Chris Christie our next President?

[5mike5]

unless he grows a pair of , (oh wait he already has those srry) and loses another 200....and changes his name to a womans, he isnt gonna come close

[gauchojake]

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss

[BriGuy]

Hillary isn't far off. It looks like she has been sucking on the soy sauce these days.

The crypt-keeper, er I mean Hillary, won't be criticizing anyone else's looks when she runs. The years have not been kind. In 2016, she'll be all of 3 years younger than McCain when he ran, and we all know how age was a factor for him. She looks good in her officially approved publicity photos but when you actually see her on video, she shows every bit of those almost 7 decades.

[MUHerd37]

You mean like inheriting 13 trillion worth of debt worse??

Yeah, can accomplish alot when your that deep in the hole to begin with...

obama created more debt in 4 years than bush did in 8. I am no fan of bush either. Obama fukkin growing the government bigger as well. Not to mention Obama's attacks on American's rights.

[gauchojake]

Everyone write in Julia Louis Dreyfus

[BriGuy]

obama created more debt in 4 years than bush did in 8.

Obama created more debt in 5 years than than America did in 232.

[jjgold]

Its a democrats society now

Reps have zero shot in a national election

too many poor and middle class people

[No coincidences]

Its a democrats society now

Reps have zero shot in a national election

too many poor and middle class people

Middle class? LOL.

[I/O]

obama created more debt in 4 years than bush did in 8. I am no fan of bush either. Obama fukkin growing the government bigger as well. Not to mention Obama's attacks on American's rights.

stop making sense

[muldoon]

obama created more debt in 4 years than bush did in 8. I am no fan of bush either. Obama fukkin growing the government bigger as well. Not to mention Obama's attacks on American's rights.

How much of that debt was purely interest and payments on previous things (Bush medicare, 2 ongoing wars etc)?

How much did Obama grow the government?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

[crustyme]

[ACoochy]

obama created more debt in 4 years than bush did in 8. I am no fan of bush either. Obama fukkin growing the government bigger as well. Not to mention Obama's attacks on American's rights.

Herder you yanks allowed your rights to be taken from you. The pussification of american society is almost complete.

As for debt go look at the rate of compound interest you guys pay if you want to know why things wont get better because the interest alone on the debt is greater then whats being paid back. Not talking at all about the principle amount...

[I/O]

How much of that debt was purely interest and payments on previous things (Bush medicare, 2 ongoing wars etc)?

How much did Obama grow the government?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

[ATTACH]61800[/ATTACH]

On May 24, 2012, Rick Ungar told the readers at Forbes.com that President Barack Obama "is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower." "[O]ur president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower," Ungar insisted.But Ungar actually reveals the error in the underlying analysis, saying, "The first year of any incoming president term is saddled - for better of for worse - with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant in the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush - and passed by the 2008 Congress - it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office."This is factually incorrect.The previous president proposes a budget, in February of the prior year. But the previous Congress approves, enacts and implements the budget. And what Congress approves, enacts, and implements can be radically different from what the President proposes.President Bush did not have a good record on spending. From the start of his first term, he and the Republican Congress began a spending spree that increased government spending by one seventh as a percent of GDP, virtually exactly erasing the gains achieved by the Congress led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton.But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama in his fourth year in the Senate. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved, enacted and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, "The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009's 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them." So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.Note as well that President Reagan didn't just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democrat Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democrat House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot (in Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase), total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama's first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive single piece of legislation in history up to that point. This record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don't promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.But this was just a warm up for Obama's Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi's Democrat Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn't already have way more than too much entitlement spending.Ungar's analysis proceeds by not counting as part of Obama's record all this precedent shattering fiscal 2009 spending, attributing that instead to Bush. But as I have just shown, Barack Obama was directly and personally responsible for the 2009 spending explosion. Of course from those stratospheric heights, the pace of further spending increases may seem slower, just like if Jack in the Beanstalk and the Jolly Green Giant both eat the same feast, the percentage weight gain for the Giant will be so much smaller than for Jack.Moreover, in the 2010 election, the voters elected a Republican majority House in a New Deal size, 63 seat landslide, precisely to shut down President Obama's runaway federal spending, deficits and debt. So that slowed the growth of federal spending in President Obama's last two years in office, though the Republican House had to take Obama to the brink of default on the national debt to win any spending restraint at all.Of course, that didn't stop Obama from earning his crown as the biggest government spender in world history. The biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, was enacted in March, 2010, before the 2010 elections could shut Obama down. That legislation, not yet even counted in Obama's spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014, is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.76 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years. Indeed, as explained in detail in my 2011 book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, that is surely still a gross underestimate.After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush's two terms. The average during President Clinton's two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 - - 19.7%. Obama's own budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4%, the highest for any Presidential term in American history, except for World War II. Even with a Republican Congress holding him back for half his term, President Obama still managed to increase the federal government by close to one-fourth during that one term, as compared to the average during the entire 60 plus years of the postwar era.In sharp contrast, when Eisenhower came into office in 1953, he cut federal spending that year of $76.1 billion, already just 2% of Obama's spending this year, to $70.9 billion in 1954, and again to $68.4 billion in 1955. Federal spending did not really climb above the 1953 level until 1958. During his first term, Eisenhower slashed federal spending from 20.4% of GDP when he came into office in 1953 to 16.5% of GDP in 1956. President Obama as noted above did just the opposite in increasing federal spending by roughly the same amount as a percent of GDP in his one term.Moreover, unbounded by the Republican House in his 2013 budget proposal for the future, President Obama's 2013 budget actually proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the highest in world history by far. Indeed, in that 2013 budget, President Obama proposes to send federal spending soaring by 2022 to $5.820 trillion for that one year, the highest government spending for one year for any nation in world history. Even Obama's own OMB scores spending under the President's 2013 budget as soaring to 30% of GDP by 2022, 50% above the long run, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP. So Obama aims in his 2013 budget to increase the federal government by half above the postwar, bipartisan consensus.CBO projects that on our current course, under current policies, federal spending would soar to 30 percent of GDP by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080. President Obama, by vociferously opposing any entitlement reform to reduce spending, instead vastly increasing entitlement spending with Obamacare and expanded SCHIP, would not do anything to take America off this path to third world oblivion. But the Left tells us that President Obama is tighter with a buck than any President since Eisenhower. That is why leaving liberals alone to play with numbers is like leaving small children alone to play with matches.

http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2012/09/27/obamas_the_biggest_spender_in_world_history/page/full

[King Mayan]

[thechaoz]

Lol Republicans won't win another Election for a very very long time without a major overhaul. They've lost complete touch with anything middle or lower class or gay or ethnic or anything other than rich white people. Shit can't even win educated white women lol
Educated unbiased observer here.

[TheGuesser]

Christie will look like Rex Ryan in 2 years. He looks like he's already lost a about 50 pounds in a year. The only question is if the R's are smart enough to go with a potential winner like him, or will go with a sure loser like the sicko Ted Cruz or Santorum, or some other wingnut that scares most of America. Christie against Hillary is a fascinating, winnable race for the R's. Hillary against a Cruz, or a Santorum, or a Perry, or a Paul, will be a rout of Reagan/Carter or Nixon/McGovern proportions.

[InTheDrink]

and you chimed in kettle

are you really that thick in the fukkin head?

[KingJD31]

Do youknow who rick ungar is?

How much of that debt was purely interest and payments on previous things (Bush medicare, 2 ongoing wars etc)?

How much did Obama grow the government?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

[ATTACH]61800[/ATTACH]

[SBR_John]

I'd personally rather lose again than cart out someone who continues the swirl down the drain.

We are $17 trillion in debt and adding .5 trillion every year. Govt revenues are just $2.5 trillion. Taxes are already suffocatingly high. Eventually we will elect, either by choice or in desperation, a president who will stop buying votes and slice spending. We are a couple of upticks away on interests rates to cause the interest payments on that $17 trillion debt from burying us permanently. For now just buy gold.

[jjgold]

If I had a safe I would put my 5k in it instead of the bank. The CHAOZ hit the nail on the head in his post. The bulk of future voters will be poor and middle class people as gap widening from them and minority rich.

[rkelly110]

I'd personally rather lose again than cart out someone who continues the swirl down the drain.

We are $17 trillion in debt and adding .5 trillion every year. Govt revenues are just $2.5 trillion. Taxes are already suffocatingly high. Eventually we will elect, either by choice or in desperation, a president who will stop buying votes and slice spending. We are a couple of upticks away on interests rates to cause the interest payments on that $17 trillion debt from burying us permanently. For now just buy gold.

Austerity has not done a damn thing in the Euro nations. When will our elected helmet heads and every day people realize that?

WE pay for the debt. If WE aren't working, the debt doesn't get paid. Trickle down has done nothing for over 30 years,
except make the rich richer.

Corporations dumped millions on the door step of the govt. Still are with hiring part time with shit wages and benefits.

When our govt realizes the corporations are the problem instead of the solution and make them pay their fair share,
is when we can turn this country around. If they want to leave, go. If they want to sell their goods here, tax the hell
out of them.

IT'S NOT OUR FAULT! Stop punishing the people!

[SBR_John]

Austerity has not done a damn thing in the Euro nations. When will our elected helmet heads and every day people realize that?

WE pay for the debt. If WE aren't working, the debt doesn't get paid. Trickle down has done nothing for over 30 years,
except make the rich richer.

Corporations dumped millions on the door step of the govt. Still are with hiring part time with shit wages and benefits.

When our govt realizes the corporations are the problem instead of the solution and make them pay their fair share,
is when we can turn this country around. If they want to leave, go. If they want to sell their goods here, tax the hell
out of them.

IT'S NOT OUR FAULT! Stop punishing the people!

I sure hope you didn't learn this economic theory in public school. US corporations pay the highest tax rate in the world. To tax them more would lower revenue to the government.-John F Kennedy

US corporations are moving out good US jobs to sell their products internationally and not have to pay a back breaking tax rate. That LOWERS revenue to the government and takes our jobs away compounding the problem.

When I drive to my office in Costa Rica I drive by a massive Intel plant which is down the road from Bridgestone. Down the next street is 4 giant buildings home of Hewlet Packard. A stone throw away is the new Oracle building which is right by Kraft and Bristol Myers. Makes me want to puke quite honestly. We need those jobs and we need the taxes. We need public policy to keep great jobs and tax revenue at home.

[SharpBoxing]

I hope Rand Paul gets the republican nomination.

Like somebody said earlier, Christie is basicaly a democrat

[rkelly110]

The US is the Wal-Mart of the world. Everyone wants their goods sold here. If our companies are making goods
overseas and bringing them back for nothing (no tax), we are losing out. No jobs for us who pays tax, no tax on
them, corporate or excise.

I would agree on cutting at home corporate tax, but put a high excise tax on US corporations manufacturing goods
in other countries bringing their goods here. Make it so high, they would have to bring their business home.

[Let's Go Rangers]

I don't want to be critical but I would suggest a good demist and a diet.

The Hillary - Christie debate would be fascinating.

Behind one podium would be a fat candidate with a poorly fitted suit and manly features

Behind the other podium would be Chris Christie...

[SBR_John]

The Hillary - Christie debate would be fascinating.

Behind one podium would be a fat candidate with a poorly fitted suit and manly features

Behind the other podium would be Chris Christie...

Oh man that's cold...!

I would keep an open mind on both. Hilary worked for Bill and Obama and Christie for the citizens of NJ. Hilary was right of Obama in the 08 election. Christie is spending less in NJ than the state did in 08 which is quite an accomplishment.

I'm looking for anyone who can bring back the American dream of a chance for prosperity. As opposed to leading us all to financial ruin. The $17 trillion debt is becoming less of a left right issue and more of a raging fire that will burn us all. I was 20 years old when we had 19% interest rates. If we tick up even a couple of points it will take every tax dollar just to pay the interest on $17 trillion. There will be no military or any food stamps. Both parties and all Americans will lose if we allow the debt to lead to a financial collapse.

[Let's Go Rangers]

Im going to make a bold prediction here.

Christie gets the 2016 nomination

AS A DEMOCRAT

Lots of "good will" being shown towards him these days by the left.

Something isn't right.

Usually the left is full of insults and hate.

I wouldn't be surprised if he switches parties and becomes the 2016 Democrat candidate

[jjgold]

Hillary has too much national power

Unbeatable

[Let's Go Rangers]

Hillary has too much national power

Unbeatable

if she has so much power why was she not the nominee in 2008 over a minority from Kenya that had no experience at all

[BriGuy]

Hillary has too much national power

Unbeatable

People said the exact same thing 6-8 years ago until a guy no one had heard of out-charisma'ed her elderly ass.

[PAULYPOKER]

too many poor and middle class people

ain't that the truth......

[Snowball]

Group forms to back Christie in 2016

[konck]

Come on saloon this shi.t

[unusialsusp5]

Everyone write in Julia Louis Dreyfus

she was old the first year of seinfeld. 22 years later haven't been kind to that hag.

[Boscoe]

He's got enough blue collar appeal to win in Iowa and South Carolina. New Hampshire should be a slam dunk.At this point hard to make anyone a fav over Christie for GOP nod.