Sarah Palin, attractive, but

alfadriver wrote: Here's how I see it, two things. First, I think a great President needs to surround themselves with great people, and lead them in a good way. While Palin may be ok, I don't think she is one of the great Republicans that McCain could have chosen to lead this country. So IMHO, McCain is questionable in his ability to surround himself with great people. Second, I hope that a President is capable of deep thought and careful deliberation. McCain has admitted that he's sometimes quick to decide, and he's willing to live with the concequences. While he may be able, I'm not sure if the rest of the country is willing to. This decision seems very much an example of that, and it worries me deeply that McCain will quickly react to matters that require careful deliberation, and our country will be living with those consequences for years, if not decades. This is on top of my thinking that McCain isn't a real fiscal conservative, since he's not told how he's going to pay for his plan to keep troops in Iraq for how ever long it takes. I just can't possibly support a "mavrick" that shows signs of being fiscally irresponsible, makes decisions without really deliberating, and isn't willing to surround himself with the best available people. So far, McCain is 0 for 3 on my basics meter, and that's not even counting the main issues. Sorry Doc, gotta come up with something better. Eric

To clarify, McCain isn't fiscally responsible enough, so the vote goes to Obama?

Isn't that akin to saying "The focus doesn't get good enough mileage, so I'm going to buy the E450."

DILYSI Dave wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Here's how I see it, two things. First, I think a great President needs to surround themselves with great people, and lead them in a good way. While Palin may be ok, I don't think she is one of the great Republicans that McCain could have chosen to lead this country. So IMHO, McCain is questionable in his ability to surround himself with great people. Second, I hope that a President is capable of deep thought and careful deliberation. McCain has admitted that he's sometimes quick to decide, and he's willing to live with the concequences. While he may be able, I'm not sure if the rest of the country is willing to. This decision seems very much an example of that, and it worries me deeply that McCain will quickly react to matters that require careful deliberation, and our country will be living with those consequences for years, if not decades. This is on top of my thinking that McCain isn't a real fiscal conservative, since he's not told how he's going to pay for his plan to keep troops in Iraq for how ever long it takes. I just can't possibly support a "mavrick" that shows signs of being fiscally irresponsible, makes decisions without really deliberating, and isn't willing to surround himself with the best available people. So far, McCain is 0 for 3 on my basics meter, and that's not even counting the main issues. Sorry Doc, gotta come up with something better. Eric

To clarify, McCain isn't fiscally responsible enough, so the vote goes to Obama? Isn't that akin to saying "The focus doesn't get good enough mileage, so I'm going to buy the E450."

Well, since the Clinton administration DID manage to ballance the budget, yes, my vote does go to Obama on that one. Based on the last 3 R's and the last 2 D's, the Democrat Presidents have been far more fiscally responsible.

They have had the guts to at least tax you to pay for thing they want. The Republican's have been FAR from that. Never ask, just borrow. Heck, they will be dead far before that debt is ever paid off. Republicans tell you how evil and inefficient government is to your face, but then spends more and grows more government. They lie to your face, and you just take it.

E-

alfadriver wrote: First, I think a great President needs to surround themselves with great people, and lead them in a good way. While Palin may be ok, I don't think she is one of the great Republicans that McCain could have chosen to lead this country. So IMHO, McCain is questionable in his ability to surround himself with great people.

and we've all seen how careful Obama is at surrounding himself with "good people"

If it helps, check this graph out- http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You'll see that the debt/GDP was at it's lowest at the end of Carter, and shrank again under Clinton. While Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have grown it.

It was said that Palin was like Regan. I don't think we can handle another Regan. Speaks of small government, gives us BIG. Speaks of ballanced budget, but racks up the fastest non-war debt ever.

No, Democrats HAVE been responsible. Regan era Repubicans have not.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: If it helps, check this graph out- http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You'll see that the debt/GDP was at it's lowest at the end of Carter, and shrank again under Clinton. While Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have grown it. It was said that Palin was like Regan. I don't think we can handle another Regan. Speaks of small government, gives us BIG. Speaks of ballanced budget, but racks up the fastest non-war debt ever. No, Democrats HAVE been responsible. Regan era Repubicans have not. Eric

But didn't Regan's spending end the cold war?

mtn wrote: But didn't Regan's spending end the cold war?

It was the USSR's spending that ended the cold war... it was like a giant game of chicken, they just hit the wall before we did.

No, Russia's inability to spend ended it. That and enough people that wanted something better for themselves than endless war.

mtn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: If it helps, check this graph out- http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You'll see that the debt/GDP was at it's lowest at the end of Carter, and shrank again under Clinton. While Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have grown it. It was said that Palin was like Regan. I don't think we can handle another Regan. Speaks of small government, gives us BIG. Speaks of ballanced budget, but racks up the fastest non-war debt ever. No, Democrats HAVE been responsible. Regan era Repubicans have not. Eric

But didn't Regan's spending end the cold war?

No

Obama is promising entitlement spending like crazy, McCain's promising military spending. Same old, same old. The difference: at least McCain's spending will go to defense contractors etc so they can hire people, while Obama's will go to keep people in government housing. If I gotta lean one way or the other, gimme the side that'll get people working rather than sucking the public teat.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/61146/38111

That link has some crazy stuff on Palin and some not so crazy stuff..

She called the war in Iraq "the work of God" or "god's work" or something..

The lady is a loon.

Problem is, when you call someone a loon you can't really use dailykos as your source.

Tim Baxter wrote: Problem is, when you call someone a loon you can't really use dailykos as your source.

They referenced their sources.. and I prefaced by saying some is weird..

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

Jensenman wrote: Obama is promising entitlement spending like crazy, McCain's promising military spending. Same old, same old. The difference: at least McCain's spending will go to defense contractors etc so they can hire people, while Obama's will go to keep people in government housing. If I gotta lean one way or the other, gimme the side that'll get people working rather than sucking the public teat.

Obama wants the people of this generation to pay for the E36 M3 they vote for. McCain wants me and the next generation or two to pay off all this E36 M3 after he's dead.

Both parties want to take my money so that other people can spend it on guns and drugs. Both parties spend, spend, spend. It would appear that the Republicans like to spend on more expensive E36 M3 that the benefit of still hasn't been demonstrated.

If I were a politician, I would raise taxes for everyone about 2-3% and try to cut spending by 10%+ and pay down the national debt. Tax and not-spend isn't an option. So I'll choose tax and spend, over borrow and spend like mad.

Edit: And didn't Clinton do more to get people off of welfare than either Bush, Bush, or Reagan?

Jensenman wrote: Obama is promising entitlement spending like crazy, McCain's promising military spending. Same old, same old. The difference: at least McCain's spending will go to defense contractors etc so they can hire people, while Obama's will go to keep people in government housing. If I gotta lean one way or the other, gimme the side that'll get people working rather than sucking the public teat.

IRRC, the biggest entitelment that Obama is promising is healthare. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but at the moment, we all pay healthcare even if our employer pays it, right? So if the law is written right, all the money we are currently pooling in the "for profit" money launderers gets pooled in Medicare, then our net home pay is not changed. The money diverted from one black box to another.

(and if you belive the GAO, Medicare needs 5% to run, the industry needs 20%- so that pool of money will cover more and better).

As for pooling the money to defense, all I ask is McCain going to increase taxes to pay for it? All I hear him say is that he's going to reduce taxes. So in the end, he's going to pay more for defense, reduce taxes thus raise our debt. As far as I am concerned, that like Obama putting money to Welfare that he has no intention of taxing for- it's money that we pay that we borrow- Americans are getting it one way or another, and the money will be recycled in our economy (well, except poor people buy at Wally world....).

Gotta pay the piper.

Eric

alfadriver wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Obama is promising entitlement spending like crazy, McCain's promising military spending. Same old, same old. The difference: at least McCain's spending will go to defense contractors etc so they can hire people, while Obama's will go to keep people in government housing. If I gotta lean one way or the other, gimme the side that'll get people working rather than sucking the public teat.

I Gotta pay the piper. Eric

OMG This is the first time I've ever heard this said about a Republican

We've already had the healthcare discussion. I don't trust the government to keep me healthy. They already do enough stuff poorly that I don't want them meddling in that any more than they already do.

Given that I'm about 80% sure that the downward spiral can't be stopped, I'm more on the reduce taxes than the pay off debt side of the coin. I'd love to be wrong, but as long as we refuse to shrink government drastically, refuse to fix social security, etc, then the country is on a fast track to insolvency. Given that assumption, my best plan is to keep as much money as I can so that I'm in a better position to punt before the riots start, and start over in New Zealand, Costa Rica, etc.

Also remember: Obama is not going to cut spending for or gut the military. Neither will McCain cut any welfare spending.

Where is Dan Gurney when you need him?

Tim Baxter wrote: You fools. There's no way Palin would knowingly tangle with Margie.

Even Chuck Norris fears her. Bob Costas wet his pants once when he was told that she was just in his zip code.

DILYSI Dave wrote: We've already had the healthcare discussion. I don't trust the government to keep me healthy. They already do enough stuff poorly that I don't want them meddling in that any more than they already do. Given that I'm about 80% sure that the downward spiral can't be stopped, I'm more on the reduce taxes than the pay off debt side of the coin. I'd love to be wrong, but as long as we refuse to shrink government drastically, refuse to fix social security, etc, then the country is on a fast track to insolvency. Given that assumption, my best plan is to keep as much money as I can so that I'm in a better position to punt before the riots start, and start over in New Zealand, Costa Rica, etc.

Really??? Wow, that's kind of surprising. I would have thought you would want to hold the govenment to your personal standards of no debt.

You don't see that our debt is helping the dollar be so weak, which is why our gas prices went up faster here than in Europe? And that all commodities that are on the world market are now more expensive (grain, corn, steel, coal, etc, etc)?

As for the govenment- you trust a for profit corporation to keep you healthy? That's just as surprising. Historically, the for profits have done a pretty poor job at that, but it's ok to spend more on bad service as long as it's not toward the govenment? Oh, yea, another thread.

Anyway, borrowing more at this point is just going to weaken the dollar more. So the majority of our goods will get even MORE expensive. If we go into another depression with McCain, looking at history, count on ~20 years of Democrat rule.

E-

I'd love to see us get out of debt, but not by raising taxes. The only option I see as reasonable is to cut spending, but nobody wants to let go of their pet program. I stay out of debt, not by holding a gun to my boss and demanding more money, but by controlling my spending.

Salanis wrote: Also remember: Obama is not going to cut spending for or gut the military. Neither will McCain cut any welfare spending.

Like I said: the same old same old. Not to mention neither of these guys can spend a damn dime without Congress' approval.

So our 'elected representatives' (ha!) promise bread and circuses with no pain and as usual We The People shaft ourselves by reelecting these assclowns.

The national debt scares the living E36 M3 out of me, and I won't begin to pretend to know where to start in fixing it. China has us by the berkeleying balls, and it's our own damned fault. Wanna see another depression? Wait till China starts unloading all the US treasury bonds they've been collecting.

Jensenman wrote:

Salanis wrote: Also remember: Obama is not going to cut spending for or gut the military. Neither will McCain cut any welfare spending.

Like I said: the same old same old. Not to mention neither of these guys can spend a damn dime without Congress' approval. So our 'elected representatives' (ha!) promise bread and circuses with no pain and as usual We The People shaft ourselves.

Nope. We shaft our kids and grandkids. Why pay for our expenses today, when someone else can pay for them tomorrow?

Gee... isn't borrowing money and expecting future generations to pay for it another form of "entitlement spending". You feel entitled to all of the services the government is providing and don't think you should have to foot the full bill.

I think, if we raised taxes to the level required to pay all of our national expenses, people would start foaming at the mouth over the massive taxes. That would possibly cause congress-critters to take steps to cut expenditures if they were required to justify every tax dollar to the American people.