Democratic Primary Debate Oct. 30

[halfprep455]

Who do you think won the most recent Democratic debate? Personally I think Edwards and Obama finally got the nerve to attack Clinton and expose her for what she is.

[Swarmlord]

Who do you think won the most recent Democratic debate? Personally I think Edwards and Obama finally got the nerve to attack Clinton and expose her for what she is.

And I still don't think it's going to do a thing to prevent her from getting the nomination.

[Queso]

And I still don't think it's going to do a thing to prevent her from getting the nomination.
Or the White House...

[Swarmlord]

Or the White House...

Actually, watching the heat turned on her rather than the Republicans might be a welcome change. The rabid, far left will turn into a frothing feeding frenzy when they realize that they are just going to get more of the same, but with higher taxes.

[Queso]

...but with higher taxes.
Higher taxes in the USA are needed right now, unless of course the Federal Government can get spending in line (unlikely). The finances are in a major mess, and with the threat of recession looming things aren't looking good.

Face it though. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to take the White House. Bush has destroyed the Republicans chances.

[Airforce]

Who do you think won the most recent Democratic debate? Personally I think Edwards and Obama finally got the nerve to attack Clinton and expose her for what she is.

Didn't Edwards say something along the lines:

in my first year as president, I would pull all troops out

:confused:

That is just not possible. I'd like to believe he would do it, but no. Not going to happen.

I really can't say someone came out a winner. I personally don't like Obama as a speaker. He just didn't seem as well spoken on the issues. What I did like about this debate, though, is the continual bashing of the current administration. Hell yes we need to get rid of no bid contracts! We need less war spending, more "home improvement". No Child Left Behind needs to be kicked to the curb or changed dramatically. Stop letting big business run America.

I hope the next president that we(speaking to the US citizens) elect will actually take care of the issues.

[bowens]

...Hell yes we need to get rid of no bid contracts!...

Except when Clinton does it, right? I think it's funny how all of these dems are complaining about things Bush has done, no bid contracts to Haliburton (Bill Clinton did the same), wire tapping with no court order (again Bill did that same thing first). Bush is just going on precedent set by the previous administration but he is getting blasted for it while everyone let it slide during the Clinton years.

[Queso]

Except when Clinton does it, right? I think it's funny how all of these dems are complaining about things Bush has done, no bid contracts to Haliburton (Bill Clinton did the same), wire tapping with no court order (again Bill did that same thing first). Bush is just going on precedent set by the previous administration but he is getting blasted for it while everyone let it slide during the Clinton years.
So what you're saying is that because the American public in general weren't aware that these practices were going on 10 years ago, they have no right to demand that the current administration or any future one refrain from pursuing them. This isn't a "but, but, but Clinton!!" moment. It's a major issue with the way the USA is being governed and it needs to be sorted. With an election looming, now is the time to ensure candidates commit to doing just that.

[Swarmlord]

Higher taxes in the USA are needed right now, unless of course the Federal Government can get spending in line (unlikely). The finances are in a major mess, and with the threat of recession looming things aren't looking good.

Face it though. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to take the White House. Bush has destroyed the Republicans chances.

Based on the fact that when tax rates go down (or stay down) revenues go up, I think that the only thing the country needs is a little restraint on the spending. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity.

[bowens]

So what you're saying is that because the American public in general weren't aware that these practices were going on 10 years ago, they have no right to demand that the current administration or any future one refrain from pursuing them. This isn't a "but, but, but Clinton!!" moment. It's a major issue with the way the USA is being governed and it needs to be sorted. With an election looming, now is the time to ensure candidates commit to doing just that.

No, I'm saying that people did know about it when Clinton did it. The media did know, they just didn't care. They weren't out looking for anything to criticize the administration with.

So you admit, then, that Clinton was wrong doing these things?

[Queso]

Based on the fact that when tax rates go down (or stay down) revenues go up, I think that the only thing the country needs is a little restraint on the spending.
Totally agree. However, I'm quite certain we'll disagree on what needs cutting so let's leave it at that :D
So you admit, then, that Clinton was wrong doing these things?
Any administration doing those things is wrong. Both go against the supposed ideals of the United States.

[Airforce]

No, I'm saying that people did know about it when Clinton did it. The media did know, they just didn't care. They weren't out looking for anything to criticize the administration with.

These things tend to come into view when you have spending in the billions per week while the country is already running on credit.

How can you even argue with this? We are talking about saving money here by relinquishing these contracts. What the hell is wrong with saving a buck?

[bowens]

These things tend to come into view when you have spending in the billions per week while the country is already running on credit.

How can you even argue with this? We are talking about saving money here by relinquishing these contracts. What the hell is wrong with saving a buck?

I don't think every contract should be no bid. Most should not. But there are certain times when there is no time to go through the bidding process. That's when no bid contracts are necessary. When there is a town without electricity do you think they should go through a two week bidding process or go with somebody today who they know can get the job done quickly?

[Airforce]

I don't think every contract should be no bid. Most should not. But there are certain times when there is no time to go through the bidding process. That's when no bid contracts are necessary. When there is a town without electricity do you think they should go through a two week bidding process or go with somebody today who they know can get the job done quickly?

See, that's not an effective argument. Emergency situations like the one you've noted above would be taken care of in advance, with much planning involved. This is how it is done on Air Force bases and I'm sure outside them.

[leekohler]

Based on the fact that when tax rates go down (or stay down) revenues go up, I think that the only thing the country needs is a little restraint on the spending. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity.

So- how many people have borrowed and spent (with no limits) their way to properity?

[Queso]

So- how many people have borrowed and spent (with no limits) their way to properity?
Rupert Murdoch?

[Swarmlord]

So- how many people have borrowed and spent (with no limits) their way to properity?

Excluding the "with no limits" part, most successful businesses.

[Thanatoast]

Excluding the "with no limits" part, most successful businesses.

Most succesfull businesses don't blow their investor's money. They invest in their product, people and infrastructure. What Republicans would call "socialism".

America is a bad investment right now.

[leekohler]

Excluding the "with no limits" part, most successful businesses.

Except most successful businiesses actually produce something.

[Swarmlord]

Except most successful businiesses actually produce something.

You'll get no argument from me if we were to cut back the federal government to the bare bones of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

[leekohler]

You'll get no argument from me if we were to cut back the federal government to the bare bones of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Yet, you seem to be perfectly happy with the Bush administration spending us into oblivion. Funny, coming from someone whose main complaint against Democrats is fiscal responsibility. The bill's coming whether you like it or not. We'll have to pay it eventually.

[Swarmlord]

Yet, you seem to be perfectly happy with the Bush administration spending us into oblivion. Funny, coming from someone whose main complaint against Democrats is fiscal responsibility. The bill's coming whether you like it or not. We'll have to pay it eventually.

When did I say I was happy with Bush's lack of a veto pen during this first administration or his use of it now? I'm angrier at Congress about this than I am the President even though I think that he should have vetoes a lot during his first term to hold their feet to the fire.

I think they are all pigs at the trough. Some have just been feeding at it longer than others.

[leekohler]

When did I say I was happy with Bush's lack of a veto pen during this first administration or his use of it now? I'm angrier at Congress about this than I am the President even though I think that he should have vetoes a lot during his first term to hold their feet to the fire.

I think they are all pigs at the trough. Some have just been feeding at it longer than others.

Do I really have to go find that for you? I believe you even went so far as to say you were only slightly disappointed with Bush's performance. Am I wrong?

[solvs]

Actually, watching the heat turned on her rather than the Republicans might be a welcome change. The rabid, far left will turn into a frothing feeding frenzy when they realize that they are just going to get more of the same, but with higher taxes.
Rabid far left? Of course they will, unlike some Republicans who still support this administration and help to enable it's mistakes. The left doesn't like her. A lot of people don't like her. I'm hoping she doesn't win. If she does, and she makes the same mistakes, most of us will criticize. She has a lot to prove, and hopefully we do hold her feet to the fire. But if she doesn't, why do I have a feeling most of you who are saying now that we shouldn't be criticizing the Pres (at least GW) will suddenly change their tunes, the way you still criticize Bill?

But we'll still hate the Republicans thanks to the current administration and it's enablers in Congress.

Except when Clinton does it, right? I think it's funny how all of these dems are complaining about things Bush has done, no bid contracts to Haliburton (Bill Clinton did the same), wire tapping with no court order (again Bill did that same thing first). Bush is just going on precedent set by the previous administration but he is getting blasted for it while everyone let it slide during the Clinton years.
First of all, some links would be nice (preferably from legitimate sources), otherwise I'm calling shenanigans.

But even if that was true, and maybe it is, I don't think anyone here would defend it. Most of us have criticized Hillary already, and still criticize Bill, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Everything I've read about this seems to indicate that while Clinton did some questionable things, the Bush administration has turned it into an artform, used far more freely. Plus, Clinton isn't in charge right now, Bush is, and he's the one pulling this stuff right now. I wouldn't have defended Clinton then, and I don't agree with Bush doing it now. Maybe you're saying it's ok because Clinton may have done it. Maybe you're saying Bush is just as bad. Maybe you're just falling back on that old distraction technique where we stop talking about your guy, who is doing the indefensible. I don't know. But it doesn't excuse anything. Trying to make this about someone else who isn't in charge is kinda disingenuous, no?

Besides, isn't Airforce a Republican (or used to be)?

Based on the fact that when tax rates go down (or stay down) revenues go up, I think that the only thing the country needs is a little restraint on the spending. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity.
We aren't exactly prosperous right now are we? Didn't the deficit go down under Clinton, and up under both Bush's and Reagan. You could blame it on the Congress, but how do you explain when GW and the Repubs had all 3 and it went up? Or if it goes down under 3 with Dems in charge? And I don't know about you, but my taxes really haven't gone down very much under Bush, while every other cost has skyrocketed (ie gas, which also makes other costs go up)?

Plus, didn't revenue also go up under Clinton, while pork went down?

No, I'm saying that people did know about it when Clinton did it. The media did know, they just didn't care. They weren't out looking for anything to criticize the administration with.
They don't need to look for anything to criticize this administration. There's so much, a lot of it is even completely missed by the MSM. Are you really trying to say the media is just out to get Bush? That there aren't enough legitimate reasons to dislike this administration. Because, um, there are. Take a look around here for some examples.

So you admit, then, that Clinton was wrong doing these things?
If true, you won't find any here defending it, try as you might.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
We aren't exactly prosperous right now are we? <snip>

Uh, yes we are. Even at our worst economic times there are like 50 countries that would give their left nut to have our economy. It's all relative I guess.

[mrkramer]

Uh, yes we are. Even at our worst economic times there are like 50 countries that would give their left nut to have our economy. It's all relative I guess.

just because there are 50 countries worse off than we are, we are still spending billions a week and they only way we have to pay for it is printing more money. I wouldn't call that prosperous.

[Swarmlord]

just because there are 50 countries worse off than we are, we are still spending billions a week and they only way we have to pay for it is printing more money. I wouldn't call that prosperous.

We'd be fine it our Congress wasn't subsidizing every conceivable industry, building bridges to no where and building buildings to Rangle and Robert Byrd.

[leekohler]

We'd be fine it our Congress wasn't subsidizing every conceivable industry, building bridges to no where and building buildings to Rangle and Robert Byrd.

I thought you were all for corporate welfare.

[Swarmlord]

I thought you were all for corporate welfare.

No, I'm for providing an economic environment where businesses can flourish. I've never endorsed subsidies except for perhaps in the area of tax relief to encourage business.

I'd make all the farm subsidies for example go away and I live in the middle of corn country. Don't even get me started on the subsidies for sugar and tobacco.

[leekohler]

No, I'm for providing an economic environment where businesses can flourish. I've never endorsed subsidies except for perhaps in the area of tax relief to encourage business.

I'd make all the farm subsidies for example go away and I live in the middle of corn country. Don't even get me started on the subsidies for sugar and tobacco.

Sorry- but businesses should have to pay their taxes just like everyone else. It's one of the huge reasons we're in trouble in Chicago right now- businesses don't pay squat in taxes, so Daley just keeps raising property taxes, liquor taxes, sales taxes and just about any other tax you can think of- even an extra tax on bottled water. In the meantime, developers get tons of tax breaks to build condos that will sit empty because no one can afford to pay the property taxes on them. Oh- and do you think it's small business that gets the tax breaks? Hey- you guessed it- nope. Just the big boys.

[Swarmlord]

Sorry- but businesses should have to pay their taxes just like everyone else. It's one of the huge reasons we're in trouble in Chicago right now- businesses don't pay squat in taxes, so Daley just keeps raising property taxes, liquor taxes, sales taxes and just about any other tax you can think of- even an extra tax on bottled water. In the meantime, developers get tons of tax breaks to build condos that will sit empty because no one can afford to pay the property taxes on them. Oh- and do you think it's small business that gets the tax breaks? Hey- you guessed it- nope. Just the big boys.

Businsses dont' pay taxes anyway. Their customers do. Might as well cut out the middle man and charge it at the cash register as a sales tax.

[leekohler]

Businsses dont' pay taxes anyway. Their customers do. Might as well cut out the middle man and charge it at the cash register as a sales tax.

If businesses don't pay taxes, then why do they need tax breaks?

[Thanatoast]

If businesses don't pay taxes, then why do they need tax breaks?
He's referring to the fact that a tax increase on business is simply passed on to the consumer as a price increase for products and services.

Swarmlord, do you favor a national sales tax as opposed to income and capital gains taxes? (serious question)

[Swarmlord]

He's referring to the fact that a tax increase on business is simply passed on to the consumer as a price increase for products and services.

Swarmlord, do you favor a national sales tax as opposed to income and capital gains taxes? (serious question)

I absolutely favor a national sales tax, consumtion tax or whatever people want to call it INSTEAD of any income based taxes. I'd make the memory of filling out 1040 forms as antiquated as phonograph records.

No tax breaks, no write offs, no tax attornies, no tax preparers, no IRS (as it exists today - some department to coordinate state collection and monitoring would be required), etc.

It eliminates tax scofflaws, it keeps our income a private issue, and it gets government out of the business of bartering with lobbyists over tax benefits and writeoffs.

I'm a big supporter of something like the Fair Tax.

[ucfgrad93]

I absolutely favor a national sales tax, consumtion tax or whatever people want to call it INSTEAD of any income based taxes. I'd make the memory of filling out 1040 forms as antiquated as phonograph records.

No tax breaks, no write offs, no tax attornies, no tax preparers, no IRS (as it exists today - some department to coordinate state collection and monitoring would be required), etc.

It eliminates tax scofflaws, it keeps our income a private issue, and it gets government out of the business of bartering with lobbyists over tax benefits and writeoffs.

I'm a big supporter of something like the Fair Tax.

I agree completely. The Fair Tax proposed by Boortz and Congressman Lindal (spelling?) is a great idea.

[Swarmlord]

I agree completely. The Fair Tax proposed by Boortz and Congressman Lindal (spelling?) is a great idea.

It's a great idea even if it needed a little tweaking to get bipartison support. I don't know how anyone can be supportive of our existing system. It has no redeeming qualities whatsover.

[leekohler]

It's a great idea even if it needed a little tweaking to get bipartison support. I don't know how anyone can be supportive of our existing system. It has no redeeming qualities whatsover.

At least we can agree on that.

[solvs]

Uh, yes we are.
Uh, no were not. I was referring to our enormous, ever growing national debt as accrued under those same people you still support as being the fiscally conservative ones. The same people who wanted to approve and build those bridges to nowhere. Someone is going to have to pay for it. Social programs are already being cut. My entire post and that's all you respond to.

Still waiting for the proof that Clinton, who again I wasn't really a fan of at the time, was just as bad as Bush.