More Palin Lies

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;774395]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Hypocrite

I usually attack positions AND spelling, so technically I am not a hypocrite.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The real world - live in it - they are never going to cut spending no matter what they (all of them) say.

Haven't you figured this out yet?

Of course, but why vote for a guy who will cause much worse problems? I do think Obama would give the economy a mercy kill. It's a choice between awful and abhorrent. Spending more or cutting taxes is not nearly as bad as trying to raise them right now.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Of course, but why vote for a guy who will cause much worse problems? I do think Obama would give the economy a mercy kill. It's a choice between awful and abhorrent. Spending more or cutting taxes is not nearly as bad as trying to raise them right now.

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math

I swear your posts always make me chuckle. And shake my head (with a smile, of course).

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I swear your posts always make me chuckle. And shake my head (with a smile, of course).

Lord knows I try

What can I say, I'm an overblown, self-important windbag

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math

You're right it's not advanced math, Obama said "closing corporate loopholes" would pay for his plan. It's laughable. Let's look at this then, shall we? Currently, social security alone is responsible for about half of our national budget. Go here and look up the population statistics on how much of the population is elderly (55 and older). It is currently 22.7% of the entire US population. 13.6% of the population is currently collecting sosical security now. The other roughly 10% will be in ten years and we do not have enough to pay for them as it is. Obama is promising universal health care coverage, which will be the other 75% of the population, through tax increases. If we are spending half of our budget on 13.6% of the population, how much in taxes are we going to have to raise to pay for the rest? In addition, Obama is promising a "middle class tax cut", which is a joke because you cannot give a tax cut to one part of the population, while raising taxes on another without the group that is getting the cut paying for the increase by way of lower wages, foregone raises, cut benefits, etc. So, we have established now that Obama will raise taxes on the segment of the population that provides the benefits, which will increase the dependency on the government for insurance. So, Obama plans on taking money away from the segment that provides jobs and benefits, which ALWAYS results in higher prices and lost opportunity. Crack any econ book and it will say just this. The only disagreement is to what degree these opportunities are lost. So, we now have fewer jobs and fewer people paying taxes, more people relying on the government for necessities, and corporations leaving the country due to high taxes. Does this sound healthy or sane to you?

http://www.census.gov/population/www.../age_2006.html

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, Obama can pay for his plan. McSame cannot. This is not advanced math

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Does this sound healthy or sane to you? . . . .

Again, all Obama wants to do is go back to the levels under Clinton, when, as mentioned 762 million times before, we had trillions in surplus. So, something must have worked to get that and despite theoretical economic arguments.

In the end, McSame cannot pay for his plan without borowing billions - at least according to a real economist.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

a man who cannot correctly state how many homes he owns surely cannot be trusted to run this country. Maybe McSame had a 'pretty girl' cover his ass during 'advanced math class' years ago...Oh wait, he is doing that now - My bad.

Cindy McCain? Pretty?

*crickets*

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

When you have a prenup and multiple homes are owned in the names of your kids and corporations, etc it's not that simple.

Your forgot senility and a cavalier attitude.

Moreover, even considering all those trumoed up reasons, clearly he should know how many her personally owns. Again, the man wants to run the most powerful nation in the world and he can't figure out a legal document

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, all Obama wants to do is go back to the levels under Clinton, when, as mentioned 762 million times before, we had trillions in surplus. So, something must have worked to get that and despite theoretical economic arguments.

In the end, McSame cannot pay for his plan without borowing billions - at least according to a real economist.

Again, a surplus or a deficit are irrelevant to the economy, by and large. During the depression we had a surplus and went spent into deficit levels to get out of it. You can afford to raise taxes when things are going good, you cannot raise them when things aren't so hot. What is so hard to grasp here?! If I take more money from you when you are struggling financially, are you worse off or better off? It really is as simple as that. Unlike you, I've actually had to run small businesses and work in the private sector. I've owned a business and worked for several years as a Controller. If you were to raise taxes on many of the businesses I worked for, it would put them under, one of them did go under because of its tax burden. It had no money leftover to sustain operations once uncle sam was paid.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Your forgot senility and a cavalier attitude.

Moreover, even considering all those trumoed up reasons, clearly he should know how many her personally owns. Again, the man wants to run the most powerful nation in the world and he can't figure out a legal document

Okay, well you could bring up the 57 states again, or the fact that Obama stated that Palin was the "Governor of Wasili" (sic), I guess that must be state 52. Point is, candidates say stupid stuff. Look at Biden, he has the corner on it, but I don't think he's senile or stupid. He's only a few years younger than McCain.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Cindy McCain? Pretty?

*crickets*

I mean the Sarah Failing...

Cindy McCain wouldnt be pretty if she was able to alter the physical plane and become Cindy Brady ("The youngest one in curls")

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Okay, well you could bring up the 57 states again, or the fact that Obama stated that Palin was the "Governor of Wasili" (sic), I guess that must be state 52. Point is, candidates say stupid stuff. Look at Biden, he has the corner on it, but I don't think he's senile or stupid. He's only a few years younger than McCain.

HE DID NOT KNOW HOW MANY HOUSES HE HAD

I mean come on That is hardly the same as some new campaign issue in a speech.