Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341 [crosscut.com]

    Despite talking about cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, small government and fighting corruption, her career has been exactly the opposite of that.

    • Despite talking about cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, small government and fighting corruption, her career has been exactly the opposite of that.

      Incorrect on all counts.

      • There is a content free assertion. Which of the following statements are wrong?

        1. When she became mayor of Wasilla, the budget was balanced.
        2. When she left, the city was in debt. (Fiscally responsible?)
        3. One of her first actions as mayor was to fire various people (eg the police chief and library director) and hire her own friends. The reason she gave wasn't competence, it was because they were "not fully supporting her efforts to govern". ie not endorsing her as mayor. (This kind of political manipulation s
        • There is a content free assertion.

          Yes, exactly. You gave a content-free assertion, so I responded in kind.

          When she left, the city was in debt. (Fiscally responsible?)

          All the debt was for specific infrastructure purposes, was favored by the people, and was budgeted for in advance. This is quite responsible, yes.

          One of her first actions as mayor was to fire various people (eg the police chief and library director) and hire her own friends. The reason she gave wasn't competence, it was because they were "not fully supporting her efforts to govern". ie not endorsing her as mayor. (This kind of political manipulation should be abhorrent exactly because it leads to corruption.)

          Utter tripe. If she can't work with them effectively to accomplish her goals, hell yes, she should fire them, and the sooner the better.

          Under her, Wasilla hired a lobbyist to try to get more in federal earmarks. It received them to the tune of $23 million. (She says she's against earmarks?)

          Earmarks are not a problem at all. I couldn't care less. What matters is WHAT is being earmarked.

          This was despite raising taxes substantially. (Didn't she say she was for cutting taxes?)

          You already addressed this exact point above: taxes were

          • No I am not lying [mcclatchydc.com] about Wasilla charging rape victims for medical exams under Palin. In case you doubt, here is confirmation from an article in 2000 [frontiersman.com]. It caused a controversy the caused a state-wide law to be put in place banning the practice.

            On earmarks, I care about two things. First I don't like earmarks in general because they tend to be pretty much pure pork. Secondly I really do care about the hypocrisy. The McCain-Palin ticket is promising to reduce earmarks to the tune of 100 billion per year. As part of campaigning on that, Palin is trying to claim that she was a champion for reform on the issue. Her "thanks, but no thanks" comment is brought out as evidence of that, which it isn't.

            If you're really against federal taxes, then you should also be against federal spending. After all if you spend money, it has to come from somewhere. Oh we can put it off (and do) with bonds, but some day we have to make good. To me it doesn't matter whether the money was going to one useless bridge versus a rarely used highway. What I object to is that large amounts of money are going to a small number of people because they have political connections.

            That's what the Republican party misleads people on. They claim to be for small government. They claim to be fiscally responsible. They claim to be good for business. But in the last 50 years when we've had Republicans in office we've consistently seen enormous deficits. We've seen government grow. By contrast under Democrats we've seen smaller deficits. Government may grow, but by less. (I believe it actually shrank under Clinton.) And judging from returns in the stock market, Democrats have been consistently better at getting business to grow than Republicans have. (This is true even if you discount Clinton. And before you jump up and down about Newt Gingrich, Clinton's autobiography lays a pretty good case out that the boom was due to policies from his first two years that just took a while to get going.)

            So if I care about fiscal responsibility, who should I vote for? The party that has consistently promised and under delivered? Or the one that has a better track record? I think I'll skip the one that just added a former beauty contestant for the candidate who has done a well-managed nationwide organization for the last couple of years that has several times as many people involved as Alaska.

            • No I am not lying [mcclatchydc.com] about Wasilla charging rape victims for medical exams under Palin.

              You were lying when you said it was her policy.

              Secondly I really do care about the hypocrisy.

              Fine, then let's look at all the hypocrisy from Obama, on earmarks, on lobbyists, on the DC gun ban, on campaign finance ... the list is long.

              So, I don't care about earmarks, but if you want to discuss hypocrisy, we can do that ...

              If you're really against federal taxes, then you should also be against federal spending.

              Again: the money ALREADY CAME TO HER STATE. Before she even took office. To blame her for taking money that she didn't take is obviously nonsense. The Bridge to Nowhere debate -- whatever your personal feelings about it -- was prim