Rasmussen in FL: Romney 44, Gingrich 28

HotAir ^ | 1/29/2012 | ED MORRISSEY

[j.argese]

I’m a crotchety middle aged man and I know exactly what you’re talking about. Some of the northeastern states get bad reputations because of the overpopulated urban areas. I grew up in a very rural area of New Jersey and we get infested by New York City types.
You get two types of immigrants out of here, the libs who go to Florida and the Conservatives who go more toward the Southeast. You have know idea how much it pisses me off that I’ve lived 50 years in NJ, voted Conservative, paid my mortgage and I won’t be able to live here because of property taxes and the like.
This is my home. Why should I have to pick up and leave like a gypsy? Best to you and yours.

[kabar]

But that “costs too much” argument has already been asked and answered. The federal component of a revived space program would be mere pennies on the dollar. This is where the fed does those few things the fed does best and leverages those advantages to the benefit of private entrepreneurism funded primarily by private capital. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The moment we stop reaching higher is the very moment we begin to sink. That vast sea of red ink was not caused by the space program. It was caused by the lurch toward a virtually unlimited welfare state. And when you’re in debt, maybe you don’t buy that second car, or maybe you go for a lower mortgage. But you don’t stop eating, you don’t stop working, and you sure don’t stop trying to make things better. Because that last thing is where your recovery eventually comes from.

No one is suggesting that we abolish the space program. It is a false choice. It is a matter of priorities and allocating scarce resources. Do we want a base on the moon in ten years or other improvements to our existing technology, particularly in the area of national security? What can we reasonably afford recognizing the many competing demands for resources?

See, Newt gets the notion of creating a national project to focus our energies on something that will both benefit us and give us common cause.

I graduated high school in 1961. I remember JFK's promise to get us to the moon before the end of the decade. There was a tremendous emphasis on math and science. Many students wanted to be engineers. Much of it was framed by the Cold War. The Soviets were the enemy. When Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space in April 1961, there was almost a sense of panic that the Soviets were surpassing us in space and that could be a threat to our security.

We don't need a national project to set up a moon colony in a decade. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and then the costs of maintaining it. Eventually, that will probably happen, but we can't embark on such huge undertakings while we need to cut spending significantly, including on defense. We need to focus our energies on getting our economy growing again and attracting investment to build and expand our infrastructure,. We will be adding 130 million people over the next 40 years. By 2030 one in five Americans will be 65 or older, twice what it is now and there will only be two workers for every retiree, down from the current 3.3, and the 16 workers for every retiree in 1950.

Sulking about our debt will not relieve our debt. Ceasing to grow and try new things will not relieve our debt. Curling up into the fetal position while our bitter enemies consolidate their power over the far frontiers will not relieve our debt.

No, but we must do something about our debt very soon or we will soon be another Greece. We must cut government spending. It will be very painful for everyone and the longer we wait, the more painful and draconian the measures that will need to be taken. The welfare state is collapsing. I doubt many Americans are aware of how dire our situation is or how little time we have left to do something.

We need a President who will tell the American people the truth and lay out a plan to reach our economic goals. It may not be as sexy as going to the moom, but it will require the entire nation to be galvanized and united to make the sacrifices necessary for this country to remain as the leader of the Free World. The British had the US to hand the baton to. We have no one.

[PapaNew]

Interesting graph, but possibly misleading (makes me wonder who put that out). A forty year average goes all the way back to 1940. I’d be interested to see the same data in a monthly or quarterly line graph. I think it would tell a more informative story of reversal of a relentless forty-year upward trend in both spending and taxes. Even with all his efforts, because of a Democratic Congress, the best Reagan, an ardent hater of big government, could do was SLOW DOWN the growth of government because of relentless automatic increases in the system.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Well, he certainly is arguing that he never supported cap and trade.

In my humble a opinion, a true conservative would not have to make such arguments because it would be so well established.

I’m just not thrilled about him or Robamney.

[rbmillerjr]

Your correct...that chart is a BS chart from CNNMoney.

It is a manipulation of statistics. The kind of chart I’d expect from Liberals...just like the recent Debt chart showing Obama to be a liar.

Not a surprise to me that that particular poster is now stooping to BS attacks on Reagan.

[oprahstheantichrist]

Spot-on, brilliant analysis. Don Quixote indeed, I’d never thought of that analogy.

The other difference is though, that there are no “fake” Democrats running anywhere, whereas we have “fake” Repubs in almost every race I can think of.

I can’t think of a single instance of a conservative running on a Dem ticket, spouting off Lefty-Marxist drivel in order to get elected, and then voting to the right once he/she is sworn in. Doesn’t happen, and their voters are never confused or betrayed.