Posted on 11/07/2011 7:00:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Republican Party seems to be struggling to find a candidate it can unite around. One impediment may be a mindset common among some of my fellow Tea Partiers, a false dichotomy that if you are in government you are part of the problem, and if you are not in government, you are part of the solution -- whatever those problems or solutions may be.
Herman Cain says, "The folks in Washington have held public office. How's that working out for you?" It's a catchy comeback. But is government tenure, whether recent or not, the reality of the problems in Washington? The biggest problem in Washington today is that we have a president who basically has no experience doing anything important or relevant. And he has surrounded himself with advisors and staff that are inexperienced as well. That's the problem.
This problem can befall Democrats or Republicans. Let me give a Republican example. President Bush's first cabinet had many folks with Washington experience like Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Mel Martinez, Norm Mineta, and Spencer Abraham. All of these, except Mineta, were conservatives. Many of their replacements had no Washington experience. Most folks would agree that Bush's second term was not as successful as his first. Experience was the difference. Next, let's look at the recent Tea Party successes. Two of the biggest successes are Marco Rubio, who had legislative experience, and Scott Walker, who had much executive and legislative experience. I won't belabor the Tea Party failures here. Needless to say, some of them lacked valuable experience. And what about folks in Washington who agree with the Tea Party, like Senator DeMint or Congressman Pence? They predate the Tea Party but they believe the same policies. Are they part of the problem? No, they are not.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
So, Newt sort of repackages himself and some folks go wild.
Face it. Newt’s time has passed.
Also I have watched him move back and forth from premier bomb thrower in the Reagan years to brilliant policy tactician to painfully reckless in his personal life.
The present manifestation of Newt can be helpful to a victory in 2012, but IMHO, it must never be at the top of the ticket.
Mr. Cain is that man...
What is Newt’s plan? /S
Who is on board with it? /S
Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Buehler?
Newt is looking to be our best choice, by far. Paul said he will not support the Republican nominee unles they adopt his platform. I think now would be a good time for him to leave and go to whatever third party he is going to end up with. I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass whether or not obama gets defeated unless it’s him. I think with Paul it’s all about Paul. NEWT 2012 AMERICA’S ADVOCATE
also, newt sold out to fannie mae:
“fannie mae is an excellent example of a former government institution fulling is mandate while functioning in the market economy”.
p. 63, reckless endangerment, times books.
I agree.
I like Herman Cain very much, but we do not have time for a learning curve. Things are too dire, and we need someone who can understand the system and turn this ship back AROUND!
Frankly Newt can try all he wants. He is a political hack who only wants the status quo to continue. I will not vote for him. He is not up to standards.
ditto.
the rino-progressives are real scared of a conservatile like cain.
it’s amazing how many people on this forum drink the rino kool aid.
Mark it down...Newt Gingrich will be the 45th president of the US. The only question remaining is who will be his running mate?
Newt is an establishment guy, pure and simple.
I would not vote for somebody as enthusiastic about enforcing a personal mandate for health insurance as Newt has been in the past. Newt can say he has changed but I believe he will change back in a heartbeat based on political expediency if his past actions are any indicator.
RE: The only question remaining is who will be his running mate?
If he chooses Jim DeMint, I’m all in.
RE: What is Newt’s plan?
SEE HERE:
http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america
and here:
www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals
RE: Who is on board with it? /S
No one yet really. I mean he has his own flat tax proposal but few seem to know about it.
But you can find it here if you’re interested:
| Gingrich | Perry | Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Rate | 15% | 20% | Gingrich has advocated for several years an optional flat tax rate of 15%, which when coupled with Gingrich’s bold entitlement and regulatory reforms, will usher in another era of booming economic growth and new, higher-paying jobs. The Perry rate of 20% is higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes proposed in his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign. |
| Who Gets to Make Deductions for Charitable Giving and Home Ownership?? | Everyone | Families making less than $500,000/year | By creating two separate classes of taxpayers, the Perry plan buys into the same class warfare that characterizes the Obama and Romney economic plans. The fact that there are still two brackets – even under a supposed “flat tax” plan – calls into question whether this is really a flat tax at all. |
| State and Local Tax Deductions | Not deductible in optional flat tax plan | Deductible in optional flat tax plan | The Gingrich plan has a lower rate so less need for state and local deductions. The deduction is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher state and local taxes. Removing the subsidy would lead states to reduce state and local taxes, or adopt their own flat tax reforms. The Perry plan erodes states’ competitive advantages by making state and local taxes deductible in his optional flat tax plan. |
| Who Benefits from Elimination of Capital Gains Tax? | Everyone | Depends whether capital gains is long term or short term. Perry’s plan eliminates cap gains only for long term. | The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax. The Perry plan only goes halfway, and by levying up to 35% tax on short-term capital gains, it will discourage investment, venture capital, and new jobs creation. |
| Corporate Income Tax | 12.5% | 20% | The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Perry plan relies upon a short term “tax holiday,” then only drops the corporate tax rate to 20% — only average in the developed world, and still over 20% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada. |
| Payroll Taxes | Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results | No change in existing payroll tax | Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether. |
| Family Deductions Under Flat Tax Plan | $12,000 personal deduction for every individual. Both the EITC and the Child Tax Credit are preserved in Gingrich’s optional flat tax system. | $12,500 personal deduction for every individual. No information provided. | Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans. Gingrich passed the first child tax credit as Speaker in 1997, and will preserve this credit and the EITC under his optional flat tax system. |
| Record in Achieving Dramatic Jobs and Economic Recovery at the National Level? | Yes. Substantial. See record at right. | None. | Speaker Gingrich’s Record (1995-1999):• Eleven Million New Jobs • Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s. • Unemployment rate of 4.2%. • Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year). • Venture capital investments grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs. • Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty. • Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down |
http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-perrys-flat-tax-plans
http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-romneys-tax-plans
| Gingrich | Romney | Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Income Tax | Choice of current system or 15% flat tax with personal, homeowner, and charitable deductions | Maintain current tax rates | The Gingrich plan gives Americans a choice to continue to file under the existing system, or to eliminate compliance costs and hours of paperwork by filing with a flat rate of 15%. The Romney plan hopes to make taxes “flatter” in the future, but offers no immediate choice and no immediate relief. |
| Capital Gains Tax for Individuals | Eliminate tax completely | Depends how much money the taxpayer makes. Romney’s plan eliminates capital gains taxes for those making less than $200,000/year, but maintains the current system, with rates of up to 35%, for the rest. | The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax, and acknowledges that a tax reform is only fair if all Americans receive relief. The Romney plan determines that some Americans should pay no taxes on a particular investment, while other Americans should pay taxes of up to 35% on the same investment. |
| Capital Gains Tax for Corporations | Eliminate tax completely | Maintain current system | The Gingrich plan is modeled on the success of the 1997 capital gains cut, which spurred job creation and a 500% increase in venture capital in just 3 years. The Romney plan maintains the corporate capital gains tax, an unequivocal burden on American job-creators who need to be freed to grow, prosper, and compete in a 21st century global economy. |
| Corporate Income Tax | 12.5% | 25% | The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Romney plan will still be average-to-high compared to the rest of the developed world, and still over 50% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada. |
| Payroll Tax | Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results | No information | Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether. |
| Medicare reform | Choice between the traditional system or opportunity to purchase private insurance with premium support | No information | Under the Gingrich Plan, any American who wants to enjoy the existing Medicare system will be able to do so. Americans can also opt to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options for better care, where they would receive premium support to purchase private insurance. |
Count me in as well...Grand Slam!!!
How ironic that Cainiacs would use a Politico article to attack the man most likely to beat Herman Cain. LOL!
“Mark it down...Newt Gingrich will be the 45th president of the US. The only question remaining is who will be his running mate?”
Michelle Bachman
Nobody reasonable is asking for that. Reagan had all these problems and more. Do you remember what he did? Or are you old enough?
Hint: He didn't wilt like a little violet after the first frost.
FWIW, I still like Newt. I still think he has great ideas. I still think he would make a halfway decent president if given the chance.
I just don't think he is the best candidate given his baggage and electability. But I'd rank him third after Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, neither of whom is a perfect candidate either.
Cain is right to want to take advantage of Newt's skills and genius, but it would be a mistake to put Newt in line to hold political power, a position he would have as Vice President. The better choice would be to make Newt Whitehouse chief of staff to the President. This would be a fit that takes advantage of his skills, but isolates him outside of being able to garner political power for himself.
It would be very helpful if conservatives begin to change how they think about elections. Focusing on conservatives winning in order to exercise political power is not the ideal target. The target we need to focus on is electing conservatives who will strip government and the politicians who run it of being able to exercise any power except the protection of life, individual freedom and property.
Socialists believe government can affect the economy in a positive way. Nothing can be further from the truth. And conservatives forget this as well. Far too many believe conservative government policies can affect the economy in a positive way when the truth is government interferes with the economy and that only thing that government can do of benefit for the economy is to stop doing anything at all except protecting life, individual freedom and property. It's these issues, and these alone, that actually matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.