RealDealPolitics.com

Out of the remaining politicians looking to get the GOP nomination, and that’s what some of them are, just politicians, we know that two of them have changed their mind or seem ambivalent on many issues of the day:  Romney and Gingrich.  There are also two left that have no record of reversal on any of the issues:  Paul and Santorum.

 

Representative Ron Paul is a great congressman and has been a good ally in the fight for limited government, less taxes, less spending, and less government intrusion.  Paul’s public record shows no record of flip flops, unlike Gingrich or Romney, and consequently seems very congruent to the words that he speaks.

Paul’s “stick our head in the sand” foreign policy scares the heck out of conservatives, but otherwise appeals to many liberals and moderates.  His common-sense limited government views are attractive to people across the political spectrum.

Paul, however, is somewhat unelectable as a presidential candidate.  He is old, has wrinkles, a few strands of white hair, and doesn’t “look presidential.”  I apologize for the reality check but that is the fact of the matter.  He comes across as a charming, doddering, old grandfather-type, which is very appealing to some people, but it doesn’t make him electable.

Given that nobody even knows what Romney or Gingrich actually stand for anymore, the stage has centered on former Senator Rick Santorum.  He has no set of flip flops, environmental or otherwise, unlike the two former frontrunners, Gingrich and Romney.  Oh and let’s not forget, he just swept three states, including an annihilation of the competition in the “show-me-state,” to the tune of 55%.

Just when you thought the race was almost over, and the establishment candidate, Romney, was about to run away with it, a former Senator that is just as knowledgeable on the issues, almost as good looking, and has adequate hair to be elected, has entered from stage right.

It is true that Santorum was fired from his job in the Senate in 2006 by an 18% margin. However, we know that the 2006 elections were a referendum against President George Bush, for his Big Government policies and “war-mongering” in the Middle East.  Some great senators such as Santorum and George Allen (VA) were casualties of this referendum.

American voters smartened up again in the last general election, having realized what a huge mistake Obama has been. If the 2006 election had been in 2010, Santorum and Allen would have likely won in landslides.  When analyzing an election, you always need to take into account the circumstances and the ruling party or president at the time.

The fact that Santorum lost his job is a liability to his candidacy, but appears to be his only real problem.  Normally, the lack of executive (state governor or VP) experience is somewhat of downfall as well, but given the fraudulent elections of Obama and former President John Kennedy (RIP), senatorial experience seems to be adequate.

Years ago, in 2004, I stood outside the voting precinct handing out GOP propaganda, primarily because I was rightfully horrified by the thought of a John Kerry presidency.  My democrat party counterpart engaged me in a discussion of our differences, and I never forgot what he said.

The democrat propagandist was averse to the incumbent President because Bush was a “moron,” primarily.  He had problems with the fact that someone that stupid could be president of the US.  I countered by saying that the president doesn’t need to be a genius, just someone with a vision, and the judgment to put smart people in charge of the cabinet positions, which Bush certainly did.

Another thing I did not forget the democrat saying was that if it were Rick Santorum running for president, he would have probably voted for him.  The democrat said, “Santorum, now that guy is smart. I can see voting for him.” Whoa!  A democrat would have voted for Santorum because he is one of few politicians that actually is intelligent. If you have heard him in a debate, then you understand.

I couldn’t believe my ears at the time, but he was serious, and he had a good point.  Many democrats think they’re intelligent, primarily because they can regurgitate the brainwashing they received from the liberal media and public schools.  Some of them actually are intelligent and just lean socialist, under the faulty conception that socialism can work on a national scale, which has been proven false. In other words, their historical notions are inaccurate.

But the fact that a democrat would vote for a die-hard, solid, unapologetic conservative because such a politician not only seems smart, but is clearly intelligent and has a solid grasp of the issues, was an awakening for me.  Democrats and others voted for Obama because they thought he was smart, which he really isn’t but apparently has done a good job convincing many in the public that he is of higher intelligence, with some help from the media that is in love with him.

Let’s go back to the available list of candidates.  Do you think any democrat would ever vote for Gingrich?  There is evidence that this would never happen, given his consistent opposition to the democrat party.  It is true that Newt passed some great measures in cutting government spending and welfare reform, all of which Clinton took credit for regardless of the fact that Congress would have overrode his veto.  However, all of the measures were very conservative and Newt has little support outside the GOP.

We already covered Ron Paul, a great congressman and good man, but he seems unelectable.  Move on to Mitt Romney, this year’s establishment candidate.  He has many sets of flip flops on just about every major issue from health care to environmentalism, much like Newt.  However, he is also (gasp) a Mormon, something that doesn’t sit too well with many people.  I have nothing against the church of LDS, but that church is a very small minority in the country, and many consider it a cult.  We are just talking about practical electability here, and sadly, certain religions are a liability.

Here we go around again, full circle to Rick Santorum, who recently said “when the government gives you rights, the government can take them away.”  Let’s face the fact that there is nothing Santorum says that doesn’t make sense.  Foreign policy, domestic policy, all of it is hard to argue with.  So why does the establishment dislike Santorum?  Primarily because he is a true conservative, and the only one left in the GOP race. The establishment desires someone to preside over the decline of America, not a president that might reverse it.

There are four candidates left in this race to oust Obama, and two are proven flip-floppers that will likely not get any votes from registered democrats.  The third is a libertarian that is portrayed as an old clown, and the fourth is a common-sense conservative who has very few drawbacks other than his devout Catholicism and unelection from the Senate.  However, recall that Kennedy also unequivocally proclaimed himself as a Catholic before his fraudulent election as president.

Yes, we realize the likelihood of getting a GOP candidate fraudulently elected is very slim, since those tactics are pretty much reserved for the democrat party. Any republican fraud would be met with the greatest media outrage of all time, while jack-ass-party fraud tactics go largely ignored by the media. That is simply the situation we are in.

However, the appeal of a smart conservative that has command of the issues and can articulate his positions on such can be felt across the political spectrum.  Many democrats, Hispanics, independents, and other special interest groups could be intrigued and interested in Mr. Santorum because of his failure to toe the party line, but instead stand up for his beliefs and principles.

The case being made here is that Senator Santorum, despite his two drawbacks, could be the most electable republican candidate for president this year.  If you can get past his devout Catholicism and his failure to be elected to a third term in the Senate, the latter of which can be blamed on the referendum on GW Bush, then what are the remaining problems? None.

What you have in Rick Santorum is a solid, common-sense, “compassionate” conservative, that is simply unapologetic for his beliefs and principles.  The reason I enclosed the above word in quotations is that the real meaning of “compassionate” is often misinterpreted because of GW Bush using it as a term to propagate a big government socialist agenda under the Republican banner.  Real compassion means getting people off of welfare with jobs, not enrolling them as wards of a state which increases spending.

But Santorum believes in no such socialism as far as we know.  He hasn’t changed his views on the various issues of the day, in order to become more popular or likeable. In fact, he admitted the other day that he has not lost his principles, which the two former front-runners apparently have. Now, Santorum might be the frontrunner, after sweeping CO, MO, and MN.

There is more to it than just being the frontrunner of the day, however.  It seems very likely, given the intelligence of Santorum that even democrats admit to, that he would destroy Obama in any debate.  That of course, may never happen, and might in fact be a pipe dream.  Obama is not required to participate in a debate.  Obama has nothing to gain from a debate, since any of the remaining GOP candidates would utterly demolish him, teleprompter or not.

Instead, Obama will happily continue to let the media prop him up as a legitimate statesman, rather than the miserable failure that he really is, and the “mainstream” media will be delighted to continue endorsing him as some kind of messiah, even as their ratings go down the tubes.  That is because they have an agenda that is the same as that of Obama: presiding over the death and destruction of America.  Santorum has other plans, and that’s a good enough reason to get my vote.

The following comments were recently made regarding Rick Santorum:

What They Say

“Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform, and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News

The following guide will translate commonly used terms by democrats and the rest of the left wing media into real life meanings that we can all understand.

Democrat Term	Real Life Meaning
Arsenal of Weapons	Gun Collection
Delicate Wetlands	Swamp
Undocumented Worker	Illegal Alien
Cruelty-Free Materials	Synthetic Fiber
Assault and Battery	Attitude Adjustment
Heavily Armed	Well-protected
Narrow-minded	Righteous
Taxes or Your Fair Share	Coerced Theft
Commonsense Gun Control	Gun Confiscation Plot
Illegal Hazardous Explosives	Fireworks or Stump Removal
Non-viable Tissue Mass	Live Unborn Baby
Equal Access to Opportunity	Socialism
Multicultural Community	High Crime Area
Fairness or Social Progress	Marxism
Upper Class or “The Rich”	Self-Employed
Progressive, Change	Communism
Homeless or Disadvantaged	Bums or Welfare & Leeches
Sniper Rifle	Deer Rifle with scope
Investment For the Future	Higher Taxes
Healthcare Reform	Socialized Medicine
Extremist, Judgmental, or Hater	Conservative
Truancy	Homeschooled
Victim or Oppressed	Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing
High Capacity Magazine	Standard Capacity Magazine
Religious Zealot	Attends Church
Fair Trade Coffee	Overpriced Yuppie Coffee
Exploiters or “The Rich”	Employed or Land Owner
The Gun Lobby	NRA Members
Assault Weapon	Semi-Automatic handgun
Fiscal Stimulus	New and Higher Taxes
Same Sex Marriage	Legalized Perversion
Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting	Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs
Accepted Fact	Leftist Media Lie
Middle Class	Victims of Socialism
Tax Cuts for the Rich	Real Economic Stimulus

 

 

 

 

Location:  CNBC GOP Debate at Oakland University, Rochester Michigan

Date: November 9, 2011

Moderators:  Maria Bartaromo and John Harwood.  Several other CNBC reporters participated in the questioning, including the fiery and popular Jim Cramer of Mad Money.

Immediately below are the participants in order of how they performed in the debate, and their best quotes of the night.  Following that is the debate summary.

 

Ron Paul

Ron Paul  U.S. Representative (Texas); Physician “The symptom is the current tax code, but the disease is spending.” “We need to differentiate between capitalism and crony-capitalism.” “The fact that there is over $1 trillion in student debt is proof that the government loans program is a complete failure.”

 

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney  Governor, Massachusetts;  CEO, 2002 Winter Olympics Organizing Comm.; Co-Founder, Bain Capital “The best way to improve the economy is to do the exact opposite of what Obama has done.” “The government needs to get out and let the markets work.”

 

Hermann Cain

Herman Cain  Chairman/CEO, Godfather’s Pizza; Chairman, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank; CEO, National Restaurant Association “The tax code doesn’t raise taxes, politicians do.” “There are two other big problems with Dodd-Frank: Dodd, and Frank.”

 

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich  Speaker of the House, U.S. Representative (Georgia); History Professor “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy … for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”"

 

Michele Bachmann

Michele BachmannU.S. Representative (Minnesota): State Senator; Attorney “We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  Capital is mobile… and moves to where the lower tax rates are.”

 

Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman  Ambassador to China, Governor, Utah; Deputy U.S. Trade Representative “People are sick and tired of taxpayer money to bailout big corporations, and we’re not having it anymore.”

 

Rick Perry

Rick Perry  Governor, Texas: State Representative; State Agriculture Commissioner “Washington shouldn’t pick winners or losers; if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” “All regulations starting in 2008 need to be examined, and if it’s killing jobs, then get rid of it.”

 

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum  U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative (Pennsylvania); Attorney “We need to repeal all Obama regulations… repatriate those funds… have major energy development, and cut all subsidies.”

 

The debate was claimed to be almost entirely about the economy, and for the most part it was, but the line of questioning was somewhat odd, of course slanted, and specific questions demanded 30 second sound-byte answers, which kind of defeats the purpose about a general economic debate.

 

The first question was about whether we should let Italy’s economy fail, kind of an obscure question about the US economy, but no doubt CNBC wanted the participants to either commit or not to a foreign bailout, citing that if the IMF fails, US banks would.

 

Most of the contestants had different ways of saying we need to get government out of artificially propping up the banks, and let the market work by itself.  Paul was able to enunciate those points the best, and Newt added that Bernanke needs to be fired.

 

The next question from Maria, directed at Cain was apparently because CNBC was not satisfied with current level of infatuation by the media with the sexual harassment charges against Cain, but the audience became unruly at the question, and emitted some boos from being tired of hearing it already.

 

Cain stood his ground and was did not falter in vehemently denying what he called “unfounded accusations.”  He went further to say that for every accuser that has come forth, thousands of people would say that the behavior never came from Cain.

 

CNBC was still unsatisfied with the saturation of this topic, as Harwood asked Romney if, as a CEO he would have fired Cain for such behavior.  This was question was booed out by the crowd, and after the roar subsided, Romney wisely stepped back from the mic and said, “Cain has responded… I have nothing to say about it.”

 

Harwood then announced he would switch back to the economy, amid cheers from the crowd, and directed a class warfare question to Huntsman about 1% of the US making so much money, to which Huntsman said he wanted to be the president of the 1% and the 99%, but that America is sick and tired of taxpayer money going to bailouts.

Cramer then followed up with another class warfare oriented question to Romney on whether corporations have a “social responsibility” to create jobs, or whether they should just make profits.

 

Romney explained off the top of his head that profit is what’s left after all the employees and executives are paid, and are then used to expand business and grow jobs.  The profits and the job growth goes hand in hand, but Obama doesn’t like business and that’s the problem.

 

Newt then ripped into the media, “Sure. Look, obviously, corporations can and should do both. And what is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history.” Then added the media is inaccurate in reporting about the economy.

 

Maria took offense at this and asked him to be specific about the inaccurate reporting, to which Newt replied, “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”

 

Then questioning ensued about why Romney doesn’t have a flat tax like the rest of his opponents.  Mitt responded that he’d like to focus on what can be done immediately to help the middle class, which has been hurt the most, by lowering their taxes.  But he’s not opposed to a flat tax in the future.

 

Others were asked to justify the “fairness” of their plans by making poor people pay more and rich people pay less, obviously with no regard to the fact that the poor pay nothing and the top 25% of income earners pay over 85% of the taxes under the current code.

 

Bachmann explained it best by saying 53% pay income tax and 47% do not, which is a big problem.  She said everyone should pay something even if it’s only $10, because everyone benefits from living here.

 

Most of the other candidates agreed that taxes and regulations need to be lowered, and support some sort of flat tax which grows employment, which takes care of most of the problems.  What they forgot to emphasize was that cutting taxes on the job creators is one sure way to create jobs, and we’d rather have poor people working then collecting government welfare.

 

Maria then gave them 30 seconds to say what they would do instead after repealing Obamacare, to which Newt scoffed and said it’s an $18 billion industry that affects everyone’s lives, and it can’t possibly be answered in 30 seconds.

 

Most of the others stated in some form that the problem can be resolved by states,  tort reform, and that doctors and patients can work out plans without the government regulating something.  Bachmann added that individuals should be allowed to buy any health insurance they want, outside the office, with no minimum requirements.

 

Perry said that we need to focus on providing health care rather than sick care, and need to get rid of frivolous lawsuits.  Cain said that the bill was already written called HR3000, which “Princess Pelosi” held in committee and never brought out for a vote.

 

On student government loan programs, most agreed that the government needs to get out of education, leading to Paul’s great quote about the loan program being a disaster that lowers the quality of education, and raises tuition rates. The subject then changed rapidly depending on the candidate’s talking points.

 

In the media highlight of the night, Perry announced he would cut out three cabinet level departments: Education, Commerce, and he forgot the third one.  He appealed to Paul for the third, to which Paul replied he had 5 departments to cut.  Perry would not remember until the next question that the third was Energy. It should be noted here that Perry would have finished about 3rd in this debate without this gaffe.

 

The media didn’t care that Obama thought there were 57 states, or that he couldn’t name even ONE program he would cut in the debates with McCain, but there will be no such forgiveness for Perry. Similarly, they didn’t care that Clinton was accused of actual physical sexual aggravation charges bordering on rape, but there will be no such forgiveness for Cain.

 

The question was proposed about how to avoid companies outsourcing to China to save on costs.  Most contestants said that lowering US taxes would level the playing field.  Mitt was most vocal, saying that China was a cheater, and he would label China as a currency manipulator and slap tariffs on them, due to China artificially devaluing their currency, stealing US info through hacking, and piracy.

 

Newt said the problem was complex and he would probably rely on someone like Huntsman who had a lot of experience with China.  Huntsman said applause-lines like slapping them with tariffs wouldn’t work, and China could claim the US was manipulating their own currency via “quantitative easing,” and then retaliate with tariffs on US products, creating a trade war.

 

The question was posed about how to gain bipartisan support, and only a few answered it with lackluster responses.  What I really wanted to hear was one of them say: the answer is to get rid of all the democrats in congress that have been steadily destroying this country, and replace them with people that will work for the country rather than against it.

Sponsors:  CNN and the Western Republican Leadership Conference

Location:  Sands Expo Convention Center, Las Vegas, NV

Moderator:  Anderson Cooper (90)

Participants:  Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Rick Perry, CEO Herman Cain, Sen Rick Santorum, Rep Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, Rep Michele Bachmann (Gov Huntsman boycotted due to date changes.)

The debate began with Anderson Cooper’s open-ended invitation for everyone to attack Hermann Cain, an offer they all took him up on.  Then it proceeded with quarreling and attacking, mostly involving Romney and Perry, and ended with Newt disapproving of the constant squabbling during the debate.

 

The following is a list of topics to choose from in this article. Underlined comments in the section represent best answers given.

Ranking the Debaters and Summary

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

How to Secure the Mexican Border

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Conclusion

 

Ranking the Debaters

This is how the candidates performed and their best answers or quotes.  Note, these are not a ranking of the candidates themselves, just how they performed in the debate.

Rank	Candidate	Notes	Comment or Quote
1	Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House	Smartest person on stage, best debater, with most sense and knowledge	“The idea that we have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians, who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of our defense budget, tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current power to lead in this country, in both parties… to say I’m gonna put the security of the US against some arbitrary budget number, is suicidally stupid.” “Maximizing bickering is probably not the best road to the White House.”

2

Ron Paul, House Rep from Texas

Hard to argue with his limited government common sense policies.  Had best responses in several categories, see right column

“Too much government is the problem… whenever government gets involved in something, the prices go up.”Paul wants to remove the incentives for illegal aliens to be here, and to stop the group mentality of giving to one group (race) of people and removing benefits from another, and also that we should worry more about securing our own border than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.Paul questioned the right of 49 other states to punish one state by dumping their garbage in it. The private companies should solve it, and energy shouldn’t be subsidized. “Foreign aid is where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, where they use it to build weapons of war.”

3	Mitt Romney, former Mass Governor	Co-smartest person, wealth of knowledge on issues.  Too much bickering with Perry	Romney said that Nevada should be able to say no if they don’t want the nuclear storage at Yucca, and the energy companies should give them a good deal to change their mind.  States could have competing bids if Nevada doesn’t want it.Romney pointed out that we’re borrowing money from China and handing it over to other countries.
4	Rick Santorum, former Penn Senator	Also very sharp, with great specific knowledge on issues, but too much bickering.	Santorum said the voters should pay attention to the candidate’s values and what their faith teaches them about how to live their lives.Santorum said that less than half the people in a recent Pew poll could even name one of the GOP candidates.  He stated his track record as winning twice in the swing-state of Pennsylvania, against Democrat incumbents, as an unabashed conservative.
5	Michele Bachman, House Rep from Minn	Smart and interesting, but gave too many specifics on what’s wrong, with no specifics on how to fix	Bachmann said you can’t give congress a new tax because they won’t get rid of the old one and they’ll raise the rate on it, whatever it may be. Her plan, which was not specified, calls for abolishing the income tax and flattening it for all Americans, but everyone should pay something.Bachmann’s take was a bit different, as she believes it already costs $118 billion per year for our government to take care of illegal immigrants, robbing each American household of about $1000 per year.
6	Hermann Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza	Didn’t have time to adequately defend and explain his economic plan, seemed discouraged after initial attack.	Cain had few allies, but defended his plan, said the math is available on his web site, and told the other candidates they were trying to mix apples and oranges, as in national and state sales taxes.  He emphasized removing the 10 million word tax plan with something simple that would create jobs.Cain said that Wall St didn’t put in place failed economic policies or destroy the economy, and they’re taking out their frustration in the wrong place. They should be going to the White House.
7	Rick Perry, current Governor of Texas	Another bad night, got too involved personally with Romney, and anger was showing	Perry said we need an administration that doesn’t block our ability to harvest our own energy, so we can create jobs and have energy independence.Perry stated that we could build a fence, but it would take 15 years and $30 billion, but in the meantime we need boots on the ground.  A wiser expenditure would be to build fences in places where it makes sense, and use predator drones to monitor the entire border and give real time information to soldiers on the ground.

 

Details of the debate are listed below by category.  Best answers are underlined.

 

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Bachmann said you can’t give congress a new tax because they won’t get rid of the old one and they’ll raise the rate on it, whatever it may be. Her plan, which was not specified, calls for abolishing the income tax and flattening it for all Americans, however, everyone should pay, even if it’s just one dollar, just for the benefit of living here. Obama’s plan is destroying the economy.

Others such as Perry and Romney told Cain his plan “wouldn’t fly” because people would have to pay a national and state sales tax, in fact doubling purchase tax in some states.  They also claimed it was a “regressive tax” that would increase burden on middle class, raise rates, and not account for family support.

Cain had few allies, but defended his plan, said the math is available on his web site, and told the other candidates they were trying to mix apples and oranges, as in national and state sales taxes.  He emphasized removing the 10 million word tax plan with something simple that would create jobs.

The other candidates sounded kind of slow, by pretending they did not realize there’s a difference between the two, but they claimed to not understand it.  Newt defended the plan as bold, but said it would take several years to think it through.

The next invitation Cooper issued was for Perry and Romney to attack each other since Perry had previously called Romney a failure as governor.

Perry said we need an administration that doesn’t block our ability to harvest our own energy, so we can create jobs and have energy independence, to which Romney agreed.  Romney defended Romneycare from various attacks, as not being the basis for Obamacare.

Newt pointed out a Boston Herald report that the state is fining small businesses $3000 each, because their $750 per month health care plan is inadequate to the bureaucrats in Boston.  He said it was a faulty plan because it was designed in a top-down, big government fashion.  It also would not have worked in other states that didn’t have such an expensive federal Medicaid donation.

 

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

All candidates agreed that Obamacare needs to be repealed, and offered solutions where patients and doctors could make decisions rather than the government.

Rep. Paul summarized the mutual feelings best: “Too much government is the problem… whenever government gets involved in something, the prices go up.”

At this point, Perry suddenly turned to Romney and brought up the same accusation from 4 years ago, that Romney had hired illegal aliens to work on his property (which McCain had, with the same certainty, accused of Romney, along with having a pink house, both of which Romney had denied.)

Romney, first laughed off the comment, then after being repeatedly interrupted by Perry in his defense of this, proceeded to lecture Perry on the rules of debate, told Perry he might be testy after some tough debates, and that if Perry wants to be president, he should learn to let other people speak. Perry received some boos during his interruptions.

 

How to Secure the Mexican Border

In the next question, Cooper stated that Cain had said at one point he would build an electrified fence on the Mexican border, but later said it was a joke, then again said he meant it. Cooper asked him to clarify.

Cain responded that we should secure the entire border with a fence, and use technology and boots on the ground to monitor it.  He also wants to improve the existing path to citizenship and enforce current immigration laws.

When asked if he would build a fence, Perry stated that we could build a fence, but it would take 15 years and $30 billion, but in the meantime we need boots on the ground.  A wiser expenditure would be to build fences in places where it makes sense, and use predator drones to monitor the entire border and give real time information to soldiers on the ground.

Bachmann’s take was a bit different, as she believes it already costs $118 billion per year for our government to take care of illegal immigrants, robbing each American household of about $1000 per year.  Therefore she would build a fence along the entire border, and remove taxpayer subsidies for illegal aliens.

Romney basically agreed with a fence and personnel to secure the border, and noted that 400 million are waiting to come here legally, and he would prefer they come in that way.  He also claimed that illegal immigration to Texas had increased 60% under Perry because of the “magnets” like in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.

Cooper then of course raised the question of how they will woo the Latino vote after the racist act of closing off the border.  Newt said that people that came here legally should have the same America as everyone else.

Paul wants to remove the incentives for illegal aliens to be here, and to stop the group mentality of giving to one group (race) of people and removing benefits from another, and also that we should worry more about securing our own border than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Cain said people of all color need a growing economy.  Perry said using our own energy resources would create jobs for them, but the current administration wants energy prices to go up instead. None of the candidates would repeal the 14^th amendment which protects “anchor babies.”

 

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Obviously a controversial topic in Nevada, there were some well thought out answers for this issue, which would require all nuclear waste in the nation to be hauled to Yucca mountain for storage.

Newt said we need to find a place to keep the waste geologically safe for however many thousands of years, and previous studies suggested Yucca was such a place.

Paul questioned the right of 49 other states to punish one state by dumping their garbage in it. The private companies should solve it, and energy shouldn’t be subsidized.

Romney said that Nevada should be able to say no if they don’t want the nuclear storage at Yucca, and the energy companies should give them a good deal to change their mind.  States could have competing bids if Nevada doesn’t want it.

Perry, in a rare moment, said “Mitt has hit this nail on the head,” and also agreed with Paul’s take.

 

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

Santorum first claimed that everyone else on the stage supported the TARP bailout plan, except for himself, to which he was met immediately with shouts of “Wrong” by Perry and Cain.  The former senator insisted that Perry wrote a letter to congress to pass it on the day of the vote. He added that we need to let the markets work and not have managed failure.

Perry stated his letter was not to pass TARP, but to decrease regulations and taxes on business.

Romney disapproved of the idea that Washington DC can help the economy by intervening.

Cain said he supported the concept of TARP, but not how it was used by the administration.

Bachmann used this opportunity to appeal to women who are at the end of their rope and losing their homes where they raise children.

 

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Cooper quoted Cain as saying, “don’t blame banks or Wall Street; blame yourselves.”

Cain said that Wall St didn’t put in place failed economic policies or destroy the economy, and they’re taking out their frustration in the wrong place. They should be going to the White House.

Paul would blame Wall St, the White House, and the Federal Reserve. The bailouts from both parties went to big banks that were ripping people off. They should have given the money to people losing their houses, not the banks.  He added that the government is not capable of managing almost anything.

Romney pointed out that Obama has failed us on the economy, because he has no idea how the economy works or how to create jobs.  Median income has dropped 12% in the last three years.

 

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Cooper brought up the controversy surrounding Pastor Robert Jeffress, who supports Rick Perry, saying publicly that Mormonism is a cult, and asked if the voters should pay attention to the religion.

Santorum said the voters should pay attention to the candidate’s values and what their faith teaches them about how to live their lives.  He said the road to salvation is not applicable to presidency, but the religion does have an impact on how the president will govern with respect to values.

Newt said none should judge others with their approach to faith, but because we are endowed by our creator with rights, who they pray to does matter.

Perry stated clearly that he did not believe the pastor’s remark about Mormonism, and Romney said he had heard worse disparaging comments about his faith.

 

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Bachmann said we’re losing international respect, as evidenced by an assassination attempt from Iran on US soil, and the president starting a conflict in a 4^th foreign country was stretching our troops too thin.  Her number one issue would be dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

Newt had the rant of the night by far on this one, and it’s worth quoting, “…look at this entire model of a super-committee, they have some magic number for us to get to, and if we don’t, then we all have to shoot ourselves in the head.  Then they’ll come back with the idea that we merely cut off our right leg, and then we’ll be grateful that they’re only semi-stupid…The idea that we have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians, who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of our defense budget, tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current power to lead in this country, in both parties….  We need figure out what threatens us, and find strategies to defend them… I’m a hawk, but I’m a cheap hawk… to say I’m gonna put the security of the US against some arbitrary budget number, is suicidally stupid.” This rant was met with intermittent but thunderous applause after each point.

Paul said he doesn’t want to cut defense, but would like to retract many of our troops stationed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and other places where we have no business. “The financial calamity is going to be worse than someone trying to invade us.”

 

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Perry would like to have a serious discussion about foreign aid and funding the UN.

Romney pointed out that we’re borrowing money from China and handing it over to other countries. 

Paul said, “Foreign aid is where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, where they use it to build weapons of war.”

Bachmann said we shouldn’t cut foreign military aid to Israel, and we should be reimbursed by these nations which we have “liberated.”

Cain would like peace through strength, and start giving money to our friends instead of our enemies.

 

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Cooper said a poll stated that 40% think Romney has the best chance, and Santorum only 1%. He asked if voters should go with the person they think can win.

Santorum said that less than half the people in a recent Pew poll could even name one of the GOP candidates.  He stated his track record as winning twice in the swing-state of Pennsylvania, against Democrat incumbents, as an unabashed conservative.  He neglected to mention that he didn’t win his last election, which in fact was more of an indictment on Bush and the entire GOP.

Romney stated his credentials as not spending his entire life in politics, but also as someone that created jobs in the private sector, and lowered unemployment to 4.7% in Mass as governor. He also stated that Perry supported Al Gore and 40% of Texas job growth involved illegal aliens.

Perry defended that he had created more jobs in 2 months in Texas than Mass has during Romney’s tenure, and said Romney was 47^th in job growth.

Bachmann claimed Obama will definitely be a one-term president.  She desires bold colors rather than pastels.

Newt said, “Maximizing bickering is probably not the best road to the White House,” referring to the debate format of back and forth quarreling. The former House Speaker said he would be strongest on sheer substance, and would like seven 3-hour debates, with no moderator, just a timekeeper.  He would like to reestablish American values.

 

Conclusion

The closing remark by Newt, who seems to be the father of all the bickering children on stage, sums up the whole discussion.  Cain still refuses to attack other GOP candidates, but needs to do a better job of defending his tax and economic policies to have a chance.

The other candidates could learn from the wisdom of Newt and Ronald Reagan, but instead choose to attack each other, whether personally or on policy.  They should be disparaging Obama, and promoting their own records and policies, rather than assaulting their other candidate’s record.

Why they insist on viciously attacking each other makes no political sense at all, but they fall into the same trap every time.  It’s hard to believe but true.  All of the negativity they unleashed will be rehashed by their opponents next year, who will use the same tactics against them.

Perhaps the voters should elect someone who they think has the best chance of beating Obama, not only in a debate, but because of their electability, including appearance, available funds, and commercial ability.  Newt and Romney are the only candidates that seem capable of all of that.

Updated: September 2011

In light of continued uninhibited and reckless federal spending by the Obama administration, this page continues to be updated.

The actual “budget” for this year is $3,800,000,000,000, but for the sake of this discussion we will round up to an even $4 trillion. We feel confident that those in the White House and Congress will find a way to spend another $200 billion even if it is not officially designated yet.

In fact, Obama refuses to submit budgets to Congress and figures they will just write him another blank check like they did when raising the debt ceiling earlier this year. The graphic at the top of this page sums it up.

First, here’s what the government spends per average working days and hours of government employees, assuming they actually work their full hours, which they don’t. Here are the statistics:

Total this year	$4,000,000,000,000	4 TRILLION!!
Per month	$333,333,333,333	$300 Billion!
Per work day	$20,000,000,000		20 Billion!
Per work hour	$2,500,000,000		2.5 Billion!
Per work minute	$41,666,667		41 Million
Per work second	$694,444		2/3 of a Million!

It has been proven, by the way, that light can not travel faster than $100,000 per second… Einstein’s equation.

Just to be fair, let’s see what it looks like for a 365/7/24 work scenario.

Per actual day		$10,958,904,110	$11 billion!
Per actual hour		$456,621,005	450 million
Per actual minute	$7,610,350	7 million
Per actual second	$126,839	more than US avg salary

As an added bonus, what is the federal government spending per person?

Per person	$13,072	Population 306 million
Per taxpayer	$74,074	Approx 54 million liable

Now, before you get on our case about these figures, there were about 90 million individual tax filers last year, and it is estimated that 40% of them have zero tax liability. So per actual taxpayer, they are spending $74,000 per year.

This raises another question entirely. You then realize that those actually paying taxes are averaging $74k in their donations to the US government, while the rest pay nothing.

Perhaps if everyone paid taxes, i.e. fair tax or flat sales tax, this scenario would be a little more justified for everyone.

Another question might be: WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GETTING FOR THE $13,000 THEY’RE SPENDING ON EACH PERSON? Personally I’m not getting anything back…

Previous versions of 2008 and prio:

Now someone sent me the following today, and I checked out the math, it works. However, given that the federal government does not work 365/7/24 (trust me I’ve worked in govt for a while), let’s calculate how much only during working days/hours. The spending rate is astronomical. This doesn’t even count state/local govt…

Per Year $3,100,000,000,000
Per Working Day $15,500,000,000
Per Work Hour $1,937,500,000
Per Work Minute $32,291,667
Per Work Second $538,194

Half a million per second? I’m not sure but I don’t think light can move that fast. Hillary, Obama, and Mccain think our taxes aren’t high enough. OK well. Agree to disagree.

Original email:

Know what the federal Government spends:

per second? A: $ 98,300
per minute? A: $ 5,898,021
per hour? A: $ 353,881,279
per day? A: $ 8,493,150,685

per year . . . $ 3,100,000,000,000 (George Bush’s 3 Trillion!!)
(Anyone complete their Federal Form 1040 return yet?)

Now we’ve got Obama’s 4 trillion! So you thought democrats would spend less? LOL