Super Delegates

[MAS117]

Can someone explain to me about these super delegates I keep hearing about. Also how do you become a Jr. Member or Senior Member of the site?

[Gustaf]

Can someone explain to me about these super delegates I keep hearing about. Also how do you become a Jr. Member or Senior Member of the site?

You post and post and post post and post and post post and post and post...well you get the idea.

You try to make irrelevant posts all the time, especially one-liners and two word posts (just kidding JR, I am not corrupting another innocent soul, honestly). If you do that you will get the "non-serious post-haters" on to you, though...

Basically, you try to take an active part in discussions.

0-50 posts: Newbie
50-100 posts: junior member
100-250 posts: full member
250-500 posts: senior member
500+ posts: YaBB God!!!!!!!

 

[Beet]

I think super delegates are elected representatives from the party such as Congressional representatives and Governors. Where the other 1,500 or so come from I dunno, maybe mayors, state delegates? To be a Jr. member dont you just get above a certain # of posts?

[jravnsbo]

Dem superdelagates are elected officials from congress, governors, sen party officials, past nominees and presidents.  Posted a greenpapers site somewhere that details it.

member status' are from number of posts.

I think super delegates are elected representatives from the party such as Congressional representatives and Governors. Where the other 1,500 or so come from I dunno, maybe mayors, state delegates? To be a Jr. member dont you just get above a certain # of posts?

[MAS117]

thanks, so actually endorsements do matter then. whats a YaBB God

[jravnsbo]

Endorsements do matter if a superdelegate.  I don't think Bradley is one though, but Gore would be for a few examples.

When you get to 501 posts you get to be a Yaabb God.

thanks, so actually endorsements do matter then. whats a YaBB God

[MAS117]

haha im a jr member now

[Inmate Trump]

haha im a jr member now

Congratulations!  Feels good, don't it?

[jravnsbo]

Good job, little one

keep offering up good information and you'll do fine and learn soem things too

haha im a jr member now

[MAS117]

i dont get what is arpil 15th

[jravnsbo]

April 15 is the day when Federal taxes are due to the government.  A democrat Holiday

i dont get what is arpil 15th

[Beet]

Yeah just keep building those deficits...

[MAS117]

haha good one, i thought i should just add my own little quote from RFK... check it out..

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Can someone explain to me about these super delegates I keep hearing about. Also how do you become a Jr. Member or Senior Member of the site?

You post and post and post post and post and post post and post and post...well you get the idea.

You try to make irrelevant posts all the time, especially one-liners and two word posts (just kidding JR, I am not corrupting another innocent soul, honestly). If you do that you will get the "non-serious post-haters" on to you, though...

Basically, you try to take an active part in discussions.

0-50 posts: Newbie
50-100 posts: junior member
100-250 posts: full member
250-500 posts: senior member
500+ posts: YaBB God!!!!!!!

 

Don't corrupt the young Gustaf. Little posts, like one or two liners do annoy the serious posters. This is not a one or two liner, it's three, hehehehehe

[Gustaf]

Can someone explain to me about these super delegates I keep hearing about. Also how do you become a Jr. Member or Senior Member of the site?

You post and post and post post and post and post post and post and post...well you get the idea.

You try to make irrelevant posts all the time, especially one-liners and two word posts (just kidding JR, I am not corrupting another innocent soul, honestly). If you do that you will get the "non-serious post-haters" on to you, though...

Basically, you try to take an active part in discussions.

0-50 posts: Newbie
50-100 posts: junior member
100-250 posts: full member
250-500 posts: senior member
500+ posts: YaBB God!!!!!!!

 

Don't corrupt the young Gustaf. Little posts, like one or two liners do annoy the serious posters. This is not a one or two liner, it's three, hehehehehe

Only b/c you decided to say so...

It waw meant as a little joke on JR...

Nice to see you back posting, btw.

[jravnsbo]

Well defense spending has been the biggest reason for the deficit and I guess i believe in letting the people have their own money to spend.

Yeah just keep building those deficits...

[Wakie]

Well defense spending has been the biggest reason for the deficit and I guess i believe in letting the people have their own money to spend.

Yeah just keep building those deficits...

Well, that doesn't tell the entire story.

The Office of Management and Budget projected record federal budget deficits of $455 billion in 2003 and $475 billion in 2004.

The ratio of the budget surplus/deficit to GNP has fallen from being +2.4% in 2000  (a $236 billion surplus) .... to -4.2% for 2003 (a $455 billion deficit).

This -6.6% swing was accounted for in 3 ways.

1) 4.5% was due to lower revenues
2) 2.0% was due to increased non-defense spending
3) 1.0% was due to higher defense spending

Its true that defense is the single biggest spending program, but it is only 1/3 of the total spending increases.  Since the expiration of the Budget Enforcement Act in September, spending discipline appears to be softening.  Government spending ex-interest expense is now growing at a 7.5% annual rate.  Some people blame this on existing programs, but even discretionary spending, the most easily controlled part of the budget, has increased at an 8.7% annual rate over the last three years after rising only 1.6% per annum over the preceding 10 years.

This leads to the question ... why is a Republican Congress, with a Republican President, spending more than it did with a Democratic President and more than the Democratic Congress did with a Democratic President?

[jravnsbo]

Yes spending is out of control.  However your question is misleading.  When Dems had control of Presidency and Congress in 1993-95, they passed the largest tax increase in US History.  Next they wanted to push national health care on the public at tremendous cost, and it was quickly rejected byt he people and GOP opposition.

Problem now, is that people wanted Prescription Drugs coverage so GOP had to bend and have massive spending.  However at least they kept it to 400 B instead of Dem plan of 900 B.  Our economy has been under assault from terrorism and corporate coruption.  

Plus BOTH parties like PORK now.  GOP runs things but DEms don't stop spending either, so hard fo them to claim fiscal responsibility either.

[Wakie]

Yes spending is out of control.  However your question is misleading.  When Dems had control of Presidency and Congress in 1993-95, they passed the largest tax increase in US History.  Next they wanted to push national health care on the public at tremendous cost, and it was quickly rejected byt he people and GOP opposition.

Well, two thoughts on this one.  The tax increase preceded the period of the greatest economic expansion in history.  I'm not saying that the tax increase caused that, but the reduced interest rates (a function of the deficit paydown from increase revenue) sparked a period of increased investment.  This increased investment coupled with vast improvements in information technology is what sparked the boom of the 90s.  In summary, the tax increase was well timed and was actually beneficial as it kept inflation under control.

Now we can argue the pros and cons of national healthcare, but it simply isn't a factor in the budget increases we've seen thus far.

Problem now, is that people wanted Prescription Drugs coverage so GOP had to bend and have massive spending.  However at least they kept it to 400 B instead of Dem plan of 900 B.  Our economy has been under assault from terrorism and corporate coruption.  

Plus BOTH parties like PORK now.  GOP runs things but DEms don't stop spending either, so hard fo them to claim fiscal responsibility either.

The poor economy and war on terror do not account for the increases in non-defense related spending.  The Republicans have been the majority in Congress for the last 10 years.  The last 3 of which they've had a Republican President.

Ultimately you have to hold them responsible for the PORK of the last few years.  The current odds of Democrat pork getting through is far less than Republican pork.

I don't think either party can lay claim to fiscal responsibility.  But I'll give the Democrats credit for at least proposing a plan for paying for it.