blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I guarantee when (not if) we reach an actual oil crisis instead of the whining we have now...we WILL drill ANWR.
Your Traitor In Chief has squandered trillions on his war of lies, where do you suggest your "Tax and Spend Liberal" going to get the money to invest in anything on your list?
Obviously, George W. Bush is no kind of "liberal," and AFIC, he's no kind of "conservative," either. He's just a spend and spend TURD with no ethics, no morals, no conscience and no sense of humanity, and McSame says that, if elected, he would be more of the same.
So what you're saying, pj, is that repubs were all about balancing the budget, since they knew huge taxcuts for the wealthy wouldn't fly past Clinton, and that it was what they had to use to beat up on him... but left to their own devices, with a repub prez, they showed their true colors, radically cut taxes at the top, then spent like crack whores w/ stolen credit cards...
Too bad they didn't pass their balanced budget amendment in the 90's- it would have been a lot harder for them to get around that than to just dump the paygo rules of the Dems... your attributions set against the background of reality merely reinforce my point, that repubs aren't fiscally responsible, at all- they just want to spend on corporate welfare rather than welfare for the underclass... wars of aggression rather than actual defense, and pandering to their base, as with Medicare and faith based spending... Their agenda has been one of get what you can, as fast as you can- looting by another name. They knew it would end, but they'd like to stretch it out as far as possible. It's been the greatest example of insider theft in the history of the human race.
And while McCain offers lip service to a balanced budget, his first proposal as to how to get there is the usual trickledown voodoo- cut taxes at the top... it's as valid a concept as drinking yourself sober...
Too bad they didn't pass their balanced budget amendment in the 90's- it would have been a lot harder for them to get around that than to just dump the paygo rules of the Dems... your attributions set against the background of reality merely reinforce my point, that repubs aren't fiscally responsible, at all- they just want to spend on corporate welfare rather than welfare for the underclass... wars of aggression rather than actual defense, and pandering to their base, as with Medicare and faith based spending... Their agenda has been one of get what you can, as fast as you can- looting by another name. They knew it would end, but they'd like to stretch it out as far as possible. It's been the greatest example of insider theft in the history of the human race.
And while McCain offers lip service to a balanced budget, his first proposal as to how to get there is the usual trickledown voodoo- cut taxes at the top... it's as valid a concept as drinking yourself sober...
The spending shouldn't be the only issue. It's how he is going to pay for it. By raising taxes, primarily by raising the capital gains tax to Clinton levels which will be up to 28% from 15%. Plus he will tax 'the rich' which means all those making 200k or more a year. Whatever it means, that number will have to come down to those making way less than that to pay for what he wants. Raising taxes during a sluggish economy is going to be huge mistake.
Now you can make all the unsubstantiated claims about the "traitor-in-chief" you want. His spending on education, medicare, and prescription drugs are at democrat levels.
Now you can make all the unsubstantiated claims about the "traitor-in-chief" you want. His spending on education, medicare, and prescription drugs are at democrat levels.
I believe he has said he would nudge up the capital gains rates (sound like 20%), but would never exceed that under Clinton (28%). There is probably a lot of federal revenue here from even a 15 - 20% since the masters of the universe, aka the hedge fund managers, are the ones who turn over so much capital on such a frequent basis.
As for McCain, what leverage does he have against the entrenched special interests, or even his own Republican Party, to be nothing more than a PUPPET PRESIDENT?
Hope that his reputation as a maverick in the senate will magically allow him to change the pillaging and raping of America under the last 8 years of neo-conservative Republican rule. They ain't going to give up their power and influence without a fight, and you're hoping that he is just pandering to the extreme right to win the presidency, but will govern as maverick. Till they get booted out of the Republican Party, the current Republican power brokers will never allow it. Obama has leverage against his own party because of the vast network of new voters and donors he has energized. They are loyal to him and probably only registered as Democrats because he is a Democrat; if he split off and formed his own party, a lot of them would probably follow him. What new power and influence does McCain offer his own party?
Your best hope is that the current Republican Party gets totally demolished in November, and is replaced by a totally new, truly socially conservative, fiscally conservative group of power brokers. Ron Paul may be the new Republican Party's Howard Dean, and hopefully a Republican version of Barrack Obama will emerge in the 2012 presidential cycle.
I would even argue that Hillary, McCain, and all of the corporate media want Barrack Obama to fail, hoping that this whole generation of new voters that he has energized get disillusioned, say nothing will ever change, completely stop paying attention to the polical process, and just let the super extremely rich continue to take turns renting out the White House for personal gain and influence. Last thing they all ultimately would want is an electorate that is really paying attention to what's going on.
As for McCain, what leverage does he have against the entrenched special interests, or even his own Republican Party, to be nothing more than a PUPPET PRESIDENT?
Hope that his reputation as a maverick in the senate will magically allow him to change the pillaging and raping of America under the last 8 years of neo-conservative Republican rule. They ain't going to give up their power and influence without a fight, and you're hoping that he is just pandering to the extreme right to win the presidency, but will govern as maverick. Till they get booted out of the Republican Party, the current Republican power brokers will never allow it. Obama has leverage against his own party because of the vast network of new voters and donors he has energized. They are loyal to him and probably only registered as Democrats because he is a Democrat; if he split off and formed his own party, a lot of them would probably follow him. What new power and influence does McCain offer his own party?
Your best hope is that the current Republican Party gets totally demolished in November, and is replaced by a totally new, truly socially conservative, fiscally conservative group of power brokers. Ron Paul may be the new Republican Party's Howard Dean, and hopefully a Republican version of Barrack Obama will emerge in the 2012 presidential cycle.
I would even argue that Hillary, McCain, and all of the corporate media want Barrack Obama to fail, hoping that this whole generation of new voters that he has energized get disillusioned, say nothing will ever change, completely stop paying attention to the polical process, and just let the super extremely rich continue to take turns renting out the White House for personal gain and influence. Last thing they all ultimately would want is an electorate that is really paying attention to what's going on.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Uh, cause I'm not going to indict or blame someone for something that hasn't actually happened. Can't believe this was a serious question.
All speculatory. What isn't speculation; that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a long time while Obama doesn't. The overwhelming likelihood, all else equal, is that an Obama presidency will spend far, far fewer dollars on a war in Iraq.
Not concrete nor has Obama himself called it concrete.
There's no evidence that Obama won't cut spending in other areas to make room for new social programs. There's no evidence that Obama intends or expects to pass all his social spending measures, and history tells us that it will be difficult.
Come on, these logical fallacies are grade school level stuff.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,954
- 10,298
- 136
We all know Dems are the champions of government expansion. Only reason they care about spending is 1: a Republican did it and 2: what it was spent on. Obama?s proposals are exactly the party line.
A central, distant, and unrepresentative government is the solution to everything they imagine. Our party should be defined by our opposition to that expansion - yet our so called leaders have pandered to them and have also learned how to buy votes.
There is no true opposition remaining to these proposals. So called Republicans will hem and haw but in the end the next decade will belong to Washington DC.
When you've more than doubled the national debt across two Presidential terms, you've done more than pander to democrats. The democrats have been exceeded.
Deep down, all true republicans know I'm right. And they know that McCain won't be bringing us any closer to fiscal responsibility.
whatever McCain is going to want to do, he's going to be checked by a democratic congress that's going to increase their majorities in 2008, whereas Obama is going to have a cadre of yes-men to rubber stamp whatever random idea he comes up with.
as it is, he's taken risky positions at odds with the GOP core and compromised to get things done far more often than Obama.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Topic Title: Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?
Bush bash-check.
Republican nominee bash-check.
Failure to address the OP-check.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Get used to it. This forum leans heavily left, especially this year when most Independents and even some Republicans have jumped on board.
If you want your nonsense to fall on friendly ears, here you go.
Problem is a lot of McCain supporters think he is just pandering to the extreme right of the Republican Pary to get elected, but will then govern as the maverick senator his reputation implies.
He has absolutely no leverage to change the status quo against the currently entrenched Republican power brokers and special interests in Washington.
They may give him a token victory here and there (victory on some wedge issue that won't affect the quality of life of you or your children), but only to the extent it allows them to continue to distract the American people from four more years of their highly profitable rape and pillage of the usa.
He has absolutely no leverage to change the status quo against the currently entrenched Republican power brokers and special interests in Washington.
They may give him a token victory here and there (victory on some wedge issue that won't affect the quality of life of you or your children), but only to the extent it allows them to continue to distract the American people from four more years of their highly profitable rape and pillage of the usa.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
As someone who would like to see Obama win over McCain (and who will likely vote 3rd party), I am concerned about Obama's spending.
But I am much more worried about two things at this time. One, the further destruction of the Republican party as it moves away from conservative policies, both domestic and foreign.
And two, as a voter, I am worried that because McCain cannot see that invading Iraq was a mistake, even with 20/20 hindsight vision, he is at high risk of repeating it. The country cannot afford to take that risk.
But I am much more worried about two things at this time. One, the further destruction of the Republican party as it moves away from conservative policies, both domestic and foreign.
And two, as a voter, I am worried that because McCain cannot see that invading Iraq was a mistake, even with 20/20 hindsight vision, he is at high risk of repeating it. The country cannot afford to take that risk.
how much of this "raping and pillaging" would Bush have been able to do without congress signing off on every harebrained idea he had?
Establishment Democrats are probably hoping Clinton gets elected (in 2008 or 2012) so they get their turn to rent out the White House.
And sentiment against the war in Iraq and Bush have only turned really negative in the last couple years. Before that, it was probably often political suicide to stand up against a popular wartime president (e.g. tax cut for the super super rich took place before last mid-terms, I think).
And I think Republican controlled Senate till last mid-terms, with Lieberman or Cheney being tiebreaker.
And sentiment against the war in Iraq and Bush have only turned really negative in the last couple years. Before that, it was probably often political suicide to stand up against a popular wartime president (e.g. tax cut for the super super rich took place before last mid-terms, I think).
And I think Republican controlled Senate till last mid-terms, with Lieberman or Cheney being tiebreaker.
Establishment Democrats may be following him because of what his vast base of new voters and donors represent: a potential generational shift of the electorate towards the Democratic Party.
Only thing I can think that McCain offers the current power brokers of the Republican Party ---> his image as a maverick senator.
("He's only pandering to the hard right of the Republican Party to get elected. As president, I'm sure he'll govern like the maverick from Arizona he was in the Senate.")
What, per chance, might that narrative for the upcoming presidential election be be worth to them: a token fence along the border with Mexico?
They let him play puppet president for four years, pour gasoline on a hot button issue, then laugh all the way to the bank as the electorate doesn't notice that nothing has changed because they're too busy fighting over which state is more racist than the other (W. Virginia Primary).
Only thing I can think that McCain offers the current power brokers of the Republican Party ---> his image as a maverick senator.
("He's only pandering to the hard right of the Republican Party to get elected. As president, I'm sure he'll govern like the maverick from Arizona he was in the Senate.")
What, per chance, might that narrative for the upcoming presidential election be be worth to them: a token fence along the border with Mexico?
They let him play puppet president for four years, pour gasoline on a hot button issue, then laugh all the way to the bank as the electorate doesn't notice that nothing has changed because they're too busy fighting over which state is more racist than the other (W. Virginia Primary).
so what isn't a distraction if we're adding fiscal plans to the list of things we're not supposed to talk about?
we should have a stickied thread for acceptable topics of discussion for BHO.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
It's impossible to talk to Obama supporters. It's all "Hope" and "Change" but when you ask about policy specifics, you are either labeled a cynic or a racist, or they go on a Bush bashing rant. Yeah, Bush sucks, I get it, I voted against the guy twice. But that doesn't mean we can't have a serious discussion of Obama's policies, or lack thereof. What I see is a complete willingness to demagogue, and total reluctance to actually fight for anything. He is in the Senate, he should be proposing laws that reflect his views, and if he really believes in all these things, where is his track record of fighting for them? Hillary at least put herself on the line and fought for universal healthcare, and she wasn't even an elected official then. Obama is in actual elected position to propose (if not pass) his policy agenda, and he is instead simply reverting to pattern and being "present."
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yep because anything that isn't expressly posted by obamamabots that paints him as a messiah is considered a troll thread or a diversion.
It's funny though(or rather pretty sad) that the obabamabots only seem to want to divert the thread to yapping about Bush or McCain when it's about Obama and his spending promises from his own website. It's like they are so blinded by his rockstarness that they don't want to be bothered with his actual promises and policies...let alone have them discussed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter