Unless Newt deals with the above, he's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
We wish.
The Reaganite wing of the Republican party knows it to be so.
Gingrich keeps looking better and better.
Well outstanding then.
Make them part-time.
Hat tip: Rick Perry.
And, the problem with that is?????
They say it likes it's a bad thing.
Well, I suppose to them, it is.
They say “starves the government” like that’s a bad thing...
The only way that can be a bad thing is if it doesn't starve it enough or fast enough. Starve off 95% or more of the social BS programs, completely cut-off the EPA and NEA, then that's just a decent start...
Starve it, kill it, whatever it takes because it costs too much, takes too much, and does too little of use.
It will not restrain itself of its own free will. Restraint of the government must be by enforcement if not force.
I really don’t care if the tax cuts pay for themselves since the idea contained in that statement is revenue neutrality. The government spends too much. It is too powerful and must be cut off.
I would have trouble not voting for him.
"The idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves through growth is a controversial notion, dismissed by all but a handful of economists, but it is deeply entrenched in the Republican Party."
Facts don't seem to bother economists- the US collected its most revenue ever ($2,568 billion) only after Bush cut taxes.
ROTFL. Cue that word again: "staggering!"
Let's have some staggering solutions to counter obama's staggering spending debt.
It's absolutely unfathomable amazing when we have alleged conservatives yapping about revenue losses arising from cuts in tax rates and cuts in spending!
Gingrich’s tax plan will increase revenues to the government. However, that doesn’t mean that starving the government isn’t necessary but it needs to happen through spending cuts, not tax policy.
PING!
” - - - The center forecast that Gingrich’s plan would slash government revenues by at least $850 billion in one year, more than a third of the $2.3 trillion in 2011 government revenues.
A Gingrich adviser refuted the center’s estimate and said the candidate’s plan was not designed to be revenue neutral, but to be “growth maximizing.”
_____________
Perhaps I missed it, but NO mention is made of cutting SPENDING, or “ cutting maximizing.”
This requires that the damned US Federal Government will keep right on growing their spending whether or not the economy is able to grow. This was tried with mixed success in the Reagan years, but our economy is not as elastic as was then, and may not work as well again.
After all, we are an order of magnitude more Government regulated than we are today. The proposed Canadian Oil Sands Pipeline is an excellent example of the difficulty of “growing the economy” in Regulated Amerika.
Every overspent (=Debt) dollar needs to be met with a $1.10 BASELINE cut in spending. The ten cents goes directly to buying back bonds purchased by foreigners who own our debt bonds.
Because it has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Keynesian Economic theory has financially ruined our Nation, why not try the method we all use with our own personal checkbooks? You know, WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.
Since our income expansion has only produced debt, why not decrease our outgo?
For example, Nanny-State Newt proposes NO cuts in baseline spending. He could become just Newt if he would cut baseline spending by 10 % more than he cuts taxes. Thus, Newt would give us a tax cut of 0.850 Trillion dollars, AND cut 0.950 Trillion dollars from baseline Federal spending.
BTW, doesn’t 0.950 Trillion dollars times 4 years equal 3.8 Trillion dollars? HEY FReepers, if we did for 10 years, why that would be a reduction in US Federal Government baseline spending of 9.5 Trillion dollars! That is about what GWB and Obama have burdened us with so far, and twice what the ‘Super Committee” was trying to achieve in rate of increase “cuts.”
Dang, I just wish the “Super Committee” had been able to figure out this “Go Big” 10 year plan!
“The federal government needs to know its limitations”- nOOt (dirty harry) Gingrich
Unless Newt deals with the above, he's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
“Analysis: Gingrich tax plan starves government, say economists”
He’s got my vote!
Increasing government spending only directs resources away from those best equipped to create new wealth: The rich who have created wealth before and ironically who they demonize because they are the rich. This false hope, that spending will bring economic success, only leads to disaster. It is also a tool by America's enemies to cause disaster to America's status as a world power.
Our truth that we need to make perfectly clear to the electorate is that only markets, free of government involvement find the answers to create new wealth.
Best news yet in this election cycle.
Fill up the House and Senate with people committed to serious expense cuts.
.
This doesn't work...
One of the greatest needs is to cut spending. It does not appear that Newt wants to do much of that.
People like the CBO and others like to throw out a lot of numbers about what deficits will be a few years out, but they are just fantasy really. There are too many variables. For instance if treasury interest rates shoot up to just 10 percent then the interest on the debt might eat up all of our GDP. Then what? The only real solution is to cut all over spending immediately. And then start working on paying it down before interest rates rise. Otherwise we will have a bankrupt USA in short order.
The republicans had a chance to do this by refusing to raise the deficit(Instant balanced budget), but they are too afraid of the political ramifications. Yet there is no other way out in the long run. Or not so long run in this case. Paying the interest on the debt is in itself eating up GDP and productivity. In fact only a small fraction of every dollar borrowed at this point is productive to the economy. As in less than 10 percent. That is what happens when you play the borrowing game to long. And it steals massively from future GDP.
Only a radical cut in spending can save us according to the math. And even that is questionable at this point. Unfortunately for all those people who live off from that borrowed money, and even those that don’t then we cannot avoid a great pain that will come from going cold turkey. But that pain would end in time and things would get going again in a real economy that is not borrowed. Where demand is not being pulled forward. It would be better than a fatal and unrecoverable crash. What they call a sudden stop in the economy. And that is what is coming soon if we don’t stop the insanity. Who knows- it is not impossible for that crash to happen even before the 2012 elections. Lots of variables that we can’t predict. Yet, while our situation is becoming much more precarious every day.
You won’t find any of the candidates explaining that. And yet if you can’t be sure that they understand such mathematical fact then the end result is quite doomy. Newt is just like the rest in that he just does not get it in a practical way. But time is pretty much up. We simply don’t have time to wait for the effects of decreasing taxes(although I agree they are far to many). They will not be realized in time. And they will not offset the trillions that are still being borrowed. And even if they could then they would just borrow more. We need to stop the borrowing. It is today or never. Hannibal is at the gate.