Georgia for McCain Google group started.

There’s not much activity yet but a Google group has been started in support of Sen. McCain. Click here to check it out.


  1. Harry says:

    Could the enemy really be our own Glenn and Co? Are they really pushing a sales tax increase with no offsets? Or is it just AJC spin, not to be believed?

  2. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Hello again Harry. I am not certain of what age you are…but I am retired and do not want my taxes to increase based on a taxing philosophy. If they need to be adjusted because of spending or to pay off debt…fine. I just do not think it just to allow the retired and poor to pay taxes at a high rate.

    Afterall, comfortable retirement is the American dream…is it not?

  3. Harry says:

    None of us should be faced with paying higher and higher taxes. The bait they offer is something fairly popular – ie, better roads. We should expect that our elected officials could fund road work by finding offsets to existing programs, for example by moving state employees and public schoolteachers onto defined contribution pensions and/or social security instead of defined benefit pensions. That little thing alone would save hundreds of millions every year for roads.

    Of course, our elected officials seem shy to take on the aforementioned groups; however bold steps are often the way to improvement. Our political leaders should either lead or get out of the way.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Harry, I could not agree more. Thankyou for transcending partisan boundaries…even with a few grammatic errors. There are a number of appropriations that need to be scrutinised (scruntized). It would free up even billions to use elsewhere…they are still earmarks though. Do I care? No. We just need people to understand that “earmarks” are not always bad.

  5. Harry says:

    A necessary part of the incestuous payback to lobbyists who provide contributions and other favors for those earmarks. They’re not transparent – they’re outside the normal budget and appropriation process.

  6. Goldwater Conservative says:

    In GA, as well as federal, lobbyist are required to disclose receipts and reimbursements. Furthernmore, opposition campaigns vet contributors more than anybody else. If something were going on…a point would be made.

    Anything else, Harry? Or should we expect more rhetoric?

    Furthermore, since the average citizen is not up to date about what groups represent their interests…why are lobbyists a bad thing?

    They help bring government closer to the people.

    While proving points is really none of my concern…you have been acting out of your league…or very amateurish. I would suggest you not partake in debates that go over your head. You should ask questions. I do not mean to slight you in anyway…mind you.

  7. Harry says:

    GC, I’m merely saying there is a budgeting and appropriation process. Earmarks circumvent that process in a non-transparent manner, and lead to inequitable, uneconomic outcomes. One group thereby receives an unfair, unvetted benefit at the expense of all. It’s sort of like cutting in line.

  8. Goldwater Conservative says:


    Rather than thinking Harry and I being crazy…perhaps you should re-evaluate your sanity.

    Have you ever gone to the state capitol during session?

    If so, while you were there didn’t you notice how many lobbyist were present? Being a lobbyist is a professional, Bill. Whether they are for or against your cause.

    Take all of that away and imagine how things would turn out. Removing these educated negotiators (lobbyiest) from the scene would remove decades of educated proposals from the scene. I would never trust you, Bill Simon, to make an educated decision. However…if you had a lobbyist or two behind your cause (that actually came up with your proposal [hyothetically]) the “natural aristocracy” may be by your side.

    Lobbyists and interest groups act as “letters of recommendation,” to put into terms simple enough for you to understand. Getting elected is not always enough. George Bush got elected…and we know that Gore was more intelligent and better qualified, just not as popular.

    All politicians need somebody to vouch for them.

  9. Bill Simon says:


    In case you haven’t considered this possibility, _I_ am not really following your and Harry’s discussion.

    SO, your comments about “lobbyists” and such are really just Jabberwocky to me.

  10. John Konop says:

    How can we afford a multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq? McCain will bankrupt our country with this nation building strategy. I am all for earmark reform but without fixing this burn of cash our economy will break down.

    Do you not think as lawmakers (McCain and Hillary) and the Bush administration should be held accountable for the waste, fraud and misrepresentations of real cost in Iraq destroying our economy?

    MSNBC- Economists project a much higher ‘burn rate’ than government estimates
    The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.

    In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the “burn” rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.
    Beyond 2008, working with “best-case” and “realistic-moderate” scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

    Nobel Prize-winning economist: Iraq war ’caused slowdown in the US’

    THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

  11. John Konop says:

    ……Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen. The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

    The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit. “The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system,” he said.

    That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said…….

  12. Bill Simon says:


    Without launching into quotes from Nobel-prize winners, do YOU believe that if the US were to pull-out of Iraq any time in the next 2-4 years that the following has a good chance of happening:

    1) The price of oil will decrease because the region will return to being in an intra-region war, rather than the international war it is now.

    2) Credit markets will recognize this pull-out as a positive act for the country, and peace, serenity, and calm will descend upon the U.S. and the economy will grow positive?

  13. John Konop says:


    The credit market is based on supply of money so anything stopping the federal government from competing with the private sector would help.

    As far as pulling out and cost oil it would depend how we did it. If we recognized each region separately it would create more competition not less, which is usually a good tool to help with price compression. Also the region has united against us which seems obvious via the price of oil from the Middle East.

    If they fought each other instead of us fighting, the price may go down via them not being a solid team against us and needing the money for an advantage over each other.

    The bottom line is we need a real energy policy not one based on taking Middle East oil at gun point. History has shown nation building has always hurt the country attempting it.

Comments are closed.