<p>You can’t cut taxes for the richest Americans and spend like a drunken sailor. That’s what we have been dealing with for six years, and it will take decades to undo that damage.</p>
<p>Fiscal conservatives, ha! :)</p>
<p>Re: McCain</p>
<p>Bad move, teaming with Kennedy on Immigration Reform. Probably political suicide.</p>
<p>(Also seen as too old and too “pro- war”.</p>
<p>“My perfectly rational hostility to taxation stems from the sense of entitlement of the people spending the money I work so hard to earn and their lack of understanding that it’s MY money.”</p>
<p>Z–I feel your pain! My anger has more to do with mismanagement of the money I grudgingly turn over to my government. Such as launching unnecessary wars that will never end.</p>
<p>“You can’t cut taxes for the richest Americans and spend like a drunken sailor. That’s what we have been dealing with for six years, and it will take decades to undo that damage.”</p>
<p>I’ve said the very same thing here countless times.</p>
<p>"Z–I feel your pain! My anger has more to do with mismanagement of the money I grudgingly turn over to my government. "</p>
<p>Exactly. And part of my conservatism is that I believe that the vast majority of spending should be decided upon and dealt with at the local level. I sincerely believe that much of what is done by the federal government is inappropriate.</p>
<p>Whoever is the next president may very well have to preside over major tax increases. Even Ronald Reagan, in his first term as governor of California, had to institute several large tax increases in an effort to reduce the huge budget deficit the state found itself in. I grew up out there and well remember my father, who voted for Reagan, squawking with rage and indignation over this. The audacity of the man!</p>
<p>"Whoever is the next president may very well have to preside over major tax increases. "</p>
<p>That should be the option of last resort. To bring it back to HIllary, I think she will jump on tax increases because I really do think she is a re-distributionist at heart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s an even more detailed set of internals from the CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll that addresses this issue:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_demprim061107.pdf#Page=6[/url]”>http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_demprim061107.pdf#Page=6</a></p>
<p>Of registered independents likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Clinton has a narrow 24% to 22% lead over Obama, with Richardson a surprising third at 18%. Clinton dominates among registered Democrats in NH: 38% to 18% over Obama.</p>
<p>BTW, I’m a registered independent, too. Actually, we call them “unenrolled” in Massachusetts. It is quite possible that I will opt to vote in the Republican primary in Massachusetts, if the Democratic nomination is a foregone conclusion and if I view a particular Republican candidate as more beatable. I’ve done that before, when I voted for Pat Buchanan in the primary (the week after he was all over the news brandishing a machine gun).</p>
<p>Another “unenrolled” type here.</p>
<p>Partisanship aside, I am fascinated by this race. So many possibilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No big secret there. She’s running a campaign targeted at middle-class issues: working women, education, health care, and so forth. The same basic ground that her husband plowed in his campaigns – standard DLC positions (that’s why the far left wing of the party hates Hillary, Bill, and the everything to do with the Clinton’s policies). Edwards is the Democrat championing the poor, attempting to stake out Hillary’s left flank (an about-face from his DLC positioning in '04). Obama avoids political issues for the most part…he’s the rockstar candidate in the field.</p>
<p>“She’s running a campaign targeted at middle-class issues: working women, education, health care, and so forth.”</p>
<p>Lots of middle class people don’t agree with her approach. We’d rather be left alone to handle those things ourselves than have her take care of us.</p>
<p>In NH, you have to register either as a Democrat or Republican in order to vote on the day of the primary. You can “unregister” as you leave the voting polls that day, and go back to being an Independent. </p>
<p>I have been a Democrat for five minutes, and a republican for five minutes at various stages of my life. The rest of the time I maintain my Independent status. </p>
<p>(I think H is a Democrat because he forgot to “unregister” at the last primary.)</p>
<p>An Independent can vote for either party in the General Election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. It’s been my experience that most local polticians are two-bit hacks. I certainly wouldn’t want to put my faith in Billy Bulger or Mayor Thomas “Mumbles” Memino to do the right thing here locally in Massachusetts.</p>
<p>The cream usually rises to the top as politicians move from the local to the state to the federal level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. Presidential elections all boil down to a 50%/50% split (give or take a vote or two). The nominee for either party will have about half the voters who won’t support them.</p>
<p>The '08 election will come down to the same states as the 2000 election: Ohio, Florida, etc. The Repubs will sweep the deep south. The Dems will sweep the Northeast and the Left Coast.</p>
<p>The only real changes are that the increasing Democratic tilt of Hispanic voters puts a couple of the southwestern states potentially in play this time around and places like Virginia are a long-shot to turn blue.</p>
<p>One or two states determine the outcome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s also what the GAO recommends to stave off the economic disaster that’s looming. We simply can’t afford to continue the current situation.</p>
<p>Right, Conyat, the current situation is untenable. But I still think tax increases are unacceptable.</p>
<p>So where do you think the money is going to come from to support the war in Iraq, your party’s insistence on paying top dollar for prescription drugs in the new Medicare program instead of negogiating a lower price, etc?</p>
<p>I don’t think the administration can skimp any more on equipment, training, and rest for the troops. The administration already was defeated in its efforts to take away combat pay. </p>
<p>The same people insist that we must have a war and that they will not pay any more taxes to support it, leaving their party leadership no choice but to take the base’s tax cuts out of our soldiers’ hides.</p>
<p>Conyat, I already answered that question, posed by someone else earlier in the day. And for the record, I know you’re not lumping me in with people who “insist that we must have a war” since I’ve never supported it.</p>
<p>Maybe the Republicans can fund their tax cuts by cutting back some on health care for veterans. Apparently 75% of the rascals are still managing to get in to see doctors within 30 days of the day they want.</p>
<p>Of course, the VA claimed it was 95% and bragged about their “exceptional success”…till the Inspector General came calling.
<a href=“http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17355165.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation[/url]”>Web Page Under Construction;
<p>How’d they manage that? Some pretty interesting “errors.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely that’s just an isolated case, right? Only if you consider 72% of the time to be “isolated.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t keeping up-to-date waiting lists, either, so they really don’t know who isn’t getting medical attention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s really unfortunate the way the Republicans are playing Disneyland Dad with our country, instead of doing the mature thing and breaking the news to the American public that unless pretty dramatic steps are taken, we will be insolvent, and soon. Instead, they’re forcing the Democrats to be the “bad guys” and raking them over the coals for being the adults in the situation.</p>