Gingrich: CBO a "Reactionary Socialist institution"

[Wonkish1]

I think Newt has held the institution in low esteem ever since he called them up a few decades ago and asked them how much revenue the US would get, "If the US raised tax rates to 100%" the dumb@$$ CBO analyst on the other end actually responded, "Well we would get all of the money".

Newt may be serving up some red meat, but any notion that the CBO has a track record of even out performing most private scores of legislation is kind of funny. They always way underestimate spending increases from a bill and always way overestimate the amount of lost revenue from a tax cut. And they do it by such a large margin you would think they would start to ask how they could do a better job(like some private analysis's that have been significantly closer then they have been).

Also the fact that they agree to put up with accounting tricks that both parties have put into bills shows they are at least complicit in a mild degree of corruption; kind of like the governments own congressionally controlled Arthur Anderson doing its bidding to cheat the public.

[Wonkish1]

"It doesn't believe in economic growth" is Newspeak for "It doesn't believe in economic growth for economic elites alone, let alone at the expense of the rest of us".

Clearly you have no idea what he's even talking about in regards to the CBO. I would stop there because the second part has absolutely nothing to do with CBO scoring even if it were true, which it is not.

[Wonkish1]

I find it funny that the sole focus on here is of the language not the idea or concept.

You guys think this is "typical Newt" like its some kind of personal shortcoming. I have personally watched him describe how he does this intentionally.

This is the deal: If a politician comes out and says, "You know I just don't agree with the way that the CBO has scored things in the past." Yawn! The average American doesn't pay attention and the news media just ignores it.

So what he does instead is think, "Hmm how can bring up this otherwise boring, but important topic and get it so the American media pays attention and it actually gets to the public?" So he comes up with an over the top statement that makes a very reasonable position seem extreme and crazy. The media is dumb enough to go "Eww goody lets quote him on it and we'll put in our stories and one day he'll get asked to go in more detail and we'll nail him on it". But what Newt is thinking is I'm on the American people's side on such and such, I just made it sound "extreme", and now when it comes up later I'll produce the sounder argument and capitalize on the people joining my side.


Many on here don't realize he does this stuff intentionally its part of his strategy(he's said that in speeches before) and if there was something that he thought he was in the huge minority over(and he couldn't win the argument later) then he'll just shuck the question, downplay it, and seem as reasonable as you can possibly imagine.

He's playing chess and the news media is playing checkers with a football helmet on and a lollipop in there mouth.

[Wonkish1]

I find it funny that the sole focus on here is of the language not the idea or concept.

The concept is in the language. If the language is self-destructing, the concept implodes as well. If the CBO is not a "reactionary socialist institution", with a reactionary socialist agenda, then the entire analysis of it as such falls flat.

You don't get it! Newt has said that the key to winning to elections and winning votes is to find issues that you either already have a large majority on your side or you think you can easily create a large majority on your side. You then stand with them and smile and your opponents are either forced to join your side and stand in your shadow or take the minority side of the position.

The problem and the question that develops right away is, "Well Newt if there is already a majority on your side then how is it 'news' and how is it a controversy?" The answer is you make it one. Essentially you attempt to 'trollify' your own reasonable positions so they seem more controversial than they actually are. That way the media and people pick them up and put them to the center of attention. Then if your lucky enough for them to be real issues then you turn down the 'rhetoric' and just dominate and win the argument. You then have that nice majority on your side and your opponents look dumb.


What Newt is doing right now is running around the country and trying to set up mini controversies that he thinks will benefit him if he gets the nomination. He then will attempt to capitalize on those mini controversies in the future(most likely in future debates).

Get it now! Its a political strategy and it makes a lot of sense. How else do you get an issue that would otherwise seem uncontroversial to become an issue in a campaign? I haven't thought of a better way.

[Wonkish1]

Wonky says trolling. I'm inclined to believe him. And jmfsct doesn't like Bachmann becuase he thinks she's a troll. Newt has more trolling power in one little finger.

Trolling for a lack of a better term. And lets be clear its trolling for a purpose and that is to get these topics brought up more and more in the future. Ones he thinks he can capitalize on.

You got to figure out how to get the media to bite somehow.

[Wonkish1]

I don't even know how to seriously respond to this. Setting aside the obviously contradictory language in "reactionary Socialist" (remember, he's an "intellectual"), all this comes down to, in my mind, is highlighting the differing attitude between Republicans and Democrats on policy and governing. Democrats are more results based, Republicans are more ideological. When the CBO scores a Democratic policy poorly, Democrats adjust their policy. When the CBO scores a Republican policy poorly, they ignore it entirely and now apparently threaten to abolish them. The CBO is not an ideological organization, and so the Republicans hate it.

Show me where the Dems 'adjust' their policy when it comes to the CBO. They are perfectly fine to allow a horribly scored and accounting gimmick heavy bill to go through even if they know the numbers aren't going to be even remotely close.

And calling Democrats results based is hilarious. They never stop dumping money into a policy loser after its been clear it isn't delivering results. They just keep on demanding more and more money for it instead. That is ideology that isn't a "results based" outlook.


Newt is going after the CBO because they have been so historically way off on their predictions and that error always comes on agreeing with more Dem projections resulting in underestimating the costs of a new program and overestimating the amount of lost revenue from a tax cut. That is a fact not ideology.

[Wonkish1]

Good to know that attention-seeking matters more than doing what you believe it right... oh wait... Huntsman...

Nice spin!

[Wonkish1]

This is the kind of over the top rhetoric that is classic Newt which is why he is unfit for office, and unelectable. Period. "Reactionary socialist" is a term I would think would be more typical of a confused teenager on this site actually, who is just enthralled by all of these exciting new ideological terms that have recently come into his life. Newt, calling people names like that is infra dig, you hear me! Listen!

Come on, buddy, Newt is more stupid than nearly any teenager on this site - which is why he has a good chance of winning your party's nomination.  And why should that make him unelectable?  Virtually no one in the electorate has any idea what the worlds socialist or reactionary mean.

this... I mean look at what the Republican voters chose to lead their party last year.


This woman is the reason why Harry Reid is still in the Senate. Reid at the time was the most hated man in the state. Had they nominated Lowden or Tark and Schumer would be majority leader today. But nope they not conservative nor rhetorical enough to talk about second amendment remedies.

Despite Castle having a 15 point lead on Chris Coons, the same voters in Delaware went with Christine O'Donnell. Why? Because Castle was a liberal RINO. Of course we saw what happened next.

Despite racist e-mails and lack of integrity Paladino won the Republican primary. Not only his angry rhetoric did not hurt him it HELPED him.

Why would it be different today? The base loves the red meat.

Comparing Newt to those 3 D-Bags(who folks like myself knew were crazy as soon as details emerged about them) shows you have no clue!

[Wonkish1]

Lets also point out that Rubio set Florida election history with huge win in 2010 and he was the much more conservative pick relative.

There are a lot similarities between someone like Newt and Rubio. Both of them were idea Speaker's of their respective houses that dropped idea's out of their heads like machines. Also they both have a very, very good sense of their own political strategy. And in both cases they developed that strategy out of their own experience and thought and not out any traditional campaign consultancy.

The fact that the left on here hates Newt a ton is meaningless.

[Wonkish1]

I also agree with Wonkish's analysis regarding Newt's intentions here. This is exactly the sort of stuff Newt needs to be doing right now if he wants to win the nomination.

 

You don't get it! Newt has said that the key to winning to elections and winning votes is to find issues that you either already have a large majority on your side or you think you can easily create a large majority on your side. You then stand with them and smile and your opponents are either forced to join your side and stand in your shadow or take the minority side of the position.

Or, if your opponent is Bill Clinton, be forced to stand in his shadow as he co-opts all of your popular proposals, acts like they were his idea all along, and gets easily reelected because of it.

Excellent analysis in this post, btw. Newt definitely knows what he's doing here.

Well what he is doing right now is trying to force a bunch of little issues up. If something isn't seen as a problem or isn't a "controversial" issue then it doesn't get into the campaign. So Newt is trying to make non-controversial issues "controversial" so that he can force them into this years campaign.

Take for example "English should be the official language of government" by phrasing it that way he thinks he can get some liberals to bite and balk at that. Well its actually code for English immersion replacing bilingual education. An issue that is over 80% among Hispanics and a 90% issue among the general public. As soon as he can get the Dems to bite he switches gears with a nice little transition I've seen him make a couple dozen times and all of sudden they are left holding a 10% position against him and a position that would likely annoy Hispanics because they want to learn English and they want their kids to learn English.

[Wonkish1]

This is the kind of over the top rhetoric that is classic Newt which is why he is unfit for office, and unelectable. Period. "Reactionary socialist" is a term I would think would be more typical of a confused teenager on this site actually, who is just enthralled by all of these exciting new ideological terms that have recently come into his life. Newt, calling people names like that is infra dig, you hear me! Listen!

Come on, buddy, Newt is more stupid than nearly any teenager on this site - which is why he has a good chance of winning your party's nomination.  And why should that make him unelectable?  Virtually no one in the electorate has any idea what the worlds socialist or reactionary mean.

this... I mean look at what the Republican voters chose to lead their party last year.


This woman is the reason why Harry Reid is still in the Senate. Reid at the time was the most hated man in the state. Had they nominated Lowden or Tark and Schumer would be majority leader today. But nope they not conservative nor rhetorical enough to talk about second amendment remedies.

Despite Castle having a 15 point lead on Chris Coons, the same voters in Delaware went with Christine O'Donnell. Why? Because Castle was a liberal RINO. Of course we saw what happened next.

Despite racist e-mails and lack of integrity Paladino won the Republican primary. Not only his angry rhetoric did not hurt him it HELPED him.

Why would it be different today? The base loves the red meat.

Comparing Newt to those 3 D-Bags(who folks like myself knew were crazy as soon as details emerged about them) shows you have no clue!

Comparing a man who has 300 pounds of baggage (no pun intended) and spews such rhetoric to these 3 is fair game. Especially when there is someone who actually has a shot at winning the White House yet is being snubbed.

No it just shows you don't have a clue! You aren't making a serious statement at all!

[Wonkish1]

Fine I'll point out the obvious to everyone. I thought this was simple enough that someone would stumble on it.

In this case, Reactionary = an entity who's outlooks are based on the last couple years of information and doesn't take into account any information that might be a more accurate prognostication of what lies ahead. Its like an investor who predicts the future based on the last couple years; he would likely be one of the worst performers out there.

So the reactionary and socialist are two parts. Reactionary is how it prognosticates variables and socialist is how its models are designed.

God, this isn't rocket science.