This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Food Stamp Friday - Newt Shows America His True Colors
Food Stamp Friday - Newt Shows America His True Colors
I try to keep politics out of the weekly posts but screw that!
That disgusting, vile, son-of-a-bitch (just my opinion, we report - you decide!) Newt Gingrich is on a 12-city pre-election tour where he is advising Republican candidates to frame the choice for voters between Democrats as "the party of food stamps" while selling the GOP as "the party of paychecks."
With a truly shocking 42M Americans in such dire straits that they need food stamps to make ends meet (and our study of the shopping habits of the poor last week clearly illustrated that this aid is the only way they can eat as they shop the same day the checks come every month), Gingrich this week distributed a memo to Republican hopefuls saying they should use the final month to stress tax and spending cuts as a way to spur job growth while attacking Democratic policies as detrimental that effort.
"It’s perfectly fair to say they are earning the title of the party of food stamps," he said. "By contrast, we have historically since Ronald Reagan of 1980 been the party of job creation."
The party of job creation??? Ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha - ha! Ha, ha, ha. Ha! OK, I think I’m done now. Ha! OK, now I can go on (but I’m still giggling). I will sum up the very cogent point I made to Members early this morning by simply saying: Is this out of touch elitist wealth-sucking windbag totally insane or just a big, fat liar? Let’s look at a chart:
What? Don’t like this one? Do you think it’s unfair to keep picking on poor W? I hear this all the time, Obama’s been in office 21 months, he needs to OWN this recession now and we need to stop looking at the idiot who caused it and pretend it was all Obama’s fault since he took office in the month that job losses maxed out at 850,000.
As logical as that line of reasoning may be, I do like to try to keep a historical perspective on things. We republished a full set of charts that illustrate my points from Member Chat over at Seeking Alpha, so you can view them here, but let me share just two that I find relevant. For the first chart, let’s take a look at ALL the post-Depression Presidents, including the great and powerful Ronald Reagan, and see how they stacked up in providing jobs for the American people:
Ouch! Not looking good for the red team is it? In fact, this was only through August of ‘09 and did not include 2.8M job losses in Bush’s last 4 months in office. A feat of failure that put his Administration squarely in the red for the first time since Hoover sucked up the economy in the 20s.
Well, sure, the Republicans may suck at creating jobs but they shine on controlling spending, right. Ha, ha and ha ha again! There is not even a close contest there as Reagan, Bush and Bush ran up OVER $6Tn in debt in 20 combined years ($300Bn per year) while the dreaded Carter and Clinton caused a GRAND TOTAL of $548Bn (0.55Tn) to be added to the deficit in 12 combined years ($45Bn/year).
How about government spending (all these figures are on the linked charts, by the way)? Also no contest, since 1940, Republicans have added far more then Democrats and, in fact, the only modern President to ever significantly reduce government spending was Harry Truman, despite all those liberal programs that paid for our parents homes and sent them to college, etc.
"Ooh, ooh" - you may say, as you raise your hand for attention "What about the pork projects - those filthy Democrats love pork projects." No, so sorry but this is one of the funniest charts. Mr. Gingrich’s party took over the House and the Senate in the 1994 elections and controlled both houses every session other than 2001-2 (when Jeffords got disgusted and switched parties) through Dec. 2005 and LOOK WHAT THEY DID!:
THESE are the people who want you to vote them back in, THESE are the people who are making all the same promises they broke last time about spending and fraud and waste and family. Who was in control of Congress from 1995 through 2005, when Total Federal Spending DOUBLED? You may think politics is not about the markets but it’s ALL about the markets right now. We are teetering on the edge of a precipice and going back to the disastrous policies that drove us to the edge of a cliff in the first place is NOT going to make things better. Our future investing decisions will very much hinge on who is in charge and so will our economic futures as a nation.
Just look at the tremendous burden we face if we extend the Bush tax cuts. It’s bad enough if we don’t but perhaps we can cut back spending and grow a little faster to offset the doubling of our debt to GDP load between now and 2050 but CLEARLY, extending them is nothing short of National Suicide!
You can’t give Trillions of dollars of tax breaks to the top 5% while 20% of the bottom 95% are unemployed or under-employed! A healthy economy needs a healthy labor force, which leads to healthy consumer spending which leads to more wealth for everyone - the proverbial "bigger pie." Cutting back on the social safety net and running an austerity budget when 42M of your citizens (13.5%) can’t live without food stamps is simply immoral. They do still teach morals somewhere, don’t they?
In fact, here is yet another chart of the income growth rate of post-war America broken down by party and, once again, the Democrats CLEARLY deliver better economic results for all. Well, not all, the top 1% do not do as well by a small margin under the Democrats but the entire top 5% STILL DO BETTER when the Dems are in charge by a full 10%!
We just got the Non-Farm Payroll numbers and they show that we LOST another 95,000 jobs in September. A loss of 5,000 jobs was expected. Government payrolls shrank by 159,000 jobs (damn those Democrats and their cutbacks!) while private enterprise added 64,000. While Unemployment held steady at 9.6%, U-6, the broader and also official measure of Unemployment jumped from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in September. Even worse (and you won’t hear this in the MSM), March has now been revised down — wait for it — by 366,000 jobs! That’s right, we dropped 366,000 jobs in March vs. an originally reported up 50,000(ish) so an 800% miss in the data. Wow - good thing we didn’t know that then or the market might not have run up 7.5% between March 1st and April 26th! I wonder what other "lucky" statistical mistakes are being made during the current rally?
So don’t get me wrong, Democrats suck too but just not as much as Republicans and, since we really only have two choices - I have to go with the guys who at least have some kind of track record fixing an economy, because this one is TOTALLY BROKEN! Of course, poor unemployment numbers boosted the futures because futures traders are generally idiots who are in the highest tax brackets and only think in terms of how things affect them and no jobs means (in theory) more Quantitative Easing and low interest rates and cheap labor - it’s everything a Capitalist dreams of all coming true at once!
From a trading perspective - frankly my dears, we don’t give a damn. We are cashy and flexible and we hit shorts on the Dow yesterday for a quick 50% in yesterday’s Member Alert and we’ll be looking to do it again this morning if they are going to keep pretending that TERRIBLE news is good news. A test of 10,800 is my goal for today and, if not, we’ll certainly take some flyers for Monday, which is a semi-holiday in America which celebrate Columbus "sort of" discovering the country 500 years after Leif Ericson - all of which came as quite a surprise to the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had this crazy idea that they had discovered the place…
We’ll have to digest this nonsense over the weekend and play it by ear into Member Chat this morning because anything can happen and probably will on what is likely to be a low-volume day. Sorry for the rant but I work feeding the hungry and that really touches a nerve for me so sorry, Newt, maybe you aren’t a totally disgusting, vile, son-of-a-bitch.
Ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha - ha! Ha, ha, ha. Ha!
Have a good weekend,
- Phil
For a 20% discount for all PSW newsletters/services, click here.
»
- ilene's blog
- 6203 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Well said Chopper... there are perils in social support, but like the justice system it's better to let 10 guilty go free, than to convict a single innocent man. The only sensible rationale for social support abuse, IMO... some will abuse (same as congress) but it's a small price to pay to get help to those truly in need.
I don't support the current administration, but to blame Obama is just a waste of time (it makes me crazy so I try to fight back). At this point, any President would be in over his head... after all, I don't believe any have been professional economists, so they have little choice but rely on those currently "in the know." He's pissed off the bankers, and they're going "all in" for the TP / GOP, and that's good enough for me.
To me, the point is that the GOP / Tea Party side really do use race and cultural bating to fire up Bubba "et al." It makes a mockery of true debate, it's slimy, and about as low as it gets IMHO (and Newt is one of the best at it).
cheers!
i do believe that private charities (many towards which i do and have contributed) do a better job of discerning between those in need versus not, and where money can be best 'put to work'. after all, if a private charity becomes too wasteful then it will go out of business; we cannot say the same about government monopolies.
food stamps are an interesting one, because what heartless bastard would say, "let those who are hungry starve."? But I'm not sure it is quite this simple.
I find it difficult to believe that any one of us would not reach into our pockets and buy food (and a tent) for anyone in America whom we could see as emaciated from starvation. In fact, Americans have never had a "right to eat", yet obesity is a problem among our nation's poor. Conversely, "the right to eat" was a staple of communist doctrine, even while starvation was rampant in the former USSR and those who did eat gained 80%+ of their produce from local farmers (whose activities where purposely overlooked by state planners for the obvious reasons).
my point is that it has become clear to me over the years that so many people would be better off by eliminating federal government middlemen. I have no problem supporting a local soup kitchen (in fact, i have personally spent a great deal of time serving meals here in Chicago). However, such things as federally mandated food stamps open the door for too many crooks at the expense of the needy, including crooks among the needy.
bottomline: federal monopolies, i believe, take both food and jobs (through high taxes) away from those who need them most. our country is weaker because of them, which does not help anyone over the long-term.
growing up in the 70's having the lowest paid teachers in the State of Illinois (rural Mackinaw), then living in the murder capital of America (East Garfield Park Chicago), and finally living in a country with disastrous national healthcare where i lost both a father-in-law and a great young friend due to blatant negligence and malpractice (England), I have come to learn that holding back the most productive people among us in order to empower Big Government is no way to save those folks who are most in need, but rather quite the opposite.
you are right: Obama is in over his head as any President would be. Much has been laid into place since the advent of fractional reserve lending, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, the end of the gold standard by Nixon in 1971, and the easy credit perpetuated by Greenspan. Bush's wars and Obama's own 'stimulus' to pay his labor cronies along with 'healthcare reform' are now the nails in the coffin.
this is just financial physics. of course, all just my opinion, too.
take care, SRV. talk soon, mate.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=212741
Whenever I see the name "Newt" It makes me think of those cool Geico Auto Insurance ads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt
Ilene, beside the "party of food stamps", let's say the democrats also own the 99er club. Now about your idol Barama and jobs...hmmm. Maybe if you get off your Bama-juice we can agree that government is not the solution, but the problem.
LETS ALL JOIN THE GOVERNMENT SO WE CAN SAVE OURSELVES!!!
BILLIONAIRES ALL AROUND! SHOVEL-READY JOBS!! A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT, I SAY!!!
Lameassed, political hack bullshit. More of the 'left hand pointing at the right hand' and trying to obfuscate the fact they're part of the same body. ZH really needs a negative star rating for tripe like this meaningless pile of word soup.
+++
Wow...maybe a handful of names I recognize for thoughtful posts, the rest are mostly newbie trolls. Blog ops on overdrive.
One (1) unjunk from an old-bie.
WTH is this partisan shit doin on ZH?? They're all guilty of treason
there is constant conservative partisan stuff on this site all the time, a lot of it has many holes, as we post-partisans know, this is a piece on how some of the partisan crap repubs use is not correct...at least it balances site some.
If the insincere power mongers like Newt aren't called out on their hypocrisy and lies, we are just as screwed as a people as were are with establishment Dems in charge. Our needed solutions go way beyond Fox news talking points that are meant to shield powerful insider business interests in this country, so such Fox news talking points must be exposed, just as well Krugman et al.
ZH attracts a lot of libertarians and fiscal conservatives/small govt types, but truth is there is much railing on this site against corruption, manipulation of markets, insider trading here, as there should be, and only solution to that is better policing. Efficient markets can not exist without some trust, transparency, and that can only be guaranteed by impartial policing that serves everyone, that is accountable to everyone via democratic controls - that means government policing.
The other choice is in the extreme is financial anarchy, no policing, letting companies fight it out, see who can cheat more, who can leverage and lie more, which much of what this site seems to see wrong with, such as HFT, dark pools, completely unregulated derivatives that are worth many multiples of the world's GDP.
In spite of this conservatives/libertarians are given many opportunities on this site to promote things that, in my mind are same things we have often done and will only make many of described problems worse, not better, so if this site is worth its salt, these things should meet with at least some intellectual challenge.
A general point this article hints at that really irritates me, is the hypocrisy of mainstream Repubs is the selectiveness of their fiscal conservativeness, and this deserves spotlighting. When Repubs had complete control in 2000-2006, there was no Newt prominently railing against W and Repub congress' wild deficit spending. Sure, Repubs who are war hawks support deficit spending for a war/terror protection, but that war spending was not even in budget and much of budget deficit spending by W admin was caused by Medicare part D boondoggle that enriched Pharma and tax cuts (during war, at an okay so-so time of economy).
Now when Newt does get fiscally conservative, its always SOCIAL safety net spending that must be first adjusted, never defense, never rolling taxes back to where they were during Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton years etc..
And it may well be truth as some here say, while any govt spending is money down a hole, we know some of this money returns to the general economy more than others, that's just facts shown by study after study and plain common sense. UI and food stamps will get quickly spent back into the economy more so than tax cuts for rich, defense spending.
I agree with people that say we must live within our means, but if we are to change and start doing that, why would we change first, and only, the thing that fixes the budget hole the least, and why would we cut first, the thing that helps the general economy and provides people with the most benefit.
So if 0.5 of social safety spending (whatever it is) ends back in the economy, 0.3 of defense spending, while 0.1 of tax cuts for rich does...why would we go first for the social spending first, and really only, in our discussions of fiscal conservativeness.
And notice many Repubs rally around some govt jobs programs, like weapons building program that the DOD knows are pieces of crap, but no one wants to fire the people and companies building them. So we keep throwing money down that hole.
But we don't want to spend on updated electrical grid, alternative energy etc. Maybe we shouldn't be spending on either, but certainly, if we are going to keep spending to keep people working for govt building worthless, messed up weapons programs, shouldn't we at least have the sense to shift these govt ordered manufacturing and technology jobs to things that might at least give back some benefit to everyone, like infrastructure spending. If we don't have the money to spend on electrical grids, roads, then we certainly don't have money to spend on weapons systems the DOD does not even want anymore, right?
So there is much hypocrisy about what parts of deficit spending are selectively picked at.
Instead of an honest pay-go proposal, where we put everything on table and decide which how best to balance budget, we have Repubs only disliking deficit spending when it goes to Stim or social programs but being perfectly fine with budget deficits if it reduces richest people's taxes or if its for unimpressive weapons programs, wars that yield little for US population.
People say we have to change Soc Sec because it is going broke, but almost no one says we have to get out of Afghanistan because we are going broke. Spending on either could be argued to help America (making us safer or giving seniors some basics) but when we have no money, we have to forgo these benefits, right?. Why don't we make an honest choice, and decide which one is more important to us. Instead, war is always funded, rarely questioned by Repubs, regardless of deficit.
I think its funny that establishment, partisan Repub stuff is all over this site but when a partisan article poking holes in some of Newts (who is one of the most establishment hacks) arguments goes up, its the worse thing ZH ever did...again, hypocrisy and no intellectual consistency.
Rock on. Also, how come nobody has even mentioned that the president doesn't spend money? I thought that was Congress' job!
"Of course, poor unemployment numbers boosted the futures because futures traders are generally idiots who are in the highest tax brackets and only think in terms of how things affect them and no jobs means (in theory) more Quantitative Easing and low interest rates and cheap labor - it’s everything a Capitalist dreams of all coming true at once!"
Clearly the product of an advanced mind. and if you'd care to take me on in a trading challenege, we can see who is really the idiot.
I like your points as an obvious counterbalance to the absolute untruths the Repubs spout....but as I say to Repubs all the, this is beyond red or blue...Clinton with Rubin and Summers and a Repub Senator Gramm and Repub house and senate passed Gramm bill that deregulated banks, W went even crazier with Paulson, Paulson with Dem congress passed TARP, Obama continued same policies with the likes of Geithner and Summers. Wall Street owns DC
I think Repubs are really suckers to think Repubs back in power will fix everything, like going back to Repub prez and Repbu congress like in 2000-2006 will fix things, so I think it's good to call these guys out, Dems are slightly less suspectible to thinking Dems will fix everything as Dem politicians are generally useless, impotent.
But I think its silly to assign job losses or gains to Presidents...first off who controls congress should be in there too, but I think mostly presidents ride the economic waves. Job losses would have bottom if McCain president too, maybe if he did no Stim, numbers, date of bottom would have been different, but really this is just a gaingt devleveraging that eventually bottoms no matter what.
Not that I don't think economic policy, tax policy don't make a difference, but seldom can a president's power overwhelm market forces at least not quickly...
The two things irritate me most about Newt is his complete ideological flip flops which indicate to me he is so insincere...he switches with the wind...and secondly is the general Repub thing to focus gutting the things that are most helpful to people before we gut anything else.
We spend a lot on entitlements and Defense, if we decided to live with in our means, why is Soc Security the first thing to cut. We they ask for tax cuts, its only on income tax, not FICA. etc...Spending on wars is never questioned but spending on infrastructure , tax credits for energy efficiencies, UI, teachers, all things in the Stim, that is protest worthy. There are Repubs that support TARP but not Stim, to me that is height of hypocrisy.
Mutty;
As an ex-partisan, I deeply appreciate your erudite and succinct analysis in this discussion. Spot on.
I'm not so succinct, but thanks
Repbublicans are so freaking stupid ist Mcpain then newt? I'd rather have barry
Sorry but your well written post must be a cover used to hide your enormous IQ....
Seriously, 42 million people are struggling? You obviously have never been abroad and seen what it is like to scrape, scrounge and struggle to survive. Sure, some of the 42 million have a difficult time fending for themselves, but more than half of them are more than capable of feeding themselves with a little more effort.
As for the anti-tax-cut-screed, how about rolling the spending back to something like 2001 levels? The budget would be balanced in a matter of a few years. Your solution is to fall into the claptrap that all money belongs to government and we are but simple peasants who should be glad our lords and masters allow us to subsist on their land.
Consider this to be an alternative version of the golden rule ... I know you don't think you will be the serf on the wrong end of a gun, but chances are you will be right there along with the rest of us, whiny boy, so be careful what you wish for.
so that is what you want for America, for us to be third world?
Have you ever been to Europe, those countries economies are no better than US on GDP per capita but there people fare much better, less poverty, everyone has health care, everyone with academic performance can go to college for next to nothing, everyone gets a decent retirement, poor are takend care of and they do all this with no better economies than ours (with the exception of Norway, they are oil rich).
If you think America shoudl have less GDP, have it taken from it, that's fine, but as long as we have a GDP per capita equivalent to Europe but our middle class is way worse off than, I think our policies suck and can be improved by simply shifting priorities.
If average Americans think our poor should be as bad off as third world poor even while our GPD per capita is way way way higher than that we are just plain stupid losers.
...struggling to get another flat screen TV.
@ Alarmist...are you the same Alarmist I used to read on Roubini's site back in the day? If so, I always enjoyed arguing with you, so let's get it on.
Want to roll back the spending to the Bill Clinton levels? How about the tax rates? After all, there were 3 consecutive years of budget surpluses then.
For the record, I don't give a rat's patooty for either party. They are, as has been adequately pointed out, pretty much 2 sides of the same corporatist coin. Seems to me the biggest difference is sophistication. The Repugnacans are much better at stealing than the Dummycrats. They tend to line their pockets on a much grander scale, IMHO. They are also much more punitive, and hypocritical as a group - easier to imagine wearing jack boots and uniforms.
I very much agree about what it's like to be poor in America vs the third world. No comparison, really, but on the other hand, we aren't exactly Europe, either. Being on the dole is much nicer in say, the Netherlands, or maybe the south of France.
Independent Contractor
yeah, european socialism is a raging success. i lived in europe for almost 7 years. my wife is european. europe is a great place to visit, but a shitehole in which to conduct business. yes, we're getting closer to their model all the time. how's it working out?
You're kidding, right? The Republicans have nothing on the Democrats when it comes to lining pockets with no shame. In fact, the Dems have no trouble deluding themselves and, with the help of their willing accomplices in the media, deluding the masses that they care so much for them while all the while they pick the right pocket while stuffing a few crumbs in the left to buy votes.
How about an amendment that limits all governmental spending to no more than 20% of GDP? You, IC, also seem to fall into that group that thinks all money belongs to the govt and that we should be glad they let us keep more or less of it. Truth be told, they should be forced to come to us hat in hand rather than forcing us to pledge obeisance to them at gunpoint every April 15, every quarter, or every paycheck through withholding.
Yo, Alarmist...still curious if you are the same Alarmist from Roubini's site? You do sound like him. If so, we sparred a few times there, and my take away wa that we largely saw things the same, but had some differing points of view.
Regarding coments above, I would love the govt to stay within the 20% number on the expenditure side. Also would like honesty in all accounting, which would incude no off-balance sheet wars. Try to figure out how to do that w/20% without revolution.
No, I do not think all money belongs to the govt, and hate the waste fraud & abuse. I also realize some of the biggest beneficiaries of the waste, fraud, & abuse are also some of the loudest 'govt haters', or so they profess. Nor do I enjoy writing those checks to the IRS, but there is no other source of revenue for the services that somehow must be provided.
No politician is my friend, and I know several of them. All nice folks, but beholden to special interests of various types.
The conundrum is that govt is a requirement and we must somehow figure out how to make it function properly. The attitude that govt is the enemy is best summed up in the immortal words of Pogo..."we have met the enemy, and he is us."
Later....Independent Contractor
So in that chart of "pork projects" does that include Freddie and Fannie?
Ever been really hungry and had no money? If not, you should please shut up about food stamps.
yes. ever asked for help and actually deserved it? ever ask your neighbor if you can pick up trash around his house for a few bucks? if not, you should please shut up about food stamps. fuck you.
So unless you've personally experienced something you're not allowed to comment on it? So much for the triumph of rational, critical thinking. Go post on Salon.
Yes!
I went from restaurant to resaurant cleaning deep fryers for $20 a pop, bought food, paid rent and found a job. It's called being an adult. Crap happens to everyone. Press on!
to attribute job creation to any president is complete BS. Presidents/governments don't creat jobs. All they have the potential to do is screw up the economy and they do it very well.
Conrad Murray's post at the top hits the nail on the head.
Yeah--keep the sheeple fighting about "politics", while the power elite continue to pillage...
exactly
This is the single worst post I have ever seen on Zero hedge. Tyler, why would you allow the partisan crap?
+1 all comments re dems/repubs who cares pigs of different colors sucking at same trough - us.
but let's face it the dems Are the party of food stamps.
'party of food stamps' led by President Flounder!!!!
Come on Tyler - ZH is better than this ideologue.
Her posts are consistently idiotic. I thought about trying to refute the last couple of them, but who has the time?
This one is actually her best post and it sucks because it is old news.
This is a rehash of "statistics" that proves nothing. But both parties truly suck.
Tyler - can we please have more Bruce, CD, GW and Reggie and less of this idiot? Ilene makes me pine to read Leo on solar stocks!
In an effort to be accurate, it should be pointed out that this article was written, "By Phil at Phil's Stock World". Ilene was just silly enough to post it here. Or she wanted to stir the shit.
Get out of the left, right paradigm give me some fax about 1901-1913? how about some fact from 1931-1945? this situation has nothing to do with obama,bush,clinton,raegan,jimi carter, well it has everything to do with nixon,FDR, nelson Aldrech,woodrow wilson, alexander hamilton. Slap an appreciation of the dollar since 1913 and it's a funny thing! all the presidents look the same (falling like a rock)...although I'm not defending newt gingrich he really is a piece of trash but you use all of the bad evidence of presidents? how about his voting record? if your going to slam someone slam Gingrich as a politician and his voting record...All arguements about politics can be traced follow the money! and you'll follow it all the way to the central bank every time! food stamps? I bet those would be cheaper not paying jpm! shit if we didn't have a central bank people would make enough to give food away and we wouldn't need food stamps! but, of course we need a central bank so the government can steal income taxes from everybody put millions out of jobs, pay beaucrats 200k a year just to give away food stamps, oh and ZIRP for monpolies to gobble it all up ! cut all taxes to zero and replace with a 20% national sales and whatever local state sales tax.....whatever they get thats what they get...government bonds? forget about it....
ZackLo, you're a patriot!!!
Grow the fuck up.
I don't really care who sucks worse!! I want leaders that don't suck!!!
The National Debt to GDP was 90.5% in June and is over 93% TODAY. No graphs are necessary to prove that we are headed down, not up.
Its obvious that whoever is in charge right this minute does not have the answers and cannot fix the problems.
I'm sick of comparing the people that shouldn't be in office when our entire future depends on figuring out who should!
I am ready for the adult conversation of what went wrong and whatits going to take to fix it in real life not in some ridiculously coerced graph.
If you want to hear an adult speak, go to William Hugh Smith's website oftwominds.com and read yesterdays post. This guy is a beacon of sanity combining emotional sensitivity with no nonsense logic and great insight. He also doesn't get caught up in the left-right dichotomy.
Exactly, we need a third party that isn't bought and paid for, manages to get elected and then not get assassinated (or suicided) when they become agents for change.
This is all a bunch of crap when you consider the endless number of bubbles and the fact there hasn't been any real economic growth for decades. Until we rid ourselves of the FED, and the 1-party system, we're scrfewed.
+ 2010.
+ 1 quadrillion ( or the deficit, whichever is greater)
Nice try Ilene...for those that are dumb enough not to read through the holes in your financial rhetoric (liberals) I'm sure this actually seems to be an impressive article. For those who understand economics, this is seen for what it is: manipulated data for partisan benefit. If you really believe that Nancy Pelosi's claim that numerous well respected economists told her that the food stamp program and unemployment insurance are the best job creating programs, then you better get in line for a long tme for food stamps and a measely unemployment check. Gingrich does not want to hurt anyone and neither do the Republicans, they just want to get the economy on its feet again, create jobs IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and they don't agree with the Democrats on how to do it. Good luck in the elections, but I don't think it will help...people have figured out that instead of hope and change, Obama has brought divisiveness and lies to advance his destructive progressive agenda.
The jobs are never coming back. Newt knows this. So what's his real agenda?
Selling books. He has a new one, and it's hard work drumming up real, honest to god buyers. Not at all like when he was Speaker of the House and running Go-Pac, and he could just call up his lobbyist friends and have them place orders for his scribblings.
Even Newt knows he has zero chance of ever being elected to anything again. His rock has been permanently turned over, and his special brand of hypocritical sleaze exposed.