Obummer's state of the union "economic fairness" speach tonight...

[coppertales]

How many new federal agencies was it that he proposed while at the same time asking for more dictatorial power for the presidency to make gov leaner and more efficient? I lost count...


Something to consider about Newt btw...other than he's a full blown progressive, he was speaker of the house and the democrats successfully and utterly destroyed him once allready. You think they can't do it again? The man had to resign because of the democrats.

I guarantee you they resurrect the "wither on the vine" commercial if he's the nominee. He's extremely vulnerable.

I thought Newt was crucified by the MSM for making money on a book deal while the MSM gave slick and hillery a free ride on the same thing? chris3

[stinker]

I thought Newt was crucified by the MSM for making money on a book deal while the MSM gave slick and hillery a free ride on the same thing? chris3

MSM being almost nothing but dems is my point exactly. Why he was destroyed is irrellevant to the fact that he was destroyed. Cleared of charges or not he was unseated and his name became a dirty word when not used behind the closed doors of washington elitist insiders for some time after.

The MSM is wholly and completely emotionally invested in seeing bambam elected again. The validation of their world views depends on it. They will pull out all the stops to smear and defeat whoever is running on the rethuglican ticket. Someone that has allready proven they can be smeared and propogandized out of office is a bad idea to run knowing that.

[O.S.O.K.]

Although assest a fine by the ethics councile in the house. He was later cleared of all 284 charrges the Dems made against him as all polictically based. He did not resign as House Speaker until four years later the Republicans lost 5 seats in the house and he was facing a revolt from within the party.

You might try and get the history right instead of an emosional responce... Oh, wait...

Bingo, we have a winner!

[O.S.O.K.]

MSM being almost nothing but dems is my point exactly. Why he was destroyed is irrellevant to the fact that he was destroyed. Cleared of charges or not he was unseated and his name became a dirty word when not used behind the closed doors of washington elitist insiders for some time after.

The MSM is wholly and completely emotionally invested in seeing bambam elected again. The validation of their world views depends on it. They will pull out all the stops to smear and defeat whoever is running on the rethuglican ticket. Someone that has allready proven they can be smeared and propogandized out of office is a bad idea to run knowing that.

So, your point is we let them dictate to us who our candidate is? Things have changed. Many many more people are on to the laimstream and left wing media's tactics. The natural result of their actions is to become considered as a part of the dim party - an extension and therefore, dismissed as impartial media.

Newt has shown that he's going to fight. He's shown a willingness (where none other have) to face the left wing media down in a forum that they can't control - that they can't edit, that they can't hide from. Very smart on his part.

And you seem to forget that he was the driving force for the repubs to regain the house - the first time in over 40 years and then set to pushing through reforms like welfare reform, tax reductions, etc. Yes, that infuriated the dims - but isn't that what's going to happen again if a repub gets elected and starts pushing through reforms? Isn't it better to have a man that has 1) proven that he can do it and 2) has been through the attacks and handled them successfully?

Given the current choices, Newt is the man - Romney is McCain.... Santorum is a good guy but lacks the experience and proven track record - not to mention he's boring as hell.

Newt has already stated his strategy for getting obummer into debates - and when he does, he's going to rip him wide open. Think about that.

[Richard Simmons]

So if everyone who makes over a million pays at least 30% income tax exactly how much will that reduce our debt? Let's figure the government takes in $1.5 Trillion in just income tax and that 60% of that ($900 Billion) comes from the top 10% of Americans.

If we double that taxation we now have another $900 Billion in income tax coming in. That extra $900B represents what, 6% of our debt. That's a drop in the bucket so why is Obama focusing on taxing the rich to solve the debt crisis when it clearly won't?

[mriddick]

So if everyone who makes over a million pays at least 30% income tax exactly how much will that reduce our debt? Let's figure the government takes in $1.5 Trillion in just income tax and that 60% of that ($900 Billion) comes from the top 10% of Americans.

If we double that taxation we now have another $900 Billion in income tax coming in. That extra $900B represents what, 6% of our debt. That's a drop in the bucket so why is Obama focusing on taxing the rich to solve the debt crisis when it clearly won't?

There are 2 issues one is the yearly deficit where we spend 40% more then we take in, that 40% which is borrowed then adds to the debt (15.5 trillion). obama's plan on the surface (debatable as to whether the end result will match the numbers) pretty much fixes the deficit problem and should bring us within reach of correcting the yearly deficit. You are correct in saying it doesn't really do much for the debt but it could slow if not stop the growth of the debt which is actually a very big deal in all this.

That said I do not believe the rich will give up their wealth so easily nor would a tax like this not impact the economy elsewhere in ways that would reduce the supposed benefit to less then what is expected on paper. Also fixing the deficit one year will not work as long as spending continues to increase, with rising costs of medicare and growing numbers going on social security we will need more money every year following to keep us ahead of deficit spending.

[Richard Simmons]

I would only help yearly deficit if congress also stops the increases in spending which they most likely won't do. So far all they've really cut is the "increase" in spending and most of those "cuts" don't start right away.

As I understand it the budget automatically increases by a specific amount each year. Let's say 15%. Congress passes a budget cut of 10%. What they've actually done is decrease the increase to 5% so in reality they've only cut back on how much they will increase spending so we are still spending money we don't have, just less of it.

In my mind it's like the guy who makes $1000 a week and spends that $1000 plus charges $500 on his credit card. Next week he spends the $100 and charges $200 on his credit card and claims he's cut spending. He still spent 100% of his paycheck and incurred more debt. He's still loosing.

[mriddick]

The biggest increases in spending are in medicare, those increases are automatic. Infact those increases are growing at such a rate that to do nothing will mean by the 2040's SS and medicare alone will take all tax revenues themselves. That means you could cut everything except these two programs and we'd still find ourselves in trouble by then.

But to use your scenerio if a person is earning $1000/wk and spending $1400 and wants to balance his income and spending he can either cut back his spending to $1000/wk or he can find a way to increase his income to $1400/wk. obama is basically saying lets increase our income $1400/wk. The flaw in this plan is the automatic increases in entitlements requires more income every year afterwards.

Where I think the R's and D's both fail in this discussion is no one wants to talk about what we need and what we are willing to pay for first. Each wants their cuts or tax increases without any discussion on what the nation really needs to be paying for first and that leads to cuts that have no way of fixing the issue or tax increases that cause more harm then good.

[Warthogg]

And Wart - I don't think Gingrich is a commie. His mistakes were in being too principled - just like Ron Paul on on brief occasions vs all of the time. IMHO.

In this life, I'm sure of few things. However, one I'm sure of is Newt is mostly devoid of encumbering principles.

What man of principle would:

Divorce his wife while she was recovering from cancer ?

Make a public service commercial with Nancy Pelosi warning of the dangers from global warming ? (And then deny he believes in global warming.)

Favors national health care. (And then claims he does not.)

Favors putting children of welfare recipients in orphanages ?

Favors amnesty for illegal aliens.

The only Speaker to ever be fined for ethics violations.


Wart


Vote for any of the worthless creatures but please, please don't consider Newt Gingrich a man of principles.

[Warthogg]

So if everyone who makes over a million pays at least 30% income tax exactly how much will that reduce our debt? Let's figure the government takes in $1.5 Trillion in just income tax and that 60% of that ($900 Billion) comes from the top 10% of Americans.

If we double that taxation we now have another $900 Billion in income tax coming in. That extra $900B represents what, 6% of our debt.

That's a drop in the bucket so why is Obama focusing on taxing the rich to solve the debt crisis when it clearly won't?

Taxing the rich mantra has played well for decades with the Dimocrat base. (Never mind that Wall Street owns Barry.) Barry focuses on taxing the rich mostly for political reasons and not for practical reasons.


Wart