Oh, ummmm..... yeah, it's not a bad but a GREAT idea that you have about Virginians voting for Uncle Paul over Willard the Magic Liberal there.
Posted on 02/17/2012 2:50:06 PM PST by JediJones
Rick Santorum is touting his promise to eliminate corporate taxes on manufacturers...[that's] coming under scrutiny from conservatives who are decrying it as thoroughly unconservative.
...[Santorum] added: “We need to have a manufacturing base in this economy. Why? Because of our national security.”
...advocates for other sectors of the economy quietly gripe that they’d be effectively underwriting manufacturing...by paying a higher tax rate...
“Giving a preferential rate is picking winners and losers through the tax code,” said Curtis Dubay, a tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation...
“This is not free-market economics, this is trying to tilt the market toward manufacturing, and it will hurt the economy rather than help it, because resources would be artificially diverted from other sectors...”
Kevin Hassett...at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Santorum’s plan would “create the biggest tax dodge in history,” as businesses raced to redefine themselves as manufacturers.
“How do you define manufacturing?” asked Andy Roth of the conservative Club for Growth. “Do movie studios manufacture films? ...are [book publishers] manufacturing books? Companies are going to game this.”
...Romney has tried to paint Santorum as a big spender and a friend of labor unions from his days as a Pennsylvania senator.
[Santorum] said...“...it’s not like there’s a better way to make things in these other countries. It’s just the cost is higher here because of our tax and regulatory structure.”
But conservatives worry that when Santorum talks about the issue, he sounds a bit too much like President Obama, who has made revitalizing manufacturing a key plank of his economic platform.
“There’s a natural evolution of our economy toward high-intellectual-capital things like software — that’s not manufacturing, and that’s OK,” Hassett said. “To say that trend is something we should reverse through tax policy is just the height of economic illiteracy. It’s inexcusable.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedaily.com ...
Actually, you are the one voicing support for government control of business through taxation.
Instead of Santorum’s idea of taxing his pet industries at lower rates... why not just tax *ALL* industries at lower rates?
That would be much more effective than Santorum and his ‘government needs to pick economic winners and losers’ meme. Come to think of it, that is Obama’s meme, too.
(Yet another piece showing that there is not much difference between the two, except how much one of them professes to love G-d.)
Corporations don’t pay taxes anyway, the Corporate tax is just a leftist way of making the consumer pay a hidden tax without realizing the price of the good they just purchased included the tax that the government forces the manufacturer collect for D.C.
Go Rick.
There is a good case to be made that if something has an impact on our national security, we ought to make it here. I’d include in that everything that our military needs, from grenades, missiles, tanks & all their components to dress uniforms. I’d also broaden that to include critical industrial components.
Global Warming nut.
Space mirror nut.
Moon Colony nut.
Ultra Liberal Congressional Candidate endorsing nut.
We have enough nuts in D.C. Anyway, I don’t know if you’ve noticed it, but Newt’s toast. Maybe he wins GA, but that’s about it. Newt’s locked in an epic battle with Paul for dead last.
Newt’s already been to the right of Rick and never wavered. The “issues” you’re talking about are trumped-up campaign spin, half-truths and lies, the kind of stuff that could be pinned on any public figure through selective quotes and misquotes. And if you aren’t aware of Santorum’s liberal economic votes and his general financial misbehaving then you just haven’t done your homework...like his “issues” on right-to-work, his cut-taxes-and-spend agenda that drove up the debt in the 2000s, his tax-dodging residency issues, his “charity” where about 2/3rds of the money went to him and his buddies.
Nevertheless I believe that no one person is right all of the time, never changes a single position and never makes mistakes. The most important factor is what the person’s policies are for the future and how much we can trust them to fulfill them. On that front, Newt is far and away the best candidate because his policies are boldly conservative and smart, and based on the Contract with America in 1994 we know he will fulfill every promise he makes to the voters.
Get the corrected record on Newt below...
http://www.newt.org/answers#Lobbying
Lobbying – Newt has never engaged in lobbying, period. Newt made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives.
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Furthermore, as the New York Times documents, Newt urged House Republicans to vote against the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. View Newt’s Freddie Mac consulting contract here.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.
http://www.newt.org/answers#Mandate
Mandate to Purchase health insurance
Newt opposes Governor Romney’s health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama’s health insurance mandate. Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.
With respect to President Obama’s health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals—by threat of fines—to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.
With respect to Governor Romney’s mandate, we have observed that it doesn’t achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out.
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
http://www.newt.org/answers#GlobalWarming
Global Warming/Cap and Trade
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade” as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.
Newt believes that cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer. In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.
As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion. Many scientists believe it is the case. Others do not. But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.
Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.
Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats’ destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.
http://www.newt.org/answers#TARP
TARP
Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy.
Newt was appalled and disgusted at the amount of dictatorial power that Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tried to grab for himself at the outset of the financial crisis. However, he reluctantly supported a scaled-down plan after Paulson told the country that the world financial system was going to collapse without this emergency support.
Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy. The Fed was picking winners and losers, using several emergency lending facilities to make all types of loans to connected parties, including to a bank owned by the Libyan government.
This is why broadly scaling back the role of the Federal Reserve and repealing the Dodd-Frank bill are two of the central pillars of Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America. The Fed will be fully audited and made more transparent to ensure the events of 2008 are never repeated, and getting rid of Dodd-Frank will once and for all end the destructive policy of “too big to fail.”
http://www.newt.org/answers#DREAM
Immigration/DREAM Act
In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.
Newt is opposed to amnesty and has a clear record of vigorous opposition to the Bush era amnesty legislation.
Newt believes America must be a nation of laws. The first duty of the federal government is national defense, and it is inexcusable that we haven’t secured the border. In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.
As we secure the border, we must make an aggressive and serious effort to deport all criminals, gang members, and any other threats to our society as quickly as possible. We must also tap into the ingenuity of the private sector to better validate who is in the United States legally.
Newt opposed the DREAM Act. However, he did agree with part of the legislation which allowed those who came to the United States illegally as children to serve in the U.S. Military to earn their citizenship, just as foreign nationals are today allowed to do the same.
Furthermore, Newt has proposed giving local communities the authority to allow those with long established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, we will send home those who are not self-sufficient, who have no family or community ties and quickly deport those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts, while providing minimal disruption to families and communities.
Read Newt’s 10 step immigration plan here.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration
So you want to cede moon exploration and the great scientific and economic benefits it is sure to harvest to China and Russia then?
With $10 million dollars freshly donated to Newt, I am confident that the MOST conservative candidate in the race and the MOST electable candidate in the race, Newton Leroy Gingrich, will rise again. Not all Republican voters are stupid enough to turn down the one conservative candidate who has been the MOST responsible for instilling all of the values they believe in into the government. One Newt is worth about 100 conservative talk show hosts who just TALK and never do the hard work of DOING and succeeding wildly at it that Newt did.
Another answer for your edification...
http://www.newt.org/answers#Dede
Dede Scozzafava Endorsement
Newt has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.
Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.
Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.
Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election. Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt’s endorsement of his rival, “I would advise other conservative republicans: Don’t hold this against him.”
Oh, ummmm..... yeah, it's not a bad but a GREAT idea that you have about Virginians voting for Uncle Paul over Willard the Magic Liberal there.
Hmmmmmmmm...... you don’t diss Willard Romney much, I’ve noticed.
Interesting.
I support Newt. He’d do a better job for conservatives than Rick. For one thing, he can think, walk and talk at the same time.
When a politican talks about selling incentives to multi-national corporations so he, a government official, can “create jobs”, he’s talking about more croney capitalism. Rick is way out of touch.
I think it is time to remove corporations from the US Treasury and the power to create monopolies and send their dreams of overcoming the constitution and ruling the world (globalism) packing. Hitler and Stalin were not all that wonderful.
If by “not much” you mean repeatedly, aggressively, consistently and thoroughly from 2008 until today, then yeah. One example...
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838293/replies?c=32
Obviously even a cursory examination of my posting history would reveal that I am for Newt and nor for the inferior candidates in the race.
I wouldn't exactly calll Noot's campaign propaganda you spam every thread with a "conservative institution" nor the person who relies solely on it as credible.
But it’s credible to respond to a post of mine with a complete non-sequitur attack that has NOTHING to do with the post you selectively clip a quote from? On the other hand that is par for the course from a Romney attack ad or from anyone else who makes it their agenda to destroy Newt Gingrich. The truth and facts do not serve that goal, hence people like you have to spin, lie, tell half-truths, take quotes out of context, misquote, mischaracterize, smear, etc. I hope if you believe in God that you have to answer for your falsehoods someday and the sooner the better.
Then I guess your calling your own candidate a liar...his words, not the revisionist campaign kool-aid you’re swilling by the gallon. Attacking the messenger isn’t helping your dead horse get across the finish line.
Nobody can “miss” the campaign literature being posted all over the web site. We can ignore the hyperbole though, because we are not all mindless lemmings who automatically believe everything we read on a campaign flier.
So, which is better — a 12.5% corporate tax on manufacturing, which means it’s still cheaper to make things in other countries and import them, or a 0% corporate tax on manufacturing?
My guess is your answer will be “but that picks favorites”. Not my question — it compares identical entities (manufacturing) and asks which is better for America, a 12.5% manufacturing tax or a 0% manufacturing tax.
Now, you could respond ‘Well, Santorum wants to tax other businesses MORE than 12.5%, so what about 12.5% service corporate tax vs 35%” — that would be a good question, if you had a clear evidence that Santorum would not back a 12.5% tax rate on service businesses.
I’m not a fan of “picking favorites”. But manufacturing is a pretty broad category. If you were cutting taxes for “prefered” manufacturers” over others in the same business, that would be “picking winners”. But it’s not like a new steel mill is going to unfairly compete with a tax preparation service — and it’s the unfair competition that is the meaning of “picking favorites”, not a “manufacturers aren’t treated the same as hospitals”.
The fact is that kind of discrepancy already exists throughout the tax code.
As to the “more conservative policy”, that was Perry’s. Nobody seemed to care. And Cain had 9%, which was better than Gingrich’s 12.5%.
BTW, there is a good reason to target manufacturing if you can only reduce corporate taxes on SOME segments of the economy (because we can’t afford to drop all corporate rates). Nobody is going to move a hospital to a foreign country. Service industries are likewise mostly bound here, as are retail businesses (mostly — obviously internet sales can be long-distance, and oddly we tax-favor the internet companies over brick-and-mortar). Tax preparation is going to likely stay local, the gas station isn’t going to relocate to japan, the local gym isn’t going to be outsourced to mexico, and your plumber isn’t going to work out of India.
Manufacturing is what is easiest to transplant, because the cost of manufacturing is a major part of the total cost, and with low taxes in foreign countries, and low pay, and fewer regulations, a company can easily move a factory, and import the final products and still save money over running the manufacturing locally.
And yet manufacturing is a major supplier of jobs, and in fact is one of the minority of businesses that actually contribute “source labor”. Source labor is labor that actually creates value-add to the economy. Other labor is useful, of course, but it’s really just “in-kind trading” with cash. I can pay you 100 to clean my windows, you take the 100 and pay someone to cut your grass, they pay 100 to someone to drive them around, and they take the 100 and pay me to do their plumbing. We haven’t created a dime of wealth, just passed 100 around and worked for each other.
It would be a shame to not look at how to stop killing manufacturing by cutting the corporate tax rate (which we all agree is a conservative principle, and it should be 0%), just because it sounds like something Obama has said once, or because it isn’t being pushed by our preferred candidate.
BTW, if Santorum was saying he was going to RAISE taxes on some people to give other people special treatment, the argument might have some slight merit. As it is, Santorum is looking to fix a real problem in the tax code, and some people are complaining because he isn’t giving THEM money back.
The same was done in 2008, paving the way for McLame to lose to Obama. I'll wager you were among the naysayers who said the most conservative in the race “can't win” backing your stalking horse until a McLame nomination was secured. Keep it up and Obama will thank you for another 4 years to destroy the country.
Just as bad as Santorum endorsing Sotormayor.... ew. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/#.TzxU2KpRNgM.twitter
Newt wants to reinvigorate the ENTIRE economy, including manufacturing. For example Newt’s pro-growth plan includes getting the government out of the way by cutting the regulations, gut the EPA, neuter the Fed, reduce the corp tax rate from 35% to 12.5%, allow 100% first year expensing of new equipment, eliminate the capital gains tax (repatriating billions), eliminate the death tax, implement an optional 15% personal flat tax after deductions, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, repeal Dodd-Frank repeal ObamaCare, break up freddie/fannie, and drill, baby, drill.
Go, Newt, GO!!
If you really believed Newt’s horse is dead, then why are you wasting your time attacking him on here? But then, honest evaluations of the facts aren’t your strong suit.
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.