2008 Republican Florida Debate

January 25, 2008 at 10:15 am (POLITICS)




  1. Jersey McJones said,

    “Romney conceded that everyone on stage wanted taxes and spending reduced. He met a 3 billion dollar shortfall in Massachusetts without raising taxes, and balanced the budget all four years. He pointed out that he supported the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which McCain opposed at the time but now wants to make permanent.”

    Well he should have told another live, breathing human being that he was for the tax cuts because he sure never said anything at the time!

    “(Ron Paul) did state that he was against Sarbanes Oxley from the beginning, which is a very valid point.”

    Oh puh-lease. Those poor wittle corporations just can’t keep up with reporting…. awww… I worked corporate accounting after this. Sarbanes Oxley is no big deal, and Lord knows it’s needed. It’s just another silly excuse for corporatists and their sycophants to whine and pass blame like the spoiled little princesses.

    ” McCain stated that democrats will raise taxes, spend more, and regulate more.”

    History would show exactly the opposite.

    Eh, the rest of the debate was the usually pile of …


  2. Jerome Dean said,

    Great summary of the debate. Did not get a chance to see it, so this was very helpful!


  3. micky2 said,

    “History would show exactly the opposite.’

    Actually , history shows spending to have been pretty much even across the board untill the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions

  4. Jersey McJones said,

    70% of all federal debt has been accrued under the auspices of just three GOP presidents: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. With Bush II, and six years of House GOP majority and 4 years of Senate GOP majority, the national debt rose by roughly 4 trillion dollars. And since 2003, when the GOP took complete control of the Hill, federal borrowing has exceeded 1/2 trillion per year. The GOP has shown itself to be the party of borrow-and-spend, leaving the debt to future generations. Ironically, these geniuses want to get rid of the inheritence tax and yet are saddling future generations with so much debt that they will all have to pay more taxes in the edn!


    History shows McCain is wrong on this one.


  5. micky2 said,

    Your statistics only show Reagan,and the Bushs. Look at the chart. That is history that goes as far back as Truman.
    Reagan and the two bushs had wars to fight, be fair.

  6. Sara said,

    I have absolutely nothing intellectual to add, I just wanted to say that I ❤ you.

  7. Jersey McJones said,

    Bush I had one war to fight and had the assistance of the international community, Panama was nothing, really. Reagan did not have anything but the Cold War (unless you consider Greneda a “war”) and did not have to spend so much. Bush II had one war to fight, neglected it, and instead chose to fight another war – oh, and not to pay for it, of course.

    Truman and Johnson and Nixon had wars on their hands, but them they didn’t pass all the bucks.


  8. micky2 said,

    ” McCain stated that democrats will raise taxes, spend more, and regulate more.”

    This is true, because he was not talking about any history. he is refering to Hillary and Obamas proposals, not the past.

    If Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Could Enact All Of Her Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $773 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term. Keep reading for a breakdown of her proposals:

    Updated November 5, 2007: Hillary Has Proposed A $150 Billion Energy Investment Plan Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Per Year; $15 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $60 Billion.”

    Updated October 17, 2007: Hillary Proposed $1.75 Billion A Year In State Grants For Paid Family Leave And Child Care Programs; Multiplied By 4 Years = $7 Billion.’

    Updated October 12, 2007: Hillary Proposed An $8 Billion A Year College Affordability Program, Multiplied By 4 Years = $32 Billion.

    Hillary Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion.

    Hillary’s Baby Bond Proposal Would Give $5,000 To Each Of The 4 Million Babies Born In The U.S. Each Year, Totaling $20 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $80 Billion.

    It Would Be Expensive — About $20 Billion A Year — And Clinton Offered No Way To Pay For It.” (Editorial, “Clinton’s Baby Boondoggle,” The Chicago Tribune, 10/2/07)

    For Public Transit, Hillary Would Spend $1.5 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $6 Billion.

    Hillary Would Spend $10 Billion On Bridges Over 10 Years, Equal To $1 Billion Per Year; $1 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $4 Billion.

    Hillary Plans To Spend $1 Billion For At-Risk Mortgage Borrowers.

    Hillary Would Commit $10 Billion For Education In Developing Countries Over 5 Years, Equal To $2 Billion Per Year; $2 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $8 Billion.

    Hillary Pledged $300 Million For “Second Chance Education.”

    Hillary Committed $36 Million For School Phys-Ed Programs.

    Hillary’s Universal Pre-K Would Cost $5 Billion The First Year, And Over The Next 5 Years Annual Expenditures Would Increase To $10 Billion, Meaning At A Minimum It Would Cost $5 Billion Per Year Over The First 4 Years; $5 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $20 Billion.

    Hillary Would Increase The Number Of National Science Foundation Fellowships And Increase The Size Of Each Award, At An Annual Cost Of $378 Million; $378 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = Over 1.5 Billion.

    She Would Double The NIH’s Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $28 Billion, Equal To 2.8 Billion Per Year; $2.8 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $11.2 Billion.

    And Would Double The National Cancer Institute’s Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $5 Billion, Equal To $500 Million Per Year; $500 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = $2 Billion.

    Sure it’s only 3/4 of a trillion dollars.
    But you know, 3/4 of a trillion here and 3/4 of a trillion there, and soon you’re talking about real money.

  9. micky2 said,

    Reagan out spent the USSR , alot of strategic defense spending went into the Reagan years.
    I mentioned Bush 1&2. You know , the first gulf war, Afghanistan, and Iraq ?
    And you have to compensate for inflation and newer technologies also.

  10. Jersey McJones said,

    Micky, please stop denying reality. And please stop looking at history as some top-down comic bookish story of heroes and villians. Reagan did not have to out-spend the USSR any more than we already were. In fact, we could have downsized significantly and it would have had the same effect. The USSR was oending 90% of governemnt revenues on the military when they collapsed. That is unsustainable. We could have cut our 15% in half and the USSR would have fallen anyway.


  11. micky2 said,

    Stop telling me what reality is.
    Its just stooopid to keep telling people to face reality or stop denying it.
    Loose the phrase already. Its very dictative and autocratic. And makes you look incredibly arrogant to always tell nice intelligent people to face “YOUR” reality.
    We’ve had this waste of time before on the same subject of Reagan before.
    And a lot of intelligent people on the thread agreed with me and not you.
    Comic books ?
    And we should just treat terrorists like” unruly children and not fear them”
    911 was Bushs fault ?

    You have some pretty animated views of your own buddy

  12. micky2 said,

    Reagan’s Administration broke the back of communism

    Reply to: see below
    Date: 2008-01-22, 10:55AM PST
    “People have such short memories. The Reagan Administration, with the help of Casper Weinberger, caused the Russians to collapse. The cold war ended because of the U.S. military might in its ability to outspend and outstrip the Russians, but particularly in Afghanistan. There we provided the insurgents Stinger missiles.

    We more than scared the Russians when in Jan. 1991 we easily beat back Saddam with our airpower alone. Don’t sit there and carp more of that R Party diatribe today.
    These facts are easily researched by anyone, even you.

    He out spent them in the arms race to the point that they could no longer take the economic pain that came with it. The final dagger was when he got congress to approve “The Star Wars Missile Defense System. The Soviets had no choice to concede knowing that their Nuclear Missiles were worthless at this point. By the way, Star Wars was a huge bluff and it worked.

    We’ve won a lot of short wars folks. Obama was correct to mildly recognize Reagan. However, the Reagan days are gone. Now we face a new heavy arms buildup and a new cold war with Russia. This time they have lots of oil money to rebuild with and plenty of hate for America.

    Nobody in the D Party should have anything to say negatively about the Reagan record. Oh, the Berlin Wall came a tumbling down by the end of his Presidency.
    Don’t forget that too while you’re busy praising Obama or other D Party intellects today. “

  13. Jersey McJones said,

    Reagan didn’t win the Cold War. The Societ Union was doomed to collapse with or without him.

    Republicans are bigger government, bigger spenders than the Dems, period. It is impossible to deny.


  14. micky2 said,

    The possiblity that I choose to deny something is incredibly high.

    “Reagan didn’t win the Cold War. The Societ Union was doomed to collapse with or without him.”

    This only your opinion. You have yet to back it up with any substantial credibilty.
    Like I said; the USSR was more than likely to collapse. Which is why they were such a threat. So Reagan brought it about sooner than anyone in previous history could of.
    The Containment Strategy crafted by the Truman Adminstration and followed by every successive Administration, finally bore fruit with Reagan

  15. AL said,

    Eric, Congrats on the 100K – I’ve enjoyed my first couple weeks sharing ideas and learning from other participants. I appreciate the passion people have on this site.

    The debaters addressed property insurance, but I didn’t hear anyone call for accountability or common sense. When one builds a home with an aboveground pool the size of Lake Ponchetrain, and that pool is known to leak, does the government have any rights whatsoever in telling a business it has to insure that home? Likewise, when someone builds a home in a flood plain, or down the middle of tornado alley, defying nature, it is ridiculous to expect insurers to offer insurance. Just as high risk drivers pay a premium, so should people who build/buy homes in risky areas. Why should you and I subsidize stupidity?

  16. Bob D said,

    Getting into Iraq was a good idea? Get a grip on reality! If the republican candidate doesn’t flip flop on that he’ll get clobbered in the general election. We aren’t all neocons.

  17. micky2 said,

    Oh my God, its another one of dem libs with the reality going on.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: