Hooray for more partisan rhetoric!

Really sad and pathetic when "jobs and paychecks" vs. "bureaucracy and food stamps" is a partisan issue. But at least your honest about wanting to keep Americans dependent on big government.

At least he offered ideas, though I can't say I agree with the ones noted here.

"turning the millions spent on unemployment insurance into a job-training" Can't agree with that, Anon? Again, sad and pathetic.

And "American exceptionialism"... that sounds suspiciously like what the Texas Board of Education voted to add to textbooks at the expense of balanced commentary.

So the left doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and wants to teach its self-loathing to our children. Again, sad and pathetic.

Now that you actually look at it, Newt's idea of replacing the sad and pathetic modern left doesn't sound so crazy.

Shame the left has transformed so radically away from the JFK Democrats.

Let us educate those that refuse to learn from history. Since most of those that are on unemployment would work if there were jobs, why not start a jobs creation program? That would not allow big corporations to send them overseas!

Can't teach exceptionalism if he doesn't know what it is. Sounds like Newt is saying except the richest.

Those that truly need the money will spend the money. That will draw down supplies and have money going to the companies that make the products. Of course the right would just give the money to the wealthiest and see how they invest it in their banks and stocks which creates nothing.

OK right wing keep smoking and chugging. The left will educate the populace and replace you.

Demeaning an comment as "pathetic" isn't an argument against it. I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth though. I had no idea I was such a big-government loving, self-loathing America-hater.

1. It's partisan rhetoric because, clearly, Democrats wouldn't say they were for bureaucracy and food stamps any more than they were against jobs and paychecks. Not to speak for all liberals, but I'd imagine the basic consensus would be that they don't want to keep people dependent, they want to provide assistance to those that need it. Applying those ridiculously simplistic labels only serves to divide people, people he probably wants to convert. That's what makes it a partisan comment.

2. Job training is great, but not at the expense of employment assistance. Some people need that assistance to scrape by while they find another job. I'm all for job training to get citizens out of unemployment caused by the economic cycle.

3. There's a wide divide between exceptionalism and self-loathing. I'd rather a balanced notion of history be taught. Patriotism is a fine thing, but it must be balanced against an objective retelling of history. Here's the part where I recite the cliched quote about being doomed to repeat history.

Yes, we will always have the Haves & Have Nots. And yes, limited government is also a founding principle. But popular sovereignty is also a founding principle, often referred to as the social contract. Government serves the people – all the people, not just the rich.

What is a right, and what is a privilege? Do we have a right to public education, but not to health care though it is a life and death matter? Could we really let people die at the emergency room door? We need to have a meaningful debate, not shouting sound bites past one another.

Oh, and we need at least two parties to be a democracy -- kinda important.

The word "Libbies" makes liberals sound like the hot new toy for fall. Like Beanie Babies or Social-Justice-is-Another-Word-for-Nazism Elmo. Just sayin'.

Demeaning an comment as "pathetic" isn't an argument against it.

You are right, I did not argue against it. Some statements are "pathetically" self-evident.

I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth though. I had no idea I was such a big-government loving, self-loathing America-hater.

I didn't put words in your mouth. This was an article about Newt that commented specifically about. I just put what Newt said with your specific comments. Ain't as pretty when his actually comments aren't hidden and context obscured, is it?

Your detailed response is reasonable and I won't argue for the most part, with what you said. It is actually one the very the few if not only, reasonable remarks from the left's perspective. Good recovery.

You did say that Democrats wouldn't say they were for bureaucracy (and food stamps....) I take exception to that. The modern liberals are big government. Bureaucracy has exploded under Obama. The food stamps, stagnation of the economy, etc. are the product of the Democrats belief in big government.

Thanks for your comments Anon.

You are right, I did not argue against it. Some statements are "pathetically" self-evident.

In your opinion. Calling a statement/argument pathetic does nothing to further discussion on a topic. It implies via condescending tone that your statements are superior to mine, because mine is "pathetic." It's a fallacious argument.

You did say that Democrats wouldn't say they were for bureaucracy (and food stamps....) I take exception to that. The modern liberals are big government. Bureaucracy has exploded under Obama. The food stamps, stagnation of the economy, etc. are the product of the Democrats belief in big government.

For more government, perhaps, but the "big government" label is cheap and easy. Many liberals, myself included, are for shifting government responsibilities, enlarging government intervention in one area and decreasing it in another. Many (most?) liberals are probably for an increase in entitlements, at least in the short term. But "Big Government" is easy to say and comes with a negative connotation, given people's inherent distrust of government. It just doesn't do liberals justice (not that you couldn't find plenty of negative terms flying out of the liberal camp...).

Bureaucracy has expanded under Obama, like it did with W. Bush. People expect government to step in when things get bad. (this argument doesn't apply to HCR. That wasn't really in response to our immediate economic outlook.) Because people account for 2/3 of the economy and government 1/3, people expect the government to step and do what it can to quickly bring us out of the downside of the economic cycle. Of course, people want government to step back shortly thereafter. Having said that, I don't think you can pin the economy's stagnation on this or any other administration alone. The economy has public and private stewards, and they all contributed.

I appreciate your comments as well.

Hey bob,

Interesting that you keep saying Dems are for big government, esp in light of the fact that when both Ronnie Ray-Guns and bush jr left office they left the biggest increse in: A) the size of government, B) the reach of government, and C) the largest fiscal deficits. jr even managed to double the nation's debt in eight years.

To me it sounds like the Dems are definitely the better of the two parties.

As for "handouts" I don't consider it a handout when someone loses their job through no fault of their own. Before you come back and say they should find another job that doesn't work right now. There are between 5 and 6 people for every job listing. Whether you like it or not that means some folks aren't going to be able to find a job for a while.

The criticism might be a bit more acceptable if it came from someone who is less of a hypocrite than Newt !

Imwhitewolf - And govt was bigger under Clinton than GHW Bush, and will likely be bigger under Obama than GW Bush. Government is much easier to expand than contract, as people want their services, they just don't want to have to pay for 'em. Neither party is good at making these tough decisions.

Calling one party better than the other is like calling diarrhea better than vomit.

For more government, perhaps, but the "big government" label is cheap and easy.

Pretty much just a distinction without a difference.

Many liberals, myself included, are for shifting government responsibilities, enlarging government intervention in one area and decreasing it in another. e government / big government?

Actually that should probably read Not many liberals. The currrent administration has promoted and grown the size of the federal government. The only shifting that has done is to shift more power to his executive branch to advance his agenda.

Many (most?) liberals are probably for an increase in entitlements, at least in the short term. But "Big Government" is easy to say and comes with a negative connotation, given people's inherent distrust of government. It just doesn't do liberals justice (not that you couldn't find plenty of negative terms flying out of the liberal camp...).

"Liberals" / "Progressives" / "Big Government". Groups/Entities most of the time receive negative connotations for reasons. "Big Government" has received a negative connotation because it hasn't worked. Very seldom has.

You are absolutely correct about Bush, he was big government too. The economic collapse was precipitated by big government's social engineering in the housing markets and necessary reckless accommodations on Wall Street to support it. TARP was probably justified, but the rest has been an inept exercise that has accomplished nothing but the expansion of the role and control of the federal government. Obama said that only government could fix the economy. He was wrong and has failed.

Free markets are what built this country, not big government.

I have enjoyed the exchange, Anon. I look forward to doing it again.

Have a good evening.

Anon Monster,

Check the facts. Government employment and costs increased sharply under both Reagan and George W. Bush. The latter added over 200,000 employees to "Homeland Security" plus a huge number of "temps" from Blackwater and Halliburton to the war effort in Iraq. In fact, at one point we had more contractors working there than soldiers. That's a nice trick, since they don't count as employees and the cost was not included in the budget, but was treated as a "supplemental appropriation". Further, under a program headed by Al Gore, the Clinton administration reduced the federal employee population by over 360,000. The moral of the story is that conservatives talk about fiscal discipline, but liberals seem to practice it a lot better.

Actually that should probably read Not many liberals. The currrent administration has promoted and grown the size of the federal government. The only shifting that has done is to shift more power to his executive branch to advance his agenda.

As a conservative (I presume), you are no doubt familiar with the argument that the current administration has either lost touch with the people or not listened to them. Many liberals would, for instance, like to decrease defense spending. One person doesn't speak for the group.

"Liberals" / "Progressives" / "Big Government". Groups/Entities most of the time receive negative connotations for reasons. "Big Government" has received a negative connotation because it hasn't worked. Very seldom has.

For reasons both deserved and undeserved. This country has an inherent distrust of government, dating back to its inception. Not that government representatives have done much recently to end Americans' cynical view of it.

As for saying Big Government hasn't worked, it's a general label on an even broader metric. You would need to use a metric to make that point. You could argue that current government programs ended the loss of jobs from the past two years, or eased the great depression before WWII broke out. Clearly we're on opposite sides of this argument, but to say it has or hasn't worked in general is to be too specific. It's one of the many problems I think our country's politicians have.

You are absolutely correct about Bush, he was big government too. The economic collapse was precipitated by big government's social engineering in the housing markets and necessary reckless accommodations on Wall Street to support it. TARP was probably justified, but the rest has been an inept exercise that has accomplished nothing but the expansion of the role and control of the federal government. Obama said that only government could fix the economy. He was wrong and has failed.

The economic collapse came from several angles: the government's deregulation of the banking industry; the increasing demand for mortgage backed securities causing mortgage brokers to create and distribute increasingly risky loans; banks taking increasingly leveraged positions; people taking loans they couldn't afford.

Of course government isn't the only entity that can fix an economy, but people expect it to help when they're hurting. As for it failing, again, there are many reasons for the "failure," and I wouldn't even call it that.

Free markets are what built this country, not big government.

Free markets also caused the great depression, robber barrons, required the creation of unions, etc. Obviously government oversight is necessary and both parties agree on that. To what degree is where the debate lies.

CAL USA - my bad, Clinton presided over one of the few periods of contraction of government. The point is that both parties have, in general, expanded the size of the government. That one is supposedly less guilty doesn't absolve either of the problem. Both parties have shied away from making the tough decisions about what to do with scarce resources.

You conveniently left out the lynchpin for the FRAUD of subprime loan securitization. And I don't think it was any accident that you left it out.

The ratings agencies gave ratings to debt paper that they knew the paper did not deserve. They rated paper that anyone in their business could see was junk, by any reasonable model, and instead graded it as AAA. Don't give me the falsehood that they didn't know what they were doing. If the debt paper was suspect, you give it a lower rating until you know better how to judge it. They were told ahead of time that they would never be prosecuted for the fraud. And they haven't.

Actually that was unintentional, Paul. My comment was posted rather hastily. You are correct though, that ratings agencies are also to blame. And yes, Fannie and Freddie deserve a share of the blame too.

"American Exceptionalism" is just the conservative version of jingoism, bragging for the sake of bragging, exaggerating achievements and denying or ignoring the flaws and problems we have. I'd rather see "American Honesty" instead, honest achievement is far better than dishonest bragging.

Right you are, CAL USA! In fact, not only did the size of the federal government increase under Reagan, so did the number of the White House staff! BTW, did you catch the excerpt from George Duuuhbya Bush's new book where he states that he "misses being pampered." ?

Boy, this brings back memories of Leona Helmsley..."only the poor pay taxes". Bush made sure his buddies in big business were set to make out in a huge way during the first part of his first term. Gingrich was strangely quiet at the time...

People, we already have enough fighting between the 'ultra' left and the 'ultra' right, the last thing either side needs is a hypocrite like Gingrich running for President. Doesn't anyone remember his stance on 'Family Values' in the early '90s? He, Rush, Buchanon, Robertson and the rest of the 'Moral Minority' spouting how they were such exemplary people...lets see, Robertson was outed as a flake, Rush, with his big 'hollier than thow' attitude, went into rehab for subscription drug abuse and, low and behold, Newt leaves his wife while she is battling cancer...hmmm, is this the type of 'Republican' we need running the country?

These people are not changing, they lay low until the Sh#t-storm blows over, and then they come crawling out of the wood work, like George W. Bush did last week after the elections.

Has everyone forgotten why Newt resigned and left government? An extra marital affair. That was the same Newt that was self rigtheous condemning Bill Clinton during the sexual scandal, and the same Newt that was calling his party the party of family values.

Does this represent family values? His extra marital affairs, Tom DeLay having to leave government due to the Jack Abramoff scandal, Mark Foley being a sexual predator on male congressional pages, Duke Cunningham going to prison for soliciting and taking bribes, Vitter on local prostition phone lists, Craig caught at a famouns gay rendevous air port restroom, etc...

That represented his "Contract with America" and he failed to meet his own standards.

If the Republican Party is serious about reform, Newt is among the worst of the worst of hardcore corrupt incumbent veterans that should shut up and go away.

Hey Bob here's a question - job training?? For what jobs???? Government CAN'T creat jobs, policy does NOT creat jobs. Businesses needs to build products that people want - DEMAND is what create jobs. The GOP can not create DEMAND. Cuttings taxes (which raises the deficit) does NOT create DEMAND. All it does is make the businesses more money.

BTW - didn't the "right" get rejected in 2006 and 2008? I'm trying to figure out what will be different this time? The GOP went on a spending spree during the Bush years. The GOP help defeat the line item veto and a ban on earmarks during the Bush years. The GOP increased the deficit with a 'health care" legislation during the Bush years. Boehner even voted FOR the Tarp. So tell me, what PROOF or record of fiscal accountability does the GOP have? McConnell was FOR earmarks BEFORE he was against them....................can't I call him a "flip foppper?

I'm no fan of the far left or the far right. But if Gingrich is wanting to be President (although he was disgraced out of Congress), partisan talk is not going to get it done.

2 things...

Yup I'm all for replacing liberals - With smash-mouth progressives that will stick Newt's ideas so far up his FOX hole that they will never see the light of day and...

"American Exceptionalism" is to America what the "Final Solution" was to Germany but in our case it was the native American Indians that we performed genocide on....

Gingrich actually has ideas rather than just complaining about the other side. ( Yes, both parties do it).

The GOP must have a positive agenda to govern on for the next 2 years. Jobs and deficit reduction seem a great place to start.

In 2012, they must have a candidate that has a platform and ideas and not just "anybody but Obama". That did not work for Dole in 1996 or John Kerry in 2004.

I like the Newt, despite his baggage. For the Palin haters, Gingrich is whip smart and credible. If he is serious about 2012, he needs to show humility and that he has learned from his mistakes. ( Don't misunderestimate democrats is rule number 1).

Agreed, Anon. That euphemistic phrase "American Exceptionalism" is problematic, if not downright worrisome. Newt needs to be forced by the public to give a detailed explanation of exactly what he means by that. Knowing him and his own personal values, as well as those of his party, I too think it means a horrific regression into making attempts at the abolition of free speech, the continuation of the ever-widening culture of fear and repression and the ultimate control of all people of the "Republic". These kinds of off-hand remarks are not to be taken lightly. Personally, my Dream Team for Certain Defeat in 2012? The Repubs only need to run Newt and SP on their presidential ticket.

Newty, Newty, Newty.....If Republicans don't come through with some of their campaign promises the "Right" can be replaced too.

Newt is not saying anything new. For Newt, eveything old is new again. Very sad use of intelligence. He says one thing and does another. He has his entire career. The only issue for the Republicans is to control the money flow so that it flows to them and their lobbyist. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch! If the Retexicans get their way, then we will continue to move toward a corporate government rather than a government for the people.

DJ in TX,

Job training was Newt's quote, not mine. I was wondering and actually surprised somone didn't bring it up before. Good catch.

Congress controls spending. The real explosion of spending under Bush occurred when the Dems gained control in 2006. In general though, I agree Bush was big government and spent to much. Bush was bad. Obama has been horrible.

It unfortunately comes down to the lesser of two evils. Maybe the Republicans can learn from Obama's mistake about taking the will of the American people for granted, Obama certainly hasn't learned.

As with most Conservative narratives this one isn't true either. Budget deficits ballooned from GW Bush's FIRST budget, and climbed like a figher plane all through the period when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Proof here; http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Thanks for playing.

The Best Job Training Program I could think of would be to teach the Unemployed how to speak Chinese, because that's where the once-mighty American Manufacturing Base is now located!

Solid Reasoning by Mr. Gingrich: Don't give the Unemployed back the money that they and their former Employers actually paid into the System for "Unemployment Insurance". That would be Criminal! They may actually use the money to buy useless things like: FOOD. Instead, let's train them for the jobs that don't exist here anymore and let them starve and become homeless in the meantime. That'll teach them to become Unemployed!

" "turning the millions spent on unemployment insurance into a job-training" Can't agree with that, Anon? Again, sad and pathetic."

....Sounds great....but...ummm, training for WHAT jobs, the ones in China, India, Brazil? It would help if there were jobs requiring the training, but that depends on the Middle Class beginning to recoup its income and begin the spending that drives the economy, increasing demand, thus forcing businesses to begin hiring. I'm giving the GOPers 2 years to do something for the Middle Class instead of focusing on their benefactors in the Upper Class, Corporate America and Wall Street. Another set of elections in 2012, the voters have learned how to punish (2008 & 2010), so it should be interesting.

Fisty,

Notice I intentionally left the e out, fisty I have nicknmaed your life support, because it is probably large enough for a fist to go in and out of like on the videos on pornhub....check 'em out.

Newt is right, no more debt. Please lay on the ground so I may place my 10 1/2" boot on your pinhead!

fing yankee

jwesley, why the rabid attack on scooter libbie? he's so old newz.............

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

REPOST - due to the collapse cowards playing their silly games again...

WTF is Newt on?

Replace the Left? Seriously?

Is this the moment when the brown shirts arrive in the mail?

Let me send a LOUD & CLEAR message to the serial adulterer Newster...

YOU WILL NEVER get this free spirit to succumb to the party of greed, selfishness & the self-centered!

Have another hit there Newty!

**Going to Post on MSN and all other user posting sites the following**

I have tried to post the comment 14 times in Yahoo and not once did it post! Yet the comments are flowing freely for GOP and Tea Party members untruths and just out-right lies and Hate Remarks.

*We now know that Fox UnNews & Yahoo are Far Right Wing Nuts of the GOP tool kit*

I am an owner of a small Business with a projected 2010 Gross Income of $4.6 Million and a net Business Income of $502,000.

I am a father and not a Dem and had the honor to serve America in one war. I am a red blooded America who says to Allow the GOP/Bush Tax Cuts to Expire to help reduce the Deficit and maybe fund SS for my children and all other Americans benefit.

My Accountant had calculated my additional tax if Bush’s tax cuts for over $250,000 are allowed to expire on my projected personal gross taxable income of $502,000 to be $6,540 as follows:

Gross taxable Income…………………………………………………………….$ 502,000
Personal Deductions & write-offs…………………….…………........………..($ 88,500)
Net 2010 Taxable income………………………………………………..…….…$ 413,500
ADDITIONAL tax if GOP tax cuts over $250,000 expired……..............…......$ 6,540

My vote if asked as a Small Business owned with a Gross Business income of $ 4,600,000 is to allow the GOP/Bush tax cuts over $250,000 to Expire since paying an extra $ 6,540 in tax to support America would create no hardships for my Business or my Family.

Also if needed to support my Country AND help my follow American it would be agreeable to increase the over $250,000 tax rate to 43% which would only increase my tax liability by $13,080 on a Gross Taxable Income of $ 502,000 and Gross Business Income of $ 4,600,000.

In addition as any Small Business owner or Large Corporation CEO will tell you that to expand and/or hire more Employees is based on Sales Increasing or projected to the point of needing more Employees to meet the demand, Not a Tax Break or Cut or Increase of a few percentages.

My customer based to-date included people with incomes from $30,000 to $300,000 a year, as 98.5% of all other Business customers.

NOTE: Two of my Employees are family members of soldiers that served with me in combat! I think if many of the Tea Party and GOP members had my background, (Soldier in Combat for America), that maybe their heads would be screwed on the right way and Fox and Friends with Beck, Palin and the others would not be able to brain wash them so easy.

I have tried to post the comment 14 times in Yahoo and not once did it post! Yet the comments are flowing freely for GOP and Tea Party members untruths and just out-right lies and Hate Remarks

Frank! Thank you for posting here and I HOPE to see you around MUCH more often!

You will find that First Read is accepting of ALL points of view (even the warped ones)!

Again... hope to see more of you!

Refresh my memory how replacing all forms of dissension and debate is not totalitarian, Newt?

Frank thank you for your insight. It's refreshing to see that there are still some people that have an understanding of the most basic and simple economic principles. My god people's understanding of these principles have gotten so bad that economics desperately needs to be a required class in gradeschool through highschool. Sales increases (increases in demand) make business owners supply more product. Supplying more product requires hiring more workers. This creates jobs. In recessions money is tight, demand goes down, so supply follows. Workers are then laid off. You fix this by restoring the confidence that the products will sell. You can do this by giving a tax break to those that buy lots of products.... The middle class.

I don't care how much money you have... you're not going to by 10,000 toasters....10,000 members of the middle class will buy 10,000 toasters with tax break money. 1 wealthy person with 10,000x the tax break of a middle class person will buy.... you guessed it... one toaster....

Hooray for the partisan monkeys. The laft want spend and borrow and the right wants stop the spending. Why did teh left lose last election? Spend and borrow. They didn't care about the future. Just wanted to kill it.

frank,

your comments/notes are right on the spot! and you are a true patriot!

may be having more people like you will make America really "exceptional"

Hooray for truth. Down with haters. lol... Dems such a dying breed. Obama represents their last stand. He's their best? Lol. Look at the rest of the bozos- Biden, Pelosi, Reid, even "they were shooting over my head!" Hillary, LOL. Bunch of F'n jokes! Good riddens...

Forget the partisan rhetoric! There are tax-paying Americans who have lost their jobs. One in three Americans are out of work. Ultimately, the true problem is: who is going to pay the bills? Any bills? It's time for the upper crust to come clean and pay a fair share.....an amount equal to what middle class pays.

More likely to be the other way around!

With Newt's reputation she needs to be careful. She might end up as Mrs. Newt #?????

Gotta love family values, even if the rethuglicants have no understanding of what it means.

NO, I think it's going to be Palin/Snookie

And the Situation replacing Boehner? We still have to find a place for Joe the Plumber, though...

Speaking of family values, isn't Newty due for another affair??? Usually when he runs for president he goes on the prowl for a new wife.

Oh give it a rest... Why would I care if he lacks family values? If he's trying to control government spending and lower taxes, I couldn't care less if the guy cheats on his wife!

You gotta focus on the issues that effect you.

"You gotta focus on the issues that effect you."

Wish you'd have said that BEFORE Republicans wasted $200M in taxpayer funds attempting to take down President Clinton.

Doesn't newt still lives with his mom? As to anyone who would sleep with da guy, I guess greed before pride. I always thought he was a 60 year old virgin....why is he so grumpy all the time anyways?

Actually, he (Newt) is starting to sound reasonable...... oops.... didn't take my medication this morning. That explains it.

He realizes that he has that 15 second soundbite to benefit from. Just say what people want to hear....oops! That's the mind of ANY politician!!! Sorry!

in 2 years we will replace even more of you. Watch and see.

What will you replace them with Steve?

Are you going to force democrats out of the country and only allow republican voters in?

Aten,

we wont force you anywhere... We just dont want to live under the Confiscatory polices that you democrats want .

boy you must have just watched the dry drunk on faux again steve

Hey Newt, if Americans rejected Democrats in 1980, 1984, 1994, and now in 2010, that must mean we rejected conservatives in 1986, 1990, 1998, 2000, and 2008... we win you idiot!

Confiscatory policies... yer killin' me... Whatever happened to 'he's going to take our guns!!' That one didn't pan out as well as the black helicopters, did it?? C'mon birthers, no ideas?? Just make somethin' up... Wait, I know, he's a, umm, socialist, yeah that's it, no, he's a, a, muslim, yeah, that's it...

20% of Americans say they are liberal......... 43% say they are conservative. Gee the numbers don't match up, do they?

Even Democrats are capable of understanding that "wealth redistribution", AKA Joe Biden's "... the rich just need to be more generous" is still taking another person's money to give to another who did not earn it. Outside of Washington D.C. we often call that "theft". The rich actually pay a higher percentage of total taxes than the middle class, and over 40% pay no taxes at all, but sure want to say how it is spent on them. We have reached that point described in the several-hundred-year-old quote of contested origin that states "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." we have career politicians holding and retaining power by purchasing votes with the Treasury of the United States. They began with the Social Security Fund and now that it is gone, they must move to the wealth held by the "rich", and as the rich become poorer, they can always reduce the threshold that defines "rich" until true equality exists and there are no rich, only poor. You do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

Point #1: We are not a democracy, never have been.

#2: Social Security is far from gone. The government owes Social Security Trillions.

#3: The rich are becoming richer because the policies of this country are written by lobbyists.

#4: The middle class is contracting in numbers. many are falling backwards into poverty. Does it make much sense to Tax people going backwards? If every citizen sends in $5 in "taxes" each year your 40% figure disappears from the discussion and changes nothing significant in our discussion of disparity.

Happy to take it on one point at a time;

Even Democrats are capable of understanding that "wealth redistribution", AKA Joe Biden's "... the rich just need to be more generous" is still taking another person's money to give to another who did not earn it.

That's EXACTLY why the rich shouldn't get yet another break. For 30 years Conservatives have been giving handouts to the wealthy and they're benefiting handsomely from the generosity of the officeholders they purchase with their campaign contributions. It's the ONLY group whose income has actually increased substantially in that time, accumulating virtually all new wealth. http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/real-after-tax-average-income-by-income-group.gif

Outside of Washington D.C. we often call that "theft". The rich actually pay a higher percentage of total taxes than the middle class,

The top 20% pays just under 70% of taxes but controls almost 85% of all wealth. They aren't overtaxed, they're undertaxed. I also call that theft, when those who can most afford to pay not only pay a less than proportional share but use that and other advantages to triple the gap between themselves and everyone else in little more than a generation. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cbpp%2FfYJq+%28Center+on+Budget+and+Policy+Priorities%29

and over 40% pay no taxes at all, but sure want to say how it is spent on them.

It's called democracy. It's the American way. Deal with it.

We have reached that point described in the several-hundred-year-old quote of contested origin that states "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

This is really the crux of the Conservative argument. Conservatives don't actually believe in democracy. What you've said means "most people can't be trusted to rule themselves, therefore the wealthy elites who know better should have the power and rule on their behalf." As a Liberal I believe in a democratic, egalitarian society in which rights are equal, everyone gets a say, and barriers to rising to a person's maximum potential are removed.

In any case, since in the Conservative mindset most people need to have someone rule over them anyway, isn't it effectively a monarchy, or at least an aristocracy for the "undeserving"?

we have career politicians holding and retaining power by purchasing votes with the Treasury of the United States.

Yes, they're supplying the aspiring elites with just about everything they ask, from special tax breaks to no-bid military contracts to "privatization" of essential services, to corporate welfare. In return the wealthy now have the ability to fund their campaigns anonymously, thanks to Conservatives on the Supreme Court.

They began with the Social Security Fund and now that it is gone,

How many SS checks have bounced? Answer: NONE.

they must move to the wealth held by the "rich", and as the rich become poorer, they can always reduce the threshold that defines "rich" until true equality exists and there are no rich, only poor. You do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

A fantasy spun by the wealthy elites and the think tanks that develop messages for them. The greatness of America was built upon the thriving middle class of the last century. It's a middle class that's been plundered by the wealthy over the last 3 decades, sucking the vitality out of our economy in the process. Hopefully it isn't already too late to fix the damage done by Conservatism.

Yeah, what he said.

Okay. let's address the idea of relative wealth. Republicans as a group appear to be wealthier because a very small number of people hold over 80 percent of the wealth in this country, and they tend to be Republican. Consequently, the AVERAGE income for Republicans is artificially inflated by the income of this tiny minority. Once you take out this factor, the AVERAGE Republican has a LOWER INCOME and EDUCATIONAL background than the AVERAGE Democrat. This explains why almost all Republican states draw more federal dollars than they contribute. The Repub policies have created communities in which the gap between the rich and the rest is larger than in Dem states. As a result, their citizens do not pay as much in taxes because they either A) are too rich and get the ridiculous tax breaks past Republican administrations have instituted for the wealthy, or B) are part of the percentage of Americans who DO NOT EARN ENOUGH TO PAY TAXE$!!! A HIGHER NUMBER of Democrats are college educated, middle to upper middle class citizens who have a positive tax bill every year and consequently carry a larger burden for supporting the country economically. $o if we're going to place "value" on people based on financial contributions [which is a particularly reprehensible approach to begin with], then MORE DEMOCRAT$ contribute to our survival as a society than Republicans. $o $mallmind, er ... gov, will you be the first volunteer to do the "right" thing and get the $^*) out so the rest of us can fix this horrific mess eight years of "fiscal conservatism [NOT!!!] got us into? After all, those of us who pay the bill ought to have the final say, right? $o adios!!

& let's face it, the teabaggers got totally punked...

well said steely dan!!!! I had this capitalized because I wanted to shout it from the rooftops, but the vine wouldn't let me! Please accept the "Well Said" as a joyous shout at the top of my lungs!

Steely...Thank you, most Americans feel the same way...

i agree with you Steely.

Remeber Newt's motto..."Do as I say, not as I do"

jon, you apparently have no problem with putting down comments with no basis of fact. i am no big supporter of gingrich but i do know how rediculous your rants are: every historical book he has written has appeared on the new york times best seller list and rightly so. he is a history professor and writes good books on our fore fathers and what they did for us... and all this tripe about his wives and faithfulness etc, are you sure you're not confused with your presidential candidate mr edwards, he of the $1500 haircuts who was running around with his concubine while his wife is dying with cancer?, and who has kicked him out.... we have way to many problems to be continuing this inane name calling and personal destruction. thanks for your post

Superstar, I did not do a single bit of name calling in my post, nor post anything without a basis in fact. It is true that Newt Gingrich was a very devisive and partisan. Remember, he is the one that published lists of words to use in campaigns meant to demean any liberal opposition. The K Street Project is real.

I did not state anything about his background as a historian, but only said that his political tactics had been used before in world history.

And he was reprimanded for ethical violations while Speaker of the House, something about using his political office to sell one of his books.

You overstate his qualifications as a historian. He was a history professor at West Georgia College, but is not known as an historian. He took the position mainly as an entry point into a political career. He has written a lot of books, but I doubt that serious historians give them much notice.

It is interesting you should bring up John Edwards and his wife. Remember, it was Newt that told his first wife that he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from a cancer treatment. All so he could marry one of his staffers, who was, in his opinion, better First Lady material. I guess later he changed his mind on that one, since he divorced her and married another staffer that he was having an affair with.

By the way, the historical fiction comment is a reference to his book, 1945, where the US does not enter WWII and Nazi Germany wins the war.

So Jon;

Was Newt really MORE divisive than Nancy Pelosi and even Obama himself?

Avoid the grape koolaid, I hear that it is laced with foreign substances.

Newt's true color is Red. Once upon a time, in an America far, far away, there was a great fear of being labeled "Red". It symbolized communism, "The Big Red Threat". Now, much of what the "reds"profess would be perfectly acceptable by the communist regimes of yesteryear. I am suprised more people don't see the irony, and the danger, in this. Or don't see it at all. The "red" representing Republicans couldn't possibly be more appropriate.

Have you seen some of the things they're teaching your children in school? "Um, Um, Um, Barack Hussein Obama." Sounds real apolitical to me. They should teach history like it happened, not this revised, politically correct bilge they are force-feeding our children today.

magnificent50

i am also surprised why people cannot see the similarities between the "red" GOP and the "true red" (communists)

American Exceptionalism

Means we can do what we want when we want for whatever reason we want because we're Americans, goddammit, and we can do no wrong...

...and if you don't like it we'll just blast you back to the Stone Age (you know, when man walked along side dinosaurs)!

American exceptionalism is what America has done good and bad, and don't exagerrate the bad as the schools and Obama tend to do. Believe it or not, and I realized some of you refuse to believe it because of the sand in your eyes, the good that has come from the American experience far out-weighs the bad.

bboomer -- I'm curious. Given your definition of "American Exceptionalism" as "what America has done good and bad," why does it get the name he gives it? Why would it get the label "Exceptionalism," instead of the existing clearer English word "History"?

Please explain why "Exceptionalism" means "what [somebody] has done, good and bad".

Based on that definition, every country has done things, "good and bad", and it makes as much sense to have a class in "World Exceptionalism" or "Greek and Roman Exceptionalism", among many other potential usages of the word.

There are many millions of people in the world today who speak their native tongue rather than German or Japanese because of "American Exceptionalism". We could have stayed neutral, we chose to get involved (yeah, I know all about the conspiracy theory around Pearl Harbor) and every man, woman and child in America paid some price. After it was over, we helped everyone rebuild as well. Yes, we became wealthy as a country in the process, and that wealth is being squandered in short sighted thinking. We are unsustainable and the rest of the world is running into the same problem. This time, there won't be the strong American economy to anchor recovery to. It will take American Exceptionalism in thought and deed to extricate ourselves out of the excesses that the political Left and Right have put us in.

This I can agree on but either extreme is dangerous.

You are right on the money, Rick, but the baggers do not want the truth, they want sally palin

What is the truth? I can honestly tell you it isn't just how you think. It isn't always how I think either but I can live with that.

I also will leave a horde of young leftists behind me. we believe in social justice. If Newt wants to change his spots, and endorse social justice, then he's welcome to join us.

Sam, don't you mean 'lead', not leave, otherwise your post sounds foolish...

So, Lois and Samuel, what positions do you hold in this administration that you fear being replaced?

Ahhhh Sam;

So social justice says that the fruit of my labor is first for the Government to redistribute and then let the "socially astute" decide how much ok for my wife, my kids and my grandchildren?

I'm in the middle class and I resent seeing anybody else be told to be "generous" when we have a millionaire president (worth approximately $10 Million) who let his aunt live on welfare, as an illegal alien and did nothing to help. He sure thinks it is great to use my wealth on the illegal and the lazy. When the social programs spend as much effort preventing fraud and abuse by the willing-non-productive, as they spend on buying votes, I'll be glad to sign up. Help for "the needy" must be that; help, not a lifestyle and for the truly needy, not the lazy, and not the illegal entering outside the laws of this country.

Senator Rockefeller said we'd do well to get rid of the extremes of FOX and MSNBC news. You may be on to something frosyfellow...

Proof yet again, that socialists are fascists at heart. Since nobody watches MSNBC the net result is to silence FOX. Silencing opposition media is a hallmark of a true fascist.

If you are a true patriot, it must be for the progressive fascist movement of America.

Rockefeller is wrong to think that there is any kind of equivalency between what MSNBC and FOX News do.

He was also wrong in his proposed solution.

News agencies should be required to correct their errors as prominently as they made them and explain in detail how the error was made and by whom. Amplified speech is a different animal from the free speech we are guaranteed in the constitution. You can't YELL fire in a crowded theater without being penalized. Amplified speech in the form of mass media should be allowed with the same responsibility attached. Amplified speech is a privilege not a right.

Newt and the other Retexicans are not trying to control government spending and lower taxes. You only have to look at their record. They created this train wreck of an economy. The guy not only cheats on his wives, he cheats us by the policies he proposes. A crook is a crook no matter what it is about and that he is.

Valholla, Whaaaaaaaatttttt???????

Sounds like Rockefeller is a bit of an autocrat.