Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:05:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17]
Poll
Question: Which is the most absurd objective proposed by Newt Gingrich?
#1
Putting mirrors in outerspace to light highways
 
#2
Colonizing the moon for resources such as moon rocks
 
#3
Repealing child labor laws so children can spend time in school being janitors rather than learning
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 81

Author Topic: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular  (Read 39757 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #400 on: January 24, 2012, 12:11:50 PM »
« edited: January 24, 2012, 12:13:41 PM by Politico »

fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney paid what he owed, and not a dollar more or a day later. Anybody who says they would do otherwise is a liar or a buffoon.
Logged
Peeperkorn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,987
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 0.65, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #401 on: January 24, 2012, 12:15:32 PM »

fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

That's not an answer.

Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #402 on: January 24, 2012, 12:17:47 PM »

fed 500 Americans via food stamps, alone. I'd like to see anybody on here feed 500 Americans for an entire year.

So taxes are a good thing?

Nobody likes paying taxes, even those who benefit from public services, but they're like death: you cannot avoid them.

That's not an answer.



How about this: Collecting some taxes is a necessary thing. Courts, national defense, highways, policemen/firemen, etc. need to be paid via taxation, obviously. Collecting too many taxes, specifically to fund things the government has no business being involved in, is a bad thing.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #403 on: January 24, 2012, 12:28:53 PM »

Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #404 on: January 24, 2012, 12:34:52 PM »

Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.

We were not running $1 trillion deficits twenty five years ago after the stock crash of 1987, when tax rates were lower than they are today, so obviously there is a spending problem. We are clearly spending more than we need to on areas where the government should be involved (e.g., national defense and Medicaid). Giving out $500 million loans to politically-connected fly-by-night operations is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what the next administration will uncover?
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #405 on: January 24, 2012, 12:55:40 PM »
« Edited: January 24, 2012, 12:57:33 PM by King »

Could you provide examples of "no business being involved in?" About $1 trillion's worth if you can.

We were not running $1 trillion deficits twenty five years ago after the stock crash of 1987, when tax rates were lower than they are today, so obviously there is a spending problem. We are clearly spending more than we need to on areas where the government should be involved (e.g., national defense and Medicaid). Giving out $500 million loans to politically-connected fly-by-night operations is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what the next administration will uncover?

Tax rates were not lower then than they were today.  Even if somehow they were, the Reagan Tax bill in 1986 flat-taxed the Romney bracket earners and he would have paid an effective 28% on all income no more, no less--as opposed to just the 15% he paid on TOP income.

The reason we have deficits today is because people like Romney, who likely isn't even in the top 100,000 richest Americans paid only half the income tax they did 25 years ago.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #406 on: January 24, 2012, 01:20:57 PM »

The reason we have deficits today is because people like Romney, who likely isn't even in the top 100,000 richest Americans paid only half the income tax they did 25 years ago.

Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #407 on: January 24, 2012, 01:24:44 PM »

...
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #408 on: January 24, 2012, 04:26:08 PM »

Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #409 on: January 24, 2012, 06:33:40 PM »

Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #410 on: January 24, 2012, 09:55:52 PM »

Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #411 on: January 24, 2012, 10:32:17 PM »

Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.

~70-75% of the primary electorate just doesn't like this guy. With Gingrich being the clear frontrunner and proving he can win base states decisively, the base is closing ranks.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #412 on: January 24, 2012, 10:43:13 PM »

Gallup:

Gingrich 31% (+3)
Romney 27% (-2)
Paul 12% (-1)
Santorum 12% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Mitt's more or less where he has been all along: at 25%.

~70-75% of the primary electorate just doesn't like this guy. With Gingrich being the clear frontrunner and proving he can win base states decisively, the base is closing ranks.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #413 on: January 27, 2012, 01:26:55 AM »
« Edited: January 27, 2012, 01:30:51 AM by Politico »

 If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over. If possible, I would like to see this thread locked immediately after Romney is declared the winner of Florida.

The nation has averted a crisis, and we did it without the nuclear option.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #414 on: January 27, 2012, 01:48:55 AM »

If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over.

Didn't Gingrich win South Carolina after losing in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Romney has already collapsed as the frontrunner in favor of Gingrich twice. If Romney regains the lead again, who is to say that he is incapable of folding to Gingrich a third time, fourth, or fifth time?
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #415 on: January 27, 2012, 04:15:42 PM »
« Edited: January 27, 2012, 05:07:49 PM by Politico »

If Romney wins Florida, and I would bet on it at this point, I think it's safe to say that the threat of Gingrich winning the nomination is finally over.

Didn't Gingrich win South Carolina after losing in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Romney has already collapsed as the frontrunner in favor of Gingrich twice. If Romney regains the lead again, who is to say that he is incapable of folding to Gingrich a third time, fourth, or fifth time?

Where is another comeback going to occur? Gingrich's home state of Georgia is the closest state to much of Florida. If Gingrich cannot win Florida, and could not even place in the top three in New Hampshire and Iowa, then where can Gingrich win besides South Carolina and Georgia? Mississippi and Alabama are not going to change the race, if that is what you are banking on. Furthermore, after a few more wins under his belt, Romney will be the presumptive nominee and decline to participate in the final scheduled debates (February 22, March 1, March 5 and March 19). As a result, CNN, NBC and PBS will almost surely cancel these scheduled debates.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #416 on: January 27, 2012, 04:51:26 PM »

Take this quiz:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-atlantic-politics-quiz-newt-gingrich-as-visionary/252150/
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #417 on: February 09, 2012, 10:54:10 AM »

Why have we let go of this? Politico is running rampant over the forum.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #418 on: February 09, 2012, 04:40:40 PM »

Why have we let go of this? Politico is running rampant over the forum.

We all know why Gingrich is bad. That's the purpose of this thread.

Why Santorum is not the best option is the purpose of the thread "Santorum: Prince of Pork..."
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #419 on: February 09, 2012, 08:07:54 PM »

Oh Politico, you so funny.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #420 on: February 09, 2012, 11:22:15 PM »

Romney, good. Romney win.

Santorum, bad. Santorum lose.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #421 on: February 09, 2012, 11:26:34 PM »

Oh, come on guys, the mirrors lighting highways thing is a decent idea and the other two are extremely loony and cruel, respectively.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #422 on: February 10, 2012, 12:56:08 AM »

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh Newt...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 14 queries.