Big Rog-You sure are mature.What are you,an 8th grader?!No wonder Republicans think all Democrats are dumb,it's because of people like you making dumbass comments.

I can appreciate Newt's remark that changing Washington will be very, very hard, but I doubt he or anyone else will be able to make a difference. Frankly, I consider it a lost cause, which in turn makes me wonder if it really matters all that much who wins the race.

Mike S.

They just made the headline proportional to Newt's head. (and his ego)

well said AG99. However, we would be failures if we don't try. We must strive so that our politicians and judges be independent from the corrosive power of money (that is needed for re-election and post term pay-offs).

Gingrich laid out why he believes he is still the best candidate to take on Obama in the fall.

--------------------------

Newt, you can believe all you like but your rethugli-con brothern have said "no you're not".

=================

Its obvious that people that fall into the first type of people will support and vote for him no matter what and we will see that in 2012.

No David we don't fall into the first type. You see, we have seen enough of the rethugli-cant party to understand exact where they want to take us and we say "NO". Loud enough that even the moronic right will understand. You have sent clown after clown out there with no message except more tax cuts for nthe wealthy, let big business do what they want and the really sad thing is there are still imbeciles that will vote for them.

Yo David, how's the jobs thing coming with the rethugli-cants elected in 2010? Really good isn't it? The rethugs in the House haven't passed one jobs bill in two years but have had all the time in the world to pass bills they know are meaningless and stand no chance of passage. But don't let that discourage you. Keep spewing the drivel from the right. One day you'll wake up and realize how wrong you've been. You see, unlike you I know neither party is worth anything. Neither care for me except when they want my vote. However, I do understand one thing: the rethugli-cant party is worse than the Democrats. I dedicate the following to you. I'd like to think you are the business man but my heart tells me you are the redneck:

To those of you who vote republican, I saw this on FaceBook. The redneck on the left states: I vote republican to keep foreigners, women, minorities, socialists, gays and liberals from ruining my life. The business man on the right (holding a big bag of money) states: I vote republican to keep this moron, pointing to the redneck, from realizing I am the only one ruining his life.

OMG, how true.

The Newt is the bigest political nut job of this and the last century.

I voted for Eisenhower, a great Republican president and Reagan his first term, a not so great president. Since then I see no reason to even consider Republicans as Conservatives.

How about the goal should be to fix the most urgent issues we have in our country right now REGARDLESS of political party?? It just disgusts me that the majority of our elected officials (democrats and republicans) are more concerned about defeating one another than staying focused on issues and what really matters to most Americans (jobs, economy, our military, budget, world issues etc). Guess what, there's no guarantee that if a republican gets into office or Obama stays in office that things will miraculously improve. It's going to take all parties working together for what's best for the country, not what's best for themselves! ALL politicians... GROW UP, DO THE JOB YOU WERE ELECTED AND ARE BEING PAID TO DO AND DO IT IN A TIMELY MANNER! STOP ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF SELFISH, IMMATURE CHILDREN!!

So - Newt Gingrich is saying the entire GOP campaign machine is only about Anybody But Obama? The GOP is spending hundreds of millions to just pick Mr. Anybody? Really?

And Gingrich is saying - please, please, please let me be Mr. Anybody? Is that a promotion - from Mr. Nobody to Mr. Anybody?

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!

-- Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone

Republicans are living in an altered reality ...

whitewolf?..yes stop the liberals......everything else is a meaningless smokescreen intended to hide the failure that is obama.....ANYONE BUT obama IN NOVEMBER!

@David Noah

Every time someone goes to fill up their gas tank and their paying $4.00, $4.50, $5.00 a gallon for gas it will hit them in the pocket book.

The President has no real control over gas prices because of that. Fuel prices cause all prices to go up, the trucker still needs to make a profit and the fuel price is carried to the consumer.

It used to be those buying oil were the users of oil; airlines, gas companies, etc. Then the speculators got into the act and have used Iranian fears as an excuse to push up the price. Buy low sell high.

Prices should drop in October.

What the Obama administration has done is start an action to end speculators from controlling the market.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has set up a rule to limit speculation. By the authority given to them through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Only problem is they have to collect a year of data before they can implement it next October.

I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would claim this act infringes on the free market. And the GOP is more Wall Street oriented (which is opposed to the CFTC regulation). This action to reduce inflated prices was brought to you under Obama's Presidency.

Think real hard about that before Mitt, Rick, Newt, or Ron fools YOU.

Nerm Obama is Hoping to spend a billion, a BILLION on his election campaign.

In 2008 McCain spent 333 million on his election campaign while Obama spent 725 Million dollars. More than twice as much. He was the first candidate in history to refuse public funding because he didn't want to be restricted by the rules of how much you can raise and spend if you accept public campaign funding.

Now he needs a Billion.

What kind of precedence does that set? The presidency is nothing more than an Auction to the Highest bidder? It doesn't matter what your polices are, your agenda, your beliefs when being considered to be the most powerful man in the world only how popular you are and how much money you can make.

I believe Obama said yesterday Oil Production had increased 75% since he's been in office or something like that. I think he got confused with how much he has increased the cost of the Presidency.

Even Obama's political campaign is an example of the Democrats, spend spend, spend, drive the cost of everything up.

I would like to know why they put Ron Paul's name in bold black letters. suggesting that Ron Paul supports should support the nominee no matter who it might be. I can tell msnbc that won't fly Ron Paul supporters will not support any of the other 3 candidates, not gonna happen.

Gingrich: The goal is to defeat Obama

Now where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, Mitch McConnell said that already. That was before "Anybody but Romney".

David Noah

In 2008 McCain spent 333 million on his election campaign while Obama spent 725 Million dollars. More than twice as much. He was the first candidate in history to refuse public funding because he didn't want to be restricted by the rules of how much you can raise and spend if you accept public campaign funding.

Boy, that really has to irk a die-hard republican supporter like you. You are trying to make a candidate that refuses public money a bad person. How's that working out for you?

Wow, up in arms about the democrats spending money? Gee, I bet you are just livid over Romney outspending 10 to 1 on his campaign, huh?

I really think Romney is going to go broke before November. If he is spending so much to secure the nomination, just imagine how much he will have to spend during the general.

BTW, Obama doesn't need a billion, silly. He has the potential to "raise a billion".

As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his
2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is
unprecedented in U.S. politics.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Romney fund his campaign off voter donations? Or is the fact that the voters just aren't as supportive as the democrat voters during Obama's campaign?

Every time I fill up my gas tank, I think of the Great Recession. Yes, gas was under two bucks a gallon. But we were shedding 700,000 jobs a month!

Remember this next time you see gas under $2.00 it takes a market crashing around the world to get it that cheap. But what's it matter when you're penniless? And many where. Gas could be 50 cents a gallon, it don't matter when you are broke and no job.

On top of that, I'm told to put the same clowns back in that crashed the global market to begin with because, "They're conservative with money".

No thank you!

Newt, Newt old buddy, just get over yourself. Please.

.

Newt, Newt old buddy, just get over yourself. Please.

While I agree, at least in this instance he's taking the high road. That's more than you can say about Santorum.

SI

Will you guys believe NPR?

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133809150/2012-the-year-of-the-billion-dollar-campaigns

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a multibillion-dollar contest. President Obama's re-election committee is expected to raise at least $1 billion, and Republicans have high hopes that their nominee will reach the 10-figure level as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-billion-dollar-campaign-thats-bullsh/

Obama’s Billion-Dollar Campaign? ‘That’s Bullsh**’

In an end-of-year fundraising video, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina appeals for grassroots cash, describing as ”bullsh**” the speculation that theirs is a billion-dollar campaign.

“People have speculated that this is a billion-dollar campaign. That’s bullsh**,” he says. “We don’t take PAC money, unlike our opponents. We fund this campaign in contributions of $3 or $5 or whatever you can do to help us expand the map, to put more people on the ground, to build a real grassroots campaign that is going to be the difference between winning and losing.”

They don't tale PAC? Flip. I guess they fore got to tell Bill Maher, Geroge Soros, etc.

So much for the little people being represented.

Mr President I would like to have a meeting with you? How much did you donate. I could only afford $500.00. Umm get a hold of my scheduling agent and we'll see if we can squeeze you in somewhere. 15 seconds of fame good for you?

In 2008 McCain spent 333 million on his election campaign while Obama spent 725 Million dollars.

The reason I didn't vote for McCain has nothing to do with spending money.

I had planned on voting for McCain, really liked his choice for VP.....at first.

Then as I dug deeper into the unknown woman, S Palin, I came to realize there was no way she should ever be in line for the Presidency.

That brought up a second question in my mind. If I could learn so much about Palin how incompetent was McCain not to know of her Megalomaniac Personality?

I didn't vote for President.

I might have voted for Huntsman this time, I suppose he was too decent for the GOP.

The clowns that are left, like most of the GOP, have embraced the goal to defeat Obama instead of embracing the goal to do the best for this Nation.

His entire Presidency the GOP has been more interested in defeating him than serving us - screw 'em.

I'm voting Obama.

It's time to demand that the 3 Republican windbags and the imbeciles who support them stop lying to the American people. Let's start with long-winded David Noah, who says, "Every time someone goes to fill up their gas tank and their paying $4.00, $4.50, $5.00 a gallon for gas it will hit them in the pocket book." No matter how many times reasonable people like JOregon try to explain how oil prices are not controlled by the President, a Republican chimes in, "Drill, baby, drill" as if domestic production would bring down oil prices.

Well, it's time for Republican protectors of Big Oil profits to sh't the f'k up. Drilling in the Arctic or off the coasts of our nation doesn't affect gas prices. If you're not persuaded by JOregon, check this out:

20 Experts Who Say Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices

March 22, 2012 12:37 pm ET by Jocelyn Fong

"In a pretty impressive act of journalism, the Associated Press recently conducted a "statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production." The result: "No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump." It's neat to see math cut through the talking points and get straight to the truth of the matter -- which is that expanding drilling is a fundamentally ineffectual response to gas price spikes.

"Given that changes in U.S. oil production don't move gasoline prices, it should be clear that U.S. government policies related to drilling are of even smaller consequence. Indeed, 92 percent of economists surveyed by the Chicago Booth School of Business agreed this week that "changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies."

"Still not convinced? How about another 20 economists and analysts from across the political spectrum who will tell you the same thing:

• Ken Green, American Enterprise Institute, "If the U.S. produced more of its own oil, it would probably reduce imports, but it's not likely that it would reduce prices ... We probably cannot produce so much oil to exert downward pressure on prices compared to the world market."
• Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute: "Sure, more domestic oil creates the possibility of fewer refined imports tied to the price of Brent crude, but given that the price of Brent sets the price for crude generally, the result would be more profit for domestic crude producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans (not that there's anything wrong with that)."

• Doug Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum: "Domestic action to increase production will not lower gas prices set on a global market."
• Christopher Knittel, MIT economist: "There are not many markets where the United States can't impose its will on market outcomes ... This is one we can't, and it's hard for the average American to understand that and it's easy for politicians to feed off that."
• Pinelopi Goldberg, Yale economist: "US domestic policy has only tiny effect on the world price of oil. US foreign policy is probably more relevant than energy policy."

• Steve Koonin, Institute for Defense Analyses: "When you hear the international oil companies advocating for energy independence, it's really about making money, which isn't a bad thing ... If they produce a million more barrels a day, they're not going to change the global price much. And since they know the global price is going up, they'll just make more money. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't solve the price problem or the greenhouse gas problem."
• Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations: "The amount of oil you produce at home doesn't affect the price ... You can lower your vulnerability to price by lowering your consumption of oil, but not by increasing your production."
• Severin Borenstein, UC Berkeley economist: "Producing more oil domestically will enrich the U.S. economy, particularly U.S. oil companies and their workers. With oil so valuable, it may be a good idea, though the value must be weighed against environmental consequences. But it will have no discernible impact on gas prices, because it will change the world's supply/demand balance for oil by less than 2 or 3 percent over a decade or more."
• David Peterson, Duke statistician: "U.S. production and demand have little to do with the price of gasoline in the U.S."
• Edward Melnick, NYU statistician: When U.S. production goes up, the price of gas "is certainly not going down ... The data does not suggest that whatsoever."
• David Sandalow, former Brookings fellow: "Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight. ... It's just not going to make much of a difference."
• Tom Kloza, Oil Price Information Service: "This drill drill drill thing is tired ... It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist."
• Richard Newell, former Administrator of Energy Information Administration: "We do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market."
• Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research: "There is almost no disagreement among economists that drilling everywhere all the time offshore will have almost no impact on the price of gas in the United States. The reason is that we have a world market for oil. The additional oil that might come from offshore drilling is a drop in the bucket in a world oil market of almost 90 million barrels a day."
• Lou Crandall, Wrightson ICAP LLC: "Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly. Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way. The only difference is that a somewhat larger share of the revenue would accrue to domestic interests (governmental and private) rather than to foreign suppliers."

• Paul Bledsoe, Bipartisan Policy Center: "The notion that somehow we can produce so much domestically that we will move the global price is incorrect."

• Tom O'Donnell, The New School: "The amount of extra oil that the U.S. would produce, as far as affecting the world price of oil, is almost insignificant."'

• Deborah Gordon, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "We can drill doggedly in our own backyards, but the price of gasoline will remain more a matter of speculation over externally-driven factors than tapping new sources of oil at home."

• Joseph Dukert, energy analyst: "Americans tend to exaggerate the price effects of fluctuations in domestic production in relation to the total amount of oil in global trade. On the larger stage, the perception of geopolitical risks is more important."

• Phyllis Martin, Energy Information Administration: "In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices ... It just gets lost. It's not that much."

"Even Fox's John Stossel acknowledged recently that U.S. energy policy "doesn't make that much of a difference" on gas prices, contrary to what others at Fox News are claiming.

"There's simply no excuse for political reporters to tolerate, let alone advance claims that more U.S. oil production will meaningfully address our gas price woes. (Here's a taste, from the past week alone, of the type of he-said/she-said reporting that is just not cutting it: CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today.) This is crucially important because once we understand that the U.S. is incapable of holding down the price of gasoline, we can start looking seriously at the options we do have to make ourselves less vulnerable to these inevitable price spikes."

Of course, Teapublican dolts will probably just continue to believe the fiction that domestic oil production affects oil prices in our country because it offers opportunities to lodge false complaints about how Obama has failed the nation. Clinging to fictions despite mountains of evidence to the contrary is what Teapublicans do.

Gingrich: The goal is to defeat Obama

Your goal should be losing that heap of blob off your immoral azz and gut. How do you expect to defeat anyone if you can't even walk a block withing an oxygen tank with you Nutty Newt.

Newt is just a disgrace. I can't believe anyone would even give him the time of day.

Obama 2012

... like most of the GOP, have embraced the goal to defeat Obama instead of embracing the goal to do the best for this Nation.

And doesn't this just about sum up the entire problem with the GOP lately?

When they took over the House, it was all jobs, jobs, jobs. The first bill they pass? HR 1 "So be it" bill - it slashed 2 million public sector jobs.

All the Republican candidates bemoan Obama's spending. Yet independent analysis of the economic proposals of each and every candidate (one exception, Ron Paul) show that shows that each would increase the national debt more than Obama's current spending levels.

Ryan's new budget plan claims to balance the budget - in 30 years! But one key part of his plan? "the plan would exempt the military from the sequestration cuts slated to go into effect next January."

They all say they have the nation's best interests at heart - but they all do only what is good for Republican party support and the Republican party goal of defeating Obama.

Well at least NEWT is focusing on something else instead of cheating on his wife. He's become really good at that........................

Time for a Pop Quiz, voters...

Here is the choice:

A) "we have one common goal and that is to defeat the incumbent."

B) "In the face of the greatest obstructionism possible, the economy is growing, unemployment is down, the recession caused by the previous incumbent is over, the housing crisis is being resolved and home sales are up, tax breaks for the very wealthy are not part of the plan. Looking out for the average American worker is most important."

Which one sounds like the better candidate?

So, Gringrich would ultimately support what he and his fellow conservatives bemoan as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), thus betraying his vaunted so-called "principles" and "values", just to defeat President Obama, is that right? Pathetic and hypocritical, unsurprisingly. What a joke. Careful, old boy, you're jumping all of the place, like Mr. Etch A Sketch, there. Either that, or you're trying to Make Nice with Romney for a likely Cabinet position. Ain't gonna happen.

Obama/Biden 2012

IMHO

Maaaan, you left out the best part of the quote:

"Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."

Other great, applicable quotes from Shakespeare are:

"Lord, what fools these mortals be."

"Foist on their own petard."

Pretty much sums up the GOP Primary doesn't it?

Obama/Biden 2012

(Note: A 'petard' is a bucket shaped explosive device that was pressed against the gates of a castle or fortress and the fuse lit by a hardy volunteer who would then run to safety. The device was prone to premature detenation thereby 'foisting' the volunteer on his own petard.)

republicans basically are giving this election away. The are not listening to the majority at all..

They've gone so far off the rails on the far right wing train that I wouldn't vote for one for any reaosn until they publicly denounce the tea party, limbaugh, ,palin, coulter, beck, and stop giving us pathetic choices like Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, Cain.

So until that magical day when the far right wing ceases to exist in control of the rpeublicans, and they move massively to the center of the political spectrum there is a greater chance I will volunteer to fight a civil war against republicans way way way before I would even consider voting for one.

I can say that I truly HATE republicans. I won't even bother associating with them anymore. I have had enough of everything they stand for

Santorum is worse than Obama in saying anything to get elected. What a whore and ex-lobbyist.;

You had better have somebody who wakes up every single morning prepared to fight. Because if you don’t have somebody who knows what they’re doing and has the willpower and the energy and the focus to do it, they’re going to make nice speeches and fail,” Gingrich said.

Lead by example then, Newt. Quit the lobbying, quit acting as "historian" to Fannie/Freddie, get out there NOW and start fighting rather than give "pretty fighting speeches" that are getting you NOWHERE.

A long journey begins with a single step, not holding a specific title. Not a single politician has the nerve to make any changes, they want the paycheque and power, and nothing else.

The goal of a primary is to come out at the end with the best candidate for your Party. The more each GOP/TP candidate has been vetted, the less appealing s/he becomes, and that goes for Romney too. The problem is Teapublicans did not start out with decent candidates to begin with, except maybe Pawlenty (though lacking charisma). Now they are stuck with a bunch of recycled losers.

The goal of an election is to get behind your candidate and vote FOR him or her because you believe your candidate is the best to lead our nation and the free world. It is not to vote for anyone, no matter how incompetent, just to defeat the opponent.

Why in the heck would we want to settle for someone who clearly is NOT presidential material? Irrational emotions of hate, fear, or just plain ignorance? Really?! Crikey, this kind of "strategery" would finish the United States off.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

to the obviously brain damaged "conservative" mental midgets who predict a loss for Obama in NOVEMBER - FAT CHANCE - people REMEMBER 2010 and what happened from being COMPLACENT (and by the way - the teabagger trash will be swept out also)

THERE ARE MORE AGAINST THE RETHUG CANDIDATES AND THE TEABAGGERS THAN FOR THEM - THAT TRANSLATES INTO "LOSER" IN MY BOOK. Of course, may you folks just can't DO math... that might account for your difficulties.

I truly do hope the Obama campaign can bring a billion dollars to bear against the corporate attempt at an overthrow of the American Republic. It would continue to show that the majority of Americans know where to put their donations. The republicans are funded almost completely by the obscenely rich. Why? Because the obscenely rich know they will be the ones that benefit from it. So, if you aren't obscenely rich, there is no reason for you to vote for the republicans. They don't have your interests. Only a fool would vote to give their own firing squad bullets. Don't be fools.

FINALLY Santorum says something I can endorse wholeheartedly:

President Obama would be better than Etch-A-Sketch Mitt.

Mitt Romney: You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can sure try to rob them blind.

"...Gingrich argued that re-electing Obama would be a “disaster”

For the Republican Party, that is... :)

Obama 2012

David Noah... Are you allergic to FACTS? Obama (nor any other president, even shrubya) does NOT control the prices of GAS or OIL. Nothing but Dush limpbag, Sham Hannity, Mike Savage or Glenn Beck is able to violate the boundary of your bubble world.

Hardcore partisanship is what ails this country and all you do is perpetuate it by attributing ANYTHING that goes bad to Obama. 100% of the Grand Ole Plutocrats (GOP) and ~70% of the Democrap party could give two sh_ts about the condition of the US middle class because they are OWNED and OPERATED by the wealthiest Americans and corporations due to campaign finances. WAKE THE EFF UP and stop the BS nonsense you spout.

See that's the problem instead of doing their jobs these Republicans only goal was to remove OBAMA, and they complain about nothing is getting done, well maybe if they got up off their fat azz and did something other than obstruct just maybe we would have been in better shape .... OBAMA 2012

...Why was my first post collapsed?

...Why was my first post collapsed?

I'm not a big fan of collapsing posts, and I didn't respond to yours in any manner.

My guess is people felt it wasn't relevant to the topic.

I never noticed any unusual font sizes.

Maybe it was your browser.

Probably ended his campaign by saying it, and he probably knew that before he said it, which makes it all the more dramatic.

Good one! I'll try to commit that to memory...

Goodbye Old Party

You can probably say that to both parties. As the extremists on both sides take over their respective parties, there is a rush towards sanity in the middle. In a couple more election cycles, we independents will outnumber either party. What do you think will happen then?

SI

Come on RushISaPIG... I like pigs.

Seattle.. then you will vote democratic, because the republicans are way way way of the rails on the rihgt wing crazy train..

Independents need to punish republicans and force a major ideology shift back tot he center where the majority does stand

a vote for a republican means more extremism, and I the majority of exteremism is all on the right wing side of the tracks.. Most democrats are in the center, but because the last 30 years has seen an extreme move by the right wing they've skewed politics

David Noah - Having read all of your precedening comments on this article and this latest one.. I think you should run for president. Its very clear that you are no better than any of the GOP clowns out there right now. You might even get Pat Robertson to vote for you!

What a

Hey Navy tell me the Dems plan to solve the problems? You mean the budget that the Dems have not passed in three years, because they dont have a plan except to say the GOP is bad?

Navy, the goal of ANY candidate is to remove the opposing candidate. Why on earth would a candidate run for office if he/she did not want to replace the one currently in office? Since Obama is currently President, that makes HIM the target to beat.

It is ridiculous to make an issue of someone trying to beat out the competition.

Deb...that goes without saying. The point is this is their ONLY goal and it's based on their hatred of the man. They should be trying to win based on a plan to solve the problems I mentioned and so far they have not done that except to vow to undo HCR.

Navy, you remind me of many zommmbies ....that I come in contact with. They kneel to the alter of socialism under Obama, yet can not tell anyone what the Democrats plan for the future is!

You said it, the GOP doesn't care about people who they supposed took an oath to represent (Guess Grover's oath is more important).

The GOP has shone it's true colors.

They only care about getting the black man out of the white house.

For any of you who don't know what socialism is,here's an example:

There's a doctor and a candy inspector(A candy inspector recieves low pay and does nothing except sit at a chair watching candy go by).Under capitalism,the doctor gets paid more because he works harder.Under socialism,The doctor and candy inspector recieve the same paycheck,even though the doctor is working harder.Then the doctor is going to realize "Hey,I'm working hard,but I'm getting the same paycheck as the other guy that has an easier job".So do you know what the doctor is going to do?He's going to quit his job and become a candy inspector,because it's easier and he recieves the same paycheck.After a while though,people are going to say "Where are all the doctors?"

Socialism is a terrible idea.All people who work hard will quit their jobs and get easier jobs.Then there will be no one left working at the hard jobs.

Mitt Romney 2012!

Random,

That is the craziest analogy I have ever heard.

Therefore those who work harder should be rewarded more. Therefore the farm worker and coal miners should be paid more than doctors or candy inspectors. Okay.

I don't know about your doctor but my doctor has never worked up a sweat anytime I saw her in her office.!?! ;)

It's hard to believe someone as semi-literate as Random would think he could possibly understand what socialism is or that he could believe his half-baked analogy had any merit whatsoever. A person like that is liable to believe anything just because he heard it on Limbaugh's hate-fest of a radio show or saw it on a opinion piece on FOX.

Thank goodness President Obama is going to be reelected in November. Then the whining of the right wing lunatic fringe will be abated...at least for a while, anyway.

You might want to reconsider applying for that tenured position, Professor RP. Your economics knowledge leaves something to be desired...

Therefore those who work harder should be rewarded more. Therefore the farm worker and coal miners should be paid more than doctors or candy inspectors. Okay.

I can see a doctor doing the job of a farm worker or coal miner, but I certainly wouldn't go to a miner or farmer trying to do the work of a doctor.

It's not just about physical work, but how you get educated and trained to do the work. That's what we pay doctors for...

Republicans want to get rid of Obama because the bribes and kickbacks just aren't coming in like they used to. Now Republicans have to pay for prostitutes out of their own pocket.

Random has it wrong, as usual. I bet you just want to vote for Romney because of his handsome facial features and strong jaw. Usually, that's how uneducated folk choose who they want as a leader.

Apparently, the GOP don't know that the only way to remove a President is to have policies that will make a BETTER president, not just by being a president of a different party. It's so painful to watch the primaries that I'd rather let my brain rot by watching the Kardashians. When did the GOP party represent a bunch of idiots?? Where's Lincoln? Where's Eisenhower? These men who now call themselves "Republicans" aren't even worth the dirt under their predecessor's shoes.

Progression is the only way forward. Obama2012!

I'm with you Kimposibl... Where have the great republicans gone to.. Eisenhower was the last great one...

Kim and Sailcat-Ok,if I'm wrong,then what is YOUR definition of socialism?Or are you guys just criticizing me because I'm right?Name one part of my example of socialism that is wrong.Don't just say I'm wrong,you must point out the wrong facts.I'm waiting.

It has been the Friedmans, Hayeks, von Miseses, e tutti quanti who have
maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop
incurable ailments. Mises called socialism “impossible” because it has no means
of establishing a rational pricing system; Hayek added additional reasons of a
sociological kind (“the worst rise on top”). All three have regarded capitalism
as the “natural” system of free men; all have maintained that left to its own
devices capitalism would achieve material growth more successfully than any
other system. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
From Robert Heilbroner.
“The World After Communism.”
Dissent
(Fall 1990): 429–430.

And yet, somehow, conservatives make a huge bounding leap that liberalism is somehow connected to socialism. Nowhere to be found is any comparison of a candy inspector's job to a doctor's job.

Obviously, your story is derived from aspects of what you have been told, which you altimately believe to be facts, without educating yourself on what you accuse others of doing.

The argument of Capitalism versus Socialism is not finished. It is part of America's founding basis. You can not have one or the other, it must be a balance between the two.

The question of what should be socialized and what should not is the debate.

How about Capitalizing air? Would you be happy paying a company for every breathe you take? If your answer is NO, how do you justify paying for water, when it is the most abundant item on the planet and animals get it for free?

Now, I'm not advocating anytthing here, I am just showing an example of social versus capital.

But, how does it feel to support socialism when breathing and captialism when paying for water? Both are needed to survive.

Random, Obama is not a socialist. FDR created SS, Medicare and Medicaid, all socialist programs. Was he a socialist? When your SS checks start coming in and you start using Medicare, you can thank a Democrat.

But if its validation you're looking for, your little anecdote on socialism was not wrong.

kim

FDR created SS, Medicare and Medicaid, all socialist programs.

You need an history lesson. I suggest you look up LBJ and Medicare/Medicaid.

Actually SS and Medicare are not Socialist. They are only for the benefit of the people who paid into them. SS and Medicare are ONLY for those who qualify and not for every person in Society.

slodon, thank you for the correction! =]

slodon

Are you sure about that? Every conservative I know tells me they are socialist programs. All entitlements are socialist programs.

Surely conservatives wouldn't bend the truth on that, would they?

Socialism, by definition, is where the government owns all industry. Think product creation, food, agriculture, communications, etc.. A regulated market is NOT Socialism. Social programs are forms of socialism, but I do not see anyone complaining about their socialized fire departments, police departments, water, electric, etc.. these are all socialist types of programs where all of society benefits, and costs are distributed among us all.

pacificdem: Gingrich was speaking to the TEA Party. This group lives in pre-1954 America when segregation was still legal. They still dream the old dream that somehow we're going to return to the good old days, if only they can elect a Republican President and Congress. That's what they mean when the say they plan "to take the country back..." back to segregation and the good old days............

The fundamental purpose of Newt's campaign is to inflate Newt's massive ego. The guy simply cannot accept the fact that he's last century's news. He's a has been, wanna-be, never was. He FAILED as a college professor, he FAILED in his first two runs at the House -- running first as a liberal then as a conservative, he FAILED as Speaker -- tossed out by his own people, he FAILED as a husband and father and he's FAILING as a presidential candidate.

Yeah I'm sure you've heard of it

Remember Trickle Down economics, you know the thing that caused this mess.

I'm serious that is how the Republicans plan to fix the economy.

Trickle down economics

It sounds like a joke, but it's hardly laughable when the Republicans carry the South because of religion. Too bad everyone in the South who votes Republican and isn't a millionaire is voting against their own financial interest.

"TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS" sounds like pissing down your pants leg into your shoes to save money on the water bill by not having to flush the toilet,then having to go out and buy new shoes and have your pants cleaned. I am sure it works something like that. Either way it "STINKS". HAHA

Facts Republicans Hate:

Job losses per month in January 2008: 700,000

Job gains last month: 227,000

24 straight months of private sector gob growth

GDP growth in 2008: negative 6%

GDP growth last year 2.9%

Dow Jones Average in January 2008: Under 8000

Dow Jones Average today: 13,000+

Record domestic oil production

GMC – all time record profits

Near record corporate profits across the board

Osama Bin Laden --- dead

Iraq war --- over

I don't know why anyone should vote for him, but if the goal is to get the best president for the people of the country, then Newt is absolutely right. It is all about beating Obama. Can't get much worse.