Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

They are just making projections. It is you that is upset and crying about it. That's OK with me, I'm just not so upset.

I've already answered this, martin. No need to repeat yourself endlessly. I have no idea if they are overstated, understated or dead-on accurate. I doubt that you do either.

It did at the end of Clinton's term, surpluses were posted, and the deficit was paid down. So, it could happen with another Democrat. It was either him or another out-of-control Republican.

I discuss what I want to discuss. I discuss things I have a strong opinion about. I discuss things that data is available to study. You only speak in generalities about how "bad" Obama is about overspending. Well, so were the last three republican Presidents, so what else is new? Obama is a Democrat, he won the election and he was elected with a mandate to change the way things have been done. He's doing that and it will take time to see if it turns out as promised.

You refuse to consider what we get in return for this spending. The potential for Health Care to cost us much less is there. The US spends more percapita than any other country on health care and we don't even get the best health care--far from it. Obama has a plan to fix that. I'm going to wait and see how that is working before I cry foul.

You decline to mention that Obama inherited two wars and the biggest economic crisis in 70 years. The wars and the economic stimulus are not cheap and they were not Obama's responsibility.

You decline to discuss a specific Obama spending plan that you dislike. Why don't you do that? Pick an Obama spending plan, show me the data to support it, and tell me what you think about it. I may agree, I may disagree.

Instead you've picked an general issue here (deficit spending) that no one is against conceptually and then demand that I defend it. Sorry, it don't work that way.

Break it down into real Obama plans on paper, not some bean-counter's numbers that you hear from Limbaugh. Then I might have an opinion on it.

 

I don't want to give the Republicans another chance. They haven't put up an economic conservative since Eisenhower.

What's your philosophy Einstein? I guarantee it ain't mine. So you just talk about yours and let me talk about mine.

No. You and "that dude", which is also you, insist on telling me what my philosophy should be and I won't play that game. You talk about your own philosophy and I'll argue with it or not, based on what I believe. I don't alway take a diametrically opposed view to yours and I certainly don't defend issues that I have not espoused here.

There is a difference between a atheist and an agnostic that is easy to understand. Atheists deny the existence of God--agnostics believe that we have no way of knowing that God exists or what he expects from us, if anything.

By-the-way, I'm still waiting for you to state those specific issues that you say I evade. Funny how it is always you that fails to actually produce one. Let's see if that "other guy" can. I ain't holding my breath.

 

Your ignorance is not an excuse. These terms have been long defined and understood. Who you have met is of no consequence.

a⋅the⋅ist  –noun
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag⋅nos⋅tic   –noun
A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

We know what we know. We can't see God, God does not speak, God does not make demands upon us. We can't know. But absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. God could exist and we just don't have the evidence.

That is a far cry from denial that it is even possible for God to exist.

Your sex life doesn't matter much to me, Mary.

You seem to be a sad and lonely atheist desperately desiring company. I'll pray for you. Would an atheist do that? I don't know if it will do any good . . . but it might. :grin:

Unless you have something new, it is a waste of bandwidth. I tire of you trying endlessly to tell me what I believe. How idiotic is that? You don't even understand what you believe yourself half the time.

Wrong. I've said that the science clearly indicates that human civilization will be adversely affected by climate change. But the politics of how to deal with it are all over the map. I support some pragmatic and achieveable plans and I do not support some pie-in-the-sky plans. I've stated this repeatedly and clearly but you just . . .don't . . . get it.

 

Then they are agnostics playing atheist because it's very hip to be atheist in New York.

Stop foolishly trying to tell me what I think, when I've just told you what I think. Your fundamental dishonesty shows again. Atheism IS extreme, as is unreserved faith in an imaginary friend, but that's not why I refuse to deny God's existence. There might be evidence that is not clear to me or not yet manifested.

Let me tell you the key difference between our beliefs here, martin, and the key to why I'm not an atheist. Neither of us sees any tangible proof of God's existence. Yet, I hope that God exists--I think it would be cool. You fear that God exists--so you seek reinforcement.

You sound now like an evangelist for athesim. Sorry, I won't join your strange anti-religion. You see, I don't care if people want to have faith in God. I don't campaign for agnosticism like you do for atheism. I'm not trying to convert you or anyone to agnosticism. It merely means that I can accept the possible existence of God without proof. I only challenge those who claim to know all about God and what he expects from us. How could they know? They can have faith and that is alright with me, just don't call it fact.

Untrue. Atheists have been doing this . . . well, forever.

Why God Cannot Exist

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Refuting Monotheism:There is no God​

I could list them all day, but you won't read them. But clearly you are quite wrong about this.

Poseidon and the fairy in your closet are not part of the definition of atheism. It is the concept of God that is the issue. If Poseidon is your God, I'm agnostic. If YHWH is your God, I'm agnostic. If Poseidon is your mythological figure, then he's mythology to me also.

Is the fairy in your closet your God or is he just a homo-erotic fantasy for you? If he's your God, I'm agnostic. He could be God, but I see no proof of it. No faith either, I'm afraid. If he's just a fantasy, then he's urban mythology to me.

 

I didn't say that. Don't put words into my mouth.

More than with Bush's policies.

Here is what they also said, which you didn't post, and the main reason why I'm waiting to pass judgement on it.

It also doesn't go into potential savings as a result of getting 17 million uninsured citizens into health insurance coverage. For instance, in Louisiana the entire Charity Hospital system would be unnecessary at great savings. Talk about socialized medicine, that is what state charity hospitals are and that would be eliminated in favor of health insurance in which private insurance providers would be involved, as in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. Most states don't have state charity hospitals, they have county hospitals or the uninsured. Thousands of those could be eliminated. Think of the increased money going to private hospitals and doctors versus public ones. How is this socialized medicine?

No I haven't. I'm damn sure giving it more than 6 months. It's already stabilized or haven't you noticed? It will probably take one full 4-year term to judge him properly.

Criticizing the politics of his plans is fine with me. But condemning them as a failure before enough time has passed to properly judge them is premature.

So far, all you are objecting to is the cost. You've not addressed a single part of the health plan itself that you think is not worth the money. Neither have you or the CBO addressed the potential benefits that must be balanced against the liabilities.

So what? Everybody agrees that the CBO's job is to make budget projections. Have their projections been 100% perfect in the past? Nope. But what I really don't understand is your objections based on up-front costs alone with no analysis of potential long-term benefits. That is not part of the CBO's numbers. But they are a part of Obama's Health Plan.

I'll never understand those that believe that all taxes and all spending is bad. There is a certain amount that is needed to provide adequate government. Both overspending/undertaxing and underspending/overtaxing are bad. What is ideal is adequate spending/adequate taxing. Yes, it is a subjective balance point and also a moving target but that is still what should be sought by all sides.

Spend-it-all is extreme and foolish. Spend-nothing is also extreme and foolish. Everything in between has to be considered case by case to determine what is proper, adequate, and pragmatic spending and what is shortsighted, inadequate, or wasteful spending. That's my philosophy.

Some of Obama's plans seem proper to me, others do not, while still others I'm unsure about or have mixed feelings. Time will surely make the situation clearer and I'm patient enough to give him some time.