Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

red55

Projections are only projections. Things don't always turn out that way. What is certain is that Bush has contributed much more to our current National Debt. That was my point to martin. We can compare 8 years of Bush to 8 years of Obama in 7 and a half years. Meanwhile pitting future projections against done deeds seems disingenuous. Apples and oranges.

I don't lack concern for the budget deficits, I'm just not ready to join you in panic about it. I understand the huge difference between economic stimulus spending right here in America to pull us out of the recessions and the huge spending on the economic stimulus of Iraq and the unfunded mandates of "No child". 6 months is too soon to judge whether Obama's plans will work as advertised. Let the Chicken Littles cry that the sky is falling. They will do that no matter what. I plan to give Obama more time to actually fail at something, instead of overreacting to my imagination.

Don't lecture me on balance, Bub. We've seen damn little of it from you. You backed 8 years of Republican policies all the way and now that they've failed badly, you disavow them and harp on Obama for being worse. Who the hell are you for, exactly?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

Bandit88

Gotta give Red more time. I'm guessing he's still trying to figure out how to spin things so that President Obama and his administration's policy goals don't look like a pamphlet for the American Socialist Party.

Luckily for Red, he can always claim that HRC woulda done a better job.

__________________
"I have a fairly strong feeling that his career for the most part will be wasted at LSU."

Forum member discussing Russell Shepard's future at LSU, January 26, 2009.

http://lsutigerbait.blogspot.com

LSUAthletics

Yes, these CBO projections are only projections but should they not be taken seriously and should not future fiscal policies take them into consideration? These are the best estimates we have and as such should influence future policy but Obama's proposed policies vividly indicate he's not concerned with these projections. Sure, these projections could be wrong either way. That means there's just as much chance of them being understated as them being overstated. What signs do you see, if any, that would lead you to believe these CBO projections are overstating future deficits? I see signs of understating such as the higher than expected unemployment rate that is likely to go even higher.

These deficit projections go way beyond "stimulus" spending and you know it. The stimulus spending is only partially responsibly for the huge deficits which are projected for many years to come. How much time are you willing to give Obama? We know what spending programs Obama is proposing. Most economist have predicted slow growth in the economy for years to come. You tell me a plausible scenario that will lead to these deficit projections not materializing.

Completely untrue. I'm an advocate of low taxes and lower government spending. That's what I consider proper balance and that's not what occurred the last 8 years. Everyone's idea of proper balance is different so unless you define it, which you never specifically do, no one knows where you stand. From your response I have to conclude that you think the CBO projections are wrong because I don't see an ounce of concern from you over these projections. All I see from you is pointing fingers at the Bush administration and absolutely no critiquing of Obama's policies even though economist are projecting much higher deficits than Bush every had for the next decade.

martin

yes we should have more respect for the taliban and saddam.


i think there a plenty of US policies that are miserable and greatly contribute to human misery around the world. i also think our prosperiy will go straight to hell if we continue obama's ecnomic policies. so you couldnt be more wrong on both counts.



freedom isnt free.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

For real... not. Is your intellect not very discerning?

Yet you want to send handouts around the globe.

The cost of freedom is welfare for foreign nations? Or are you arguing that if we don't bribe and protect the world that they will converge upon us? And we will just sit back and let them? You've embraced that line like so many Republicans. What a precarious position you must believe we sit in. Are you afraid of the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Cubans, or are you afraid they will all form a league against us, the axis of excess?

Are Russia and China good pals? Will one be ok with the other being the stronger nation considering their proximity to one another? I could see the Muslims lashing out at Israel if Israel were to start dropping bombs on a Muslim nation. Are you afraid we're next, or would it be Europe? I suppose Europe would sit tight and let that happen? Well, maybe they would, but at their own peril.

What nations are we supporting that have extra cash to spend on domestic programs because we are providing them defense? Shouldn't those nations be more responsible for their own defense budgets? Are we selling our soldiers to act as defense forces for foreign nations that are friendly with us? How much money are we pumping into the middle east to stay WWIII? Are we the little boy holding our finger in the dike?

martin

nope.

well to be fair the handouts i want to send out are mostly bullets and bombs.


of course i am afraid of the muslims. and of course the price of freedom is that you have to fight. and i am not really a republican. i am far more liberal than barack obama on social issues. as far as i can tell, barack is a primitive religious idiot with crazy religious right wing values.

what is your point?

i dunno what you mean "we are next" . madrid and london and new york already know quite well what it is liked to be bombed by muslims.

i dunno what you are talking about. i am not for sending aid all over the place. i am for toppling a regime in afghanistan that was crazy and harbored terrorists that murdered my neighbors. and i am for toppling a regime in iraq that was destabilizing a very volatile region and had invaded its neighbor and murdered political dissidents and oppressed ethnic groups.

does that mean i favor bombing every country that acts up, like iran and north korea? if they invade their neighbors like iraq, or harbor folks like bin laden, yes.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

Impasse #1 solved.

Costs money.

See, we do agree, to some extent at least, that something needed to be done about bin Laden.

But beyond that, I'm not so sure. Saddam was going nuts, but I'm confused why we took the lead as we did. The imminent threat to the US was... cost of oil? We took the lead in Iraq and you want us to take the lead in similar circumstances, but the cost to taxpayers is extensive, and what do we get for it? A more stable geopolitical environment? Cheaper oil? The moral authority? Do other countries not hold a more prominent stake with countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? Is it all part of a bigger game to keep China and Russia in check?

Do you feel like we, and we alone, are responsible for keeping the planet from going to sh!t? My point before was trying to understand what you think will happen if we don't immediately throw our bones in for wrongs done on the other side of the globe. It costs a lot of money to spend bombs and bullets on countries like Iraq.

martin

whatever you say, dude.

freedom aint free.


and the failed nation that harbored him.

had saddam kept kuwait, he would have had even more oil, more money. that means a better military, more power, more ambition for saddam. that we stopped him when we did was a great service to the earth. and now that we totally finished him, the world knows how we do things, and it makes it more stable.


not necessarily. depends on the circumstance. right now i want us to do absolutely nothing with north korea and iran, or really anywhere else.


that is exactly what we get, and it has value.

despite what the media tells you, our leaders dont really give a damn about the price of oil. bush didnt, cheney didnt, and no one else really does.

moral authority is a stupid concept that doesnt matter and is trumpeted by the media for no other reason that the media are idiots.

yes, it is important for everyone that world is stable. that the US has been willing to do the dirty work is why we are far more respected than the idiots in the media would have you believe.

incidentally here are the people who do not like the US:

1. german cowards who have had their soul crippled with guilt by german history and are afraid of any sort of of power or violence, no matter how necessary
2. unemployed french college students with beards and berets and gay tendencies.
3. muslim lunatics.

no, but when nobody else has any balls whatsoever, there is not much you can do about that.

when a free iraq is prospering, and their neighbors the iranians (and of course this is happening a little bit right this second) learn that freedom is better than primitive radical nonsense, it will be a domino effect and lead to secular democracy, which along with capitalism is the thing that will save the world. that has a little bit of value.

the number one goal right now in terms of global politics is to bring backward cultures into the modern world. china is doing it. south korea is already awesome. next is the middle east. then after that africa will go through the same things. once these places get decent leaders and democracy, they wil no longer be threatening. and eventually the whole world will be peaceful like a bunch of canadas.

of course a big stumbling block is that religion is pervasive and ruins everything, everywhere. so i do my part in reminding everyone who is not atheist that they are acting like a ****ing retard.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

I wasn't aware that Iraq was threatening our freedom.

I suppose it is more cost effective and peaceful to send welfare to Afghanistan than to simply declare war on Afghanistan to facilitate the capture of bin Laden. Now we are sitting on our hands, more or less, trying to figure out how to deal with Pakistan. If one believes in the "war on terror" shouldn't it extend into and against Pakistan, a nation that is harboring terrorists?

We may have done a service to the people of the world by toppling Saddam and working to stabilize Iraq, but it cost a lot of money. Iraq was no direct threat to the US, except that a stronger Iraq may put a hurting on our wallets via oil. We led the charge against Iraq the first and second time when other countries at more direct peril followed us in the first time and shuffled their feet the second time. What harm would come from making other nations stand up to problems in their neck of the woods? If they won't stand up and end up getting smacked for it, isn't that really their own problem? Do we really have to protect other countries that won't stand up for themselves?

A lot of the biggest American companies make a lot of money on middle eastern oil. If the cost of oil goes up, it has a huge effect on the US economy. But our leaders don't care about it?

I forgot you believe in might alone.

Hasn't Iran been one of the most westernized Muslim nations in the world for a while now?

You are a saint.

red55

Of course. We just shouldn't complain about scary projections foretelling Obama's plans to be worse than Bush when they are not yet spent and we can't also take into consideration whether the plans actually worked or failed, as we can with Bush.

Uh-oh. Now you are speculating about Obama's concern.

I haven't suggested that they are overstating deficits and I don't know their methodology anyway. Did they subtract the 68 $Billion returned by the banks last week. Did they project future returns (with interest) of the rest of the bailout money? I don't know, that wasn't my objection. I only objected to the statement that Obama had contributed more to our National Debt than Bush. He has not. If someone wishes to project that in 8 years the situation may change, I have no problem with that.

That ain't my contention. I've explained this about three times already.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I'm for adequate taxes to pay for adequate government. That's balance is all about. You are advocating less of everything and declare that to be balanced. It's about as balanced as declaring more of everything to be balanced. That's my general philosophy--adequate government paid for by adequate taxes.

Now, the balance point is not always dead center. From issue to issue the fulcrum can be adjusted as far to one side or the other to achieve equilibrium.

Now you are just being martin with capitalization and punctuation and trying to speak for me. You just speak for yourself, OK?. I've stated exactly what I think. If I choose not to be hysterical about scary projections, that's just my style.

Awwww, do I disappoint you? I can support or attack any idea that I want to. What's it to you? I'm not ready to write off Obama after 6 months when we've not yet seen what comes of his plans. Nor am I ready to absolve George Bush of all failure because you fear the Obama might turn out to be worse . . . some day.

Look, you can complain all day long about deficit projections if you want to. Have at it. I may agree with some of it or disagree with some of it. But I don't have to defend something I've never advocated.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

guys pay attention, red isnt for too much or too little, he is for the amount that is just right. so unless you favor the wrong amount, you agree with him. also please do not ask about specifics.

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

hitler wasnt really threatening us either, but his ambition and power was growing dangerously.


one good thing about obama is that he claims that he is not afraid to go and fight in pakistan, without their permission. as far as forced regime change for pakistan goes, maybe so. lets hold off on that for a moment and see how things shake out on their own for a sec, though.


i agree that would be great. but most countries are too cowardly or weak to manage things. i hope china gets serious and threatens north korea with total destruction, and north lorea takes them seriously. but who knows if they will. what i do know is that if bush made a threat north korea would take it seriously.


well, i should have said our smarter leaders. the dumb ones think they can control everything.

oil prices are for the most part controlled by OPEC, who dont care what american politicians think. and anyways, higher oil prices drive money into alternatives that might reduce our dependence, or even save the earth, if you are into that sort of thing. plus, it isnt the job of the government to manage prices.


well, not more than qatar or dubai or something. but more than pakistan. at any rate, what is happening there now could shake out to be really good. and long term i think the modernization of iraq is gonna be really important. it can only help the young secular kids in iran to see progress in their neighbor. especially 10 years from now when the iraqi oil money has had a chance to make that country rich, like it should be.

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

Comparing Round 2 Saddam to Hitler is laughable, so I'll assume you mean Round 1 Saddam. Where was Saddam going to go? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Egypt? Israel? There isn't a lot of steam he could have picked up.

When did bin Laden slip over the border? Sometime around 2003? That's a bit longer than a sec.

I don't know if China is interested in blowing up N Korea, but they can't like where N Korea is taking this. N Korea was acting up all during Bush's tenure and all Bush offered was empty words.

Iraq going nutty would likely affect production, thus affecting the price of oil. Right?

Sounds great. Did you say you weren't a neocon?

LSUAthletics

We can certainly debate the merits of Obama's spending proposals and make educated estimates how these policies will affect the deficits. The bipartisan CBO has done such and they estimate much higher deficits then Bush ever had. You don't want to debate the merits of their projections or make a case why they may be overestimated.


Not speculating at all. Anyone with half a brain can see what his proposals will do to the national debt.

I find it very suspicious that you are so eager to blame Bush for his deficit spending but are hesitant to criticize Obama's policies after the bipartisan CBO warned of ensuing deficits much larger than Bush's. Are you not intelligent enough to look at the CBO's data along with Obama's proposals and come up with your own conclusion? Are you just going to sit by passively and not have any opinions on Obama's fiscal policies until he's out of office? Once again, I ask how long are you going to give Obama before you critique his policies? Your 68 Billion you make reference to is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's proposed budget.

You can't come up with a feasible scenario based on Obama's proposed policies and economist predictions that contradict the CBO's huge deficit projections.

This is not telling us anything. Adequate taxes and adequate government can mean something completely different to someone on the left, in the middle, or on the right. In fact it can mean something completely different within the aforementioned groups. It could mean you are for $1 in taxes as long as spending doesn't go over $1. Or it could mean you are for 100 trillion in taxes as long as government spending is 100 trillion or less.

I don't expect you to become hysterical. I was just looking for some of that proper balance you often advocate and just a hint of concern over these CBO deficit projections. I haven't seen an ounce of either from you.

It may be too early to write off Obama but is it too early to start critiquing his proposed policies and to discuss the merits of the CBO's projections?

You're too much on the defensive. Why are you scared to debate the merits of the CBO's projections?

martin

they are the same person. finishing him is part of the statement that we have sent to the world about aggression. take over a neighbor, and you will be defeated, and not only that, you will have oppressive rules placed on you, and you will not be able to continue your old ways. if you dont obey the rules, you will be taken down entirely.

a leader now, who contemplates an invasion, he knows that he will not only be sent back home, he will be sent home with rules that he hates, and they really must obey or be killed. that pretty much means the next hitler will stop before he starts.


if you are arguing that we should invade pakistan, i dunno if i agree. maybe i do. i will think about it.


empty words? says who? bush is the only politican on earth whose words are not empty. that crazy cowboy loves to go to war.

bush should have done nothing, which is basically what he did. how could you disagree with that? what did you want?


i suppose. i am not sure what you are trying to say. oil prices are not really a concern. this wasnt a war for oil.

when you tire of classifications that dont apply and are simply misleading, let me know.

pay attention, he wants the amount that is proper and adequate. are you some extremist opposed to the correct amount of taxes?

__________________
thanks for reading.

lsu-i-like

Fine, but it costs a lot of money and it is not directly related to national security. Saddam was not another Hitler and did not have the capacity to become another Hitler.

I'm trying to follow your argument to its logical conclusion. You must support teaching Pakistan a lesson, it is the nation that gives quarter to bin Laden and denies our right to pursue him.

N Korea was acting up all during Bush's time in office. You said having someone who would act on his threats would squash that type of activity. What you said and what happened seem to be at odds.

You said our leaders don't care about oil and that OPEC controls the price of oil. It seems to me that Saddam's actions would cause prices to go up, and Saddam's actions wouldn't have been controlled by OPEC. It is hard for me to believe oil didn't play a role in deciding to go to war, especially considering Saddam's argument for invading Kuwait in the first place. Wasn't that over some kind of accusations over devious drilling practices?

Saddam rampaging in the middle east would have made oil prices unstable which would have had an adverse effect on the American economy. Not to mention the effect it would have on large American oil companies. Also take into account the lack of action on our part in other places in the world where unsavory things take place. It seems oil probably played a role. Am I wrong about this?

Are you not aware that you are making an argument made popular by self proclaimed "neo-conservatives"?

martin

probably not, but he might have been pretty damn terrible if we had let him keep the oil riches of kuwait. and he had some minor similarities to hitler, in that he enjoyed the occasional mass gassing of ethnic groups he wasnt fond of.


that makes sense. if pakistan's government is actually doing that, and continuing to provide a haven for terrorists, and their government policy is that they are not toubled by terrorists like bin laden and they do not intend to help at all, then perhaps a regime change is in order. but as of right now we are ostensibly friendly with the leadership there. but if things go sour, i am not opposed to invading and forcing pakistan to basically reboot their whole system.


bush never said he would do much of anything. he shouldnt have. again, what did you expect him to do?

i expect bush will follow through when he makes speciic threats, which he did not do, and should not have done with north korea. what about bush's north korea policy was not perfect?


correct. when people bitch about oil prices they are simply moronic lunatics that need to learn how free enterprise works. you either buy things or you dont. you do not whine about the prices. prices should have nothing to do with politics.

saddam simply wanted to enrich himself by taking kuwait and having more oil to sell. so he claimed kuwait was actually part of what is "really" iraq and took it over. i dunno what you mean about saddmas actions causing an increase in oil prices, nor do i think it matters at all what oil costs.


1. high oil prices is a long term good thing for america because it pushes investment into whatever will ultimately replace oil. (and again, the environment, if you care about that sort of thing)

2. again, oil was important not because we need it to be cheap , but because whoever has it can get really rich. we do not need saddam to get any richer or more powerful than he was. his taking of kuwait would mean he would be more rich and more powerful.


sometimes i agreee with red. sometimes i agree with noam chomsky. sometimes i agree with southern baptists. i almost always agree with american atheists. sometimes i agree with jesse jackson. sometimes i agree with robert mapplethorpe.

i am for an aggressive policy with regard to terrorism and rogue murderous dictators. if you want to call that stance "neo-con", yunno, go for it. i think the labels can lead to misunderstandings.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

Ask away. I always kill you when it comes to specifics.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

we already did. you said you cant pass judgment on baracks loony spending yet because it hasnt happened enough yet. presumably you do not know if massive spending is a good idea and have no philosophy on the size of government or how much they should tax/spend or create deficits.

we both know the plan. you wait until the barack plans are around a while, then the polls come out and you are told what to think.

as of now you dont know if you favor baracks spending, becaue you havent been told your position yet. as of now you have to get by without comment on deficits because "i don't know their methodology".

right now it is too early for you to tell but as you say "the situation may change". that is correct. the public perception polls will come out and then you will know what red thinks about crazy spending.

"But I don't have to defend something I've never advocated. " - red55

"then what do you advocate?" - the rest of the universe

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

We can if we want to.

So sue me. I never brought up projections and their merits, you did. I just defended the truth when a false statement was made earlier. I'll argue for what I wish to argue and ignore what I wish to ignore. Make your case, no one is stopping you. But I don't have to come up with an antithesis just to please you.

Nope. I never finished 8th grade, never had a thought of my own, can't read, dumb as a brick. Not smart like you.

I give opinions on what I want, when I want to and I do it very frequently--a lot more frequently than you do, chief. What I'm not going to do is to defend whatever you happen to declare war on if I don't care to.

You want me to agree that deficit spending is theoretically "bad"? Well, sure, everybody agrees. But I'm not going to condemn Obama to economic failure before his plans have even gotten off the ground. I'm not going into hysterical panic about what may happen someday. As time passes, I may feel stronger about it, but right now i know that 8 years of conservative republican policies sucked and I'm giving the other side a chance to do better. Elections have consequences.

Try to understand. I don't give a rats ass about arguing it with you for reasons already stated. Can't you find anybody to play with you?

Thank you Captain Obvious. Welcome to relativity. Perspective is everything.

So what? I don't post for your gratification. You understand little of balance if you think that advocating for no taxes and no spending is balanced.

Feel free. But stop telling me what I have to discuss and critique. Do I post some criticism of a politician and demand that you must defend it? You argue what you want to--we all do.

Then list some merits and ask some specific questions about them. If you interest me, I might have an opinion on it. But all you've done so far is cry Chicken Little about the sky falling from excess spending.

martin, it's obvious that LSUA is your better disciplined second personality. You are both making the same circular arguments.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

red55

I knew you couldn't come up with any specifics. Just more criticism of me. You seem to imagine you know what I think and how I arrive at conclusions yet you can't come up with the specifics that you just accused me of evading?

I'm beginning to see why you are so fond of telling me what I think. It's easier than doing the actual research.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

lsu-i-like

I have seen no indication of this.

GASP! Sometimes I agree with martin...

red55

Start a thread on biblical infallibility and watch martin and I take on all comers, tag team match.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

LSUAthletics

If I'm crying Chicken Little then so is the bipartisan CBO since I'm only pointing out their projections. Projections that you have conveniently chose to not challenge. Projections that completely contradict any rational thinkers definition of proper balance.

Do you feel confident that the CBO's massive deficit projections have been over stated? Are you confident that the deficit situation will improve by the end of Obama's term? If yes to either of these questions then why? If you don't want to discuss this then fine but I would think that a "proper balance" advocate would like to discuss the merits of these projections.

martin

but bush was a big spender, not a proper economic conservative. if you want to give the other side a chance, you should favor an economic conservative. besides, it is odd that an adult would not have an actual philosophy about what works, and instead would just want to give everyone a chance to enact their plan.


that dude, and most other readers i suspect, simply is frustrated with your lack of any sort of real philosophy.

true, although we do still take our proper roles on that one when the topic expands. i like to claim that you are clearly atheist, but you dont like the way that sounds too extreme so you claim agnosticism. at that point i ask if you are "agnostic" with respect to poseidon.

i believe you voted for ron paul? so did i.

those are some pretty specific questions. i am not optimistic about your chances to get answers.

__________________
thanks for reading.