GOP Nominee- Vote

[BLADEMDA]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I want to update my Poll on your choice for the GOP nomination. Cain is gone, Bachmann is almost gone and Santorum isn't likely to go on much longer.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I think Newt is going to win the GOP nomination. I plan on voting for Mitt Romney but unless something changes in the next few months I think Newt will win.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Newt Gingrich Declares To ABC's Jake Tapper: ‘I'm Going To Be The Nominee'

video
by James Crugnale | 12:20 pm, December 2nd, 2011
» 139 comments

Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich audaciously declared in an interview with ABC News's Jake Tapper that he would end up winning the Republican nomination. "I'm going to be the nominee. It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee," Gingrich affirmed. "And by the way, I don't object if people want to attack me, that's their right. All I'm suggesting that it's not going to be very effective and that people are going to get sick of it very fast. And the guys who attacked each other in the debates up to now, every single one of them have lost ground by attacking. So they should do what they and their consultants want to do. I will focus on being substantive and I will focus on Barack Obama."
RELATED: Newt Gingrich: GOP Primary May Turn Out To Be Newt Vs. Not Newt
Tapper had asked the former Speaker of the House if he was staying too positive to be a formidable candidate against President Obama. "How do you respond to Republicans who say if you don't draw distinctions with Mitt Romney and others who are attacking you, if you don't point out their perceived vulnerabilities, Barack Obama and the Democrats sure aren't going to share that same reluctance and you are doing Obama a favor by staying positive?" "They are not going to be the nominee," responded Gingrich. "I don't have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who are not going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee."
Gingrich's claim that the odds are very high he is going to be the nominee checks out. Here are his current InTrade betting odds versus Romney:

 

[imfrankie]

Newt will win the GOP in my estimation. He doesn't beat Obama in the title fight UNLESS possibly he chooses the right running mate--maybe the more honorable-appearing-Huntsman and he could win. Otherwise Newt gets to pay for his hubris with a full public airing of all past transgressions

 

[IlDestriero]

Newt did what Romney was afraid of and picked up momentum as he continued to float along. As Newt actually has some oratory skills and a record of accomplishments, it's about to get ugly.
I expect both sides and their "citizens for truth" groups to put together some nasty ads slamming Gingrich. All his old votes counter to his current positions, personal issues, etc. It's time to play rough. Barry's got to me more concerned about him than Mitt.

 

[ArMed]

Newt and Romney flip-flop so much it's hard to keep track of their positions at any one given time.

 

[IlDestriero]

Newt opposed Hillarycare and the expansion of government back in the day. Romney, as much as he would like to deny it, expanded Mass govt and instituted his own healthcare plan as governor. That's what could sink him, and what will be hammered home in the next few weeks/months. Opposed to Obamacare, but for state control of health services? Not a good issue to flip flop on, and as it's not an old opinion, but a program he instituted, he can't talk his way out of it.

 

[MrBurns10]

One question I have, and have had since Palin was picked as the VP nominee supposedly to "rally the republican troops", is why does the GOP think the best strategy to beat Obama is to pick the most conservative candidate? I'm a registered democrat but am really more of a libertarian than anything, and the GOP would have a much better chance of getting my vote and the vote of people like me if Paul or Huntsman were the choice. Any thoughts on this?

 

[421822]

Newt opposed Hillarycare and the expansion of government back in the day. Romney, as much as he would like to deny it, expanded Mass govt and instituted his own healthcare plan as governor. That's what could sink him, and what will be hammered home in the next few weeks/months. Opposed to Obamacare, but for state control of health services? Not a good issue to flip flop on, and as it's not an old opinion, but a program he instituted, he can't talk his way out of it.

Newt supports an individual mandate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY

 

[pgg]

One question I have, and have had since Palin was picked as the VP nominee supposedly to "rally the republican troops", is why does the GOP think the best strategy to beat Obama is to pick the most conservative candidate?

I know a lot of Republicans who think the reason the party lost in 2008 was because they weren't conservative enough. They credit the Tea Party with the 2010 midterm success, and think the only way to beat Obama is to go even further right.

I think they ought to count on Obama-hatred alone to get the wingnuts and freepers out to vote on election day, and focus the actual campaign on convincing undecideds and moderates in swing states. (Which is the exact opposite of what McCain did - pick Palin to "rally the troops" who didn't need rallying, while pissing off every moderate in the country.)

 

[MrBurns10]

I know a lot of Republicans who think the reason the party lost in 2008 was because they weren't conservative enough. They credit the Tea Party with the 2010 midterm success, and think the only way to beat Obama is to go even further right.

I think they ought to count on Obama-hatred alone to get the wingnuts and freepers out to vote on election day, and focus the actual campaign on convincing undecideds and moderates in swing states. (Which is the exact opposite of what McCain did - pick Palin to "rally the troops" who didn't need rallying, while pissing off every moderate in the country.)

Exactly, that's why I don't get it. The GOP would be much better served with Paul or Huntsman if their primary goal is to get Obama out of office.

 

[Mac4]

It looks like the republicans are going to screw up royally this time. Newt Gingrich? People hate congress more than anything and the "conservative" GOP decide a former partisan speaker is their best choice? It is like Democrats put Nancy Pelosi up there.

I am pretty conservative but I start questioning the political sanity of the far right. Do they care about winning elections? I mean, Christine O'Donnelll, Sharon Angle, Herman Cain and now Newt....it just keeps getting worse.

I hope Mitt Romney can turn around this thing quick. He is the only person who could unseat Obama.

 

[Narcotized]

Paul would be a horrible choice to get Obama packing. As much as Paul is 1000x brighter than our current pretend president and understands economics better than anyone in DC, his libertarian views are extreme. I'm not for a world free for all with nukes in Iran, etc. He would give Obama a great chance of being reelcted.

Gingrich would make Obama look like a fool in true debates (not exactly a monumental achievement), though our debate system is a sound bite orchestrated farce.

 

[urge]

Ron Paul if voters are smart.

Romney is more of the same. You might as well vote for Obama.

Gingrich, or whatever his name is, besides reminding me of Porky Pig cannot stand out next to Paul.

 

[BLADEMDA]

It looks like the republicans are going to screw up royally this time. Newt Gingrich? People hate congress more than anything and the "conservative" GOP decide a former partisan speaker is their best choice? It is like Democrats put Nancy Pelosi up there.

I am pretty conservative but I start questioning the political sanity of the far right. Do they care about winning elections? I mean, Christine O'Donnelll, Sharon Angle, Herman Cain and now Newt....it just keeps getting worse.

I hope Mitt Romney can turn around this thing quick. He is the only person who could unseat Obama.

Agreed. Newt will win the nomination but likely lose the general election. I can't believe these people. 4 more years of Obama? That's a game changer in this country

 

[Cardio2b]

Agreed. Newt will win the nomination but likely lose the general election. I can't believe these people. 4 more years of Obama? That's a game changer in this country

Not so sure. I think if Newt wins the GOP nominee, he'll win. I think his IDEAS will pick up a lot of people that previously weren't big Newt fans. (he needs help among female voters I suspect)

Personally, I think the guy's a genius with some fantastic and practical ideas. I just don't like the tough guy talk on foreign policy. Enough of the wars (sorry, "conflicts") already. I really do not want to see a war with Iran. This will be a big deal and lots of people will suffer as a result. Some very smart men agree on this such as some prominent past admirals, the most recent fomer head of Mossad, and many others who's opinions should be respected. But, there's a lot of pressure to "address" this issue, even though it will be a disaster if the US gets involved.

Just look at the absolute mess, in every way, we made in Iraq. Look at all of the loss of blood and treasure. A war of aggression with Iran will be much worse in my opinion (from reading the opinion's of peope I view as somewhat objective regarding the matter and with way more inside knowledge than I'll ever have about such things....)

 

[IlDestriero]

he needs help among female voters I suspect

Come on, Newt's never had any problems with the ladies...

 

[pgg]

Agreed. Newt will win the nomination but likely lose the general election.

If the economy holds steady or ticks upward, I think Obama gets another term.

If the economy tanks, if we double dip into another official recession, Obama has no chance no matter who's running against him.

Not a very profound prediction, I know 🙂 ... everybody likes to say It's the economy, stupid.


I'm betting R-whoever takes it in Nov, because 11 months is a long time for Europe to keep it together. And look for Japan to have an interesting 2012, too, though maybe 2012 is too soon for them to reach their demographic tipping point. Whether their ongoing / impending crises come to a head and gives us an Oct 2008 rerun before the election is the question.

 

[yappy]

At this point I have no idea who the R will be. Newt seems to be the flavor of the month but who knows how long that will last. As far as him being an "idea man" - far from it. He is like the other list of anti-intellectuals in the GOP who pander to their extreme conservitive uneducated base.

Even though I am an R - I cannot help but admit that anyone in the field right now who is put into a debate with Obama would be destroyed - except in the eyes of those who would vote R no matter what. Maybe if Paul Ryan was 20 yrs older he would have a chance. The GOP needs to get educated - fast (the people running).

I agree with the above poster. If GDP continues to increase Obama will take it. If it tanks it doesnt matter who gets the primary.

 

[imfrankie]

Come on, Newt's never had any problems with the ladies...

"Diamonds are a girl's best friend"

 

[Narcotized]

Anyone in the field right now who is put into a debate with Obama would be destroyed

A scene from the debate:

Republican Nominee- "We are broke and borrowing trillions of dollars we can't afford to prop up an empty economy. Every time the market tries to clean up the mess, Obama bails out some failed industry or gives away money in some other way to guarantee people's debts and buy votes."

President Obama, how do you respond?

"I believe in the meaningless phrase of hope and change."

Crowd goes wild. Fans paw at Obama just trying to touch greatness. Ladies pass out at his feet.

Yes, isn't American celebrity culture just great.

 

[imfrankie]

A scene from the debate:

Republican Nominee- "We are broke and borrowing trillions of dollars we can't afford to prop up an empty economy. Every time the market tries to clean up the mess, Obama bails out some failed industry or gives away money in some other way to guarantee people's debts and buy votes."

President Obama, how do you respond?

"I believe in the meaningless phrase of hope and change."

Crowd goes wild. Fans paw at Obama just trying to touch greatness. Ladies pass out at his feet.

Yes, isn't American celebrity culture just great.

Alternate Obama Response:

"I have retained a Fed Reserve Chairman, who the prior administration appointed, a former Princeton University Economist whose very area of expertise is the economics of the Great Depression. This expert among others believe that one lesson we have learned from studying the Great Depression is that the proper path to avert a similar calamitous fate is to...stimulate the economy with deficit spending...etc...which is the course we have chosen to take.

 

[Mac4]

If the economy holds steady or ticks upward, I think Obama gets another term.

If the economy tanks, if we double dip into another official recession, Obama has no chance no matter who's running against him.

Not a very profound prediction, I know 🙂 ... everybody likes to say It's the economy, stupid.

2010 was a disatrous year for democrats....

Harry Reid was toasted until Sharon Angle became the GOP nominnee in NV.

Chris Coons was a heavy underdog until Christin O'Donell won the GOP primary in DE.

Michael Bennet was trailing badly in the polls until Ken Buck became GOP nominne in CO.

All these democratic senators should thank the "true conservative" for nominating these unelectable partisans.

 

[imfrankie]

2010 was a disatrous year for democrats....

Harry Reid was toasted until Sharon Angle became the GOP nominnee in NV.

Chris Coons was a heavy underdog until Christin O'Donell won the GOP primary in DE.

Michael Bennet was trailing badly in the polls until Ken Buck became GOP nominne in CO.

All these democratic senators should thank the "true conservative" for nominating these unelectable partisans.

Harry Reid needs to join his buddy Barney Frank

 

[Narcotized]

Alternate Obama Response:

"I have retained a Fed Reserve Chairman, who the prior administration appointed, a former Princeton University Economist whose very area of expertise is the economics of the Great Depression. This expert among others believe that one lesson we have learned from studying the Great Depression is that the proper path to avert a similar calamitous fate is to...stimulate the economy with deficit spending...etc...which is the course we have chosen to take.

If I'm broke from borrowing too much money, all I have to do is borrow more and spend it wildly to be rich again. Wouldn't it be great if such silly foolish painfree easy-way-outs actually worked? If deficit spending was the road to riches, then we should have the most robust economy imaginable after 30 years of it. But as usual, there is no economic free lunch, and the gullible will keep looking for one.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

If Newt wins, Obama will win. In fact, Obama will win easy. We will spend have the election cycle explaining Newt's baggage, and the other half explaining his gaffes. I am sorry guys, but Newt is as high risk as they come.

 

[pgg]

If I'm broke from borrowing too much money, all I have to do is borrow more and spend it wildly to be rich again. Wouldn't it be great if such silly foolish painfree easy-way-outs actually worked? If deficit spending was the road to riches, then we should have the most robust economy imaginable after 30 years of it. But as usual, there is no economic free lunch, and the gullible will keep looking for one.

Deficit spending won't crash and burn so long as there's economic growth to support it. Up until recently, the idea of outgrowing debt wasn't entirely without merit, because we HAD in fact enjoyed more-or-less consistent positive growth (despite deficit spending, or maybe because of it) for 30+ years.

Then we have a recession, some banking shenanigans, and all of a sudden cracks are visible. Bad as these events have been, though, there's worse to consider:


It seems that all current economic discussion has at its core the basic expectation that economic growth is a given, the natural state of things. Doesn't matter who's talking, spender Obama to balanced-budget Paul. Growth is some kind of human birthright, if we just manage things correctly, play fair, and don't try to cheat at the math. It's as if all of them are operating under the assumption that normal healthy growth is a few %, year over year, year after year, forever.

We DEFINE a recession as a reduction in GDP for two consecutive quarters; the corollary to that is that positive growth is equated with good times. Constant, positive growth is such a basic assumption of economists that it seems the only people who question its inherent goodness are crazy hippies who'd like to see us living barefoot in the treetop bosom of Gaia.

What seems to be missing from ANY current economic discussion is the admission that eternal growth isn't possible on a planet with finite resources. The question is how close to the hard edge of those resources are we now. Oil prices and production numbers for the last 5 years are pretty disturbing in that context.

 

[yappy]

Then Obama would start to describe the case study of Japan during the 90's then describe his views on AD and how it is an important factor to growth in the economy. He would then describe the constant increase in GDP since 2009 and the work that has been done to allow 15 tax cuts on small business in 2010 that has mediated sustained privite sector growth and more profitiable than ever businesses (~2T). How his 4T grand bargan was shot down by republican leadership etc. etc. etc.

***SWITCH from debate to in studio***

At that point Fox news would **** themselves and protect their viewers from the facts and go to commercial about investing in gold or cut to Glenn talking about the end of the world and liberal bias lol.

Narcotized - where did you first hear that Obama's popularity is due to pop culture? Be honest. Yeah - thought so.

+1 to the guy above me. Narcotized, is an example of people who had never studied economics prior to these bad times and has formed their opinion based off of conservitive think tanks/talk show hosts. My advice would to be start reading peer reviewed economic studies from real publications or at least listen to real economists that have a place in the industry. Maybe a place to start would be with the basics - any college text that focuses on macroecnomics. Understand the levers and basics of fiscal vs monetary policy, GDP, the banking system, debt, taxes, and differences between monetarists and keynesian models.

Alternate Obama Response:

"I have retained a Fed Reserve Chairman, who the prior administration appointed, a former Princeton University Economist whose very area of expertise is the economics of the Great Depression. This expert among others believe that one lesson we have learned from studying the Great Depression is that the proper path to avert a similar calamitous fate is to...stimulate the economy with deficit spending...etc...which is the course we have chosen to take.

 

[Narcotized]

Narcotized, is an example of people who had never studied economics prior to these bad times

Correction, Narcotized began studying economics probably before you were born, actually understands it, and isn't mathematically challenged like yourself to believe numerical fairy tales. Please do tell me your math and economic credentials oh wise one.

I love all of you guys with political agendas that keep saying,"all real economists say blah, blah, blah." Yes, all the "real economists" that said the new economy internet bubble was here to stay. All the "real economists" like Bernanke that said real estate was not a bubble. It's amazing that all the "real economists" you quote have never been right about anything, but you keep referring to them as if they have credibility. Those that saw and predicted the internet and real estate bubbles say the same thing about our debt bubble.

How gullible and sheep-like can you be to believe the way out of debt is through more wasteful debt and printing money? Doesn't just common sense alone tell you that that is just too good to be true?? "We can blow our wealth on wasteful goodies; but as long as we blow more wealth on wasteful goodies we'll be rich again!!!!" If you can't figure it out for yourself, try following economists that were actually right about something instead of quoting ones that never get it right.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

If Newt wins, Obama will win. In fact, Obama will win easy. We will spend have the election cycle explaining Newt's baggage, and the other half explaining his gaffes. I am sorry guys, but Newt is as high risk as they come.

+1000

I think Newt's got a pretty decent shot at the nomination. Polls are showing him still on the rise, and the first caucuses and primaries start in less than a month.

But Osteo's right. Newt is gonna be a dog in the general election. Indepdents decide the elections, and Newt's gonna go down in flames with them.

 

[Narcotized]

Hey, Yaps, I forgot to mention the "real economists" you follow also will talk about how wonderful government spending was in WW2 to get us out of the depression, but then they call the Bush wars catastrophic to our economy... because they objected to the wars. So basically, you follow a bunch of clueless clowns that decide economic principle based on their political agenda... and then you swallow it up as fact.

That is why I Ieft economics to pursue medicine. The overwhelming majority of them are mindless sheep-herded fools (like yourself) that aren't smart enough to understand that they don't understand. It will make a smart man's brain physically hurt. I do agree that Obama will respond with your above mentioned babble. He probably receives 80-90% of the low IQ vote, so it's not as if they will see through his empty rhetoric.

 

[Mapwizard]

.

 

[Narcotized]

Up until recently, the idea of outgrowing debt wasn't entirely without merit, because we HAD in fact enjoyed more-or-less consistent positive growth (despite deficit spending, or maybe because of it) for 30+ years.

Ahh, wise sage, it has always been without merit (I say "wise sage" out of deference and respect; yourself, cambie, and a few others are among those I read with interest). Deficit spending is overwhelmingly "consumption today; pay for it tomorrow with interest." Merit comes from a return on investment greater than interest costs. The figure is something like 80% of federal spending going to entitlements, military, and interest (ie, no investment at all). Of the remaining 20%, very little is dedicated to investment, and much of that small investment is ill advised because it is not based on any market forces (Solyndra?). So, our deficit spending amounts to nothing more than immoral consumption now that has to be paid back by others later (sorry younger generation; you got raped severely, and many of your peers are advocating for more of the same).

The idea of deficit spending offset by growth is a ponzi, and a ponzi that wasn't running positive even in the good 30 years since 1980 (except for a blip known as the internet bubble). Unfortunately, GDP growth has not kept up with deficit spending. The following graph shows where deficit spending since 1980 has taken us (ie, to the poor house):

I'm glad "real economists" see this as a positive and not a negative. Makes me feel so much better about it.

 

[pgg]

Ahh, wise sage, it has always been without merit

I didn't mean that deficit spending was ever a good or wise idea - though I certainly allow that properly restrained and well managed debt can be a great lever for real growth. The US has had real growth since 1980, it's not all illusory, and borrowing facilitated at least some of it.

I just meant that until recently, one could step back and say "well, if we quit spending like drunken sailors now, and growth continues, we could outgrow and pay down the debt" ... and the least controversial part of that statement would be the assumption of continued growth. Ie, that all through the 80s & 90s & into the 00s, there was some merit to the theory that it would be possible to outgrow then-current debt lebels. Not the same thing as arguing that deficit spending and consumption itself had merit.


But I think things are much worse than even our horrible debt picture indicates. I have gradually come around to the opinion that meaningful, sustained, positive economic growth won't be possible for the forseeable future (decades), regardless of the fiscal policies and path chosen. Simply because of resource depletion, mainly oil. Also fresh water, but to a lesser degree.

There are a lot of crazy people in the peak oil corner. I don't mean to suggest I think we're going to "run out" of oil. Just that new discovery and production is a pale shadow of what it used to be, despite extraordinary exploration efforts (eg, oil sands, deeper and risker offshore drilling) and sustained high prices to motivate the searchers. Actual global oil production has been on a plateau for the better part of a decade now, and I don't think this disturbing fact can be explained away with recession/demand arguments, or speculation/manipulation, or inflation, or the favorite Republican lament that ANWR is off-limits.

Most of our trade deficit is oil. One of the most basic macro problems with our economy is the way we export so much wealth to the rest of the world, year after year, most of it oil. However the numbers are massaged, this is the inescapable unsustainable truth: we export stuff of value in return for oil, which we literally burn.

As a nation, we've done essentially nothing to prepare for a world in which oil is 2x or 5x or 10x as expensive as it is now. This is unforgivable. We watched domestic oil production peak 40 years ago; it's not like nobody could predict that at some point global production would also peak. It's just math.



I didn't mean to suggest borrowing money and blowing it on military hardware and consumption (as opposed to investment in capital goods) was anything other than a bad habit; just that for a while, it was a bad habit that could be supported, and a path out rationalized.

I think the debt and energy problems are big enough, and timely national solutions improbable enough, that I've put substantial time, effort, and money into personal preparation for what I expect to be the consequences of that national failure.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The idea of deficit spending offset by growth is a ponzi, and a ponzi that wasn't running positive even in the good 30 years since 1980 (except for a blip known as the internet bubble). Unfortunately, GDP growth has not kept up with deficit spending. The following graph shows where deficit spending since 1980 has taken us (ie, to the poor house):

In a kinda ironic circumstance, doesn't your own graph refute your bolded statements? In looking from 1945-1980, deficit spending (i.e. debt/GDP) actually was offset by growth.

That's not to say that "now = 1945" and that we're about to see a decade or two of robust economic growth. But, there seems to be precedent for the idea that the sky is not necessarily falling as we type.

 

[vector2]

Hey, Yaps, I forgot to mention the "real economists" you follow also will talk about how wonderful government spending was in WW2 to get us out of the depression, but then...

Because the GI bill and the massive infrastructure and military manufacturing investment that gave rise to all of post-1945 industry = cutting taxes while you funnel billions to your buddies at Blackwater and Halliburton. 🙄

 

[Narcotized]

Because the GI bill and the massive infrastructure and military manufacturing investment that gave rise to all of post-1945 industry = cutting taxes while you funnel billions to your buddies at Blackwater and Halliburton. 🙄

You're right, it was a government driven economic boom 🙄🙄🙄 Except for the small fact you leave out that government spending CRATERED after WW2, and private industry growth skyrocketed. And what world was this massive infrastructure boom during WW2 are you referring to?? Almost all of our resources during WW2 went to blowing up stuff. You aren't rewriting history; you are flat out imagining it.

Why do people continually want government driven economies when they are horrendous failures? Can anyone see where socialism and deficit spending has taken Europe? Got news for you, we aren't far behind.

 

[Narcotized]

But I think things are much worse than even our horrible debt picture indicates. I have gradually come around to the opinion that meaningful, sustained, positive economic growth won't be possible for the forseeable future (decades), regardless of the fiscal policies and path chosen. Simply because of resource depletion, mainly oil. Also fresh water, but to a lesser degree.

Excellent points. Totally agree. Depleted resources, massive debt, wmd's around the world, and our cratering human capital have painted us into a dark corner. Once 1st in math and science, we are now 25th. I expect stupid people to believe stupid things, but it amazes me how many intelligent people buy into their political religion and believe what they want to believe, regardless of how illogic it is. The idea that a "consumer economy" of any kind is a sound economy is total lunacy.

 

[yappy]

But you're the stupid one lol. It's interesting to watch you staw-man subjects you know nothing about. Please continue...

Excellent points. Totally agree. Depleted resources, massive debt, wmd's around the world, and our cratering human capital have painted us into a dark corner. Once 1st in math and science, we are now 25th. I expect stupid people to believe stupid things, but it amazes me how many intelligent people buy into their political religion and believe what they want to believe, regardless of how illogic it is. The idea that a "consumer economy" of any kind is a sound economy is total lunacy.

 

[vector2]

You're right, it was a government driven economic boom 🙄🙄🙄 Except for the small fact you leave out that government spending CRATERED after WW2, and private industry growth skyrocketed. And what world was this massive infrastructure boom during WW2 are you referring to?? Almost all of our resources during WW2 went to blowing up stuff. You aren't rewriting history; you are flat out imagining it.

Why do people continually want government driven economies when they are horrendous failures? Can anyone see where socialism and deficit spending has taken Europe? Got news for you, we aren't far behind.

Yeah uh, I know you're super literal over there as to be able to put everything into neat little black and white, right and wrong boxes, but "WWII spending" includes more than just the dollars spent literally between 41-45. Our national interstate system is officially called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" and was a direct result of WWII, and yet the Federal Highway Act only passed in 1956. The GI Bill passed in 1944 but the bulk of the dollars and its stimulative effects weren't really spent or seen for a decade.

The immediate declining costs of war caused spending to return to baseline by 1947, but then guess what? Spending increased like 10% over just the next few years.

And what was the top marginal tax rate from 1947 to 1963 where it was simply "private industry" which caused the US to become an economic powerhouse? Between 85-91%. Lawd only knows how it was possible for all those noble job creators to single-handedly lift up the post-war economy in the face of those nasty bureaucrats with their silly progressive tax brackets and socialistic investment in education and infrastructure.


Bonus graph for anyone who believes the "rising tide lifts all boats" trickle-down nonsense in the age of crony capitalism and job outsourcing. Take note of where income (in)equality was right before the Great Depression, during the post-war economic boom, and where it is now.

 

[Narcotized]

In a kinda ironic circumstance, doesn't your own graph refute your bolded statements? In looking from 1945-1980, deficit spending (i.e. debt/GDP) actually was offset by growth.

Debt and deficits get commonly confused. The debt was large but greatly paid down after the war; this being because the deficits were actually mostly surpluses (or very small) post WW2 up until the 70's. Then the wheels began coming off.



Aren't you a lakers fan? I read one speculation that they were after not just one, but both Paul and Howard. That would be one hell of a team.

 

[Narcotized]

But you're the stupid one lol. It's interesting to watch you staw-man subjects you know nothing about. Please continue...

Yes Mr Pre-Health 20 year old. Please educate us by regurgitating what some college professor told you last semester. I await your wisdom and insight. 🙄🙄🙄

 

[Narcotized]

Yeah uh,.... blah, blah, blah, whatever, blah, blah, blah

I would have to be in a school for special kids to believe more consumption debt gets you out of a hole of consumption debt. Just keep regurgitating whatever your political religion tells you to. The difference between me and you is I think for myself. Because I don't believe your numerical fantasies I must therefore believe in some nonsense like "trickle down" or whatever else you want to assume.

Both political parties have false economics based on personal agenda. If you can't figure that out then what can you possible explain to anybody?

Yeah, it looks wonderful out there. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄:

 

[yappy]

lol... and the arguements of a debunked suppy-sider are any better? I am prehealth but not 20. Though, I am a co-author to some economic research. I'm surprised you're able to operatate as a physician with such a poor understanding of finding good sources. Do you practice medicine based off of what you read on wiki?

Sorry, I'll let you go. I have some finals coming up. GL I know enough to know nothing would ever change your mind.

Yes Mr Pre-Health 20 year old. Please educate us by regurgitating what some college professor told you last semester. I await your wisdom and insight. 🙄🙄🙄

 

[urge]

I think Newt is going to win the GOP nomination. I plan on voting for Mitt Romney but unless something changes in the next few months I think Newt will win.

Newter didn't make in Virginia, his home state. He is pretty much done.

Paul vs Romney is a no brainer.

Congrats Dr. Paul.

 

[pgg]

Newter didn't make in Virginia, his home state. He is pretty much done.

Yeah, that was just unbelievable. How sloppy and incompetent does your campaign have to be to screw that up?

Paul vs Romney is a no brainer.

Congrats Dr. Paul.

I don't see Paul beating out Romney for the nomination, but crazier stuff has happened.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Yeah, that was just unbelievable. How sloppy and incompetent does your campaign have to be to screw that up?



I don't see Paul beating out Romney for the nomination, but crazier stuff has happened.

I'd like to see a Romney/Paul GOP ticket.👍

 

[imfrankie]

Yeah, that was just unbelievable. How sloppy and incompetent does your campaign have to be to screw that up?

Like someone said, "if Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, leave that room"

 

[pgg]

I'd like to see a Romney/Paul GOP ticket.👍

Assuming Romney wins the nomination, I'd be shocked if he asked Paul to take the VP spot, and doubly shocked if Paul accepted.

McCain's campaign freaked when Palin strayed from her talking points (granted, she's an idiot) but I can only imagine the heads exploding within Romney's campaign with VP-candidate Paul saying the things he always says. Because you know he won't modify his positions to fit in ...

 

[varsityblue]

I'd like to see a Romney/Paul GOP ticket.👍

+1 That would be the most epic combination ever. In the meantime, Romney/Unnamed 2012!