Palin as Republican VEEP

[Partha]

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.

Which, of course, is why the corporate tax cuts that the Republicans pushed through made all your goods cheaper.

BTW, ain't it funny how all these corporations manage to work just fine in them socialist countries in Europe and the Far East with the fancy health care and all?

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.

News flash; Social Security is and has been solvent for years, and since 1980 has done wonders at making Republican deficit spending look smaller.

and I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but I am not a Republican.

It's not The Wizard of Oz, duder. Repeating it don't make it happen.

[Rsak]

BTW, ain't it funny how all these corporations manage to work just fine in them socialist countries in Europe and the Far East with the fancy health care and all?

You apparently missed the fall of communism.

News flash; Social Security is and has been solvent for years,

News flash: Social Security was raided before the first check was ever cut and its the worst investment possible.

[Ddrak]

On the CBO predicitons, Lurker is correct. The CBO is required (by law) to form their projections based solely on the current law, including the expirations of all tax cuts and the like. As a result, they aren't really projecting anything to do with the current budget, but something closer to the one Obama is presenting which allows the cuts to expire. You certainly can't claim any budget (like McCain's) that makes the cuts permanent AND axes the AMT, AND drops corporate tax levels by a third is anything like the one projected.

Dd

[Flunkie]

News flash; Social Security is and has been solvent for years,

News flash: Social Security was raided before the first check was ever cut and its the worst investment possible.

The real news is that Social Security isn't an investment at all. It's really an 'I owe you' from the government to the people. Since we are the government, it's actually an 'I owe me' I guess. Social Security is solvent as long as the government can pay back the redeemed Treasury Bills which the Social Security Trust Fund holds trillions of Dollars in. When the government can't pay for the redeemed T-Bills, that's when Social Security becomes insolvent and the US Government is offically bankrupt. What will all the young Dems full of piss an vineger say in ten or fifteen years when they are paying much higher taxes for the horde of older, longer living retirees? Ah, they will probably turn into Republicans by then...

[Rsak]

It's really an 'I owe you' from the government to the people.

No Social Security was a play on the fears of the Great Depression to make sure no little old grannies who lost their husbands would be destitute. And before it ever sent any money it was raided for other programs.

You praise a program like this which came from a President who puts Bush to shame in controlling things and forcing events.

[Kulaf]

No the real problem is the program never increased the retirement age in response to the increased life expectency of Americans. When it was implemented the average life extectancy in the US was under 60 years......now it is over 76. Hard to keep a program solvent when people are living 25% longer than the program was ever designed to support. So to do it you have an excessive payroll deduction rather that dealing with the political football of raising the age to receive benefits to ohh say........75.

[Rsak]

Doesn't matter Kulaf. The program was never sold or designed to be a retirement fund for everyone. It was only designed for a safety for those who had horrible luck.

[Flunkie]

It's really an 'I owe you' from the government to the people.

No Social Security was a play on the fears of the Great Depression to make sure no little old grannies who lost their husbands would be destitute. And before it ever sent any money it was raided for other programs.

You praise a program like this which came from a President who puts Bush to shame in controlling things and forcing events.

I don't praise Social Security, I think it's a total rip-off!


When you say the money was raided, I'm not sure you really understand how the program was set up. Exactly where do you believe the money was when it was first raided? In a bank somewhere?

By Federal Law, The Social Security Administration has to purchase US Treasuries. The proceeds from all sales of US Treasuries goes into the general fund for each years annual budget. The annual budget (and more) is spent up each year giving emergancy health care to illegal aliens and free needles to many of the people on this forum. As long as the population grows at a fast pace, this pyramid scheme is solvent. As soon as you have more money going out than comming into Social Security, the house of cards begins to colapse. Beginning around 2018 the government will have to start paying back the redeemed Treasuries instead of getting proceeds from their sale.

If the SS money was raided, then it was raided by design, because as far as I can see nobody ever had any plans to take the proceeds from Treasury sales and invest it somewhere for the future. If they had, then nobody would be talking about Social Security, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Rsak]

Do you understand the concept of a Trust fund. That is what Social Security is supposed to be, a trust fund, where the money is designated to only go to specific things (social security checks). They raided it and put it into the general budget before the very first social security check was mailed.

[Ddrak]

The annual budget (and more) is spent up each year giving emergancy health care to illegal aliens and free needles to many of the people on this forum.

Seriously, wtf? If you honestly want to look at where most of the budget goes, it's the military. The issues you mentioned barely raise a bullet point on the total funds spent by the United States Government.

Now, the fact that SS is funded by treasury bonds is fairly dumb because it really doesn't make it independent of the core budget at all. If they honestly wanted to set up a "trust fund" then they wouldn't have mandated the trust be invested by simply giving the money back to general revenue through bonds.

Dd

[Flunkie]

The annual budget (and more) is spent up each year giving emergancy health care to illegal aliens and free needles to many of the people on this forum.

Seriously, wtf? If you honestly want to look at where most of the budget goes, it's the military. The issues you mentioned barely raise a bullet point on the total funds spent by the United States Government.

Now, the fact that SS is funded by treasury bonds is fairly dumb because it really doesn't make it independent of the core budget at all. If they honestly wanted to set up a "trust fund" then they wouldn't have mandated the trust be invested by simply giving the money back to general revenue through bonds.

Dd

Come on man, I was being sarcastic! The bulk of the budget goes to the Department of Defese and the Treasury Department.

And to Rsak, yes I do understand the concept of a trust fund. The trust fund for Social Security consists of T-Bills purchased with all of the revenue from the withholdings on paychecks. They are all still there, the government never 'raided' the T-Bills away from the Social Security Administration.

[Ddrak]

Come on man, I was being sarcastic!

Apologies! Election season is making me too sensitive to random nonsense.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Didn't want to start a new thread just for this, but it appears that Palin is now accused of nepotism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... UlRcLKxIg4

Shortly after she was elected governor, Palin's office signed off on hiring Deborah Richter -- who attended college for a year then worked in bookkeeping and finance jobs -- as director of a division that distributes dividends to Alaskans from the state's oil-wealth savings account.

Richter, who said she's known Palin for 13 years, was Palin's gubernatorial campaign treasurer and ran her inaugural committee.

Sharing an Investment

The Richters and Palins also shared an investment: 30 acres of rural property near a lake in Petersville, Alaska, worth $47,300, according to Matanuska-Susitna Borough data.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Nepotism is hiring a family member. Favoritism, might be a better word.

I notice the underline emphasis -- I'm guessing they're attempting to show that an "uneducated" person got a government job. Quickly followed by asking this person to help with Palin's campaign. What is the issue, exactly? If Ms. Richter is capable for the job, why shouldn't she be hired to do it?

As for sharing property...so? We have lots of families in my region that "chip in" on large plots of land to farm it. Maybe they like having a place they can go camping, snowmobiling, or other leisurely activities. Maybe they hunt together on this property.

Please show me the sinister deeds here.

-TF

[Harlowe]

If you want sinister, McCain is a more interesting subject. From Snopes..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/carol.asp

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Okay - failing to see what that has to do with Palin.

Also, at the bottom of the article:

As for the subjective parts of the article, a number of different people who knew the McCains, including John and Carol themselves, have offered widely differing opinion and interpretations regarding John McCain's first marriage and the reasons why it ended - the "why" is a question with no definitive answer. It's worth noting, however, that John and Cindy McCain have now been married for over 28 years and have four children (one of them adopted) together, and that in a portion of the Daily Mail article referenced above (which was not included in the excerpt via e-mail), Carol McCain is quoted as saying of her former husband: "He's a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."

I'd start by asking, what else was left out of the article? What about all the democrats that have had extra-marital relations? I'm certainly not absolving these politicians of their poor choices, but fair is fair. Who's the pot, who's the kettle?

Again, why is John McCain's first marriage a retort to a defense of Sarah Palin? I'd go a step further and ask, why do I care what happened almost 30 years ago in a private life? I believe this even pre-dates his Congressional career. People should be judged on how they handle their business, and rise up or fall down.

I could offer another diversion - how about Charlie Rangel'sfailure to pay $75,000 in taxes on a luxury home. He works as the chairman for the House Ways and Means Committee, writing TAX LAWS. Add to that, Pelosi won't remove him.

Wonder what would happen if I didn't pay my taxes?

-TF

[Lurker]

Yeah, Harlowe. Stop reaching. You don't have to go back 30 years to highlight McCains total lack of character. Hell, just look at his "sex education" ad from last week.

[Harlowe]

It has nothing to do with her. The discussion was going to character and if you are trying to find the negative, McCain has more to judge negatively than Palin. A person's character has something to do with the choices they will make. It's just an example of the packaging not matching the actual contents.

And you are right Lurker, I don't have to go back that far. I was just looking at Snopes and what they were debunking on Obama, Palin & McCain and McCain had some pretty negative shit that was "true".

ETA: But character aside, which is more of a personal reason that I don't like either of these candidates, what I really want to know as a voter is how the hell he's going to be any different then Bush, you know.... since he's a big reformer now. I haven't seen any facts and no one that supporting him seems to be able to compare either. It's a big mystery.

Tarfang, is Pelosi running on a ticket that I don't know about? Is he (Rangel) directly connected to Obama or Biden somehow?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

No, no she's not (thank God).

As for people that make me uneasy about Obama's judgment -- I'd probably just get insulted for "listening to Limbaugh!" or "you're a stupid Republican, right wing whacko, bitter gun toting racist," which has been the typical fare on other sites, but -- I'll give Brell Rants the benefit of the doubt for the sake of conversation.

I'll add Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers to my list of "Obama supporters that make me very uneasy." He can sit in a church for 20+ years and hear someone shout (omg, sound bite incoming!) "God damn America!" and not want to get up and walk out? Or enjoy parties at the house of a known and admitted domestic terrorist? (Which, incidentally, how is that guy not in jail?)

I might also toss Biden in there as a poor choice for VP. It strikes me to ask someone who only 5 months prior said "Barack Obama doesn't have the experience needed to be president" is a poor choice. Does Biden still not support Obama as a presidential nominee? I understand the notion of adding Biden to the ticket is supposed to up Obama's experience number, but...I dunno.

It's the same on the McCain side. They needed to solidify the base, so they found a young, Christian woman to fit that bill. I do question her experience as well, but she has more "favorability" than Obama with the people, or perhaps maybe just different people. That might go into a regional discussion. Perceptions are very different when I speak with some friends from the east coast.

It seems to pick a president this year, based on media reactions, I either have to pick the "devil I know" or the "change for the sake of change." Or "waste" my vote on a third party.

-TF

[Lurker]

It's the same on the McCain side. They needed to solidify the base, so they found a young, Christian woman to fit that bill. I do question her experience as well, but she has more "favorability" than Obama with the people, or perhaps maybe just different people.

And Obama is a young Christian man. Who cares? Palin holds fringe beliefs that in my opinion make her unfit for national office. I don't want a VP or President that believes creationism should be taught in public school science class, or that the Iraq war is our mission from God, or that human caused climate change is a fraud, or that banning books is acceptable. She's unfit for office and so is the lying sack that picked her.

He can sit in a church for 20+ years and hear someone shout (omg, sound bite incoming!) "God damn America!" and not want to get up and walk out?

Obama wasn't there during the "god damn America" sermon. He said he heard other controversial stuff, not rising to that level of rhetoric, but who hasn't from their pastor.

Or enjoy parties at the house of a known and admitted domestic terrorist? (Which, incidentally, how is that guy not in jail?)

I'm pretty sure it was just the one party but that's besides the point. Obama was eight when Ayers committed his crimes. Ayers is now a Professor at the University of Illinois. Is everyone that associates with him at the University suspect? Is Obama somehow guilty for serving on the Woods Fund board, trying to help disadvantaged children, just because Ayers was also on the board? How about the other half dozen people on the board at the time? I supposed you would have stormed out in disgust.

The Ayers connection might be so lame even McCain won't stoop that low, and that's saying something given their "sex education" attack.