The Real Sexism and Hypocrisy in the Gingrich Marriage Discussion

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Bill Hedges of MO;
Aside from your rhetoric that I have disproven below, we'll call this, "PART lll"
.....which is the topic of this blog, and, of which you have evaded altogether.
Then we have a look at his infidelity:
"Newt Gingrich's 'horny patriot' infidelity excuse: Will voters accept it?"
If Gingrich thinks the public will find this persuasive, he's completely lost his mind," says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. He isn't the first admitted adulterer to seek the presidency, but blaming his "scandalous personal life" on patriotism is just insulting. Besides, as David Frum says, Gingrich's real problem isn't infidelity, it's "arrogance, hypocrisy, and... cruelty. Anyone can dump one sick wife. Gingrich dumped two."
http://theweek.com/article/index/212956/newt-gingrichs-horny-patriot-infidelity-excuse-will-voters-accept-it
...in other words, read my moniker:

Newt and Obama: ...gonners of MO 7:30AM January 27, 2012

"Former Directors Blast Gingrich’s Plan To Eliminate Congressional Budget Office"
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/former-directors-blast-gingrichs-plan-to-eliminate-congressional-budget-office.php
Newt Gingrich wants to swing into Washington like a wrecking ball and demolish the key barriers between the GOP and the end of universal health care. But his primary target isn’t Obamacare itself. Rather it’s a non-partisan agency most people outside the beltway have never heard of — but that the D.C. establishment would arise and take arms to protect.
“If you are serious about real health reform, you must abolish the Congressional Budget Office because it lies,” Gingrich said at a Saturday debate with embattled pizza entrepreneur Herman Cain. “Every hospital will tell you that if you get the family and patient involved, it is better and less expensive. The Congressional Budget Office refuses to see this as a savings. It wants more bureaucracy and less patient involvement.”
“Obviously I completely disagree,” emails Doug Holtz-Eakin, who directed the CBO for nearly three years when Republicans controlled Congress under President George W. Bush, and now runs the conservative American Action Forum. “Regardless of his view of the merits of CBO’s analyses, it remains the case that it is a strictly advisory body that identifies the budget costs (not the economic costs or social benefits) of policy options. The rest of the benefit-cost analysis and ultimate decision-making likes with Congress. If he is unhappy with legislative outcomes, his fight is with Congress; not the CBO.”
Alice Rivlin — a Brookings Institution economist and founding director of the CBO concurred.
“Congress needs the CBO more now than ever, because policy differences have become so partisan,” Rivlin said in an email. “Each side slants the numbers to favor their outcome. There has to be a neutral nonpartisan scorekeeper. Everybody hates the referee—and no ref gets all the calls right—but the game would be chaos without one.”
CBO has been an obstacle for conservatives in the past. Most famously, their march for large permanent tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration hit a brick wall when CBO, which concluded, correctly, that the cuts would lead to significant budget deficits. Lacking Democratic support, the GOP used special procedural rules to circumvent a filibuster and pass the cuts on a partisan basis. But those same rules also required deficit-financed legislation to expire after 10 years. That’s why Congress got bogged down in a major fight over the cuts late last year and why they’re now set to expire at the end of 2012.
Bill Hedges of MO, virtually ALL of the above make your "comments" a total moot, so put THAT in your bong and smoke it!!!!

Newt and Obama: ...gonners of MO 6:54AM January 27, 2012

Bill Hedges of MO;
I see how you have unscrupulously taylored the CBO's reports and fiercely defended the CBO's numbers in your recent comments here at the TJSB in the past to "fit your two-cent agendas", but when their numbers go against you, you throw up smoke screens and turn 180 degrees .....like a "Newted" presidential candidate!
Here's what Gingrich says about your "real numbers":
Gingrich: CBO a 'reactionary socialist institution'
The former Speaker of the House labeled the Congressional Budget Office a "reactionary socialist institution" during a speech on Social Security reform in New Hampshire on Monday.
Given to rhetorical flourishes, Gingrich has made clear he is no fan of the CBO. But this was new territory for the former long-shot candidate who has recently surged in the polls.
"The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated," Gingrich said.
Exactly what is Gingrich labeling a "reactionary socialist institution?"
The CBO's mission is to provide Congress with information on budgets and the impact that legislation will have on government finances.
The agency is frequently described as "nonpartisan" and "objective." Generally respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the CBO acts as an official scorekeeper of sorts on budget issues.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and Republican, called the Gingrich allegation "ludicrous."
"I think if you parse that phrase carefully, he got one out of three right," Holtz-Eakin said. "I do agree it is an institution. If you're playing baseball, that's a decent batting average."
Stan Collender, a former Capitol Hill aide who worked for the House and Senate Budget Committees, said he was "stunned" that Gingrich would describe the agency as socialist.
"He should know better, and he should be ashamed of himself," Collender said. "The CBO is the best group as analysts I've ever met. They are bipartisan. Their only job is to get it right, and they do."
A spokesman for the Gingrich campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Collender chalked up Gingrich's remarks as "campaign year electioneering".
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/gingrich_cbo_socialism/index.htm
I have also noted that your link and related "talking points" (which is out of context, BTW): (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm) is wholly, a right wing media source full of corporate big $$$ people who are out of touch with the realities of the "real wants and needs of the American people", and YOU are swallowing their every word (...and that's too bad for you)!!!
But let's not stop here
Read on.......

Newt and Obama: ...gonners of MO 6:40AM January 27, 2012

Part 3 __ Newt & Obama: ...gonners of MO _ More clarity for your thought process...
A. “The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform”
“The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases. ”
“Conclusion"
“The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.”
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
B. Bush tax cuts as well increased government revenue:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 2:51AM January 27, 2012

Part 2 _ Newt & Obama: ...gonners of MO _ "Newt Gingrich and the Ridiculous "Ethics Violations" Penalty"
http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

Bill Hedges of MO 1:51AM January 27, 2012

Newt & Obama: ...gonners of MO _ Checking out your first link...
VERY clever try. YOU article uses CBO projected cut of revenue for Newt’s tax cuts. CBO ALWAYS sees loss of revenue when forecasting revenue for cuts in taxes. That’s why I use REAL NUMBERS:
"Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy"
"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."
"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."
"Dr. J. D. Foster":
"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."
"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill":
* "Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . ."
"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm
Newt admitted to errors his lawyer made. I call them minor. 70 + charges dropped. Left were IRS issues court found Newt innocent. What little Newt was found guilty of after winning in court is SMALL.

Bill Hedges of MO 1:35AM January 27, 2012

Let's have a closer look at Newt and his "Balanced budget"....
A) "Not So Fast, Newt" :
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/newts_surplus.html
"There are, indeed, two main heroes in the story of the remarkable budget surplus of 1998, but neither of them are Newt Gingrich or his Republican Congress. It turns out that their contribution to deficit reduction did more harm than good. No, the true heroes of deficit reduction were, first, President Clinton, whose 1993 budget—passed without a single Republican vote—raised taxes on the wealthy and dramatically altered the nation’s fiscal path, and second, a steadily improving economy. Those two factors, and particularly the interaction between them, account for virtually the entire fiscal improvement. Contrary to the Gingrich assertion, legislation passed by the Republican-led Congress of 1995 through 1997 combined to actually worsen the fiscal situation—albeit slightly."
"B) "McClatchy: Sorry, Newt. You never balanced the budget" http://ctj.org/ctjinthenews/2011/03/sorry_newt_you_never_balanced_the_budget.php
Here's what really happened: "In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with Gingrich's balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes.
Then there was the "tidbit" of the $300,000 fine paid to the Ethics Committee:
Jan. 17, 1997: "....lawyers for Gingrich agree that the speaker's punishment should be a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty to reimburse the ethics committee for time wasted due to his inconsistent statements. The panel holds a public hearing into Gingrich's violations, then votes 7-1 in favor of the judgment."
April 22, 1997: "Gingrich announces he will pay the $300,000 penalty using a loan from former GOP presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/index3.html
How about his series of bounced checks, including one to the IRS....
"....Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Then we have a look at his infidelity:
"Newt Gingrich's 'horny patriot' infidelity excuse: Will voters accept it?"
If Gingrich thinks the public will find this persuasive, he's completely lost his mind," says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. He isn't the first admitted adulterer to seek the presidency, but blaming his "scandalous personal life" on patriotism is just insulting. Besides, as David Frum says, Gingrich's real problem isn't infidelity, it's "arrogance, hypocrisy, and... cruelty. Anyone can dump one sick wife. Gingrich dumped two."
http://theweek.com/article/index/212956/newt-gingrichs-horny-patriot-infidelity-excuse-will-voters-accept-it

Newt & Obama: ...gonners of MO 12:20AM January 27, 2012

Revlon of MI _ Says “American people fully deserve the best ”. Like the arguments in WH and the Clinton’s daughter there to hear. That’s good ? Good for Psychologist pay I guess...
“Character test”. Like Nancy Pelosi ? Her religion preaches life. She practices abortion. She plays games saying she knows something that could destroy Newt. She could do NOTHING to Newt in ethic committee. Except DROP 70 + charges. Court cleared Newt of final IRS charges.
John Kerry votes to raise taxes. He ports his boat in another State to save MONEY.
Going to cheating and divorces, would clear Congress of members. White House of Kennedy name.
“Character test” indeed. BP gives money to obuma. obuma gives GREEN MONEY to BP’s foreign companies. obuma gives waivers to BP in Gulf. BP gives us oil leak disaster.
Just a few examples.
At least cheating and divorcing ones spouse does not HARM AMERICA. Newt gave us balanced budget, surplus, reformed welfare, last civil rights bill passed, and tax cuts that gained more revenue than Bill C. tax increases...

Bill Hedges of MO 8:42PM January 26, 2012

love the way the newt supporter's change the subject by pointing to other peoples failings.truth be told,they cann;t handle the truth.

bruce b of NV 5:56PM January 26, 2012

Revlon of MI _ Says “American people fully deserve the best ”. Like the arguments in WH and the Clinton’s daughter there to hear. That’s good ? Good for Psychologist pay I guess...
“Character test”. Like Nancy Pelosi ? Her religion preaches life. She practices abortion. She plays games saying she knows something that could destroy Newt. She could do NOTHING to Newt in ethic committee. Except DROP 70 + charges. Court cleared Newt of final IRS charges.
John Kerry votes to raise taxes. He ports his boat in another State to save MONEY.
Going to cheating and divorces, would clear Congress of members. White House of Kennedy name.
“Character test” indeed. BP gives money to obuma. obuma gives GREEN MONEY to BP’s foreign companies. obuma gives waivers to BP in Gulf. BP gives us oil leak disaster.
Just a few examples.
At least cheating and divorcing ones spouse does not HARM AMERICA. Newt gave us balanced budget, surplus, reformed welfare, last civil rights bill passed, and tax cuts that gained more revenue than Bill C. tax increases...

Bill Hedges of MO 2:40PM January 26, 2012