Thread: Palin's Choice for VP

Originally Posted by Navaja

Hutch:
All they did was lower the defense budget and give the terrorists a great opportunity bombing embasies, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, and prepare for the 9/11 attack, while Bill was busy with Monica
D

Do you really think that spending another 100 billion per year on defense would prevent a suicide bomber from driving his carbomb to an embassy? And do you really believe that the budget cut allowed 9/11 to happen? The US had all the information. They just chose not to share with each other. Extra money wouldn't have changed that.

What amazes me is that there have been no new organized attacks so far. Even with all the defense money in the world, there are plenty of big soft targets that are wide open. Anyone thinking about it for more than 5 minutes can come up with dozens of ways to inflict major casualties AND disrupt the economy (assuming enough funding).

For example, the security surrounding the coca cola syrup transport is not nuclear grade. Assuming you have some financial backing to bribe some people or organize a stealth operation, you simply oison the syrup with slow working poison in a couple of states, and a couple of weeks later you have hundreds or thousands of dead, 1 multinational of which the stock plummets, and national hysteria.

You are not safe from terrorist attack. You will never be. Nobody is, regardless of funding.

I agree with the sentiments above concerning the candidates, I like Palin, but she is not going to be president, HE is.
Also agreed with posts concerning spending and getting it in check. As large as it is, the defense budget in the US is only a small percentage of the entire budget...but I'm getting off track. Raising taxes or indeed lowering them (one to directly raise revenue, the other to allow consumers to become successful and do the same thing) only works if the money isn't spent before it is saved.
Personally I think we have hamstrung the US production (and energy) industries with prohibitively expensive restrictions that we then do not make their overseas competitors comply with. Hence China can have an entire television for sale in WalMart cheaper than a US company can buy the glass to make the picture tube. Either raise the ante on foreign imports (INCLUDING "US" companies who do all of their manufacturing overseas and stamp a label on it to make a handful of guys really rich) or....cut our own a little bit of slack. Otherwise it doesn't matter who we elect, we are becoming a nation of slaves. To the Chinese, Russia(fuel...), we're already up to our neck in the Middle East (thanks Carter)
We don't need more.

Just my random, not too organized, thoughts...
Mrs. Palin is on the wrong side of the ticket I think, but if she were on the *right* side, I think she'd be assassinated, literally or in character, as neither side wants to REALLY have all the corruption "cleaned out".

John P.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I will invite you all to join me in voting for Chuck Norris as a write-in candidate this November.


No, seriously. I'm sick of having to choose the lesser of two evils. I'm voting for someone awesome this year, and I would encourage you all to consider it.

Oklahoma voters cannot currently write in candidates. Sorry!

Originally Posted by Kees

With the current all time high US budget deficit any promise of tax cuts should be taken with a pinch of salt. I would not vote for a politician that makes empty tax cut promises.

plu one. They are both blowing smoke on tax cuts. There aren't going to be any tax cuts no matter who wins.

One of the things I dislike most in politicians is populism. Both sides are guilty of it, yet somehow the republicans come out as very hypocritical as well, at least from what I've seen.
What good are promises if they are not going to happen.

From what I read Sarah Palin increased the taxes on businesses (the oil business, which is the one that contributes 1/3 of the budget in Alaska, from what I understand) and she apparently worked with the democrats to do that. Another 1/3 of the budget is supposedly federal subsidies. And being on the supply side of the energy equation it's no wonder the Alaskan economy is just the opposite of where the rest of the US economy is, i.e. surplus.
To me this is not conservative and fiscal responsibility - she is spending more than she has and she is redistributing wealth (taking from the businesses and the rest of the country and giving to everybody in your state). Of course this is the politically correct thing to do in order to be popular and it does work if you're governor of a state. On a national level to spend more than you have means that you go in debt internal or external neither of which is good. I mean what good is the money the government gives you today when they will have to take them back from you or your children (along with whatever interest they need to pay) in the future.

Just like Obama she is very politically savvy, but if she'd be running for office, she would be below Obama in my preferences since he seems more inclined to tell people it's largely up to them and not to the government how they end up.

From what I've seen over the past week though it looks like she was a good choice for the McCain campaign - it has brought some excitement on the right which was largely lacking before. Whether that choice is enough to win him the presidency we'll find out in 60 days. I've been hearing even before the last two weeks that the non-partisans are not too concerned about the bottom of the ticket, but we shall see.

Gugi,
interesting. Didn't know some of this stuff.

John P.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Oklahoma voters cannot currently write in candidates. Sorry!

aw, not even a native? sucks.

Originally Posted by Navaja

Hutch:
If you don't agree to the tax cuts, you're welcome to send in a $1,000.00 check every month to help lower the deficit, that way you don't have to penalize other people for your ideas. Another point, the deficit was already high when the Clinton's left the White House. All they did was lower the defense budget and give the terrorists a great opportunity bombing embasies, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, and prepare for the 9/11 attack, while Bill was busy with Monica

As far as running on fear, I think the left wing is scaring the people with economy issues that may or may not be accurrate.

By the way, where did BHO get his master in economics at? must've been while chairman of the BH foundation.

Might I suggest that you educate your self on the nations finances because it is the biggest security issue there is. The US borrows over 3 Billion dollars a day, this is not sustainable. The holders of that debt are not necessarily friends of the US either, cosidering George W. Bush has made enemies of most nations.

At the start of George W. Bush's term the deficit was $5,674,178,209,886.86 as of the last full numbers in 2007 it was $9,007,653,372,262.48. George Bush on his own has raised the deficit greater than the total defict of all other Presidents combined. The US is paying over $300 000 000 000 just to service the debt and spending $10 000 000 000/month on Iraq.

So yea lets make light of it and worry that Bill Clinton, who actually reduced the deficit, got a hummer from a consenting adult.

John, you should check it though, I haven't kept track of where I found these, although I try to avoid trusting sources that are too political and have no hesitations about lying as long as it serves their purpose.

The thing is that once somebody enters a political race a lot of public information starts disappearing and this campaign hasn't been an exception. Luckily a lot of media keeps online archives and most search engines are decent at indexing it, so there's always the reporting from few years ago. Campaigns seem to have rather short memory and apparently have no hesitations to call the white black and the black white.

I forgot to say that one of the things I like about her is that she has demonstrated that she understands good beliefs are not necessarily good policies (the gay veto) - dogmatists always scare me.

Originally Posted by Hutch

At the start of George W. Bush's term the deficit was $5,674,178,209,886.86 as of the last full numbers in 2007 it was $9,007,653,372,262.48. George Bush on his own has raised the deficit greater than the total defict of all other Presidents combined. The US is paying over $300 000 000 000 just to service the debt and spending $10 000 000 000/month on Iraq.

So yea lets make light of it and worry that Bill Clinton, who actually reduced the deficit, got a hummer from a consenting adult.

For completeness could you quote the deficit when Clinton took office, as well as the source. I would rather see the numbers myself.