Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani

[ConcordCowboy]

So the man who's basically running on 9/11 is taking the endorsement of the man who said that the reason 9/11 happened was because of this country's tolerance of abortion and gays.

Giuliani has been for gay rights and pro choice.

Lets not even mention his divorces which of course I'm sure Robertson is just crazy about.

:D


Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani


Conservative religious leader’s nod seen as helpful on social issue concerns


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21669328/

WASHINGTON - Televangelist Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.

"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said during a news conference with Giuliani in Washington.

The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with conservative GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade evangelical conservatives like Robertson to overlook their differences on those issues.

Evangelicals have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite of Christian conservatives who dropped out of the race last month, endorsed fellow Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.

Asked about the Robertson endorsement, McCain, at a news conference with Brownback in Dubuque, Iowa, said: "Every once in a while, I'm left speechless. This is one of those times."

Giuliani is best known to voters for leading New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly after 9/11, Robertson released a statement in which he said the attacks occurred because Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and "rampant Internet pornography."

Robertson made no mention of his differences with Giuliani on social issues in Wednesday's statement.

"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today," Robertson said.

Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.

Also Wednesday, Giuliani said he asked two GOP friends in Congress, Reps. Peter King of New York and Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, to introduce bills to keep states from giving licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.

The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, was criticized after a televised debate last week when she hedged an answer on whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's effort to grant licenses to illegal immigrants. Her aides say she generally supports the idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform.

[trickblue]

"Politics makes for Strange Bedfellows, and I have been in a lot of beds..."

--Scipio, son of Flora

[ConcordCowboy]

"Politics makes for Strange Bedfellows, and I have been in a lot of beds..."

--Scipio, son of Flora

This sure is a strange one.:D

[peplaw06]

I don't know why disagreement on a few key issues means you cannot support a candidate.

There's probably not gonna be a candidate who aligns perfectly with my views in the primaries. And there's definitely not going to be one in the general election. So you decide who aligns with some of your key issues combined with someone who you think can actually win, and go with it.

Doesn't seem complicated to me.

The two party system generally leads to voters picking the lesser of two evils. Doesn't mean all voters are hypocrites for voting for a guy who doesn't align with the perfectly.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't know why disagreement on a few key issues means you cannot support a candidate.

There's probably not gonna be a candidate who aligns perfectly with my views in the primaries. And there's definitely not going to be one in the general election. So you decide who aligns with some of your key issues combined with someone who you think can actually win, and go with it.

Doesn't seem complicated to me.

The two party system generally leads to voters picking the lesser of two evils. Doesn't mean all voters are hypocrites for voting for a guy who doesn't align with the perfectly.

When your main disagreement with political issues is those two topics...and you endorse a person who seems to be direct opposite of your view points on that issue.

That is strange.

This is not an average joe endorsing a candidate here.

Especially considering there are candidates that better align with his beliefs.

Romney, Huckabee, McCain to name three.

I guess he would rather pick a pro gay and pro lifer over a mormon.:D

[AtlCB]

When your main disagreement with political issues is those two topics...and you endorse a person who seems to be direct opposite of your view points on that issue.

That is strange.

This is not an average joe endorsing a candidate here.

Especially considering there are candidates that better align with his beliefs.

Romney, Huckabee, McCain to name three.

I guess he would rather pick a pro gay and pro lifer over a mormon.:DI thought the endorsement was odd as well. Guiliani is certainly not a religious right supporter. I guess will see Jerry Faldwell endorse Ron Paul next. :lmao2:

[ConcordCowboy]

When your main disagreement with political issues is those two topics...and you endorse a person who seems to be direct opposite of your view points on that issue.

That is strange.

This is not an average joe endorsing a candidate here.

Especially considering there are candidates that better align with his beliefs.

Romney, Huckabee, McCain to name three.

I guess he would rather pick a pro gay and pro lifer over a mormon.:D

Bingo.

Plus the fact that basically Robertson's saying that we deserved 9/11 because of those issues.

He's Nuts.

[ConcordCowboy]

I thought the endorsement was odd as well. Guiliani is certainly not a religious right supporter. I guess will see Jerry Faldwell endorse Ron Paul next. :lmao2:

Not unless it's from the grave.:D

[Danny White]

This confirms what I've long suspected about Robertson... zero credibility.

He sees Rudy as the clear front-runner, and he wants a place at the table if he's elected.

[Doomsday101]

This confirms what I've long suspected about Robertson... zero credibility.

He sees Rudy as the clear front-runner, and he wants a place at the table if he's elected.

I agree. I consider myself a republican but not a fan of Pat Robertson. His endorsement of any candidate means nothing to me.

[trickblue]

This confirms what I've long suspected about Robertson... zero credibility.

He sees Rudy as the clear front-runner, and he wants a place at the table if he's elected.

Robertson is a snake-oil salesman... like many in the "church business"...

[ConcordCowboy]

This confirms what I've long suspected about Robertson... zero credibility.

He sees Rudy as the clear front-runner, and he wants a place at the table if he's elected.

Yep...so when Giuliani gets elected (NOT:D ) and has a chance to nominate some Supreme Courts Justicies...he will be pushing obviously Anti-Gay/Abortion judges.

JMO.

[peplaw06]

When your main disagreement with political issues is those two topics...and you endorse a person who seems to be direct opposite of your view points on that issue.

That is strange.

This is not an average joe endorsing a candidate here.

Especially considering there are candidates that better align with his beliefs.

Romney, Huckabee, McCain to name three.

I guess he would rather pick a pro gay and pro lifer over a mormon.:DWell, the President-to-be isn't going to have nearly as much influence on those two issues as he will on the every day things, like the economy, the war, taxes etc. The only real influence he has on those issues is with who he nominates as SCOTUS justices if he gets that chance.

Most people think Giuliani will nominate justices who are constructionists or align with the original intent of the Constitution, and are in favor of judicial restraint. Once the justice gets on the bench, you lose control on that issue. You can't predict how a justice will rule on everything before they actually do it.

Plus I don't think any of those other three have much of a chance to win. McCain may play better to the moderates, but I doubt he could beat Hillary.

[jterrell]

Most people think Giuliani will nominate justices who are constructionists or align with the original intent of the Constitution, and are in favor of judicial restraint. Once the justice gets on the bench, you lose control on that issue. You can't predict how a justice will rule on everything before they actually do it.


Then people are dumb:)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html
When Rudy Giuliani faces Republicans concerned about his support of gay rights and legal abortion, he reassures them that he is a conservative on the decisions that matter most.

"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

But most of Giuliani's judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said.

[peplaw06]

Then people are dumb:)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.htmlMy first reaction to that article is...

How does a Mayor of a city appoint judges?

I've seriously never heard of a mayor appointing a judge to any court of significance, and certainly not one who would have the power to rule a Blue Law unconstitutional -- and be the final say.

Then even if he does do some appointing, it's New York City, the mayor wouldn't be appointing anyone to any court outside of that city. And New York is a pretty liberal city. What kind of candidates does he have to choose from? Yep, you guessed it.

So I did some further reading, go to the comments section after that article, and you'll find this piece by someone who at least sounds like they know what they're talking about.

I posted this earlier but I just can not let the conversation continue and this meme to be unchallenged by the truth.

A panel of organizations like the various Bars of the city, non profit agencies,i.ie. "do-good" organizations comprise the panels that send candidates to the mayor of NYC.

THE PANEL SELECTS 3 CANDIDATES FROM WITHIN A HUGELY DEMOCRATIC CITY TO PRESENT TO THE MAYOR. THE MAYOR CHOOSES ONE AMONGST THE 3- THE LIKELIHOOD OF A RIGHT WINGER COMING OUT OF THESE PANELS IS NEXT TO NIL.

Therefore the choices Guiliani made tells us about the composition of these panels and nada, niente, gornischt, zip, zero about who Guiliani would appoint to the Supreme Court.

With Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas we have 4 votes to overturn Roe on the court now. The next president, if he's Guiliani will knowingly appoint another Justice like Alito and Roberts who will overturn Roe. Rudy has already said he will nominate judges like Alito.

So Ben's study of his appointees in the most Democratic city in the United States is cute and sly, but actually misleads us, the voting public on who exactly Rudy Guiliani is.

[burmafrd]

gee, Jterrel, Really need to check these things out a little better.

[burmafrd]

Gotta admit that I was suprised that Robertson endorsed G. Probably correct that he is looking for clout. Though this DOES help G as Robertson still has a fair amount of influence with Christian Conservatives.

[jterrell]

My first reaction to that article is...

How does a Mayor of a city appoint judges?

I've seriously never heard of a mayor appointing a judge to any court of significance, and certainly not one who would have the power to rule a Blue Law unconstitutional -- and be the final say.

Then even if he does do some appointing, it's New York City, the mayor wouldn't be appointing anyone to any court outside of that city. And New York is a pretty liberal city. What kind of candidates does he have to choose from? Yep, you guessed it.

So I did some further reading, go to the comments section after that article, and you'll find this piece by someone who at least sounds like they know what they're talking about.

That is a good note but slightly misleading.

The council was all accomplished lawyers split between law professors, former us prosecutors, and former ny supreme court judges. Without a list of candidates we can not assume he routinely chose the most conservative candidate. Further judges are seldom as liberal as any populace.

Guiliani was not forced to do anything. He was proven a liberal mayor, with liberal ideas. He is running as a Republican because of 9/11 and nothing else. He has nothing else in his record to make happy waves with Repubs.

NYC is amazingly liberal and yet they loved Rudy.

[Danny White]

Guiliani was not forced to do anything. He was proven a liberal mayor, with liberal ideas. He is running as a Republican because of 9/11 and nothing else. He has nothing else in his record to make happy waves with Repubs.

NYC is amazingly liberal and yet they loved Rudy.

I can't believe that Rudy is having this much success pulling the wool over people's eyes.

If any conservative really thinks Rudy's going to support their ideas once he's in office, they're in for a rude awakening. :(

[peplaw06]

That is a good note but slightly misleading.

The council was all accomplished lawyers split between law professors, former us prosecutors, and former ny supreme court judges. Without a list of candidates we can not assume he routinely chose the most conservative candidate. Further judges are seldom as liberal as any populace. How is it misleading?

Giuliani still wasn't able to pick from anyone he wanted. He was provided with some names and had to choose. While true that you can't assume he chose the most conservative of the candidates every time, you definitely can't fault him for an 8:1 ratio of liberal judges appointed. THAT is the misleading part.

Guiliani was not forced to do anything. He was proven a liberal mayor, with liberal ideas. He is running as a Republican because of 9/11 and nothing else. He has nothing else in his record to make happy waves with Repubs. That's misleading too. He was tough on crime, he was fiscally conservative, he changed zoning laws to move adult stores to the edges of neighborhoods....

Is he less conservative than GW for example, of course. I'd think you'd be happy about that. He's closer to the center and that worries the dems, because that's really the only chance for a GOP candidate to win.

[jterrell]

How is it misleading?

Giuliani still wasn't able to pick from anyone he wanted. He was provided with some names and had to choose. While true that you can't assume he chose the most conservative of the candidates every time, you definitely can't fault him for an 8:1 ratio of liberal judges appointed. THAT is the misleading part.

That's misleading too. He was tough on crime, he was fiscally conservative, he changed zoning laws to move adult stores to the edges of neighborhoods....

Is he less conservative than GW for example, of course. I'd think you'd be happy about that. He's closer to the center and that worries the dems, because that's really the only chance for a GOP candidate to win.

Actually you are basing all your info off of a single post that didn't include a single citation.

The system exists at the Mayor's whim, and can be altered at his whim, as it was by Giuliani.

Most broadly, the system isn't in the City Charter. It exists under executive order, which the mayor can revoke or alter at any time. Giuliani altered the prior executive order, shrinking the panel to 19 members.

As for the panel's "independence," it is, by recent tradition, quite independent. By design however, it's totally dependent on the Mayor. He appoints its chairman and 8 other members directly. He appoints the other 10 on the recommendation of law school deans and state appellate judges, a recommendation to which he is not bound."

So ultimately he was able to pick his council.

The argument he had to choose liberals based on suggestions is fancy footwork by his camp. Rudy was currying favor with groups he needed t win elections.. same as he is doing now by boldface lying about his past.

I will be quite happy when/if Guiliani wins the Repub nomination because A) it signals a move to the center no matter who wins.

B) Rudy is Hillary with pants on and 3 marriages. They are both moderate NY politicians.

Rudy did a great job in NYC on crime(in part because 12K policemen were hired just before he took office) but he was not fiscally conservative. Spending actually rose during his tenure. He did reduce welfare rolls but we were in a booming economy and welfare rolls were reduced partly by Bill Clinton's own national welfare overhaul.

Rudy developed a rep in NYC as an egomaniac with thin skin.

He did overall do a very good job as mayor.

[Ben_n_austin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTikva6O8I

[burmafrd]

Jterrel, why do you keep trying to claim that Hillary is a moderate. SHE IS A LIBERAL. Everything she has said and done since becoming a senator has been towards this election. So she has tried to appear as a moderate since she knows a liberal will not win elections as president. You are very interestingly ignoring her whole previous history as a liberal. That is why she is working so hard to deny publication of any white house documents from the clinton administration since that would prove she was to the left of Billy Boy.

[jterrell]

Jterrel, why do you keep trying to claim that Hillary is a moderate. SHE IS A LIBERAL. Everything she has said and done since becoming a senator has been towards this election. So she has tried to appear as a moderate since she knows a liberal will not win elections as president. You are very interestingly ignoring her whole previous history as a liberal. That is why she is working so hard to deny publication of any white house documents from the clinton administration since that would prove she was to the left of Billy Boy.

Burma, prior to being a Senator what record exactly did she have as a politician?

Was she a liberal when she campaigned for McGovern?
Was she a liberal as president of the young republicans in college?

She tried to pass a liberal health-care plan. Thats really all she has done to get painted so liberally.

Bill was a moderate and so is she.
If she isn't please do detail an area other than rights for kids or women(which she has always stated is the only reason she left the republican party and became a democrat) where she pushed, passed or drove liberal legislation....

She gets labeled a liberal because she was an outspoken woman in the white house and the hillbillies on neo-con radio didn't like that. So she was vilified with every negative connotation that could be tossed her way. For whatever reason, liberal stuck.

If you do not believe her political career has been more moderate than Guiliani you would be fooling yourself.

[AtlCB]

Burma, prior to being a Senator what record exactly did she have as a politician?

Was she a liberal when she campaigned for McGovern?
Was she a liberal as president of the young republicans in college?

She tried to pass a liberal health-care plan. Thats really all she has done to get painted so liberally.

Bill was a moderate and so is she.
If she isn't please do detail an area other than rights for kids or women(which she has always stated is the only reason she left the republican party and became a democrat) where she pushed, passed or drove liberal legislation....

She gets labeled a liberal because she was an outspoken woman in the white house and the hillbillies on neo-con radio didn't like that. So she was vilified with every negative connotation that could be tossed her way. For whatever reason, liberal stuck.

If you do not believe her political career has been more moderate than Guiliani you would be fooling yourself.
Let's ignore the fact that the lady never saw a tax increase she didn't like in Congress. I believe Guiliani cut taxes in New York. The only area that the two are close on is their rejection of the religious right enforcing their ideas on morality on the rest of us.

[Ben_n_austin]

I can't believe that Rudy is having this much success pulling the wool over people's eyes.

If any conservative really thinks Rudy's going to support their ideas once he's in office, they're in for a rude awakening. :(

I agree.

[Ben_n_austin]

Let's ignore the fact that the lady never saw a tax increase she didn't like in Congress. I believe Guiliani cut taxes in New York. The only area that the two are close on is their rejection of the religious right enforcing their ideas on morality on the rest of us.

Have you seen the Federal Budget and the National Deficit?

Denying that there NEEDS to be a tax increase is ostrich thinking.

[peplaw06]

Actually you are basing all your info off of a single post that didn't include a single citation.

The system exists at the Mayor's whim, and can be altered at his whim, as it was by Giuliani.

Most broadly, the system isn't in the City Charter. It exists under executive order, which the mayor can revoke or alter at any time. Giuliani altered the prior executive order, shrinking the panel to 19 members.

As for the panel's "independence," it is, by recent tradition, quite independent. By design however, it's totally dependent on the Mayor. He appoints its chairman and 8 other members directly. He appoints the other 10 on the recommendation of law school deans and state appellate judges, a recommendation to which he is not bound."

So ultimately he was able to pick his council.

The argument he had to choose liberals based on suggestions is fancy footwork by his camp. Rudy was currying favor with groups he needed t win elections.. same as he is doing now by boldface lying about his past. So instead of actually looking at his appointment of the judges, you'd rather chide him for not changing the entire system or the people on the board? Seems like a pretty big backtrack from the original article.

I will be quite happy when/if Guiliani wins the Repub nomination because A) it signals a move to the center no matter who wins.

B) Rudy is Hillary with pants on and 3 marriages. They are both moderate NY politicians.

Rudy did a great job in NYC on crime(in part because 12K policemen were hired just before he took office) but he was not fiscally conservative. Spending actually rose during his tenure. He did reduce welfare rolls but we were in a booming economy and welfare rolls were reduced partly by Bill Clinton's own national welfare overhaul.

Rudy developed a rep in NYC as an egomaniac with thin skin.

He did overall do a very good job as mayor. The difference is I don't think Rudy is as much of a manufactured moderate as Hillary is. She's been moving to the center ever since Bill left office, and backing off a bunch of positions, to where I got the impression she doesn't really believe what she's saying.

Rudy may have said he's changed his stances on a couple of issues, but near as I can tell, he's mostly the same guy.

And I don't believe Rudy and Hillary are as close as you suggest.

[peplaw06]

Have you seen the Federal Budget and the National Deficit?

Denying that there NEEDS to be a tax increase is ostrich thinking.

Why is a tax increase the only way to decrease the deficit and balance the budget? Oh right, I understand now.

[trickblue]

Have you seen the Federal Budget and the National Deficit?

Denying that there NEEDS to be a tax increase is ostrich thinking.

I disagree Ben... what needs to happen is for Congress to stop spending frivolously...

If they were half as responsible as most Americans have to be, this would be a better country...

I'm not willing to give them a blank check...

[AtlCB]

Have you seen the Federal Budget and the National Deficit?

Denying that there NEEDS to be a tax increase is ostrich thinking.I disagree with this statement. The federal government should be forced to become more efficient and learn to prioritize. Corporations would file bankruptcy and the officers would be jailed if they operated in the same manner as the federal government. Billions of dollars are also wasted on Iraq, foreign aide, failed social programs, pork barrel spending, wages for unproductive government workers (we are unable to fire them), fraud, and abuse.

[trickblue]

I disagree with this statement. The federal government should be forced to become more efficient and learn to prioritize. Corporations would file bankruptcy and the officers would be jailed if they operated in the same manner as the federal government. Billions of dollars are also wasted on Iraq, foreign aide, failed social programs, pork barrel spending, wages for unproductive government workers (we are unable to fire them), fraud, and abuse.

As in my above post... I agree wholeheartedly...

Our congress needs to control spending. Line item veto goes a long way in that respect, but since our SC can't seem to get together on it, it may never happen...

I am tired of throwing good money after ridiculous projects...

[theebs]

anyone who cares what pat robertson thinks and then votes accordingly has problems. Its people like robertson who have this country in a bind.

[Ben_n_austin]

I disagree with this statement. The federal government should be forced to become more efficient and learn to prioritize. Corporations would file bankruptcy and the officers would be jailed if they operated in the same manner as the federal government. Billions of dollars are also wasted on Iraq, foreign aide, failed social programs, pork barrel spending, wages for unproductive government workers (we are unable to fire them), fraud, and abuse.


It sounds like you want to vote for Mike Gravel. :o:

[Ben_n_austin]

I disagree Ben... what needs to happen is for Congress to stop spending frivolously...

If they were half as responsible as most Americans have to be, this would be a better country...

I'm not willing to give them a blank check...

I disagree with myself, too, a little bit. But when I look at the numbers, it's outright scary. We are literally, by the numbers, the poorest country in the world...

Of course we have assets, and thus value... but it's not like we're an invincible economic power like we once were. Us owing people money keeps us somewhat safe if you take that perspective.

But it's also not good for the economy.

[ConcordCowboy]

I disagree Ben... what needs to happen is for Congress to stop spending frivolously...

If they were half as responsible as most Americans have to be, this would be a better country...

I'm not willing to give them a blank check...

Speaking of spending frivolously and a blank check.

Look at these numbers...

This needs to stop.


http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

[AtlCB]

Speaking of spending frivolously and a blank check.

Look at these numbers...

This needs to stop.


http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html
I think this is part of the problem. I am for bringing the troops home like the Dems, but I am not with the party as far as spending goes. You are ignoring all of the other wasteful spending that is occurring. If we bring the troops home immediately, the Democratic Congress will find another way to waste this money. They will then raise taxes significantly and blame the need to increase taxes on the war. The government could accomplish what it is doing now and balance the budget (without raiding the social security trust fund) by becoming more efficient and policing itself. The government will not do this, because we have too many corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle.

[ConcordCowboy]

I think this is part of the problem. I am for bringing the troops home like the Dems, but I am not with the party as far as spending goes. You are ignoring all of the other wasteful spending that is occurring. If we bring the troops home immediately, the Democratic Congress will find another way to waste this money. They will then raise taxes significantly and blame the need to increase taxes on the war. The government could accomplish what it is doing now and balance the budget (without raiding the social security trust fund) by becoming more efficient and policing itself. The government will not do this, because we have too many corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle.

The waste of money on the War in Iraq...is but just another in a long line of wasteful things coming out of Washington.

It probably will never change and that's a shame.

[jterrell]

I disagree with this statement. The federal government should be forced to become more efficient and learn to prioritize. Corporations would file bankruptcy and the officers would be jailed if they operated in the same manner as the federal government. Billions of dollars are also wasted on Iraq, foreign aide, failed social programs, pork barrel spending, wages for unproductive government workers (we are unable to fire them), fraud, and abuse.

Ixnay to the exnay on that.
Corporations are run by short term CEO's who pump and dump the stocks.

America is being run the same way right now; short-term.

Let's go fight all over the world because we want to be "safe" but alas, let's not worry we are destructing our economy or leaving our country in oodles of debt to someone who has major nuclear capabilities.

Companies do not save money, they lie about it, get caught, file bankruptcy.
CEO's recycle like NFL coaches. They are Bill Parcells. Show up, spend 3 years collecting big checks then hasta la vista baby. And be sure they get a raise at each stop.

We do need to increase tax rolls but it should be in corporate taxes. We also need to become more efficient and wiser as a government. There really is no need to be efficient or run properly if it is all play money and we never intend to balance the budget.