OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[TheHiddenTrack]

What about cruelty by animals to other animals?

We get your point, you aren't an environmentalist.

[JackB1]

Jack. I realize this is going on in other states, but I found out about this while I was researching Palin's background. .

You stalking her Jack?

Did you find any good pics? ...If so, please post.

I am afraid to do any more searching on Palin. I am afraid of finding pictures of her standing over some bloody moose carcass, with a Caribou burger in one hand and 12 gauge in the other.

The women scares me

[FatPitcher]

It is not false. You probably missed the word "all".

Didn't miss it. I Still say it's false.

Then you're just wrong. No business in a competitve industry can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers, it's just basic economics. If they had that much market power, they would have raised their prices already.

Wrong. This happens with gasoline all the time, because the margins are so thin that stations can't afford to absorb any of a cost increase. And the whole reason margins are thin is because it's a competitive marketplace.

Small businesses are especially vulnerable to tax increases, because they often fail if they don't turn a profit one time, whereas companies like Ford can lose money for years and still be around. Think of how Walmart puts mom and pop operations out of business. They can lose money selling things below cost for a while, but the smaller store can't. With increased taxes, you have these consequences: 1) most businesses have to charge higher prices, though not necessarily 100% of the tax increase, 2) outsourcing and importation of goods from cheaper sources, 3) business failure and downsizing, 4) disincentive to start new businesses, and 5) disincentive to invest

[greggsand]

Jack. I realize this is going on in other states, but I found out about this while I was researching Palin's background. .

You stalking her Jack?

Did you find any good pics? ...If so, please post.

I am afraid to do any more searching on Palin. I am afraid of finding pictures of her standing over some bloody moose carcass, with a Caribou burger in one hand and 12 gauge in the other.

The women scares me

Larry Flynt has a $1 million bounty for anyone that can find nude pics or (even better) a sex tape of Palin. That'd buy an a lot moose nutz up there!

[Teal]

Palin standing in for Jesse Jackson, doing the job that the Reverend said he wanted to:

PALIN: "Just last night Senator Obama finally broke and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that's: thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded. Senator Obama said that the surge, quote, "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. I think," said Senator Obama, "that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated." I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too."

ZING!


(Can't wait to see the attempts at excuses and defenses for B.O. on this one!)

[XXXIV]

You stalking her Jack?

Did you find any good pics? ...If so, please post.

I am afraid to do any more searching on Palin. I am afraid of finding pictures of her standing over some bloody moose carcass, with a Caribou burger in one hand and 12 gauge in the other.

The women scares me

Larry Flynt has a $1 million bounty for anyone that can find nude pics or (even better) a sex tape of Palin. That'd buy an a lot moose nutz up there!

Thats all?...cheap ass...I bet others would pay a lot more.

[Teal]

I am afraid to do any more searching on Palin. I am afraid of finding pictures of her standing over some bloody moose carcass, with a Caribou burger in one hand and 12 gauge in the other.

The women scares me

Larry Flynt has a $1 million bounty for anyone that can find nude pics or (even better) a sex tape of Palin. That'd buy an a lot moose nutz up there!

Thats all?...cheap ass...I bet others would pay a lot more.

Great...the photoshop geeks will come out of the woodwork for this one...

[TheHiddenTrack]

(Can't wait to see the attempts at excuses and defenses for B.O. on this one!)

Well if you can't wait, here ya go:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/0 ... st-dreams/

[greggsand]

Palin standing in for Jesse Jackson, doing the job that the Reverend said he wanted to:

PALIN: "Just last night Senator Obama finally broke and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that's: thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded. Senator Obama said that the surge, quote, "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. I think," said Senator Obama, "that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated." I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too."

ZING!


(Can't wait to see the attempts at excuses and defenses for B.O. on this one!)

I thought the Cardinals were going to totally suck-ass this year, turns-out they succeeded "beyond my wildest dreams" only because they just kinda-suck. What's the hubbub?

[TheHiddenTrack]

Here is some more funny:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RGWakF5XgYM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0iqktCdX0hs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[Feanor]

He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Incorrect. It's gone up under Bush II - by 6.9% in his first term, and an estimated 3.9% in his second. I'm baffled as to how you got that wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

[FatPitcher]

He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Incorrect. It's gone up under Bush II - by 6.9% in his first term, and an estimated 3.9% in his second. I'm baffled as to how you got that wrong.

You're right - I was looking at 1999-2007.

[Feanor]

Also, although a business owner might not be a monopoly, if the increased cost affects you and your competitors across the board, might there not be a universal effect to push a significant portion of the costs onto consumers whether the individual companies are monopolistic or not?

Yes, if there's less than perfect competition (and there almost always is) all companies may try to push a significant portion of increased costs on to consumers.

[Jared]

He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Incorrect. It's gone up under Bush II - by 6.9% in his first term, and an estimated 3.9% in his second. I'm baffled as to how you got that wrong.

And, looking at the same source, the debt as a % of GDP has gone up with Republicans, and has gone down with Democrats since Carter. Looking at debt relative to GDP, for the beginning and end of a president's term.

Nixon/Ford 38.6% 35.8%
Carter 35.8% 32.6%
Reagan 32.6% 53.1%
Bush I 53.1% 66.2%
Clinton 66.2% 57.4%
Bush II 57.4% 68.2%

I don't think Reid-Pelosi-Obama can pay off the debt...that's nearly impossible right now. But in the last 30 years, Democrats have decreased the national debt relative to GDP, whereas Republicans have not. Looking at it historically, why should someone think that a Republican would decrease the debt, given their track record?

[Feanor]

I googled the Clinton surplus and it's a lot more complicated than the accepted wisdom I had been going by that the federal budget was in surplus in the last few years of his administration. Now it seems like any sort of real fiscal discipline is even more of a pipe dream than I had thought.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Seems like the best Clinton ever did was a budget deficit of $17.9 billion in FY 2000.

[XXXIV]

He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Incorrect. It's gone up under Bush II - by 6.9% in his first term, and an estimated 3.9% in his second. I'm baffled as to how you got that wrong.

And, looking at the same source, the debt as a % of GDP has gone up with Republicans, and has gone down with Democrats since Carter. Looking at debt relative to GDP, for the beginning and end of a president's term.

Nixon/Ford 38.6% 35.8%
Carter 35.8% 32.6%
Reagan 32.6% 53.1%
Bush I 53.1% 66.2%
Clinton 66.2% 57.4%
Bush II 57.4% 68.2%

I don't think Reid-Pelosi-Obama can pay off the debt...that's nearly impossible right now. But in the last 30 years, Democrats have decreased the national debt relative to GDP, whereas Republicans have not. Looking at it historically, why should someone think that a Republican would decrease the debt, given their track record?

Wasnt that done cause Clinton had a GOP congress his last 6 years?

The president is only one half the equation.

EDIT: just seems to me things are always worse when both pres and congress are on one side.

Carter and Bush II

[FatPitcher]

He never had a surplus, and the national debt never once went down in total dollars during Clinton's term (although it decreased as a % of GDP, as it has under Bush II).

Incorrect. It's gone up under Bush II - by 6.9% in his first term, and an estimated 3.9% in his second. I'm baffled as to how you got that wrong.

And, looking at the same source, the debt as a % of GDP has gone up with Republicans, and has gone down with Democrats since Carter. Looking at debt relative to GDP, for the beginning and end of a president's term.

Nixon/Ford 38.6% 35.8%
Carter 35.8% 32.6%
Reagan 32.6% 53.1%
Bush I 53.1% 66.2%
Clinton 66.2% 57.4%
Bush II 57.4% 68.2%

I don't think Reid-Pelosi-Obama can pay off the debt...that's nearly impossible right now. But in the last 30 years, Democrats have decreased the national debt relative to GDP, whereas Republicans have not. Looking at it historically, why should someone think that a Republican would decrease the debt, given their track record?

Debt relative to GDP is interesting when you are talking about how burdensome the debt is, but that isn't really the issue at hand. Which is, are the Democrats likely to keep spending at current levels, or reduce it? With both houses of Congress and the presidency under the control of unabashed big spenders who've made lots of campaign promises, I think it would go up dramatically, just as it went up when the so-called party of small government had free reign.

[Teal]

(Can't wait to see the attempts at excuses and defenses for B.O. on this one!)

Well if you can't wait, here ya go:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/0 ... st-dreams/

crooksandliars.com...great source material...

[matthewk]

I know exactly how you feel.

I understand what you write just perfectly Jack. Most of the time I just can't believe you actually write the things you do.

[Feanor]

(Can't wait to see the attempts at excuses and defenses for B.O. on this one!)

Well if you can't wait, here ya go:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/0 ... st-dreams/

crooksandliars.com...great source material...

The story linked to there about McCain getting the timeline completely wrong about when the surge started relative to the Anbar Awakening is very sad.

[JackB1]

I know exactly how you feel.

I understand what you write just perfectly Jack. Most of the time I just can't believe you actually write the things you do.

We all can't be as smart and as well written as you Matt.

[Teal]

This made me laugh out loud-from a blurb on 'Rotten Tomatoes' website:

"Denzel Washington has signed on to star in The Book of Eli, as a lone hero in a post-apocalyptic America who is the only one who has the key to saving society from its current wasteland status. Oh cool, a Barack Obama biopic!?"

[greggsand]

This made me laugh out loud-from a blurb on 'Rotten Tomatoes' website:

"Denzel Washington has signed on to star in The Book of Eli, as a lone hero in a post-apocalyptic America who is the only one who has the key to saving society from its current wasteland status. Oh cool, a Barack Obama biopic!?"

Replace "apocalyptic" with "GW Bush" & it sounds good to me...

[Naples39]

Hmm, remember what I was saying about how the Obama tax plan isn't designed to help the struggling economy? Not sure I could get better evidence than this little gem.

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_ ... ZivIms0NUE

If Obama's thinking of delaying his tax increases because of a weak economy, he doesn't even think his tax plan will help the economy!! So much for the Obama tax plan raising all boats and offsetting the fact he is taking more money out of Amercans' pockets.

[Teal]

he is taking more money out of Amercans' pockets.

Get that from the George Bush phonics dictionary, did ya?