM all Bad
Why would anyone in there right mind support this regime......Republicans are killing this country!!!

If you even think of voting for anyone but Kerry you are sealing the fate and the continued downward spiral of this great Nation.

Peace
Superfly

Just a thought, did we keep any of Ronnie's DNA?

What, I can't fish with a gun anymore?

does kerry even fish?

I posted this somewhere else, too, but I think it's pertinent here because the wetlands are significantly important to young salmon and steelhead. It's a cut and paste job, but it's factual anecdotal evidence.

Quote/Claim:
"According to figures announced today by the Department of Agriculture, we have greatly reduced the annual loss of wetlands. And that's a positive development. We're nearing a long standing goal of actually restoring as many acres of wetlands that are lost." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
There is no "comprehensive wetland survey that can accurately evaluate the status of our nation’s wetlands. While a few states have undertaken fairly comprehensive wetland mapping projects, the two national wetland trend surveys conducted by the federal government use only sampling data to assess changes in the health of America’s wetlands. Although both surveys provide important information about national trends, they do not paint an accurate picture of the current status of the country’s wetlands or reveal regional trends in wetlands losses and gains." - National Wildlife Federation, 4/22/04

In 2001, a study by the National Academy of Sciences revealed that the nation's wetlands policy has substantially failed, as wetlands continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate. - NAS Report, 6/16/01


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote/Claim:
"The work you're doing here to preserve wetlands is an important part of a national commitment. For many years, our nation has been working to prevent the net loss of wetlands." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
On Jan. 14, 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers weakened environmental standards to make it easier for developers, mining companies and others to dredge and fill wetlands. This action, among other things, revoked a requirement for acre-for-acre replacement of destroyed wetlands, lifted protection from seasonal streams, and allowed permits to be issued for commercial development projects that destroy up to three acres of wetlands – reversing a Clinton-era standard from March 2000 that reduced the maximum allowable damage to half an acre. EPA objected that these changes lacked a scientific basis, and the Fish and Wildlife Service drafted comments predicting “tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat,” which Interior Secretary Gale Norton blocked from being delivered. - 67 Federal Register 2019, 1/15/02; WP, 1/15/02

Fellow Americans,

I have read through the different topics here, and have put some thought into this subject. I am in agreement with several of the posts, but have a little disturbing news to share. 1st, neither presidential candidate is going to do more or less for restoration of the Salmon runs, cleansing of the environment, reversing of our evaporating rights to bear arms, nor are we going to see a huge swing in environmental policy towards our forests, streams, farmland, logging policy, fishing rights or anything else. The reason: Neither candidate cares. They don’t. If you think one party is better than the other at the federal level, you have been downtown Seattle, smoking crack for the last year.

The facts are: almost (and I will repeat) ALMOST all environmental issues are decided at the state level, unless someone petitions the Supreme Court to change an unfair law. So, once again, I will be forced to vote for one of two –less than adequate- candidates; one, to whom I will have eventually entrust the future path of this great nation and the future of my children. I don’t like the odds here. Also, I don’t like the 121 billion dollars of OUR money, (money we don’t have) yes, OUR money –we the taxpayers and voters- our hard earned cash on a sideline show in Iraq, while our fighting men and women are giving their lives (999 to date) to a cause that really has nothing to do with anything remotely related to our national security. Those are people’s sons and daughters, people like you and me that we will never again meet on the river, pass on a hike in the woods, have as a fishing/hunting buddy; people who will never have the kids (or have left some behind) that might have been our kids lifelong best friend. Like many of you on the board, I have spent a substantial amount of time in the military, in the Marines, and I really really really despise the lies that lead us –the American people- into supporting such a venture, and I really despise the lack of interest –in all of the presidential frontrunners- to keep and build prosperity at home in the U.S.

So, if we want to change the face of the environmental policy, start with our home state, skip the Bush/Kerry debate when it comes to the environment and start concentrating on a national health policy for our seniors, or a drug management plan, or even some type of employment program that will actually work. Start with the basic issues that we face as a nation, and start kicking politicians in the nuts, here in the Pacific Northwest to change our ‘regional’ policies to allow growth in future opportunities.

It’s not only our right to question our elected leaders, its also our responsibility.

Harley, you made some comment about "if one child's life is saved" through the banning of high capacity magazines. By that logic, if one terrorist is caught via the Patriot act, all it's flaws are worth it.

No, I didn't think you'd think that made sense. Stupid laws are stupid laws.

You gay nazi commie , the second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about keeping enough guns and ammunition so that when the republicans continue their power play to wrest control of the country from the people, we can fight.

The first clause in the sentence above is a joke, for the humor impaired. The second is deadly serious. The point of the second amendment is that the forefathers thought the people should retain the ability to stand up to their government in armed fashion if the government turned tyannical. While the democrats have historically been the party owning the gun control efforts, the republicans seem to have the bent towards tyranny.

So, all you left leaning fishers, if you're worried about the Patriot act and it's children to be, you might look into the pricing on 30 round magazines, while they can still be had.

No offense intended towards you, H2O. Though I must say, the idea of you walking around dressed as a gay nazi in Forks is pretty funny.

That hooked on phonics lesson seems to be paying out for GoHarley. Stop trying to fool us Harley, a full mouth of words from a 50 cent thesaurus cannot hide an empty suit.

king.
From one ex marine to another, its not a side show. it is the show. We can fight the terriost there or we can fight them here. and as far as Iam concerned freeing a whole country from slavery and giving them the ablity to freely elect their own goverment is the most important job of a U.S. marine. the war to date ,both in afganistan and iraq , is a hugh victory for the united states. It will change the middle east for years to come and provide us with friends in a hostle part of the world were the bad guys thought they could hide, train and recruit in safty. well all that has changed in at least two countries.

yes you are right about local officals haveing more power in what happens to are envioroment. but the money comes down from on high (thats washington d.c. to you jar head)
clinton left a bunch of last minute booby traps for President bush on the enviromental from. items he was not willing to act on while in office and only pasted on his way out . the forest roads closeres and the mercery scam. so i will be voting for the man that can provide the best leadership and towards manageing the enviroment and not just letting "nature " burn , i mean take its course.

spell check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s king. do not tell us what the "facts are" and then give us your opinon. the shy is blue. thats a fact . the sky is baby blue. thats an opinon.
president bush is a good president . opinon.
John kerry is backed by peta. fact.

SH - good point as usual. It seems to all boil down to people taking personal responsibility for the weapons they possess. Hmmmm, taking personal responsibility... another reason for regime change in DC.

Luke - in a former life I used many single syllable words of the expletive variety to get my point across in no uncertain terms. I could explain my position to you in a like manner, but I'm afraid you'd see a lot of **** ******* **** **** and such.

Harley, with regards to the magazine point, my beef is really with silly laws. Restrictions on magazine capacity, pistol grips, and flash restricters (the assault rifle determinants) are silly. Either guns themselves are so inately dangerous that they should be banned by civilised society, or they are a requirement of a balanced society to keep a dangerous tension in place that keeps government at bay. Or both.

So, you been fishing lately? I fixed my slice, but I underachieved on springers. Cutthroats will be in soon.

Oh, Luke, while Harley talks pretty, you may be assured that he's just another fat old guy like the rest of us. And he doesn't catch squat, either.

sh-

See...we totally agree that was the intent of the constitution. If you carry that logic forward though...why shouldn't a private corporation or citizen be able to buy a nuclear bomb if they could afford it, you know, for deterrence?

Who's gonna mess with a guy sitting on an H-bomb in his front yard?

Talk about bearing some serious arms now....

I guess what I'm saying is that, purely in terms of being a sportsman, I don't see how any of the legislations Kerry supported affect my ability to hunt or even to bear arms. Yeah, they may get in the way of my big plans for a gay, commie, nazi government takeover by force....but I think I can live with that for now. Stay tuned though.....

It's interesting how these fishing threads quickly degrade, so I'll do my part to help it degrade farther.

Thankfully, it won't matter what the anti-Bush, anti-Gun, environmentalists folks think when Bush gets reelected in the Fall.

We just have to line up a suitable GOP candidate by 2008 when Hillary runs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:


" my big plans for a gay, commie, nazi government takeover by force....but I think I can live with that for now. Stay tuned though....." --stlhdH20

------------------------------------------------------------


That sounds like the kind of party Phil Donahue could really "get behind".

That's an interesting question. I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers felt that parity was the goal, and had no anticipation of the progression that would happen in militarytechnology. At the time of the constitutional congress, private ships carried every type of weapon know to man. The progression of weapons technology has certainly created classes of weapons that one doesn't want simply floating around, because of their potential for overwhelming harm. I am not sure what the founding fathers' opinion would have been.

So, I'll grant you the nuclear weapon restriction. Private citizens should not be allowed to own nukes. Nope, not even me.

But I don't see any other practical need to restrict. I'd be OK with identification and registration, so that if I used my laser guided bomb, you could figure out it was me. But if the government has it, my tax dollars paid for it, and I should be able to buy one too.

Seriously, I don't there's a logical case for restricting the types of weapons owned, if you submit that we have some right to own weapons. That right is contingent upon the assumption that people are generally rational and responsible, and that we will manage expections to that rule as exceptions. But maybe we'll change that, and start treating people as guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that there isn't a logical case doesn't counter the emotional drive to eliminate these items of fear, despite reams of evidence that the problem is something other than the firearm itself. But that's another argument entirely.

Tom, Tom, Tom. PETA may back John Kerry. That doesn't mean John Kerry backs PETA, any more than the fact that skinheads tend to back GW implies that Bush is a nazi.

I for one, can think he's a decent person while still thinking he's not a great president.

Fact to Starcraft Tom,
President Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. I Served as well and I have a number of friends and a cousin who is serving now and they are fed up with Bush!!
So Unless you are a corporate fatcat or wealthy beyond belief why would you want to vote for Bush, It just goes to show how the Republican party is pulling the wool over so many uninformed or ignorant americans eyes.
Peace
Superfly

"... start kicking politicians in the nuts,..."

Finally, someone says something I can relate to.

...ok, nukes are off the table.

Now...do you really want a guy like wackos to own an Abrams or an Apache? Capitol hill would be gone tomorrow (waits for the righty's to stop cheering).....how about Ross Perot with a B-52 full of bombs on the hunt for 'you people'? Sleeping securely now??

With nukes off the table, how could you ever expect to rebel successfully in this day and age? As I said before, I believe the intent of the framers was to check the power of the federal government, 'parity' as you well put it....I submit to you that 'parity' is an impractical, unattainable ideal....

If you agree, why continue to protect that ideal in the face of the overwhelming statistics that indicate, at least to me (please don't make me look them up), there an awful lot of gun owners out there who can't handle the responsibility. Stolen guns, criminal gun dealers etc....?

I think we just made a pretty logical case together for why there ARE some weapons the average person should not be able to own, at least not without adequate, logical controls.

I don't want the John Hinckley's of the world to have easy access to Saturday night specials....or any other paranoid schizophrenic for that matter. I don't think it should be as easy for three suburban youth to acquire fully automatic assault rifles and blow away their school chums as it was.

Without some kind of restrictions, how will we ever keep the guns OUT of the hands of idiots and IN the hands of those who have the right psychological make-up to be a responsible gun owner? The militant NRA stance seems to be let 'em screw it up once THEN restrict priveleges....by then though, the damage is usually done, isn't it?

Hehe....I did title the topic too narrowly, didn't I?

IMO, since this seems to be the major point of contention for sportsmen, its a tangent worth discussing.

Also.....what else would righty have to discuss in the context of this thread since none of them could realistically justify voting for Bush based on his record when it comes to issues that affect sportfishing?

Just trying to be inclusive..... :p .

Stolen guns and crooked dealing are already illegal. Maybe we should practice some enforcement before making more laws to make it "more illegal." It's also illegal to shoot other people now, regardless of the gun type.


It's already very, very difficult for ANYONE to get fully automatic weapons. If you're referencing Columbine, there were no fully automatic weapons used. It seems most people who don't know firearms assume all black guns are full auto.

hey cupo...

I'm sure my knowledge of weaponry is inferior to yours.

Please change 'fully automatic weapons' to 'assault rifles' per your correction. Do you still disagree with my statement or are you just trying to demonstrate your superior knowledge?

All I'm saying is there is something wrong with a system that easily allows dangerous firearms into the hands of unsupervised children.

I must admit I resent being painted as anti-gun or anti-sportsman because I support some controls on the sale of guns.

I have owned guns responsibly for ten years.

I hunt.

I would characterize my stance as 'responsibly pro-gun'. No gun control legislation has ever impacted my ability to purchase a gun I wanted or to hunt, except for maybe having to wait a bit.

The only solution I've ever come up with, which I'm sure you'll shoot full of holes, would be to have a weapons schedule similar to what they have for drugs/narcotics.

It'd take someone with firearm knowledge far superior to mine to do it in a meaningful way BUT.....A (least dangerous) to say E most dangerous....in order to be able to posess the weapons in each succeeding category you have to demonstrate x amount of years responsible use and y amount of education.

I know, you hate it ....

If the solution really is education then it should mandatory.

I think you're right on H20. Can someone give a good reason why normal American citizens need assault rifles? I don't have the #'s in front of me, but the # of gun related Deaths in American from gun shootings compared to other democratic countries is disgusting.

People who don't know guns shouldn't make policy against guns.

Assault Rifles are fully automatic. Most states don't allow those.

What would you rather have someone shooting you with a "hunting" rifle at 500 yds or a having the same person get within a few yds of you with a handgun?

The fact is that some of the most efficient guns are "hunting" guns.

Another example, 10 gauge semiauto hunting shotgun with 00 buck or 22 revolver...

Like I said, people who know little about guns shouldn't make gun policy.

Well, since they would have to buy them, I don't think it's much of a problem. An Apache is what, $21,000,000? Practically speaking, I don't think it's much of an issue. For people with that kind of money, this level of weaponry is already freely available on the international market. If someone wants a Stinger, they can be had, laws or no laws. But, since they cost about 20,000 a pop, they aren't really the issue. So I'm pretty comfortable with this position. The vast majority of people who are killed by guns know their killer, and both killer and victim have prior records of violence. So, if you want to be safe, stay away from people with violent tendencies. Seriously.

That's a subjective term, "awful lot". I know a lot of responsible gun owners. I don't know any that I consider irresponsible. Criminal gun dealers are criminals. Already. Don't need any more laws, just need to focus on the ones we have. Irresponsible handling of guns is already a crime, it's called negligent homicide. Don't need more laws. To the extent that we have the problem, it's simply proof that laws don't dissuade those at the fringes of society. Never have, never will. The fringes are the cost of a heterogenous society.

Um, your slip is showing. Fully automatic weapons are not freely available. The kids at Columbine had some semi-autos. The fact that the guns were semi auto rather than other forms of action mad no difference to the people that were shot. The issue was that those kids were clinically crazy. I'm not sure that's a risk that can be legislated away.


Well, unfortunately, that's kind of what a free society is about, isn't it? Treating us as if we are responsible citizens until we demonstrate otherwise. The Patriot act is offensive because it violates that principle, as are firearms laws, and laws against pot smoking.

Anyway, enough of this. Lets go fish sometime and argue while we're backtrolling.

And you, sir, are also anti-sportsman and anti-fishing because you support controls on the harvesting of fish. You, H2O, are no friend to fisherman.

great stuff in there for me to think about, sh. Thanks, as usual.

Lemme know when you head out my direction....we can think about fishing.

And, just to be clear, I don't get that impression at all. The gun problem is intractable because reasonable people nearer the center, (myself perhaps excluded) are surrounded by zealots on either end of the spectrum, many of whom are deluded, dishonest, and illogical. I understand the NRA's positions. I don't necessarily agree with them.

SH, you should be spending some of this energy here working on your golf game so I don't have take all the money next time we play.

Dawg, I'm trying to earn some money to flash at you so you think you can take it. How many strokes you gonna give me?

Sounds like you two have a personal problem to me!

Damn Timber, we got to get you out of the woods every now and then to curb these dark sided fantasies of yours....

SH, I'll let you know after Saturday, I'll be playing H.P. with a "type A" group of gamblers. Never a dull moment.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by silver hilton:


So, I'll grant you the nuclear weapon restriction. Private citizens should not be allowed to own nukes. Nope, not even me.--silver hilton



Have you really thought this through silver hilton?


What if the anti-weapon lobby came up with an ingenius bill that would allow you to buy nuclear weapons as long as they didn't have a folding stock or a flash surpressor?

Then that same anit-weapon lobby sought to create new laws (that John Kerry would support if the latest focus group suggested it would be pollitically advantages to do so) to punish the responsible, registered law-abiding owners of those nuclear weapons--


rather than focusing their energy on enforcing the laws already on the books that put criminals who illegally obtained those nuclear weapons and attempt to use them in the commission of a crime behind bars with a group of overly friendly cell mates where they belong.


BTW--I'm pretty sure if he thinks it will help get him elected John Kerry will issue a statement that," he grew up with nuclear weapons and still owns a few to this day."

Move along folks, ...nothing to see here. Dontchaknow that we have the best politicians in office who are duly sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States? Oh, yeah, there is this weird idea about the (what do they call it), the bill of rights. I don't have a clue as to what that means.

Gotta go, have 2 beers left in my six-pack and there is a lotta good stuff on TV tonight.

Actually, I have. Nukes differ from machine guns in a key aspect - they are risky to the passerby when just sitting on a shelf. The materials are radioactive, and therefore passively harmful and risky, even if the bomb isn't triggered. So, unlike a machine gun or hand grenade, someone who is simply sitting next to a nuke can be harmed. This gives society a legitimate interest in regulating nukes that does not exist for any firearm, even fully automatic ones.

Betcha didn't think I could defend that, huh? You don't know me very well.

I would like to point out for you Bushies, GW has folded on the assault rifle ban renewal, and is therefore no different then Kerry on this issue.

SH, at this point he is different. Kerry voted for the original bill.

He may be no different in the support. The vote hasn't come yet, and neither has the signing.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=138 for more info.

Aunty M, Enron gave lots of money to Clinton and gore. In fact Enron gave money to almost everyone who was running for office in most states. They were the biggest supporter of gray davis and the democratic party in California just before the energy crisis. Also Enron hit the news during bush’s first term but every thing that they are being prosecuted for happened during Clinton’s terms.

To who every said it. (I forgot who) the purpose of owning firearms in America is not hunting. Its not even self defense, its to protect the citizens from their own government. Who were the first three countries to past national weapons bans... anyone.... anyone... Hitler Stalin and moa (spelled wrong). or Germany, the soviet union and the peoples republic of china.
The U.K and the land down under have both suffered a hugh increase in violent crimes and thief since passing their gun control bills. Tony Blair admitted in an interview that passing that law was probably a bad idea.

As for being rich, I wish and hope to some day be rich. I think that you and I stand a better chance of becoming rich under a government that taxes you and me less. I do not believe this b.s. About only the rich getting a tax cut. Everyone got a tax cut last time even people who did not pay taxes. Kerry (and Hillary) want to raised taxes on the rich but when you read their tax proposal you find out that above 35 thousand is “rich” well let me tell you that is not rich. You will not be starving but you are not rich.
Stl hd (I think) asked me how I could support bush. Easy. He’s defeating our enemies and creating a atmosphere were the economy can continue to build and thrive. Bill Clinton raised taxes and damaged the economy long before 911. Now Kerry wants to do the same so he can finance all of his social projects. I will take a man who remembers what he said last week and does not change his mind all the time. I think bush is wrong on a lot of subjects but not on the two most important ones. I disagree with bush on gay marriage (except by nazis), on abortion, stem cells and illegal aliens (get a bus). But these do not mean as mush to me as the first two, defense and economy. P.s. sorry I post and run once a day but I am busy lately.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by superfly:


It just goes to show how the Republican party is pulling the wool over so many uninformed or ignorant americans eyes.

Peace
Superfly


------------------------------------------------------------


Are you French or just somehow related to goharley?


If you put the "Peace" pipe down for awhile you'ld realize there's alot of "uninformed or ignorant Americans"out there that support both our troops and their Comander and Chief in what is referred to as the fly-over states. You know--all those places in America where the bourgeois un-washed masses live outside of "intellectually enlightened" cities of Boston, NYC, LA and the Peoples Republic of Seattle.

------------------------------------------------------------

In a previous post Superfly shed some additional light into his intellectual prowess by stating that history would hold GW accoutable for the "BAD ECONOMY."


What "BAD ECONOMY"are you referring to?


Th U.S. economy that has the percentage of Americans who own their own home at an all time high?

The economy GW turned around despite inheiriting a recession and having terrorists shake our financial and travel markets to their core?

The economy that has put the dow back over 10,000?

The economy that has produced all-time historic highs in housing starts?

The economy that has brought the unemployment rate down lower than the average rate of the 90's?

The economy that was bolstered by tax cuts that put more money back in the hands of every American that has a job and pays taxes?

The economy that has all leading indicators suggesting things are getting better daily and
that there is every reason to believe that they're are only going to get even better?


Is that the "BAD ECONOMY" you're referring to?

He hasn't defeated our enemies. Just yesterday, Tom Ridge got on the tube and said that Bin Laden is planning a big one. Instead, we have gone into a country that had nothing to do with the threats we faced, spent a lot of money, killed a lot of people, supposedly to address this threat, and then yesterday, we hear we are still at risk. He killed a bunch of guys we didn't like, supposedly to make us safer. Maybe you feel safer, I don't.

He also hasn't bolstered the economy. We have the largest deficits any country has ever known, and the Bush administration won't even say that spending money we don't have is something that we ought to try to avoid. The stock market is flagging, employment is weak, and our industrial infrastruture is heading overseas rapidly.

I don't say this to tout Kerry, who I'm not sure is much different or better economically. It just bothers me when people tout Bush as being better for the economy when he demonstrably isn't. Bush is better for business owners. Not business, just business owners. If you own a business, Bush is great for you. If you are rich, Bush is great for you. If you are a taxpaying wage earner, are planning to use social security, or are counting on your savings to support you during retirement, well, at the very least, the jury is out.

On tax cuts, we have heard for almost four years now that the tax cuts are stimulating the economy. Well, the stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office, unemployment is still high, we have a net loss of jobs during his term, and American jobs are heading overseas at a record pace. That doesn't sound like the economy is overly strong to me.

Now, you may still wish to vote for Bush, and I respect that. But I have 30 years of business experience, an accounting degree and an economics degree. I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy. His deficits are creating a trainwreck that will happen when we need to retire. And all we hear from him and Cheney is that "deficits don't matter". That's what they thought in Argentina, pre WWII germany, and Brazil. All of whom crashed in hyperinflation due to deficit spending.

Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

he did not tell it like it is scowack did. how can ignore the facts. the market is above 10,000. more americans are employed right know then at anytime in history. bush has done a great job keeping are country going after 911. you do remeber 911 right? 911 is to blame for a economy going to ****. not bush. and yes I dont like the spending, but better to spend it on the military defending us.(no attacks in this country) then on welfare for the lazy and uneducated. bush has spent more money on education then any president in history. and dont tell me that spending money on the mailtary is not worth it. was the spending on ww2 worth it?. was out spending the soviets worth it? yes on both accounts and spending money on home land security is worth it. we are at war and it started a long time before bush. the barracks in sudie, the U.S.S cole, the first time at the world trade center, the embassy in africa, and the last leader we had did nothing. I was in the marines under clinton and it was hard to train with the amount of money that was cut and sit there watching us getting attacked time and time agian with out response. bush at leass has the common sense to make sure we have the supplies we need and the pay we deserve before responding to are enemies.

sorry had to go in the other room and lost my train of thought. hey i like bush for good reasons and you dont so i am voting for bush and you won't, well see who wines and yes i read and study a lot of history. What yoou are saying about bush is the samethings they said about reagon and history has declared ronny the winner.

$INDU (Dow Jones) was 10887 in Jan 2001 on a downward trend it is currently 10171. It was 11497 in Dec 1999.

$COMPX (Nasdaq) was 2772 in Jan 2001 on a downward trend is now 1935. It was 4696 in Feb 2000.

It is easy to see that the economic problems were started by Clinton not Bush. It doesn't take a degree in anything to see what the numbers prove. BTW, the low point was Sept 2002 and has been trending up since that point.

The economy is improving, and the Clinton rececssion is almost over.

jimh thanks for the hard numbers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by silver hilton:

Well, the stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office, unemployment is still high.... That doesn't sound like the economy is overly strong to me.

I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy.--silver hilton

------------------------------------------------------------


Under the Bush administation the unemployent rate has been brought down
to below the average rate of the 90's.

Interestingly, you also mentioned that the "stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office."--silver hilton

When you posted that assertion on 07/09/04 the Dow closed up 41.66 at 10,213.22.

I'd be curious to know--When was the Dow ever higher than 20,426.44?

------------------------------------------------------------

You also spoke of your business education and your concern for the National dept.

When you studied economics did you learn that in order in to accurately gauge the impact of the current National dept you had to do so by comparing how it relates to the current Gross National Product?

------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, you stated that," I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy."--silver hilton


As someone who follows these things with a little interest--I'm curious, what business journals are you reading?

What would this thread be without at least one condescending ass?

No, as a matter of fact, they didn't teach that little tidbit, because it isn't particularly accurate. The politicians like to use it because it makes ignorant people let them get away with thier irresponsibility.

If you want to be precise, what is relevant is the current deficit, the accumulated deficit, the projected deficits and revenues in the years to come, the inflation rate, tax rates, other budgetary commitments, and the interest rates and economic conditions over the time that is expected to be required to retire the debt. This lets you know what the cost load is for the spending on the overall economic capcity of the nation.

When the current spendthrifts in Washington are downplaying our deficits by saying they are small in relation to the GNP, they conveniently omit to note that interest payments on the accumulated deficit (7 trillion dollars and growing) now exceed 15% of our annual budget. That's about $350 billion dollars. The deficit is about 450 billion, I believe. We almost wouldn't have a deficit, if we hadn't had a deficit in the past.

Irresponsibility accumulates. That $450 billion dollars means that next years interest payments will be about $22 billion higher. The next year, they'll be $22 billion higher yet. There is no money in the budget to retire the debt, so this isn't like a car payment where the loan is retired. It's interest only. 15 cents of every tax dollar of yours goes to pay interest. It's gonna double in about 15 years. This fact is agreed to by Congress, Bush, and Greenspan. I don't know about you, but I kinda wish my tax dollar went to roads, guns, congressional intern's salaries;), rather than to interest on a loan.

As to business journals, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, The Economist, National Review, a bunch of web stuff. I'm ignorant and uneducated. Don't know anything about the stock market either. I'm just a silly trader.

Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!

Whatever. The Naz closed at 1946, all time high around 4900. The Naz is where I live. The Dow is only a mere 20% below it's high, four years later. Both are currently trending down.

Look, let's not play sneer at each other. I will readily admit it if and when I'm wrong, and I enjoy the debate, but not if anyone is going to get mad. I have facts and data to back up my opinions, and if the data doesn't support them, i'll change my mind. I'll also be courteous as we discuss. If you can't say the same, I think we should stop now.

Uh, I have an Econ degreee from a rather prestigious university as well. You can easily make this statement, but you can easily build a case against it also.

Let's face the facts. Extremely little of what goes on in the Whitehouse dictates what happens in the economy, contrary to popular belief. Aside from bully'in the FED, the US economy basically runs in cycles. I could bore you to death for the next hour about this, but the cliff notes version is jobs, rates, inflation, etc. The pres is basically bent over and takes on the stepchild from whatever the previous administration tried to do, and then does their spin. The fact of the matter is, every 7 to 10 years you are going to have an extreme rally, a solid pull back, and few micro rallies in between. Need proof? Where were you in 73, 81, 90 98, and today?

During these times we had Watergate, Billy beer, the Cowboy (my Fav) and the Cigar,er smoker. Out of all of these rallies, the only one I feel was really affected by the Pres was the Reagan era, (Reaganomics for those keeping score).

This year is similar to the other years in that:

A) Bush took over a crap economy.
B) There isn't a sh!tload to do other than let it run it's course (anybody notice the rate increase last week, right on cue).
C) Who the F cares about the other crap these clowns spew thinking it's what we want to hear as voters.

Saddest part is, the most noble politician in recent times is Arnold. Not saying anything about right or wrong, but his approach sure is refreshing, he can't be bought (time will tell).

How does all of this relate to fishing? You can try to bend it back to the presidency all you want, but the fact of the matter is our wonderful State has ten fold more to do with the current state of fish around here. Our State poilticians could easily correct what we, the sportmen, feel is wrong and the inequalities present, but they haven't. Quick question. When was the last time our state was run by republicans.

Hey Superfly, can you hear me now?

Spout off what you want, but the fishing has gone in the toilet under the watch of the Democrats. Name anything that your golden boy Locke has done to correct it. You can't, and the reason is he has his tongue 2' up the crack of the commercials along with other private interests. Fishing in this area will not be greatly affected until the thinking in this state changes drastically. It really has nothing to do with who the heck is in the whitehouse.

The only question for us sportsman is, who will show up with the answer? Neither party has to date (what's his name (John Carlson?) tried last run but lost), and I haven't seen anything that shows promise out of those running currently.

I could personally give a rip if the person is a Dem or a Rep. I'm looking for a champion for what I believe in. I have a feeling their is a majority with similar thoughts out there, rather close to the center of the partisanship. Problem is, there is no VALID representationship for this way of thinking. Hard to believe that a solid candidate hasn't platformed the center (and no, Nader isn't an option).

Dismount soapbox, grab new drink. That's better now.

Prestigious? I'll give you well known...

I don't see how you can argue with the statement. You're own statement is right on - the president doesn't have much sway over the economy. There isn't a dial he can easily turn to crank things up or down. Bush additionally go handed really crummy cards with the 9/11 disaster.

I don't think there's that much any president can do to grow the economy. It's like a garden. He and Congress can plant some things, water some things, and fertilize, but the weather and seasons have much more effect on what is going to happen.

I don't think Bsh's policies have been necessarily disastrous for the recent economy. They just haven't been particularly stimulative, either. Sure, housing starts are up, because mortgage money is essentially free. But consumer spending is flagging, and the most recent reports are that business to business spending is tailing off. We're in the middle of a flat period.

The problem with the policies is the price tag and the combination of the tax cuts with increasing spending due to the various security issues. This is adding up to a whopping disaster in the 20 year time frame, and all of America is pretending not to hear the bill collector's phone call. Over the next twenty years, we're going to have to make increasingly hard financial choices, because more and more of our tax dollar is going to be going to interest. Add that fact to the increasing age of our workforce and diminishing number of tax payers in relation to the entitlement receivers, and it's a scary picture out there.

So SH let me understand this...are you saying that the reason for the fall of the NASD index from 4900 to 1900 was George Bush? Please make that case again so I can alert the Wall Street Journal.

Even Bush credits Clinton economically:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

If you read it, it says while he was President. It didn't say due to his policies. There is a difference. It also charitably didn't mention the stock crash of 2000.

What's everyone so puffed up about? Everything is just wonderfull. Who cares that we have a record trade deficit, an exploding national debt, depression level interest rates, record level consumer debt, record level low savings.......ban me, I could go on and on. I couldn't give a s**t who is the next president.

I'm short the SPX and long AU. This trade is so obvious it makes me wonder. Liberal stops in place. Party on. Everything is just perfect.

No, I believe I was offering some evidence that the Bush tax cut magic for the economy is not reflected in the stock markets. Neither is the dividend tax rate cuts, or the other elements of the Bush programs. Bush is touted as being great for the stock market and the economy, when the evidence seems at best equivocal.

Sh, in that case, you need to take a look at a 5 year chart of the Nasdaq and DOW indexes. You'll find out you are mistaken.

Jim, here is a five year chart for the Nasdaq. Here is the five year for the DJ-30.

Maybe you see an uptrend in there. I don't.

Maybe we have a definition problem. What do you call the fairly steady increase from Sept 2002 if it isn't a trend?

Nothing wrong with Bush, Cheney, or Haliburton. The Enron scandal was unveiled during Bush's term but it was taking place under Clinton's. The economic recession started under Clinton's watch as well. It has now been picking up with several record economic jumps in recent months. And as far as the war in Iraq goes. It needed to be done. Hopefully now we'll go after the rest of the countries that support terrorism.

So Bush gets credit for Sept 2002 to Dec 2003, but isn't responsible for 2000 to 2002, or for Jan 2004 to present? That seems a little selective. I think it's a little more fair and more rational to maintain my point, which is that the performance of the markets during his tenure has been up and down, mostly down, and that it's probably not accurate to lay that at his doorstep. But it's also not accurate to give him credit for stimulating the markets, because the markets don't seem to have been stimulated.

Of course, this is different that your original points.

jim,

If you want to give the Prez credit for what the Nasdaq is doing, then let's look at it from a different point of view. You are viewing a time period of about 25% of the current admin being in office. Let's look at the whole time period. He took over at ~3,500. Friday it closed at 1,946. That means it is down around 44% to date, not a very good return.

Now it's easy to say that it had already fallen from 5k to 3,500 when he took over and therefor, it isn't his fault. I would agree completely as I really don't credit much of anything that goes on in the markets to what happens in the Whitehouse. They can have short term affects, but it is very hard to change the trend without drastically changing the overnight lending rate.

But to give Bush credit for a small run during '03 is ridiculous. Between smart money, mutual funds, and bargain hunters it had to eventually move up some. Why hasn't it sustained the rally over the last 7 months? Simply because our 'recovery' isn't nearly as strong as they want us to believe. Some say the War is why. Huh? War means massive spending by the gov't which means products being purchased, and jobs to fill vacated by all of the reservists that have been called up. Yet we are stalled.

I'd love to hear why you think that is.

Also, SH, I agree completely with you about the ticking time bomb being built right now in the form of debt. The changing world theater is going to make being the world's police force a lot harder without bankrupting our gov't, or seriously diminishing most all other programs the gov't provides currently.

Gore, Kerry, they are no brain surgeons either. Neither one has shown anything they would do that would make wholesale changes in what is happening now nor into the future. Everyone better be building those 401k's and IRA's........

Except that what has always happened in the past during the hyperinflation which follows massive deficits is that financial assets become worthless.

“But to give Bush credit for a small run during '03 is ridiculous. “

Actually, I posted the numbers both before during (Sept 02) and lately. I’m allowing everyone to draw their own conclusions based on facts instead of making assumptions for everyone.

“Why hasn't it sustained the rally over the last 7 months?”

Here comes opinion, because the stock market is fickle and there continues to concern about the public’s perception of war. Furthermore, the stock market is worried about the possibility that Kerry could be elected. The public is ocnfused about the war because the press coverage by and large leans anti. For example, the Prison scandal was front page/lead stories for days and yet the Iraq takeover of power wasn’t even lead story for some news outlets on the first day.

see 9-11 and tell me that Bush is good for us.

Are you suggesting Bush 43 was some how responsible for 9/11? If so, you should probably fire your dentist too--He had about as much to do with causing 9/11 as your President did.