Frankly, government spending during a recession is the standard policy, it is not "pandering" but during the good times the Federal government is supposed to put its house in order. Bush reversed that- he gave the elderly a tax funded drug benefit with no plan to pay for it, started a war while giving tax cuts to those who least need it. He expended the national treasure just when we should have been fixing the house and building the savings account. Greenspan kept the interest rates low and created a bubble economy. Now, there ARE no good choices.

I take it that most of you prefer to take your chances on a recession. Whether the next administration raises taxes and/or initiates a stimulus package, the fact is that the value of the dollar is going DOWN and that means we are all getting poorer and the price of everything but housing is going up. Bernanke says he will toss dollars out of a helicopter if necessary so listen up for the hum and whir overhead.

I will fax him my coordinates immediately!
Anyone got a catcher's mitt?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

This isn't a surprise, Obama is a tax and spend liberal no different than Hillary. Of course many Republicans are borrow and spend which is no better at this point in time. We need to cut spending without tax increases and I can't support anyone who won't get on board that. Politicians are spending us into disaster.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Indeed. The only advantage to tax and spend is that people in the here and now feel the pain. But either way we're screwed. Borrow and spend allows you really rachet up the spending because people don't directly feel it (they do feel it indirectly, however).

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I am not saying that Ron Paul does not have some more extreme views on certain matters. And he is also hypocritical on many other. However, saying that local roads and education is the role of the states is not a problem in this day and age. I do support a smaller federal government and more states rights.

What I think is funny is that Ron Paul thinks that abortion should be a federal issue to to outlaw and that he is a large abuser of earmarks, yet he preaches to cut spending and earmarks.

Too bad that you don't have anyone to vote for then. Because all of them will continue spending like a drunken sailor.

we can vote for tax and spend or borrow and spend
or we can vote for Dr. Paul

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

Isn't there more involved than taxing and spending? There is also monetary policy. Really low interest rates created a false sense of security and "wealth" that has now popped. It was a destructive feel-good monetary policy that persuaded people to spend more than they could afford. Isn't it amusing: Americans have never been in a poorer condition with respect to saving $ for the future, yet those who govern fiscal and monetary policy will throw money from planes, if necessary, to persuade Americans to spend, spend, spend...it really does not matter which person becomes Pres. in that regard. Personally, I would prefer Fed. debt accumulation to be the result of money spent on U.S. interests (infrastructure, education, energy independence) rather than that of cement factories in Iraq (down the drain) but rest assured that money will be spent. I favor Dems because they are more likely to spend HERE than throw it away in pursuit of vague imperial ambitions THERE.

Meanwhile, Bush has promised to sell weapons to various Mid east countries to persuade them to continue to price oil in dollars in spite of the inflation they must endure (10%) - or so I am guessing there is some kind of quid pro quo.

Ron Paul is the only Republican that's not butt buddies with Bush in terms of ideology. But still, I fear Mike Huckabee will get the nomination. Probably with his corruption and manipulation.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

I agree. As the only true democrat I believe he has a unrevealed potential to finally create some kind of widespread change.

Why do I not consider Hillary a true democrat? She's too focused on politics and not enough on the people. She knows how to improve the economy, but would probably fail at motivating the people who run it to increase productivity. As the economy and funding for education gets better, non motivated individuals fail to take advantage, and the environment only gets slightly better. Without access to the less fortunate, even in a better economy there will still be overwhelming crime, hunger and health issues, pretty much the way things have been for a while, and our economy, flawed as it is, happens to be quite strong.