New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat [URL="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/"]Barack Obama[/URL] promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year.


Republican [URL="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/"]John McCain[/URL] vows to double the exemption for dependents and slash the corporate income tax.


To which the folks who monitor the nation's financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline"]White House[/URL] this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform.

LINK:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002889.html?hpid=topnews"]washingtonpost.com[/URL]



thought, with the policy threads, this is pretty relevant as far as putting a damper on initiatives.

spending on social security and medicare are slowly sucking up ever increasing funds and it's getting harder to pay for them along with everything else. of course, in the short term, bush's tax cuts and military spending have ballooned the deficit quite a bit too.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=That Guy;453713]On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat [URL="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/"]Barack Obama[/URL] promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year.


[/quote]

He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas must be taken with a grain of salt. His word means nothing.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453729]He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything [any political candidate] syas must be taken with a grain of salt. His word means nothing.[/quote]

I see an error in your post. There, I fixed it for you.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;453730]I see an error in your post. There, I fixed it for you.[/quote]

You could have made your point without editing my text. That's a bad road to start heading down.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453729]He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas must be taken with a grain of salt. His word means nothing.[/quote]

that was before he thought he'd have a better chance to out fund his opponent.

anything to win though, right? i mean, who needs morals anyways?

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453729]He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas [B]must be taken with a[/B] [B]grain of salt[/B]. His word means nothing.[/quote]
kind of like McCain saying he was against drilling, and now he is for it? its on now, and both will do/ say what they have to, to win

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

i think obama's deal was more of a promise between the candidates than a position change, but there's no doubt that mccain has changed a lot of his positions on issues over the last 8 years.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

I would point out that here is a huge difference between "I promise to..." and "I believe that...".

Furthermore, I think the Democrats will ultimately rue this decision. When the Soviets launched Sputnik, Eisenhower's advisors were all in a tizzy about what a public relations disaster it was and how it made us look weak. Eisenhower pointed out that the Soviets had established an overflight precedent that would work to our advantage over time. He knew that our technology was superior and that there was now nothing the Soviets could say as our intelligence satellites passed over their territory orbit after orbit. I think the Republican Party will soon regain its fundraising edge and the Democrats won't be able to say boo when the full power of that money machine is brought to bear on the election process. The cat is out of the bag thanks to Obama.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453729]He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas must be taken with a grain of salt. [B]His word means nothing.[/B][/quote]

You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?

I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:
[LIST=1][*]That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.[*]That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.[/LIST]Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.

As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.

I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;453758]You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?

I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:
[LIST=1][*]That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.[*]That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.[/LIST]Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.

As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.

I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s. Public financing is a joke considering you have 527 groups doing all the dirty work for the candidates. So long as Obama is taking money from small donors and PAC money I'm OK with it. Anywho, this isn't a policy decision, it's a tactical and a smart one at that. Raise money from 1.5 million donors and implement a 50 state startagy. Can't fault the man wanting to win without cost.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=onlydarksets;453758]You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?

I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:
[LIST=1][*]That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.[*]That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.[/LIST]Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.

As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.

I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word.[/quote]


The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".

I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.

In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass. But the only 527 add I've seen, and I'm in a suppossed battleground area, is one run by AFSCME, the government workers union. So I guess Obama actually is using a form of "public financing". I pay taxes, which pay the buearacrats, which pays their union dues, which bought those adds. The add featured a woman with a baby and the woman telling McCain he couldn't have her baby for the war in Iraq. Apparently the consultants who wrote the add aren't aware that the draft was done away with in the early 70s. Totally over the top. Yet Obama will continue to play the victim.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

The baby ad is from MoveOn.org and it's distasteful and stupid ad.

[YT]Sq30lapbC9c[/YT]

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

I would like to add that even though there are no serious 527 groups attaching Obama now it doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Also, at the request of Obama MoveOn.org has [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/20/moveon-officially-shutters-527/?mod=googlenews_wsj"]announced that they are shutting down it's 527[/URL].

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;453730]I see an error in your post. There, I fixed it for you.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453770]The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".[/quote]
Geez - that completely misrepresents what I said. It's an absolutely valid argument, not to mention a strong one. If the goal is to avoid corruption, how does this fail to do that?


[quote=70Chip;453770]I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.[/quote]
This is such a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not about being beholden to the interests of all of his contributors. It's about being beholden to the interests of a small percentage of his (or any politician's) contributors simply due to the size of their contribution (either directly or through bundling or other fundraising). That's not what is happening here.

[quote=70Chip;453770]In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass.[/quote]
I haven't heard this statement. [U]This[/U] is the weakest argument by Obama - anyone with an ounce of foresight could see this coming, and, if it was a concern, he should not have made the pledge.

That said, the reasons I outlined above make this no worse than McCain's reversal on drilling (which I did not blast him for, either).

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=SmootSmack;453764]It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.[/quote]
Technically, this is change - nobody in the past 30 years has turned down public financing ;)

If you mean the "business as usual" of money in politics, then I see your point, although I don't think it extends to his general platform of looking into new approaches. Whether you agree with it or not, he's offered alternatives in foreign policy (meeting with leaders w/o preconditions) and domestic (elimanating the income tax for some, per above).

Of course, he also has very little record at the national level, so it's easy to demand examples that you know can't be delivered (I mean the royal "you", not you, personally, SS).

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453731]You could have made your point without editing my text. That's a bad road to start heading down.[/quote]

True. While he's probably correct, Obama has proven to be especially untrustworthy, whether we're looking at his words or his judgement.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=saden1;453742]No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.[/quote]

Wow. What an intellectual argument. :D

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=saden1;453742]No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.[/quote]
I'd say it would be easy to find 100 billion in pork and they could double that figure. How much pork spending is added each year and how many of them are on going year after year?

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=Buster;453833]Wow. What an intellectual argument. :D[/quote]

and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

fixing medicare and social security, since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=firstdown;453836]I'd say it would be easy to find 100 billion in pork and they could double that figure. How much pork spending is added each year and how many of them are on going year after year?[/quote]

i highly doubt there's 100billion in pork, and it doesn't grow like federal budgets either.

no one likes the idea of building bridges to nowhere for a tiny village worth of people (which, last i heard, got thoroughly shot down), but the truth is that congress loses more money through accountability lapse in big budget contracts (aircraft, cost+ deals, etc) than they lose in pork.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=That Guy;453837]and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

fixing medicare and social security, since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.[/quote]

If financial planners (or other in the same line of work) did with customers money what the gov. has done with SS they would be in jail. SS should have plenty of funds but they have been robbed over the years and now is in trouble. This is something tha both parties have done so its not an issue who has caused the problem.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=Buster;453833]Wow. What an intellectual argument. :D[/quote]

Thank you.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=That Guy;453837]and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

[B]fixing medicare and social security[/B], since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.[/quote]

What's McCain's plan?

p.s. I don't claim to be a McCain fan and I in fact despise his policies and everything the republican party of today stands for. I am not impartial with respect to McCain but when I post something about him I post the truth. You are more than welcome to defend him if you feel I'm being disingenuous or inaccurate in any way.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

On SS he wants to make a % available for people to set up private accounts if they choose to. He also thinks that we may have to increase the salery cap for SS. Right now we pay SS tax on income of $102,000 (that may be off by a little) and any income over that is not subject to the SS tax.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=saden1;453845]What's McCain's plan?

p.s. I don't claim to be a McCain fan and I in fact despise his policies and everything the republican party of today stands for. I am not impartial with respect to McCain but when I post something about him I post the truth. You are more than welcome to defend him if you feel I'm being disingenuous or inaccurate in any way.[/quote]

the only thing i think is disingenuous is how you bash mccain relentlessly and totally omit any mention that obama is no better on the issue of how the f do we pay for things.

i mean, you're right that he plans to spend more than we have, but you mention him by name an awful lot and don't say a word about how obama has exactly the same plan (spending on lots of trinkets, like homeowner bailouts, universal health insurance, tax cuts, and no way to pay for it).

i really don't have a strong personal attachment to either, since they both seem to be pandering and promising things they most likely can't deliver.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=That Guy;453869]the only thing i think is disingenuous is how you bash mccain relentlessly and totally omit any mention that obama is no better on the issue of how the f do we pay for things.

i mean, you're right that he plans to spend more than we have, but you mention him by name an awful lot and don't say a word about how obama has exactly the same plan (spending on lots of trinkets, like homeowner bailouts, universal health insurance, tax cuts, and no way to pay for it).

i really don't have a strong personal attachment to either, since they both seem to be pandering and promising things they most likely can't deliver.[/quote]
Well to be fair Obama did say he wants to cut taxes so people making $50,000 or less a year would pay no federal income tax. He plans on doing this by increasing taxes on people making $250,000 or more and doing away the Bush tax cut for the rich.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=firstdown;453872]Well to be fair Obama did say he wants to cut taxes so people making $50,000 or less a year would pay no federal income tax. He plans on doing this by increasing taxes on people making $250,000 or more and doing away the Bush tax cut for the rich.[/quote]

Now that I think about it he plans to pay for everything by taxing the rich. I'm sure they don't mind paying for everything and sending Uncle Sam 50% of their pay check.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=70Chip;453729]He also promised to use the public financing system for the election. Everything Obama syas must be taken with a grain of salt. His word means nothing.[/quote]
What's your take on McCain's word?
[quote]I [URL="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200840.php"]mentioned[/URL] earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)
I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.
[/quote][URL="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php"]Talking Points Memo | McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight[/URL]
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141_pf.html]FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending[/url]

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=saden1;453767]There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s. [/quote]
Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=onlydarksets;453883]What's your take on McCain's word?
[URL="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php"]Talking Points Memo | McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight[/URL]
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141_pf.html"]FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending[/URL][/quote]
In my eye's Obama can change his mind if he want's and I just don't see what the real big deal is to start with. Maybe someone could explain why its a big deal other than just saying he flipped flopped. That article you posted about MacCain while he says its illegal he does not provide a link to anyone backing this view. He is a liberal writer who has slanted view so I would need more info and something proving that he knew he was doing something wrong. While I'd never vote for Obama I can state why and I do not have to nit pick everything he does I just need to point to his platform he is running on. McCain does not do much for me either but he is the lesser of the two.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=firstdown;453885]In my eye's Obama can change his mind if he want's and I just don't see what the real big deal is to start with. Maybe someone could explain why its a big deal other than just saying he flipped flopped. That article you posted about MacCain while he says its illegal he does not provide a link to anyone backing this view. He is a liberal writer who has slanted view so I would need more info and something proving that he knew he was doing something wrong. While I'd never vote for Obama I can state why and I do not have to nit pick everything he does I just need to point to his platform he is running on. McCain does not do much for me either but he is the lesser of the two.[/quote]
Read the second link - it's a WP article quoting Jan Baran and Brad Smith, two of the leading Republican campaign finance attorneys. Mason is also a Republican, and a current commissioner.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=onlydarksets;453890]Read the second link - it's a WP article quoting Jan Baran and Brad Smith, two of the leading Republican campaign finance attorneys. Mason is also a Republican, and a current commissioner.[/quote]
Did you read the date on that article? Feb. 22, 2008 I believe those issues have been resolved by now. I love how that person who wrote the article had to jump back and forth on the issues and also in the first paragraph its pretty clear the writer was out to attack him by adding his own insults at McCain.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=firstdown;453895]Did you read the date on that article? Feb. 22, 2008 I believe those issues have been resolved by now. I love how that person who wrote the article had to jump back and forth on the issues and also in the first paragraph its pretty clear the writer was out to attack him by adding his own insults at McCain.[/quote]
Ok, I read more on this issue and I guess its not dead and is left up in the air because the Dem's have block Bush from appointing anyone to to fill the post that enforces the rules.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;453884]Interesting.....it's OK to "f'ck the fair play" if it means a Democrat wins the White House. But when CIA and military intelligence officials rough up a terrorist or waterboard him in the interest of protecting American lives they should all be "outed and prosecuted" (paraphrased).[/quote]


Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=firstdown;453896]Ok, I read more on this issue and I guess its not dead and is left up in the air because the Dem's have block Bush from appointing anyone to to fill the post that enforces the rules.[/quote]
No, that's not why.

The Dems tried to get the slate appointed before Memorial Day, but the Republicans blocked it.
[url=http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002882229.html]CQ Today - Bush Nominates Senate Rules Panel Insider to Federal Election Commission Post[/url]

Don't be fooled by the naive statement in that article that the Dems would "control" the FEC 3-2. All FEC action requires a at least a 4 vote majority. No party can "control" anything at the FEC.

Now, the Dems are holding things up:
[url=http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002901982]CQ Politics | FEC Nominees To Face Senate Confirmation Vote Next Week[/url]

I don't buy the line about the lawsuit - nothing happens quickly at the FEC, and there is no question that the lawsuit will still be in OGC when the new commissioners arrive, regardless of when that is.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=saden1;453897]Indeed, what's your point?

It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.[/quote]
Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. [B]Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable.[/B] I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.

Re: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;453930]Here's your post I was referring to:

"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. [B]Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable.[/B] I can't help it."

I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.

My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.

Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)

I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.[/quote]

Why do you feel Obama is doing whatever it takes to win an election?

And maybe I'm confused about your fundamental argument here, but are you suggesting that his (Obama) opting out, changing his mind, flip-flopping, or whatever you want to call it, is on the same moral playing field as, say, the government's role in waterboarding?