Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understood your point, I knew you weren't being literal.

But for the general Obama lover, realize that raising taxes further (like the capital gains tax) could lower the revenue that Obama has already budgeted - and an ugly economic situation will continue to snowball.
(Not sure if that applies to you DFF)

Sorry, I assumed that you thought I was being literal.
Thanks for illustrating a very important point too.

[MarchHare]

many of those presidents faced a Congress that was controlled by the other party; since the president can't unilaterally set tax and budget policy, the numbers are misleading in that sense.

Heh, I've actually seen people make the following argument and keep a straight face while doing so:

In the 80s, Reagan's administration only radically increased the federal deficit and debt because of those darned tax & spend liberals in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

In the 90s, the economic prosperity and record government surpluses that are often attributed to Clinton were in actuality the result of the Republican Congress.

I've yet to see someone try to blame the Democrats for Bush the lesser and the Republican House and Senate simultaneously reducing government revenues while at the same time spending like drunken sailors on shore-leave in Bangkok, but I'm someone, somewhere, has tried to spin it that way.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Sorry, I assumed that you thought I was being literal.

I wasn't being very polite about it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Heh, I've actually seen people make the following argument and keep a straight face while doing so:

In the 80s, Reagan's administration only radically increased the federal deficit and debt because of those darned tax & spend liberals in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

In the 90s, the economic prosperity and record government surpluses that are often attributed to Clinton were in actuality the result of the Republican Congress.

I've yet to see someone try to blame the Democrats for Bush the lesser and the Republican House and Senate simultaneously reducing government revenues while at the same time spending like drunken sailors on shore-leave in Bangkok, but I'm someone, somewhere, has tried to spin it that way.

Reagan's increased spending was do to military expenditures which won him the cold war and also modernized a military that thanks to Carter was hurting big time.

Clinton was pretty much hamstrung by the Republican houses which demanded a balanced budget. If he had control Hilliary would have introduced universal health care in his first term. Clinton's economic legacy was handed to him. He could continue playing lip service to all the special interest groups that make up his party and point to the congress as the bad guys when asked why he wasn't doing much for them. The economy without government tampering{taxes} grew strong as it always does.

The current President Bush is in the later stages of a war. War is expensive. Because of the rise of Islamic traditionalists he also has had to create a whole new government agency which is expensive. No President could do those things and keep a balanced budget. If it wasn't for Bush's tax cuts America would have been in recession a long time ago.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understood your point, I knew you weren't being literal.

But for the general Obama lover, realize that raising taxes further (like the capital gains tax) could lower the revenue that Obama has already budgeted - and an ugly economic situation will continue to snowball.
(Not sure if that applies to you DFF)

Shhhh.

Don't tell anyone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's better than "Don't tax and spend".

I know you aren't saying it isn't, but when I hear "tax and spend" about the Democrats all the time, and then I look at what some Republican admins have done, I just have to scratch my head.

Tax and spend = Bad. Don't tax and spend = Worse.

Well most would agree with that.

Or at least I would. I can't stand how the Bush administration has spent either.

But, Obama is calling for an increase in taxes, along with an increasing the budget by as much as 300 billion. Now, is he that stupid that he doesn't realize that you can't tax and spend, or is he just pandering for votes?

If its the latter, well I don't see how he is supposed to be different from any other politician in Washington. Well, outside from being incredibly inexperienced. Yet, people figured that was a bonus. Now it seems like he's too stupid to realize how the economy works.

[Daradon]

^^^ The important word being 'could'. I'm sure there are many areas that are nowhere near their optimal tax rate and could be hiked without sacrificing any production or overall revenue.

Like the decision to increase royalty fees on oil companies here in Alberta. That's really harming the companies and the overall monies coming into the province...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've yet to see someone try to blame the Democrats for Bush the lesser and the Republican House and Senate simultaneously reducing government revenues while at the same time spending like drunken sailors on shore-leave in Bangkok, but I'm someone, somewhere, has tried to spin it that way.

And they had no excuse. At all. The President can veto the budget, and just force Congress to balance it. Too bad none of them have ever had the balls to do that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ The important word being 'could'. I'm sure there are many areas that are nowhere near their optimal tax rate and could be hiked without sacrificing any production or overall revenue.

Like the decision to increase royalty fees on oil companies here in Alberta. That's really harming the companies and the overall monies coming into the province...

Big difference.

Oil companies are already racking in billions in profit. The can 'live' with an increase in the royalty fee, and still make good money. Plus, the price of oil just keeps rising.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Reagan's increased spending was do to military expenditures which won him the cold war and also modernized a military that thanks to Carter was hurting big time.

Clinton was pretty much hamstrung by the Republican houses which demanded a balanced budget. If he had control Hilliary would have introduced universal health care in his first term. Clinton's economic legacy was handed to him. He could continue playing lip service to all the special interest groups that make up his party and point to the congress as the bad guys when asked why he wasn't doing much for them. The economy without government tampering{taxes} grew strong as it always does.

The current President Bush is in the later stages of a war. War is expensive. Because of the rise of Islamic traditionalists he also has had to create a whole new government agency which is expensive. No President could do those things and keep a balanced budget. If it wasn't for Bush's tax cuts America would have been in recession a long time ago.

That's an interesting way to look at things.

Anything good attributed to Democrats (prosperity, peace) was actually accomplished by Republicans.

I suppose the Democrats are also responsible for hiding the weapons of mass destruction and covering up the Iraq connection to 9/11? Oh yeah, and they spiked George's drink so he would lie to everyone.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Big difference.

Oil companies are already racking in billions in profit. The can 'live' with an increase in the royalty fee, and still make good money. Plus, the price of oil just keeps rising.

Big difference between what?

All I'm saying is I'm sure there are some areas like that, that can be taken advantage of, especially on the business side. Maybe not necessarily cap gains, but a business hike for high earners probably wouldn't hurt in the slightest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Big difference between what?

All I'm saying is I'm sure there are some areas like that, that can be taken advantage of, especially on the business side. Maybe not necessarily cap gains, but a business hike for high earners probably wouldn't hurt in the slightest.

And I'm saying that unless you specifically target a business sector where the profit is through the roof and keeps on rising, like it does for the oil companies, its probably not a good idea.

Lowering corporate taxes is usually a good thing. Businesses take that tax relief and stick it right back into the economy.....probably twofold or even more of what the taxes were originally worth.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Reagan's increased spending was do to military expenditures which won him the cold war and also modernized a military that thanks to Carter was hurting big time.

Clinton was pretty much hamstrung by the Republican houses which demanded a balanced budget. If he had control Hilliary would have introduced universal health care in his first term. Clinton's economic legacy was handed to him. He could continue playing lip service to all the special interest groups that make up his party and point to the congress as the bad guys when asked why he wasn't doing much for them. The economy without government tampering{taxes} grew strong as it always does.

The current President Bush is in the later stages of a war. War is expensive. Because of the rise of Islamic traditionalists he also has had to create a whole new government agency which is expensive. No President could do those things and keep a balanced budget. If it wasn't for Bush's tax cuts America would have been in recession a long time ago.

Ha! You're one of them!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So why didn't you make that argument? Instead you waited for me to make one that doesn't work for you and you call me out instead of the original misleading post?

I don't get it.

Uh.... I was agreeing with you, in the end, not trying to start a fight.

Next time I'll be more careful, I guess.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Uh.... I was agreeing with you, in the end, not trying to start a fight.

Next time I'll be more careful, I guess.

I didn't see you agreeing. I guess I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I didn't see you agreeing. I guess I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

No worries. There's usually enough rancor to go around in these discussions. I may not have been all that clear in any case.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No worries. There's usually enough rancor to go around in these discussions. I may not have been all that clear in any case.

I've been guilty of no less than 4 misinterpretations resulting in me 'losing it' in this very forum in the last week or so. I'm guessing the problem lies somewhere to the east of my keyboard.

Lack of sleep or excess of stress might have something to do with my sudden inability to read and write the English language. Maybe my 2 day weekend will do me some good

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Just watch Clinton's speech after her "victory" in Indiana.

IMHO, she's trying to bridge the gap between her and Obama to get the VP slot.

Hmmmm..... while lots of you commented that Obama would never allow it (and I hope he wouldn't)..... checky this out.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...808470,00.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Hmmmm..... while lots of you commented that Obama would never allow it (and I hope he wouldn't)..... checky this out.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...808470,00.html

Meanwhile, McCain is picking his Veep in the time-honoured American way--over brats and beer.

His potential choices (apparently) are here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...nts/index.html

My thoughts on some of them:

1. Haley Barbour, Mississippi Gov.

This would be an odd choice, to say the least. If McCain picks him, that signals that he's deeply worried about the base of the party not turning up on election day. In the end, Barbour is a long shot, because he a) is from a state and a region that McCain should carry easily without his help and b) looks kind of like an evil John Candy.

2. Charlie Crist, Fla. Governor.

Geographically this choice makes a lot of sense. Florida's a swing state, and McCain may steal Pennsylvania from an Obama candidacy. Lose both Florida and Pennsylvania and the Dems are probably cooked. I'd call Crist the odds-on favourite. Electorally the smartest move.

3. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Gov.

Geographically this choice would make no sense at all, but Jindal possesses a lot of traits McCain doesn't. Charisma, youth, energy, not being a ######bag, etc. As a supporter of the democrats, Jindal would scare me a little. He might be the GOP's answer to Obama.

4. Tim Pawlenty, Minn. Gov.

Enjoy your bratwurst, Tim. The Miller light's in the fridge. Now take your food and sit over there while the adults talk.

5. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney.

I really hope McCain picks Mitt Romney. Together they would form an unelectable, super-dense black hole of ######baggery. In all honesty, this would be the worst choice, bar none--yet for some reason he's going to the barbecue. Weird.

It'll be interesting to see who he picks.

[MarchHare]

Hillary Clinton knows how to stay classy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008..._wa_112232.htm

She's more or less saying, "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, and it might happen to Obama too, so it makes sense for me to stay in the race until the better end."