Sarah Palin is a big fat idiot

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord can please tell me someone in Washington understands economics..applied economics. The 800 billion plan is notttttttttttttttttt a stimulus plan and the Democrats know it--it's not supposed to stimulate anything since only a tiny portion is even applied to actual short term stimulus.

Nice collection of Republican talking points. As usual, almost all wrong:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 23 percent of the stimulus will be spent before Sept. 30, and that a total of 74 percent of the $787 billion will be out a year later."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/911197.html

74% of the money spent over the next year and a half does not sound like a "tiny portion".

Anonymous wrote:Give tax breaks to anyone buying a car

The stimulus plan includes a provision allowing the deduction of sales tax on car purchases. You have to make less than $250,000 for a married couple. But, for those making more than that, I can't image the amount of money involved would make a difference. As for me, I may be buying a car this weekend.

[Anonymous]

Majority of the money will not be spent on direct stimulus which is why it is not a stimulus plan. I also think that there should be no cap on tax incentives to buy cars or houses since that seems to be so important for the economy. The only rationale on not giving a tax incentive to people over 250K is some bizarre punitive thought that oh boy we have to punish the financially productive in this country. If I were an auto maker, or builder I would be happy to get anyone in my door to buy.

We are in Carter adinistration groundhog day.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Majority of the money will not be spent on direct stimulus which is why it is not a stimulus plan.

This is non-sensical. Any expenditure will be stimulative. Some more than others, obviously. Please explain what you mean by "direct stimulus"? I believe you will find out that many of the most efficient expenditures were actually opposed by Republicans who favored the least stimulative measures of all -- tax cuts.

Anonymous wrote:I also think that there should be no cap on tax incentives to buy cars or houses since that seems to be so important for the economy. The only rationale on not giving a tax incentive to people over 250K is some bizarre punitive thought that oh boy we have to punish the financially productive in this country. If I were an auto maker, or builder I would be happy to get anyone in my door to buy.

We are in Carter adinistration groundhog day.

The deduction is for sales tax up to $49k on a new car. In DC, sales tax is 5.75 percent. So, the max tax would be roughly $2,817. Take that off the top of your AGI. Assuming you are in the top tax bracket, you are talking about maybe $980 in tax savings. So, are you telling me that making over $250,000 and looking at a more than $50 grand car you are going to hold off because you won't save $980? I doubt it. But, that kind of money could make a difference for those making substantially less than you.

By the way, here is a question for you. Which of these outcomes do you prefer:

1) you are correct about the stimulus plan and the economy crashes; or
2) you are wrong and the country returns to good economic times?

I now that Rush Limbaugh prefers the first. I just wonder about the rest of the conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I'm in a bad mood today.

I saw Greta Sustern's show last night with Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin. Bristol was speaking to Greta about the difficulties of being a teenage mom. Bristol's grandmother was supposed to come out with the baby on TV but instead, Sarah Palin took over and was the one who stepped out in front of the camera. She took over the entire interview after that. That woman is just a big fat ham for the camera. She can not keep her mouth shut. She just dies for having attention. Greta did not invite her. There was no reason for her to come on. She could not even let her 18 year old daugher do her own interview without jumping in front of her for the camera.

Wow, you're really an angry person, and you might want to get your eyes checked. Palin is far from fat. Furthermore, in a matter of months, she went from a virtual unknown to a household name and is on the verge of becoming a millionaire with her book deal. Regardles of your politics, she doesn't sound like an idiot either.

Pamela Anderson is a millionaire. And so are a few penthouse pets. That doesn't make them smart. Why am I an angry person, simply because I really think Sarah Palin is stupid and camera hungry? Check your own logic. I just think she's really idiotic and has made a complete fool of herself in front of the entire world. And the word 'fat' is being used to describe the magnitude of her idiocy, not her waistline, for goodness sake.

[Anonymous]

I'm the OP btw. Sorry I didn't write earlier, haven't kept up with this post daily.

[Anonymous]

First of all the congressional budget office has released contrary statements

ex.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study on Wednesday, that estimates the impact of the Trillion Dollar Spending Plan being debated on the floor of the Senate this evening. They said “In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” That’s right, as a result of the current plan, the GDP of the United States would actually decrease according to the CBO. They go on to say that in the long run it will lower aggregate output (GDP) by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent and “the effects of the legislation would diminish rapidly after 2010”.

FYI--no one really knows when that money is going to spent--it is a moving target and in the end grows the government and doesn't not grow sustainable business. Remember the government eats wealth it doesn't grow wealth.

As for what Obama says--he is usually changing his statements -- Catepillar ex is a good one of how Obama trumpets something in the press (how Catepillar is now going to immediately start hiring people with the stimulus package) and then the noise of when it's clarified (not only are they not going to hire right away but will first lay off) is so low as the mainstream media never calls him on anything.

Tax cuts do work. The GDP consistently went up after Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and were great until the housing mess that was brought on by the Democrats forcing banks to lend when they shouldn't have been lending. GDP also went up after the cap gains taxes were cut in 1996 which, although Clinton tried to take credit, were brought by a Republican Congress. Also the wealthiest in the country now pay 70% of taxes today while they paid about 66% before the tax cuts. Why? because when people are incentivized, they work harder.

I again ask -Where has Socialism worked??? Where?? Why are socialized countries now cutting taxes and are now enjoying vibrant ecomomies (Eastern Block countries and Ireland) and many now have taxes lower than the states???? I also notice your tone of really wanting to "get the rich" Why are you so angry? Who has stopped you from being successful? What is so bad about working to make money? This is not about not paying taxes because whatever administration is in, you have to pay a lot. Most wealthy people work hard and risk their own capital for jobs that are not secure. They take on the risk and then are rewarded when things go well so they also are hit when whatever project they take on doesn't work.

I had a conversation with a teacher the other day. She was angry about executives and sports figures making too much money and thought it wasn't fair. I explained that the free market decides what a certain job or product is worth--not morally that is a whole other story. I also reminded her that if she felt she had the talent to be an NBA star or a CEO-she was free to try since no one was stopping her but she admitted she had neither the talent or the interest to play bball or run a company. I also brought up that the CEOs of the world are under incredible pressure (any screw ups and you go to jail and not for a weekend)and work 24 hours a day basically (she works nine months) and most of their compensation is directly tied to stock that they cannot freely sell. (so when you've run a company well it's paydirt and when you don't it's not great). Also..some CEOs who are forced to leave but have money, it's by accumluated stock that they already had earned. (By the way-I do understand that if you take government money-you are a target for those new shareholders deciding your compensation so in the end, the most talented busines people will not be working for those companies which is not good. Even Obama said this wasn't a good practice). But that is a miniscule portion of the wealthy. Most "wealthy" are small business owners who are making well under a million dollars. But I digress..I then asked my friend when she can retire and if she has a package. Hmm she can retire if she wants at 52 years old and maybe then try out for the Wizzards or open her own spa. And yes she gets retirement-80% of her high three years. This could wind up to being more than over a million dollars if she lives another 25 years which she should since she is in good health. Also, her healthcare is paid for and her job security over those years was solid. And..she has a master's degree complements of the good people of the state. All the sudden it didn't sound so bad to be a teacher. I then told her that most people who owened small business (the wealthy) have to do their own retirement plan and are subject to forces of the ecomony. Again..if all goes well. Bango but if all doesn't, no one is crying for an accountant, a lawyer, a pizza shop etc. to not have any money. But this is the mystery and magical nature of the U.S. People have beening fleeing, swimming..anything to get to our shores for our freedom to prosper.. This is what has made us different. These new policies that are being stuffed down our throat form Obama and congress (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even turncoats like Arlen Spector) are taking away are ability to be us. This is not good.

Your question on whether I want this to fail to prove my point. I am a realist and this plan just won't work and the fact that it takes away the fabric of who we are, breaks my heart for my children and your children. Somewhere in the noise this has all become an us against them and it really isn't. It's more of our way of life changing for the worse. If this was just some random tax, I wouldn't be as concerned (maybe I wouldn't want to pay it but would do the right thing) but we are moving toward a Socialist economy just with the swipe of a pen on a package that admittedly no one read and that will never sit well with me.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:First of all the congressional budget office has released contrary statements

ex.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study on Wednesday, that estimates the impact of the Trillion Dollar Spending Plan being debated on the floor of the Senate this evening.

There were many versions of the bill. You cherry-picked an analysis of the Senate version (and not even the final Senate version). The link I provided analyzed the final version. You can choose to pick an analysis based on accuracy or political expediency. I went with accuracy.

Anonymous wrote:Remember the government eats wealth it doesn't grow wealth.

This is a statement of opinion rather than fact. In factual terms, there is plenty of evidence that government spending stimulates growth. That was the entire basis of the New Deal. I know that Republicans are busy re-writing the history of the New Deal (in the new Republican version of history, the New Deal preceded the depression and actually caused it), but find a history book more than 2 months old.

Anonymous wrote:I again ask -Where has Socialism worked??? Where?? Why are socialized countries now cutting taxes and are now enjoying vibrant ecomomies (Eastern Block countries and Ireland) and many now have taxes lower than the states???? I also notice your tone of really wanting to "get the rich" Why are you so angry? Who has stopped you from being successful?

First of all, throwing around labels like "socialism" is pretty childish. No country has ever implemented a pure system of anything. Some people consider social security to be socialism. By that measure, the US has been socialist for some time. Also, the definition of "success" varies with individuals and countries. Some would say the fact that there are people sleeping on the streets of most US cities and people going hungary and without medical care is a sign that the US has not been successful. The world is not a zero-sum game where a country is successful or not successful. The US can learn plenty from other countries, just as other countries can learn from the US.

I believe that those who have more can afford to pay more. You ask who stopped me from being successful. What makes you think that I am not successful? I consider myself pretty damn successful, thank you. I wake up every morning wondering why I deserved to be so lucky. I have worked hard, but I have benefitted from countless advantages. Moreover, I know that there were a thousand little opportunities when I made the right choice. It may have seemed insignificant at the time, but later proved important. My own little secret is that I made the right choice by luck more than anything. So, I could yell about how I have worked and sweated and earned every penny, or I can be honest and admit that I had advantages and got lucky. Maybe a lazy person wouldn't have achieved what I have, but an unlucky person wouldn't have either. So, if I have to pay more in taxes, I am not bitter. This country has given me a lot and I am happy to give back.

It's important to realize that we are not in this alone. If we succeed as individuals, but fail as a nation, we really haven't succeeded. I always try to remember, its not about "me", it's about "us".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

By the way, here is a question for you. Which of these outcomes do you prefer:

1) you are correct about the stimulus plan and the economy crashes; or
2) you are wrong and the country returns to good economic times?

I now that Rush Limbaugh prefers the first. I just wonder about the rest of the conservatives.

I have no idea about what Limbaugh prefers - however does being right about the stimulus plan (it's junk) mean I would therefore be responsible for the economy tanking more? I don't get it? I hope I am wrong and it works, but frankly I think the economy will recover in spite of the government, not because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all the congressional budget office has released contrary statements

ex.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study on Wednesday, that estimates the impact of the Trillion Dollar Spending Plan being debated on the floor of the Senate this evening. They said “In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” That’s right, as a result of the current plan, the GDP of the United States would actually decrease according to the CBO. They go on to say that in the long run it will lower aggregate output (GDP) by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent and “the effects of the legislation would diminish rapidly after 2010”.

FYI--no one really knows when that money is going to spent--it is a moving target and in the end grows the government and doesn't not grow sustainable business. Remember the government eats wealth it doesn't grow wealth.

As for what Obama says--he is usually changing his statements -- Catepillar ex is a good one of how Obama trumpets something in the press (how Catepillar is now going to immediately start hiring people with the stimulus package) and then the noise of when it's clarified (not only are they not going to hire right away but will first lay off) is so low as the mainstream media never calls him on anything.

Tax cuts do work. The GDP consistently went up after Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and were great until the housing mess that was brought on by the Democrats forcing banks to lend when they shouldn't have been lending. GDP also went up after the cap gains taxes were cut in 1996 which, although Clinton tried to take credit, were brought by a Republican Congress. Also the wealthiest in the country now pay 70% of taxes today while they paid about 66% before the tax cuts. Why? because when people are incentivized, they work harder.

I again ask -Where has Socialism worked??? Where?? Why are socialized countries now cutting taxes and are now enjoying vibrant ecomomies (Eastern Block countries and Ireland) and many now have taxes lower than the states???? I also notice your tone of really wanting to "get the rich" Why are you so angry? Who has stopped you from being successful? What is so bad about working to make money? This is not about not paying taxes because whatever administration is in, you have to pay a lot. Most wealthy people work hard and risk their own capital for jobs that are not secure. They take on the risk and then are rewarded when things go well so they also are hit when whatever project they take on doesn't work.

I had a conversation with a teacher the other day. She was angry about executives and sports figures making too much money and thought it wasn't fair. I explained that the free market decides what a certain job or product is worth--not morally that is a whole other story. I also reminded her that if she felt she had the talent to be an NBA star or a CEO-she was free to try since no one was stopping her but she admitted she had neither the talent or the interest to play bball or run a company. I also brought up that the CEOs of the world are under incredible pressure (any screw ups and you go to jail and not for a weekend)and work 24 hours a day basically (she works nine months) and most of their compensation is directly tied to stock that they cannot freely sell. (so when you've run a company well it's paydirt and when you don't it's not great). Also..some CEOs who are forced to leave but have money, it's by accumluated stock that they already had earned. (By the way-I do understand that if you take government money-you are a target for those new shareholders deciding your compensation so in the end, the most talented busines people will not be working for those companies which is not good. Even Obama said this wasn't a good practice). But that is a miniscule portion of the wealthy. Most "wealthy" are small business owners who are making well under a million dollars. But I digress..I then asked my friend when she can retire and if she has a package. Hmm she can retire if she wants at 52 years old and maybe then try out for the Wizzards or open her own spa. And yes she gets retirement-80% of her high three years. This could wind up to being more than over a million dollars if she lives another 25 years which she should since she is in good health. Also, her healthcare is paid for and her job security over those years was solid. And..she has a master's degree complements of the good people of the state. All the sudden it didn't sound so bad to be a teacher. I then told her that most people who owened small business (the wealthy) have to do their own retirement plan and are subject to forces of the ecomony. Again..if all goes well. Bango but if all doesn't, no one is crying for an accountant, a lawyer, a pizza shop etc. to not have any money. But this is the mystery and magical nature of the U.S. People have beening fleeing, swimming..anything to get to our shores for our freedom to prosper.. This is what has made us different. These new policies that are being stuffed down our throat form Obama and congress (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even turncoats like Arlen Spector) are taking away are ability to be us. This is not good.

Your question on whether I want this to fail to prove my point. I am a realist and this plan just won't work and the fact that it takes away the fabric of who we are, breaks my heart for my children and your children. Somewhere in the noise this has all become an us against them and it really isn't. It's more of our way of life changing for the worse. If this was just some random tax, I wouldn't be as concerned (maybe I wouldn't want to pay it but would do the right thing) but we are moving toward a Socialist economy just with the swipe of a pen on a package that admittedly no one read and that will never sit well with me.

Well here are your CBO results. 2.1 Million jobs saved and better than expected results coming for 2010: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35543310/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

You can read the report yourself to see how much the tax cut portion actually did to help the economy (ha!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It seems her ambitions garner more criticism because she is a female and she is a Mom.

I think it's more because she is uninformed, inexperienced, unaware, and generally clueless. She is not smart enough or qualified enough to be a national leader. I believe that is why her ambitions are met with such criticism, because they are so far outside of her abilities.

YES! I felt, how dare this person presume to try to be VP, potentially President, of the US. The unwarranted hubris of it. Most of us acknowledge we are not qualified for certain jobs in life. We are realistic about our knowledge, skills, experience. Selling herself on being hot and folksy was just so embarrassing to me as a woman.

We need the first woman president to be even MORE competent than any other male president before her - because no one is going to cut her any slack for making the errors they did. Her flaws will always be cast as being because she is female.

I had high hopes for Hillary, I really did. She's just SO smart.

[Anonymous]

Hillary is SO smart that her husband had to help her get her current job. Face it, she does not know what she is doing at the DOS. Iran is out of control, North Korea is out of control, Pakistan is out of control, Libya is out of control, and . . . yes . . . Bill is probably out of control too. Hillary is about as smart as a deer trying to cross the I95. She is out of her league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is SO smart that her husband had to help her get her current job. Face it, she does not know what she is doing at the DOS. Iran is out of control, North Korea is out of control, Pakistan is out of control, Libya is out of control, and . . . yes . . . Bill is probably out of control too. Hillary is about as smart as a deer trying to cross the I95. She is out of her league.

I don't think you can saddle any US Sec. of State with those places being "out of control".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is SO smart that her husband had to help her get her current job. Face it, she does not know what she is doing at the DOS. Iran is out of control, North Korea is out of control, Pakistan is out of control, Libya is out of control, and . . . yes . . . Bill is probably out of control too. Hillary is about as smart as a deer trying to cross the I95. She is out of her league.

Wow, I was not under the impression that they were under control before. But good to know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is SO smart that her husband had to help her get her current job. Face it, she does not know what she is doing at the DOS. Iran is out of control, North Korea is out of control, Pakistan is out of control, Libya is out of control, and . . . yes . . . Bill is probably out of control too. Hillary is about as smart as a deer trying to cross the I95. She is out of her league.

If you are expecting any SOS to bring all those things under control single-handedly, you are seriously deluded.

What is your plan, genius?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, Sarah Palin was good at making a speech....one! Which she made over and over.

It was a great speach too.