Sarah Palin?

[Silverbird]

It was a good speech, but the Republicans had the majority in Congress in 6 of the last 8 years, and the deficits started under their watch. Bush threatened to veto most of the bills that were "Pay as you go" in the last 2 years. So I guess the Way is to keep the debt instead of raise taxes to pay for it??

Paying off the deficit is going to take $$ so you need to raise taxes. Should have raised taxes or issued war bonds to pay for Iraq and Afganistan but it's too late for war bonds now - Iraq is too controversial and has turned into a huge money pit.

On the test, I get nearly a tie with third way and liberal, so I guess I'm between those two somewhere. Locally was voting Republican until the Republican Congressional candidate in the last election was an immigration lawyer who was the head of Prince William County's Republican Party, and this time is a real estate appraiser (not supported by the Party, he's using $1 million of his own money). Used to be, the Democrats were too far to the left, and the Republicans were centralist, but now Webb's a Democrat. Crazy world.

 

[SkyPilot]

It was a good speech, but the Republicans had the majority in Congress in 6 of the last 8 years, and Bush threatened to veto most of the bills that were "Pay as you go" in the last 2 years. So I guess the Way is to keep the debt instead of raise taxes to pay for it??

On the test, I get nearly a tie with third way and liberal, so I guess I'm between those two somewhere.

If you believe that raising taxes increases revenue, you would be correct (sort of, and only temporarily).

However, revenue has increased substantially with decreased taxes. Ultimately, it is not the tax rate that has been the problem but rather the spending that has been the issue. In this case, neither party can claim stewardship over the last several years. And in the case of the Dems rise to power over the last two years, they have not delivered the reforms that they promised in this regard.

Raising taxes will likely reduce revenue as it throttles investment and productivity, kind of like eating the seed corn instead of planting it. Europe has followed this doctrine for years and has devastated their economies.

I believe the Republican party has /is trying to say that they will lower taxes and reduce spending. That means reducing entitlements, which is a daunting task and I am not sure that this can be done. While I approve the sentiment, they have not delivered due to their spending as well.

In the case of Social Security and Medicare, the taxes that fund these will likely have to be raised as these programs have not kept up with their promises. One suggestion is to raise the upper tax rate limit on Social Security so that one pays taxes on more of their income at the same rate than limiting it to a couple hundred thousand dollars of income. Effectively, those with higher personal incomes will pay more for Social Security benefits than they contribute, which is probably unfair but the program is hopelessly over obligated, and one that can't be remedied with spending cuts.

However, to raise taxes will likely stifle growth and cut revenues ending up with a net loss of income. Essentially then, tax rate dictate tax revenue, lower rates greater revenue based on growth.

But this is only a single view of tax policy, but one that was largely adopted by both Democratic (JFK for instance) and Republican administrations until roughly the Carter administration.

In summary, cut spending, reduce taxes, increase revenue.

 

[SkyPilot]

I thought I was a neo-con, but it seems that I'm a libertarian. Get government out of my backyard. But, I am a gov't employee and I am in your backyard. Hmmmmmmmmm.....

 

[Silverbird]

I think these labels are, just that, labels. Just because you don't like Government intervention doesn't mean you don't think there are times it is necessary. Your sterotypical Libertarian, doesn't want laws, so labeling "very little Government intervention" as "Libertarian" is rather misleading.

Reagan raised taxes to pay off the deficit and the economy did fine under him (AND I admit this when his foreign policy gave me white hair). I don't know where you get any more money if we can't even keep our food supply safe. I'm a pay as you go fan. Can't help it.

 

[Aviator_Guy]

She hit a homerun last night at the RNC. I haven’t heard anyone control a crowd like that since Regan. Her delivery, humor and timing was absolutely perfect. I know she was in a friendly GOP crowd, but it was an outstanding speech. I noticed that James Carvel lost his grin when interviewed to comment on Palin.

 

[SkyPilot]

I think these labels are, just that, labels. Just because you don't like Government intervention doesn't mean you don't think there are times it is necessary. Your sterotypical Libertarian, doesn't want laws, so labeling "very little Government intervention" as "Libertarian" is rather misleading.

Reagan raised taxes to pay off the deficit and the economy did fine under him (AND I admit this when his foreign policy gave me white hair). I don't know where you get any more money if we can't even keep our food supply safe. I'm a pay as you go fan. Can't help it.

Are you saying Reagan's administration paid off the deficit? I thought that happened under Clinton when we failed to use revenues to fund the military and called it a "peace dividend"? You are likely right though, and I will concede the point in this case if accurate.

However, I believe you have confused the term Libertarian with Anarchist. Libertarians are not against having a lawful society. The ability to be a Libertarian (derived from the word liberty) depends on a lawful and orderly society.

The Libertarian rather decries the role of government to make laws that oppress and diminish personal liberty. The Libertarian fully embraces the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Democratic Process in the form of a Republic representative government. Libertarians tend to be Populist in their expression.

However, among Libertarians you will still find nuance and disagreement as to how these ideals are observed. Part and parcel of being a Libertarian.

The Anarchist is opposed to law, rule of law and social order. That is to say "no archy" such as hierarchy, matriarchy, patriarchy, etc...

 

[Buster]

Just the Facts Ma'am....

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

 

[Steadygain]

She hit a homerun last night at the RNC. I haven’t heard anyone control a crowd like that since Regan. Her delivery, humor and timing was absolutely perfect. I know she was in a friendly GOP crowd, but it was an outstanding speech

Right on my friend - and this is from someone deeply committed to Obama up until Sarah came along.

You have a GREAT signiture!!

It's hard for me to read a lot of the posts because I have no clue what the names mean - please pretend we're all in the 3rd grade.

 

[Silverbird]

Reagan tax increases: see TEFRA, Gas Tax, Social Security age changes. Looks like I'm wrong about it paying off the entire Reagan deficit, however, some of it went to Clinton. :embarrest: I'm running into connecting references again (when all your information eventually refers back to the same source, run for the hills).

 

[SkyPilot]

Reagan tax increases: see TEFRA, Gas Tax, Social Security age changes. Looks like I'm wrong about it paying off the entire Reagan deficit, however, some of it went to Clinton. :embarrest: I'm running into connecting references again (when all your information eventually refers back to the same source, run for the hills).

That's okay... were' all honestly trying to understand and discern fact and truth (not always, or even usually, the same thing). And I truly believe that most of us want what is best, though we may have really legitimate disagreements on what "best" is, or if we do agree, how we should get there.

 

[Tempest]

So Abstinance as a 'Family Value' got ditched by Republicans this year?

Geeez the RNC is just laughable.
Insert Lily Tomlin quote here:

"No matter how cynical I get I can't keep up."


I really thought this would be a close race with McCain taking it.
Palin brings nothing to the table. Nothing but a pretty face.
McCain chose the wrong person for V.P. and the RNC can't win without having some political/economic narrative that appeals to Independents or Democrats.
But McCain thinks he can beat Obama because Obama has no experience and he knows some people just won't EVER vote for a black man. House of Cards if that's McCain's strategy. Pity him - McCain could have won it with the right V.P. Obama beat the Clinton Political Tag Team (McCain is not even in Bill Clinton's league when it comes to raw political smarts and infighting).
And say what you want about Obama (whether you like him or not)-Obama's crowds are larger in America then McCains.

"Washington Elitists-Liberal Media' blather worked once when times were flush but it won't work in 2004. Hint: People don't think about that when pumping $4.00 gasoline or having a hard time with mortgage payments due to unfortunate circumstances or buying something they couldn't afford to begin with. Or college students have no jobs or have crushing loans to pay (college students do vote). You can go on about 'experience' and being 'tested'. But I've run across quite a few people in my 55 years who were experienced and 'tested' (whatever 'tested' is -whores and old buildings that are still around have been 'tested') and the sad fact is the 'community organizer' is one smart cookie-a cold calculator and is 'tested'. He hears what's in the streets and he knows what he has to say to get elected. It isn't your past war experience that's going to win this race it's your political smarts.
The Clinton's (Slick Willy and Hill') didn't give Barack Hussein Obama anything; Barry took it away from them (and beat out 9 other candidates for the nomination-some 'experienced' politicos). The Clinton's underestimated him AND he learned a lot before he decided to take them on (The arrogance-the WILL to even think that and then DO IT-should give someone pause when you really think about it.)

McCain better win this election-if for no other reason -on a personal level-he will never accept defeat from Obama. Bill Clinton is still sputtering with rage what happened to Hillary as he is forced to smile and campaign for Obama.
Gawd I couldn't be a politician-you really have to be a doormat.

I read Obama book-'Dreams from my Father'. Wanted to see what the hoopla was about. I don't watch TV only get my info from the INTERNET and books-lotsa books. What I got out of Obama's book was this guy has been thinking about being President since his days in the Illinois legislature.
Earilier no-but by the time he wrote this book yeah-he was dreaming already about being President in 1995. You can dismiss his experience as a 'Community Organizer' at your peril- it was a tough school and he learned a lot.
It's tougher then being Mayor of a small town in Alaska. Far more rejection to.
And he was doing it for years.
Obama is very well traveled (for not being in the military)-more then most Americans I might add. Very comfortable living in areas not even close to mainstream America-not scared at all. The composite characters Obama used in his narrative tells me already he was covering his tracks. Whatever you may think about Harvard ('A bastion of Liberals' blah blah blah) Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review. He doesn't write much (or give away much) how he attained that. Harvard Law doesn't give that to you-you have to earn it and fight for it. And if you think he it was given to him because he was 'Black' -well he wasn't the only black law student. I'd like to know the machinations and infighting he used to get that job. But he would be giving away too much if he laid that out. Head of Harvard Law Review is a necessary ticket if you to go to a Wall Street Law firm or clerk for a Supreme Court Justice.
Not him.
He had something else in mind as an ambition in law school-though it wasn't fully formed yet at that time. He will still rolling a goal around in his mind. Smart, observing and restless.

You strip away the bull$hit about 'NObama' (and there are forum strings and truckloads of it from the Left and Right-maybe even my post ) and look at Obama dispassionately and what you see is a quick learner, a man that leaves few fingerprints on positions, focused and always, always observing (You get that from his book-he can't hide that). Oh yeah and ambition or more accurately, a DRIVE.
He can give a good speech.
To tell you the truth I find him a rather cold man (that's why I don't care for him) just as I find McCain a stupid man.
There I said it-Obama smarter then McCain. That's why Obama will beat him.

Obama has very strong sense of himself. That is his strength and weakness.

Haven't read McCain's book. I stay away from ghost written books. Always have. (JFK's Profiles in Courage was ghost written-I passed on that to.)


For the record I'm half black and half white (I'm not as dark as Obama) and I lived in Hawaii since 1988. I comprehend what Obama is talking about living in 2 worlds racially. Yet I had it easier then him since I don't look as 'black'. My experience is different-but my observation no less acute. Obama moved a lot (lived in Asia, Oceania [Hawaii] and US Mainland)-I moved a lot-military brat- (4 High Schools in 3 years- 2 continents)
But there the similarity ends.


I'm really sitting this election out-and feel good about it to.

None of the above is my choice.

Before I read the Obama book I finished MAO by Jung Chang. Real page turner. It was about..well.. read the title.
Next up 'IKE:An American Hero' by Michael Korda.

And if you think it's hard to believe somebody could be this calculating on becoming President so loooonnnng (yeah-it's all done by focus groups and media bias - right? heh)then look up the Volumn One "The Path To Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson" by Robert Caro. See the INTRODUCTION 'Patterns' pgs XIII to XVI how in 1940 two very rich brothers from Texas; Herman and George Brown (Founders of Brown and Root now known today as KBR. Yeah that 'KBR') who had this small Texas congressman their pocket and have really taken a liking to.
They wanted to make him rich.
Because the congressman is poor.
And they make him this offer while they are at Greenbrier-a beautiful resort for the rich and powerful
They want to give him some oil wells by floating him a loan with no interest he can buy the oil wells with.

But the poor Congressman doesn't want that. And he turns them down flat while surround in a setting of wealth and power that he enjoys-but can't afford.


It's one of the most beautifully written political narratives I've read.
Wish I had wrote it.
Should be required reading in every American History and Political Science class.

It won't be a landslide-but it won't be close.
Obama.

I'm outta here.

 

[nnuut]

I shall be brief!! NAH!!!View attachment 4589

 

[SkyPilot]

I'm outta here.

Outta here? Wait a minute, no one gets a drive-by... otherwise, you just spammed us.

Palin only brings a "pretty face? Sexist and partisan all at the same time. Did you actually listen to the speech? She engaged on special needs advocacy, energy policy, economic policy, and also much of what her record demonstrates. She may have different politics than you do, but avoid these divisive statements.

Just because the neo-cons and evangelicals didn't respond to the pregnancy the way that the stereotype demands shouldn't be a basis for scepticism. To paint evangelicals as unloving, unforgiving and should be expected to join the political trashing of a young girl is to misunderstand the true heart of a grace based theology.

I know much about this, as we have both been associated with same church organization most of our lives. This is a tyical response to families in this situation.

Yes, we promote abstinence as the best way. Who will really argue? And yes, it does not work when it is ignored (much like other forms of birth control and integrity education).

However, we are not going to throw stones. But rather, as Christ taught us, none of us are without sin "so go and sin no more... "

Regarding political narrative; what has the Obama campaign been about if not narrative?

And please, remain civil and forgo the barnyard explitives.

Obama is smarter? Maybe, but he has yet to demonstrate this supposition, and until he does, only his academic degree may be able to speak to this, and that would paint him as an elitist, which I believe Obama is trying to dispell...

Don't just spam us... join the conversation, offer your thoughts and don't just presume to "educate" us. That comes of as condescending and demeaning, and I don't really think you mean to do that.

These kind of arguments will persuade very few who participate on this board. While we agree to disagree agreably, we take a dim view when we are "talked down to"... Stick around and let's have a real, value discussion, don't just dump on us.

So, don't just "I'm outta here"...

kinda rude...

 

[Frixxxx]

Outta here? Wait a minute, no one gets a drive-by... otherwise, you just spammed us......

VALID POINTS

So, don't just "I'm outta here"...

kinda rude...

Saved me the narrative myself Skypilot!

Well Said!

 

[tsptalk]

There I said it-Obama smarter then McCain. That's why Obama will beat him.

Since when did smarts determine the winner? We all know it's height, hair, and wit (popularity). McCain needed serious help, but he may have gotten it.

 

[CountryBoy]

Very well said SkyPilot. He doesn't understand the forgiveness and understanding of conservatives at all. Abstinance has always been a 'Family Value' that my entire extended family, libs and conservatives alike taught us.

We all, at least in my part of the country, are taught right and wrong, but kids do stupid things and think they are invincable. I actually gained a little respect for obama when he said right off, that the kids are off limits, it's too bad his followers aren't as forgiving. It's comments like that, that has really soured me on so many so called tolerant people from the left side and they actually believe the sterotypical conservative that we're bigoted, unforgiving and could care less about the poor, not very well read or needs to expand his genre. Numerous polls show that red states are more charitable than blue states. Very little is being said about Biden's kids getting their tails caught in a crack with the hedge funds. Politics are about adults not kids.

It's sad but true, how so many libs are jumping for joy about her pregnant daughter. I work with 2 just like him, that are wetting themselves with excitement that she is pregnant. What does that say about the party of tolerance? You really can't discuss anything with someone with a mind set like that. You called it correct... it's just spam.

CB

 

[SkyPilot]

I don't watch TV only get my info from the INTERNET and books-lotsa books.

This is actually helpful, and explains much about what you have expressed.

Books good,

Internet, well...

Maybe you should at least listen to the radio, maybe pick up a newspaper, read a magazine, talk to friends and neighbors.

Hey, even watch a news show on TV once in a while. All info is filtered, but the more sources you have, the more likely you can discern a clearer image.

The internet is kinda like the bathroom wall, any one can write on it, and no one can tell who, or what...

 

[camper65]

"He doesn't understand the forgiveness and understanding of conservatives at all. "




You must be talking about compassionate conservatives like Phil Gram”?

 

[tsptalk]

Hey, even watch a news show on TV once in a while. All info is filtered, but the more sources you have, the more likely you can discern a clearer image.

Speaking of TV, I was watching msnbc last night after Palin's speech. They had a poll asking how you felt about Palin now, etc... and they posted results. It was like 66% or 68% - I am LESS LIKELY to vote for her, and 16% or 18% I am MORE LIKELY to vote for her.

I have nothing to prove it, but I seriously doubt those results, unless Olbermann, who was showing the results, was sitting there continuously clicking "less".

I went to AOL to see if they had a similar poll, which they did, and the results were the opposite (and AOL poll results tend to lean more left than right, in general I have noticed). Could they have faked the results on msnbc, was it a mistake, or did nearly 7 out of 10 people watching that speech really say they are now less likely to vote for her? Perhaps their audience is more democratic and 7 of 10 weren't voting for her anyway.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, it was a good speech and those poll results seemed "odd".

 

[JTH]

Could they have faked the results on msnbc, was it a mistake, or did nearly 7 out of 10 people watching that speech really say they are now less likely to vote for her? Perhaps their audience is more democratic and 7 of 10 weren't voting for her anyway.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, it was a good speech and those poll results seemed "odd".

I agree with your assessment. The problem is the far left is very passionate about their views and very intolerant of others who don't agree with them. I have no doubt they flooded the polls trying to influence the outcome.

Anyone notice a slight difference between the riots at the GOP vs the protest at the DNC? All these supposed anarchist are nothing more then hypocrites.