Sarah Palin meet George Orwell

[AZhitman]

If Bush had listened & followed the advice of others that knew more about Iraq and our economy we would not be in the position that we are now in.Boy deregulation was some experiment with our economy.

Not disagreeing with that.

Doesn't mean Obama is the answer.

Or should I say, "The Answer".

[mtcookson]

If Bush had listened & followed the advice of others that knew more about Iraq and our economy we would not be in the position that we are now in.Boy deregulation was some experiment with our economy.

To squander a surplus and run up a debt of 10 trillion dollars the man should be........ Oh whats the use......

Uhhh... Bush was for more regulation on GSE's like Fanny and Freddie. Hell, he called for reform 17 times this year alone. It most certainly was not Bush that wasn't listening. Get your facts straight.

[HashiriyaS14]

He needs to accept the victory with a bloody nose and a hefty dose of humility.

I like this quote.

Landslides are dangerous, they create the impression of a mandate where there may not actually be one. I want him to win, but I hope that he proceeds with all this change with a measured hand. I think he will, but no one can ever be sure.

Every politician should enter office with a hefty dose of humility and remember who it is they're actually working for.

Oh, and as for his "having no leverage on Congress", I enthusiastically disagree. The incoming larger Democratic majority will owe a TON to Obama and his campaign, given how much it appears to be helping down-ballot candidates. A number of these new Senators will only be there because of him.

He's the new Democratic poster boy, and Democratic legislators who don't play (hopefully centrist) ball are likely going to get sidelined in a hurry.

Pelosi, to her credit, is actually not so liberal as she is oft painted to be. She has staunchly opposed the (admittedly silly) notion of impeaching Bush, although it appears to have a good deal of support otherwise with House Democrats. I don't think she'll be any sort of impediment to a centrist Democratic White House. If anything, she might be a little relieved that she doesn't have to press the liberal hard line so often, as she has to do with the current Administration (to prevent slippery slopes).

We'll see how it rolls, but I think he's going to handle them pretty well.

EDIT: De-regulation isn't really what's killing our economy, and it certainly isn't to blame for the deficit. DUMB regulations or de-regulation in lieu of understanding certain derivatives contributed to the current "bust", but that isn't really the same thing.

THE BUSH TAX CUTS is what really drove the deficit, not de-regulation. We spent money today we weren't going to receive until tomorrow and we've paid the price for it. Dumb decision.

[dusred]

to clarify for the confused (by which I mean republican appeasers ) She could fire him for any reason...however the manner in which she did it was illegal.

Oh BTW!

Whats the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina?

Only SOME of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded

have a good one guys, I'll be back to gloat in 3 weeks

Be glad I'm not a moderator or I'd delete your post.

That was very offensive and inappropriate.

[telcoman]

I like this quote.

Landslides are dangerous, they create the impression of a mandate where there may not actually be one. I want him to win, but I hope that he proceeds with all this change with a measured hand. I think he will, but no one can ever be sure.

Every politician should enter office with a hefty dose of humility and remember who it is they're actually working for.

Oh, and as for his "having no leverage on Congress", I enthusiastically disagree. The incoming larger Democratic majority will owe a TON to Obama and his campaign, given how much it appears to be helping down-ballot candidates. A number of these new Senators will only be there because of him.

He's the new Democratic poster boy, and Democratic legislators who don't play (hopefully centrist) ball are likely going to get sidelined in a hurry.

Pelosi, to her credit, is actually not so liberal as she is oft painted to be. She has staunchly opposed the (admittedly silly) notion of impeaching Bush, although it appears to have a good deal of support otherwise with House Democrats. I don't think she'll be any sort of impediment to a centrist Democratic White House. If anything, she might be a little relieved that she doesn't have to press the liberal hard line so often, as she has to do with the current Administration (to prevent slippery slopes).

We'll see how it rolls, but I think he's going to handle them pretty well.

EDIT: De-regulation isn't really what's killing our economy, and it certainly isn't to blame for the deficit. DUMB regulations or de-regulation in lieu of understanding certain derivatives contributed to the current "bust", but that isn't really the same thing.

THE BUSH TAX CUTS is what really drove the deficit, not de-regulation. We spent money today we weren't going to receive until tomorrow and we've paid the price for it. Dumb decision.

You forgot to mention the 10 billion a month that we are spending in Iraq.

[Cold_Zero]

If Bush had listened & followed the advice of others that knew more about Iraq and our economy we would not be in the position that we are now in.Boy deregulation was some experiment with our economy.

To squander a surplus and run up a debt of 10 trillion dollars the man should be........ Oh whats the use......

Howie,

It should be pointed out that not only under Reagan, Bush and Bush were our economies deregulated, but under the Clinton Administration as well. One of the biggest deregulations in regards to trade was NAFTA signed into law by Bill Clinton.

What is this surplus that you imply G W Bush received (I assume) from Bill Clinton? And don't go confusing a balanced budget that produces a budget surplus over an extended period of time with an actual Capital Surplus where there is money in the bank. I want to know from you, how big was this capital surplus.. This was one of the biggest shams that the Clinton Administration boasted back in the 1990's, was that they created a 'surplus' and rid the country of a national deficit. They created a Budget Surplus. (see below)



There was National Debt that was floated from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration.

If I were you, I wouldnt be worried so much about the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq each year, but the 59.1 trillion dollar obligation that the United Statest is on the hook for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. YOU my sir by retiring and the Federal Govenrment having to give you a check is what keeps me up at night!

[Jesda]

THE BUSH TAX CUTS is what really drove the deficit, not de-regulation. We spent money today we weren't going to receive until tomorrow and we've paid the price for it. Dumb decision.

I already explained this in a previous thread.

The Bush tax cuts quickly resulted in higher revenues, explained by a phenomenon you've heard of called the Laffer Curve. The same thing happened during the Reagan and Kennedy administrations.

What caused today's deficit spending are a GOP congress that believed having a GOP president meant there was a blank check. [Oh yeah, and military expenses for a war.] President Bush threatened to veto bigger budgets, but it turned out to be only lip service.

As for deregulation, I assume you are referring to the mortgage crisis. We got the opposite of government non-intervention. In fact, congress and various housing-related special interest groups put pressure on banks to make subprime loans. Did you know Bank of America has an ACORN program? Acorn calls it a partnership. I call it capitulation to political pressure -- the complete opposite of deregulation.

[Jesda]

McCain should have picked a centrist, experienced VP like Lieberman or Ridge. He didn't need to lock up the far-right votes, he already had them.

Seriously, no.

McCain's fundraising was and still is in the toilet.

John McCain's nomination was an act of last-minute confusion and desperation. Romney was a sleazy east-coast Mormon who believed in government healthcare. Huckabee lacked mainstream appeal. The GOP's core wrote off McCain years ago as a sellout and only chose him as a candidate because of his perceived mass appeal. However, the belief was that a Democrat-friendly nominee would be the best way to beat Hillary Clinton.

Well, Clinton lost and is focusing on her career in the Senate. We now have Barack Obama.

The GOP's base is motivated by people who think very much like they do, who see America in a particular way. This means that adding a fiscal and social conservative was necessary to motivate them to vote for McCain. Fundraising jumped with Palin's nomination, and female supporters took interest. Actual conservatives put aside their rightful skepticism of John McCain.

Here in the suburbs where I live, there wasn't a McCain sticker or sign in sight until the convention, then suddenly they popped up everywhere. The base has finally been rallied, far too late, and nowhere near as effectively as four years ago. Why? Because none of them are voting FOR McCain. They are voting AGAINST Obama or FOR Palin.

John "Bailout Package" McCain is barely a Republican to me, much less a conservative. A maverick, yes, but only in the eyes of the media, because he butt-kissed the Democrats for so many years. I'm shocked that the Democratic Party didn't just nominate him.

[AZhitman]

Don't confuse Howie with facts and academia...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10...age=0

Why Obama and other RADICAL LEFTIES (yes, I said it... they're certainly not centrist) aren't being called on the carpet for any of this is beyond me.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promises a massive national-service program closely allied with the nonprofit sector. He wants to remove "barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs."

In other words, he plans a massive effort to funnel America's youth into volunteer work alongside the likes of ACORN. So Obama's favorite community organizers may soon be training your child.

[HashiriyaS14]

G W Bush's tax cuts are to blame for increase to the $9,610,925,862,935.16 defict we have racked up? It couldn't be because of the costs of the Global War on Terror, creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the War in Afghanistan and Iraq and the building of weapons systems like the USS Reagan CVN76 and GHW Bush CVN 77?

LOL, do you enjoy making my job easy? YES, there are plenty of other failures of the administration that contributed to the deficit

Total Costs for CVN-76 were about $4.3 billion, which is a lot of money, but it would take a whole lot of supercarriers to blow through five trillion dollars. So too with the war on terror and our boondoggles in Iraq an Afghanistan.

But no, while those expenditures were and are immense, they pale in comparison to the effect the tax cuts have had.

If anyone really wants to defend the Bush Tax Cuts to the grave, consider this. The five children of the Walton family (Wal Mart) save about $987 million a year in personal taxes thanks to the cuts. This is more than what is saved by the MILLION PLUS employees, in aggregate, that work in every single Wal Mart store in the world.

This may sound like populist drivel, but the fact of the matter is that the tax cuts targeted people who may not be the best sources of "trickle down" prosperity. Billionaires don't open corner stores and hire neighborhood kids, they buy speculative real estate in Dubai and Southeast Asia. The cuts weren't broad-based enough to do any real good but were large enough in magnitude to constitute the largest destruction of public wealth in the history of the world outside of WWI and WWII in that the prospective Clintonian surpluses were distributed, in advance of their receipt, to private individuals who then proceeded to invest them largely in foreign ventures.

[Jesda]

This may sound like populist drivel,

O'Reilly-style.

"The rich" drink Cristal and eat fish eggs. Then after getting bored with that, they sail and stuff. They pay colored people to entertain them on their yachts.

...no.

They invest in real estate, new ventures, new businesses, and new ideas. They play a role in expanding the national and global economy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842

Now, would a repetition of Bush's tax cuts increase revenues again? Not necessarily. The Laffer Curve is simple but conditions are complex. Calling the specific tax cut package you are referring to a cause of the deficit is inaccurate.

[Cold_Zero]

LOL, do you enjoy making my job easy? YES, there are plenty of other failures of the administration that contributed to the deficit

No disagreement here.

Quote »Total Costs for CVN-76 were about $4.3 billion, which is a lot of money, but it would take a whole lot of supercarriers to blow through five trillion dollars. So too with the war on terror and our boondoggles in Iraq an Afghanistan. [/quote]While there are a lot of budgetary games that get played when paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is silly for anyone to think that the cost just gets tacked on to the national debt.

Quote »But no, while those expenditures were and are immense, they pale in comparison to the effect the tax cuts have had. [/quote]Can you quantify how much of our national debt has been increased by the Bush tax cuts? How much of what we owe to Japan, China and UK were a direct result of the Bush Tax Cuts vs. let's say, Social Security or Veteran's Benefits? That is the problem. This is the game that politicians engage in with the American people. Democrats insinuate that if we didnt refund the peoples' money through the Bush Tax Cuts that would be money that we could have paid down the National Debt. The Stupidity of this argument is that if the money had not been refunded to the people of this country, it would have been Spent!



I guess my point is, after looking at what we are spending our money on... your worried about the Bush Tax cuts?

[HashiriyaS14]

This is the game that politicians engage in with the American people. Democrats insinuate that if we didnt refund the peoples' money through the Bush Tax Cuts that would be money that we could have paid down the National Debt. The Stupidity of this argument is that if the money had not been refunded to the people of this country, it would have been Spent!

I guess it's this point that I disagree with.

You are, in effect, asserting that the very idea of running a surplus as opposed to a deficit is folly because any surplus will automatically be wrongly spent rather than used to pay down the larger national debt.

Thus you are advocating, it would seem, continual deficit spending for all eternity.

I disagree with the idea that we can never hope for leadership competent enough to realize that 1+1=2 and that debts must eventually be paid off. Clinton steadily decreased the rate at which the national debt accumulated while in office, so there's no reason to believe we can't hope for a similar performance from a future President.

I'm not really getting much from this chart. Addressing spending isn't the same thing as addressing the fact that tax cuts based on as-yet nonexistent surpluses give us less to spend in the first place.

Are you advocating an end to Social Security? I don't think that you are, so maybe you can clarify your point a tad.

[Jesda]

Back when the Republican Party favored small government, Gingrich and company played a significant role in balancing the budget. There was a brief government shutdown over the battle between the white house and congress.

Some Keynesians believe that deficit spending is a good thing. I believe Clinton was among those. I doubt anyone from that school of economic theory would advocate our current level of deficit spending, however.

[telcoman]

Howie,

It should be pointed out that not only under Reagan, Bush and Bush were our economies deregulated, but under the Clinton Administration as well. One of the biggest deregulations in regards to trade was NAFTA signed into law by Bill Clinton.

.......the United Statest is on the hook for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. YOU my sir by retiring and the Federal Govenrment having to give you a check is what keeps me up at night!

Hey Bud

Sorry that I keep you up nights but if you and a few others here would begin voting for democrats perhaps some of the Medicare, and Social Security benefits will be there for you?

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

Hey Bud

Sorry that I keep you up nights but if you and a few others here would begin voting for democrats perhaps some of the Medicare, and Social Security benefits will be there for you?

Telcoman

I'm not worried about the benefits being there for me, I have written that off a long time ago. I am worried about you bankrupting the country.

Then again, if you hadn't voted Democrats in who blocked privatization of Social Security, we wouldnt have this mess.

The million dollar question is where is the money for Social Security? Hash knows, it was spent to build carriers and nukes and other stuff. Think of the Social Security Administration HQ being filled with a bunch of IOU's. Thanks~!

[AZhitman]

Hey Bud

Sorry that I keep you up nights but if you and a few others here would begin voting for democrats perhaps some of the Medicare, and Social Security benefits will be there for you?

Telcoman

This tells me everything.

I have a better idea: KEEP my Social Security. KEEP my Medicare. Keep all those damned entitlement programs, because I don't WANT the damn things.

If people would get OFF the government tit, we wouldn't be worrying about such nonsense.

Besides, SS is a joke - Always has been. It should be SSDI only, as able-bodied people should be able to save for their own retirement... Not like you're going to live off SS anyway. Return that money to the people, because the government sure as hell doesn't know how to take care of it.

[Jesda]

Hey Bud

Sorry that I keep you up nights but if you and a few others here would begin voting for democrats perhaps some of the Medicare, and Social Security benefits will be there for you?

Telcoman

LOL, so if we gave the government more money, maybe it would be generous, if we're lucky, and it might give some of it back! WOW! I LOVE YOUR PLAN!

You should be CEO of Enron.

[ishkabibble]

If we privatized Social Security, wouldn't we be in a pretty big mess? Seeing as how the market is down 40% and still has a ways to go. Trillions of dollars would have vanished.

[ishkabibble]

I'm fine with a government forced savings plan. The reason why? Look at how few people properly save for retirement when left to their own devices.

That said, Social Security does not seem to have been constructed wisely.

[themadscientist]

I'm fine with a government forced savings plan. The reason why? Look at how few people properly save for retirement when left to their own devices.

That said, Social Security does not seem to have been constructed wisely.

If you can't properly prepare for your retirement that would be your fault. Find a nice cardboard box to move into because I ain't giving you a damned thing.

It is scary how some people have developed a need for government to direct their lives. The government will be happy to herd you along good citizen, line up for your bar code tattoo.

[ishkabibble]

Actually no. Monaghan was an appointed official. As such she could dismiss him for any reason. She had a viable reason in this case but one was not required. Wooten should have been fired from the get go, he wasn't. Those responsible for shirking that responsibility refused to correct that oversight and got the boot.Maybe the people currently entrenched in Washinton are scared Palin might decide they need to go as well. Being held responsible for doing your job performance must scare the hell out of many on both sides of the aisle.

Actually, yes. There is no question she violated ethics rules.

This is just like the DOJ/U.S. Attorney scandal. Claiming it was within the administration's rights to fire attorneys while completely ignoring the ethics issues.

[ishkabibble]

If you can't properly prepare for your retirement that would be your fault. Find a nice cardboard box to move into because I ain't giving you a damned thing.

It is scary how some people have developed a need for government to direct their lives. The government will be happy to herd you along good citizen, line up for your bar code tattoo.

I share your beliefs, but I'm more of a realist than an idealist.

You see, in your imaginary world, you'll end up footing the bill for the penniless old farts one way or another.You know, as they go from being productive to being a big baby in Depends sucking on the government teat.

Forcing people to save a bare minimum for retirement actually keeps people off of entitlement programs.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess it's this point that I disagree with.

You are, in effect, asserting that the very idea of running a surplus as opposed to a deficit is folly because any surplus will automatically be wrongly spent rather than used to pay down the larger national debt.

Thus you are advocating, it would seem, continual deficit spending for all eternity.

I was asserting no such thing. Just to clarify that you and I are talking about a Budget Surplus and not an actual surplus. If the United States Government had an actual Capital Surplus, we wouldn't be in this mess.

My point was simple, the Democrats mis-reprent the Bush Tax Cuts. They insinuate that if we had not refunded part of the budget surplus (aka the money we paid into the system), it could have gone to pay down the National Debt. While in principle this may be correct, the reality is they would do no such thing with a budget surplus. Their complaint about the Bush Tax Cuts and the Bush Spending Spree is that the money is not being allocated the way they would have it used. They would much rather spend it on entitlement programs and discretionary spending.

Is carrying over a budget surplus folly? It is when it will be spent by drunken sailors (AKA Congress) down the road. I guess in my mind a budget surplus can be handled in four different waysSpend the Surplus – Current planPay off the National Debt with the Surplus- Good IdeaRefund the Money- Not a bad idea since it really is not the Government’s money.Carry Over the Balance- Bad idea, when the money is in the bank, Government will be too tempted to spend the money.

Quote »I disagree with the idea that we can never hope for leadership competent enough to realize that 1+1=2 and that debts must eventually be paid off. Clinton steadily decreased the rate at which the national debt accumulated while in office, so there's no reason to believe we can't hope for a similar performance from a future President.[/quote]Again Chris, I guess you have more faith in the government than I do.

Quote »I'm not really getting much from this chart. Addressing spending isn't the same thing as addressing the fact that tax cuts based on as-yet nonexistent surpluses give us less to spend in the first place.[/quote]I guess my point of the chart is that of all the 2.7 trillion dollar spending, I do not think that the Bush Tax Cuts account for a major contributing factor to the actual National Debt, nor a significant source of spending. Since it is really a lack of income rather than an expenditure. The Democrats can run around this wonderful country and talk about Big Oil’s ‘Wind Fall Profits’ yet they wont acknowledge THEIR WINDFALL PROFIT (AKA tax revenue).

Quote » Are you advocating an end to Social Security? I don't think that you are, so maybe you can clarify your point a tad.[/quote]I would love to ramp down Social Security in favor of retirement funds that are independent from the Government having the ability to spend against it. My wife nearly lost her pension because Indiana Democrats and Republicans spent the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund. Thank goodness that Republican Governor Mitch Daniels is working to pay it back.

[Cold_Zero]

If we privatized Social Security, wouldn't we be in a pretty big mess? Seeing as how the market is down 40% and still has a ways to go. Trillions of dollars would have vanished.

Only if the privatized Social Security funds were tied to the Stock Market.. like Mutual Funds.

[ishkabibble]

That was the proposal.... to make it similar to the Thrift Savings Plan.

[Cold_Zero]

That was the proposal.... to make it similar to the Thrift Savings Plan.

That is an idea for how to administrate private retirement plans, but not the only one.

[ishkabibble]

The fact is that no matter how you slice it, a large portion of the funds would be stocks. Period. I don't know what you are arguing here.

[Jesda]

Look at how few people properly save for retirement when left to their own devices.

Are you implying that irresponsibility has consequences? No way.

I also heard that people who didn't get jobs didn't eat.

[themadscientist]

I share your beliefs, but I'm more of a realist than an idealist.

You see, in your imaginary world, you'll end up footing the bill for the penniless old farts one way or another.You know, as they go from being productive to being a big baby in Depends sucking on the government teat.

Forcing people to save a bare minimum for retirement actually keeps people off of entitlement programs.

No you see, in the world I am working towards, socialism is wiped from America. Entitlement programs need to go away and the facilitators such as yourself are the true obstical. If you want to accept the status quo just write a check to the government for yourself, leave me out of it, you don't speak for me. Everything I have I worked for, nobody handed me a damned thing. When I need money I hit the bank and tap money I put in there because I am not stupid and know that that is what one must do. If I ever retire social security will be long bankrupt but it doesn't scare me because I know how to take care of me, I don't need the government to get involved.

If you can't take care of yourself due to your own actions, through inactivity or ignorance, die.

It's called survival of the fittest and I am perfectly happy with that. It doesn't surprise me that in this world where mediocrity is embraced, trophies are awarded for particiption and being a victim is almost a recognized profession Barry can inspire some people. When you set the bar low is it any wonder the weak results you get.