Over at Publicola Josh speculates that an intramural brawl with Tea Party candidate Clint Didier might actually help Dino Rossi in November:
Didier is going to make Rossi look good (moderate) to the mainstream public. Instead of alienating the GOP base, Rossi’s scrap with Didier is going to attract moderate Democrats and Independents who want change, but not Krazy change.
Didier will make those important moderate voters feel comfortable with Rossi in time for the general.
Hmm… I don’t think so, and here’s where I think Josh gets a little too clever for his own good: see, voters already know Rossi, and while I suppose he could run to the left of Didier — it’s as reasonable a strategy as any — I’m not sure that convinces moderate voters, especially Democrats, most recently familiar with Rossi from 2008.
About 200,000 more voters cast ballots in 2008 than in 2004, a year in which Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett took 63,000 votes, yet Rossi only increased his totals by about 30,000 votes in a top-two face-off. And in King County, by far the largest and most Democratic county in the state, Rossi actually received 25,000 fewer votes in 2008 than he did in 2004, garnering less than 36% of the vote compared to over 40% four years earlier.
One can only assume that moderate Democrats and independents got to know Rossi better over the intervening four years, and that they didn’t like what they saw. So I don’t see how a contrast with Didier, however sharp, changes many minds. In some ways, due to his visibility, Rossi is every bit as much of an incumbent as Murray, and with all the strengths and weaknesses that implies.
The other flaw in Josh’s reasoning is that it ignores the fundamentals of this particular political climate, in which the single biggest factor Republicans have going in their favor this cycle is a still somewhat yawning gap in enthusiasm between the bases of the two parties. I think former state GOP chair Chris Vance is at least half right when he says “If the wave is big, Dino Rossi is going to win. If the wave shrinks, he’s probably not going to win.” (Only half right, because I don’t believe even a big wave is a guarantee of victory.)
This election, or at least Republican hopes of substantial pickups, is all about turnout, and state Republicans are just not going to excite their base having Dino running as a RINO. Rossi needs relatively enthusiastic support from the Tea Party, assuming it really exists, if he’s to have a hope of beating Sen. Patty Murray, and I don’t see how he generates this by running to the left of his party’s conservative base.
So while I fully expect Rossi to choose his words and issues carefully, depending on the crowd, I also expect him to attempt to embrace at least the spirit of the Tea Party, if not all of its stupider, Tentherist specifics. It’s a risky strategy in a state in which Democrats enjoy such a strong numerical advantage, but if Rossi’s only hope of victory is a Big Red Wave™, then he’s gonna have to ride it as long and as hard as he can.
Dino’s announcement was treated like a footnote in this mornings Tacoma paper. Nobody likes a political opportunist which is what Dino is (and he’s flat broke to boot!).
The Diddler is a clueless, spouting, hack and will go no where.
Nov. will be Murray V. Benton.
Dino got Marummy so he’s NO RINO. I just made a hit on KVI, Dino’s still on.
Goldy, I have to agree. Rossi can’t win running to the Dan Evans wing of the party, because outside of Dan Evans, Sam Reed and Ralph Munro, nobody’s left. If he doesn’t want to turn into the next Kay Bailey Hutchison or Trey Grayson (establishment Rs who got booted for insufficient fealty to the Teabagger base), he will HAVE to tap into that section of the party.
I still also confess ignorance as how an “Obama is Satan and Patty Murray is his High Priestess” mantra for Rossi is going to get him elected in this state- OH NOES OBAMA ENACTED THE HEALTH CARE HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO WHEN HE WON THIS STATE BY 20 POINTS!1111!! BOOOO!!! SCARY!!!!!, and the “oh, abortion and social politics isn’t a big deal as opposed to running the state” shtick he tried to pull as a candidate for Governor isn’t going to fly in a federal election for US Senate- there’s all kinds of social issues he’s going to get hammered on. (Please note that Sheriff Dave knew damn well not to try jousting at this windmill, and he probably has the best shot to win this of any R outside of Rob McKenna, as he has some faux moderate credentials he can point to.)
party names are just marketing brands anymore. it’s all about the money.
Judge confirms death sentence for Schierman
well it’s not like he strangled 60 prostitutes or anything.
@5..good, kill that SOB.
Dr. Dre:
Ask yer wife if she’ll advance you a year’s worth of allowances and bet me $1,000 that Dino Rossi won’t beat Sen. Murray.
I’d tell you to promise your wife you’ll remember to put the toilet seat down for an entire year, but you never lift it because she makes you sit to piss, I mean piddle.
Are you or are you not man enough to pony up the grand?
In case you care…
91 seconds of me on 570 Freedom KVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyC9Lja8Ef4
Oh, enjoy!
8
Enjoy a little self-promotion, don’t we, Josef?
Why would voters replace a respected former school board member who has acquired clout in the U.S. Senate with a greasy little real estate salesman whose boss went to prison for robbing widows and orphans? The only people who will vote for Dino Rossi are ex-convicts and social misfits.
Silly GBS…
He goes potty!
Rossi already embraced ‘Krazy change’ in his ground breaking, candidacy announcement. He’s all onboard the roll back HCR, Obama & the Dem’s are Stalinist, Euro-socialist trash, Paliny/Gringrichy train.
I just hope that when he loses this time he really disappears for good.
9
Yes and no.
Yes: Bloody obvious.
No: Also promoting the SecDefWA like a publicist or Alastair Campbell of The Blair Years promotes his clients.
Make sure to watch the vid.
I received this email this morning from dinorossi.com (I had put myself on their email list in 2008 during the governor’s race, just to see what his campaign was spewing):
Is it just me, or is his campaign starting off very uninspiring?
“Dear friends and supporters,
I wanted to reach out to you and let you know that yesterday I made a public announcement declaring my run for the US Senate.
I want to encourage you to go to the website so you can see why I decided to enter the race. America is in dire need of new leadership and together we can do something to turn our great country around, but I need your help.
Please go to http://www.dinorossi.com to see my announcement, sign up to volunteer, make a donation, forward this e-mail to your contacts and anything else you can do to help. You can also connect with the campaign by following me on Twitter and joining my Facebook page.
We have an opportunity here to make America a better place for our kids and grand kids. Let’s do what we can so we can look back and be proud of the moment we decided to take the opportunity to make a difference. Thank you for your support and I am looking forward to working with you all over the next several months.
Thank you for your support and I am looking forward to working with you all over the next several months.
-Dino”
To PassionateJus
It isn’t just you. That is probably the most uninspiring announcement notice I’ve ever read.
will murray run as a rino?
The Senate has passed a bill to fund President Barack Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan.
The almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan 67-28 tally. More than half of the funding would go to the Pentagon, mostly to support Obama’s influx of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Would Murray ever support cuts in gov’t spending?
A dozen Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, joined Democrats in a 67-28 vote to pass the bill. Two anti-war Democrats, Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, opposed it.
http://www.seattlepi.com/busin.....nding.html
wow what an opposition party
where can we move once the money runs out? mexico? Canada? oh yeah, nobody else lets us move in w/out papers.
(2 questions; a…what do i do to avoid the Obama apocalypse? b….why can mexicans easily move here but there’s nowhere i can move to?
Jahyzuss ‘effing christ, Josh. Think for a minute. Try this:
Nader is going to make ,Gore look good (moderate) to the mainstream public. Instead of alienating the Democratic base, Nader’s scrap with Gore is going to attract moderate Democrats and Independents who want change, but not (the) Krazy change of George W. Bush.
Nader will make those important moderate voters feel comfortable with Gore in time for the general.
How’d that work out? Oh, I forgot. Gore won.
righton’s plea: “..where can we move once the money runs out?”
As the entity that has the monopoly to issue fiat currency with a free floating exchange rate, the federal government can never run out of money, you moron.
You, on the other hand, can go broke any time you want. Presumably such a state will tend to limit your travel options which kinda’ makes your question meaningless.
@18 where can we move once the money runs out?
Try Somalia. No taxes, no government regulations and everyone carries an AK, a tea partier’s wet dream. Go for it.
Sorry #20, let me slow it down for you.
Obama is borrowing money in amounts far greater than our GDP will support. At some point he has to print money to monetize the debt. And at same time he’ll tax the crap out of us. Both combine to hurt my standard of living (and by the way, won’t help anyones). So if you know trouble is coming, and historically America was the last refuge for free markets and freedom…where can we all move to avoid this long term depressed economy?
I can’t move to china. Maybe Europe, but as a dirt poor American, that would be hard (unlike the rio grande, the rhine, rhone, elbe all need good paperowrk). Australia maybe? New zealand?
I love how even the trolls have given up hope on a Republican beating Murray.
@22
Where were you when it was Bush and Co. were spending us into the poor house? Obama’s trying to fix the mess the righties left him. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont, but it’s Bush and Co’s. mess.
rut-on claims:
“Obama is borrowing money in amounts far greater than our GDP will support.”
This is a puzzling claim that makes no sense. As a technical matter the fed can buy as many t-bills as the treasury cares to issue. A sovereign issuer of fiat currency is not financially constrained.
“At some point he has to print money to monetize the debt.”
Incorrect. The fed has added trillions to its balance sheet, yet 30 year treasuries are going for 4.25 per cent. Where is the inflation?
“And at same time he’ll tax the crap out of us”
Tell you what, fuckwad, why don’t you just sign over your Obama tax rate reduction to me.
michael and proud to be. Sorry guys
a) obama deficits are orders of magnitude higher than bush ones. i never supported bush deficits, so w/ new guy pouring on the debt, i’m not beholded to excuse his stupidity because the last guy ran smaller deficits
b) yeah, its also Barney Frank’s mess, wall street, plenty of Dem blame too.
c) he’s not spending massively to fix bush stuff; he’s spending massively to buy votes.
d) yes, he can borrow forever, but soon (as with greece) we face foreign investors doubting out ability to repay the bonds.
e) ah, you admit trillions…ok, and why no inflation? go look up the money supply…we haven’t tried to monetize the debt yet. he knows people hate inflation. but like gravity, you cannot stop it from coming.
f) my taxes are up since your glorious leader took office.
@25 righton spews 05/28/2010 at 6:59 am,
You think so? How soon? Have there been any recent treasury auctions? You know, since Obama-Mao increased the deficit orders of magnitude higher.
This bullshit about USA=Greece requires levels of stupidity and illiteracy below the usually low bar even you set.
Righton @ 25:
Do you understand what “order of magnatude” means? I suspect not, because the numbers aren’t anywhere close. But it’s a common mistake: even trained journalists use “decimate” to mean “virtually destroy”, when the word actually means “to reduce by 1/10”.
As for the deficit and federal debt in general, I would love to engage Republicans in some well-intentioned discussions about how to return again to a blanced budget (like we had for FY 2000-2001). I’m a bit of a fiscal conservative myself, although I’m sure we would disagree often on the tactics to achieve that goal.
But alas, every effort to engage in such a meaningful discussion with Republicans have been for naught.
Balancing the budget requires some hard decisions including both revenue and spending sides, but every Republican I’ve talked to won’t even discuss the revenue aspect. They refuse even to consider that the demand for public services is either static or increases during a rescession, but receipts from our traditional revenue sources (sales taxes, income taxes, etc.) go down at the same time. When the house is on fire, you can’t skimp on wMoreover, the great majority of spending simply can’t be cut without consequences which even Republicans can’t swallow – cutting the military spending, police/justice/jails, care for the truly disabled, basic education, etc.
Despite the occassional examples of “waste/abuse” which right-wing radio likes to advertise, it’s a miniscule part of the total federal and state spending. And even the Reagan administration found that it wasn’t answer to budget deficits. In January 1981 the first thing the Reagan administration did was increase the janitorial services at the White House, complaining that their offices were “too dirty”. Jimmy Carter had cut back janitorial services to once a week in executive office buildings to save money, and encouraged people to empty their own trash cans.
But for all the complaining about the government budget deficits, the Republicans ignore the fact that they could have stopped it when they were in charge, well before we were in the middle of the “Great Rescession”. When the house is burning down, you don’t complain about the cost of the water bill, you put out the fire and figure out how to pay for it afterwards. All in all, the complaints about the budget deficits by Republicans are little more than hypocritical posturing.
Getting back to Dino:
Look, I know it really shouldn’t matter, but it’s hard to take a guy seriously when every time I see his name I think of this:
Dino
@7 GBS farts:
Wow, you must have some small cock, self-esteem and masculinity issues. Your blatant display of this is obvious. Drive a jacked up pickup by chance? Sorry about your dick bro, truly.
As far as your little “bet”, who would be stupid enough? Me, I’m optimistic about Rossi ridding the State of Patty “dumb as a box of rocks” Murray, who again continues to be voted in for the distinguished prize of being in the top ten of America’s dumbest Senators. Being mostly Libtard, WA. cannot be counted on to vote in the better candidate. This will be an exciting and close race, that is for certain.
At the very least, little Mommy in Tennis Shoes will have to drain her warchest on her own campaign, rather than use it to help some other lefty douche bag’s election. So, either way it’s a “win”.
However, November is a long way off, and a lot can happen between now and then. I encourage you to remain ignorant, smug, and complacent over Peppermint Patty’s prospective re-election success; that sort of naive view usually helps the opposing side. You are very foolish to bet on something that is certainly far away from a guaranteed sure thing.
Good luck, and have a nice 3-day weekend all!
Well put. rhp you’re a treasure.
Are the likes of the KLOWN and the other teabaggers listening?
Not a chance..
# 30: I should give credit to F.D.R. He came up with the general idea first, in respect to the Lend-Lease program.
By the way, did you hear that yesterday Rossi promised NOT to bring home federal money to Washington State? He claims it’s because he’s conscious-driven by the federal spending.
But I suspect he’s just acknowledging there is no way he could bring home the bacon here, as a freshman member of the Senate minority. It would take a couple of decades for him to have the seniority Patty Murray has, and even then he would like have to grow up an awful lot to be anywhere near as effective as she is. So by admitting this failing, but giving it an ulterior motivation, he’s just trying to put lipstick on the pig.
@23 You’re talking to trolls who spewed for the first seven years of the Bush presidency that everything that went to shit on his watch was Clinton’s fault. Then they spent the last year of Bush’s presidency claiming everything going wrong was Obama’s fault. The closest they’ve ever come to admitting a Republican fuckup is when they call the Gulf spill “Obama’s Katrina” – a round-about way of finally admitting that Bush fucked up Katrina without their ever really saying so!
My little twisted sister, YLB, will throw her diaper in the ring and will run as a WINO, Woman In Name Only.
Not quite, Steve. Bush’s Katrina was mostly a media invention, a shorthand disparagement built of bias and pumped into primetime.
Recent talk of Obama’s Katrina is reactive, a shorthand attempt to shame Big Media into agian applying shameless rules of oversimplification.
Hypocritical posturing? No, we’re finally getting beyond that. Baggers, both Republicans and Dems, are finally doing the math and are finally recognizing that the budget double-shuffling put in place by JFK’s fine-tuning economic whiz kids is a game we’re about to lose.
Rabbit studied Money & Banking from one of Kennedy’s kids, maybe Walter Heller, who seemed to believe he was Keynes’ only begotten son. Heller believed the fed budget could be tuned like a Strad or a Les Paul Special. That funds could be infinitely fungible. That ‘off-budget’ accounting was as valid as stodgy old Eisenhower budgets.
Well. Kennedy, Heller, Rabbit, and the rest of you kids had a pretty good run, about 50 years, through Ds and Rs, but we’re now hitting Thatcher’s wall. We’ve got more designer socialism (George Will said 20 years ago that most of welfare goes to the middle class and above) than we can afford.
It’s not hypocrisy to tell the truth, as many of us were doing during GHWB and GWB: The double-shuffle is unsustainable.
Old Dan Schorr called Teddy Kennedy a national treasure. My sister sets Schorr straight. Our national treasure is rhp.
The wit! The wisdom! The erudition! National treasure rhp even went to high school where he learned about FDR’s Lend-Lease and FDR’s garden hose.
But he probably shouldn’t get too far out on the Lend-Lease limb because it gets very awkward out there. Out there where FDR was running a one-man undeclared unilateral preemptive secret war at a time when the official policy of the United States was neutrality.
At a time when FDR was putting the lives of convoy mariners and civilians at risk. What were their names? (Did you have a friend on the Reuben James?)
Paul Fussell, who was part of the European Theater Children’s Crusade after D-Day, says that “One of Roosevelt’s shrewdest euphemisms was the concept Lend-Lease, implying business-like, even profitable transactions with Britain and the Soviet Union. with loans properly secured and interest promptly paid.”
Fussell’s word euphemism is a euphemism for lie. FDR conned a gullible public, which didn’t have truth detectors like Rush or Beck, to uncritically accept his spin and to assume that FDR’s scheme accorded with our official neutrality.
Kermitdeathfrogger here, yesterday, again trotted out the tired old trope that Bush lied us into Iraq. Bush didn’t lie. It was worse than that. He blundered into Iraq.
But FDR sure as shit lied in his belligerent run-up to Pearl Harbor. FDR was as stealthily belligerent toward pre-war Japan (cutting their oil and metals imports) as he was toward Germany. The interesting twist is that Germany strenuously tried to swallow FDR’s provocations without choking and fighting back. U-Boat commanders tried to avoid hitting our stuff on those “neutral” Lend-Lease munitions convoys going to Britain.
But Japan had other ideas.
Truth detectors: Radio priest Fr. Coughlin, after supporting the New Deal, did a 180. But he was off the air at the time of FDR’s Lend-Lease:
That’s from Wiki. Can anybody say “Fairness” Doctrine, which means that Big Govt can do anything it thinks is fair for itself?
Coughlin back then was called an anti-Semite. Maybe he was. Or maybe he was an anti-Semite in the manner of Rush Limbaugh being a “racist” whenever he wins an argument with a liberal.
The bottom line is that Glenn Beck better watch his fat back. The next time he takes on Obama and Holder for their plan or their plot to deny Miranda rights to American citizens, Beck might get the full frontal Coughlin treatment. That’s when he’ll learn that liberals have a selective appreciation of the First Amendment.
* The transient Social Security surplus of the late 1990s was withdrawn from Gore’s lockbox and was treated as general revenue;
* Clinton’s bubble economy of the late 1990s (Big Tech funnelled big bucks to Clinton and got an excellent return on investment via Clinton’s deregulation of telecommunications) briefly sustained a surge in federal taxes. Until the bubble popped c. March 2000;
* Gridlock works. Democrat Clinton with his Republican Congress had a brief morning in America when the era of big government seemed to be over. Republicans kept Clinton in check. They kept him busy with depositions and Grand Juries. Republicans did us a great favor.
* Clinton, remember, spent like a drunken-Democrat wastral from Jan 1993 – Jan 1995. In 1995 he and we had the good fortune of getting Clinton thumped.
* To repeat, gridlock works. See above. Also worked for Eisenhower, 1955-1961.
Hosed @ 36, 37: I’m well aware of the Reuben James.
You know all those conspiracy theorists who insist that F.D.R. knew about Pearl Harbor but covered it up to get the U.S. involved in a war with Germany? The U.S.S. Reuben James proves that theory to be false. If the sinking of the U.S.S. Reuben James by a German U-Boat didn’t start a war with Germany, how could F.D.R. seriously plan for an attack by JAPAN to get the U.S. involved in a war with GERMANY? Seems there were a lot more direct ways to reach the same result. Ths U.S. didn’t even declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor until Germany, several days after Pearl Harbor, declared war on the U.S. (in one of Hitler’s major miscalculations of the war).
Most serious historians agree that F.D.R.s pushing the limits of neutrality (and admittedly going over the line in some instances) was an exercise of couragous leadership, protecting U.S. interests. I’m not ready to give every President such a free pass, but in F.D.R.’s instance I would agree that it was a good idea.
Only Republicans who have hated F.D.R. and his legacy have really objected, after they learned what was at stake.
But I was only referring to F.D.R.’s rhetoric, not his policies, when I gave credit. And my knowledge of history is considerably greater than high-school age level.
Again, rhp, you’re fighting totally above your weight. That’s why you go to a non-sequitur segue into conspiracy.
I’m aware of the theory that FDR “knew about Pearl Harbor” in advance. That absurd theory is not relevant to my comments @36 and @37. You immediately postulate an absurd theory, apropos of nothing I wrote, because you’re apparently incapable of discussing what I wrote.
More absurdity: “Most serious historians agree …” Nice touch. Particularly the serious. And the most. It’s the kind of nonsensical special pleading that gives nonsense a bad name.
History, it was truly said, is not written by the victors. It’s written by the Democrats. I’m aware of some “serious” historians who try to make a case for cutting FDR slack on the abrogation of federal policy FDR took an oath to uphold.
Yes, a case can be made. But the case for exculpating FDR from conducting clandestine war quickly run into the wall of reality amd legality.
Republicans were barely part of the early (1940 – Dec. 1941) antiphathy to FDR’s secret war because Republicans were barely alive. The most strident antipathy to FDR and his imperial presidency came from such Democrats as anti-Jew pro-Hitler Joe Kennedy, and from Montana’s proto-progressive senator Bolshevik Burt Wheeler.
Alluding to FDR’s absurd AAA, Wheeler accused FDR of trying to bugger us into war by the backdoor and of an insidious intent to ‘plow under every fouth American boy.’ Wheeler knew much about FDR’s quasi-dictatorial ambitions because Wheeler led the fight against FDR’s absurd plot to pack the Supreme Court.
The larger mystery, still, is why Germany didn’t declare war on us after Lend-Lease. In fact, Germany’s policy and intent was to avoid sending any of our “neutral” convoy ships to the bottom.
39: Clinton’s spending, 2001 – 2003, wasn’t like a “drunken wastral”. If you bother to recall, those were also rescession years, when income to the federal government from taxes is reduced, but the need for government services is greater.
I don’t know how many times we have to explain this basic fact.
(1) When the economy is down, government spending will be in a deficit. That’s because cutting government spending to match reduced tax revenues will only exascerbate the economic rescession. What is needed at that time is for government spending to be constant, or increase, in order to keep money flowing through the economy. It also helps to spend money then on capital investments (roads, bridges, public buildings) because prices are lower in a rescession.
(2) When the economy is up, we need to reduce government spending. Excess government spending at that time is inflationary, and the government is paying for capital improvements at higher rates (because it is competing with private capital for the same goods and services). That is the time to pay down the debt.
In an ideal world, you have a balanced budget exactly in the middle of economic cycles. You go into a deficit during the down-cycles, and you run a surplus (allowing you to pay down debt) during the up-cycles.
But the Republican answer has always been ass-backwards. Their response to balanced budget is to cut taxes, putting us back into deficit spending regardless of the economic cycle. And when the economic cycle is down, they cut taxes again – helping the few who still have lots of money and aren’t affected by unemployment, but hurting everyone else as government services are reduced. Cutting taxes never helps a struggling business during an economic downturn because they are already paying no income taxes since they are posting a loss. It only helps those wealthy individuals and businesses who don’t need the help.
gawdammit, rhp. Clinton’s drunken-Democrat spending from January 1993 – January 1995. There. Typed it again. Didn’t stutter either time.
What is it with you? What’s with our inerring (almost) tendency to never deal with what’s in front of you? To always (almost) bounce into an oblique tangent? You’re so stuck on turgid that reality never (almost never) penetrates your bubble.
Other bubbles pop. Why doesn’t yours?
Are you sure, real sure, you went to high school? If you did, it was obviously a government NEA high school, because your responses reek of government pathology and NEA disease.
Somewhere up the thread rhp or an rhp sockpuppet avers that he/she/it wants to have a serious budget discussion with a serious Republican, but can’t find one.
rhp proves over and over with its relentless HA effluvia that rha is incapable of serious discussion.
(typo alert: case … run (above) should be case … runs.
Joe Kennedy fun fact: Old Joe minced no words about his president, whom he called “a crippled son of a bitch.” Look for rhp to attempt making the case that Old Joe Jew-Hater FDR-Hater Kennedy was really a Republican.
RHP:
I can’t seem to remember, who is the only president in the last 100 years to stop borrowing money, balance the budget, pay down the natnional debt and created a federal surplus?
Was it a fiscal conservative Republican? Maybe it was, since that’s the talk they always talk. They must’ve have walked the walk. Yeah?
If you or anyone else could remind me who that president was who was fiscally responsible with the Tax Payers money, I’d like to have my memory refreshed.
Thanks,
GBS
Un-American @ 43: I read your dates wrong. It comes with age, spending too much time in front of a computer, and trying to multi-task (my daughter’s car broke down on the road, I’m trying to arrange a ride and a tow). So sue me.
As for school – you may not like my answers, but they are based on a solid education. Undergraduate degree with high honors, plus a graduate degree. Both from good schools. I’m not going to give any more details than that.
Best wishes to your daughter and her car.
GBS: Eisenhower in the last century had honestly balanced budgets. As noted above, fiscal chicanery via ‘off budget’ budgeting began with the administration that took office in 1961.
If you have nothing else to do during your 3-day, GBS, go back and read JFK’s pay-any-price address of 20 January 1961. Count the references to God or to variants (Almighty, etc.). Compare the count and amount of JFK’s church-state religiosity in 1961 to GWB’s in 2001 or 2005.
I will, if you give me a good reason why I should.
wow, go to work, look at the comments
go see CBO on current annual deficit about 10% of gdp; one of highest ever. true, not as bad as greece or UK, but since when is that a victory
and current total debt outstanding, at about 80+ of gdp; a diff ratio, but also terrible.
this ignores too the huge coming extra health care burden
downward mobility for all of us; by 2020 about 14% of all fed spending will be on debt service
And, now you now why the Reagan and Bush “tax cuts” were a farce. As I’ve said before you CANNOT give a “tax cut” when you are borrowing money as heavily as they did.
It is a TAX DEFERMENT.
The nearly $4 TRILLION dollars that Reagan borrowed on 30 year T-bills are coming due in the next few years.
Say hello Reagan TAX DEFERMENT payments that are coming due soon.
See, Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in ’93 and balanced the budgets; Instituted Pay-Go, stopped borrowing money and paid DOWN the national debt.
Alan Greenspan warned President-Elect Bush not to pay down the national debt too fast because it would trigger hyper-inflation.
No worries there, Bush certainly did NOT pay down the debt too fast, did he?
The Health Care Reform bill is PAID FOR.
If you want true fiscal responsibility Vote Democrat.
We have a PROVEN track record of success. Republicans have a PROVEN track record of FAILURE.
Country First, my man, Country First.
yawn; its Reagan’s fault that Obama racks up 50 billion deficits (in a mere month)???
man, ya’ll are nuts