OT: Democratic delegates living it up on taxpayer money

[conversationpc]

BO...

NO ONE with BO should be confident or arrogant.

Dear Dave,

Thank you for pouncing all over a joke I was struggling to resist making. +1 for stepping up to the plate.

NoMoBo '08,

Rhiannon

You're welcome, milady.

[tj]

Bush blamed Wall Street for being "drunk" with greed and urged the financiers to "sober up."

Today the Office of Management and Budget acknowledged that its budget projections for 2009 will be even higher than expected -- now estimated at a record $482 billion.

The White House blamed a weak economy, noting that "the housing slump, tighter conditions in credit markets and continuing energy price shocks have cut into the expected growth rate." And the OMB also lowered its economic growth forecast to 1.6% for this year.

"George W. Bush inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, which he proceeded to turn into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion. When President Bush took office in January 2001 the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $635 billion in 2008 and $710 billion in 2009. Now, OMB projects deficits of $389 billion and $482 billion in those years respectively -- a swing of more than $1 trillion in each year."




Please read the chart, tj. Youi're WRONG.

Nice chart. Adjust it for inflation and it looks quite different. $4 gasoline today when adjusted for inflation doesn't seem so out of place when compared to what was paid in 1979. Same for hard dollar figures related to deficits. What doesn't show in your chart as well is the % of the total economy or national budget the deficit comprises. Context helps.

Clinton didn't have the aftermath of 9/11 to deal with, though he could have helped prevent it by taking Bin Laden when he was offered in the '90s. He didn't do anything about ending our dependence on foreign oil, which we are now paying a significant price for. The list goes on. I am not arguing that Bush has managed it perfectly, only that the previous assertion that Democrats can manage the economy and Republicans can't.

[tj]

Have you guys seen the Obam-opolis?



McCain was right, this was built by the Britney Spears set design people. Dude thinks he's President already.

Maybe "The One" will strut out in a leather catsuit singing "Oops, I did it again."

[RossValoryRocks]

Bush blamed Wall Street for being "drunk" with greed and urged the financiers to "sober up."

Today the Office of Management and Budget acknowledged that its budget projections for 2009 will be even higher than expected -- now estimated at a record $482 billion.

The White House blamed a weak economy, noting that "the housing slump, tighter conditions in credit markets and continuing energy price shocks have cut into the expected growth rate." And the OMB also lowered its economic growth forecast to 1.6% for this year.

"George W. Bush inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, which he proceeded to turn into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion. When President Bush took office in January 2001 the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $635 billion in 2008 and $710 billion in 2009. Now, OMB projects deficits of $389 billion and $482 billion in those years respectively -- a swing of more than $1 trillion in each year."




Please read the chart, tj. Youi're WRONG.

Nice chart. Adjust it for inflation and it looks quite different. $4 gasoline today when adjusted for inflation doesn't seem so out of place when compared to what was paid in 1979. Same for hard dollar figures related to deficits. What doesn't show in your chart as well is the % of the total economy or national budget the deficit comprises. Context helps.

Clinton didn't have the aftermath of 9/11 to deal with, though he could have helped prevent it by taking Bin Laden when he was offered in the '90s. He didn't do anything about ending our dependence on foreign oil, which we are now paying a significant price for. The list goes on. I am not arguing that Bush has managed it perfectly, only that the previous assertion that Democrats can manage the economy and Republicans can't.

Considering CONGRESS is the one who does the spending and such, and yes I fault the Republican led congress of 2000 to 2006 in this as well, you cannot put the blame on just the President. There is more than enough blame to go around.

The other thing to consider is that all of Clinton's best years came AFTER the Republicans took control after the 1994 election and cut taxes, and cut the capital gains rate. Prior to that the Clinton/Democratic controlled congress had flatlined the economy with the huge tax increases they levied in the first 2 years Clinton was in office.

It also bears noting that the economy has become less robust since the 2006 election with Democrats being in control, this includes the huge increases in energy costs.

[7 Wishes]

Without a 60-40 majority, guys - this is a basic, basic principle here - no party has control of Congress.

The Republican majority STRONGLY tried to SHOOT DOWN Clinton's welfare reform as they had done successfully with the universal health care proposal. The diplomacy of the Administration allowed them to overcome the incompetence of the Republican Congress.

Adjusted for inflation? What a tired argument. THIS INFORMATION IS FROM THE CBO. Duh. Even adjusted, Clinton still had MASSIVE surpluses and the Bushes and Reagan MASSIVE defecits.

Clinton and Albright met DIRECTLY with Bush and Rice - required by law - during the transfer of power. During that meeting CLINTON TOLD BUSH DIRECTLY THAT HIS BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY CONCERN WAS GOING TO BE BIN LADEN.

So, wrong again! YOU ARE WRONG. Neo-conservatives are INCOMPETENT with the economy, and TERRIBLE with foreign relations

Wrong again, guys. Period.

[RossValoryRocks]

Without a 60-40 majority, guys - this is a basic, basic principle here - no party has control of Congress.

The Republican majority STRONGLY tried to SHOOT DOWN Clinton's welfare reform as they had done successfully with the universal health care proposal. The diplomacy of the Administration allowed them to overcome the incompetence of the Republican Congress.

Adjusted for inflation? What a tired argument. THIS INFORMATION IS FROM THE CBO. Duh. Even adjusted, Clinton still had MASSIVE surpluses and the Bushes and Reagan MASSIVE defecits.

Clinton and Albright met DIRECTLY with Bush and Rice - required by law - during the transfer of power. During that meeting CLINTON TOLD BUSH DIRECTLY THAT HIS BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY CONCERN WAS GOING TO BE BIN LADEN.

So, wrong again! YOU ARE WRONG. Neo-conservatives are INCOMPETENT with the economy, and TERRIBLE with foreign relations

Wrong again, guys. Period.

Bullshit through and through...Pelosi doesn't have 60-40 and she has shut down debate on ANYTHING that would look like a success for this administration for TWO YEARS. That my liberal friend is control.

Clinton didn't tell Bush shit about Bin Laden, when did you hear this? Clinton's own uttering perhaps?? Like he alwats told the truth, "I did not have sex with that woman!" while wagging a finger at us all? PUHLEASE.

Clinton also said , and I quote, "I had no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction." This was during an interview during the runup to the 2002 invasion of Iraq.

So was he telling the truth there too?

Your grasp of the full field of economics has pertains to government leadership is woeful, as is your re-interpretation of History. I could go on about what that welfare bill would have done but I won't, you wouldn't listen anyway.

You don't have BDS, you have RDS, Repubican Derangement Syndrome.

[conversationpc]

So, wrong again! YOU ARE WRONG. Neo-conservatives are INCOMPETENT with the economy, and TERRIBLE with foreign relations

Wrong again, guys. Period.

Correction...EVERY President and Congress in the last 60+ years has been incompetent with the economy. ALL of them, without exception. When a president and congress can cut spending AND taxes, then I'll change my mind.

[RedWingFan]

Bush did not inherit a recession.

Wrong again 7 Wishes.
The economy grew at 3.3% last quarter. Bill Clinton handed off a growth rate of negative 0.49% to George W. Bush in 2001 -- and then here came 9/11 shortly thereafter because of inadequacies in Clinton's foreign policy during his eight years as president.
The above is fact no matter how many words you CAPITALIZE in your error filled posts.

[7 Wishes]

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart.

The Wall Street Journal (a bastion of self-congratulatory conservatism):

"When the two spoke [at the constitutionally required transfer-of-power meeting between Bush and Clinton in January of 2000] at inauguration time, Clinton put al Qaeda and Bin Laden at the top of his list of national-security concerns, with Iraq behind the Mideast, North Korea and India and Pakistan, according to one outsider who recently heard Clinton's account. It is confirmed by several former Clinton aides from the time. Bush, by contrast, already had called for regime change in Iraq."

You are WRONG! DEAL WITH IT!

Bush EXPANDED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Clinton reduced its ranks by 30%.

[RedWingFan]

"When the two spoke [at the constitutionally required transfer-of-power meeting between Bush and Clinton in January of 2000] at inauguration time, Clinton put al Qaeda and Bin Laden at the top of his list of national-security concerns, with Iraq behind the Mideast, North Korea and India and Pakistan, according to one outsider who recently heard Clinton's account. It is confirmed by several former Clinton aides from the time. Bush, by contrast, already had called for regime change in Iraq."[/b]

If Clinton was so strong on terrorism why did he feel the need to send Sandy Berger into the National Archives and stuff his pants and socks with documents before Clinton was to testify? (Remember Berger was Clintons National Security Advisor) To eliminate the evidence of all the great things he did on the terror front?

[RedWingFan]

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart.

The Wall Street Journal (a bastion of self-congratulatory conservatism):

"When the two spoke [at the constitutionally required transfer-of-power meeting between Bush and Clinton in January of 2000] at inauguration time, Clinton put al Qaeda and Bin Laden at the top of his list of national-security concerns, with Iraq behind the Mideast, North Korea and India and Pakistan, according to one outsider who recently heard Clinton's account. It is confirmed by several former Clinton aides from the time. Bush, by contrast, already had called for regime change in Iraq."

You are WRONG! DEAL WITH IT!

Bush EXPANDED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Clinton reduced its ranks by 30%.

No named outsider and several Clinton aides. LOL

That too!!!

[RossValoryRocks]

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart.

The Wall Street Journal (a bastion of self-congratulatory conservatism):

"When the two spoke [at the constitutionally required transfer-of-power meeting between Bush and Clinton in January of 2000] at inauguration time, Clinton put al Qaeda and Bin Laden at the top of his list of national-security concerns, with Iraq behind the Mideast, North Korea and India and Pakistan, according to one outsider who recently heard Clinton's account. It is confirmed by several former Clinton aides from the time. Bush, by contrast, already had called for regime change in Iraq."

You are WRONG! DEAL WITH IT!

Bush EXPANDED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Clinton reduced its ranks by 30%.

In Red none the less! Bush did expand the Federal Government...and I don't like that at all...I say when Bush fucked up...I have no qualms...and Clinton did NO SUCH THING as shrink the government...the Republican Congress did. Clinton had no choice but to go along with it. After the Republicans got drunk on power, and as a result of 9/11 the size of government increased. I can see the response to 9/11 but the rest was utter stupidity on the part of the Republicans.

[7 Wishes]

WRONG, YET AGAIN.

The Republicans tried to pass through higher and higher spending bills and Clinton had to keep trimming the fat.

It was the DEMS who intentionally reduced the ranks of the government. The Republicans fought them tooth and nail.

What, your party suddenly had a reversal of hypocrisy under Clinton? Every single Republican President since Ike has increased the size of the Federal Government, and every single Democratic President has reduced it.

Again, have fun ignoring the facts. Continue to deceive yourselves.

[RedWingFan]

Again, have fun ignoring the facts. Continue to deceive yourselves.

The Republican majority STRONGLY tried to SHOOT DOWN Clinton's welfare reform as they had done successfully with the universal health care proposal.

Dude, you do realize that Clinton vetoed the Republicans "welfare reform" bill twice right, and only signed it the third time because it was right before his re-election campaign. Were you aware of this? Any theories how Republicans shot down their own bill that they wrote and sent to the Presidents desk? Or did Clinton veto his own bill.....TWICE? Who's ignoring the facts?

[7 Wishes]

He vetoed it because it wasn't going to work in the form the Republicans tried to pass through. Duh.

[RedWingFan]

He vetoed it because it wasn't going to work in the form the Republicans tried to pass through. Duh.

Oh yeah? What was different in the one he signed?

[tj]

WRONG, YET AGAIN.

The Republicans tried to pass through higher and higher spending bills and Clinton had to keep trimming the fat.

It was the DEMS who intentionally reduced the ranks of the government. The Republicans fought them tooth and nail.

What, your party suddenly had a reversal of hypocrisy under Clinton? Every single Republican President since Ike has increased the size of the Federal Government, and every single Democratic President has reduced it.

Again, have fun ignoring the facts. Continue to deceive yourselves.

Right. Let's see, who are the Democrat Presidents since Ike?

Kennedy - his views actually are much closer to today's Republicans than Democrats.
Johnson - Vietnam, War on Poverty, no increase in government there.
Carter - 22% iunterest rates, misery index, Iran hostages, the list goes on and on (to his credit, his work with Habitat for Humanity is to be commended and I wish other former Presidents and VPs would use their influence and time this way).
Clinton - even if you give him credit, it's only one of 4.

Who else might have been added to the list had the American people not been wise enough to elect a Republican?

Hubert Humphrey - one of the great liberal big spenders of all time.
George McGovern - another government shrinker who had to fire his first VP running mate before the election was even held:roll:
Walter Mondale - oops, another big time liberal spender.
Michael Dukakis - oh yea, big time government shrinker
Al Gore - It hurts too much to try to list his "accomplishments"
John Kerry - the list of big spenders goes on and on and on

And now we have Barry Obama. Fortunately, the American people will see him for what he is: an opportunist who's only accomplishments have been to live off of the taxpayers and donor's money, pushing extremely liberal policies.

It must be fun living in your fantasy world where history is what you want it to be, rather than what it was. They used to call it "delusion".

[7 Wishes]

Whatever. Most of those Democrats were responsible (at least partially) for policies that spurned economic growth.

TAX AND SPEND DOES NOT WORK, DUDE.

Period.

YOU CANNOT BORROW HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND RUN MASSIVE DEFICITS AND RUN A VIABLE ECONOMY.

Your system SUCKS and it is responsible for America's economic failures since the mid-80's. End of story.

[tj]

Whatever. Most of those Democrats were responsible (at least partially) for policies that spurned economic growth.

TAX AND SPEND DOES NOT WORK, DUDE.

Period.

YOU CANNOT BORROW HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND RUN MASSIVE DEFICITS AND RUN A VIABLE ECONOMY.

Your system SUCKS and it is responsible for America's economic failures since the mid-80's. End of story.

Wait. Tax and spend is the Democrats policy. What needs to happen is tax cuts (Republican) and spending cuts, primarily entitlements.

And I thought you wanted to go back to Ike, he was 30 years before the mid 80's.

Earth Wind and Fire had a great song called "Fantasy", that's what your revisionist history is. Or how about Aldo Nova's "Life is just a Fantasy, can you live a fantasy life?" Apparently you can.

Go McCain.

[7 Wishes]

Wait. Tax and spend is the Democrats policy. What needs to happen is tax cuts (Republican) and spending cuts, primarily entitlements.

And I thought you wanted to go back to Ike, he was 30 years before the mid 80's.

Earth Wind and Fire had a great song called "Fantasy", that's what your revisionist history is. Or how about Aldo Nova's "Life is just a Fantasy, can you live a fantasy life?" Apparently you can.

Go McCain.

Your party has continued to invest in the FAILED "Ownership Approach" - i.e. trickle down.

So you're saying that it's better to roll up TRILLIONS of dollars of deficits (Republicans) by borrowing money we don't have (more deficits) to make the rich richer? It doesn't work, dude. It's NOT revisionism.

It's reality.

Republican economics SUCK. They didn't used to - traditional fiscal conservatism is a proven winner. But no Republican has employed that since Nixon, and he had some other issues that detracted from his overall efficacy.

[RossValoryRocks]

Wait. Tax and spend is the Democrats policy. What needs to happen is tax cuts (Republican) and spending cuts, primarily entitlements.

And I thought you wanted to go back to Ike, he was 30 years before the mid 80's.

Earth Wind and Fire had a great song called "Fantasy", that's what your revisionist history is. Or how about Aldo Nova's "Life is just a Fantasy, can you live a fantasy life?" Apparently you can.

Go McCain.

Your party has continued to invest in the FAILED "Ownership Approach" - i.e. trickle down.

So you're saying that it's better to roll up TRILLIONS of dollars of deficits (Republicans) by borrowing money we don't have (more deficits) to make the rich richer? It doesn't work, dude. It's NOT revisionism.

It's reality.

Republican economics SUCK. They didn't used to - traditional fiscal conservatism is a proven winner. But no Republican has employed that since Nixon, and he had some other issues that detracted from his overall efficacy.

WOW...now you are lifting lines from Obama's acceptance speech! COOL!

You are parrot extraordinaire!

[7 Wishes]

True - although I have heard that expression before.

Stu, are you watching this speech? Ha ha! You're out of the closet - we all knew you were a liberal at heart.

[RossValoryRocks]

True - although I have heard that expression before.

Stu, are you watching this speech? Ha ha! You're out of the closet - we all knew you were a liberal at heart.

Of course I am. I disagree with almost everything he said, but I believe he LOVES his country and believes in it. I am moved by his idealism, misguided as it is.

I would shake the mans hand and happily tell him how proud I am of him. The whole country should be. He has transcended a barrier almost everyone though would never be broken, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine. Of course I mean his race. He is a living embodiement of "I have a dream!" and he and we should be proud of that, no matter if a person agrees or disagrees with him.

Then I would tell him I am voting for John McCain and why. (I would vote for Bob Barr if I though he had ANY chance of winning.)

[7 Wishes]

Would it surprise you to learn that, were it not for his undulating support for not the current war in Iraq, but rather the premises under which the invasion was conjured, I would be voting for McCain?

I've always liked him. His track record is very pro-Bush since 2006, but he has always marched to his own beat, and he is a tremendous man.

[conversationpc]

Would it surprise you to learn that, were it not for his undulating support for not the current war in Iraq, but rather the premises under which the invasion was conjured, I would be voting for McCain?

I've always liked him. His track record is very pro-Bush since 2006, but he has always marched to his own beat, and he is a tremendous man.

Despite your sometimes over-the-top rhetoric, I think you're one of the more level-headed liberals/Democrats on this board.

[Rip Rokken]

Now before you liberals use that tired old argument that the Republicans will do it, too, you are absolutely right. That isn't acceptable, either, but this is pretty hypocritical of the Democrats who are claiming that they are cleaning up this kind of stuff, don't you think?

Absolutely true, and the reason I can't stand politicians in general... they are all corrupt to some degree, IMO. But there has always been a special level of hypocrisy on that side of the aisle for sure.

[Rip Rokken]

This is just like the check box on your tax form that allows you to make a donation to your party. All you're doing there is paying for the party favors at these conventions.

Which is why I never check it -- wouldn't do it even if it was .10, much less $1.00. Screw them... they'll never get a dime more out of me than they can, and what they do get is unconstitutional to boot.

Just read an article yesterday I think about how some guy had successfully challenged the IRS on some taxation issue and won -- it was a pretty major deal that could have benefits for tons of taxpayers:

http://www.newsday.com/news/printeditio ... 4408.story

Here's a blurb:

WASHINGTON - It took seven years, but Charles Ulrich did something many people dream about, but few succeed at: He beat the Internal Revenue Service in a tax dispute.

Not only that: Tax experts say potentially millions of other taxpayers could benefit from his victory.

The accountant from Baxter, Minn., challenged the method the IRS has used for more than 20 years to tax shares and cash distributed by mutual life insurance firms to their policyholders when they reorganize as public companies.

A federal court recently agreed with his interpretation.

"There's a tremendous amount of money at stake," said Robert Willens, a New York City-based tax analyst at Robert Willens Llc. "Tens of thousands of people could be in line for a refund."

[ymsf]

Fuck Republicans!

[conversationpc]

Fuck Republicans!

What a great example of why most Republicans AND Democrats just don't have a freakin' clue.

[conversationpc]

Just read an article yesterday I think about how some guy had successfully challenged the IRS on some taxation issue and won -- it was a pretty major deal that could have benefits for tons of taxpayers:

http://www.newsday.com/news/printeditio ... 4408.story

Good for him!