Speaking of deficits, how about that empty space between Newt's ears?!
Printable View
Speaking of deficits, how about that empty space between Newt's ears?!
OMK, I agree. But what's causing the deficits? Well, two things: the exorbitant military spending and our inefficient health care system.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Ron Paul - Defense Spending (CNN Debate) - YouTube
Even two-faced Obama supported single-payer when he was running as the "left-liberal" candidate.
Single-payer would greatly curtail costs. But it's seen as politically unfeasible. Meaning: big pharma and the big insurance industry don't want it.
Most Americans want it. But in a democracy majority opinion means nothing... :)
Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube
And check out the deficits under Reagan, Bush the father and the holy son -- :)
Budget Deficits under Reagan, Bush41 and Bush 43 - YouTube
Of course Dubya's policies led to far more of our current debt than Obama's policies have, but no matter. He'll be re-elected.
We saw the end of Newtmentum tonight. Romney showed he could be a fighter (his new debate coach needs an immediate raise!), which is what the GOP base is really looking for and why they were drawn to Gingrich in the first place. While Gingrich showed that even when the crowd is allowed to cheer, defending crazy proposals (We'll colonize the moon! How? With fabulous prizes!) still sounds crazy. That's supposed to be Ron Paul's gig when he rants about gold (GOLD!). Still, god bless Ron Paul for letting a little sanity into these debates on foreign policy and civil liberties.
It may be hail-mary time for Gingrich. I by that I mean getting a new wife named Mary.
I admit on the face of it, the idea of lunar colonies seems fantastical.However,one thing that has been overlooked in the rush to attack newt is something called helium 3 and how it is in abundance on the moon,massive desposits of the stuff . Whoever is able to extract helium 3 basically could become very rich .It apparently can be used as an energy source ,that could be an alternative to oil. This is why the indians for instance want in on it. Getting on the moon isn't just about planting a flag there .
And sadly for the naysayers on the left who want Obama to face romney,who is the embodiment of the one percent newt is far from finished. Romney will be very worried about wall street journal polls out today. amongst the 4 candidates that are left, gingrich beats romney by 9 points amongst registered republicans nationally. When the race is just between newt vs romney the difference is even more stark, in the south,something like 65-28 percent.
Arnie, I accept your point about Helium deposits on the Moon, but there is no consensus here on earth about the merits or demerits of hydraulic fracturing, and the glib assumption made by some that global warming will open up more of the Arctic Ocean region to petroleum exploration than is being done at the moment is belied by the lack of consensus on the phenomenon of sea ice and its threat to pipelines and rigs. The long term possibility is that the technology to extract minerals from other planets will exist -but will the capital?Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie666
Setting aside the jokes about Subway and hotels, is this a financially realistic proposition for the second term of the 'next President'? The State of California can't even raise the cash to build a railroad from LA to San Francisco.
In the interests of balance, and as the author of this thread, the link below is a report in the New York Times which argues that the technology exists to put people on the Moon in protected modules/buildings; and emphasises therefore that the main obstacles to realising this are financial and political.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/sc...ted=1&_r=2&hpw