Is Hilary finished?

[glb]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

You honestly call that a Democratic platform? Any idea, yours or theirs, as to HOW they are going to do those things?

I mean really, you BUY that? ANYBODY can say what people want to hear. And apparently people will believe what makes them feel good, even if it's absurd.

Remember, the Dems had a platform, much like you describe, when they took control of the legislature 18 months ago, and they've accomplished exactly...nothing. Not a thing.

Jeez, the only thing missing from the Dem 'platform' is 'for the children.'

Well, let's see:

1. McCain can't even figure out what people want to hear. And, when he tries, he clearly gets confused.

a. Health care reform, don't look at the Republicans. They think unaffordable, unavailable, insurance is just fine. High infant mortality rate in US? Hey, we can use the bodies for energy.

i. His health care proposal didn't even cover HIM.

b. Economic policy? Sure, John, we absolutely need more unsustainable tax cuts that make up 65% of our deficit. That way, we won't be able to afford any improvement to infrastructure, port security, etc.

c. McCain has NO idea how to pay for any of his programs, thinks "pork" will cover hundreds of billions.

d. Sure, John, the surge is working, with about 3 of 16 of Bush's benchmarks met. Remember those reasons for the escalation? No? I'm unsurprised: You are too old and it's too inconvenient.


2. "Control": Not quite, unfortunately. A one-vote majority with one Democratic Senator too sick to work, plus the increasing batty Lieberman, these do not add up to control.

3. Moreover, 60 votes are veto-proof, not 51.

4. Sweeping ethics changes (sorely needed after this admin), CAFE standards raised for the 1st time in 30 yrs are but two examples.

Note that I feel neither went nearly far enough, but it is a start.

5. Meanwhile, the FEC goes rudderless because Bush can't compromise and continues to place incompetents throught the govt. Just one of many examples. You may have heard that DOJ needs some work, too.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

Well, let's see:

1. McCain can't even figure out what people want to hear. And, when he tries, he clearly gets confused.

a. Health care reform, don't look at the Republicans. They think unaffordable, unavailable, insurance is just fine. High infant mortality rate in US? Hey, we can use the bodies for energy.

i. His health care proposal didn't even cover HIM.

b. Economic policy? Sure, John, we absolutely need more unsustainable tax cuts that make up 65% of our deficit. That way, we won't be able to afford any improvement to infrastructure, port security, etc.

c. McCain has NO idea how to pay for any of his programs, thinks "pork" will cover hundreds of billions.

d. Sure, John, the surge is working, with about 3 of 16 of Bush's benchmarks met. Remember those reasons for the escalation? No? I'm unsurprised: You are too old and it's too inconvenient.


2. "Control": Not quite, unfortunately. A one-vote majority with one Democratic Senator too sick to work, plus the increasing batty Lieberman, these do not add up to control.

3. Moreover, 60 votes are veto-proof, not 51.

4. Sweeping ethics changes (sorely needed after this admin), CAFE standards raised for the 1st time in 30 yrs are but two examples.

Note that I feel neither went nearly far enough, but it is a start.

5. Meanwhile, the FEC goes rudderless because Bush can't compromise and continues to place incompetents throught the govt. Just one of many examples. You may have heard that DOJ needs some work, too.

Here we go again... IBTL...

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Rob T

How much time do you have Flash?

Try watching this video, and tell me if he says anything here that would be of "concern"?

Well, that pretty much guarantees I'm not voting for him...

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by glb

Well, let's see:

1. McCain can't even figure out what people want to hear. And, when he tries, he clearly gets confused.

a. Health care reform, don't look at the Republicans. They think unaffordable, unavailable, insurance is just fine. High infant mortality rate in US? Hey, we can use the bodies for energy.

i. His health care proposal didn't even cover HIM.

b. Economic policy? Sure, John, we absolutely need more unsustainable tax cuts that make up 65% of our deficit. That way, we won't be able to afford any improvement to infrastructure, port security, etc.

c. McCain has NO idea how to pay for any of his programs, thinks "pork" will cover hundreds of billions.

d. Sure, John, the surge is working, with about 3 of 16 of Bush's benchmarks met. Remember those reasons for the escalation? No? I'm unsurprised: You are too old and it's too inconvenient.


2. "Control": Not quite, unfortunately. A one-vote majority with one Democratic Senator too sick to work, plus the increasing batty Lieberman, these do not add up to control.

3. Moreover, 60 votes are veto-proof, not 51.

4. Sweeping ethics changes (sorely needed after this admin), CAFE standards raised for the 1st time in 30 yrs are but two examples.

Note that I feel neither went nearly far enough, but it is a start.

5. Meanwhile, the FEC goes rudderless because Bush can't compromise and continues to place incompetents throught the govt. Just one of many examples. You may have heard that DOJ needs some work, too.

Quite a bit of unfounded hyperbole that is more name calling than factual.

The FACT is the Dems have control, as evidenced by all the committee chairmanships and the MAJORITY leaders. Spin it any way you want, they've got control.

Indeed, we need ethics changes after this admin. But we need it for this Congress. And we needed it after the last President. You think the Dems are going to bring this about? Based on what, their say so?

Ask Obama about his ethics in his land deal for his home, then tell me he's the man to do the deal.

The tax cuts do NOT contribute to the 65% of our deficit....our deficit is solely a function of our spending. And spending within our limits.

The tax cuts, have been proven over and over again to INCREASE tax revenue. That is a plain fact, and saying it ain't so flies in the face of history and facts.

I'm anxious to see what type of deficits will come about with the universal health care, where everywhere else in the world it's been tried has resulted in poorer health care for everyone.

Oh, update. Bush isn't running. Asking to vote for the Dems simply because Bush is leaving office is silly. They have accomplished nothing with control of Congress, they've disenfranchised their base, and they offer no concrete plans to actually change anything. None. But what they say sure sounds good. That costs them nothing to say it.

[glb]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

Plenty to be concerned about.

'I will cut spending.' Can you name the last Presidential candidate that didn't say that?

'I will end the war.' How? Just pull out? Really? That simple.

'I will cut defense spending.' Ok, that feels good. Ask the troops in Iraq now if they think we're spending enough on defense as they await better body armour and armoured Humvees, and as we need to replace an antiquated air force.

'I will eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.' That quite simply, is not possible. The fact that he is putting that forth as part of his platform is of concern to me, because people may vote for him on that basis, and it is a pipedream. Either he believes that, so his inexperience and lack of pragmatism is showing, or he's telling people what they want to hear whether it's true or not. Wonder which it is?

That's all of it I could sit through. I felt like I was watching a used car salesman.

You are not entirely wrong....just partly.

1. I think we will not see a party deficit spend as much as the Republicans have. After all, what moron would cut taxes during two wars? Oh...that's right. Who stands behind this? McPain.

2. No, it's not simple to pull out from Iraq, but logistically, the planning is likely all done.

So, you'd rather hear that we'll continue in Iraq with no stated or attainable goals, bleeding money and, uh, blood, for decades to come.

"YES, it's not working, so let's keep doing it!"

3. Much defense spending seems to be mis-aimed on technologies that are outdated. Beyond that, I don't know.

4. I don't know that obama said exactly that about "nucular" weapons, but it's not a bad goal.

a. More importantly, we need to increase work on securing nuke material in Russia, SSRs. This would be NOW.

b. Can somene please explain to me why we said it was OK for India to have the Bomb, but NOT s8gn the non-proliferation pact? This continues to make no sense to me.


Telling people what they want to hear? Shocking for a modern politician.

Here's what I DO NOT want to hear:


"Yes, I backed Bush 95% of the time. It all turned to sh*t, but I want to continue making manure of America. Failed policies...4 MORE YEARS.

Horrible economic policies...4 MORE YEARS."

[glb]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

Quite a bit of unfounded hyperbole that is more name calling than factual.

The FACT is the Dems have control, as evidenced by all the committee chairmanships and the MAJORITY leaders. Spin it any way you want, they've got control.

Indeed, we need ethics changes after this admin. But we need it for this Congress. And we needed it after the last President. You think the Dems are going to bring this about? Based on what, their say so?

Ask Obama about his ethics in his land deal for his home, then tell me he's the man to do the deal.

The tax cuts do NOT contribute to the 65% of our deficit....our deficit is solely a function of our spending. And spending within our limits.

The tax cuts, have been proven over and over again to INCREASE tax revenue. That is a plain fact, and saying it ain't so flies in the face of history and facts.

I'm anxious to see what type of deficits will come about with the universal health care, where everywhere else in the world it's been tried has resulted in poorer health care for everyone.

Oh, update. Bush isn't running. Asking to vote for the Dems simply because Bush is leaving office is silly. They have accomplished nothing with control of Congress, they've disenfranchised their base, and they offer no concrete plans to actually change anything. None. But what they say sure sounds good. That costs them nothing to say it.

1. Look, they did accomplish good things and haven't had the votes to do more. This isn't spin, is it?

The FACT, is they haven't had a clear majority for at least 10 months of this time. Would you care to deny & refute that? BTW, I think Johnson is the ill Senator.

Compare their record to the Republicans' of the last 7 yrs.

2. An ethics bill got passed, didn't it? This bill had to overcome Republican objections. So, your point is...what? You refuse to admit a bill was passed? You think an ethics bill would be good, right? Republicans, in a remarkably scandal-ridden Congress didn't do this.


3. Tax cuts: five minutes of research would show you that I am correct and you are not. Even Bernake said tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Go to the GAO website - yes, a gov't website - and you can find the truth even there. 65% is what I said, and what it says.

I'm sorry, but people such as you keep believing and spreading this now-wholly discredited idea. It is not gospel; it is wrong; it is nonsense.

Moreover, should an economic surge occur (with the next president), our govt will get less funding than it normally does because of these cuts, capital gain, otherwise.


4. Done a lot of research on health care...or just watching FOX? You cannot prove your old-wives-tale shibboleth, because it is, in fact, an incorrect statement. Health care works just fine in many countries, at a signficantly lower cost, with demonstrably better results in some areas, similar in others.

US is not #1 in healthcare anymore.

Please check your "facts" on this. Then, tell me how the Republicans are going to fix it, and pay for it. Of course, some may think that the middle and lower classes don't need healthcare or useful insurance.


5. wow. As I and others have pointed out, we know who's running...Bush's surrogate.

No, repeating your mistake about Congress will not further your argument.

There is plenty of concrete planning among the Dems. I somehow doubt you've researched this any better than other topics. They actually have plans and costs shown.

Meanwhile, McCain has proposed 100s of billions of plans and will pay for it all with the elimination of $27 billions in "pork" as if all earmarks must be bad.

I heard a lengthy interview with him on paying for his plans. He hemmed, he hawed, but could only mumble about 'pork' some more.


I don't think, or hope, you meant to insult me with your opening line, but given your lack of research, facts or insight, you sorta did.

Basically, you are the perfect Republican: Ignoring obvious facts, smearing others who don't agree with you, working on emotion and propaganda more than data, and, my personal favorite, you really like to deny reality.

Where are you running?

[qball]

Die bitch, die!

Give up already. It's over... you lost...

[LARRY]

Ah, men who hate women.

Here on LotusTalk!

[qball]

I don't hate women... I'm just tired of the shenanigans.

Can we start over with a NEW set of candidates? I don't like any of them.

[NMRJock]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Ah, men who hate women.

Here on LotusTalk!

This is ridiculous.

If you don't vote for Clinton you're misogynistic.

If you don't vote for Obama you're racist.

Couldn't it be that he doesn't like Clinton because she's duplicitous and just plain evil and not because she happens to be a woman?

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

Plenty to be concerned about.

'I will cut spending.' Can you name the last Presidential candidate that didn't say that?

'I will end the war.' How? Just pull out? Really? That simple.

'I will cut defense spending.' Ok, that feels good. Ask the troops in Iraq now if they think we're spending enough on defense as they await better body armour and armoured Humvees, and as we need to replace an antiquated air force.

'I will eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.' That quite simply, is not possible. The fact that he is putting that forth as part of his platform is of concern to me, because people may vote for him on that basis, and it is a pipedream. Either he believes that, so his inexperience and lack of pragmatism is showing, or he's telling people what they want to hear whether it's true or not. Wonder which it is?

That's all of it I could sit through. I felt like I was watching a used car salesman.

This is hilarious... and sad.

You post "quotes" that he never said - like "I will eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world."

Where exactly did he say this? It's easy to bash him when you MAKE UP quotes from him.

If the only way you can bash the guy is by making up quotes from him, that says a lot about your debating skills.


.

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by lotusforsale

Watching a bit of the 'deliberation' today highlighted what a joke the Democratic party has become.

Talk about a party built on divisiveness, racism, sexism, exclusion, dirty tactics (oh, that's right, Obama is a product of Chicago politics and Clinton is, well, a Clinton afterall)...

The BIG joke is all the whining about hanging chads in Florida in 2000, and unfound claims of voter tampering in Ohio in 2004...yet they've given a text book example of exactly what democracy is NOT, and what voters' rights are not. The whole process has been about disenfranchisement.

For chrissake, an Obama supporter testified that the he should get half the Michigan delegates based on the 'science' of exit polling!!!!

There's a good idea, let's start electing Presidents based on exit polls.

This is just an ignorant response. The Democratic party is built on "Racism & Sexism"??! It's funny how the committee members represented BOTH sexes and were black, white & hispanic. But to go further, it was liberal/progressive thinkers and DEMOCRATS who championed the cause of civil rights throughout the last 100 years. So for you to say that the Democratic party is the party of "divisiveness, racism, sexism, exclusion, dirty tactics" just goes to show how naive you truly are about the Democratic party, and American history.

Now, to educate you about how primaries work:

A primary election has different rules and different purposes than a general election.

Let me give you a lesson in politics...

A primary is for each party to nominate a candidate. The party sets the rules for their participation in a primary. If you don't like a certain party's rules, you can start your own party and nominate your own candidate.

THEN, each party's nominated candidate is placed on the General Election Ballot.

It's like going to a seafood restaurant and complaining that you can't order steak. You haven't been disenfranchised because you still have the right to start your own restaurant and serve what you want.

The parties don't *owe* you anything. The government *owes* you the right to vote for whomever you want in a general election, but not just ANY party's candidate in a primary.

Primaries are EXCLUSIVELY for parties to select a candidate for a general election.


.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by glb

You are not entirely wrong....just partly.

1. I think we will not see a party deficit spend as much as the Republicans have. After all, what moron would cut taxes during two wars? Oh...that's right. Who stands behind this? McPain.

2. No, it's not simple to pull out from Iraq, but logistically, the planning is likely all done.

So, you'd rather hear that we'll continue in Iraq with no stated or attainable goals, bleeding money and, uh, blood, for decades to come.

"YES, it's not working, so let's keep doing it!"

3. Much defense spending seems to be mis-aimed on technologies that are outdated. Beyond that, I don't know.

4. I don't know that obama said exactly that about "nucular" weapons, but it's not a bad goal.

a. More importantly, we need to increase work on securing nuke material in Russia, SSRs. This would be NOW.

b. Can somene please explain to me why we said it was OK for India to have the Bomb, but NOT s8gn the non-proliferation pact? This continues to make no sense to me.


Telling people what they want to hear? Shocking for a modern politician.

Here's what I DO NOT want to hear:


"Yes, I backed Bush 95% of the time. It all turned to sh*t, but I want to continue making manure of America. Failed policies...4 MORE YEARS.

Horrible economic policies...4 MORE YEARS."

Your arguments are typical of the Dem Platform of "Anti-Bush" and nothing else. You didn't provide one substantive issue that the Dems actually have a workable plan for. Not one.

1. First off, you led with your chin. Your 'thinking' is clearly Repub/Dem. Lib/Conservative. You filter everything through that. Just a bit of a history lesson...EVERY war creates deficit spending, even the just ones. And remember, the tax cuts RAISED tax revenues, it did not diminish them. I know that is a really, really inconvenient fact, but it is true nonetheless.

And although we don't know what exactly the Dems will do this time when the raise taxes (euphemesitically called repealing the tax cuts), we do know that when it was last an issue, the 'rich' who were being cut huge breaks and who were going to have to ante up big time again included households, yes households with incomes of $150K.

Lots of people on here would qualify, lots of people who look around and don't see themselves as rich.

Oh, and what moron/moron party would even suggest raising taxes on anyone when the cost of energy is skyrocketing, and hitting middle america in their pockets?

2. Can you point to a workable, reasonable, vetted by actual military professionals, plan for pulling out of Iraq? One that you actually think will work? Or are you taking it on faith that the 'planning' will work (See # 1 above).

No, I don't like the current state of affairs, but again, before we jump out of the frying pan into the fire, I'd like to know someone's better idea that's a bit more thought out than "I'll have the troops out in 18 months."

Oh, news break, casualties in Iraq are down 83% from this time last year.

3 Facts please. Just throwing out a meaningless statement is, well, see # 1 above. And please put the facts in the context of military spending consistent across Presidents. We DO know the previous president dropped military spending nominally, while diminishing the overall effectiveness of the military exponentially.

4. Then you should listen to the news more. He said it this weekend in a speech.

a. I agree that would be wonderful. But it is not at all pragmatic. The Soviet states have no reason to capitulate to what we want. They are facing the desire on Russia's part to re-absorb them. In fact, Russia has some big levers against us, not the least of which is their far superior position in fossil fuel reserves.

The genie is already out of that bottle. Countries and entities that not only have no reason to deal with us, but have desire to do us harm (desire that pre-dates Bush, by the way) would like nothing more than for us to stand down.

It's problemmatic that Obama is making those statements as policy, people will vote for that because it truly sounds good, but it is virtually impossible and at worst leaves us very weak.

b. What does that have to do with anything? The genie is out of the bottle! The technology is spreading and there is no reason for those countries to sign such a treaty, it would not be in their best interest!

This is simple pragmatism.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by Flash G

This is just an ignorant response. Remember that a primary election has different rules and different purposes than a general election.

Let me give you a lesson in politics...

A primary is for each party to nominate a candidate. The party sets the rules for their participation in a primary. If you don't like a certain party's rules, you can start your own party and nominate your own candidate.

THEN, each party's nominated candidate is placed on the General Election Ballot.

It's like going to a seafood restaurant and complaining that you can't order steak. You haven't been disenfranchised because you still have the right to start your own restaurant and serve what you want.

The parties don't *owe* you anything. The government *owes* you the right to vote for whomever you want in a general election, but not just ANY party's candidate in a primary.

Primaries are EXCLUSIVELY for parties to select a candidate for a general election.


.

Well, you can call it anything you want, and you can be as apologetic for the corruptness of the Dems system as you want, but calling it other than what it is doesn't make you right.

Don't need the lesson, thanks. Yours isn't exactly intellectually sound anyway.

The parties DO owe its members rules that are followed, and not changed midstream. That they do. Lesson 1 for you.

Lesson 2....the Dems set rules that all agreed on at the time. All candidates AGREED on them.

Lesson 3. When things didn't start going their way, folks insisted the rules be changed after that fact.

Lesson 4. In trying to reconcile the corner they painted themselves into in Lesson 2 and 3, they disenfranchised, in their own process, tens of thousands of voters whose voices would not be heard in the primary process. YOU may choose to diminish that against the general election, but that is a fairly uninformed view.

The hypocrisy comes when they scream 'every vote should be counted!!!' then proceed to do the opposite. Situational ethics doesn't work here Flash. You either have ethics and live by them or you don't. The Dems clearly don't in this case.

Lesson 5. Intellectually, this is NO different than the totally discredited now crying of 'foul' the Dems made in two prior general elections, when things didn't go their way.

It's about ETHICS, Flash, ETHICS. That's what you are not getting.

Don't get me wrong, the Repubs certainly cannot hold themselves up as superior at all in this respect. But the Dems have shown their true colors, they are every bit as corrupt ethically, and in the case of open government perhaps more so.

And yet they say they are the party of change.

Huh? I don't see any change. Just more of the same.

School's out.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by Flash G

This is hilarious... and sad.

You post "quotes" that he never said - like "I will eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world."

Where exactly did he say this? It's easy to bash him when you MAKE UP quotes from him.

If the only way you can bash the guy is by making up quotes from him, that says a lot about your debating skills.


.

Yes, indeed, sad. Obama's sycophants ought to at least listen to or read his speeches.

THIS week, Flash, THIS week he stated in a speech that his policy would be to work to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He HAS alluded to that many times over the campaign, in the debates, in speeches.

There is not an attribution there that was 'made' up. They were part of his 'platform' and also implied or stated outright in the video.

Did you even bother to watch it, or do you refuse to absorb information that is contrary to your foregone conclusions?

I think it's pretty obvious.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by Flash G

This is just an ignorant response. The Democratic party is built on "Racism & Sexism"??! It's funny how the committee members represented BOTH sexes and were black, white & hispanic. But to go further, it was liberal/progressive thinkers and DEMOCRATS who championed the cause of civil rights throughout the last 100 years. So for you to say that the Democratic party is the party of "divisiveness, racism, sexism, exclusion, dirty tactics" just goes to show how naive you truly are about the Democratic party, and American history..

I love these lessons in history, unfortunately, since you include the 100 years time frame, uhhh..

Most Dems opposed the Civil right act of the early 60's. That was primarily a Repub. intiative. Ooop.

Emanicapation Proclamation was signed by a Republican President, freeing of slaves was opposed by the Democrats, oops.

The 'progressive/liberal' thinkers, ie Democratic administrations and legislature have given us the welfare state which perpetuates classism, which in our country also amounts largely to racism in terms of the economy and opportunity.

Yes, the Dems true colors have come out. Their wonderfully liberal progressive veneer has been torn off, and the two camps are going at each other from racist and sexist angles. If you can't see it, you're not paying attention, I can't help you with that.

So, if you are attributing diversity simply to the color of the faces or gender of people sitting around a table, then to be intellectually honest you MUST grant that the Repubs were far ahead of the game because they have put more blacks, hispanics, and women in cabinet posts and other high ranking government jobs than the Dem admins.

No, I don't think you will grant that, because liberals only recognize diversity when it fits their narrow view of it, which is strangely ironic, don't you think?

I really, really hope you're not a school teacher.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

a. Health care reform, don't look at the Republicans. They think unaffordable, unavailable, insurance is just fine. High infant mortality rate in US? Hey, we can use the bodies for energy.

The infant mortality rate in the USA 2007: Infant deaths per 1,000 live births 6.4. Not the lowest rate but far from the highest.

I find the concern about infant mortality coming from a democrat somewhat disingenuous since the dem party almost unanimously supports Roe v Wade. I guess killing 1,000,000 unborn babies a year doesn't count for anything.

[lotusforsale]

Originally Posted by glb

3. Tax cuts: five minutes of research would show you that I am correct and you are not. Even Bernake said tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Go to the GAO website - yes, a gov't website - and you can find the truth even there. 65% is what I said, and what it says.

I'm sorry, but people such as you keep believing and spreading this now-wholly discredited idea. It is not gospel; it is wrong; it is nonsense.

Moreover, should an economic surge occur (with the next president), our govt will get less funding than it normally does because of these cuts, capital gain, otherwise.

I'm sorry, but you are quite simply wrong in this, it's been shown over and over and over. It is an inconvenient fact for many folks, but it is NOT wholly discredited at all. The simple math has born it out many times over.

The 'Wholly Discredited' argument is one that has just predictably surfaced in Bush's second term, and the sources are the usual sources that start with a conclusion and reverse engineer the 'logic.'

Sorry.

AND, to the last sentence above...I have no problem at ALL, no matter how it comes about, that our government get LESS money. That is an admirable goal to work towards.

Where people get the idea that everything they possess, create or earn is not theirs at all, but belongs to the government, which then decides how much of yours it will let you keep, is beyond me.

I kept hearing how the tax cuts 'cost this' or 'cost that'. That is drinking the lib kool aid. the tax cuts don't COST anything except the taxpayers their resources!

I hear from the candidates very irresponsible statements about how they are going to take more tax money, and spend it on programs that have virtually no chance of either working, or improving life.

You have in front of you glb, RIGHT NOW, a small example of how the Dems, yes even the DEMS deep down believe that tax cuts would stimulate the economy....didn't most people just get back upwards of $600 each to 'stimulate the economy?'

Personally, I thought that was a bad idea, in that it didn't go far enough. But it shows that when push comes to shove, politicians of all ilk understand that taxpayers' money in the hands of taxpayers is better than being in the hands of governrment.