E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
DES MOINES, IA -- The bomb thrower vs. the consensus builder.
Mr. Bombastic vs. Mr. Cautious.
With three weeks until the Iowa caucuses, those differences between Republican front-runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are shaping up to be the central contrast in the fight for the GOP presidential nomination.
And they help explain, in part, why Gingrich is soaring in the polls and why Romney is slipping. After all, in the Age of Obama, Republican primary voters -- more and more -- seem to prefer confrontation over caution and rhetorical red meat over nuance.
That confrontation-vs.-nuance contrast was on display at Saturday night's GOP debate here in Iowa, where Romney took issue with Gingrich’s past statement that Palestinians were “invented” people who might not have a legitimate claim to statehood.
“We're not going to throw incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot when our friends, the Israelis, would probably say, ‘What in the world are you doing?’” Romney said.
“[If] I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability,” he added. “I'm not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.”
Gingrich had a different response, saying that Israel is under siege from the Palestinians.
“I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire.”
Gingrich continued, “I am a Reaganite, I'm proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it's at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.”
So there’s your Republican presidential race for now (and perhaps for the next several months): Romney’s sobriety and stability vs. Gingrich’s calling it like he sees it.
And according to the polls, Republicans -- especially conservatives and Tea Party supporters -- are siding with Gingrich.
In the recent NBC-Marist poll showing Gingrich ahead of Romney in Iowa, Tea Party supporters (who make up about half of all likely GOP caucus-goers) overwhelmingly break for the former House speaker, 32% to 11%.
Ditto the new NBC-Marist polls of South Carolina and Florida, where Gingrich leads Romney among Tea Party Republicans by more than 30 percentage points.
Even in New Hampshire, the only early nominating state where Romney leads Gingrich, the two men are tied among Tea Party backers, per a recent NBC-Marist poll.
As one neutral Iowa Republican political observer tells First Read, Romney is “shy and timid when we want bold and bombast.”
“Newt Gingrich is running … as the strong guy, not the cautious guy,” Republican political strategist Alex Castellanos said on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday. “That means he can get out there and say, ‘Look, your house is burning down, I'm the fireman. You don't care where I slept last night or what I did. Let me put out the fire. You need me on that wall.’”
Observations from Iowa
To be sure, Romney throws out plenty of red meat in his stump speech and during debates.
“I'm concerned that our president doesn't really understand that America,” Romney said at town hall in Cedar Rapids, IA, on Friday. “I'm concerned that our president means what he says when he says he wants to fundamentally transform America. There's nothing wrong with America that needs transforming.”
“He seems to be taking America on a course towards Europe,” Romney added. “We need a president that doesn't want to make us more like Europe. We need a president that wants to make us more like America.”
And at Saturday’s debate, Romney stated, “It's a shame that we've got a president who thinks that being hands-on in the economy means working on his golf [game].”
But, compared with Gingrich, Romney's rhetoric seems forced and unnatural.
At Saturday’s opening of his campaign headquarters outside of Des Moines, Gingrich vowed that his campaign wouldn’t air negative TV ads.
“We're not going to engage in tearing people down,” he said. “And if anybody does go out and creates any kind of Super PAC using my name, if they run any negative ads, we will attack them and we will encourage people to give them no money.”
Note those words again: “We will attack them.”
GOP rhetoric over the past three years
So why are Republican voters preferring -- at least right now -- the bombastic Gingrich over the more cautious Romney? Just look at the political rhetoric over the past three years.
If Republicans and conservatives criticize President Obama's desire to look out for the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians -- a position shared by past presidents, Democratic and Republican alike -- as "throwing Israel under the bus," then it naturally follows they would applaud a presidential candidate calling Palestinians “invented.”
And if they view a federal health-care law -- that uses private insurers and the marketplace, that doesn't contain a public option, and that utilizes a mandate once embraced by conservatives -- as “socialism” or a government takeover of health care, then it’s logical they’d be suspicious of the nearly identical health-care reform Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.
As today’s Republican Party favors confrontation over caution and red meat over nuance, you can see why Gingrich is thriving and why Romney is struggling.
NBC’s Morgan Parmet contributed to this article.
Leave a Comment:
2012 is coming up soon. We have a good chance to get the young people of America back to accepting the responsibilities that their parents and grand parents accepted long ago. This encouraging the attitude of re-distributing someone Else's wealth and blaming someone else for their lot in life has been so destructive to so many people. If we can elect a better leader I know America can be great again. Occupy Wall Street is a shining example of what can go wrong with your population when the wrong leaders get elected....
They will be out in record numbers AGAIN next year in support of OUR President!
There is plenty of buyers remorse over the 2010 elections...
What's that old saying again the 'W' was so fond of?
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
George W. Bush quote
"Occupy Wall Street is a shining example of what can go wrong with your population when the wrong leaders get elected...."
Will you please try to be a little more respectul of the late, Mr Reagan?
I mean, really!
So America is not great then huh? Imagine if the President said "I know America can be great again", you wouldn't be able to get your pants on fast enough to get on here to chide him about how he thinks America is terrible and lacks greatness. I happen to think America is just fine, not without its problems but not sinking into the earth either. Tell me UAW, how has your life gotten worse since the election of Barack Hussein Obama? And be careful, if UAW stands for a union in which you are a member...you are already hated by your fun loving conservative "freinds".
Today's kids have more in common with our oldest generation, than they do with the folks who grew up during the 80's. Today's kids are hardly spoiled - they are having to make a choice whether to go into debt to be educated, without the assurance of a job, or to find a couple of part time jobs to try and support themselves. I'm sure today's kids will be more responsible than the generation that waged two expensive wars while giving the richest Americans the biggest tax cut in our history.
dbo.
Spot on. LOL!!!
---------------------------------
Mr. Bombastic is simply doing a better job of pandering to stupid. It stands to reason, considering he understands them.
Come on Amy, I graduated in 1980. Working 2-3 minimum wage part time jobs to pay the rent was the norm back then for a young person. Also carried debt from student loans. It just didnt occur to us that we could "re-distribute" someone elses wealth back then. We worked those part time jobs instead of camping aka Occupying Wall Street to blame someone else for our woes. The thought of wasting that much time just didnt occur to us.
Newtie loves portraying himself as a superior person, and brags on himself as an historian. However, he fails the central test of the historian, to be truthful and accept unfortunate facts that contradict his theories. Since Gingrich is a congenital liar whose career as Spaker of the House was ended after a reprimand for lying, he has no trouble portraying himself as something he's not.
He repeatedly mangles historical fact to craft an alternative universe. His latest, about the Palestinians, is simply one example. "Palestina" was the Roman name for the territory during the era of the late Republic and Empire. The word originated with the Greeks. Far from being an "invented" people, the Palestinians have been around since the pre-Christian era.
And the plight of the Palestinians today is far more complex than Gingrich can admit. It has served the interests of the enemies of Israel well to keep the Palestinians in a state of unsettled displacement - these people have, for more than three generations, been the tortured pawns of nations that find them useful. Israel suffered a horrific loss when Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down, for he was the only statesman at the head of that country who was making significant progress on addressing potential peace with the Palestinians.
Gingrich for his part not only has no regard for truth, and certainly none in sincerity for either Israel or the Palestinians, but he seems to tap into right-wing Islamophobia with his remarks. And there's a segment of the American Jewish vote that feels President Obama is not properly supportive of, and respectful to, Israel - a segment Gingrich also hope to attract to himself.
Romney may or may not become the nominee, but Gingrich so clearly is completely self-absorbed and continues to damage himself nearly every time he speaks. The few weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire could be long enough for the public to realize what a fool and liar he is.
Amy - Today's kids are hardly spoiled
Amy, do you have any kids or are you even remotely close to a neighborhood with any kids?
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.
Slight difference UAW. The pay is about the same as it was back then but the tuition is up to 600% more in some places. Not to mention all the rest of your bills are so much higher.
How can you even fool yourself to think things are the same?!?
Wealth is being re-distributed, by the government, through tax policy, away from the majority of Americans into the hands of the wealthy few. It needs to stop. It won't if the GOP gets its way. We are the 4th worst country for income inequality. I don't think you have the nerve to claim this is because American workers are inferior and do not deserve a living wage. Without SS, Medicare, et al, we become athird world country. Vouchers will not get it. The latest stock market debacles should be enough to prove to anyone that SS is necessary as a backup to individual or corporate plans for retirement. Forcing that money into the market will result in another bubble, which will mean our economic situation will get even worse.
It is time the government started doing its job. That is to protect Americans from threat, be it from greedy corporations, terrorists or armies, and to ensure a healthy, well educated work force, for that allows the pursuit of happiness. What we have now does none of that, and in the long run, is bad for business.
Mittens loses his cool and says stupid things. Newt keeps his cool and says stupid things anyway. What a pair!
Jon, 90% of this countries colleges are owned by the government and run by liberals . If tuition is up 600% I think you can figure out whose fault that is. Let's be honest no one would be stupid enough to loan a teenager $100k for an education if the government didnt gaurentee his loan. Reduce the loan gaurentee and you will reduce tuition costs.....
Occupy Wall Street had its fundamental origins in the policies and actions (or lack thereof) of G.W. Bush. We are still trying to clean up that mess.
UAW - Come on......I bet your student loan wasn't 1 fifth the student loan amounts now for one thing. For another....there are no jobs for these college grads to go get!!! They're not fighting to redistribute someone else's wealth, they're fighting for the opportunity to achieve wealth themselves. Those opportunities now go only to the lucky 1%. Get a grip and see what's really happening to the middle class thanks to Republican policies dating back to 1980 when Reagan took office. Republicans have nearly destroyed the middle class and will complete the job if they are given the Senate and the White House.
Oh, the new spin is Gingrich is a changed man who has found his religion again, a "grandfather" who is to fat and ugly to have affairs, a more mature man who doesn't say snarky things anymore, a...er, uh, well he is still a greedy rat bastard.
Newt may be disciplined for a few months to get the nomination. He may stay disciplined enough during a national campaign to have a shot at election. Will he stay disciplined for all four years of a first term? Come on, it's just a matter of time and he will succumb to his natural nature.
Hey, has anyone else noticed the new buzz word for conservatives? Yesterday on Meet the Press, first Lindsey Graham was interviewed and he spewed the right-wing talking points, most notably "the failed Obama policies," then Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad came on and it was as if they were reading the same script, verbatim.
My first thought was, wow can't a person of your position speak your own words? And immediately following that I thought, wow what exactly are "Obama policies" because last I checked we were still operating under Bush-era deficits, wars, and the Bush tax cuts.
It's insane. The Teapublicans most definitely are meeting with Luntz and Rove to get their little spin verbiage all lock-step. But what was also striking was how worked-up Branstad was--more than once David Gregory could barely cut him off. And at the end of Lindsey Graham's rant, Dick Durbin tagged him on a lie and Lindsey looked like he was about ready to cry.
The GOP/TPers are nervous. They know they are a bunch of little sh!ts and are getting exposed for being the little sh!ts that they are.
"Age of Obama, Republican primary voters -- more and more -- seem to prefer confrontation over caution and rhetorical red meat over nuance."
Ya think? For Republicans and Baggers, it is all about confrontation. The good of the country be damned! Get that commie, muslim, anti-colonial Kenyan Mau Mau, gay hugging, woman loving, Israel hating, anti-american half-black man out of the whitehouse!
Republican/baggers are an embarrassment to our country.
UAW Pleeeeeeeease -- Occupy is much preferred to an "invented" people otherwise known as the Tea Party. Certainly OWS's numbers and dedication will outlast Newt's claim that he is a changed man.
The 'redistribution of wealth' spin by the GOP has to go. All the 99%ers, OWS, middle and low-income classes want is a level playing field and a fair shake at the American Dream. These groups do not want your stinkin' money, these groups want the 'entitlements to the rich' to end.
Quit wasting our tax dollars on 'freebies' to the so-called job creators who are just padding their own wealth at our expense - and still NO JOBS! Poverty is at its highest level in America - 46 million, and we still get reports of record profits and CEO pay. And tax rates for the wealthy and corporations are at a 60-year low. Then there are those No-taxes pledges by the GOP - unless, its on the middle and low-income taxpayers.
Vote out all the TPers and Grover types by ending GOP control of our states and our country. Send 'em all packin'!
UAW -
That's because other people ARE responsible for our economic woes! It's not like we are scapegoating the banks, they screwed us. Their irresponsible business practices led to the recession and it is outrageous that you are admonishing those who are fighting against that injustice.
As for redistribution of wealth, two things: First, to my knowledge, most people aren't asking for a redistribution of wealth but for banks to be held accountable for their debacles. Second, banks have benefited more from "redistribution of wealth" than anyone else. We gave them unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money to keep them solvent because of their risky and dangerous business practices. Families must struggle to survive and not be bailed out but big banks get obscene amounts of money, no questions asked? Are you out of your mind?
laurie, I graduated from Iowa State University in May 2011, I have a good paying job, almost every one of my coleagues have a good paying job. If those of my group asked me why I thought they didn't have a job yet, I would tell them why and they would probably never talk to me again. Listening to many of the OWS people, I have to wonder what they were thinking when they choose their major, I would of loved to study history, philosphy and various other fields, but had the foresight to know it would be a dead end job wise so I choose a more promissing field that I still enjoy.
JustSlapMe
The 'redistribution of wealth' spin by the GOP has to go
I agree completely. The Rebpub/Baggers complain about redistribution of wealth, they call it Socialism.
Well, the evil bankers (and their evil cohorts) pulled off the biggest forced redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. The Crash of 2008 was the result of the ultra-rich getting even richer at the expense of the rest of us.
Capitalists, have destroyed Capitalism. The bankers have forcefully redistributed more wealth than Stalin and Lenin combined.
How is that unregulated free-enterprise working for ya?
Come on HChris, The banks paid back the TARP with interest. That's far better than we'll see from Joe liberal who got a fannie/Freddie government backed loan. We need to stop encouraging these people that it's some ones elses fault they borrowred money and stopped paying it back. The reason the bubble occured in the first place is we gave quiestionable people a chance to buy a house. As far as the OWS crap go to one of these encampments and actually interview these bozo's. Who is going to hire someone with a fish hook in his lip?? I'm so glad alot of first time voters in '08 have had a chance to see what this country has spawned when you elect poor leadership. Our young people will be paying for this President for years after his 4 are up in 2012.....
Gee, now I can't wait to see if it's Mr Cautious or Mr Bombastic who gets to run against Mr Clueless in the General Election. Thi is just another load of biased crap from Obama's loyal little toadies at NBC.
UAW -
You must have missed the story about the $7.7 Trillion that the Fed secretly gave to the banks. Have they paid that back?
Get real. People lost their homes because they made bad decisions. Banks get $13 Billion in profit from secret money given to them by the fed when they make bad decisions. Apparently you ARE out of your mind.
UAW
Don't forget to thank the union you work for [not a typo] for ruining the American auto industry...
UAW--Here in Texas, the Republican governor and Republican-led legislators have been hell-bent on deregulating tuition, which has raised the fees over 300% under Perry's tenure. Yes, colleges and universiities are havens of more liberal thought, but we are subject to the whims of the state government.
Bethie, You are right colleges are not be run to educate little Timmy and Tina anymore. They are used as a back door tax on young people to increase that revenue stream to liberals beyond what is reasonable. The govt came up with the "Gaurenteed Student Loan". So Timmy and Tina can spread that out landish tax over thier life time called student loan debt. Mike, My screen name UAWPleeeeeeease was born when Obama bailed them out at GM. I'm hardly a member or supporter...
More comparable to the lesser of two evils...
Who ever shall they chose?
Mr. Mega-bucks Mittens or Mr. Greed Gingrich?
Ahhhh decisions...decisions... lol
Feisty - I really want to believe that the Republican Party will never allow Newt Gingrich their nomination. I thought the same about Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman.
nisl,
I think the 'old guard' in the Republican party has lost all control!
It's usually what happens when you allow the dark side to take over....
I hope Gingrich snags the nomination, it will not only ensure a landslide victory for the President, we will also regain the House (say hello to Madam Speaker) and more than likely keep the Senate! ;o)
More and more I care less and less which of these two wins. They have both veered so far the Right that come the General Election either one will have to move to a more central position which will enrage the Right and open either one up to further charges of hypocrisy from both wings. It is starting to appear that the Moderate Republicans have lost the internal battle for Mittney and deservedly so for pandering to their lunatic fringe. Obama is starting to look like a sure bet.
Don't hear much about Boehner any more as he's hidin' and cryin' from behind the Tpers in line for his job. It's all over for him 'cept the cryin'.
Well, I think Gingrich-Romney will make a perfect and well-balance team...to go against Obama-Biden.
Did Newt forget to wash his shirt.......
dog-whistle for the Fox Noise crowd. lol...
You know what's really sickening is all the time and energy that is wasted following these Republican losers. We have huge problems in the world and these clowns do nothing to help fix them. The GOP is nothing more than a carnival side show. This weeks attractions are a mega rich corporate raider and a snake oil salesman.
Herman who nisl? As the phrase goes...."that's so 10 minutes ago".....He came, he made noise, he explained and/or denied and then departed". The Newtster is having his 15 minutes but he will soon self destruct and eventually the Grand Old Party will be left with the Romster. Running mate choice will be interesting.....Huntsman?....The Utah connection???
Republicans = More TAX CUTS for the rich, more PAY CUTS for American Workers.
Mr. I'll screw the country slower than the other guy -vs- Mr. I'll start WW3
What a choice
I'm a person who says...I will see it when I believe it...but this one is too easy to call
If Ron Paul gets the nomination, he'll give Obama a run for his money.
You leftys at NBC are insane. Look at the mess Obama and the Democrat Congress (or did you forget that you had both houses for the last four years) since 2008, does that date ring a bell with anyone. I guess you can blame Bush for not vetoing anything, and I do. It was that congress, and you idiots that got us into this mess
The liar is to the left and right in that pic.
Disgust has a name - GOP.
Don't know which debate this "journalist" was watching but Ron Paul destroyed those 2 bozo's. It's almost comical how the mainstream news ignores Ron Paul, the only one really out there to help the American people.
Well, thank goodness we have a president in the White House who actually spends time golfing, vacationing at the most exotic and expensive spots, in the most expensive way (with his wife taking a separate jet because she just didn't want to wait 4 extra hours to travel with her husband). They are REALLY working to fix these problems.
Perhaps they can find some money, via QE3, to throw at the problem. Ah, to spend taxpayers' money or to golf ... tough decisions in the Oval Office.
Mr Bullshiit Artist vs. Mr Better Check (with the producers first)
One of them will run against Mr. Zero Leadership Teleprompter Reader. Interesting race.
Oh Dear!
The right wing moon-bats didn't get the memo that the full moon has passed!
I cannot wait for all of you haters to CHOKE on your own petard! ;o)
Hate to burst your bubbles tee hee
Actually, it is good for the fight to be between Mitt Gingrich and Newt Romney right now, let Newt tear Mitt apart, let the world see Mitt for the weak-kneed billionaire wussy he actually is.
And then, when the Newtster is all done with Mitt, Ron Paul will expose the self proclaimed historian for what he actually is, a self serving egotistical maniac.
It's working out very well for Ron Paul!!! Just enough of his message is getting out to show he is a force, and the others are being goaded into ignoring him and destroying each other.... Even Obama is helping,
ISN'T IT GREAT!!!!
The election will come down to the lesser of two evils
Whoever the Republican nominee is and Mr Community-Disorganizer Obama.
As appealing as choosing between a poke in the eye with a burnt stick or a kick in the groin.
Well, I wouldn't exactly say Mitt Romney is a "consensus builder" at least not in his current incarnation but Newt Gingrich is a "bomb thrower" and he doesn't care who gets hit with the shrapnel.
Jody... do you know what Bombastic means?
Cuz your comment makes it sound like you don't know.
(let me help you out... Bombastic: pompous, long-winded, pretentious, overbearing... get it... kind of like Feisty and her crew ;-)
---------------------------
BTW... anyone who says that FR is not a leftwing liberal site... just take a look at the title of this article and tell me if that doesn't sound left to you...
----------------------------
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
"BTW... anyone who says that FR is not a leftwing liberal site... just take a look at the title of this article and tell me if that doesn't sound left to you..."
Did someone say FR is not a leftwing deal? My gosh- that'd be like saying Fox is not a rightwing outlet.
C'mon, y'all- who said such a thing about FR?
Bombastic: pompous, long-winded, pretentious, overbearing
Yup! That's Newt!
"BTW... anyone who says that FR is not a leftwing liberal site... just take a look at the title of this article and tell me if that doesn't sound left to you..."
Who says that? Of course First Read is a liberal website.
And here I thought FR meant Free Republic.. Maybe that's how the Repubs stumble over here, given their stated love for all things NBC. As for Newtie's chances, Newtie = hubris. Hubris turns most non-extreme Americans off, even if there are 25% 'Merikans who think everything Republican is better than everything else in the known universe. The majority of American voters prefer their Preznit to show at least a little humility. Even W was faux humble. Darth Cheney was a different matter...
Sickof, yes, I know what bombastic means. Please note, my comment pertained to line one of the article: DES MOINES REGISTER, the bomb thrower versus the consensus builder. Did you even read the article or are you being bombastic?
What is an FR...I just can't keep up sometimes (Friggin Republicans)
Teabags are half of the GOP caucus participants? well, that certainly explains how Gingrich floated to the surface of the GOP cesspool... and how every one of the previous flavors-of-the-week preceded him.
Good luck with that, GOP. Best you ditch those Teabaggers of yours if you're ever going to be taken seriously by the mainstream. And by the way -- you aren't winning squat without the mainstream in 2012.
First Read or Feisty Redhead, take your pick! ;o)
I prefer red heads
I'm glad too see, when the trolls go away many Americans see the truth.
I like some of the ideas that most of the republican candidates talk about but then they fall off the flat earth they believe in...don't get too close to the edge...poor people might push you off.( insert whom ever the GOP hates today)
You are a man of fine taste! ;o)
You all do know that the most powerful organizer in Iowa for the Tea Party yesterday endorsed Ron Paul?
You guys and ladies didn't know that?
I thought you FR libbies knew EVERYTHING!!! ;-)
Hi Feisty!, hey LOVE the avatar!!!!
The core issue here, is that Romney, for all his flip flops, is more an old school moderate Repub. Newt, from the beginning, has been the "attack and destroy" type. And, from comments I have heard and read from those who worked with and under Newt, he is an equal opportunity type of destroyer - he would "eat his own" I do believe there will come a time, if not in the primaries, then in the general election, if Newt is the nominee, he will, indeed, self destruct.
Sorry, I also meant to add, has anyone noticed that all the old, moderate, willing to work across the aisle, type of GOP members are now leaving public life? I think that is telling also. I do believe this time the GOP will receive a wake up call they WILL have to pay attention to.
Ron Paul is the one that needs to get the nomination--but chances of that are slim.
SPARTAN-501
Actually Spartan-501, I think the chances of Paul winning are getting better and better.
I saw a video somewhere on the internet, I think it might have been on Paul's own site where a news reporter was asking him if he didn't get the nomination would he run as a third party candidate. Paul's answer was his typical denial stating that he thinks he has a real good chance. She brought up that his poll numbers show him as only a strong second or third, Paul responded by saying, Well, we have some polls that show a lot better than that..." and so on then he kinda acts like he said something out of turn and kinda shied away from her and excused himself.......
I thought that was VERY interesting.....
Then Newt and our current Commander in Chief have a great deal in common in that Obama has thrown many of his people under the bus to protect himself or his agenda.
Oh Goody Red Meat!! From these two draft dodgers?...Hey conservopusses, can hardly wait for the "confrontation" next year! Ya'll will be hiding like little girls! (No insult intended to little girls). Wanna bet???? Nah nah nah nah nah....
"As today’s Republican Party favors confrontation over caution and red meat over nuance, you can see why Gingrich is thriving and why Romney is struggling"
"Red meat", says the condescending liberal journalist from MSNBC, defending the trillion dollar boondoggle known as Obamacare as ''using the private sector".
Does said MSNBC journalist ever use similar rhetoric about the Far Left policies of Obama? Wasnt the hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars 'red meat' for public unions?
You dont see much 'nuance' in the MSNBC talk shows like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, now do we?
Mr. Many Numbers
Is it not true that today's GOP base would rather the ugly rhetoric about anything the black president with the funny name does or say? That it is the "red meat" of your parties base?
PP... there you go again tossing out the race card...
It seems to me that is all you people have these days. I have heard conservatives talk about nothing by Mr. Obama's policies. Nothing else.
Yet there you are using the old tried and true race card. Pathetic.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
Ms. Manynumbers...As opposed to what? The nuance of stupidity as seen on O'reilly, Hannity, Wallace, Assorted Infobabes (which the ONLY reason I watch because they know how to flash some thigh) and the "Inteelectual Soul" of Fox: Charles Krauthamer????????..Yeah right!!!!
Actually, the rhetoric I have heard from the GOP base leads me to believe this. However, I will cede one point, you on the right are equal opportunity haters, you do hate anyone who doesn't follow your credo to the T.
You know, if you ever pick up a history book, you would find that the greatest statesmen of both the right and left were the ones who could compromise. I certainly don't see any great statesmen coming out of the right today.
Oh, and BTW, what was that comment from Rush all about when telling the leader of the black caucaus his pass from the plantation had been revoked? Hmmm, sounds racist to me.
"You dont see much 'nuance' in the MSNBC talk shows like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, now do we?"
Not when you listen to Hannity alla time, like I do. (seems his 'screeners' keep us from hearing anything other than what Sean WANT'S us to hear....)
Bob.
LOL!!! Like most conclusions from the right wing, their projection based reality clouds their thinking.
The projections you were fed tells you Obamacare is a "boondoggle", and, it also reinforces your congnative dissonance.
The health care law does use the private sector, jr.
The insurance companies and health care professionals are still in the private sector.
Study up.
Yet another projection.
Obama's policies are not "far left".
In fact, many of them, such as the individual mandate, are policies developed in right leaning think tanks (that now fight against them..lol).
The public union B.S. is yet another example of your spoon fed ignornace.
You are funny.
Study up, jr.
Republicants, Bob is exactly right on the public unions and not sure why you think differently. Its not as if it was a secret. Its really not just public unions as the so called GM and Chrsyler bailouts were nothing more than political payoffs to the private sector unions as the government circumvented established bankkrutpcy law to eliminate the secured lenders as owners and gave a big portion of the ownership to the unions. The original stimulus plan had a huge government union payments through budget gimmicks on shovel ready jobs which is why very few jobs were created as money just went into the union pension plans. Same thing with follow up bills funding teacher, post office and state government union unfunded pension and retiree health care plans. These arent secrets so what ignorance is being spoonfed to Bob? Why do you think the unions give so much money to democrats? You think its for their health or to get payback?
By the way, Obama is far left as he advocates government takeover of healthcare (whether thats good or not is clearly a debatable topic) or his views on class warfare and punish the successful. Anyone who advocates equality of outcomes regardless of equality of effort or investment is far left. Anyone who increases government assistance to 900 billion across 80 government assistance programs an increase of 80% is far left. Anyone who doesnt understand basic economic behavior and doesnt believe in self reliance and personal accountability like he does is far left. Anyone who is racking up debt to be paid back by our kids and grandkids decreasing their future standard of living is far left. But maybe thats a good thing right being far left? If we give him 4 more years, maybe all of us fiscal conservatives will be wrong and history will for the first time ever, prove his policies of social justice and equality will eradicate poverty, unfairness and justice will apply to every single human. All human suffering and misery will be eliminated because we taxed the rich and made sure every single human made the same amount of money regardless of effort, we all had healthcare and lived to be 100 and Wall Street was all about being fair to everyone again regardless of merit, ambition, achievement, intelligence, effort. Personally, I think a monkey will fly out of my butt before Obama's policies work but I definitely could be wrong.
Thank goodness for Obama and the AHA. Having just this day been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, my insurance company could have dropped me. But now they can't.
Phinephancy--more importantly good luck with your treatments and hope everything works out for you.
Thanks, Kirk. Kinda tough day today.
Kirk.
I think differently because Bob is not exactly right. He is not right at all.
You have fallen pray to the same projections Bob has. For example:
The bailout to the auto industry was about saving the auto industry, not about unions. And....it did save the auto industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I realize that cable news has fed you the drivel you now repeat. I got an idea.
Try backing it up. Good luck. LOL!!!
I agree. Those delusions are not secret. They are openly bouncing around the conservative game of telephone.
You just repeated the ignorance. Study up.
OMG phinephancy!
I am SO sorry to hear that news!
First Forrest and now you... ;o(
You know we are all here to support you in any way we can!
{{{hugs}}} GF!
Kirk.
Cute projections.
See how easy it is too believe what you want to believe? It matters little what reality is, especially when there is cable news, talk radio, etc to reinforce your delusions.
Too funny.
Hey Bob - What's a far left policy????? Health Care Reform??? Would you say Medicare is a far left policy because Health Care Reform doesn't go as far as Medicare does. Healthcare Reform is still run by private insurers and Medicare is government run. Seems to me that the great majority of Americans love Medicare wouldn't you say? In the scope of the rhetoric from the Republicans they claim that Healthcare reform is "Socialized Medicine". If that's true, then what is Medicare? You don't hear them trying to end Medicare now do you? You know why? Because they would be savaged for even thinking that way. So as far as I'm concerned the Republicans and people like you are not living in reality of any kind. If you took a poll tomorrow I suspect that 80-90% of those Americans polled would agree to see Medicare expanded to include ALL Americans. BTW, that would shore up the Medicare system for many, many decades if not centuries.
You will be in my thoughts and prayers Phinephancy, as well as many others here at FR.
Republicants--I dont watch cable news but lots of sports so not sure what you are talking about. So clearly you dont understand what you are talking about. You realize that GM and Chrysler were not saved by the government right? They did file bankrupcty and they didnt "save" the auto industry. They filed chapter 11 with a plan of reorg. The only difference is that the government circumvented the law and gave ownership of the company to the union rather than secured lenders. GM always made an operating profit so eliminating their debt was always going to make them viable whether the government stepped in or not. So you obviously dont understand what you are talking about and need to do some research and stop reading partisan think progress. It was very easy to back up and its not like any of this is a secret or even big news. Maybe if you stopped and did some critical thinking for yourself, some comprehension could happen.
Thanks, everyone. Kind of having a little bit of a bad day here, but it will all be good. No worries, I am too mean to let anything beat me!
phinephancy,
if you need anything at all,...please don't hesitate to lean on friends! We are ALL pulling for you! ((((Phinephancy))))
virtual hug!
Group hug for phinephancy! {{{{Phinephancy}}}}}} {{{{{{{Phinephancy}}}}}} {{{{{{Phinephancy}}}} {{{{Phinephancy}}}}}}}
We love you kiddo!
Kirk,
The sad thing is not how misinformed you are, it's the fact that you think you're well informed. You don't even see the contradictions and invented "facts" in your own arguments. First you tell us that the government stiffed the auto industry's "secured debt holders", presumably the investors, then admit they actually filed for bankruptcy. In a free enterprise system, you reap rewards when things go your way and take the hit when they don't. The system worked as intended. The government action was to facilitate loans at rate that a bankrupt company could not secure on its own. [After they posted the recovery plan you reference and it was approved.] That, accompanied by concessions from the union you all deride, helped the industry to survive, begin a comeback and repay the government loans. In case you haven't noticed, American cars were not selling then; they're selling now. The UAW would be amazed to find out that they now own GM and Chrysler, since that would mean they can write their own labor contract.
Now, we all know that union (and government) workers are not real people, but thanks to the Obama administration there are millions of Americans paying taxes and contributing to the economy, instead of drawing unemployment and cutting back on their spending. Even your legendary Texas job creator managed to use $5B of the Stimulus money (you know the one all you guys say failed) plus $17B of revenue sharing funds to balance his state budget. He then had to lay of thousands of teachers when those ran out and he ran into a $27B deficit.
But, who cares about the facts? Let's continue the fiction that we need to cut taxes, deregulate businesses and invade other countries in order to be a great country. Bush certainly proved that formula.
Kirk.
Cable news is just a place holder.
The point is, the projections you posted, are not new...but they are projections, and not based in reality.
Therefor, it is unlikely that you, and every other conservative parrot, came to the same conclusions, considering the conclusions are delusional.
I realize that you have blindly bought into what you were fed.
The bankruptcy GM went through was a managed bankruptcy, and the companies would not have survived as they did without the government stepping in.
Your projection is not the difference at all. It is just a projection you were fed, that fit what you so desperately want to believe.
The government stepping in is what helped eliminate their debt, while keeping them solevent.
Study up.
I did look it up, jr, which is why I do know what I am talking about, and you are repeating right wing rationalizations.
And if what you post is easy to back up, why have you failed to do so as of yet?
LOL!!!
Try again.
Kirk is just another drone who stumbled on some websight or something that told him what he wanted to believe.
He bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Confident ignorance. Always amusing.
CAL USA, actually not misinformed and I actually know this stuff pretty well. Instead of actually trying to make me look bad and dumb all you do is make yourself look silly by not doing any research and knowing what you are talking about.Maybe you should look it up. No, the secured lenders are not the same as the investors. The public company GM shareholders were the investors and they lost all of their money. GM filed for reorg under Chapter 11 which means they were never going out of business but restructuring their debt and equity. GM was making an operating profit, they just had too much debt and couldnt pay their financing. I agree the government provided debtor in possession financing which I agree they should have done but they also didnt need to file a plan of reorganization that cirumvented established law and gave a big portion of GM ownership to the union pension plans. Yes they did when the real owners should have been the lenders (these are not the investors). Nothing the government did changed how GM operated and created a profit which would have happened under any reorg plan. Sorry but those same union workers would still have their jobs today just the lenders would be the owners of GM and sorry but Rick Perry is not my guy and I could care less if he used federal stimulus money as you are arguing with the wrong person on that one. I am not a Bush fan either Cal but now go look up how it worked at GM before you come back and criticize me ok?
If it's not Brianb mucking up the thread, it's Kirk.
President Obama did not campaign for a mandate -- that was Hillary. President Obama likewise tried to learn from the mistakes made by Hillary and let congress develop the Affordable Care Act. So the first lie is in calling it "Obamacare."
Like the stimulus which DID create/save jobs, and DID help the economy, the Affordable Care Act is already generating savings, most notably for those on Medicare (which was not "stolen" from). The right-wing will get their panties in a wad over just about any lie they hear on FOX Noise and Hate Radio.
The most recent is the lie about "failed Obama policies." Last I checked we were still operating under Bush-era deficits, wars, and the Bush tax cuts. The only "Obama policy" they could point to would be the Affordable Care Act -- please see above.
The fact is, and more and more voters are starting to realize this, Republican voodoo economics of "trickle-down" tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation especially of Wall Street to banks that are "too big to fail" is what caused the Great Recession in the first place. The Teapublicans and their clowns, er uh, candidates are proposing to return to the same POS ideas, as well as ending Medicare and Social Security.
Anyone who seeks shelter in the GOP/TP tent, don't be surprised if you find yourself under a leak when it rains.
avatarKirk-2957282 - GM loans...that's right, unlike GW, Obama provided the private sector a loan instead of a give-away. And I might add, saved God only knows how many jobs not only in direct auto manufacturing but in the supply chain as well. As to your comment about Obama being far left...wait till we elect a true Progressive...you ain't seen nuth'in yet!
Kirk.
You look silly.
The reason has nothing to do with research.
You look silly because you are trying to rationalise away what the administration did in regards to the auto industry.
The reason you are doing so is because it worked.
And....that delusion I talked about before, prevents you from seeing the silly ideological dance you are doing, all to keep from having to give credit where credit was due......because to give credit would undermine the delusional projections you bought into about this administration.
Study up.....and turn off whatever is feeding you your B.S.
"The reason you are doing so is because it worked."
Opinion, not fact. Chap 11 exists for a reason, and many firms emerge much stronger and more competitive. Given this wasn't allowed to play out at GM, we don't really know if the alternative was better, do we?
Rob.
LOL!!!
Ok. It is my opinion that Kirk is obfuscating reality because he doesn't want to admit the auto bailout worked, and would thus have to give credit to this President.
However, it is not my opinion that the auto bailout worked. That is reality. Sorry it doesn't fit the one you were fed.
GM and Chrysler did come out stronger then before, and much of it was from the government action. If GM and Chrysler did not receive both monetary and legal help, they would have faired much worse. A regular bankruptcy would not have provided the support that was given.
Hey phine....
You have my Prayers for a speedy recovery and survival....
Republicants--you didnt do any research because you have no idea what you are talking about. I realize its a great campaign talking point to say I saved the auto industry but its just not true. I suppose I need to explain it to you. Do you think American Airlines is going out of business, they just filed Chapter 11, what about United as they seem to have survived quite well. Sorry Ol-Doc it has nothing to do with supply chains or progressives but just good ole crony capitalism. GM filed Chapter 11 and filed a plan of reorganization. The one thing the government did well and I Obama should take credit for was provide debtor in possession financing while the banks were unable to do so. But GM was making an operating profit they just not enough to pay their interest payments on their debt. So the plan of reorganization wiped out the debt and gave the equity of the company to the government, union pension and retiree medical plans and the lenders. Under the law, only the secured lenders would have received the equity and the public investors would have been wiped out and the government most likely would have been paid back with permanent financing but getting equity was fine. The future operating profits of GM didnt change a dollar because of this and in fact might have been less if the lenders had been able to change the operating model and get better union contracts within the bankruptcy context. So conceivably GM would have been able to make even more money if bankruptcy law had been respected. But GM's future profits and viability had nothing to do with Obama and stepping in besides the debtor in possession financing. He didnt need to provide his union campaign contributor nepotism by circumventing the law. Sorry Republicant but you clearly dont understand and if you actually used your critical thinking skills for a second instead of your rabid partisan hatred for anything anti obama you could figure this out. By the way, just like American Airlines will get monetary help, GM only needed new financing not the governments plan of reorganization to come out stronger. You just have no clue what you are talking about
Ol Doc--not sure what radical progressive future you have in mind--can you spell that out?
Kirk.
Just as when you blathered on about that CBO report you never read, the pundits that fed you this drivel again led you astray.
I am not even sure why you are aruing this. I can only assume that it has something to do with your rabid partisan hatred for anything this President does.
The auto bailout was a resounding success by most accounts, and it really did not cost the Treasury much.
To argue that GM would have been fine going through a regular bailout is simply asinine, and only makes your ideological delusion that much more evidenent kid.
Without assistence from the government, GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated. They would not just have gone through a different bankruptcy. Remember what else was going on at the time (or were you not paying attention?)
There would have been no reorganization, jr, and the reason is no banks would have supplied the capital needed for the reorganization. GM and Chrysler would still be trying to pay back bond holders, etc.
Millions of jobs would have been lost. Suppliers would have gone out of bussiness, and the entire industry would have been effected.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
Study up, jr. (And stop putting so much blind faith in pundits....)
Repub--stop the condescending BS as I have forgotten more about bankruptcy law than you could ever comprehend. I dont have any hatred for Obama and in fact respect him for many things just not his financial policies or business acumen. I am not partisan at all and have voted for an independent (john Anderson) and both GOP and democratic presidents. Voted for Clinton and Kerry and still have regrets over my first Bush vote but could try. Do you even understand the differences between the types of bankruptcies? GM did file Chapter 11 and not a liquidating bankruptcy. This has nothing to do with idealogy but obvious financial conclusions. Again, do you think American Airlines is going to disappear? Its the exact same thing you realize? I agree that without assistance from the government which is called debtor in possession financing (do you understand what this is?), something drastic might have happened but I am not sure a full liquidation would have occured. So thats all the government should have done and they would have gotten every penny back "not cost the treasury much" as you say. No GM and Chrysler would not still be paying back bondholders as you clearly dont understand what a plan of reorganization is. In such a plan, the equity or shareholders are wiped out and the lenders in this case bondholders and the other lenders become the new shareholders in various percentages based on negotiations and approval by the judge. Unsecured lenders such as the union pension plans in this case are generally wiped out. You keep avoiding the issue and trying to make this about a liquidating bankruptcy as if debtor in possession financing wasnt provided and loss of millions of jobs and avoiding the circumvention of bankruptcy law by giving equity to the unions. That was crony capitalism at its finest and if you are as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you must understand that if you eliminate interest payments and are making an operating profit, that isnt going to change based on who owns you once your debt is wiped out.
It is just patently falso that millions of jobs would have been lost and suppliers out of business. I am not putting faith in any pundits, as I know this from my actual knowledge and experience what about you?
Kirk.
Stop bragging.
Besides, if you are so well versed in bankruptcy law, why are you so ignorant on this issue?
Why are you arguing that GM and Chrysler would not have been liquidated, and still dealing with the liquidation if the government had not intervened?
Why are you pathetically unable to back up a single delusional thing you post?
LOL!!! So wait a minute. Now you agree that "something drasitic might have happened?"
Dude, your ignorance is causing you to argue in circles.
Drop the ideological position. It makes no sense. The bailout worked, and no matter how you attempt to rationalise it, the other option was much less desirable.
Oh jeez....
Now we are 180 again. In one post you have gone from "something drastic might have happened" to "it is patently false that millions of jobs would have been lost."
Don't ya think that "something drastic" would have led to millions of jobs being lost?
LOL!!! You are spinning in circles.
Besides, I actually have something to back up my statements besides obviously empty claims of experience. You should try actually sourcing your arguments. Of course, it would first require you to research them beyond WSJ OPED's....
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
What do I need to source? You want me to cite bankruptcy law? There was nothing circular in what I wrote unless it was by mistake in typing skills. There was nothing idealogical in my post and you keep avoiding the real substantive issues when you are wrong. Lets go down fact by fact and again I will state where the administration did the right thing and where they did the wrong thing. This started with you refuting Bob on the union payoff and I supported him after you told him he was wrong. So far you have been unable to refute that nor have you even tried because you cant. So you deflect by mocking which if someone hasnt told you isnt a very credible debating skill.
1. GM files Chapter 11 even though it is making an operating profit. So in simple terms, it has 100 dollars in revenue, 50 dollars in expense and 75 dollars of interest payments to its bondholders and the banks that provide it a revolving line of credit. It also files a plan of reorganizaton which details a plan of how it will survive exiting bankruptcy. This is generally done when a company makes a profit but it just cant service its debt. This is exactly what American Airlines just did and United exited Chapter 11 several years ago and if you notice they are still around. As long as you are making an operating profit, it would be extremely almost rare for a company not to survive chapter 11.
2. Banks are struggling and there is a real concern that the large banks wont provide debtor in possession financing. There is liquidity issues at all the major banks. Debtor in possession financing is generally not a problem because these lenders have a first priority lien on getting repaid exiting bankruptcy. So the government steps in to provide to make sure there is enough working capital to pay bills. However, it is unclear as to whether nontraditional sources of capital could have stepped in as there was plenty of liquidity elsewhere. But the government stepped in and I think most but I assume not all would be fine with the government doing this because of the vital interest of this industry. However, I assume to be consistent with their message, the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party anti bailout crowd would have been against this move.
3. The government files its own plan of reorganization. Under bankruptcy law, the company is valued and then the various lenders receive ownership in the exiting company consistent with the priority of liens and pro rata portions of the each class. So the senior lenders that are secured by certain assets just like a mortgage on your house get priority and then down the line until the big class of unsecured lenders. These include suppliers, employee liabilities and similar type of debt. So what the government did was take back equity ownership, allow GM to carryforward tax losses (not consistent with the tax code), cram down the secured lenders so they took much less than they were owed in the form of GM stock including bondholders who were in the money. They then gave the union pension and retiree medical plans shares of GM as a way of funding some of their unfunded liabilities.
4. GM exits chapter 11 telling the world look I just made $50 dollars I am on the road to recovery. Well when you eliminate the $75 dollars of interest payments, but you dont explain that is why you are making money compared to prebankruptcy, it looks great and the story is spun to make it seem as if Obama saved millions of jobs and the auto industry.
So yes Chapter 11 worked as it should have and would have whether the feds gave a crony capitalism payout to the unions or not. Is there something about these events that are not totally well known that need cited? What is wrong with you believe opinionated spin that is spoon fed to you? It appears that maybe you should stop listening to "pundits" and your msnbc cable news and start actually objectively thinking on your own. Come on Dude, I guess you schooled me again didnt you.
Kirk.
Anything that supports your delusion would be a start. And once you have the sourcing part down, we can then move on to credible, independent sources.
In the same post, jr:
Don't ya think that "something drastic" would have led to millions of jobs being lost?
Kirk.
So again...GM and Chrysler filed Chapter 11 during the worst recession since the great depression. There was no capital to support their bankruptcy.
Unclear? What "nontraditional sources"?
Do you remember what was going on at that time?
There was NO liquidity. That was the problem. That is why we had to bail out the banks.
Wow. (Your hole gets deeper...)
Irrelevant to our discussion. However, you are losing badly, and largely making a fool out of yourself, so I'll let it go. LOL!!!
The government opted for a Section 363 bankruptcy. It was quick and orderly, and resulted in both GM and Chrysler rebounding very quickly.
False, jr.
Not only was there no crony capitalism payout (more from the ideological delusion the WSJ OPEDs fed you), there is a HUGE difference in what would have happened had the government led the auto industry muddle through a regular Chapter 11.
CAR’s May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers. A summary of the 2009 and 2010 employment and economic impacts is presented in Table 1.
The difference between the two scenarios presented in CAR’s May 2009 memo represented the anticipated private and public benefits of avoiding the scenario of a bankruptcy liquidation of both General Motors and Chrysler. The "good bankruptcy" outcome was projected to have avoided a loss of 1.28 million jobs in 2009, and 267,300 in 2010. Personal income losses were expected to be $65.3 billion less in 2009, and $16.5 billion less in 2010. It was estimated that avoiding the worst case scenario provided a net government impact—in terms of changes in transfer payments, social security receipts and personal income tax receipts—of $25.8 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010, a total of $32.3 billion.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
Delusion? Again not sure what is delusion as I walked down what happened and it seems silly as I am not in 8th grade writing a term paper. If you think any of my facts are wrong, then dispute them. Its ok if you want to dispute any opionated conclusions and ask me to cite them but I am not going to provide you a cite for every fact that I am providing. Your original statement way back when you said that Bob was wrong regarding union payouts and cronyism and I supported that. So far you have not disputed me even once on this so now you are resting your entire case of no union crony capitalism on the fact that the government provided debtor in possession financing and that if they hadnt, there was a possibility that the entire industry would have crashed? Really? Thats your thesis?
First, I provided you facts in which not once have you disputed any of them while calling me delusional etc. Second, you have totally ignored and have been unable to provide any substantive proof or ability to dispute the political payoff to the union as part of the GM bankruptcy process.
Finally, both of us are using opinion to conclude one way or another whether Obama's claim of saving millions of jobs and the auto industry are true. You rest your opinion on the fact that the government provided debtor in possession financing but at the same time providing no evidence or support or even attempting to dispute that GM is operating no differently that before bankruptcy. So your premise which is consistent with Obama's that providing this is all he had to do to avoid calamity.
Now, I on the other hand will never be able to prove with 100% certainty a different outcome because its something that has already happened so all I can do is provide differing views and reasons for those. You want to mock those which is your choice but it doesnt mean they are wrong. For example, if the government had not provided such financing, it is still highly likely that someone within the private sector would have--for example just like Warren Buffet provided Goldman Sachs with $10 billion of short term financing during this time period to provide it with sufficient liquidity to weather the storm. Because of the senior lien and priority given to debtor in possession financing, it is conceivable that the banks would have still done it and if not them, certainly the private sector including a variety of private equity firms. Second, even in a worse case, I dont believe GM would have liquidated, various businesses would have bought their assets and continued to make cars. Remember GM was making an operating profit so as long as they could shed the debt, they make money so the idea that they would have been liquidated is really far fetched. But what is very likely is that if any of these other scenarios had played out, is that the union stranglehold over GM would have been busted and their business model revamped to be more profitable which is something that the Obama administration couldnt live with so they stepped in. You want to disagree with these conclusions, thats your choice but to act as if I am loony and delusional just means you have zero understanding of what you are talking about. So come back child when you can debate with some skill.
Kirk.
I did dispute your parroted facts.
And you didn't provide any support for the delusional view of the auto bailout....that you parroted from WSJ OPEDs.....which is likely why you didn't provide any support.....
LOL!!!
No jr. See below:
CAR’s May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers. A summary of the 2009 and 2010 employment and economic impacts is presented in Table 1.
The difference between the two scenarios presented in CAR’s May 2009 memo represented the anticipated private and public benefits of avoiding the scenario of a bankruptcy liquidation of both General Motors and Chrysler. The "good bankruptcy" outcome was projected to have avoided a loss of 1.28 million jobs in 2009, and 267,300 in 2010. Personal income losses were expected to be $65.3 billion less in 2009, and $16.5 billion less in 2010. It was estimated that avoiding the worst case scenario provided a net government impact—in terms of changes in transfer payments, social security receipts and personal income tax receipts—of $25.8 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010, a total of $32.3 billion.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
--------------------
You have zero understanding of what you are talking about. Which is why you were unable to support a single thing you posted.
Not one. You just blathered on, repeating the same delusional crap....not supporting a single bit of it.
LOL!!!! Now that is funny.
You need a little help with this debate stuff, kid. Really. You do.
You essentially bought into what a the right leaning opinion section of a newspaper sold you. You never bothered to actually research the issue.
You don't understand the difference between what happened, and what would have happened with a regular bankruptcy.
All you know, jr, is what you were spoon fed.....that the auto bailout did nothing but help the unions, and that GM and Chrysler would have been faired the same without government intervention (despite the analysis that shows differnently).
You completely ignore reality in favor of what you want to believe.
You are amusing.
I have to applaud you for looking up bankruptcy code and section 363 which deals with reorg plans and stalking horse bids etc. First, I never disputed that the government provided financing and yes there were tremendous liquidity issues for the banks and you very well could be right that the banks wouldnt have provided debtor in possession financing but we never did find out did we? But there were plenty of nontraditional sources and it is very conceivable that a private equity shop or hedge fund or even a debt fund or even a foreign bank similar to how we are helping on the Europeans at the moment would have stepped in because of the lien and priority of repayment. My hole doesnt get deeper and I am not sure why you need to editorialize like a young petulant child who just got spanked.
So clearly I hit a nerve on you being an Occupy my Parents room person without a job sitting in his room on his computer thinking college gave you some knowledge but with no experience to back it up so he uses mocking and condescension to make up for your shortcomings. Sorry didnt mean to hit so close, I was just teasing.
Your cite is just opinion based views that support what happened. That doesnt make them right no different than your views on WSJ articles or whatever pundits you seem to like. There is no evidence that adopting the governments plan of reorg was any better than the lenders and you know it and they know it. I dont think anyone actually disputes that and in fact there are opinions that think if the lenders plan had been adopted, a even more lean and better operating model would have exited bankruptcy ready to survive the next economic cycle downturn after GM leverages itself back up. I dont think you understand what you mean by a huge difference between a chapter 11 and what took place. Quit reading pundits and sit back for a moment and actually think for yourself and say does this make sense? Instead of mocking me arent you happy you actually learned something today?
No again you didnt dispute my facts and by the way NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM. Your cite discusses the difference between a chapter 11 or section 363 filing and chapter 7 or plan of liquidation. At no time was a plan of liquidation contemplated so what happened was the government circumvented established law under the section 363 filing. No one disputes that but the lenders should have exited as the owners again not the unions. You still havent gotten this have you. GM filed just like AA. The difference is that American Airlines lenders will become the owners not the union pension plans etc like in GM. At this point your dullness is boring me so I am done because I am tired of your fascination with pundits.
Kirk.
No. Thankfully we did not find out, since the President follows the advise of people who study the economy, and not ideologs.
And I think I am right that the banks would not have provided the financing. If the banks could have, they would not also have needed a bailout.
2+2=4.
LOL!!! No, you were projecting.
You did not hit a nerve, but you did make it even more apperent your parroted argument was very weak....much like you are doing now. LOL!!!!
I gave you the evidence.
Not to mention, it is pretty obvious, you just have to think it through. I think we got there, you just don't want to admit it.
You can kick and scream all you want, but the fact is the analysis I provided you is far and away better then the partisan WSJ OPEDs that fed you your opinion....but you never cited...(and had you, I would have surely mocked you for citing opinion articles....so props).
Kirk.
In the same post, jr:
Don't ya think that "something drastic" would have led to millions of jobs being lost?
CAR’s May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers. A summary of the 2009 and 2010 employment and economic impacts is presented in Table 1.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
----------------LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Man you are spinning in circles....
D-e-s-p-a-r-a-t-i-o-n.
LOL!!! No. Your delusion still baffles me.
LOL!!!! Your concession is noted, jr. You are not bored, you are beaten...badly......and it is your fascination with pundits, and the way you worship their ideological opinions, that is so damn amusing, jr.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Thanks. This was fun.
Kirk,
I'm afraid your efforts and logic are wasted on Repub. He/she confuses opinion with fact, and appears to have no grasp of the concepts of efficiency. To argue as fact that GM emerged stronger with govt assistance ignores the cost vs. benefit dynamic. Repub would probably argue that saving any job is worthwhile, even if the cost of saving that one job amounted to $2.2mm in taxpayer dollars.
Rob.
LOL!!!!
You confuse your right wing spoon fed delusion with reality.
And logic? Both of you need a class.
To argue GM is not stronger now then before is to ignore the reality staring you in the face.
I did not ignore the cost/benefits. The delusion you were fed, however, did.
You two have bought into what you have been told you should want to believe.
I looked at the facts. Which, kids, is why I can provide things to back up what I post, and you two cannot. (It is very amusing to watch you to flounder, however.)
The difference between the two scenarios presented in CAR’s May 2009 memo represented the anticipated private and public benefits of avoiding the scenario of a bankruptcy liquidation of both General Motors and Chrysler. The "good bankruptcy" outcome was projected to have avoided a loss of 1.28 million jobs in 2009, and 267,300 in 2010. Personal income losses were expected to be $65.3 billion less in 2009, and $16.5 billion less in 2010. It was estimated that avoiding the worst case scenario provided a net government impact—in terms of changes in transfer payments, social security receipts and personal income tax receipts—of $25.8 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010, a total of $32.3 billion.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf
LOL!!!
Not really. But, considering both of your pathetic attempts to argue these issues that neither of you understand have fallen pathetically short.....I guess you need to project....if for nothing else then to make yourselves feel better.
Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...
Eh, First Read, call it like it is.
Romney isn't a guy who brought a knife to a gunfight. He's the guy who brought $10,000 to a gunfight. He's tried to talk tough, but it just came across as over-caffeinated. Newt is a scrapper, and the party base is ready for a fight.
There you have it, the reason to support the Newt. Unfortunately the party base is not interested in doing anything for America they just want a fight.
Apparently the fight is against the 99% of Americans.
Now the republicans have taken that fight to the children. Somehow taking them out of the classroom and into the bathroom to clean them is a step forward.
Too bad republicans aren't fighting as hard for America as they are fighting against the American people.
Well, Americans First, I suspect the Republicans might not agree they were taking on 99 percent of the country. That's your dismissal based on your assumption, which is a common assumption among Democrats - members and fellow travelers - that the occupy rhetoric is accepted as truism by everyone. It isn't. Doesn't mean it's any more or less valid, but it's not universally accepted as truism. Politically, it certainly isn't true, or the Republican Party would cease to be a major party.
I suspect the Republicans might characterize they fight they want as being with liberals, socialists, big government types, etc. Amazing what a difference in labels can do.
The majority of Republican primary voters fit the "fundamental Christian racist bigot" tag line. Therefore, they will vote for Newt! Because as long as you are willing to be disrespectful and condescending towards that "black" sitting President, you have their vote. All your indiscretions are forgiven and forgotten. Ethics and morals be damned. This group has made a pact with the devil. And a devil they will get for a Presidential candidate in Newt!
Why is it that all the liberal posts on this site engage in the very politically incorrect practice of profiling???? A fundamentalist Christian, by the popular definition in this group must also be a bigot and a racist, which is really interesting when you consider that among the Southern Baptists, there are a very high percentage of minority parishoners who believe wholeheartedly in their Bibles......If we were to define the liberals by the same pen, then all of you would have to be communists, pinkos, and socialist pigs....Very unlikely to stimulate real debate and substantive conversation
The libbies are showing their desperation again. Phine and Ana throwing out the race card .With a race card here and a race card there, here a race card, there a race card, everywhere a race card. Barrack Obama had a race card. e i e i o
Is it not true, though?
"The libbies are showing their desperation again. Phine and Ana throwing out the race card .With a race card here and a race card there, here a race card, there a race card, everywhere a race card..."
Maybe they meant 'commie'. You know- like when you get all desperate, and go merrily down the road singing "a commie here, a commie there, here a commie, there a commie....."
Right, Rocco??
Thanks phinefancy and drive by for bringing the hypocrisy to Rocco's attention. I'm afraid he has horse blinders on. Newt 2012! . . . :)
Leave it to a libbie to equate a political philophacey to racism. So come on Phime, Ana and DBO, sing along with me. "With a race card here and race card there, here a race card, there a race card, everywhere a race card. Desperate libbies have a race card. E I E I O"
Can you explain why Cain's infidelities have ended his campaign but Gingrich's infidelities have not?
HChris,
Cain was a sexual predator. Newt has not be disclosed as one yet! Cain was an idiot. Newt, not so much. Newt is just a nasty old man.
I love how all the posters supporting Obama on this site always question the intelligence of anyone who supports a GOP candidate but somehow they fail to actually read back what they write. I am starting to believe that the GOP is really the party of the 1%ers, those who probably can belong to Mensa. Certainly reading the silliness and stupidity of posts by Fiesty and Backhouse, you would question the critical thinking skills of a progressive. Then the inability to debate without personal attacks or calling someone racist or some other inane adjective because an Obama supporter has nothing to use as positive support for their candidate. So you guys really think calling Newt the devil or some name you but only you think is cute for Romney instead of passionately providing some support for all the good things Obama has done and why we are living in our utopian universe at the moment is a better method of defending your choice?
Can someone explain to me why we are better off now than we were 3 years ago and why we are going to be better off reelecting Obama 4 years after that? I dont care about Newts personal life, Romney's flip flops but if any of you progressives could affirmatively know that you would be better off if one of them were president, would you still not vote for them? My guess is not because you truly dont want what is best for your fellow country man, your kids or grandkids you are an idealogue and what you want so desperately is that your view of the world be right even when proven wrong so many times in by history.
Dear Kirk
I love how all the posters supporting Newt/Romney on this site always question the intelligence of anyone who supports a DEM candidate but somehow they fail to actually read back what they write. I am starting to believe that the DEM is really the party of the 1%ers, those who probably can belong to Mensa. Certainly reading the silliness and stupidity of posts by BrianB and Bobnumbers, you would question the critical thinking skills of a regressive. Then the inability to debate without personal attacks or calling someone racist or some other inane adjective because an Newt/Romney supporter has nothing to use as positive support for their candidate. So you guys really think calling Obama the devil or some name you but only you think is cute for Barak instead of passionately providing some support for all the good things Newet/Romney have done and why we are living in our utopian universe at the moment is a better method of defending your choice?
Can someone explain to me why we are worse off now than we were 3 years ago and why we are going to be better off electing Newt/Romney? I dont care about Obama’s personal life or flip flops but if any of you regressives could affirmatively know that you would be better off if Obama were president, would you still not vote for him? My guess is not because you truly dont want what is best for your fellow country man, your kids or grandkids you are an idealogue and what you want so desperately is that your view of the world be right even when proven wrong so many times in by history.
Kirk--I'll give it a try. How are we better off now than we were three years ago? The economy is headed up instead of down. Sure, it's not going up as fast as anyone would like, but it is going up. Overseas, Osama bin Laden is dead, as are 21 of his 30 closest lieutenants. Our troops are almost out of Iraq and the way out of Afghanistan is clear. With our encouragement and minimal action, democracy is coming to the Middle East. I'm going to vote for whomever has the best plan for the future and whose past actions indicate that he or she can best deliver that plan. Right now, I don't know where Romney or Gingrich really stands because both have been on both sides of almost every issue. Both have demonstrated a willingness to say anything to get votes and Newt, especially, has shown no affinity for the truth.
Dear Ideology, so again instead of being able to support your guy who has been president for 3 years to fix the Bush mess, you write this strange response? I voted for Clinton and yes I voted for Bush against Gore and regret every moment of it. I am socially liberal to moderate and fiscally conservative so I can with a straight face say I want what is best for my kids and grandkids. I even voted independent for John Anderson against Reagan the first time. So your trying to be cute isnt swaying me because as usual nothing was said by you. You respond like this because there is nothing positive to support Obama as to why he deserves 4 more years. If you could prove affirmatively that I would be better off 4 more years from now under Obama, I would vote for him in a heart beat. But it will be a tough hill to climb to prove it as he has had 3 years and and has only made it worse and anyone who believes in equality of outcomes regardless of inequality of effort and investment and throws aways self reliance and personal accountability already has lost my vote.
" My guess is not because you truly dont want what is best for your fellow country man, your kids or grandkids you are an idealogue and what you want so desperately is that your view of the world be right even when proven wrong so many times in by history."
This works both ways, of course. Do you want what is truly best for all those you list, or do you want what's best for the already hugely wealthy few among us?
Oh, and Kirk- go back up to post 6.8, and read the entry from one of us that has just learned of a medical situation that would place her in a far worse spot without one of Mr Obama's MANY positive achievments during this, his FIRST term.
Not sure why you hate Obama so much, but please keep in mind: not everyone does. And we are getting real tired of folks like you denigrating OUR President of OUR United States of America.
Thanks Old Vet--I am not one of those people who think Obama has been horrible at everything. We have made some great strides in some places internationally but not all. On the War on Terror, Obama has done very well even without killing Osama. I agree with you on Newt and Mitt and have no crystal ball on where we will be in 4 years but I dont really think the economy is getting better. We really are just muddling along but my frustation is with Obama's economic policies and class warfare rhetoric. We should be putting our successful on a pedestal not demonizing them. Obama should be talking about self reliance and personal responsibility and how great the american worth ethic is instead of equality of outcomes. Obama should not be creating spending deficits for our kids and grandkids to pay that will create austerity issues no different than Greece and the rest of Europe in our future. Will Mitt be better I dont know but based on the last 3 years and Obama's rhetoric I would hope so.
@Kirk
Kirk, if i could predict anything I would not be sitting on my ass in Montreal, I'd be in Vegas. As a Canadian I am far more concerned about your nation's foreign policy. On that issue your current President has done a bang-up job and your country is once again respected. Gingrich and Bolton will destroy all of it.
Drive-by--I dont hate Obama so much--disagreeing with his economic policies doesnt translate into any hate. I already responded to Phinephancy but a couple of observations. First, nothing is completely black or white by any candidate. I disagree with many if not most of Obama's economic policies but as I have said here many times, I actually give Obama credit for attempting to deal with our health care delivery. I dont believe that HCA is a very good final bill and doesnt do anything to reduce costs over time. We need to dramatically relook at HCA and not because of the individual mandate as I dont have a problem with that. But thats a different discussion. I dont know her individual coverage but I am unclear how HCA helped her. If she has employer provided health insurance, HCA didnt do anything to prevent them from dropping her as it was already part of the plan as long as he is employed. HCA did prevent employer provided plans from not covering people with preexisting conditions which just meant that employers paid more. Insurance companies have nothing to do with it as they just administer plans and networks that employers pay for and choose the benefits. If she has an individual plan, HCA doesnt currently prevent insurance companies from dropping her or even taking her in the first place but there are supposed to be exchanges for high risk participants but not sure if they are all set up state by state.
I dont hate Obama and I dont denigrate him and I am fine with you liking him all you want. The purpose of debate is for you to show me why you think he has made our life better over the last 3 years and deserves 4 more and I am supposed to show you why I disagree and we can move on. If you can give me positive achievements do so and change my mind.
Idealogy--love your city and your hotel Le St. James is very cool. Obama will always look better in comparison to Bush but thats not the standard. Further, living here in the US, I am much more concerned with his economic policies than caring whether the french think we nicer than we used to be because Obama is president.
" If you can give me positive achievements do so and change my mind."
Equal pay for the ladies. No More Bin Laden. Dont' ask/Don't tell. 30 million or so now have health insurance that did not/could not before. GM and Chrysler (AND all those companies that supply them with components for their cars) still in business.
The list goes on, but my personal fave: He kept that Damned dumb Palin the hell away from the workings of OUR government.
Do I expect those to change your mind? No, not really.
Kirk - we are also concerned about America's economic policy, especially when it comes to banking regulations. You will note that not one of Canada's banks failed during the 2007-2008 meltdown and that is due to strict controls. Either of the current Republican leader/wannabes will move to further deregulation of the financial industry. Are you truly ready for more of that?
Kirk.
False.
The independent economic analysis all shows his policies have helped the economy.
Not too mention, considering we shed 700,000 jobs the month he took office, and have now seen almost two years of private sector job numbers, I would say it is pretty hard to suggest he made it worse.
The most you could say and remain intellectually honest, would be that he hasn't done enough.
Sorry.
Ideology--absolutely and we should bring back Glass Steagal and get rid of Dodd Frank. Sarbanes Oxley should also be eliminated. These bills that are not well thought out and so called well intentioned by guys like Durbin and Warren always cause more damage than the so called problem they think they are fixing. We need regulation that actually works.
Republicants--no Mark Zandi says his policies have helped the economy. Most if not the vast majority say that HCA, his energy policy, the EPA, dodd Frank etc have all been huge job killers. Its not whether Bush was bad, the housing bubble has many bad actors including the release of the NY Fed Reserve that says speculators and flippers caused the majority of the housing bubble that just came out today. We elected Obama to fix things and not make them worse. We didnt ask him to create social justice and eliminate self reliance and personal accountability from our economic system. We didnt ask him to create equality of outcomes with inequality of effort and investment. We didnt ask him to create a false class warfare debate in order to punish the successful and eliminate accountability for ones behavior, choice and self reliance. So yes I am definitely being intellectually honest but you are correct about one thing and that he hasnt done enough for anyone but payoff his constituents like the trial lawyers and the unions.
I'm enjoying this whole conversation and have become very curious about one thing...
Why is it that Kirk would rather spread false propaganda rather than defend the policies and former actions of Newt and Mitt? Does anyone think that Kirk has any valuable intelligence to contribute when he can't even figure out what the topic of the conversation is?
Kirk can preach his rhetoric on Mars for all of it's relevance. It's like we are trying to solve the mysteries of the Universe and Kirk chimes in telling us that he is the only one that can knit a scarf to perfection....
Good one Shocked--but dont forget Newt and Mitt are not president and I dont need to defend anything but I realize its tough when the current president doesnt have any financial success to defend.
Kirk.
Not just Zandi Jr:
John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:
The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928
Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:
The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf
Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:
On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml
Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:
In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).
The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044
On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf
Kirk.
LOL!!! No they do not, and not they haven't.
(Here is a perfect place where you could at least attempt to back up the cable news drivel you parrot....)
I know, I know....that's what he WSJ says, and what various cable news pundits say....but economists? Not so much.
These are merely projections. Projections repeated over and over. Projections, however, that are not supported by anything more then other projections.
Obama did not make them worse. This is another spoon fed projection.
The independent economic analysis shows that the adminstrations policies helped the economy, jr.
Obama did not do this either. Yet another spoon fed projection.
Oh look. More projections. Surprise surprise....
This one is rich.
Claiming not to be intellectually dishonest - imediately after repeating intellectually dishonest projections....and right before yet another projection.
LOL!!!
You are quite the ideolog, jr.
----------------------------------------------------
Can you provide anything to back up a single thing you posted here? You have yet to do so. All you have done is blather, repeating well known and easily debunked talking points.
Do you have any independent anaylysis to back up anything you said on the economy?
LOL!!! I would love to see it, jr.
The bombastic silicon plastic man....
I hope he wins the nomination. It will guarantee that Obama will win re-election.
And hopefully force the architects of the relentless right wing hate machine that the time for the unmitigated hate and lies is over - and that civil politics is what Americans actually want.
Former,, Newt's long career in being an architect of that rage, delusion & hate making millions off of it shows you that conservatives have no intention of putting an end to it, it's in their blood
Formermarinesgt-
Americans want civil politics? When has that ever occurred in our nation's history?
Americans want truth, not politeness.
http://www.indiana.edu/~libsalc/cartoons/intro.html
http://history1800s.about.com/od/timelines/tp/electionhub.htm
http://boingboing.net/2010/03/26/19th-century-politic.html
WOW!!
John Adams an in the closet TV/TS, and published in the Newspaper!!! Now that is MUDSLINGING!!!
You know, when we choose a President, not everyone wins their choice. But stop and think, GWB, put us in debt, more than Obama, But look back at Reagan, he busted unions, showed me he did not care for a person that worked 40 hours a week on a regular job. I find the republicans, are not for middle america, they are for the rich, I see everyday in the job that I work. But when push comes to shove, as the old saying goes, I have not made up my mind on who I will vote for. I did vote for McCain. None of the candidates have wings on their backs or hello's over their heads. Our Congress that we have had in the last 40 years is what caused all the problems we are facing today, so you can say it is both parties fault bar none, each and every on that voted on their purse strings who ever they were attached to. But they talk about the public, and us having to pay for their mistakes . it is a hard choice to make.
It is not a hard choice at all. If you think the 1% should have all the opportunity and money and power vote for a republican.
Think about it we can't have a jobs plan for teachers, firefighters and poilice because the republicans can't bring themselves to raise taxes on the second million of income on the rich.
We can't have jobs and improve infrastruction because the republicans can't bring themselves to raise taxes on the second million of income on the rich.
We can't have desperately needed tax cuts for the working poor and middle class because the republicans can't being themselves to raise taxes on the second million of income on the rich.
So the choice is easy if you are more concerned about the welfare of the rich then vote for a republican.
For me, the choice was easy.
Obama/Biden 2012
Americansfirst- your name is an oxymoron.
You don't believe in America, you seem to believe in European socialism
There is NO constitutional authority for Congress to spend a single penny on teachers, policemen, or firefighters.
We already have taxes to pay for infrastructure-they are called Fuel taxes and highway taxes.
What you want is not a pay cut for the working class but for the wealthy to pay your retirement- that makes you a lazy parasite.
Just be honest that you are like most leftists and you despise personal liberty and the Constitution
Just be honest that you are like most leftists and you despise personal liberty and the Constitution
Which Party pushed legislation that would require police to ask for proof of American citizenship? Shouldn't personal liberty include the right to take a walk down the street without fear of being asked to show your papers? Republicans are such hypocrites when it comes to words like liberty and freedom.
Wow, I sure wouldn't. but fortunately the Republicans (and BTW I'm not a Republican) have not pushed any legislation like that.
I have a brother like you. He rants and raves about Democrats, but when I bring up what Republicans have done he says "but I'm a Libertarian." Nice escape clause, that one, beat up on Liberals, then shirk responsiblity for things like the fraud and waste in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the torture of prisoners by saying "but I'm a Libertarian." Clearly there is no such thing as a right leaning Libertarian. Republicans claim to be Libertarian to get out of taking responsibility for things like: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/28/justice-department-alabama-immigration-law-complicating-enforcement/
Larry,
Neither is there anything in the constitution that prohibits Congress from spending on teachers, police officers, or fire fighters. Government getting involved in these things is not unconstitutional.
I believe that education and other services paid for by the government increases my personal liberty, not decreases it. I am able to receive education and safety (from criminals or fires) without having to pay a for profit company for it. That's liberty.
Larry,
Neither is there anything in the constitution that prohibits Congress from spending on teachers, police officers, or fire fighters. Government getting involved in these things is not unconstitutional.
I believe that education and other services paid for by the government increases my personal liberty, not decreases it. I am able to receive education and safety (from criminals or fires) without having to pay a for profit company for it. That's liberty.
Obviously you've never read the constitution.
In 1819, Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) ruled: "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.
"James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
Amy- I am a libertarian and mostly vote 3rd party for the past 40 years. I did vote for Reagan and Bush in 2000 (and Bush turned out to be fairly liberal also). And I also made the mistake of voting for Nixon in '68 thinking he would be a conservative- but he was just as liberal as Humphrey.
this time if the Republicans run anyone other than Romney (who is a liberal) I will probably vote Republican because we cannot afford to have 4 more years towards complete socialism.
I have to admit I am impressed by how good faux is at propaganda. Poor Larry actually believes the complete socialism line they have been scaring him with.
Asking the rich to invest in their own country for the good of the country and for the good of the rich is not socialism. It is just a word used to scare the small minded. Just like when I was a kid the scare word was communist. We even practiced regularly in school hiding under our desk for when the soviets dropped the bomb on us.
In your land even the tea party people are socialist with their leave my medicare alone signs. Right?
You are not a Libertarian. You are a Republican. If you were a Libertarian, you'd have been writing in Ron Paul
Amy,
Ron Paul IS a libertarian, but, he's running as a republican, so what Larry wrote is right on the mark....
Egilman
I like Ron Paul, I think he is the brightest candidate in the Republican primary, and the only one with intergrity, however, Larry voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush, which, in my book means he's a Republican, not a Libertarian. Larry just calls himself a Libertarian to get out of taking responsibility for the deficit-creating, war mongering, liberty infringing presidents he helped elect. If Larry wants to redeem himself, he better vote for Paul in the primary and write him on the ballot in the general if Newt/Romney is the Republican nominee.
Gingrich pledges to respect the marital bonds of others? --- He sure didn't respect that bond with his other wives
I wonder if that makes him pro gay marriage now, or does he still exclude those American "others"?
Jim, at least Newt either divorced his past wives or they divorced him.
He wasn't sitting in the White House with a cigar ready while an intern on his knees in front of him, and then being protected by a political whore for his entire past of infidelity.
Jim, It just means he won't try to screw your wife--however there is no gaurantee that applies to the rest of America!
Cheryl, he was banging his mistress while his wife was dying in a hospital bed and then has the audacity to serve her divorce papers while she's there suffering, and you're complaining about a a guy who is no longer in politics who got a BJ?
Steveo- this is a leftwing myth that never seems to die- it never happened
http://factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/
And the left seems to prefer hate and lies over the truth, government control over everything instead of personal freedom, and tax, borrow, regulate, and spend idiots over people intelligent enough to know that millions of jobs have left this country because of "social justice" and "redistribution" idiocy.
Yikes I am being stereotype again!
Cheryl must be right. Jobs were never sent over seas until the evil "muslim" became president! It was HIM who started the bailouts and started this recession! LOL you have no idea what you are talking about, just spreading the ignorant rhetoric spewed by AM radio and fox news to get you to vote against your own self-interests by supporting and promoting the ultra-rich!
Cheryl,
Millions of jobs have been going overseas for the last 25-30 years or so, I remember Nafta had something to do with it?
And there was a crazy Texan spewing about the "BIG HUGE SUCKING SOUND"...... but none of us listened. Most everyone called him "Crazy" (I wonder what they would say today)
And you wanna know something else, today, there is another Texan, saying all kinds of interesting things, and most everyone is again calling him crazy...... (I wonder why they say history repeats itself)
I think I will vote for the crazy man this time, last time I didn't and We've been regretting it ever since.
Can the GOP find anyone more disgusting and piggish than the Newtered One?? Is there a bigger and more glaring or more disliked Washington insider for the Tea Party to support? Newt will not change anything except the size and grade of Callista's diamond ring while he gets the US tAxpayers to pay for her manicures, pedicures, hair dressing, wardrobe, vacations, state dinners, lunch, limoservice, and on and on! he married a high maintenance bitch and he wants you to pay for it!
I guess you'd rather the GOP support someone like Obama, right James?
You know, someone who turns his back on the will of the nation in order to pass his own "social justice" and "redistribution" agenda.
Someone who supports our enemies while turning his back on our allies.
Someone who wasn't qualified to even be in politics if it weren't for a terrorist and left wing hacks who taught him how to play dirty politics.
Someone who thinks YOU are lazy, but wants whatever you earn to go to someone that does NOTHING for it.
Seeing as Gingrich pays for his OWN list of stuff you put there, while Obama flies around the nation with RECORD campaigning stops on YOUR tax dollar, what are you whining about? And while Obama makes millions off his so called "autobiography" that someone else wrote, you moan and cry because Gingrich spends his OWN money that he actually WORKED for.
And as for your personal attack on his wife who is NOT running for President by the way, I'm sure that we'll see more and more filth as time goes along. Especially since you can't actually do anything that defends the policies and garbage that have come out of the present administration.
Those stereotypes are a complete joke and you lose all credibility with me. If you think Obama supports our enemies and turns his back on our allies maybe you should discuss that with Osama Bin LAden--opps he's dead, or how about Alwaki awaki--opps forgot he's dead too, or how about Ghaddafi--opps another one that bit the dust, literally, with the help of our allies!
Gingrich is a self center pig of a man and he will soon shoot himself straight in the foot, they always do, he is convinced that he is smarter than anyone else so his ego will make him do something really stupid. The sub concious mind is like a terrible little child in his soul and it will get out and say and do the darnest things. Puzzled??you won't have long to wait. Even other Repubilcans do not trust the pasty faced Newtered one--he really screwed up the last time around and he will this time too. I can't wait for the comedy show to begin. Is the GOP turning to producing comedy full time now??
James, you're right. This Republican primary is just starting to get interesting. I loved it when Bachmann referred to Newt Romney and his hypocrisy over the health care mandate. Considering most conservatives think requiring folks to buy health insurance is a crime, the fact Newt Romney once supported it is not so much a flip flop, as it is a cover up.
CherylLM - I thought McCarthyism was dead. Silly me
Newt is thriving because he is providing solutions for the vast amount of serious problems facing our Country ,some are threatening our Country and our freedom as we are moving under obama towards a socialist communist society at very rapid rate of soon to be no return , These solutions are not Newt solutions , these solutions are solutions from the American people , with Newt the Bull Dog as the Leader to get them done ,Most Americans are intelligent people , they understand Youth makes mistakes , they also understand the value of Maturity ,and experience and they know it will take a Bull Dog with experience to get this country turned around going back in the right direction ,They also do their own research and see through the lies and misrepresentations propaganda bull crap
A little research we find Newt is absolutely correct Israel was there first , Palestine did not even come into existence until 1977 , until then there was no such people as the Palestinians so where did they come from as near as I can tell they came from Arab descent as out siders who were not wanted so a place was found for them Considering who they are by what they have done it is most telling why they were unwanted Understanding the truth helps in the support and determination of how to deal with the issues surrounding the problems created by these people , AND GET THIS STRAIGHT they create the problems , not Israel
NEWT obama debates are going to make history World history NEWT with the solutions obama with Failed leadership Failed policies
Newt has the opportunity to be our Winston Churchill. The stage is set; we are surely as a nation in our Darkest Hour since Pearl Harbor. This time the enemy is within-our own Congress and Court system.
Our basic freedom is walled up in Washington DC. TEAR THOSE WALLS DOWN MR> Gingrich!!!
How is it that most republicans on the hill will not endorse Newt and I doubt that they even want to be in the same room with him. Who booted him out as speaker because he was a habitual liar - "Most Americans are intelligent people" You crack me up!
"Most Americans are intelligent people" - put GW in not once but twice and are now considering this nut job.
Well, I guess under Newt's definition - Americans are made up people.
The most interesting thing deciphering what Mr. Gingrich has been saying, look for our military to be put in three wars at once. One is with Iran, one with Palestine, and one with Russia while Afghanistan is still going. In other words anybody ready to be drafted???!!!
Gingrich is crazy. I mean, the guy just has the most outrageous thoughts that you would have to be smoking something to even consider him as being anywhere near "Presedential". Working in the White House does not mean you can "run" the white house. he would probably be impeached before the year ended. The GOP candidates are just a sideshow circus, nothing more. They helped ruin this Country and they have absolutely no idea of how to fix it.
What's important here?
"Mr.Bombastic" OR "Mr. Cautious" are going to be the rival for Mr. Food Stamps in 2012.
So, I take it my favorite, Miss Looney Tunes, doesn't have a chance? Too bad !
James,
I'm not running. LOL
Mr.Food Stamps doesn't have a chance.
Romney/Rubio 2012.
A "NOT a Christian" white guy. and a "Where are your papers Sonny" wetback possible Illegal ? LOL
You got to be kidding. Neither one of them could get off a campaign bus in the old south or the new west!
And don't forget, Food Stamps are a farm subsidy in disguise whose increased use is the direct result of brilliant RePOOPlican Fiscal Policy, policy which is the equivalent of cutting off both legs and an arm so that you will eat less!
James,
You're full of hot air with your meaningless rhetoric.
Romney/Rubio in 2012 for JOBS JOBS JOBS.
They would blow Obama/Biden out of the water.
Newt reminds me of a young fat faced kid in Great Britain. Real bright and had the ability to absorb new things on the fly while others pondered them. Got elected; got censured by Parliament; got beat in his re-election; and gave up on politics per se; started writing books and speaking; when Hitler rose up and declared war on England, they remember who had forewarned them of this threat and he was made Prime Minister during Britain's Darkest Hour-Winston Churchill.
Until Newt came along in the 90's, the Conservatives had always been the minority party. He led them to the promised land of majority party for the lst time since the depression. Balanced 4 consecutive budgets and attempted to make good on his contract with America. Newt like Churchill is a complicated man, but both brilliant. He is capable of being a President of the stature of Washington or Lincoln. We need a man that size in this our Darkest Hour since Pearl Harbor. Washington must be dismantled-Programs, departments, Presidential edits, etc. Newt is outside the beltway. The insider Republicans do not want him as he will disturb the ebb and flow of DC. Well, the FOLKS want that "ebb and flow" torn asunder. Give em Hell Newt!! We have got your back so attack.......da money be acoming:)
What a crock. If Newt wants to be Winston Chruchill he needs to pick his pants up off your momma's bedroom floor first
Newt just needs to be Newt.
"The man has none of the virtues I respect, nor the vices I admire" Winston Churchill.
Comparing the Newtered One to Winston Churchill is like comparing Bo Diddley to Segovia!
Ghastly. Why is everybody just so into conflict and argument? It never accomplishes anything.... there's no constructive debate anymore..
More like Thing One and Thing Two!
President Obama knows how to engage and defeat foreign enemies without loss of American lives. He uses
the local people to do the job. What an intelligent President!
He took out Gaddafi without losing even a single American soldier. Are we now forgetting how
Republicans criticized Obama's attack on Gaddafi? Republicans hanged on Obama's neck, asking him
to live Gaddafi alone. What are they saying now that Gaddafi is gone?
Now, these Republicans are not even aware that this intelligent President is again busy fighting another
war in Somali without using American soldiers. He has intelligently mobilized the local people and the
neighboring countries to fight the terrorists in Somali. He does not have to blindly send US soldiers to these
foreign countries as Republicans did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sam- so you prefer to have someone else fight for you if we are attacked? I'd say that makes you a coward.
Newt has the opportunity to be our Winston Churchill. The stage is set; we are surely as a nation in our Darkest Hour since Pearl Harbor. This time the enemy is within-our own Congress and Court system.
Our basic freedom is walled up in Washington DC. TEAR THOSE WALLS DOWN MR. GINGRICH!!
Wow. Whenever I read the comments sections here I always see the same usernames. How do you people have so much time to sit around and type your usually baseless opinions all day? I'd kill for that much spare time!
Home sick with bronchitis.
I own my own businesses-my time is my own
TO: Michael P. Griffith who wrote:
The Republican National Committee has a bunch of paid bloggers who deliver up nothing but hate speech about President Obama.
Republicans = More TAX CUTS for the wealthy, and more PAY CUTS for Working Americans.
We are all retired a$$holes with good health and good incomes who have nothing better to do than piss off as many people as possible. Lately this blog has been like shooting ducks on a pond, its almost getting too easy!
Unemployed wildfire fighter, currently trapped in MS for the winter.