Gingrich Dismantles Pelosi's Liberal Math on Food Stamps

[AthenasConquest]

Newt is brilliant

[DionAFields]

I love NEWT......."LET EM CAKE NEWT" should be the new campaign slogan. Bring it on Newt. The free market can't come down fast enough for you. The fact is NEWT people don't work when they don't get welfare. THEY PROTEST thank God. So go ahead put this idiot in lol ha ha. Hope that the economy doesn't go any further down hill Newt. Lots more protesters means good bye free market dictators.

[sunandmoon111]

sounds all well and good, but No matter how much we lower taxes, and strip away "job killing" regulations , its really up to the businesses on whether they hire or not, and why would they, if they can get labor cheaper in 3rd world countries. Newt is not being honest. He should tell the American people that a huge chunk of the middle class is going bye bye, and there will not be enough good paying jobs for everyone. No political party or congressional bill can fix that. The damage is done.

[Tsugua21]

@sunandmoon111 End Minimum wage and affirmative action and the jobs will comeback. Lower taxes and cut government spending and the jobs will comeback.

[Luminareo]

@Tsugua21

When was America financially successful?

When we had a higher minimum wage (inflation) and higher spending/taxes. Look it up.

[Tsugua21]

@Luminareo Since you like higher taxes so much, why don't you pay more taxes. Unemployment is a ridiculous 8.5% and minimum wage is as high as it's ever been $7.25. Liberals like you are going to ruin this country, if you like socialism so much why don't you move to France.

[Luminareo]

@Tsugua21

Always this argument. Firstly, I do pay more taxes. Secondly, I need you to pay higher taxes too. I'm not building your roads alone. Adjusting for inflation, minimum wage was ten bucks back in the fifties. You know, when USA was on the rise and all. Unemployment is high and going down despite Bush's best efforts.

Also, I live in Canada.

[Tsugua21]

@Luminareo You say that "minimum wage was ten bucks back in the fifties" man, that is the dumbest thing i heard all month, people in the fifties were making like a $1.00 an hour if that. Please don't ever vote, your to stupid. Let me guess you were raised by a single mother and you think the world owes you something.

[Luminareo]

@Tsugua21

Inflation inflation inflation. People were making one dollar an hour which was worth a LOT more back then. It was a higher percentage of their employer's income. Do you not know what inflation is?

[BBCater]

The real problem here is INTENT. See, Nancy believes - BELIEVES - that her electorate looks to her for "stuff". She believes that her call is to GIVE people things, and to eliminate their need to provide for themselves. She's probably right at about 40%, and growing. And the people who stalwartly support her are probably - by-and-large - people who WANT "stuff". But, the people who DON'T want "stuff" think - "hey - why does she think I can't do this myself?" But, those people have no VOICE.

[BBCater]

@BBCater If you went to a Pelosi rally and said "Thanks Nancy - but can I just do it myself?" She would probably have a coronary episode. I mean, this woman actually BELIEVES that an unemployment check CREATES growth. You simply can't negotiate with someone who is that patently stupid. If you take a dollar from me and give it to someone else, and that person IMMEDIATELY spends the dollar... did the economy grow? Did that dollar just become $1.70 because it was spent? Imbecilic.

[imanerd36]

Nancy Pelosi’s math is wrong. For every $1.00 of food stamps given, $1.84 is created in the economy (instead of Pelosi’s claim of $ 1.79. Maybe if Fox and their republican friends would spend 5 seconds on Google, they would find out how the USDA calculates that figure. The USDA has published several documents about this including "CALCULATION METHODOLOGY" and "Explaining the Food Stamp Cash-Out Puzzle."

[ToddAldrich]

@imanerd36 And if you liberals would spend a half a second in an economic book, you would understand that this calculation is only half of the picture. That dollar and it's supposed$1.84 payoff comes at the EXPENSE of a permanent job that would return exponentially more than this.

[bladeere14]

Democrats are far from liberal, look at our canadian liberal party and compare it to the democrats, there is no comparison, america is dominated by conservatives, which is why its not making any progress.

[puffball9]

@bladeere14 eh guy, america is not dominated by conservatives. democrats maybe more conservative than canadian liberals but they are not conservative. all liberalism does is hinder personal growth and make the economy look like it is good by giving a bunch of money to the government to fund programs that they suck at running. fuck liberals!

[DeathKorps94]

Nancy Pelosi should be tried for treason

[TreyParkersBitch]

Yeah...okay. Every Democrat is a liberal and thinks like one. This guy is a douchebag who thinks more with his cock apparently. I'm not associated with either party as I think it's all crap but I'll slit my wrists and bleed into a cup before I vote Republican. These people do not give a shit about the common man. Go ahead and vote them all back in so we can have 8 more years of failed Republican bullshit that leave people suffering. You're all idiots...and FUCK Newt Gingrich.

[mrpotatoheadracing]

I think we know who the idiots are.

[ToddAldrich]

@TreyParkersBitch Um. The failed economic policies that destroyed the economy and hurt the "common" man were the Democrat pushed LIBERAL policies. The supposed Republican Bullshit was not Republican bullshit. It was Democrat Bullshit that a Republican adapted and blended with a VERY SMALL amount of Republican policies.

[86THECRITIC]

@ToddAldrich You know, blaming one group of people for the collapse of the economy doesnt work. The economy runs itself.

[ToddAldrich]

@86THECRITIC To some degree you are correct, but it can only run in the environment that it is given. Some business environments are more favorable than others and SOME make it very difficult to survive at all. It is a FACT that the government - following liberal policies (both parties participated) both encouraged and forced financial institutions to make loans they would not have otherwise made. It is a FACT that the derivatives etc. were devised to deal with the risk that was forced on them.

[ToddAldrich]

@86THECRITIC It is a FACT that higher taxes, excessive regulations and a hostile legal environment drove many businesses to explore moving overseas. If we were more hospitable they would never have moved in the first place. Our problems were caused by both Republicans and Democrats, but LIBERAL Republicans and Democrats, not conservative ones.

[86THECRITIC]

@ToddAldrich Good thing I'm a moderate, then.

[ToddAldrich]

@86THECRITIC  I guess so!

[visitorxox]

Go to the polls & Vote the Dems OUT. It's a sad fact that America is facing rampant Socialism with the current administration. Just wait until ObamaCare hits with hidden taxes on everything you like and need. When Medicare is robbed dry to pay 40% to ObamaCare for a young person. Use your vote to get Dems out of office in November. Save your country.

[2222554]

Even Greta, (formerly from Wisconsin), broke out laughing a little bit...

[2222554]

We still have not heard from nancy pelosi on how the U.S. could turn 'every dollar into a dollar seventy nine. I agree with Newt as I don't understand Liberal math either...

[kyrider54]

As a Democrat,I'm in total agreement with Mr.Gingrich's comments I think we as Americans would rather have the paychecks.I do believe that this administration has driven this country futher in trouble then we've seen in a long time.I did not vote for this administration nor will I vote to elect it.Mr Gingrich I hope run decide to run in 2012,If you do,This democrat will vote for you.

[abbesieyes]

Students of history will remember the Zentrum Party of the old German Republic...and how that was used to undercut base liberty in Germany.

In the US, the RCC's 'zentrum' is divided so as to play both 'sides' off against each other...to Romes benefit.

Presidential Cabinets since the late 1050's...majority RCC

On the Supreme Court (thanks to 'Obama')....6-3 RCC.

'Rome on the Potomac' indeed.

[abbesieyes]

@abbesieyes typo *"since the late 1950's..."

[abbesieyes]

Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro - aka Nancy Pelosi....RCC.

Newt Gingrich - RCC.

More dog and pony show from the power block that straddles both supposed 'sides' of the aisle in DC.

Their shared gambit....Praemunire.

[JimJimowill]

This guy is the 'intellect' candidate, trotted out by the GOP to paint the truth

with gibberish. The GOP is intested in keeping the rich happy, and nothing

else...Trickle down is crap, period. Atleast he is not stupid, as others (Alaska

ex-half term ) goofies, but he should be honest, not happening in today;s politics.

[HHthinktank1]

business for the companies where these are spent. That in turn insures that they can pay their employees and perhaps hire more. On the other hand, sum programs do have a negative multiplier. Not surprisingly, the 2 worst are cutting corporate taxes, followed by (dead last) income tax cuts. Unconvinced? I urge you to pick up a history book - u'll find that supply-side economics is like communism: perhaps they both look great on paper, but they've always failed in practice.

[HHthinktank1]

I refuse to believe that Newt Gingrich has never heard of economic multipliers, so I'm confused as to what his motive is here. Every government program has a multiplier of it's effect on the economy. Food stamps, because they are spent so assuredly and so hastily, have one of the best multipliers (the dept. of agriculture actually puts food stamps at a $1.84 - so Fox had an old figure here). I'll answer Newt's question here - because that is money spent, it is money that goes towards boosting

[callmequentin]

this summer I had a homeless man who slept at the Starbuck's (where I worked) negotiate with me to buy my groceries for .50 cents on the dollar so he could have cash for hot food. He was so limited that he was willing to lose 50% of his stamp money for the freedom to buy what he wanted.

make all of the political extrapolations you wish, but until you've lived that way you have no CLUE how it feels to not be self reliant.

we are glutted on freedom - maybe when we lose it we'll learn.

[aussieconservative]

Newt > obambie

[StinkFingerr]

Newt would make a good president.

[AElizabeth2010]

It is not Sorries. He certainly is not sorry. It is Sõrõs. Sõr is beer. So he is all beered up all the time. Or if you will full of beer.

[3martijns]

@AElizabeth2010 There are multiple meanings in the dictionary for sorry - look it up.

[3martijns]

Ha! Gorgy Sorries Puppets are Spreading their Lies on All of Newt's vid sites!

"gorgy sorries" Buys the Souls of Mindless Drones, so they will Troll All Day and Write Lies on Conservative Sites llike This.

God Will Judge.

[aussieconservative]

@3martijns they have been told to go after potential candidates now not wait. they need to smear and bismirch the next republican candidate early so they can try to trick the party into running a more moderate candidate that will not offer as clear a contrast at the next presidential election. The ones that dont cop any S**t from the left are the candidates that you dont want making it out of the primary people. If they are seething with rage you have done well.

[ejayhawk]

Newt rules!

[libssuck55]

I don't usually resort to name calling but I've had it up to my eyeballs with this lady. First of all it's just her 'let's be a bipartisan government' talk and then her unwillingness to prove that she even believes that at all with her completely partisan, incoherent babbling.Pelosi is fucking retarded.Vote her out ,kill her, I dont care anymore. Just make her go away forever.

[666brainiac]

To understand the video you need to understand Republican Speak. It works like this. Tax cut for the wealthy which will add 4 trillion to the deficit and as for the rest of America screw off. We don't have plans, we do not create jobs, we want to break the backs of this country and we are supported by foreign money.

[sailor44444]

@666brainiac

I will tell you this, leftist. I have never gotten a job from, or been hired by, a poor person.

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - You imply you understand "Republican Speak". Maybe you do. But you don't understand the philosophy, you don't understand history and you don't understand basic economics.

[666brainiac]

@mountaindaily I know the history and philosophy better than you. The original philosophy that fired up the founding people to go for Independence was from the radicals. It was not from the Conservatives. After the American Revolution the Conservatives hijacked the new Nation because they were the only ones with money and the time to shape this nation. They made the American Revolution a farce. Money and power ruled which is not what the founding people fought for. We have been suffering since.

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - That is a nice, neat socialist spin on history. By what you said, "conservative" means rich. Of course the bourgeois are always bad.

The founders revolted against a government that ruled very much like the Democrats do now with high taxes and high regulation.

[666brainiac]

@mountaindaily It is not a spin on history. My proof is the debate between Edmund Burke considered the father of Conservatism and Thomas Paine the author of "Common Sense". Paines response to Burke is known as "The Rights of Man". The other evidence is the Federalist Party which was a very Conservative Party which is now extinct and did a lot of damage. Hamiliton the Federalist fought against the Bill of Rights a battle he lost against the radicals. You are against the founding people.

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - Do you have any more red herrings in your pocket? Once again socialist spin. Modern conservatives are called that because by leftist academics. They are in fact classical liberals; meaning small government and greater liberty without government intervention and regulation.

Yes the radicals in the 18th century won but they were nothing like the radicals today (I'm using your Alinsky terminology here), unless you mean the tea party that is calling for a return to limited government

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - Neither Paine or Burke were part of the Constitutional Convention so of what importance was their debate which was a side show. The Whig/Federalist party of Burke called for things to remain as they were, in other words they wanted a strong central gov like the leftist liberal/radicals of today.

"We have been suffering since." How? The only suffering I see is in the overegulation of business and personal life. What suffering do car makers cause you?

[666brainiac]

@mountaindaily The American Revolution was not a Conservative movement, it was a radical movement. Today's Conservatives admire Burke, not Paine. Back then "The "Rights of Man" was more popular than "Common Sense". What Paine's essay showed was that Conservatives do not share the American value, The radicals were responsible for the Bill of Rights, Conservatives fought it. Conservatives hijacked the country after the Revolution and destroyed the American value wich is "The Rights of Man".

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - So your definition of conservative is over 200 years old? My first charge stands: you don't understand the philosophy and history of the revolution.

Get past the labels invented by socialists. Burke was for big government like "liberals" are now. That makes Burke a leftist by today's standard.

The radicals of the revolution fought for the exact opposite that the radicals of today are. They fought to liberate us from the tyranny of a big, controlling government.

[aussieconservative]

@mountaindaily on the left when you hear someone else make an argument that you don't like what you first do is change the terms of what a person is trying to say. An example of this is someone something like the fair tax. Changing the terms of the fair tax and then attacking the new terms that have been promulgated by the leftist in the first place. Another tactic is to attack before explaination. better have a quick answer that everyone can understand if that happens cause if you dont.....

[mountaindaily]

@666brainiac - I'm done chatting w/ you. You have no sense and you make no sense. I hope someone less steeped in your ideology can learn from our exchange.

[aussieconservative]

@mountaindaily hey didnt you know leftists rewrite history they dont read it. ha ha if they read history they wouldnt have the view they have. leftist read a little Dickens and a lot of Modern pulp. Watch what happens when you sit a leftist in front of a Milton Friedman or a Thomas Sowell interview. The logic make them squirm, and they become dismissive and irrational.

[mountaindaily]

@aussieconservative - I know the leftists rewrote history. That's why I see this as a teachable moment to Mr. 666brainiac. I can only wish to be as good as Dr. Sowell.

Leftists get stuck on labels and deficient socialist history and their baseless condescension and illogic are frustrating.

Thanks for the comment.

[DivingHawk1]

Please America, Wake Up and Get This Bunch Out of DC!!!

[jhmorgan0951]

Let's live today and forget the past....currently we have a bunch of screw loose liberals who think the way to bring prosperity is to take away from those who create jobs and give to those who don't. They think they can spend their way out of a recession. These worthless liberals have run up more debt in 2 years than the previous administration did in 8 years. Run ever last stinking liberal out of Washington and do it quick or there will be nothing left.

[meltdown53]

cool lets ALL go on food stamps...NO work and get paid for it....where will they get the money to give us a welfare check?... the so called "rich" ...what if they ALL move out of the U.S.A ...where will they get the money? what a buch if IDIOTS!!!

[blevr1234]

“Gingrich cheats as a historian, too”

October 6, 2010, by Jay Bookman, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

- one excerpt - :

… Gingrich, particularly in those phrases “we did it …” and “we turned” a deficit into a surplus.

… And even though he –‘now seeks to claim credit for the boom’- that followed, Gingrich ‘-fought Clinton tooth and nail’-, predicting that the 1993 tax hike would have apocalyptic economic consequences.

Cont

[blevr1234]

…

Gingrich:

“I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take one and a half or two years, but it will happen.”

“The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit.”

“The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.”

-

But it resulted in 22.7M (in 8 yrs) historic high for 20th Century

[ITakeAStand]

@blevr1234 - whats the matter sunshine - Are you even so embarrassed at crazy ass Nazi Pelosi that you can't comment on the actual video? --- OH MY GOD THIS Lunatic is the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE - hey how those food stamps working out for you?

[onceuponamidnightdry]

How is it that when government does not take as much money from those citizens who actually produce it is referred to as something that must be "paid for"? What sort of twisted inverted "logic" have we become indoctrinated to accept as real?

Why is it that government can not do with less of our money? Why is it when it is proposed that we get to actually keep a small % more of what we produce, the Progressives, left and right, get all bent out of shape. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENTS MONEY!! IT IS OURS

[Salford999Red]

Here you go - The broken window fallacy.

watch?v=ceSOoSLbIkI&feature=re­lated

If you are further interested, read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

[Richmunnich]

Problem is the economy congress has created puts us the American people in a situation where we get paid as if we were Chinese and charged as though we were Americans. It's ok to pay us $400 per month but don't tax us $600 per month and expect us to be happy to work.

[sdfkjllshadflhadfshl]

I doubt Pelosi could get hired to manage a Kinkos. The private sector will not be kind to her.

[tishhead]

@sdfkjllshadflhadfshl except in this case (as in most), she is right, and fringe-righters like newt are wrong. in fact, she actually understated the impact according to the dept of agriculture. it's actually 1.84. but newt (the man of big ideas) has no idea how the concept of economic stimulus works.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - So why don't we put the entire GDP of the USA into Pelosi's scheme. Why haven't we been doing it throughout our history? It would produce infinite wealth with no effort. LOL.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red OK, apparently you don't understand it either. i guess our schools HAVE declined. at least you're not running for president. no one is saying food stamps should replace income. but consumer spending generates more spending, from the grocer, the supplier etc. food stamps go to the poor who otherwise would not be spending. food stamps are put back into the economy faster than any other tax credit, tax cut etc. love the pelosi's scheme line, as if she invented food stamps.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - Dude, firstly I wasn't educated in America from K through 12. And secondly, I am working on a PhD from Umich so chill. And secondly, please go read Bastiat's broken window to know how stupid your logic of food stamps creating spending from the grocer, the supplier, etc is. You are professing an economic theory that was dismissed in the 1800s by Fredric Bastiat.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red So, the less consumer spending, the better? gingrich also represents a party that maintained for years that tax cuts for the rich paid for themselves. they also maintained that those cuts would generate jobs. how has that worked out? btw, a PhD doesn't indicate that you have any clue what you're talking about.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - Phew. You fail to realize that the consumer spending you advocate that would occur through grocers, supplier, etc comes at the expense of a lack of spending (due to taxes, national debt, etc) in other areas.

While the foodstamp may have created a job for the grocer, it must come from somewhere in the form of taxes. Had the tax not been levied, that money would have been spent in creating a job in the electronic industry or the auto industry. There is no free lunch.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red no, there is no free lunch. and income is always better than govt aid. but the people on food stamps would otherwise not be participating in the economy. or participating a lot less. no one is helped by that. we have seen that tax cuts for the rich do NOT generate jobs. we have had a nearly 10-year study of that and the results are pretty damn clear.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - Oh boy. You sound beyond repair. I would hope not. Do yourself a favor and read this free book (just google its available) called 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. Read through that and even after that, if you still seem to stick to your belief, then I would give up all hope on you.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red and your hope for me is what i live for. we can throw right-wing economists and left-wing economists at each other all day. the bush tax cuts were sold as job generators. they failed in an almost indescribably spectacular way. meanwhile, the clinton tax hike was decried as the end of the american economy by the rightys. they apparently don't tire of being staggeringly wrong, do they?

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - There are no right wing economists and left wing economists. Only good economists and bad economists. And the Clinton tax hikes only worsened the situation, which put the GOP in power in the congress in 1994 which led to the Gingrich-Clinton tax cuts along with the software boom resulted in a good economy. The Clinton tax hikes didnt improve the economy. Its a Huffington Post myth. You'll be laughed at if you suggest it to anyone outside your circle.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red OF COURSE there are right-wing and left-wing economists. i thought this was a serious discussion. i didn't say clinton's tax cuts improved the economy. i said that the GOP predicted those cuts would lead to a severe recession and inflation and unemployment. none of it happened. none of it. they were wrong, as they nearly always are. and how did those bush tax cuts do for job creation?

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - The Bush tax cuts did pretty well actually - 51 straight months of hiring. Its other borrowing and spending policies that killed the economy.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red glad i wasn't eating or drinking when i read that. i would have choked. total job growth for bush years didn't even keep up with population growth. as compared to 22 million under clinton -- more than both bushes combined.

[tishhead]

@tishhead let me amend that: more than both bushes AND reagan combined.

[tflst5]

@tishhead what you (and nancy) don't understand is that the money for the foodstamps came from the grocer in the first place! Its their taxes.  Wealth is not being generated in this transaction. No one is doing any work besides the grocer (who is the loser - losing the money he could have reinvested to make a profit). The government took his earnings and redistributed to someone who produced nothing. Maybe you should head back to school, pick one that isn't so liberal this time.

[tishhead]

@tflst5 we understand perfectly that a tiny portion of that came from the grocer. the grocer only makes a profit if someone can buy his crap. he can keep all of his money but if no one buys, he's done. meanwhile, this same party fights for tax cuts for the rich who pump far less of it back into the economy. at least our economy.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - I dont really like Newt but you are the prime example of what he described as followers of "liberal math". LOL.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red whenever i see LOL, i always know i'm dealing with a serious academic.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - To give someone $1000 of food stamps, you need to tax another group of people, either now or in the future, for $1000 and administrative expenses and the interest (in case you are borrowing the $1000 for now) and the adjusted inflation.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red yes you do. but this money gets put back into the economy. when exxon and GE don't pay taxes on billions of profits, that money does NOT get put back into the economy.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - Aaarrgh! Ok, do you know what the Broken Window Fallacy is?

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - And that's where you are wrong. The money that doesn't get taxed is of course going to be put back into the economy, except that it won't be put back in the same place as it would had it been taxed and spent in the form of a food stamp.

[tishhead]

@Salford999Red it might get put into the economy, just not necessarily OUR economy. and money stashed away in investments will take much longer to produce its ripple effect.

[Salford999Red]

@tishhead - Not at all, money stashed away in investments will not always take much longer to produce a ripple effect. Meanwhile, you are discounting all the waste in admin expenses, inflation, debt, etc while you tax and spend the same money.

[tflst5]

@tishhead 'tax cuts for the rich' .. now i know you aren't serious.

The only thing that creates wealth in this world is people working. Some invent things that are really useful. We want those people to be "rich" because it creates wealth and opportunity for the rest of us. When people are rewarded for not contributing - guess what - they stop working. Enough entitlements and you have our situation today-half the population doesn't pay income taxes.Keynes would laugh at the dems of today.

[tishhead]

@tflst5 "rewarded for not contributing." now i know YOU aren't serious. it's not a reward. it's a way to keep people participating in the economy that otherwise wouldn't be. and that benefits everyone. most people stop working because their company decides its cheaper to pay someone from india to do their work. btw, the biggest drop in people paying income taxes came under bush, not a dem.

[Spectreman]

@tishhead I suppose you also think that, say, when anarchists bust out the windows of storefronts, they are helping the economy because the window makers and installers will have work to do, right? And the story of the old twit making stone soup just speaks to your heart? Do you actually know where the government gets the money it re-distributes through welfare? Government stimulus and redistribution cannot and does not create WEALTH. It creates DEBT. Start thinking with that head, tish.

[tishhead]

@Spectreman and i'm sure you were one of the people arguing that the bush tax cuts would pay for themselves? that cutting taxes while fighting 2 wars made sense? the economy depends on people spending money. that's why when consumers aren't spending and businesses aren't spending, the govt needs to. it's also why it's better to have poor people participating in the economy than not. none of those are the optimal situations. but they are better than the alternative.

[unclesmrgol]

@tishhead Defense is called for in the Constitution. The Bush tax cuts did indeed pay for themselves -- with massive economic growth. What killed it? All the economic experts are in agreement that Democratic agents -- Fannie and Freddie, were responsible for the massive distortions in the housing market which eventually collapsed our economy. Each dollar the Government takes from us and gives to someone else increases the costs of the thing the Government supports.

[tishhead]

@unclesmrgol even the bushies don't claim the cuts paid for themselves. you're all alone on an island on that one. your "massive growth" (for the first few years) was almost entirely due to the housing bubble you wail about. btw, check out the repub convention of 2004 and how much they were bragging about all the new homeowners -- the same ones they now blame the recession on. repubs make me giggle.

[scottishrocket]

@tishhead

yeah, how is that economic stimulus working???.....let me guess, the reason it didn't work is we just didn't pour enough money into it!!!

[tishhead]

@scottishrocket just fine, thanks. read the cbo report. or have a grownup read it to you. and yes, it should have been bigger.

[Spectreman]

@tishhead Hey, how about that jobs report today, eh tish? That stimulus shure is working great!

[tishhead]

@Spectreman ah, i love the smell of empty-headed rightys (redundant i know) in the morning. if you actually read it, you would find (a) private-sector jobs -- the only ones repubs say count -- grew and (b) the overall loss was due to the END of stimulus programs.

really, it's like layup drills dealing with you clowns.

[Spectreman]

@tishhead And just like a spinning libtard, you ignore the fact that the number of people who are underemployed rose by over 600K in the last month and those who have just given up has risen by over 500K since last year, when the stimulus was in full swing. And those jobs you are cheering now, most are in bars and restaurants, the same jobs you complained about during the bush years. Oh yeah, and the figures for August and July were revised by a -15K. You and obama (and the USA) lose again.

[tishhead]

@Spectreman and i'm sure you were all over these boards when jobs were bleeding away at a much faster rate in the final months of the bush admin. cause, gee, if you weren't doing that then but you are now, that would make you a hypocrite. and, gosh, we know you can't POSSIBLY be that, can you?

[Spectreman]

@tishhead Actually, I was pissed about the massive spending the DEMS passed (you remember, right?) and bush signed as that was killing our economy. But then, we were promised HOPE. And CHANGE WE COULD BELIEVE IN! So where is that tish? You promised things would be better if we engaging in class warfare and increased the debt and deficit in ways bush never dreamed of. I shouldn't be worrying about how to pay my mortgage right? Are you and obama really the lying whores we said you would be?

[tishhead]

@Spectreman the party of personal responsbility claiming bush wasn't responsible for his own record. love it. the disastrous war in iraq, fought for no reason but to enrich halliburton, was the biggest drain on the economy. no one has ever cut taxes while 2 wars were going on. how did that work out? then there was the prescription drug giveaway to big pharma, passed with no attempt to pay for it. thats how you turn a surplus into a deficit. please learn to read.

[maverick47sucks]

@tishhead I voted W Bush twice!!

[tishhead]

@maverick47sucks yeah, i've made mistakes in my life too, but i generally don't brag about them.

[mountaindaily]

@tishhead - Bush spent like a progressive. I agree. But as high as Bush's spending was, there is no comparison with Dem spending which is the only reason they need to raise taxes in a recession.

What did Obama do with the war? More of the same but less effectively.

[Spectreman]

@tishhead How about you learn to read and tell me where I did not blame bush for the going along with the dems spending? You are full of cindy sheehans shit with your statement on the wars. The perscription drug give away was a disaster but it had, according to lib definition, bipartisan support. Bush's economic policies were wrong in that he never cut spending. And please explain how obamas deficit is better than bush's? Is it that you are a size queen - bigger the deficit the better?

[tishhead]

@Spectreman bush didn't "go along" with the wars and the pharma giveaway, the 2 biggest reasons for the deficit. he initiated them and rammed them through. love the party of personal responsibility. on the wars, you think spending trillions in iraq with the end result of strengthening iran (and killing tens of thousands of innocents) was a good idea?

[mountaindaily]

@tishhead - The Dems voted for the war before they voted against it to quote one of their presidential candidates. They also voted for the drug benefit which Bush did to co-opt what Dems usually do. You know..."compassionate conservatism". I agree it was a failure like all progressive programs regardless of which party it originates with.

[tishhead]

@mountaindaily 89 percent of dems voted against the perscription drug fiasco, 88 percent of repubs voted for it. it was NOT compassionate conservativism. it was a straight giveaway to drug companies. it was probably the most heavily lobbied bill in history. health insurance cos and drug cos poured millions into it. you think they do that for "progressive programs"? get a grip. dems who voted for iraq authorization were wrong and it cost hillary the presidency.

[aussieconservative]

@tishhead your pro saddam? the democrats that were for iraq authorization were at least anti saddam. like him? wish his sons well? want to see them leading iraq like in the good old days? if you could turn back the clock you would re open for business rape rooms? wanna see Uday hussein throw married women of balconies once he has finished raping them? If only the world could go back to a time where we had the iraqi republican guard? This point is all i need to remind me leftists are insane.

[tishhead]

@aussieconservative well, isn't that a typically simplistic view of things? no, i'm not pro saddam. wasn't pro-saddam when he was doing all those things with the support of a previous republican regime either. it was not the US's job nor place to invade a country that was no threat to the US -- or anyone else for that matter. and yes, overall, the world would have been better off. btw, i notice there isn't such a cry to rid other countries -- say in africa -- of their brutal dictators.

[aussieconservative]

@tishhead you didn't ask me about which African dictators id try to have taken out which i would. As for not being pro Saddam if you are against taking the guy out then you are in favour of him staying in power. Leftists claim to have a 'nuanced' view, its actually appeasement. Lacking the courage to do anything about it the leftist hides scared and cowering behind his boarder talking in platitudes about how what the Iraqis need is universal healthcare and such. Its just crap, plain and simple.

[tishhead]

@aussieconservative oh yes, the world would be a much better place if every country just invaded every other country whose leaders weren't quite up to snuff. "nuanced" i guess means having moved beyond emotional and intellectual adolescence where we can just beat up people we don't like. the US spent a trillion, lost thousands and wound up worse strategically than we were to begin with. and of course it was all the work of chicken hawks who chose not to serve when they could. grow up.

[aussieconservative]

@tishhead Ah the chicken hawk arguement rears its ugly head. did you serve? Im not an American I'm an Australian and our cowardly leftist government cut and ran from iraq after we lost a conservative government for the first time in 11 years. It doesnt matter though because the socialist that was heading our government got knifed in the back by another socialist. Its 'how you do' on the left.

[aussieconservative]

@tishhead As for strategy i think the war was fundamentally flawed and if I had to choose between fighting it again exactly the same way or letting saddam and his sons rape iraq for another day I would fight that war again in a heartbeat. Of course we know you wouldnt, you're what we call a 'little bitch' here in Australia. probably got your ass handed to you a few times in the playground when you were growing up and concluded that because you always lost that 'fighting' was not the answer.

[tishhead]

@aussieconservative yes, you are quite the macho man stud muffin aren't you? i am not against all wars. i am against stupid, pointless, illegal wars that drain the economy, kill innocents for no reason and leave the US in a worse place strategically than we were to begin with. there is NO rational argument for invading iraq. just the usual caveman blah blah blah from suspended adolescents like yourself.

[aussieconservative]

@tishhead your right there is no argument for invading Iraq because Saddam is your mate, you think his rapist sons are good guys, you think that Kurds in the north deserve to be gassed and you are as most of the people on the left are, pro mass grave. The case for war was wrong, the WMD argument was based on sloppy intel but you seem to think that the world would be better of if you had your way and the war was not prosecuted and Uday Hussein was ball deep in yet another victim. your a disgrace.

[tishhead]

@aussieconservative most people over the age of, say, 7 can see beyond black and white. opposing war is not an endorsement of saddam. the only people who endorsed saddam were the repubs -- check the video of him meeting with rumsfeld. bush was an idiot and a war criminal, but that didn't mean i endorsed an invasion of the US. see how that works? if not, have a grownup explain it. it was a repub admin that stood by while kurds were gassed and vetoed sanctions for use of poision gas on iran.

[sdfkjllshadflhadfshl]

@tishhead But your argument completely ignores the damaging effect of taxing that Dollar in the first place. Plus, if that were true, we could simply borrow another $3 Trillion from China and all our problems would be solved forever.