Good thing Palin's against corruption...Follow

Horseshit. This does not change the fact that we are $10,500,000,000,000 in debt. George Bush has borrowed more money than every other president combined.

The best off are the ones that were in debt and didn't invest in the stock market and instead paid it off.

I'd like to make $80,000 a year. But I'd settle for $50,000 a year, which is about twice what I make now. Nobody in the world likes English majors. (Hence, time for me to go back to school and make that a graduate degree.)

non sequitur.

Look at this table.

Around page 20 or so you can start finding different budget tabulations and expenses and receipts from the US government for most of the 20th century.

Anywho - budget does pretty good until the 1930s - hello there FDR, also that's when the government starts raking in heavy income tax. Also notice, around page 50 or so in the middle of the page you can find defense spending as a percentage of the total expenses. Its gone down pretty consistently since the 1950s. Which means if its going down something must be taking its place. (hello there FDR entitlement programs). Especially considering the governments take in personal income taxes keeps increasing. It surely must be those warmongering republicans wrecking the budget though right?

The numbers are all there, fact of the matter is FDR and LBJ are the 2 presidents most responsible for our budgeting crisis through there continually expanding of the New Deal and Great Society programs. Trivia factoid: they had liberal supermajorities, which is likely Obama can usher in era #3 that we'll never be able to pay for. He's already proposed what $800B in new spending?

If the democrats fix the budget (and honestly I hope they do) I'll eat my shoe. Its just not gonna happen. There's 0 historical precedent for it.

There isn't?

Like, the projected surplus when Clinton left office somehow doesn't count?

The guy who's reducing, not increasing his debt.

A fact that is irrelevant. It's one of those simplistic measurements that is misused in order to make people who don't understand debt calculations think debt is a bigger problem than it actually is.

And it worked on you apparently.

Do you know what the difference between "debt held by public" and "intergovernmental debt" is?

Do you understand *why* one is relevant to economic health and growth, while the other is not?

Finally, do you understand why the correct measure of debt on our economy is the ratio of debt held by pubic to GDP?


Learn those things and you'll come to the startling realization that we are in actual fact less in debt today than we were in the 1990s when the economy was "booming". While that may fly in the face of everything you've heard (gee! Wonder why that is?), it's absolutely true.

The original issue of the plane, I don't know if I care cause I doubt either political group is going to hold off of spending tax payer money in the future.

The clothes part, if you donate to a campaign you shouldn't give a rip where the money goes, you have no ability to make that decision and as well, if you think of the average American voter, you do every step to be marketable. Including dressing well.

Personally, I am not fond of either candidate or running mate. I wont be voting based on the people so that isn't an issue. I vote on economics, and any media that doesn't cover that, I think is missing the point.

Maybe you should do more research before you post youtube links of poorly constructed arguments. All facts point to your rabid right account--based on a chainmail started by a conspiracy theorist in Africa--being completely false.

Edit: Also, someone leeching off of your fame by claiming to be your relative to supposedly authenticate their political value =/= a real relative.



Edited, Oct 25th 2008 6:18am by Paskil

Your video is a joke. It repeatedly shows Obama with Odinga at an AIDS prevention/testing PSA-style event where both were publically tested for the virus.

Now, if Obama was "campaigning" for Odinga, and remember that Obama had a traveling press corp with him for the entire trip, why are they forced to keep showing footage of a call for AIDS testing as their evidence of "campaigning"? This was well before Obama's declared run for the presidency and before the election where Odinga lost and the violence took place. The press widely reported on his trip and would have had no reason to hide Obama's "campaigning".

Odinga belongs to the same tribe as Obama's relatives. Odinga claimed that he is from the same family, Obama says that, as far as he knows, there's no blood relation. I'll admit to not knowing how African tribes decide who is related to whom.

The man accusing Obama of being Odinga's "stooge" was a member of the Kenyan government under Kibaki which was pissy that Obama accused the government of corruption after members of the press corp were shaken down for bribes by government officials.

Obama's trip to Kenya was part of a larger trip to Africa including trips to South Africa, Chad and Djibouti (a trip to Congo was eventually cancelled). It was "tax-payer funded" because it was an official Senate trip and Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee panel on African Affairs.

Nothing else in the video linked the two men at all. Again, I find it especially telling that people accuse Obama of "campaigning" for Odinga yet no one can show an actual instance of it, has footage of it or even transcripts of speeches Obama gave supporting Odinga. Instead, we just have silent footage of Obama and Odinga standing outside a trailer with an AIDS ribbon on it and the name of a British medical organization.

Interesting. Well I guess I'm wrong.