Newt Gingrich

[Aquila]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqSVe...ature=youtu.be

[Aquila]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QadeA...feature=relmfu

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QadeA...feature=relmfu

Robert S. McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice

Robert McIntyre: Sorry, Newt. You never balanced the budget

Gingrich's insistence that he deserves none of the blame, but all of the (supposed) credit for the 1995 government shutdown is humorous, and I thank him for the laugh. Not so funny is Gingrich's cockamamie theory that the so-called 1997 “Balanced Budget Act” and its companion bill, the “Taxpayer Relief Act,” led to the budget surpluses that began in 1998.

Gingrich's argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budget act balanced the budget. But that's demonstrably false.

In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here's what really happened:

http://www.limaohio.com/articles/bud...-balanced.html

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Robert S. McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice

Robert McIntyre: Sorry, Newt. You never balanced the budget

Gingrich's insistence that he deserves none of the blame, but all of the (supposed) credit for the 1995 government shutdown is humorous, and I thank him for the laugh. Not so funny is Gingrich's cockamamie theory that the so-called 1997 “Balanced Budget Act” and its companion bill, the “Taxpayer Relief Act,” led to the budget surpluses that began in 1998.

Gingrich's argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budget act balanced the budget. But that's demonstrably false.

In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here's what really happened:

http://www.limaohio.com/articles/bud...-balanced.html

Do you know who the people are that you are quoting? This is a liberal think tank. According to SourceWatch:

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) was founded in 1979 by labor unions and other groups.[1] They are a 501(c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon the USA

The Heritage Foundation (a Conservative think tank) blasts this organization:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ate-tax-report

I find it funny that you claim that Gingrich is a Liberal... and the ammunition you can use against him is liberal.

Are you a closet Liberal? Be honest. We'd still love you.

[Aquila]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmh3...eature=related

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you know who the people are that you are quoting? This is a liberal think tank. According to SourceWatch:

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) was founded in 1979 by labor unions and other groups.[1] They are a 501(c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon the USA

The Heritage Foundation (a Conservative think tank) blasts this organization:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ate-tax-report

I find it funny that you claim that Gingrich is a Liberal... and the ammunition you can use against him is liberal.

Are you a closet Liberal? Be honest. We'd still love you.

CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 281:
How the Budget Revolution Was Lost

So far the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress has failed to control the pace of social program expansions. In their first three budgets (FY 1996-98), the Republicans have increased domestic spending by $183 billion compared to a$155 billion increase in the three years prior to GOP control of Congress. Not a single cabinet agency has been eliminated. And only a small handful of the 300 federal programs that were targeted for closure--a list that included the National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corporation, bilingual education funds, urban transit grants,and Goals 2000--has actually been terminated. In sum, as in the Reagan years, Republicans have quickly retreated from the agenda of making government in Washington smaller and smarter.

The budget deal will not balance the budget by 2002 because it presumes, unrealistically, that the 106thand 107th Congresses will make the spending reductions that this Republican Congress has the authority, but lacks the willpower, to enact today. If Republicans in the 105th Congress were seriously committed to a balanced budget, they could achieve it unilaterally next year with relative ease. If total outlays were simply held to the inflation rate, the deficit would be eliminated. The problem is not that Congress cannot cut spending, it is that it will not.

[22] As in the Reagan years, Republicans--at least for the moment--seem to have concluded, not that big government is good, but that trying to cut its size is politically futile.
[23]
For all of these reasons, the Republican budget revolution, so far, has fallen far short of expectations.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa281.pdf

Book by Sen. Tom Coburn says Newt Gingrich drained lifeblood from Republican revolution

Coburn was part of the 1994 freshman class that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years. According to Coburn, Gingrich ultimately abandoned the principles that drove the Republican resurgence and failed to keep promises to slash spending.

“From the perspective of many members of the class of 1994, it was Gingrich who had drained the lifeblood from the Republican revolution with some of his political decisions,'' Coburn wrote.

Read more: http://newsok.com/book-by-sen.-tom-c...#ixzz1fsU63Ofs

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Book by Sen. Tom Coburn says Newt Gingrich drained lifeblood from Republican revolution

Coburn was part of the 1994 freshman class that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years. According to Coburn, Gingrich ultimately abandoned the principles that drove the Republican resurgence and failed to keep promises to slash spending.

“From the perspective of many members of the class of 1994, it was Gingrich who had drained the lifeblood from the Republican revolution with some of his political decisions,'' Coburn wrote.

Read more: http://newsok.com/book-by-sen.-tom-c...#ixzz1fsU63Ofs

Dont' you realize there are multiple interpretations of what you're talking about? Others disagree.

You're flying on opinion and commentary. Look at Newt's policy agenda. Compare it to the other candidates and get back with me. It's the ol' go to the horse's mouth strategy. Newt has the best ideas I've heard out of the candidates. The only other candidate who has ideas I've thought were decent is Ron Paul.

Perry is just another cowboy thinking he can ride to Washington on the virtue that he's the governor of Texas.

[Aquila]

Elections - POLITICS
Perry Phoned Top Donors Ahead of Presidential Bid


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1fscCL0cN

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...sidential-bid/

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Dont' you realize there are multiple interpretations of what you're talking about? Others disagree.

You're flying on opinion and commentary. Look at Newt's policy agenda. Compare it to the other candidates and get back with me. It's the ol' go to the horse's mouth strategy. Newt has the best ideas I've heard out of the candidates. The only other candidate who has ideas I've thought were decent is Ron Paul.

Perry is just another cowboy thinking he can ride to Washington on the virtue that he's the governor of Texas.

Do you live up north? 'Cause that sounds like something a Yankee would say.

Now, let's get to the real issue behind all the information - Newt Gingrich has NOT sold me that he is a limited government guy. He is insanely intelligent, but that means nothing to me with his past history. And like Attorney General Cuccinelli asks Gingrich, "How can we trust you?"

Another point I would like to make - we have a "Contract with America", it is called the Constitution. Just sayin'.....

Rick Perry has a "consistent" Conservative record. I will vote for him in the primary and if Newt or Romney (because Faux News and the GOP Establishment are pushing for it) gets the nomination, I will be changing my voter registration card to reflect that I am an Independent. I will leave the Republican Party behind.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Elections - POLITICS
Perry Phoned Top Donors Ahead of Presidential Bid


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1fscCL0cN

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...sidential-bid/

Sounds like rumor mongering to me.

Faux News whose ratings have dropped by 13% in November? We are turning to CNN for a more balanced view of the election cycle. At least we don't have to listen to the election being given to Romney or Newt there.

Fred Wertheimer, the head of campaign watchdog group Democracy 21, said the roles of elected officials who are running for office can blur. “But the elected official has to take appropriate steps that ensure that government resources aren’t being used for campaign purposes,” Wertheimer said. The conversations in the spring between Ryan and Perry, he said, “raise the question of whether this so-called candidate-specific super PAC is really independent from the governor.”

It’s unclear what Perry and all of his supporters discussed in their conversations, and Perry didn’t appear to contact Ryan since his Aug. 13 campaign announcement. State logs do not record incoming calls or those made by aides, and most of Perry’s daily schedules produced since then say only that Perry was “tending to state business” with no further details.

“Gov. Perry only conducts state business on his state office phone,” Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said, adding that members of his executive staff have access to his line. A Make Us Great Again representative said Ryan and Perry discussed higher education and economic issues in the governor’s office April 29, but wasn’t aware of the phone call.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...fYO_story.html