Skip to comments.Newt’s Night
Posted on 01/16/2012 9:00:16 PM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich was as tough as nails, and deserved extra praise for not taking Juan Williamss race-baiting. No, I dont see that. Every person who believes in a color-blind society, especially tonight, ought to thank Newt for that. He then went on to show (again) he will be able to challenge President Barack Obama on nearly every fact and anecdote that could come up should they ever debate. The standing ovation he received was more than well deserved. To paraphrase a little: When he is right, he is great. The ongoing problem is when he is wrong. But tonight he was right about a lot, and said it better than anyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
This is why he is hiding his tax returns until he absolutely has the nomination sewn up, or if he loses the nonination his wealth trough stays private.
Long 4 minute version too.
Right! God forbid we would elect a conservative who can intellectually handle the press! Might not be on your "short list" but it's actually the MOST IMPORTANT requirement of the next President! Our biggest problem is that we fail to teach conservatism. Newt does it with every word out of his mouth. If you want to continue to sit on the bench with Nancy Pelosi you go ahead . . . . but Newt isn't there anymore!
Same here, I'm all out of being struck and excited. I think it started
way back with the Oilers.
Last balanced (surplus, actually) budget was in 1956. Hasn't been once since then.
Talking is not the most important aspect of being a candidate. So far, the whole election has been determined by this whole “he can debate” concept. He has too much baggage, and he is not a consistent conservative on many issues.
Perry is the superior candidate, hands down. None of the baggage, but all of the record.
Newt did ok tonight. But I think Rick Perry redeemed himself totally. If he had showed up this way in the first debate, he might well still be leading this race.
“... then what has he said or written that he will cut baseline, year to year, Federal spending?”
What does it matter what he said?
That’s the whole point about Romney and his hacks. They will figure out what you want to hear and then they will say it! And they will do this to each key group so that there will be a variety of answers leaving Romney with an image of being all things to all people.
Every Perry gaff would be magnified mercilessly by the press. He's a good man but he cannot fully articulate without stumbling over himself. Once you have "gaffer" tattooed on your forehead that is all they are going to focus on. They did it to Bush and they would do it worse to Perry. Sorry, we need someone that can deliver a knock out punch.
Those four years of so-called balanced budget were on the backs of adding federal payroll tax revenues (Social Security, Medicare etc.) to the general budget.
As much as I have liked Newt for his ability to belt the ball out of the political park, and as much as I have come to pray that Newt takes down Romney, Newt is shrewd enough in politics to take credit for a mirage the same as Romney.
The fact is that while the GOP Congress of Newt’s tenure was ‘balancing’ the budget, the telltale sign of a mirage was in watching the National Debt increase.
Other factors that led to balanced budgets were Clinton’s reckless refinancing of the 30 year debt to the lower interest 5 year debt and the internet revolution spurring the stock market to new heights adding considerable capital gain tax revenues to the federal coffers.
So although you may be off in praising Newt on balancing a budget, you have done a yeoman’s job at bringing to light the true nature of Bain Capital and their standard bearer Romney.
The way I would characterize Romney’s bellowing his accomplishment at Bain Capital is to say that it is no different than a ‘vulture standing tall with belly full”.
Capitalism is a good thing for people but Vulturism is not one of its prime attributes. In fact Newt would do well to educate (and he is a superb educator) that Capitalism is distinct from its evil twin of Vulturism, and that Bain Capital should change its name to what it truly represents, Bain Vulturism.
However this election cycle turns out, we have to address the serious problem of open primaries that allow Democrats to choose Rino candidates for us. One grassroots solution in the states with initiative power is to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot, FORCING state Republican leaders to set stricter rules forbidding crossover votes.
Another fatal problem is our tendency to run multiple conservatives who divide the vote, leaving the liberal to win with a fraction of the total vote.
Frankly, I am steamed at the Republican party for getting us into this mess.
Newt, the Gotcha King got off a few tonight and everyone bows down. Not a quality on my short list of presidential requirements.
Us old time FRs don’t have short lists, but very long lists.
Maybe we could use your short list to reduce the size of our longs lists.
I notice you have not been around here very long and you might have some good ideas that we can smear Newt with too.
If that spoonfed company raider with the racist church (er, I mean Romney, not Obama!) wins the nomination, Team Obama will scorch his earth.
We need to cut the RNC completely off until these primaries are closed. It is up to the states, but the RNC can make them squeal like pigs until they straighten up their act. No more ‘open primaries’.
Exactly, and I would suggest that it’s time for Perry’s supporters to reach the same conclusion.
Excellent news about Newt Gingrich’s debate win. Mr. Gingrich is our last, best hope to defeat Mitt Romney.
” - - - Where have you been? “
I have been watching the Total National Debt get larger EVERY year including the six F 111 accounting change that “balanced” LBJ’s only balanced budget, and Zipper-Boy’s “balanced” budget years.
Unless year-to-year, Baseline Spending is reduced, the National Debt Clock will keep on showing our Total National Debt increasing.
If I am in error on any of the above, then prove me wrong with the facts.
At lelast one media outlet got it right.
” - - - What does it matter what he said?”
If a politician does not say, or does not write that he will cut Baseline Federal Spending, then I assume that he not only has NO plans to do so, but that he is not even AWARE that it is a problem to even think about.
Pre-FDR, the word “Liberal” meant someone who is generous. FDR was a Socialist, so he could not call his “New Deal” a Socialist movement, so he used the term “Liberal” instead, thus changing the meaning of a perfectly good word into the disastrous term that it is today.
The “Liberal” solution from FDR to now is to “keep throwing money at the problem until it goes away.” Now, 15 TRILLION dollars in debt, the Liberals are scraping their fecal Federal fingers bloody at the bottom of the Federal Empty Reserve barrel. Their solution? Easy, just keep on making the barrel bigger by increasing the National Debt Ceiling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only by reducing the size and spending of the US Federal Government will America be able to heal itself from the death grip of the Fecal Federal Touch.
My hypothesis is that politicians who do not recognize that America has a problem caused by limitless Federal spending are “Liberals” in the FDR sense of the word. Romney, to me, appears to be a Liberal.
BTW, you and I are probably on the same page on what a politician is: “A politician is anyone whose word cannot be trusted.” Remember GHWB? “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
” - - - The fact is that while the GOP Congress of Newts tenure was balancing the budget, the telltale sign of a mirage was in watching the National Debt increase.”
The ONLY way to watch the Total National Debt decrease is to cut year-to-year, Baseline Federal spending.
Another reason Romney holds off, he is paying taxes at only 15% rate same as the hedge fund guys. This rate is for carried interest. No proof but lots of speculation that Romney is paying that rate. Would be conformed (or proved false) if Romney releases tax returns. More ammunition for Axelrod and the ignoramuses at occupy Wall Street crowd.... and for people who hate banksters in general.
“If a politician does not say, or does not write that he will cut Baseline Federal Spending, then I assume that he not only has NO plans to do so, but that he is not even AWARE that it is a problem to even think about.”
You didn’t get it.
OF COURSE Romney said that he will cut federal spending because it is what you wanted to hear.
But it does not matter what he says because he is all things to all people.
Excellent post (post 44)!
Can Santorum beat this monster?
NO. He cannot.
We need a brave, strong man with the intellect, experience and debating skills to bring down the Marxist/Muslim.
Newt has proven he is that man.
For me, the big story was how disappointing Rick Santorum came off. Means testing social security? Thats a loser. And his answers about some of his votes, especially right to work, were lame.
Santorum needs to get out.
Voted AGAINST increasing the number of immigration investigators:
VOTED AGAINST HIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS, paid for by reductions in state grants.
VOTED TO GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
SANTORUM: Trim Social Security now- even if painful.
VOTED AGAINST FOOD STAMP REFORM
VOTED AGAINST MEDICAID REFORM
Voted to increase the social services block grant from $1 BILLION to $2 BILLION
VOTED TO RAID SOCIAL SECURITY instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to impose a uniform federal tax mandate on states to force them to allow convicted , rapists, arsonists drug kingpins and all other ex-convicts to vote in federal elections.
The vest projects a mamas boy who likes to avoid playing softball with the neighbor kids and stay in the kitchen with his mother, so he can lick the frosting from her cooking bowl.
“The ONLY way to watch the Total National Debt decrease is to cut year-to-year, Baseline Federal spending.”
If federal tax revenue is used to pay down the National Debt, then of course the National Debt decreases, as long as new debt is not added.
National Debt in the form of treasury bills, bonds and all other federal instruments of debt will stay steady as long as the interest on it is paid and no new debt is added for example, no new treasury bond sales.
If the federal government were to cut a federal program and use all the savings or reallocate all to paying off federal debt, there would be no net reduction in federal spending.
The only way to see National Debt decrease while at the same time observe a reduction in overall federal spending is to pay off some national debt with SOME savings from cutting overall federal spending.
Consumer example: Joe spends all of his paycheck every payday. Joe has a balance of $1000 of debt on his credit card because of excessive spending over the holidays. Joe decides to return to his pre-holiday spending level so he decides to spend only his paycheck and not use his credit card but he wants to pay down his credit card by $200. Joe must find $200 in normal spending patterns to allocate for paying down his debt.
Has Joe reduced his spending? No, he is spending the same paycheck but part of his spending is being used to pay down his debt.
Government example: Program X costs 300 billion per year. Government decides to pay down 50 billion in bonds that were originally sold to fund Program X. Government decides to cut Program X by 50 billion to pay for the reduction in its debt.
Government spends 250 billion + 50 billion
250 billion for Program X and
50 billion for retiring debt from Program X.
But government is STILL SPENDING 300 billion in relation to Program X.
The way government cuts both spending AND debt is to cut further Program Z and not use any of the savings towards anything else.
At Pre-Obama spending levels, it would take possibly 30 years to paydown half the debt upon reallocating about 20% of federal spending to retiring debt.
Now here’s a question for you: what percentages of debt must be retired in order to keep federal government functioning adequately? This is a rhetorical question of sorts because it is too difficult for most of us to answer accurately without data and time to make the accounting.
Because the thing to keep in mind is that a fair percentage now of federal spending is allocated to interest on the national debt and you cannot cut this interest expense to use to pay down debt. The cuts have to be found elsewhere.
But once debt is cut there should be reductions in interest expense and so there is a snowball effect there that is possible.
Tough nut to crack, hence my tagline.
The absolute best way to get the ball rolling on this discussion is to get behind a movement to repeal the 16th Amendment and enact H.R. 25. To this end please read and study the following:
Did you see this?
See post 34
Opps- I meant see my posts here:
You are right: I didn’t get it. What I didn’t hear was “- - - Romney said that he will cut federal spending .” When did he say it? What was he going to cut? Was it a cut in Baseline Federal spending, or just reducing the rate of increase in Federal spending?
It is one thing to say “we have to get our fiscal house in order,” and quite another to “cut spending to equal our income.” Newt said the latter last night, but Romney is to timid to even think out loud about reducing the size of the libs Nanny State.
We do not need a timid Mitt at the helm to steer the Ship of State, we need a battle-scared Warrior.
” - - - - If the federal government were to cut a federal program and use all the savings - - - “
” - - - - Now heres a question for you: what percentages of debt must be retired in order to keep federal government functioning adequately? - - - “
There are no “savings,” only profit and loss. Federal politicians have kept the US Federal Government in the loss column for almost 80 years. Our “Balance Sheet” is the Total National Debt which says that we are 52 Trillion dollars in debt, but the Federal politicians use the 15 Trillion dollar debt number.
Your question to me implies that the Federal Government stays at it’s current size, or continues to grow at the current rate of growth. Currently, the Federal Government is not “functioning adequately” because is has to borrow 40 % of the money it spends from sales of promissory notes (bonds) to anybody who actually believes that you and I and our descendants will have any money left to pay them back.
All your examples address the problem correctly, IF the Entitlement Plantation is to be kept at it’s current level.
However, the US Federal Government is now in the early stages of a financial death spiral, and the 40 % of Federal spending that goes to fertilize it is essentially what the promissory notes are used for.
In short, the Federal income is barely adequate to maintain the essential, NON-Welfare functions of Government.
To oversimplify, the Chinese are paying for The New Deal (FDR’s SSS), The Great Society (LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid), Food Stamps (Nixon), No Child Left Behind (GWB), and all the rest of our Welfare System, including the illegal Obama”care.”
BTW, what we have here is a “Welfare Bubble,” and nobody seems to realize that we have been sitting on pins and needles for a very long time.
Yes, money is the mother's milk of politics.
It is also a good idea to buy bumper stickers and yard signs. The eyeball count for bumper stickers can be quite high, especially if they are put in eye-catching places on a vehicle.
If one is willing to stomach such fatuous sites as Facebook or Twitter, it would be a good idea to voice support in those venues also.
Sometimes, like children, adults need to know it’s OK. So now it’s OK. Let’s cross our fingers for Florida. I expect it will just get easier, especially, when the TEA Party folks begin to line up behind Newt.
It’s the Day for ABR!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.