Palin says 'absurd' not to ponder presidential bid - Just BS

NewsBot · 02-07-2010, 11:40 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sarah Palin says it would be "absurd" for her not to consider running for president in 2012....

More...

hugo · 02-07-2010, 12:51 PM

What is even more absurd is some idiots will vote for her.

**ImWithStupid** · 02-07-2010, 01:00 PM

The most absurd thing would be if she runs, and stops using her star power to raise money to support conservative candidates, nationwide.

She could do more good that way, than running for office herself.

hugo · 02-07-2010, 02:08 PM

Her speech was reminiscent of GW. We don't need another compassionate conservative.

I am trying to decide if the tea party started as an independent party and was hijacked by Republicans or just was grass roots Republicans to start with.

**ImWithStupid** · 02-07-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hugo

Her speech was reminiscent of GW. We don't need another compassionate conservative.

I am trying to decide if the tea party started as an independent party and was hijacked by Republicans or just was grass roots Republicans to start with.

I don't think it was ever really a "party" nor do I think it should be. It should be a movement, that backs conservative candidates and if a party wants to adopt those conservative ideals to get the backing of the movement, so be it.

I think it was truly grass roots and the GOP are trying to court them, finally.

hugo · 02-07-2010, 03:20 PM

Do the tea partiers recognize the rate of government growth under GW? Do they know that the state of Alaska's spending per capita went up 30% in two years under Palin? If they do why are they so enamored with her? Are we gonna have another Republican nominee who is simply a big spending social conservative?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/....asp?newsid=31

Quote:

Bush spending up to 5 times more than Clinton
Reagan Revolution architect calls it 'era of obese government'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 03, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.
In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.

Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.

"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."

No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.

Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.

"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Richard Viguerie

Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.

"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."

The numbers?

Johnson: 4.1 percent

Nixon/Ford: 5 percent

Carter: 1.6 percent

Reagan: 1.4 percent

Bush I: 3.8 percent

Clinton: 2.1 percent

Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once – for a non-spending issue – in his second term.

"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms – despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."

Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.

But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.

"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.

Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.

"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."

Palin has the same social conservative background that got GW the Republican nomination, her record on economic issues is much more liberal than Bush's was in 2000.

timesjoke · 02-08-2010, 02:15 PM

The guy you copy/pasted that from forgot to account for inflation.

If we eliminate your false assumption of the oil sale money being part of welfare, then Sarah's record is a lot more conservative than even Newt before he took the trip to Washington.

As I keep pointing out, your taking completely rediclious possitions against Sarah and it seems to me your trying to justify why you did not vote conservative in the last election.

You independents love to claim your conservative but you voted for Obama instead, that is not the act of a conservative person. I know, you guys figure you will voted Liberal if the other guy is not what you feel is a good enough conservative but what I can't understand is why.......

McCain was not my first choice for President, but he was about 6 thousand possitions above me voting for Obama.

BrotherMan · 02-08-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timesjoke

As I keep pointing out, your taking completely rediclious possitions against Sarah and it seems to me your trying to justify why you did not vote conservative in the last election.

to be fair... nobody voted for a conservative candidate last election.

timesjoke · 02-08-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

to be fair... nobody voted for a conservative candidate last election.

Even if McCain was only 50% conservative, that is still better than 100% socialist liberal like Obama BM.

My point is while McCain was not someone I wanted, I wanted pure socialist less.....Call it the least of two evils while the worse evil was 100 times more evil than the least evil.

hugo · 02-08-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

to be fair... nobody voted for a conservative candidate last election.

I'll continue voting Libertarian until the Republicans nominate another Reagan.

Quote:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

Ronald Reagan

02-07-2010, 11:40 AM	#1
NewsBot News is Me Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Machine Posts: 4,387 Rep Power: 6	Palin says 'absurd' not to ponder presidential bid WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sarah Palin says it would be "absurd" for her not to consider running for president in 2012.... More...

02-07-2010, 12:51 PM	#2
hugo Big Time BS'er Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,481 Images: 7 Rep Power: 9	Re: Palin says 'absurd' not to ponder presidential bid What is even more absurd is some idiots will vote for her. __________________ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many "in shallows and in miseries," are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence.

02-07-2010, 01:00 PM	#3
ImWithStupid Super Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Shermer, Illinois Age: 37 Posts: 4,598 Rep Power: 13	Re: Palin says 'absurd' not to ponder presidential bid The most absurd thing would be if she runs, and stops using her star power to raise money to support conservative candidates, nationwide. She could do more good that way, than running for office herself. __________________ . . . . If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always rely on Paul's vote. ~ Democrat strategy

02-07-2010, 02:08 PM	#4
hugo Big Time BS'er Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,481 Images: 7 Rep Power: 9	Re: Palin says 'absurd' not to ponder presidential bid Her speech was reminiscent of GW. We don't need another compassionate conservative. I am trying to decide if the tea party started as an independent party and was hijacked by Republicans or just was grass roots Republicans to start with. __________________ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many "in shallows and in miseries," are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain says Palin didn't hurt presidential bid	NewsBot	News Room	0	11-12-2008 01:50 AM
McCain says Palin didn't hurt presidential bid	NewsBot	News Room	4	11-12-2008 01:05 AM
Presidential candidates air attack ads	NewsBot	News Room	0	09-22-2008 01:00 PM
RNC to run its first ad of presidential campaign	NewsBot	News Room	0	07-02-2008 05:22 PM
Ex-Congressman Weighs Presidential Bid	NewsBot	News Room	0	04-04-2008 09:33 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sarah Palin says it would be "absurd" for her not to consider running for president in 2012.... More...