An interesting read

[apb]

http://www.sphere.com/opinion/articl...main|dl1|link7

Don't normally agree with Newt, but he does make some good points. One note, I seem to remember Obama reaching out to republicans early in 09, and basically getting snubbed. Works both ways. I agree though, stop the parisian stuff and work together. Other thoughts?

Andrew

[mhall]

Certainly working together for a common goal versus fighting each other on every move is the better way. Gingrich has alot of skeletons in his closet as all politicians do but the man makes alot of sense most of the time.

[DJD]

I really think if Nancy and the gang were voted out. Barry started being honest to the Americans and actually followed through with his promise of a "change" he would not only get more GOP support he would have two terms.

The GOP is praying he snubbs the americans and keeps pushing this left wing nonsense agenda. Because if he showed any sign of coming back to center the GOP will not win the next election.

Gotta face it when the GOP had all the power they spent way too much but americans have a short memory.

I think that he now knows his political limits for going to the left. My prediction is he will put the campaign face back on and say the right things to get the shine back on him. That's his world....looking good and talking good. I think he is a puppet and he listened too much to Nancy, Harry and Axlerod. They screwed him so it's back to his way of convincing the americans.

It's gonna be tough since alot of damage has been done but the next election is a long way off and he is slick.

[Chubminnow]

In my opinion, and from what I can remember, the government has ALWAYS spent ridiculous amounts of money regardless of which party was at the helm. I'm definietly not in favor of Obama, but I can't say anything good about any other president before him in regards to spenditures.

[Hlleonard]

Certainly working together for a common goal versus fighting each other on every move is the better way. Gingrich has alot of skeletons in his closet as all politicians do but the man makes alot of sense most of the time.

Having a two party government has probably helped us have the country we have guys ...As bad as the working class gets the shaft now,try to imagine if those guys started "working together " ....I think we need to keep them at each others throats to balance the thing as much as possible.

[apb]

Mostly agree with what has been posted. Glad to see you guys are coming around to my way of thinking See, there is room for hope and change

Another interesting one:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01...main|dl1|link3

....I think we need to keep them at each others throats to balance the thing as much as possible.

I partically agree with what you are saying. Guess that is sort of how I see them working together: basically beating the crap out of each other until they come to a concencus that represents something more appealing to the majority of us rather than trying to force partisian garage through.

Andrew

[jcb]

[QUOTE=apb;397543]One note, I seem to remember Obama reaching out to republicans early in 09, and basically getting snubbed./QUOTE]

Andrew I challenge you to find one example of anything beyond a photo op meeting in the very early days. Just one example of Obama compromising on any part of the "mandate" he mistakenly thought he received in the election.

Or was it...this?

[Devils Horse]

Vacation's over.

How about working together to reduce the federal government's role in individual states' business and getting out of our lives. Want something screwed up? Bring in a government agency, that'll do it.

The number one thing they could do right now is amend the constitutional making it illegal for the government to spend money it doesn't have. What are they doing instead? Raising the debt ceiling another 1.4 trillion to somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars.

Never thought I'd feel this way, but I miss Bill Clinton right now. His administration was the last one to balance the federal budget. After all what harm is a good cigar among friends anyway?

The President's announcement he wants to regulate the size of banks and their investments has the market plunging again. More abuse to our formerly recovering 401k plans.

Mr. Obama's most recent answer to unemployment is a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio to get ideas on what the government can do to create jobs. The man has a Harvard education and can't figure that out on his own?

There's a simple formula for economic recovery that is proven to work:

1. Shrink the government.
2. Substantially reduce taxes and federal bureaucracy.
3. Get the hell out of the way.

[DJD]

Good to see ya back on here Jim and as usual I agree with your thoughts. The idea that he has to talk more to figure out what to do is crazy! The problem is they are not hearing us...no more talk is needed. I guess the voters can do their own talking and it started in Mass.

[GeoFisher]

Never thought I'd feel this way, but I miss Bill Clinton right now. His administration was the last one to balance the federal budget. After all what harm is a good cigar among friends anyway?

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the garbage about Clinton.

Lets not forget that he cut our military to the BONE.......why do you think we didn't have the troops to fight in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Clinton cut the following:

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS!

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

9 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

So yea, I guess if you CUT THAT much you will save some smack, but at WHAT COST.

BTW......the cuts made up the 3rd largest army in the world at the time.

Later,

Geo

[apb]

DH, I have no problems with what you suggest.

JCB, Yeah, thats probably the one I was thinking of. A small start, though I dont think either side did much after that.

Geo, Russia had collapsed by then. Much of what you note was to keep them in check. Deficit was running away and had to cut somewhere. In times of peace, much easier to cut that stuff. Given what we are doing in Afganistan, much of what you mention would be of little use due to the lack of targets.

Andrew

[HURRICANEBOB]

A lot of the cuts were initiated by Bush:

The peace dividend began with a Bush
Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!ShareThisAt a Republican debate in Boca Raton on Jan. 24, 2008, Rudy Giuliani repeated his claim that Bill Clinton is to blame for shrinking the nation's military.
"I think we should increase the size of our military substantially to overcome the damage that Bill Clinton did with the peace dividend," he said, adding that "a lot of the cause of (the smaller military force) was Bill Clinton's peace dividend, in which he cut the military 25 and 30 percent."

We've covered this topic in two previous items, one for Giuliani and one for a similiar claim made earlier by Mitt Romney. But because this misleading claim is new to many voters who are just tuning into the campaign, we'll reiterate what we've said before.

Romney made his claim in April 2007, saying that, "Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6 percent of GDP to 3.8 percent today."

The two Republicans are correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. They are also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000.

But they are selectively choosing numbers that make it appear that the military cuts were Clinton's alone. In fact, the cuts were prompted by the end of the Cold War during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

During Bush's presidency, he and Congress agreed to a sharp drop in military personnel. Active-duty military declined from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. Total defense forces also shrank, from 3.3-million to 2.9-million.

The Republicans are trying to portray Clinton and the Democrats as weak on defense and to make the peace dividend look like a partisan effort. But contrary to the Republicans' claims, the post-Cold War shrinkage of the U.S. military was very much a bipartisan effort. It began under a Republican president and a Democratic Congress and continued under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress.

And so we find, as we did before, that this claim is Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...an-with-a-bush