The Reindeer

Clay did get the deer in the headlights look correct on the POTUS.

A true leader has the ability to lead. So sad that we are stuck with our current loser Wacky Bracky for one more year, max.

BTW ... what is that Dimbocrate congressman "E" doing. That's not Bwany is it?

The 12% approval rating of congress is higher than it should be and is probably inflated by manipulating the data as is done with the CPI numbers. Doing nothing is better than was done previously.

Perfect example of why any experienced 'mule driver' knows to use blinders on the team. Then the team has to concentrate on what's ahead rather "left" or "right."

It's a shame Santa and his reindeer had to get caught up in this political quagmire, but tis the season. Tisn't it?? Woody

tu quoque said, "A true leader has the ability to lead." WOW!

That is probably the most profound statement ever posted on this site. How do you see through the miasma and come up with these pearls of wisdom? Thanks for letting us bask in your reflected glory, Admiral Obvious!

...what is that Dimbocrate congressman "E" doing. That's not Bwany is it?

Good eye, tu_quoque. It is indeed Quitter Bwany.

if newt was sittin in the drivers seat he would have a bull whip in one hand and a shot gun loaded w/rock salt in the other!

be shoutin "lead,follow or git outta the way"periot!

Interesting that you [and Bennett] look on The Obama as Santa, woody.

The real ObamaNation takes from the working stiffs and gives the proceeds of their labor [all the goodies] to the 47% who didn't contribute a thing [contrary to the real Santa's giving the good stuff only to the "nice"].

Ah yes, social engineering at its "finest". Yeah, right.

Gridlock is good and it was encouraged by the Founder Fathers. But when Barry has loot to re-distribute.... not so good for the Socialists.

But this 'toon is correct in that Barry is always following, leading from behind, delaying decisions, and voting PRESENT.

Rolando..the only thing I find "interesting" here this morning is that you and your cohorts haven't changed your 'tune' in nearly four years, and, (chuckling under my breath) will still be 'singing the same song' four years hence..Woody

Woody -- Yet you still see The Obama as a Santa stealing the lifeblood from 53% of the people and giving it away, unearned, to the other 47%.

You haven't changed your tune either...and undoubtedly never will.

Merry Christmas anyway.

Rolando....is thats the 47%jobs you and your republican buddy sent overseas by way of NAFTA hmmmmmm....so they have zero income while your rich and greedy gets a 400% income height...on top of the millions they already had........

typical crap

I can play the number game too my friend......i advise you to stay away from FOX-TV....

We will all go down together...the rich and greedy have had their way for 30years....the party is over......We can all SCOTCH and BURN TOGETHER and start all over from Scratch ha ha ha..

Newt would not be sitting in the driver's seat. He would be in the back of the sleigh having sex with his current wife or a staffer, whichever was most readily available, and shouting about hypocrisy in D. C. and the decline of morals in this country. The toy bag would be filled with the 1.5 million he "earned" as a lobbyist/historian for Fannie Mae and Mac.

"Those aren't elves in my workshop. I fired all of them. Those are poor kids I hired for half the cost. I'm teaching them about having a work ethic."

When the reindeer won't listen to Santa, it's time to 1) replace Santa Obama and 2) Replace everyone in Congress. Every worthless one of them.

dude_abides

It’s beginning to look like not only do I live in your head rent free but that I own you entirely. So if I haven’t thanked you before let me take this opportunity to do so. It is thoughtful of you to allow me to live in your head rent free but I do have a few requests. Could you call in an exterminator to rid the place of the rats and cockroaches and would it kill you to have a maid to come in ever now and then because &@%% you have made one more %^&#$*& mess of the place.

Again, thank you.

Thank GOD that this congress isn't a rubber stamp for Obama. He had his way for two years and look where it's taken us.

You're dead wrong, Harp, the congress that was a rubber stamp for Obama is the worst ever. The most ignorant and damaging this nation has ever had.

Obama is no leader. For someone who's a "great speaker"..or great reader of a teleprompter, he's completely inept at working with people and just communicating. He's not even articulate away from a teleprompter. He's a strict, hard line ideologue, and not much else.

chet123 said...

"NAFTA"???

You know I never realized that the continental U.S. was separated from Canada and Mexico by seas. However you could have meant that all those lost jobs occurred only in the state of Hawaii.

I must admit that I sure wants me one of those "400% income height(s)".

BEWARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS

Congressional republicans have given new meaning to obstructionism. They created road blocks at every turn and now accuse Obama of being a terrible driver.

Their open legislative strategy from day one has been to take back the white house in 2012.

I wonder why they aren't trumpeting the achievements of our last republican president?

All of the GOP candidates are campaigning on those 'principles,' and yet they dare not speak the name of our former idiot-in-chief.

Why is that?

Funny thing is I think Speaker Boehner and Former Speaker Pelosi have the same delusion. They have both come to believe that petty symbolic victories are more important than solving real and serious problems.

Let's be clear. A symbolic victory is just a loss polished up with a smirk.

whatsnottaken said...

"When the reindeer won't listen to Santa, it's time to 1) replace Santa Obama and 2) Replace everyone in Congress. Every worthless one of them."

Yeah right. That's the way it works except for "those other congressmen are for $^%@ but my own is O.K. with me". Now that is the way it really goes down on election day in most places in this country.

blackwater48 said...

“BEWARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS”

Waking me up by screaming it out at the top of his lungs. Thanks pal !!

So when the “idiot-in-chief” was running for reelection in 2004 you weren't cheering on the Dimocrate party’s strategy to get that “dunce” out of office? Why of course you were because you just knew that any obstructionism that resulted from it would be less harmful to the country than what that “dunderhead” was doing to it. Well dunce wake up to the present and smell the coffee because the current idiot-in-chief has taken the level of destruction up an order of magnitude.

TOO CUCKOO FOR WORDS

Our newest tea-bagger whined, "So when the “idiot-in-chief” was running for reelection in 2004 you weren't cheering on the Dimocrate party’s strategy to get that “dunce” out of office?"

Why live in the past? I merely pointed out that the republican minority in the senate has set a new record for obstructionism. Don't run from the truth. McConnell wears it like a badge of honor. Embrace the road blocks. It's smart politically because you can blame it all on the president.

I also pointed out that the current crop of intellectually impaired and morally bankrupt republican presidential candidates are echoing the Bush/Cheney talking points, but are at least smart enough to avoid any reference to the Shrub.

Blaming everything on Obama requires selective amnesia.

Glad to see you are drunk on the tea flavored Kool-Aid and have anointed yourself a Bush apologist.

Don't get me wrong: your skewed reasoning is wonderfully entertaining, and I especially appreciate how you revert to name calling when you are fresh out of facts.

Your faux outrage is really adorable.

Maybe you are merely a skillful satirist.

Either way, too cuckoo, and too funny!

It gives the president more time to work on his golf game.

IF the majority party in congress is diff. from the party that holds the white house then one of them is going to be labeled "obstructionist!'PERIOT!(ATTN>BUMPKIN!)thats a fact of life in a two party system!so get over it!it is what it is!democracy SUCKS! it just doesn't SUCK as bad as all other forms of govmt!

MR. KETTLE, MEET MR. BLACK

Jesse pointed out, in a round about way, that our system of checks and balances prevents one president or one party getting his or their way all the time.

It is designed to prevent one branch of government from dominating the legislative landscape.

I don't think that's in question.

Senate republicans have successfully used the filibuster, or the threat of filibuster, to lock up congress. That's their right. Those are the rules.

But for those same republicans to turn around and blame Obama from Washington gridlock seems at least disingenuous if not outright hypocritical.

Tea fed, Reindeer steaks, buy one get one free. Coming to a BiLo near you.

onetinsoldier..... 45% in the house is democrat and the senate is controlled by democrats.....I guess that steak will be pink.

Look at Obama's face....he doesn't have a clue how to drive his sleigh or run the country. He couldn't run a flea circus. No experience, no ideas, no clue.....welcoome to obamaland.

Merry Christmas to you, too, Rolando..see I knew we could still find some common ground..unlike a few of the "Johnny-Come-Latelys" this site has attracted. Now, if we could only get our congressional representatives to find some (common ground) as well, so it could actually be called a Happy New Year!! Woody

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle

"I wonder why they aren't trumpeting the achievements of our last republican president?

All of the GOP candidates are campaigning on those 'principles,' and yet they dare not speak the name of our former idiot-in-chief."

and then when confronted,

"Why live in the past?"

blackwater48 said...

“TOO CUCKOO FOR WORDS”

Again with the yelling … could you please hold it down pal?

“Why live in the past?”

How typical of you Fleabagging Libtards, always wanting a “reset’ for any previous conduct that you now want to excoriate the GOP for. The Libtard’s Pavlovian response to any tragedy or crisis, that they hope can be used for political profit, goes down like this.

Step #1 – Crisis / tragedy occurs

Step #2 – Absent any evidence to prove their point the Libtards springs into action to demonize and blame the Right

Step #3 - The Right points out the Libtard’s errors in their accusations

Step #4 – The public isn’t buying the Libtard’s propaganda

Step #5– The Libtards chances the meme to; why can’t “both sides” lower the tone and stop accusing the other side of evil intent. They say that while their subtext is: “Even though the right didn’t cause this event or are not totally to blame for it they will cause the next one. You just wait and see!”

Step #6 – The Left takes a lunch break and the Right takes a shower

Step #7 – A crisis /tragedy occur

Step #8 – Repeat Steps #1 thru #7

As for the GOP candidates running on a Conservative/Free Market platform, how could you be surprised about that? I’m perfectly O.K. with Wacky running on a Progressive/Socialist platform. It gives the country a clear choice and since Conservatives out number Libtards 2 to 1 I’m fairly sure about the way the election will go. Especially since Wacky’s handlers have decided to allow him to campaign on his core ideology.

Nice touch that you tagged me with the Tea-Bagger label because as you know.

Tea-Baggers: Filling liberal orificium since 2009.

Lick it up lefty

And as always … LMAO

chet123 said...

"We will all go down together...the rich and greedy have had their way for 30years....the party is over......We can all SCOTCH and BURN TOGETHER and start all over from Scratch ha ha ha.."

It’s possible we’re all going broke but the capitalists will be up bright and early the next morning clearing the debris and building anew. The Dimo socialists will get up about 11:30 and wonder why Uncle Obozo hasn’t stop by with snacks and beer. By the way, if you do go bust don’t come to my house because I’ve got some big dogs and a water hose.

MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES ALONG

Fascinating 4:11 post, TQ. Sorry you got your panties in a wad, but I like to put headlines on my posts. Just an old habit. Try not to be holding sharp knives or loaded guns in the future.

You didn't say anything, but it was fascinating watching you work so hard to convince yourself that you are absolutely right - about what I have no idea - and that everyone else is absolutely wrong.

Speculation, conjecture, fantasy, and hyperbole, laced together with bile and a false sense of grandeur. What are bellowing about?

Let's return to the glory days of the Bush Administration! Hooray!

Again, love the faux outrage and name calling.

I think Ann Coulter said it best: 'If Chris Christy doesn't run the republican party will nominate Mitt Romney and he'll lose,'

He's your only hope and you tea baggers are working overtime to run a candidate with an even dimmer prospect of winning.

Keeping dreaming.

alprova

Sorry but I didn’t notice your response to me on the “Regatta” thread until now. I posted a response there but in case you fail to return there to check I will also post it here.

I think there is no need to continue the Gingrich line of debate as I have proved my two points and you have for all practical purposes acceded to them. However the Bill Clinton question is still very much up in the air.

You stated that:

“The Budget bills that were signed by President Clinton during the years 1998 - 2001 were indeed balanced and in fact had surpluses totaling $236.2 billion in them.”

And gave this source:

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

I think that you and Factcheck are both wrong and that you may want to refrain from putting to much faith in these supposedly “nonpartisan and fair” fact check web sites. I think that I can prove this fairly easily and quickly.

Answer this question.

Is there a balanced or surplus budget in any year that the national debt increases and if you answer in affirmative do make your case for that possibility?

too freudian... First the slip about your unusually close relationship with your mother, and now a reference to living rent free. I'm beginning to see a theme. Posts at all hours, day and night. Mom doesn't make you work, does she?

Will you be disappearing as the election nears and the polls foreshadow a second term for your President?

Tu_quoque wrote: "I think there is no need to continue the Gingrich line of debate as I have proved my two points and you have for all practical purposes acceded to them."

As I stated in my response, we were both incorrect on one point each. I was incorrect in stating that Gingrich served divorce papers on his wife in the hospital room, and you were incorrect in stating that they were served months prior. That is according to his ex-wife.

You were additionally incorrect in stating that his wife did not have cancer. She was in the hospital for a third surgery related to uterine cancer. The tumor removed during that third surgery was found to be benign, but two prior surgeries were not benign.

"I think that you and Factcheck are both wrong and that you may want to refrain from putting to much faith in these supposedly “nonpartisan and fair” fact check web sites. I think that I can prove this fairly easily and quickly."

You and many more have tried to discount the accounting used and have failed miserably, which is the cash method - the method always used by the Government. The simple fact is that for four years straight, the Government took in more than it spent. That is the very definition of a surplus.

"Answer this question."

"Is there a balanced or surplus budget in any year that the national debt increases and if you answer in affirmative do make your case for that possibility?"

I'm having trouble understanding your question, but if you are asking if the national debt increased during those four years, the answer is "Yes." Interest on existing debt account for the rise in the total debt during those four years.

The surpluses during those four years were not applied to the debt and instead were applied to the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefits, they were accounted for and spent during subsequent years after GWB assumed office.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the logical fallacy. For the historical quotation "Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi", see Et tu, Brute?. For the play by John Cooke, see Greene's Tu Quoque. A case of Tu quoque: "By Jove, what extraordinary headgear you women do wear!"—ironic reference in Punch

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]dftt

alprova said:

“...you were incorrect in stating that they were served months prior.” (the divorce papers)

Here you go. Since you think so much of FactCheck I’ll quote you from the link you provided.

“Q: Did Newt Gingrich ask his former wife to sign divorce papers on her deathbed?

A: No. Jackie Battley is still alive, and the couple had agreed months before the 1980 hospital visit to seek divorce. But she was recovering from surgery to remove a tumor, and the former House speaker admits that they “got into an argument.”

In fact, Gingrich, the presidential candidate and former House speaker, and his first wife, Jackie Battley, had already separated and were planning to divorce before she was hospitalized. And while Battley had earlier undergone cancer surgery, this time she was in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor that — according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign.”

The daughter’s statement:

http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html

“My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.”

“She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign.”

Notice that she states her mother requested the divorce and the tumor was benign.

“You were additionally incorrect in stating that his wife did not have cancer.”

Show me where I stated she did not have cancer. She had been treated for cancer in the 70’s but was cancer free at the time of this surgery and there have been no reports of any reoccurrence of same to this day. The fact that the tumor was benign showed that she was cancer free and as a result you can’t classify any treatment at the time as cancer treatment if she had no cancer.

I think I have solidly made my point on those subjects.

Now to Clinton and the budget deficits.

You stated:

**“The simple fact is that for four years straight, the Government took in more than it spent. That is the very definition of a surplus.”

“…if you are asking if the national debt increased during those four years, the answer is "Yes."**

If the government took in more than it spent how could the national debt have increased? It can’t but accounting scams like the ones employed here are "some" of the reasons that big government and big business have gotten the whole nation in the financial fix we are in. Go ahead and spin the technical mumbo jumbo as to how this is all legitimate but you’ll never be able to sanely and rational bring your two statements above into agreement with real world logic.

acerigger

I see that I have acquired an addition vacant head to live in rent free. Since I already have another free one, on this site, that I personally inhabit I think I'll use yours for the dogs. The weather is turning colder and they'll need a place to stay.

Thank You ... Thank you very much.

I wonder why I am so bored with this dork of a comic...

The same guy who takes all these Hawaiian golf vacations also froze my pay for two years. George Bush at least had the respect for the troops to refrain from golf outings while our armed forces were in combat in the global war on terror.

There's a special code word that liberals and President Obama have for people who volunteer to make personal sacrifices for the greater good; SUCKERS!

Time for a change. Please, Republicans, don't put me in the position of having to vote for Newt in order to vote against Barack. It's just not fair.

tu_quoque wrote: "Here you go. Since you think so much of FactCheck I’ll quote you from the link you provided."

Battey's interview, quoted in the same article disputes any assertion that she knew about a pending divorce prior to his visit in the hospital.

"...her husband’s desire for a divorce came as "a complete surprise" to her..."

" The fact that the tumor was benign showed that she was cancer free and as a result you can’t classify any treatment at the time as cancer treatment if she had no cancer."

You're grasping at straws. Her surgery was for the removal of a suspected tumor that turned out to be benign, but the surgery was indeed related to her uterine cancer. The fact that this tumor turned out to be benign is coincidental and irrelevant. The surgery, the pain she was experiencing, and the recovery time, were the same as if that tumor were malignant.

The man was a cad for even broaching the subject under the circumstances. Further, the fact that he chose to do so in front of his two young daughters, really doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

His whitewashing of the event is simply not credible. The man is a pathological liar and has been for decades.

"I think I have solidly made my point on those subjects."

The facts are in dispute and have been for years. It really comes down to who is more credible. I find the ex-wife more credible because she has no reason at all to lie about it. Gingrich has every reason to lie. His reputation is and always has been on the line.

"If the government took in more than it spent how could the national debt have increased?"

For the same reason that if you have extra income come in on a personal level and you fail to use it to pay down the balance on a credit card, and instead use that extra income to prop up another bank account.

"It can’t but accounting scams like the ones employed here are "some" of the reasons that big government and big business have gotten the whole nation in the financial fix we are in."

There was no "scam" involved. The surplus was applied to the SSTF to be spent for future benefits and were used accordingly.

"Go ahead and spin the technical mumbo jumbo as to how this is all legitimate but you’ll never be able to sanely and rational bring your two statements above into agreement with real world logic."

You're not the first person to write that. Facts are facts and those that dispute the facts with supposition, suspicion, and an attempt to apply accrual method accounting, contrary to the cash method accounting used for centuries by the Government, think they have a case, but the article by FactCheck outlines and trounces those dispute attempts very nicely.

In the case of the budget surpluses for those four years, even under accrual accounting attempts, surpluses are still evident and indisputable, as was pointed out in the article.

BRP wrote: "I wonder why I am so bored with this dork of a comic..."

I'm more interested in understanding why you are so obsessed with him and feel the need to express one or more sentiments illustrating your obsession every time a new cartoon is posted.

Newt Gingrich lied during the debate last night about his record as Speaker of the House.

"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative."

Newt Gingrich served as speaker of the House from January 4, 1995 to January 3, 1999. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the nation ran a deficit in 1995 (-$164 billion), 1996 (-$107.4 billion) and 1997 (-$21.9 billion). It ran a surplus in 1998 ($69.3 billion) and 1999 ($125.6 billion).

If you don't count the deficit during his first year as speaker, when the budget was already set, and do count the surplus during the year after he stepped down, he can claim credit for a surplus in only two of four years. Those surpluses total $194.9 billion, which is less than half the $405 billion he says he paid off.

If you confine the view to the time he spent in office, Gingrich's assertion looks worse. The national debt on the day Gingrich was sworn in as speaker was $4.8 trillion. Four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increased debt of $800 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury website.

Also, Gingrich fails to acknowledge that the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton would take some credit for putting in place policies that resulted in the four consecutive years of surplus that occurred from 1998-2001.

He lied through his teeth.

Source: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/truth-squad-part-of-the-cnn-republican-debate-fact-checking-series/?hpt=hp_t1

How will Santa ever get the reindeer organized and going about the task at hand? An independent candidate with a clear plan that addresses unemployment, foreign policy and fiscal irresponsibility in congress would be electable and good for the country. Ron Paul is the only credible candidate from either party but is probably not electable due to his foreign policy views. It is evident the media will limit his exposure and even Fox news attacks him at every opportunity. It is time for Bachmann and Santorum to exit. Iowa may indicate it is time for Perry and Huntsman to drop out as well.

WELL everybody the tfp wants you to vote on the BEST bennett cartoon of the year!! they got 10 or so of what they think are his BEST efforts ! basically what they are asking is "which one is the least lame!" i posted this on here because they had no "comment section" on the voting site!(some body's thinkin !!)

"Wikipedia" is not now, nor has it ever been recognized as reliable source of information. Which means you and it are a lot alike.

HEY AL!! thats what politicians DO!periot!(attn.bumpkin!)

THE BEST LIAR GETS ELECTED!!!

how do you think obama got in last cycle!(CHANGE?)

they are what 450 in congress?439 lying a$$holes!,plus 99 more in the senate!)the TOP LIAR get to be potus!you just hope he rises to the job!!

hey BRP!

you ain't bored man!you get up EVERY morn.to check out clays mindless drivel so you can spend the rest of the day dreamin up your OWN drivel to put on here! clay's a one trick pony BUT so are you!!

tu_quoque ,I happen to like dogs,even if they're your brothers!

The House Republicans leadership managed to get one thing right in its bid to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment Benifits. The bill does extend the payroll tax cut another year, but beyond that, there is a Lot to dislike. The bill will cut Social Spending more deeply than is already anticipated under current budget caps, without asking Whealthy Americans to contribute a PENNY in new taxes.

don't worry about it potcat,they WILL ,out of the goodness of their hearts kick in 10 or 12 billion to help us out!o course that ain't a drop in the bucket of the debt.but their heart is in the right place! btw:how much you sendin in?!!

alprova:

Gingrich did falsely claim that he balanced the budget in “any year”.

However I find it odd that you would provide a quote that references the increase in the national debt to buttress it's claim that he was incorrect in his statement about providing budget surpluses.

Who said anything about me being worried about it? I will be fine, its this generation coming on, who better be worried.

I pay in sales and property taxes,enough, in comparision to income, i pay my share.

tu_quoque wrote: "However I find it odd that you would provide a quote that references the increase in the national debt to buttress it's claim that he was incorrect in his statement about providing budget surpluses."

Why would you find it odd? I've addressed that issue twice in responses to you and you still seem to not get it.

Gingrich's claim that he "balanced the budget for four years" is a lie, not because there were no surpluses, but because they occured during two years after he resigned in disgrace. He lied about the amounts of those surpluses as well. He lied in saying that he paid down the debt with those surpluses.

The debt is only reduced if the surpluses are applied towards it. In the case of those four year surpluses, the funds were placed into the Social Security Trust Fund and spent by the Bush Administration, presumably for benefits.

alprova:

Now too our ongoing debate about Gingrich.

You reference his wife’s statement "...her husband’s desire for a divorce came as "a complete surprise" to her..." as proof that it applies to the hospital visit. The interview does not place a time frame as to when she was “completely surprised” about being informed of the desire for divorce. Her daughter’s statement below refutes that claim and the mother has not countered it.

“As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me. It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home. Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her. It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign.”

http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html

I can find no source that provides any proof as to where the woman’s tumor was located or that it was in any way related to the earlier cancer. You have made that claim so the ball is in your court to provide that proof.

Also since you have added the possibility that she has M.S. would you provide the proof of that or were you just padding your argument.

"budget" and "debt" are not related. A budget surplus can exist while the debt still grows. The debt can fall while in a budget deficit.

For instance, a few years ago we bought a new house. Around the same time I got a new job with a decent raise. So income rose. The mortgage on the new house is about the same as the one on the old plus the loan on the new land and construction loan put together. Therefore our income rose, outgoing payments each month stayed about the same (which is less than monthly income) so we have a budget surplus. But the overall mortgage is much larger than the old so our debt grew quite a bit.

Thinking these are directly related is wrong.

alprova:

Finally the supposed budget surpluses.

You stated.

“For the same reason that if you have extra income come in on a personal level and you fail to use it to pay down the balance on a credit card, and instead use that extra income to prop up another bank account.”

“The surplus was applied to the SSTF to be spent for future benefits and were used accordingly.”

The SSTF has only two sources of funding, the payroll tax and interest that the federal treasury pays for money loaned to that body by the SSTF. The treasury wasn’t propping up another account as they were paying their obligation to the SSTF in the form of interest. In fact the SSTF is used by the treasury as it’s credit card account and interest paid to it is an expense that the government keeps off budget to make the books look better.

On your later post. What I found odd was that your quote referenced the increase in the debt as evidence that Gingrich did not provide surpluses. All the while you are arguing that any increase in the debt is no indication if there has been a surplus or not.

mtngrl:

The question is.

If you had a cut in salary would you place the interest, that you paid on your mortgage, off budget so as to make it appear that you still had a budget surplus?

Do that and then go down to the local bank and see how they view that type of activity if you wanted to refinance your home.

alprova said... “I'm more interested in understanding why you are so obsessed with him and feel the need to express one or more sentiments illustrating your obsession every time a new cartoon is posted.”

That is pretty funny, coming from some pathetic soul that seems to take his intellectual marching orders from The Wart and devotes hundreds if not thousands of words to this page every day!

"The question is. If you had a cut in salary would you place the interest, that you paid on your mortgage, off budget so as to make it appear that you still had a budget surplus?"

Ah, I see you are trying to change what you stated above (December 16, 2011 at 12:01 a.m.) where the question was actually stated:

"If the government took in more than it spent how could the national debt have increased? It can’t"

Then later you state:

"What I found odd was that your quote referenced the increase in the debt as evidence that Gingrich did not provide surpluses. All the while you are arguing that any increase in the debt is no indication if there has been a surplus or not"

I answered those, now you are trying to change the question? Your logical fallacies are showing

mtngrl:

Why are you so reluctant to answer my question to you?

It's surely not that it would expose your previous post as horse squeeze, now would it?

Come on. Grunt out out another diversion and hope that it all goes away.

Not gona happen ... LMAO

tu_quoque wrote: "You reference his wife’s statement "...her husband’s desire for a divorce came as "a complete surprise" to her..." as proof that it applies to the hospital visit. The interview does not place a time frame as to when she was “completely surprised” about being informed of the desire for divorce."

The 1985 interview was entirely about the incident that occurred in that hospital room.

"Jackie Battley, Jan. 3, 1985: He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery."

The article continues with, "Battley said in the 1985 interview that her husband’s desire for a divorce came as “a complete surprise” to her, but Gingrich was quoted in the same story as saying the two had talked about divorce “off and on since 1969.”..."

You're nit picking it, for whatever reason. Regardless of what did or did not happen, or to what degree that she was ill at the time, the fact remains that the man was a cad for visting her in the hospital in front of his two young children to hash out details of a divorce at the time, at that particular place and time.

Further, the man is a habitual liar and a proven hypocrite. Your defense of the man to any degree is pathetic and in my personal opinion, pointless.

"Her daughter’s statement below refutes that claim and the mother has not countered it."

That's because Jackie Battley has refused to speak with any member of the media since that 1985 interview with the Washington Post.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman never explained a thing. Nor did she mention what transpired in the hospital room when she visited her mother as a 13-year-old. And let's face it. She was 13 years old at the time.

Given the years that have passed since this incident took place, the fact that the parties involved have moved on from it, I think we should do the same.

Gingrich has acknowledged the fact that he chose a lousy time and place to discuss divorce details.

He said that in retrospect, going to the hospital that day, let alone arguing, was "stupid."

"We're talking about something which happened in 1980, so I can tell you 31 years later, especially how these things develop a life of their own, as a much more mature person, today I would keep my mouth shut," he said.

tu_quoque wrote: "On your later post. What I found odd was that your quote referenced the increase in the debt as evidence that Gingrich did not provide surpluses."

Are you that dense or are you playing games? I never implied that any increase in the debt was or was not related to Gingrich providing surpluses.

The surpluses occurred in spite of Gingrich and in two years in which Gingrich had no involvement whatsoever. The debt increased because the surpluses were not applied to the debt, due to interest on the debt.

"All the while you are arguing that any increase in the debt is no indication if there has been a surplus or not."

I argued no such thing. The budget surplus and the debt are two distinctly different issues and one has no effect on the other, unless surplus funds are applied toward reducing the debt, or unless there is deficit spending in excess of funds collected by the Gov't.

mtngrl said...

"budget" and "debt" are not related"

That statement by itself is most reveling.

If you know what I mean.

However if you hold that as true would you not find it odd that alprova provided a link to a quote that clearly stated that they are related. He did this while arguing your exact point of view.

Alprova's link does not "clearly state they are related"
...

Gingrich's statement was "I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative."

That is 2 different claims and the link shows both to be false. Where does it clearly state they are related??

...

""budget" and "debt" are not related" That statement by itself is most reveling. If you know what I mean."

...

Actually I have no idea what you think you mean. They are not inherently related. They can be made related by using the surplus to pay down the debt, but that is a choice and not a requirement by either.

mtngrl said...

“Alprova's link does not "clearly state they are related"

Here are the direct quotes that alprova posted from the link. It is providing data to refute what Gingrich stated in the debate that he balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt. In the first paragraph they are addressing the budget and the second the debt. However in the last sentence of the first paragraph the writer clearly conflates the two by claiming that any surpluses would be reflected in the debt.

“If you don't count the deficit during his first year as speaker, when the budget was already set, and do count the surplus during the year after he stepped down, he can claim credit for a surplus in only two of four years. Those surpluses total $194.9 billion, which is less than half the $405 billion he says he paid off.”

“If you confine the view to the time he spent in office, Gingrich's assertion looks worse. The national debt on the day Gingrich was sworn in as speaker was $4.8 trillion. Four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increased debt of $800 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury website.”

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/truth-squad-part-of-the-cnn-republican-debate-fact-checking-series/?hpt=hp_t1

And once again your refusal to answer my question and to use diversion to try and make it go away.

No such luck.

Alprova:

Let me reboot this debate.

Everything I have addressed originates from your first statement on this subject.

“I know of no Democrat who was cheating on his wife at the time that they were prosecuting Clinton for doing the same thing and Gingrich will forever be remembered for serving divorce papers on his first wife while she was battling cancer in a hospital room.”

You never responded to my claim that Gingrich was not guilty of lying to a federal court in the same way that Clinton was and I must assume that you did not want to contest that and wished to drop it. The second point about serving the divorce papers you admitted you were wrong. The third, I have provided several quotes that show Gingrich’s wife did have cancer at one time but was cancer free at the time of the surgery and undoubtedly since then due to no reports of any reoccurrence.

To add to your claims you went on to claim that she may have became ill with M.S. prior to the divorce. However, you have been unable to substantiate your claim and I have dismissed it as just some padding in an attempt to make your argument look better.

The reason I have pursued this in much detail and time is that I called you out on your false statements and you have spent a lot of time and effort squirming around in the dirt trying to run out the clock or spin this in some way other than you being proved wrong.

I will consider the case closed and your errors dealt with appropriately.

LMAO

"...Those surpluses total $194.9 billion, which is less than half the $405 billion he says he paid off.”

...

That is just a comparison of the values, not a cause and effect like you are trying to make it.

...

And your other question to me was a diversionary straw man which is not related. I am the one staying on topic, you are the one trying to divert away from the fact that you were wrong.

alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "On your later post. What I found odd was that your quote referenced the increase in the debt as evidence that Gingrich did not provide surpluses."

Alprova grunts: “Are you that dense or are you playing games? I never implied that any increase in the debt was or was not related to Gingrich providing surpluses.”

I never said that you made that implication as I was only saying how odd that you would link to and quote another writer that clearly made that implication.

Alprova grunts: “The surpluses occurred in spite of Gingrich and in two years in which Gingrich had no involvement whatsoever. The debt increased because the surpluses were not applied to the debt, due to interest on the debt.”

If the surpluses are applied to the interest on the debt then the treasury no longer has access to those funds and in fact when they are so used there is no longer any surplus. It’s all accounting trickery to make the federal budgets look better than they actually are.

tu_quoque wrote: "All the while you are arguing that any increase in the debt is no indication if there has been a surplus or not."

Alprova grunts: I argued no such thing. The budget surplus and the debt are two distinctly different issues and one has no effect on the other, unless surplus funds are applied toward reducing the debt, or unless there is deficit spending in excess of funds collected by the Gov't.

“The budget surplus and the debt are two distinctly different issues and one has no effect on the other” Wait !! What?? You didn’t just restate what I wrote, did you? Oh I see you go on to show that they do affect each other. Now I see how you operate, as you want it both ways.

Good deal if you can swing it.

mtngrl said...

“I am the one staying on topic”

I don’t care who you are that took guts to write.

Lady we are not within a country mile of the original topic.

You simply do not want to answer the question because your argument is a house of cards and honestly answering the question will bring the whole thing down.

tu_quoque wrote: "You never responded to my claim that Gingrich was not guilty of lying to a federal court in the same way that Clinton was and I must assume that you did not want to contest that and wished to drop it."

Clinton was not convicted of a thing, as I recall. The charges stemmed from one man, Kenneth Starr, who concluded that the former President had committed perjury, based on Clinton's Grand Jury testimony. The United States Senate voted to acquit him of all four charges.

Your comparison is therefore irrelevant.

"The second point about serving the divorce papers you admitted you were wrong."

I admitted that.

"The third, I have provided several quotes that show Gingrich’s wife did have cancer at one time but was cancer free at the time of the surgery and undoubtedly since then due to no reports of any reoccurrence."

So? I hardly see what your point is. The woman was lying in a hospital bed at the time that Gingrich decided to argue with the woman, in front of their two children, about details related to their divorce.

"To add to your claims you went on to claim that she may have became ill with M.S. prior to the divorce."

That was wife #2, Marianne, and I stated it clearly. Read it for yourself;

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/gingrich_profile_featuring_ex-wife_begets_question.php

"However, you have been unable to substantiate your claim and I have dismissed it as just some padding in an attempt to make your argument look better."

Perhaps you should go back and re-read our exchanges. I cited evidence to back up every claim I have offered.

"The reason I have pursued this in much detail and time is that I called you out on your false statements and you have spent a lot of time and effort squirming around in the dirt trying to run out the clock or spin this in some way other than you being proved wrong."

I have offered one statement that turned out to be false. Given the number of stories out there that are still repeating that same claim that he served divorce papers on her while she was in the hospital, my statement was simply an error and a mistaken belief that I have held for several years.

As for everything else I have offered, I stand by those statements 100% and have offered proof positive to each and every one of them. You are the one still expressing falsehoods and further, you have attempted to twist my words no less than three times.

"I will consider the case closed and your errors dealt with appropriately."

Like I give a tinker's damn what you consider dealt with "appropriately."

You are undoubtedly a legend in your own mind.

Your silly nit-pickings are noted for the record and so easily dismissed.

tu_quoque wrote: "I never said that you made that implication as I was only saying how odd that you would link to and quote another writer that clearly made that implication."

You're still not getting it. Newt Gingrich was not even in office during two years in which surpluses occurred. He's taking full credit for them, which is a lie. He lied again when he stated that he used those surpluses to pay down debt. Not one dime of those surplus funds was applied to reducing the national debt.

"If the surpluses are applied to the interest on the debt then the treasury no longer has access to those funds and in fact when they are so used there is no longer any surplus."

Those surpluses were not applied to the interest on the debt. Those funds were applied to the SSTF to be used for the future benefits for Social Security. They were part of the $565 billion robbed from the SSTF during GWB's first year in office.

"It’s all accounting trickery to make the federal budgets look better than they actually are."

Your beef is with GWB.

"“The budget surplus and the debt are two distinctly different issues and one has no effect on the other” Wait !! What?? You didn’t just restate what I wrote, did you? Oh I see you go on to show that they do affect each other. Now I see how you operate, as you want it both ways."

Mr. Troll, please try and concentrate. They only affect each other if funds are applied to the balance of the debt account. Not one dime of those surplus funds was used to pay down the national debt, therefore the surplus funds had no cause or effect on the balance of the debt.

The debt continued to rise as a result of the accumulated interest on the national debt.

How many times must I post that simple and easy to understand fact?

You, like so many other ignorant people out there seem to have trouble understanding a very simple accounting method.

For all practical purposes, the national debt is like an account that has a negative balance. It works the opposite of an account with actual funds in it. When you deposit funds into the national debt account, the balance decreases. When interest accrues, the balance increases.

Since not one penny of those actual cash funds was deposited into the national debt account and instead were deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund, and interest still accrued on the national debt account, therefore the balance went up.

If you still don't get it, I'll go out and purchase some Crayons and some paper and draw you a picture.

Rolando said "The real ObamaNation takes from the working stiffs and gives the proceeds of their labor [all the goodies] to the 47% who didn't contribute a thing..."

More of this 47% crap again. Ummm, how about sales taxes, property tax, utility taxes, payroll taxes? Do you want the eldery to starve in the streets? The working poor do pay Federal Income Tax all year long but get it back the next year. Get over it Rolando...

Come on Rolando, beat that dead horse some more...

Congratulations to Clay for winning United Nations political cartoon first place award.

Why are there surprises from the divisions occurring in Congress? Where are the voters who knew what was going to happen to cause the "stalemate" when they voted the opponents of President Obama into office? Did the voters really expect the people who ran for office on "destroying the Governments' ability to get this country out of the 2007 deep recession, to do what needed to be done for the creation of production jobs, when the private sectors are not concerned with reinvesting here in the USA? Especially as long as the US consumers have money and their choices are to only buy or not to buy the imported goods.

Bennett is too stupid to realize his cartoon is a dig on Obama. If our disfunctional President was musher worth a %$@# he would have his team under control. Instead he undermines cooperation in Congress and then pretends he is not the root of the problem.

Wow! That's a huge accomplishment for Bennett. BRP may get his wish. Bennett may fly for greener pasture$. It's fitting, though, because you confused Stockholm Syndrome Conservatives (that worship the rich to your own detriment) work against your own interests regarding Bennett as well. I bet people in other parts of the world mistakenly believe that the people of this city are enlightened and progressive because of this news outlet's affiliation with Bennett. They'll soon be disabused of this notion if they look in on some of the posts by our local racist, fascist momma's boys.

alprova:

Your original statement: “ I know of no Democrat who was cheating on his wife at the time that they were prosecuting Clinton for doing the same thing and Gingrich will forever be remembered for serving divorce papers on his first wife while she was battling cancer in a hospital room.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tu_quoque wrote: "You never responded to my claim that Gingrich was not guilty of lying to a federal court in the same way that Clinton was and I must assume that you did not want to contest that and wished to drop it."

You wrote: “Clinton was not convicted of a thing, as I recall. The charges stemmed from one man, Kenneth Starr, who concluded that the former President had committed perjury, based on Clinton's Grand Jury testimony. The United States Senate voted to acquit him of all four charges.Your comparison is therefore irrelevant.”

"Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan D. Webber Wright. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tu_quoque wrote: "The second point about serving the divorce papers you admitted you were wrong."

You wrote: “I admitted that.” ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tu_quoque wrote: "The third, I have provided several quotes that show Gingrich’s wife did have cancer at one time but was cancer free at the time of the surgery and undoubtedly since then due to no reports of any reoccurrence."

You wrote: “So? I hardly see what your point is. The woman was lying in a hospital bed at the time that Gingrich decided to argue with the woman, in front of their two children, about details related to their divorce.”

That is a diversion as you originally statement was “she was battling cancer in a hospital room”

tu_quoque wrote: "To add to your claims you went on to claim that she may have become ill with M.S. prior to the divorce." "However, you have been unable to substantiate your claim and I have dismissed it as just some padding in an attempt to make your argument look better."

You wrote: “That was wife #2, Marianne, and I stated it clearly. Read it for yourself;”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/gingrich_profile_featuring_ex-wife_begets_question.php

So you provide a link to a site that is still stating as fact things that you have already admitted was false. Below is a quote from your original link about this subject. It appears there was no diagnosis of M.S. but only “a neurological condition that might be a forerunner of multiple sclerosis”.

“Marianne had been diagnosed with a neurological condition that might be a "forerunner of multiple sclerosis," according to the Atlanta neurosurgeon who treated her. Neurologist Barney Stern said she has responded well to steroid therapy and there's been no further damage to her nervous system.”

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jul2000/PWMSNewtsEx.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tu_quoque wrote: "I never said that you made that implication as I was only saying how odd that you would link to and quote another writer that clearly made that implication."

You wrote: “You're still not getting it. Newt Gingrich was not even in office during two years in which surpluses occurred. He's taking full credit for them, which is a lie. He lied again when he stated that he used those surpluses to pay down debt. Not one dime of those surplus funds was applied to reducing the national debt.”

I do not disagree with your response except that “surpluses occurred”. However how does it relate in anyway with my post that was about the implication, by your linked writer, that there was a relationship between debt and deficit.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tu_quoque wrote: “If the surpluses are applied to the interest on the debt then the treasury no longer has access to those funds and in fact when they are so used there is no longer any surplus." "It’s all accounting trickery to make the federal budgets look better than they actually are."

You wrote: “Those surpluses were not applied to the interest on the debt. Those funds were applied to the SSTF to be used for the future benefits for Social Security. They were part of the $565 billion robbed from the SSTF during GWB's first year in office.”

“Your beef is with GWB.”

Would you be so kind as to explain in what form and method the surpluses were applied to the SSTF and at the same time describe how Bush was able to “rob” $565 billion dollars from it during his first year in office. This I’ve got to see.

tu_quoque wrote: "“The budget surplus and the debt are two distinctly different issues and one has no effect on the other” Wait !! What?? You didn’t just restate what I wrote, did you? Oh I see you go on to show that they do affect each other. Now I see how you operate, as you want it both ways."

You wrote: “Mr. Troll, please try and concentrate. They only affect each other if funds are applied to the balance of the debt account. Not one dime of those surplus funds was used to pay down the national debt, therefore the surplus funds had no cause or effect on the balance of the debt.”

Do remember that I’m the one arguing that not one dime was paid toward the national debt not only during Clinton’s term but not since 1951.

You wrote: “The debt continued to rise as a result of the accumulated interest on the national debt.”

Isn’t interest on the debt an expense of operating the federal government?

You wrote: “For all practical purposes, the national debt is like an account that has a negative balance. It works the opposite of an account with actual funds in it. When you deposit funds into the national debt account, the balance decreases. When interest accrues, the balance increases.”

Thank you for stating the obvious but what is your point?

You wrote: “Since not one penny of those actual cash funds was deposited into the national debt account and instead were deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund, and interest still accrued on the national debt account, therefore the balance went up.”

Once again with the deposits to the SSTF?