Palin as Republican VEEP

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Tell me how its not socialized and then we'll talk.

[Ddrak]

Ok - let's look at your quote:

The Government (read: system) of the United States of America (read: social organization) under Obama would like to take control of the Health Insurance system (read: product) and give every American the "choice" to enroll in the plan to receive (read: distribution) health coverage. How are they gonna achieve this? Oh, by simply adding some taxes to every Amerian's paycheck, regardless if they enroll into the program or not, to help pay for everyone's health insurance costs.

If thats not socialist, I clearly need to move to Russia to educate myself.

It's not socialist. Socialism is the government taking control of the system, not offering a competing system to the private sector. I have no idea what you'll learn in Russia either - maybe if you picked a country that was nominally socialist (China, North Korea, Cuba) then you'd make a bit of sense, but in case you hadn't heard, the USSR failed and split up.

Now, do you want to talk facts (like, say, the relative cost of McCain and Obama's health plans), or are you just gonna keep name calling and shrouding yourself in ignorance?

Dd

[Harlowe]

Now, do you want to talk facts (like, say, the relative cost of McCain and Obama's health plans), or are you just gonna keep name calling and shrouding yourself in ignorance?

I'm thinking that he is going to choose the second one, since he appears incapable of doing the first.

[Kulaf]

Dd....that is just reviewing and comparing their tax plans. It doesn't deal with the budget. McCain is going to cut.....while Obama is going to expand and thinks he is going to pay for it with military savings by getting us out of Iraq earlier......which we all know isn't going to happen.

Your analysis is incomplete.......train your eye on Obama's economic plan just like you did McCain. Fair is fair.

[Lurker]

Dd....that is just reviewing and comparing their tax plans. It doesn't deal with the budget.

This is the problem with the current brand of "fiscal conservative". Tax policy has everything to do with the budget. You can't balloon the deficit with draconian tax cuts and call yourself a fiscal conservative.

McCain is going to cut.....while Obama is going to expand and thinks he is going to pay for it with military savings by getting us out of Iraq earlier......which we all know isn't going to happen.

Ddrak didn't include military savings in his comparison of McCain's and Obama's plans. He only included tax policy and proposed spending increases. Even in that analysis McCain spends far more than he cuts and increases the deficit far more than Obama. So I ask you, how is McCain going to pay for his tax cut for the wealthy? Where will the money come from?

Ddrak is right; Bush was fiscally insane and McCain is of the same mold.

[Kulaf]

Not really Lurker......Dd disected McCain's document.....then gave a pass to a document from Obama with the same language. If this is going to turn into an Obama fan club......so be it.

How is Obama going to pay for all of his progams Lurker. And don't give me from savings from an early Iraq withdrawl. How is he going to give a tax cut to the middle class....give a $500 tax credit to 10 million households.....spend billions in new research?

The answer is simple.....and you know it. He is going to raise taxes......and it won't just be on Corporations who with one face says he wants to encourage to not send jobs overseas.....and with his other proposes raising corporate taxes and instituting windfall profit taxes.

[Lurker]

The answer is simple.....and you know it. He is going to raise taxes......and it won't just be on Corporations

In a word... duh.

Everyone that has heard Obama speak or glanced at his tax policy knows it. Allowing the reckless Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire and return the the Clinton tax structure is a major part of his policy.

Take an objective look at history, Kulaf. Creating structural deficits by gutting federal revenue as Reagan did, and then Bush Jr. did to the extreme, is a failed fiscal policy. It has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. McCain wants to continue with polcies that are proven to not work. To paraphrase Obama, it's time for the Republicans to take ownership of their failure.

[Kulaf]

Finally!

Glad you can admit that he's going to raise taxes. Now if he needs to raise taxes just to meet budgetary demands of his own policies.....just imagine what's going to happen when a Democratic majority in Congress starts writing checks.

[Lurker]

Finally!

Glad you can admit that he's going to raise taxes.

/boggle

This has to be your latest attempt to dodge the discussion because nobody has denied or attempted to hide the fact Obama will raise taxes on the wealthy. He's allowing the Bush cuts on the wealthy to expire. He's restoring the Clinton tax structure. Obama has campaigned on this platform for nineteen solid months. It's called fiscal sanity and it worked wonders in the 90's.

Now that we have that settled, why don't you admit that the Republican policy of gutting federal revenue through reckless tax cuts as practiced by Reagan, taken to the extreme by Bush, and promised to go further under McCain, is an abysmal failure.

[Harlowe]

Kulaf, you know how ridiculous you find Embar's denial of anything happening with regard to global warming, how he seems to be covering his ears and go lalala about it?

That's EXACTLY what you do when it comes to talking about the economy and the current administration. You are in such absolute denial about it, it's ridiculous. How the hell do you think more of the same is going to change things?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I can't believe how you people can be brainwashed by the whole "more of the same" rhetoric.

[Lurker]

I can't believe how you people can be brainwashed by the whole "more of the same" rhetoric.

Name five Bush policies that McCain is going to change.

[Harlowe]

Brainwashed..good grief. Another diversionary tactic. You simply refuse to answer pointed questions because you are wearing massive blinders. I don't see any change offered from the status quo. Nada. All I see is exactly what they are accused of - more of the same. Only worse, toss in a religious extremist into the mix with his VP choice. Sadly, McCain took off his so-called "Maverick" hat 6-8 years ago when he saw that it wasn't going to help him rise any further within the GOP. Since then, he's grabbed his ankles and bent over for the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda. The man has voted with Bush - what over 90% of the time? Doesn't exactly seem like someone with different ideas or a messenger of change.

So tell us, what are these great changes?

[Kulaf]

Kulaf, you know how ridiculous you find Embar's denial of anything happening with regard to global warming, how he seems to be covering his ears and go lalala about it?

That's EXACTLY what you do when it comes to talking about the economy and the current administration. You are in such absolute denial about it, it's ridiculous. How the hell do you think more of the same is going to change things?

Have you examined the CBO reports? Let's look at the CBO's letter to the Honorable Robert C. Byrd:

March 3, 2008

Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with contributions from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), has analyzed the President’s budget submission for fiscal year 2009. This letter and the attached tables summarize the results of CBO’s work to date. A report that presents the full analysis, including CBO’s assessment of the macroeconomic effects of the President’s proposals, will be published on March 19.

CBO’s analysis indicates the following:

■
If the President’s proposals were enacted, the federal government would record deficits of $396 billion in 2008 and $342 billion in 2009. Those deficits would amount to 2.8 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively, of gross domestic product (GDP). By comparison, the deficit in 2007 totaled 1.2 percent of GDP.

■
Under the President’s proposals, the deficit would steadily diminish from 2009 through 2012, at which point the budget would be balanced; it would remain close to balance in most years through 2018.1 Several key factors contribute to that outcome, however. The budget excludes funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2009, incorporates significant reductions in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy, and allows for a substantial expansion of the impact of the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

■
The President’s budgetary proposals would result in revenues that were $2.1 trillion below CBO’s baseline projections over the 2009–2018 period, largely because of proposed extensions of various provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).

■
The proposals also would lead to outlays that were below CBO’s baseline projections—by an estimated $1.1 trillion over the 10-year period—because of a smaller amount of funding for discretionary programs and reductions in mandatory spending, particularly in spending for Medicare.

■
CBO’s analysis reflects the recent enactment of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-185), which will add an estimated $152 billion to the deficit for 2008 and $16 billion to the deficit for 2009 (excluding debt service). The analysis also takes into account recent revisions to CBO’s economic forecast.2
.
.
.
Estimated Effects of the President’s Proposals Over the 2009–2018 Period

Under the President’s proposals, the deficit would move steadily downward from 2009 through 2012; by CBO’s estimates, the budget would be balanced in that latter year and remain relatively close to balance through 2018. Those results reflect the President’s proposal for an additional $70 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 but no additional funding thereafter, combined with a substantial decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy. The estimates also reflect the absence of any changes to the AMT beyond the proposed one-year extension of the higher exemption levels. Under the President’s policies, debt held by the public would rise from 37 percent of GDP in 2007 to 39 percent in 2009 and then gradually fall to 28 percent of GDP by 2018.

On the basis of previous differences between projections and budget outcomes, CBO has calculated the likelihood that the budget will be balanced under two sets of conditions: the assumptions embodied in its baseline projections (that current laws and policies remain in place) and its estimates of revenues and outlays under the President’s proposals. Using the assumptions underlying its baseline, CBO calculates that there is roughly a 40 percent chance that the budget will be in deficit in 2012 and a 60 percent chance that it will be in balance (or in surplus). If the President’s policies were enacted in their entirety and no other legislation affecting spending or revenues was enacted in the next five years, there would be roughly a 50 percent chance of either a deficit or a surplus in 2012.

So more of the same would likely net a balanced budget by 2012. Now if McCain gets his cuts......and his madatory freeze in automatic increases in spending you would see a budget in balance sooner than that.

However if you institute a bunch of new government programs and toss a whole ton of uncertaintly into an already tenuous economic environment.....that is just a recipe for disaster.

[Lurker]

So more of the same would likely net a balanced budget by 2012.

Wrong. The CBO didn't analyze "more of the same", they analyzed "proposals" that have zero chance of being enacted.

There's a reason Bush didn't enact this stuff in the six years he had full control of all levers of government. It wasn't possible and many of the proposals are unworkable. And even when analyzing this anti-government wet dream the CBO projects deficit spending every year up until 2012, one year of balance, and then deficit spending from 2013 on. Sign me up!

Meanwhile, the CBO baseline shows a balanced budget by 2012 and surplus every year after Bush's reckless tax cuts expire.

Now how about you stop deflecting and just admit that, in the real world, the Republican policies are an abysmal failure. Or hey, you can help Fallakin come up with a list of policy changes that McCain is proposing. He must be having trouble with Google.

[Ddrak]

Dd....that is just reviewing and comparing their tax plans. It doesn't deal with the budget. McCain is going to cut.....while Obama is going to expand and thinks he is going to pay for it with military savings by getting us out of Iraq earlier......which we all know isn't going to happen.

Your analysis is incomplete.......train your eye on Obama's economic plan just like you did McCain. Fair is fair.

Umm... you failed to read. In fact, I'm betting you never even downloaded the PDFs and looked through them, instead looking only at the pic I posted. The reports are dealing with budgets, they include proposed spending increases/decreases and McCain's budget comes off a lot less balanced than Obama's.

Honestly, if it didn't deal with budgets, how do you think they possibly calculated deficits?

As for going through budgets, why should I repeat what you said? I've contested the parts I thought you were wrong on (Obama not saying how he'd fund things).

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

Totally Lurker Dude.

But Lurker dude, like, where is my recession, dude? You told me that we were, like, in total decline.

Things like totally suck, cause you say so Lurker dude, but you so totally sucked ass on the Iraq thing, you should really just STFU.

[Rsak]

Wrong. The CBO didn't analyze "more of the same", they analyzed "proposals" that have zero chance of being enacted.

Complete and utter fabrication Lurker. You decry the filibustering of the Republicans but ignore the very same actions of the Democrats when they were in the minority.

The President did the right thing in putting the troops of our nation ahead and making sure that they had the funding they needed. He did what every other president in the past and what all of the candidates will do in the future, compromise. The majorities in our legislative branches have been so razor thin that compromises have had to occur at every level because of swayable centrists or sub-committee population.

And lets be perfectly honest.. the last tax cut came from a Democratic controlled congress with the stimulus package this spring/summer. We have quickly forgotten the wartime actions of the democratic parties plunging us further into war back in Vietnam. There simply is no difference between the two parties in our current deadlock distribution, because they will be arriving at the same location just in different paths and you are blinded by your bigotry if you won't admit it.

[Ddrak]

I can't believe how you people can be brainwashed by the whole "more of the same" rhetoric.

Here's the thing. Explain why it's not, because everything I'm seeing from McCain on domestic and foreign policies is an extension of current GOP policy with one difference - he's opposed to the stuff at Gitmo (which isn't surprising given his history). If McCain did represent a change I'd be all gung ho for him, and if you look back at my history I was pretty much a supporter of his about 2 years ago. I've moved away because he's stopped being an agent for change in the GOP, and the one thing the GOP does need is to get the current hijackers the hell out so they can return to some sanity.

On the CBO analysis, it was done back in March on proposals tendered last year. It also left out a bunch of the tax cuts McCain has promised (from what I can see), specifically the AMT changes. It certainly didn't cover the meltdown of banks and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac which now are being reabsorbed by the government. If McCain was sticking to the CBO assumptions and if those assumptions were still good then maybe it would be more relevant, but he isn't and they aren't.

Hey Chants, seen the job figures lately? How's that dollar doing? Housing prices? Dow still 14k? Economic growth even? "Hur hur" indeed.

Dd

[Harlowe]

The whole episode is awesome, but this part was really fucking funny..
(getting back to VEEP)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... ender-Card

Hey Chants, seen the job figures lately? How's that dollar doing? Housing prices? Dow still 14k? Economic growth even? "Hur hur" indeed.

Yeah, those comments made me go...wth? I work for a small, privately-owned company and uhh, the President & VP of the company aren't in denial over the economy.