Re-Evaluating Newt..

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That's the thing. Newt's former wives and his daughter have disputed the liberal meme on all that. I don't condone Newt's cheating in any way or form, nor does he, but none of us know the dynamics within the family at that time. I would prefer a candidate that has no baggage or sour spots in his resume, but unfortunately God isn't running for high office and we're unlikely to find a saint to run.

So we're stuck with sorting out people with smarts, experience, savvy, and ambition along with some sins, missteps, and mistakes to their credit and occasionally feet of clay.

I think the intellectually honest are focused on who is the best qualified, has the best temperament, a character that will stand up under testing, and the best vision to lead this country.

In my opinion, the small minded, blindly partisan, and tunnel visioned seem to mostly focus on the small stuff and don't really care anything about credentials.

Well, no, his first wife doesn't dispute it at all. According to her, the divorce was a "complete surprise" and she confirms that the infamous hospital visit later that year included him wanting to discuss the terms of their divorce.

For some time, Jackie tried to hold on. "He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise," she told Lois Romano of The Washington Post. "He walked out in the spring of 1980...By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, 'Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?' When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery."

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair5.html

And his daughter has subsequently gone on the record to defend her dad saying that she was there, and it was not that way at all, and in fact the mother had requested the discussion on the terms of the divorce and had requested the divorce.

So I say that the rest of us, not having been privy to any of the conversations and because being informed by sensationalist journalism does not make us the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, it is their business and we don't know what went down, why, or how.

Either way the real question is would that prevent you, as an american, for voting for Newt instead of Obama?

I bet more people say no than yes

 

[Faun]

Baloney. I was watching in real time before any edits could be done in the tapes or context when Obama has repeatedly called for higher taxes on the 'rich' meaning anybody making more than $250k a year with their business. Obama is to blame for the state of the economy he took over via the votes he had cast or didn't cast in the years he was in the Senate and in his endorsement of TARP as a candidate for the Presidency, in the unconscionable pork laden appropriations bills that he didn't veto when he vowed, as a candidate he would, and in the stimulus package, irresponsible use of the TARP funds he had access to, and in his proposed tax policies and in his choosing a jobs 'czar' who was shipping tens of thousands of American jobs overseas and in his failure to deal with crushing regulation and taxes and other policy that keeps the economy stalled.

There comes a time when he and those who support him cannot continue to 'blame Bush' without looking thoroughly dishonest or like clueless idiots.

The "baloney" is yours. The tax cuts were set to expire. There was a sunset clause built into the tax cuts to expire on 12/31/2010 (I accidently put 2011 in my last post). His call for increasing taxes on families earning $250K, single income on $200K, stemmed from allowing only the top income tax bracket to expire but extending Bush's tax cuts on the other brackets. Still, the tax cuts were not permanent and it was known for ten years that they would expire. That is not a surprise nor was it a "threat." As far as the state of the economy, this is the result of the recession which was caused by the housing & credit markets crash, none of which Obama had anything to do with. It's a mess he inherited and it's a mess which is still affecting the economy today. And again, before he became president, before he passed his stimulus, before he spent any TARP funds, the CBO estimated a $1.2 trillion shortfall for FY2009. That's what Obama inherited.

But don't you see? By threatening to let the tax policy expire, that imposed a huge tax increase on almost every viable business, at least those who hire people? You don't DO that in an economic downturn. You just don't do that. It either illustrates Obama's absolute ignorance on what free market and private enterprise is all about, or he is doing it intentionally to bring the economy further to its knees for whatever purpose.

I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply incompetent and not evil.

I want somebody of the caliber of a Newt Gingrich who will not be incompetent re the economy.

I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this. I don't view allowing something to happen which was expected to happen and which was set to happen for ten years as a "threat."

 

[Faun]

Well, no, his first wife doesn't dispute it at all. According to her, the divorce was a "complete surprise" and she confirms that the infamous hospital visit later that year included him wanting to discuss the terms of their divorce.

And his daughter has subsequently gone on the record to defend her dad saying that she was there, and it was not that way at all, and in fact the mother had requested the discussion on the terms of the divorce and had requested the divorce.

So I say that the rest of us, not having been privy to any of the conversations and because being informed by sensationalist journalism does not make us the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, it is their business and we don't know what went down, why, or how.

Either way the real question is would that prevent you, as an american, for voting for Newt instead of Obama?

I bet more people say no than yes

No question, more will say "no" than "yes," however, I expect it's going to be a close election and if it is, it won't require than many "yeses" to sway the election in Obama's favor.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And his daughter has subsequently gone on the record to defend her dad saying that she was there, and it was not that way at all, and in fact the mother had requested the discussion on the terms of the divorce and had requested the divorce.

So I say that the rest of us, not having been privy to any of the conversations and because being informed by sensationalist journalism does not make us the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, it is their business and we don't know what went down, why, or how.

Either way the real question is would that prevent you, as an american, for voting for Newt instead of Obama?

I bet more people say no than yes

No question, more will say "no" than "yes," however, I expect it's going to be a close election and if it is, it won't require than many "yeses" to sway the election in Obama's favor.

If the election was 3 months ago obama would have gotten crushed
If the election was today it would be very close

Next november............who knows?

 

[Foxfyre]

The "baloney" is yours. The tax cuts were set to expire. There was a sunset clause built into the tax cuts to expire on 12/31/2010 (I accidently put 2011 in my last post). His call for increasing taxes on families earning $250K, single income on $200K, stemmed from allowing only the top income tax bracket to expire but extending Bush's tax cuts on the other brackets. Still, the tax cuts were not permanent and it was known for ten years that they would expire. That is not a surprise nor was it a "threat." As far as the state of the economy, this is the result of the recession which was caused by the housing & credit markets crash, none of which Obama had anything to do with. It's a mess he inherited and it's a mess which is still affecting the economy today. And again, before he became president, before he passed his stimulus, before he spent any TARP funds, the CBO estimated a $1.2 trillion shortfall for FY2009. That's what Obama inherited.

But don't you see? By threatening to let the tax policy expire, that imposed a huge tax increase on almost every viable business, at least those who hire people? You don't DO that in an economic downturn. You just don't do that. It either illustrates Obama's absolute ignorance on what free market and private enterprise is all about, or he is doing it intentionally to bring the economy further to its knees for whatever purpose.

I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply incompetent and not evil.

I want somebody of the caliber of a Newt Gingrich who will not be incompetent re the economy.

I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this. I don't view allowing something to happen which was expected to happen and which was set to happen for ten years as a "threat."

Just because it was set to either be retired or renewed at a 10-year-interval is not a good reason to let it expire in the middle of the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. So yes, we will definitely have to disagree on that. If you are a dedicated market watcher as I am, you will see that every single time Fearless Leader has gone on television harping again that the "rich" should pay more, the market has taken a simultaneous dip. If you have talked to dozens and dozens of business owners as I have, and heard their concern about the uncertainty the Obama administration is placing on them re taxes, regulation, energy policy etc. etc. and THAT is why they don't dare risk the capital they are holding in reserve, you would know how Obama is proactively and absolutely hurting this economy.

Again I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant and not intentionally evil.

 

[Faun]

Either way the real question is would that prevent you, as an american, for voting for Newt instead of Obama?

I bet more people say no than yes

No question, more will say "no" than "yes," however, I expect it's going to be a close election and if it is, it won't require than many "yeses" to sway the election in Obama's favor.

If the election was 3 months ago obama would have gotten crushed
If the election was today it would be very close

Next november............who knows?

There is simply no evidence of that. The only telling measure at this time are the head-to-head polls, which although represent nothing more than a snapshot in time, 3 months ago every candidate running against Obama lost to him. It's still that way now but it's gotten close against Romney. Against Gingrich, Obama enjoys an average of an 8.5 percentage point lead among all polls, which range from 5 points to 15 points.

 

[Faun]

But don't you see? By threatening to let the tax policy expire, that imposed a huge tax increase on almost every viable business, at least those who hire people? You don't DO that in an economic downturn. You just don't do that. It either illustrates Obama's absolute ignorance on what free market and private enterprise is all about, or he is doing it intentionally to bring the economy further to its knees for whatever purpose.

I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply incompetent and not evil.

I want somebody of the caliber of a Newt Gingrich who will not be incompetent re the economy.

I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this. I don't view allowing something to happen which was expected to happen and which was set to happen for ten years as a "threat."

Just because it was set to either be retired or renewed at a 10-year-interval is not a good reason to let it expire in the middle of the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. So yes, we will definitely have to disagree on that. If you are a dedicated market watcher as I am, you will see that every single time Fearless Leader has gone on television harping again that the "rich" should pay more, the market has taken a simultaneous dip. If you have talked to dozens and dozens of business owners as I have, and heard their concern about the uncertainty the Obama administration is placing on them re taxes, regulation, energy policy etc. etc. and THAT is why they don't dare risk the capital they are holding in reserve, you would know how Obama is proactively and absolutely hurting this economy.

Again I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant and not intentionally evil.

It is not set in "10 year intervals." When it passed, it was set to expire in 10 years. At any time during those ten years, it could have been revoked; or it could have been allowed to expire as expected after ten years; or it could have been extended for any number of years; or parts of it could have been allowed to expire while other parts extended.

And we're not disagreeing on extending them during a major recession. Most everything I've read on the matter explained the importance of not raising taxes during a recession or the recovery period following the recession. And they have not been raised.

As far as the stock market, the Dow is up 42% since he's been president and NASDAQ is up 70%. I don't see how anybody with funds in the market can complain. During Bush's 8 years, my 401K lost about 30%. During Obama's watch, it's gained most of that back.

Businesses are in the business to make money. No business is holding back from hiring, which would hurt their business, because they are uncertain of what the tax code might be. That's just ridiculous. Case in point, someone making $250,000 profit, after expenses and deductions, would see their taxes go up $11,250 per year if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. No business would hold off on hiring if their business necessitated growth over a 4½% decrease to their net profit. Businesses are nervous right now because there is still much uncertainty in the economy. There is still the chance of a double dip and worse, there are some banks (such as BofA) which are sitting on a shit load of foreclosures that they can't float indefinately. There's going to be another major recession when those foreclosures hit enmasse and when that happens and some banks will likely go under.

But anyone who knows anything about the economy knows it's based on supply and demand, not fears of taxes going up 4.5 percetanage points. And demand is way down. The single biggest complaint by businesses is sales are down. That is the main reason they are not hiring.

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this. I don't view allowing something to happen which was expected to happen and which was set to happen for ten years as a "threat."

Just because it was set to either be retired or renewed at a 10-year-interval is not a good reason to let it expire in the middle of the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. So yes, we will definitely have to disagree on that. If you are a dedicated market watcher as I am, you will see that every single time Fearless Leader has gone on television harping again that the "rich" should pay more, the market has taken a simultaneous dip. If you have talked to dozens and dozens of business owners as I have, and heard their concern about the uncertainty the Obama administration is placing on them re taxes, regulation, energy policy etc. etc. and THAT is why they don't dare risk the capital they are holding in reserve, you would know how Obama is proactively and absolutely hurting this economy.

Again I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant and not intentionally evil.

It is not set in "10 year intervals." When it passed, it was set to expire in 10 years. At any time during those ten years, it could have been revoked; or it could have been allowed to expire as expected after ten years; or it could have been extended for any number of years; or parts of it could have been allowed to expire while other parts extended.

And we're not disagreeing on extending them during a major recession. Most everything I've read on the matter explained the importance of not raising taxes during a recession or the recovery period following the recession. And they have not been raised.

As far as the stock market, the Dow is up 42% since he's been president and NASDAQ is up 70%. I don't see how anybody with funds in the market can complain. During Bush's 8 years, my 401K lost about 30%. During Obama's watch, it's gained most of that back.

Businesses are in the business to make money. No business is holding back from hiring, which would hurt their business, because they are uncertain of what the tax code might be. That's just ridiculous. Case in point, someone making $250,000 profit, after expenses and deductions, would see their taxes go up $11,250 per year if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. No business would hold off on hiring if their business necessitated growth over a 4½% decrease to their net profit. Businesses are nervous right now because there is still much uncertainty in the economy. There is still the chance of a double dip and worse, there are some banks (such as BofA) which are sitting on a shit load of foreclosures that they can't float indefinately. There's going to be another major recession when those foreclosures hit enmasse and when that happens and some banks will likely go under.

But anyone who knows anything about the economy knows it's based on supply and demand, not fears of taxes going up 4.5 percetanage points. And demand is way down. The single biggest complaint by businesses is sales are down. That is the main reason they are not hiring.

Not only are you misrepresenting some of what I said, but anybody who has run a business in this economy and has talked to lots of other business owners trying to survive in this economy--and I have done both--knows that you mostly don't know what you're talking about here. Sorry.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Oh, sweet peaches and sunny afternoons.. I have neither, it's raining..

I'm thinkin Faun should have some coffee at the coffee shop...she's an interesting Gal..

 

[SAT]

Newt's first wife says that the divorce was a complete surprise.

Whatever anybody thinks about Newt Gingrich in any capacity, he would NOT have condoned any of the irresponsible spending and policy and, if he had been at the helm, we would be far better off now than we are.

The spending wasn't irresponsible. And Gingrich would have been on board with a stimulus. Obama did not invent stimulus spending.

Fyrefox, you never heard Obama say that he would increase taxes on small businesses that grossed $250,000 a year. It's always been INCOME. As in what the business makes after expenses.

The tax cuts represent a defunding of government. If the Congress wanted to make the cuts permanent, they would have needed to make spending cuts.

Obama has a different [sounder] philosophy of economics than the Tea Party.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, sweet peaches and sunny afternoons.. I have neither, it's raining..

I'm thinkin Faun should have some coffee at the coffee shop...she's an interesting Gal..

I agree we would welcome Faun with open arms in the Coffee Shop. She at least is making a reasoned argument which puts her head and shoulders above most on the Leftist side.

 

[Faun]

Oh, sweet peaches and sunny afternoons.. I have neither, it's raining..

I'm thinkin Faun should have some coffee at the coffee shop...she's an interesting Gal..

I agree we would welcome Faun with open arms in the Coffee Shop. She at least is making a reasoned argument which puts her head and shoulders above most on the Leftist side.

First and foremost, I'm a he, not a she.

Secondly, yes, I strive for well reasoned argments which I hope you would do as well. Like when I say that slumping sales is the main reason companies aren't hiring, I base it on studies, not opinion...

 

[SAT]

You mean...lack of demand?

 

[JoeB131]

Hard for anyone to follow, Joe. You are reaching in the grab bag and trying to find something that you can throw that might stick. A law HAS BEEN PASSED that the banksters do not like.

Murder laws are hard to enforce. Murderers will find ways around detection. But we still have laws against murder, and we still keep tracking them down.

Clinton, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Lesser led us to this banking crisis. The bankers know it's not good for banking. I can explain more later. Work calls.

Yeah, that would be the law passed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

Chris Dodd, Senator from AIG and Barney Frank, Congressman from Herb Moses' bunghole. (Herb Moses was a Fannie Mae exec who Barney was stuping...)

Talk about letting the Foxes design the new henhouse.

But, wait, that's liable to confuse you further, you have some special form of ADHD.

 

[SAT]

Correctly named, but inaccurately described.

 

[JoeB131]

Correctly named, but inaccurately described.

NOt really.

Just makes the honest bankers have to fill out a lot more useless paperwork.

The dishonest ones have already figured out ways to get around it...

Because they've bought Dodd, they've bought Frank, and they've bought the Community Activist.

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, sweet peaches and sunny afternoons.. I have neither, it's raining..

I'm thinkin Faun should have some coffee at the coffee shop...she's an interesting Gal..

I agree we would welcome Faun with open arms in the Coffee Shop. She at least is making a reasoned argument which puts her head and shoulders above most on the Leftist side.

First and foremost, I'm a he, not a she.

Secondly, yes, I strive for well reasoned argments which I hope you would do as well. Like when I say that slumping sales is the main reason companies aren't hiring, I base it on studies, not opinion...

Welcome to USMB, Mr. Faun. You raise some interesting points.

As the owner of a small business, I think my greatest concern right now is survival of the business with the future uncertain about employment concerns and providing health care when receipts and payouts to suppliers don't leave much in the way of earnings.

The market seems to be taken over by governmental factions that do not seem to be making America competitive in my field.

 

[SAT]

Correctly named, but inaccurately described.

NOt really.

Just makes the honest bankers have to fill out a lot more useless paperwork.

The dishonest ones have already figured out ways to get around it...

Because they've bought Dodd, they've bought Frank, and they've bought the Community Activist.

Yes, and there's no point to any laws or regulations, because somebody, somewhere, will just get around them!

As the owner of a small business, I think my greatest concern right now is survival of the business with the future uncertain about employment concerns and providing health care when receipts and payouts to suppliers don't leave much in the way of earnings.

The market seems to be taken over by governmental factions that do not seem to be making America competitive in my field.

How many employees do you have?

 

[JoeB131]

Correctly named, but inaccurately described.

NOt really.

Just makes the honest bankers have to fill out a lot more useless paperwork.

The dishonest ones have already figured out ways to get around it...

Because they've bought Dodd, they've bought Frank, and they've bought the Community Activist.

Yes, and there's no point to any laws or regulations, because somebody, somewhere, will just get around them!

?

NO, you get the government the hell out of the banking industry. Once you've established-

1) We will tell you who you have to loan to, whether you want to or not.
2) We will back up any bad plays you make
3) You can buy the very politicians writing the laws.
4) When the whole thing collapse, you'll get bailouts, you get to keep your bonuses and you do NO jail time.

You are pretty much asking to be screwed in the backside quicker than if you dropped a bar of soap in the congressional shower when Barney was around.

 

[SAT]

Ah, yes. Let's go back to the Roaring Twenties, and get government out of the banking industry.