Creigh Deeds in his own words - New England Patriots Forums

Real World · 10-05-2009, 09:48 PM

It's a republican ad on Youtube, so keep that in mind, but it is simply a cut of Creigh Deeds speaking to reporters. The older I get, the more I realize how stupid politicians on BOTH sides are. How they all lie, are clueless, incompetent, etc. Anyhow, I post this video cuz this guy sounds like a retard. He won't raise taxes, but he will raise taxes.

YouTube - Deeds On the Ropes on Taxes

Now, before people go all partisan in here, read my lips!

YouTube - George H. W. Bush

Wildo7 · 10-05-2009, 10:49 PM

What's stupid is that the right has successfully framed the argument around whether or not you will raise taxes, because they know the average American responds to it emotionally.

I can't think of any other policy decisions where politicians are required to give a comprehensive answer on what they will do regardless of the issues involved.

It would be like requiring politicians to answer whether they will or will not expand laws, or wage war.

The answer and discussion is more complicated than that. Nobody wants to raise taxes just for the sake of it (which taxes are we talking about anyway), just like they don't want to wage war or expand laws as a general principle. But if what they want to do, or may have to do, require the raising or lowering of some taxes, or the waging of war or expanding laws, they may have to. But it's iillogical to try and answer that question predictably.

The fundamental assumption from the right is that there's never an excuse to raise taxes no matter what, so they can just instill in the American people "hey, we won't take your cash, vote for us" without talking about any substantive policy points. It's a loaded question that forces the lowest possible level of debate.

There is ZERO evidence that a government of a massive, complex, industrialized country like the US in today's world can operate with a "smaller" government and yet this weird arbitrary debate over the size of government dominates political discourse. Instead of talking like adults about what we should do over issue X or how we should change certain things, we are still being forced to argue over this vague, antiquated and unrealistic principle that's cherry-picked from a different time period. The right hangs their hat on this miracle solution because it allows them to refrain from getting into the ugly complexities of societies problems so they can just sit back, not think about anything and call everyone else stupid for not seeing this "easy" answer to everything.

The idea that just making government smaller (compared to what? what is a small government?) as a principle will solve any of the many complicated and unanticipated problems we face is something I just cannot understand. And anyone with any nuanced or specific understanding of civics could not possibly answer a question that's so loaded with a flawed assumption.

It's like asking Tom Brady to promise not to pass a lot this Sunday when it's dependant on what happens in the game. His goal isn't to reduce passes, it's to win the game. The goal of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If certain taxes are raised or lowered in attaining those goals then that's what needs to happen. If a massive government is doing great things and functioning well, then why does it matter that it's massive? Likewise, if a tiny government is ineffective at accomplishing anything then why is it good that it's small?

***shmessy*** · 10-06-2009, 07:49 AM

Creigh Deeds is an inarticulate moron who backed into the Dem nomination because the D electorate was turned off by carpetbagger Terry mcAuliffe acting as if it was his to own.

McDonnell will beat him easily in November.

But that only fits the VA pattern for Gubernatorial elections. Going back 29 + years they always vote in a Gov. from the opposite party of the sitting President. Wilder during the 80's, Allen and Gilmore during the 90's, Warner and the current guy during the 'oughts.

This election has all the drama of a barbershop haircut and shave.

Real World · 10-06-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

What's stupid is that the right has successfully framed the argument around whether or not you will raise taxes, because they know the average American responds to it emotionally.

I can't think of any other policy decisions where politicians are required to give a comprehensive answer on what they will do regardless of the issues involved.

It would be like requiring politicians to answer whether they will or will not expand laws, or wage war.

The answer and discussion is more complicated than that. Nobody wants to raise taxes just for the sake of it (which taxes are we talking about anyway), just like they don't want to wage war or expand laws as a general principle. But if what they want to do, or may have to do, require the raising or lowering of some taxes, or the waging of war or expanding laws, they may have to. But it's iillogical to try and answer that question predictably.

The fundamental assumption from the right is that there's never an excuse to raise taxes no matter what, so they can just instill in the American people "hey, we won't take your cash, vote for us" without talking about any substantive policy points. It's a loaded question that forces the lowest possible level of debate.

There is ZERO evidence that a government of a massive, complex, industrialized country like the US in today's world can operate with a "smaller" government and yet this weird arbitrary debate over the size of government dominates political discourse. Instead of talking like adults about what we should do over issue X or how we should change certain things, we are still being forced to argue over this vague, antiquated and unrealistic principle that's cherry-picked from a different time period. The right hangs their hat on this miracle solution because it allows them to refrain from getting into the ugly complexities of societies problems so they can just sit back, not think about anything and call everyone else stupid for not seeing this "easy" answer to everything.

The idea that just making government smaller (compared to what? what is a small government?) as a principle will solve any of the many complicated and unanticipated problems we face is something I just cannot understand. And anyone with any nuanced or specific understanding of civics could not possibly answer a question that's so loaded with a flawed assumption.

It's like asking Tom Brady to promise not to pass a lot this Sunday when it's dependant on what happens in the game. His goal isn't to reduce passes, it's to win the game. The goal of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If certain taxes are raised or lowered in attaining those goals then that's what needs to happen. If a massive government is doing great things and functioning well, then why does it matter that it's massive? Likewise, if a tiny government is ineffective at accomplishing anything then why is it good that it's small?

I couldn't disagree more. As a nation we've budgeted $4 Trillion annually, and yet it's not enough. Why? Cuz there is gross waste and mismanagement. The same applies to states & cities. The point isn't that taxes would sometimes need to be raised. The point is that the total budget is so over inflated as is, that more taxes shouldn't be needed. It's always relative to the current conditions. People are tired of the rising cost of gubmit. I'm one of them.