Gravitymaster 0 #26 January 4, 2012 Santorum is an ass and there's no way he's going to be President let alone win the primaries. This race is really between Romney and Gingrich and once the 2nd tier candidates all drop out, it will come down to a choice between the two of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #27 January 4, 2012 QuoteSantorum is an ass and there's no way he's going to be President let alone win the primaries. This race is really between Romney and Gingrich and once the 2nd tier candidates all drop out, it will come down to a choice between the two of them. Well, isn't that a let down! MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 January 4, 2012 QuoteThis race is really between Romney and Gingrich. Only going back two administrations: 8 years of out of control spending 4 more years of TURBO out of control spending Mitt or Newt would be a real boost to the voters saying with strong conviction - "Damn it, I'm tired of it all and want to return to just regular out of control spending" RP would be a nice statement that we can't stand either party and their socially driven spending philosophies - the chaos he'd bring to all the other areas of government would be worth it just to hear the fiscal common sense and see a few spending vetoes and actually have someone that understands the intended structure of the country as originally laid out. As for Huckabee 2012........we can hope Rick goes down the same path to obsolescence and a Fox news opinion show. Hopefully sooner than later. He'd just be Obama from the other side - we tried that for 8 years and no one was happy there. Any of them would be an improvement, but it's a matter of real steps vs idiotic teeter tottling. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Austintxflight 0 #29 January 4, 2012 In terms of Obama being a secret muslim, I saw the TV show Homeland, he is a pretty crappy secret muslim and I would kick him out of the club. I think there is a better chance he is a secret christian, and in reality is agnostic/athiest but knows that he can't run as such so drapes Christianity to increase elect-ability. Which is what SO many politicians seem to do, or at least go from once a year Easter mass type people to devout Christians once election season comes up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #30 January 4, 2012 Quote Santorum is an ass and there's no way he's going to be President let alone win the primaries. This race is really between Romney and Gingrich and once the 2nd tier candidates all drop out, it will come down to a choice between the two of them. Preposterous! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 January 4, 2012 Regardless of Gingrichs past moral and ethical issues, there's no denying he has a history of getting things done. I know you remember the battles with Clinton during the 80's and finally dragging the Dems into a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 40 years. Sometime the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #32 January 4, 2012 >Sometime the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. You've just argued for a second Obama term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 January 4, 2012 Quote>Sometime the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. You've just argued for a second Obama term. He didn't say 'voting for the greater of two evils'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 January 4, 2012 Quote >Sometime the devil you know is better than the one you don't know. You've just argued for a second Obama term. I said "sometimes". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #35 January 4, 2012 >I said "sometimes". Fair point! Vote for Gingrich! He's the devil you don't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 January 4, 2012 QuoteRegardless of Gingrichs past moral and ethical issues, there's no denying he has a history of getting things done. I know you remember the battles with Clinton during the 80's and finally dragging the Dems into a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 40 years. So he was behind the Clinton tax hikes? Are you sure you want such a man in office now? Is the GOP sure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteRegardless of Gingrichs past moral and ethical issues, there's no denying he has a history of getting things done. I know you remember the battles with Clinton during the 80's and finally dragging the Dems into a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 40 years. So he was behind the Clinton tax hikes? Are you sure you want such a man in office now? Is the GOP sure? Clinton tax hikes: 1993 Gingrich becomes Speaker: 1995 History fail.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of Gingrichs past moral and ethical issues, there's no denying he has a history of getting things done. I know you remember the battles with Clinton during the 80's and finally dragging the Dems into a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 40 years. So he was behind the Clinton tax hikes? Are you sure you want such a man in office now? Is the GOP sure? Clinton tax hikes: 1993 Gingrich becomes Speaker: 1995 History fail. Did you hear the point go whooshing over your head like a 747? The unpopular tax hikes that helped Gingrich become Speaker was a significant contributor to the balanced budget. More significant, imo, than any action from the majority party later. The proof of this is seen in the total lack of a balanced budget in the 2005-2007 period, when the GOP still owned Congress, and was long enough after 9/11 or the dotcom bust to use as an excuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of Gingrichs past moral and ethical issues, there's no denying he has a history of getting things done. I know you remember the battles with Clinton during the 80's and finally dragging the Dems into a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 40 years. So he was behind the Clinton tax hikes? Are you sure you want such a man in office now? Is the GOP sure? Clinton tax hikes: 1993 Gingrich becomes Speaker: 1995 History fail. Did you hear the point go whooshing over your head like a 747? The unpopular tax hikes that helped Gingrich become Speaker was a significant contributor to the balanced budget. More significant, imo, than any action from the majority party later. If you had meant that in your OP, you would have said that the Clinton tax hikes propelled Gingrich into the Speaker's chair, not that Gingrich was behind them. The wooshing noise you *thought* was the point was actually your credibility. Nice try. QuoteThe proof of this is seen in the total lack of a balanced budget in the 2005-2007 period, when the GOP still owned Congress, and was long enough after 9/11 or the dotcom bust to use as an excuse. Deficits: FY 2005: 318.35 B FY 2006: 248.18 B FY 2007: 160.71 B Looks like they were doing a pretty good job during that period.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #40 January 5, 2012 QuoteIn terms of Obama being a secret muslim, I saw the TV show Homeland, he is a pretty crappy secret muslim and I would kick him out of the club. I think there is a better chance he is a secret christian, and in reality is agnostic/athiest but knows that he can't run as such so drapes Christianity to increase elect-ability. Which is what SO many politicians seem to do, or at least go from once a year Easter mass type people to devout Christians once election season comes up. Why is that directed at me? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 January 5, 2012 QuoteWhy is that directed at me? Matt You were probably the last poster at the time he made the post.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 January 5, 2012 Quote Deficits: FY 2005: 318.35 B FY 2006: 248.18 B FY 2007: 160.71 B Looks like they were doing a pretty good job during that period. Perhaps if you grade on a sliding scale. And if they were true. I see the debt growing by over 500B each of these 3 years. Your citation? And sorry, no masking the deficit by using Social Security surpluses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt scroll down to "Recent additions to the public debt of the United States" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuote Deficits: FY 2005: 318.35 B FY 2006: 248.18 B FY 2007: 160.71 B Looks like they were doing a pretty good job during that period. Perhaps if you grade on a sliding scale. Deficits going down instead of up is a good thing - except for your argument, of course. QuoteAnd if they were true. I see the debt growing by over 500B each of these 3 years. Your citation? And sorry, no masking the deficit by using Social Security surpluses. SocSec surpluses? Of course not, everyone knows they're only valid to create budget surpluses for Dem Presidents. So, do you have the goalposts where you want them, now? We're using debt, since deficit got shot down? Ok, lets. 500 billion a year for the Reps, you say? Ok, I can believe that. Let's see how the Dems did once they took over: Source: treasurydirect.gov FY 2008: 962 billion debt increase. FY 2009: 1.78 *trillion* debt increase fy 2010: 1.64 *trillion* debt increase fy 2011: 1.17 *trillion* debt increase I think I'll take a 500 B/year increase over that, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 January 5, 2012 talk about moving the goal posts. You no longer want to compare to the Clinton 'surplus'...now you want to compare to Obama, which is complicated by the 2008 crash? It's too much to have an adult conversation with you, so I'll speak simply. Gingrich doesn't deserve the credit for the nearly balanced budget in the last 90s. Clinton does. It was tax increases that made it possible. Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 January 5, 2012 Quotetalk about moving the goal posts. You no longer want to compare to the Clinton 'surplus'...now you want to compare to Obama, which is complicated by the 2008 crash? And you wanted to compare to 2005-07, with the maximum war spending and the start of the housing crash. QuoteIt's too much to have an adult conversation with you, so I'll speak simply. Yeah, ok...*who* was one making the whooshing sounds, again? QuoteGingrich doesn't deserve the credit for the nearly balanced budget in the last 90s. Clinton does. Please...the House makes the budget and had to shut down the gov't to get Clinton to come to the table. QuoteIt was tax increases that made it possible. Actually, it was the greatly increased revenue resulting from the capital gains tax cut. Quote Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared./reply] Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #46 January 5, 2012 Quote >Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared. Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? Regardless, the deficit soared. Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, and the Post-9/11 Apocalyptic Security Theater. Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #47 January 5, 2012 Quote Quote >Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared. Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? Regardless, the deficit soared. And was back down to 160B in 2007, when the Dems took over the House and tripled it, before tripling it again the next year. Quote Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Really? Is that why off budget expenditures were less than off budget revenues? Quote Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Probably of more use than paying lawyers. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 January 5, 2012 Quote Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Really? Is that why off budget expenditures were less than off budget revenues? Quote Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Probably of more use than paying lawyers. Or companies that make Solar Panels or companies that make electric cars in Finland. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #49 January 5, 2012 QuoteThe best possible thing that could happen to the 2012 election would be for Psycho Santorum to get the GOP nomination. The fact that his political positions are so far outside the mainstream for sane people means that Obama would have a cakewalk. That's how I felt about Gingrich and Bachman. So Gingrich is fading, Bachman is out, and now this guy suddenly jumps to the front of the pack. WTF? Have people read his stuff. This nut wants to do an Iraq on Iran - like right now." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #50 January 5, 2012 >Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? No. But then again, the only president to balance the budget in recent history was Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 3 #46 January 5, 2012 Quote >Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared. Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? Regardless, the deficit soared. Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, and the Post-9/11 Apocalyptic Security Theater. Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 January 5, 2012 Quote Quote >Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared. Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? Regardless, the deficit soared. And was back down to 160B in 2007, when the Dems took over the House and tripled it, before tripling it again the next year. Quote Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Really? Is that why off budget expenditures were less than off budget revenues? Quote Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Probably of more use than paying lawyers. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 January 5, 2012 Quote Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Really? Is that why off budget expenditures were less than off budget revenues? Quote Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. Probably of more use than paying lawyers. Or companies that make Solar Panels or companies that make electric cars in Finland. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #49 January 5, 2012 QuoteThe best possible thing that could happen to the 2012 election would be for Psycho Santorum to get the GOP nomination. The fact that his political positions are so far outside the mainstream for sane people means that Obama would have a cakewalk. That's how I felt about Gingrich and Bachman. So Gingrich is fading, Bachman is out, and now this guy suddenly jumps to the front of the pack. WTF? Have people read his stuff. This nut wants to do an Iraq on Iran - like right now." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #50 January 5, 2012 >Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term? No. But then again, the only president to balance the budget in recent history was Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
