Posted on 03/28/2007 8:25:49 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Steve Forbes, former Republican presidential candidate, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes, and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. Mr. Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor:
“I am honored to support Rudy Giuliani for President,” Steve Forbes said. “As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline – including tax cuts – lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue. It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results.”
“Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint,” said Mayor Giuliani. “I look forward to working with Steve and am proud to have him as a member of our team.”
Nice addition, as those of us who value economic liberty certainly look to Mr. Forbes as a leader on that front.
You're calling Hunter and Tancredo and a bunch of people superstars within the GOP? OMG
You do realize that most people don't even know who those people are, don't you? I know we've had this discussion before.
Let me be clear: I live in an affluent, educated mostly retirement neighborhood. Nearly all my neighbors love politics and have the time to stay involved and current. And when I ask them about Hunter, I get the most blank looks because they don't know who I'm talking about.
Oh, you didn't stop there. You accused socons of being welfare mooches. With no evidence other than your baseless opinions. You're pathetic.
I am always shocked and yes, quite amazed by the posts of people here who post that a Hillary or Obama or Edwards or an XXXXXXX ( supply the name of any Dem presidential candidate ) presidency will have no impact on their lives. Taxes and a lousy economy most assuredly WILL have quite an impact on EVERYONE'S life, whether they are poor, middle class, or wealthy. *shrugs*
Do you need an extra large bandage, for where your nose used to be?
Yes. Compared to Barbara.
He is of average intellect. He is no smarty. Politically, he has his foot in the door, but he is not smart.
And IF Barbara Olsen were still alive, supporting Rudy, you would throw her under the train, just as easily; calling her a moron and worse.
I wasn't making apologies for the national deficit. But keep lying.
I was comparing the GDP to the deficit and Bush fares better than even Reagan did in that regard.
And once again you've proven your ignorance about financial matter which doesn't surprise me a bit. Clearly you don't understand the differences between socialism with regard to financial solvency and national debt. ROFL
In fact, since I now have to leave and just know that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about and will lie about my posts regarding the deficit, here is my vanity what I wrote in 2003:
Despite the barrage of negative press regarding the national deficit, a little research reveals the news is far less dire than it is being portrayed.
The gross domestic product (GDP), which forecasts the amount of money taken in through taxes by the government versus the amount of government spending, is best looked at in percentages as the nation's economy continues to grow each decade. According to the Office of Management and Budget, a comparison of administrative deficits for the last 20 years is as follows:
Reagan 1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
Bush 1992 $290 billion deficit 4.7% GDP
Clinton 1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
Bush 2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP
What the majority of articles bemoaning the national deficit do not remind people is that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 cost our economy a minimum of $500 billion including $150 billion in reduced GDP. This does not include the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. The cost for that is approximately 3% of GDP versus approximately 10% GDP during the height of the Cold War. Considering two years ago our nation endured its largest attack at the heart of its financial center, as well as an expensive war on terrorism, two tax cuts and numerous corporate scandals,
A 3.5% deficit in GDP does not seem unreasonable and on a percentage basis is still lower than we’ve seen in 20 years.
In addition, the record deficits in California continue to have a negative impact on our national economy. California is the world's fifth largest economy and their breathtaking social experimentation in recent years has resulted in a state dangerously close to needing a national bail-out.
The majority of economists have attributed the recent strength in consumer spending to the Bush tax cuts. We have already seen tremendous growth in the last quarter, and most of that has been attributed to people having more money to spend.
Contrast the Bush tax cuts with the money the Democrats would spend if they had the majority. In the last 3 years, The Democrats, who say they want to reduce the deficit, have tried to add nearly $2 trillion in budget bills, more than all of Bush's tax cuts combined.
They are the people that you and I know who have had the Presidents back every step of the way in the WOT, and have throttled the silliness from the democrats. They are superstars in the GOP. Not famous. Famous means McCain, Rudy, Romney.
Few know who McConnell is, yet tell me he has not been the spine in the senate.
You've defended Bush's deficit spending for years. To the point of writing vanity posts on FR about it.
Post to someone who cares what you think.
Being as FR is an open forum, I can post to anyone I want. Just ask your buddy Onyx.
And I'm amazed at the number of people who think only Rudy can beat the Dem nominee.
Or that prematurely casting our basic morals and conservative principles by the wayside is sensible and completely acceptable.
Astonishing, the amount of pure, unadulterated BS, excuses and revisionism made by Rudy supporters in the name of a perceived White House win.
Rudy is damaged goods.
Whether his supporters will admit it or not.
The media will destroy him and the base will not vote for him.
If you want Hillary - nominate Rudy!
Want to compare earnings?
I agree with you. Now is the time to argue the relative merits of the Republican candidates...not in the run up to the general election.
hee hee heeeee
Hunter is a BIG SPENDING/BIG GOVERNMENT protectionist hypocrite, whom nobody outside of FR has ever heard of.
Tancredo and Ron Paul are even worse nonentities.
Nannystater Huckabee? LOL
Newt is THE most easily destroyable and isn't going to run.
Thompson? He hasn't decided what he's going to do and if he waits much longer, hoping that he will be able to just take McCain's backers, he's deceiving himself.
Romney can't seem to garner much excitement, though he is pretty good at raising money.
Yes, yes, we all get that you can't stand Rudy, who is also imperfect, but who CAN beat any Dem presidential candidate thrown up against him; with or without your support.
Funny that you get suspended and one of Rudy's liars ( not you, nopardons) gets off scot free.
Your opinion. I'll consider the source.
Yes, yes, we all get that you can't stand Rudy, who is also imperfect, but who CAN beat any Dem presidential candidate thrown up against him; with or without your support.
Dream on! Rudy can't win! Even he knew it, when he ran from Hillary before.
And as for imperfect, nobody is perfect, but Hunter is a much better representative of Republican values than Rudy ever was or will be.
Wow, the queen of ragging on everyone else for grammar blows a sentence!
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.