Posted on 12/06/2011 9:36:58 AM PST by Lazlo in PA
I completely understand and agree with the argument that Mitt Romney’s support for the individual mandate at the state level will greatly complicate and undermine his criticism of Obamacare.
But I don’t quite see how one can hold that position and not believe that these sorts of comments from Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck today wouldn’t complicate and undermine criticism of runaway spending during the Obama administration:
GLENN: Why would we, why would we go into subsidies, though? Isn’t ‑‑ aren’t subsidies really some of the biggest problems that we have with our spending and out‑of‑control picking of winners and losers?
GINGRICH: Well, it depends on what you’re subsidizing. The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton’s first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. We have always had a bias in favor of investing in the future. We built the transcontinental railroads that way. The Erie Canal was built that way. We’ve always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because they’ve made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world. But what I object to is subsidizing things that don’t work and things that aren’t creating a better future. And the problem with the modern welfare state is it actually encourages people to the wrong behaviors, encourages them not to work, encourages them not to study.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
....encourages 'them' to jump on the popular band wagon regardless of the good that might come from it.....Ethanol comes to mind as does Bee Keeping neither of which are necessarily "Conservative" or should be subsidized by the taxpayer....
There’s a big difference between investing in infrastructure which benefits the public in general and paying subsidies to individuals and corporations which only benefit them.
Rather twisted logic by Geraghty to try and equate Romneycare with Newt's support of tax breaks.
I agree there have been problems with a lot of government subsidies. However, that pales in comparasion to what Obamacare represents in the way of imposing government on citizens, and Romney will be unable to take the fight to Obamacare because of Romneycare and Mitt's steadfast refusal to renounce it. Romneybots are clutching at straws to try and drag Newt down to Mitt's level, and it isn't working - Newt appears to be the first front-runner to actually put a ding in Mitt's base support level.
Tax deductions are subsidies. Enterprise zones are subsidies. I can think of plenty of these that are benign, practical, or even helpful given our current state of affairs.
Newt hasn’t said a thing that would give me pause about voting for him. Just as Obama is working to tear down the US as we know it, some around here seem hell bent on tearing down the conservative movement.
I guess some of us are too dim to understand the brilliance of this man. The only thing a simpleton like myself understands is that the United States is broke and we don't have money for this baloney anymore.
It’s his way of saying “all your money are belong to us”.
It’s his way of saying “all your money are belong to us”.
“Rather twisted logic by Geraghty to try and equate Romneycare with Newt’s support of tax breaks.”
Exactly. However there will be the usual suspects here on Free Republic who will gleefully advance the twisting of Newts words.
************************************************************ in·vest·ment /ɪnˈvÉ›stmÉ™nt/ [in-vest-muhnt] Show IPA noun 1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. *********************************************************** It’s fair to say the two examles Newt gave, the transconeinental railroads and the Erie Canal were investments. They completely changed the face of America and made the country as a whole far richer and more powerful. From the government perspective, they hugely increased the tax base, and returned the money spent many times over. Of course the Democrats refer to all government spending as “investment” which is nonsense. And some infrastructure projects are the equivalent of “investing” in Enron.
Starting in the 1960s, we've "always had a bias in favor of stealing from the future."
I wish this discussion in the interview would have continued. Newt brought up the early Rail Road subsidies and the Erie Channel. This is true, but Constitutionally the Congress is supposed to build transportation routes.
I would also say that congress has the implied duty under transportation and commerce to ensure this country has adequate energy. To that end, tax credits for energy makes sense; however, the fine line becomes credit for proven energy or for corn and Solyndra! So Newt's support of Corn is is believable IF the purpose was to ensure as he stated abundant energy; however, after it became clear that corn ethanol was a boondoggle I hope he would admit his mistake... it happens..
I listened to Bachman on O’Reilly last night say that Newt is for amnesty of 11 millions aliens in this country.
she said this witout a blink in the eye. For me it was another jump the shark moment for her.
She’s a light weight.
They keep hitting Newt on being for the Freedom Act, when there was no cable news network. They say he was for mandates when at the time, the Heritage Foundation was for them too.
It makes your head spin.
I’m for what the guy thinks now...
Will I choose Newt? Not as long as he keeps saying dumb-ass stuff like this:"First, I believe in the environment in general," Gingrich said. "Second, I think there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument."Saying he believes in the environment is like saying he believes in gravity. So what? If he means "environmentalism," then he's failing to distinguish between enviro-nuts who have been leading virtually all environmentalist movements (leading to the deaths and disease of hundreds of millions in Africa and elsewhere by banning DDT) and those who would simply like reasonable accommodations to keep the human environment from getting polluted to the point of harming human health. The first is nutty. The second is a grave failure.
Is there evidence on both sides of the climate change argument? Let's back up two years to where it was called "the global warming argument." The evidence asserted for an anthropogenically-induced global warming has been proven to be bogus, thus the switch to "climate change argument." If Newt has been the least bit aware of the science throughout the past 15 years, he would know that a relatively small group of people have been manipulating data to support the political organization called the IPCC in order to seize control over the technological sectors of principally Western nations for their own political purposes through the imposition of taxes, fees, and environmental law (like the f---ing EPA and its ridiculous use of the clean air law to "regulate" CO2--plant food, a useful byproduct of technological civilization, of which we need more, not less, in the atmosphere).
If he doesn't know this, it is troubling, indeed. If he does know this but uses the "evidence on both sides" ploy as a way of appearing to give an answer that will satisfy "both sides," then it is more than troubling; it's just f---ing sick! Stop with the triangulating, "let's see how I can answer this so it will be of most benefit to me, the politician," sh-t!
“Investing” is Washington DC-speak for what normal people call “spending.”
Mostly on things that are not among the Enumerated Powers.
Like that matters to people like Gingrich.
FR doesn’t have enough bandwidth to list all the programs Gingrich voted for over the years that are in no way included in the Constitution’s Enumerated Powers.
But you could start with his vote in 1979 to establish the U.S. Department of Education.
The Erie canal was a failure.
You’d think that Gingrich’s support for mandates would be what would compare him with Romney’s support for mandates — unless you think that Gingrich flip-flopping on that in the past 5 months makes him much better than Romney who for once hasn’t.
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.