Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The National Taxpayers Union’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50."
And that is in a democrat leaning state. The senators that beat him were in very red states. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ft_629850.html
Enough said. Go read every BIG GUBBERMINT vote of this and then we can talk. Fiscal conservative, my FOOT!
The Weekly Standard is the neocon flagship publication and would throw their support behind whoever can trigger a new war the fastest. Frothy is their man - the Christian Ayatollah who hates the Muslim Ayatollahs.
Enough said. Go read every BIG GUBBERMINT vote of this and then we can talk. Fiscal conservative, my FOOT!
The Weekly Standard is the neocon flagship publication and would throw their support behind whoever can trigger a new war the fastest. Frothy is their man - the Christian Ayatollah who hates the Muslim Ayatollahs.
Is the National Taxpayers Union somehow not trustworthy?
Wow this is really an exhausting list for 12 years in the senate?
Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc.
Many of these items were attached to general appropriation bills. Nothing would ever get passed if every item were voted against in a particular bill. Part of the sausage making process. But he was better than 90% of the other senators.
Good food for thought. Remember that the period from 2000-2006, which accounts for half of this analysis, was a big spending binge by the GOP. Federal spending during those years was increased at a faster rate than any time since LBJ. Hence saying that Santorum was 5th best during those years is like saying he was the fifth fittest guy in the cancer ward.
I think the NTU is trustworthy and probably it's fair to say that Santorum is not as bad as he's being made out during this primary season. Club for Growth also has some analysis out of Santorum's voting record. Here's a 'fact check' of Ron Paul's charge that Santorum was a 'big government conservative.' FACT CHECK: Santorum a
Quote:
Originally Posted by club for growth
on balance, Santorum’s record in congress is generally one of favoring bigger government and more spending – not atypical during the Bush years where Santorum served in Senate leadership.
Note also that R's controlled everything during this time, so arguably they went on a binge when they had a golden opportunity to reduce gov't.
Good food for thought. Remember that the period from 2000-2006, which accounts for half of this analysis, was a big spending binge by the GOP. Federal spending during those years was increased at a faster rate than any time since LBJ. Hence saying that Santorum was 5th best during those years is like saying he was the fifth fittest guy in the cancer ward.
I think the NTU is trustworthy and probably it's fair to say that Santorum is not as bad as he's being made out during this primary season. Club for Growth also has some analysis out of Santorum's voting record. Here's a 'fact check' of Ron Paul's charge that Santorum was a 'big government conservative.' FACT CHECK: Santorum a
Note also that R's controlled everything during this time, so arguably they went on a binge when they had a golden opportunity to reduce gov't.
I agree too much spending took place during that time. Still, not nearly as much as 2007-2012.
Santorum helped cut the blank checks for W, nobody can ever call him a fiscal conservative. The man not only voted for the bridge to nowhere but he has defended his vote on it over and over.
Is the National Taxpayers Union somehow not trustworthy?
Wow this is really an exhausting list for 12 years in the senate?
Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc.
Many of these items were attached to general appropriation bills. Nothing would ever get passed if every item were voted against in a particular bill. Part of the sausage making process. But he was better than 90% of the other senators.
If the NTU did not take into account Frothy's votes which helped expand government, then yes, they are not trustworthy. Besides, it's relative grading. During the times of Bush, almost every Republican (except Paul, whom everyone laughed at then) betrayed their conservative values in their frenzy for expanded government and control to combat "terrorists". That does not mean that if someone betrayed conservative values only a little bit, that person is any better than the rest. Either you fully stand for conservatism or you don't. Anything in between is not acceptable.
When big spending items are included as part of general appropriation bills, a principled congressman/senator should stand up and ask for it to be removed from it and not vote for the bill unless they are removed from it - that's what he should do. Not gleefully vote for it and then say later "oh, I couldn't have done anything". That's a hypocritical and sorry excuse.
Paul is the benchmark by which I will measure fiscal conservatism. Dare beat it? Can you even come 100 miles close?
Frothy is a fiscal liberal and a social nutjob - it's a deadly combination. He will tug at the heartstrings of the Koran-burning, chastity-pimping, gay-bashing, women-hating, extreme-right, frothing at the mouth Christian Taliban, but will scare the bejesus out of anyone sane. He has no issues blowing taxpayer dollars to keep this fringe group happy.
I agree too much spending took place during that time. Still, not nearly as much as 2007-2012.
Very true, and I will vote for him over Barack Obama if he is the nominee. Look over his ratings from various advocacy groups in the other thread (cato aggregated ratings). He generally gets low to mid 80's from anti tax/spend groups. Not perfect, but not bad either. He gets low ratings from civil liberties groups such as ACLU, reflecting his authoritarianism, but he gets an A+ from the NRA.
And BTW, I consider the 'Senator Frothy' label as hater-style lingo, and pretty much discredits anyone who uses it. If nothing else, it's not the imagery I want floating thru my brain on an otherwise beautiful day. (in case someone is unaware, the 'frothy' label is a reference to an effort by a Seattle activist to link the name 'Santorum' to The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.)
It is interesting how people can play trick with numbers.
Just look at 1% and 99% comparison.
Person A: Make $1,000,000 a year and pay 50% in tax. Which will net him $500,000
Person B: Make $50,000 a year and pay 10%. Which will net him $45,000
If both get a 10% rise and tax is same. This is what both get.
Person A: Make $1,100,000 a year and pay 50% in tax. Which will net him $550,000
Person B: Make $55,000 a year and pay 10%. Which will net him $49,500
Just looking at the math, both get a 10% rise.
However, a smart statisticians will argument it is unfair. Because Person A is getting a 1111% more in raise than Person B. He take 50,000/4,500 = 1111%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
