PDA

View Full Version : PubFest 2012



Pages : [1] 2

SanJoaquinSooner
12/4/2011, 03:27 AM
Well it's been a long, strange journey thus far.

Sarah Palin flirting with us all for a couple of years, but turns out to be just a tease.

High anticipation for Perry, only to find debate observers Fed Up with his ponzi scheme of a campaign

Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan skyrocketing to the top of the polls outta nowhere only to crash and burn.

Michele Bachmann's campaign never igniting.

Single digit Newt's got a mass exodus of his campaign team last summer only to skyrocket to the top of the polls.

Ron Paul niche candidacy leaving us wondering if a 3rd party run giftwraps a 2nd term for Obama.

Mitt Romney coasting through the debates waiting for others to self-destruct, like a savvy poker player in the early stages of a tournament... but the strategy must shift as the primary converges toward head-to-head. With Newt soaring to the top of the polls, is Mitt in trouble? Is Romney a pưssy for not accepting an invitation to the Lincoln-Douglas style debates sponsored by Human Events?

diverdog
12/4/2011, 09:37 AM
Well it's been a long, strange journey thus far.

Sarah Palin flirting with us all for a couple of years, but turns out to be just a tease.

High anticipation for Perry, only to find debate observers Fed Up with his ponzi scheme of a campaign

Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan skyrocketing to the top of the polls outta nowhere only to crash and burn.

Michele Bachmann's campaign never igniting.

Single digit Newt's got a mass exodus of his campaign team last summer only to skyrocket to the top of the polls.

Ron Paul niche candidacy leaving us wondering if a 3rd party run giftwraps a 2nd term for Obama.

Mitt Romney coasting through the debates waiting for others to self-destruct, like a savvy poker player in the early stages of a tournament... but the strategy must shift as the primary converges toward head-to-head. With Newt soaring to the top of the polls, is Mitt in trouble? Is Romney a pưssy for not accepting an invitation to the Lincoln-Douglas style debates sponsored by Human Events?

Whoa you are up early. Good thoughts. If the economy continues to improve I do not think any of them will beat Obama.

soonercoop1
12/4/2011, 09:44 AM
Whoa you are up early. Good thoughts. If the economy continues to improve I do not think any of them will beat Obama.

How is the economy improving? Surely you're not looking at the disingenuous unemployment numbers?

diverdog
12/4/2011, 10:02 AM
How is the economy improving? Surely you're not looking at the disingenuous unemployment numbers?

There are lots of indicators showing improvement but it is not where we need to be. I always wait for the UE numbers to be adjusted. The ones we just got were from the household survey I believe.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/5/2011, 01:12 AM
Fox-5 in Atlanta, the same station that broke the Ginger White allegations, is reporting that Herman Cain is going to endorse Newt Gingrich on Monday.

cleller
12/5/2011, 09:10 AM
Unless Gingrich and Huntsman can be morphed into one candidate (with Huntsman's moral history) the Republicans are out of it.

Was hoping early on that Mitch Daniels would get in, but he didn't want his life stuck in the blender. Who would?

Zin
12/5/2011, 09:43 AM
I think Bachmans campaign is going to re-ignite over the next few weeks. She needs to be prepared for it. The left will go full on crazy mode attacking any woman or minority that isn't a liberal.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/5/2011, 09:44 AM
Unless Gingrich and Huntsman can be morphed into one candidate (with Huntsman's moral history) the Republicans are out of it.

Was hoping early on that Mitch Daniels would get in, but he didn't want his life stuck in the blender. Who would?

Jim Cramer on CNBC was funny this morning. He predicted four more years of Obama if Newt is the pub nominee. He was bewildered why Newt attacked Maria Bartiromo during the CNBC pub debate. To Cramer that is indicative of a divider and not a uniter.

diverdog
12/5/2011, 01:50 PM
I think Bachmans campaign is going to re-ignite over the next few weeks. She needs to be prepared for it. The left will go full on crazy mode attacking any woman or minority that isn't a liberal..

No way this happens. Her campaign is disorganized, she does not debate well and she is bat chit crazy.

Cain's numbers were already tanking and most supporters went to Newt. I even heard Cain would back Newt.

Turd_Ferguson
12/5/2011, 02:44 PM
Lib circle jerk...SJ's the pivot man...OUT.

TheHumanAlphabet
12/5/2011, 02:59 PM
Whoa you are up early. Good thoughts. If the economy continues to improve I do not think any of them will beat Obama.

Uhmmm, the economy is NOT improving... I expect another meltdown as Europe collapses or near collapses. This isn't done yet and I suspect we will see more bad news in early to mid 2012.

diverdog
12/5/2011, 03:20 PM
Uhmmm, the economy is NOT improving... I expect another meltdown as Europe collapses or near collapses. This isn't done yet and I suspect we will see more bad news in early to mid 2012.

The economy is improving by most measurements. It is slow but it is improving.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/5/2011, 11:36 PM
Lib circle jerk...SJ's the pivot man...OUT.

Now Turb, this is serious stuff. I'll vote for one of these candidates in the California Presidential Primary.

If by "lib" you mean libertarian, then you got me.

Come on Turd, of the pub candidates, name three that you would most likely support.

I figure the next election is a toss-up right now. Who knows what it will look like next fall.

But one of these characters may be the next president so they warrant serious discussion.

Blasting Obama and "libs" does not help distinguish these candidates from each other.

okie52
12/6/2011, 12:38 AM
Now sanjoaqin-how are you going to vote for a pub? You know they'll all have tougher immigration policies than Obama. Even newt will be tougher.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/6/2011, 01:46 AM
Now sanjoaqin-how are you going to vote for a pub? You know they'll all have tougher immigration policies than Obama. Even newt will be tougher.

The path to immigration policy reform will be a stronger, deregulated economy. If you want more Mexicans to go home, Okie, pray for a great depression.

okie52
12/6/2011, 02:16 AM
We've had a pretty good recession for the last 3 years and there are still millions here.

But you didn't answer the question...how can you vote for a pub when you know they'll have tougher policies than Obama?

TheHumanAlphabet
12/6/2011, 11:27 AM
The economy is improving by most measurements. It is slow but it is improving.

The EU will kill any improvement next year.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/6/2011, 09:44 PM
We've had a pretty good recession for the last 3 years and there are still millions here.

But you didn't answer the question...how can you vote for a pub when you know they'll have tougher policies than Obama?

Not sure exactly what you mean by "tougher policies." Do the pubs want it make it more difficult to legally immigrate? do they want to issue fewer visas per year? do they want the lines to move more slowly? Do they want to add even more ridiculous regulations to H2A and H2B visas? Do they want applicants who wait more than 20 years without the ability to visit immediate family in the U.S. during that time?

Okie, the issue of top importance to me is free trade. If a pub doesn't support free trade, they are scratched (e.g., Pat Buchanan).

The donks have a larger protectionist wing so donk candidates often talk protectionist to get elected. I judge them by how they fit in the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the party (e.g., Bill Clinton).

Mitt concerns me because he bashes China all the time, but never talks about expanding exports to China. The good news is Mitt is likely the type who will say anything to get elected and really is a free trader. It's that since he's from Massachusetts, created Romneycare, etc, he has to please the cultural conservatives constantly to show he's seen the conservative light.

Huntsman is a free trader. Newt is. Ron Paul claims to be one, but votes against trade agreements (a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good). It's like voting against an income tax cut because you don't believe in income taxes.

okie52
12/6/2011, 10:10 PM
Sanjoaqin-pubs that want border security, punishing employers, defunding sanctuary cities, etc are much more severe than Obama on illegal immigration.

Now newt and huntsman may be fakes in those areas but that's their lip service at the present which definitely harsher than Obama.

As a free trader you should hope for a balanced playing field so that a country like china cant artificially suppress product prices.

Huntsman is history (thankfully) so its really down to newt and mitt.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/7/2011, 01:49 AM
Sanjoaqin-pubs that want border security, punishing employers, defunding sanctuary cities, etc are much more severe than Obama on illegal immigration.

Now newt and huntsman may be fakes in those areas but that's their lip service at the present which definitely harsher than Obama.

As a free trader you should hope for a balanced playing field so that a country like china cant artificially suppress product prices.

Huntsman is history (thankfully) so its really down to newt and mitt.

balanced playing field = affirmative action for the less productive

okie52
12/7/2011, 07:19 AM
balanced playing field = affirmative action for the less productive

You do realize china often subsidizes its products to keep their price articially low?

Are you against the Sherman antitrust act? You are for free trade aren't you?

cleller
12/7/2011, 07:54 AM
You do realize china often subsidizes its products to keep their price articially low?


Just ask anyone who dares to enter the solar business (Solyndra).

SanJoaquinSooner
12/7/2011, 09:38 AM
You do realize china often subsidizes its products to keep their price articially low?

Are you against the Sherman antitrust act? You are for free trade aren't you?

I'm not opposed to the Sherman antitrust act or protecting intellectual property rights. But the phrase "balanced playing field" or "level playing field" cast a much broader net than that. The phrase is also used to sustain overregulation in the U.S., making labor and other production costs artifically high.



I'm not saying there aren't issues that need work. I'm saying candidates need to put energy into making increased exports a priority (through deregulation and more trade agreements).

Here in San Joaquin County, we are big almond growers. Consider recent production:

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/almond.jpg


Now where is all the increased demand coming from? Not the U.S. It's the growing middle class in China who eat all the high-end nuts they can produce and still want more. They like our nuts.

A good free trade candidate should focus on helping U.S. companies grow exports to meet the demands of the growing middle class in Asia and Latin America.

okie52
12/7/2011, 10:37 AM
I'm not opposed to the Sherman antitrust act or protecting intellectual property rights. But the phrase "balanced playing field" or "level playing field" cast a much broader net than that. The phrase is also used to sustain overregulation in the U.S., making labor and other production costs artifically high.



I'm not saying there aren't issues that need work. I'm saying candidates need to put energy into making increased exports a priority (through deregulation and more trade agreements).

Here in San Joaquin County, we are big almond growers. Consider recent production:

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/almond.jpg


Now where is all the increased demand coming from? Not the U.S. It's the growing middle class in China who eat all the high-end nuts they can produce and still want more. They like our nuts.

A good free trade candidate should focus on helping U.S. companies grow exports to meet the demands of the growing middle class in Asia and Latin America.

Funny you should use that example. My brother is here from Dana Point, CA and he was talking about the increase in the cost of nuts stating it was partly due to the Chinese buying up many of farms that produce them.

TheHumanAlphabet
12/7/2011, 02:21 PM
The Chincoms are hot after nuts. Their new found wealth and growing middle class wants cars, and the fine things in life. Don't buy chicom pine nuts, you'll get sick... New chicom and Indian wealth will make it tougher for US to maintain our lifestyle and cheap oil/gas.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/8/2011, 08:31 PM
NewtFest:

A few quotes from Gingrich's appearance on Kudlow Report:


"[Obama is] the candidate of food stamps, the finest food-stamp president in American history.”

Gingrich made a special point to reestablish his supply-side bona fides. He said, “you’re a witness to this. I was part of [Jack] Kemp’s little cabal of supply-siders.”

And then came Gingrich’s most sizzling point: “You can make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get to be rich, because I helped pass the legislation.”

Romney “should be thanking me because I did the macroeconomic things necessary to make his career possible.”



Newt has a way with words.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/9/2011, 01:46 AM
I miss Herman.

http://thewiselatinaclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/herman_cain_latina_politics_1107_art.jpeg

SanJoaquinSooner
12/9/2011, 01:48 AM
Come back, Herman. Unsuspend your campaign.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 02:21 AM
Some may wonder why any conservative would vote for Newt, given some of his actions over the years e.g. climate change photo op, cap-n-trade, health care mandate, freddie mac, etc. But what distinguishes Newt is one big thing: He was the general who led the historic 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control. Compare this to General Romney leading the Winter Olympics of 2002. Not that many voters who are skaters or skiers to give a damn about Winter Olympics.

But those who vote for pubs may ask themselves, who has the best change of denying Obama a second term?

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 02:23 AM
You may need to give Huntsman a second look. Maybe a third and fourth look.


His daughters...
http://c0.nrostatic.com/uploaded/imagecache/homepage/pic_homie_120911_AAA.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 02:35 AM
Of course folks vote on issues important to them, but I believe there is one x-factor that may give the pubs real hope.

President Obama just doesn't appear to enjoy his job. Think about Clinton and Reagan. They seemed to really enjoy what they were doing. Well, Reagan in the 1st term anyway ... he kinda slept through the 2nd term - but he seemed to enjoy those naps.

Obama is like a substitute teacher who can't wait for the clock to reach 3 o'clock so he can get the **** out of there. My theory on this is that he can't wait to sneak off to have a smoke. Doesn't he look like a closet smoker who needs to get away for a smoke?

But my alternate theory is that the job of being President sounded a lot better than it actually is for him. Inheriting the housing bubble burst was a biţch.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 11:46 AM
George Will says Romney's 59 point economic plan has 56 too many points. All any pub needs is 3: low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 12:17 PM
A Cato Institute VP says, "..… There’s no denying that Newt is smart, but there’s a zany,
Cliff Clavin aspect to his intellect. At times, Gingrich, who’s written more than 150 book reviews on Amazon.com, sounds like a guy who read way too much during a long prison stretch.”

diverdog
12/10/2011, 03:18 PM
You may need to give Huntsman a second look. Maybe a third and fourth look.


His daughters...
http://c0.nrostatic.com/uploaded/imagecache/homepage/pic_homie_120911_AAA.jpg

Whoa.

diverdog
12/10/2011, 03:18 PM
A Cato Institute VP says, "..… There’s no denying that Newt is smart, but there’s a zany,
Cliff Clavin aspect to his intellect. At times, Gingrich, who’s written more than 150 book reviews on Amazon.com, sounds like a guy who read way too much during a long prison stretch.”

He is the pubs Joe Biden.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 09:00 PM
oKay, Crank it up!! Another pub debate live!!!

ABC George Steph. and Diane Sawyer

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 09:47 PM
Michele is throwing all the punches she has at Newt Romney.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 09:48 PM
Newt owned Romney on the loss to Teddy Kennedy remark.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 10:54 PM
The big question:

What have you had to give up in tough times?


Romney: Well, I'm not giving up $10,000 bets.

StoopTroup
12/10/2011, 11:01 PM
Ron Paul schooled them all in the last statement.

StoopTroup
12/10/2011, 11:02 PM
You may need to give Huntsman a second look. Maybe a third and fourth look.


His daughters...
http://c0.nrostatic.com/uploaded/imagecache/homepage/pic_homie_120911_AAA.jpg


I just got a Red, White and Blue boner.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 11:06 PM
Romney treaded water for the most part. The hemorrhaging will continue.

Bachmann did very well. Too bad she wasn't this good in the earlier debates.

Newt was set up to be the punching bag and he handled well and threw some good counterpunches along the way.

Would someone turn Perry around to see if he has a toy doll drawstring coming out of his back?


Ron Paul was as sharp as he always is.

IBleedCrimson
12/11/2011, 12:34 AM
Bachmann did very well. Too bad she is bat sh*t crazy and an embarrassment to the political process.


FIFY

SanJoaquinSooner
12/11/2011, 12:36 AM
Iowa isn't Huntsman territory so he can get away with low expectations. His marbles are on New Hampshire. If Romney is further wounded in Iowa and Huntsman can sneak into double digits in NH, he may stay alive.

But I doubt it.

The pundit explanation is, "this was Huntsman's best debate."

SanJoaquinSooner
12/11/2011, 12:43 AM
Originally Posted by SanJoaquinSooner

Bachmann did very well. Too bad she is bat sh*t crazy and an embarrassment to the political process.

FIFY

Well, that's also true. But for Iowa pub activists, I'll wager her Newt Romney lines plays well. Just not a $10,000 wager.

Michele did everything but give Cain supporters a blowjob to earn their support (or an unwelcomed grab for their private parts, as the case may be).

SanJoaquinSooner
12/11/2011, 12:54 AM
Not sure of political wisdom of Newt's comment's regarding Palestinians, but the sentiment is not original.

In 1969, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

...the point being they are Arabs.

diverdog
12/11/2011, 07:29 AM
Iowa isn't Huntsman territory so he can get away with low expectations. His marbles are on New Hampshire. If Romney is further wounded in Iowa and Huntsman can sneak into double digits in NH, he may stay alive.

But I doubt it.

The pundit explanation is, "this was Huntsman's best debate."

I think Huntsman is finding his stride and he is the one I think could surprise a few people.

Romney's $10,000 bet with Perry is going to really hurt him.

diverdog
12/11/2011, 07:31 AM
Not sure of political wisdom of Newt's comment's regarding Palestinians, but the sentiment is not original.

In 1969, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

...the point being they are Arabs.

Funny because the Arabs don't like them as well.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/11/2011, 12:00 PM
I think Huntsman is finding his stride and he is the one I think could surprise a few people.

Romney's $10,000 bet with Perry is going to really hurt him.

Agree on both points.


Yeah, probably the two events that are getting the most post-debate discussion are the "$10,000 bet" and the "lost to Teddy Kennedy" moments. Both work against Romney.

If Romney faulters, the anti-Newt crowd will need to find a home. Maybe Huntsmanville is the place.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/11/2011, 01:27 PM
z3twHbDthis&

SanJoaquinSooner
12/13/2011, 01:12 AM
Gingrich rises in New Hampshire

Former senator Bob Smith (R., N.H.) has endorsed Gingrich.... “What I hear every single day is ‘Boy, would I like to see Newt Gingrich debate Barack Obama.”

Conservative talk-show host Al Kulas agrees. “The reason so many people are getting behind Newt is that he is the only one that they feel confident about putting head-to-head with Obama in a debate.”

SanJoaquinSooner
12/13/2011, 01:38 AM
Talk-radio host Michael Savage has offered Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the race for the GOP nomination because he doesn't believe the former Speaker of the House can beat President Barack Obama.

Well, if the Savage Nation is against him, that can only make Newt look good.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/14/2011, 07:01 PM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/b82fQ1E_X7QLNqmcZNjj4g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theenvoy/s-GINGRICH-PALESTINE-large640.jpg

Hey, buddy, you've just a figment of my imagination.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/15/2011, 12:41 AM
Why do the Conservative Media hate Gingrich so much?

Here's what National Review Online is showing:

Election 2012: NRO Special
Against Gingrich
http://global.nationalreview.com/images/pic_homie_giant_121511_A.jpg

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich would be to blow the opportunity to win the White House next year. —The Editors



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285596/myth-new-newt-rich-lowry

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285680/newtzilla-rescue-jonah-goldberg

SCOUT
12/15/2011, 12:56 AM
Newt is someone I actually respect. I think he has a firm grasp of history, issues of today and an plan for the future. He is the leader now, so there will be a relentless attack on him. If he can make it through February, he has a real chance, IMO.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/15/2011, 09:17 PM
Moderator: "Governor Perry, how are you going to take on President Obama when you suck so badly at debating?"


Rick Perry: "Lot's of people doubted Tim Tebow in the NFL ... that his throwing mechanism wasn't right. That he didn't play the game right.

I'm gonna be the Tim Tebow of the Iowa Caucus! He won two national championships at Florida and Texas won the national championship in job creation."

SanJoaquinSooner
12/16/2011, 12:49 AM
Huntsman got one thing right: net migration from Mexico is zero, thanks to a lousy economy.

TheHumanAlphabet
12/16/2011, 10:37 AM
Newt is someone I actually respect. I think he has a firm grasp of history, issues of today and an plan for the future. He is the leader now, so there will be a relentless attack on him. If he can make it through February, he has a real chance, IMO.

^^THis. Though I probably wouldn't vote for him. He does speak truth. i.e., there are no "palestinians" as they are arabs. Palestinian is not a distinct peoples...

JohnnyMack
12/19/2011, 02:48 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Vote Ron Paul.

**** Gingrich.

FaninAma
12/19/2011, 04:38 PM
There are 3 choices in this election....Democrat, Democrat-lite and Ron Paul. Another way to describe the choice would be Friends Of Wall Street, Friends of Wall Street-lite and Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has received more donations from Wall Street than the rest of the GOP field combined. Gee, I wonder who Wall Street supports this year?

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2011, 04:59 PM
There are 3 choices in this election....Democrat, Democrat-lite and Ron Paul. Another way to describe the choice would be Friends Of Wall Street, Friends of Wall Street-lite and Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has received more donations from Wall Street than the rest of the GOP field combined. Gee, I wonder who Wall Street supports this year?

from the wall street perspective ..... but from an Iran issue perspective, Ron Paul is to the left of the Democrats. I think that bothers many.

okie52
12/19/2011, 05:01 PM
from the wall street perspective ..... but from an Iran issue perspective, Ron Paul is to the left of the Democrats. I think that bothers many.

Are you a knute fan?

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2011, 05:17 PM
Are you a knute fan?

I always thought of Newt as Bill Clinton's evil twin brother, and I liked Clinton, less the *****mongering.

I would like to see a lincoln-douglas style debate between Newt and Obama.

Ann Coulter despises Newt, so he can't be all bad.

FaninAma
12/19/2011, 05:53 PM
from the wall street perspective ..... but from an Iran issue perspective, Ron Paul is to the left of the Democrats. I think that bothers many.

I guess....if you want to classify the non-interventionist principles on which this country was founded as leftist.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/29/2011, 07:04 PM
Santorum is surging!!!

Iowa does stuff like that.


Newt = Reagan 2.0. Art Laffer and his curves are on board!!!

Unfortunately Newt hit the top of the curve too early and his function is decreasing and concave downward.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/4/2012, 01:42 AM
Iowa cockus winner: Obama, since this leads to more in-fighting among pubs.

Santorum, who suffered to worst defeat by an incumbent senator in United States history, has no chance of winning the nomination. Romney will stop ignoring Santorum and will expose him as Mr. Earmark.

Gingrich will hang on until South Carolina and will bet all marbles there. Longshot. Gingrich and Paul are the only ones who give good speech.

Perry is all but out, and knows it. He's the kind of guy you might like to see as your kid's P.E. coach.

Backmann is all but out, but doesn't know it.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/4/2012, 02:35 AM
Romney in a landslide! 30,015 to 30,007. By 8 votes!

hawaii 5-0
1/4/2012, 02:42 AM
If Santorum had just gotten those votes that went to The Pizza Fella.....

5-0

badger
1/4/2012, 10:03 AM
Backmann is all but out, but doesn't know it.

I think she knows it now... or the decision was made for her. Apparently last night she said that the campaign was going on, but she canceled a trip to South Carolina and has a presser in Iowa later this morning. Looks like the new Palin is gonna call it quits, doesn't it?

hawaii 5-0
1/4/2012, 10:39 AM
At least Palin was easy on the eyes from a strictly sexist viewpoint.

Bachman has a few more gray matter cells.

5-0

badger
1/4/2012, 11:52 AM
Bachmann officially dropped out.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120104_335_0_DESMOI304965)

Perry apparently is going straight to South Carolina after a woe-is-me-campaign stop in Texas.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/4/2012, 12:21 PM
Bachmann officially dropped out.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120104_335_0_DESMOI304965)

Perry apparently is going straight to South Carolina after a woe-is-me-campaign stop in Texas.


Yeah, both apparently had a change of heart overnight. If Perry has the money to do South Carolina right, he might do well there.

okie52
1/4/2012, 12:25 PM
So Perry now hopes to get the Bachman votes? Why is Huntsman still hanging on?

soonercruiser
1/4/2012, 12:32 PM
So Perry now hopes to get the Bachman votes? Why is Huntsman still hanging on?

"Arrogance", me thinks.
He thinks that he's a major candidate.

okie52
1/4/2012, 12:38 PM
Huntsman probably would have some national appeal but would have a better shot in the dem primaries than the repubs. I kind of like him but he really sucks on energy and immigration.

badger
1/4/2012, 12:48 PM
So Perry now hopes to get the Bachman votes? Why is Huntsman still hanging on?

Didn't he skip Iowa and try to have a monopoly on New Hampshire?

it's a strategy that others have used in the past... to varying success

okie52
1/4/2012, 12:58 PM
Didn't he skip Iowa and try to have a monopoly on New Hampshire?

it's a strategy that others have used in the past... to varying success

I think you are right. He will do better in the north than the south but so will Romney. Iowa, though, was probably a state he should have given a better shot since it surely isn't a southern state.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/4/2012, 11:43 PM
Bachmann officially dropped out.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120104_335_0_DESMOI304965)

.

Gonna miss Michele. She was one of the best things happening to the GOP since I-am-not-a-witch Christine.


http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/12/13/enhanced-buzz-6524-1271093972-8.jpg

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/12/13/enhanced-buzz-6378-1271094055-2.jpg
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/12/13/enhanced-buzz-6526-1271093915-7.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
1/5/2012, 01:22 AM
Mr. Earmark now has a target on his back.

"When you go to Congress you fight to make sure that when taxes go from your state to Washington, D.C., you fight to make sure you get your fair share back," Santorum said, adding that other lawmakers do it. "The idea that earmarks are the problem in Washington, D.C., is just ridiculous."

Still, he has said he now opposes earmarks.

hawaii 5-0
1/5/2012, 01:28 AM
He didn't flip flop. He just changed his mind.

5-0

SanJoaquinSooner
1/10/2012, 12:41 AM
Rick Santorum defends pork barrel politics, siphoning millions to fund favorite projects based on the good ol' boys network in DC; yet, he portrays himself as a populist outsider. Even JOHN MCCAIN can't stand this stiff!

SanJoaquinSooner
1/10/2012, 09:09 AM
Huntsman won't sell in South Carolina or Florida, but he may surprise in
New Hampshire.

okie52
1/10/2012, 10:27 AM
Huntsman won't sell in South Carolina or Florida, but he may surprise in
New Hampshire.

Maybe. I kind of like Huntsman even though he was shortsighted on energy and immigration.

badger
1/10/2012, 05:30 PM
Maybe. I kind of like Huntsman even though he was shortsighted on energy and immigration.

All eggs in one basket for Huntsman since he skipped Iowa. If he doesn't have a very strong showing in New Hampshire after spending all of his time there, the ones footing the campaign bill are gonna stop financing a losing effort.

Old Hampshire likes to be uppity in choosing a new candidate for the rest of the country to follow (for example, they chose Hillary instead of Obama, despite Hillary's disappointing showing in Iowa), but I'm hopeful that this year, more states will get to choose the president rather than cling to a winner's bandwagon after dinky little states that are adamant that they go first declare who our candidate should be.

okie52
1/10/2012, 05:38 PM
Really his only shot. He won't win in the south and Iowa looked out of reach for him.

East Coast Bias
1/10/2012, 07:32 PM
I expect Huntsman will do very well up here, not so much Perry or Santorum. Romney will win, as a good portion of NH residents work in Mass and he has a house on the lake here.There is a strong tea-bagger presence here if you can believe that. There is a lot of old-money in play in the state and Romney connects well with that group.In New Hampshire if you register as an independent you can switch to either party and vote in either primary. They recently changed the rule to eliminate late minute switching. You could in the past vote in both Democratic and Republican elections. And no I would never admit to doing that....

SanJoaquinSooner
1/10/2012, 09:59 PM
Perry was able to edge out a victory over Write-in.

On to South Carolina.

badger
1/11/2012, 08:10 AM
Perry was able to edge out a victory over Write-in.

On to South Carolina.

He didn't even go to New Hampshire this past week except for a debate or two, right? He's already invested in South Carolina.

I think this was New Hampshire's result:

1- Mitt - 40 percent
2- Ron Paul -23
3- Huntsman -17
4- Newt -10
5- Santorum -9
6- Perry -1

Yes, a lousy 1 percent for Perry, which is bad even if you ignore that state. Look for Huntsman to be the next dropout.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/17/2012, 05:36 PM
Getting fewer votes than "none of the above" in both Iowa and New Hampshire, one must figure Rick Perry moved on to South Carolina as Mitt Romney's wingman. Is there anyone better suited to make Romney look really smart?

okie52
1/17/2012, 05:44 PM
Obama!!!

SanJoaquinSooner
1/17/2012, 10:51 PM
Obama!!!


Well, one of the elder stateswomen of the Grand Old Party, is not ready to crown Romney as Obama's challenger.

Newt was at the top of his debating game last night in South Carolina.

wFx47DOd0xQ

SanJoaquinSooner
1/17/2012, 11:23 PM
Newt was on fire last night!
In case you missed this exchange with Juan Williams that ended in a standing ovation for Newt....

ka0LMt5ciRc

hawaii 5-0
1/17/2012, 11:32 PM
Funny listening to Sarah Palin talking about candidates needing to be vetted.

Laugh O' tha Day !!!

5-0

SanJoaquinSooner
1/17/2012, 11:47 PM
Funny listening to Sarah Palin talking about candidates needing to be vetted.

Laugh O' tha Day !!!

5-0


Exactly what i was thinking!!!

East Coast Bias
1/18/2012, 09:59 AM
I believe all the press on Romney's income tax and wealth is going to be the next big bombshell to hit the Republican campaign. If Romney is in fact in the 15% bracket, the Obama camp is going to use this to portray Romney as part of the elite rich that the Republicans pander to. He will use this to contrast the plight of average Americans and will align himself with that group. Romney is vulnerable on this,especially with his reluctance to date to be transparent.

TheHumanAlphabet
1/18/2012, 10:35 AM
Funny listening to Sarah Palin talking about candidates needing to be vetted.

Laugh O' tha Day !!!

5-0
That's true, Barry Soetoro, err, Barack Obama needs to be vetted. Why won't he release his college transcripts?

TheHumanAlphabet
1/18/2012, 10:37 AM
I believe all the press on Romney's income tax and wealth is going to be the next big bombshell to hit the Republican campaign. If Romney is in fact in the 15% bracket, the Obama camp is going to use this to portray Romney as part of the elite rich that the Republicans pander to. He will use this to contrast the plight of average Americans and will align himself with that group. Romney is vulnerable on this,especially with his reluctance to date to be transparent.

Thing I don't like in Romney is he is a blue blood RINO. Will not vote for him.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/19/2012, 09:35 AM
So long, Rick Perry. Blow to Romney and boost to Gingrinch? Probably not enough to matter. ... although Newt does have big mo with him this week.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/19/2012, 09:49 AM
Maybe Romney should have offered Perry an all-expenses paid trip to the Cayman Islands if he'd stay in the race to help split the anybody-but-Romney vote.

badger
1/19/2012, 09:56 AM
Maybe Romney should have offered Perry an all-expenses paid trip to the Cayman Islands if he'd stay in the race to help split the anybody-but-Romney vote.

Maybe Rick Perry should have sold him a Texas toll road :eek:

SanJoaquinSooner
1/19/2012, 02:01 PM
Many of the religious folk love a good repent. So this deal with Ms. ex-Newt going
public with Newt's marital sins may not be as damaging if those who care believe Newt has had a true religious transformation.

And in so many words, he's implied that at age 68, you don't have to worry about him *****mongering any longer.

He's publicly mapped his sins and the seeking of God's forgiveness, etc. Ms. ex-Newt says he never made right with her, however.

Next Tuesday's primary will be interesting.

badger
1/19/2012, 02:17 PM
Hell hath no fury, amirite?

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/things-americans-would-rather-think-about-than-newt-gingrichs-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAC2aIBQ_blog.html)

This was a low blow by the ex-wife, one that she probably wanted to punch Newt with for years and I'm inclined to think that he deserved it and all the ridicule that comes with it at a most inopportune time.

Newt's personal behavior personally disgusts me as much as John Edwards' and Bill Clinton's once did. I know that choosing the leader of the free world should be about more than the candidate's sex life, but dag nabbit, the guy elected is gonna represent me and every American, and I don't want to be represented by a dirty, disgusting old man like Newt. :mad:

TheHumanAlphabet
1/19/2012, 06:10 PM
Hell hath no fury, amirite?

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/things-americans-would-rather-think-about-than-newt-gingrichs-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAC2aIBQ_blog.html)

This was a low blow by the ex-wife, one that she probably wanted to punch Newt with for years and I'm inclined to think that he deserved it and all the ridicule that comes with it at a most inopportune time.

Newt's personal behavior personally disgusts me as much as John Edwards' and Bill Clinton's once did. I know that choosing the leader of the free world should be about more than the candidate's sex life, but dag nabbit, the guy elected is gonna represent me and every American, and I don't want to be represented by a dirty, disgusting old man like Newt. :mad:

This^^^^

I like his intellect and his fire, I just can't get past his personal past...

SanJoaquinSooner
1/19/2012, 08:18 PM
Debate on CNN now.

First question on Ms. ex-Newt's fury. Gingrinch says it's trash and to run the story 2 days before the primary is despicable.

Romney says, "let's get on to the REAL issues."

It is a bit like the drunk driving story on Dubya the week before the election in 2000.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/19/2012, 08:37 PM
Newt, "Elect me and your adult kids will be able to move out of your house and get a job!"

"That's why Obama wanted adult kids to stay on their parents' health insurance. They can't get jobs to get their own insurance!"

hawaii 5-0
1/19/2012, 09:12 PM
Next's explanation that he cheated on his wife because he 'loved his Country so much' is pure bogus.

Someone should put out his pants 'cause they're on fire.


5-0

SanJoaquinSooner
1/20/2012, 09:14 AM
Ron Paul schooled Santorium and the others on that Apple Computers example of all the Chinese jobs.

This is 2007 data, so the costs have changed since ...

The only Chinese input is labor, which is used to assemble the components manufactured in other countries. The value of that labor accounts for $6.50 or 3.6 percent of the total cost of $178.96 to produce an iPhone (about the same percentage as the iPod). The other 96.4 percent of that total is the cost of components produced (and the labor and overhead employed to produce those components) in Japan, Germany, South Korea, the United States, and several other countries. This breakdown is very similar to that found for the iPod in 2007, and the punch lines are identical.

While firms in Japan and Germany account for the most expensive parts (and quite obviously benefit from the advent of the iPhone), most of the value of the iPhone (like the iPod) accrues to Apple, which reaps the lion’s share of the approximately 100 percent markup. When iPhones sell for $399 in the United States, the difference between that retail price and the $178.96 cost of production goes to retailers, distributors, marketers, other firms in the supply chain, and to Apple, which distributes some earnings to its shareholders and retains some for research and development, supporting engineering and design jobs higher up the value chain so that the virtuous circle can continue.

Rather than appreciate how this complementary process harnesses the benefits of our globalized division of labor, some begrudge iPod and iPhone sales in the United States for adding to the bilateral trade deficit. Technically, for every $399 iPhone sold in the United States, the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China increases by $178.96. Even though only $6.50 of that iPhone is Chinese value, under our antiquated, pre-globalization, method of tallying a nation’s imports and exports, the entire $178.96 is chalked up as an import from China because that was the product’s final point of assembly.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/20/2012, 09:15 AM
nm

SanJoaquinSooner
1/20/2012, 09:17 AM
Ron Paul schooled Santorum and the others on that Apple Computers example of all the Chinese jobs.

This is 2007 data, so the costs have changed since ...

The only Chinese input is labor, which is used to assemble the components manufactured in other countries. The value of that labor accounts for $6.50 or 3.6 percent of the total cost of $178.96 to produce an iPhone (about the same percentage as the iPod). The other 96.4 percent of that total is the cost of components produced (and the labor and overhead employed to produce those components) in Japan, Germany, South Korea, the United States, and several other countries. This breakdown is very similar to that found for the iPod in 2007, and the punch lines are identical.

While firms in Japan and Germany account for the most expensive parts (and quite obviously benefit from the advent of the iPhone), most of the value of the iPhone (like the iPod) accrues to Apple, which reaps the lion’s share of the approximately 100 percent markup. When iPhones sell for $399 in the United States, the difference between that retail price and the $178.96 cost of production goes to retailers, distributors, marketers, other firms in the supply chain, and to Apple, which distributes some earnings to its shareholders and retains some for research and development, supporting engineering and design jobs higher up the value chain so that the virtuous circle can continue.

Rather than appreciate how this complementary process harnesses the benefits of our globalized division of labor, some begrudge iPod and iPhone sales in the United States for adding to the bilateral trade deficit. Technically, for every $399 iPhone sold in the United States, the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China increases by $178.96. Even though only $6.50 of that iPhone is Chinese value, under our antiquated, pre-globalization, method of tallying a nation’s imports and exports, the entire $178.96 is chalked up as an import from China because that was the product’s final point of assembly.


The is NO WAY moving assembly to the U.S. would remain as inexpensive, even if you zero out corporate taxes.

TheHumanAlphabet
1/20/2012, 10:38 AM
Newt blew CNN's ****ing doors off!


Not that I like Newt for going having an affair, but he wiped the smugness away from CNN and that blowhard anchor.

badger
1/20/2012, 10:42 AM
Next's explanation that he cheated on his wife because he 'loved his Country so much' is pure bogus.

Someone should put out his pants 'cause they're on fire.


5-0

Interestingly enough, I heard that was about what John Edwards was using to keep his campaigners under control --- that they were all part of something that was bigger than any of them, so essentially, STFU, fall in line and don't you dare tell the media that I'm cheating on my cancer-stricken wife!

It's sad that politicians will sink to those despicable lows.


It is a bit like the drunk driving story on Dubya the week before the election in 2000.

As much as I despise drunk driving, W. was reportedly a model citizen at the stop, didn't try to resist arrest or make up some Georgia athletic director-like sh!t on the spot, so I heard that the drunken driving but released days before the 2000 election actually made Gore look more desperate than anything.

It personally didn't sway me. I was 17 at the time and ineligible to vote :)

SanJoaquinSooner
1/20/2012, 01:26 PM
ON the intrade South Carolina prediction market, Newt is about 62 (bet $62 and its value increases to $100 if Newt wins S.C.) while Romney's is 48. Last week those numbers were Newt 10 and Mitt 85. Funny how one week's activity can make such a big difference.

Who knows how the numbers will look moving forward. I think the trend is moving back to Mitt.



http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

SoonerPride
1/20/2012, 02:57 PM
Newt blew CNN's ****ing doors off!


Not that I like Newt for going having an affair, but he wiped the smugness away from CNN and that blowhard anchor.

Hey Newt, you can get huffy and (more) red faced over questions about cheating on your SECOND wife and unleash zingers which get the yahoos to hoot and holler, but that will never change the fact that you are a vile hypocrite who spent the 1990s attacking Pres. Clinton while screaming about "family values" and have spent the 2000s basing your opposition to marriage equality on "the sanctity of marriage." In short, sir, you are an ***.

badger
1/20/2012, 03:27 PM
Newt blew CNN's ****ing doors off!


Not that I like Newt for going having an affair, but he wiped the smugness away from CNN and that blowhard anchor.

The question was going to come up at some point. Newt was expecting it and CNN was likely expecting such an answer. It wasn't "gotcha" or whatever, it was the elephant in the room that needed to leave as soon as possible, so good on them for getting it out of the way fast.

Here's a transcript if any of you missed it:


Just as Speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct, fresh character attack on the speaker. And Mr. Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.

As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?

MR. GINGRICH: No -- but I will. (Cheers, applause.)

I think -- I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

MR. GINGRICH: Let me finish.

MR. KING: Please. (Boos, cheers, applause.)

MR. GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain.

Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (Cheers, applause.)

My -- my two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC, and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it. And I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point; I take get your --

MR. GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. (Boos.) You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with that. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Now, OK --

MR. GINGRICH: Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor, they're attacking me. I'm sure they'll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: All right. As I noted -- as I noted at the beginning, we have four podiums on this stage tonight, not five.

And when he exited the race this morning, Governor Perry quickly and forcefully endorsed Speaker Gingrich. And in that remark, he said that, no, Mr. Gingrich is not a perfect man. Senator Santorum, he said none of us are. And he said he believes in his Christian faith that guides him to the value of redemption. Speaker Gingrich doesn't believe this is an issue; Governor Perry says this is not an issue. I just want to start with you, sir, and go down. Do you believe it is?

RICK SANTORUM: I've answered this question repeatedly throughout the course of this campaign. I am a Christian, too, and I thank God for forgiveness. But, you know, these -- these are issues of our lives, and what we did in our lives are issues of character for people to consider. But the bottom line is, those are -- those are things for everyone in this audience to look at, and they're to look at me, look at what I've done in my private life and personal life, unfortunately.

And what I say is that this country is a very forgiving country. This -- this country understands that we are all fallen. And I'm very hopeful that we will be judged by that standard and not by -- by a higher one on the ultimate day. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Governor Romney?

MITT ROMNEY: John, let's get on to the real issues, is all I've got to say. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Congressman?

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): I think too often all of us are on the receiving ends of attacks from the media, and it's very disturbing, because sometimes they're not based on facts and we suffer the consequences. You know, sometimes it reminds me of this idea of getting corporations out of running campaigns -- (chuckles) -- but what about the corporations that run the media? (Cheers, applause.) I mean, they're always (in politics ?).

And I think -- I think -- I think our responsibility is sorting facts and fiction. The people have to sort this out. But I think setting standards are very important, and I'm very proud that my wife of 54 years is with me tonight.

(Applause.)

I'm gonna end up voting for Ron Paul, aren't I...

TUSooner
1/20/2012, 03:47 PM
So Newt cheated in a grossly hypocritical manner, but his ex-wife's
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/3169/daffyta.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/daffyta.jpg/)
"dethpicable"...

Is that supposed to be a wash or what? I could be OK with forgiveness and redemption if not for all the sanctimonious blather and rank hypocrisy (and Santorum's hideous vision of dumbed-down cartoon Christianity as public policy).

TUSooner
1/20/2012, 03:51 PM
Newt blew CNN's ****ing doors off!


Not that I like Newt for going having an affair, but he wiped the smugness away from CNN and that blowhard anchor.

If I didn't admire your football posts so much, I'd rush right over and rub dog**** in your face for being so narrow-minded when it comes to politcs. :wink:

SicEmBaylor
1/20/2012, 04:16 PM
Newt gave a clearly canned response to a question he KNEW was going to be asked. His indignation was meant to exploit the "us v. the media" mentality of most conservatives and he did it very well. The question by John King was perfectly acceptable and, frankly, his journalistic credentials should have been questioned had he ignored the issue. CNN neither conducted the interview nor ran the story, but the information was out there in the public and it is clearly an issue.

I hate Newt with the passion of a thousand burning suns, but that SOB is the finest presidential debater I've ever seen. He is flat out phenomenal. I'd pay for admission and some over priced popcorn to sit and watch him wipe the floor with Obama.

badger
1/20/2012, 04:40 PM
Newt gave a clearly canned response to a question he KNEW was going to be asked. His indignation was meant to exploit the "us v. the media" mentality of most conservatives and he did it very well. The question by John King was perfectly acceptable and, frankly, his journalistic credentials should have been questioned had he ignored the issue. CNN neither conducted the interview nor ran the story, but the information was out there in the public and it is clearly an issue.

I hate Newt with the passion of a thousand burning suns, but that SOB is the finest presidential debater I've ever seen. He is flat out phenomenal. I'd pay for admission and some over priced popcorn to sit and watch him wipe the floor with Obama.

Agree with SicEm on all fronts accept for the Baylor thing. Eff Baylor with the passion of a thousand burning Skeletor masks and dunking chicks that like to punch smaller players. :P

Newt is a pro at the political arena, no doubt about it. He's gotten some bawwwws outta audiences for talking about dear old mum, he got some cheers for attacking the "elite media" (seriously, where in the eff does that phrase come from --- from everything I've seen and heard, media members are lower paid than teachers without getting public employee benefits!), and can try to distance himself from his past as much as possible.

I would rather leave my ballot blank than vote for him. It's rather silly of me to give personal character in a job that absolute ogres can go well so much weight on my vote, isn't it?

SanJoaquinSooner
1/20/2012, 05:06 PM
I'm gonna end up voting for Ron Paul, aren't I...

Ron had a very good night, especially since they didn't talk about Iran, Israel, or old newsletters.

badger
1/20/2012, 06:30 PM
Ron had a very good night, especially since they didn't talk about Iran, Israel, or old newsletters.

meh... i'd probably storm off CNN too if they kept badgering me... and my name's badger! :P

StoopTroup
1/20/2012, 06:43 PM
I could care less what newt did to john King. Just my opinion but I thought Rick Santorum did really well last night even though I'm a Moderate and not completely in agreement with all of his positions.

I also liked how Ron Paul did as well. Especially his being shocked how the other guys all think they know Medically what's best for America and he's the only Doctor up there. I think Ron strengthened and added to his base and maybe even got some folks from Gingrich and Romney to turn his way or Santorum's way.

I think that it's possible that Santorum might be a good guy for the Republican Party to secure the Tea Party and if Ron would accept VP under Santorum...you have a guy that has the entire Military behind him.

Having a young gun run for POTUS might be a much better way for the Republican Party to go IMO.

StoopTroup
1/20/2012, 06:49 PM
Also the Romney comment that I've seen today where he tells Newt that he's read the Reagan Diary and he noticed that Newt was mentioned once in Ron's Diary and raised one idea during the Reagan Administration and that it was immediately dismissed.

So much for the idea that Newt is a big idea guy. You can have all the big ideas you want....it's having one that is terrific and that can help put America on track to remain the greatest nation on Earth. That's what folks are looking for.

badger
1/20/2012, 06:51 PM
I also liked how Ron Paul did as well. Especially his being shocked how the other guys all think they know Medically what's best for America and he's the only Doctor up there. I think Ron strengthened and added to his base and maybe even got some folks from Gingrich and Romney to turn his way or Santorum's way.

He is also the only military vet left in the race... and he's been married 50+ years... like I said, I'm probably going to end up voting for him, aren't I?

StoopTroup
1/20/2012, 06:57 PM
He is also the only military vet left in the race... and he's been married 50+ years... like I said, I'm probably going to end up voting for him, aren't I?

He's addictive. Still I think if you get past the Santorum having to defend himself from Romney and newt....just listen to him. Yeah he's maybe got some ideas that don't go along with each of our personal opinions but i think he really understands the whole idea of being a Leader and being the POTUS. I think he's the guy that would maybe negotiate in order to do what's best for the Country instead of do what's needed to stay popular.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 11:53 AM
Santorum says, "One big idea that I've proposed is to cut the corporate tax for all manufacturers from 35 percent to zero. You cut the tax rate to zero, you create a real launching pad for exports here in America.”


OK, cutting corporate taxes may be a good thing to promote economic growth and increasing exports, but Santorum's idea that it should be targeted at manufacturers is a bad idea. Government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers. The market place does that.

You'll end up with all sorts of businesses trying to redefine themselves as manufacturers to get that zero corporate tax.



I have one story related to this.

My wife is in the retail uniform business. As part of the customer service, they sew patches on the uniforms they sell. The patches come from a third-party vendor or from the customer him/herself. They don't charge extra for sewing on the damned patches.

So one day a government bureaucrat walks in the store and explains that they need pay $1200 for a manufacturing permit each year since they sew patches on the uniforms - not only are they retailers, they are manufacturers. Additionally, they need to take a manufacturers' examination every two years to make sure they know all the laws and regs for manufacturers ( $750), wage laws, occupational safety, injuries, illness, etc.

Over 95% of their sewing are alternations, not patch sewing. But alterations don't classify a business as a manufacturer.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 01:31 PM
ON the intrade South Carolina prediction market, Newt is about 62 (bet $62 and its value increases to $100 if Newt wins S.C.) while Romney's is 48. Last week those numbers were Newt 10 and Mitt 85. Funny how one week's activity can make such a big difference.

Who knows how the numbers will look moving forward. I think the trend is moving back to Mitt.

http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

Whoa! I was wrong on the trend. It kept moving Newt's direction.

Newt's price is now 89 and Mitt's is 10.

It must have been that Chuck Norris endorsement that pushed Newt toward near-certain victory.

Turd_Ferguson
1/21/2012, 02:53 PM
Whoa! I was wrong on the trend. It kept moving Newt's direction.

Newt's price is now 89 and Mitt's is 10.

It must have been that Chuck Norris endorsement that pushed Newt toward near-certain victory.


I think it was this...

KFBHiw7CQIg

JohnnyMack
1/21/2012, 04:33 PM
I think it was this...

KFBHiw7CQIg

As SicEm alluded to earlier, Newt is truly one of the savviest debaters ever. How else could a morally bankrupt as man as he is be doing so well at this point? The way he's turned his own actions against the media and managed to get the sheeple of the GOP behind him is stupefying. Either that or the masses of the Republican party really don't want anything to do with Romney.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 07:02 PM
Polls close and Newt is called the winner.

SicEmBaylor
1/21/2012, 07:13 PM
1)I hate exit polls.

2)Dear Newt: You like to constantly remind everyone that you're a historian. I just heard you ask an audience (in reference to Romney), "Why would you want to nominate the guy that lost to the guy that lost to Obama?" You might do well to remember that Ronald Reagan lost to the guy who lost to Carter only to beat Carter the next cycle. You, sir, are a twit.

3)I'm not sure there has ever been a primary when debates mattered as much as this race. I've always wanted debates to matter more but not at the expense of turning a blind eye at a candidate's cumulative personal and political history.

hawaii 5-0
1/21/2012, 07:51 PM
If Next and Romney are the best that are running I feel sad for the Repubs.

There's gotta be someone better out there to represent them.

5-0

SoonerMom2
1/21/2012, 08:09 PM
I did a post on my blog titled None of the Above today. Whether you like James Carville or not he has a good editorial on CNN today. With these four, this Conservative Republican is not voting for any of them in the general election or Obama. We need a decent Indy to run. We don't need two of the most arrogant Republicans around -- Romney or Newt as the nominess -- won't vote for either one in the primary or general. I will never hold my nose and vote again no matter what the establishment says. I have switched gears over to the House and Senate races. Worst primary ever with all the stupid debates and the RNC promoting Romney for Bush 41 through Rove and Crossroads. One thing that has come out is that the so-called conservative pundits on the radio are not very conservative as they support Romney. Horrible election IMHO! Do wish that Ron Paul had not run and had his son, Rand Paul run who I think would have done a better job. I am even looking at Gary Johnson, former two-term Governor of New Mexico, who the RNC screwed over.

soonerhubs
1/21/2012, 09:01 PM
I think I'll vote for Obama out of spite towards the Republican establishment. Congrats South Carolina, for cheering on an adulterer while ignoring the one true conservative who would have actually reduced government! I'd rather have four more years of the current clown than get force fed some GOP spendthrift.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 10:02 PM
I think I'll vote for Obama out of spite towards the Republican establishment. Congrats South Carolina, for cheering on an adulterer while ignoring the one true conservative who would have actually reduced government! I'd rather have four more years of the current clown than get force fed some GOP spendthrift.

hubs, you must have missed the debate. Newt explained they produced 4 balanced budgets while Speaker of the House. He is no spendthrift.

SicEmBaylor
1/21/2012, 10:05 PM
hubs, you must have missed the debate. Newt explained they produced 4 balanced budgets while Speaker of the House. He is no spendthrift.
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Not_sure_if_serious_small.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 10:55 PM
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Not_sure_if_serious_small.jpg


well, of course he is no Ron Paul, but who is?


I'm waiting for Obama, at some point, to say, "Look, I didn't approve the Keystone pipeline and I won't approve the Lincoln Douglas-style debates." That could be a real downer for the Newt crowd.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/21/2012, 11:00 PM
As I predicted somewhere above, the Evangelicals went for Newt by even a wider margin than the overall margin. Religious folk love a sinner who repents.

soonerhubs
1/21/2012, 11:56 PM
If this trend continues, I am all for the GOP's demise.

soonerhubs
1/22/2012, 07:54 AM
I think I'll vote for Obama out of spite towards the Republican establishment. Congrats South Carolina, for cheering on an adulterer while ignoring the one true conservative who would havetakeually reduced government! I'd rather have four more years of the current clown than get force fed some GOP spendthrift.

hubs, you must have missed the debate. Newt explained they produced 4 balanced budgets while Speaker of the House. He is no spendthrift.
Missed the debate? No.

Am I taking an adulterous piece of **** for his word? No.

The credit he takes for that congressional class is exaggerated.

badger
1/22/2012, 11:03 AM
I think it was this...

KFBHiw7CQIg

Lol, I like how someone stuck the Rick Perry clip at the very end of this :D

Also, it will be interesting to see how Florida goes, because there is more early voting in that state... and it's not your typical southern state. Lots of tax dodgers (legal tax dodgers, mind you --- if you want no income tax and a sunny retirement area, live in Florida), lots of young and old wealthy, retirees and immigrants from Cuba. Many southern states are generations of people, rather than newer residents. Florida's a lot of new people for whatever reason --- taxes, retirement, immigration, etc.

Anyways, the more I see that Newt soundbite, the more infuriated I am with the situation. He's essentially blaming the media and his ex-wife for his infidelity. It's like if your co-worker screwed up majorly then pinned the blame on you for absolutely no valid reason.

I think he got some spur-of-the-moment switchers to vote for him, but that won't last, much like Hillary crying got her some New Hampshire sympathy votes, but it didn't last.

Ron Paul needs to make a dent in this race soon or he's gonna lose his campaign funding much like the dropouts before him.

StoopTroup
1/22/2012, 12:54 PM
I think it was this...

KFBHiw7CQIg

If that's what got Newt a win in South Carolina and he goes on to be the Nominee based on that and his insistence that only he can debate Obama....

Obama will get re-elected.

McCain had that crazy Old Man thing going on too and even tried to counter it will some Sarah Palin and he lost the election of his Life. I actually think McCain would be a better Nominee than Newt.

Unbeleivable that South Carolina voted for this guy. I can only guess they did it as they felt the others were even worse choices than Newt.

StoopTroup
1/22/2012, 01:04 PM
I can understand that Gingrich feels he's in a position to make Romney give up but if folks are voting for him because of his Debates and answers to the questions....I just don't see any need for Gingrich to be saying that Romney thought he could buy South Carolina and blah blah blah about Romney's Tax Returns and the 1300 page Congressional Report about Newt being exonerated.

Why not....the People of South Carolina have spoken and we look forward to more debates and discussing the issues with phloridians?

SanJoaquinSooner
1/23/2012, 02:07 AM
Well, it was fun while it lasted, but .,,,. now it's time for Mitt to get down to business and newter Newt --- and Restore our Future. Super Pac action will launch the Newt-seeking missiles.




http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/249/48/48.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
1/24/2012, 02:00 AM
Sorry Okie, you must be heartbroken.

Your man Mitt cracked on the Dream Act in tonight's debate and said he'd support a version of the Dream Act for military service.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/24/2012, 02:19 AM
NBC instituted an anti-Newt rule for the most recent debate. No standing ovations allowed.

okie52
1/24/2012, 06:22 AM
Sorry Okie, you must be heartbroken.

Your man Mitt cracked on the Dream Act in tonight's debate and said he'd support a version of the Dream Act for military service.

Posthumously?

sappstuf
1/24/2012, 06:30 AM
Posthumously?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4BU4M5jGGfM/Ts5TnlHWqhI/AAAAAAAABzs/-n4_eDOWsb0/s1600/RimshotBadumtsh.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
1/24/2012, 09:35 AM
Posthumously?

The Phoenix shall rise in Nevada!

okie52
1/24/2012, 09:50 AM
The Phoenix shall rise in Nevada!

And do what?

SanJoaquinSooner
1/25/2012, 09:15 AM
And do what?

Win Nevada and Michigan. And I guess Virginia since Newt isn't on the ballot. It's not over yet.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/26/2012, 02:31 AM
Romney may be able to pull off Florida after all. Two different polls show him two percentage points ahead of Newt, within the margin of error.

Intrade showed Mitt surging today to around 75, whereas he was below 50 yesterday. In other words, the money bet is swinging heavily toward Mitt.

If he wins Florida, I'd say he's a rock solid favorite to grab the nomination.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/26/2012, 11:30 AM
Look at intrade now. I'd say Romney is a 95% lock for the nomination, barring a unsuspected scandal.

http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

SanJoaquinSooner
1/26/2012, 03:37 PM
The pubs have the pulse of Florida:

Start another war with Iran, cut off insurance for 30 million Americans, make birth control illegal, cut taxes for millionaires, cut Medicare benefits, let States defund Medicaid, and put a colony on the moon.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/26/2012, 08:06 PM
Pubfest ahora on CNN. Last one before Florida primary.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/26/2012, 10:32 PM
Okie,

Romney just expanded the Dream Act to include not only those willing to serve in the military, but those who are grandmothers too!

In any case, it was a poor performance by Newt. I can't see Newt having any chance of winning Florida.

Intrade: Romney 90, Newt 10.

turn out the lights .... the party's oooverrr.....

LiveLaughLove
1/26/2012, 10:41 PM
I can't see Newt having any chance of winning Florida.

Intrade: Romney 90, Newt 10.

turn out the lights .... the party's oooverrr.....

Good

okie52
1/26/2012, 10:47 PM
So we are going to recruit illegal grandmothers for the military?

I have a feeling boot camp is going to be a lot easier.

Really not following the debates...just catching a few sound bytes and your updates.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2012, 09:12 AM
So we are going to recruit illegal grandmothers for the military?

I have a feeling boot camp is going to be a lot easier.

Really not following the debates...just catching a few sound bytes and your updates.

Under a Romney presidency, if you have an illegal grandma living with you, your house will be a sanctuary house.


It's become clear that Newt thrives as an underdog but wilts as a frontrunner. That, and Romney clearly had superior opposition research in preparation for last night's debate.

SoonerPride
1/27/2012, 09:21 AM
Newt just wings it. He shoots from the hip and doesn't prep or do any opposition research.

His moon base blather shows he is not a serious candidate.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/28/2012, 11:17 PM
It's too late Herman. You're a late day and 9 dollars short. It's over for Newt.


http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/By2BTpZkKVtlPp50.fsYYg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/AP111122172005.jpg

"I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States!" Cain said.

cleller
1/29/2012, 06:34 PM
Sorry if this has been hashed before, but why is Mitt's wealth held against him? The fact that someone, or their dad is smart and savvy enough to make a ton of money doesn't seem to be a liability to me. I'd pick the guy who's able to make money hand over fist over someone who's never distinguished himself in that area anytime.

Besides, George Washington is regarded as the kingfish of all super rich presidents. He has a pretty good reputation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-rank-among-richest-presidents-ever-135357128.html

badger
1/29/2012, 07:31 PM
Sorry if this has been hashed before, but why is Mitt's wealth held against him? The fact that someone, or their dad is smart and savvy enough to make a ton of money doesn't seem to be a liability to me. I'd pick the guy who's able to make money hand over fist over someone who's never distinguished himself in that area anytime.

Besides, George Washington is regarded as the kingfish of all super rich presidents. He has a pretty good reputation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-rank-among-richest-presidents-ever-135357128.html

I think it's just voter angst. In 1998, it was bad to be Democrat. In 2004/06, it was bad to be a Republican. Now, it's bad to be either Republican or Democrat, but ESPECIALLY bad to be part of the so-called "one percent."

SanJoaquinSooner
1/29/2012, 11:12 PM
Yeah, although Mitt doesn't help sometimes with quips such as "bet you $10,000" and as they said about Bush, he was born on third base.

it's the building resentment of the growing economic inequality -- not just Mitt.

StoopTroup
1/29/2012, 11:26 PM
I think Bachmans campaign is going to re-ignite over the next few weeks. She needs to be prepared for it. The left will go full on crazy mode attacking any woman or minority that isn't a liberal.

Brilliant...Zen like.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/29/2012, 11:45 PM
I think Bachmans campaign is going to re-ignite over the next few weeks. She needs to be prepared for it. The left will go full on crazy mode attacking any woman or minority that isn't a liberal.


Brilliant...Zen like.

Apparently the left stole her ignition.

StoopTroup
1/30/2012, 12:29 AM
Sorry if this has been hashed before, but why is Mitt's wealth held against him? The fact that someone, or their dad is smart and savvy enough to make a ton of money doesn't seem to be a liability to me. I'd pick the guy who's able to make money hand over fist over someone who's never distinguished himself in that area anytime.

Besides, George Washington is regarded as the kingfish of all super rich presidents. He has a pretty good reputation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-rank-among-richest-presidents-ever-135357128.html

I heard a bit of a different take on him.

Romney paid $6.2 million in federal taxes over the last two years on income generated almost entirely on investments linked back to his days as a founder and partner in Bain Capital. Less than the 15% he was thinking he paid. 13.9 actually.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-tax-returns-show-more-43-million-135129751.html

Now...as a guy that doesn't have a job and made all that money on interest. Now sure he pays what he legally owes and not a penny more. He's just an honest tax paying citizen. Now in 2007 the Senate Finance Committee tried to pass legislation that would require private equity firms such as Romney's to pay at least 35% instead of the 15% they had been paying since 1987. This Bi-partisan Bill was hit heavily by lobbyists to try and kill the bill and they were successful in doing so. Now who was it that hired those lobbyists? Bain Capital.

Now Romney isn't Bain Capital but he did go on record during that time that he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes.

Why?

They would be his taxes.

Wouldn't you like to have that same kind of clout?

Yes...this bit comes from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter

However....you ask why so many folks are upset with Mitt's Wealth? It's not his Wealth....It's the fact that he can basically control his own Tax Rate already on his investment income and if elected, it's the 1% in America that is behind him in doing so as they all stand to benefit as well. A low or fixed rate makes it very easy for them to invest and earn a great deal of Money. It's a great Deal. His Personal IRA is light years better than the 401K that most of us are being told would be the best way for us to save for our retirement. It's not. Mitt's is.

So go get yourself a **** load of money and do what Mitt does. Don't use your 401K though because you'll get fined and it will get the **** taxed out of it.

Basically....it's proof that the rich get richer and the poor...who gives a **** they don't pay any taxes and the Middle Class? All I need is for them to believe that my Investing will save America and that the dirty Democrats are just taking away the jobs my investing will give back to the middle class.

They won't thought. Mitt doesn't work....he lives off his Investment Income. He's never going to be your Boss. He's just wanting to be your President. The guy who is deeply invested in benefiting you.

The Government does allow you to have a Roth and save up a bit of money every year that you will be able to use once you retire but it's not every going to be 43 Million like Mitt made the last 2 years.

At least Herman Cane could get you a job delivery Pizzas.

Also...don't get me wrong...I'm not mad that Mitt is able to do this either. If I was in his shoes...I'd do it too. I'm not though and probably most of us here aren't. I don't pity him in any way though. If I had my own lobbyists I would try to get a bill that allowed me to pay zero income tax until I had 43 million in investment Income and then kick in 35%. If you will allow me to do this....I will also give $10,000 to your favorite charity or even Rick Perry's favorite charity once I'm at Mitt's income level.

LiveLaughLove
1/30/2012, 11:42 AM
I heard a bit of a different take on him.

Romney paid $6.2 million in federal taxes over the last two years on income generated almost entirely on investments linked back to his days as a founder and partner in Bain Capital. Less than the 15% he was thinking he paid. 13.9 actually.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-tax-returns-show-more-43-million-135129751.html

Now...as a guy that doesn't have a job and made all that money on interest. Now sure he pays what he legally owes and not a penny more. He's just an honest tax paying citizen. Now in 2007 the Senate Finance Committee tried to pass legislation that would require private equity firms such as Romney's to pay at least 35% instead of the 15% they had been paying since 1987. This Bi-partisan Bill was hit heavily by lobbyists to try and kill the bill and they were successful in doing so. Now who was it that hired those lobbyists? Bain Capital.

Now Romney isn't Bain Capital but he did go on record during that time that he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes.

Why?

They would be his taxes.

Wouldn't you like to have that same kind of clout?

Yes...this bit comes from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter

However....you ask why so many folks are upset with Mitt's Wealth? It's not his Wealth....It's the fact that he can basically control his own Tax Rate already on his investment income and if elected, it's the 1% in America that is behind him in doing so as they all stand to benefit as well. A low or fixed rate makes it very easy for them to invest and earn a great deal of Money. It's a great Deal. His Personal IRA is light years better than the 401K that most of us are being told would be the best way for us to save for our retirement. It's not. Mitt's is.

So go get yourself a **** load of money and do what Mitt does. Don't use your 401K though because you'll get fined and it will get the **** taxed out of it.

Basically....it's proof that the rich get richer and the poor...who gives a **** they don't pay any taxes and the Middle Class? All I need is for them to believe that my Investing will save America and that the dirty Democrats are just taking away the jobs my investing will give back to the middle class.

They won't thought. Mitt doesn't work....he lives off his Investment Income. He's never going to be your Boss. He's just wanting to be your President. The guy who is deeply invested in benefiting you.

The Government does allow you to have a Roth and save up a bit of money every year that you will be able to use once you retire but it's not every going to be 43 Million like Mitt made the last 2 years.

At least Herman Cane could get you a job delivery Pizzas.

Also...don't get me wrong...I'm not mad that Mitt is able to do this either. If I was in his shoes...I'd do it too. I'm not though and probably most of us here aren't. I don't pity him in any way though. If I had my own lobbyists I would try to get a bill that allowed me to pay zero income tax until I had 43 million in investment Income and then kick in 35%. If you will allow me to do this....I will also give $10,000 to your favorite charity or even Rick Perry's favorite charity once I'm at Mitt's income level.

The whole premise is wrong (by my account). It's class warfare and it's upside down. The question isn't does Romney pay enough taxes. He pays too much (as we all do that actually pay them).

The question is, is our government out of control on spending. That's a resounding unequivocal yes!

Taxes are for our defense and infrastructure. When money is taken from you and given to me, that's not taxes, that's tyranny. That's bribing an electorate to vote for you, lest they not get their money.

Charities used to provide for the poor and did so ably. Politicians saw the power enherant there and took it for themselves.

I don't have a huge problem with taxes being used for job training for those that truly want a job. The fact is a good portion of the poor don't want to work.

Even today most churches have a food pantry of some kind. They don't require near the red tape the government does. Americans won't go hungry unless they are too lazy to actually go get it.

Mitt pays way too much, and so do most everyone else. Buffetts secretaries rate should be lowered to buffetts rate, not his raised.

badger
1/30/2012, 12:05 PM
Food for thought:

Should taxes be thought of as a dollar amount or a percentage amount?

That's where the big squabble is.

Rich pay more... as a dollar amount.

The rest pay more... as a percentage of income.

Forget "they can afford it," "they deserve a break," "pay too much" etc., should tax rates be considered solely as a percentage of income, or solely as a dollar amount?

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 12:48 PM
And how do you continue to lower taxes and still fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, roads and bridges, health and human services, etc.?

Just more deficit spending? Lowering everyone's taxes would be extremely irresponsible. Taxes need to go up, and mostly on the folks who can afford to pay for it.

badger
1/30/2012, 12:52 PM
And how do you continue to lower taxes and still fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, roads and bridges, health and human services, etc.?

Just more deficit spending? Lowering everyone's taxes would be extremely irresponsible. Taxes need to go up, and mostly on the folks who can afford to pay for it.

That's why I brought up dollar amount versus percentage amount: How do you raise taxes? By dollar, or by percentage?

That is the clever distinction that has people raising a big stink over taxes, and if that matter could be settled, there might be less venom dripping from either side.

I think even Republicans (like me) are not totally opposed to tax increases. They just don't want to see the money wasted and they want it to be fair.

sappstuf
1/30/2012, 12:58 PM
And how do you continue to lower taxes and still fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, roads and bridges, health and human services, etc.?

Just more deficit spending? Lowering everyone's taxes would be extremely irresponsible. Taxes need to go up, and mostly on the folks who can afford to pay for it.

Sorta like the payroll tax holiday Obama keeps harping about?

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 01:12 PM
The whole premise is wrong (by my account). It's class warfare and it's upside down. The question isn't does Romney pay enough taxes. He pays too much (as we all do that actually pay them).

The question is, is our government out of control on spending. That's a resounding unequivocal yes!

Taxes are for our defense and infrastructure. When money is taken from you and given to me, that's not taxes, that's tyranny. That's bribing an electorate to vote for you, lest they not get their money.

Charities used to provide for the poor and did so ably. Politicians saw the power enherant there and took it for themselves.

I don't have a huge problem with taxes being used for job training for those that truly want a job. The fact is a good portion of the poor don't want to work.

Even today most churches have a food pantry of some kind. They don't require near the red tape the government does. Americans won't go hungry unless they are too lazy to actually go get it.

Mitt pays way too much, and so do most everyone else. Buffetts secretaries rate should be lowered to buffetts rate, not his raised.

You're right. It is class warfare. But it is the richest that have screwed the rest of us.

The income inequality in this country is on par with third world countries, not modern democracies.

It is time to make them pay their fair share, like 38%, on all income, invested or otherwise.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:15 PM
That's why I brought up dollar amount versus percentage amount: How do you raise taxes? By dollar, or by percentage?

That is the clever distinction that has people raising a big stink over taxes, and if that matter could be settled, there might be less venom dripping from either side.

I think even Republicans (like me) are not totally opposed to tax increases. They just don't want to see the money wasted and they want it to be fair.

"Fair" is not something which everyone can agree on. In my very humble opinion, the current tax setup, i.e., a progressive setup works pretty well. You pay the same rate on the same income as everyone else. In other words, let's say you earn $400,000 per year, placing you barely into the top tax bracket. You're still paying 10% on your first $17,400, 15% on the amounts between $17,401 and $70,700, 25% on the amounts between $70,701 and $142,000, 33% on the amounts between $142,701 and $217,450, 33% of the amounts between $217,451 and $388,350 and 35% on everything above $388,350.

What's not fair is the LTCG tax of 15% being applied to an unlimited amount, so long as it's LTCG. In Midtownertopia, if we assume the current tax table is fair, capital gains would simply be considered income and be taxed at the same rate as everything else. We shouldn't be favoring one sort of income over any other.

I mean, a lot of people don't really understand the tax code. They think that if you earn $388,351 (one dollar above the top tax bracket) that EVERYTHING you make is taxed at 35%. It surprises me that a lot of folks who pay a lot of taxes or derive a substantial bit of their annual income from tax subsidies don't know very much about how taxes work.

And Republicans like you who are willing to consider tax increases are out of step with your leadership (or maybe it's vice-versa?). The Republican leadership by and large has signed a pledge not to consider any tax increase and the folks holding that pledge are powerful enough to command loyalty to it. When your leadership won't even consider discussing the matter, our government is no longer capable of being effective in this area.

JohnnyMack
1/30/2012, 01:25 PM
And how do you continue to lower taxes and still fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, roads and bridges, health and human services, etc.?

Just more deficit spending? Lowering everyone's taxes would be extremely irresponsible. Taxes need to go up, and mostly on the folks who can afford to pay for it.

Here's an idea that never comes from the mouths of liberals....SPEND LESS F*CKING MONEY!!!!!!!!!

badger
1/30/2012, 01:31 PM
The Republican leadership by and large has signed a pledge not to consider any tax increase and the folks holding that pledge are powerful enough to command loyalty to it.


Here's an idea that never comes from the mouths of liberals....SPEND LESS F*CKING MONEY!!!!!!!!!

I heard that Tom Coburn quit that bi-partisan group to solve the budget crisis because the Dems took spending cuts off the table when he was trying to convince his fellow Republicans to consider the compromise of raising taxes in exchange for spending cuts. Give and take, that sort of thing.

One of the problems is that compromise seems like such a bad word in politics when it shoudn't be. Nothing gets done without it, unless you have one party in power, in which case, that party will soon be outta power after shoving unpopular one-sided legislation down everyone's throats.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:39 PM
Here's an idea that never comes from the mouths of liberals....SPEND LESS F*CKING MONEY!!!!!!!!!

Generalizations will get you nowhere. Of course there are liberals who want to cut the budget. Mostly in different places though. I think most of us can agree that the Department of Defense could stand to be cut significantly and still be pretty effective.

But at the same time, you have to realize that the current deficit spending is so large that to maintain what most would consider to be adequate services and military spending, taxes would have to increase to get to zero, and we need to go way past zero to pay down the debt.

Liberals have to give in on spending cuts, conservatives on tax hikes and there can be no sacred cows.

Curly Bill
1/30/2012, 01:40 PM
Here's an idea that never comes from the mouths of liberals....SPEND LESS F*CKING MONEY!!!!!!!!!

BRILLIANT!!!

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:43 PM
I heard that Tom Coburn quit that bi-partisan group to solve the budget crisis because the Dems took spending cuts off the table when he was trying to convince his fellow Republicans to consider the compromise of raising taxes in exchange for spending cuts. Give and take, that sort of thing.

One of the problems is that compromise seems like such a bad word in politics when it shoudn't be. Nothing gets done without it, unless you have one party in power, in which case, that party will soon be outta power after shoving unpopular one-sided legislation down everyone's throats.

Coburn is in a unique position. He's had challenges from the right, but he's so entrenched that he can basically tell the powers that be to eff off and not really suffer for it in his home district. And as far as him bringing home the bacon like most Senators are expected to by their constituents, he's wisely crafted his image on being the guy who doesn't do that and his constituents love him for it. So basically he's untouchable. Coburn is the exception though and not the rule.

okie52
1/30/2012, 01:45 PM
By self term limiting himself he doesn't have to worry about re-election, either. Not that that really ever mattered to Coburn.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 01:45 PM
Here's an idea that never comes from the mouths of liberals....SPEND LESS F*CKING MONEY!!!!!!!!!

Cut the military by 90%.

There, I agree we need to spend less money.

When the US spends what the next 20 countries do COMBINED, we spend too much freaking money.

Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:48 PM
By self term limiting himself he doesn't have to worry about re-election, either. Not that that really ever mattered to Coburn.

Like I said.. he's the exception.

You can't really hold up a very reasonable Coburn as being representative of the GOP as a whole. They've signed their pledge, and along with it have shot to Hades any chance of being able to make some sort of reasonable compromise to place this country on a sustainable course.

okie52
1/30/2012, 01:48 PM
Cut the military by 90%.

There, I agree we need to spend less money.

90%???? Don't you want to keep a little bit of an edge???

And over what time frame? Tomorrow? 1 year? 30 years?

okie52
1/30/2012, 01:51 PM
Like I said.. he's the exception.

You can't really hold up a very reasonable Coburn as being representative of the GOP as a whole. They've signed their pledge, and along with it have shot to Hades any chance of being able to make some sort of reasonable compromise to place this country on a sustainable course.

I'm not holding up Coburn as being anything akin to either party. He seems to be pragmatic so therefore he is willing to compromise...but only if he thinks the net result will be a positive for the country. I wish there were a whole lot more like him from both parties.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 01:51 PM
90%???? Don't you want to keep a little bit of an edge???

And over what time frame? Tomorrow? 1 year? 30 years?

Tomorrow.

We have an edge, we can blow the world up 100x over.

Close bases around the globe.

Tired of being the world's policeman.

Screw that.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:51 PM
90%???? Don't you want to keep a little bit of an edge???

And over what time frame? Tomorrow? 1 year? 30 years?

I'd spend about as much as the biggest spenders in the EU. 2.3% of GDP. We're at 4.7% right now.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:52 PM
I'm not holding up Coburn as being anything akin to either party. He seems to be pragmatic so therefore he is willing to compromise...but only if he thinks the net result will be a positive for the country. I wish there were a whole lot more like him from both parties.

Totally agree. I may not agree with a lot of his policy stances, but I respect the man greatly. He's a true statesman. Not too many of those in D.C.

badger
1/30/2012, 01:53 PM
Oklahoma's senate delegation is in a unique position, where we have the guy who says no to special interests and pork and such, and another guy who brings home tons of bacon. So, we don't miss out, unless the Dems are in charge (since both are Republican).

If we had two Inhofes or two Coburns, we'd be screwed, but since we have one of each, it works out for both sides -- the ones that want federal money to the state, and the ones that want federal money cut drastically.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 01:53 PM
I'd spend about as much as the biggest spenders in the EU. 2.3% of GDP. We're at 4.7% right now.

OK, then we cut our spending by 50%. That's a good start.

JohnnyMack
1/30/2012, 01:55 PM
Generalizations will get you nowhere. Of course there are liberals who want to cut the budget. Mostly in different places though. I think most of us can agree that the Department of Defense could stand to be cut significantly and still be pretty effective.

But at the same time, you have to realize that the current deficit spending is so large that to maintain what most would consider to be adequate services and military spending, taxes would have to increase to get to zero, and we need to go way past zero to pay down the debt.

Liberals have to give in on spending cuts, conservatives on tax hikes and there can be no sacred cows.

Generalizations are important. You have to approach small problems with a wide net of possible solutions in order to work towards tailoring a fix that matches your problem.

And I actually agree that with the point we're at, the likelihood is strong that taxes may need to be higher in the short term, but what flabbergasts me is that nowhere, at any point do you see liberal politicians talking about slashing the budgets of anything but the DoD. Yes the DoD is too big, but so is 99% of the Federal Government.

XingTheRubicon
1/30/2012, 01:57 PM
There really doesn't need to be any more posts after post #175.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 01:58 PM
Generalizations are important. You have to approach small problems with a wide net of possible solutions in order to work towards tailoring a fix that matches your problem.

And I actually agree that with the point we're at, the likelihood is strong that taxes may need to be higher in the short term, but what flabbergasts me is that nowhere, at any point do you see liberal politicians talking about slashing the budgets of anything but the DoD. Yes the DoD is too big, but so is 99% of the Federal Government.

The DoD is simply the worst offender. I'm sure there are other programs which need to be cut as well. That said, I'm more in favor of raising taxes on the rich than I am on slashing benefits to poor single mothers, but some of both probably has to be done.

okie52
1/30/2012, 02:00 PM
Tomorrow.

We have an edge, we can blow the world up 100x over.

Close bases around the globe.

Tired of being the world's policeman.

Screw that.

When was the last time we used a nuke? Who else has ever used one?

No impact on unemployment by cutting tomorrow?

I'm for cutting the military by 50% over 20-25 years. Reduce the impact on unemployment and allow industries to shift to domestic.

Military interventions should be done only on an imminent danger basis (usually only if we are attacked or about to be). Some bases may be strategic but I am only for keeping them if their rewards outweigh their costs.

I don't know why we need bases in Japan and Germany but maybe there are reasons I am unaware of.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 02:03 PM
And why do we have such a vested interest in South Korea or Taiwan remaining free? The North Koreans/Chinese could take both over tomorrow, and if those countries don't want to spend 4.7% of their GDP to protect themselves, then they deserve their fate. It's hard to make an argument that the American taxpayer is responsible for keeping the Korean peninsula at least half free.

okie52
1/30/2012, 02:12 PM
I don't know how our economy is affected by our military presence/influence in different regions of the world. I am sure some economic benefits are derived but I don't know how to weigh them, economically.

It is a reason I am a strong advocate of energy independence so that our foreign policy isn't dictated by the ME.

hawaii 5-0
1/30/2012, 02:21 PM
The North Koreans would pile over the DMZ to get a decent meal.

5-0

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 02:26 PM
I don't know how our economy is affected by our military presence/influence in different regions of the world. I am sure some economic benefits are derived but I don't know how to weigh them, economically.

It is a reason I am a strong advocate of energy independence so that our foreign policy isn't dictated by the ME.

Of course, there's something to be said for mining the hell out of the ME's resources 'til it runs dry, then shifting more to domestic production and letting them blow each other up to their hearts' content.

cleller
1/30/2012, 04:49 PM
I think even Republicans (like me) are not totally opposed to tax increases. They just don't want to see the money wasted and they want it to be fair.

Same here, I'm on record for being angry at some Republicans for "the pledge" to not raise taxes no matter what. Setting out what you will or won't do before taking a job is a bad practice. The Democrats have got to give up on some of their pet hand-out, but the match looks like some taxes just have to be raised.

The problem is a big chunk of government assistance recipients is their priorities are completely out of whack. They'll spend their cash on their phones, entertainment, and goodies before food, clothing, and shelter. How do you persuade people to be responsible? They don't understand, or have never been taught the philosophy.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 05:13 PM
Same here, I'm on record for being angry at some Republicans for "the pledge" to not raise taxes no matter what. Setting out what you will or won't do before taking a job is a bad practice. The Democrats have got to give up on some of their pet hand-out, but the match looks like some taxes just have to be raised.

This I can agree on. So as a Republican voter, stop voting for Republicans who have signed the pledge. That'd be the only way to combat this destructive behavior.


The problem is a big chunk of government assistance recipients is their priorities are completely out of whack. They'll spend their cash on their phones, entertainment, and goodies before food, clothing, and shelter. How do you persuade people to be responsible? They don't understand, or have never been taught the philosophy.

That's a little unfair. Sure, some do misuse their benefits. A lot of my cases involve people on the government dole. I very rarely (if ever) see folks living high on the hog as you describe. Anecdotal, sure, but no moreso than what you said, and I could probably claim a larger statistical sample :)

But blaming the welfare recipients isn't an excuse for poor leadership at the top. Welfare recipients, by and large are not the smartest folks in society. They will, however, take what they're given and try to blend with what they see as a middle class lifestyle. We've done a lot to try and find efficiencies in the way we've approached the welfare state, e.g., housing projects, but more often than not, tinkering with the system has resulted in the system blowing up in our faces.

And the answer can't simply be "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" either, or we could very well be facing some serious and destabilizing violence.

cleller
1/30/2012, 07:19 PM
This I can agree on. So as a Republican voter, stop voting for Republicans who have signed the pledge. That'd be the only way to combat this destructive behavior.



That's a little unfair. Sure, some do misuse their benefits. A lot of my cases involve people on the government dole. I very rarely (if ever) see folks living high on the hog as you describe. Anecdotal, sure, but no moreso than what you said, and I could probably claim a larger statistical sample :)

But blaming the welfare recipients isn't an excuse for poor leadership at the top. Welfare recipients, by and large are not the smartest folks in society. They will, however, take what they're given and try to blend with what they see as a middle class lifestyle. We've done a lot to try and find efficiencies in the way we've approached the welfare state, e.g., housing projects, but more often than not, tinkering with the system has resulted in the system blowing up in our faces.

And the answer can't simply be "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" either, or we could very well be facing some serious and destabilizing violence.

To be fair, I said "a big chunk" of these recipients. Not a very good term, I admit. Lets say its 30-40%. For instance: If I were in such a desperate condition that I turned to the government for money, I would not go to movies, clubs, any sort of entertainment. If I had a phone, it would be strictly the cheapest thing available, to seek employment.
I'd spend all day, every day looking for employment. No money would be spent on TV, computers, nail painting, body art, alcohol, tobacco, pop, candy, crank, whack, weed, etc.

I'm sure we've both seem lots of poor people. I spent 25 years working with them every day. I'd say 30-40% is a good estimate of how many were not committed to trying to break free of assistance.

At any rate, people that cannot responsibly handle the tax money provided them is an obstacle with no clear solution.

At least we can go at it without all caps and manic chatter. And I hope somebody mounts you for saying "let them eat cake" in french on Soonerfans. (copy-paste-google)

Yes, I'm sure there would be violence if we told these people the government would no longer provide for them. A sorry state of affairs.

cleller
1/30/2012, 07:24 PM
Cut the military by 90%.

There, I agree we need to spend less money.

When the US spends what the next 20 countries do COMBINED, we spend too much freaking money.

Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I'm just curious if you are actually serious about that 90% figure. It would mean we would essentially have no armed forces, as well as create an economic calamity due to the all the jobs, cities, industries, etc that exist because of our armed forces.

Midtowner
1/30/2012, 07:42 PM
I'm just curious if you are actually serious about that 90% figure. It would mean we would essentially have no armed forces, as well as create an economic calamity due to the all the jobs, cities, industries, etc that exist because of our armed forces.

ITT, a Republican admits that government spending can grow the economy.

(careful, you are contradicting talking points and "Austrian economics" or whatever the economic theory du jour is, you may get your R-card pulled)

LiveLaughLove
1/30/2012, 08:03 PM
You're right. It is class warfare. But it is the richest that have screwed the rest of us.

The income inequality in this country is on par with third world countries, not modern democracies.

It is time to make them pay their fair share, like 38%, on all income, invested or otherwise.

Exactly how has a rich person screwed you?

You can become rich just like they are. America affords that opportunity to anyone willing to go for it.

No rich person is taking your share of the pie, because it's not a zero sum gain. If Romney makes a dollar you can too. He didn't take yours.

If the debt was gone, would you be one penny richer? I'm for paying down the debt but it's ludicrous to think the have nots would suddenly become the haves because of it.

The have nots will become haves when they go out, take a risk, and produce a good or service that people will pay for. Period. Rich people don't stand in the way of that.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 08:11 PM
Cut the military by 90%.

There, I agree we need to spend less money.

When the US spends what the next 20 countries do COMBINED, we spend too much freaking money.

Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I'm just curious if you are actually serious about that 90% figure. It would mean we would essentially have no armed forces, as well as create an economic calamity due to the all the jobs, cities, industries, etc that exist because of our armed forces.

So it's welfare or stimulus or whatever catch phrase you wanna dub it.

Ok.

Then spend those dollars building bridges and schools here.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 08:22 PM
You're right. It is class warfare. But it is the richest that have screwed the rest of us.

The income inequality in this country is on par with third world countries, not modern democracies.

It is time to make them pay their fair share, like 38%, on all income, invested or otherwise.

Exactly how has a rich person screwed you?

You can become rich just like they are. America affords that opportunity to anyone willing to go for it.

No rich person is taking your share of the pie, because it's not a zero sum gain. If Romney makes a dollar you can too. He didn't take yours.

If the debt was gone, would you be one penny richer? I'm for paying down the debt but it's ludicrous to think the have nots would suddenly become the haves because of it.

The have nots will become haves when they go out, take a risk, and produce a good or service that people will pay for. Period. Rich people don't stand in the way of that.

Of course there is only a finite amount of capital. When the 400 richest have amassed as much wealth as 150,000,000 Americans there is a systemic imbalance.

http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

How have the rich screwed me? The same way they screwed you. By buying votes in Congress to ensure that their wealth grows exponentially and yours does not.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer

The economic policies have tilted the playing field.

And for every Bill Gates who earned his vast fortune, there are progeny like the Walton spawn, who did exactly what to be billionaires? Oh, that's right. They won the genetic lottery and happened to be born to the founder of Wal Mart. Huzzah for them.

Far from creating jobs with their vast wealth, the unbridled greed of the uber wealthy is stifling economic growth in this country.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/node/731

cleller
1/30/2012, 08:33 PM
So it's welfare or stimulus or whatever catch phrase you wanna dub it.

Ok.

Then spend those dollars building bridges and schools here.

Send our condolences to the Filipinos, South Koreans, Tiawanese, Israelis, Georgians.... Gee, I sound like a Democrat now.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 09:18 PM
Send our condolences to the Filipinos, South Koreans, Tiawanese, Israelis, Georgians.... Gee, I sound like a Democrat now.

We can no longer afford to defend the world.


If, however, they would like to pay for our services, we have a ready and available mercenary force at their disposal.

But you and I shouldn't be asked to foot the bill.

Scale our military spending back to about the size of China's annual budget. It's not 90% less than what we spend now, but about 83%. We can still spend VAST sums on the military industrial complex. There is no justification for spending nearly 5% of GDP on it.

sappstuf
1/30/2012, 10:20 PM
ITT, a Republican admits that government spending can grow the economy.

(careful, you are contradicting talking points and "Austrian economics" or whatever the economic theory du jour is, you may get your R-card pulled)

Obama has been spending money like mad for 3 years and we have a GDP increase under 2% to show for it...

If only we racked up $3 trillion in deficits annually maybe we could get GDP growth up to 4%.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 10:25 PM
Obama has been spending money like mad for 3 years and we have a GDP increase under 2% to show for it...

If only we racked up $3 trillion in deficits annually maybe we could get GDP growth up to 4%.

http://blog.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

http://wp.mises.org/blog/NI_pct_cng.jpg

http://wp.mises.org/blog/IA_pct_chng.jpg

cleller
1/30/2012, 10:27 PM
OK, I'm sold. We'll cut the military budget by 90%. That was so easy, lets also cut the welfare, food stamp and federal housing budget by 90%. If its OK for our troops, it should be OK for everyone. Simplicity.

Things are looking better already. Its a goose and gander utopia.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 10:30 PM
OK, I'm sold. We'll cut the military budget by 90%. That was so easy, lets also cut the welfare, food stamp and federal housing budget by 90%. If its OK for our troops, it should be OK for everyone. Simplicity.

Things are looking better already. Its a goose and gander utopia.

I'm ok with that.

If a balanced budget is what we need, then tax the richest 1% like we did in the 1950s (90% tax bracket) and cut spending.
Military first.
Old people second.
Poor people third.

Sure there will be pain, but this way everyone tightens their belt. Not just the poor and middle class.

We're all in this together.

hawaii 5-0
1/30/2012, 10:31 PM
I'm packing my belongings in a hankie. Put a pole thru it and hit the rails.

"This land is your land, this land is my land"..........


My bank account in Grand Cayman should be OK for awhile.

5-0

StoopTroup
1/30/2012, 10:32 PM
The whole premise is wrong (by my account). It's class warfare and it's upside down. The question isn't does Romney pay enough taxes. He pays too much (as we all do that actually pay them).

The question is, is our government out of control on spending. That's a resounding unequivocal yes!

Taxes are for our defense and infrastructure. When money is taken from you and given to me, that's not taxes, that's tyranny. That's bribing an electorate to vote for you, lest they not get their money.

Charities used to provide for the poor and did so ably. Politicians saw the power enherant there and took it for themselves.

I don't have a huge problem with taxes being used for job training for those that truly want a job. The fact is a good portion of the poor don't want to work.

Even today most churches have a food pantry of some kind. They don't require near the red tape the government does. Americans won't go hungry unless they are too lazy to actually go get it.

Mitt pays way too much, and so do most everyone else. Buffetts secretaries rate should be lowered to buffetts rate, not his raised.

See....you missed the whole point. You asked why folks have a problem with Mitt and the money. I'm giving you a possible scenario. Given that scenario was put together by The Daily Show...I think it's a solid premise as to why he lost South Carolina in 2008 and came in 4th place and why he lost to Santorum in Iowa in 2011. Why he lost to Newt in South Carolina in 2012.

People think he's a fraud. He talks about how Newt getting paid as a lobbyist but his old firm hired lobbyists to squash a bill that would raise his taxes. He didn't then hire them to lobby to get Buffet's Secretary or you or my Taxes lowered. He does it to help the folks that he can relate to. That's not me or you my friend.

As far as the Churches and their food pantries go....Catholic Charities here in Tulsa helps as many people as they can every day but they run out of food. They can only help so many. The Tulsa Food Bank is the largest food resource for folks in need and they too are really struggling to help all the people that need assistance. The assistance these folks get isn't even enough to feed them until they get back on their feet....it's really just to help keep them from having to rely on Family and friends 24/7 that are also feeling the pain. Both the Food Bank and CC and the other United Way agencies all are hurting. They aren't really able to help the way the folks who come to them need. Kids that are in School get fed better than their Parents because of the lunch programs. Those are tax based. They would lose that with your plan. I don't think that is a great idea as Kids really need decent meals the most when they are growing up. It will lead to them being healthier and having less problems when they get older.

You are really talking about the way you think it should be. I'm trying to explain the way it is. Then there is the way maybe it ought to be. Those are always three very different things when we all begin to talk about this stuff.

I don't really want to raise Mitt's taxes but I think it would be nice if they went back to closing off all those loopholes they created for their Accountants to use or maybe start laying out legislation that would really help Americans. What he's doing is the same Class Warfare you claim The Daily Show was promoting. Why not quit taxing food at the Grocery Store? Why not quit taxing the crap out of me when I buy a new American Vehicle? Why not give employers a Tax Break for bringing home the Job they sent overseas that so many of my Family who all have College Educations for and were experts at doing? Instead he does things like he did to stop the 1% from getting hurt. It's not going to be the end of his World if for the next 4 years....he and the folks richer than him were to pay 35%. I'm not even going to ask for a break. If I thought it would help our Country I would even agree to pay more. We have done that for education here in Tulsa for years. When folks felt the cause was justified....they didn't scream bloody murder and form a Super Pac to promote stopping taxes being raised. They all voted to raise the taxes and make sure their kids were getting a good education in up to date facilities. We aren't timid about it either. We support good causes.

Now back to your original question as to why folks give him such a hard time about his money....

They don't think he's like them, they don't trust him and they think he's disingenuous. Now...in phlorida right now.....it seems they like him a hell of a lot more than Newt right now but that's phlorida and it's loaded with retired folks you live off their investments. I'm not shocked that they are voting for Romney right now.

cleller
1/30/2012, 10:48 PM
I'm ok with that.

If a balanced budget is what we need, then tax the richest 1% like we did in the 1950s (90% tax bracket) and cut spending.
Military first.
Old people second.
Poor people third.

Sure there will be pain, but this way everyone tightens their belt. Not just the poor and middle class.

We're all in this together.

There is a glimmer of light on the horizon. Someone else who will allow suffering. Can't abide anyone getting hit by a 90% tax bracket, though. What's the use in trying for only 10%? Even John Lennon cried BS on that. You could argue it cost him his life.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 10:49 PM
There is a glimmer of light on the horizon. Someone else who will allow suffering. Can't abide anyone getting hit by a 90% tax bracket, though. What's the use in trying for only 10%? Even John Lennon cried BS on that.

I'll take 10% of 21,000,000 while just sitting on my butt.

Or campaigning for president.

And I wouldn't whine one bit about it.

sappstuf
1/30/2012, 10:52 PM
http://blog.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

http://wp.mises.org/blog/NI_pct_cng.jpg

http://wp.mises.org/blog/IA_pct_chng.jpg

So a $780 billion stimulus plan plus SS going increasingly into the red equals negative spending.. Who knew!

Also under that chart Obama seems to be getting "credit" for TARP getting repaid that was spent under Bush... That doesn't seem quite honest does it?

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 10:56 PM
So a $780 billion stimulus plan plus SS going increasingly into the red equals negative spending.. Who knew!

Also under that chart Obama seems to be getting "credit" for TARP getting repaid that was spent under Bush... That doesn't seem quite honest does it?

Looking beyond the charts, did you also happen to read the accompanying text?

This was in reply to the charge that President Obama had vastly increased the size of the federal budget, (I believe the quote was "spending money like mad") when that clearly is not the case.

Here is another source stating essentially the same facts...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt

cleller
1/30/2012, 11:12 PM
I'll take 10% of 21,000,000 while just sitting on my butt.

Or campaigning for president.

And I wouldn't whine one bit about it.

$21 million? How does anyone get that kind of money? You'd be in the upper half of the most hated 1%.

If George Harrison and John Lennon bitched about giving away 90% of their wealth, anyone will. You gotta make it first, then you can decide if someone taking it from you is OK or not. Let us know.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 11:15 PM
$21 million? How does anyone get that kind of money? You'd be in the upper half of the most hated 1%.

If George Harrison and John Lennon bitched about giving away 90% of their wealth, anyone will. You gotta make it first, then you can decide if someone taking it from you is OK or not. Let us know.

Gotta make it first? You sure about that?

Or can I be born into billions?

I'll change my last name to Walton.

Or Getty.

Or Rockefeller.

And then you can tax me at 90%.

I promise I'll be very happy.

Thanks!

okie52
1/30/2012, 11:25 PM
Gotta make it first? You sure about that?

Or can I be born into billions?

I'll change my last name to Walton.

Or Getty.

Or Rockefeller.

And then you can tax me at 90%.

I promise I'll be very happy.

Thanks!

Do you think you are owed the money Sam Walton made?

badger
1/30/2012, 11:36 PM
The Tulsa Food Bank is the largest food resource for folks in need and they too are really struggling to help all the people that need assistance.

I remember volunteering there once, if you're referring to Eastern Oklahoma Food Bank. Basically, our task was to take tons of donated cans and sort them by type. All the black eyed peas in one area, all the green beans in another, etc.

So many of the cans were outdated, but the main worker said that they were still good a few years after expiration date. Ummm... ok...

And then, near the end of volunteer time, someone dropped a can and it exploded all over the floor. And let me tell you, that outta date way past expiration can was the most foul smelling can of food my nose has ever smelled.

I wish that this country could provide better for its own than the can that spewed all over the floor that day. Alas, a down economy is when everyone, rich, middle class and even those poor people that find ways to give, cut back on charitable donations.

SoonerPride
1/30/2012, 11:40 PM
Gotta make it first? You sure about that?

Or can I be born into billions?

I'll change my last name to Walton.

Or Getty.

Or Rockefeller.

And then you can tax me at 90%.

I promise I'll be very happy.

Thanks!

Do you think you are owed the money Sam Walton made?

Tell me again how his kids earned it as well.

Turd_Ferguson
1/30/2012, 11:47 PM
Tell me again how his kids earned it as well.Tell me again how you deserve part of what the waltons have.

cleller
1/30/2012, 11:55 PM
Gotta make it first? You sure about that?

Or can I be born into billions?

I'll change my last name to Walton.

Or Getty.

Or Rockefeller.

And then you can tax me at 90%.

I promise I'll be very happy.

Thanks!

Oh brother. Give me 2 million dollars and I will be happy, and won't whine. Pretty simple idea. What are you, lazy, self important, a slacker?

Yes, you'd be happy, if someone gave you the money. However, our economy works because people that work hard enough to make that money use it to expand their businesses, not give it to the government. That is how jobs are created, and other people work and save toward their goals.

What do you do after you're handed your $2 million? Sit around? You might as well, if 90% of whatever you made is taken from you.

The Waltons, Gettys, etc used their money to expand their businesses, not just to sit back and let the government take it away. They had drive, ambition, and a desire to see something grow, not just keep their refrigerator stocked, and cable TV paid for life.

Give me money and I'll be happy. That pretty well sums your position up. Give me something.

Go make your own money first. Have some kind of ambition. Then give it away and talk like a big man.

When you get your first paycheck, send 90% back to Uncle Sam, and see how long you last.

SoonerPride
1/31/2012, 12:29 AM
Gotta make it first? You sure about that?

Or can I be born into billions?

I'll change my last name to Walton.

Or Getty.

Or Rockefeller.

And then you can tax me at 90%.

I promise I'll be very happy.

Thanks!

Oh brother. Give me 2 million dollars and I will be happy, and won't whine. Pretty simple idea. What are you, lazy, self important, a slacker?

Yes, you'd be happy, if someone gave you the money. However, our economy works because people that work hard enough to make that money use it to expand their businesses, not give it to the government. That is how jobs are created, and other people work and save toward their goals.

What do you do after you're handed your $2 million? Sit around? You might as well, if 90% of whatever you made is taken from you.

The Waltons, Gettys, etc used their money to expand their businesses, not just to sit back and let the government take it away. They had drive, ambition, and a desire to see something grow, not just keep their refrigerator stocked, and cable TV paid for life.

Give me money and I'll be happy. That pretty well sums your position up. Give me something.

Go make your own money first. Have some kind of ambition. Then give it away and talk like a big man.

When you get your first paycheck, send 90% back to Uncle Sam, and see how long you last.

My ambition is to be born wealthy.

okie52
1/31/2012, 12:32 AM
Tell me again how his kids earned it as well.

He earned it. His to will to his heirs....or do, again, you think he owes it to you?

okie52
1/31/2012, 12:33 AM
My ambition is to be born wealthy.

Evidently you need to try harder.

sappstuf
1/31/2012, 12:44 AM
Looking beyond the charts, did you also happen to read the accompanying text?

This was in reply to the charge that President Obama had vastly increased the size of the federal budget, (I believe the quote was "spending money like mad") when that clearly is not the case.

Here is another source stating essentially the same facts...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt

Yeah, they are both rather nonsensical, but at least the Business Insider one is shorter... So let's talk about it.


As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.

So for some reason it is counting 9 years under Bush, I thought he was president for 8, but it is your article, so I will go with it. It is counting 9 years versus 3 years and then comparing the total. That is an obvious apples to oranges comparison. However, we can do some simple math and compare on an annual basis.

Bush increased spending by $1.3 trillion on 9 years per your article. That comes out to a $144 billion annual increase over his presidency.

Obama has increased spending by $600 billion over 3 years.. That comes out to a $200 billion annual increase so far over his presidency.

What is that, around a 30% increase in annual spending? I don't think calling that increase "spending money like mad" is out of the realm.

Now we all know it is silly to say that Bush was president for 9 years, but that is what the article is implying. I will give your article a pass and say that Bush raised spending by 1.3 trillion over 8 years, although I question if it is really $1.3 trillion or if your article's math is wrong.

So.. $1.3 trillion divided by 8 years comes out to $162 billion annual increase. Still below what your article's annual spending increase has been under Obama.

Am I missing something? I could be.. I am a little sleep deprived at the moment.

So that article is at complete odds with your first article that is somehow claiming Obama has decreased federal outlays since he has been in office. I don't have the time or inclination to continue to write about that. Simply looking at CBO charts of Obamacare future outlays completely destroys that argument.

cleller
1/31/2012, 08:42 AM
The discussions here are way better than on the Demfest board. Over there, all they do is gush about all the upcoming gay weddings and if George Clooney will run for president.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/31/2012, 08:58 AM
The discussions here are way better than on the Demfest board. Over there, all they do is gush about all the upcoming gay weddings and if George Clooney will run for president.

1. Obama is unchallenged for the nomination, so not much DonkFest drama.

The pubfest just hasn't been the same since Michelle and Herman were eliminated. And that scholar Rick Perry. If they ever have a reunion show, people will see Jon Huntsman and say, "Who's that guy? I don't remember him at all."

But Herman is back on the show as Newt's wing man, although it's probably too little too late. Newt/Herman would be one hell of a GOP ticket though.




2. Four years ago Ron Paul made his big splash, but as time wore on, people started noticing he displayed zero sense of humor. An occasional bit of humor is important with so much public politicing and TV airtime. I must say, however, that he's been funny as hell in the last few debates.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/1/2012, 12:34 AM
GOP candidates for all offices across the country are thinking "we'll feel more comfortable with Mitt on the ticket with us instead of Newt."

Sarah Palin says, on the other hand, "we need to keep shaking things up. That's the only way we can keep the discussion going on what we're really about."

cleller
2/1/2012, 09:21 AM
GOP candidates for all offices across the country are thinking "we'll feel more comfortable with Mitt on the ticket with us instead of Newt."

Sarah Palin says, on the other hand, "we need to keep shaking things up. That's the only way we can keep the discussion going on what we're really about."

If Sarah want to shake things up, she should do more fitness modeling.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/2/2012, 12:56 AM
First Herman, and now, Donald Trump is jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon. And Palin is ridin along too.

Herman, Trump, and Palin.

Name a stud, a dud, and a spud.

hawaii 5-0
2/2/2012, 01:37 AM
Seems to be the World vs. Mitt and his $$$$.

I'm glad the World isn't giving in.


5-0

TheHumanAlphabet
2/2/2012, 04:31 AM
Evidently you need to try harder.

Or try again...

SanJoaquinSooner
2/2/2012, 11:16 AM
First Herman, and now, Donald Trump is jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon. And Palin is ridin along too.

Herman, Trump, and Palin.

Name a stud, a dud, and a spud.

Early reports were apparently inaccurate. Dud goes to Romney.

And I forgot about the Rick Perry endorsement of Newt. Thud.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/3/2012, 09:14 AM
Great numbers in Jobs report out this morning. If trend continues it won't help pub nominee in November.

badger
2/3/2012, 09:19 AM
Great numbers in Jobs report out this morning. If trend continues it won't help pub nominee in November.

In some respects its almost easier to start your term in bad times so that things can improve under your watch. I'm thinking Gov. Henry back when he started in 2002. State was plundering its rainy day fund, and a young badger was seeing her tuition skyrocket because they had to keep cutting the higher ed budget.

Henry was easily re-elected in 2006, even with a state as red as ours. Was it because he was running against Ernest Istook, or was it because our state finances were suddenly tons better off after four years of Henry as governor?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/3/2012, 10:25 AM
In some respects its almost easier to start your term in bad times so that things can improve under your watch. I'm thinking Gov. Henry back when he started in 2002. State was plundering its rainy day fund, and a young badger was seeing her tuition skyrocket because they had to keep cutting the higher ed budget.

Henry was easily re-elected in 2006, even with a state as red as ours. Was it because he was running against Ernest Istook, or was it because our state finances were suddenly tons better off after four years of Henry as governor?

Ernest Istook. God help(ed) us.

okie52
2/3/2012, 10:35 AM
In some respects its almost easier to start your term in bad times so that things can improve under your watch. I'm thinking Gov. Henry back when he started in 2002. State was plundering its rainy day fund, and a young badger was seeing her tuition skyrocket because they had to keep cutting the higher ed budget.

Henry was easily re-elected in 2006, even with a state as red as ours. Was it because he was running against Ernest Istook, or was it because our state finances were suddenly tons better off after four years of Henry as governor?

Henry started out in bad times in OK? Those were pretty good times unless my memory has failed me (which is possible). Henry got to ride the oil boom in OK for most of his 2 terms. I haven't really figured out why Istook chose that time to run.

cleller
2/3/2012, 09:55 PM
Brad Henry. Nice guy, beautiful wife, but not the most intelligent sounding guy ever. Not that I think Fallin is, either. Just more examples of the mediocrity of candidates, since the truly dynamic and brilliant would scoff at political office now.

badger
2/4/2012, 11:58 AM
Henry started out in bad times in OK? Those were pretty good times unless my memory has failed me (which is possible). Henry got to ride the oil boom in OK for most of his 2 terms. I haven't really figured out why Istook chose that time to run.

the start of his tenure had budget shortfall years if i recall correctly.

okie52
2/4/2012, 12:28 PM
the start of his tenure had budget shortfall years if i recall correctly.

Surprising if it did since he took office in January 2003. If he did shortfalls they were guaranteed to be shortlived (for him or anyone else) because the oil boom was certainly underway by that time and generated large revenues, particularly from 2005-2008.

StoopTroup
2/5/2012, 03:16 AM
Brad Henry. Nice guy, beautiful wife, but not the most intelligent sounding guy ever. Not that I think Fallin is, either. Just more examples of the mediocrity of candidates, since the truly dynamic and brilliant would scoff at political office now.

I'll take honest over intelligent sounding. Now...don't get me wrong....I'd like Intelligent sounding too but our States History as far as politicians isn't that great so Honest seems like a great place to start.

I don't know how Fallin's Term will turn out as far as honest but so far I'm not near as worried about her as I was when she was elected. Maybe I just haven't heard enough about all she's done so far.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/5/2012, 03:15 PM
If the economy continues to improve during 2012, Romney may want to consider the

"Don't vote for Pedro" strategy.

In Game 7 of the World Series a few years ago, the Red Sox left Pedro Martinez in to pitch, instead of bringing in The Closer - with disasterous results.

Romney will have to sell himself as The Closer.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/5/2012, 03:46 PM
Course, Newt says, "Romney's no closer!"

Newt's strategy is All About Texas. Winner take all.

Can he limp along until Texas? It may not be financially easy to do that.

badger
2/6/2012, 11:54 AM
Coburn said he won't support Newt.

Link (http://newsok.com/sen.-tom-coburn-defends-relationship-with-obama-at-edmond-town-hall-meeting/article/3646420#ixzz1lbzP4VH9)

A better reason than mine --- that he utterly repulses me :mad:

SanJoaquinSooner
2/7/2012, 11:55 PM
SantorumFest tonight!

Condom recall!

SanJoaquinSooner
2/8/2012, 12:59 AM
Santorum might need to tweak his 'Myth of Global Warming' speech for the general election:



If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does, which is boom and bust," Santorum said at an energy summit in Colorado. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

SanJoaquinSooner
2/8/2012, 01:50 AM
Santorum for the triple play!!!!

SanJoaquinSooner
2/13/2012, 01:37 PM
Is there a libertarian case for the nomination of Rick Satorum?

Pay tention Sic Em.


A CATO Scholar makes such an argument.

It goes something like this:

Christian conservatives love him for his social conservatism and politics of faith. Neoconservatives would also have a candidate committed to transforming the world through foreign policy and military action.

But in the general election, he would drive more secular and independent voters away from the GOP ticket. A ten-point Republican loss in a year when economic weakness suggested a close race would be a political disaster not just for the candidate and his party but also for the ideas they embody. Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.

Such a disaster might open the door for a different kind of GOP, a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs. Ron Paul has taken some steps this year toward creating such a party. He has attracted votes and inspired activism. His son or another candidate might take up the cause in 2016 and build on Paul’s achievements. Fanciful thinking? Perhaps, but it may take an electoral disaster to free the GOP from the ideas and forces that Rick Santorum represents.


Full article here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14091