Poor Chris, he was having a flashback to when he worked for the liberal networks. She answered and constantly repeating the same question more than once is idiotic.

She won’t answer the question.

Typical Republican.

All she does is deflect, then attack her opponent.

She won’t get into the nitty-gritty.

This is why she will lose in California.

WHAT WILL SHE CUT? ANSWER THE QUESTION CARLY!

You don’t get to blast Dems on spending then talk brazenly about how you will balance the budget without getting into specifics.

Tax cuts for the rich when California can’t afford it?

Sorry, Carly, you lose.

Game over.

Thank you, Chris Wallace, for doing exactly what a real journalist is suppose to do.

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for 4 years and the White House for 2 years. All they have done is increase the deficit.

The Democrats could have eliminated the Bush tax cuts before Congress adjourned. Why didn’t they do that?

Where are the Democratic solutions to the deficit or entitlement programs?

“Where are the Democratic solutions to the deficit or entitlement programs?”

Raise taxes on the rich and cut wasteful spending across multiple different government entities. That is what Bill Clinton did and our economy grew at an unmatched pace in the 1990s.

AND Clinton balanced the budget.

Thanks for asking how to fix the economy (it always takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush, I still want Hilary to run).

Today’s performance by Chris Wallace was the last straw for our family. When you invite a guest on your show, then ask a seemingly endless question and interrupt the guest constantly as they try to answer, you display a bias not usually found on a FOX straight news show. Today was enough for us and FNS is off our schedule. Wallace needs his own opinion show…perhaps on MSNBC or CNN.

FOX needs to replace Wallace with Steve Hayes…and soon. Until then, adiós FNS.

Yes Phocus I agree!

How DARE Chris Wallace not just allow Carly to say whatever she wants unchallenged!

shootfromthehip said:
Clinton balanced the budget

Any budget balancing Clinton did was forced on him by the Republican congress. The following article was written in Oct 2008.
–
…And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

…Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The most important sentence is:

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

Bill Clinton was no deficit hawk. If he and Hillary had had their way, we would already be crushed by skyrocketing deficits that we are now seeing under Pres Obama.

She answered the question like every teabagger would! You liberals are dumb. *Real Americans* know this – why won’t you guys understand? The teabagger politicians answer is to run in circles because fellow teabaggers are the only smart ones who get the “answer”. Go Teabagging!

teabagging rulz said:
She answered the question like every teabagger would! You liberals are dumb. *Real Americans* know this – why won’t you guys understand? The teabagger politicians answer is to run in circles because fellow teabaggers are the only smart ones who get the “answer”. Go Teabagging!

HA.

Well played, sir!

shootfromthehip said:
She won’t answer the question.

Typical Republican.

All she does is deflect, then attack her opponent.

Fiorina did not answer Wallace’s question. Maybe you can answer mine. The Treasury estimates extending the so called tax cuts will will cost $4 trillion. Extending those cuts to those making over $250,000 will cost $700,000. Using simple arithmetic, that would mean extending the tax cuts to the middle class will cost $3.3 trillion. Wallace should, in turn, ask Barbara Boxer what specific entitlements is she willing to cut to make up for the $3.3 trillion?

The term tax cuts is a misnomer. A tax cut is essentially money government won’t get from income earners, but the political hacks treat tax cuts as money they feel government deserves. Tax cuts, properly defined, is money government won’t be able to spend (waste).

gordonbloyershow said:
Poor Chris, he was having a flashback to when he worked for the liberal networks. She answered and constantly repeating the same question more than once is idiotic.

Poor Basil – she answered the question as expected; like a politician.

Poor Glynnis has a bitch on for conservative women….she most have her monthly friend.

Rusty Shackelford said:
Poor Glynnis has a bitch on for conservative women….she most have her monthly friend.

Poor rusty – maybe you next post will actually be coherent.

teabagging rulz said:
She answered the question like every lib would ! You people are dumb. I know what is best for you!

Now it’s correct!

notsofast said:
Now it’s correct!

Your mullet strongly disagrees.

notsofast said:
Now it’s correct!

You are right notsofast (= veryslowanddumb?). My apologies. All liberals just wish they were getting teabagged like your fellow teabaggers. Good catch! You sir, are a genius.

With all due respect, Chris Wallace was rude and kept interrupting her. When he treats democrats in the same fashion, I would agree with Glynnis. He can be a good interviewer, but he kisses up to the dems and never interrupts them like he does with conservatives.

Glynnis – member of NOW (the organization that embraces democrats who call conservative women “whores”).

TfT said:
With all due respect, Chris Wallace was rude and kept interrupting her. When he treats democrats in the same fashion, I would agree with Glynnis. He can be a good interviewer, but he kisses up to the dems and never interrupts them like he does with conservatives.

Glynnis – member of NOW (the organization that embraces democrats who call conservative women “whores”).

What planet do you live on? He treats everyone the same way.

TfT said:
but he kisses up to the dems and never interrupts them like he does with conservatives.

I guess you didn’t see his interview with Bill Clinton. Wallace kept trying to interrupt Clinton but Clinton is too smart of a politician to let it happen.

the real john t said:
I guess you didn’t see his interview with Bill Clinton. Wallace kept trying to interrupt Clinton but Clinton is too smart of a politician to let it happen.

TfT doesn’t know what he/she is talking about – he/she is simply making shit up. A tea-bag trademark.

It would have been a good thing if Democrat candidates are questioned in this manner by Obama’s official cheer-leading network (MSNBC)

Glynnis MacNicolI said:> will spare you the rest of Fiorina’s circular talk and just say that no, she would not name a single entitlement.

I saw the whole interview live. Chris is good to really ask tough questions of all sides, but this question is political poison to anyone answering truthfully. That’s why she didn’t answer, but her last answer (which Glynnis did not acknowledge) was pretty much on the mark, indicating it would require both parties to address the issue.

To rephrase it, it’s an interesting concept and it’s the way it should always be done. There is so much at stake and it is serious. Many will get hurt. All parties that have a stake should be represented in an open public debate. They should be allowed to offer suggestions and allow others to follow with ammendments. After suitable discussion they should vote on it, and revote with compromises until a plans is approved and that meets constitutional tests. Having been DEBATED and VOTED on by ALL parties at risk, the plan would be law.

It’s a matter of Naming Your Own Poison, if it is necessary.

Glynnis MacNicol said:
I will spare you the rest of Fiorina’s circular talk and just say that no, she would not name a single entitlement. Eventually Wallace was forced to go to break. Two things. It was interesting to see that when backed into a corner Fiorina was willing to pull out the popular Tea Party anti-media argument; “you’re asking a typical political question” as if this is somehow irresponsible of Wallace. Even better was Wallace’s swift, unapologetic reaction. Watch the clip below. I think there is a case to be made that Wallace is currently the strongest Sunday morning interviewer out there.

Fiorina did not answer Wallace’s question. Maybe you can answer mine. The Treasury estimates extending the so called tax cuts will will cost $4 trillion. Extending those cuts to those making over $250,000 will cost $700,000. Using simple arithmetic, that would mean extending the tax cuts to the middle class will cost $3.3 trillion. Democrats should, in turn, be asked what specific entitlements are they willing to cut to make up for the $3.3 trillion?

Mandatory spending for the US Government for 2010 is estimated at $2.2 trillion (+15.6%). Discretionary spending: $1.4 trillion (+13.1%). Revenues for 2010 are estimated at $2.4 trillion with a decrease of 11% from 2009.

It seems Obama, Congress and Lefties such as you are worried they will get less for redistribution.

While Social Security Recipients will not see a COLA adjustment this year, Federal employees will see increases for COLA, pension and health care.

HILARIOUS

Of course it’s a political question; it has to do with POLITICS!

LOL

THAT WAS HILARIOUS

Poor Wallace

Wallace: How would ?
Fiorina: Chris! How dare you! That’s a political question!

LMFAO

Where do the Republicans FIND these people? LOL!

God forbid he ask her about ALL THE JOBS SHE LOST for her former company: ANOTHER POLITICAL QUESTION

LOL

HILARIOUS

gordonbloyershow said:
Poor Chris, he was having a flashback to when he worked for the liberal networks. She answered and constantly repeating the same question more than once is idiotic.

She did what the propagandists wanted her to do – answer a question with a question. No ideas – no hope. This woman is a front and a fraud.

LOGICandREASON said:
It would have been a good thing if Democrat candidates are questioned in this manner by Obama’s official cheer-leading network (MSNBC)

If you really watched the rest of the world grill President Obama – you would see that he “answers questions with details” – no more questions. How to answer a question you can not answer? With another question. If your candidate is doing this – what real hope do you have – besides your blind faith hope – that they’ll actually be effective in government? None. Why do you deny these truths? Why does the obvious escape you as a republican and/or teabagger? They are playing you for fools – and if you are foolish enough to goose-step party line for this reason – it can get much worse. Bush brought us to the brink and recovery by any educated guess was not an 18 month or 4 year project – it’s a generation project. 30 years of failed Reaganomics has proved that given the tax breaks to the wealthiest whom them ship jobs to third world countries is only creating a third world country here in America. Thanks but no thanks GOP – a vote for Republicans is a vote for America to Fail. Not on my watch!

notsofast said:
Now it’s correct!

Is every challenge just “denial” – I was wondering how the Goebbels program was so effective – and watching those that just live in denial and quote Fox idiocy – is living proof – you can fool most of the people most of the time (at least on the Reich-Wing side of the isle). Dumb and dumber doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of these Pavlovian morons.

Azarkhan said:
Any budget balancing Clinton did was forced on him by the Republican congress. The following article was written in Oct 2008.
–
…And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

…Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The most important sentence is:

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

Bill Clinton was no deficit hawk. If he and Hillary had had their way, we would already be crushed by skyrocketing deficits that we are now seeing under Pres Obama.

Wrong as always. Hannity loves to continue that lie. You guys hated the 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton – so you forced the idiot king on us – Bush. This mess is yours – we’re once again, trying to fix what you have broken.

Azarkhan said:
Any budget balancing Clinton did was forced on him by the Republican congress. The following article was written in Oct 2008.
–
…And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

…Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The most important sentence is:

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

Bill Clinton was no deficit hawk. If he and Hillary had had their way, we would already be crushed by skyrocketing deficits that we are now seeing under Pres Obama.

You do realize taxes were raised the last 4 years of Reagan and the first years of Bush 1 – right? Or are you just getting your details from TV Evangelicals and Fox?

Azarkhan said:
Any budget balancing Clinton did was forced on him by the Republican congress. The following article was written in Oct 2008.
–
…And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

…Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

The most important sentence is:

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere…

Bill Clinton was no deficit hawk. If he and Hillary had had their way, we would already be crushed by skyrocketing deficits that we are now seeing under Pres Obama.

Point 3 – If President Clinton had gotten health care reform through when he was in office – it wouldn’t have DOUBLED as it did (and as was predicted when they tackled this and obstructed by the GOP) back then. Damn, are you so lazy you can’t use the internet and get the facts? What kind of warped moronic world do you live in? Glennbeckistan? These are facts that can be sought and found. Don’t be a Teabagging Parrot of stupidity.

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Fiorina did not answer Wallace’s question. Maybe you can answer mine. The Treasury estimates extending the so called tax cuts will will cost $4 trillion. Extending those cuts to those making over $250,000 will cost $700,000. Using simple arithmetic, that would mean extending the tax cuts to the middle class will cost $3.3 trillion. Wallace should, in turn, ask Barbara Boxer what specific entitlements is she willing to cut to make up for the $3.3 trillion?

The term tax cuts is a misnomer. A tax cut is essentially money government won’t get from income earners, but the political hacks treat tax cuts as money they feel government deserves. Tax cuts, properly defined, is money government won’t be able to spend (waste).

Re-read your question and try again. If you want an honest answer – ask an honest question. The above is “wrong”.

Azarkhan said:
The Democrats have been in control of Congress for 4 years and the White House for 2 years. All they have done is increase the deficit.

The Democrats could have eliminated the Bush tax cuts before Congress adjourned. Why didn’t they do that?

Where are the Democratic solutions to the deficit or entitlement programs?

Better yet – what is the Republican solution to the problems they have created?

Phocus2 said:
Today’s performance by Chris Wallace was the last straw for our family. When you invite a guest on your show, then ask a seemingly endless question and interrupt the guest constantly as they try to answer, you display a bias not usually found on a FOX straight news show. Today was enough for us and FNS is off our schedule. Wallace needs his own opinion show…perhaps on MSNBC or CNN.

FOX needs to replace Wallace with Steve Hayes…and soon. Until then, adiós FNS.

I’m thinking you’re being sarcastic. Right? If now, then look for “Sean Hayes” to replace Chris Wallace. It must be boring watching everyone on Fox repeat the same old lies.

AngelPeters said:
Thank you, Chris Wallace, for doing exactly what a real journalist is suppose to do.

Every now and then – he must be getting tired of lofting those softballs for the GOP Teabaggers.

gordonbloyershow said:
Poor Chris, he was having a flashback to when he worked for the liberal networks. She answered and constantly repeating the same question more than once is idiotic.

Why wouldn’t you want them to answer truthfully and correctly? Do you like living with your head in the sand and in denial? I guess ignorance is bless for intelligence is maddening following these teabagging candidates running like unqualified soccer moms and plumbers – just because they’re “angry”. I spent 8 years of anger watching this mess unfold and the last 2 watching the people whom created this mess, blame the guy elected to start the recover effort.

Palidino, Palin, Beck, O’Donnell, Joe Miller, Angle – wow! Not enough juice here to power a light bulb – yet, they’re being promoted as the “anti-candidate” are killing the GOP and are a danger to America – for they have no ideas and no clue. Congrats for doing what Bin Laden could only dream of Republicans. A Vote for the Republicans is a vote AGAINST America.

shootfromthehip said:
She won’t answer the question.

Typical Republican.

All she does is deflect, then attack her opponent.

She won’t get into the nitty-gritty.

This is why she will lose in California.

WHAT WILL SHE CUT? ANSWER THE QUESTION CARLY!

You don’t get to blast Dems on spending then talk brazenly about how you will balance the budget without getting into specifics.

Tax cuts for the rich when California can’t afford it?

Sorry, Carly, you lose.

Game over.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN RUNNING ON THIS NONSENSE FOR 30 YEARS – they had the White House for 20 of those years (8 Clinton and the 2 clean up years of Obama) and I can guarantee you – their constituents can quote it back to you verbatim – but they’ll still vote for stupid and the GOP. Sheep! She hasn’t a clue and no ideas – the only thing she is interested in, just like the rest of the GOP – maintain tax breaks for the wealthiest (whom ship the jobs overseas to third world countries, child and cheap labor, no laws or safety concerns); Spend Trillions on an illegal war (and not touch upon that little GOP ticket item), and look to stick it to the poor, education and health-care. Republicans – Trillions of US Tax Dollars for an illegal war – Zero Tax Dollars on America.

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR F***’S SAKE!!

I wonder if Bush’s two (2) multi-trillion dollar wars have anything to do with our deficit?

Oh, of course not, it’s all Obama, right?

Republicans are sheep.

So sorry, I usually watch Chris on Sunday mornings, But I couldn’t listen to him asking the same question over, over and over. He should have listened to her or at least worded his question a different way. He just wasn’t, either wide awake, or just didn’t give a hoot about what he was doing. That is not like him, something must have been wrong with him.

James Gregory Backus said:
Re-read your question and try again. If you want an honest answer – ask an honest question. The above is “wrong”.

Tell me what’s wrong?

TEXICAN said:
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR F***’S SAKE!!

I wonder if Bush’s two (2) multi-trillion dollar wars have anything to do with our deficit?

Oh, of course not, it’s all Obama, right?

Republicans are sheep.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.

A graph put out by the Washington Post backs up my response.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Don’t OD on that that Kool Aid.

zumpano said:
HILARIOUS

Of course it’s a political question; it has to do with POLITICS!

LOL

THAT WAS HILARIOUS

Poor Wallace

Wallace: How would ?
Fiorina: Chris! How dare you! That’s a political question!

LMFAO

Where do the Republicans FIND these people? LOL!

God forbid he ask her about ALL THE JOBS SHE LOST for her former company: ANOTHER POLITICAL QUESTION

LOL

HILARIOUS

If Fiorina gave Wallace a rundown on Deficits, Debt, Fixed Expenditures, Discretionary Spending, Federal Employee Liabilities, Revenue and the Global Economy, Chris Wallace doesn’t have the background to understand the assessment of the whole situation.

Fiorina was CEO of Hewlett Packard. Her main job was to get the best return for her stockholders. As a US Senator, the stockholder will be the taxpayer. She will have to make cuts in the Federal budget and increase revenue by creating an atmosphere for the private sector to expand and hire. Creating public works projects is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Job creation to Obama and Democrats is to increase public works projects.

Welll, DUH! You mean Ms Fiorina is smart enough to know that it is a lose-lose situation to detail what cuts in programs she wants to make? Not that I’m surprised. The chick did run a Fortune 500 company, after all. It’s OK to mention “waste-fraud-abuse”, because no interest group considers its programs to be any of those, and everybody has a list of “better dead than…” programs. Barbara Boxer loathes the military, but even she will make an exception now and again for a program that puts money in the pockets of a supporter. Imagine the furor if she had answered “well, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a regressive tax…” Or, “The Department of Education has done nothing to improve the quality of education in the USA…”. How about “Veterans would get better medical care if we eliminated the system of Veterans hospitals and clinics…” The lynch mobs would be out immediately, however defensible the positions. Better to disappoint ol’ Chris than arouse the special interest groups.

The best thing about Fiorina is that she’s not Boxer.