Posted on 12/13/2011 1:04:25 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Newt Gingrich promises to revive the Gipper's economic plan -- and then some
Newt Gingrich's economic plan is not Reaganesque. It is not, as so many of his Republican presidential rivals' claim their plans to be, inspired by Reaganomics. It is Reaganomics, cryogenically frozen in 1981, thawed 30 years later, and pumped full of Newt-style steroids in order to save the American people from slow growth. The plan features massive tax cuts (which would largely benefit businesses and the wealthy), less government spending (through the privatization of entitlement programs), interest-rate hikes, and rampant deregulation.
The foundation is classic supply-side, trickle-down, Laffer-curve economics, which Gingrich's economic advisers predict will unleash a boom that will eventually generate enough tax revenue to balance the federal budget. How big will that boom be, you ask? What do the campaign's projections show? "If you go back to the Reagan years, from 1983, that's our projection of what the boom would look like--exactly," says Peter Ferrara, a former Reagan aide who helped draft the Gingrich plan.
~~snip~~
What does appear is a package of tax cuts much deeper than Romney or Perry propose. Like Perry, Gingrich would let taxpayers choose between the current income-tax system or a flat rate. Perry's rate is 20 percent; Gingrich's is 15 percent. Romney would eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest for taxpayers who earn less than $200,000 a year; Gingrich eliminates them entirely. Romney's plan cuts the corporate income-tax rate to 25 percent, while Perry's would be 20 percent. Gingrich would drop the corporate rate all the way to 12.5 percent--lower than even Ron Paul has proposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“My only hope is that Bachmann has the gravitas to fix it all” YEP put your faith in a IRS Tax Lawyer...are you stupid in other ways?
Newt’s running for president, not governor.
As president, he wants to reduce the role of the federal government and return those responsibilities to the states.
Each state would handle those responsilities differently.
Some (like NY and Calif) would probably do more and have bigger agencies than the federal govt did.
Some (like Alabama) would have smaller agencies.
Some (like Utah) would decide that wasn’t even a proper function of the state govt and not implement the agency at the state level at all.
Moving responsibility form the feds to the states means each state will handle it differntly. That’s better than the status quo (where the federal govt does everything) and (more imortantly) that’s the way it was designed to work. States are supposed to be different. That’s why we have states (which is the word for a country) and not provinces (which is the word for a subset of a larger government).
Good point. If Newt or anyone else can bring down the size of the federal government, we citizens can reduce the state and local governments to the appropriate size.
bttt
With a 15 going on 16 TRILLION DEFICIT. Going back to the 80’s would be unrealistic. But hey Newt made a “good” friend in Rupert Murdock. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
“All powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states and the PEOPLE.”
Exactly right. However Newt’s detractors including Glenn Beck are parsing what Newt is actually saying for their own agenda.
Newt has famously called Prez. T.Roosevelt and Prez.Wilson (two famous progressives) his mentors.. and he has not backed down from that.. Newt knows exactly who those people are..
I do admit that Newt "SAYS" things I want to hear though..
Zero didnt fool me though I knew he was a lying bastard.. and would do the opposite of what he said.. because hes a democrat.. There are many republican progressives.. (like Romney).. and as I've said ... nOOt..
I'm not sure of Perry, CAin and Hunstman.. they may be as well.. The only ones I'm almost sure of is Bachmann and Paul.. and Paul may be a bit off his rocker..
[ Last time I checked, it wasn’t up to the POTUS to reduce the size of state governments. ]
I don’t advise NooT on what to say...
No but he did say Wilson and T.Roosvelt were two he looked UP to..
They are (YOU KNOW) flaming "Progressives"...
You mean you didn’t believe zero when he admitted he was a Marxist and that he’s always believed our constitution was flawed? For shame.
[ YEP put your faith in a IRS Tax Lawyer...are you stupid in other ways? ]
Good point.. its either Bachmann OR Ron Paul...
What do YOU suggest?...... grasshopper..
I want the reserection of a lot more stuff of the 80s. I went to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest concerts this year, so that should tell you something of my state of mind
AGAIN I ask “are you stupid in other ways?!”
[ As president, he wants to reduce the role of the federal government and return those responsibilities to the states.
Each state would handle those responsilities differently. ]
I know exactly what he proposes.. The federal government is way too big but literally every State government are too big as well.. NooT says reduce the size of federal government AND increase the size of State government..
Of course that will never happen but the timerity to speak it is brilliant.. Hes just talked of a switch “a transfer” of power.. from federal PROGRESSIVES.. to State PROGRESSIVES..
ONLY a stupid sheep would be fooled by that tricky rhetoric..
[ You mean you didn’t believe zero when he admitted he was a Marxist and that he’s always believed our constitution was flawed? For shame. ]
No I beleived that.. it was the hopey changey thing I raised my eyebrows at..
[AGAIN I ask “are you stupid in other ways?!” ]
Yes..
It shows.
Newt sold out every campaign promise he made in 1994. Newt is the reason conservatism is the state it is in. If Newt had simply froze spending as Speaker...then W would have had to follow and we would not be even close to where we are now.(and Obama would not be POTUS)
Newt killed the Reagan Revolution and he ushered in an era of HUGE government. (starting with him ILLEGALLY busting the spending Caps in 96,97,98). Newt takes Socialist positions on every spending issue.
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.