>>"The national debt still only went up under his watch as
>>Speaker. That's NOT leadership."
>You repeat this idiocy like a mantra.
I repeated my question since I have gotten no good answer.
According to http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the national debt went from $4.7 trillion to $5.5 trillion which means IT WENT UP. The fact that government spending as a percentage of GNP went down for those 4 years DOES NOT impress me, since we continued to pay interest on trillions of dollars, money we rob from our children's children.
What could he have said to stick up for the American taxpayer in 1994-1998? How about ...
"The hard-working American taxpayer is already extremely generous, and not a resource to be abused infinitely by reckless spending through your budget Mr. President. You want to steal from the pockets of our children to pay for this budget Mr. President. Surely Mr. President, you're not against children ... are you?"
I'm not even a politician, and I can do it! He's a professional, and he can't. How lame is that? He just had to hammer away like that, but he didn't even try.
>they *exceeded* their deficit reduction goals
I dare say their goals were very low. Just because you meet a goal, does not mean it was a worthy or lofty goal.
>So, name 3 conservative Republican leaders who *would* be
>acceptable to be President
>No other Republican can win.....there are no other true
>conservatives to vote for.
According to BillyBoy's posting here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780333/posts?page=164#164 Duncan Hunter is the leading candidate among registered FR users. I know that's only one and not three I offer, but it proves that we have at least one conservative out there that has no baggage, and doesn't have a history of running up the national debt, and has not abused our trust by not sounding the alarm on the border while in a position of prominence.
We don't need Newt.
"The fact that government spending as a percentage of GNP went down for those 4 years DOES NOT impress me,"
Well it should.
">they *exceeded* their deficit reduction goals"
I dare say their goals were very low. Just because you meet a goal, does not mean it was a worthy or lofty goal."
Their goal was a tough one, that Coongresses in years before and since failed to meet. They met it - they balanced the budget.
I'm sorry your grasp of budget history isn't that keen.
I'm sorry you dont understand the magnitude of the accomplishment that was done on your behalf. I'm sorry you dont understand the difference between total debt and the net Govt obligations. But if you actually took the time to study the numbers, you would find validation in what I say:
The most fiscally conservative congresses in 50 years were the 2 congresses under Newt's reign.
Yet you blast him based on a premise that doesnt even compute.
It's like you are looking at the Sistene Chapel and declaring a preference for a velcro Elvis painting.
"Hunter ... doesn't have a history of running up the national debt"
Hunter has been in the very same Congresses that Newt has been in, and then some!!!
So Hunter is not part of the GOP House majority that ruled since 1994? He didnt have some say as chair of military appropriations?!? He didnt vote on the very same budget you a castigating Newt over?!?!
Jeez. Are you really dense or is this just a put-on?
Personally, I didn't bother, because the issue is basically a non sequitur. You might as well criticize Newt for the price of tea in China.