PCA Forums

I was talking today with a friend who works for GM. We both observed that the $25 billion dollar loan the domestic car companies are seeking from the government looked big a week ago. Today, it looks like a note on a 10 year old Chevy.

Until late afternoon the cost of bailing companies out of bad mortgages was said to be in the neighborhood of $450 billion dollars (and some are doubling that number tonight). If you are true conservative (free market) thinker, the government has no business doing this. Of course, not doing anything would be criminally negligent, although only slightly more criminally negligent then allowing it to happen in the first place.

To put $450 billion in a GOP perspective, first think of the things you love. How about 100 Nimitz Class aircraft carriers at current sticker price? Or, thinking of things you hate, $450 billion would fund the nation's food stamp program for about 13 years.

To be fair, the liberals must be behind a giveaway this big. Ditto (we do love that word, don't we?) to the equally huge sums that are at stake in loan guarantees to the remaining investment banks and their favorite insurer, AIG. Regardless of fault, either McCain or Obama is going to be the next President.

Here is what the new guy in the White House is going to inherit. First we have a gigantic deficit after eight years of spend, spend, spend, but don't tax. If it seems incongruous that the leader of the party that champions "personal responsibility" has been spending like Carmela Soprano on a speed binge, put that out of your mind. There's the Iraq war, which is pretty expensive, particularly when you are into repaying favors by relying heavily on contractors. The bills for that haven't been paid and will keep piling up (think of it as a smaller and more cuddly Vietnam - without an apparent purpose). Add in hurricane Ike and a hugely expensive and unprecedented bailout and the government looks like it might be the next Lehman Brothers. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen: "Half a trillion here, half a trillion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

After eight years of his witless offspring, its pretty easy to look back on George H.W. with affection and nostalgia. Remember when we deregulated the Saving and Loans in the eighties? Sadly, that part of the Reagan revolution was not an unqualified success. Cleaning up the lab after that experiment only cost the government $125 billion. When George H.W. took over, he asked us to read his lips and promised no new taxes. He also inherited the Savings and Loan mess and a deflating economy. Unfortunately, the government had to stay in business and he had to break his word. The voters never forgave him, thus greasing the skids for the guy who didn't inhale.

So think carefully before you vote and remember your most cherished beliefs. The next President is going to be handed a mess of biblical proportions. Notice that McCain, although guaranteeing Obama will raise taxes, has not taken the fatal pledge of Bush the First. He knows, as you should, that there are no sub-prime lenders for the US of A. Taxes are going to go up. Since most US corporations do not actually pay any taxes, guess who is going to foot the bill.

W's most lasting legacy may be huge tax hikes. Close your eyes and repeat to yourself "Tax and Spend." Who do you see in your mind's eye, Obama or McCain? Of course, you see Barack Hussein Obama. So forget McCain - who isn't a real Republican anyway - and vote for Obama. Four years is not enough time for him to ruin the country even if some gay is a cabinet secretary. Defer your gratification and think about 2012. Let Obama take the fall now. In four years you can scream "tax and spend" and it will actually be true! Not only that, high taxes will just be the tip of the iceberg. Whether he inherited a great steaming pile or caused it himself, Obama and the Dems will be like a cow moose in Sarah Palin's crosshairs.

On election day, hold your nose and vote Obama. When you do, remember that good things, like a great golf handicap or household help that speaks tastefully accented english, come to those who wait.

too bad a republican was in the office when all of clintons brilliant business plan hit the fan.

I still don't like either candidate. I'm hoping that Ron Paul runs as an independent. We seriously need to bring ALL the troops home including from countries like Japan and Germany. We need to spend time to fix our problems here at home:
1. Illegal immigration (troops on the border with Mexico)
2. Infrastructure
3. The economy
4. Move to a flat tax or consumption tax
5. Get off of using gas and find alternatives
I really don't know if Obama or McCain can really do anything that requires drastic action. They seem to be entrench in the political machine called Washington.

Lmandrake wrote:On election day, hold your nose and vote Obama. When you do, remember that good things, like a great golf handicap or household help that speaks tastefully accented english, come to those who wait.

Ah, the Ann Coulter theory of the next for years floated again: the next four years are going to blow anyways, so elect a Democrat because in 2012, the voter backlash will be so big that the Republicans could nominate GWB again and he would win.

Also, this *is* one of my favorite liberal techniques: take a typically liberal position, then try to explain why its actually more conservative to back the position then oppose it. Liberals try this with abortion as well: "Pro-choice is actually the more conservative position!" As if conservatives aren't smart enough to see through your apparent altruism.

But to your point... So you want me to vote for a guy who is pro-choice, anti-gun, wants to increase business taxes astronomically so that he can institute an ill-advised healthcare plan, will say *anything* to get elected including flipping on offshore drilling and FISA to name a few, has never authored a single piece of significant legislation at any level of gov't, and has steadfastly refused to release any information about much of his history? Simply because I'm betting against the country as a whole in the next four years? Well gosh, that makes perfect sense to me. Why didn't I see the light sooner? Thank you for enlightening my dimly-lit conservative brain!!



No thanks, I'll stick with McCain. I may not like him, but he is much better than the other guy, IMHO. Thanks for trying though.

yeah im not sold either. i think mccain is a real worlder. a little socialist for my taste but hey so is bush

Also, this *is* one of my favorite liberal techniques

Conservatives don't do the same thing? It's only a "liberal" technique? If its Ann Coulter's theory how could it be a liberal technique? Or is it like the Monty Python sketch about the Piranha brothers - Doug was feared because he would nail your head to a coffee table, but Dinsdale incited real terror because he used irony and sarcasm.

I was just having a little fun and people on your side, like Ms. Coulter, have their own kind of fun all the time. Besides, being such a whiner is hardly consistent with the rugged individualism of Ronald Reagan and John Wayne. Can you imagine the Duke pissing and moaning about "liberal" irony and sarcasm?

Pro-choice - can't argue with you on that one. If that issue is the decision-maker for you, then your choice is clear. I think abortion is immoral. I don't think it should be illegal. It would be nice if we could remake the world or human biology so it wasn't an option. Unfortunately it is. If you make it illegal again, you just drive it back underground. That is the right answer if abortion really is murder. As you can tell, I don't think it is, but I sure do understand the position of people who do.


Anti-gun - Show me the anti-gun position in Obama's platform. Is it there, or is it just because he is a Democrat? I also have to say I really, really don't understand the size and strength of this fear that if you elect a Democrat, that the government is going to take your guns away from you. First, the recent Supreme Court Decision on the D.C. Handgun law has re-interpreted the Second Amendment in much broader terms. Any Federal gun law that did what you fear so greatly would likely be as unconstitutional as required prayer in schools. Secondly, gun control laws are usually colossal failures. They don't work and everybody knows it. Or is the problem that ANY regulation impacting the sale, purchase or ownership of firearms bothers you?

I'll tell you what bothers me - any yahoo can go to a gun show and buy some heavy weaponry without a waiting period or background check or registration. Gun shows aren't model train shows. Guns have four purposes, self-defense, hobby shooting, hunting and crime. Is it a real burden for people who do the first three to endure a waiting period, registration or an NCIC check. Or do you live in the movie "Red Dawn" where the cubans know how to find all the guns by going to a government office.

Taxes: McCain or Obama or going to have to raise taxes. That was probably inevitable even before spending the equivalent of 3.5 Apollo programs on a bailout. Since McCain is blanketing the airwaves with ads darkly intoning that Obama will raise taxes, I think its time he took the pledge - "I, John McCain, will not raise taxes."

Until he makes such a pledge, then you have to accept that taxes are going to go up. The next question is who should pay those taxes. Corporate tax rates are high, but the biggest companies pay no taxes at all. I am ignorant as to why, but it may be the tax code for corporations is like the code for individuals - the more money you have, the more opportunities you have to manipulate the rules to your advantage. Personally, I think I am fine with the thought of businesses paying more than I do. You may be a small businessman where it hurts you more.
If so, I see your point.

Universal health care - I'll believe when I see it. Personally, I am against it, but just because I am lucky to have unreal health benefits. I have been hospitalized 4 times in the last year and my health insurer has spent over $350k on me in that time (my pharmacy bill for one hospital stay was $72,000). If I didn't have those benefits, I would be bankrupt, mostly paralyzed and on Social Security Disability. Given the quality of care under a national health care system, I would probably be just as bad off. But if I didn't have the superb private benefits I have, I would be f-ed as well.

The point is that the health care system is broken. Costs, which seem to be predicated on milking the insurers, are completely out of control. We could go back in time to the 30's, where you either paid or died - and mostly died anyway, or we can face the reality that the health care system has become unbearably expensive for large segments of the population. I don't think nationalized health care is the answer, but something's got to be done and nothing has happened in the last eight years.

Even though you hate my positions (or even me personally), don't make the mistake of thinking I am a big Obama fan. I'm not. If you say he doesn't have much experience, I will agree. I'd also like to see him (and McCain too) elaborate much more on what they plan to do. I am, in fact, totally disgusted with this election and feel that it really is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Its clear where you come out and which one you will choose. There is a lot to like about McCain, but in the end he sold his soul to get the nomination. The people he sold it to have, in my view, left this country in a hell of a mess after eight years. McCain's smarter than Bush and Palin is not as satanic or controlling as Cheney, but I think a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of the same old s**t. If that's what you want, more power to you.

Lmandrake wrote:Conservatives don't do the same thing? It's only a "liberal" technique?

Maybe. But I see it more with liberals. Actually, come to think of it, I've never heard a conservative say that being pro-life or pro-gun is "more liberal" than the opposite. Can you? Seriously, I'd like to know the answer to this one.

Lmandrake wrote:Anti-gun - Show me the anti-gun position in Obama's platform.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

Lmandrake wrote:Taxes:

Of course they will probably have to raise taxes. Lets assume that to be true for a moment. The question then becomes, if I have to give my money away, who do I want to spend it? Answer: McCain.

You can make all the noise you want to about him taking a pledge. The fact of the matter is no one will do it after Bush88, and they are smart not to. However, I fail to see how not taking this position is a bad thing?

Lmandrake wrote:Even though you hate my positions (or even me personally), don't make the mistake of thinking I am a big Obama fan.

WTF? I haven't even attacked you, and you are playing the victim?? You made some rather ludicrous statements about why conservatives should be backing Obama, and I countered them. What's the problem?

You give yourself *far* too much credit. I don't know you in any way, shape or form, nor do I give you a second thought outside of this board. mile

Hey, I'm not playing the victim for you or anybody else. And I am not giving myself to much credit, I would hope you don't think about anybody outside of the board except for the favors PCA people do for each other from time to time. Nonetheless, I am usually in the minority around here politically and these discussions do get people ticked off from time to time.

I accept that two pro-gun groups raise alarm about Obama's record on guns. It's a bit like linking to porn advocates passing judgement on First Amendment issue votes, but I don't really dispute any of it.

But there is nothing in the Dem platform or on Obama's web site about gun control. His support of the D.C. gun law is kind of irrelevant now, particularly since Presidents don't do well in direct confrontation with the Supreme Court. But I really would like to know why you are convinced the "liberals" and/or the government want to take guns away from the populace.

Is it that any regulation is a "slippery slope" towards confiscation? Otherwise, I just don't see it. Particularly now after the Supreme Court decision.

My uncles taught me to hunt and shoot. In my early teens, my NRA sharpshooter certificate was one of my proudest possessions. I don't think guns are evil, it is, after all, the person who uses it that determines what the tool is used for. Given the capacity for harm, isn't some regulation a good idea?

I never understand why some people let the minor issues like gun control or abortion rights be an issue when electing a President. To my knowledge, no past President has ever changed either even though they take a stance on each to get votes before an election.

Anyway, this forum (Political BS forum) usually does nothing more than get most who dare to play here upset with one another. The only reason this forum was created was because Blade wanted to keep it out of Cheers, thus easier to ignore political opinions.

well evil i respectfully disagree theirs alot of informative stuff here just look at the history of this particular forum alot of people frequent it. and even though i disagree with alot of lmandrakes opinions. i respect his ability to keep going for what he believes is right as i hope he respects mine. not everyone gets upset, i consider myself a st oic. the only time i get heated is when someone is hypocritical. considering the topics under discussion i think this forum is actually kinda sedate...

Well we like to think of PCA as a family. And my real brother has a "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from my handgun" bumper sticker. I know who he's voting for.

So its all just vigorous after dinner talk.

Here's CNN's take on the NRA's attack ads against Obama:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ca ... act-check/

Really, the whole thing is just getting out of control. With the net, 24/7 news coverage etc. nobody can keep up with all the crap being thrown around. How could anybody, regardless of what side they are on, keep up with this or invest enough time to know what the truth is.

I think the worst thing is that all this access to information stfles debate. There is so much pandering to preconceived prejudices and fear mongering that people in the middle are just left out. Makes you wonder if McCain will win because Sarah Palin is prettier than Biden.

I own several handguns yet I don't care about any future decisions on the topic. I'm quite sure that no matter what (like let's say they're all illegal someday), government will never spend the money to take everyone's guns away from them which would require door to door searches. I also have no need to carry one and I think that if you do, you seriously need to move or work in a better location.

Sov, I see your point but usually there are only a handfull of people who post anything in this forum and let's face it, short of arguing, no one ever sways another to their way of thinking. Some just enjoy arguing too.

I happen to be a gun owner myself, and have a concealed weapon permit. However I would never join the NRA. My father who is a hunter and been a member of the NRA almost his entire life, dropped them over their absurd political tactics a decade ago.

The NRA keeps itself relevant and well financed by creating an atmosphere of fear among gun owners.

No one is taking your guns away no matter who is in the White House. The President doesn't even have the authority to directly change constitutional law. Only congress can do that.

Do you think ANY CONGRESS will take you guns away? Are you kidding?

The constitutional right to bear arms was recently affirmed by the Supreme court in May, so it's not in any danger.

So stop sending your money to the NRA. All you're doing is financing expensive lunches for lobbyists.