Palin's Fiscal Responsability

green_cactus_IHB

green_cactus_IHB

New member
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business."



"The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife."



"The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."



"Flights topped the list for the most expensive items, and the daughter whose bill was the highest was Piper, 7, whose flights cost nearly $11,000, while Willow, 14, claimed about $6,000 and Bristol, 17, accounted for about $3,400."



I guess it's all good since it was less than what Frank Murkowski spent.



<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html">Article</a>
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221018636]The frequency and fury of all of the slander sure does create an air of desperation.</blockquote>


Yeah, both parties do it. It sucks. My theory is that 95% of people make up their minds if they will vote for someone within 5 seconds of seeing the person. They then spend the rest of the time justifying to themselves and others why their instinctive, emotional response is actually logical.



I think the two parties break down to two main groups:

Reps - View the world as competitive and have a need for self-preservation. Can be viewed as angry and selfish. Want to focus on how the USA is great. Seems like a reaction to fear stemming from insecurity. Value tradition over progress.

Dems - View the world as cooperative and have a need to help. Can be viewed as condescending when trying to help those "less fortunate." Want to focus on how the USA needs to improve. Value progress over tradition.
 
I didn't say it was illegal to spend the money (although it is somewhat dubious how the "first dude" managed to claim some of these expenses). She is being heralded as the champion of not excessively spending tax dollars. However, she is just like any other politician. She will spend whatever it is that she is entitled to spend. Of course, compared to her predecessor it is much less but that is not a good stick to measure against.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1221026348]T!m,



I was with you through the first paragraph. Your second paragraph is laughably biased. Let's try an experiment. Do you think that some -- I'm not asking about all -- but some conservative Republicans are good people, with sincerely held beliefs, who think their policies promote economic growth and personal freedoms and are in the best interests of America? You might think they are wrong, but that's not what I'm asking. Do you think some are sincere? If so, then why do you and others like cactus shade everything so black and white -- that everything the Republicans do comes from anger and selfishness, and everything the Democrats do is mostivated by progress and the desire to help?



I think there are some (not all!) Democrats who sincerely believe their policies are right for America and right for the world. I just happen to disagree with them on their priorities and assumptions, but I don't doubt their sincerity. Can you join me in that? (I do think that the USA is great, though!)</blockquote>


I absolutely think the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats think their beliefs/values/whatever are in the best interests of the country. Yes. I think people just have different histories, emotions, and values. FWIW, I think they issue with Palin's expense reports is silly. I should say that my two lists are meant as general tendencies. I don't think it is black and white.



For example, when I say Rep's value tradition over change, I don't mean they value tradition 100% and change 0%. I think if you gave all Reps one of those personality tests where you have to choose between a couple tough choices, Reps would end up choosing things that value tradition more than Dems would. Note that I'm not saying it is wrong. I think this one item helps explain why Dems seem to capture more of the "youth" vote.



The competitive/cooperative trait I think explains why Dems focus more on having people taxed more, and have a larger government to help people. The Reps want smaller government and want more competition in the marketplace - for goods, for jobs, etc. Again, I'm not saying (well, I'm not trying to, anyway) one is better than the other.



On the angry/selfish/condescending thing I specifically said "can be viewed as" because I think these are things that true for subsets, but end up a stereotype.



As for the USA, I think both groups love the country and want to make it better. I just think Reps think the Dems' focus is somehow unpatriotic.



Also, thank you for your respectful post. I like having discussions that don't devolve to name calling and insults.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1221030445] So, one might say Republicans view the world as one where competition fosters economic growth and efficiencies. A rising tide lifts all boats, as the saying goes. We think that because the government is a monopolist and largely immune from market forces, anything in which the government gets involves is going to be inherently inefficient. The Democrats don't trust the market to the extent the Republicans do because the market can also be cruel in its efficiency -- it is going to result in income inequality, and some people won't be able to survive without assistance. Both parties recognize this, but differ on the extent to which they should curtail the market or the extent to which the government (as opposed to private charities and individuals) is the appropriate entity to address it.</blockquote>


A great example of this dynamic is the domestic auto industry. Unions were born to address the inequality between the income on the assembly line and the front office. The local and state politicians elected by the workers were both selected for their commitment to those same worker's issues and their commitment to protecting the industry. Pre-WWII there was very little international competition in the domestic automarket and post-WWII we were the only industrial nation with automakers left intact. Without that competition, domestic automakers were free to fill the need for personal transportation worldwide. This both strengthened the union's bargaining position, but also increased the power of local, state, and even national politicians who represented an area that was responsible for so much of the nation's GDP. However, what the market provides can also be taken away. Starting with the first German auto imports in the late 50s, the market has increasingly been filled with choices for people buying a car. Competition brought innovation and the market has indeed been cruel in it's efficiency. Unable to lower costs, the inital wave of imports beat the domestics on price. Disruptions in oil prices and availability gave the edge to the more fuel-efficient imports, which put the imports on a comparable sales level for the first time. The last 40 years have seen a steady decline by the Big Three an all areas of their businesses. Leading the next wave of innovation (hybrids), imports are suffering from the current economy but not nearly as much as the domestics who built their recent fortunes on SUVs, big trucks, and large luxury cars. Ironically, the stereotypical buyer of domestics vote Republican, while the stereotypical import buyer votes Democrat. The end result? The Big Three are demanding loans from Uncle Sam, local politicians and union leaders want protectionist reforms and assistance programs, and national politicians are promising anything that will get them votes from whomever they are talking to at the time. While the consequences are harsh, the Big Three are failing businesses that need to suffer the consequences of bad business decisions and their employees have to accept the fact that no one is entitled to employment.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221022334][quote author="WINEX" date=1221018636]The frequency and fury of all of the slander sure does create an air of desperation.</blockquote>


Yeah, both parties do it. It sucks. My theory is that 95% of people make up their minds if they will vote for someone within 5 seconds of seeing the person. They then spend the rest of the time justifying to themselves and others why their instinctive, emotional response is actually logical.



I think the two parties break down to two main groups:

Reps - View the world as competitive and have a need for self-preservation. Can be viewed as angry and selfish. Want to focus on how the USA is great. Seems like a reaction to fear stemming from insecurity. Value tradition over progress.

Dems - View the world as cooperative and have a need to help. Can be viewed as condescending when trying to help those "less fortunate." Want to focus on how the USA needs to improve. Value progress over tradition.</blockquote>


No Tim, while negative political stories about opponents are nothing new, we are forging new ground here. Though I haven't researched it, I believe this is the first time in history that a 5 month old infant has been slandered in an attempt to discredit a candidate. (The false rumors about Sarah's son Trig that circulated about him being a bastard child and the insane false pregnancy story were truly out of this world.)



And it's not just the numerous slanders, but when have you ever seen a Presidential candidate attack the opposition Vice Presidential candidate? It certainly doesn't do much to enhance the air of authority that Obama tried to create with those giant styrofoam Greek pillars.



There is a unique sense of desperation in the air right now.



While the most accurate polling data has always been kept private by the campaigns themselves, we can see what is happening in every major poll and understand the motivation for this desperation.



But there is no way to spin it, attacking a 5 month old infant is wrong.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221041332]But there is no way to spin it, attacking a 5 month old infant is wrong.</blockquote>


I believe Trig was 4 months old. Get outraged even more. But I guess mocking the looks of a teenage daughter is OK.



"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." [McCain]



That is a personal attack more than the insinuation that Trig was Palin's grandchild. The attack was more against the Palin as a mother and not so much against the baby.
 
<img src="http://www.donkeydish.com/images/gallery/chelsea-clinton.jpg" alt="" />



McCain - Old. Out of Touch. Losing his eyesite.



Chelsea was shave-my-dogs-butt-and-teach-it-to-walk-backwords-ugly during the time her dad was in the White House, but has turned out to be a lovely woman.



[quote author="green_cactus" date=1221043714] The attack was more against the Palin as a mother and not so much against the baby.</blockquote>


Interestingly enough, I got an email calling me a sexist because I was outraged at the Palin's lack of parenting skills, on par with those of Lynne Spears. Nevermind Clinton was my first choice.............



Let's see what that liberal bastion MSNBC has to say about Mrs. Spears, shall we?



<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332877/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332877/</a>
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1221044354]<img src="http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/3/20080514-chelsea_Clinton.jpg" alt="" />.

McCain - Old. Out of Touch. Losing his eyesite.



Chelsea was shave-my-dogs-butt-and-teach-it-to-walk-backwords during the time her dad was in the White House, but has turned out to be a lovely woman.</blockquote>


Don't forget that he needs more sleep these days:



<blockquote>McCain said he feels best sleeping until 7:30 or 8 a.m., as opposed to his usual morning drill of rising at 5:30 or 6 a.m.

"It seems to help me to get up a little later in the morning," he said, joking, "Sorry to bother with that intimate detail."</blockquote>
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221041332]No Tim, while negative political stories about opponents are nothing new, we are forging new ground here. Though I haven't researched it, I believe this is the first time in history that a 5 month old infant has been slandered in an attempt to discredit a candidate. (The false rumors about Sarah's son Trig that circulated about him being a bastard child and the insane false pregnancy story were truly out of this world.)</blockquote>


This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said people make up their minds and then justify it. Rather than you being able to agree that both sides are slimy, you find some new twist on how the other side is more wrong. Would you admit that Republicans have done some really slimy things? Would you admit that McCain has changed his position on things so that he can get elected? Both parties and candidates do it.



FWIW, I haven't heard anyone slander the infant, unless slandering the mother counts. I think the whole story about whether the infant is hers or not is pointless. However, I don't see it as worse than the way Bush slandered Kerry and McCain and twisted their war records. Bush was really disgusting and I was very sad that he got elected. But, that is politics.
 
While we're on the subject, this whole "lipstick on a pig" thing is being completely mischaracterized by the McCain campaign for nothing but political reasons. Obama wasn't referring to Palin, he was listing where he thinks McCain is the same as George Bush.

Here's the clip:

<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Edited to add: I don't doubt that the audience took it as a Palin slam, but I seriously doubt that Obama meant it that way.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1221100505] If she's gonna come out with rhetorical guns blazing (which I love), she needs to be able to take return fire.</blockquote>


It would help if she would start taking follow up questions. It would certainly disarm a lot of screaming liberals. Unless, that is, she legitimately can't talk.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1221043714]That is a personal attack more than the insinuation that Trig was Palin's grandchild. The attack was more against the Palin as a mother and not so much against the baby.</blockquote>


So attacking a 5 month old baby by calling him a bastard child is alright in your books as long as you are trying to hurt the mother more than the baby?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221097386][quote author="WINEX" date=1221041332]No Tim, while negative political stories about opponents are nothing new, we are forging new ground here. Though I haven't researched it, I believe this is the first time in history that a 5 month old infant has been slandered in an attempt to discredit a candidate. (The false rumors about Sarah's son Trig that circulated about him being a bastard child and the insane false pregnancy story were truly out of this world.)</blockquote>


This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said people make up their minds and then justify it. Rather than you being able to agree that both sides are slimy, you find some new twist on how the other side is more wrong. Would you admit that Republicans have done some really slimy things? Would you admit that McCain has changed his position on things so that he can get elected? Both parties and candidates do it.



FWIW, I haven't heard anyone slander the infant, unless slandering the mother counts. I think the whole story about whether the infant is hers or not is pointless. However, I don't see it as worse than the way Bush slandered Kerry and McCain and twisted their war records. Bush was really disgusting and I was very sad that he got elected. But, that is politics.</blockquote>


You don't think calling someone a bastard child is slander? It shouldn't matter that the intent was to spread a false rumor about the mother was the intent. The fact is that lies were spread that slandered a 5 month old developmentally disabled child.



In any event, yes, this is politics and both sides attack the other.



While we are on the topic, I do think that Obama's line about lipstick on a pig was an attempt to use humor to slam Palin. But do I think that it's something that should be out of bounds? No, absolutely not. It's fair game. But as long as we are on the topic, I think that the attempt at humor was pretty weak. Obama shouldn't suffer in the court of public opinion because of the line, but I think it's fair to hold his dishonest response to the supposed controversy against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top