Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on April 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

“A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit…

“The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a ‘real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.’…

“‘As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path,’ Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), another Democrat challenging the White House, said in a statement his office released this week. ‘If we don’t take action to reduce our deficit spending, Congress will be facing this same debt ceiling vote in the near term – still with no end to our deficits in sight.’”

***
“It’s a message that’s catching on: More and more Republicans are calling for hard caps on spending and moderate Democrats — desperate for a palatable way to vote to increase the debt limit — are starting to buck White House officials who are lobbying Democratic senators to oppose Corker’s bill…

“Like many Republicans, Corker realizes the vote to increase the debt ceiling will come under fire from the tea party wing – even if they win serious concessions from Democrats. And Corker is already receiving some political blowback for his effort to lure Democrats — some Republican officials worry he’s giving bipartisan cover to vulnerable incumbents, like Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Manchin of West Virginia…

“The Corker plan would put in place a 10-year path to cap federal expenditures, bringing down spending to 20.6 percentage of the country’s economic output. If Congress failed to meet the annual cap, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget would make cuts throughout the federal budget – and only a two-thirds vote of Congress could override its decisions. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – the expensive entitlement programs Democrats have vowed to protect – would be on the chopping block, too. Corker projects that the plan would save the country $7.6 trillion.”

***
Via Reason TV.

***
“‘Hells no. I would not vote to increase that debt ceiling,’ she said during an interview on Fox News, where she is a paid contributor…

“‘It turns my stomach to hear this assumption articulated that we have to, despite the fact that we are raking in the federal government $6 billion a day,’ she said. ‘Take that money and service our debt first and pay down some of that debt. Make sure that we are showing the international financial markets and our lenders that we’re serious about getting our debt and our deficit problems under control.’”



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

““‘As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling,…”

So the political elite ruling class would want you to believe…

… They might have to give up a house or two in the Hamptons.

THIS. ENDS. NOW…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on April 30, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Sarah….Positively Palin…Run Sarah…Run …If You Run Her She Will Win

georgealbert on April 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM

I disagree with georgealbert, I believe Sarah should run.

leftnomore on April 30, 2011 at 1:22 AM

That was a nice Reason TV video clip..Very good!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 1:24 AM

That was a really good interview by Palin!

She is running.

Norwegian on April 30, 2011 at 1:38 AM

That was a nice Reason TV video clip..Very good!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Agreed. Solid.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Momentum.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Indeed! It explains so much about the value of a Nobel Prize.

I really believe, and this is from a Tea Party point of view, people are starting to a hard look deep into what our government is/has [been] doing.

Yet, we’re told the Tea Party has the same unfavorable’s, as does Sarah Palin. I cannot reconcile that as being anything more that vile propaganda.

This would had happen, irregardless of Obama, it’s just that Obama put this over the proverbial line in the sand.

Pain is coming, but unless something is done by 2012, we will be a 3rd world nation.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 1:44 AM

That was a really good interview by Palin!

She is running.

Norwegian on April 30, 2011 at 1:38 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

I like how Palin scoffs at Brett for suggesting that time is running out.

She is like a female lion stalking the prey.

Timing and instincts.

She knows them well.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:47 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Was that a snark?

If not, care to point out the what the problem is?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 1:50 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

I’ve seen worse and her points were good, but she did ramble.

alwaysfiredup on April 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Where did she miss the mark?

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Was that a snark?

If not, care to point out the what the problem is?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 1:50 AM

She doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her. She goes on
tangents. Not a good interview.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:52 AM

She doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Such as?

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:53 AM

If that was a good interview….God help us.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:45 AM

I’ve seen worse and her points were good, but she did ramble.

alwaysfiredup on April 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Yes absolutely rambled. It is frustrating. I like her but she needs to learn how to make her point concisely.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:53 AM

She should be more concise and end her thoughts a little faster.

alwaysfiredup on April 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

She doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Such as?

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:53 AM

When Bret had to ask her twice about the subsidies I think that is pretty clear she wasn’t answer thebquestion.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

She should be more concise and end her thoughts a little faster.

alwaysfiredup on April 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Maybe. I don’t know.

But, the question was, “such as”? Meaning, please provide examples of how she “doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her”.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

She should be more concise and end her thoughts a little faster.

alwaysfiredup on April 30, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Maybe. I don’t know.

But, the question was, “such as”? Meaning, please provide examples of how she “doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her”.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Be honest did you understand what she was saying about the oil subsidies?

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:01 AM

When Bret had to ask her twice about the subsidies I think that is pretty clear she wasn’t answer thebquestion.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

I’m going to watch it again, because I thought she filleted the entire premise, yet still offered up an answer regardless.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Bret Baier can be a very tough interview (Ask Obie)!..I give Palin props for interviewing with Bret..She needs to interview with Bret every chance she gets!..Beats interviewing with Hannity and BOR..IMHO!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Bret Baier can be a very tough interview (Ask Obie)!..I give Palin props for interviewing with Bret..She needs to interview with Bret every chance she gets!..Beats interviewing with Hannity and BOR..IMHO!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Honestly I don’t think he was tough.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Palin’s answers were clear. I did not sense any ambiguity.
The question of subsidies is complicated, tax breaks, permits, government interference.

Palin understands the issues, far more than you give her credit for. After all, she ran that oil rich state. You could spend more than an hour discussing this issue in just a 90 second sound byte.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:11 AM

Be honest did you understand what she was saying about the oil subsidies?

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:01 AM

I believe I did. But, I’m going to watch it again.

In the meantime, could you give examples of the other questions she did not answer. She was asked a lot of questions, and you did summize this interview as “doesn’t answer the questions that are asked of her”.

I’m going to watch it now. Be back soon.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Palin understands the issues, far more than you give her credit for. After all, she ran that oil rich state. You could spend more than an hour discussing this issue in just a 90 second sound byte.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:11 AM

I am not saying she doesn’t understand the issue. I’m sure she does. But she needs to be able to communicate in a manner that shows clarity.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:16 AM

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:10 AM

You are right I have seen him tougher..But He did “dig deeper” into her answer a couple of times!..That is always good for the audience!..:)

PS..Good to see you!..Did you watch the Royal Wedding?..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:17 AM

The regime promptly gave $2 Billion dollars to Brazil to drill for oil, and then gave $2.8 Billion to Columbia to build a refinery. Obama’s then said to Brazil, “We want to be your best customer“. In effect, Obama sent American Jobs overseas.

Let’s repeat that, Obama Sent American Jobs Overseas.

I went and listened to the interview again.

The question was about profits, and the price of gas at the pump. You got a company trying to make a profit, and you have a government that fights oil companies to prop up faux green companies.

The only question not answered, Is she going to Run for POTUS?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:10 AM

You are right I have seen him tougher..But He did “dig deeper” into her answer a couple of times!..That is always good for the audience!..:)

PS..Good to see you!..Did you watch the Royal Wedding?..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:17 AM

I’ve seen clips. Loved Kate’s dress.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:11 AM

You make a very good point..Oil subsidies are complicated and would take more than 90 seconds to explain!..:)

PS..Did I make a typo!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Good deal!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:24 AM

When Bret had to ask her twice about the subsidies I think that is pretty clear she wasn’t answer the question.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Yes, she was and did answer the questions. It may have been more involved than you like but real life can be that way.

She said the smaller companies benefit from the subsidy while the larger ones don’t really need it.

She also said that foreign oil supplies sends jobs and money overseas when it is better to keep them in the US.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 2:24 AM

I am not saying she doesn’t understand the issue. I’m sure she does. But she needs to be able to communicate in a manner that shows clarity.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:16 AM

You’re being too critical. After listening to a lot of political double-speak, this could not be more clear on each points.

You need to be more specific on your criticism

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:26 AM

PS..Did I make a typo!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:27 AM

I know this may sound goofy ..But when you have folks watching video clips more than once (Including me) the debate is usually pretty good!..:)

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM

I think Palin somewhat punted on the subsidies answer is because what does the “Oh Great One” consider to be a subsidy?

In the tax code, we have a oil depletion allowance. I am not a CPA, but based on my accounting training in MBA and then teaching accounting to MBAs, in my layman’s terms, I consider the oil depletion allowance like a depreciation deduction. Somewhat similar to writing off the cost of capital equipment, the cost of exploration is figured into the what they estimate the reserves to be and there is some of an exploration cost or recovery cost spread out over the extracted oil. If I am wrong about that, someone with more formal training here, please post a correction. But, is this considered a subsidy?

Then we have some tax deductions for the actual cost of exploring an area where an oil company pays the owner or government for the exclusive rights to explore that area. Didn’t Shell recently get denied a drilling permit in Alaska after spending 4 BILLION developing that field? Are we going to eliminate that deduction when it is part of the cost of doing business? Is this a subsidy?

And in our ridiculous, convoluted tax code, I am sure there are other business deductions unique to oil and gas. THIS is where Palin DID get specific.

She said, IF the big companies use their big profits to procure themselves special subsidies that are not available in the general, competitive marketplace, then yes, let’s eliminate these.

However, Palin is NOT a rookie at this. She knew better than to answer YES to this interviewer regarding his unspecific, very general request to eliminate subsidies for the industry. As soon as she bit off this chewy, leading question, then the Obama team would come out with some specific example of how Palin is the idiot because she didn’t know such and such.

Obama preaches in such generalized terms that you can read into what he says 6 ways to Sunday. A smart politician does not respond to generalities in the press.

A smart politician identifies a specific issue, explains why this issue needs to be addressed and offers a pinpointed solution and then explains WHY his/her solution will fix the problem.

Palin has done this in her many facebook editorials, etc.

Has Obama ever done that? He instead identifies a very vague issue, and offers all this hope and change to that issue just because HE is the almighty powerful wizard who can fix it on the sheer fact that he exists. Palin knows this and she will be very targeted as she attacks his policies and results.

So, for those who think she didn’t answer the questions and “needs to improve”, ponder this.

karenhasfreedom on April 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

When Bret had to ask her twice about the subsidies I think that is pretty clear she wasn’t answer the question.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Yes, she was and did answer the questions. It may have been more involved than you like but real life can be that way.

She said the smaller companies benefit from the subsidy while the larger ones don’t really need it.

She also said that foreign oil supplies sends jobs and money overseas when it is better to keep them in the US.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 2:24 AM

She also said that she would have look into the issue. So it kind of confused me where she stands on the issue.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:34 AM

She also said that foreign oil supplies sends jobs and money overseas when it is better to keep them in the US.

sharrukin on April 30, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Which is a reference to the nearly $5 billion dollars that Obama sent overseas to drill oil for us.

Jobs that could have been created here in the US.

That was the answer to the question.

terryannonline, did you consider that part of Palin’s answer to Bret?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

The only question not answered, Is she going to Run for POTUS?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM

(and terryannonline)

Well, I counted about thirteen questions. They were all answered, even that one. She said, “I haven’t decided yet.”

Terryannonline’s beef with Palin on the one question, which is a complicated issue as you pointed out, was actually answered, but obviously not to TAO’s satisfaction. And I can see where she might have some ground to stand on. Is that fair TerryAnn? I would say your assessment that she “doesn’t answer the questions asked of her” is considerably inaccurate, and more hyperbolic than analytical.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

I <3 Palin

MeatHeadinCA on April 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM

OK, You are going to die laughing, but…..

I’m not up on my emoticons or stuff like that, so the first time I saw this, it was exactly this quote about Palin, and all I could come up with, was ……

Palin has big balls.

Yeah, I know, it’s a heart. But, I like my interpretation better.

Jimmy Doolittle on April 30, 2011 at 2:40 AM

karenhasfreedom on April 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

This is the long and short of it. Well said.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:43 AM

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:10 AM

PS..Good to see you!

Dire Straits on April 30, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Before I go to bed,

No, it is not good to see her! She’s a freakin’ Palin hater. Abd enough when men berate her, but when a broad does it, that just gets my blood a-boilin’!

Lanceman on April 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Abd= Bad.

Lanceman on April 30, 2011 at 2:45 AM

The only question not answered, Is she going to Run for POTUS?

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM

(and terryannonline)

Well, I counted about thirteen questions. They were all answered, even that one. She said, “I haven’t decided yet.”

Terryannonline’s beef with Palin on the one question, which is a complicated issue as you pointed out, was actually answered, but obviously not to TAO’s satisfaction. And I can see where she might have some ground to stand on. Is that fair TerryAnn? I would say your assessment that she “doesn’t answer the questions asked of her” is considerably inaccurate, and more hyperbolic than analytical.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:35 AM

I have no opinion on oil subsidies…. I have not studied the issue. I would just like Sarah Palin to communicate her message more effectively.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Lanceman on April 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Terryann, from what I can tell, is not broad. Nor is she a broad. Besides, do we really want to make “identity” politics a greater aspect of our lives than it already is?…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM

karenhasfreedom on April 30, 2011 at 2:33 AM

THIS!

Excellent analysis! Obama would use class warfare, and richman versus poorman analogies, to create the false premise of paying for my mortgage and gas, as in the 2008 election.

Obamacare was a load of crap, and it got passed anyway, because, we had to pass it, so we can find out what’s in it.

Questions that remained unanswered, and are becoming apparently reviled, day after day.

Palin is a realist, and pragmatic. The questions were answered….

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:49 AM

I have no opinion on oil subsidies…. I have not studied the issue. I would just like Sarah Palin to communicate her message more effectively.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM

You have no opinion on oil subsidies, because you have not studied the issue. Okay.

You have an opinion on this interview, though. And you claim Palin “does not answer the questions asked of her”.

I counted thirteen questions, 12 1/2 answered. What’d you get?

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:51 AM

No, it is not good to see her! She’s a freakin’ Palin hater. Abd enough when men berate her, but when a broad does it, that just gets my blood a-boilin’!

Lanceman on April 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

I don’t hate Palin.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:52 AM

I don’t hate Palin.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:52 AM

No, you just don’t like her. We understand.

When she speaks, does it sound like cats in a bag fighting?

It’s Okay, we understand. You’re amongst friends

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:57 AM

testing…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 2:59 AM

testing…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Read you loud and clear.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 3:00 AM

I don’t hate Palin.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:52 AM

No, you just don’t like her. We understand.

When she speaks, does it sound like cats in a bag fighting?

It’s Okay, we understand. You’re amongst friends

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Never said that but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 3:00 AM

Reagan didn’t announce his candidacy until November of 1979, one full year before election day.

long_cat on April 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Be honest did you understand what she was saying about the oil subsidies?

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:01 AM

What a dishonest hack you are.

EVERYONE understood what Sarah was saying about the oil subsidies. Half the posts in the thread so far are talking about it.

You trolls need to get a life. Losers like you come on here and disrupt civil, intelligent conversation with complete nonsense.

You’re only “purpose” in life seems to be high-jacking threads and disrupting pleasant, civil discourse. You are a cancer on society.

Go back to Frum Forum where you belong.

gary4205 on April 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Never said that but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 3:00 AM

A’ole Pilikia! (no problem)

You never were specific on any of your claims.
Although, several here tried, but either failed to rebut your accusation of lack of transparency.

Your words, just repeated.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Drudge has a story about 3 people that had been convicted in terror related cases being granted US citizenship – 1 in 2009 and 2 in ’10. I’ve tried twice to post the link but nada. The story is about 2/3 of the way down in column 1.

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 3:07 AM

Night folks. You’ve kept me up waaay past my bedtime.

Shame on me.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 3:07 AM

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 3:07 AM

Anytime…

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 3:08 AM

Your words, just repeated.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Perhaps she actually is warming up to her.

Momentum.

Night all.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Hawgs … thanks for the tip.

You’re a true nightowl … go to bed.

ORrighty on April 30, 2011 at 3:15 AM

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 3:09 AM

I can appreciate terryannonline’s doubt and concern.

It added to a healthy debate. Civil and constructive.

We need to hold those that lead our national direction to higher scrutiny. I just wish it was evenly parsed.

Kini on April 30, 2011 at 3:16 AM

ORrighty on April 30, 2011 at 3:15 AM

Just getting started…kinda

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Got tartan???

Gohawgs on April 30, 2011 at 5:05 AM

Be honest did you understand what she was saying about the oil subsidies?

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Yes easily understandable. I’m really beginning to think that Palin’s problem is that her detractos are too stupid to get what she is saying. Maybe those that think Palin is stupid do not have the intelligence to understand her and thus think Palin is stupid and not themselves.

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 7:01 AM

I think that it is a good idea to push for caps in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. I think the balanced budget amendment is a good idea as well..However, the amendment process is long and Congress can not control it..the states do that. And while it feels good to say Hell No to raising that debt ceiling when it is a fairly popular stand to take, it would become very unpopular if disabled veterans did not get their benefits or if medicare payments were not made.

People want to see spending cut. I don’t think there is any doubt about that, but I also think they would balk at anything that looked like another crisis. There should be a way to use that sentiment to get real spending cuts and caps.

Terrye on April 30, 2011 at 7:07 AM

I don’t hate Palin.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:52 AM

Me neither, but I can’t wait for her to make it clear, that she isn’t getting in the race so that all of these idiot Palians can shut up about her. Seriously, what’s this need to come to H/A to write puke-making analysis like, “She is like a female lion stalking the prey?”

MJBrutus on April 30, 2011 at 7:08 AM

I have no opinion on oil subsidies…. I have not studied the issue. I would just like Sarah Palin to communicate her message more effectively.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Actually, if you listen to her answer she was very clear about her answer. First, she rejected the argument as Obama tries to sell it. She differentiates between the Exxon-Mobiles, the BP’s, and the Conoco-Phillips’ who have legions of accountants and attorneys whose jobs are to exploit every available loophole in the tax code, and the independent “small guys” who are out there exploring for new sources.

She made it clear that she believes that “big oil” should be held accountable, but at the same time she also stated that the identification of these subsidies was important. Obama tries to make everyone believe that the government gives big oil money while big oil is raping the American people. She pointed out that Obama was demogoging the issue rather than educating the people.

As others have stated, the question was one that was difficult to answer in a 90 second soundbyte. She understands that the issue concerning subsidies, tax breaks, or whatever you want to call them, is complex, but it was apparent that she doesn’t want to set back exploration by someone making an arbitrary decision to end those “evil subsidies”.

The bottom line is that she packed a lot of info into her answer. Have you heard anyone else talk about the impact the subsidies have on “little oil” versus “big oil”? Boehner and Ryan both have oversimplified the issue when they simply say, “end the subsidies”. Big oil can adjust by passing increased costs along to the consumer. With the little guys, the loss of the subsidies could adversely affect their cash flow leading to less exploration while also making it more difficult to survive. She understands cause and effect when it comes to energy production. She showed that with her answer.

Let me reiterate again what others have said. These “subsidies” are not handouts to the oil companies as Obama wants us to believe. The “subsidies” are about accounting methods as in expensing exploration costs versus amortizing them.

NoNails on April 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

What’s so hard to understand ?
-
Soros / Obama are out to destroy the U.S. dollar.
-
Running up the national debt is the way to get that done.
-

esblowfeld on April 30, 2011 at 7:22 AM

What Obama is doing is trying to “community organize” by picking out an enemy for his “community” to target, then only eliminate that industry’s tax incentives, while increasing the government help for the stupid “green energy” crap that never makes a profit.

I think it’s more political than anything.

He has proven that the oil industry in other countries does not bother him, it’s only American oil that bothers him. That may be because American oil companies are typically more favorable to Republican campaigns in their contributions.

Petrobras and Gazprom aren’t hq’d in Houston and donating to Republicans for office.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Brian1972 on April 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM

I think you are 100% correct. Remember the auto dealerships that were closed? I read that 95% of them
were republican owned and the other 5% were strong
Hillary supporters. Owners of auto dealerships are
historically large campaign donors. And Obama got rid of
them – and nothing happened. The president of the US
in colusion with the unions and government owned GM
closed businesses across the country. And nothing happened.
And everyone wonders “how can they get away with this stuff?” Well, they do, so they continue.

Amjean on April 30, 2011 at 7:39 AM

There should be a way to use that sentiment to get real spending cuts and caps.

Terrye on April 30, 2011 at 7:07 AM

there is. It’s called voting NO on the debt ceiling….

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 8:09 AM

MJBrutus on April 30, 2011 at 7:08 AM

What if she decides to run?

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Let me reiterate again what others have said. These “subsidies” are not handouts to the oil companies as Obama wants us to believe. The “subsidies” are about accounting methods as in expensing exploration costs versus amortizing them.

NoNails on April 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

Like I said the people that don’t understand Palin’s answers are not smart enough to understand them.

I always thought the antipalin people were just twisting her words when they attack to try to play dumb. But the more I see the more convinced I become that most of those people just do not have the mental ability to understand her.

Palin’s answer on the oil subsides was one of the most intellignet answers I have heard on the issue to date. She packed more information into her answer that All the other politicans expounding on this subject combined. No wonder the dems mission is to destroy her

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Be honest did you understand what she was saying about the oil subsidies?

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Why yes I did. :o) She said the oil subsidies go to the small oil companies to help with start up research and drilling. The big oil companies make out like GE with the loop holes. there’s gold in them there loop holes. GE paid zero in taxes, due to the loop holes. Maybe you have to be a “hick” to get it?

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Didn’t Reagan wait until one year before the election to enter the race?
.
TPaw was on F&F this morning. He really does seem like a nice guy but now Gomer is on. A real Jackazz.

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Reagan didn’t announce his candidacy until November of 1979, one full year before election day.

long_cat on April 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Billy Clinton announced in October of 1991, a year and a month before the election. JFK announced in January of 1960, ten months before the election.

I suspect that the liberal media wants to push the primary along just to ensure that Republicans have plenty of time to do damage to each other while little Bammie piles up cash.

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Chris Matthews, getting a little creepy over little Bammie: “If you think about him as a guy out in the sun, with the sun in his face, looking like a cowboy with his sleeves rolled up . . . here he is out in the sun, short sleeves, he’s always been fit, looking like a million bucks, looking like a guy.”

slickwillie2001 on April 30, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Yuk. As a woman married to a real ranching cowboy, I can say I am more disgusted by this creep than ever.
BO would not last one day doing the work my hubby does.
I’d really like to see him try.

Saltysam on April 30, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Yes easily understandable. I’m really beginning to think that Palin’s problem is that her detractos are too stupid to get what she is saying. Maybe those that think Palin is stupid do not have the intelligence to understand her and thus think Palin is stupid and not themselves.

unseen on April 30, 2011 at 7:01 AM

I think you are correct along with this:

Why yes I did. :o) She said the oil subsidies go to the small oil companies to help with start up research and drilling. The big oil companies make out like GE with the loop holes. there’s gold in them there loop holes. GE paid zero in taxes, due to the loop holes. Maybe you have to be a “hick” to get it?

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Common sense is greatly lacking amongst our populace.
I appreciate her honesty. There are times when she is vague. But she wasn’t this time.
I think the word ‘subsidy’ is the problem.
People have fallen into the trap of thinking a ‘tax cut’ is some sort of subsidy check to someone.
Note the definition:

sub·si·dy
   /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ Show Spelled[suhb-si-dee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -dies.
1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.a grant or contribution of money.

A tax break does not fit that definition.

The “subsidies” are about accounting methods as in expensing exploration costs versus amortizing them.

NoNails on April 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

This is really what we’re talking about here

I rely upon ‘tax breaks’ & accounting techniques to remain in the business of ranching.
If the tax code was simplified to a flat tax or something, then I wouldn’t have to spend almost $700/yr for an accountant to do my taxes so I could get out of paying any taxes (which I still don’t get out of paying state taxes).
It’s an onerous system that needs to go away.
So many parasites make their living off of this system.

Badger40 on April 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Errrr, Why is Sarah wearing a star of David pendant in the pic on this post?

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

She also said that she would have look into the issue. So it kind of confused me where she stands on the issue.

terryannonline on April 30, 2011 at 2:34 AM

All I can say to this is, you are very easily confused.
I understood it quite well. Adding that Obama is subsidizing Brazil Big oil and losing jobs right here in the good old USA was awesome.
terryann, what do you think the price of gas would be if Obama announced we would be opening up ALL our possible oil fields on land and sea. Due to the energy crisis environmental restrictions would be curtailed?
Prices of barrel oil would plummet before the first rig was up. Gas would come down also, at least as much as it could due to the fed speed printing money. Making the dollar lose 20% of it’s value in a matter of months. Only cutting our debt, raising interest rates, and stop printing money will do that. But Gas would still come down, way down.

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Errrr, Why is Sarah wearing a star of David pendant in the pic on this post?

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

She wears it to show she stands with Israel. :o)

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Errrr, Why is Sarah wearing a star of David pendant in the pic on this post?

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Would you prefer a crescent moon?

Perhaps it’s a tacit way of saying, “As President I would not throw Israel under the bus.”

Disturb the Universe on April 30, 2011 at 9:07 AM

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM

I think the press has a lot to do with making these campaign start early. Pretty soon the politicians will get less work done and spend all their time “raising” money and lying to the public. All because it is easier for “journalists” to do polls and talk strategy than it is to learn the issues and what it takes to solve problems. We don’t have elections, we have beauty pageants and all the contestants are for world peace.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM

She did a fine job answering the questions. She improves with every interview. I agree Obama looks like an idiot running around the country campaigning against noone while so many are unemployed, struggling just trying to put food on the table and gas in the family car and we are essentially in three wars. I hope she runs as the only current candidate I am excited about now is Herman Cain. Of the boring candidates I suppose Pawlenty.

ldbgcoleman on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Disturb the Universe on April 30, 2011 at 9:07 AM

You know, reading that gave me a thought. Sarah stands with the Hebrews and Obama stands with the Muslims. Obama wrote in Dreams of my Father that if forced to choose, he will stand with the Muslims.

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 AM

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Yeah, whom do you want in the White House when the Muslim brotherhood unites the ummah under one global caliphate?

Disturb the Universe on April 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

So when oil goes back down to sixty bucks a barrel (and we hope that it happens really soon) is anyone going to be worrying about the oil companies and whether they are making a profit? If memory serves (iffy) after the fiasco of the Carter years, oil went so low that many oil companies went out of business. I think it had a lot to do with our domestic downturn, it wasn’t profitable and it was all the Mid East could do, so we gave it to them. We are very shortsighted.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

I don’t believe that was a star of David, it looks more like a ship steering wheel with matching earrings, but no wedding ring on. Definitely not in AK but somewhere on the water. She sure sounds smarter than the empty suit and would get the energy situation back on track, along with less spending.

Kissmygrits on April 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

I remember an early interview with her, when she just came on the scene, and she displayed an Israeli flag in her office. Prominently! And that works for me.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 8:58 AMterryann like to pick something and then worry it like a terrier with a rat.
I’m sure it was as clear as a bell to most of us.

katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2011 at 9:25 AM

What if she decides to run?

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM

She won’t so it’s moot.

MJBrutus on April 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Yeah, whom do you want in the White House when the Muslim brotherhood unites the ummah under one global caliphate?

Disturb the Universe on April 30, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Someone with principles, common sense, Love of Country, Puts America ahead of Party, hates corruption no matter what Party, ability to choose good and experienced Americans on their Cabinet.

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Katy, do you think terryann was disingenuous, or is she really that thick?

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

There’s a difference between rambling and non-committal. She feels that ending subsidies might amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ie penalizing entrepreneurs might be a side effect of comparatively token steps against Big Oil. She is the energy expert, I’m not, so I’m inclined to defer to her. I don’t think I’m just seeing stars. :)

It’s interesting that she won’t say a word against Trump, although plainly her emphasis is on changes to domestic policy instead of slapping around foreigners. As with her defense of Michael Steele, she will instinctively give perceived outsiders the benefit of the doubt. Besides, The Donald is running interference for her, whether he means to or not.

And about that Star of David, it is not a religiously mandated or even exclusively religious (as opposed to cultural) ornament, and in any case I have known non-Jews to wear it on occasion if only out of faddishness. I suppose some pious Jews might object to the implicit ecumenism, but American religion has become very informal in recent decades. Politics aside, it wouldn’t shock me to find an Alaskan with libertarian impulses indulging in a touch of eclecticism.

Seth Halpern on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

And about that Star of David, it is not a religiously mandated or even exclusively religious (as opposed to cultural) ornament, and in any case I have known non-Jews to wear it on occasion if only out of faddishness. I suppose some pious Jews might object to the implicit ecumenism, but American religion has become very informal in recent decades. Politics aside, it wouldn’t shock me to find an Alaskan with libertarian impulses indulging in a touch of eclecticism.

Seth Halpern on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Or she could be wearing it to show her support of Israel.

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Katy, do you think terryann was disingenuous, or is she really that thick?

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

More of an attention seeker. Naive, but hopeluul not that thick.

katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM

She won’t so it’s moot.

MJBrutus on April 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

I hope this post comes back to bite you in the ass. Hard. And if it does, I’ll be right here to remind you how totally and deliciously WRONG you were.

gryphon202 on April 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM

hopefully, duh!

katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Katy, do you think terryann was disingenuous, or is she really that thick?

IowaWoman on April 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I’m not Katy but terryann is both. The fact that she didn’t understand Palin’s responses means Palin answered poorly. Not all D students understand rational thinking.

darwin-t on April 30, 2011 at 9:40 AM

MJBrutus on April 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

You should take this psychic thing on the road, there is probably big money in it. Regardless we all will have to deal with the realities no matter what they are. I don’t know why there is an attempt to force the issue now.

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Still the post of the week.

John the Libertarian on April 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM

THAT. Was awesome!!!

NoLeftTurn on April 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Yeah, I like her pro-Israel stance and all— just seems kind of odd for a strong Christian to wear the Jewish religious symbol instead of a cross.

OmahaConservative on April 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

O/T – Is anyone else glad this Royal Wedding Farcical Facade over?

Kini on April 29, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I kinda loved the pomp and circumstance, uniforms, horses and carriages… This was an interesting take:

And then there’s Obama, pondering “whose ass to kick” and pictured more often by his White House photographers, it seems, in a sweat suit or with an open collar than jacket and tie. His advisers have absolutely no understanding of the president’s role in society. The best they can do to add the royal touch to Obama is to let him take to the golf course every weekend.

Fallon on April 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4