• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Sarah Palin a fiscal conservative?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
I don't know much about her record as governor and mayor. Does anyone here know if she was a fiscal conservative?

I wouldn't trust that she'd submit a balanced budget to Congress, but I know some people believe she would.
 
Anarchist420 said:
I don't know much about her record as governor and mayor. Does anyone here know if she was a fiscal conservative?

I wouldn't trust that she'd submit a balanced budget to Congress, but I know some people believe she would.
Click to expand...

I'm still struggling with the question of whether she's sane or not.
 
Republicans like to claim they are fiscally conservative, but they are just as eager to spend money as Democrats. She is no different IMO.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Republicans like to claim they are fiscally conservative, but they are just as eager to spend money as Democrats. She is no different IMO.
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent.

The Democrats have added $5 trillion to the national debt since taking control of congress ing 2007. Hell, since Obama has been sworn into office $3 trillion to the national debt.

In contrast, the national debt in increased $3.7 trillion since 1994 when the GOP took control of congress.

So the Democrats have raised the national debt more in the past 3 years than occurred in the preceding 13 years.

It is like going 70 in a 65 or 140 in a 65. While both are against the law, they are not even in the same ballpark.
 
Patranus said:
I disagree to an extent.

The Democrats have added $5 trillion to the national debt since taking control of congress ing 2007. Hell, since Obama has been sworn into office $3 trillion to the national debt.

In contrast, the national debt in increased $3.7 trillion since 1994 when the GOP took control of congress.

So the Democrats have raised the national debt more in the past 3 years than occurred in the preceding 13 years.

It is like going 70 in a 65 or 140 in a 65. While both are against the law, they are not even in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Someone has to pay the 750 billion for the Iraq war the GOP started. That takes almost 1B out of your argument
 
Judging by the Palin record as Mayor of Wascilla, she spends money faster than a drunken sailor. Wascilla is still trying to dig itself out of debt but at least it has a multi million dollar hockey rink for a town of 5,000. And more big box stores than a town that size should have. As for school and library funding, Palin is probably a fiscal conservative.
 
HomerJS said:
Someone has to pay the 750 billion for the Iraq war the GOP started. That takes almost 1B out of your argument
Click to expand...

The war operating funding is included in those budget figures. I think Bush+GOP congress maximum deficits was something like 300 billion. And at that time, much of the conservatives were complaining about their spending.
 
her209 said:
Cut government spending except in my state/district.
Click to expand...

This!

I don't think SP could put together a budget in the first place; She lacks the intellectual faculties to run a fortune 500 company (and we all know how smart you have to be to do that~!)
 
QuantumPion said:
The war operating funding is included in those budget figures. I think Bush+GOP congress maximum deficits was something like 300 billion. And at that time, much of the conservatives were complaining about their spending.
Click to expand...

The bulk of the war funding was done through supplementals. Are you positive thats included?
 
Patranus said:
I disagree to an extent.

The Democrats have added $5 trillion to the national debt since taking control of congress ing 2007. Hell, since Obama has been sworn into office $3 trillion to the national debt.

So the Democrats have raised the national debt more in the past 3 years than occurred in the preceding 13 years.

It is like going 70 in a 65 or 140 in a 65. While both are against the law, they are not even in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all. Take a look at the data from CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9959/1-2009-MBR.pdf

In FY2008, by Dec 2007, federal intake was $606B and outlay was $713B, about $100B deficit

In FY2007, by Dec 2008, federal intake was $548B (less revenue due to lower personal and corporate income taxes during the recession) and outlays were $1,032B, vast majority of the increase driven by TARP funding.

Deficit was about $500B by Dec 2008. In THREE months into the federal fiscal year, when BUSH was in the office, after BUSH and the Republicans led the country into the recession.

While we are talking TARP, just a reminder that it was BUSH's treasury secretary Paulson who drew up the TARP plan and BUSH demanding the passage. And 34 senate and 65 House Republicans voted for it, including:
- The Republican presidential candidate McCain voted for TARP
- Mitch McConnell voted for TARP
- John Boehner voted for TARP
- Eric Cantor voted for TARP
- Paul Ryan voted for TARP
- McCain's VP candidate Palin supported the TARP

The republicans were all for the TARP before they were against it. They had NO issue spending $700B until two months later when the president turned out to be a Democrat.

So, Democrats did not add $5T to the debt. They happened to have a president in the white house when the full force of the Republican disaster finally hit America. Now the Democrats are busy cleaning up the mess Republicans created

You are right, it is like going 140 in a 65. Except, the driver was a Republican.
 
dca221 said:
This is not true at all. Take a look at the data from CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9959/1-2009-MBR.pdf

In FY2008, by Dec 2007, federal intake was $606B and outlay was $713B, about $100B deficit

In FY2007, by Dec 2008, federal intake was $548B (less revenue due to lower personal and corporate income taxes during the recession) and outlays were $1,032B, vast majority of the increase driven by TARP funding.

Deficit was about $500B by Dec 2008. In THREE months into the federal fiscal year, when BUSH was in the office, after BUSH and the Republicans led the country into the recession.

While we are talking TARP, just a reminder that it was BUSH's treasury secretary Paulson who drew up the TARP plan and BUSH demanding the passage. And 34 senate and 65 House Republicans voted for it, including:
- The Republican presidential candidate McCain voted for TARP
- Mitch McConnell voted for TARP
- John Boehner voted for TARP
- Eric Cantor voted for TARP
- Paul Ryan voted for TARP
- McCain's VP candidate Palin supported the TARP

The republicans were all for the TARP before they were against it. They had NO issue spending $700B until two months later when the president turned out to be a Democrat.

So, Democrats did not add $5T to the debt. They happened to have a president in the white house when the full force of the Republican disaster finally hit America. Now the Democrats are busy cleaning up the mess Republicans created

You are right, it is like going 140 in a 65. Except, the driver was a Republican.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, a budget and spending legislation comes from congress.

My numbers are 100% true.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

total debt today
$13,667,947,376,827.80

total debt Jan 2007
$8,680,224,380,086.18

How exactly did the Republicans lead the country into a recession in 2008 when the Democrats controlled congress?
 
Last edited:
Just in case anyone forgot the disaster that was Palin's Katie Couric interview... here is a transcript of my favorite passage, when Palin was talking about why TARP was necessary. Note that this is not a Tina Fey routine, it is the real thing:

Katie Couric: Some top republicans and democrats, may not support this bill if Senator John McCain doesn’t because it may be unpopular and they’re not willing to take the political risk. If it doesn’t pass, what is the alternative?

Gov. Palin: Th..the alt.. as I say inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy. This is crisis moment for America. Really the rest of the world also. Looking to see what the impacts will be if America were to choose not to shore up what has happened on Wall Street because of the…the ultimate adverse effects on Main Street and then how that effects this globalisation that we’re a part of on… in our world. So the rest of the world really is looking at John McCain – the leadership that he’s gonna provide through this and if those provisions in the proposal can be implemented and make this proposal better make it make more sense to taxpayers than again, John McCain is gonna prove his leadership.

…

But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the… oh – its gotta be all about job creation too – shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity – all those things under the umbrella of job creation – this bailout is a part of that.
 
Patranus said:
Last time I checked, a budget and spending legislation comes from congress.
My numbers are 100% true.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

total debt today
$13,667,947,376,827.80

total debt Jan 2007
$8,680,224,380,086.18

How exactly did the Republicans lead the country into a recession in 2008 when the Democrats controlled congress?
Click to expand...

Yes, a Republican congress that voted for the unpaid for Medicare Drug benefit, unpaid for tax cuts (that are yet to boost the revenue they were promised to), Iraq war. And the Republican president who obediently signed any spending bill that arrived at his desk.

If you have data at your finger tips, can you also tell us what were the sources of the $5T added to the debt? how much due to tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the war funding (funny how that always came in an emergency spending bill outside the regular budget), and how much due to the stimulus, and the Democrats' crazy spending?
 
Patranus, if Democratic congress voted for all the spending since 2007..why didnt the Republican president Veto them?
 
dca221 said:
This is not true at all.

While we are talking TARP, just a reminder that it was BUSH's treasury secretary Paulson who drew up the TARP plan and BUSH demanding the passage. And 34 senate and 65 House Republicans voted for it, including:
- The Republican presidential candidate McCain voted for TARP
- Mitch McConnell voted for TARP
- John Boehner voted for TARP
- Eric Cantor voted for TARP
- Paul Ryan voted for TARP
- McCain's VP candidate Palin supported the TARP

The republicans were all for the TARP before they were against it. They had NO issue spending $700B until two months later when the president turned out to be a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Which proves this quite nicely:
Republicans like to claim they are fiscally conservative, but they are just as eager to spend money as Democrats. She is no different IMO.
Click to expand...

Off-book war funding, medicare D, unfunded tax cuts not balanced with spending cuts. I'm not seeing any fiscal conservatism amongst the Republicans either.
 
DaveSimmons said:
Off-book war funding, medicare D, unfunded tax cuts not balanced with spending cuts. I'm not seeing any fiscal conservatism amongst the Republicans either.
Click to expand...

But they have a nice explanation. As Cantor says, they simply strayed from their principles. You vote them in now, they will demonstrate their true fiscal conservative side, this time.

As Bush says, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... you can't fool someone twice
 
Patranus said:
I disagree to an extent.

The Democrats have added $5 trillion to the national debt since taking control of congress ing 2007. Hell, since Obama has been sworn into office $3 trillion to the national debt.

In contrast, the national debt in increased $3.7 trillion since 1994 when the GOP took control of congress.

So the Democrats have raised the national debt more in the past 3 years than occurred in the preceding 13 years.

It is like going 70 in a 65 or 140 in a 65. While both are against the law, they are not even in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Bullshit and Shens.
Obama is trying to clean up the mess the worst fiscal policies ever produced.

Funny, when Bush was saying deficits don't matter when he gave the largest ever tax cut to oil industries (when they were making record profits) Republicans didn't have a problem.

Let's face it. Republicans are only against deficit spending when it goes to benefit the bottom 90 percent.
 
It's tough to say. She was mayor of a city(lol) of less than 10,000 people then barely governor of Alaska, which rakes in the dough from oil and the rest of the donor states.

Without the oil money and the money from the donor states, it's tough to say what kind of budget Alaska would have.
Probably be right up there with Bostwana and Afghanistan.
 
dca221 said:
unpaid for tax cuts
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg


Tax cuts don't need to be "paid" for. They aren't spending. Period.
 
dca221 said:
But they have a nice explanation. As Cantor says, they simply strayed from their principles. You vote them in now, they will demonstrate their true fiscal conservative side, this time.

As Bush says, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... you can't fool someone twice
Click to expand...
Great argument...

We shouldn't vote Republican because they only claim to spend less money.

Instead we should vote Democrat because at least they are honest about spending tons of money.

Did I get that right?
 
FYI the war was 'off-budget' but it was not off the books.

Any deficit or debt numbers from those years WILL include war spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top