Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 4

[toscano]

She knows the government is already there. The question is how much more government? Palin isn't going to remove libraries, and Police. She's worried about people becoming dependent on government more and that hard work will be punished more. Even libertarians don't want to eliminate all government.

Well, I guess for Palin, more government is ok as long as it's to impose federal bans on abortion and gay marriage, then more government is perfectly acceptable. Oh wait, that's right, it's not HER decision but it's GOD'S WILL .....

 

[purpleoscar]

In what regard do you think anything she says in that segment is honestly the truth? Seriously, what she is talking in that clip is an utterly overblown exaggeration. She isn't even trying to attack Obama's policy proposals, but invents a whole fairytale. Pretty sad.

She's attacking redistributionism and Obama is for redistributionism. If you're saying that Obama is very moderate and will do little in that regard then that will put me at ease. It means the comments that Obama uttered in 2001 and at other radio shows have no meaning in this election and that he changed his mind and has moved to the right.

 

[toscano]

She's attacking redistributionism and Obama is for redistributionism. If you're saying that Obama is very moderate and will do little in that regard then that will put me at ease. It means the comments that Obama uttered in 2001 and at other radio shows have no meaning in this election and that he changed his mind and has moved to the right.

Trickle-down economics is redistributionism.

Giving tax breaks (or public money) to large companies is redistibutionism.

 

[purpleoscar]

Well, I guess for Palin, more government is ok as long as it's to impose federal bans on abortion and gay marriage, then more government is perfectly acceptable. Oh wait, that's right, it's not HER decision but it's GOD'S WILL .....

The only people on the right I know that agree with you on social issues would be libertarians and some agnostic neo-conservatives. So you probably won't vote conservative ever as long as they have the views they do on abortion, and gay marriage.

 

[toscano]

The only people on the right I know that agree with you on social issues would be libertarians and some agnostic neo-conservatives. So you probably won't vote conservative ever as long as they have the views they do on abortion, and gay marriage.

That wasn't my point.

My point was that Palin et al would be all for MORE GOVERNMENT as long as it's for their own causes.

Similarly, as long as the oft-despised-and-blamed judiciary is interfering to their ends, they are OK.

 

[Tiger Edge]

She knows the government is already there. The question is how much more government? Palin isn't going to remove libraries, and Police. She's worried about people becoming dependent on government more and that hard work will be punished more. Even libertarians don't want to eliminate all government.

Who works harder? A man who pushes numbers around on a computer all day or the guy pushing concrete in order to build a new school? Why should corporations and CEO's, the main people of Obama's tax increases, be given more money? Trickle-down economics does not work. When companies lose money they prune employees and force the work of two store managers into the work of one store manager in order to make sure that they themselves don't get a cut in pay. That is the guy who is doing the hard work, and he's certainly not getting paid $250,000 a year for it either.

Do we honestly need to look any further than the $40,000 weekend AIG had a few weeks ago? Or the fact that Exxon-Mobil was just reported to have had another record profit quarter while we still pay $2.75 for a gallon of gas. I'm sorry but that's still ridiculously expensive. No one is going to convince me that gas is cheap at $2.75 a gallon.

How come no one jumps on Bush's Stimulus Package when they talk about wealth redistribution? I'm sure the extra money was appreciated and absolutely positively NOT socialist then. Certainly didn't help our economy though...

 

[purpleoscar]

Trickle-down economics is redistributionism.

Giving tax breaks (or public money) to large companies is redistibutionism.

If they earned the money it's not redistrubutionism. If I worked and got a pay cheque it's not redistributionism. Taxation to spread to others is redistributionism. The middle class is shrinking because of a lack of savings and part of that has to do with Keynesian economics that pushes interest rates so low that people feel the debt is so cheap that they dive in to enormous debt. Also taxation on individuals can leave you with less net of pay on your pay cheque to save.

BTW does anybody know what Obama intends to do with Bush's tax cuts? Are they going to be left permanent or will taxes relapse in 2010?

Trickle down economics is that you get a pay cheque when you go to work.

If you save 20% of what you make you can have investments that pay for you when you can't work any more in old age. The only way you can make enormous amounts of money is if you have a successful business (which is risky) or you gamble (fat chance). Either way a standard of living is based on how many products you can buy with the money you earn and the right balance is when people increase their consumer spending never at the expense of their savings goals. This way there is always capital for times when there is job loss and a nest egg for retirement. Remember that corporate profits are needed to pay shareholders and many shareholders are not big rich guys. If you want to tap into that income it's better to be a shareholder.

I always recommend people put together a budget and see how much money it takes to retire in the fashion people expect and hope for. Most people realize that every dollar counts and they have to make priorities on their entertainment. When you look at how much taxes come off your paycheque and how many years you have left before you want to stop working an urgency sets on people to get cracking.

 

[purpleoscar]

Who works harder? A man who pushes numbers around on a computer all day or the guy pushing concrete in order to build a new school? Why should corporations and CEO's, the main people of Obama's tax increases, be given more money? Trickle-down economics does not work. When companies lose money they prune employees and force the work of two store managers into the work of one store manager in order to make sure that they themselves don't get a cut in pay. That is the guy who is doing the hard work, and he's certainly not getting paid $250,000 a year for it either.

Do we honestly need to look any further than the $40,000 weekend AIG had a few weeks ago? Or the fact that Exxon-Mobil was just reported to have had another record profit quarter while we still pay $2.75 for a gallon of gas. I'm sorry but that's still ridiculously expensive. No one is going to convince me that gas is cheap at $2.75 a gallon.

How come no one jumps on Bush's Stimulus Package when they talk about wealth redistribution? I'm sure the extra money was appreciated and absolutely positively NOT socialist then. Certainly didn't help our economy though...

I never liked the stimulus package. Most real conservative don't. It is even not working well and AIG wants more money. We are definately in agreement there. Bush is listening to Paulson and most economists are Keynesian. Paulson is not a conservative. Bush already abandoned the idea of fiscal conservativatism right at the beginning. This is partially due to the fact he barely won the first election. The scare tactic the economists are using is that there will be lots of layoffs and government is going to be spending on unemployment benefits so they prefer to try and keep them afloat. I don't agree and I don't think it works but I'm in the minority on that. You should be mad at the bailout.

Now office jobs aren't as physically demanding but they are mentally stressful because you may need a lot of education to even attempt things like Accounting and many think it's easy until they try it. There are lots of accountants that actually burn out and there's lots of demand for overtime, plus the politics can get really out of control.

 

[Lila64]

Who the hell is saving money right now? I think many people I know are just trying to survive right now. Some are looking for second jobs just to make ends meet. Some are unemployed. What my husband & I make is just going to the bills right now, like the mortgage, food, gas, heat, medical, clothing; the basics. There is no money left. And don't tell me I don't work hard enough or I spend too much here & there. I really don't want to hear more about how corporate executives are getting their millions of dollars or how some corporations (oil companies) have record earnings while I'm all happy that gas this morning is only $2.99 a gallon Nor do I want to hear how Mrs. Palin had a $150,000 wardrobe allowance. That kind of money could pay my mortgage. That's an awful lot of clothing for that kind of money. But I digress

\endrant

 

[Vincent Vega]

She's attacking redistributionism and Obama is for redistributionism. If you're saying that Obama is very moderate and will do little in that regard then that will put me at ease. It means the comments that Obama uttered in 2001 and at other radio shows have no meaning in this election and that he changed his mind and has moved to the right.

He is very far from that what Palin is trying to picture him in her two minutes of nonsense. He is of course not the polar opposite, however she is making comments like "that is what they do in countries where people are not free" and such. That's ridiculous. She is going far beyond slightly exaggerating the opponent's point, which is perfectly normal in election campaigning.

 

[Tiger Edge]

I am mad about the bailout, but I've convinced myself that there was no other quick fix for a failing Wall Street. I failed economics though, so I can't have much more say about that. I'm more conservative than I appear to post, btw. I'll probably critique Obama the moment he comes into office too (I have no political affiliation, and I have voted for Republicans in local government before), especially for going with the bailout, but it's an election and he wants to win. We can't help it if either candidate panders right now.
We'll see how much it hurts us when that Wall Street band-aid is ripped off.

I wasn't talking about Accounting, I was talking about the people at the very top who push their paycheck numbers around for their own gain. I'm a capitalist through and through, but society cannot function when the top 5% don't want to pay their government to take care of the rest of us, and that includes military spending. Can you see how Biden's "patriotic to pay taxes" comment works in this situation?
Look, a lot of money goes to programs that we absolutely do not need. Have you seen Dave?
Obama says he will go through the budget and cut the programs that don't make sense or that don't work for us. You should be happy about that.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Supposedly they're calling her a "diva" and a "whackjob" too


Rift Cracks 'Demoralized' McCain Campaign
McCain Staffers Blame Palin's Lack of Readiness; Palin Loyalists Blame Over-Managing By McCain Handlers

ANALYSIS by GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

Oct. 27, 2008 —

The McCain campaign is definitely demoralized right now. The blame game has begun.

There is no question that there is a rift between Sarah Palin's camp and that of John McCain inside the Republican campaign, sources tell ABC News.

And you are seeing people within the McCain campaign starting to look to the future.

Not only Palin, but many of the McCain staffers, as well, are circulating their resumes and pointing the finger.

Whenever people in the campaign are starting to worry more about their own reputations rather than whether they're going to win in seven days, there is a significant problem.

GOP Rift Between McCain and Palin Camps

Palin is going to be the most vivid chapter of the McCain campaign's post-mortem.

McCain argued Monday that he "couldn't be more proud" of his running mate.

However, there is a significant rift inside the McCain campaign.

Those loyal to McCain believe they have been unfairly blamed for over-handling Palin. They say they did the best they could with what they got.

They point to the bounce in the polls McCain got when he announced Palin as his running mate, her Republican convention speech, and her first interview with ABC's Charles Gibson.

What didn't work were the limited, subsequent media interviews, most notably between Palin and CBS anchor Katie Couric.

But some McCain camp insiders tell ABC News they simply couldn't put Palin out in front of the media any more than they did because she wasn't ready.

The Palin camp is fighting back, arguing that if the McCain campaign had just let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin, she would have done just fine on her own.

The Alaska governor herself has been pushing out on her own against McCain's handlers.

In recent days she has been speaking her own mind about what she thought of McCain's strategy in Michigan, and what she thought of his decision not to go after Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And we're seeing more and more of that in the closing days of the campaign.

 

[purpleoscar]

That wasn't my point.

My point was that Palin et al would be all for MORE GOVERNMENT as long as it's for their own causes.

This is correct on social issues but they're critcizing the economic side of things in that clip. If I control less of my pay cheque I can make less economic decisions myself. Palin thinks the conservative view on gay rights and abortion has to do with ethics and morality as they see it. These views are based mainly on religious values. They think their beliefs make for a better life for families. People who are non-religious often disagree with religious conservatives on that point.

Conservatives think the judiciary should get out of the abortion debate and have the executive decide. If you like Roe vs. Wade and other legislation from the bench then the Democrats are for you. Democrats think the constitution talks about what the government can't do to you but as Obama said in 2001 it doesn't talk about what the government should do for you. My guess is that you think it should be a personal choice and not a government choice at all.

Similarly, as long as the oft-despised-and-blamed judiciary is interfering to their ends, they are OK.

Yes you right as long as you emphasize that conservatives want the judiciary out of areas they think the executive should interfere. Yes they want to interfere on social issues. Libertarians on the right don't like that idea, and some neo-conservatives don't as well. Conservatives are also for a large military as they see many enemies that would take over if they didn't keep up with them. That's their perception at least.

 

[toscano]

This is correct on social issues but they're critcizing the economic side of things in that clip.

So it's selectively less government, thanks.

 

[BVS]

It means the comments that Obama uttered in 2001 and at other radio shows have no meaning in this election and that he changed his mind and has moved to the right.

I take it you really haven't read or heard the interview, you are just taking Rush's or some other talking heads distortion of the interview... since you didn't respond to my post yesterday about the article you posted.

 

[purpleoscar]

Who the hell is saving money right now? I think many people I know are just trying to survive right now. Some are looking for second jobs just to make ends meet. Some are unemployed. What my husband & I make is just going to the bills right now, like the mortgage, food, gas, heat, medical, clothing; the basics. There is no money left. And don't tell me I don't work hard enough or I spend too much here & there. I really don't want to hear more about how corporate executives are getting their millions of dollars or how some corporations (oil companies) have record earnings while I'm all happy that gas this morning is only $2.99 a gallon Nor do I want to hear how Mrs. Palin had a $150,000 wardrobe allowance. That kind of money could pay my mortgage. That's an awful lot of clothing for that kind of money. But I digress

\endrant

I understand your anger but getting mad at others because they have more won't actually get you to the point where you have excess cash after you're bills are paid. How is Obama going to change that? If you think Democrats will get you to the point you have excess cash left over after you pay your basic expenses you will be disappointed. You can do a better job on that front than he can.

From my experience there is usually areas where people have to cut their bills that unfortunately is entertainment or big ticket items (cars, houses). People have to find ways to enjoy their life without lots of vacations or tons of electronics as well. My dad had low income all his life and struggled with stupid bosses and he cut expenses drastically and he was able to find equanimity with himself and achieve financial independence later in his life. It was very hard to do that, but it was rewarding in the long run.

The only thing I can think of for your situation is to either get more education or to sell the property you have and move to a smaller place. If mortgage payments take more than 30% of your net pay it will be hard to make ends meet. Lots of people are in your situation because the debt loads are enormous and they often don't have bad income either. House and car debt is the area people have to tackle.

 

[BVS]

This is correct on social issues but they're critcizing the economic side of things in that clip. If I control less of my pay cheque I can make less economic decisions myself. Palin thinks the conservative view on gay rights and abortion has to do with ethics and morality as they see it. These views are based mainly on religious values. They think their beliefs make for a better life for families. People who are non-religious often disagree with religious conservatives on that point.

Conservatives think the judiciary should get out of the abortion debate and have the executive decide. If you like Roe vs. Wade and other legislation from the bench then the Democrats are for you. Democrats think the constitution talks about what the government can't do to you but as Obama said in 2001 it doesn't talk about what the government should do for you. My guess is that you think it should be a personal choice and not a government choice at all.



Yes you right as long as you emphasize that conservatives want the judiciary out of areas they think the executive should interfere. Yes they want to interfere on social issues. Libertarians on the right don't like that idea, and some neo-conservatives don't as well. Conservatives are also for a large military as they see many enemies that would take over if they didn't keep up with them. That's their perception at least.

Talk about some ill-concieved generalizations...

 

[purpleoscar]

I take it you really haven't read or heard the interview, you are just taking Rush's or some other talking heads distortion of the interview... since you didn't respond to my post yesterday about the article you posted.

Please tell me what I'm missing from the interview that's important regarding how Constitutions should be telling what the government should be doing for people.

Also I'm busy too so I many not answer all questions. It's hard to keep a conversation with 6 people all day and it's nothing personal if I miss one.

 

[purpleoscar]

Talk about some ill-concieved generalizations...

It's also hard to respond to posts like this which are as lazy as could be. You should look at Toscano's posts and others where they actually illustrate some kind of opinion and worldview with some depth. It's okay to write in paragraphs you know?

Maybe liberals don't care about your posting style because they don't disagree with you.

 

[toscano]

It's also hard to respond to posts like this which are as lazy as could be. You should look at Toscano's posts and others where they actually illustrate some kind of opinion and worldview with some depth. It's okay to write in paragraphs you know?

Maybe liberals don't care about your posting style because they don't disagree with you.

Sorry PO, I'm far from a poster child on this, I have neither the time or patience to go into too much depth on this type of forum, BVS and I butt heads more often than not.

Still, I'm glad you're in Canada and not voting here (or are you an absentee ballot ?)

 

[martha]

It means the comments that Obama uttered in 2001

Shit, son, comments you made a week ago have been excused. What would you have said seven years ago?

 

[martha]

The only thing I can think of for your situation is to either get more education or to sell the property you have and move to a smaller place. If mortgage payments take more than 30% of your net pay it will be hard to make ends meet. Lots of people are in your situation because the debt loads are enormous and they often don't have bad income either. House and car debt is the area people have to tackle.

Jesus. You have expert advice for everyone.

How the hell do you have the balls to even go there?

 

[BVS]

Please tell me what I'm missing from the interview that's important regarding how Constitutions should be telling what the government should be doing for people.

Also I'm busy too so I many not answer all questions. It's hard to keep a conversation with 6 people all day and it's nothing personal if I miss one.

The whole point is you're using that interview as a source saying that Barack Obama wants socialism and it wasn't in there, it wasn't in the interview.

 

[BVS]

It's also hard to respond to posts like this which are as lazy as could be. You should look at Toscano's posts and others where they actually illustrate some kind of opinion and worldview with some depth. It's okay to write in paragraphs you know?

Maybe liberals don't care about your posting style because they don't disagree with you.

You're right it was lazy, because there were so many things wrong in that post that I didn't feel like breaking it down point by point like I usually do with your posts.

This is correct on social issues but they're critcizing the economic side of things in that clip. If I control less of my pay cheque I can make less economic decisions myself. Palin thinks the conservative view on gay rights and abortion has to do with ethics and morality as they see it. These views are based mainly on religious values. They think their beliefs make for a better life for families. People who are non-religious often disagree with religious conservatives on that point.

No, it was correct on all fronts, not just social ones. Palin nor McCain are the small government canidates you'd like to paint them as.

And then you make some weak generalizations you yourself disprove.

Conservatives think the judiciary should get out of the abortion debate and have the executive decide. If you like Roe vs. Wade and other legislation from the bench then the Democrats are for you. Democrats think the constitution talks about what the government can't do to you but as Obama said in 2001 it doesn't talk about what the government should do for you. My guess is that you think it should be a personal choice and not a government choice at all.

Conservatives think the judiciary should get out of the abortion debate? Really? That's news to me, yes some would like to just end it with an executive decision but if you don't see that they want the courts in it, then you haven't been paying attention.

And please tell me why it's only the Democrats that understand the constitution speaks of what the government can't do, is there something the Republicans know that the Dems and constitutional scholars don't?

Yes you right as long as you emphasize that conservatives want the judiciary out of areas they think the executive should interfere. Yes they want to interfere on social issues. Libertarians on the right don't like that idea, and some neo-conservatives don't as well. Conservatives are also for a large military as they see many enemies that would take over if they didn't keep up with them. That's their perception at least.

I haven't met a neo-con that doesn't like to meddle in social issues...

 

[Lila64]

Jesus. You have expert advice for everyone.

How the hell do you have the balls to even go there?

Thank you martha I had no idea what to say there.

By the way, I can't tell you the last time I had a vacation. I have two cars. Yeah, the 20 year old car sits in the driveway waiting for me to come up with $1000+ in repair work, not to mention the $600 in new tires I put on it a week before it decided to break down further. I have a 10 year old car, that, knock on wood, keeps running while I pay off the $1600 in repairs I've put into it in the course of the last 4 months. And creditcard debt? Yeah, I pay it off every month, so I don't have any. And sell my house? Yeah, now there's a solution. Maybe I should go live in bumfuk Iowa. Is that your solution? Maybe I should mention my medical bills too? And the thousands upon thousands of dollars I have to shell out?

Oh, and electronics? Um, yeah, I got an ipod about 2-3 years ago as a birthday present. I can't think of the last electronic thing we've purchased. And no, I don't buy DVDs or go to the movies or go on short trips. So you telling me to spend less on my necessities?

Piss off.

 

[toscano]

Thank you martha I had no idea what to say there.

By the way, I can't tell you the last time I had a vacation. I have two cars. Yeah, the 20 year old car sits in the driveway waiting for me to come up with $1000+ in repair work, not to mention the $600 in new tires I put on it a week before it decided to break down further. I have a 10 year old car, that, knock on wood, keeps running while I pay off the $1600 in repairs I've put into it in the course of the last 4 months. And creditcard debt? Yeah, I pay it off every month, so I don't have any. And sell my house? Yeah, now there's a solution. Maybe I should go live in bumfuk Iowa. Is that your solution? Maybe I should mention my medical bills too? And the thousands upon thousands of dollars I have to shell out?

Oh, and electronics? Um, yeah, I got an ipod about 2-3 years ago as a birthday present. I can't think of the last electronic thing we've purchased. And no, I don't buy DVDs or go to the movies or go on short trips. So you telling me to spend less on my necessities?

Piss off.

You forgot the "go get more education" part, school is free after all.......

(well it WAS in the more-socialist-than-here-but-not-quite-socialist-UK where I grew up)

 

[Lila64]

You forgot the "go get more education" part, school is free after all.......

(well it WAS in the more-socialist-than-here-but-not-quite-socialist-UK where I grew up)

Oh yeah, I forgot I should go back to school, run my business, and hope my husband's part-time pay check will cover the mortgage. Maybe sales are down due to this crap of an economy.

And my teen-age daughter... throw her in the mix as well

Real America?

 

[Utoo]

Thank you martha I had no idea what to say there.

By the way, I can't tell you the last time I had a vacation. I have two cars. Yeah, the 20 year old car sits in the driveway waiting for me to come up with $1000+ in repair work, not to mention the $600 in new tires I put on it a week before it decided to break down further. I have a 10 year old car, that, knock on wood, keeps running while I pay off the $1600 in repairs I've put into it in the course of the last 4 months. And creditcard debt? Yeah, I pay it off every month, so I don't have any. And sell my house? Yeah, now there's a solution. Maybe I should go live in bumfuk Iowa. Is that your solution? Maybe I should mention my medical bills too? And the thousands upon thousands of dollars I have to shell out?

Oh, and electronics? Um, yeah, I got an ipod about 2-3 years ago as a birthday present. I can't think of the last electronic thing we've purchased. And no, I don't buy DVDs or go to the movies or go on short trips. So you telling me to spend less on my necessities?

Piss off.

Lila, clearly it's all because you're envious of people who are wealthy.

 

[martha]

Is that your solution? Maybe I should mention my medical bills too? And the thousands upon thousands of dollars I have to shell out?

If you'd just get insurance.

 

[Irvine511]

If you'd just get insurance.

you know what's awesome about insurance? even insured people can still go broke covering their medical bills!

even if you can afford your premiums, there are still costs. and not everything is covered. and even if it is covered, you still have to cover something, so maybe you don't get that $20,000 bill from your week long hospitalization, but you still have to shell out $2-3K. and for some, that's a lot of money.

you know what else is hilarious? the difference between what the insurance company says, say, a blood test should cost, and how much it actually costs, and even though you have to pay what it actually costs, your insurance only puts the amount it thinks it should cost towards your deductible! isn't that awesome?

and say you were a formerly very healthy person who had an injury or illness. you can easily watch them inch up your premiums by $600 in just under 15 months if you are beset by illness or injury!

yeah insurance!