This issue is about two distinct approaches to governance: marxist re-distribution versus the sovereignty of the individual or personal rights.

Soros is running the DNC and its contributory arms, while you are arguing over sophist/democratic principles.

Understand the basic points of your dialogue.

McCain is the man, while Obama is not.

Why would you choose to support such an ignominious person?

He will lose this election, and I have little affection for your thoughtless support.

This issue is about two distinct approaches to governance: marxist re-distribution versus the sovereignty of the individual or personal rights.

Soros is running the DNC and its contributory arms, while you are arguing over sophist/democratic principles.

Understand the basic points of your dialogue.

McCain is the man, while Obama is not.

Why would you choose to support such an ignominious person?

Obama will lose this election, and I have little affection for your thouthless support.

It would help make your argument clearer if you specified which arguments you find so ridiculous. No one smart on the right thinks that politicians in general are particular frugal with the public funds. John McCain may call himself a “fiscal conservative,” but I never would.

The issue is not John McCain alone. (He wants to tax me and spend my money, like all politicians.) The issue is John McCain versus Barak Obama. How high will taxes be over the next 4 years? How high will spending be? How large will the deficit be?

Now, I am ready to here a case that Obama will spend less (by, say, fighting fewer wars) and that McCain won’t actually cut taxes at all. But just pointing to the results under various presidents is an imperfect guide, at best, to likely results going forward, especially because it ignores control of Congress. Certainly, we can all agree (?) that Clinton would have spent more if he had had a Democratic congress.

Anyway, the discussion here would be more fruitful if you defined terms (like “fiscal conservative”) and specified likely outcomes given the choices that we face.

You really think that it is ridiculous for me to believe that federal spending under Obama would be higher than it would be under McCain? That strikes me as obvious.

Democratic:
Obama: $77 million
DNC: $17.5 million
Total: $94.5 million

Republican:
McCain $84 million (public money)
RNC: $200+ million (private)
Total: $284 million

McCain is finished fundraising. All fundraising from here on out funnels to the RNC coffers with virtually unrestricted giving by individuals. The RNC can run ads for McCain, they just have to be hybrid ads attacking Obama and Democratic congressional leadership.

The Democrat must outraise the RNC by $50 million a month over the final two months just to make up the current deficit.

The Obama campaign is basically sucking the DNC fundraising dry. The DNC raised $17 million in September to leave itself with just $17.5 million in the bank two months before the election. So much for downticket races.

Correct, JG, the majority of this country is dumber than a sack of hammers, but the attitude towards the public should be tempered considering that even the media fails in their responsibility to inform the public, and generally attempts to persuade them using the standard practices of ad hominem attacks, missing the point, circular reasoning, hasty generalizations, and when they do resort to coercion, they claim that failure of the public to respond, disaster is sure to follow.

Now proceeding to your presentation JG:

Ronald Reagan inherited the policies of Paul Volker, who raised interest rates from 6% to 21% within 9 months. The deficit of a Ronald Reagan administration reflects the span of 8 years where interest rates spanned between 21% to 13 1/2% upon his departure. If you understand what government need to do to service such a outstanding obligation in the form of notes, bonds and treasuries, then you have a better understanding of the deficit.

Under Bill Clinton’s administration, interest rates went from 10 1/2 % to 3 1/2% within the first year of Clinton’s first term. His administration also retired much of our paper debt, from 21% to 10 1/2% and rolled this entire debt in one and two year paper, thus giving our Treasury tremendous sums of surplus cash which gave the appearance of a Bill Clinton miracle economy. You need to thank the FED for this “tax and spend” liberals economic success at that time.

If any of our readers has any understanding of what the implications the foregoing means, give your brain a good workout and try to understand what the FED’s actions mean and how the public correlates their economic well-being to their common understanding of administrations and the economic factors which influence it.

First off, the Dem Party is certainly not controlled by “hard core lefties.” Obama himself is quite moderate in general. The war issue alone does not make one a “lefty” (however you think you’re defining that) and he is center-left on gun control, the death penalty, middle class tax cuts, etc. There are so, so many people that are more “hard core lefty” than the current leaders of the DNC and Obama’s inner circle.

And anyone who “despises” Bill Clinton (an overly emotional assessment I think) has reasons other than balancing the budget. I personally think the welfare reform bill was ill-advised, and as I’ve said I don’t appreciate his actions regarding his serial womanizing, but I’m impressed with the budget surplus. Because he didn’t just “balance” the budget – there was a rather impressive surplus. How many hundreds of millions did the Repubs unbalance it on either side? Uh, yeah. I don’t have to like every step he took to get there in order to admire the end result.

Finally, once again I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of McCain/RNC self-branding as “fiscal conservatives,” the same way Soph Mom and others keep trying to band the drum on the hypocrisy of the pro-woman statements. It doesn’t mean the Dems are perfect, but they are also no out their touting their imperfect records as if they exemplify the opposite of what they are.

Unfortunately, the Democratic nominee has specifically rejected the “tired old politics of the 1990s”, presumably including both the peace and the prosperity the Democrats could have trumpeted.

When specifically asked, the Democratic candidate said that he had too many spending plans (he called them “investment” plans) to even consider moving towards a balanced budget. Thus, the Democrats have again handed the fiscal responsibility mantle the Republican. It really takes hard work for a party and its candidate to be that incompetent. Unfortunately, the phrase “fiscal responsibility” gives the controlling fringe left wing of the Democratic party hives.

Lately, I spend my days shaking my head in total disbelief.

Between the ignorance on the one hand, and the selfish disingenuousness on the other, we might very well end up with the most corrupt and unqualified administration yet.

God help us.

Would John Cole put HWC CBRV in the category of ‘dumber than a sack of hammers’? The ‘hammers’ part fits.