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 ...
Well which is it, First you defend Newt Co-endorsing a candidate with ACORN, then you say even Newt admitted it was a mistake. (Which is Politispeak, for I would like conservatives to vote for me now.) The same with Nancy Pelosi and the crazy space mirror plan.
If we weren’t 15 trillion dollars in dept with millions more being added every minute, I would say, go ahead and build your moon mine and retrieve those minerals, that will only cost 1,000,000.00 an ounce with shipping. But when 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed from the Chinese, we don’t have any money to pay for space speculation. We’re already paying for China’s space program for pete’s sake.
Newt has done a lot of good in the past, and compared to Romney, he is certainly conservative, but this close to Super Tuesday, it is hard to see Newt doing anything more than maybe finishing ahead of Paul. Of course, by hanging in at this stage, Newt is giving Romney his only shot at closing the deal.
Well which is it, First you defend Newt Co-endorsing a candidate with ACORN, then you say even Newt admitted it was a mistake. (Which is Politispeak, for I would like conservatives to vote for me now.) The same with Nancy Pelosi and the crazy space mirror plan.
If we weren’t 15 trillion dollars in dept with millions more being added every minute, I would say, go ahead and build your moon mine and retrieve those minerals, that will only cost 1,000,000.00 an ounce with shipping. But when 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed from the Chinese, we don’t have any money to pay for space speculation. We’re already paying for China’s space program for pete’s sake.
Newt has done a lot of good in the past, and compared to Romney, he is certainly conservative, but this close to Super Tuesday, it is hard to see Newt doing anything more than maybe finishing ahead of Paul. Of course, by hanging in at this stage, Newt is giving Romney his only shot at closing the deal.
This will not only bring about a Reaganesque economic and financial boom, but will open up all industry, ie, manufacturing, coal, gas, oil, mining, timber, construction, transportation, communications, shipping, housing, etc, etc, etc.
Actually, none of those organizations directly addressed the Santorum speech. A no-name "Ipad Newsletter" reporter got some quotes from one person who is associated with each organization. Who do these people support? One didn't even attack Santorum, he just expressed a preference for taxes being neutral (and the quote given isn't even a sentence, which suggest the "reporter" has a partial quote but didn't identify it). Two of them were more complaining that it would be hard to define "manufacturing".
But if you are really concerned that nobody attacked by these people can really be "conservative", I offer you the following links:
Note that both of those links are actual press releases from the organization, not just a quote from someone who works there.
But there's more:
American Enterprise Institute: "Why is Team Gingrich parroting a pro-Obama union's attack"
That's an actual article from the American Enterprise Institute, not just a quote from someone who works there.
And then there's this, from another conservative source:
Rush Limbaugh rips Gingrich over Bain Capital Attacks
Be careful about such sweeping pronouncements -- your candidate doesn't do well under YOUR STATED criteria.
Santorum supported some BIG SPENDING projects in the past along with Spector and Sotormayor. He has some explaning to do (just as the others). He will be slaughtered eventually. Newt just got an extra 10M. He has a grassroots effort that is growing.
He is a pitbull and wont put up with the press. Which is great.
Newt is such a far ahead thinker that normal people such as you cannot wrap your head around the idea of colonizing any place but your humble abode. But, hey, who blames you.
Newt is a gradiose thinker and it is amazing at the facts that he knows. It is amazing at where he has been and what he has done.
Newt has the experience and both Santorum and Romney cannot touch that. Sorry.
I say, quit hitchhiking with the Russians and let’s beat them to the moon. But, we can only do that with Newt.
But, hey, look on the bright side, at least he has more delegates than Santorum right now.
Then you go on to talk about how it's okay to tax some industries more because they're "stuck" here and can't move overseas. Wow, doesn't morality and fairness enter into the equation for you? By that logic we should tax the rich a lot more because they can "afford" to pay it. Or maybe tax the poor more because they can't afford to dodge their taxes with tricky accounting. The ends do NOT justify the means as you seem to think they do when it comes to the tax code.
You're talking like a "central planner," someone who thinks you are smart enough to tweak the system and move the pieces around to the benefit of society as a whole. Anyone who understands conservative economic principles knows that doesn't work, only the free market as driven by individual choice works. You're operating in the same ideological realm as Obama's stimulus and bailouts. It's sad to see someone on a conservative forum who I assume is supposed to be a conservative abandon their principles just because they "like" a certain candidate. This is very reminiscent of Ann Coulter defending Romneycare.
Another thing the central planner always forgets is that the individual knows more and is smarter than them. The individual will always find the loopholes in your plan and the flaws in your analysis and exploit them. For example, you say tax preparation won't go overseas...are you sure? What happens when the Indians figure out how to master our tax law and start offering tax preparation online? Central planning can never eliminate individual ingenuity as it wants to, it can only inadvertently redirect it into areas it never intended to.
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.
That is utter nonsense logic. There is no "problem" in the tax code, unless you consider fair and equitable taxes a "problem." Moreover, by your logic I could cut all income taxes for black people, and it's not a problem because I'm not RAISING taxes on other races. Whether something is defined as "special treatment" or not has no bearing on what "direction" the special treatment moved in. You really need to go back to Conservative Economics 101.
Hey, your the one with the picture. Glad you keep them. ew
Hey, you’re the one with the picture. Glad you keep them. ew
(Correcting my grammar!)
:-)
When you fix a problem by cutting taxes, you do it across the board.
Anything else is the government picking winners and losers.
Government needs to stay the hell out of doing that.
Plain and simple.
Here here!
(good post)
Difference is I’m talking about actual policy advocated by the candidate, not mere campaign rhetoric. No one disputes Newt was attacking Mitt from the left with the Bain attacks. But that was just a campaign tactic and an effort in part to show that Mitt would not be as electable as people thought he might be against liberals in the fall. Campaign rhetoric blows away in the wind but government policy is a heavy weight on all of our lives.
You are such an utter freakin' LIAR which you prove over and over again with EVERY single post you write, whether they're against Newt or against me. Was Santorum credible competition after he lost every big state after his Iowa "tie?" As you know the polls and victories have shifted wildly in this race on a daily basis. Newt, by his merits as one of the greatest conservative visionaries and leaders of the 20th century up there with Reagan and Thatcher, is seriously credible competition to Romney and always has been whether he's been down or up in the polls. Newt is also BY FAR the strongest candidate to go up against Obama. You can't beat the left with "left light," e.g. the economically liberal Santorum, the socially/foreign policy liberal Paul, or the socially/economocally liberal Romney. That's why Newt's earning millions in donations and just got another $10 million from a smart money man who knows where the smart money belongs. Of course I obviously would never vote for Paul, unless I lived in Virginia.
No, you were talking about the item posted up in the thread, which was a campaign flier. If you didn’t want to talk about the campaign flier, you shouldn’t have yelled at me for not looking at it.
[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.”
Ricky, tsk tsk tsk. In your haste you forgot to mention the impact UNIONS have on the cost of manucturing. Either he doesn’t know, forgot OR could he be a union sympathizer.
Ha! Everyone who doesn’t swallow the campaign kool-aid is a “liar”??? Newt and Romney are running neck and neck on which candidate supplies Obama with the most ammo against conservatives and both would be a repeat of McCain 2008.
Oh joy...another $10 mill from a casino owner looking to buy influence for the gambling lobby. That’s not going to end well.
Hey far-ahead thinker, Santorum wasn’t in the Senate when Sotomayor came up for a vote. Yeah, endorsing Specter wasn’t Santorum’s best moment, but at least he didn’t have ACORN as a co-endorser. Newt’s candidate was so liberal that when she left the race, she endorsed the Democrat.
Moon Colonies and Giant Space mirrors may be visionary. But, you don’t need Newt’s far-ahead vision to realize the Country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Newt may be willing to saddle the next ten generations with big government induced poverty so that the first moon base will named Newtopia, but those of us who live in “Realville” realize, we need to pay off the second mortgage on our home, before we borrow money to pay for that new yacht.
Wow, you don’t listen. (and you respond when everyone is asleep) buy anywho. Newt is far from Obama’s and Santorum’s big spender policies.
Ever hear of the stadium dude? (Santorum) He lobbied for a sales tax to pay for a new stadium!?!?!?!?!? ugh!
Santorum is a BIG SPENDER and you know it....
http://9theranch.com/santorum-backed-pittsburgh-stadium-tax-hike/
I do listen. I just think the skeletons in Newt’s closet are more disturbing than those in Santorum’s. As far as responding when everyone’s asleep. I am presently in a time zone that is 9.5 hours ahead of East Coast time, sorry if that inconvieniences you.
Anyway, I would support Newt or Santorum even though both are far from my first choice. However, since Newt is fading fast, it looks like my money will be going to Santorum.
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.