The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

And Gingrich's wife is also a public reminder of his infidelity.

Obama is a known quantity, while voters are still getting to know Romney. They seem to not like what they see very much.

Overall, 55 percent of those who are closely following the campaign say they disapprove of what the GOP candidates have been saying. By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him. Even among Republicans, as many offer negative as positive assessments of him on this question. Judgments about former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who denounced Romney on Saturday night in Nevada, are about 3 to 1 negative.

If your objection to Gingrich's wives isn't based on religious faith (as is the case of Dowd, a strict Catholic) what is it based on?

I've known the man since the start of the 2 Reagan administrations and admire him greatly: he took the House back from 40 years of liberal democrat rule and produced years of balanced budgets - the first since the Eisenhower presidency - though Clinton must share in the credit. Compare that with Obama's abysmal record on deficits!

I've known the man since the start of the 2 Reagan administrations and admire him greatly: he took the House back from 40 years of liberal democrat rule and produced years of balanced budgets - the first since the Eisenhower presidency - though Clinton must share in the credit. Compare that with Obama's abysmal record on deficits!

Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows

It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy

Where has the federal deficit gone?

When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.

Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.

Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…

For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.

By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors.

Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue
Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit


President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.

Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.

The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…

The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...

"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up."

—WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.

By the time republicans got around to passing the balanced budget plan in 1997 for fiscal year 1998, the deficit was almost gone. Anyone attempting to give them credit for the balanced budget is sadly mistaken. Their five-year plan calls for our first balanced budget in 2002 ( a year Mr. Bush has once again returned us to deficits). Their plan was only five years off. Our first balanced budget occurred in 1998.

well, like I said i wouldn't vote for him regardless. I am democrat.

However my objection to Gingrich's collection of wives is based on hypocrisy and a distaste for men who trade in their wives for new ones like you would for worn out tires.

Do you have to be religious to think it's scummy to run around on your wife? I don't think so.

Quote:

Do you have to be religious to think it's scummy to run around on your wife? I don't think so.

What other basis are you suggesting Cyclo? A legalised monopoly legislated by alpha males? Fat chance of that I should think.

"scummy" is rather a convenient word. It isn't particularly decisive in discouraging the activity you coyly refer to.

You can't discourage adulterers through speech. You sure can condemn them, though!