The spot, which warns that "Obama's new taxes could break your family budget,"

Bush has already broken the family budget. McSame will...well...do the same.

Keating Five.

NEWSFLASH: "Fiscal conservatives" are often Republicans who run massive deficits while in office.

Anyone who has been in charge of spending the past seven years is no fiscal conservative. Loss of fiscal discipline is what got the GOP (deservedly) thrown out on their rears in 2006 when that was part of what gave them control of Congress in 1994. That said, I don't know of any fiscal conservative delusional enough to think Obama will restore hawkish budgetary restraint to DC. I doubt McCain will. I KNOW Obama won't, especially not with a Democratic majority in Congress.

Nabb1: I KNOW Obama won't, especially not with a Democratic majority in Congress.

Two words: defense spending.

Rev.K: NEWSFLASH: "Fiscal conservatives" are often Republicans who run massive deficits while in office.


You mean faith-based economics doesn't work?

Sir... does this mean that Ann Margret's not coming?

NewportBarGuy: You mean faith-based economics doesn't work?

Yep... the bells stopped ringing... and the economy lost its wings.

NewportBarGuy:

Sir... does this mean that Ann Margret's not coming?

Classic.

If only "charge and spend" had the same stigma as "tax and spend".

The Bush/McCain plan isn't working. Simple as that.

Nabb1: I don't know of any fiscal conservative delusional enough to think Obama will restore hawkish budgetary restraint to DC

Newsflash: The next president will have to do much to reverse Bush's disastrous time in office. Since you Republicans have created this huge deficit, it would be the height of hypocrisy to complain when we all have to sacrifice to restore the balance.

Considering that the last four "fiscal conservatives" ran horrible budget deficits, and the last "tax and spend liberal" ran a budget surplus... I'll take my chances with the "tax and spend liberal". At least they're smart enough not to spend money they don't have.

50mm: If only "charge and spend" had the same stigma as "tax and spend".

Borrow and Splurge?

Code_Archeologist: 50mm: If only "charge and spend" had the same stigma as "tax and spend".

Borrow and Splurge?

Hmm, I like it. If for no other reason than it has a hint of "binge and purge". Which is about as healthy as the policy is.

Um, there's only one thing to say: The GOP has been in complete control of the government from 2000-2006 and how did that work out? If you believe the talking heads of conservative radio, it's the liberal's fault that we are in the mess we currently are.

antidisestablishmentarianism: Um, there's only one thing to say: The GOP has been in complete control of the government from 2000-2006 and how did that work out? If you believe the talking heads of conservative radio, it's the liberal's fault that we are in the mess we currently are.

Yup. Everything good is because of Reagan, and all the problems are Clinton's fault. And it will always be so!

/party of Abraham Lincoln

Correction, the last THREE "fiscal conservatives", not four, my bad.

SilentStrider: Considering that the last four "fiscal conservatives" ran horrible budget deficits, and the last "tax and spend liberal" ran a budget surplus... I'll take my chances with the "tax and spend liberal". At least they're smart enough not to spend money they don't have.

Unfortunately, the last few years have been spending outside the country. Reagan basically injected a huge amount of capital into the system by investing money into companies inside the US.

When we saw the push to leave the country, and still get the benefits, we saw money heading away from our own economy, and invested elsewhere. Jobs didn't increase, money wasn't being recirculated, and we still had to pay for things, and we watch local investments fall.

Folks are so focused on the macro level, that they forget that the local economies are what drive the larger. Chains, large corporates, and the major purchase producers can't profit if the consumers aren't making as much, and without strong local economies the national economy sags.

Take care of the small businesses, and level the large scale playing field, and the economy tends to correct itself. Worry only about the macro level and largest players, and you undercut the base. Which is what we've seen over the last 10 years--and now we're soaking in those consequences.

But that's not as sexy as courting folks who can get you seats at the LCJO.

I liken it to a restaurant. You have to take care of your relationships with your distributors first. You have to take care of your front line and base line employees before you massage managers and get to do the fun things. You don't throw parties if you can't make payroll. While folks LOVE to see the corporate accounts and all the trade shows, you still have to take care of the line and the basics.

Restaurants where the chefs only do the "important" parties suffer. All of your accounts are important, and if you get into the VIP mentality, then you aren't serving your customers, or your employees properly, and things are going to get hinkey. They are all important, because they all feed into the whole.

The lunch crowd isn't necessarily a sexy market, but they pay the bills. The dishwashers don't do the fun jobs, and aren't as cute as the waitresses, but they form the base of the operation, and you want to watch a restaurant go pear shaped, watch what happens when the dishwashers don't come in. Everyone wants to hang out with the sexy bartender and the rock stars, but good managers know where their bread is buttered, and do their damnedest to make sure that the base of the operations are covered. Distributors are taken care of, you build those relationships, your dishwashers are happy, your buskids are taken care of, your waitstaff has what they need, and then all those elements build together and they take care of you.

We have a system where everyone wants to be in the VIP room, but no one wants to take care of the dishes. And you can't build a good joint that way. You have to take care of the whole thing. Small businesses. Little investors. The low level employees have to be taken care of, so that they can either move up, or become better. The sexy businesses, they need to be massaged, but if you don't take care of the middle level employees, who's going to take care of the sexy accounts?

All ties together, and only treating one tier of businesses as being "important" means that you're missing how it all works.

Nabb1: I KNOW Obama won't, especially not with a Democratic majority in Congress.

Frankly, he won't have much of a choice but to reign in spending.

The only real fiscal conservative that comes to mind is Tom Coburn. And unfortunately, he seems to be batshiat crazy a good portion of the time.

Blues_X: The only real fiscal conservative that comes to mind is Tom Coburn. And unfortunately, he seems to be batshiat crazy a good portion of the time.

Sen. Chuck Grassley is pretty close.

NewportBarGuy: Blues_X: The only real fiscal conservative that comes to mind is Tom Coburn. And unfortunately, he seems to be batshiat crazy a good portion of the time.

Sen. Chuck Grassley is pretty close.

NewportBarGuy: Blues_X: The only real fiscal conservative that comes to mind is Tom Coburn. And unfortunately, he seems to be batshiat crazy a good portion of the time.

Sen. Chuck Grassley is pretty close.

Sen. Olympia Snowe isn't crazy, but she's tough as well.

SilentStrider: Considering that the last four "fiscal conservatives" ran horrible budget deficits, and the last "tax and spend liberal" ran a budget surplus... I'll take my chances with the "tax and spend liberal". At least they're smart enough not to spend money they don't have.

That dude never submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress. I wish I could vote for gridlock.

OBAMA IS GOING TO RUIN THE ECONOMY!

bulldg4life: OBAMA IS GOING TO RUIN THE ECONOMY!

He won't need to bother. That's already been handily taken care of by his failure of a predecessor.

Yesdog: The Bush/McCain plan isn't working. Simple as that.

Nabb1: I don't know of any fiscal conservative delusional enough to think Obama will restore hawkish budgetary restraint to DC

Newsflash: The next president will have to do much to reverse Bush's disastrous time in office. Since you Republicans have created this huge deficit, it would be the height of hypocrisy to complain when we all have to sacrifice to restore the balance.

I've never, ever thought this president's spending was wise or appropriate. Take that "you" and "us" shiat somewhere else. I find it rather telling you neglected to quote my criticism of the Republicans and opted instead to focus solely on my criticism of Democrats. Tells me all I really need to know. And, what has the current Democratic Congress done to "restore the balance"? Let me save you the trouble: NOTHING.

Calmamity: Nabb1: I KNOW Obama won't, especially not with a Democratic majority in Congress.

Frankly, he won't have much of a choice but to reign in spending.

Well, apparently he thinks he has a choice, because his proposed budget policy doesn't call for "reigning in" spending.

Nestea Plunge: Well, GOP, aren't you happy you got your Iraq war? You are, aren't you?

Why do you have a problem with paying for it?

If I remember correctly, the administration promised that the war would only cost $47.98 or something, and that Iraq would pay it back by Tuesday, then start giving us free oil.

Or something like that.

Lionel Mandrake: Nestea Plunge: Well, GOP, aren't you happy you got your Iraq war? You are, aren't you?

Why do you have a problem with paying for it?

If I remember correctly, the administration promised that the war would only cost $47.98 or something, and that Iraq would pay it back by Tuesday, then start giving us free oil.

Or something like that.

Didn't they also say we'd be wading up to our hips in hot, hot Iraqi tail? They way oversold.

filth: Lionel Mandrake: Nestea Plunge: Well, GOP, aren't you happy you got your Iraq war? You are, aren't you?

Why do you have a problem with paying for it?

If I remember correctly, the administration promised that the war would only cost $47.98 or something, and that Iraq would pay it back by Tuesday, then start giving us free oil.

Or something like that.

Didn't they also say we'd be wading up to our hips in hot, hot Iraqi tail? They way oversold.

I thought that was Persian belly dancers? Oh, wait, it's not October yet, so we still have a chance...

hubiestubert: filth: Lionel Mandrake: Nestea Plunge: Well, GOP, aren't you happy you got your Iraq war? You are, aren't you?

Why do you have a problem with paying for it?

If I remember correctly, the administration promised that the war would only cost $47.98 or something, and that Iraq would pay it back by Tuesday, then start giving us free oil.

Or something like that.

Didn't they also say we'd be wading up to our hips in hot, hot Iraqi tail? They way oversold.

I thought that was Persian belly dancers? Oh, wait, it's not October yet, so we still have a chance...

Maybe there's a diplomatic solution. We'll turn down the heat on Iran's international terror network and nuclear aspirations if they continue to supply us with smoking hot news anchors.

bulldg4life: OBAMA IS GOING TO RUIN THE ECONOMY!

I'd say Bush was right when he said Mission Accomplished only it wasn't Iraq but the economy he was killing.

Nabb1: I've never, ever thought this president's spending was wise or appropriate. Take that "you" and "us" shiat somewhere else. I find it rather telling you neglected to quote my criticism of the Republicans and opted instead to focus solely on my criticism of Democrats. Tells me all I really need to know. And, what has the current Democratic Congress done to "restore the balance"? Let me save you the trouble: NOTHING.

I think you are missing the part that he has a problem with.

For example, McCain has been a part of the congress that you feel has screwed up over the past 8 years.

And, at first glance, you are most certainly not going to vote for Obama, but you are still up in the air about McCain.

You are instantly discrediting the democrat, when the republicans are just as much, if not more, at fault for the situation we are currently in.

Why would you dismiss the abilities of Obama...if it was GOP policies that put us in this position in the first place?

You seem willing to accept that John McCain will somehow fix your problems, when it was the policies of his party that got us here.

bulldg4life: You seem willing to accept that John McCain will somehow fix your problems, when it was the policies of his party that got us here.

Where did I say that? I said, "I doubt McCain will [restore fiscal conservatism]." Where did I endorse McCain's fiscal policy? I also said that the GOP deserved to lose Congress in 2006 in no small part due to it's irresponsible budgetary policies. So, where, specifically, did I say that I believe "John McCain will somehow fix [my] problems"?

Did someone say, "Ann Margaret?"

filth: Maybe there's a diplomatic solution. We'll turn down the heat on Iran's international terror network and nuclear aspirations if they continue to supply us with smoking hot news anchors.

This is an excellent plan. But, I think that Clinton would have been the better man to implement the plan. Well, Bill at least.

Nabb1: Where did I say that?

You said you doubt McCain will and you know Obama won't.

That would imply that you are willing to accept McCain's policies over Obama's policies.

bulldg4life: Nabb1: Where did I say that?

You said you doubt McCain will and you know Obama won't.

That would imply that you are willing to accept McCain's policies over Obama's policies.

Oh, well, excuse me for believing that McCain's policies may be bad and Obama's worse. But, let me clarify: I don't trust Obama to stand up to a Democratic Congress on spending any more than Bush stood up to a Republican Congress for six years. Do you? Or do you accept spending the way it is? Because I find it unconscionable, so if I have a problem with current spending, between the two, who is more likely to stand up to Congress on spending issues right now?

Nabb1: Do you? Or do you accept spending the way it is? Because I find it unconscionable, so if I have a problem with current spending, between the two, who is more likely to stand up to Congress on spending issues right now?

Given the policies of the GOP over the past 8 years, I find it hard to put faith in a continuation of those policies.

bulldg4life: Given the policies of the GOP over the past 8 years, I find it hard to put faith in a continuation of those policies.

I agree, but that was not the question I asked you. You are simply arguing that McCain will be a continuation of the current policies. Okay, that's your view. But, by all accounts I have read, Obama has no plans to reduce spending, and many projections have him increasing federal spending. So, again, as a fiscal conservative, why should I support Obama's fiscal policy? If I think one option is probably bad and the other option most likely worse, why should I pick the latter over the former?

Suppose the taxman he comes to town,
And you don't lay your money down.
Yet Mr. Jones he killed Mr. Brown the other day.
Well I wonder, whose gonna go to hell?

Obama/Claypool '08!

are you farking serious? horserace huh? wonder which horse cbs are banking on to win based on this image?

Nabb1: So, again, as a fiscal conservative, why should I support Obama's fiscal policy? If I think one option is probably bad and the other option most likely worse, why should I pick the latter over the former?

I would think as a fiscal conservative...both people would turn you off enough that you wouldn't vote for either one.

Well I wonder, whose who's gonna go to hell?

FTFM

Yesdog: Since you Republicans have created this huge deficit, it would be the height of hypocrisy to complain when we all have to sacrifice to restore the balance.

Fortunately Republicans are above that sort of thing. Bwah!

Indignant? Fine. Prove me wrong and don't be hypocrites when President Obama has to make some tough choices to undo the damage YOU caused.

Nabb1: Oh, well, excuse me for believing that McCain's policies may be bad and Obama's worse.

Just as an FYI, McCain's policies are, in fact, worse than Obama's by a long shot. He has not come up with any really significant spending cuts and will cut tax revenues by far more than Obama would. Both of them will increase the size of the national debt, however it would be McCain who would increase it more.

The competing tax plans laid out by Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain would both add trillions of dollars to the national debt and could add to the tax system's complexity, a nonpartisan tax research group concluded Wednesday in a newly released report.

Both campaigns assert that their plans to continue many Bush-era tax cuts and offer new reductions would aid the economy without massive new spending. But the Washington-based Tax Policy Center warned that under either candidate, "the debt would likely continue to rise as it has over the past eight years."

Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion. The deficit is now $9.5 trillion.

Just saying...don't vote Republicrat if you want real responsibility in Washington.

antidisestablishmentarianism: Um, there's only one thing to say: The GOP has been in complete control of the government from 2000-2006 and how did that work out? If you believe the talking heads of conservative radio, it's the liberal's fault that we are in the mess we currently are.

I would suggest that one of the lessons we should learn from this period is that we should be extremely hesitant to hand control of the White House and the Congress to one party.....any one party. In Clinton's first two years he had a D controlled Congress and he was an abysmal failure. He was far more effective later in his terms when he had to deal with the opposing party and seek compromise. I find it astounding that this simple truth seems to escape so many of the posters here. Look back across the histopry of this nation. Every time one party controls the whole game the people get screwed.

bulldg4life: Nabb1: So, again, as a fiscal conservative, why should I support Obama's fiscal policy? If I think one option is probably bad and the other option most likely worse, why should I pick the latter over the former?

I would think as a fiscal conservative...both people would turn you off enough that you wouldn't vote for either one.

That's what happened in 2004, so there is precedent. Presidential precedent, if you will. (I'm sorry.) In any case, you said McCain would be "continuation" of GOP spending from the "past eight years," but the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for almost two years now, so do I take that to mean you think that the Democratic Congress will continue the fiscal idiocy of their predecessors if McCain is President and blame it on him? If that policy has been so bad, why have there been no real attempts to change it yet?

The Why Not Guy: Prove me wrong and don't be hypocrites when President Obama has to make some tough choices to undo the damage YOU caused.

You think raising taxes is a "tough choice" for a Democrat? I LOL'd.

filth: SilentStrider: Considering that the last four "fiscal conservatives" ran horrible budget deficits, and the last "tax and spend liberal" ran a budget surplus... I'll take my chances with the "tax and spend liberal". At least they're smart enough not to spend money they don't have.

That dude never submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress. I wish I could vote for gridlock.

You can - a vote for McCain = a vote for gridlock. Hold your nose and do what you have to.