OMG!! Anyone watching the Giuliani speech!! HOLY SH!T!

[07ROUSHSTG3]

is anyone watching this guy, I have never laughed so hard, LOL!! he is slamming EVERYONE!!! :banana1::banana1::banana1:

did anyone else catch the "Only in America" stab regarding Obama?? he is going to get slammed for that, but I thought that it was hilarious :rolf

[Smokey1226]

he is a beast

[05caddyext]

Yeah he is pretty harsh. I wonder if McCain has to approve their speeches... Romney's speech was pretty tough to. You only hope that what they say doesn't hurt McCain, he hasn't been promoting that much hate...

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Yeah he is pretty harsh. I wonder if McCain has to approve their speeches... Romney's speech was pretty tough to. You only hope that what they say doesn't hurt McCain, he hasn't been promoting that much hate...

i think everyone expects that from rudy though. romney;s speech was kind of blah for me!?!? so was hucksterbees too. i am in awe of the giuliani speech though. the whole "you can;t vote present when you are president" to the "community organizer" joke when he shrugged and went "what?"

[sweetgtx]

YA I was, but now I'm watching CMT's Biggest Redneck wedding:goof, thats some funny shit:stare

Nothing like haven your wedding in a Mudbog!!!:wow

[nismodave]

Rudy knocked it out the park, IMO.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Rudy knocked it out the park, IMO.

did you catch the "only in america" thing :rolf:rolf

[nismodave]

Yes, f'n classic.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Yes, f'n classic.

and you know he knew what he just said too. he had a hell of a smirck when he said it. the left wing bloggers i am sure are already latching on :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Rocket Power]

I forgot they were speaking I was waiting for Palin *runs to tv*

[Smokey1226]

The difference between a Pitbull and a Hockey mom.....Lipstick



Classic!

[nismodave]

Looks like they escorted some nutjob out.

[Fast SVT]

I've been impressed since Rudy got on the stage...Palin is doing well also.

This convention is pushing me back to undecided after leaning towards Obama.


I'm waiting for one of these two candidates to show me they have true vision for America. The type of vision Kennedy had when he pushed us to the moon.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

well rudy hit a home run. palin is knocking it out of the park.

game.
set.
match.

for years the conservative base has been waiting for someone to take the gloves off and stand up to the left. I think we just found that someone, not only in palin, but in many in the republican party as we have been seeing. michael savage has been saying for years that "we have not begun to fight for our country". i think that the fight may have just started.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Read Giuliani's speech from the Republican convention.

----

Almost exactly one year ago during a Republican presidential debate in Durham, New Hampshire, I said that if I weren't running for President myself, I'd be supporting John McCain. Well, I'm not, and I do.

Every four years, we are told that this Presidential election is the most important election of our lifetime. This year - 2008 - IS the most important.

This has already been historic. It is the longest Presidential campaign in history. And it sometimes felt even longer.

The American people realize this election represents a turning point. In two months they will decide the future direction of our nation. It's a decision to follow one path or another.



'We the people' - the citizens of the United States - get to decide our next president...not the media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else.

This is a time for choosing - and to those Americans who still feel torn in this election, I'd like to suggest one way to think about the choice you have to make in 2008:

You're hiring someone to do a job - an important job that involves the safety and security of your family. Imagine that you have two job applications in your hand - with the names and party affiliations taken off the top. They're both good and patriotic men - with very different life experiences that have led them to this moment in history.

You've got to make this decision right. Who would you hire?

On the one hand, you've got a man who has dedicated his life to the service of his country. He's been tested time and again by crisis. He's passed every test.

Even his adversaries acknowledge that he is a true American hero. He loves America as we all do - but he's sacrificed for it as few do. As a young man, he joined the military...and being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot. He was on a mission over Hanoi when his plane was shot down.

He was tortured in a POW camp, but he refused his captors' offers of early release. Because this is a man who believes in serving a cause greater than self-interest. He came home a national hero.

He had earned a life of peace and quiet, but he was called to public service again, running for Congress and then the Senate as a proud foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution. His principled independence never wavered. He stood up to special interests, fought for fiscal discipline, ethics reform and a strong national defense.

That's one man.

On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer, and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Then he ran for the state legislature - where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present."

As Mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're President of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions.

A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." No leadership or major legislation to speak of. His rise is remarkable in its own right - it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.

He's never had to lead people in crisis.

This is not a personal attack....it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything.

Nothing. Nada.

The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John has been tested. Barack Obama has not.

Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on the job training.

It's about who can answer that crisis call - yes, Hillary, at 3:00 in the morning.

Well, no one can look at John McCain and say that he is not ready to be Commander in Chief.

So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about 'change versus more of the same.' But that's really a false choice. Because "change" is not a destination ... just as "hope" is not a strategy.

John McCain will bring about the change that will create jobs and prosperity. He will lower taxes so our economy can grow. He will reduce government spending to strengthen our dollar. He will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive. He will lead us toward an America that will be independent of foreign oil by an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and off-shore drilling.

This is the kind of change we need.

And he will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad. For 4 days in Denver and for the past 18 months Democrats have been afraid to use the words "Islamic Terrorism." During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11.

They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future.

You need to face your enemy in order to defeat them. John McCain will face this threat and lead us on to victory.

Look at just one example in a lifetime of principled stands -- John McCain's support for the troop surge in Iraq. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq. And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America. The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: "America has lost."

Well, if America lost, who won? Al Qaida? Bin Laden? In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right and Barack Obama got it wrong.

If Barack Obama had been President, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat.

Senator McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge. And it was unpopular.

What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position.
How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that?

Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't.

Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it.

When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem. Until the very next day when he changed his mind.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing.

John McCain said, 'I'd rather lose an election than a war.' Because that's John McCain.

When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond.

Having been to that part of the world many times and having developed a clear worldview over many years, John knew where he stood. Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as President. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, "We're all Georgians."

Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency - that "both sides" should "show restraint." The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel.

Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisors, he changed his position and suggested that the "the UN Security Council," could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisors told him that Russia has a veto on any UN action. Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ...well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.

Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain.

Like Ronald Reagan, John McCain will enlarge our party. He's the candidate with the real record of bi-partisan cooperation. He's the candidate who can credibly reach out for the votes of Independents and Democrats.

In choosing Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has chosen the future. Governor Palin represents a new generation. She's already one of the most successful governors in America - and the most popular. And she already has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket. She's led a city and a state. She's reduced taxes and government spending.

And she's actually done something about moving America toward energy independence - taking on the oil companies while encouraging more energy exploration here at home.

Taxpayers have an advocate in Sarah Palin - she even sold the former governor's private plane on E-Bay.

And as a former U.S. Attorney, I am impressed by her success in combating corruption - when she found unethical and illegal behavior among the power-brokers of her own party, she did not hesitate - she acted courageously and independently. That's the kind of reformer we need - she shook up Alaska. She'll shake up Washington.

And we sure need that.

And as we look to the future never let us forget that - when we are at our best - we are the party that expands Freedom. We began as a party dedicated to freeing people from slavery... And we are still the party that is willing to fight for freedom at home and around the world. We are the party that wants to expand individual freedom and economic freedom... because we believe that the secret of America's success is not central government, it is self-government. We are the party that believes in giving workers the right to work. The party that believes parents should choose where their children go to school.

And we are the party that believes unapologetically in America's essential greatness - that we are a shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom that inspires people everywhere to reach for a better world.

So my fellow Republicans and my fellow Americans - over the next 8 weeks, remember that the results of this election are in your hands. You get to determine America's future. You can decide America's direction.

Thank you very much. And God Bless America

[Smokey1226]

Think Rudy's speech will be on youtube? I wanna watch it...i missed it

[Rocket Power]

Think Rudy's speech will be on youtube? I wanna watch it...i missed itSame here. I'm sure it'll be on by tomorrow if not sooner

[Rocket Power]

I think Palin did an AWESOME job. Wasn't sure how she'd do since I've never heard her speak. She did great.:headbang

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Think Rudy's speech will be on youtube? I wanna watch it...i missed it

the text does not do the speech any justice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/rudy-giuliani-rnc-speech_n_123662.html

watch it here.

[Rocket Power]

The vid stops before it's really gets rolling, damn libs:rolf

[GTSLOW]

Where's her speech?

[70 cutlass 442]

for all you snomobilers, heres something that i thought was pretty cool about her husband. http://www.irondog.org/racers/bios/2008/22.htm

[Knyghtmare]

Who takes a baby to a political convention?

If you dont know what I am talking about, take a look at 17 minutes in. I understand who's it is, but still...

[Sprayaway Fox]

Damn Eric! you musta passed political science classes with A's... I shoulda been cheating off your paper!:rolf I can still add and subtract...sometimes:rolf

[77thor]

Why would you watch that.... bored??

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Why would you watch that.... bored??

not bored, just interested in the future of our country :chair:

[VroomPshhTsi]

I think conventions are the extremely lame. Each party just slaps each other's asses and keep thinking, "Yeah!! We are so awesome!!!" Talk about mere rhetoric, they are all hype and 1% substance. I'll wait for the debates to make up my final decision.

[Goat Roper]

I think conventions are the extremely lame. Each party just slaps each other's asses and keep thinking, "Yeah!! We are so awesome!!!" Talk about mere rhetoric, they are all hype and 1% substance. I'll wait for the debates to make up my final decision.

Agreed, they are like a high school pep rally, the real game will be in the debates. After this the polls will go back to dead even, erasing Obama's 6-8 point lead, which is a good place for the debates to start at. Short form debates is what McCain wants since Obama cleans house as an orator, hence his desire to do the town hall debates. Palin will do well in debates with Biden since Biden will have a difficult time slamming Palin without sounding sexist.

The next just short of two months will be interesting.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

The next just short of two months will be interesting.

it is crazy to think that there is only 2 months to go, seems like this has been going on forever.

[ND4SPD]

it is crazy to think that there is only 2 months to go, seems like this has been going on forever.

That's because it has... John Edwards pretty much started campaigning in Iowa in 2006.

[Goat Roper]

it is crazy to think that there is only 2 months to go, seems like this has been going on forever.

It seems like we are in a never ending cycle of politics between the two year cycle of Congress and presidentials every four. Gets down right tiring if you ask me.

[Prince Valiant]

To me, the debates are fairly lame...watching them are so tedious. You hear the same thing stated over and over and over, in a generally inarticulate manner.

I'm content with simply finding out there positions on the things that I place of high importance...Taxes (less and far more simple), judges (originalist for me, please), regulations (the fewer the better), immigration (DO protect the border, reform the system) and military (the stronger the better). The closest to my positions on all these gets my vote.

I mean, Obama could come out there and clean up in debate, but it wouldn't change much for me. Really, debates are kind of oratory beauty pageants that essentially reveals little to nothing new about the candidate that one couldn't find out themselves LONG beforehand...and serve only as a different venue to get out the message OR an inconvenient opportunity to trip up. They are who they are already.

Although, I do look forward to Palin/Biden debate...THAT one is has a strong curiosity factor for me, since for many the forgone conclusion is that Biden will clean up. Having seen this conventional wisdom before play out (In the disastrous Bush/Gore debate in which Bush won, only because gore made an ass of himself...the night of, the media said "GORE WINS!", but by morning it was clear to see that the majority of the american public didn't agree). Biden, like Gore has a tendency toward condescension, and can be frustrated giving rise to terse statements that make him seem like an Ass...in one case, he told a questioner "well, I know my IQ is higher than yours". And of course, the conventional wisdom is Palin is ill equipped for debate...but there is nothing in her past that leads to this conclusion...so if expectations for her continue to be low, she'll win by simply doing okay.

[VroomPshhTsi]

I like the debates because the candidates must face questions right there on the spot. They don't get to run back to base camp and think about how to perfectly word their answer so they don't offend anyone and get the most votes. For me, they ask a simple question "How will you fix -----?" Yes they often respond with answers that don't describe detailed plans of what they will do, but you will hear their plan and if they are smart, how exactly they plan to pay for it along with what benefits their plan has. So when a candidate responds with exactly what they'll do instead of just saying "I rule, my opponent sucks, vote for me", that scores points with me and will make it more likely that I will vote for that candidate.

[Mr. Brett]

I'm waiting for one of these two candidates to show me they have true vision for America. The type of vision Kennedy had when he pushed us to the moon.

You're gonna be waiting for a long time.

[Goat Roper]

No matter which side is getting it, I do so enjoy watching people put as many feet in their mouths as possible.

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html

[Prince Valiant]

If government worked like debate, or we used a parliamentary system, I think debates would be helpful. I DO find they can reveal the general demeanor of a candidate...which can be helpful for people whom vote on personaility (many do).

But as far as a debate reflecting on one's intelligence, I don't find them telling...it reflects on their ability to communicate imo, which may be a valid point to consider if one wishes. But put a camera on stephen hawking, and let's face it...it would literally be a cripple fight though he's extremely gifted intellectually. While he serves as an extreme example, there are many supremely bright individuals whom for various reasons (speech or hearing impediments) that might not do their intelligence justice in the current debate formats. I prefer thoughtful deliveries to extemporaneous showmanship.

I did, however, enjoy the forum that was held by that Preacher dude...keep them apart, allow each to put forth their own thoughtful responses, and give them fair time to allow for considerations and clarifications.

[Syclone0044]

I think conventions are the extremely lame. Each party just slaps each other's asses and keep thinking, "Yeah!! We are so awesome!!!" Talk about mere rhetoric, they are all hype and 1% substance. I'll wait for the debates to make up my final decision.

x2. Except I'll take it one step further and say it applies to the whole democratic and republican parties. The debate won't change a thing for me. They'll still tow the party line (whatever it happens to be) and change their mind again in the future if it serves their purposes. It's not like they have some serious personal compulsion to make good on their promises.


I like the debates because the candidates must face questions right there on the spot. They don't get to run back to base camp and think about how to perfectly word their answer so they don't offend anyone and get the most votes. For me, they ask a simple question "How will you fix -----?" Yes they often respond with answers that don't describe detailed plans of what they will do, but you will hear their plan and if they are smart, how exactly they plan to pay for it along with what benefits their plan has.

Yeah the debates are worth a few laughs. Like this all time classic where Ron Paul asked John McCain an economics question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw) about government interference with the stock market, and McCain couldnt do anything but stumble and fumble and say "Phil Gramm"'s name three times in a row. :rolf :rolf :loser WORST ANSWER EVER!! "Uhmm, uhhhh... Team of advisers.. Umm, Phil Gramm, Phil Gramm, ahh I have people who do everything for me, uhm.. You see Ron.." He didn't even come close to answering the question.

A response SO BAD, it spawned a hit remake video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo) ala "Miss Teen USA South Carolina" "Everywhere in the Iraq, like such as.." :rolf

[Fast SVT]

No matter which side is getting it, I do so enjoy watching people put as many feet in their mouths as possible.

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html

That right there is why I laugh in the face of everyone who claims to be a staunch republican or democrat.

Let the facts and the best person win the election.

IMO registered democrats/republicans are part of the extreme right and left.

[Fast SVT]

If government worked like debate, or we used a parliamentary system, I think debates would be helpful. I DO find they can reveal the general demeanor of a candidate...which can be helpful for people whom vote on personaility (many do).

But as far as a debate reflecting on one's intelligence, I don't find them telling...it reflects on their ability to communicate imo, which may be a valid point to consider if one wishes. But put a camera on stephen hawking, and let's face it...it would literally be a cripple fight though he's extremely gifted intellectually. While he serves as an extreme example, there are many supremely bright individuals whom for various reasons (speech or hearing impediments) that might not do their intelligence justice in the current debate formats. I prefer thoughtful deliveries to extemporaneous showmanship.

I did, however, enjoy the forum that was held by that Preacher dude...keep them apart, allow each to put forth their own thoughtful responses, and give them fair time to allow for considerations and clarifications.

Not true, he is very gifted at communicating, that is what made him famous....i.e. books.

[Syclone0044]

That right there is why I laugh in the face of everyone who claims to be a staunch republican or democrat.

Let the facts and the best person win the election.

IMO registered democrats/republicans are part of the extreme right and left.

x2! They are some of the loudest citizens but I still don't think they represent the majority of average joes..

[Rocket Power]

IMO registered democrats/republicans are part of the extreme right and left.

We don't register party affiliation here in WI. I have voted for 1 dem since I first voted in 1994 and he is still sheriff of Milwaukee County.
I can't see anything good coming out of an Obama presidency, unless taxing like crazy is someones idea of good.

I like this excerpt from Hardball, asking Obama's guy about his legislative accomplishments :rolf which = none
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

[Al]

To me, the debates are fairly lame...watching them are so tedious. You hear the same thing stated over and over and over, in a generally inarticulate manner.

I'm content with simply finding out there positions on the things that I place of high importance...Taxes (less and far more simple), judges (originalist for me, please), regulations (the fewer the better), immigration (DO protect the border, reform the system) and military (the stronger the better). The closest to my positions on all these gets my vote.

I agree. Pithy comments will not win my vote. I already have a set of priorities that I would like to see addressed. Whoever is better, will win my vote.

[Goat Roper]

I like this excerpt from Hardball, asking Obama's guy about his legislative accomplishments :rolf which = none
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

I will see your youtube vid and raise you an AP article; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4Os_NvbBurz0R8IejrDDj-4sRlAD92VL7KG0

[Cryptic]

I will see your youtube vid and raise you an AP article; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4Os_NvbBurz0R8IejrDDj-4sRlAD92VL7KG0

awesome article!

[Rocket Power]

Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.So instead of taking a stand on something he believes in, he chickens out


FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

The fact that they have been there since Jan of 07 doesn't change the fact they are Big gov libs who should be thrown out.

I have to get back to my school work, Those were just two things that caught my eye on a quick scan:goof

[Prince Valiant]

Not true, he is very gifted at communicating, that is what made him famous....i.e. books.Okay, put him in a televised debate, how does he do? Hence "put a camera on stephen hawking" in reference to a debate and he couldn't communicate quickly enough to be at all effective.

Sure, give him prep time and he can prepare a presentation, write a book, make comments and he'll knock your socks off...but he just can't go extemporaneous at will as needed in televised debates.

[Cryptic]

but he just can't go extemporaneous at will as needed in televised debates.

:wstupid yeah he cant go extemporaniopolisticism at will or whatever :goof

[Prince Valiant]

:wstupid yeah he cant go extemporaniopolisticism at will or whatever :goofI'm gonna extemporanmybootup yo' ass if you keep it up! :mad:


:goof

[lordairgtar]

Cage Match!!!
Prince Valiant Vs. Cryptic
In An All Out Brawl Using Big Words

[Al]

John Stewart is really tearing the RNC a new one!

[Syclone0044]

The fact that they have been there since Jan of 07 doesn't change the fact they are Big gov libs who should be thrown out. Do you support throwing out all big government politicians? (I do.) Or just democratic ones? Because the Bush administration has increased the power of the executive branch more than anyone in recent memory. When was the last time they did *anything* to reduce the size of government? FEMA? DHS? TSA? I say F*CK EM!! :flipoff2:

You think McCain is going to be any different? Give me a F'n break. I haven't heard him talk once about anything to significantly reduce the size of government. "Limited government and personal responsibility" USED to be Republican values, now it's only guys like Ron Paul and Libertarians who carry that torch.

[Rocket Power]

McCain was not my first choice, but is a whole lot better than Obama. More gun control/gun bans (he wants to ban all semi autos), rolling back the Bush tax cuts, taxing businesses (which will get pushed onto us), "Big Oil" "windfall profits" taxing will also be put back on us, talking to enemies without preconditions (I see him as a Neville Chamberlain II), not having done anything in the senate. Are some of the reasons I don't want Obama.

[Goat Roper]

, rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

And yet here we sit with a $9.5 trillion dollar budget deficit that when Bush was handed a budget surplus when he took office.

"Country First" indeed.

Start thinking about what is better for the country versus what is better for your individual pocket books THEN maybe the Republicans will be the "Country First" party. The Republicans have always been good at preying on people pocketbook strings by trying to keep themselves in power using the old "well you have money in your wallet don't you?" while hiding behind a mountain of debt.

[Prince Valiant]

And yet here we sit with a $9.5 trillion dollar budget deficit that when Bush was handed a budget surplus when he took office.

"Country First" indeed.

Start thinking about what is better for the country versus what is better for your individual pocket books THEN maybe the Republicans will be the "Country First" party. The Republicans have always been good at preying on people pocketbook strings by trying to keep themselves in power using the old "well you have money in your wallet don't you?" while hiding behind a mountain of debt.
We don't have a 9.5 trillion budget deficit...we have a 482 billion deficit. We have a 9 trillion dollar national debt.

The national debt was ~ 4.5-5 trillion when bush took office.

The illusion that you operate under is that the economy is neutral to the effect of taxes...it's not. Not only will increased taxes reduce peoples already tight discressionary income, but it'll take billions (and if Obama has his way) perhaps over atrillion in investments...investments that result in greater economic activity....in a 13 trillion/yr economy, that'll be HUGE.

To some, it seems incomprehensible that lower taxes can equal greater revenue; or higher taxes can result in less revenue...but this has been demonstrated time and again. Two prime examples were JFK tax cuts in the early 60's, and the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80's...the Bush Tax cuts had the same effect (raising revenue beyond expectation), however, I think it was part of a natural economic rebound also played a part there. But, if revenue increased, why did deficits increase? Too much gov't spending, and spending that increases faster than the rate of inflation.

Deficit don't occur because gov't doesn't tax enough...deficits occur because gov't spends too much.

[VroomPshhTsi]

Deficit don't occur because gov't doesn't tax enough...deficits occur because gov't spends too much.

And Bush was the one doing all the spending :goof

[Prince Valiant]

And Bush was the one doing all the spending :goofI'm well aware of this...this is why I'm not voting for him this election :goof

I agree that the republicans hardly lived up to their ethos of smaller gov't...but seriously, do I think democrats would do any better? Do I really think an unassailable majority of dems in both the house and senate with a dem in the white house would try to get a handle on spending? Hardly.

I don't think McCain is a perfect option, just a better one.

[Cryptic]

so every year we go more in the hole by 482 billion ---> :omg

[Prince Valiant]

so every year we go more in the hole by 482 billion ---> :omgNo, it fluctuates...but due to the economic slowdowns, deficits swelled to massive amounts, not due to tax cuts.

Deficits had actually been trending downward in large part due to the economy growing out of the deficit spending. This is why, imo, the best way to get budget surpluses, isn't to tax our way there, but to simply hold the line on spending as much as possible...as the economy grows, deficits will be reduced as the economic growth spurs greater tax revenue. Although, imo also, there are plenty of things that could and should be cut...

[Al]

We don't have a 9.5 trillion budget deficit...we have a 482 billion deficit. We have a 9 trillion dollar national debt.

The national debt was ~ 4.5-5 trillion when bush took office.

The illusion that you operate under is that the economy is neutral to the effect of taxes...it's not. Not only will increased taxes reduce peoples already tight discressionary income, but it'll take billions (and if Obama has his way) perhaps over atrillion in investments...investments that result in greater economic activity....in a 13 trillion/yr economy, that'll be HUGE.

To some, it seems incomprehensible that lower taxes can equal greater revenue; or higher taxes can result in less revenue...but this has been demonstrated time and again. Two prime examples were JFK tax cuts in the early 60's, and the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80's...the Bush Tax cuts had the same effect (raising revenue beyond expectation), however, I think it was part of a natural economic rebound also played a part there. But, if revenue increased, why did deficits increase? Too much gov't spending, and spending that increases faster than the rate of inflation.

Deficit don't occur because gov't doesn't tax enough...deficits occur because gov't spends too much.

Is that 482 Billion for last year's trade deficit?

As for tax cuts in big business, this does not necessarily mean that businesses will pay employees more. Priority uno is share value.