As much as I’d like to believe that my endorsement of Newt Gingrich has be so influential that his poll numbers have dramatically improved because of it, the truth of the matter is that more GOP primary voters are seeing what I’m seeing, that Newt Gingrich is the candidate they want to see go head-to-head with Obama.
Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP’s national polling. He’s at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.
Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4. Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image- his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney’s favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.
Gingrich’s lead caps an amazing comeback he’s made over the last 5 months. In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%. He’s climbed 18 points in less than 2 months.
Go Newt!
Blogs For Victory 
This is encouraging (I am very fond of Newt), but I smell media manipulation here. The media wants to pump Newt up in the polls, get him to be the GOP nominee, then they will smear him with stories from his past and *attempt* (but quite possibly fail) to get Obama re-elected.
Newt – remain firm on your challenge to Obama, with a Lincoln-style election with seven separate 3-hour debates.
Can you guys imagine Newt vs. Obama in these debates?! Even if Newt gets a chance to debate Obama only once or twice, we’ll be swearing President Gingrich into office in January of 2013.
People keep saying things like that, but I’ve never seen any indication that Obama was a poor debator. I mean, I know you guys will declare that whichever Republican gets the nomination will have won the eventual debates even if Obama gives one of the great orations of our generation and the Republican nominee answers “I like cheese” to every debate question, but the last time around polling showed Obama with a commanding victory in all three of the Presidential debates.
The difference Cory is the substance, not the style. Obama will blather about his doubling down on failed policies, tax the rich, spread the wealth, extend welfare, blah, blah, blah. Same old, same old.
Newt on the other hand will lay out a vision of reform – a 21st century approach to revamping our federal government and putting our entitlement programs on a sustainable platform that will be there to serve the next generations.
It wont even be close.
Cory, your preemptive whining about something that has not happened is rather annoying. To look at the other side of your advance complaint, Obama could be the one who says “I like cheese” and negative comments on his style and/or content will be dismissed as “racist” and a refusal to admire his brilliant oratory style.
In case you haven’t noticed, the election is a year away, and a lot can and will change in that year. I suggest that Obama’s best tactic for this 11+ months would be to shut up and go away, to avoid even more Obama Fatigue regarding his boring singsong speaking style, with the ostentatiously dropped “ing” in a feeble effort to make him seem to have something in common with the Common Folk.
“The difference Cory is the substance, not the style. Obama will blather about his doubling down on failed policies, tax the rich, spread the wealth, extend welfare, blah, blah, blah. Same old, same old.”
See, this confirms my point. “I disagree with you” and “you are bad at speaking” are not the same thing.
“Cory, your preemptive whining about something that has not happened is rather annoying. To look at the other side of your advance complaint, Obama could be the one who says “I like cheese” and negative comments on his style and/or content will be dismissed as “racist” and a refusal to admire his brilliant oratory style.”
I cite Cluster right above your post. He more or less just told me that Newt would win the debate because he is conservative.
“In case you haven’t noticed, the election is a year away, and a lot can and will change in that year.”
I doubt any candidate’s debating skills will change much in that timeline. Or did you mean to actually whine to Richie for talking about a Newt/Obama debate way before it is relevant?
“I suggest that Obama’s best tactic for this 11+ months would be to shut up and go away, to avoid even more Obama Fatigue regarding his boring singsong speaking style, with the ostentatiously dropped “ing” in a feeble effort to make him seem to have something in common with the Common Folk.”
See, now we’re back to people claiming that Obama is bad at speaking, but the truth is it doesn’t really matter what you think of his speaking style, because the only way you’d ever vote for him is if the other candidate were Hitler. The real question is how he fares with swing voters, and at least if previous debates are any indication, he does at least a decent job, in spite of any complaints that you have.
He more or less just told me that Newt would win the debate because he is conservative. – Cory
No I didn’t Cory. Try and pay attention here – Newt will win the debate because he will offer more substance than Obama. Obama is about as politically deep as a mud puddle. He only has one mode – that of a big government progressive, which is a proven failure on every level. Let me know if you need help understanding this.
“No I didn’t Cory. Try and pay attention here – Newt will win the debate because he will offer more substance than Obama. Obama is about as politically deep as a mud puddle. He only has one mode – that of a big government progressive, which is a proven failure on every level. Let me know if you need help understanding this.”
Okay, I’ll rephrase. You’re saying that he’ll win because he isn’t a liberal. Is that better for you?
I clearly missed closing the bold tag correctly. The bold was supposed to encompass “big government progressive” and nothing more.
Cory,
AGAIN – Obama is a one trick pony and lacks any substance other than a big government approach – which the voters bought into in 2008, but considering the failure of that approach, voters will be looking for more, of which Obama is incapable of delivering.
mattrich:
et tu newtus……
Now is the tough part…no doubt the Republican establishment will be getting the word out to destroy Newt now so that their guys (Romney and Perry) can get back on top.
Just wow, did anyone see Herb Cain try an answer a question about Libya before the editorial board of the Milwaukee paper? Now all of his support will flow to Newt right?
Saw it. No wonder Newt is surging. The Republican field is such a disaster. I looked up Gingrich vs. Obama polling. According to CNN polling Nov. 11-13, Obama leads Gingrich 53-45. Rasmussen (Nov. 11-12) has it Obama 50-38, Quinnipiac 52-37. It’ll be interesting to see if he picks up in traction there, though that’s getting the cart before the horse, isn’t? Who will Iowa Repubs go for?
What? He properly slammed Obama. That’s all the base needs. Besides, if you don’t know anything about these fureigners in far-off lands, they’re so much easier to bomb.
There is a sort of satirical justice to the American political carnival now. The more self-serving, cynical and obstructionist the GOP becomes, the greater buffoons their candidates appear to be. There seems to be a self-correcting feature buried somewhere deep in America’s political DNA.
Thank God – He hasn’t abandoned us completely to the folly of either side’s extremes.
Romney is pretty darn liberal. He has a habit of changing his positions to suit the political winds as it were. Obamacare is Romneycare on steroids and many don’t trust him not to decided to tinker with health care rather than killing it completely. Conservatives generally agree the complete dismantling of the law is the most prudent choice. Romney represent the most gradual tack to starboard of all the candidates, so you can argue that will draw independents, but you sacrifice excited conservatives nominating luke-warm candidate. Since, conservatives would have no other choice, but Obama, Romney , or so goes the argument, is the Republicans best shot at winning. Horse feathers!
Cain’s 999 plan sound like a pizza ad and I’m not sure that’s what we want as the economic model for the world largest economy. Many people just can’t wrap their minds around that national nine percent sale tax. There is a nine percent state sales tax rate where I now live, so that’s 18% off the top every time I buy a can beans? Where can I find the used bean isle? There no check on Washington not to raise the tax as Cain claims either. We’ve seen how politicians ignore the people over the last three years, so how can one believe public opinion will ensure this tax never goes up?
This tax directly increases taxes on the poor, which plays into Obama’s class envy strategy and tests the loyalty of the conservative poor who will be sorely tempted to vote their pocketbooks. Cain has serious integrity issues if any of allegations against him prove to be true. Some of the women must have some grounds for a complaint, since some of the women were given settlements, or why pay them off? Wouldn’t it be bad form for the democrats to bring that up after Clinton? Ergo, you know they will. This design may negate the gains Cain makes in black demographic against Obama. All factors weakening a Cain candidacy. The real issue questions here, becomes do you want a man who will use his position to service his rooster? Not an awe inspiring ethical example you’d want to hold out to your kids now is it?
Bachman is in way over her head. Paul, give me a break, he’s not mainstream enough to be a seriously contender. We’ve all watched Perry commit slow suicide. Who has left, Huntsman, Santorum or Johnson? They are still in the blocks. I tell you who’s next, Newt that’s who’s next. Timing is everything especially in Presidential primary race. Who has the real experience? Who forced Clinton to tack hard starboard? What bout that contract with America? Granted, it wasn’t completely fulfilled, but Newt wasn’t the President. Few would argue Clinton wasn’t among the best politician of the last 100 years and it was Newt that countered his liberal agenda. Obama may not be a Bill Clinton, but he is a good campaigner, and we need an energized based behind a good politician to win.
[re-posted from another thread]
Let’s take a look at a couple of points about these unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain;
–Gloria Allred
–Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country; Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. but never in Chicago.
–All the accusers are from Chicago
–”…Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.”
–So far two off the accusers have direct ties to Axelrod, one other has a direct tie to Obama.
–Sheila O’Grady, to only one to come forward so far also has a history of claims which have all been proven false.
–The ‘settlement’ was an HR-related matter–not a payout.
–Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix using technology used by over 75 police departments.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances
Now, I would have to say that if he did what he has been accused of–he should pay a price; however, at this point it does not appear there is any factual evidence to substantiate these claims. Let everyone put some skin in the game including the often wrong, but always vocal Ms Allred. Let all those that have claims come forward and make those claims and present all of their evidence with defamation as the penalty for falsely accusing. Loss of her law license should be enough to see if the mouthpiece wants to put her credentials where her ever open mouth is now.
Then again there is this;
Report: Cain Accuser Sharon Bialek Fired From NRA For False Accusations Of Sexual Assault
“In this particular incident she was fired for falsely accusing her boss of sexual harassment, a charge denied by co-workers, as well as being pretty much a pain in the ass to work with.
“I remember her as a time-waster, and rabble-rouser. If she didn’t get her way she cried about sexual harassment…”
h/t Ann Coulter, Pat dollard, among others.
I don’t know what to think. Yes, some, maybe all, are the allegations are BS. Still, most won’t take the time to try Cain, but simply defer to some other candidate. This is leftist strategy and it’s a good one too. Unfortunately, fair or not, this strategy is effective and has weakened and will continue to weaken a Cain candidacy.
I think the last 5 posts clearly demonstrate the current divide between conservatives and liberals. Notice how 620, wallace, dennis and bozo only speak of personality, scandal and false premises, while Rightlane objectively dissects and comments on some of the policies, and current status of the campaigns.
Liberals will do everything they can to construct false premises, and engage in personal attacks, knowing that they can not in any way defend their policies, which have been miserable failures, nor can they pretend to have an optimistic vision for the country. Liberals are mired in hate, class envy, and juvenile theatrics and the only path to victory for them is to bring down as many people as possible. Not exactly an uplifting message.
Newt will shred Obama in a debate. Newt is vastly superior to Obama intellectually, and offers much more in terms of practical experience, and common sense policies that will resonate with the vast majority of adults that comprise the voting electorate.
I encourage every conservative to take a second look at Newt, and consider giving him your vote. He certainly has mine.
Lets see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire first. I do not think we are done with the flavor of the month club just yet. I think there is at least one more cycle to go through.
I would be willing to bet Bardolf another six pack that there are at least 2 more flavors of the month to come before this is all decided. 🙂
GMB
I have to admit that Newt surging is a surprise. I had expected more from the Tea Party alas. Anyway, Newt is such a poor candidate and by any non-partisan metric vastly inferior to Obama intellectually. He is the only candidate with less experience in the business world than Obama. (Obama spent a year pretending to be a trader of sorts). Newt is the least fiscally conservative and the least socially conservative among all the candidates. Newt is probably the only candidate that Obama can beat.
Putting on my tinfoil hat, thinking Obama is a Wall Street suckup that has done his job well for his masters. I’ll take your bet to add one more six pack to the case and say it’s either Newt or Romney in Iowa and NH and the rest.
Newt Gingrich, PhD; Author of about 25 books, 3/4 of which NYT Best Sellers, Welfare Reform, balanced budget, Speaker Gingrich is intellectually inferior to the community organizer who is so ashamed of his education he sealed his transcripts, graduated as the affirmative action student, who signed two memoirs; one stinks on ice the other he didn’t write, can’t speak a complete sentence without – um – ah – er –uh – you know – a teleprompter? That Obama? 57 states Obama? Corpse-men Obama? Doesn’t speak Austrian or Australian Obama?
Hahahahahahahahaha you’re delusional! Hahahahahahahahah
Bardolf, this quote. “vastly inferior to Obama intellectually”. LOLzer my friend. I think you got that backwards. Unless if you mean practicing what you preach. I would say Newt has that problem. It could be argued both ways if that applys to bams or not.
Captain Oblivous
Q: How many books did Gingrich have ghostwritten BEFORE he could use his political stature (i.e. before being in congress) to sell them to people like B4V posters? Answer 0
Frances Piven Ph.D. self-explanatory as to intellectual merit.
Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
By your metric Daniell Steele is the intellectual superior of every president in history.
I’ve seen the Kerrey is the intellectual superior of Bush arguments and then I’ve watched the debates.
Ok, I’ll play along;
1) Authored or co-authored by Gingrich prior to Speaker; 4 non-fiction in addition to his Doctoral Thesis.
2) Books “ghostwritten”; 0
3) Piven is also intellectually superior to Obama.
4) Obama was an affirmative action student, affirmative action Law Review (never reviewed a single law or wrote a single opinion) & affirmative action president.
5) Danielle Steel is intellectually superior to Obama
6) John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and George Bush are all intellectually superior to Obama.
You must have missed the videos below; take a moment, view them all, then go find videos of Newt making an intellectual ass of himself. I’ll wait ….
Captain
Nice try, not prior to being speaker. Prior to being in congress for Newton. Could you point me to the best sellers?
How’s that search for Gingrich saying things as incredibly stupid as Obama going?
Maybe you should take our intercontinental railway from Asia through the other 58 States (they won’t let you go to Alaska) and expand your search to the ten-thousand people killed in that Kansas town, or ask the many fallen heroes that Obama had seen on Memorial Day.
Don’t go to the Middle East; The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.
Gingrich has been on the national stage for almost two decades, I’ll just bet there’s hours of hilarious clips of him saying Corpse-man or Key-San.
Excellent call, Cluster. I don’t know if these trolls truly do see politics only through the trivializing filters of personality, scandal and identity, or if they are canny enough to realize that the Left’s only hope is to focus on such nonsense, but they do offer a great example of what we can expect from the entire Left in the upcoming year.
This is going to be a fun year – watching Obama and the democrats trying to sell the voters on the same old failed policies and a tired, negative vision of America will fall flat, making them resort to personal attacks and cries of racism. Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Perry was pushed forward then destroyed after Bauchmann,Next was Hermans time, newt is now being declared the horse race winner by the MNM , only the sniper is in position to shoot him in the last turn leaving mittens to win the race.=…..4 more years of the marxist, muslim usurper destroying our country from within.
stalin, kruschev must be dancing in hell.
Cluster you are incorrect. I commented on Cain’s inability to articulate his position on Libya, a fairly contraversial and recent military engagement. I mentioned nothing about personality, scandal or a false premise. I hope your man Newt does win the nomination because he is a class 1 A-hole and he can’t hide it.
No, I am correct. You commented on his delivery of the answer, not the substance of his answer. And again, you attack Newt personally rather than the substance of his policies.
Do you want to try again?
cluster wrote, “I think the last 5 posts clearly demonstrate the current divide between conservatives and liberals. Notice how 620, wallace, dennis and bozo only speak of personality, scandal and false premises, while Rightlane objectively dissects and comments on some of the policies, and current status of the campaigns.”
Really? rigthtlane said, among other things, “Bachman is in way over her head. Paul, give me a break, he’s not mainstream enough to be a seriously contender. We’ve all watched Perry commit slow suicide.” And of Romney, “He has a habit of changing his positions to suit the political winds as it were.” These are not comments about personality and individual weakness? It may come as a surprise to some of you, but we actually elect people, not policy robots, as much as Amy would wish for it.
As far as Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, rightlane is correct that it is a tax on the poor. It would be a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class. I just don’t agree with that policy at this time. Ditto Perry’s plan: It would be a huge tax break for the rich, while the rest of us would get to choose to continue paying the same amount of taxes. Again, I don’t think that’s the policy we need at this time.
waspdousche
“it is a tax on the poor. It would be a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class.”
well YEAHHHHHH !
when they pay ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH a $.01 tax is a 100% increase.
looters, takers, commies LOOOOVE OPM.
But they don’t pay zero taxes, NeoClown. That’s just a lie you enjoy perpetuating because it makes you feel good.
But they receive “rebates” on taxes they don’t pay so they get back more than they pay in —-> that’s the same as paying no federal taxes.
Balls in you court sir.
No watty, by the time they receive their “tax credits” (income redistribution payments) what they “receive” is more than what they “pay”.
So their SS and Medicare withholding are offset, their withholding for federal taxes are refunded PLUS they get free cash in the form of tax credits. This of course does not take into account all the other entitlements errrr….. “benefits” they receive.
Therefore, THEY PAY NO TAXES. It is not hard to understand, but for some reason you mindless, useful idiot drones do have a hard time comprehending so simple a concept.
Here watty is a simple example even a drone like you could understand.
You pay me $10.
Then later I give you back $10 plus an additional $5.
How much have you paid?
Don’t I Just said that?
Sorry, cap’n I had to dumb it down for watty.
Oh, okay – I’m going to sit over here and rest for a while —>
“Cap’n” I like that.
The total tax burden ends up at 0 someplace in the bottom 20% of households. I’m not sure where exactly off the top of my head, but the bottom quintile tops out at somewhere right around $20k a year for a household. Is that really your untapped income source that is going to fix the budget in this country? Everything would be okay if we could just get those darn bums making $20,000 a year to pay more taxes?
tiredoflibs,
Keep dumbing; think: Little Bus & Power Rangers —> you’re still over cory’s head.
Oh yeah man you got me. Why refute facts and figures when you can call people stupid. *golf clap*
tiredoflibs,
Even dumber. Think: Play-Doh and scissors without pointy tips.
Rightlane & Watson (in particular),
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan;
The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan unites Flat Tax supporters with Fair
tax supporters
Step 1 (of 2)
-Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%
-It ends the Payroll Tax completely – a permanent holiday!
-Ends the Death Tax
-Business Flat Tax – 9%
-Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other
businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders
-Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for
payroll employed in the zone
-Individual Flat Tax – 9%
Goes to 9-0-9 for the lowest income levels
-Gross income less charitable deductions
-Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone
-National Sales Tax – 9%
Constitutionally questionable
-This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.
Step 2 (of 2)
-The Fair Tax would ultimately replace individual and corporate income taxes
-It would make it possible to end the IRS as we know it.
-The Fair Tax makes our exported goods and services the most competitively internationally than any other tax system.
Some of the points;
-Is fair, neutral, transparent, and efficient
-Ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors
-Ends all payroll taxes
-Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to revitalize our inner cities
[Emphasis mine]
You should actually try reading it before commenting–those on the short bus should get someone with better comprehension abilities while attempting to read & understand it.
“-Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%”
In other words, it taxes poor people more.
“-Ends the Death Tax”
That way generational wealth trends can be strengthened so rich people’s kids are even better off just because they had the right parents.
“Goes to 9-0-9 for the lowest income levels”
Which still nets a substantially higher tax rate on the poor than they currently have.
“-The Fair Tax makes our exported goods and services the most competitively internationally than any other tax system.”
What?
Addendum: It also decreases overall revenue, increasing our budget deficit.
Sounds like a winner!
Maybe I should have added you to the list of those needing help in the comprehension area.
“Goes to 9-0-9 for the lowest income levels”
Which still nets a substantially higher tax rate on the poor than they currently have.
Which leaves only two options. They pay less than $0 now or they pay less than 0% now. No income tax, no payroll tax, and somehow they are going to pay more? Based on the 9% sales tax? (Hint: Enpowerment zones)
It also decreases overall revenue, increasing our budget deficit.
First, it is revenue netural and second deficit spending is what fiscal Conservatives are against. Federal, State, and County spending are taxes no matter what you wish to call them. They spend it and I have to pay for it–what do you call that?
I see you also have something against the “Death tax” because what I earn is mine (not the collectives) and whether I see fit to pass it along to my family or donate it to charity, once again as I see fit, without the Government grabbing up to 55% of it. This is also where the Government never put up any money, effort, or risk–but somehow they are entitled to over half of everything I earned? Wonder what Micheal Jackson’s lawyers have to say about that?
“Which leaves only two options. They pay less than $0 now or they pay less than 0% now. No income tax, no payroll tax, and somehow they are going to pay more? Based on the 9% sales tax? (Hint: Enpowerment zones)”
I’m sure that the rural poor will be excited to hear that they can avoid paying taxes if they just drive far enough to get to an Empowerment Zone. Also the urban poor will probably love how temporary the promosed Empowerment Zones are. This totally sounds like an excellent way to counteract the new excise tax that they’ll eventually be paying on everything, including basic groceries!
“First, it is revenue netural and second deficit spending is what fiscal Conservatives are against. Federal, State, and County spending are taxes no matter what you wish to call them. They spend it and I have to pay for it–what do you call that?”
First, even the most optimistic estimates from economists even before the 9-0-9 and Empowerment Zones were suggested to soften how awful it will be for the poor. I’m going to need something besides an unsupported claim from Cain’s campaign to believe that it is anywhere close to revenue neutral.
Second, lowering revenue without proposing a matching spending cut counts as “deficit spending”. That’s how that works. I’ve hear the whole “tax and budget cuts” song and dance from Republicans before. How did that work out for you guys when George W. Bush was in office?
“I see you also have something against the “Death tax” because what I earn is mine (not the collectives) and whether I see fit to pass it along to my family or donate it to charity, once again as I see fit, without the Government grabbing up to 55% of it. This is also where the Government never put up any money, effort, or risk–but somehow they are entitled to over half of everything I earned?”
You’ll be dead. It will be really hard to tax you at all. The people getting taxed are those receiving the money. They are the ones who can spend the money.
Also, charitable contributions are already immune to estate taxes. So give away.
First of all, I did not like Bush because he was nothing more than a progressive-lite and since Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is already somewhat progressive–I am sure there can be exemptions for food (uncooked) and medicines just like Florida’s sales tax exempts those but it is the only reasonable step I have seen so far that is a stepping stone to the flat or fair tax which would require a Constitutional amendment.
Did I, or Cain, never mention spending cuts? Should have as I would take out quite possibly 50% of the Federal government (as a start) but I am sure he is not as severe–point being is that you should investigate these matters for yourself before claiming the exact opposite.
Then from your responses–you feel okay with government getting over half of what you have earned in your lifetime (above the
marbles and the other little toys) just because they are the government? Man, do you have a lot to learn or earn before you give it away to the Government because of?
“Did I, or Cain, never mention spending cuts?”
I haven’t heard you specifically mention it, but I’m not really concerned about that. I’m concerned about the lack of specific spending cuts proposed by Cain. I’ve heard repeated promises of generic spending cuts before that were never implemented, so color me a little dubious that the next guy who promises cuts only in general terms will actually cut anything.
“Then from your responses–you feel okay with government getting over half of what you have earned in your lifetime (above the
marbles and the other little toys) just because they are the government? Man, do you have a lot to learn or earn before you give it away to the Government because of?”
Ignoring the fact that I can’t even decipher that last line, sure why not. I’m not going to use it and nobody else has done anything to deserve it.
It’s a good thing we have a benevolent government to decide who deserves the fruit of our labors.
It’s good to know that personal merit only matters if you’re poor.
dbschmidt, your right, but you can’t sell it to the tweeter crowd. There simply not enough attention span out there. The ambiguity of the “sales tax” portion of the plan will be exploited. If you can’t explain it in under a minute….
Our Government spends too much money on things it has no right doing in first place, but the reality is they are doing and will continue to do most of the these things and they will spend more doing them in the future.
What is it, 60% don’t pay federal income tax and your going sell that demographic on raising (Remember, it doesn’t have to be true!) their tax rate 18%, so “rich can pay less. Good luck selling that one.
I agree with both watsonredux and cluster. It is an attempt -being human, we all are subject to our own biases affecting our opinions’- at an objective dissection of the candidates prospects of winning the election some 11 months hence. Kudos to watsonredux for the observation, “but we actually elect people, not policy robots….” I would add, whom are elected by people and all the associated chaos that accompanies Presidential elections.
My point on Cain wasn’t that he was guilty, but that the diversity of the electorate guarantees that most voters won’t be as informed as those of us who surf the political blogosphere; therefore, on its surface, a large block of voters will believe it’s sounds reasonable there may have been some improprieties, so they’ll pull some other handle. I like Bachman. I like Sarah. I like Paul too. I a libertarian at heart, but I just don’t think he win. None of this is a personal attack of these candidates as people.
Neo’s point that anything is more than nothing is correct, but misses the point. It doesn’t matter how angry it makes Neo that some people don’t pay income tax. These economic groups do pay federal tax if they have a cell phones, buy gasoline, cable TV, or a host of other consumption taxes already levied by the feds. Large families, for example, will be disproportionally penalized if this tax is applied to clothing, food, school supplies…. It should be remembered large families also create more future taxpayers to pay for the SS and Medicare of tomorrows retirees, so it’s really a double whammy for them. There are lots of poor, working, lower middle class people in this country who will be voting in the next election against that tax if Cain is our candidate. Flipping, so large a demographic, the bird, and praying they don’t realize what your proposing to do to them, knowing that all the while Obama., the MSM, and everyone else on the left will be screaming wake-up at the top of their collective voices, seems like a fecal-poor strategy to me.
Let’s play Where are they Now?
At this point in the 2008 race the Democratic field was Chris Dodd (AIG scandal) Mike Gravel (the only guy to lose two primaries in two different parties for the same office in the same year), Dennis Kucinich (The aliens have landed), Plugs Biden (The Gaff Machine), Bill Richardson (Pay-to-Play scandal), Silky Pony Edwards (soon to be the most popular belle at the Institutional Ball), Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Frick and Frack of the Federal Failure Circuit).
An All Star Line-up of goofs, crooks, buffoons & Village Idiots. In spite of this crowd with a combined IQ of a turnip; the Democrats won.
I wouldn’t be laughing at the Republicans right now; I’d be wondering which one will be the next President.
Seriously? You want to play “Where are they Now?” Chris Dodd is probably working for the banking industry somewhere; Do not know who Mike Gravel is and don’t care; Dennis Kucinich is still serving as a congressman; Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States (where have you been?); Bill Richardson is a governor; Edwards is probably hiding in his mansion, but who cares?; Hillary is Secretary of State for the United States, and I would say the best one we have ever had; and (again, where have you been?) Barack Obama is President of the United States.
But let me ask you, what about the Republicans who ran in 2008? Where is Fred Thompson (I see him on TV occasionally trying to talk the elderly into reverse mortgages); where is Rudy?; where is Duncan Hunter – still a representative? Mike Huckabee ? Sara Palin?; How are all of them doing today? None are president, vice president or secretary of state, are they? Senator McCain is back in the Senate, and Ron Paul is once again running for President as is Mitt Romney. If you want to see goofs, crooks, buffoons and Village Idiots I suggest you first look at your own party.
scummy
better than commies, homos, lesbos, thieves, rapists, perverts, kooks, fruits, nuts
Thompson, Rudy, Hunter, Palin, Huckabee, McCain, Gingrich, Paul, Romney … how many of them have been indicted?
Didn’t think so.
Huh? How many have been indited? What does that have to do with anything, especially your initial question? So that was the best response you could come up with? Whatever.
Let me make the question as dumb as you are;
Democrats run for President
Democrats are crooks
Democrat crooks are indicted
Dodd was indicted
Edwards was indicted
Richardson was indicted
Bill Clinton can’t argue before the Supreme Court
Obama is the most incompetent failed president since the last incompetent failed Democratic president that wasn’t impeached and disbarred; Carter
Can you name any Republican candidate for President that has been charged with criminal activity or disbarred for violations of law or ethics?
How proud you must be of your candidates.
Hey, Velma the Tulsa law-yah wants to know who has been INDITED!!
The crowd over at Bertha’s School of Hair Design and Law must be sooooo proud!
(She supposedly writes contracts for an aerospace firm—–wonder if this has anything to do with our inability to maintain our space program?)
She’s only answering in the language that the question was axed, havin’ bean reigned in when they was indited.
SPACE Program? The only space she has to deal with is the empty space between her ears.
Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. That is the only way government is ever going to reigned in. Until then, it’s only going to be more of the same thing from the D.C. establishment.
How you ever going to cure the addiction when you keep putting the drug in front of the addict?
—> and the 19th Amendment (women should be bare-foot and pregnant and should not be allowed to vote, unless they own land and their daddy owns a liquer store) and the 26th amendment (let’s face it, teenagers shouldn’t be allowed to speak much less vote.)
Why would you repeal these two constitutional amendments? And how will that reign in the government?
“rein” in; not reign. Is English a foreign language to you?
I’m just asking ‘cuz —->damn girl!
Just repeating what GMB wrote. He used the term “reign”. cuz – damn man – when you ask for an answer you want to use the same language the original poster used. English is not a foreign language to me but might be to GMB.
scummy
but brains sure are a foreign object to you.
the term AIR HEAD comes to mind,
I think Fn stupid works better.
scummy
soooo how many MORE TRILLIONS of debt do we run up before we stop or collapse?
OH wait.
Cloward Piven = the PLAN.
silly me.
Well Sunny. The 16th allowed direct taxation of the individual without regards to appotionment among the states. I.E. a progressive tax rate which I a sure you are in favor of.
The 17th admendment took the states power to select thier own senators away. Thats an extra 100 national politicians that are dipping thier hands into the treasury to buy votes.
Time to end both practices.
How do you suggest we, as a country, pay for interstate highways, bridges, airports and other infrastructure if taxes are not collected? How do we pay for a strong military? How would you fairly assess taxes for such expenditures?
Each state does elect their own senators, and a small, sparsely populated state will have the same representation in Congress as the largest, most populated states. What is unfair about that?
You obviously have a real issue with the Constitution as it was written then. We, the people, are represented by ~ wait for it ~ Representatives. The State is represented by (do we need to wait again?) Senators. This check and balance was designed so the Senators would be representative in Congress to the States needs while the Representatives would reflect the the concerns of the people.
Thanks to Pres. Wilson, this is one of the first attacks on the Constitutional form of government towards what one would presume the progressive utopia also called Socialism or Communism–that choice to be made after the Constitution is eradicated in favor of Socialism. You do know that Socialism is only a stepping stone and never an endgame–don’t you?
Oops — should have read Marxism or or Communism–that choice to be made after the Constitution is eradicated in favor of Socialism.
My bad.
What a bunch of BS. Get over yourself. Last I checked we are represented in Congress –
Last you checked?
That explains ObamaCare passed over the vociferous objections of the majority of the “people”!
As a matter of fact english is my second language. I do belive I have mentioned this before. There is only one creature on this planet that is worse than a libbie. That would be a grammer and spelling nazi.
od ouy aveh a roblemp eadingr hist? fF ouy od, ouy rea a rammerg nda pellings azin
S’pose Sunny will answer your noitseuq in your language?
Oh, wait —> you’re insulting ME! (You need to work at it, cuz, you’re not very good with the whole insult thing).
Excuse me, what is your point? Are you trying to prove your superiority or something? Do spelling and grammer errors get your goat? What is the deal?
Nazi?
That’s the first thing you go for?
In what language is calling someone a Nazi considered acceptable?
Captain Oblivious
Not a Nazi a Spelling Nazi.
Spelling Nazi. 1. A person who points out when a spelling mistake is made and has to be as irritating and overbearing a jerk as possible about it.
http://spellingnazi.com/
Oh, you mean like you’re not an @$$hole, but a teaching @$$hole?
Captain Oblivious
The bigger @ssholes in the video were the students. They are obnoxious, don’t care to learn and are the types who could believe that Newt is an intellectual giant or Obama is going to bring hope and change. If they paid attention in class they wouldn’t be so easily fooled.
a) Newt doesn’t have to be an intellectual giant to dwarf Obama and, (hell, my Border Collie can do that!)
b) a teacher that blames students for their failure to teach is the Very Definition of @$$hole Teacher.
Let’s say that Newt gets the nomination. Would a Gingrich/Cain ticket beat Obama/Biden?
Yes. This time around even Romney Mitt/whoever has a chance at winning.
dennistooge
dennis November 15, 2011 at 1:30 am #
There is a sort of satirical justice to the American political carnival now. The more self-serving, cynical and obstructionist the GOP becomes, the greater buffoons their candidates appear to be.
REALLY??????
amnesia? or stupidity?
Boiiiing CuCho
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible / Video / Obama Is Not A Christian
OMG
what a Fn BUFFOON POS…………………
hahahahah
but! hahahahah According to Bardolf, this Obama imbicile is intellectually superior to Speaker Gingrich, PhD!!
I don’t care for Gingrich’s politics, but to suggest the affermative action president is anyone’s intellectual superior is simply laughable!
And, I think I will hahahahahahahahahah sigh hahahahahahahahah
cappy
you would think the stooges who live in glass houses would know better.
I agree, Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
12th Amendment, Herr Schoen, doubtful of a Cain-Gingrich ticket as they would forfeit the electoral votes from Georgia.
That is the one point that kills me because that ticket in either format would have been a delight to watch unfold. Plus, there are no mittens anywhere.
Maybe one of them could move to Asia before the election.
Honalulu is still in Asia isn’t it? It was this morning.
Either one would look good in a Hawi’ian shirt —. a BIG Hawi’ian shirt.
Newt could pull off the Hawaiian shirt as long as he did it with ghostly white legs, black socks and sandals. Then he could be a Tourista.
HA —> Put him on the beach with a metal detector in his hands and you’ve got a fat Richard Nixon.
Neo, dont forget, Hawaii is now in asia. I can just imagine the guffaws from the libbies had Dubya said that.
Cain gets bushwhacked then gets it right = idiot.
Ochimpy makes a COMPLETE ASS out of himself = G*D
kneepads seem to go well with marxist, leftism, and trolls.
What Newt has going for him is he’s always the best debater in the room. He would reduce Barry to a whimpering pile of bodily fluids in a debate. And in this era of ridiculously biased MSM, that makes Newt the best not-Obama in the race. The road to the WH goes through three no-holds-barred Presidential debates. Newt has the best chops for the contest, far and away.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
right, libertyatstake. I am sure Obama will be terrified to debate Newt. We shall see, but I would put my money on Obama any day. I seriously doubt that Newt will even have the opportunity to debate Obama – as the Karl Roves, Bill Kristal etc do not want Newt with all of his baggage to be the next Republican candidate for President.
Newt is such a poor candidate and by any non-partisan metric vastly inferior to Obama intellectually. – barstool
I too had to laugh at this absurd notion. Not one of barstool’s best moments.
Here’s a great glimpse of the “intellectually superior” Obama:
YEAAAAAAAAAAHH
Triple murderer Oba Chandler dies of lethal injection
Go Fla!!!
Captain Obvious said, “But they receive “rebates” on taxes they don’t pay so they get back more than they pay in —-> that’s the same as paying no federal taxes.”
First off, NeoClown didn’t say they pay no federal taxes. He said “well YEAHHHHHH !
when they pay ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH a $.01 tax is a 100% increase.”
Which is such an obvious lie that I’m surprised that Captain Obvious fell for it. Of course, even Rick Warren fell for it and had to back off when he was exposed, but I digress… It’s just a talking point for you guys.
They do pay taxes. There are a lot of different kinds of taxes. You guys are so obsessed with taxes that I would think you would know that.
According to the Tax Foundation:
The bottom 20% pay 13% of their income in taxes.
The next 20% pays 23.2%.
The middle 20% pays 28.2%.
The fourth quintile pays 31.3%.
The top 20% of earners pays 34.5%.
Raising taxes on a household making $30,000–a household in the second quintile–is a big deal to them.
I once wrote a comment here (to Mark) asking him what he’s willing to pay for in tax dollars. Crickets. I listed a bunch of stuff I’m willing to pay for. More crickets. You all expect the benefits paid by taxpayers, but you don’t want to pay taxes. It’s the old “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” That’s why I think most conservatives are essentially hypocritical.
waspstooge
First off, NeoClown didn’t say they pay no federal taxes.
ANY moron with an IQ over 60 would know we were talking about INCOME TAX.
This has been discussed here a thousand times.
However if you would like to show how a person who paid say $500.00 in income taxes and received $4000.00 back as well as other “entitlements” er “benefits” actually paid ANY taxes feel free to show this proof or STFU and be seen as the dope you are.
If that’s the case, Clown, why do you continue to screw up and lie? It’s because you have your agenda and talking points. We all know that.
dbschmidt, regarding Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, you should give this a crack:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-19/news/fl-herman-cain-plan-schiff-1019-20111019_1_income-tax-consumption-tax-tax-rate
Or you could read the analysis by Edward D. Kleinbard of the University of Southern California Law School. A summary:
“The 9-9-9 Plan functions as an effective 27 percent payroll tax on wage income. By imposing an effective 27 percent flat tax on wage income, the 9-9-9 Plan would materially raise the tax burden on many low- and middle-income taxpayers, who today face little or no tax under the income tax, and a 15.3 percent effective pay- roll tax burden. The Plan apparently offers lower tax rates (17.2 percent) for labor income attributable to owner-employees of firms, because they can extract their labor earnings as returns to capital.”
watsdousche
L-E-A-R-N
Update: The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
the top 10% pay 71%,
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
More here stooge
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2012
The maximum earned income credit for 2012 is:
$5,891 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,236 with two qualifying children;
$3,169 with one qualifying child; and
$475 with no qualifying children.
mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm
It is high time that the EITC program be exposed for the income redistribution program it really is.
A better name for it would be UITP: the Unearned Income Transfer Payment. But until the members of Congress commit to the wholesale dismantling of the welfare state, the EITC, like the income tax itself, is here to stay.
Good call neo —> Earned income Tax Credit – Alternative Minimum Tax – Bush Tax Rate cuts – reduction of SSI tax rate to 4.2% from 6.5% and the “bottom 20%” receive more from the Federal Government then they pay in all taxes combined.
Bottom 20% is earners less than $18,000, they pay 11% of their income in sales and excise taxes, Property taxes, payroll taxes and misc taxes; or less than $2,000. Refunds and tax credits pay exceeds that amount at every level in the bottom 20%.
I think the main problem is the bottom 20% have kids that they can’t afford. I am still waiting for the study that shows that children who grow up in single-parent households go on to have better lives than those who grow up in nuclear households.
Here we go again. Do you not even notice that you are casually swapping back and forth between federal income tax and total tax burden like they are the same thing?
Wow, the lib drones are especially dense lately.
We are not saying raise the taxes of the “poor”. What we are saying is to stop the excess tax payments (wealth redistribution) to them.
Once their tax burden has been reduced to ZERO, then that’s it – they don’t get the free money.
For those who will have trouble (and you know who you are):
If the tax burden is $1000.
EIC and other credits: $3500
The recipient would receive a check for $2500 even thought he/she only “paid” $1000.
We are saying that their burden would be reduced to $0 and they get their full refund of $1000 – NOTHING MORE.
Wealth redistribution is a proven failure as we have seen in Europe and even here in most cases.
Why are these concepts so hard for the drones to understand (probably since they are on the receiving end of this windfall)?
tired
Wow, the lib drones are especially dense lately.
some yes, some PAID agent provocateurs.
tired said, “We are not saying raise the taxes of the “poor”. What we are saying is to stop the excess tax payments (wealth redistribution) to them.”
Yes, that IS what you are saying by endorsing the Cain tax plan. That much should be obvious even to you. And you are endorsing raising taxes on the middle class, which probably includes a lot of readers of B4V.
The Perry plan lets you choose between a 20% flat tax or your current tax. Rather than simplifying the tax code, it would make it more complex by preserving all of the current tax code AND adding another option.
Studies show the Perry plan would result in higher taxes for 40% of Americans, while being a windfall for the wealthy. (The top 1% of taxpayers would each see a $1.5 million tax cut.) It would reduce revenue in 2015 by almost $1 trillion, resulting in radical changes to Medicare and Social Security. I’m sure NeoClown would welcome that since his very lifestyle depends on Medicare and Social Security entitlements. And I’m equally sure the working folks here at B4V would be happy to have their taxes raised so that Clown continues to get his benefits until the system breaks in a few years.
How about you, tired? Are you sucking up taxpayer-funded entitlements as well?
If you are a tax payer, and have been paying into SS and Medicare your entire life – is that an entitlement?
Gee, watty, obviously you can’t read. First you, yourself posted that the bottom quintile pay 13% of their income in taxes. Last I checked, 9% was less than 13%. Oooops!!!! You lack of reading comprehension again make you the fool that you are.
Second, there are taxes built into the price of any commodity, product or service. Reducing taxes across, the board will offset any liberal imagined “increase” in income taxes or sales taxes. You obviously did not read Cain’s plan for the “poor” as presented earlier.
You drones scream of raising taxes on the “poor” but obAMATEUR has done so and we hear nothing but crickets from you. Tobacco taxes have been increased under obAMATEUR, taxes and other fees have increased under obAMATEUR to pay for his healthcare plan that hasn’t started yet. We have been through this many times and each time you ignore it – only to regurgitate more of your dumbed down talking points.
And I can confidently state, that I am not “sucking up taxpayer funded entitlements. I am a producer not a moocher and looter like so many on the left whose vote has been purchased with MY TAX DOLLARS.
go away drone, your stupidity is an embarrassment to your party.
————–
And there goes wally with his usual lies and poop flinging hoping something will stick to protect that oh so fragile ego of his.
Still waiting for that proof, there wally.
Wally and watty, the liberal drone mentality “gift” that keeps on giving.
We know what you produce Wallace; nausea and revulsion.
“Gee, watty, obviously you can’t read. First you, yourself posted that the bottom quintile pay 13% of their income in taxes. Last I checked, 9% was less than 13%.”
Oh come on, are you really that incompetent? He was listing total tax burden not federal income tax. They are not the same thing.
I mean seriously, this isn’t that hard to figure out. Cain’s plan very clearly reduces the tax burden for the rich, and while it is not revenue neutral, it is at least within a few hundred billion probably. Where is the difference being made up? Are you really so stupid that you believe that you can magically decrease one group’s contribution and not have it affect our total revenue?
wow, cory, I know you too also have trouble in the reading comprehension.
Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan reduces taxes across the board. This would translate down to less expensive products and services since they are inflated to pay the present income taxes for all stages of the product or service.
I know you find it necessary to limit your responses to your talking points but really you need to look pass them and look down into the details and not just regurgitate the generalities.
If you don’t like regurgitate I could use “Parrot” or “copy”. Since you don’t like regurgitate then stop doing so.
“I know you find it necessary to limit your responses to your talking points but really you need to look pass them and look down into the details and not just regurgitate the generalities.
If you don’t like regurgitate I could use “Parrot” or “copy”. Since you don’t like regurgitate then stop doing so.”
I know this is the tactic you resort to you when you find yourself incapable of actually understanding what other people have posted, but what talking point am I even “regurgitating”? Is it really the “party line” that you can’t grasp tax policy even on a basic level? I’m not talking about general policy. I’m saying that comparing the 9% sales tax in Cain’s plan to the 13% overall tax burden on people in the bottom quintile demonstrates a total lack of understanding of even which taxes you personally currently pay. Which “party” that I’m getting my rhetoric from came to these boards and read your posts so they could give that critical analysis to me?
I mean, you literally can’t even figure out when it even makes contextual sense to accuse somebody of regurgitating other people’s words, and you think you can lecture me on reading comprehension? And no, getting out a thesaurus isn’t going to make you stop sounding stupid.
keep dreaming cory.
Does an income tax at 9% translate into a greater that 13% tax burden?
I haven’t seen any proof of this other than you actually regurgitating the Democrat party line.
Any tax reform without tax increases on the “rich” is deemed unfair. Libs also complain about the unfair “deductions” and “loopholes” the rich have. Giving them a flat tax of 9% and another 9% based on their consumption does not give them the advantage of “unfair deductions and loopholes”.
Again, cory you need to look past the talking point generalities and get down into the details. It is not my fault you cannot get past them and don’t like facts pointing out your shortcomings thrown back at you.
——–
And I see, wally is still stuck on stupid – the gift that keeps on giving.
“Does an income tax at 9% translate into a greater that 13% tax burden?”
Yes. For most people, state sales tax alone would tip that right on over to higher than 13%. That’s without even bothering to examine other taxes and paycheck withholdings. Is it really that hard to fathom what “total tax burden” means?
“Yes. For most people, state sales tax alone would tip that right on over to higher than 13%. That’s without even bothering to examine other taxes and paycheck withholdings. Is it really that hard to fathom what “total tax burden” means?”
So Cory now you are bringing state taxes into the mix? Watty did not mention state taxes, federal taxes only. You do know the difference, don’t you?
Paycheck withholding are to pay the original taxes, don’t try to double dip like the obAMATEUR administration.
Yes I know the difference between tax burden and income tax. I have been comparing income tax plus consumption tax translating into a greater tax burden. If you had command of reading comprehension you would have noticed this little detail. But as I said, details are foreign to you. You would rather stick to general talking points.
———–
And again! Wally is stuck on stupid.
“So Cory now you are bringing state taxes into the mix? Watty did not mention state taxes, federal taxes only. You do know the difference, don’t you?
Paycheck withholding are to pay the original taxes, don’t try to double dip like the obAMATEUR administration.
Yes I know the difference between tax burden and income tax. I have been comparing income tax plus consumption tax translating into a greater tax burden. If you had command of reading comprehension you would have noticed this little detail. But as I said, details are foreign to you. You would rather stick to general talking points.”
Hey moron, the total tax burden of 13% includes state and local taxes. That’s why it is a total tax burden. Thanks for playing.
I see, again, Wally is still stuck on stupid.
I can’t tell you because it is classified – a condition for employment. Because I don’t tell you is not indicative that it is a lie.
Shall I use that stupid logic for you not answering any challenges? If I did, every single comment on the different topics you replied to would be considered LIES! At least, that will confirm the rest of your dodges and deflections – most of your lies were already revealed to be so. Using that stupid logic, will just clinch it that you are a habitual liar.
————–
And look, cory regurgitates my tag line “thanks for playing”. Wow, is he capable of thinking up anything for himself? Again, the details make you look foolish, but keep regurgitating generalities, it proves my point again and again.
Cory, another gift that keeps on giving.
I did answer Wally.
You are just too stupid to comprehend – not surprising.
Hint: I don’t work for the government. I make more money this way.
“Again, the details make you look foolish, but keep regurgitating generalities, it proves my point again and again.”
What was your point again? That a 9% federal tax is less of a tax burden than a non-comparable 13% comprehensive tax rate?
cory, I keep explaining my point and all you can come back with is “you don’t know what total tax burden means” again and again and again.
You know, you regurgitate the same talking points.
Again, LOOK AT THE DETAILS in my post and not the generalities you seem to be stuck on.
Wally still stuck on stupid.
He will never learn.
So in the end the point being made here is that the Right would rather vote for a man who committed adultery (twice) and divorced two wives rather than vote for Mitt Romney a man who has been married to the same woman, I assume faithfully, for more than four decades?
Wanting to oust Obama now trumps your deepest held religious, and moral beliefs? This is truly sad.
The argument had been that Obama had no business experience. Well Romney has tons of this and has been very successful. Newt Gingrich cannot compare in this and appears to be more of a “community organizer” of a sort than even Mr Obama from his lobbying work for Freddie Mac to the tune of $ 1.6 million.
I think that’s what they’re saying’, Cavalor. Apparently, one of their “family values” is to suspend them whenever convenient. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
Values touched upon only when they suit a situation are not values at all my friend.
I will once again touch on the fact that Obama, being the great family values man that he is, has been the worst President this country has ever had. So having another family values President, may not be the way to go. Or at the very least, it certainly isn’t a precursor to success, now is it?
Once again the liberals prove their ignorance of not only reformation of a antiquated tax code, but more importantly continue to display a disturbing lack of knowledge of who the majority of conservatives are. They so desperately want to paint conservatives as racist, religious zealots, knowing that is the only caricature that fits their narrow narrative. The fact is that most conservatives and independents are fiscal conservatives, with social issues being low on the totem pole, so that being said, Newt’s personal life matters little. Newt has a great vision of where we need to go as a country, and the experience to get it done, which departs greatly from the current occupant, who can only advocate failed big government policies with little experience to actually get it done.
The only hope liberals have to win is to bring people down into the sewer with them. Well, I, and other conservatives will choose to take a different path, and tune them out, while we champion America, the shining city on the hill, that will once again be that beacon of light once we take her from the draconian grips of liberalism
cluster said, “The fact is that most conservatives and independents are fiscal conservatives, with social issues being low on the totem pole.”
That may be true for you, cluster, but it is hardly true of today’s conservatives. According to Conservapedia, “Recently, a division has been created between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism centers around a low and balanced government budget, and generally is opposed to programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Its primary goal is to reduce government spending significantly. Social Conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on the moral issues of conservatism. A social conservative will oppose same-sex marriage, abortion, and the teaching of evolution in schools. The majority of Conservatives (including most of the Republican Party) fall into both categories, however some fall into one or the other, but not both.”
Just to be clear, “The majority of Conservatives (including most of the Republican Party) fall into both categories.”
I’m really surprised that you would argue this point. But good enough. Fortunately, we no longer have lectures about morals and values and stuff from Mark Edward Noonan.
Maybe if you actually went to conservative forums, and/or knew some conservative people, you’d have a better grasp, other than relying on “Conservapedia”
But, I don’t want to encourage you to know more than you already think you do.
Yes watty, that conservative division sets us apart from you leftist drones. It shows we don’t mindlessly swallow the cool-aid that you guzzle down without question.
Leftist drones are a homogenous mob of individuals with no independent thought who regurgitate dumbed down talking points in exchange for entitlement payments and your vote.
Pathetic.
“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Thank you my good little minions; since we have no values, no core beliefs and no decency, we cannot be held to any standard while those Christian fools continue to try to live up to theirs!
Good work on spreading the lie about lobbying … my ol’ buddy Goebbles would be proud of that one too.
Let’s talk about liberals living up to their own “rules”, shall we?. Liberals want desperately to “tax the rich”, yet the “rich liberals” are famous for not paying taxes (think Gheitner, Sebellius, etc.), in addition to never paying more than they owe in any given year. The amount of anyone’s annual tax obligation is the minimum due, and everyone is more than welcome to pay in more. So maybe some liberal can regale us with the names of rich liberals who paid in more than their minimum tax obligation. It would be nice of they led by example, especially knowing that Buffett still owes about $1 million.
Saul I did the research for Cav’s post and the payments of between $1.6 million and 1.8 million by Freddie Mac have been confirmed.
Call it lobbying or call it consulting fees Gingrich was paid the money by one of the agents of blame for the economic crisis most often uttered by the Right.
For clarity, this from Bloomberg:
Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.
His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.
During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.
“I spent about three hours with him talking about the substance of the issues and the politics of the issues, and he really got it,” said Delk, adding that the two discussed “what the benefits are to communities, what the benefits could be for Republicans and particularly their relationship with Hispanics.”
Tell me what is wrong with Gingrich being paid for his services. Even though Freddie and Fannie’s existence is debatable, the fact is that they do exist, and desired Newt’s services, of which he should be properly paid, and was. More power to him.
Do you guys have any other windmills you feel like swinging at today?
Call it lobbying or call it consulting fees Gingrich was paid the money by one of the agents of blame for the economic crisis most often uttered by the Right.
And here again, we have another false premise. The mere existence of freddie and fannie was not responsible for the economic crisis. It was the sub prime policies of those agencies, championed by Frank, Dodd, Clinton, etc., that led to the melt down. Can you say stated income loans? Better yet, do you even know what that means?
So Cluster you don’t see any political fallout coming from Gingrich profiting, albeit through his consulting firm not him directly, from being paid tens of thousands of dollars a month by Freddie Mac? Would you feel the same about this if this were a Democratic Party candidate that was found to have had such a deep tie?
First of all, “consulting” is not a “deep tie”, and considering that the Obama admin just approved $100 million in bonuses for the execs of Freddie and Fannie, I would say Newt’s compensation pales in comparison.
Must be another slow day at the echo chamber known as the Pitchfork.
Pathetic.
What the hell kind of economist are you that you don’t understand the difference between lobbyist (acting on behalf of a group or organization) and a consultant (a paid advisor)?
Gingrich openly advised, submitted a written critical path, and they paid him and didn’t take his advice.
“ one of the agents of blame for the economic crisis most often uttered by the Right. And the “Right” (as in “correct”) has been calling for the kind of reforms Gingrich recommended in his consultation.
“I did the research for Cav’s post” Please, stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.
You never answered the question Cluster. If this were a Democrat and he had these sorts of ties to Freddie Mac you wouldn’t think this is a political issue at least of a liability at worst? I think there may have been criminal activity regarding how the White House handled Solyndra from day one. The facts are the facts. I think Fast and Furious was illegal. how is it that you guys on the Right always have so much trouble with crow?
If any Democrat ever recommended reforming Freddie and Fannie like Gingrich did the “Right” would nominate that Democrat for Sainthood; but it’s never happened and it nevwer will happen … ever.
WOW
It didnt take long
Cain is knocked out of first place, the MSM claims Newt to be the front runner.
NOW the whole damned commie flying monkey show including the infamous forker turds flap in for the killing off of Newt, leaving mittens unscathed.
They want mitt and Ochimpy, then there will be a concerted effort to destroy mitt right before the election.
PS
FAMILY VALUES???????? WTF
an admitted DOPE dealer/user and a back seat cheater giving BJ’s while he is married to the wookie Mooch?
some family, some values.
walleye
bwany and his GAY LOVER raines………..
schwartzPutz
why is it you “guys” never have trouble with D ?
I know many faithful married people who would not be good choices for the presidency. Since when does fidelity mean qualification for the presidency?
If a woman says she wants a divorce, and the marriage is over except for the legalities, is it still adultery for either of them to go out with someone else? How do you define “marriage”—-is it the covenant between two people,which can be broken before ending the legal relationship, or is it completely defined by the legal relationship? Is betrayal of trust an integral part of the whole adultery thing? That is, if both parties know and approve of the other seeing people, knowing that the marriage is over, is it still ‘adultery’?
Just curious.
Gingrich never lobbied. Ever. Sorry, but that infinitely flexible RRL dictionary your type depends on so much has failed you. This is truly sad.
No, not really, it’s funny. It’s a hoot, watching you guys flounder and flail, frantically trying to find something relevant to whinge about.
But all you do is illustrate how feeble and superficial your concept of politics is. For people like you, politics is not about the nuts and bolts of governance, not about a blueprint of how best to run a country, but about scandal and personality and identity—-all that superficial People Magazine kind of stuff that appeals to a certain shallow kind of character.
You made the last presidential election an American Idol farce, so this is pretty much what we expect of you.
In 2006, Gingrich was hired again on a two-year contract that paid him $300,000 annually, again to provide strategic advice while the company fended off attacks from the right wing of the Republican Party.
http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-received-freddie-mac-compensation-155709459.html
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Gingrich was paid to help Freddie Mac defend itself from fiscal conservatives!!!
Learning disabled?
“to provide strategic advice while the company fended off attacks
Or just stupid?
hahahahahahahahaha
You never seem to tire of making a fool of yourself; btw, find those videos of Gingrich appearing as amazingly stupid as Obama?
cap’n
btw, find those videos of Gingrich appearing as amazingly stupid as Obama?
or
Bwany
or
joebiteme
or
kennedydrunk
or
sKerry
or
mad maxine
or
piglowsey
etc etc etc
Aw Gee
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
Fannie Mae’s Political Immunity
President Bush is poised to sign the housing and Fannie Mae bailout bill, after the Senate passed it with 72 votes on the weekend.
But an underreported part of this story is that Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on Republican Jim DeMint’s amendment to bar political donations and lobbying by Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac.
This is a rare parliamentary move for a body in which even Senators in the minority party have long been able to force votes. The strong-arm play illustrates how politically powerful these government-sponsored enterprises remain.
Hmmmmmm
now WHO????? once worked for ACORN ????
Don’t forget ACORN received contributions too!
To the tune of $797,000 according to the WSJ.
something is in the woodpile
Nothing here move on…..
Fannie Mae has been engaged, since that time, in an enormously expensive re-examination of its books dating back to 2001 and has not filed the necessary financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission in nearly two years.
On the way out the door, Raines and Howard collected severance packages that turned more than a few heads.
At that time it was reported here that Raines would receive pension payments of $114,393 per month for the rest of his and his surviving spouse’s life and Howard would receive $36,071. In addition, both men were to receive lifetime medical and dental coverage for themselves, their wives, and any dependents under age 21 and corporation paid premiums on substantial life insurance policies. Mr. Raines’ medical insurance premiums were to be paid; while Mr. Howard was to pay at the reduced rates provided to all retirees.
As of the date his resignation was requested, Mr. Raines held vested and exercisable options to purchase a total of 1,628,071 shares of Fannie Mae common stock. The option price was exceeded by actual stock value by $5,545,270 and his”retirement” triggered an additional package of options to purchase some 380,000 shares at varying prices. The options are vested and will expire between May 2008 and January 2014. Mr. Howard held vested options that, if exercised immediately, would reap $4,395,864. Both men requested that they be allowed to time their actual separations so as to increase the value of their pensions and their options.
Last month the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development charged with regulating Fannie Mae and its sister organization Freddie Mac, issued a scathing report on Fannie’s financial manipulations, stating outright that some of the motivation was to protect those executive bonuses.
The report stated that Raines had earned more than $52 million in performance and other bonuses from 1998 through 2003. This was in addition to some $38 million in salaries and other compensation.
and Newt made 300K ????
Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha
Captain Oblivious
Your sophistry is embarrassing. If you want to think history teacher Newt was providing advice on the housing market or derivative trading or the like you go ahead.
Rational people will find it more plausible that ex-Speaker of the house was providing political advice on how to handle a political problem.
This is a common problem on B4V. People looking for axiomatic proof in a non-axiomatic real world. The same faux reasoning occurs on Huffpost where people genuinely believe that e.g. Obama is a genius.
Still waiting for any sign of Newt being an author before his political career.
Captain
I have to thank you for making me look more closely at Newt. I never though much of the man based on his morals (having affairs and ditching 2 wives, subsidies, Fannie Mae…) but really he is just horrible.
He left West Georgia College at the end of the 1977–1978 academic year, after being denied tenure.
Hahahahahaha
Couldn’t even get tenure at West Georgia College. To add to my friend Neocon’s saying:
1.People who can, do.
2. People who can’t, teach.
3 People who can’t get tenure at community colleges become the leaders of the GOP!
and those AA inserts who never ran a lemonade stand become POTUS for the donks.
and flunkys from divinity school, army privates become donk VP’s
Bardolf,
Your fallaciousness is excruciating. If you want to think former Speaker of the House responsible for balancing the Federal Budget and setting the legislative agenda wasn’t providing advice on the historical implications of their activities at the behest of the government or the like you go ahead.
”Rational people will find it more plausible that ex-Speaker of the house was providing political advice on how to handle a political problem. ” Yeah … Right, since we all know just how well Newt did at handling political problems after resigning from the
Speakership over … uh … political probl— never-mind!
Hahahahahahah
Yeah, that’s the reason they paid him, cuz he’s so good at getting out of political problems— > you’re delusional. Seriously delusional!
Then there’s all those videos you found, hysterical! They show just how dopey he is, wait … you still haven’t found any?
Okay, just find the transcripts showing how Newt is intellectually inferior to Obama, You’re so cock-sure of it you’ll have no problem finding it.
Right, since we all know just how well Newt did at handling political problems after resigning from the
Speakership over … uh … political probl— never-mind!- Captain
Sometimes even the best generals lose battles, the best coaches lose games etc. That doesn’t mean you don’t hire them to do what they know best in the future. Newt is unquestionable a master at politics and his political knowledge was used by Fannie Mae.
Historians tell good stories. They aren’t particularly well known for making predictions which are superior to ordinary people. Fannie Mae wasn’t looking for Newt to supply forecasts.
Gingrich was paid to help Freddie Mac defend itself from fiscal conservatives!!! – barstool
Well aside from the premise being a half truth at best, I don’t think barstool read the entire article, otherwise he would have noticed this:
He (Gingrich) said Freddie Mac officials told him “we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do.” He said his advice was to tell them, “this is insane.”
With all the things about Newt that are objectionable, the interminable sophstrate Bardolf goes to the casuistry of tenure?????? (does using a thesaurus badly make that ass look bigger?)
“I was perfectly happy to work on the question, ‘What do government-sponsored enterprises do?’” Gingrich said.
That’s silly, what would a Former Speaker of the House know about what a government sponsered enterprise would do for a government sponsered enterprise?
Hahahaha more comic gold from the Clueless.
Gingrich LIED to not 1 but 2 wives, carrying on affairs behind their back for years but is HONEST about what he said to Democrat entitlement of the century Freddie Mac. LOL
He told Freddie Mac, what they were doing was insane and they still paid him a couple more hundred thousand. Neo has some land in Florida for you Clueless. How about some imaginary sophisticated advice an honest guy/gal on the on street would have given Freddie Mac.
Freddie Mac: We are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do.
Neocon or GMB or Spook or Amazona: That is insane.
I just saved Freddie Mac a million dollars and Neocon got to tell them not to listen to the government. No Newt needed.
‘dolf,
You’re actually arguing the Newt shouldn’t be elected because he was a paid consultant? Or had affairs? And you call yourself libertarian?
Don’t bother, in the end Newt hasn’t a prayer of attracting conservatives; I’d sooner vote for Hillary or Al Sharpton, or cut off my balls and run as a democrat myself than vote for Mr. Political-Whore. I don’t know a single TEA Party Patriot or card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that would give Newt a second thought. Period – Dot – Bingo!
meanwhile back at the raunch
Occupier’s Chilling Threat: ‘You Going to See What a Molotov Cocktail Can Do to Macy’s’
“we’re going to burn this shi* to the motherfu**ing ground on the 17th”
and all we hear about is Newts 300K and his 3 wives.
rut ro
paging larry sinclair…….
That would be a photoshopped ad produced by Benetton though We are sure millions of the conservative ill informed will consider this some sort of proof. We will post the full series later in the day.
majordumbo pain
fake but real…….larry sinclair – dan blather