Democrat CD-2 candidate Tom White is on the air with a new ad as well.
See it here.
White is trying to sell that Congressman Terry is really the one who wants to increase the deficit. Well, good luck on that one.
First, no matter what he says, had Tom White been in office back then (Xenu help us...), he would have absolutely voted for TARP. And no one thinks differently.
But in any case, on the question of the day, White has already said he would have vote with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi on the stimulus and health care.
Done.
And really, the "pay increase" question? That's what's going to win this election for White? Wow. Who is consulting this thing?
Oh, and by the way: "Independence for Congress"?
Gee, could have sworn that...
TOM WHITE IS A DEMOCRAT!
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
The following will happen on this thread: all the anonymous commentators who thought the Terry ad in the last post was just gosh darn brilliant will hate this ad, and vice versa.
Wow-- Now that is a dishonest ad. All the spending mentioned White supported, and White supports literally trillions more, and he's complaining about the debt? And he wants to cut Congress' pay til the budget is balanced? Why not just call his party's leaders and say, hey, cut it out?
Not once during the Bush era did I hear or read about one Republican against spending. Now that the GOP put the country in the ditch they get relgion. FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.
HCR 95 was a budget resolution (remember those? Way back when Republicans controlled the Congress?) that cut taxes. It also set deficit limits. At no time, with the exception of Bush's last year in office, did the yearly deficit approach the deficit limits set out in HCR 95. Hmm, cut taxes and net revenue goes up. What's that called? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
So White wants to hit Terry for cutting my taxes. Yeah, let me rush right on out and vote for the guy who is going to raise them.
As for the laughable Congressional pay...what's he proposing again? Cutting pay? Withholding pay? If we withheld the pay of all 535 Congressional members, we'd save about $93 million a year.
Can we get a candidate with a serious idea, please?
Anon 10:07: You are correct about Republicans going along with the spending but there were plenty of conservatives who were mad about the Bush budgets. Of course, reading only Daily Kos, you wouldn't have heard about it. All you would have heard about is how the evil and mean Republicans were cutting granny's Medicare and forcing her to eat dog food.
Macdaddy,
Where were the votes against the spending budgets and deficits?
Wow....voting for Bush's unpaid for tax cuts really helped the debt. It only doubled during Bush's term. Brilliant! He even added more than Reagan did with HIS tax cuts! Then that wonderful unpaid-for Medicare plan, two wars all unpaid for.....yep, Terry was really a fiscal conservative. Now the Democrats are left to clean up a mess and try to get the country going again. Reagan's OBM guy was right - it was the GOP that destroyed the economy. Their only answer is "tax cuts, tax cuts", whether the economy is good OR bad. They have NO real answers about what to do now, and frankly, they could care less because they can sit back, say "no", bitch and moan, and the brainless masses will just fall in line because they're too stupid to do their own research. They suck a beer, turn on Fox and let it download unimpeded into their brains. Yep, the OBM guys was right - we are seeing our country heading toward an end because Politicians are too wrapped up in elections, power, and self interests.
Lee Terry's idea of fiscal discipline:
Trillion dollar Medicare plan?
Put it on the card!
Two multi-trillion-dollar wars?
Put it on the card!
Tax cuts for billionaires?
Put it on the card!(After the Social Security trust fund has been emptied, of course)
Not that Tom White is one, but I'll take a tax-and-spend liberal over a credit card conservative like Lee Terry any day.
It's funny, when I was a kid the joke about Reagan's prosperity was "You let me write a couple trillion dollars in bad checks and I'll show you a good time too."
Under the Bush/Terry era they wrote $4 trillion in bad checks and we had nothing good to show for it economically. The Republicans get control of the House they'll execute the same economic blueprint that Bush tried in 2001 and end up spending a couple hundred billion dollars in frivolous investigations trying to ruin Obama personally and politically.
Ask Republicans specifically what they plan to do differently than George W. Bush and see what answer you get.
The answer is less spending. It's really quite simple. I'm willing to bet that the Republicans have learned that lesson. I know for a fact that the Democrats haven't. Everyday, there's yet another proposal to throw money we don't have at their cronies. I also know for a fact that when the Republicans retake Congress and put out a budget that freezes spending at this year's level, the Democrats will be screeching like a bunch of stuck pigs that Grandma can't afford the Draconian spending cuts and will be out on the street in no time. But I'm sure the fiscally conservative Lefties here on LS will support the Republicans as they make the "hard" choices and cut spending.
White would never be able to cut Congress's pay because he will never be able to get a chunk of the Dems like Charlie Rangle to support it.
Look back in time and see WHO it was that offered the pay freezes for Congress and then count the votes. Lee Terry voted to always freeze pay and not take the increase and the Dems and other Republicans always voted to put the pay increase inside other budget bills.
More than a Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress needs a "Clean Bill" Amendment. Oh, wait, we are ready have that since all amendments to spending Bills are supposed to be "germain" to the Bill.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LMAO, again at the thought.
Happy go lucky Tom White is creepy. He looks incredibly uncomfortable.
12:08. Like Tom White, you waste your time trying to sell the nutty idea that Conservatives are more wasteful than Liberals who everyone sees wasting trillions.
You flail about like this because you think your opposition is Republican. It isn't.
Republicans will ride the tide up over the donkey's corpse but they aren't the tide.
The fact that you don't have a clue as to what this tide is, or why it exists, is what makes Democrats political Neanderthals.
Anon. 8:11--
Thank you! I felt it was awkward and creepy too. A very forced amiability. When you have no experience trying to be likeable (and no success at it naturally), it's tough to pick it up late in life.
Macdaddy your nuts. Starting with Reagan and then Bush the republicans have spent money like drunken sailors. They borrow and spend. Democrats tax and spend and try to balance the budget. Don't give me that nonsense that Clinton had a Republican Congress. So did Reagean and Bush. They failed. Republicans for the most part think about one thing. Saving taxes on the rich. What is sad is that so many have bought into their nonsense. You think they have learned their lesson. Then you have not been listening very well. All they say is keep the Bush tax cuts. That is one thing that republicans are not the party of NO. They have no new ideas. They liked the old ones. Because that is what is best for Wall Street. They could care less about the Middle Class.
The only people that want less pay for the work they do are the people that are already millionaires and can live off their dividends.
Tom White must have invested all the Douglas County taxpayer's money that he sued for, well.
Anon 8:20 AM-
It's just too easy to tell when someone is trying to be something they're obviously not.
Name one budget that the Democrats have balanced in the (almost) 4 years they have been in control. You can't, and do you know why?
Because they haven't submitted a freaking budget since taking control in 2006!!!
How can you get control of spending, if you have no idea what your spending limit is?
I'll tell you how the Dems do it. They increase our debt limit to continue spending-just like they just did a few months ago.
Would Tom White have voted to increase the debt limit a few months ago?
Lee Terry refused to give the government more spending power. He refused to let the government take more of your earned income MULTIPLE times this session alone. And he has refused to vote for a pay increase at least 10 times and has never voted for an Omnibus Bill (AKA, all the crap ass spending that we couldn't get in during committee).
And yes, I think Tom White is creepy too. But that's more because I don't like people that hit other people.
Let's start with Nancy Pelosi. Take her pay and refuse to give it back until she presents a budget-ANY BUDGET!.
I don't expect her to present a balanced budget, mind you.
I just think it would be nice if Tom White's Democrat friends and donors in Congress would bother to try and live within my means.
Wait, that's what we should all do. Send Pelosi our budgets printed from Quicken so she can see what a budget looks like.
Money in, money out. I am trying to remember from High School accounting. Isn't it just 2 simple columns and a bottom line?
TW has a hard time wiping that smart a$$ grin off his face at the end of the ad. He loses credibility with that.
Sometimes when I read the comments here I have to check the calender to make sure it's been at least a week since I smoked peyote.
"Democrats tax and spend and try to balance the budget."
Anon 8:59...what can I say other than I hope you were paid to type that.
Wow. Democrats haven't passed a budget since 2006? Really? Didn't realize the Government didn't have a budget for the last 4 years. Must have missed that because if it didn't have one, government workers wouldn't be getting paid, and the farmers wouldn't be getting their subsidy checks right now. Huh.
Let's talk about wasteful spending.
Let's talk about the Iraq war, which Lee Terry still defends.
First, let's consider the cost:
Three trillion dollars or more, once all the ancillary costs(health care, rebuilding the military) are factored in. All of it placed on the backs of our children.
30,000 U.S. troops killed or maimed.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.
Now who, besides Iran and Al Qaeda, China and the USSR, has benefited?
Have Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of WMDs(whether you believe they existed or not) been secured?
Are the Iraqi people better off now? They are still being tortured. They have no utilities, no jobs, no security, no freedom, no functioning government.
Is Islamic extremism on the decline? Is democracy spreading throughout the Middle East?
Has America's position in the world been strengthened? The U.S. is now seen as a stupid, untrustworthy bully by most of the planet, not to mention an enemy of Islam and it's billion and a half adherents.
But Tom White seems creepy. Oh well.
Nice try, Don, but the CBO said that the Iraq war has cost less than $800 billion so far.
Hey Kuhns, 4 trillion in bad checks written by Bush? In 8 years? Meh. Sounds like a lot but he's just a piker compared to your pal Obama. BO has written that much in bad checks in less than a 4th of the time.
Tom White's voice sounds a lot like Al Franken, doesn't it? Listen to the ad with your eyes closed. It's what Franken sounds like.
Anybody know how tommy voted on the budgets put before him in the Legislature?
Change of subject here, but apparently Suttle has hired a pedestrian and bike coordinator...i wonder if the official title is "Bike and Pedestrian Czar"
The idiocy on this forum astounds me. Bush doled out "skewed to the very rich" tax cuts (which had the same effect as spending since we had to borrow the money from China) resulting in huge unnecessary deficits. Obama's deficits are the result of trying to gin up the economy since the private sector isn't spending. If Obama had followed your prescription of cutting the budget and giving more tax cuts you'd be skewering him for causing Great Depression II. Republicans = Whiners with no plausible solutions
Anon, 954, the Democrats have not presented a budget. They have passed a FEW Spending Bills. Several Continuing Resolutions. And multiple Omnibus Spending Bills.
Post an actual budget that was presented on the House Floor, debated and voted upon, if you don't believe me.
The Democrats figured out a long time ago that it is very difficult to live within a set budget and their is NO mandate that said budget exist.
Bad try, Macdaddy.
Congressional appropriations specifically related to the Iraq war up to now are only the tip of the iceberg.
The entire war was bought on credit, and creditors charge interest, in case you forgot.
"Congressional Appropriations specifically related to the War..."?
Congress couldn't keep any Approps specifically related to anything to save their lives.
I believe, San Fran Nan's special new airplane was specifically related to the War as per recently deceased John Murtha. And God only knows how many pet projects in his District alone were and are "directly related to the War".
"Costs directly related to the War" is the biggest oxymoron I have heard in a long time, and you my friend, are a moron for even saying it.
TedK says "The idiocy on this forum astounds me."
Yeah, Ted, I know what you mean. Just the other day, one of those idiots was trying to claim that the housing bubble burst because of Bush's tax cuts. ROFLMAO!!!
Seriously, someone actually tried to claim that. The argument was that all these rich people got these HUGE tax cuts and went out and, rather than spend any of it on consumables or reinvesting in their businesses or what have you, just bought up real estate by the boat load.
Yeah, ahem, that's soooo much more plausible than Federal Gov't policies forcing mortgage lenders to basically give money to bad credit risks (which actually happened) who, at first, went out and bought a bunch of lower end property, driving up the price of real estate from the bottom up (which they really did), but who then defaulted in droves when their limited-time fixed-rate mortgages switched to ARMs (which really occured).
And so they walked away from all these "toxic assets" leaving the banks holding the bag (which, of course, actually happened). And so there was all this real estate for which there was suddenly no market, which pulled real estate values down across the spectrum.
No, no, that explanation makes too much sense.
Much more politically satisfying to blame it on Bush's tax cuts. ROFLMAO!!!
I see what you mean, TedK. Idiocy on this forum. It astounds you. I just laugh at it.
To all of you libs who want to believe that conservatives suddenly "got religion" on government spending after Obama was elected, I have some facts to throw at you.
The National Debt increased $1.885 trillion during Bush's first term. That's a lot. Too much. Many conservatives, including your much-hated Rush Limbaugh, spoke out against such things as the Medicare Prescription entitlement so aversion to spending isn't anything new, just for the record.
Nearly 2 trillion in 4 years is a lot. Too much. Agreed. In his second term, though, it was worse. In his second term, the Natinoal Debt increased $3.014 trillion. That's clearly worse. Makes me sick thinking about how out-of-control spending was in Bush's second term -- especially the second half of his second term.
Sadly, Bush's spending is NOTHING compared to the current occupant. By Pres Obama's own projections, the National Debt will increase $6.5 trillion during his 4 years. WOW! That's more than double Bush's debt levels. Whoa! And those are, of course, rosy assumptions.
National Debt, right now, stands at $13.2 Trillion. That's an increasse of $3.2 trillion from where it was 2 years ago. That right there is more than the debt increased in any 4-year term of President Bush.
And you libs complain that Bush increased the debt by, basically, allowing people to keep more of their own money (tax cuts.) That's a little more palatable than Obama's wealth redistribution. But, those dems who complain that conservatives didn't object to spending under Bush (actually, they did), here's one for you: why aren't YOU complaining about spending under Obama?
1:09, you've added to the idiocy quotient. Just because you think something happened a certain way, or was caused by something, doesn't make it so. As Sen. Moynihan once said: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. What's telling is no one attempts to rebut what I post with facts. Instead they repeat the same canards spoon fed to them by Rush, Fox, Glenn Beck, ad nauseum, that have been proven false by sane people, or make snide comments. I'd like to post some links to back up my argument, but blog rules forbid this. So in short, tax cuts to people who already have plenty, with no place to get a good return because of artificially low interest rate, ==> housing speculation ==> housing bubble. And anyone who repeats the lie that the government forced lending to bad risks only shows their susceptibility to propaganda and the inability to find the truth on their own. Turn off Fox News and right-wing radio. Your IQ will immediately shoot up 10 points and you might regain the ability to think for yourself instead of repeating right-wing talking points.
1:35, simple. There's a reason behind Obama's deficit spending. Trying to jump start the economy and prevent a Depression. You may not agree with this strategy, but an awful lot of economists do. All Bush's tax cuts did was increase speculation which led to our current straits. Timing is everything where deficit spending is concerned. Now if deficits continue when the economy recovers, you will hear me yelling about it. I don't recall any Republicans in Congress or their leadership complaining about our burgeoning debt until Obama was elected. They were the ones who could have done something about it, not Rush, though he does seem to head your party.
I prefer to spend my own money, thank you very much.
TedK, if nothing else, you're good for a laugh. Your post at 1:49 is kind of missing that cause-effect relationship thing.
"All Bush's tax cuts did was increase speculation ..." Are you kidding me? Where do you come up with this nonsense?
But it gets better, because then you say, "... which led to our current straits." OMGWTF? You are truly comic. That's funny stuff. Truly it is.
And you complain no one rebuts your posts with facts? ROFLMAO. What's to rebut? Your fact-free illogic folds under it's own weight. There's nothing left for me to do but chortle and guffaw.
Sorry, no links rule.
-Ed.
11:01, use the Google and read something outside of your usual right wing sources. I didn't make this stuff up. Plenty of experts say the same things. I could back my positions up better with links, but you know the rules. It is amazing how deluded some of you posters are. Anyone who posts something outside of your faulty version of reality is derided as a fool. It's actually quite sad and says more about you than me.
11:26, I'm magnanimous, so will repost your comment, sans the link:
TedK steps in it at 1:39, thusly:
And anyone who repeats the lie that the government forced lending to bad risks only shows their susceptibility to propaganda and the inability to find the truth on their own. Turn off Fox News and right-wing radio. Your IQ will immediately shoot up 10 points and you might regain the ability to think for yourself instead of repeating right-wing talking points.
Gee, Ted, I thought Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that you weren't entitled to your own facts, but there you go.
Ted, do you know who Andrew Cuomo is and what his job was in, say, the late 90s? That's right. He was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton Administration from 1997 to 2001.
Here's what I want you to do, Ted (and anyone else): I want you to paste the following into your browser and find a video of Andrew Cuomo, HUD Secretary, announcing a $2 BILLION settlement in a mortgage lender "discrimination" case in which the offending lender was forced to agree, as part of a settlement with the Federal Government, to direct TWO BILLION DOLLARS toward higher risk loans for low-income minorities.
[LINK DELETED]
Note that the "discrimination" of which he speaks is denying loans at a higher rate to blacks than to whites based on credit worthiness. (Gee, how unreasonable.) And he then admits that, yes, these forced loans will, of course, be riskier and result in a higher default rate.
Note also that the first half of the video is from the Cuomo press conference from April 1998. The second half is a report from Fox News. I know, Ted, you're going to get the vapors from seeing something from Fox News, but maybe if you watched a little bit of Fox, you'd learn something that you won't find out by watching MSNBC or reading Daily Kos.
"And anyone who repeats the lie that the government forced lending to bad risks only shows their susceptibility to propaganda and the inability to find the truth on their own."
No lie, Ted, no lie at all.
9:49, your post shows evidence that Faux news viewing damages critical thinking abilities. I found the video on several right-wing sites with an obvious bias. To get a more balanced report I went to the government's site. Here's why AccuBank agreed to the $2 billion settlement: Tests of the lender were conducted by whites and minorities posing as applicants for home mortgage loans. One test in Dallas showed that a minority tester was told he was eligible for an $85,000 loan, while a white tester with a less favorable financial record was told he was eligible for a loan of $110,000 to $150,000. In another test, a minority tester was told he was eligible for a $115,000 loan, while a white tester with a similar financial record was told he was eligible for a loan of up to $150,000. There were similar results in other tests. So to make up for past transgressions they had to issue possibly more risky mortgages to minorities who had been discriminated against. Anyway, the main point I want to make is STOP CONCENTRATING ON THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. Anyone can find an exception which supposedly "proves" their case. Googling will find plenty of charts that show the sub-prime market taking off when banks started selling their mortgages to Wall Street (and no longer caring about the loan quality). Wall Street securitized them, thus opening up a speculative market resulting in a housing bubble. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 had nothing to do with subprime lending in the '00s.
White just lacks all credibility here--
If he really is concerned about 'piling debt onto our kids'-as his ad says--then why would he make the problem worse with his $2 trillion add-on...
LB 5 is about trapping wildlife. What does that have to do with balancing the budget?
Post a Comment