Presidential Debate #3: 9 PM ET, 10/15/08

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

An extremist spender? Little doubt.

This charge still baffles me.

The idea that the republicans are 'fiscally disciplined' and the democrats spend like drunken sailors is silly. Just look at the federal deficits/nat'l debt over the past 4 administrations. It's a study in contrasts. The Rebublican administrations increase our deficits/debt, while the Clinton administration lowered it. Perhaps Clinton 'spent' more than Reagan/Bush 1 (not sure), but at least he didn't borrow to do so.



I get sick of the 'tax and spend liberal' mantra I hear from the republicans. Not sure why the democrats don't counter with 'borrow and spend conservatives'. It's a hell of a lot more accurate.

[CapnStubby]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

What IF McCain turns out to be a cannibal?
Exposure to starvation and mental stress while held captive gives him
plenty of opportunity to go that route and base his true life style on it.
What do we all do then?
What do his backers do then ?
Poo poo it like they are now?

Well then... he should probably bring a steak knife with him to the debate tonight. Oh shiite... this is a poli forum (backing my way slowly out the door)

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

What IF McCain turns out to be a cannibal?
Exposure to starvation and mental stress while held captive gives him
plenty of opportunity to go that route and base his true life style on it.
What do we all do then?
What do his backers do then ?
Poo poo it like they are now?

So now you hate cannibals too? isn't that discrimination ? I suppose you might think that it is "ok" to only hate the things that liberals hate.
seems hypocritical to me.

btw McCain didnt go to a cannibal school while he was a young child, nor did he meet an anti cannibal person when he was eight , which I believe is around the best age to direct and guide a mind. Nor did he socialize with anyone else who subscribed to cannibalism. Before you ask how do I know that , it's simple because if it was true the commie , left wing media , would have already blown it up into gigantic porportions by now.
And on another note why arent the Dems and the commie left wing press talking about Mr Mahoney from Fla?
Hmmmm Where is the outrage , the demands for investigation Hmmmmm . I bet it stored in the same place where they put their intensions about Old Dollar Bill.

What a fooking farce.

I'm voting for the Babe cuz she's HAWT>

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by FCollinsBuckeye

This charge still baffles me.

The idea that the republicans are 'fiscally disciplined' and the democrats spend like drunken sailors is silly. Just look at the federal deficits/nat'l debt over the past 4 administrations. It's a study in contrasts. The Rebublican administrations increase our deficits/debt, while the Clinton administration lowered it. Perhaps Clinton 'spent' more than Reagan/Bush 1 (not sure), but at least he didn't borrow to do so.



I get sick of the 'tax and spend liberal' mantra I hear from the republicans. Not sure why the democrats don't counter with 'borrow and spend conservatives'. It's a hell of a lot more accurate.

Clinton benefited from a good economy built on a buble and growing stock market so tax revenues were higher during his reign.

[jimotis4heisman]

Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Presidential Priorities: What We'd Ask Obama, McCain, in the Debate

To both candidates: The European Union has been pushing for stronger action on global warming for years, and even laid out its own aggressive blueprint. But now that the economic crisis is starting to bite, many European governments are shuddering at the potential costs involved in an economy-wide cap-and-trade scheme similar to the one you both espouse. During this time of financial and economic turmoil, how exactly do you sell the American people on a scheme designed to raise energy prices and the cost of doing business in order to curb greenhouse-gas emissions?

To Sen. John McCain: “Drill, baby, Drill” became your party’s informal mantra during the convention, shortly after oil prices peaked at nearly $150 a barrel. Since then, the oil price has nearly halved, and the price of gasoline has fallen $1 a gallon. Is more domestic drilling still the key to American energy independence? At the same time, oil prices have fallen in large part because rich countries like the U.S. cut back sharply on consumption. Do you still put more faith in supply-side solutions, rather than demand-side remedies, to the energy crunch?

To Sen. Barack Obama: You favored taxing windfall profits from oil companies to help underwrite some of your energy proposals. How will they be funded if falling oil prices erase those “windfall profits”? (Hat tip)

To Sen. McCain: You favor a massive expansion of nuclear power in the U.S., and have said that could create 750,000 new jobs. Given the growing federal deficit and sclerotic credit markets, how would the nuclear renaissance be funded, exactly? And where exactly do those job estimates come from?

To Sen. Obama: You say that a clean-energy revolution will create 5 million new jobs—more than twice as many people as work today in the oil and gas industries. Is the goal of your clean-energy program to create energy as cleanly and efficiently as possible, or is the plan to create as many jobs as possible, regardless of the impact on national productivity? (Thanks, Geoff.)

[CookyPuss]

McCain's debate prep...

YouTube - Batman vs. The Penguin: The Debate

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Clinton benefited from a good economy built on a buble and growing stock market so tax revenues were higher during his reign.

Then why wouldn't the same circumstances of growing stock market and bubble economy have resulted in surpluses for W?

BTW, most of the credit for the Clinton era surpluses goes to Bush's father and the Congressional Democrats who laid the foundation for those surpluses with a combination of spending constraints and tax increases. Bush Senior, BTW, was crucified by his own party for cutting that deal.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Clinton benefited from a good economy built on a buble and growing stock market so tax revenues were higher during his reign.

Can you explain the progress in the early 90's - pre-internet bubble?

[ORD_Buckeye]

My take on the Biden-Palin debate:

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Then why wouldn't the same circumstances of growing stock market and bubble economy have resulted in surpluses for W?

BTW, most of the credit for the Clinton era surpluses goes to Bush's father and the Congressional Democrats who laid the foundation for those surpluses with a combination of spending constraints and tax increases. Bush Senior, BTW, was crucified by his own party for cutting that deal.

and contract with america gets some credit. i dont like newt he had a part in it. kasich was instrumental. clinton should get credit, as should gore, and all the senators/congressmen for not stacking everything full of earmarks. though it should be noted that spending increased. you also have to give the reagan era credit, the 1/2 trillion "piece dividend"

lots of credit to go around and lots of blame for our current situation...

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Then why wouldn't the same circumstances of growing stock market and bubble economy have resulted in surpluses for W?

BTW, most of the credit for the Clinton era surpluses goes to Bush's father and the Congressional Democrats who laid the foundation for those surpluses with a combination of spending constraints and tax increases. Bush Senior, BTW, was crucified by his own party for cutting that deal.

Tech bubble burst for Bush. When every internet IPO was going to 100 dollars at launch the capital gains tax revenues were the highest in American history. Not to mention that soaring businesses paid record corporate taxes with their high earnings. Credit goes to no one for the surplus other than the American investor and business. The government didn't do anything to make the dot com era begin. Record profits for businesses and quickly growing stock market equal record tax revenues.

A quick study of country that had massive economic growth in the past 25 years conclude raises taxes is the opposite of making an economy grow. The US economy grew in the 90's inspite of the tax increases.

Not sure what you mean 'Bus

[CookyPuss]

I don't know about any bubble bursting on Bush, but this is a pretty interesting chart:

[kinch]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Clinton benefited from a good economy built on a buble and growing stock market so tax revenues were higher during his reign.

Did not Bush have a bigger bubble with housing?

(Called, prophetically, by the Economist as the biggest bubble in the history of economics years ago.)

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by kinch

Did not Bush have a bigger bubble with housing?

(Called, prophetically, by the Economist as the biggest bubble in the history of economics years ago.)

Housing doesn't make money for the feds like the stock market, that's mostly local revenue

[kinch]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Housing doesn't make money for the feds like the stock market, that's mostly local revenue

What? I honestly may not get your point.

For years our "growth" has been based on the facade of housing prices and construction of houses due to the same. The stock market likes growth.