Bachmann will be handily defeated.....

[DawgyNWindow]

Great I've got yall stating facts......a first for people like you! Now, let's practice on stating ALL of the facts. Did you know that President Bush did NOT count the Iraq war in his budgets while Obama did? The deficit and debt was getting bigger under Bush at a faster rate but it just wasn't reported. All of the unpaid for tax cuts and the prescription drug bill didn't help either.

LOL!

Just wasn't reported....lol lol lol!

[TYLERTECHSAS]

And how can you read this quote and not think she's saying, "I'm not very smart, so I just do whatever the bible tells me"

"I look at the Scripture and I read it and I take it for what it is. I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and I take it for what it is. And I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist."

Now that my friend is a very wise and humble woman indeed!!! Those are the same characteristics as Reagan. She would make a great President!

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I'm not asserting Bachmann's suitability, or lack thereof, to be president. But regarding whether the POTUS should be smart, as in almost all things it's how you define smart. I think Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever, but I'm not sure how "academically" smart he was, or what his "IQ" was.

But I know this, he had a keen understanding of human nature, a clear vision of what was in the best interest of mankind, and a perfect understanding of, and appreciation for, the absolute uniqueness of the United States in human history. He knew how to accept and deflect criticism, how to be charming while resolute, and how to genuinely forgive. That kind of "smart" can't be measured, but precious few possess it.

It's called wisdom and Reagan had it in spades.

[FishingBack]

She's not a strong candidate but her message on Obamacare and the structure of the federal government is very appealing to anybody but socialists.

Pretty sure Guiss would love some of the stuff she'd do with the federal gov. IRS, dept of Ed, etc

[arkansasbob]

From priority fails, to historical inaccuracies, to outright lies. Take your pick.

''(Gay marriage) is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.'' matter of opinion. disagree if you like. i certainly do.

''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.'' factual statement, in context of the concentrations found in the atmosphere.

“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” stupid. i'm sure she didn't mean to say this, but i can't for the life of me figure out what she DID intend to say.

''It is horrific to know that in the African American community, 50 percent of all African American pregnancies in the United States end in abortion, 50 percent. That is a genocide of African Americans of the United States. It should not be. There are Americans all across this country who would love to adopt African American babies, but they can't because 50 percent of all African American pregnancies today are ending in abortion.'' she's not good with math, is she? i'm sure the stat that she's referring to is that there are nearly half as many abortions as live births among african americans. this should be appalling to anyone.

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.'' overly simplistic, but pretty close.

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.'' fail.

i'm no big fan of bachmann, but these statements don't strike me as being very different from the kind of statements we hear from politicians every day. you show your partisanship by lumping factual statements with truly ridiculous ones.

think for yourself.

[genpop]

i'm no big fan of bachmann, but these statements don't strike me as being very different from the kind of statements we hear from politicians every day. you show your partisanship by lumping factual statements with truly ridiculous ones.

think for yourself.

It is Bachmann that should be thinking for herself.

[dhussdawg]

Great I've got yall stating facts......a first for people like you! Now, let's practice on stating ALL of the facts. Did you know that President Bush did NOT count the Iraq war in his budgets while Obama did? The deficit and debt was getting bigger under Bush at a faster rate but it just wasn't reported. All of the unpaid for tax cuts and the prescription drug bill didn't help either.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and you provided no proof, so I will asume you are talking out of your ass as usual. However, even if true, the budget and what actually happened are two different things. What happened was recorded and added to the deficit. There was no hidden, unreported deficit.

[genpop]

I have no idea what you are talking about, and you provided no proof, so I will asume you are talking out of your ass as usual. However, even if true, the budget and what actually happened are two different things. What happened was recorded and added to the deficit. There was no hidden, unreported deficit.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

[Guisslapp]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

It would be interesting to see the part of the graph of Bush-era tax cuts broken into >$250k and <$250k categories. I would bet that it is the tax cuts for the less than $250k category that would dominate the deficit.

Nevermind. Just looked it up/

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.
The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news...bama/index.htm

So it is the tax breaks for the poor and middle class that dominate that graph. Just goes to show the point that Ryan was making about politicians not being honest about what our government benefits really cost.

[ddgravy]

It would be interesting to see the part of the graph of Bush-era tax cuts broken into >$250k and <$250k categories. I would bet that it is the tax cuts for the less than $250k category that would dominate the deficit.

Nevermind. Just looked it up/




http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news...bama/index.htm

So it is the tax breaks for the poor and middle class that dominate that graph. Just goes to show the point that Ryan was making about politicians not being honest about what our government benefits really cost.

+1

[dhussdawg]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036

I still did not read what you are asserting. You assert that somehow Bush was lying about his budget and not counting the wars and somehow hiding it when the final numbers were tallied (which I would hope would be impossible with the checks and balances we have). That article basically said that Obama and crew inherited a fiscal mess that was impossible to clean up quickly, which I can agree on.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

It would be interesting to see the part of the graph of Bush-era tax cuts broken into >$250k and <$250k categories. I would bet that it is the tax cuts for the less than $250k category that would dominate the deficit.

Nevermind. Just looked it up/

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.
The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news...bama/index.htm

So it is the tax breaks for the poor and middle class that dominate that graph. Just goes to show the point that Ryan was making about politicians not being honest about what our government benefits really cost.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[saltydawg]

It would be interesting to see the part of the graph of Bush-era tax cuts broken into >$250k and <$250k categories. I would bet that it is the tax cuts for the less than $250k category that would dominate the deficit.

Nevermind. Just looked it up/




http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news...bama/index.htm

So it is the tax breaks for the poor and middle class that dominate that graph. Just goes to show the point that Ryan was making about politicians not being honest about what our government benefits really cost.

First, the poor don't pay any federal income taxes, and folks who make under $100k don't pay much either. The extension of Bush Tax cuts included exclusion of the AMT for those making under $250k which really made the extension different than the original Bush tax cuts. In other words, the vast majority of the tax cuts under the extension went to folks who made more than $150k.

Here is an analysis of the original Bush tax cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

[genpop]

You libs should be careful throwing stones about people making mistakes... here's your fearless leader in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeJsyoKIabY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSV...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zh...eature=related

And here's yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II1zAObtwlM

[Guisslapp]

First, the poor don't pay any federal income taxes, and folks who make under $100k don't pay much either. The extension of Bush Tax cuts included exclusion of the AMT for those making under $250k which really made the extension different than the original Bush tax cuts. In other words, the vast majority of the tax cuts under the extension went to folks who made more than $150k.

Here is an analysis of the original Bush tax cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."

You are missing the point, and your article does not contradict in any way the evidence I posted. The vast majority of the Bush tax cuts went to families making less than 250k. That is irrefutable. From a revenue perspective, increasing the rates at the top end does not come remotely close to filling the gaping hole that the tax cuts at the low end created.

There are not nearly as much "rich" as there is middle class. That is why any real plan to increase revenues has to look at the middle class. Of course any roll back of marginal tax rates is going to provide more TOTAL value to people that have more income within a rate bracket (when you look at it on a per capita basis). The Bush tax cuts reduced the tax for middle class and poor as well. Even those that effectively paid no federal income tax, on average, got bigger "refunds" from the government due to the Bush tax cuts.