Vampwitchenstein Posted October 4, 2008 #151 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Thanks for the answer, Guardsman, Blondigeist, So, if "these pre-election debates between Vice Presidential candidates very rarely influenced American voters, when it came to their vote for President", then what is the purpose of these debates? Do such debates (broadcast nation-wide) simply "introduce ???" these individuals to the average American, without affecting their vote to any great extent? If that is true for the VP debate, then to what extent do the three debates by the contenders for the Presidency influence voters? How strongly is the average voter's ballot influenced by these debates? Politics is a strange game, is it not? Karlis I know I have a headache. One Month to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted October 4, 2008 #152 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I fail to see how easing the mood a bit is being unprofessional. Candidates joke and laugh at debates all the time these days. If Biden had done something similar, would you sing the same tune?Hhmmm IrishLexie ... well, maybe some of the more strident posters on this thread have an agenda -- pro or con -- for a particular candidate? Hey, will we hear a stream of, "No! I'm totally unbiased!" replies? Karlis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCrazes Posted October 4, 2008 #153 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Is the abusive Alaskan exec one of us? http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/0...xpense-account/ The offical residence and office of Alaska’s Governor are in Juneau, the state capital, but governor Palin has preferred working out of a satellite office in Anchorage (550 West 7th Avenue), a short drive from her Wasilla home. Quite understandable, and better for the family. But Mrs. Palin has still been claiming Juneau as her “work station,” and claiming a “per diem” travel and housing allowance for staying in her own home, sleeping in her own bed. 19 months in office; 312 per diems, $17,000 for sleeping in her own bed. This is not just sleasy; in most governments at any level and most U.S. corporations it would be considered fraud and grounds for dismissal if not legal action. There are other items of interest in Governor Palin’s travel documents, the most curious (and spurious) are those charging the State for her family’s travel “on official business.” Perhaps the First Dude had diplomatic duties as Official Escort, but the young princelings and princesses? Were they part of the official retinue, Bearers of the Hockey Sticks of State, perhaps? When you lead a government representing a half-million people that has the luxury of a $5 billion surplus though the happy accident of underground petroleum, no one really cares much if you pad your expense account a bit. But the US Government is trillions in debt already; putting a petty thief a heartbeat away from its leadership seems less than prudent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardsman Bass Posted October 4, 2008 #154 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Thanks for the answer, Guardsman, Blondigeist, So, if "these pre-election debates between Vice Presidential candidates very rarely influenced American voters, when it came to their vote for President", then what is the purpose of these debates? Do such debates (broadcast nation-wide) simply "introduce ???" these individuals to the average American, without affecting their vote to any great extent? That's part of it. Ideally, if you had a moderator with balls of steel, it would be a "vetting" process by interrogation, to make sure that neither of the VPs is a whackjob or idiot. Of course, in reality that's usually not the case. What they actually are is a combination of theater, games, and free publicity. Campaigns attend them because they can't get out of them once they are scheduled without looking bad (this would especially be the case with Palin), and they try to use them as free television time to talk to potential voters and prove that they can be "presidential". It may not be that effective, but, hey, you never know - and free television time nation-wide is almost never turned down in political campaigns (that stuff is expensive). If that is true for the VP debate, then to what extent do the three debates by the contenders for the Presidency influence voters? How strongly is the average voter's ballot influenced by these debates? The Presidential Debates tend to be more important. How important, I'm not sure - it's usually said that Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 because of his skill in the debate, but that could have been because of the novelty factor of the first televised debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted October 4, 2008 #155 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I'm surprised no one has said anything about her "shout-out" that she did. How unprofessional can you get? It brought to mind an annoying 15 year old on MTV's TRL: "Like, OMG, I totally, like, want to give a huge shout-out to, like, all my friends back home in The Clem! WOOOOOO!!" Do we really want someone like this as our VP? It's just sad. And I agree 100% that she was terrified. I've been Hard of hearing my whole life (deaf in my right ear and about 50% lost in my left). So I read people's face and listen to their tone of voice when I can't tell what they are saying, and I heard fear and saw anxiety. the maturity level just isn't there IMIO.. here you have a prom queen who got offered a movie role basically, but the difference is this is real life for which she is not prepared ... the most telling aspect was when she was holding her baby and patting that baby in a soothing way who was she soothing because the baby was looking around , she was soothing/comforting herself IMO , this little country girl has taken on more than she ever bargained for and quite frankly for her sake i will be glad when its over for her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 4, 2008 #156 Share Posted October 4, 2008 It was like the opposite of the McCain/Obama debate.. Joe Biden couldn't take his eyes off Palin. Then again he's only human. Well, at least I think he is... His smile's a bit strange.. His smile has always been a bit "pasted on" Bill. That's just Joe Biden. Further, Joe was merely reciting what he'd been fed to say by his coaches....talking points. Sarah was not. In fact, Joe wasn't (obviously) expecting her to be the way she was...handling herself, poised, prepared, etc...(not the Palin who was portrayed in edited interviews by Gibson and Couric...but the Palin we saw at the RNC and on Sean Hannity's interview, where...oddly, he asked relevant questions, allowed her to speak, followed up with further questions, and shut up....), and, talking from the heart about things that mattered. She addressed issues. She nailed him on repeated falsehoods, and all he could do was repeat them in response. (If anyone actually believes that Obama didn't say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing innocent civilians, they've been drinking kool-aid. If anyone believes that Obama isn't raising taxes...well...And how about that statement she made about Biden actually saying that Obama isn't qualified to be President? He did, and he failed to answer that...because he couldn't...) She won the debate, as far as one can actually win one...and Biden knows it. Now, what effect that may have on the campaign is unknown at this time. However, I will say this: McCain must go at Obama like his running mate went at Biden. If John McCain can stomach pointing out Obama's many inconsistencies, his radical associations, his socialist platform, involving a trillion dollars in new spending and higher taxes, his utter lack of understanding on the national security issues revolving around energy independence, and the re-distribution of wealth, etc., Obama will suffer from the stuttering he typically does when speaking sans telprompter...because he will have a difficult time responding to factual things which aren't adressed by his talking points, and he'll have to be very cognizant of not expressing what he really is all about. I think Palin set the tone for the rest of the campaign the other night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHuman Posted October 4, 2008 #157 Share Posted October 4, 2008 its higher taxes if you make over 250,000 a year^^ And read the full quote about the afghanistan thing and you'll see the point he's trying to make. He's not saying your troops are activeley seeking to go out and kill civillians, but that because there are not ENOUGH troops, they have to rely on inconnistent air strikes that hurt civillians and turn the public tide against them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKCavalier Posted October 4, 2008 #158 Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Further, Joe was merely reciting what he'd been fed to say by his coaches....talking points. Sarah was not. In fact, Joe wasn't (obviously) expecting her to be the way she was...handling herself, poised, prepared, etc...(not the Palin who was portrayed in edited interviews by Gibson and Couric...but the Palin we saw at the RNC and on Sean Hannity's interview, where...oddly, he asked relevant questions, allowed her to speak, followed up with further questions, and shut up....), and, talking from the heart about things that mattered. She addressed issues. She nailed him on repeated falsehoods, and all he could do was repeat them in response. The "Palin we saw at the RNC" read a speech. A speech, btw, full of lies that she continued to tell for weeks afterward. Of course she knows how to look good on camera and read a speech--the woman has a degree in broadcasting and is a former sportscaster. She's a former beauty queen. That's all she did before running for Mayor of a city the size of my middle school. Jeez, is that all you want in a VP? A propaganda minister with a ready smile? She didn't nail him on squat. She completely ignored the debate when it suited her--and it suited her to ignore the debate quite a lot. Thankfully, though the punditocracy is all of a sudden smitten again, the American people ain't buying. In the real world, you can't just pick and choose what you're going to deal with. Americans are painfully aware of that fact, just now. You can't tell Putin you really just want to talk about the economy, you can't wink the economic meltdown away, and you can't keep saying "I'll get back to ya" without ever getting back to anyone on anything. We've had 8 years of that kind of evasiveness and look where it's brought us. Couric and Gibson are not tough journalists by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that Palin understands so little about political realities that she was caught out constantly. She can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. She can't even name a magazine she's read in the past year. It was no trick of editing--all the video is available on the net. You think you can just CRAM for a few weeks and get enough real KNOWLEDGE to run our government? In those weeks she cobbled together a half an hour of material, unfortunately she had to stretch it out over 90 minutes. And it showed. It's so dispiriting, but the Presidency has become nothing but a religious office for the right wing, preaching their shop-worn fantasy of American infallibility; a sort of "Good Will Ambassador" to Joe Six-pack; the American Pope, who steps out on his or her balcony from time to time and smiles and waves and makes self-congratulatory speeches. Edited October 4, 2008 by HKCavalier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splodgenessabounds Posted October 4, 2008 #159 Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) If anyone actually believes that Obama didn't say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing innocent civilians, they've been drinking kool-aid. "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Barack Obama He did say it, no-one is denying that as far as I can tell. But people, using this quote, are saying that Obama is accusing the US troops in Afghanistan of just killing innocent civilians and not doing their job properly. Obama is saying the US Government is not sending enough troops out to Afghanistan so the troops already there don't have to rely on tactics that will result in collateral damage and deaths to innocent civilians. HOW DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAND THIS? The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported in September of 2008 that 1,445 Afghan civilians had been killed in the first eight months of 2008, a 39% increase over the same period in 2007. I have no favourites in this campaign, both have my non-confidence in being President. But I agree with Obama 100% on this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I apologies for going off topic but this whole fuss about what he said really gets my goat. Edited October 4, 2008 by Splodgenessabounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHuman Posted October 4, 2008 #160 Share Posted October 4, 2008 ^^^^^^^ I tried to clear that up 2 posts above you, but it dosn't matter how many times anyone repeats it... koolaid on both sides is VERY VERY strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splodgenessabounds Posted October 4, 2008 #161 Share Posted October 4, 2008 ^^^^^^^ I tried to clear that up 2 posts above you, but it dosn't matter how many times anyone repeats it... koolaid on both sides is VERY VERY strong. Oh indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 5, 2008 #162 Share Posted October 5, 2008 its higher taxes if you make over 250,000 a year^^ Higher taxes for those who pay most all of the taxes already. Sure. We don't need higher taxes on anyone. We need lower taxes on everyone. Besides, that's not all. It's higher corporate taxes, a windfall profit tax on the oil industry, death tax, capital gains, etc. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway, folks. This is a simple point. You do. If the oil companies are taxed, you will pay it, just like you do now, only more. Lowering taxes is the only proven way (time and again) to boost economic health and increase governmental revenue. That this is in doubt is astounding. Further, "Tax credits", which is what Obama proposes for middle income households is not, just as the recent economic stimulus checks sent out by the Bush administration, a tax cut. It is a government spending program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2008 #163 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Higher taxes for those who pay most all of the taxes already. Sure. We don't need higher taxes on anyone. We need lower taxes on everyone. Besides, that's not all. It's higher corporate taxes, a windfall profit tax on the oil industry, death tax, capital gains, etc. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway, folks. This is a simple point. You do. If the oil companies are taxed, you will pay it, just like you do now, only more. Lowering taxes is the only proven way (time and again) to boost economic health and increase governmental revenue. That this is in doubt is astounding. Further, "Tax credits", which is what Obama proposes for middle income households is not, just as the recent economic stimulus checks sent out by the Bush administration, a tax cut. It is a government spending program. Well, we need no taxes, how 'bout that? As is we are not paying (and have not been paying) for the expenses the government incurs, so why not pay none of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfieboy Posted October 5, 2008 #164 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Is the abusive Alaskan exec one of us? http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/0...xpense-account/ The offical residence and office of Alaska’s Governor are in Juneau, the state capital, but governor Palin has preferred working out of a satellite office in Anchorage (550 West 7th Avenue), a short drive from her Wasilla home. Quite understandable, and better for the family. But Mrs. Palin has still been claiming Juneau as her “work station,” and claiming a “per diem” travel and housing allowance for staying in her own home, sleeping in her own bed. 19 months in office; 312 per diems, $17,000 for sleeping in her own bed. This is not just sleasy; in most governments at any level and most U.S. corporations it would be considered fraud and grounds for dismissal if not legal action. There are other items of interest in Governor Palin’s travel documents, the most curious (and spurious) are those charging the State for her family’s travel “on official business.” Perhaps the First Dude had diplomatic duties as Official Escort, but the young princelings and princesses? Were they part of the official retinue, Bearers of the Hockey Sticks of State, perhaps? When you lead a government representing a half-million people that has the luxury of a $5 billion surplus though the happy accident of underground petroleum, no one really cares much if you pad your expense account a bit. But the US Government is trillions in debt already; putting a petty thief a heartbeat away from its leadership seems less than prudent. please give the woman her dues. petty thief not hardly. the terms of her actions constitute a much higher title!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 5, 2008 #165 Share Posted October 5, 2008 The "Palin we saw at the RNC" read a speech. A speech, btw, full of lies that she continued to tell for weeks afterward. Of course she read a speech. Lies? That would be a good trick to prove... Of course she knows how to look good on camera and read a speech--the woman has a degree in broadcasting and is a former sportscaster. She's a former beauty queen. That's all she did before running for Mayor of a city the size of my middle school. It is utterly amazing that a pretty face, an articulate demeanor, and all the attributes she posesses as a sucessful politician produce such nonsense...as if being a former beauty queen means a thing, or as if being mayor of a town in Alaska--prior to being the Governor of Alaska, where she happens to hold extremely high approval ratings, and has been an unqualified success...including taking on her own party where it strayed from the path of benefitting her own people--is the sum total of her accomplishments. I'm not sure what it is...people make fun of her accent, as if that's something relevant. Because they don't like her direct, almost folksy manner, and that she used it to press Biden on things that were in fact falsehoods and contradictions, and did so with personality, directness, and even pleasantness, and in fact put it to him very well from the start, means that she's inept, I suppose?? Jeez, is that all you want in a VP? A propaganda minister with a ready smile? Of course not. And that of course is not what she is. She's a principaled and effective conservative. A good addition to the McCain ticket. Your comments are shallow. She didn't nail him on squat. She completely ignored the debate when it suited her--and it suited her to ignore the debate quite a lot. Thankfully, she chose to ignore at times how she thought questions should be answered in the sound-byte debate format (which really isn't a debate at all), and chose to press her principals and policy stands. She actually did what I've wished many a candidate would do in the past, but never seemed to. Thankfully, though the punditocracy is all of a sudden smitten again, the American people ain't buying. In the real world, you can't just pick and choose what you're going to deal with. Americans are painfully aware of that fact, just now. You can't tell Putin you really just want to talk about the economy, you can't wink the economic meltdown away, and you can't keep saying "I'll get back to ya" without ever getting back to anyone on anything. We've had 8 years of that kind of evasiveness and look where it's brought us. Where did the past 8 years get us? Are you naive enough to think that this recent economic crisis and the rapid market downturn associated with it are the results of 8 years of republican policy? Perhaps to think that years of economic upturn had something to do with those who voted against Bush's tax cuts, and that this recent debacle hadn't been warned about by those who sponsored the defeated 2005 bill which would've prevented it (McCain, et. al)? This situation is largely a Democratic debacle, as they failed to heed the warnings put forth about it. And Obama, second highest beneficiary of the funny money in the Freddie/Fannie scandal--his economic advisor is the man who headed one of those government run debacles with his bonus based on profit performance, and made 90 million in his tenure...??? Oh please. . She can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. Most people can't...unless of course they happen to be justices or legislators. I can't...I'd have to go read the titles again. I'm sure you can. She can't even name a magazine she's read in the past year. Of course she can. One wonders, however, what the relevancy of that is...? It's so dispiriting, but the Presidency has become nothing but a religious office for the right wing, preaching their shop-worn fantasy of American infallibility; a sort of "Good Will Ambassador" to Joe Six-pack; the American Pope, who steps out on his or her balcony from time to time and smiles and waves and makes self-congratulatory speeches. No, no no...that's just a left wing illusion, brought about by the fact that the most sucessful Presidents, whether Democratic or Republican, have been sucessful because of the principals of conservatism (oddly enough) applied in order to make this nation what it's supposed to be--and that has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with allowing free markets to run the economy, create the innovations that advance us to the status that we've enjoyed, with keeping government out of people's lives to the largest extent possible, and promoting freedom throughout the world. There's nothing infallible about that system of values. It works, however difficult it may be to put into practice. And however fallible it is, it's better than any other alternative known...most assuredly to the current alternative, which is the exact opposite, and which borders on socialism. That a pretty, articulate, non-Washington insider who happens to be running for Vice President and who espouses those principals, and who has illustrated their efficacy by putting them in work could make the opposide side of the fence completely ignore what's been obvious is amazing. Of course, they all said Reagan was nothing but a B-Movie actor, ignoring his accomplishments as Governor, and painting him as unqualified...and we all saw what he was able to do along those lines for this country in his 8 years, after 4 years of Carter (which of course is what we're looking at with Obama...potentially). What goes around comes around. I don't know that a McCain Presidency will produce what Reagan's did. However, it seems clear what Obama's platform will present, and that's not attractive in the least. ...A B-Movie actor wasn't qualified. And now, a former beauty queen who can skin a caribou isn't....despite the fact that both of them were and are, based on their records of accomplishment in high level governance and upon their stands on the ISSUES. And the punditocracy is smitten? Perhaps you don't remember Obama-mania? Actually, a Vice-Presidential debate, or for that matter a Presidential debate has little effect on election results, as has been evidenced by the past. And it's quite difficult to get a rational, unbiased analysis from the mainstream, media. Which is undoubtedly why Fox News had it's highest ratings day in its history with that debate--the most watched debate in the past 16 years... Maybe this VP debate will have more of an effect? Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 5, 2008 #166 Share Posted October 5, 2008 please give the woman her dues. petty thief not hardly. the terms of her actions constitute a much higher title!!!!! Yea... An Obama, 10 million dollar beneficiary of Freddie /Fannie funny money....wants to be President. I get ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfieboy Posted October 5, 2008 #167 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yea... An Obama, 10 million dollar beneficiary of Freddie /Fannie funny money....wants to be President. I get ya. oh did i leave out the Obama so sorry would never intend to lessen the title and higher office contender. after all the higher the office the greater the deeds. indeedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted October 5, 2008 #168 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Higher taxes for those who pay most all of the taxes already. Sure. We don't need higher taxes on anyone. We need lower taxes on everyone. Yeah we all get a good laugh. But then the bills come due and how are you going to pay them? We STILL have to pay the bills for Iraq war that we borrowed against. We still have to pay 840 billion rescue (bailout) hush money for wall street. We still have to pay 25 Billion that we just gave the automakers. We will end up giving 7Billion to California. How you gonna pay for all that? The plain fact is that we ARE going to have pay higher taxes. There is no way around it. Candidates are pandering to you "lower taxes" people who have completely no clue. PLEASE tell me your great plan for paying TRILLIONS of dollars of outstanding bills with NO money in the treasury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 5, 2008 #169 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yeah we all get a good laugh. But then the bills come due and how are you going to pay them? We STILL have to pay the bills for Iraq war that we borrowed against. We still have to pay 840 billion rescue (bailout) hush money for wall street. We still have to pay 25 Billion that we just gave the automakers. We will end up giving 7Billion to California. How you gonna pay for all that? The plain fact is that we ARE going to have pay higher taxes. There is no way around it. Candidates are pandering to you "lower taxes" people who have completely no clue. PLEASE tell me your great plan for paying TRILLIONS of dollars of outstanding bills with NO money in the treasury. Write 'nother IOU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 7, 2008 #170 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yeah we all get a good laugh. But then the bills come due and how are you going to pay them? We STILL have to pay the bills for Iraq war that we borrowed against. We still have to pay 840 billion rescue (bailout) hush money for wall street. We still have to pay 25 Billion that we just gave the automakers. We will end up giving 7Billion to California. How you gonna pay for all that? The plain fact is that we ARE going to have pay higher taxes. There is no way around it. Candidates are pandering to you "lower taxes" people who have completely no clue. PLEASE tell me your great plan for paying TRILLIONS of dollars of outstanding bills with NO money in the treasury. The understanding of how lower taxes INCREASES GOVERNMENT REVENUES (a proven mechanic time and again) escapes some folks, I see. See Kennedy, J.F.; Reagan, R.W.; and Bush, G.W. to see the obvious effect of lower taxes on the economic status of the Unites States...it worked the same in all cases. And no, candidates are not pandering to you regarding lowering taxes. One is lowering them, the other is raising them. I think the intelligent observer will realize who is proposing what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 7, 2008 #171 Share Posted October 7, 2008 oh did i leave out the Obama so sorry would never intend to lessen the title and higher office contender. after all the higher the office the greater the deeds. indeedy In this case, we have a U.S. Senator with no record (save running for President), and a State Governor with a big one...who is running for Vice President. Amazing that she dominates the discussion between the two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggs Posted October 7, 2008 #172 Share Posted October 7, 2008 See Kennedy, J.F.; Reagan, R.W.; and Bush, G.W. to see the obvious effect of lower taxes on the economic status of the Unites States...it worked the same in all cases. Just so that we're absolutely clear on this - are you seriously citing G.W's presidency as a good example of economic policies to follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 7, 2008 #173 Share Posted October 7, 2008 The understanding of how lower taxes INCREASES GOVERNMENT REVENUES (a proven mechanic time and again) escapes some folks, I see. See Kennedy, J.F.; Reagan, R.W.; and Bush, G.W. to see the obvious effect of lower taxes on the economic status of the Unites States...it worked the same in all cases. And no, candidates are not pandering to you regarding lowering taxes. One is lowering them, the other is raising them. I think the intelligent observer will realize who is proposing what... All three tax reduction cycles you quote there ended in recession. There is nobody negating a small term positive effect of tax reductions, but only then when the government expenses are curtailed at the same time can there be a successful tax reduction. And, here is the expenditure of the government of the last few years, please tell me where to curtail expenditure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 8, 2008 #174 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Just so that we're absolutely clear on this - are you seriously citing G.W's presidency as a good example of economic policies to follow? Yes, Tiggs...in several aspects they are good economic policies. What it sounds like is that you, and many people, are citing the recent mortgage banking situation, and the attendant Wall Street drop with Bush's policies. This situation has nothing to do with those policies. While I argue with the Bush administration's spending in several areas, I cannot assign this present situation in any way to Bush (although if wiser minds hadn't intervened with the administration's bailout plan...I'd probably be blaming him for the debacle that followed its implementation!). There is a reason why Congress' approval ratings have been characteristically at historic lows--lower than those of the President, and as low as any in history. It's a Congressional problem. Specifically, this problem we're experiencing is the result of the increasingly socialist Congressional bent, and the need to adhere to this skewed concept of "fairness", which resulted in the Government, by Congressional mandate, taking over major mortgage banks so as to offer mortages to people who could not be expected to pay for them. Corruption in these Government organizations ensued due to a lack of oversight, which resulted in the CEOs of these companies running amock, structuring their bonus programs to company profits, and cooking the books to show false information. The situation was warned about by several Senators, among them , John McCain, who sponsored legislation three years ago to stop the situation in its tracks. The bill was defeated, and a certain senator from Illinois did nothing about it. Today, the CEO of one of those companies, a man who made $90,000,000 in a matter of years due to these cooked books and false profit statements, is Obama's chief economic advisor, and Obama himself was the second highest Senate receipient of campaign contributions form him, netting $10,000,000! And, what John McCain warned about three years ago has come true exactly as he said it would. That's the present problem. It's a Democratic Congressional problem, not Bush's. He could have signed the bill...but it never came to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 8, 2008 #175 Share Posted October 8, 2008 All three tax reduction cycles you quote there ended in recession. There is nobody negating a small term positive effect of tax reductions, but only then when the government expenses are curtailed at the same time can there be a successful tax reduction. No, they did not end in recessions, and recessions have never had anything to do with tax decreases. On the contrary, economic prosperity has always resulted. Recessions result from the implimentation of policies contrary to sound economic principals. No recession followed Kennedy's tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts produced the largest period of economic prosperity this generation had ever seen. And he inherited a receeding economy...due in large part ot the economic policies of Carter (which resulted in higher taxes and utterly insane inflation). And Bush's tax cuts ...post-9/11, which of course was something that had dramatic effects on the economy, created a similar upturn, and he inherited a receeding economy from the Clinton administration (again...taxes...). And, here is the expenditure of the government of the last few years, please tell me where to curtail expenditure: How about we talk Treasury and Social Security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now