The flaming feminist liar vs the cold post racialist gasbag…forget the pre mordem. Live from the Jimmy Kimmel Theatre, here is the Pennsylvania Polka democratic debate recap. Keep in mind that when MSNBC cannot be happy with liberals, then there is nothing positive to say.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/16/905215.aspx
Oh, and the John McCain appearance on Softball with Chris Matthews was a complete waste.
Ok, now the recap. To quote former boxing referee Judge Mills Lane…”Let’s get it on!”
Speaking of complete wastes, Barack Obama’s opening statement was exactly that. Hillary Clinton’s was not much better. Maybe the candidates are useless, but it could just be that opening statements themselves are pointless. ABC then went to a commercial after the opening statements, possibly sending a signal that a couple well placed product placements would keep people awake.
Moderator Charles Gibson asked a question brought up by Mario Cuomo, who was famous for being overrated to begin with. He wants the winning candidate of the primary to promise to take the runner up as their Vice Presidential running mate. This is idiotic on its face, since the candidates should be free to choose whoever they like.
Obama refused to take the pledge. Hillary promised to close ranks behind the nominee, but would not take the pledge. Both candidates bashed President Bush.
Obama was asked about his snobbery regarding the bitter people who believe in God and own guns because the constitution allows this.
Obama did say that he mangled what he was trying to say. He also stated that it was not the first or last time. He then explained that he was referring to economic anxiety, and that when wedge issues get exploited, economic issues get ignored.
Hillary announced that she was the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton. Perhaps she channeled the body of John Edwards before the debate. She also spoke about her Methodist faith. She very calmly played the “offended” card, taking umbrage at Obama’s remarks. She then spoke of listening and respecting one another after bashing President Bush again.
George Stephanopolis asked Hillary if she felt Obama could beat McCain. She stated that it was imperative that McCain be defeated. She then made it clear that McCain had the wrong idea, and how she knows what the republican party “dishes out” because she has been on the receiving end of 16 years. Stephanopolis pressed her to actually answer the questions, and she said, “Yes. Yes. Yes.” She then emphasized why she was better and stronger.
The same question was asked of Obama, and he made it clear Hillary can win, but he thought he was better. He then addressed the elitist issue. He said he could not be elitist towards religious people because he was one. He could not be elitist towards gun owners because some of his constituents are gun owners. This is nonsense, but he may have believed what he said. He then very smartly brought up Hillary’s 1992 “baking cookies” remark, saying that she was not elitist. This was a brilliant move, because he delivered the attack, said it should not make her look bad, but it does. He said she learned the wrong lesson from that.
Hillary got defensive and stated that it was not just she who was offended by his remarks, but voters. She then stated the election should be about what they have done with their lives politically. Then she held up two blank pieces of paper, one for her and one for him. Just kidding. She spoke of her 35 years before i fought the urge to slip into a coma. That could have been the after dinner sugar snack.
Obama was asked why he rescinded his invitation to Pastor Jeremiah Wright to attend the inauguration. Obama ducked the question, instead stating that Pastor Wright has done good things and bad things. This issue simply vexes him, and he has yet to figure out how to address it.
Hillary was asked about the idea that Pastor Wright has his positives. Hillary very smartly brought up Pastor Wright’s anti-American sermon shortly after 9/11. 9/11 still evokes anger in pennsylvania. Hillary then got off a great line about how “You get to choose your pastor. You cannot choose your family, but you can choose your Pastor.”
Obama kept insisting that he did not hear the remarks, although Charlie Gibson was not buying it. Obama then tried to insist that Hillary’s Pastor defended Wright, which is the “everybody does it” tactic.
Stephonopolis asked if he thought Wright loved America as much as Obama did, and what will happen after the Wright videos are played endlessly if he wins. Obama smartly answered that he had enough faith in the American people to see through that. When asked if Wright was patriotic, Obama stated that “He was a former marine. He loves his country, but he is angry.”
Hillary naturally felt the issue deserved further exploration. She then spoke about bringing people together and overcoming anger and bitterness. She deliberately used the word bitternessm abd could barely contain her smile as she stuck in the dagger. She brought up Farrakhan, Hamas, and said these issues “raise questions.”
Stephonopolis then shifted gears and brought up a Pennsylvania poll that showed only 39% of voters found her honest and trustworthy. Hillary then said, “I may be a lot of things, but I’m not dumb.” She said she is embarrassed by the incident, has apologized for it, and it was a mistake. She then shifted to how proud she was to have gone to Bosnia, and that General Wesley Clark, who was in the audience, supports her. She then spoke about her experience going to 80 countries. She said she will try to get more sleep in the future.
Obama was asked if Hillary has been truthful about her past. Obama said she had a strong record to run on, and that he has not commented about her Bosnia remarks. Stephonopolis pointed out that his campaign has, which apparently is the same thing to everyone except him. Obama then brought the focus back to issues.
Obama was asked if he believed in the American flag since he does not wear one. Obama stated that he “reveres the American flag.” He then made it clear that he loves this country for all it has given him, and that his life embodies the American dream.
Both candidates looked like deer in the headlights, although Obama handled this question very well.
Stephonopolis then asked Obama about his friendship with bomber William Ayers. A visibly irritated Obama then stated that he barely knew the guy, and this guilt by association was politics at its worst. He pointed out that he was 8 years old when those bombs went off. He then tried to state that he was friends with Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who has made incendiary remarks regarding abortion. Mr. Coburn was not there to defend himself against charges by his “friend.”
Hillary went on the attack, lashing Obama for associating with somebody who made “deeply hurtful” comments to the people of New York, who she claims to care about. She then made it clear that since the republicans will bring it up, it should be brought up now. She then made a remark that showed how disgusting she is.
“The republicans should apologize for the Bush-Cheney years and refuse to run a candidate.”
At that point Obama took the gloves off. He brought up the pardons that the Clintons gave the Puerto Rican terrorists from FALN, which was more serious than his thin association with Ayers. He then stated that Hillary keeps saying she can take a punch, as she has proved against republicans, but he can take a punch because he has taken many from her.
In a surprising move, Hillary decided not to rebut the charge. She was given the option, and she said she would wait. Perhaps she felt she was winning, and did not want to say too much.
ABC then used a biracial couple as a prop, having a question about Iraq asked by a black woman with her arm around her white male partner. The question itself was whether or not troops would be coming home in 60 days after the election regardless of the realities on the ground.
Hillary apparently does not believe in reality, since predetermined withdrawal is fine by her. When asked if she knew better than General David Petraeus, she said no, that nobody had all the answers. Yet she wants to remove all the troops. She claims that Afghanistan has been neglected, which apparently is news to our soldiers fighting there.
Obama stated that he also would leave no matter what. He then made a bold but odd statement that “The President sets the mission.” He felt that President Bush was too deferential to General Petraeus. Obama then stated that he would always listen to military generals regarding tactics, but that he would set the mission. This is hubris at its most Obamaest. His nose might have been in the air when he said it, but his ears tend to distract from that on television.
Obama was asked if an Iranian attack against Israel would be considered an attack on America. Obama replied that he would do whatever it takes to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but that he would sit down and talk to Iran. He completely ducked the question, only saying that all options were on the table. He was so cold and detached, only saying that an attack by Iran against Israel would be unacceptable. He stammered throughout the entire question.
Hillary stated that any attack against Israel would be met with massive retaliation by the United States. Yet she then stated this was not about Israel, and that all allies of the USA would face this. Again, it was also a cold detached answer, although slightly less icy than Obama’s response. She also uttered nonsense about “skillful diplomacy” with Iran. However, she would not meet with Armageddonijad directly, which was a thinly veiled swipe at Obama’s willingness to do so.
The debate shifted to the economy, and a statement by John McCain that both Hillary and Obama would raise taxes. Stephonopolis asked both candidates if they would pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 per year. Hillary stated that she would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy even if the economy weakened because she did not believe that it would cause harm. She tried to cite the 1990s, forgetting that the Clintons had nothing to do with the economy. It was the internet boom.
She then inadvertantly dropped a bombshell that should be in republican campaign commercials forever. She said that with regards to the Clinton tax hikes, “We used that tool during the 1990s to very good effect, and I think we can do so again.” However, she would not raise taxes on the middle class. In the 1990s the taxes were raised on the middle class. Bill Clinton denied this during the 1992 campaign, but even the Jayson Blair Times called him on it.
Hillary Clinton turned into Walter Mondale on taxes, and this needs to be shouted from rooftops until somebody in the media is forced to listen. This is bigger than John Kerry’s voting for the 87 billion before he voted against it. This vow to raise taxes must be repeated ad nauseum.
Hillary then did something that no democrats has done before. She defined the wealthy. She may be a class warrior, but most class warriors will not give a number. She did. In her world, the middle class are people making less than $250,000 per year. Even if that is combined household income, the statement shows how little she knows. A combined household income of $250,000 is upper middle class, but it is not wealth. She does not get it, and never will.
Obama stated that he will cut taxes for “middle income” families, which to him means those making $75,000 or less. Families that have each earner making $37,500 are not middle income. They are struggling.
What is it that the socialist woman and the arugala loving elitist man do not understand?
People are not angry and bitter now, but they will be if either of these people get power, especially if the issue is Israel or taxes. Palestinians are probably lighting rockets in the air in celebration listening to this drivel. Then again, they do that anyway, but still.
Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. Charlie Gibson pointed out that when the capital gains rates were lowered, more revenues came in, and that 100 million people own stock.
Obama meandered that he would “look at” the issue of raising it, and that he wants to restore “fairness.” If there was ever a moment to make English the official language, listening to Obama talk about taxes was a justification.
Gibson again brought up that the lowering of the tax raised revenues, and Obama said “that might happen.”
No Barack, it did happen. For the love of all things holy, somebody make him take an economics class.
Hillary babbled more class warfare about how the Bush economy was bad and the Clinton economy was good. Actually, the Bush economy was better.
Hillary then stated that she “did not want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.”
She should just give more money. She is 109 million dollars richer than a few years ago, she should just give a bunch of it back. No wait, that would allow her to avoid being hypocritical.
She wants us to “invest” in renewable energy. That is not investment. That is an expenditure. Expenditures are not wrong, but to call them investments is brazenly dishonest.
She then praised Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, because he has his machine backing her. She also stated that President Bush perhaps “does not care” about fixing problems, because after all, she knows what is in his heart.
Despite her lengthy answer, it was not an answer. Gibsona sked her again if she would raise the capital gains tax. Bill Clinton lowered it from 28% to 20%, and President George W. Bush lowered it further to 15%.
Hillary then really offered a spliced answer. She would consider raising it, but not above 20%. After all, even though both times the rate was lowered, revenues were raised (Yes, I keep repeating this), it was good when her husband did it, but not when President Bush did it. Had Clinton lowered it one point and Bush done the rest, she would be standing on stage saying that we can raise it from 15% to 27%, but lord knows not 28%.
Either a policy works and makes sense or it does not. Only in Hillaryworld can two politicians make the same policy decision, and have it be good when a democrat does it and bad when a republican does it. This woman gets more obnoxious by the minute.
If I did not need my television so much (especially during football season), I would have shattered it by now.
She then said “I don’t want to raise taxes on anybody.”
Well the don’t Hillary.
She also attacked Obama’s cap proposal. Obama clarified his cap proposal.
To quote the late Lloyd Bridges in the movie, “Airplane,”…”I picked a bad week to stop drinking/smoking/sniffing glue.”
When Obama insisted that his proposal was not a tax, Gibson stated that it absolutely was a tax. Obama protested, and insisted that many Americans were between $97,000 and 200-250,000. Obama insisted that we should be honest in how we present our ideas. I guess he exempted the two liberals running for President.
Hillary then went on a Bush bashing session simply because shrill is as shrill does.
Obama scoffed at the notion of a commission on Social Security as being worthless. Hillary disagreed, citing Ronald Reagan working with Tip O’Neill in 1983. Obama pointed out that the 1983 commission raised the retirement age and payroll taxes, which Hillary claims she will not do. Hillary also claims she will not raise taxes on working families, but she will of course. Hillary then stated that there are more “progressive ways of doing things.” I shudder to think what she meant by that.
Charles Gibson mentioned that April 16th was the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech school shooting, and that we should keep Virginia Tech in mind. It was very classy of him. He then segued into gun control, pointing out that both candidates have long supported curbing gun freedoms, yet now are trying to talk like they care about gun owners. Heck, Hillary blasted a duck as a kid and loved it. Maybe the duck was republican.
The reasons why democrats are starting to embrace God and guns is because they are tired of losing elections. Period. They lost West Virginia twice after 100 years of winning it. It would be nice if they embraced both religious tolerance and tolerance towards gun owners, but they do not mean it. Their records are clear as day. Obama’s comments were condescending, but Hillary feels the same way. She was just lucky enough that Obama made the arrogant statements before she had a chance to do so. Besides, she has 35 years of experience with insincerity and 15 years of triangulating. He is a novice at such repositioning.
Hillary spoke about the 100,000 cops during her husband’s tenure. She promised to reinstate the assault weapons ban.
My jaw dropped because Hillary actually took a stand. She is completely wrong on the issue, but at least now she can admit that she wants to issue a ban that will help criminals who by definition will disobey such laws. That is why they are called criminals. Hillary then stated that she respects the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners. She may claim to respect them, but she does not understand them. The real fun on this issue will be when the Supreme Court rules on gun issues in June.
Obama was asked about the outright gun ban in Washington, D.C. that is being addressed in the Supreme Court, and whether or not that ban was consistent with the Second Amendment. Obama offered up one of his most gutless remarks, by saying that he had not “listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”
He then babbled about how the Second Amendment clearly conveys an individual right, but that a city or state can constrain that right. He compared this to the right to own private property, but governments can enforce zoning ordinances. A much better parallel would be comparing it to the eminent domain rulings, which were enacted by liberals, and hurting Americans of all stripes.
Obama was again pressed by Gibson about his favoring of registration of guns. Obama wanted a “common sense” approach. Thank heavens, that tells me where he stands. Sensible approaches are good, less sensible approaches are bad.
When asked if she supported the D.C. ban, Hillary turned into Strom Thurmond and started advocating states rights, or in this case, the rights of cities. Then she had the gall to claim that the Bush Administration had no position on the issue. President Bush has been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and let the assault weapons ban expire. That stand will not please everybody, but he took a stand. Hillary acts like she despises President Bush, and then she hides behind him when it is convenient, even if her claim is a bald faced lie.
She then stated that Vice President Cheney was against the ban, which is true, which somehow shows confusion in her mind. Stephonopolis again tried to find out where she stood, rather than everybody else.
Hillary could not answer the question, or more importantly, would not. She favors “sensible regulation that is consistent with the right to bear arms.” Somebody should ask her that question again June. When asked again if the D.C. ban was consistent with that right, she stated that a “total ban, with no exceptions, might not be, but the court might not, I don’t know the facts.”
If these two candidates were eaten by wolves, I would at this point become pro-wolves. At least with wolves, there are clear answers. Besides, wolves eat deer, which these candidates, again in the headlights, were for the entire evening.
When asked if she favored licensing and registration of guns, she replied that she favors “what works in New York.” She stated that what works in New York City might not work in Montana. Her newfound conversion to states rights notwithstanding, I was hoping a states rights argument on abortion would be asked of her just to show the contrast.
Stephonopolis had had enough. He pointed out that when she ran for the Senate in New York, she was in favor of licensing and registration of guns. She admitted that she did because in New York, those rules worked. No they did not. I wish Rudy Giuliani had been in the room to look her in the eye as she tried to explain that anything she believed contributed to the drop in crime in the 1990s in New York.
To the relief of both of these candidates, the gun debate finally ended. The candidates probably then became devoutly even more religious before that the next question would be a softball. Unfortunately for them, Larry King and Chris Matthews were not in the room. Nevertheless, an affirmative action question came up. Should affirmative action be changed so that rich blacks are weaned off it and poor whites are given help? Should it be class based, and not race based?
Obama felt wealthy blacks can be given help in some situations, but would not clarify. He tried to clarify, but his answer made no sense. With Obama, everything can be looked at or studied. This is why people like him. It is difficult to offend people when you say nothing.
Hillary said she supported early childhood education and was against high student loan rates. Maybe she is deaf. The question was about affirmative action. She wants health care for everybody. She then offered a new slogan. She wants to “affirmatively invest in young people…” This is in contrast to investing in them negatively. I wish I could latch onto anybody that would affirmatively tell her to sit down and stop talking.
The ban on both of these people speaking could be lifted when they had something valuable to say or never, whichever came first.
The candidates were then asked what they would “do about” gasoline prices. I expected them to blame President Bush, greedy oil companies, and mention that Dick Cheney worked at Halliburton, in addition to blathering about green collar jobs. I did not expect them to mention dealing with Islamofacist governments that want to kill us, rolling back the gasoline tax that liberals passed with force from Bill Clinton,or allowing us to drill in Alaska. I was neutral on whether they would praise ethanol subsidies since they were now past the Iowa Caucus by several months.
Hillary is going to investigate gas prices. She believes there is market manipulation among energy traders, similar to Enron. Ok, so I said Halliburton instead of Enron. When it was pointed out by Charlie Gibson that John McCain supports a moratorium on the gasoline tax, Hillary tried to insist that democrats favored that. No, they do not. They control Congress now. They have not proposed such a measure. She also wants a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. She should blame foreign governments, not American corporations.
Obama echoed virtually everything Hillary said, and then stated that we should reduce gasoline demand. This man is an absolute scholar. Perhaps he thinks we should increase the supply as well.
John McCain has taken flack for not being an expert on economics, but his opponents claim to know everything that they do not know, and have no idea about things that a child in kindergarten would understand. I call this “selective stupidity.”
The next question for was a good one, because it gave both candidates a chance to either be classy or arrogant. Stephonopolis was asked how he would as President use George W. Bush, since former Presidents have been good ambassadors, with the exception of Jimmy Carter.
Hillary laughed and stated that she “would have to give serious thought to that.” She and her husband have been treated very graciously by President Bush, but that graciousness has not come close to being returned. She praised him for using her husband with Tsunami relief, but that is a pathetic example. She is basically saying, “You are awful at everything, but you realized how great my husband was, which was right.” She stated that she would use all the former Presidents, before babbling about how we all have got to come together as a nation.
I would have preferred that these candidates be forced to try and come up with positive things to say about President Bush. Even if it was something such as saying pleasant things about his wife and daughters, that would be a start. Most likely they could not so it because they simply see him as evil. It is difficult to “come together” when both of these candidates are ripping a man apart, and by extension, the many people who believe in him. Even among those who do not approve of his job performance, many of those people like the man personally. This question was a chance to show some decency, and as expected, Hillary Clinton failed that test. She even stuck the knife in at the end of the answer, when speaking about our current leader, by saying “that would take some careful thought on my part.”
Obama was less vicious than Hillary. His answer was still a dig at the current President, but it was much more subtle. It was actually brilliantly clever. He said that he would be much more likely to seek advice from President George HW Bush, because his foreign policy was wiser than that of his son. Obama could have mentioned Jimmy Carter, who is now toxic to most Americans. Yet by praising an individual republican President, it allowed him to say something complimentary while still contrasting with the current President Bush. It was a back door entry, but it was effective. It is in stark contrast to Hillary, who cannot praise any republican unless they are self loathing.
The last question dealt with the Superdelegates, and how each candidate would make the case at the convention in Denver as to why they should get the nomination. In effect, this really was a way to just have the candidates give closing statements.
Hillary spoke about being a fighter, despite the fact that people are tired of fighting. She bashed Wall Street, and can give the money back to people she thinks deserve it. We will get back to “shared prosperity,” which is code for socialism. We know where she stands. She stands nowhere and everywhere.
Obama spoke about a planet in peril and our economy in shambles. Yes, this is the man who speaks of hope. He will not take money from Pacs or lobbyists. Many people like him, including people that have never liked a politician before.
Charlie Gibson praised the audience for not disrupting the debate with applause. I did not even think about that until the evening ended, but the audience was overwhelmingly polite.
Of course, the only thing worth clapping about was the end of the debate. Gibson and Stephonopolis were solid. In terms of substance, this was a fabulous debate in terms of questions. Gibson did a great job last time as well.
In terms of responses, this was the very worst debate. I came into this debate disagreeing with these candidates. I ended the evening understanding why the democratic party is worthless.
Are these two lightweights the best the demagoguic party can do?
Yes. That is why the party has been irrelevant for almost half a century.
John McCain won this debate by not being either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Hillary and Obama are pathetic. They have showed positive qualities in the past. There was nothing positive to say about them in this debate.
Osama Bin Laden also won this debate by not being mentioned.
I would say that the demagoguic party is a joke, but their stances are not funny.
Democrats are the party of pusillanimousness. They are scared of the voters.
With views like theirs, they should be. Luckily the voters are smarter than these liberal contortionists and their parsings. Al Gore and John Kerry found this out, and the ash heap of historical irrelevance awaits whichever one of these disgraces emerges from the primaries to join them in several months.
This was not a debate. It was a debacle. It was a draw, which in temperature terms would be absolute zero.
An hour of Windex should be enough to scrub my television from this vile event.
eric
“She then made a remark that showed how disgusting she is.”
“The republicans should apologize for the Bush-Cheney years and refuse to run a candidate.”
T H A T!!!! blew my mind.
Just when I thought she couldnt get anymore ridiculous she proved me wrong
“Obama stated that he also would leave no matter what. He then made a bold but odd statement that “The President sets the mission.” He felt that President Bush was too deferential to General Petraeus. Obama then stated that he would always listen to military generals regarding tactics, but that he would set the mission. This is hubris at its most Obamaest. His nose might have been in the air when he said it, but his ears tend to distract from that on television.”
In other words, he will set the mission no matter what the generals say.
“Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. Charlie Gibson pointed out that when the capital gains rates were lowered, more revenues came in, and that 100 million people own stock.”
Actually I think Charlie pointed this out three times to Obama and it didnt seem to matter.
“People are not angry and bitter now…”
Oooooookaaaaaayyyyyy…
The whole “debate” was pointless political tripe. I agree with the non-ABC press – what a lousy excuse for a debate! Nothing about the war. Nothing about the economy. And not a word about the constitution AT THE CONSTITUTION CENTER!!! Luckily I paid almost no attention to it as I was busy doing something useful, unlike certain Charles, Georges, Hillarys and Baracks.
I don’t care about the Reverend Wright or whether Obama thinks stupid hicks vote against their own interests. I don’t care about any of this nonsense. I don’t even care about the Ayers/Resko matter, and won’t care until someone can show me some substantial reason to be concerned, which I haven’t seen at all. The only winner of last nights debate was the clucking gossipy hens of the tabloid media. Fox News, needless to say, was more than happy to point out the ineptitude of the “moderation,” and if that ain’t irony then I’m Pat Robertson!
Of course, it doesn’t help that the Dems have once again found a way to lose an election that should have been theirs in a handbasket with a bow and fruit. Hillary’s negatives and Obama’s out-of-the-blueness had always made them the worst possible choices. But the pie-eyed Dems didn’t care. “Yes we can” lose another election – that should be their motto. Biden, RIchardson, Edwards or Dodd were all obviously better choices when it comes to electability and substance – God forbid substance ever meant anything to either of our retarded political parties.
We have a country in serious decline. We are overextended abroad, rife with corruption at home (real corruption, not the stupid Fox “News” – and apparently ABC – variety), untenebly piled debt, a negative savings rate, a collapsed real estate market, no regulatory state of note, accounts and trade deficits through the roof, foreign debt through the roof, a social safety net full of gaping holes, veterans literally roaming the streets homeless – it goes on and on. And what do we hear about last night? Nothing. Absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever.
Pathetic.
JMJ
Hillary does not feel complete when she cant slip in a few Bush bashs even though it will have little to do with anything, Jersey doesnt feel complete when he cant slip in a FOX bash even when it has absolutley nothing to do with anything.
You talk about the two not approaching any real issues and only blabbing about nonsense and then you go and act the same way.
Oh, Eric! You SOOO did NOT disappoint me!!! I was over at PC Free Zone yesterday and Wild Thing did a post [http://www.theodoresworld.net/mt/mt-apples.cgi/3561] that the debate was going to be on. I left this response:
There TRULY is something to be said for NOT having American network television here in The Sandbox! I’ll catch all the choice-cuts on Fox tomorrow, but won’t have to endure the entire thing. Perhaps The Tygrrr Express will live-blog it [http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/]; he does a great job.
And you did. Bless You!
Your comments were the best, though. Here, I’ll “live-blog” your “live blog” for you:
“The flaming feminist liar vs the cold post racialist gasbag.” Could there be a more perfect or apt description for this debate? No.
[…] Pennsylvania Polka Pusillanimousness « THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS […]
Whoops – hit submit comment and wasn’t nearly done…
“Then she held up two blank pieces of paper, one for her and one for him. Just kidding.” Too damn funny.
“If there was ever a moment to make English the official language, listening to Obama talk about taxes was a justification.” Note to self: do not try to drink anything while reading Eric’s blog posts unless you want to be wiping off your monitor and replacing your keyboard.
“”Gibson again brought up that the lowering of the tax raised revenues, and Obama said “that might happen.” No Barack, it did happen. For the love of all things holy, somebody make him take an economics class.” See comment above, “Note to Self.”
“Only in Hillaryworld can two politicians make the same policy decision, and have it be good when a democrat does it and bad when a republican does it.” So true, so true.
“Obama insisted that we should be honest in how we present our ideas. I guess he exempted the two liberals running for President.” Aren’t liberals usually exempted from honesty? Why should these two be any different.
“Hillary then stated that there are more “progressive ways of doing things.” I shudder to think what she meant by that.” Trust me, Eric, you are NOT alone.
“Their records are clear as day. Obama’s comments were condescending, but Hillary feels the same way. She was just lucky enough that Obama made the arrogant statements before she had a chance to do so. Besides, she has 35 years of experience with insincerity and 15 years of triangulating. He is a novice at such repositioning.” See “Note to Self,” above.
“Obama offered up one of his most gutless remarks, by saying that he had not “listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”” Gutless? Let’s make that “gutless and senseless,” as briefs are typically [in the legal field, anyway] something you read. {I do live outside the U.S.A. now – and have for the last five years – perhaps they are putting briefs on tape now, like books on tape, and I just didn’t realize. If so, my mistake.}
… continuing …
“If these two candidates were eaten by wolves, I would at this point become pro-wolves. At least with wolves, there are clear answers. Besides, wolves eat deer, which these candidates, again in the headlights, were for the entire evening.” Priceless. Just priceless.
“With Obama, everything can be looked at or studied. This is why people like him. It is difficult to offend people when you say nothing.” So true. So true.
“Hillary said she supported early childhood education and was against high student loan rates. Maybe she is deaf. The question was about affirmative action. She wants health care for everybody. She then offered a new slogan. She wants to “affirmatively invest in young people…” This is in contrast to investing in them negatively. I wish I could latch onto anybody that would affirmatively tell her to sit down and stop talking.” Ahh. Selective hearing; selective listening. Same same.
“The ban on both of these people speaking could be lifted when they had something valuable to say or never, whichever came first.” I forgot my “Note to self.” You owe me a keyboard, Eric!
“Obama echoed virtually everything Hillary said, and then stated that we should reduce gasoline demand. This man is an absolute scholar. Perhaps he thinks we should increase the supply as well.” Damn, Eric. You’re like the Energizer Bunny on these two! I absolutely LUV it!!!
“John McCain has taken flack for not being an expert on economics, but his opponents claim to know everything that they do not know, and have no idea about things that a child in kindergarten would understand. I call this “selective stupidity.”” And so many of the American populace will just follow them like lemmings off a cliff…
“With regard to using former Presidents… This question was a chance to show some decency, and as expected, Hillary Clinton failed that test.” Oh come on, now. This could not possibly have come as a surprise?!?
“Of course, the only thing worth clapping about was the end of the debate.” Oh, my gosh, I’m sure this was the only thing worth clapping for. And, Eric, I feel your pain. But thank you thank you thank you for watching and blogging this for me!
My Dear Father, rest in peace, would have thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed your commentary!!! I used to so enjoy sharing stuff like this with him. Sadly, he passed away a year ago… And I don’t think I found your blog until fairly recently…
“Gibson again brought up that the lowering of the tax raised revenues…”
What a silly concept. Do you guys have some alternate universe by which to test you’re inane economic “theories?” What if taxes were raised and the revenues went up even more? Who knows? There’s no way to go back in time to find out. This isn’t economics – it’s not even math – or a even a theory. It’s just plain inane, pointless, silly, almost child-like logic. That Gibson would be so sleazy as to even bring it up – in a prresidential primary debate no less – shows just how UNLIBERAL the media really is. Liberals are too educated to fall for that sort of voo doo, snake oil, pseudo-economics!
JMJ
How Eric or anyone else can put themselves through a couple of more hours of listening to often stupid questions accompanied by too often ignorant answers is beyond me at this point…
I will say this…while I would support Senator McCain even if I were still a Democrat…I do agree with the Dems in spirit on the tax issue…Those making $250,000+ a year ought to be paying the same percentage in taxes they were during the Clinton years…
Liberals are too educated to even acknowledge the facts when they are right in front of them Jersey.
Its no more silly than the tax breaks that have givin people more money to spend in the market consequently boosting spending volume and in return bringing in even more tax revenues.
JMJ;
“Liberals are too educated to fall for that sort of voo doo,”
(more elitest snobbery)
Yea right.
Thats why they buy into crap like global warming and announced predetermined withdrawls and green collar jobs.
Micky, you missed my point.
JMJ
I would most likely feel different under sunnier economic times…but in the year 2008 with all the challenges we face, I see no tangible reason for those making $250,000 + a year to be paying less when the nation demands more from them…
$250,000 is a lot of dough to make in one year…it ain’t chopped liver…
The rising costs on food, gas etc…cannot possibly affect them on the level these costs burden the middle class and others…
JMJ;
““Gibson again brought up that the lowering of the tax raised revenues…”
What a silly concept. Do you guys have some alternate universe by which to test you’re inane economic “theories?”
I did not miss your point at all.
You called the lowering of taxes a silly concept. Unless you’re speaking in some communist code iIm damn sure I got your meaning.
Its not a theory. Its not being tested. Its a reality ( remeber that word?) It means it actually happened and there is proof that it worked and works.
And I most certainly did not miss your snotty claim that liberals are too educated.
Maybe so, but they’re not smart.
The minute you think you’re smarter than anyone else just because you are educated in some hall of lib doctrinization, you’re automatically stupid
“You called the lowering of taxes a silly concept.”
No Micky, once again, you missed my point.
JMJ
Would you care to elaborate ?
I didnt see any other point in your comment other than what was really vague attacks at what ?
Charlie?
The media being UNLIBERAL?
The only part of your comment that was worth discussing was the taxes.
You yourself said that everything else was useless rhetoric.
Go back in time ?
Come on man , spit it out, whats your point ?
Lowering taxes does not always guarentee rising revenues from those taxes higher than if those taxes were the same or raised.
JMJ
It’s the Liberal Liars Club agaist the Repubican Counterfeiter. But, I’d rather vote for McCain of which I agree half the time, than the unthinkable alternative of Hillary or Obama which I agree with none of the time.
Unfortunatley I was right on in my first response to your claim and seems to look like you missed it.
You could say it does not “always” guarantee rising revenues. but in the instance which Charlie was refering to it did and has more than once.
So, with that in mind it is definatley not what you would call “voodoo” or “silly”economics since it has worked plenty of times, most noticablly right after 911.
But of course your lib thinking dictates that the best solution is to always bend over anyone who makes a dime more than you for 50% of their gross
No, Micky. Revenues went up on capital gains because of the speculation bubble.
Voo Doo economics are wrong, erroneous, and let’s just say it – intentionally misleading.
JMJ
Funny, in a way, by Voo Doo economics very own standards the tax cut on capital gains help fund the bubble that is bursting now – and just in time for election season!
It’s absolutely mind-bogglingly amazing that the Dems could actually lose this election – and of their own doing! It just goes to show, political partisanship is the practice of fools and thieves. We really don’t have much of a choice this year. Just three fools and a bunch of thieves. On the brighter side, I am glad for anyone who replaces our current resident. He is the worst president, in my humble opinion, of our time.
JMJ
I doubt that Charlie gibson would make such a statement in connection with the question of capitol gains if he didnt know what he was talking about otherwise Hillary or Obama would of been preety quick to argue with him. I myself have read reports that back up what Gibson said.
Here Jersey, this a portion of the transcript.
GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
…GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
…GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
Yes, capital gains tax cuts invariably result in a revenue increase the next year, because investors aren’t idiots: If they see a cut coming, they’re likely to make adjustments to capital gains generating transactions which result in our revenue gains.
Revenues have gone up.
That was Charlies point so I dont see what your bitching about when hes making a factual statement that can be backed up in any financial reports.
First you say revenues do not always go up and now you say its because of speculation.
Whatever, they went up as a result of the cut. And any idiot can come to the conclusion that it gives people more money to spend elsewhere.
Its not mind boggling at all. The congress the Dems put on the hill and then these two clowns they’re trying to get into the white house.
You could almost see it coming
Micky, you are arguing against yourself. If the capital gains cuts caused the burst than it would stand to reason that the rate cut was too much. Capital gains, if untaxed and unregulated, become the economic Wild West, a boom and bust economy with no rhyme or reason.
I fail to see how you conservatives can argue around this.
JMJ
Its simply better when people have control of their own money.
How can you argue against that ?
Unless your a socialistic commie control freak.
” We the people” make the economy and its ups and downs by demand and supply. And the economy has always done that according to the will of the people and the market.
Any freaking idiot knows that when the State/Fed gets ahold of your money its ability to produce takes a serious nose dive.
I am not arguing against myself ! You wish !
I was being fair is saying;
“You could say it does not “always” guarantee rising revenues. but in the instance which Charlie was refering to it did and has more than once.”
But in no way was I suggesting that government regulation would be better.
So quit trying to bend things, you forget who you’re talking to.
It has little to do with balncing the budget.
Any fool who knows anything about liberal economics knows that you guys cant wait to get your greedy little hands on money that doesnt belong to you so you can spend it the way you see fit for us poor uneducated folk who dont know whats good for us.
Micky, if you want to argue whether or not there should be taxes, I’ll stay out of that. If you assume that taxes are a necessary part of modern life, then we should take the next step to how to raise and spend those taxes. This is what this argument is about.
And if you think “liberals” in America today are the “greedy” and “eilte” then I would suggest moving back to the mainland for a while. Real life here in the states ain’t much like Hawai’i.
JMJ
BS Jersey.
We dont need anymore taxation. We need responsable spending on the part of the government.
Right now we need our money , DUH? Its hard enough with food costs going up ontop of everything else.
Brilliant, simply brilliant. Everyone is having a hard enough time as it is and you morons want to take what little we have left, go f*** yourselves.
Really , use your head. Do think its a winning strategy to tell Americans as part of a campaign strategy that yoiu’re gonna tax them some more ?
As far as Hawaii goes. That statement was just another example of liberal elite ignorance.
If anyone has more right or reason to bitch than anyone else its us folks here. On top of the majority Dems here and everything else we have to pay shipping for every damn thing we get.
Instead, why dont you move here and then see if you want to be so casual about the government squeezing you some more.
What do you know about Hawaii other than Magnum PI and Hawaii Five O ?
Sheeze we had ATMs before anyone else. We have anything and everything you have on the mainland its just on a different scale. Including crooked liberals.
And as much as you would like to think I’m some lost island boy i’ll have you know I’ve spent a total of 25 years on the mainland, both coasts.
And no, I do not want to argue whether there should be taxes, go ahead try to change it around, you think you would know by now that doesnt work with me.
I wanted to drive my point home that Charlie Gibson was right and you were not.
And I believe I succeeded in squishing your assinine claim that the cut in capital gains tax was voodoo economics.
“And I believe I succeeded in squishing your assinine claim that the cut in capital gains tax was voodoo economics.”
Micky, you’re just not following my argument. I never said anything like “the cut in capital gains tax was voodoo economics.” That’s an extremely simplistic take. I said that the cut in the capital gains tax is not provably the reason the revenues went up – and even if it was the reason, we now see the terrible consequences of that cut, together with the current state of the regulations and laws related to the sectors from which these gains are accrued. I just don’t think you’re grasping what I’m saying here, Micky.
Voo Doo economics are for fools and thieves. Either you’re gullible enough to believe such nonsense, or you’re profiting from it. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.
JMJ
As a matter of fact you called it “voodoo” economics twice;
JMJ;
“Funny, in a way, by Voo Doo economics very own standards the tax cut on capital gains help fund the bubble that is bursting now ”
“Liberals are too educated to fall for that sort of voo doo, snake oil, pseudo-economics!”
The real simplistic take here is the one the liberals put out. And that simplicity is to just bend us over instead of crunching numbers, cutting spending in other areas to afford all the stuff they promise.
Charlies question was a “gotcha” question and it was based on the fact that you need revenues to pay for all this stuff but yet you want to raise the gains tax when the fact and proof of the matter shows that whenever the gains tax has been raised, revenues dropped.
So if you are offering health care and whatever else your economic rationale doesnt support your plans.
The tax cut is provable by any standard that it raised revenues. Especially history, as Charlie Gibson mentioned.
When you raise the tax, revenues go down. Everytime its been dropped, revenues went up.
This frees up more cash for investors perform other investments and endeavors. It infuses more money into the system.
As far as the bubble goes, you yourself admit that the capital gains cut created a bubble which is basically the growth it was intended to create. How or why that bubble popped is another matter that has nothing to do with the fact that if the libs need money to pay for all the stuff thay want to hand out they would be smart to not re enstate the gains tax to higher levels.
Neither candidate addressed the basic point, that cutting the capital gains tax increases investment AND government revenues. The fact is that they cant make their big picture work with the plans they mention.
I’m grasping what you’re saying.
You’re saying ” how do I get out of this?”
There are a lot of opinions on the effects of the gains tax. But one thing is undeniable. They raise revenues when they are dropped.
You cant blame the bubble burst on the cut, thats just stoopid. You can only give credit for the bubbles growth to the cut, not the pop
What was done with the revenues by the fed and the investor is where the blame should lay.
But like I said before. Libs would rather have that money in their hands
Capital gains tax revenue rate increases reflect the markets more than the tax tax rates. Read this:
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html
JMJ
Great Einstien.
Been there, done that.
That link is at the top of the google page. If you look at all the other references under it they to will bolster my position that the tax cut boosted the revenues by way of the market.
You made my point for me if you read the whole article. And if you look at the chart the author provided it shows that after the 97 cut the revenues climbed for 5 years
How long the duration of the revenue spike lasts is all due to the situation at hand during the investment year. And the tax cut is what supporte the market so it could make the reflection. DUH?
Also the author states that they do not “always” boost the revenues:
“”One of the most cherished beliefs of supply-side zealots is that cuts in capital gains tax rates “always ” increase revenue. (sometimes it does, sometimes it dont, get it?)
But in the cases Charlie Gibson mentioned they did.
And I never said they “always” have either.
I also can google info to support my claim that Charlie knew what he was talking about.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kerpen200604110850.asp
Every round of cuts in the cap-gains tax for individuals has been a triumph. In 1978, 1981, 1997, and 2003 the capital-gains rate for individuals was cut and the stock market rallied strongly, driving sizable increases in tax revenues. Cutting the cap-gains tax is the ultimate supply-side win-win. The most recent reduction, in 2003, breathed life back into the stock markets from the moment it was conceived, triggering a remarkable rally that is still underway.
Cap-gains tax revenues jump in response to rate cuts since these reductions boost the after-tax return on capital, making more economic endeavors profitable, while unlocking the longer-term gains that free up capital stocks for more efficient use. Revenue estimators consider the unlocking effect, but they ignore the growth effects — which is why they consistently fail to predict the revenue-increasing effects of rate reductions.
That enough for you?
Charlie mentioned the F A C T and both candidates knew he was right and so they both did a doo doo dance around it.
I’m not stupid, as much as your uppity little self would like to think.
The point is this.
Charlie Gibson asked why Obama or Clinton Would raise the tax and neither of them could answer it with any of the crap you came up with. Because they know the math doesnt add up in light of the fact the tax cut boosted revenues. And they knew he was right. PERIOD !
As much as I dislike both candidates I think they know just a little bit more about this than you, otherwise they would of used your arguement
You don’t understand economics so I’m going to give up now. Easy answers are for children, not adults. You’re ignoring everything except what you want to look at. You’re ignoring the markets, the broader economy, the fact that speculators expecting cuts will wait for them, etc. You’re seeing capital gains in the vacuum of tax rates and nothing else. It’s like a mechanic who only looks at the struts and ignores all the other parts of the car. So I’m done. You want to believe simplistic, conflicted, easy answers in a vacuum, then fine. I can’t relate to that sort of pseudo-logic.
JMJ
Oh ! I forgot the PDF that supports the times that Gibson was talking about also.
It clearly puts it into view that capital gains tax cuts have incresed revenues, but not on all occassions.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/96-769.pdf
Revenue Effects
Over the past several years, a debate has ensued regarding the revenue cost of cutting
capital gains taxes (see CRS Report 97-559, The Revenue Cost of Cutting Capital Gains
Tax Rates, for further discussion). For example, when the President proposed a 30%
exclusion in 1990, Treasury estimates showed a $12 billion gain in revenue over the first
five years, while the Joint Committee on Taxation found a revenue loss of approximately
equal size.
Although the estimates seemed quite different, they both incorporated significant
expected increases in the amount of gains realized as a result of the tax cut. For example,
the Treasury would have estimated a revenue loss of $80 billion over five years with no
behavioral response, and the Joint Tax Committee a loss of $100 billion. (The gap
between these static estimates arose from differences in projections of expected capital
gains, a volatile series that is quite difficult to estimate.)
Actually , you cant win, so you just want to confuse the issue as much as possible by pointing to and bringing up a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything.
I already mentioned investors exercising timing in light of tax cuts. Learn to read and then you can talk economics to me.
I said earlier;
“Yes, capital gains tax cuts invariably result in a revenue increase the next year, because investors aren’t idiots: If they see a cut coming, they’re likely to make adjustments to capital gains generating transactions which result in our revenue gains.”
So spare me your attitude that I dont know about things when I clearly mention them.
If you really want to get into ot the base of my arguement rests on our garauntee to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We learned the importance of these three things the hard way. twice.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo86.html
“The first British settlers of America arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, in May of 1607. There, in the Virginia Tidewater region, they found incredibly fertile soil and a cornucopia of seafood, wild game, and fruits of all kind. But within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 Jamestown settlers were dead, most having succumbed to famine. Two years later, the Virginia Company sent 500 more settlers, and within six months 440 had died of starvation or disease. This was known as “the starving time” (See Warren Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606–1689).
In his excellent book, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, Tom Bethell cites an eyewitness to the starving time who diagnosed the cause, in old English, as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie, as is generally supposed.” The reason for this “want” of “industrie,” as Philip A. Bruce noted in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (p. 212), was that “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil. . . . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” That is, there were no well established property rights; the first British settlers practiced agricultural socialism and, like socialism everywhere, it was an unmitigated disaster.
The problem was that all of the men were indentured servants who had no significant financial stake in the fruits of their own labor. For seven years, all that they produced was to go into a common pool to be used, supposedly, to support the colony and to generate profits for the Virginia Company. Working harder or longer provided them with no rewards, so they shirked – and starved. ”
Read the rest.
(cont…)
There is the only proof you need to know that when the government takes our money we are always worse off.
And that when our efforts are freed up to spread as we see fit in the market it flourishes.