....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.
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..
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.