President John McCain

[ratboy88]

Quote from Jayford:

not sure how Mac would turn out, but he'd be much tougher on spending than GW. Has always been against needless spending.

are you on drugs when you post here? did you just take a big hit and then type that blather?

tougher on spending? mccain is a bigger whore for the war machine than bush. not to mention mccain is quickly atrophying into senility. mccain is quite clear with his stance on troops.. he wants to keep them there indefinitely and more than likely escalate the conflict to include Iran.

he is a liberal democrat.. the idiot republicans nominated a liberal democrat. LOL

they serve shit in a bowl.. tell you its ice cream and you guys want bigger spoons.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Jayford:

...The republicans in congress spent like there was no tomorrow when they were in control, but I'm expecting the dems to be worse...

How can you make that assumption? Three recent Republican administrations account for about 70% of the country's national debt since inception. Specifically, I refer to Reagan and the two Bushes. The Republicans' "fiscal conservativeness " seems to be a bigger myth than the Democrats' "overspending" since it has principally been the Republicans who have put the country in hock.

Yes, I know the argument is that the Democrats tax and spend while the Republicans borrow and spend. And although there is no excuse for overspending, at least it is fiscally more responsible to spend with revenues than with borrowed money. In any event, unless you are among the financial elite (unlike me), then what have the Republicans done for you lately? They are in the process of squeezing out the middle class, which brings the country that much closer to Third World status.

Aim higher.

 

[Trader5287]

Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house.

It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen.

After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’


H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care.

When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.

But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water.

‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles.


Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg.


McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.

Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide.

‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’

Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.

McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’

Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate.


And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’


Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.

Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.

‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

Brutal

 

[Trader5287]

"........ and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973..... ."

What's his waist now? A 38"? At age 71? 8 years eh?

Ever wonder why you never see overweight 80 year old men?

 

[Jayford]

Quote from Thunderdog:

How can you make that assumption? Three recent Republican administrations account for about 70% of the country's national debt since inception. Specifically, I refer to Reagan and the two Bushes. The Republicans' "fiscal conservativeness " seems to be a bigger myth than the Democrats' "overspending" since it has principally been the Republicans who have put the country in hock.

First of all, congress was never controlled by republicans during Reagan years. It was mixed for 6 yrs, and completely democrat for 2. Additionally, although debt rose dramatically under Reagan, he personally called for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Several times. Guess who killed it every time? The deficit spending of that era had a very beneficial outcome however. It won the cold war. The USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up on defense spending. The deficit spending since has been a bloody nightmare. This is largely why the republicans are in the shitter right now. But the dem congress is not doing any better. its approval rating is below that of Bush!!! Also, Clinton gets undo credit for the surplus during his years. He was president during the tech boom, which dramatically increased receipts, and had a REPUBLICAN congress for 3/4 's of his administration.

Secondly, Obama has already proposed huge spending programs across the board.

That is what my opinion is based on. I agree that everyone in congress over spends, republicans and dems alike, which is why I do not want the president to be in the same party as congress, especially one that wants to expand the role of government.

Just for the record, I am not a McCain fan either. I am against Obama, not necessarily for Mac.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Jayford:

not sure how Mac would turn out, but he'd be much tougher on spending than GW. Has always been against needless spending.

With a Dem controlled congress however, that may not mean much. The republicans in congress spent like there was no tomorrow when they were in control, but I'm expecting the dems to be worse. that is if they can pass anything. That pork stuffed farm bill of a few weeks ago is a perfect example of what's to come.

Where does this mistaken idea that the democrats are bigger spenders than the Republicans come from. My god man, where have you been the last eight years? I am a fiscal conservative, so much prefer that the democrats be in charge. Just look at the record of the past 28 years!

And not only that, Bush has actually raised taxes, not lowered them, when you consider the sum of the direct taxation and indirect via inflation that is the result of monetizing the debt.

These ideas that the Republicans have been more fiscally responsible than the democrats are pure nonsense. Perhaps it was true a century ago, but it certainly isn't true today!

And there is one more thing that the Republicans have been extremely bad at as of late (although Johnson was pretty bad in this regard also.) And that is spending money on wasting assets rather than on investments that will pay of in the long run, such as infrastructure. The democrats have also a better record as far as being forward thinking. For example, at least two democrat candidates for president in modern times wanted the country to build a modern high-speed passenger rail system. Neither was elected, but just imagine how much better off we would be now had we put our "defense" contractors to work on that project rather than wasting trillions on useless wars. Reagan's attitude toward passenger rail was one of total disinterest. He stated flatly that air travel was the wave of the future, and that passenger rail was a thing of the past. He could not have been more wrong! The one place where both parties have a big problem is with medicare/medicaid. And that is because the US medical system operates as a cartel rather than a competitive, free market system. Both parties are guilty when comes to medicare and medicaid.

But the Republicans, again, must shoulder more of the blame for why we have such a problem fixing things. And that goes back to Tom DeLay's K-Street Project and redistricting to create safe congressional seats, and to that horses ass Phil Gramm. These two together have possibly damaged the United States beyond repair. Let's hope not.

 

[Jayford]

This thread is about McCain, who has always been tight fisted with spending.

Obama has already proposed sweeping government programs.

Yes, the republican congress was a spending nightmare, as was the dem congress under Reagan, and the current dem congress.

Point is, going forward, do you want the guy who really does want to shrink government, or the guy who has already stated he will dramatically expand it?

The problem with out budget is not revenue, its spending. With the current tax system, not only have we had record revenues, but they've grown at twice the speed of GDP.

The tax system is fine, leave it alone. Cut the growth in spending. Period.

 

[piezoe]

Quotes from Jayford:

...... It won the cold war. The USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up on defense spending.

The cold war was not "won" by any one. The USSR lost it through inefficiencies and corruption within their government and , as you point out, because they wasted huge human resources and treasure on their military.
Reagan's profligate military spending had nothing to do with the downfall of the USSR. The USSR was already on the path to ruin when Reagan took office. He took credit where none was due. What we ought to be concerned about is that we are following down the same path with regards to military expenditures as did the Soviet Union. The danger Eisenhower warned us about is now reality!

But the dem congress is not doing any better. its approval rating is below that of Bush!!!

I have seen those surveys, and there is now precious little difference between the public approval rating of the President and Congress. And in all the surveys i have seen the question is
asked in a way that does not distinguish between democrats and republicans. The results re congress were similar whether the republicans or the democrats were in charge.

Secondly, Obama has already proposed huge spending programs across the board.

He has also proposed sources for the funding other than just more borrowing as the Bush administration has done. Furthermore Obama's spending proposals are investments rather than spending on wasting assets.

 

[Jayford]

Quote from piezoe:

...... It won the cold war. The USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up on defense spending.

The cold war was not "won" by any one. The USSR lost it through inefficiencies and corruption within their government and , as you point out, because they wasted huge human resources and treasure on their military.
Reagan's profligate military spending had nothing to do with the downfall of the USSR. The USSR was already on the path to ruin when Reagan took office. He took credit where none was due. What we ought to be concerned about is that we are following down the same path with regards to military expenditures as did the Soviet Union. The danger Eisenhower warned us about is now reality!

But the dem congress is not doing any better. its approval rating is below that of Bush!!!

I have seen those surveys, and there is now precious little difference between the public approval rating of the President and Congress. And in all the surveys i have seen the question is
asked in a way that does not distinguish between democrats and republicans. The results re congress were similar whether the republicans or the democrats were in charge.

Secondly, Obama has already proposed huge spending programs across the board.

He has also proposed sources for the funding other than just more borrowing as the Bush administration has done. Furthermore Obama's spending proposals are investments rather than spending on wasting assets.

A) Here is a little ditty from Wikipedia on the history of the US and the Cold War:

Under Gorbachev, Soviet policymakers increasingly accepted Reagan administration warnings that the U.S. would make the arms race a huge burden for them. The result in the Soviet Union was a dual approach of concessions to the United States and economic restructuring (perestroika) and democratization (glasnost) domestically, which eventually made it impossible for Gorbachev to reassert central control.

Um...Reagan had a MAJOR effect. They also amped up their military spending dramatically right when Reagan came to power. Sorta like the Iranians freeing the US hostages the very same day Reagan was sworn in.

B) Yes, BO has proposed methods to fund his programs. Massive tax increases. Just what our economy needs.

I do have to commend the guy somewhat for being honest about it however. I say somewhat because he definitely embelishes, if not outright lies.

Examples: just today, in an article written by Barak himself, he says his tax increase would not affect the middle class in any way. Not true. Anyone making over 62K will see payroll taxes increase, and lots of middle class folk will get tagged whenever they sell stock.

Another example: claims Mac wants to give the oil companies additional tax breaks in the billions of dollars. Referring to the fact that Mac wants to lower ALL corporate taxes cause the US has the highest rates in the world which leads to massive amounts of off shoring of companies. This is exactly why Ireland has become the "European Tiger" BTW. Low corporate taxes took a pathetic economy and completely reformed it. of course Obama leaves out that fact and just tells people Mac wants to give the oil companies breaks. Pathetic.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Jayford:

A) Here is a little ditty from Wikipedia on the history of the US and the Cold War:

Under Gorbachev, Soviet policymakers increasingly accepted Reagan administration warnings that the U.S. would make the arms race a huge burden for them. The result in the Soviet Union was a dual approach of concessions to the United States and economic restructuring (perestroika) and democratization (glasnost) domestically, which eventually made it impossible for Gorbachev to reassert central control.

Um...Reagan had a MAJOR effect. They also amped up their military spending dramatically right when Reagan came to power. Sorta like the Iranians freeing the US hostages the very same day Reagan was sworn in.

B) Yes, BO has proposed methods to fund his programs. Massive tax increases. Just what our economy needs.

I do have to commend the guy somewhat for being honest about it however. I say somewhat because he definitely embelishes, if not outright lies.

Examples: just today, in an article written by Barak himself, he says his tax increase would not affect the middle class in any way. Not true. Anyone making over 62K will see payroll taxes increase, and lots of middle class folk will get tagged whenever they sell stock.

Another example: claims Mac wants to give the oil companies additional tax breaks in the billions of dollars. Referring to the fact that Mac wants to lower ALL corporate taxes cause the US has the highest rates in the world which leads to massive amounts of off shoring of companies. This is exactly why Ireland has become the "European Tiger" BTW. Low corporate taxes took a pathetic economy and completely reformed it. of course Obama leaves out that fact and just tells people Mac wants to give the oil companies breaks. Pathetic.

Jayford, correct me please if i am wrong, but it is my understanding that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and even modify another's contribution. Even you or i could do this, right? Hardly something i'd want to rely on as a reliable source. That said, i basically agree with the Wikipedia version you quote, but i question whether Readgan was ever so direct, and we can't ask him now, can we? And i stand by my original comment as well, viz., the Soviet Union was falling apart well before Reagan became President, and would have fallen apart without any very, very expensive, and extremely wasteful, help from Reagan..

And regarding middle class folks selling stock. The percentage of the middle class that owns shares of stock outside of IRA's, 401K's, 403B's, and other tax advantaged accounts is small. In Tax advantaged retirement accounts, where almost all of the stock owned by the "middle class" resides, are not affected by capitol gains rates. Stock held outside of these retirement accounts in ordinary mutual funds may be affected depending on the funds churn rate, but this is a minor concern, as most of the middle class hold the majority of their stock assets in retirement accounts. Only the wealthy need be much concerned with capitol gains rates as it affects stocks. The typical trader is little affected as well. This issue is a red herring, as only the wealthy with substantial long term capitol gains from stocks need be concerned. Even Warren Buffett has said this is not a very important consideration. I understand why Carl Icahn or Hank Greenberg would make capital gains rates on investment profits a big deal, but the rest of us need not be concerned.

I repeat what i said before: There is direct and indirect taxation. The indirect taxation rate resulting from the Bush administration is incredibly high and dwarfs any small politically motivated direct tax cuts the Bush administration has shamelessly promoted and financed by borrowing at interest. Those "cuts" have to be paid back with interest either by increased productivity, direct future taxation, or via monetization and inflation. Guess which way the Bush administration has chosen to pay for these "cuts". So, in fact, they are not cuts, but loans at interest forced upon us that will, unfortunately, be repaid through inflation and a lowered standard of living for the middle class.

Heaven help the gullible!