[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Primative Weapons Title: Goldi: Palin Quitting Was A Brilliamt Move Worthy of George Washington #14. To: GrandIsland (#9) Those who criticise Palin for quitting the Governorship, should take a look at our Founding Father, George Washington. He had NO desire to be President, and did so only because he was needed. Others did the same with regard to service. Palin realized that by staying she would harm her state, and left. If she was power mad, she would have hung on like the Democrats do...to the bitter end. However, she chose to leave on a positive note, and has done a LOT to help the conservative cause. In hindsight, her departure was a brilliant move. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-16 12:46:35 ET Reply Trace Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest In hindsight, her departure was a brilliant move. Financially it turned out pretty well for her. Politically, she'll always be a sideshow and never the main event. elPee has slowed down to a crawl, participation-wise that is.
#2. To: Fred Mertz (#1) This is why: #15. To: GrandIsland (#10) If we want to restore our nation, we must first purge out all of those people who do not support our Constitution. AKA: Communists. Marxists. We are a house divided among ourselves. We can never win back our Republic until we purge all the Commies. There is simply no other way for restoration to occur. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-16 12:50:44 ET Reply Trace There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists #3. To: Fred Mertz (#1) What positions of Palins is Obama superior on?
#4. To: war (#2) We can never win back our Republic until we purge all the Commies. Is she living in the 1950s?
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3) He's a much better teleprompter reader.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3) What positions does she have? She's long on blather and little else.
#7. To: war (#6) She supports the Arizona crackdown. She isn't for murdering babies shortly after birth. She is for keeping the Bush tax cuts. To start.
#8. To: Fred Mertz (#5) Did you see Obama lie and say that the healthcare bill is not a tax. Then reverse course and swear it is a tax. He is a liar. Do you like supporting liars?
#9. To: Fred Mertz (#5) Are you a muslim like your hero Obama? Because Muslims suck.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9) How about Jews? Or Catholics? Or Protestants?
#11. To: A K A Stone (#3) What positions of Palins is Obama superior on? To the braindead, just the fact that Zero is a (D) makes him superior to Palin, who is an (R) One need look no further . . . If I could, I would. #12. To: A K A Stone (#8) Did you see Obama lie and say that the healthcare bill is not a tax. Then reverse course and swear it is a tax. He is a liar. Do you like supporting liars? The court briefing outted the Owe-bama administration as having been lying about the healthcare nationalization from Day One. No denying it now. Its a matter of public record. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #13. To: all (#0) Leaving aside the weird fixation the poster has with another website that banned him...has anyone done an accuracy check? We know what this poster does. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #14. To: war (#0) I call on her to refudiate these remarks.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#3) What positions of Palins is Obama superior on? Obama doesn't ascribe to Palin's socialist belief believe oil is a shared resource.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#7) he supports the Arizona crackdown. She isn't for murdering babies shortly after birth. She's for expanding DoD spending and sending more troops to Afghanistan.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#7) She supports the Arizona crackdown. Only because of the opportunity it gave her to bash Obama. She has no workable solution and promoting unconstitutional laws is a non starter. Abortion is never going away. Ever. It's too much of a money maker for both sides of the issue and no side is willing to give the advantage to the other side. Obama is for keeping Boy Blunder's tax cuts as well with one exception.
#18. To: go65 (#14) Do you still post there?
#19. To: war (#18) Do you still post there? nope, I quit the site after she banned Floyd. The writing was on the wall. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=278213&Disp=161#C161
#20. To: A K A Stone, War (#7) She supports the Arizona crackdown. Palin supported TARP and McCain's immigration policy.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#7) She is for keeping the Bush tax cuts. That's like an alcoholic curing a hangover with another drink.
#22. To: go65, Fred Mertz, Pan-Z-Boy (#19) Aha...now I remember... Also on that thread, Pan-Z-Boy got outtted as a liar...he claimed he'd opus'd too: #233. To: LP MGMT NOTICE - POSTER BANNED (#228) [:Comment Pulled: banned ] reaganisright posted on 2009-11-15 4:45:55 ET Reply Trace
#23. To: lucysmom (#21) She is for keeping the Bush tax cuts. That's like an alcoholic curing a hangover with another drink. So much for your knowledge on economic matters, or deficits. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #24. To: Badeye (#23) So much for your knowledge on economic matters, or deficits. You really shouldn't be lecturing others until you read this: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966
#25. To: go65 (#24) You should look up the word 'lecture'...(chuckle) Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #26. To: go65 (#24) People forget that the Laffer Curve is a Bell Curve. Just cutting taxes to any old rate doesn't guarantee maximum revenues.
#27. To: Badeye, lucysmom (#24) And then there's this, from the head of George W. Bush's council of economic advisors, Greg Mankiw (Economics Professor at Harvard) --
I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.
#28. To: war, badeye, lucysmom (#26) People forget that the Laffer Curve is a Bell Curve. Just cutting taxes to any old rate doesn't guarantee maximum revenues. Yes, folks forget about the "curve" part of it. If it were linear, then cutting income tax rates to say .00000001% should raise trillions in revenue.
#29. To: Badeye (#25) As soon as I'm done finding "refudiate" But here's a lecture for you from the guy who architected the Bush tax cuts: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.
#30. To: Badeye (#23) So much for your knowledge on economic matters, or deficits. I know it takes a real dunce to cut income, increase deficit spending and claim growth will take care of debt.
#31. To: go65 (#27) (Economics Professor at Harvard) I don't pay attention to those that require 'tenure' on such matters. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #32. To: lucysmom, badeye (#30) I know it takes a real dunce to cut income, increase deficit spending and claim growth will take care of debt. Bush's own economic team argued that the tax cuts would recoup 25% of the cost of income tax cuts and 50% of the cost of capital gains tax cuts. He seems to have missed that. If there's one thing I couldn't stand in graduate school it was a professor who came to class unprepared for his lecture. :-)
#33. To: go65 (#29) I'm not in the least impressed. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #34. To: lucysmom (#30) I know it takes a real dunce to cut income, increase deficit spending and claim growth will take care of debt. I'll take 'Whats Owe-bama and the Democrat Controlled Congress for $500' Alex....(laughing) Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #35. To: Badeye, lucysmom, war, skip intro, fred mertz, brian s, (#31) (Edited) I don't pay attention to those that require 'tenure' on such matters. Again, with each passing post you demonstrate your ignorance.
Nicholas Gregory "Greg" Mankiw (pronounced /mæKÈkjuÐ/) (born February 3, 1958) is an American macroeconomist. From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. His publications are ranked among the most influential of the over 22,000 economists registered with RePEc.[1] Now if you want to argue that you know more about tax policy and its effects then the former chairman of Bush's council of economic advisors, be my guest. We'll all have a nice laugh at your expense.
#36. To: go65 (#32) Bush's own economic team argued that the tax cuts would recoup 25% of the cost of income tax cuts and 50% of the cost of capital gains tax cuts. If not for the entire financial/economic system being undermined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, plus (to be fair) the insane deficit spending by the Bush Whitehouse and then GOP controlled congress, it would have worked in my view. All we've done SINCE is triple the deficit, and make America less hospitable to business, and via several pieces of legislation and Executive Orders destroyed existing jobs and company's...and it looks like entire industries. Enough blame to go around. But we aren't about to vote on Bush, or the idiots from the GOP that got their collective asses kicked in 2006 for fiscal stupidity. No matter how much the Left and this Administration wishes we were. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #37. To: Badeye (#36) All we've done SINCE is triple the deficit, and make America less hospitable to business, and via several pieces of legislation and Executive Orders destroyed existing jobs and company's...and it looks like entire industries. “It has been one of the strongest profits recoveries ever,” said David S. Bianco, chief United States equity strategist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “You have got to go back to the Depression to find a profits recovery that outpaces this one.”
#38. To: lucysmom (#37) “It has been one of the strongest profits recoveries ever,” said David S. Bianco, chief United States equity strategist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “You have got to go back to the Depression to find a profits recovery that outpaces this one.” Three cheers for Bankers? (laughing) Its hilarious you grasp at this straw, goofy. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit. #39. To: Badeye (#38) Three cheers for Bankers? Chipmaker Intel Corp. reported strong earnings and a positive outlook for growth after the market closed Tuesday, a day after Alcoa Inc. and CSX Corp. did the same.
www.lasvegassun.com/news/...again-lift-stock-futures/
#40. To: Badeye (#36) it would have worked in my view. I'm still at a loss as to why you would think "your view" has any credibility.
. . . Comments (41 - 88) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|