The 2008 Presidential Race thread

[TheNiche]

My personal opinion is their train-wreck of hypocritical "family values", social, borrow and tax and spend economic politicians they have supported might come to an end if they told the Taliban wing of their party to kiss off and embrace a Guliani [who I might consider voting for]. I don't see Romney as a possibility because he really is a cultist trying not to act like a Christian and not a cultist and McCain is just a fraud by anyone's measure.

So come on...inquiring HAIFers want to know.

I just got a sinking feeling in my gut. Nmainguy and I might end up voting for the same person? For president?

I've never seen McCain as being that strong a candidate, and Romney's status as a practicing Mormon is an immediate disqualifier. Moreover, I agree about the element of hypocracy with respect to 'family values' and excessive spending. The Republicans just need a viable response to populist Democrats, and I think that Guiliani is it.

[TheNiche]

Did you just acknowledge that the other half is not eliminated? Doesn't that side with my main point, that this is not really growth, but borrowed money that has to be returned?

Perhaps one shouldn't throw around comments like 'heads in the sand' so easily when we are still losing more than we are gaining.

Government deficit by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. From late 2001 to early 2003, Bush should be commended for his economic policy. It was a classic Keyensian response. Increase government spending, cut taxes. Borrow in bad times, pay it off in good times. The idea is to reduce volatility. It works.

Now we're experiencing very healthy rates of economic growth, and tax revenues are increasing rapidly even though the marginal rate of taxation is lower. All that we need to do now is to control spending.

[Parrothead]

As a political junkie, this has always been an intriquing topic for me: What about Guliani? In the past few days I have seen him artfully NOT dissavow his position on a woman's right to choose and for equal federal rights for gays in order for them to become first class citizens.

I have also seen some anti-choice and anti-equal rights for gays groups saying "well...we're not crazy about that but maybe we could live with it if it got a Republican in the White House.

Then I see the far-right "Christian" conservative wing saying no deal. No deal on Guliani. No deal on the flip-flopping McCain. No deal on the non-Christian, cultist, flip-flopping Romney. The fact there is they usually control the primaries.

I'm curious what HAIFers and HAIFettes think where the Republican Party is headed.

My personal opinion is their train-wreck of hypocritical "family values", social, borrow and tax and spend economic politicians they have supported might come to an end if they told the Taliban wing of their party to kiss off and embrace a Guliani [who I might consider voting for]. I don't see Romney as a possibility because he really is a cultist trying not to act like a Christian and not a cultist and McCain is just a fraud by anyone's measure.

So come on...inquiring HAIFers want to know.

Most conservative Christians are not hypocrites. I'm sorry that the few morons out there who spout stuff they know nothing about have allowed you to become so narrow-minded. The irony there is, that, in itself, seems hypocritical.

[TJones]

Did you just acknowledge that the other half is not eliminated? Doesn't that side with my main point, that this is not really growth, but borrowed money that has to be returned?

Perhaps one shouldn't throw around comments like 'heads in the sand' so easily when we are still losing more than we are gaining.

Just a thought.

Another thought that I misconstrued is that you would actually read the article. Deficit is gonna go to $188 million, then by 2008 we will be in the black, this, all with a war going on, would you add a little to the discussion and explain how this is happening webdude ? The point is, that the tax cuts are working, whether you want to admit it or not.

Government deficit by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. From late 2001 to early 2003, Bush should be commended for his economic policy. It was a classic Keyensian response. Increase government spending, cut taxes. Borrow in bad times, pay it off in good times. The idea is to reduce volatility. It works.

Now we're experiencing very healthy rates of economic growth, and tax revenues are increasing rapidly even though the marginal rate of taxation is lower. All that we need to do now is to control spending.

Exactly, lower tax rates but MORE businesses and jobs being created to pay those lower taxes thus bringing in MORE money for the Govt.

[nmainguy]

Most conservative Christians are not hypocrites. I'm sorry that the few morons out there who spout stuff they know nothing about have allowed you to become so narrow-minded. The irony there is, that, in itself, seems hypocritical.

I never said most conservative Christians are hypocites. So all you've done is once again insure that with you around...well, I think you can muddle through the rest of the sentence.

[Parrothead]

I'm sorry, perhaps I read what you said incorrectly. Let me try again.

Then I see the far-right "Christian" conservative wing saying no deal. No deal on Guliani. No deal on the flip-flopping McCain. No deal on the non-Christian, cultist, flip-flopping Romney. The fact there is they usually control the primaries.

I'm curious what HAIFers and HAIFettes think where the Republican Party is headed.

My personal opinion is their train-wreck of hypocritical "family values",

Gee, where did I go wrong?

[RedScare]

Another thought that I misconstrued is that you would actually read the article. Deficit is gonna go to $188 million, then by 2008 we will be in the black, this, all with a war going on, would you add a little to the discussion and explain how this is happening webdude ? The point is, that the tax cuts are working, whether you want to admit it or not.

Exactly, lower tax rates but MORE businesses and jobs being created to pay those lower taxes thus bringing in MORE money for the Govt.

Sounds like you did not read your own article either. The blogger said that IF the trend continued, the deficit would disappear in 2008. However, the Congressional Budget Office predicts the deficit will finish this yeat at $200 Billion, and INCREASE next year to $247 Billion. The Bush Administration is even more pessimistic, predicting next year's deficit will rise to $260 Billion. Bush predicts a balanced budget by 2012, but he does not account for numerous funding problems, such as his Medicaid drug plan, that is kicking in next year at triple the cost he predicted, and NO money for the War in Iraq. I suppose maybe it will be over by then?

BTW, economists have consistently stated that government spending spurs the economy, while tax hikes do not hurt it, but I realize the supply siders will fly into a frenzy over that, and I have no interest in debating their fantasies, so this will be my only comment on that. It is easy to find on Google. Long winded, verbose reply by TheNiche to follow...

Gee, where did I go wrong?

Parrot, he was not calling the conservative Christians hypocrites. Rather, he was calling those POLITICIANS who court conservative Christians, and claim to be one of them, hypocrites. The voters are not the hypocrites. It is their elected officials who are such.

[TJones]

I believe we will be out of Iraq within 2 years, the pullback will start next year but will be complete with a force of about 20,000 staying in rotation by 2009.

You failed to put the whole context in there Red, you sneaky Lib. you, "Similarly, CBO continues to repeat that the deficit will fall in the $200 billion range. This is based on a forecast of tax revenues growing 5.6 percent for this fiscal year. We disagree. With the first four months of the fiscal year complete, tax revenues are up 9 percent compared to the same period last fiscal year. And tax revenues have been accelerating in the February through May period as tax returns are filed due to the surge in non-wage income from capital gains, dividends, and small business income. So while our forecast calls for 9 percent growth in tax revenues we believe this is a conservative estimate. The deficit will most likely finish the fiscal year in the range of $150 billion, roughly 1 percent of GDP." The trend continues to go like this, so they seem to be on target.

The numbers don't lie Red, so yes, IF the trend continues, but who's to say it will or won't? All I see is my stocks going up right now. More jobs and construction of new businesses growing faster than jobs being lost and businesses closing down. So, we can speculate all day about what may or may not happen with the economy.

[TheNiche]

BTW, economists have consistently stated that government spending spurs the economy, while tax hikes do not hurt it, but I realize the supply siders will fly into a frenzy over that, and I have no interest in debating their fantasies, so this will be my only comment on that. It is easy to find on Google. Long winded, verbose reply by TheNiche to follow...

Indeed.

In the short term you are correct that, the government can influence the timing of economic activity by hiking spending. That is a good measure for countering cyclical fluctuations. It is described by Keyenes.

In the long term, however, government spending is the precise equivalent of a mix of private consumption, investment, and net exports, (Y = C + I + G + NE), and any amount spent by the government is just something that wasn't spent by private citizens. [Note: The accounting methods are tricky, but my brief interpretation is more theoretically and generally correct.] In theory, the difference between public and private spending is nil...but theory assumes pefect information and rational economic actors. In practice, the government usually does a really crappy job at choosing which projects to undertake. The private sector has proven time and time again throughout history that it is more efficient at allocating society's resources than is the government. This is because individuals have a far better understanding of their own unique preferences than does a bureaucrat.

Because many of the benefits from efficient economic allocation are compounded over time, in the very long term, government spending tends to result in a significant negative impact to economic growth and underperformance relative to more classically-liberal foreign economies.

[nmainguy]

Long winded, verbose reply by TheNiche to follow...

Looks like your crystal ball is in perfect working order as ThePedant has struck again to hijack yet another thread

Parrot, he was not calling the conservative Christians hypocrites. Rather, he was calling those POLITICIANS who court conservative Christians, and claim to be one of them, hypocrites. The voters are not the hypocrites. It is their elected officials who are such.

I could not have made it more simple. In any event, until I see the Republicans kick some sense into these wing-nuts, you'll end up with a Brownback as a nominee and woman or a black man as the next President.

[Parrothead]

I read it to say Christian conservatives are Republicans, and that Republicans are hypocrites, therefore Christian conservatives are hypocrites. Whether he was talking about politicians or not is really irrelevant. I mean, how nmainguy feels about the Republican party has been made crystal clear in past posts.

[west20th]

I read it to say Christian conservatives are Republicans, and that Republicans are hypocrites, therefore Christian conservatives are hypocrites. Whether he was talking about politicians or not is really irrelevant. I mean, how nmainguy feels about the Republican party has been made crystal clear in past posts.

You should have "read" what was actually there.

[TheNiche]

Looks like your crystal ball is in perfect working order as ThePedant has struck again to hijack yet another thread

Red hijacked the thread. I just made a point to correct the lawyer-terrorist is all. After all, if you're going to do something tangential, you may as well do it right.

[RedScare]

Not sure what you corrected. You agreed with me on short term government spending spurring the economy, which is all that I was talking about. AND, you did drone on with a long-winded diatribe, complete with a formula, about something that no one was discussing, which I predicted.

If the thread was hijacked by anyone, it would've been TJ, who comically called me a sneaky Lib. TJ, aren't YOU the one bragging that the DEFICIT is ONY $200 BILLION? Brother, that is certified Lib-Speak. You can dress it up in GWB clothing, but fiscal conservatives do not BRAG about deficits.....EVER.

As for lawyer-terrorist....yes, I like that term. Instills fear. Fear is good. You may call me bin-Lawyer.

[TJones]

Not sure what you corrected. You agreed with me on short term government spending spurring the economy, which is all that I was talking about. AND, you did drone on with a long-winded diatribe, complete with a formula, about something that no one was discussing, which I predicted.

If the thread was hijacked by anyone, it would've been TJ, who comically called me a sneaky Lib. TJ, aren't YOU the one bragging that the DEFICIT is ONY $200 BILLION? Brother, that is certified Lib-Speak. You can dress it up in GWB clothing, but fiscal conservatives do not BRAG about deficits.....EVER.

As for lawyer-terrorist....yes, I like that term. Instills fear. Fear is good. You may call me bin-Lawyer.

I am not "bragging" about our deficit. I am simply stating that the tax cuts were INDEED needed to spur economic growth in order to correct the over spending by the Govt. People expanding existing businesses or creating new business, because of more money in their pockets creates more jobs for people who can pay more taxes.

The whole thing started because a Bushhater said that he(Bush) did not know how to create growth, 7.4 million jobs later and the Bushhater is still in denial.

[west20th]

I am not "bragging" about our deficit. I am simply stating that the tax cuts were INDEED needed to spur economic growth in order to correct the over spending by the Govt. People expanding existing businesses because of more money in their pockets creates more jobs for people who can pay more taxes.

The whole thing started because a Bushhater said that he did not know how to create growth, 7.4 million jobs later and the Bushhater is still in denial.

The whole thing about cutting taxes to spur growth is debatable, I guess it could happen. But "to correct the over spending by the Govt." by spending more as well as cutting taxes? Well I'm no economist, guess thats why I don't get that one.

[Chris]

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

[nmainguy]

I read it to say Christian conservatives are Republicans, and that Republicans are hypocrites, therefore Christian conservatives are hypocrites. Whether he was talking about politicians or not is really irrelevant. I mean, how nmainguy feels about the Republican party has been made crystal clear in past posts.

I was talking about politicians in a political thread. What's irrelevant about that?

Yes, Republicans are such sweet people-I can't for the life of me figure out why we voted the family values serial divorcee, oxycotin addict, meth smoking christian male prostitute using child predator protecting borrow and spend party out of power.

[TJones]

The whole thing about cutting taxes to spur growth is debatable, I guess it could happen. But "to correct the over spending by the Govt." by spending more as well as cutting taxes? Well I'm no economist, guess thats why I don't get that one.

West, how it works is not to outspend more than we take in, just like any business. Since the taxcuts of 2003 that is happening on a monthly and quarterly and yearly basis. The Govt. is taking in more money on taxes than it is spending , more money coming in than is going out.

[west20th]

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

I like Barack. I really liked how he b-slapped that loud mouthed Australian PM. Like we need him sticking his nose in our business. However, I don't think he can overcome Hillary's $$$ and organization. Hillary for Prez w/a Barack VP perhaps? Think it's possible?

West, how it works is not to outspend more than we take in, just like any business. Since the taxcuts of 2003 that is happening on a monthly and quarterly and yearly basis. The Govt. is taking in more money on taxes than it is spending , more money coming in than is going out.

???? And the deficit is coming from where?

[TJones]

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

So, you only want Obama because he is "Black", well sure, that is an excellent reason to choose the leader of the free world, because of the color of his skin. If I felt Obama truly had his finger on the pulse of America, and had somewhat of a record in Congress, I could see him as a President, the problem I have is that I just don't feel he has cut his teeth on anything to justify being able to run this country.

Chris, can you give me some bullet points on what his stances are on any issues currently being debated on Capitol Hill ? Try to convince me why Obama is the right choice. I'll take any comments form any posters on here, to learn more about him.

[TJones]

I like Barack. I really liked how he b-slapped that loud mouthed Australian PM. Like we need him sticking his nose in our business. However, I don't think he can overcome Hillary's $$$ and organization. Hillary for Prez w/a Barack VP perhaps? Think it's possible?

???? And the deficit is coming from where?

The deficit was already inflated before the taxcuts of 2003, the deficit has dropped over $350 billion since then, and keeps dropping. West go read the links I have provided. I put them up so I don't have to repeat myself. Sorry for the double post.

[Chris]

So, you only want Obama because he is "Black", well sure, that is an excellent reason to choose the leader of the free world, because of the color of his skin. If I felt Obama truly had his finger on the pulse of America, and had somewhat of a record in Congress, I could see him as a President, the problem I have is that I just don't feel he has cut his teeth on anything to justify being able to run this country.

Chris, can you give me some bullet points on what his stances are on any issues currently being debated on Capitol Hill ? Try to convince me why Obama is the right choice. I'll take any comments form any posters on here, to learn more about him.

Well I don't want him to win just because he is black, I want him to win because he's of another race. If he was Hispanic or something else, I would want him to win also. If he doesn't win I want Hiliary to win because she is a woman. I just think it is time for America to experience something different.

[west20th]

The deficit was already inflated before the taxcuts of 2003, the deficit has dropped over $350 billion since then. West go read the links I have provided. I put them up so I don't have to repeat myself.

Deficit, by definition, is spending above and beyond what you take in. That shrinking 350B deficit is ONLY 200B (or whatever they say it is this year) because of the money stole.....errrrr.....borrowed from SS and they don't count the Iraq war costs. Andy Fastow would be proud of their accounting.

[TJones]

Well I don't want him to win just because he is black, I want him to win because he's of another race. If he was Hispanic or something else, I would want him to win also. If he doesn't win I want Hiliary to win because she is a woman. I just think it is time for America to experience something different.

I just can't see picking a President based on race alone. In fact if I, being of a sound minded, tax paying member of society, Whiteboy would have made such a comment as "I only pick "WHITE" presidents", what do you presume the backlash would be on here ? Yet, you will get a pass from the masses. You do know how the elections in this country work, majority rules, and if your horse doesn't pull enough votes, then that horse loses. Now I will do a little predicting myself and wait for nmain to tell me about the 2000 elections. AGAIN !

[TheNiche]

Not sure what you corrected. You agreed with me on short term government spending spurring the economy, which is all that I was talking about. AND, you did drone on with a long-winded diatribe, complete with a formula, about something that no one was discussing, which I predicted.

That you are able to predict when I will correct your errors only speaks to the frequency with which I must do so.

You stated the following, and failed to distinguish between short- and long-term policy outcomes. Without that explanation, your statement is meaningless...at best. I would label it as misleading, however.

economists have consistently stated that government spending spurs the economy, while tax hikes do not hurt it

But you provided further input, having stated: "supply siders will fly into a frenzy over that." The fact is that if you had been talking purely about the short-run impacts of government spending and tax cuts, there would be no need to say anything about supply siders because their stance is that low tax rates should be kept perpetually low (i.e. a long-run policy), not necessarily that tax rates or government spending should be manipulated periodically to reduce volatility. That you made the above statement, then said after being called out on it that you'd only meant it in a short-term way in the first place, is an indication that you are either confused or are trying to weasel out of this whole matter without losing face...

...and that is only after you'd said premptively that "this will be my only comment on that". That you are evidently willing to debate this is, I suppose, a good thing, but that you are so thoroughly inconsistent with yourself is not.

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

Race shouldn't matter, one way or the other. I wish I could say that it didn't.

[Chris]

I just can't see picking a President based on race alone. In fact if I, being of a sound minded, tax paying member of society, Whiteboy would have made such a comment as "I only pick "WHITE" presidents", what do you presume the backlash would be on here ? Yet, you will get a pass from the masses. You do know how the elections in this country work, majority rules, and if your horse doesn't pull enough votes, then that horse loses. Now I will do a little predicting myself and wait for nmain to tell me about the 2000 elections. AGAIN !

It is not about Race, It is about a change in The United States of America that I think would be great.

[TJones]

It is not about Race, It is about a change in The United States of America that I think would be great.

Chris, you just made it about race and I will now throw in sexism, because your take on it is that anyone other than a white male no matter if they are the BEST QUALIFIED for the job, you would automatically pick someone OTHER than this demographic. Is that a fair statement ?

[DJ V Lawrence]

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

I'm black, but I don't give a damn about Obama being the first black president. I really don't. If he doesn't have a good campaign, and doesn't show promise that he can help the country after all the BS that has happened since 2003, then I don't see any reason to vote for him. Same goes to Guliani. Yea, he was mayor of NYC during 9-11, and did a good job with what he had to work with. But I don't owe him a vote. Same goes to Hilary for having a former president as your husband, and having the best chance ever for being the first female president. What'cha want, a cookie?

I DO think that so far, Obama's been the strongest candidate thus far, but anything can change between now and November '08. I'll be turned off between now and then with anyone who tries to use their past or their race and sex as a reason why we should vote for them. I can see though that so far, Obama's been the candidate that has tried hardest to stay away from his "I wanna be the 1st" speech, and stuck to the issues. That's how this election should stay, and I think Clinton, Guliani, and all the others know their society status will be thrown out the window once the Conventions are over.

[nmainguy]

I think it's time for America to have some diversity in the presidential office. I truly want Barack Obama to win in 2008. This will be the first time in American History that some one of another race has gotten the big seat. This would be a history making event for America.

I understand the desire for diversity but being black, brown, tan or female doesn't nessesarily mean that person would make a good or even great leader. It just means the 44th President would be the first one that isn't a caucasian Christian male...unless Romney wins minus the Christian affiliation which is really a difference without distintion.

Hang back and check out the entire field. You may surprise yourself...after all, there's only 22 months before the election!

Now I will do a little predicting myself and wait for nmain to tell me about the 2000 elections. AGAIN !

I'm hurt...deeply. I would never bring up the fact that GW didn't win the 2000 general election but still got to play President.

I thought [sniff...sniff] we were friends....