"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would
be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

If you read any of the economic analyses by real economists, McCain's
program would cut revenues by $4.2 trillion over ten years; Obama's would
cut them by $2.9 trillion. McCain would, if he could, dig us a far deeper
hole than Obama. The national debt would be off the charts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411750

You have to read a lot of stuff to see what the experts are saying about the
prospects for either program stimulating economic growth. The consensus
seems to be that either program would have any positive effects completely
masked by deficits: in other words, neither program would contribute to real
growth in the economy; we'd get only a debt-based sugar high, like the ones
that Bush has accomplished, while the hole was getting dug deeper. FWIW,
_The Economist_ polled a few hundred of the world's top economists and 80%
said Obama's plan is the better one for the economy. I'm not going to argue
the point because neither you nor I, nor anyone else here, could possibly
judge it.

However, neither one of them will be able to do what they want. They'll go
"on hold," and some of it will dribble out when the economy picks up. Don't
expect much to happen on healthcare for a while. And don't expect those
bridges to be fixed.


And if so,
what'll you -do- once Sarah is gone from the media circus? snort

She won't be gone. Watch her make a play to be the de-facto leader of the
Republican Party, starting...oh, say last week. g

You'd like that, wouldn't you, ya horndog?


The Party is already polarized as a result of this election. If she has a
between-elections presence, she'll split it right in two. The Republicans
are going to have a battle for the new direction the Party will take.

If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

Probably true. But I see no way that new leadership will come from the
moderates. If it's Romney, he'll turn on a dime to pander to one side or the
other, and everyone knows it. I don't believe he can unify the party. I
don't think anyone can, because the Republican Party is an ad-hoc coalition
that was thrown together to win elections. It has no real coherence, and no
staying power. Gingrich's dream has gone upside-down.

--
Ed Huntress