Pick Your President
January 21st, 2008 by jacob
There are 17 candidates out there. Of that group we have two viable Democrats and four Republicans. Below is a link from ABC that asks some loaded questions and tells you who’s views match up with your own. According to ABC at least.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346
At this point we as conservatives must realize our choices will be the Democrat dressed up as a Republican or the Socialist dressed up as a Democrat. The question will be is it smarter in the long run to stay home for a cycle, or, do we need to go out an vote against someone. It has been years since I voted for someone.
This entry was posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
This is a no brainer. Vote
Hold your nose and vote.
If Billary Clinton gets elected she will have two shots maybe more at appolinting judges to the Supreme court not to mention the hundreds of lower court appointments.
If the Rupblican candidate ends up being Elmer Fudd vote for Fudd !!
January 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
G Stone, that is the most ridiculous, irresponsible statement you could have posted.
Even though many ultra conservatives hate to acknowledge this, the Clinton years were MUCH better than the GW (aka Elmer Fudd) years.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Mark:
Vote for Clinton if you wish.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I just might, this counrty needs to get back on-track.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
All libs,
The world according to a Democrat …
—
In the beginning was the Clinton
All that was came by the Clinton
It was through him that all good things were made
—
We get it. As far as you are concerned it was all darkness before the coming of Bill and it has been all darkness since Bill.
Now we have a bubble, just like during the time of Bill.
The chief difference is Bill was after the cold war and before 9/11, different world.
Now go grow up, because voting for Fudd is better then voting for sHrillery
January 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Jacob, under President Clinton’s leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his leadership. Bush was living with the result of that for the last 6/7 years.. now we are seeing the downturn from Bush’s mismanagement of the economy.
We were respected all over the world, now we are hated and not trusted by most countries that used to be our allies.
Under President Clinton the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years! Now the dollar is worth sh*t overseas and we are paying the price.
Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, we even had a surplus when he left office. Under Bush we have the largest deficit in history, with no plan to get out of it.
Yeah, we can see what electing an “Elmer Fudd” can do vs. voting for a true leader and visionary.
Try not to be so, so blinded by your party and open your eyes.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Mark,
Under Clinton we had a recession at the end of his 8 years which Bush reversed after the additional negative economic impact of 9/11. Not bad if you ask me.
Under Clinton we also had the telecom boom, and BUST (oops)!
We were so well repsected under Clinton internationally, that Sadam Hussein playerd him like a fiddle, we and our troops were completely embarassed by his failures of leadership in Somalia, and we bombed a Chinese embassy, not to mention a milk factory in order to take the attention away from his “internal affairs”.
Clinton payed for deficit reduction by gutting our military which required Bush to fix. He only achieved a feigned surplus (since it was only a surplus by robbing the social security coffers) when the Republican Congress forced him to give up on his and Hillary’s health care debacle which would have indebted us for generations!
This all aside from his completely humiliating actions in the Oval Office with Monica and the subsequent illegal and unethical attempts to shut her up by buying her off with a job, and his multiple examples of horrible treatment of women (he was even accused of rape).
I for one would have preferred Elmer Fudd.
Try not to be so blinded by your Party and open your eyes.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
can’t believe it when I hear that Republicans are angry because Clinton fixed the economy. How can Republicans be angry at a good economy regardless of who did it?
How can Republicans be angry because Clinton balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years and cut the deficit to zero?
How can Republicans be angry because Clinton has cut the size of government?
These are things that Republicans are for, and if a Democrat did it, then in my view that Democrat is a good Republican!
January 21st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Mark,
Clinton ‘fixed’ the economy? The stock market took off in 94, do ya remember what happened in 94?
the federal budget under Clinton during his last three years grew at 8% a year. that is not sustainable.
under Clinton we had 5.5% unemployment and this was hailed as an acheivement, under Bush it went below that, are you not impressed? of course not, you will never give a Republican credit for anything
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 am
There is no denying some good things occurred with a Democrat president and Republican legislature. But before falling over ourselves to praise Clinton’s competence, let’s not forget Enron’s wacky escapades throughout the 1990s. I’m sure a bunch of people who lost their savings don’t recall the Clinton years with such fondness.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
It’s pretty hilarious that you would try to blame Enron on Clinton. Enron helped get George Bush elected Governor of Texas and the company and its executives were among the largest contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Cheney met secretly with Enron executives who helped write Cheney’s energy legislation. James Baker was their top lawyer. As governor Bush appointed Patrick Wood as Texas Utility Commission chairman on Enron CEO Ken Lay’s recommendation. Republican Texas congressman Phill Gramm pushed through California’s energy commodity trading deregulation, which quadrupled Enron’s profits. Attorney General John Ashcroft had to recuse himself from the probe of Enron because he had received so many campaign contributions from the company. It takes an enormous amount of chutzpa to blame Clinton for Enron.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Mark:
Please check your facts.
Clintion was brought to the table kicking and screaming on any legislation of significance by a Republican congress.
For those of us who actually read the constitution The Clinton years were terrible. I speak specifically about the Brady bill. Clinton was a gun grabber, period.
He was taken to the cleaners by the Koreans and had his head up his ass when it came to defending America. The Clintions believed the U.S. Military was a worldwide pizza delivery service. The roots of our war against Islamo Facists were allowed to grow to such an extent under Clintons leadership we will be dealing with it for years to come.
And last but not least he was a lying scum bag.
He lied to America, he committed purjury. He is a pathological liar. He lies when he does not have too. He had an affair with a womem not much older than his own daughter. That makes him a scum bag too many and at a minimim a letch too others.
I for one do not want to return to the days of President Pantload.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
A Republican is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, small government, keeping the government out of people’s private business, traditional family values, and a sense of basic morality.
The government and the Republican Party are here to serve the people, not the other way around.
The Republican Party is here to serve us, not for us to serve them. We are not here to be loyal to the party, but for the party to be loyal to us.
It’s not just about talking the talk, but you have to walk the walk. And when you look at President Clinton’s Record, you’ll see a record that would make any Republican proud.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Mark,
“A Republican is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, small government, keeping the government out of people’s private business,”
Correct!!!! That is why they lost their majority. They came to Washington and instead of closing down the trough, they dug right in.
“traditional family values, and a sense of basic morality”
correct again. they started looking like Democrats in this regard as well.
“It’s not just about talking the talk, but you have to walk the walk. And when you look at President Clinton’s Record, you’ll see a record that would make any Republican proud.”
OH MARY!! If you could learn to look at the Democrat with the same eye you use for the Republican you’d learn something. What nonesense. Under Clinton the GDP, but the guv’mint grew faster. It was 18% og GDP at the start of his presidency and 21+% at the end. That is a bad trend.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
I can’t believe it when I hear that Republicans are angry because Clinton fixed the economy.
How can Republicans be angry at a good economy regardless of who did it?
How can Republicans be angry because Clinton balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years and cut the deficit to zero?
How can Republicans be angry because Clinton has cut the size of government?
These are things that Republicans are for, and if a Democrat did it, then in my view that Democrat is a good Republican!
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Mark,
An outstanding comment! You make the conservatives proud to be conservatives. Did I say Republican? No; because the Republican party is in a failure-self destruct mode.
In regards to Billy and your comment above….who is being served and to what end when you disrupt an airport and air travel so that you can sit on the tarmac and get your hair cut? Fiscal responsibility? Keeping government out of the people’s private business? Do you see any hint of abuse of power, squandering taxpayer dollars or self service in that example?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Can you say travelgate?
Can you say Ruby Ridge?
Can you say Lincoln bedroom?
Can you … the list goes on and on.
We currently have a guy who has turned out to be a big guv’mint proamnesty elitist in the Whitehouse. I say this as a conservative and as someone far more inclined to vote red than blue.
Its a shame the mind numbed dorks on the other side of the divide can’t take the blinders off long enough to see that St. Clinton of AK was no walk in the park.
Think about it. Bush I got elected basically because the country WANTED four more years of Reagan. Gore lost for a host of reason, but a contributing fact was because the country was tired of the Clintons. Which is why Billy was not asked to campaign for Gore.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
The Clinton administration presided over the loosey-goosey corporate governance environment which allowed Enron to get away with such egregious violations of the public trust. It’s pretty hilarious that you would even try to deny this - albeit understandable since it is such a huge black eye on that administration.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
BTW has ANYONE bothered to take the quiz at
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346
??
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Now suddenly you’re against the pro-business government policies? Do conservatives actually believe in anything besides hating people who aren’t on their team?
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Do conservatives actually believe in anything besides hating people who aren’t on their team?”
Showing you the error in your way of thinking, zimzo.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Broken record time, those that love Bill Clinton will never, EVER, under any circumstance admit the man did anything wrong. They aren’t intellectually honest and discussing Clinton’s 8 years with them is like attending Woodstock, groovy, man, just wow, he is cool!
Ask any conservative on this forum if they have a problem with GWB and you will get a list as long as your arm. Was he better than the alternatives? You bet your bippy. Is he perfect and deserving of defending every decision he made? Hell no.
I think I will take the quiz now.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
jacob
I bit and got bit. You are a sick man. My top 3 from 3rd to 1st was Paul, Rom and Huck. I think I will now wretch-up my breakfast!
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Cathymac,
you hit it right on the head.
ACT,
thats OK, I got Rom, Rudy and Huck. Sepuchi is now required. I need a second to ensure I do not further disgrace myself.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
1. Romney
2. Paul
3. Thompson
You can shape that quiz so easily, it is pretty transparent. I think the last question put me over the edge for Romney, voted you have to have run a business.
If you voted “scrap” healthcare or tax system you got a bump for Paul. As well as leaving Iraq now - which I did not choose.
Pretty interesting though.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I got Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani.
Thompson I disregard for his lack of experience.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Thompson just dropped out anyway.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/thompson_continues_to_mull_fut.html
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
My results:
1. Thompson- hey I want a do over my guy quit !
2. Romney- the question- does your candidate for president have to have really good hair moved Mitt to the #2 slot for me.
3. Huckster- At least it was not Mclame
My wife and I did this very thing last night and the results for me where the exact same. I am so glad I got verification from ABC news on my selections.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Zimzo took the quiz and got the following results:
1. Karl Marx- hey he gets a do over Marx is Dead
1a Fidel Castro- hey he gets a provisional pick Castro is almost dead and may not be alive in January of 2009.
1b Hugo Chavez
2. Steven Cobert
3. Jerry Garcia- hey he gets a do over Garcia is dead.
3a. Michael Moore- hey he gets a do over in that Michael Moore will not even be allowed into the white house if he is elected due to the fact that he is a disgusting fat wad of crap.
3b. Jonathan & David Winetraub- A faaabulous selection zimzo, the first presidential pair serving as both President and Decorator in Chief.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
1. Romney
2. Tancredo
3. Guiliani
I didn’t like any of the choices for most of the questions so I’m not putting a whole lot of stock in it (though Romney is currently my candidate of choice).
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Linda, a little something on your flip flopper Mitt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&feature=related
Not my words, his. He will do ANYTHING to become president; it’s too bad he got to you.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 am
Mark - Is Romney the only candidate who will do ANYTHING to become president. - BTW, the result of my “test” were Obama, Clinton, Huckabee (???)
It’s too bad that our presidential elections have become so onerous and expensive that truly great people don’t want to be in the running.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 am
Thanks for the link, Mark. Based on that video, I’m pretty sure if I had taken the Match Test in 1994, Romney would have been my #1 pick at that time as well. A lot has changed in our society in 14 years. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing that someone’s stances might have changed along with that.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Mark,
LOL! Thank you, that was truly funny. Romney will do anything to get elected, by that implication the others won’t?
Let’s see:
McLame (the media darling) flipped his position on the border in the past three months. Has decided to now court the very conservatives he has derided when he is in his ‘Capt Maverick’ costume.
sHrillery suddenly apes a southern accent when talking in a black church. Does it badly too. (Oh rex, the wawah, Iy we-ill nevah go hongree agayan)
sHmuckabee has ‘found religion’ and now wants to deport the immigrants. (even Mclame wont go that far)
Obama who wanted to ‘run a camapign of hope’ decided it was necessary to announce in his debate with H. Rotten Clinton that she worked on the board at Walmart.
Did I mention that sHrillary is a Yankee fan?
But its Romney you decide to notice. Please.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Lovisa,
So you third choice is Huckabee?!? Either that speaks well for you (all things being relative) or poorly for him. I new the huckster was a democrat. Thanks for the confirmation.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 am
jacob - I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee for ANYthing, and I believe he’ll soon drop out. As for people changing their positions, well, I feel it’s something wrong if a person sticks to what he once believed in for ever and ever. Look at yourselves; what you thought was a great idea when you were 25 might look crazy at 60 and above. What’s nutty is for folks to say, for example, that they have been hunters for a long time, when they’ve just recently joined the NRA. (Kerry and, I believe Romney).
There’s really nobody in the running that grabs people’s enthusiasm. No matter what you think of John Kennedy, at least he got the nation exited. “Ask not what your nation can do for you …” was truly a call that was answered to a high degree.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Lovisa,
“As for people changing their positions, well, I feel it’s something wrong if a person sticks to what he once believed in for ever and ever.”
I agree, I was point out this fallacy to Mark’s January 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm comment. He was using the now exhausted ‘flip-flopper’ term and applying it to Romney.
For the record I used to think GWB was a good president. I have changed my mind. I have also been criticized by other for this, and frankly don’t care a wit. Changing you mind about something is fine, talking out of both sides of your mouth is another matter. Lieing is yet another.
The originator of the flip-flop Kerry said “voted for the war before I voted against it”, that is talking out of both sides of your mouth. How he did it w/o breaking his teeth I will never know.
The comments I sighted above were as much changing ones stance as lieing through ones teeth.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
NoVisa,
You did confirm something about Huckleberry-he is a Dem (or you just have some conservative issues about you).
As far as “well, I feel it’s something wrong if a person sticks to what he once believed in for ever and ever.” I will have to disagree with you. It seems that society has been changing (mostly not for the better) and they expect everyone to follow the trend. There have been too many changes for changes’ sake which has caused us to loose our identity as a nation. What worked well before is now long gone and the changes that didn’t work are being changed again until something gets hit on (that’s called stumbling in the dark).
I think that if more people stuck to their guns about things that our society would be in much better shape and have no NEED for change. After all, when things aren’t broke, why are we always trying to fix them?
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
gstone,
Nice touch! I especially like the one about the WHINEtraubs! Good comments are good to come by.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
jacob,
Thompson has dropped out. The stock market is in the toilet. Osama-bama is the front runner for pres. zimzo won’t go away. I just can’t take it anymore. This is good-bye. I’m jumping out the ground floor window now!
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
ACT,
If you jump out THAT window all you’ll accomplish is putting grass stains on your jeans.
As for the stock market this long coming. The interest rates on money have been far too low for too long. Like a fever we need this to purge the poison from the system. It will be lousy, I have money in the market. But, the longer we wait the worse it will get.
I get worried when chuckey schumer is interested in a bipartizan effort. I would hold onto my wallet and freedoms.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:09 am
“A Republican is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, small government, keeping the government out of people’s private business, traditional family values, and a sense of basic morality.”
Someone needs to remind them of this, many have forgotten..
On another topic, yes, I remember all of Clinton’s accomplishments, the .com fiasco and the Clinton/Gore recession. I would have retired this year at 55 if not for that. I also recall Vince Foster’s “suicide”, and the use of a U.S armored unit against U.S citizens. Wesley Clarke and Janet Reno should have been brought up on charges for violation of Posse Comitatus for that mess. I imagine someone will chime in and tell us about how Clinton saved the world from a china syndrome type of meltdown caused by the Y2K computer bug. Yet another boondoggle, much like we are seeing now with Gore’s self-enriching Global Warming crusade.
Gingrich was the man behind most of what Clinton is being credited with accomplishing.
My picks in the quiz :
Romney
Giuliani
The Huckster
January 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
For all to remember not to vote for Hillary:
The Clintons
Remember this as Hillary runs for President
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU GO TO THE POLLS
Worse than you thought & worth remembering and this came from a Democrat. (not me)
Dear Mr. Ex President Clinton,
I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, “Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore.” So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my “Thank you” for what you have done, specifically:
1. Thank you for introducing us to Gennifer
Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?
2. Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was alittle older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.
3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of “it” is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one does NOT have sex.
4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of
impeachment to a new generation and monstrating
that the ridiculous plot of the movie “Wag the Dog” could be plausible after all.
5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.
6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.
7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment’s from the Whitewater “mess” and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other “Clinton” scandals.
8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, “gutting” much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on “vacations” carefully disguised as necessary trips.
9 Thank you, also, for “finding” millions of
dollars (I really didn’t need it in the first place, and I can’t think of a more deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.
10. Now that you’ve lef t the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society.(Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)
11. Thanks also for removing the White House
silverware. I’m sure that Laura Bush didn’t like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you’ve received from your “friends.”
12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China, silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1.
The weight savings means burning less
fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel.
Thank you!
13. Please ensure that Hillary enjoys
the $8 million dollar advance for her “tell-all” book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn’t pay!
14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called “political prisoners”. However,the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands.. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of Stat e, Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be
released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and
eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn’t Americans know the real truth?
What a guy!!
If you agree that the American public must be made aware of these facts, pass this on. God bless America and THANK YOU (once again) for spending my taxes so wisely and frugally.
SINCERELY,
A US Citizen
PS. Please pass along a special thank you to Al Gore for “inventing” the Internet, without which I would not be able to send this wonderful, factual e-mail.
AND THE REST OF THE STORY Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the “Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,” which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)
If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his
Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary
outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?
WE DO!
It’s common knowledge that in order for her to
establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.
Here is where it becomes interesting. Their
mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.
The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton’s salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff — and, this is all perfectly legal!
When she runs for President, will you vote for her? How many people can YOU send this to ?
WAKE UP AMERICA………………
January 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Let us not forget that it was “BJ” Clinton who showed us how many U.S. Senators do not know their job under the Constitution. How many voted “not guilty” saying, “It does not rise to the level of Impeachment.”
Of course, the House already decided that BJ’s crime DID rise to that level, and that the Senate’s job is to assess guilt or innocence. The Democrat Senators do not know that.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am
NOT McCAIN:
Subject: WHY THE CUT IN U.S. SENIOR BENEFITS
Will this federal sponsored “artesian well” spewing its milk and honey be free flowing forever? DH
WHY THE CUT IN U.S. SENIOR BENEFITS?
I don’t know about you, but this should make EVERYONE sick…..
’snopes’ is provided for doubters:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp
Now……………..
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL’s for verification of the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal’s each year.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegals
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegals. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal’s, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal’s.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal’s.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal’s for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegals
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal’s in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of citizens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal’s that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegals from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
12. The National Policy Institute ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation
13. In 2006 illegal’s sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States’.
http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals
The total cost is a whooping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message, but on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, then forward it.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Took the poll and got
1 Romney
2 Hunter
3 Giulianni
January 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
1. Romney
2. Thompson
3. Paul
I have to say with Thompson’s drop-out I am less than enthusiastic about anyone. While I would agree with Paul on alot of his stated positions on domestic policy, his position on the war far outweighs that and I could never vote for him because of it.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I would like to recommend that all of you go into each web site for all persons who are running for office.
You will be able to print out and read each runners up view on what they feel
Is best for our nation. Keep in mind to also research how they voted on bills and earmarks, what bills they had passed, example; McCain-Fiengold, passing the Bill that limits free speech on talk radio. (1st amendment right)
In my research I find that McCain, Romney, Huckabee are saying what you want to hear.
They have in the past been against gun ownership. Now they are on the band wagon for 2nd amendment rights. My question is will they change their minds again once in office.
This is not just about gun ownership, that’s an example but how they say one thing then do another.
I hope everyone in Loudoun County gets out to vote, but the track record is so poor that
I’m afraid that zero attempt will be made once again.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
When did “people” become “persons”?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Took the poll and got:
1. Kucinich
2. Biden
3. Obama
Guess I know who I’m voting for!
Jack, “people” never became “persons”. “People” is used when referring to more than one person as a group. “Persons” is used when referring to more than one person individually.
“Persons” is correct in #48.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
All,
It looks like I will be voting for Fudd.
McCain won FL.
We are sooooooooooo beat.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Not necessarily, if Bloomberg runs.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I’ll take McLame over Bloomy
January 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Come to think of it Obama 08 has a good ring. A far left wing socialist who is basically an empty suit mouthing platitudes wandering around the Whitehouse, might be just the thing to remind this party what is this whole thing all about.
I am having serious McLame issues.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:34 am
I mean Bloomy splitting he Dem vote and giving the GOP (or Lou Dobbs?) a chance. Otherwise, I agree that Obama beats McCain because plenty of Republicans won’t vote for McCain and this will be a Democratic year. Hillary has enough negatives to lose even in a Democratic year - but better to have Bloomberg in the race.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:08 am
go bloomy!
January 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
When all is lost and your conscience won’t allow you to do something stupid there is still an escape. They put “write in” on the ballots! I need to sleep at night, ya know.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
dude, labeling Obama as “a far left wing socialist” is just dumb. Anywhere else in the world he’d be a center-right candidate. I know you know or care a hoot about the rest of the world, but it can help put things in context, which is something you seem to be having trouble with.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Stay Puft, This country needs to compare ourselves to other countries on a political spectrum like Hillary needs a lesson in bitchery.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
while your comment is quaint, it misses the point; there’s nothing to back up the claim that Obama is a far left wing socialist. It is, as the French would say, stupide.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
You used French in defense of Obama, that is very revealing.
And speaking of Socialism, why don’t you explain why Obama is NOT a Socialist, since we are too dense to understand.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
there’s truth in at least one of your statements. I’d explain, but I don’t have time and it wouldn’t accomplish anything since G-d has already hardened your heart against the man.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Oh great fluffy one,
you still cannot spell.
“dude, labeling Obama as “a far left wing socialist” is just dumb. Anywhere else in the world he’d be a center-right candidate.”
We are getting into a discussion on definitions here. Shakey ground. Let be carful to stear clear of chasing our tails.
I look at Obama in a historical context. From such a vantage point he is clearly socialistic. The guy even is Keynsian in his economic beliefs w.r.t. the roll of guv’mint which is moving in the direction of a planned economy. He is for public control of large segments of the economy (such as health care), this is not a sustainable position as we are seeing in Europe, and elsewhere.
You are looking at hopw Obama compares to the Christian Democrats in Germany? In Germany we have Socialists who like Americans and those Socialists who don’t like Americans. It is a spectrum that is rather narrow.
You are correct, perspective is everything. My perspective uses time as an active dimension. Your’s apparantly does not.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Do you ever get tired of applying silly silly labels to people, Jacob. I guess it’s a lot easier than thinking.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“He is for public control of large segments of the economy (such as health care)”
in the words of John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Group, “Wrong!”
in fact, his proposal wrt HC is the most mild of the three (now 2). Go look at his proposal on his website. Maybe it’s changed since the last time I was there, but he basically wants to encourage people to buy insurance, esp. for their kids. This would probably be done through some new tax breaks, which you ought to appreciate. If that’s what you call a government takeover of the health sector, you’re nuts
“We are getting into a discussion about definitions…”
again, Wrong! (no real surprise!) we don’t have to agree on the precise details, but claiming that Obama is a far-left socialist is off by several orders of magnitude.
While you’re rooting around in the past, look up FDR, then come back to the future and we can talk about Obama’s left wing tendencies in a historical context.
and just fyi, there is no one in the US who wants to move to a planned economy. but I’ll keep your comment in mind for the next time someone tries to say “liberals are paranoid and conservatives aren’t!”
peace
January 31st, 2008 at 9:24 am
PAK-man,
“in fact, his proposal wrt HC is the most mild of the three (now 2). Go look at his proposal on his website.”
I did read it. He wants to lower the premiums and have government subsidies of premiums. Given the historical response of the market to government subsidization of any service or product the result is invariably escalation of the price of the commodity. How is Obama’s plan going to achieve this paradoxical result? Government regulation perhaps?
“Maybe it’s changed since the last time I was there, but he basically wants to encourage people to buy insurance, esp. for their kids.”
I do not think it has changed. It sounds reasonable, but it is trying to be all things to everyone. The devil is in the details.
“This would probably be done through some new tax breaks, which you ought to appreciate.”
Tax breaks, IF coupled with a market based approach _may_ work. What we are dealing with is an industry that has experienced government and corporate largess for 60+ years (starting in WWII). I would think the only way to tame the monster is to cut the apron strings. This will lead to pain for many in the short term. We are not a nation that has a high pain tolerance threshold.
“If that’s what you call a government takeover of the health sector, you’re nuts”
If the government winds up dictating (capping) the size of premium payments, (a logical outcome) then it is a takeover. To deny this is nuts.
“again, Wrong! (no real surprise!) we don’t have to agree on the precise details, but claiming that Obama is a far-left socialist is off by several orders of magnitude.”
For someone who can’t spell ‘knowledge’ you sure like to shout ‘wrong’. Your argument here boils down to ‘because I said so.’ Which is not crazy, just pitiful. To me you are engaging in some thought speak. Claiming that a left wing liberal democrat who just got Swimmer Kennedy’s endorsement is not left of center but actually right is remarkable.
“While you’re rooting around in the past, look up FDR, then come back to the future and we can talk about Obama’s left wing tendencies in a historical context.”
I have, FDR was called a socialist by his foes, and his economic policies deepened and prolonged the recession. It was not until WWII with all the demand for war time goods and services did we come out of depression.
BTW it was FDR’s wage freezes that spawned the need for companies to come up with fringe benefits to sidestep the wage controls. Wage controls are a rather socialist device would you not say. One more thought, one of the fringe benefits was ‘free medical benefits’.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
“Given the historical response of the market to government subsidization of any service or product the result is invariably escalation of the price of the commodity.”
Wrong! Look at agriculture subsidies. Look at oil, we have the cheapest oil in the world. Now there’s a difference between subsidizing consumers and sub. producers. ok. Here’s what I see happening: the gov. puts out an outline for an insurance policy, says to insurance companies, “if you design a policy to cover conditions XYZ, and you cover these particular groups, and you don’t charge a premium above $X, we’ll give you $Y for every person that purchases the policy from you.”
now this is a far cry from, “government takeover” “government takeover” is Castro nationalizing the Texaco refinery. this would be a government program which businesses could participate in if they felt the market incentives for them doing so were strong enough. I don’t imagine all insurers would choose to participate, just as not all doctors participate in medicare or medicaid now.
it’s true that our market driven, employment-based health insurance arrangement was born out of regulations during WWII. Every other western country adapted a much more socialized system.
“because I said so,” that’s right. I’ll also go ahead and say the sky is blue. Do you need me to explain why? Would a ven diagram be helpful in showing the complete lack of overlap between “Obama” and “Far left-wing socialist?”
what have you got to back up your claim? The fact that he would set up a government program to get more people health coverage? ooh, what a radical!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Look at agriculture subsidies.”
Yes, lets look at them. Do these subsidies suppress the price of food? No! Look at Europe, there the price of food is not set by the market. At least our subsities are just as a financial backstop for farmers.
“Look at oil, we have the cheapest oil in the world.”
We have the cheapest oil because we tax the imort the least AND we still produce more than most of the other oil consumers.
Let us look at tuition rates, which are heavily subsidized. They have ourstriped inflation for the past 40 years. Why? Lets look at Health care, which is the most obvious case of subsidy driving price.
“a ven diagram be helpful in showing the complete lack of overlap between “Obama” and “Far left-wing socialist?””
then provide one. ‘I said so’, does not make it so pal. The definition of Socilaist, populist, and leftist is what decides somneones place on the spectrum. So by all means, instead of howling ‘Wrong, wrong wrong’ like some crazed parrot, why don’t you make your case.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
PAK-Man
as for …
“Now there’s a difference between subsidizing consumers and sub. producers. ok”
I will agree, but in the end it is still not a freebie, nor is it economically efficient in either case. The question in either case rest upon whether the transfer of wealth worth it.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“Do these subsidies suppress the price of food? No!”
sure they do. Why do you think high fructose corn syrup is in 99% of everything we eat? every fast food and junk food company would have to raise prices if they had to use natural sweeteners in everything…
“At least our subsities are just as a financial backstop for farmers.” that’s what they were for in the 30s-40s, now it’s just big business as usual. I think the ag. subsidies are an example of subsidies gone wrong. Is the solution to swear off all subsidies always? I don’t think so.
yes tuition is rising. In part because of less money from state governments. At the end of the day, more people then ever before have access to higher ed. thanks to gov. grants and low interest loans.
health: look at a doctor’s fee schedules. Medicare and medicaid pay the lowest amounts, because doctors have the option of participating in the programs at the price the gov. pays or not. Most opt in, many do not. Doctors and hospitals charge more for the same service if the patient has private insurance, and they charge the most to people who are paying out of pocket. That’s because insurers can leverage better prices by represent a lot of people. Essentially, medicaid/medicare are doing the same thing, only with less bargaining and more “take it or leave it”. Individuals can’t do that, so they end up paying the most.
health care costs are rising for a lot of reasons. I know you don’t like government spending for health, but that doesn’t mean it’s the main contributor to rising costs. Look at any european country. There health is totally subsidized, yet they pay SIGNIFICANTLY less. We spend something like $6000 per capita. Germany is the second hiest in the world, and I think they spend around half that. Does the German government subsidize health care in Germany? yes, in conjunction with employers. So what gives? There must be something other than gov. spending driving health costs.
“‘I said so’, does not make it so pal.” duh..
I have been making my case. YOU have not. you’ve said that Obama’s a radical socialist because he wants to nationalize the health sector. Hyperbole? I think so. Turns out he might implement a subsidy and/or tax credit. You said his economic ideas are Keynesian, oh my! Keynes being the guy who said that laissez-faire capitalism isn’t always efficient, and that the government should sometimes act to make market corrections. That ain’t exactly pushing for a proletarian revolution, abolition of private property, planned economy, etc. By your standard, anyone left of extreme right is “far-left socialist.” …I guess you use the terms “far left wing socialist” and “fairly moderate” interchangeably?
give me another example of Obama’s far-left tendencies and I’ll show you how it’s nonsense. Let’s make a ven diagram together
February 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
PAKman,
“sure they do. Why do you think high fructose corn syrup is in 99% of everything we eat? every fast food and junk food company would have to raise prices if they had to use natural sweeteners in everything…”
You are missing the point entirely. Do you think this is for free? You are paying taxes for that subsidy. Do think what you are paying in taxes covers YOUR cost for the ‘free’ corn syrup?
“yes tuition is rising. In part because of less money from state governments. At the end of the day, more people then ever before have access to higher ed. thanks to gov. grants and low interest loans.”
What crap! The rate at which the tuition has gone up has far and away outpaced expenses even in the states where the state money has gone down. Federal education spending has doubled in the past 8 years. The state input started decreasing about 10 to 15 years ago. The tuition rate increases started doubling inflation about 35 years ago. The rise in tuition does not track with state funding. Please then explain the even greater rate or tuition rise in private universities. Harvard currently has an endowment that covers ALL of the schools expenses. The tuition is gravy. Go google this, you will see I am correct. This embarrassment of riches occurs in many of the top private schools. Other private schools are dieing but many of them are doing so from self inflicted wounds.
“health: look at a doctor’s fee schedules. Medicare and medicaid pay the lowest amounts, because doctors have the option of participating in the programs at the price the gov. pays or not. Most opt in, many do not.”
Nothing to argue about above.
“Doctors and hospitals charge more for the same service if the patient has private insurance, and they charge the most to people who are paying out of pocket.”
WRONG!! When I pay out of pocket I pay less, I have asked why and the reason given is the paperwork required to process the insurance claim. I have friends who have pay out of pocket and they get charged less as well.
“health care costs are rising for a lot of reasons. I know you don’t like government spending for health, but that doesn’t mean it’s the main contributor to rising costs.”
Look at the historical trend. The more government has gotten involved the faster the rate of increase in the price.
“Look at any european country. There health is totally subsidized, yet they pay SIGNIFICANTLY less. We spend something like $6000 per capita. Germany is the second hiest in the world, and I think they spend around half that.”
You mean like this?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/germ-s02.shtml
or from another article
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447688
“At the heart of any debate about German health care reform lies the crucial economic questions of whether financing should remain based on insurance and solidarity, whether payroll taxes for national health insurance can be raised ad infinitum, ”
A direct comparison must take into account the differences in the nature of the amount of medical research which is rolled up into the numbers. Patent awards in the US far outstrips all of Europe, let alone Germany. BTW I could not find your 12K/captita number. Granted my search was cursory.
“I have been making my case.”
With respect to Obama being a conservative, absolutely not. You have spoken about everything thing else. As for it being something other than obvious I will humor you.
Obama voting record is the most liberal in the senate.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
he has scored a 95.2% composite liberal score.
according to NARAL he has a 100% score
the same for NOW, the NFU and a few other groups that are many things, conservative is not one of them.
As for groups that are conservative let us see …
- Americans for Tax Reform 0 percent
- National Association of Manufacturers 16 percent
- National Retail Federation 17 percent in 2005-2006.
My pro business he is … NOT
American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent
considering who founded the ACLU, I guess he aint the far to the left. Care to go there?
National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2005.
Doe not la raza translate as ‘the race’, these guy a real mainline, SO NOT.
American Conservative Union 8 percent
The Club for Growth 7 percent
Family Research Council 0
National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy 87 percent
Case made.
Please note: Unlike you I did not employ popeye tautology “he is cuz he is.” duh!!
Are you NOW ready to draw a ven diagram?
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
The reason high-fructose corn syrup is in everything is that the GOVERNMENT HAS SET the minimum price of cane sugar in this country to be several times the price on the world market. The result is that we use corn syrup as a sweetener, and it requires many more calories to get the same sweetness as cane sugar.
When the government is setting prices, is that not a planned economy?
Yes, my experience is that people who are paying out of pocket are charged less. The paperwork costs may be a contributing factor, but I think there is also a sense that it’s OK to overcharge a faceless insurance company, but not OK to overcharge your patients.
Obama also gets an “F” from the NRA.
“One of the primary reasons Obama’s current ACLU rating stands at a mere 50% for 2006-2007 is his vote against a legislative amendment that would have exempted grassroots lobbying efforts from campaign finance reform regulations. The amendment passed the Senate without Obama’s support.” http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/barack_obama.htm
Yup — Obama wants to suppress both our First and Second Amendment rights. Sounds like a liberal to me.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
jacob, you brought up all these other issues, then you say I’m discussing everything but Obama. I’m only responding to what you’re bringing up.
you obviously have more time on your hands to look up Obama’s voting record scores from a bunch of special interest groups. I’ve been unable to find those numbers. Would you mind linking?
Is your assessment of Obama based on which interest groups support him? because this is the first you’ve mentioned it. Until now you’ve argument has been that he wants to nationalize huge parts of the economy and that his economic ideas are Keynesian.
education costs and health care costs are important issues. you’ve said it’s subsidies that cause the prices to increase. it’s possible to make this argument by cherry picking information, and I’d be glad to have this discussion with you in more depth. But for now I’m fine with sticking to Obama.
You’ve said he wants to nationalize health care in the US. That is incorrect. I’ve explained why. To say that he would promote a government take over of HC is unsupported (and unsupportable) hyperbole. end of story.
You said he’s keynesian. So what. All that means is that he thinks there are times when the government should intervene to keep markets functioning in a way that is beneficial to most people. Like I said, we can debate the effectiveness of market interventions if you’d like, but the bottom line is this is hardly a radical notion, and it isn’t an alien concept in American history.
now I’m not surprised that some leftist interest groups are supporting him. They have a choice between Hillary and Obama. If you want to start talking about who is supporting who, could you post some links?
The article about him being the most liberal senator was interesting. It you look at the votes they used to calculate that, there’s nothing that strikes me as particularly radical there. He voted to increase minimum wage, taxes in income above $1,000,000, limit troop deployment period to 12 months at a time…
You might have voted differently, but the fact of the matter is that these aren’t far-left issues. If he were voting yes to legislation that proposed nationalizing different industries or turning towns into worker-run communes, I could see your point. His voting record shows that he isn’t right-wing. But the voting record alone can’t show that he’s on the extreme left because the things he’d have to vote on to put him there just don’t exist in the senate.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
PAKman,
Well there you go, sounding reasonable. OK. Links to follow, that requires work. I am walking out the door soon (dinner with the misses). If you can refrain from wailing ‘wrong’ like some howler monkey for a few comments we can have a conversation.
Let me talk all this from the top …
A politician is judged primarily by what he says, and what he votes. (I know, duh) Obama’s votes are rated as the most liberal in the senate. Obama’s rhetoric on his website matches his personal style. It is not obtuse, but instead makes the attempt to be reasonable. In the case of his proposed health care policy he appears to try to please everyone. (my opinion, with you probably disagreeing) I could be wrong, but you will need to prove it.
First small step. We do not agree on basic definitions. I said this at the beginning of our conversation the first time through.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the government.
The greater the level of governmental control over business the more socialistic the government and economy. This is not a binary function, but a gradient.
The desire for government to regulate, change behavior through taxes incentives or penalties, and manipulate the commodities produced are socialist in nature. It is inescapable given the definition (from Websters) above.
Why is Keynesian economic policy socialistic in my eyes. Why? Keynesian economics promotes a mixed economy where both the state and the private sector have important [economic] roles (see Wiki).
Can you agree with the above? If no, then please provide you input.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
semantic time!
the irony it that you’re defining socialism very liberally.
still, who’s advocating “ownership and control” of the means of production and distribution? Even with this definition, Amtrak is socialism; the Post Office is socialism; a subsidy is not.
in the health care example, even by this definition “social medicine” means that the health system was like the VA: hospitals are owned and operated by the gov. doctors were public employees, all of the funds and salaries come through taxes… no one has suggested anything like that.
i think conservatives like to think that “universal health care” = “social health care” WRONG. “Universal” means everyone has coverage. If everyone in the US went out tomorrow and bought insurance on the market from private providers, that would be universal coverage, not socialism.
Obama’s plan isn’t even proposing universal coverage. He’s saying “affordable health care for anyone who wants to buy it.”
so, obama’s plan < universal < social med; In the case of health care, Obama’s proposal is twice removed from “socialism” (by your own definition)
webster’s other definitions are even less fitting:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
“change behavior through taxes incentives or penalties, and manipulate the commodities produced are socialist in nature. It is inescapable given the definition (from Websters) above.”
both of these sentences are incorrect. (see my discussion above).
while you say it’s a gradient, what you’re really getting at is that anything that isn’t laissez faire capitalism is socialism.
if nothing else, that’s a little out there. Especially given that you’ve been known to equate socialism and nazism in the past…