Genius wrote on June 15, 2008 11:49 AM: Overheard at the Democratic Party HQ:

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

lamonte john wrote on June 10, 2008 04:59 AM: It's not really polite to disparage North Dakota, especially in a news paper from Nevada!? I've driven through your state and it's just not that spectacular. So don't throw stones.

Please don't call allowing the expiration of ill-advised tax cuts tax hikes. It's a disingenuous play on words. It's just a return to responsible money management, something this adminstration knows nothing about.

douglas wrote on June 10, 2008 12:06 AM: that "war" is one protecting me as a citizen of the u.s.

those who complain about afghanistan, iraq, or somalia for example, i'd wager they've never even spoken with islamic fundamentalist lads who have vowed to destroy the u.s. exporter of liberalism. instead, they merely mimic some political party hack handouts.

chuckiechan wrote on June 09, 2008 11:25 PM: I say let Obama win. We have an entire generation who has never drawn an unemployment check! Fiscal discipline comes from within. Nothing like a real recession to answer that nagging question: Has it always been this good?

I can hardly wait!

The Republican Plan wrote on June 09, 2008 09:53 PM: Let's take a look at what the owner of the Fox "News" Channel, the Australian fathead Rupert Murdoch (who gets his cues from the Republican National Committee [RNC]) said about Bush's war back in '03:

" . . . The greatest thing to come of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

Fox "News" fathead Murdoch continues:

" . . . Bush has surprised everyone. Even his opponents have a great deal more respect for him than they did when he was elected. One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility. . . ."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/63103/page/1

"Mr Murdoch was unequivocal about war with Iraq. 'We can't back down now. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it.'

"He said the price of oil would be one of the war's main benefits. 'The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.'

"Mr Murdoch's comments come just a week after he told Fortune magazine in the US that war could fuel an economic boom.

"'Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it's behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than
anything else,' he told Fortune."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/12/uk.iraqandthemedia

THAT WAS FATHEAD RUPERT MURDOCH, WHO TAKES HIS CUES FROM THE RNC, BACK IN '03.

douglas wrote on June 09, 2008 06:07 PM: with the so far, promised "changes", the u.s. will tumble into a depression. of course the "progressives" will contrive a newspeak term for it. same as the "progressives" call rapists and murderers, "ex-offenders". or as hapless harry reid calls illegal infiltrators... "pre-citizens". or the guy caught on video shooting some convenience store clerk to fund his [victimless crime] drug habit... an "alleged perpetrator".

the old man usta say that every generation needs a depression. with the proposed, massive tax increases required to fund the "progressive" promised freebies for the bazillions of present illegal infiltrators and those who will immediately flood across the "open borders", what else is likely ?

Genius wrote on June 09, 2008 05:59 PM: Obama TAX SLAVES! It's outrageous. Why not ABOLISH ALL WAGE TAXES and institute the Fair Tax while cutting the ridiculous government spending? Get the government out of people's private lives, out of their paychecks and out of this socialistic facism!

timinator wrote on June 09, 2008 05:14 PM: I believe the hyperinflation was begun over a year ago, when the feds stopped publishing the M3 stats. See:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp

Rick Henderson wrote on June 09, 2008 03:40 PM: What was the increase in spending for federal agencies in fiscal years 07, 06, 05, 04...? Does the rate of increase exceed the rate of increases over the years before there was a Democratic majority?

Perhaps the editorial should note the amount of spending in terms of allocations like the Dept. of Homeland Security and other vital agencies. Would the same editorial criticize Dems for not spending enough in some areas?

Lastly, other than privatizing a portion of Social Security which would have created even greater short term annual deficits, what did the GOP majority do that was so monumental in the twelve years they were a majority to imporve entitlement programs? They are called entitlements you know.

Travis wrote on June 09, 2008 03:10 PM: Good points. With respect to earmarks, I believe they have gone down since dems too over, but I'm not certain of that. I won't be happy until they are $0 though, so we are on the same side of that issue. Keep in mind though, earmarks are a very small part of the total federal budget. I'm not saying they aren't important, but it will have a very small impact on the total budget. There are many other big issues, including the ones you cited, that need to be addressed. Wasteful spending is nothing new though, it has been going on for generations. There is much more public support for reforming these issues now, so I hope we can see it through.

Both sides have a different approach, which is why I hope we elect a president who will see and address the concerns on both sides. For example; tort reform. Typically, dems are against it and repubs are for it. One side is looking our for lawyers, the other is looking out for insurance companies. Who's looking out for us? Tort reform would limit settlements to many who are wrongly injured (not all though, fraud occurs). However, those settlements lead to higher premiums for those who have insurance. Both sides have a clear point in their argument, but clearly a compromise can be found.

There are many other issues where compromise can be found. Unfortunately, it seems that many of our representatives are too busy playing "payback" instead of focusing on the concerns of those who elected them into office. Both parties have problems, we just differ on which one we think can rise above it.

Read All Comments