Sarah's Bus Tour

Ferrellj

Your sign off "No we can't" sounds way too politically negative.  How about "YES we can't"?

I agree, I just changed it to something more positive.

The whiners at MSNBC are pathetic.  Sarah won't let them on the bus, or kowtow to their whims.

Plus, someone tell poor Charlie that the Flag Code is not a law. Else, car dealers nationwide would be in violation. 

"Who else is getting all this media attention?"

Snooki's car wreck is getting as much, if not more, attention than Palin's bus tour.  News networks don't care about news.  They care about ratings.  Palin, for various reasons, is good for ratings - just like Snooki.

Wow Snooki had a wreck? You have to admit, Sarah Palin is charismatic. She connects to a certain demographic very well. I don't know if she has what it takes to beat Obama, but she will have a following.

I agree wright, Sarah Palin knows how to connect with that certain demographic very well. She also knows how to play the media for all it's worth.

I must admit she is certainly interesting in an oddball sort of way but as far as leadership skills I don't think she has any. Just my 2 cents.

The Palin voters, which number about 15% of Repubs, just make the field of candidates for the nomination more vulnerable.  Maybe Perot will run again too...

You sound more disgruntled than anything. I don't find her to be a serious threat to either party either in the primaries or the big show. I do think she has the potential to provide a solid backing to a serious candidate.

She had better run, now that she is about to be investigated for misusing campaign money, which is a violation of federal law.

She is not going to run. If she did, she would lose and she knows it. She isn't stupid. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of her followers.

Something like 20,000 of Palin's e-mail messages while half governor of Alaska have today been released in response to a freedom of information request.  Watch for all the ludicrous, simple-minded drivel that oozes from that stack of blithering missives! A veritable bonanza of babbling banality!!

She does  have her base, but that is all she has or will ever get

A person like Palin can collect some minimum number of loyalist sheeple followers, but the longer she blithers and babbles, the smaller even that base will become.  She has steadily lost approval in the polls.  But she is having fun and making money, so she must be happy to continue her kooky caravaning around the country, enjoying all the gushing praise she gets from the Palininnies who really think she could handle the office of the president. What a spectacle!

Leadership skills are not a requirement for president (See 2008).

Exactly! A good leader (we haven't had one since Reagan) will surround themself with EXCELLENT advisors.....something the cyrrent Dummy in Charge cannot seem to grasp.

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a top treasury official in the George H.W. Bush administration, has committed the unthinkable – he’s called out his own party for outright lying about taxes.

In the Economix column published in today’s New York Times, Bartlett writes-

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year(2011). The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950 according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Many of the same Republicans who today complain about Obama's spending voted for every pork-barrel project proposed by any Republican during the years they controlled Congress, as well as voting for a vast expansion of Medicare spending in 2003 when the program was already bankrupt.

Among those voting to further bankrupt Medicare were such self-proclaimed protectors of the public purse as House Republican Leader John Boehner, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan. When they complain about Obama's spending, they should be reminded that their vote to expand Medicare added $17.2 trillion to the nation's long-term indebtedness, according to the latest report by Medicare's trustees

Bartlett on Reagan:

Reagan signed into law major tax increases every year of his presidency after the first. By the end of his presidency, he took back half of the 1981 tax cut in the form of higher taxes. And it should also be noted that when confronted with a crisis in Social Security in 1983, Reagan endorsed a rescue plan drafted by Alan Greenspan that consisted almost entirely of higher taxes.

You fail to realize that half the tax cut remained.  Also, that there may be a time and place for taxes and a time to cut them.  The Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue, therefore, do not cite them as reasons for the deficits.

The left wing reaction to Palin is hilarious. Half the HuffPo posters call her an idiot.  The other half state she is a sly Machiavellian manipulator of the press. Which is it!

She has excellent political instincts and can play the press like a violin.  Although, they caterwaul like the cat with a tail under a rocking chair.

My main objection is that her brand is damaged.  And, that she has remained incurious about the past and how we arrived at the point we are now at. 

I hope the next president, Republican, of course, will appoint her to the cabinet.  Perhaps, Energy until they phase that one out. Then, Interior.

Luaghable that lefty posters mention Obama and leadership.  Weren't they the same ones that questioned the necessity for executive experience!   

what the heck is a snooki? sounds like another knock off of the snuggie, but made for a couple to have 'quality time' in.

The Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue". In which imaginary world did this happen?

nevermind.. i googled her. i wish now i hadn't bothered.

she's nasty.

And your point is??

Seems here's one Lefty who stays torn up over her?

Whatsamatta...do you feel she's betern you?

Well why don't you tell us? You're the one who seems securely familiar with imaginary worlds.

There is nothing to tell. It didn't happen. It is another Teabagger lie. Have a nice day.

Riiight... Tell it to a Democrat demigod, JFK. Life as the "teabaggee" must be rough for you Jimi.

It did happen jimi, but I know anything good to do with Bush is automatically blocked from your brain.

http://www.heritage.org/Resear...ut-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts


Setting optimal tax policy requires governing with facts rather than popular mythology, which is why it is important to set the record straight by debunking 10 myths about the Bush tax cuts.

        Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

        Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
        Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

        Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
        Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

        Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
        Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

        Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
        Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

        Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
        Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

        Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
        Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

        Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
        Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

        Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
        Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

        Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
        Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

        Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
        Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

Here are the numbers, not spin from Heritage.org. 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...yafact.cfm?Docid=200

No. It's true. Carry on.

Nice chart jimi.  It shows that there was a budget surplus when Bush was elected. It changed to a deficit after 9/11. Two wars may have something to do with it. Worsened until 2004, then started coming back toward positive until Obama got in there, then it tripled into the negative.
What it actually shows is all Obama's stuff have worsed the debt, and the GDP by triple.  Good call.

When Bush was in, the DOW rebounded form 8000 to over 14000.

But you vote Obama anyway.

The BushIIe defenders are reminiscent of Colin Powell prior to having his honor stabbed in the back by members of the BushIIe cabal. 

If you note, federal tax revenues are at historic lows.  One day we will realize that we have beeb in a depression, The BushIIe Depression

Jimi is, of course, an idiot! As to the increase in tax revenue:

Dream on liar.

Federal government revenues have never, ever approached $5Trillion.  Your chart is fiction, and your claim is once again, debunked....idiots.

If, you had followed the link at the bottom of the graph, you'd realize it was for all revenue, federal state, county and municipal. 

Here is the result for federal revenue, only.  If, in this instance, you withdraw the accusation of liar, I shall refrain from calling you a demagogue.  Otherwise, it stands.

Ditto, jimi,

How about the New York Times?  Not exactly a lover of Bush.

The New York Times
July 13, 2005
Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07...tml?pagewanted=print

2005 tax receipts were lower than expected based on historical averages, which is why the deficit was over $300billion.  Or was a $300billion dollar deficit part of the BushIIe economic plan???  He had a Repub Congress so he got exactly what the GOP wanted. 

Clinton raised taxes and receipts went up every year, YoY and as a percentage of GDP.  Your theory is bogus.

Weird. This thread was about a bus tour... the Dippyhead and Jimi the gimp got involved....

Sticks and stones may break my bones but when all you have is an ad hominem attack, I know you've admitted defeat.

Clinton raised taxes, while shrinking the budget deficit to zero, and curtailing federal spending, and he did with half his brain tied to the ****** of an intern.  Clinton was the fiscal conservative that BushIIe claimed to be. 

Your theory is bogus.

Yeah, so bogus the NYT said the same thing.  Your a hopeless lib lost in Obamaland.

2005 tax receipts were lower than expected based on historical averages, which is why the deficit was over $300billion.  Or was a $300billion dollar deficit part of the BushIIe economic plan???  He had a Repub Congress so he got exactly what the GOP wanted.

You obviously don't understand.