What?!?

Well, I'm sure it was just an oversight.  Karl Rove is a much respected and authoritative member of the fair and balanced non-partisan media team over at Fox News.

By the way, the Palin family's pet fox was rescued from the jaws of a walrus during one of Sarahs glacier climbing trips, and is named "Sylvester".  At night, he sleeps next to the bible stand in their home library.

Sylvester sometimes climbs onto her pillow and nibbles, resulting in the only "earmarks" Palin has ever approved of.

I sure it WAS an oversight.

The words of Rove are always right.

To challenge them is quite absurd:

We miss the blossoms in the turd.

 

Why isn't this man behind bars?

even if he wasn't, in a just society he would be shunned as a pariah.  we have an administration that ignored all the warnings of 9-11, and then rove and his little cadre are talking to reporters and trying to get them to print the name of an undercover agent specializing in weapons of mass destruction.  not only destroying her informant network, but making future contacts think twice about dealing with us, because they might be revealed to their home governments.  walking dirtball traitor. guys like harry truman or ike would have kicked someone like rove out personally.

Aside from that, Bush would just pardon him anyway.

He should be. He may be if we can someone with the guts to investigate him.

Just take a look in Ohio, today. The McCain campaign, under the direction of long time Rove acolyte, Steve Schmidt, in yet another Republican effort to suppress the vote, has sent out at least 1 million faulty absentee ballot applications to likely Obama voters. Return addresses have been verified to be wrong, incorrect reidence addresses, extra boxes in the reprints and more. These errors would disenfranchise the voter. In fact, thousands of voters in Hamilton County, Ohio have been disqualified today.

Republicans will do absolutely anything keep power from the hands of the people and force us to live according to their failed government agenda of upward redistribution of wealth.

Republicans simply love money first and hate democracy.

Then we have people like, AA below, who will do and say anything to perpetuate the control of Republicans like John McCain who will cheat voters out of their God given American right to the ballot; Republicans like John McCain who sell his honor to the radical right and pick the religious zealot, Palin, who will help appoint Supreme Court justices who will author the Rapist's Bill of Rights.

Why?

Why have we let these Republicans steal our dreams? Why do we feel like we have to defend ourselves from any of their attacks? Given their record of neglect, cronyism and criminality and moral turpitude they have no claim to worth or value.

Round,

Do you have any link?

Go check the Cincinnati Enquirer online from 9-11-08.

"About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton

County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it."

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/

And today.

"COLUMBUS - More than 1,000 absentee ballot applications in Greater Cincinnati have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.

The forms were sent to more than 1 million registered voters statewide, according to a McCain spokesman in Ohio.

The McCain forms included a box voters can mark to declare themselves qualified to vote. But Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner says that if the box isn't checked, circled or initialed, the application is no good. Those voters are essentially admitting they're not eligible, she said.

That ruling has drawn howls from Republicans, who say it's an attempt to disenfranchise them. Election officials say it could wreak havoc in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 4 election."

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080912/NEWS0106/809120342/0/NEWS0108

Not that you'll change your mind about who the Republicans are, I get it.

Round,

Thanks for the link. I'll go take a look and/or read about it when I get home tonight.  Without yet having looked at the article, it looks to me like the absentee ballots were sent to Republicans.

Why would they send them to Democrats?

If that is the case, your rant is without merit. 

Just read it... It is an obvious attempt by the Democrat in charge to disenfranchise Republican voters. 

Your example only worked to prove the opposite of your charge. 

Thanks for today's laugh. Keep up the good work! 

Oh I get it. You saw that Bruner is Democrat so you naturally assumed that everybody is as dirty as a Republican. We're not like you.

And besides, what are you talking about? The applications were printed by the McCain campaign, since when do campaigns produce ballot applications? Isn't it the purview of the state to print ballot applications?

Hahahaha.. Stop it. I can't breathe! Hahaha...

A Democrat disenfranchises Republican absentee votes because a box that is not needed is mistakenly included on the ballot.

And you have the chutzpah to try and defend it by saying the Republicans are somehow to blame?  Hahahaha.

Apparently you missed this, according to the article, both Dems and Republicans can print absentee ballots. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You trust McCain enough to believe he isn't up to fraud!

Thanks for the laugh.

Ahem, so campaigns can print them. I don't like it, but that's the law.

Look, given your Republican's track record on election fraud, I wouldn't be surprised that this maneuver isn't the first step in a broader effort to disenfranchise Democrats. Call me paranoid, but your Party has proven themselves unworthy of trust.

And look at MI, too. That is a blatant effort to disenfranchise those disenchanted with the Bush economy.

Roundhouse, I know some of the info. on this was just getting filled in this morning, so the article in your link, while very cautious,didn't give some of what's being reported(and this is all pretty sketchy stuff right now);

First, these ballots are being sent to "purple " states, and many to registered Dems who don't normally receive GOP mailings.

I don't know if it was in your link, but aside from the unnecessary box to check, many have incorrect addresses for the registrar, or are to be sent back to a GOP intermediary, allowing tampering or disposal, or "accidentally" missing deadlines.

I've been trying to find more stats on the number of absentee ballots used by (D)s vs. (R)s, but have only been able to find some state-specific figures. If I'm not mistaken, the primaries showed a strong trend towards Dems using them in much greater numbers.

So, even if these are also being sent to Republicans, the math is pretty simple (while the whole thing is still a lot of "if"s--) "If" these are being sent to toss-up states, where Dems are more likely to use them, and these snags are likely to invalidate a vote, it could work in McCain's favor very easily.

I've been trying to find some more current info, but I'm not seeing much yet.

 

 

I received a packet of McCain campaign advertising material the other day in New Jersey.

There was an absentee ballot, or a request form to receive an absentee ballot, included. I thought it was pretty strange for the Republicans to send anything to me.

And in another swing state, Michigan, the Republicans are doing their best to prevent voting from those who have had their homes foreclosed:

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

Pearlene and I were talking about this earlier today.

Cheap bastards. Those Republicans urged everyone to jump into the housing market, knowing the risk to our economy could be disasterous in the long term. But they needed for their rich buddies to cash in, hell, Bush let Wall St. write the deregulations.

The irony is that getting people to own homes and the ownership society, remember Bush exhorting the people to buy a house, was part of Roves's master plan to build a permanent majority. The thought was that since about 75% of home owners vote Republican, it would be yet another way to get more votes. What happened, the housing bubble popping in the midst of an unregulated, corrupted market, was the typical con disasterous meltdown of market fundamentalism.

Now, all those folks they were courting who got burned by the you're on your own society are being purged from the voting rolls. Perfect.

Its absolutely disgusting, Round.  Sorry I missed your discussion with Pearlene!

It's still up. I love Pearlene.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809110013#comments

"Those Republicans urged everyone to jump into the housing market,"

How hysterical, not to mention paranoid.  Do you liberals ever take responsibility for choices you make, or do you just default into blaming the evil rich.  So it's the Republicans fault that financially reckless people bought homes they couldn't afford and now want those who were prudent and cautious to bail them out?  Until you at least take responsibility for your own decisions and hold yourselves accountable for your own financial well being, don't whine to anyone else to blame for your mistakes.

"....was part of Roves's master plan to build a permanent majority"

Another bit of left wing paranoia.  So Rove wanted people to buy homes they couldn't afford so they will vote Republican?  Seems to me that historically Democrats are the party who panders to those who look to government to fix their problems and bail them out, so I think you've got that one exactly backwards.....when these homeowners who bought in over their heads come crawling to the government for help, who do you think will be there ready to fill their coffers and replenish their bank accounts?  Right, Democrats.  

 

Blah, blah, blah, Tommy. You're just pissed that your Republican yoyo society is bullcrap, so you're out to blame people who were lied to, manipulated and had their their collective money so recklessly gambled in a de-regulated market that our economy may not recover for years because of this Wall St. hedonism.

Why don't you take responsibility for the failures of market fundamentalism instead of trying to word associate liberals into culpability for the market failures that conservative government let happen through no oversight and nothing but bailouts and rewards for companies that got soaked in the collapse?

He's part of the Republican corporate establishment. They only sit at bars.

Frankly, I'd prefer Rove NOT be behind bars at this time.  If he were, then he'd get a presidential pardon.  If he's arrested AFTER Obama is elected he may yet get (a small measure of) his due.  Aiding and abetting in the outing of a secret agent is treason of the highest order.  Helping in the cover-up which followed may be an equally heinous crime.  Aiding and abetting the disinfranchisement of American citizens may also be illegal.  (And I'm only scratching the surface.)  Of course, he'll probably continue his political work from behind bars as a political pundit for FOX News, its affiliate, the WSJ and as a contributor to Newsweek!

That per capita qualifier is laughable. 

No, it's not.

Pete,

Why are some of the earmarks Obama asked for excluded?

The fact that he requested close to a billion dollars of earmarks in his two years as a Senator but somehow is supposedly asking for less than Palin makes this analysis a mockery.

Perhaps the better comparison would be between Obama and McCain or don't you want to talk about that? 

Or perhaps you don't want to talk about Biden earmarks?

Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Joe Biden.

 

Link?

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894_pf.html -

And what do you suppose that your linked story proves? You made it sound somewhat sinister, but Obama trying to get earmarks for worth institutions in his State? Oh my God! That's shocking! Absolutely SHOCKING! Bear in mind, he worked together with a republican to secure the funds, and in the end, only got $192,000. What is that as a percentage of the national budget anyway? Let's see, total budget is 2.9 trillion dollars in 2008, which equates to: 0.0000066%.

Are you going to hold this up as some sort of bad thing? Obama getting money for a nursing school in his home state, and the company the lobbied for it Biden's son worked for them, but didn't lobby Obama directly, and this was a long time before Joe Biden became the nominee? This story is, well, nothing...

Are we including the earmarks that he asked for or requested, or just the ones that were actually received?

Believe it or not, the main reason we send folks to Congress is to get money for their home districts and or States from the federal government. Everyone does it, and every state benefits. For example, Mr. No Earmark McCain received 60 million in earmarks this year; so can we have that money back?

Perhaps the better comparison would be between Obama and McCain or don't you want to talk about that? - AA

Perhaps it's because Palin is the one being misportrayed as the great destroyer of earmarks?

And perhaps it's because in this article we have Rove making direct comparisons between Palin and Obama?

Wouldn't popping in a comparison with McCain be taking the discussion a little off topic?  And you wouldn't ever want to do that, would you?

Bill,

I thought including McCain as he is the Presidential contender against Obama, the Presidential contender would be illustrative.

Lets see... McCain's request earmarks $0.  How much does that work out per capita??? ;-)

So it looks like Obama looks bad by comparison again.

Not exactly. Maybe McCain didn't ask for any, but his fellow Senator, and House members did, which ended up equaling, wait for it, $18 / person for Arizona, strangely the same amount that Obama got for his constituency.

Mags,

It is irrelevant. McCain walked the walk. Obama just talks the talk.

McCain could walk the walk because DeConcini was on Appropriations, and now Kyl has stepped in. 

AA wrote:

>>I thought including McCain as he is the Presidential contender against Obama, the Presidential contender would be illustrative.

This is outright dishonest. That is like saying Bill Clinton didn't lie because he had less sex with his wife than politician B. You are completely changing the argument. Palin is running around the country claiming she is against earmarks--when she has requested more than any other governor!

Does it bother you that Palin is lying? Is that a Christian value I am not aware of?  

Obama and Biden aren't the ones making an anti-earmark mandate a cornerstone in their campaign.

Yes, because $18/person is no different than $330/person.

In other words, Obama is evil for requesting earmarks that total $18 for each person in his state, but Palin is a saint for requesting earmarks that total $330 for for each person in her state.  Makes perfect sense...

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

>>Yes, because $18/person is no different than $330/person.

In Wingnutland apparently so. Which might explain the super deficits and declining wages every time there is a Republican president. 

 

Which is more $930 million by Obama or $245 million by Palin?

Who is running on the platform that all earmarks are evil, Obama or McCain?  Who has lied about their earmark record, Obama or McCain/Palin?

Where's the lie?

That she said "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere," but kept the money. The more blatant one happened today:

"McCain said he had chosen Palin because she would help to reform Washington, specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks. When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said, "Not as governor she didn't."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_republicans;_ylt=AiGFqVxBb9Znx9Lh_mYIXMRh24cA

From earlier in the same article:

"Palin sought $197 million in so-called "earmarks" for 2009. In the previous budget year, she asked for earmarks worth $256 million."

 

Show me where the lie occurred. So far you have not proved your point.

Just because Palin used money that was in the end earmarked for Alaskan improvements (and not specifically the bridge,) does not mean she didn't end the bridge project.

Did anyone ever say Palin never got an earmark?  Just because Palin asked for earmarks as Mayor or Governor does not mean that she can't support McCain's policy. There is no lie there either.

 

AA,

You wrote: "Did anyone ever say Palin never got an earmark?"  Yes, AA, McCain did!!!!

McCain said:

McCain said he had chosen Palin because she would help to reform Washington, specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks. When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said, "Not as governor she didn't."

From the same article:

Palin sought $197 million in so-called "earmarks" for 2009. In the previous budget year, she asked for earmarks worth $256 million.

How can you say that this isn't a lie?!

Also, she kept the money from the bridge and only cancelled the project because of the joke it had become!

AA wrote:

>>Show me where the lie occurred. So far you have not proved your point.

Oh, good grief! The lie is that Palin said No to congress. She never, ever did. When the bridge was unpopular, she championed it. She didn't say no to congress.

>>Did anyone ever say Palin never got an earmark?  J

Yes, McCain said it today.

So there's two lies.

Oh, you might want to check factcheck.org 

Is he even serious on this one?

Friedbergerboy wrote:

>>Is he even serious on this one?

Apparently, the McCain campagin has decided to run a fact-free campaign. Seiously. They are banking on that the average voter who they hope to persuade is not going to be looking at factcheck.org.  

He certainly has AA.  I hope AA responds to this thread at least once more.  I want to hear how his logic works here.

Actually, it gives the true meaning behind the numbers.  Palin is about as fiscally conservative as the Bush Admin.  She left her little 7,000 pop town 22$ mill in debt.  A town that size may never recover.  And, how about all that per diem she was collecting for her family while they stayed at home?  Sounds like a case of Fraud, Waste and Abuse of taxpayer funds if you ask me.  I think more investigations need to be initiated on Carribou Barbie.

Yes, she did push for and approve the Wasilla Sports Center. Yes, it did cost a lot of money. (People keep saying $20 million, that article says $14.5 million, but then they also added a $1.2 million dollar food service/kitchen piece. This year, after Palin was out of office as Mayor.) Yes, the city went into debt to do it (how did you buy your house, bunkie?) and raised the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay for it. Yes, the city is paying it off early. Yes, there is an ongoing dispute about title (following a struggle with the Nature Conservancy and another buyer. And yes, at the time it was built, Wasilla had a Federal judge’s decision that they had title to the land. 

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

So, is she a tax and spender, AA?

AA wrote:

>>Yes, she did push for and approve the Wasilla Sports Center. 

Yes AA LINKED TO ANOTHER WEBSITE THAT DIDN'T PrOVE HIS POINT.

You do this every time you post.  It's the AA rule. Just post any crap whatsover, and hope no one notice. 

Why do you think it is okay for Palin to lie, AA?  

How is it laughable, AA?  I think it puts the enormity of her requests in context.

Do you have something against large towns and cities, AA?  Do you think people living in urban areas don't matter as much as rural, small-town folk?

I never said there was a difference.

The joke is trying to break it down per capita to start. Why not break it down by square miles?  After all, lots of those earmarks by Palin went to infrastructure.

The same illogic holds for using the State's square miles as it does population.

 

So you're not going to use the "She's the governor of the biggest state" line?

AA wrote:

>>Why not break it down by square miles?  

Oh my God! And you called the per capita thing laughable? Are you saying that land requires more resources than people?  

Funny. So is the comment you just made. Oh wait, per capita is how you hvae to look at such things because then you know what the "true" cost is.

Give Barney a few minutes. He's furiously Googling wingnut sites that explain to him why things are laughable.

I expect a link from Newsmax, WND, or some other website soon enough. And this makes me wonder, where is Bob today? He's usually got a great grasp on what smears the MSM are throwing at Palin today, along with what actually is or isn't a smear.

AA wrote:

>>That per capita qualifier is laughable. 

Only if you don't understand math. Your claim is outright laughable itself.

AA, why did Palin ask for more earmarks than any other state? Is it okay that she is lying through her teeth? Is that part of her Christian values?  

Does anyone expect Karl Rove to tell the truth?  For that matter does anyone really expect the WSJ editorial page to be fair to a Dem?

It never will be, and that's fine, they're editorials. I just want to know if they ID'd Rove as someone who is working on McCain's campaign or not?

How come the WSJ page didn't note that Rove works for McCani's campaign? That is a sort of important piece of information wouldn't you think? And I love this part:

"Mr. Obama may also pay a price for his "lipstick on a pig" comment. The last time the word "lipstick" showed up in this campaign was during Mrs. Palin's memorable ad-lib in her acceptance speech. Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin, but he deserves all the negative flashback he gets from the snarky aside."

So now Obama can't use the same word that someone else from the McCain campaign uses because it's trying to make snarky remarks about the other campaign? Obama didn't say he didn't mean to aim the comment towards Palin you a-hole, he didn't say anything in that comment about Palin AT ALL. What kind of negative flashback does one get from a comment that wasn't negative towards Palin?

Shhhhhh.....

Karl Rove does NOT work for McCain's campaign in any official capacity. 

Please watch what you say, they may be watching...

Isn't that what a Republican campaign is all about?  Making the comments of democrats look "snarky" as you say.  And diverting the enitre media, and consequently the rest of america from the actual important issues that should be discussed?  How many campaigns have actually been won by the issues being debated and discussed in a rational way.  My favorite Republican accusation is that Dems don't have morals?  What I was in the military for 8 yrs, I have a wonderful child, and try my best to be a good citizen.  Why don't I have good morals?  I am just waiting for the smear of Obama's morals to happen, and I think this is just the start of it.

"Why don't I have good morals?"

Well, you see <g> - it doesn't REALLY have to do with "your" morals...it's because Dems won't condemn the morals of those pre-judged as "immoral" by the Repubs.  They don't really care how "moral" any one person is...they only care that you stand shoulder to shoulder with them in condemning the morals of whole GROUPS of others.

Dems won't do that...so we get swept into the "groups" category and get OUR "morals" comdemned by the "righteous" Repubs.

Got that now?

Yikes - That is how it works.  I don't know why it keeps working that way, but it does. Scary. 

Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin, but he deserves all the negative flashback he gets from the snarky aside.

And Mr. Rove says he didn't mean to commit crimes against the USA and its constituents, but he deserves to be in jail anyways because he broke the law.

"Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin"

Mr. Obama DID NOT AIM the comment at Mrs. Palin. 

If the right wing doesn't lie, they don't win. 

Actually I could care less what earmarks governors or legislators beg to Washington for with their hand out.  What I do care about is Congress' reaction to them.  One could argue that it's normal for elected officials to want their pet projects funded, bring home the bacon for their constituents, so to speak.  But I expect Congress to cut off such baloney at the knees and NOT fund silly earmarks.  Ultimately it's their responsibility since they hold the purse strings.

Tommy - I can see your point and I would add also that this is how a lot of "minor" funding and legislation get passed. However, I think the per capita is a good indication of where to much money is being spent.  And $18 per person in a state does not seem like a lot.... Would you agree?

I don't look it that way.  If I did I could rationalize every spending item in the budget down to how much it costs per day, or per hour.  I don't care if it's $18 per person, or $1 per person, spending foolishly or recklessly on unnecessary items is a waste and should be eliminated, regardless of some per capita distraction.

Well, unfortunatley the Federal govt. has taken away some of the responsibility for financing some of the state interests, with the understanding that they'll send some of the money back to the state when asked.  And states with a larger population have a larger infrastructure to support, thus the "per capita" value does have some bearing.

But basically, we're talking two subjects here: states rights and lying.  And frankly, after the past 8 years, my concern right now is more focused on the lying.

Neon,

Earmarks don't necessarily have to do with infrastructure, they are pet projects requested by lawmakers for their districts or state , so per capita may have no relevance at all.

Okay.... A state with a larger population is likely to have a larger number of necessary state-level projects to support.

Fixed?

I suggest you go to earmarkwatch.org and that may change your notion of what is a "necessary state-level projects"

Per capita has nothing to do with a vast majority of them.

How is the per capita thing a distraction? Wouldn't the cost /benefit comparison work out better in a major city than an island of 50 people?

So spreading out ridiculous waste is more palatable if there are more people to share it?  Sorry, waste is waste, regardless.

"Ridiculous waste" is something that needs to be broken out of the total and judged on its own.  But when arguing...sorry, debating bumper sticker concepts - as us liberals often have to do with conservatives - it's easier and more readily comprehended if it's all combined.  But "ridiculous waste" is only a portion of the total earmarks, and while not uniform across the board, can be expected to be comparable within a reasonable margin of error.  In this case, I'm pretty comfortable to say that it is a small enough margin of error so as to not affect the comparison of $400/capita to $18/capita.

However, whenever you're ambitious enough to do a comprehensive study comparing the earmark amounts and purposes of those of Alaska and those of Illinois, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know so that I could take a look at it and we'd know for sure how much waste is actually going to each state.

Probably need an arbitrator between us to agree on the definition of waste...

What is considered silly to you, might not be silly to someone else, and therein lies the problem correct?

It is our lawmaker's job to determine the "silliness" of stuff we can't afford, that is what we entrust them with our money to do.  Considering our huge debt, our lawmakers can't seem to make the distinction,  it is their job.

Like I said before, what is silly to someone, is not silly to someone else, lawmakers included. Remember it was Ted Stevens who was railing for the Bridge to Nowhere, and threatened to quit the Senate if he didn't get his way. Funny, he's still there. He thought it was a great and grand idea, while many others thought it was bad.

As someone else said, earmarks are such a small portion of the budget. We are in serious debt right now because W came into office, and gave away our surplus, he started 2 wars that we have to fund, signed every spending bill sent to him by the republican led Congress, and didn't practice anything near to fiscal responsibility. And, of course we have tax cuts during this time as well. Even if we cut ALL earmarks out, today, it would make a very tiny small dent in the budget, and it wouldn't really help to reduce overall debt at all.

Watch your pennies, the dollars take care of themselves.

:)

"Watch your pennies, the dollars take care of themselves"

When it comes to public money it doesn't work that way.  While "you" are concentrating on the pennies SOMEONE ELSE will be making off with the dollars.  Doesn't our current budgetary crisis PROVE that?  Or are you too busy watching the pennies to keep track of where the BILLIONS of dollars are actually going?

And as anyone familiar with govt. budgeting knows, future budgeting is tied directly to the use of one's current budget.

Getting those pennies started flowing your way today is essential to getting the millions of dollars you'll want in a couple years.

Earmarks are such an insignificant amount of the total budget, it's the repugs favorite lie.  Let's cut spending by ending the war in Iraq for starters.

No spending is insignificant, sorry.  It's that mindset that have lawmakers thinking they have an endless checkbook, I demand more from them.

I missed how all these earmarks are eating up tax dollars and bankrupting the nation.  Repugs do not and cannot be trusted with the nations money, its the thief in them that comes out. They can't help but want to steal.

Look, you are more than entitled to look away at wasteful spending because it doesn't jive with your liberal big government spend spend society.  I don't care if it's the current crop of big spending Republicans, or historically happy spending Democrats, we need fiscal discipline and restraint, and politicians who say no more waste, no matter how insignificant you think it is.

You're an idiot. You act like all we have to do is cut spending and cut taxes and life will be splendid. Do you realize the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stieglitz forecasts the cost of repairing our infrastructure is somewhere around 3 trillion dollars. I know you would consider it wasteful to put civil servants to work on the task because you've been loaded up with all that privatization junk.

I'm here to tell you that when private companies take over public trusts, I end up paying too much for too little.

But really, you can't even define what wasteful spending is can you? You don't even want to define it because you would realize all that so called waste is going upward, isn't it? It's going to those same 1% of wealthy campaign contributors whom you insist need a tax break in order to create more jobs. Except there are no well paying jobs being created for the middle class is there? All that money accumulating at the top is just sitting there, isn't it? You're belief that these cads will invest that tax break money into new jobs out of their altruistic hearts is unfounded. You are deeply stupid to believe the market fundamentalist dogma called trickle down. You might as well pray to the tooth fairy to fix the economy.

You're a stupid sap, tommy. A sot convinced that your interests are the same as the millionaire's club.

Bravo, Round!!You said a mouthful very succeintly!

Thanks, Jeffro. I have no patience for liars.

Historically happy spending Dems? Put down the pitcher of kool-aid and examine the facts.  Democrats create more jobs and the last one handed Shrub a surplus.

Govt. doesn't create jobs, the private sector does.  But many here will never acknowledge that, so be it.

Shrub creates only these types of jobs:

 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/12/colbert-repo-man-a-bush-economic-success-story/

 

MARKER, I clicked the link you offered about the Repro Man, but it stopped right in the middle. I also wanted to send it to friends, but was unable to. What am I doing wrong? This was hilarious!

MARKER: Never mind. I found it on YouTube without the glitch. Thanks.

The private sector isn't the only purveyor of jobs. That's some free market thinking that seldom works. The government can do things for businesses that make it worth their while to create the jobs, and hence, government is helping to create said jobs. For example, tax incentives for new businesses moving to "Anytown" USA.

"The government can do things for businesses that make it worth their while to create the jobs, and hence, government is helping to create said jobs"

Absolutely agree, the two best ways to do this is with low taxes and less regulation, both of which stifle businesses and increase costs, which leads to slashing payrolls.

both of which, when not adopted,....

Absolutely agree, the two best ways to do this is with low taxes and less regulation, both of which stifle businesses and increase costs, which leads to slashing payrolls. - Tommy

How'd that "less regulation" work in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco?

You're a liar, Tommy. Bush lowered their taxes and wages have decreased in comparison to the cost of living, while jobs have dried up, the middle class shrinks and even greater wealth has been accumulated at the top 1%, you market fundamentalists lie to our faces continuously and preach your tax voodoo.

You are a liar or you think we're stupid. Either way, you're full of it.

Take your insults elsewhere Round, your anger doesn't impress me.  

Whatever, Tommy. I know you aren't going to let me put you on the defensive, so you'll evade and pretend to be insulted instead of defending yourself from a very legitimate attack.

It's the truth. You are lying. Lowering taxes on the upper crust only puts more money at the top. Our economy proves it. We have a shrinking middle class and more concentration of wealth at the top.

Someday, I have hope, that you will admit that Republicans are as wrong about taxes and regulation as they were about Iraq.

I could care less what Republicans think, or Democrats for that matter, for over burdening the American taxpayer, any taxpayer, only leads to economic disaster, for money is shifted from those who earn and spend it, to government bureaucrats who don't earn it, therefore are far less judicial and prudent on how they spend it. 

One doesn't need to be have an (R) or a (D) after their name to accept that simple logical state of fact, people are always less careful when they are spending somebody else's money.

If you trust the government to spend your money more wisely than you do, then pony up and increase your contributions to them, give them free reign on your tax money, and stop trying to take someone else's money just because you think they have too much.

You make the mistake of believing that people transacting in the market are rational actors. We are not. We are swayed by our peers and are easily ensnared in swindles like the sub-prime game. No, we need accountable government oversight of the market to ensure everyone is playing by the rules. We need a strong social safety net to ease the potential of failure in a market that requires you and I to take risks in order to stay healthy and competitive. We need a solid infrastructure to sustain opportunity for all, and yes, we need those who have benefited the most from our society to give back more.

And by the way, get bent. Don't give me that trite conservative bull. Why don't just drop out and build your own yoyo society and quit bitching about mine. Your brand of economics has put us in this mess in the first place, so I don't think you have the authority to tell anyone anything.

You're so full of crap. And a liar to boot. So full of empty, negative stereotypes about good government. Take a look at our infrastructure where private interests have taken over public trusts. We pay too much for too little.

Your ilk that still support this occupation should pony up more. That would be the patriotic thing to do. 

Your Still full of it, impressed or not.

And just look at all the wonderful things that are happening in the banking and lending industries today as a result of years of regulation roll backs.

Yep, we don't need no stinking regulation. 

"the two best ways to do this is with low taxes and less regulation"

The problem is, low taxes are still going to companies that export jobs. 

Ouch, that low tax and less regulation stuff, in other words less government intrusion, always gets a fire under liberals and they start with "liar", etc.  It's like an attack on your family.

Sell it somewhere else, big, expensive government is a thing of the past, and if we have learned anything from the failures of the Bush administration, who expanded and spent like drunken sailors, it's certainly should be reason enough to shrink government substantially.  If not, then stop complaining about Bush, he should be your hero.

 

Nice two-step, but what of the deregulated sub-prime mortgage industry?  Do you still think there should be limited or no regulation in that industry?

Oh wait, you blame the folks that applied for and were granted those questionable loans, don't you? 

And lets not forget dangerous products from China making it to market...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/02/news/companies/china_recalls/index.htm

Or food safety issues...

http://newsok.com/number-of-ill-from-e.-coli-outbreak-up-to-231/article/3295725 

 

Yup, regulation is very bad...

 

Typical liberal emotional argument, take something I said (less regulation) and twist and turn it into some extreme to try and make your point (no regulation). Nice try, I've heard it all here before.

If you can't argue it genuinely, then I suggest you don't do it all.

Emotional?  Ummm, no.  These items I have posted have a direct correlation to the removal of more and more regulatory oversight.  I don't think there is "no regulation" just less of it.  These items I have posted actually happened during a period after regulatory oversight was lessened.  So tell that to people who died from tainted food.

Then carry your argument the other way, why isn't the speed limit 20 mph on freeways, the government is regulating speed limits aren't they?  If one accepts that strict regulation is necessary and a good thing, then the speed limit should be lowered, should it not?  How you can be for regulation in food safety but not highway safety?

The point is what is reasonable and what is excessive, I am for reasonable.

That's moving the goal posts.  You said I construed you to believe in no regulation at all is best.  That was not it - I was referring to your argument about less regulation.  These things all occured after existing regulatory oversight was lessened (not eliminated -lessened).  So of course I understand you can't test every food item or lower the speed limit to 20 mph.  It's not practical.    

"Typical liberal emotional argument, take something I said (less regulation) and twist and turn it into some extreme to try and make your point (no regulation). Nice try, I've heard it all here before."

And we all know conservatives never do the same thing. 

"Oh wait, you blame the folks that applied for and were granted those questionable loans, don't you?"

I don't believe in punishing those who were prudent and knew their finances well enough, and educated themselves on mortgages and interest only loans, and realized the potential disaster of buying real estate they knew they could not afford.  Those who were not cautious and careful and bought property they could not afford and now expect those I just described above to foot the bill for their recklessness, yes, they have only themselves to blame.

That's what I thought - blame those that were granted loans they couldn't afford.  Not those who fought against regulatory oversight (financial institutions) and then engaged in questionable lending when the didn't have overseerers breathing down their backs.  In most jurisdictions outside of the US, financial institutions are heavily regulated and guess what?  They don't have banks failing.  People haven't been loosing their savings. 

And I know you you don't hold the banks (those who should know better) to the same standard of responsibility.  Why bail them out? If they were allowed to fail - maybe they wouldn't engage in such questionable practices?  I mean that would be laize-faire captialism at work, no?

Yup, requlatory oversight really is a bad thing.

So you assume I am for bank bailouts?  Well, ahh, No.  Sorry if that doesn't fit into more of your exaggerations and false notions you are putting forth about my positions.   One of these days you may be forced to argue facts, instead of inflammatory falsehoods.  

Easy there - I said that based on what I could have sowrn were posts you previously made arguing that while you don't endorse corporate welfare, the damage resulting from allowing major financial institutions to fail would be too devastating to the economy as a whole to be allowed to happen.  If that is not a position you have previously articulated, then I retract that statement. 

All right then - for the record, you agree that allowing financial institutions to fail when they made bad decisions is a good idea?

yeah, silly liberals -- judging by actual performance and stuff...

OF COURSE lower taxes and less regulation leads to more jobs and stronger economy. It's a NO-BRAINER, right?

Umm... exactly how many years is that supposed to take before it starts working, Tommy...?

The free-market voodoo has been granted ample opportunity to work its magic on the banking, mortgage and health care industries.  The results speak for themselves while the trickle-downers still insist it works.