Romney's running mate?

[well_bicyclically]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...golden-bullet/

He is an idiot if he does NOT pick her as his runnng mate!

[KansaiBen]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...golden-bullet/

He is an idiot if he does NOT pick her as his runnng mate!

He has to win the nomination first....

[ruserious]

Hillary Clinton. It would be a brilliant move.

[well_bicyclically]

He has to win the nomination first....

A done deal! Who else they got?

[KansaiBen]

A done deal! Who else they got?

Show aint over till the fat lady sings. Nobody thought Obama would be the nominee this time 4 years ago, but he clinched it, didn't he?

If there is no clear winner they will horse trade at the Republican convention. Anything can happen.

[ruserious]

News stories here in the U.S. say Santorum is in discussions with his core team, suggesting he's considering surrender.

Santorum will win Pennsylvania, but from there it becomes very tough sailing for him.

What about a Romney/Santorum ticket?

[Super Grover]

News stories here in the U.S. say Santorum is in discussions with his core team, suggesting he's considering surrender.

Santorum will win Pennsylvania, but from there it becomes very tough sailing for him.

What about a Romney/Santorum ticket?

GAGS at the thought. Of course you are joking. A right wing fundamentalist and a corporate raider -- 4 more years of Obama.

[KansaiBen]

GAGS at the thought. Of course you are joking. A right wing fundamentalist and a corporate raider -- 4 more years of Obama.

US can kiss the middle-class and the working class goodbye. America for the rich and white only.

[Call_It_Like_Eye_See_It]

US can kiss the middle-class and the working class goodbye. America for the rich and white only.

You forgot to pick a religion, too, in your stereotypical choices!

[Genkii]

Romney can't connect with voters, has no charisma, is out of touch and too stiff, and he'll say whatever he believes voters just want to hear.

[ruserious]

Romney can't connect with voters, has no charisma, is out of touch and too stiff, and he'll say whatever he believes voters just want to hear.

The Obama administration has increased the national debt from $10 trillion to $16 trillion in three short years, unemployment is still way above 8% even with all the 'creative' accounting for who qualifies as unemployed, we still have troops in the middle east, and he promised to close Guantanimo.

He bought as many votes as he could with the GM and Chrysler bailouts, flushed billions of dollars down the toilet chasing 'alternative' energy like Solyndra, and thinks he can force everybody in the country to give money to private corporations.

Romney should just have a live feed of the National Debt clock posted on his podium.

[timely response]

The Obama administration has increased the national debt from $10 trillion to $16 trillion in three short years

A Republican in Democratic clothing? The US version of Tony Blair... and that ain't nothin' to be proud of.

[ruserious]

That's a great chart, and perfectly shows how the Democrats will skew any data available to support their case.

The Republicans NEVER controlled both houses of Congress during the Reagan or Bush Sr. administrations. The DEMOCRATS controlled both houses for six years. The deficit skyrocketed.

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for six of the eight years under Clinton. The deficit went DOWN.

GW Bush started with a mixed Congress, followed by four years of a Republican Congress. The deficit did go up slightly. But look at the last two years of his administration. The deficit began to skyrocket. Who was in control of Congress for those two years? You guessed it; DEMOCRATS.

The deficit continued its skyrocketing pace under Obama, with a DEMOCRATIC Congress.

Nearly everybody on the planet understands that Democrats are for more taxing and more spending. The deficit means nothing to them. Borrow, tax, and spend. Republicans in general are fiscally conservative. They want lower taxes, less spending, and a balanced budget.

[Kaonashi]

Republicans in general are fiscally conservative. They want lower taxes, less spending, and a balanced budget.

Wonderful rhetoric! Too bad thirty years of Republican results totally contradict it. Here's a little help: Republicans want lower taxes on the rich (undeniable when considering that service cuts demanded equal effective tax raises on the middle class and poor); less spending on everything except what they want more spending on; and a balanced budget? Ha! - this is the "deficits don't matter" party.

Paul Ryan's budget would savage the middle class while doing nothing to reduce the deficit - it would simply be a transfer of wealth upward.

[ruserious]

Wonderful rhetoric! Too bad thirty years of Republican results totally contradict it.

The last thirty years clearly show that the deficit increases when Democrats control Congress, and decreases when Republicans control Congress. It's not rhetoric, it's fact.

[timely response]

The last thirty years clearly show that the deficit increases when Democrats control Congress, and decreases when Republicans control Congress. It's not rhetoric, it's fact.

Funny, then, that Republicans voted so enthusiastically to raise the debt ceiling multiple times during the Bush years while many Democrats voted against so doing. Do check out the graphs in the USA Today link. (I couldn't figure out how to embed them in this post)

Debate over U.S. debt limit is going down to the wire

The debt really seemed to grow hand-in-hand Bush's tax cuts. The wars didn't help either. Funny that.

[timely response]

Another pretty graph, accompanied by an explanation for those who have trouble with their eyesight and/or memory...

Think the vote to raise the debt limit is about principle? Think again. Our new infographic shows stand-alone votes in Congress to raise the debt ceiling over the past decade.

In 2003, 2004 and 2006, Republicans controlled everything―the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. When the debt limit came up for a vote in the Senate, guess what happened. The vote to raise the debt ceiling came almost totally from Republicans. Same thing was true when the debt ceiling came up for a vote in the House in 2002 and 2004. In June 2002, a year after Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an Independent, the Senate was narrowly controlled by Democrats but the House was still Republican.) In 2009 and 2010, Democrats controlled everything. So what happened? Votes to raise the debt ceiling came almost entirely from Democrats. When power was divided in 2002 and 2007, the Senate votes to raise the debt ceiling were bipartisan.

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/387#

[ruserious]

Where is the graph that goes back 30 years? And where is the graph that shows Congress, rather than just the Senate?

What possible reason could the Republican Congress have had after September 11, 2001 to raise the debt limit?

Pretty colors in that graph, though. The fact that Democrats spend like drunken sailors is so irrefutable, the best they can try to do is make a graph that says, "yea, we always raise the debt limit, but the Republicans do it, too." A weak and fairly dishonest argument.

[timely response]

Where is the graph that goes back 30 years? And where is the graph that shows Congress, rather than just the Senate?

I ain't the one making claims about 30 years. However, you are the one who unequivocally claimed that "the deficit increases when Democrats control Congress, and decreases when Republicans control Congress. It's not rhetoric, it's fact."

You might want to look up the definitions of "fact" and "rhetoric", cause your claim don't seem to hold much water.

What possible reason could the Republican Congress have had after September 11, 2001 to raise the debt limit?

Oh, are you referring to the unnecessary wars which Bush launched? Wars, illegal, unnecessary or otherwise, tend to be costly affairs. Not the best of times to be embarking on major tax cuts...

Pretty colors in that graph, though. The fact that Democrats spend like drunken sailors is so irrefutable,

Don't believe I ever tried to refute it. Two sides of the same filthy coin, if you ask me. No wonder the currency is emblazoned with the slogan "In God We Trust." They can't even trust themselves to get it right, but instead have to enlist the help of a non-existent deity...

the best they can try to do is make a graph that says, "yea, we always raise the debt limit, but the Republicans do it, too." A weak and fairly dishonest argument.

Depends what purpose the graph is put to.

If it's to try and justify their own proclivity for spending, then, sure, it's a weak argument.

However, if it's to point out the inaccuracy of someone's ridiculous and unsupported claims that "the deficit increases when Democrats control Congress, and decreases when Republicans control Congress. It's not rhetoric, it's fact", then it seems like a pretty strong argument.


Cutting taxes when you're about to embark on costly military adventures don't seem like a very smart way to reduce one's deficit. But hey, didn't Reagan reduce taxes while trying to beef up military spending? Not surprising then that Cheney reportedly remarked, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms. This is our due.”

Very occasionally, Bush questioned whether he was going too far in pandering to the rich and the right wing. “Are you proposing that we accelerate all the tax cuts, or just for those in the middle?” he asked his senior officials in late 2002. “Won’t the top-rate people benefit the most from eliminating the double taxation of dividends? Didn’t we already give them a break at the top?” The White House’s economic experts, who had been hired for their conservative views, were momentarily taken aback. “Mr. President, remember the high earners are where the entrepreneurs are,” Glenn Hubbard, then the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said. “It’s also about the supply side,” Lawrence Lindsey, who headed the National Economic Council, added.

O’Neill watched all this with anguish. Shortly before he was fired, he confronted Cheney about the Administration’s latest proposal to cut taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over ten years, pointing out that the country was “moving toward a fiscal crisis.” The Vice-President stopped him. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. “We won the midterms. This is our due.” In fact, Reagan didn’t prove anything of the kind. Early in his first term, Congress was forced to adopt emergency tax increases and spending cuts to restrain the ballooning budget shortfall. Despite this remedial action, it wasn’t until the early nineties, when George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton raised taxes, that the nation’s finances were put in proper order, opening the way to the longest economic expansion on record.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...a_talk_cassidy

[YokohamaTommy]

Isn't America an Oligarchy by now?

[Genkii]

Isn't America an Oligarchy by now?

I think you should start worrying about other things.

Taking care of your family and find a job. You lazy slacker.

YES, YOU MAY KICK ME WHILE i AM DOWN. I'd rather have a paying job, but if it helps my family, call me whatever names you wish, just help me find a job ...

[ThaHamburgler]

I think you should start worrying about other things.

Taking care of your family and find a job. You lazy slacker.

Complete inane dribble about republican racial superiority and the great plan thats worked, working, and will work in the future capped off by genkii being a complete as s hat. The original article was dumb as a gorilla plucking ball hairs too.

For future reference:

[timely response]

The last thirty years clearly show that the deficit increases when Democrats control Congress, and decreases when Republicans control Congress. It's not rhetoric, it's fact.

So, if it is a fact which can be clearly shown, why are you having such a difficult time showing it?

I've presented sources which clearly suggest otherwise. Where's your evidence for your rather spurious claim?

So much for reasonable debate. It's so much easier to just make stuff up, eh... and then run and hide when challenged.