Palin as Republican VEEP

[Lurker]

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.

Wow. Anyone know the moron who hacked Chant's account?

Ddrak already pointed out how idiotic the comments on the economy were so I'll just address the last. "Chants", I opposed the Iraq war from the start. You cheered the war on at every stage. Given the history of the last five years I think my opposition was more than justified. As for the surge, it is at least partially responsible for a reduction in violence while completely failing to accomplish the true goal of the surge; political reconciliation.

So don't total my car, bang the dents out of one fender, and then look to me for gratitude. Dude.

[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.

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

Umm.....no I didn't fail to read.....and quite frankly I am not the only one saying it:

Both campaigns have complained that our analysis is incomplete because we fail to consider the effects of their spending cuts on the budget. If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the tax cuts would translate into substantial increases in the national debt. Senator Obama’s plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the debt by about $3.5 trillion by 2018; Senator McCain’s plan would increase it by $5.0 trillion. And the health proposals and campaign promises not in the official descriptions could increase the costs still further.
Both candidates claim, however, that they will reduce spending below CBO’s baseline, which would shrink the deficits. Indeed, Senator McCain recently promised to balance the budget by 2013 through sharp cuts in discretionary spending (including defense) and entitlements. Both candidates promise to eliminate earmarks and make the government more efficient and both expect to save billions by making the health care market work more effectively. Each candidate claims that he will rein in spending more than his opponent. Senator McCain points to the proposals made by Senator Obama for expansions in health care, education, and infrastructure. Senator Obama says that he will cut military spending by extricating us from Iraq sooner than Senator McCain would.

It doesn't deal with budgets because neither side has PRESENTED a budget. How can you possibly compare the two when you have no idea where any cuts would be coming from? This is a comparrison of their stated tax policies and "guesses" at what might happen.

It is after all called "A Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans".

[Ddrak]

Right - both campaigns claim they'll reduce spending but haven't given any specific details on it so obviously anything without specific details can't be measured objectively. So, in lieu of that they've used the current CBO baselines on current policy and current law as a pair of starting points. What they have included is the costings of new programs announced by both sides, the most significant of that being health care packages.

So, with both candidates saying they'll reduce the budget (which I fail to believe from either side) and the study including the ways they'll increase the budget through announced programs, what's your issue with it again? It simply shows that McCain's tax cutting won't cover the things he's promising by a lot more than Obama's tax hikes on the rich won't cover the things he's promising. In short, McCain has to cut a hell of a lot more than Obama and has absolutely no real plans short of "umm... we'll fund a study into the problem".

Sorry, but until you get the current powerbrokers in the GOP from out behind their fantasy that you can cut taxes without seriously cutting expenditure you'll have to put up with my ridiculing them as "don't tax but still spend" fiscal morons. It's ironic that "tax and spend" is used as a criticism and yet it's the foundation of good fiscal policy because they must go hand in hand.

I'm not an Obama fanboi. I just detest the GOP for the mockery it's made of true conservatism in the US and pray for them to get their asses smacked into political oblivion for it until someone with the balls to follow in Goldwater's footsteps comes forward and kicks the fuckwits that took over out. If that means the Democrats have to win a few elections then so be it.

Dd

[Kulaf]

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.

Wrong.....the CBO did BOTH. It's right there in the last paragraphs but I will provide some emphasis for you:

"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."

Now.....care to retract? Rephrase? Duck and cover?

[Lurker]

Now.....care to retract? Rephrase? Duck and cover?

No need since my post was accurate and mentioned both sets of conditions. The CBO baseline assumes the reckless Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as the law is currently written. That doesn't qualify as "more of the same" Republican policy since Bush wants to make the cuts permanent, and it certainly isn't what McCain is proposing. The Republican policies have been an abysmal failure leading to structural long term deficits. Why not admit that and move on.

[Kulaf]

I love your little bouts of circular logic Lurker. On one hand you say the Presidents proposals would never pass.......presumably because of Democratic control of Congress.......yet if McCain wins we will be "subjected" to "more of the same" and the sky falls......yet said same Democraticly controlled Congress is in place. On one hand you say that the Presidents proposals are "an abysmal failure leading to structural long term deficits" yet the CBO predicts that in 4 years under the president proposals there would be a 50% chance of the nation running a balanced budget or a surplus.

I don't tihnk anyone in this thread is going to change anyone elses mind about who they are voting for at this stage......but since the Dems seem a lock to add to their totals in both Houses I will state for the record that this country would be in a much better position with a Republican in the WH to check and balance said Congress.......than to just hand them a rubber stamp president and a blank check.

[Ddrak]

CBO releases new estimates Tuesday. Will be interesting.

Dd

[Partha]

I will state for the record that this country would be in a much better position with a Republican in the WH to check and balance said Congress.......than to just hand them a rubber stamp president and a blank check.

Which, of course, explains your votes for John Kerry and Al Gore.

[Partha]

Wow. Anyone know the moron who hacked Chant's account?

No one hacked it; Chants has always been a toadying Yoo-worshipping neocon. He's just decided he's Thoric as well.

[Lurker]

On one hand you say the Presidents proposals would never pass.......presumably because of Democratic control of Congress.......yet if McCain wins we will be "subjected" to "more of the same" and the sky falls

The Presidents proposals didn't pass or even come up for a serious vote, even when the Republicans controlled everything, because privatizing Social Security and making drastic cuts to Medicare are non-starters in this country. McCain and all the other fiscal lunatics would fail as badly as Bush because they get their reckless tax cuts through knowing the draconian spending cuts will never happen. They would never win an election running on the "I'm cutting Medicare!" platform.

On one hand you say that the Presidents proposals are "an abysmal failure leading to structural long term deficits" yet the CBO predicts that in 4 years under the president proposals there would be a 50% chance of the nation running a balanced budget or a surplus.

The CBO projected that Bush's proposals had a 50% chance of having one year of balance and every other year of defict, with 717 billion in increased debt by 2018.

Not following the Republican plan, allowing the reckless Bush tax cuts to expire and not making cuts to Medicare and Social Security, leads to a 60% chance of a balanced budget by 2012 and a surplus of 270 billion by 2018.

Sounds like the Republican formula sucks.

since the Dems seem a lock to add to their totals in both Houses I will state for the record that this country would be in a much better position with a Republican in the WH to check and balance said Congress.......than to just hand them a rubber stamp president and a blank check.

I don't think Obama is going to rubber stamp spending we can't afford. If he was that fiscally stupid he'd be a modern day Republican.

[Rsak]

Lurker is the example of a modern day Democrat. So blinded by his biases that he won't even recognize the lies and name calling in his own posts.

[Lurker]

You are right, Rsak. If I wasn't blinded by bigotry I'd realize that a one-time stimulus check is the same as a long-term across-the-board tax cut. If I wasn't blinded by my biases I'd realize that 717 billion in debt is the same as 270 billion in surplus. What was I thinking??? And then name calling... oh god the name calling... That was so uncalled for. I blame it all on Ddrak's influence. Ddrak, who called the current Republican's "fiscal morons" and "fuckwits". I hope he can learn from the example you've made of me.

[Rsak]

Lurker,

Whether it is one time stimulus or an across the board tax cut, it is still reducing the revenue of the Federal government and delays the reduction of the deficit. If the mantra of the democrats is debt is bad then why did they push this pointless stimulus through?

The fact of the matter is both parties want it both ways, to claim to reduce the debt but still increase spending on the things they want.

There simply is not a difference in the two parties, only two sides of a coin rolling down the same hill.

[Partha]

There simply is not a difference in the two parties, only two sides of a coin rolling down the same hill.

The ultimate falsity of a side that's been proven ineffective in governing.

[Kulaf]

I will state for the record that this country would be in a much better position with a Republican in the WH to check and balance said Congress.......than to just hand them a rubber stamp president and a blank check.

Which, of course, explains your votes for John Kerry and Al Gore.

No......but it explains why I didn't ever vote for GWB......and why I did vote for Maria Cantwell.

[Kulaf]

I don't think Obama is going to rubber stamp spending we can't afford. If he was that fiscally stupid he'd be a modern day Republican.

Of course not......once they reinstitute Pay-Go then he can just raise your taxes to pay for the spending we can't afford.

[Lurker]

Of course not......once they reinstitute Pay-Go then he can just raise your taxes to pay for the spending we can't afford.

ZOMG!!! HE'S GOING TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!! I'd better vote for the party that will lower taxes for the wealthy, stealth raise taxes for everyone else, all while ballooning the deficit. You are so right.

You still haven't responded to one substantive question. You posted CBS estimates that proved Bush's proposals suck and then you deflect deflect deflect. Own you parties failures, Kulaf. Republicans have sucked shit at fiscal policy for decades now.

[Harlowe]

ZOMG!!! HE'S GOING TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!! I'd better vote for the party that will lower taxes for the wealthy, stealth raise taxes for everyone else, all while ballooning the deficit. You are so right.

^
This. People are irrational. Look at the big picture jaaaaysus.

[Rsak]

ZOMG!!! HE'S GOING TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!! I'd better vote for the party that will lower taxes for the wealthy, stealth raise taxes for everyone else

How the hell is raising taxes on businesses not a stealth tax on for everyone else? They just pass it on to their consumers.

Own you parties failures, Kulaf. Republicans have sucked shit at fiscal policy for decades now.

Again with the lies. Social Security has done more damage to fiscal policy then all Republican efforts combined.

[Kulaf]

Of course not......once they reinstitute Pay-Go then he can just raise your taxes to pay for the spending we can't afford.

ZOMG!!! HE'S GOING TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!! I'd better vote for the party that will lower taxes for the wealthy, stealth raise taxes for everyone else, all while ballooning the deficit. You are so right.

You still haven't responded to one substantive question. You posted CBS estimates that proved Bush's proposals suck and then you deflect deflect deflect. Own you parties failures, Kulaf. Republicans have sucked shit at fiscal policy for decades now.

If I see a substantive question I will respond to it......and I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but I am not a Republican. Believe it or not I did vote for Clinton for his first term of office. He is however the only Democrat running for President that I have ever voted for. I tend to try to keep my votes for Democrat more close to home at the state level. I tend to favor Republicans at the federal level.

I will however be voting for Dino Rossi for governor this year as Gregoire hasn't really delivered much.