Newt Gingrich: Another Big Government Republican

johnny_rebson said:

Newt may have passed some legislation the you disagreed with, but at least unemployment was a lot lower when he was Speaker of the House.

Click to expand...

dot com bubble was not his creation.

Fishstyx said:

Hmmm, didn't know that. Considering he votes "no" on just about everything, just figured otherwise.

Well, there you go, the remaining 4 candidates all have a big government track record.

Click to expand...

his job is to pass on the demands of his constituents, which he does.

he then votes no on them, but wouldn't be much of a representative if he didn't do what he does.

TheNextEra said:

Either increasing government is a bad thing or it's not. Newt wants to increase the space program which is increasing big government. So are you part of it's ok to increase government spending as long as its what you want?

Click to expand...

Really? So you live in a world of black and white where there's no in between?

Further are you just going off of what liberals and the media are saying about Newt's views on the space program or are you actually doing something radical like...I don't know, listening to what he's saying...where is ideas are less about expanding the government program regarding space but rather using government funds to attempt to spur private enterprise into action. Now, its perfectly fine to still have issues with that, but at least present what he's pushing for accuratley.

Not to mention you're functioning out of a likely purpoesful faux ignorance that Gingrich is suggesting spending increases but not suggesting spending cuts at an equal or greater level. I know its shocking for those that enjoy to just bash Conservatives...but Conservative and Tea Party != Anarchist.

Zyphlin said:

Really? So you live in a world of black and white where there's no in between?

Further are you just going off of what liberals and the media are saying about Newt's views on the space program or are you actually doing something radical like...I don't know, listening to what he's saying...where is ideas are less about expanding the government program regarding space but rather using government funds to attempt to spur private enterprise into action. Now, its perfectly fine to still have issues with that, but at least present what he's pushing for accuratley.

Not to mention you're functioning out of a likely purpoesful faux ignorance that Gingrich is suggesting spending increases but not suggesting spending cuts at an equal or greater level. I know its shocking for those that enjoy to just bash Conservatives...but Conservative and Tea Party != Anarchist.

Click to expand...

So you haven't heard conservatives and tea party mention NO increase in government spending? Hmmmm I thought that was the montra that has been spouted for years now.

I just find it amusing that now it is a Republican candidate that is talking about more government spending and now the tune changes with their followers. Amazing what an "R" in front of a name does.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for government spending on a space program, I'm just suprised to hear conservatives and tea-party supporters cheering increased spending.

TheNextEra said:

So you haven't heard conservatives and tea party mention NO increase in government spending? Hmmmm I thought that was the montra that has been spouted for years now.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard it quite a lot. I've joined in it since I consider myself part of the Tea Party movement. From what I've been hearing its been aimed largely and primarily at government spending from a macro level. Not "Every program in every position must be cut and can not possibly increase in any way shape or form". For example, the Tea Party also is supportive of the notion of enforcement of immigration laws. This could concievably need further government spending then is currently happening. However, when taking their views of what they want done in total, the net result is significant decrease in spending. Becuase you've let your bias and prejudice against conservatives slant and distort how you view what they say rather than actually honestly examining it is your problem, not mine.

I just find it amusing that now it is a Republican candidate that is talking about more government spending and now the tune changes with their followers. Amazing what an "R" in front of a name does.

Click to expand...

You've never been interested in hearing their "tune", you've just been interested in the slanted and distorted sound of it that fit your political partisan agenda.

Zyphlin said:

However, when taking their views of what they want done in total, the net result is significant decrease in spending.

Click to expand...

Yes, and how often have we heard a GOP president talk about cutting spending and what has happened? It's not my bias that is being shown, but yours in thinking any of these guys are going to cut spending.

Do you really think any of the GOP front-runners is going to cut spending? I'd be willing to bet with you on that one that they don't.

So, yes, I think cut spending first and then talk about adding a space program.

TheNextEra said:

Yes, and how often have we heard a GOP president talk about cutting spending and what has happened? It's not my bias that is being shown, but yours in thinking any of these guys are going to cut spending.

Click to expand...

Where'd I say that I think they WILL cut spending. At this point I don't believe it from any of them fully until I see it.

However, what I am saying is that when you're dealing with what they're TALKING about that you deal with it accuratley and honestly. I don't think Gingrich is any more likely to significantly increase Nasa's funding to try and put a base on the moon than he is to significantly cut spending....so why am I going to act like one of the things he says is gospel truth and the other is absolute falsehood?

Zyphlin said:

I don't think Gingrich is any more likely to significantly increase Nasa's funding to try and put a base on the moon than he is to significantly cut spending....so why am I going to act like one of the things he says is gospel truth and the other is absolute falsehood?

Click to expand...

Ok, you are highlighting a different problem then. You are bascially saying Gingrich is full of hot air which is why I have a problem with the presidential elections in the first place.

If we can't hold a politician to what he says, then how in the hell can we judge them accurately BEFORE they are elected?

TheNextEra said:

Ok, you are highlighting a different problem then. You are bascially saying Gingrich Politicians is full of hot air which is why I have a problem with the presidential elections in the first place.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. There's not a politician out there that isn't to some degree full of hot air and says things they know full well won't actually happen. I can't rightly hold it significantly against Republican Candidates when the Democratic President is a perfect example of it on his own right. Perhaps that's the cynic in me, but I don't fully buy anything any politician tells me as gospel. I'll take their words and I'll give them an honest judgement based on their totality, but I will also fully realize the reality of the situation regarding the likilihood of those things coming to pass.