Lieberman concedes

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck
So much for being a loyal Democrat.

So much for being a loyal Republican.

"In western Michigan, Schwarz was beaten by Walberg, a former state representative who garnered conservative money and support nationwide with his contention that the freshman lawmaker had been too liberal and compromising for the largely rural 7th District. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Walberg had 53 percent of the votes and Schwarz 47 percent."

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: feralkid


Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

You have to translate what he really means. He means he is anti-welfare for low income people = small government. What about corporate welfare? Bloated military? Less for laws he doesn't like (drunk driving), what about child labor laws? Prostitution? Marijuana? His bumper sticker ideology would break down fast with a few probing questions I'm sure.

Sadly, that's the way many "conservatives" think these days. It used to mean simply fiscal conservatism (less govt spending and less taxes for everyone). Now it is the support of rights for corporations, agressive militaristic foreign policy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy only, funding of socially conservative agendas, etc.

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Without party support, he loses a lot of money backing him. I can't imagine him sticking around for long as an independent (or whatever he chooses to call himself), and will eventually bow out.

Remember Jacob Javits?

 

[Lemon law]

We can over analyise this one to death on why Lieberman lost----but the binary fact is that Lieberman lost----and Lamont will be the democratic nominee in a fairly Liberal State.

So lets look to the future as the deck gets reshuffled. On the morning news I heard that Lieberman has made good on his threat to run independent---and presented the required number of signatures pre gathered to the powers that be---so it will be a three way race for sure.

Lieberman and Lamont are fairly well known---and the repubs are running a lightweigt with gambling problems---who got the GOP nod because the conventional wisdom was that no one could beat Lieberman---therefore no prominant name in the GOP wanted the stain of losing to Lieberman---but this lightweight wanted the nod---sound very much like 1992 and the Clinton nomination now--when GHB was considered unbeatable--so no one wanted the democratic nod.---but Bill Clinton wanted it.

But on the Iraq war at least, the position of Lamont and Lieberman is somewhat fixed. Which leaves the GOP candidate free to stake his position in between the two as the apparent best stategy---but who knows what this lightweight will do?----but you can bet he will now get some GOP funding and scripting as the Repubs now smell blood in the water.

With the mid term elections now three months off, I am predicting that events in the Mid-east will control this election---especially in CT.----right now the conditions in the mid-east are so bad that they may totally melt down before the election--in which case it will be Lamont in a walk---but if GWB
can still hold things together in the mid-east---the GOP and Karl Rove may be the wildcard in the deck---and look for a mud slinging fight Lieberman is likely to lose.---unless conditions in the mid-east dramtically improve--and Lieberman is vindicated----but thats a long shot---but never say never.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: feralkid


Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

You have to translate what he really means. He means he is anti-welfare for low income people = small government. What about corporate welfare? Bloated military? Less for laws he doesn't like (drunk driving), what about child labor laws? Prostitution? Marijuana? His bumper sticker ideology would break down fast with a few probing questions I'm sure.

Prostitution is fine with me. Marijuana is fine with me. There are too many child labor laws. Our military is necessary but wastes money. As far as corporate welfare, more laws and regulations only go to benefit the wealthy, so I'm not sure what you mean. Less government on all those issues. Care to try to break me down with a few more probing questions?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Sadly, that's the way many "conservatives" think these days. It used to mean simply fiscal conservatism (less govt spending and less taxes for everyone). Now it is the support of rights for corporations, agressive militaristic foreign policy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy only, funding of socially conservative agendas, etc.

I agree with this argument.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: feralkid


Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

You have to translate what he really means. He means he is anti-welfare for low income people = small government. What about corporate welfare? Bloated military? Less for laws he doesn't like (drunk driving), what about child labor laws? Prostitution? Marijuana? His bumper sticker ideology would break down fast with a few probing questions I'm sure.

Sadly, that's the way many "conservatives" think these days. It used to mean simply fiscal conservatism (less govt spending and less taxes for everyone). Now it is the support of rights for corporations, agressive militaristic foreign policy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy only, funding of socially conservative agendas, etc.

Maybe if Clinton didn't increase taxes for the rich unfairly, the opposite wouldn't have to happen.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: feralkid


Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

You have to translate what he really means. He means he is anti-welfare for low income people = small government. What about corporate welfare? Bloated military? Less for laws he doesn't like (drunk driving), what about child labor laws? Prostitution? Marijuana? His bumper sticker ideology would break down fast with a few probing questions I'm sure.

Sadly, that's the way many "conservatives" think these days. It used to mean simply fiscal conservatism (less govt spending and less taxes for everyone). Now it is the support of rights for corporations, agressive militaristic foreign policy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy only, funding of socially conservative agendas, etc.

Maybe if Clinton didn't increase taxes for the rich unfairly, the opposite wouldn't have to happen.

So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if Clinton didn't increase taxes for the rich unfairly, the opposite wouldn't have to happen.

So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

The guys who pay the most taxes obviously get the largest tax break. Hardly rocket science.

Everybody got a refund of some level, unlike the discriminatory estate tax which hits only a few.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

LMAO. The "working" class? Please don't assume that wealthy people don't work. Running a business is work, and a lot tougher work than most people think.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Dick Morris' take on Lieberman running as an independent

From Drudge:

DICK MORRIS: JOE WILL RISE AGAIN
Wed Aug 09 2006 09:15:38 ET

August 9, 2006 -- Reports of Joe Lieberman's political death are (as Mark Twain once said of rumors of his own demise) "premature and grossly exaggerated." Lieberman has lost a battle, but he can still win the war running as an independent.

While Ned Lamont will clearly have a bounce after yesterday's primary victory, the Rasmussen Poll of July 20 showed Lieberman and Lamont tied at 40 percent each in the general election (with scandal-plagued GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger at 13 percent).

Those who would consign Lieberman to the dustbin of history need to realize that the Democratic primary in Connecticut is an affair that could be conducted in a good-sized phone booth. About 140,000 people voted for Lamont. But the state saw 1,575,000 votes cast in the general election of 2004. Assume a lower turnout in 2006 (an off year), say 1 million votes, that still leaves 860,000 that can vote for Lieberman.

The Connecticut incumbent can, of course, count on the roughly 130,000 who backed him yesterday (aside from a few party regulars who might find it necessary to fall into line and endorse the nominee).

Then, with the Republican plagued by reports of huge gambling debts, Lieberman will strongly attract independent and GOP voters, plus moderate Democrats who weren't energized enough by the Lamont challenge to vote in the primaries.

In the general election, Lieberman can paint Lamont (a former client of mine) as the rich, light-weight dilettante he is (heir to the fortune of J.P. Morgan's partner) and can focus on the broad range of his legislative agenda. After all, Lieberman has taken the lead on issues ranging from campaign-finance reform to tobacco regulation to corporate-governance reform to tough action against terrorism to the battle against global warming. He'll look better and better, while Lamont will look like a one-issue challenger who is out of his league.

Freed of the confines of the Democratic primary, Lieberman can now appeal to independents, Republicans and mainstream Democrats who were not sufficiently motivated to participate in the primary, he can win.

In the meantime, Lieberman's primary defeat sends a message to all presidential contenders, particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton, that they have to move to the left on the war or be buried by the party's increasingly radical and leftist base. Al Gore is emerging as the one for her to worry about in 2008. Anti-war from the start, riding the global warming issue and a proven popular-vote winner, Gore will be increasingly attractive to the same left-wing voters who nominated Lamont in Connecticut. Hillary's convoluted flip-flops on the war won't play well in the primaries.

Interesting take. With no viable Republican challenger, an independent (otherwise centrist Dem) would have a good shot at splitting the Dem vote and attract a lot of Republican protest votes. (Can't vote for the guy with a gambling problem but can't just let the lefty win either...)

This one will be fun to watch.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

LMAO. The "working" class? Please don't assume that wealthy people don't work. Running a business is work, and a lot tougher work than most people think.

working class has ALWAYS been an analogy (remember yours?) to middle income families, sorry you didn't see that. I never said the wealthy don't work, chances are that's how they got their wealth.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if Clinton didn't increase taxes for the rich unfairly, the opposite wouldn't have to happen.

So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

The guys who pay the most taxes obviously get the largest tax break. Hardly rocket science.
Everybody got a refund of some level, unlike the discriminatory estate tax which hits only a few.

I'm going to jump out on a limb here and say that you're not a rocket scientist or an accountant, but you are a partisan troll, who, no matter what the current band of thugs do, you put on your kneepads and get ready to wipe your chin for them.
Sickening, but at least you 'stay the course'.
Repeal the tax cuts, for everyone, and the tax breaks for the oil companies, we need to put money INTO the govt, not keep flowing it out.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if Clinton didn't increase taxes for the rich unfairly, the opposite wouldn't have to happen.

So, by this you're conceeding that there HAVE been tax breaks for the wealthy while working class got crap? I mean, that's the only logical conclusion to that. I thought you always said that tax cuts helped all income levels, that the biggest benefits weren't for the wealthy, obviously you were talking out of your cornhole again.

The guys who pay the most taxes obviously get the largest tax break. Hardly rocket science.
Everybody got a refund of some level, unlike the discriminatory estate tax which hits only a few.

I'm going to jump out on a limb here and say that you're not a rocket scientist or an accountant, but you are a partisan troll, who, no matter what the current band of thugs do, you put on your kneepads and get ready to wipe your chin for them.
Sickening, but at least you 'stay the course'.
Repeal the tax cuts, for everyone, and the tax breaks for the oil companies, we need to put money INTO the govt, not keep flowing it out.

Don't you ever get tired of the knee pad line?

I guess clinton was having the nation getting on doggy style when he pushed his taxation nation plan and those oil company tax breaks. Maybe we should repeal those?


Putting money into the government is about as useful as throwing grapes at a fan.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nope don't tire of it at all, you keep on doing it, and grapes at a fan?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Repeal the tax cuts, for everyone, and the tax breaks for the oil companies, we need to put money INTO the govt, not keep flowing it out.

Or we could stop spending as much? Just a thought...












I now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing contest.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Nope don't tire of it at all, you keep on doing it, and grapes at a fan?

Are you suggesting repealing the Clinton's largest tax increase in history so I can brush off those kneepads?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Nope don't tire of it at all, you keep on doing it, and grapes at a fan?

Are you suggesting repealing the Clinton's largest tax increase in history so I can brush off those kneepads?

What tax increase was that?

 

[nageov3t]

Don't you ever get tired of the knee pad line?

I guess clinton was having the nation getting on doggy style when he pushed his taxation nation plan and those oil company tax breaks. Maybe we should repeal those?


Putting money into the government is about as useful as throwing grapes at a fan.

totally. I mean, look at the record deficits, booming inflation, falling wages, and crazy high unemployment rate during the Clinton years.

oh wait...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Nope don't tire of it at all, you keep on doing it, and grapes at a fan?

Are you suggesting repealing the Clinton's largest tax increase in history so I can brush off those kneepads?

Proof and link of this please.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

And now you have the sounds of silence brought to you by zenny on his compy 386...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Nope don't tire of it at all, you keep on doing it, and grapes at a fan?

Are you suggesting repealing the Clinton's largest tax increase in history so I can brush off those kneepads?

Proof and link of this please.

Text

According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax revenues from the Clinton 1993 tax hike in- creased from $26.4 billion to $51.5 billion between FY 1994 and FY 1996.2 But the total increase in tax revenues from all sources decreased from $104.2 billion to $71.6 billion. Most of the drop in the deficit from new revenues occurred before the new 1993 tax increases could be collected. The tax data suggest that Clinton's economic policies actually may have sapped the economic recovery and produced a deficit larger than it otherwise could have been.

CBO's September 1993 estimate of new tax revenues from Clinton's economic program might have been too large, but such an error would hardly be to the credit of the political leadership that pushed through the largest tax increase in history on a strictly party-line vote. The Heritage Foundation will soon release a report analyzing the impact of the Clinton Admini- stration's tax and spending policies from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA- 93) on the nation's economic performance. Using one of the nation's leading models of the U.S. economy, this study will examine how the economy would be performing today had the Clinton Ad- ministration and Congress not raised taxes as the U.S. was coming out of the 1990-1991 recession. This analysis will show that President Clinton's 1993 economic plan actually has deprived Ameri- cans of a higher standard of living by cutting the economy's growth potential.

 

[Todd33]

The Heritage Foundation. that's not proof.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33
The Heritage Foundation. that's not proof.

Maybe. But at least there are many who consider it to be the largest. Regardless, it is a giant tax increase.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33
The Heritage Foundation. that's not proof.

Maybe. But at least there are many who consider it to be the largest. Regardless, it is a giant tax increase.

By "many who consider it", do you mean the Republicans?

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

If you want to know the largest tax increase.....drumroll please.....Tax cutting Ronnie!!!

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%.

The right-wing myths just keep falling by the waistside.