E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney unveils his economic plan.
NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV-- In a crowded trucking company warehouse north of Las Vegas, Mitt Romney unveiled his highly anticipated economic plan today, saying it will fundamentally restructure the U.S. economy to create jobs, and painting President Obama's policies as hopelessly outdated.
"President Obama keeps putting quarters into a pay phone that isn't connected," Romney said to cheers from supporters here. "Your pay phone strategy doesn't work in a smartphone world!"
Romney, speaking without a teleprompter and with only a single page of notes, called his plan a "business plan for America", and outlined several of the 59 proposals laid out in a detailed 160-page book released by the campaign today. (Read the full plan here).
In the package of legislation he said he would propose on day one, and ask congress to act upon within 30 days, Romney said he would push to lower the corporate tax rate 10 percentage points to 25 percent and immediately implement three pending free-trade agreements.
Also on his first day agenda, Romney said he would issue executive orders to begin unwinding President Obama's healthcare legislation and other regulatory reform passed under this president, and push for sanctions to stop unfair Chinese business practices.
Unlike former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman's plan, presented last week, Romney's plan offered no specific revisions of personal income tax brackets, but does call for the elimination of all taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for Americans making less than $200,000 per year.
Romney's plan to create jobs and reform the economy covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from domestic energy production, -- which Romney would push for legislation to expand -- to the creation of a so-called "Reagan Economic Zone" of free-trading nations who agree to abide by strict fair-trade and intellectual property-protection rules.
Romney campaign officials say that their candidate's proposals amount to more than just a jobs plan, but a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. economy -- one that would create 11.5 million jobs and push GDP growth to four percent annually in the first four years of a Romney administration. Offering statistical estimates certain to be criticized and debated both by Democrats, and Romney's GOP rivals, campaign officials also say their modeling shows the plan cutting unemployment down to 5.9 percent within four years.
Campaign officials noted that the plan was likely to draw some fire from elements of both the political left and right, and before Romney had even left the building, both the Obama and Perry campaigns issued critical statements.
"While Mitt Romney spoke today about the struggles of the middle class, he offered a plan that would tip the scales against hard-working Americans," the Obama campaign statement read. "Governor Romney repackaged the same old policies that helped create the economic crisis: boosting oil company profits and allowing Wall Street to write its own rules, more tax breaks for large corporations and more tax cuts for the wealthiest while working Americans are forced to carry a greater burden."
The campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who according to today's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll leads Romney by some fifteen points among Republicans, also quickly issued a statement attacking the former Massachusetts governor's record leading that state, saying he "failed to create a pro-jobs environment and failed to institute many of the reforms he now claims to support."
But in what could become a talking point in tomorrow night's NBC News/Politico debate, one conservative voice defended Romney's plan, and called on other candidates to match it.
"Governor Romney deserves praise for his specific plan to put America on a path to economic prosperity." said Chris Chocola, president of the conservative Club For Growth. "Unlike President Obama, who has given nothing but empty rhetoric promising more of the same failed policies, Governor Romney has offered specific solutions. Every Presidential candidate should issue a comparable blueprint for Americans to review."
Leave a Comment:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!" Both Schwarzenegger and Whitman made that comment yet Republicans haven't learned a thing. Romney wants to continue doing what has been tried by Bush and Reagan and failed miserably. The only thing their policies succeeded at is transferring money from the middle class, who recirculates it immediately into our economy, to the wealthy, who remove it from our country.
After all of the hullabaloo - that speech was about as exciting as watching grass grow!
The swaggering "d" student from TX is going to clean Willard's clock...
Just sayin...
Wasn't too ironic that Willard gave his much anticipated speech from Vegas now right? lmfao!
Keep on cutting those taxes - it's worked out SO well for us up to now... ;o)
What was disappointing was the same ol' canned and tired rhetoric from the Big O administration. The American people look at his response and think,' Are you kidding?"
Obama is going to ask for another trillion dollars as his new stim.....whoops!....wrong verbiage.....what's the new lingo?....pizza money? Ana must have been referring to the Big O with her opening line.
Romney in a landslide. If he secures Rubio as his VP selection.....reminds me of a line in a song...
"... tried by Bush and Reagan and failed miserably"
AnaBanana fails miserably.
Reaganomics was a smashing success!
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
Obamanomics==massive fail Reaganomics = huge success
Reaganomics doesn't work. I remember the 80's. I remember Reagan cutting taxes. Sending the economy into a downward spiral and the very next thing he did it was raise taxes and raise them several times. Even with that, inflation went completely out of control. I remember 15% mortgages. I remember unemployment was very high until just before November 1984 and even then it was still above 8%. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Ana must've been in a parallel universe.
Tell Ana.....do you remeber the 22% mortgage interest rates under Jimmy? The high unemployment under Jimmy? The Democratic Congress which Ronnie schooled?
Where do you get your "facts"?
That has got to be some rocking stuff you have been smoking AnaB.
There is a very good reason you libbies are so afraid of Reagan's legacy.
And gosh I'd love to make some snarky remark to Feisty and her "D student" comment, but Obama's grades are all in a vault under the ocean.
Which is kinda surprising - after all he is the smartest man ever, right gang? So why hid the grades?
Thank you for mentioning the interest rates, Ana. In 1980 we bought our first home at around 13% interest(had we purchased the previous fall rate was about 12.5%) And we had to have 20% down. Two years later, my husband was transferred & the interest rate was around 15-16%. We took a chance & got a variable rate which went as high as 17% before it started to come down. Think we eventually refinanced to a fixed rate around 8%. When I hear people whine about the current rates, I cry. And sorry, Doug, I am 100% sure of the dates we moved. It was in the early 80s.
Anna's simply not gonna take it. Not gonna take it anymore. When the truth smacks her in the face she stands on her laurels and denies, denies, denies. If any republican plan works, it completely tears down Anna's defenses. In Anna's world, the republicans are evil therefore in her LSD enhanced vision, not a single republican ever did anything to help the economy... even though the records says Reagan had the largest peacetime sustained growth period in history. In fact, she completely misses the fact that it was republican led congress and senate that had the surplus at the end of Clinton's second term. OMG!!! Talk about tearing down a complete anti-republican ideology.... The earth shakes... lightening claps from the skies.
I got it... Anna wasn't born then... she grew up and totally missed the 80's and the late 70's is ancient history to her. I'd have to look at her school records to see if she was paying attention in class.
No need to be sorry Deb. You didn't bother to GOOGLE. No prob. If you did it would shoot your partisan stance full of holes. I did it for you:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html
This one will really clear things up for you:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
Here's a highlight:
What Reagan "inherited" (not sure if he would use that particular description) from Carter was a huge mess. In short: he fixed it. 92 months of unprcedented peace time growth. Did you expect such a huge mess to be fixed in less than one year (1980)? You must not've leaned left back then.
Again, Lots of Republicans spinning on this post. I was in college before I realized just because newspapers and magazines write it, does not make it so. Facts only. And nothing is more of a fact then what you live through. Another fact for you. Reagan was not in office when the wall came down in Berlin. Bush Sr. was. I was in Berlin the day it happened and remember it well. Everyone gives Reagan credit for something that didn't even happen during his watch. Sort of like giving Bush credit for getting Osama bin Laden. I'm sure that will be what all these Republican posters will be saying in 20 years. They are already spinning no terrorist attacks under Bush's watch. A great big lie three times removed from reality. The Republican mantra? Rewriting history hoping to catch someone napping through life.
Ana - I lived through the late 70's in the military. I got out in 79. I remember when gasoline was .39 a gallon and it went up to .99 during Carter's administration. It darn near tripled in price. The ONLY way I could afford the interest on my first home was using my GI benefit. Interest was 9% on the GI benefit when conventional was over 22%. After Reagan took over, the conventional interest rates started falling slowly and by the end of his term they were in the single digits... my GI benefit was more than conventional. Interest rates fell, inflation was under control and the GDP was rising... unemployment was not at the 12% as it was under Carter.
The wall did fall during Bush's presidency, but it was Reagan that got the ball rolling. The Soviet Union was out and falling apart. You can't deny that... especially if you were there.
Why do you hate Reagan? Because you are liberal and liberals hate anything conservative that works. You feel your ideology is the only correct one but you totally eliminate from your thoughts every bad liberal policy that has come down the pike that has harmed this country and made us weak.
AnaBanana, does denying reality ever give you a headache?
"Tear down this wall!" was the challenge from United States President Ronald Reagan to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy the Berlin Wall.
In a speech at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin,[1][2] Reagan challenged Gorbachev (who was then the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), to tear it down as a symbol of Gorbachev's desire for increasing freedom in the Eastern Bloc.
Former West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said he would never forget standing near Reagan when he challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. "He was a stroke of luck for the world, especially for Europe"
Brian b,
Don't hate Reagan. I voted for him since I was from California. I haven't seen a single "bad" liberal policy. They contribute to "social justice". Something I, as a Christian, live by. Social justice and security is what we need the federal government for. Don't want to go back to a Plutocratic society we once were. Therefore I will never vote for a Republican again until one shows up showing independence from corporations through his track record. Until then I'll be voting for my best interest and that would be anyone keeping greedy hands off social security, medicare and many countless programs designed to protect consumers and labor from greedy corporations. Obama 2012.
Unemployment by year:
Carter: 1977=7.1, 1978=6.1, 1979=5.8, 1980=7.1
Reagan: 1981=7.6, 1982=9.7, 1983=9.6, 1984=7.5
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
Also gas prices increased because we went from exporting
to importing oil during the 1970s.
It's a contest to see which Republican candidate can propose the lowest corporate tax rate. Romney at 25%, Cain wins at 9%. If Romney would close all loopholes, I'd go for the 25%, because that's better than the current 17% actually paid.
Interesting how the American workers should not be given hand-outs. Unemployment insurance just makes them not want to work. Corporate welfare, not so. If you give corporations a hand-out they will do the responsible thing. Because corporations are NOT people, umm Romney?
So let's see if we understand this. Corporations currently enjoy record profits and are sitting on piles of cash. Yet they are not hiring. If we give them more tax breaks and less regulations so they can make even more profits, they will then hire. Riiight, like putting quarters in a pay phone, but it's not connected so the call won't go through?
The economy needs a BIG jump start, and while interest rates are so low, government could and should do it. Not just with infrastructure that is needed anyway, but no more lay-offs of teachers, cops, etc. Also, stop unfair trade with China, require US companies to hire here if they want to sell here, and NO MORE tax cuts.
And we thought Perry was Bush without a brain, but former Bush adviser Glenn Hubbard who "designed" all the Bush tax cuts is...Romney's adviser who wrote Romney's Economic Plan, and I'll bet you can't guess what the plan is all about...tax cuts. Either way, fellow Americans, we would be in for a Bush sequel if you vote Republican.
Dennis
By the time he left office it was at 5.4%. He was re-elected in a landslide because the nation was experiencing the "Reagan Revolution".
When President Reagan took office on January 20th 1981, the price of a barrel of oil stood at $31 and by mid 1983 was $23, on its way down to $7 in 1986. So.....eh?
Oil prices have risen because of the policies of the Obama administration.
Ana - Welfare is a liberal program designed to keep poor people poor and under control. There are hundreds of do good liberal programs that never look at the big picture. If you are from California, you are well familiar with the intense forest fires that occur there every year. Reason: Sierra Club has filed lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent clearing the underbrush from the forests. The underbrush is what causes those immense fires fires to spread since it acts as kindling for any fire. If the forestry service were allowed to clear the underbrush, lives and homes would be saved every year.
I could go on and on about liberal actions and how they actually do more harm than good. Not all of them are harmful, but the liberals that put their plans into action do not consider the big picture. I realize this is completely offensive to you and your fellow do-gooders, but take education for example. Who runs it? Liberals. Why are our students so far behind other countries? Blame the leadership.
Liberals in politics are all for give away programs. They use compassion as their reasoning, but they actually harm those they try to help. I would jump for joy if the government would do away with social security and medicare. After they returned my investment, I could do more with it than they could ever dream of. Will it ever happen? No way! The government feels it can handle my money better than me. Yeah, right.
If you want to see what happens when you give liberals control, just look at California. Businesses leaving, last year 4600 business left bringing us to 50th in the nation. To much regulation, and our government is completely controlled by the unions. They say jump, and Jerry Brown ask how high. We have passed the tipping point, nothing left but down.
Perry cut funds in Texas for voluntary firefighting, which is now a problem because they don't have enough firefighters.
It is Teapublicans who fail to consider the unintended consequences. Teapublican policies keep people not only poor, but uneducated, and subjected to fire and brimstone from the religious-right. Because ignorant fearful people, who are also poor and preoccupied with basic survival, are easier to control.
BTW, abortion prevents unwanted children, usually born into poverty who grow up to be criminals. That's from a real study. Teapublicans need to become pro-choice!
How big are unions anywhere, including California? Puleeze.
Brianb:
I like your reasoning on liberalism, generally speaking. But my folks live right smack in the middle of those forests you speak of, and clearing brush is a huge part of the way of life out there. Like most bloggers I'm probably playing fast and loose with the facts but it seems to me that transforming the landscape by means of real estate speculation is probably the most harmful thing we ever did in this country, environmentally and economically.
For over thirty years I have built houses in the West and I always had mixed feelings about what we were doing. Firefighters call it the "wildland/urban interface"; that is to say, areas where unchecked natural growth and development exist side by side. Blame it on whom you will (even on us hippie framers, we built a lot of houses just trying to make a living), but overselling this false hope of home ownership and enticing people with "location, location, location" placed a lot of wood structures in the middle of a lot of fuel, because that's where the views, the fresh air and the ski slopes are.
I'm trying to be objective here, but I get pretty stirred up when I see how much harm real estate development has done us all. Promoting commuter lifestyles wastes energy, destroys farmland and forest environments, puts millions in debt over their heads chasing a false dream, strains the financial system (remember "too big to fail?"), promotes an inflated sense of entitlement shored up by massive consumer debt, and leaves thousands of unaffordable housing units vacant just waiting to be the new suburban slums. We did it all to ourselves, and for what? How many people do you know who ever paid off a mortgage? It was never about promoting home ownership, but selling a shortcut to artificial prosperity based on massive debt.
Is it any wonder the country as a whole is in the same jam as all these defaulting homebuyers? We are what we are, AND WE NEED TO RETHINK OUR MODELS AS WELL AS OUR DREAMS, or else a lot more than forests will burn down around us.
My deepest desire for America is that we may set these hysterical rhetorical pissing contests aside and work the solutions together. The Mortgage meltdown was not a liberal or conservative failure, but an American one.
We used to have a joke in Colorado among the framers: What's the difference between an environmentalist and a developer? A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the mountains, while an environmentalist is somebody who already owns one.
TP,
It is Teapublicans who fail to consider the unintended consequences. Teapublican policies keep people not only poor, but uneducated, and subjected to fire and brimstone from the religious-right. Because ignorant fearful people, who are also poor and preoccupied with basic survival, are easier to control.
Are you misguided, or what? How long has the Tea Party Movement been around? If you want to play the blame game choose another player. Seriously, are you trying to say that the Tea Party Movement did all this in just under three years?
Maybe the Tea Party Movement has more influence then we thought. Something to ponder.
True Patriot: abortion prevents unwanted children
So does abstinence, and nobody dies.
Yes, and abstinence is so easy to learn. Just look at how well Sarah Palin taught abstinence to her family!
...oh...never mind.
WCA - See how easy it is for liberals like TP to just want to kill children? With the mentality that abortion prevents unwanted children, it's no wonder people think they have a hidden agenda. They totally have lost the concept of what life is all about... maybe to them life is cheap and meaningless. See how they skew the big picture? Let's have all the sex we want and abort anything that's produced. Talk about heartless and self-serving.
The Republican-Tea Potty Plan is nothing more than the same failed Voodoo Economics.
Job1 - and liberalism is winning the day, Oh Yeah!
Da Noid - at least Sarah Palin's daughter took the responsible road and had the child. She didn't kill it like maybe you would have. Oooops a mistake, let's beat it to death!
Well, at least Grama Grizzly got her son & his knocked up girlfriend to the alter...
And sources are reporting she didn't even have to use the shotgun! lol
Reagan did implement policies when he took office in 1980 that made interest rates rise, this was by design to break the back of the massive inflation caused by the Carter Administration. Once inflation was in check, his supply side economic policies kicked in and our country's economy took off and never looked back. He knew what he was doing, and we had one of the greatest periods of prosperity ever. Compare that to what President Obama is doing, total opposite and total opposite results.
I will take a Reagan type leader today in a heartbeat. Not sure if Romney is that guy or not, but I can see President Obama is not. His policies have put us in a situation with long term high un-employment and long term economic stagnation. This direction needs to be reversed.
One thing I find really confusing with the Obama supporters out here is how they speak of this payroll tax Holiday as a good thing. This tax holiday benefits the well off much more than the true middle class. Funny how the libs are all for something that benefits the rich when Obama suggests it.
Someone making over 106K per year gets around $2100 extra dollars, someone making 50K per year gets around $1000. That sure seems fair… great job protecting the wealthy.
WCA:
[So does abstinence, and nobody dies.]
Spare us the "abstinence" bull@!$%#...it worked so well for Texas...it has one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates for girls aged 15-19. Those rates spiked during the Shrub Jr. presidency...
thetotas -- You may note I say Teapublicans or GOP/TP because these folks are one and the same. The Tea Party is the same far-right social conservatives who have always been in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party has been around for how long?
This from the Pew Research Center:
This from the American Sociological Association:
This from a Harvard/Notre Dame study:
All the studies conclude that the Tea Party is and always has been a minority in the Republican Party who want more religion, not just less government, and they're a bunch of bigots to boot.
Every single Tea Party candidate ran as Republican -- Not one ran as Libertarian or Independent. Likewise the Teabaggers I know who have registered as Libertarian or Independent will vote a straight Republican ticket. I hope there is a third-party candidate that runs in 2012 if for no other reason than a little intellectual honesty for a change.
Wow, my words look like a pretzel about now. I was talking about unintended consequences and referenced a study that shows unwanted children born into poverty grow up to be criminals. Since abortion was made legal, the crime rate has gone down. It's not my personal opinion.
Now that's not to say that birth control isn't a better option, but it (and education) has to be made available to poor women. So if Teapublicans don't want to be pro-choice, at least be pro-Planned Parenthood. The data is what it is whether you like it or not.
Sounds like Romney has it down. He pretty much covered all the real problems with job growth except the most imprtant step.....getting rid of Obama. That will boost consumer confidence 1000% immediately. I will personally celebrate with a new American built car, and an American vacation.
We need this experienced businessman at the helm, and will not make the mistake of electing a socialist community organizer ever again in our lifetimes.
Obama has buried the Democrats for a couple of decades. Even worse than Carter. Imagine that.
"but....but....but....i shot usama..."
hilarious!
What's really hilarious Doug. Watch all the Democrats start to really distance themselves from this fool. They want to be re-elected too. Obama has turned into political poison. (Guilt by association)
Besides that, when people vote, they tend to vote all one way or another. If they are voting against the teleprompter trooper, they may well just go down the line, voting against anyone with the dreaded"D" after their name. Right down to dog catcher.
Oh yeah.....They're going to run from him like he has a bomb vest on.
Maybe, just maybe, sanity will return to the Democratic Party.
Let's see if Obama's Jobs plan comes anywhere close to Romney's. Let's see if Obama's speech is just another typical "Spend and Blame" speil like it always is. Will he surprise us and endorse some of Romney's proposals?? I doubt it. Too much thinking for Obama to handle.
Barrack and Moochelle just need to go on a few more luxury vacations, suck up all the perks they can before they are booted out. (they could call them "fact-finding missions") LOL
Good ol' Romney.
He puts the "vague" in Vegas.
Unlike Obama - who is always so very specific in his speeches.
No doubt he'll bust out a whole bunch of specifics come Thursday, eh GOPex.?
Sure he will.
Ya Spanky, eh? Care to be a tool Spanky, eh? How bout some more questions, eh? Like to egg people on, eh? Not much to do, eh? Sad life, eh? Not a lot of friends, eh? Repeat myself ten times a day, eh? Enjoy the smell of my own farts, eh? Sure he will.
You don't do specifics too well Spanks.
All you do is smudge the lines, ask endless oblique questions, and obfuscate the way they taught you in lawyer school.
It's all you know. You're a one-trick pony.
Yep, you guys sure showed me. Personal attacks may hurt my feelings - words hurt, especially from you all, but they sure don't help Obama.
Nor do your words address Obama's slight problems providing specifics.
But hey, come THursday I will still be doing what they taught me in "lawyer school" [jeez can we even now assume you went to regular old college GOPex?]. I wonder will Obama be laying out all those specifics?
Of course he won't, eh StevoYo?
The night brings out a whole different element.
Poor, poor Spanky...such much mediocrity, so little time.
Oh, how irrevelent you have become, right "Counselor"?
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.... as this "plan" should.
REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION ----HARDLY
by Fareed Zakaria
Nov 4, 2010
We are watching the third Republican revolution unfold — the third time the Republican Party has come to power promising to fundamentally alter the relationship of the U.S. government to society. If the past is any guide, the Republicans are going to have a tough time fulfilling their pledge. If they do not deliver yet again, the American people, at some point, will surely conclude that they are hypocrites.
The first Republican revolution was the Reagan one, which promised to roll back Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. In its place, Reagan proposed a low-tax, small-government America. The first part happened, with a historic reform of the tax codes, bringing marginal tax rates way down and eliminating hundreds of loopholes. But the spending cuts never took place. The result: from 1981 to 1985, the federal budget deficit more than doubled as a percentage of GDP, and it declined slightly in Reagan's second term only because he agreed to tax increases. Still, the basic pattern was set. If the old Democratic paradigm was tax and spend, the new Republican one was borrow and spend.
In the core sense of reducing the size of government, the Reagan revolution was a failure. This is not my judgment but that of Reagan's budget director, David Stockman. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, Stockman places the lion's share of the blame on congressional Republicans, who never went along with efforts to cut government spending. That meant — given the tax cuts — that deficits exploded.
Round 2 was the Gingrich revolution. It was more successful, though that had a lot to do with the fact that it took place during Bill Clinton's presidency. The historical record is clear: since the mid-1960s, it was Clinton's terms that saw the lowest average deficits of any President — the only period of restraint in the growth of the federal government — and the biggest surpluses. Some spending restraint took place after the Republican congressional victories of 1994, but some — like steep reductions in the number of government employees — started earlier.
Most important, the surpluses were created in large part because Clinton raised taxes in his first year, something every congressional Republican voted against. But put that to one side. If Republicans were really serious about cutting spending, they had a golden opportunity after 2002, when they controlled all the levers of government in Washington. The result was the most reckless expansion of government spending and debt in two generations.
Bush made three big decisions: to cut taxes, give prescription drugs to the elderly and fight two wars. Crucially, he decided not to pay for them. ("Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," Dick Cheney famously told Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.) As a consequence, the U.S. went from having a large structural surplus in 2000 to a structural deficit that was close to 2.8% of GDP by the end of the Bush presidency. (A structural deficit is one that exists even in good times, as opposed to a cyclical one that is caused by a recession and the resulting drop in tax revenues.) After the 2008 recession came along and tax revenues plummeted, that deficit more than doubled. But the hole was created well before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Third time around, the Republicans say they mean business. But when asked how they will close the deficit, most explain they will cut taxes — which will only reduce government revenues further and increase the debt. Others, like Dick Armey, chairman of the Tea Party affiliate FreedomWorks, say they would eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, whose budget is $167.5 million, approximately 0.01% of the federal deficit.
On the Oct. 31 edition of 60 Minutes, Stockman weighed in on this madness. "We've demonized taxes," he said. "We've created almost the idea that they're a metaphysical evil ... It's rank demagoguery. We should call it for what it is. If these [Republicans] were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So to stand before the public and rub raw this antitax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."
I would suggest three litmus tests to gauge whether the Republicans are serious about deficits: 1) Are they prepared to stop with the tax cuts? Because the deficit will keep widening with more of them. 2) Are they prepared to cut middle-class entitlements? Because the only places to find real reductions in federal-government spending are in the large, popular programs like Medicare and Social Security. 3) Are they ready to take on the Pentagon? Because at $717 billion, defense spending — more than half of all discretionary spending — has to be trimmed.
These are not political statements. They are mathematical ones, and it is on understanding math, not politics, that the third Republican revolution now rests.
And you have to wonder what kind of economics or math grades Mr. Perry received in college. You can't wipe out an economic collapse by adding to unemployment. All of the Republican plans aimed at cutting the size of government add to unemployment which leads to additional reductions in revenue which adds to the deficit. The race to the bottom has to stop.
All i needed was to read Fareed Zakaria and I spit tea out of my nose.
Really GOP? Are you serious? The guy is a complete idiot even by liberal standards. Why not dig deep and pull out some of his classics?
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/02/fareed-zakaria-fox-viewers-dont-watch-cnn-our-competition-npr-and-nyt
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/18/fareed_zakaria_has_a_problem_1/
Just another Ivy school liberal who likes to hear himself talk of things he has no real experience with. Nothing wrong with it. But if I'm going to consider someone's opinion on the "Republican Revolution" it's not goiung to be from some unexperienced immigrant who has never been in politics a day. Karl Rove's written about this....why not quote him?
He just keeps spouting his nonsense because he hopes it will keep ICE off his butt and he'll get free digs like Aunt Zetunia.
One needs only look at who employs him. Or bother to waste a little of your life and actually listen to him spew his lunacy on the CrazyNewsNetwork.
Doug,
If you people read books instead of burned them you'd be a lot better off.
You're lucky the Democrats are your adversary and not me.
Doug - You have to realize by now the democrats/liberals are getting desperate. Any and all weapons are being pulled... although we know that their weapons are getting weaker and weaker. Obama is losing his support - the rats are jumping ship in large numbers. His vision of utopia and a union led United States are fading fast. This will lead him into two options... either fade into history, or do something that will ensure he gets the next election. We need to be on guard for the latter.
Obama has to go. He is devistating our economy. His plan will be for trillions in stimulus, citing the first stimulus wasn't large enough to do the job... He may even quote several economists stating the same opinion... Obama will try to pull out every stop to get his hands on the money.
Apparently GOP, you don't bother to read your sources. At least I read them before burning.
Sounds like a really pathetic attempt to be scary. I'm thinking of scary music to set the mood. Alice Cooper's "Black Widow"...
Gotta admit though...you quoting Zakaria and being serious was a little scary.
Go ahead....adverse the living crap out of me.
It's not going to happen Brian. It's pretty easy to predict what will happen. Allow me....
He will ask for more money citing the last stimulus was not enough....
House will reject it as being wasteful and propose (repropose?)their own plan...
Dems in senate will make a show and demonize, offer a couple of amendments, but cave because 2012 is rolling up and Obama has crashed the car into a group of vacationing convalescents while driving drunk and smoking crack.
Obama takes credit, America knows better. He goes back to Chitown in Jan 2013. But knowing him, he'll leave early on vacation.
This guy attempts at humor are about as funny as "wet flatulence " and that's being kind ! And in true republican form... it all ends in better tax breaks for the business's ...now we have had almost 11+ years of these Bush tax breaks and still no jobs ....someone needs to let go of their ankles !
When you guys think you can come up with some intelligent commentary,.....call us.
Till then,...it just isn't enough to dismiss someone as a "Liberal" anymore. It's lazy. It means nothing. It's old, stale and ineffectual.
The facts are, our ideology damages yours, and you people just don't know how to square your shoulders and confront it.
"So what're you gonna do,....just stand there and bleed?"
Really? Please elaborate....how does your worn out, rehashed, nonsense which has never worked in the real world damage ours? An ideology which must hide and rename itself when it resurfaces after being rejected under another tag? An ideology embraced by the weak minded and pathetic?
That's how you're dismissed. Liberal is just a shortcut.
Doug,
Ask GOP why his policies that he loves so much doesn't work in Detroit? While you're at it, ask him why DPS is the 3rd highest paid teachers in the country with a graduation rate of 26%.
I'll wait for the insults.....................
Dude.
Do you realize you just described republicanism Tea Baggers?
Eisenhower: high taxes, high prosperity, balanced budget (don't Republican's love the 1950's?).
Clinton: higher taxes than before him, high prosperity, balanced budget.
But hey, don't let the facts get you down. Low taxes have failed to bring on prosperity, although why Republicans are now floating a proposal to cut them on the rich while raising them on the poor (supposedly to stabilize Social Security, which they hate for some reason) is beyond me.
And the social safety net is what is keeping our cities from burning (remember, Republicans encourage gun ownership among the very poor they want to take any help from).
excessively moonbatty,
Your post is a real gem, with hints of racism and condescending limosine liberal:
"the social safety net is what is keeping our cities from burning"
Really? Is that like, "let them eat cake"? They are to dumb to be allowed to get a job, so pay them not to riot?
The utter disaster that is the inner city is a reflection of decades of liberal policies, the addictive drug of welfare policies which destroyed private business, and led to white flight... and black flight.. anyone who could get out, got out.
Culture of dependency, generations of welfare, single motherhood, ruination of private sector and work ethic. Great job, liberals....
One thing I wish someone could explain to me, is why having a debt of $14 trillion is intrinsically so bad.
It seems to me that the important thing is the ratio of debt to GDP. Right now I think the ratio is around 0.58 (58%). At the end of WWII, the ratio was around 100%, and yet the US was able to fund the Marshall Plan and the GI bill, realizing that doing this would build a market for our goods, and train workers who would otherwise be unemployed while the USA switched from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
Also, it's simple math that there are two ways to lower a ratio: either decrease the numerator, or increase the denominator. So instead of worrying so much about cutting the debt (the numerator) why not put more effort into increasing the denominator by creating more jobs?
The only real efficient jobs are created in the private sector...
Paying for phony public sector jobs is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Inefficient and in the long term, counterproductive. Ask the failed socialist states, anywhere in the world.
Socialism is the God that failed, and continues to fail.
Look at the disaster that is California, for goodness sake. The crooked public sector unions are bleeding the state dry.
If there was only one thing that could be pointed out about having a debt of 14 trillion dollars that we could all agree was bad? That would be........412 billion paid servicing the interest on the debt for 2011. Close to the amount Obama will ask for to stimulate job growth Thursday.
Wow. Next.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
. Post #2-- I will personally celebrate with a new American built car----You can thank Obama for that.
Tom, you really must buy a Chevy Volt from Government Motors...
The moonbat's Edsel...The ObamaMobile!
Only 41K for your electric toaster...goes 20 whole miles without a recharge...and good luck finding a recharge station
Over 200 sold nationally......
now, we find out not only did perry cut almost 5 billion from the Texas education fund, he also cut volunteer fire dept. across the state . that's right. please reporters do your jobs and check this out. this is more than just a one day story and move. we are living in fear. fires are all around us,I had one yesterday that we managed to put out less than thirteen miles from my house. we got lucky, we stopped it at only five acres.
so this is really the fella you want for your nominee. when this gets out, he will not stand a chance. that is unless obama is too meek to use the facts, which is highly possible. I can see him thinking he can have a gentlemanly, sociable chat with this ijit.the gop's only chance is huntsman, but their too blind to see it. I'm voting for huntsman in the Texas republican primary.
The Republican-Tea Potty Plan is nothing more than the same failed Voodoo Economics.
Mr Roboto...
Bob-188791o@#1.3--Doug Ponders@#1.5---Spanky@#1.6====Please Google jobs by Presidents. Jimmy Carter is credited with a +10.3 million jobs increase in his one term===Ronald Reagan +5.3 in his first term,in his second term he had a +10.8 million increase.===Bill Clinton +11.5 million in his first term, in his second term Clinton had a + 11.2 million increase. === George H.W. Bush +2.6 million increase in his one term.==George W. Bush had 0.0 (no change either up or down)===In his second term George W. Bush is credited with +1.1 million jobs in crease. Now I,m sure you can do simple math, so do it and you will see that Jimmy Carter is credited with 2.8 times jobs created by both Bush 41 and Bush 43. And if you noticed Carter beat Reagan's first term bay a margin of 2 to 1. Also I seem to remember a couple of recessions during Reagan's terms. I also remember a huge drop in the stock market one day in October 1987 (I think it was about 800 points) Reagan was an ok President but he was not all that super that you think he was.
How many is Obama credited with creating?
No denying your numbers but that's just part of the equation.
I've heard conservatives like Maria Bartiromo and Paul Gigot makes this argument that corporations won't hire because they are "uncertain" about taxes, and healthcare regulations, but it doesn't ring true to me.
I used to work for catalog company L.L.Bean, and they would hire a ton of people in the fall to handle the back-to-school, Christmas rush, then lay us off by the end of December. Eventually I worked up to year round employment, but after 9/11, when business tanked, I was laid off. I bet I could walk in there today and get a job, "no hard feelings," they'd say.
Businesses have no compunction about hiring and laying off people, and a business that size could find a way to make a profit off having to give part-timers health insurance, I guarentee it; L.L. Bean really knows how to manage it's work force. (Heck, they sold us returned, damaged goods and convinced us it was a "benefit." Employees were a big part of the customer base.) I think this conservative argument that businesses are hesitant to hire because of uncertainty is a code word for corporations holding the economy hostage till the politicians agree to keep taxes low on CEO salaries.
It must take a lot of effort to remain so negative in life about anything you decide is "evil".
That says one man's dream in 1912 has turned into 4600 year round jobs and another 4400 seasonal jobs. And all you get out of it is "businesses have no compunction about hiring and laying off people"?
Is it safe to say you are not in business?
I've heard conservatives like Maria Bartiromo and Paul Gigot makes this argument that corporations won't hire because they are "uncertain" about taxes, and healthcare regulations, but it doesn't ring true to me.
Guess what --- companies DO NOT hire people because they get a tax break. The hire people when demand increases. If you want to increase demand -- give tax cuts to the middle class so they have more money to spend. Bill Gates isn't going to go out any buy a new car because he got a tax cut. The richest of the rich will spend the same whether they get a tax cut or not. Give an extra $200 per month to the average working family and they will spend it thus creating more demand and more jobs.
Charlie: sshh!! don't confuse them with facts and truth. Pretty soon you'll be accused of being *an American*.....*gasp*
Doug Ponders
I'm not saying the company I worked for was evil. But neither is it a charity. Businesses hire and lay off people according to the companies' needs, that's the free market. I'm just saying what the conservatives give as a reason why their not hiring, because of "uncertainy" around taxes and healthcare regulation, just doesn't sound right to me.
PS the original founder is long gone to his reward.
Absolutely Amy,
Businesses are not charities. Anyone in business will tell you volume fixes most problems. It's a down time for business. Uncertainty, regulations, expenditures all that cut into the bottom line affect a business more when things are tight. To say that demand is the driving force behind hiring is correct. Demand is down. Regulations and uncertainty have to be dealt with. That can equate to laying off or not hiring.
I'm pretty sure Leon has passed.
Doug
Yes L.L. Bean has passed, but his grandson Leon Gorman is still chairman of the company, and family members sit on the board.
I have only two questions for mitt. what the hell is a "jobs making machine" ??? I've personally never seen one !!! and, did you have this "jobs making machine" as governor of Massachusetts ??? if you did, it must have been malfunctioning as your state ranked #47 in job creation when you were at the helm !!!
P.S. at bain capital you were a job cutter/down-sizer !!! what's changed other that your "rhetoric" ??
Same old, same old, same old --- tax cuts for the richest of the rich, tax cuts for giant corporations, less regulation, more trade deals -- the same voodoo economics Republicans have been pushing for 30 years.
Obviously the Romney supporters either don't know or don't care that his Economics guy (Mr.Hubbard) is the same GWB guy who told the President it was ok to fight two unfunded wars and have tax cuts simultaneously! He also of the Wall Street , Goldman Sachs crowd who played Las Vegas style games with the mortage derivatives scam. Such a charmer, this Hubbard fellow.
Go Romney!
Reaganomics: For average Americans, it was certainly not an era of prosperity
How we view history matters. Conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal, and demonizing the Kennedys, because they understand that the way we perceive history affects politics today. Liberals were aghast, recently, when Barack Obama seemed to praise Ronald Reagan; they understand that revulsion against the excesses of the 1980s is a powerful weapon in their arsenal of partisan warfare.
There has been a recurring theme among the Republican candidates for president over the past year or so, as each has attempted, with varying degrees of righteousness, to portray himself as the heir of Reagan.
While Reagan undoubtedly injected a renewed sense of patriotism, his record is so mixed that I wonder why the R's are rushing to assume his mantle. In economics, Reagan's policies were a disaster, and their re-adoption over the last seven years have led us to the edge of financial ruin as a country, to un-ending debt and to a housing and credit crunch that seems to have turned our economy to recession.
It does matter how we talk about the Reagan era. Bill Clinton knew that when he ran for president. "The Reagan-Bush years," he said, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility É and of neglect."
Compare that with Obama's declaration, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan gave us a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Maybe Obama was, as his supporters maintain, simply praising Reagan's political skills. But I do not see in his remarks a clear affirmation that Reaganomics failed.
For Reaganomics most certainly did fail. Yes, there was a mini-boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from the oil shocks and recession of the late '70s. But while the rich got much, much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most of us.
By the late 1980s, middle-class income was barely higher than a decade before -- and the poverty rate had risen. When the inevitable recession arrived, during the administration of Bush I, people felt betrayed -- a sense of betrayal that Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Good things do eventually happen in the U.S. economy -- but not on Reagan's watch. I'm not sure what Obama meant by "dynamism," but if he was alluding to productivity growth, there weren't any gains in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off, but even the Bush II administration's advisors say that that takeoff began in 1995.
It's hard to link that inflection point to tax cuts in 1981. Similarly, if a "sense É of entrepreneurship" means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn't happen in the 1980s, when the business press praised Japanese management. Like productivity, American business didn't stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office -- or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn't happen until 14 years had passed. But why would a self-proclaimed progressive like Obama say anything that lends credibility to this rewrite of history -- especially now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, "Shrub" began his term with big tax cuts for the rich, with promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And, like Reaganomics -- but more swiftly -- Bush-onomics has ended in unhappiness. Wage gains lag inflation. Employment growth is dismal compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don't have a formal recession -- and apparently we now do -- the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right's ideas don't work and never have. Progressives have another chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: The vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But progressives won't be able to make that argument if their leaders seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
Reagan was wrong. Any politician who promotes himself as the economic heir of Ronald Reagan should be run out of town on a rail.
Sorry Dougie @15.1, but President Obama has not had a full term yet. The fact that Bill Clinton created more jobs in 8 years than Reagan and the two Bushes did in 20 years seems to bother you. Too bad.
Seattle Sue, why dont you provide everyone how your job creation statistics were made? Its not accurate to use numbers based on first day of the presidency to the last when they inherit downturns in the economic cycle based on previous administration's policies. I assume you would agree that if you use your method that Obama shouldnt be hit with the loss of jobs from the Bush recession right? You need to look at economic policies that get us out of the down cycle. Bush's policies after the internet bubble and 9/11 or Reagan after the Carter recession. If you use your method, Obama will finish his 4 years deep in the red.
Kirk-2957282=== Sorry Dude but my job creation statistic were make by copying right from Google/Wikipedia, if you are not happy with the statistics, file a complaint with them. At the end of Obama's term I will post the results of his job creation or his loss of jobs. You can spin it however you want but I will take Wikipedia word over yours. Remember Reagan had recessions during his terms. If you don't believe me go to Wikipedia.
Seattle Sue, I am not saying your numbers arent accurate but I cant believe you use Wikipedia as a source and think thats a good thing but you missed my point completely. Looking at an 8 year term that has the benefit or detriment of economic cycles buried inside them gives a misleading conclusion. Most people worship FDR but his numbers after 8 years would make him the worst president of all time. The same thing with Obama, he doesnt have a chance at fighting out of the hole that was dug for him by the recession started under his tenure but caused by previous administrations. Thats not fair to Obama and not fair to previous presidents. Under you method, Obama will end his term with negative numbers. Reagan had one recession under his tenure and just like Obama it was caused and started under the previous administration. Starting in 1982 through 1990, it was constant GDP growth. For both Reagan and Obama, the more relevant statistic is how quickly and how much job growth came after hitting the bottom. What policies did they adopt to get us out of recession and what was their impact. So sorry dudette, your Wikipedia source can make you feel good but your statistics are worthless in terms of the debate we are having. Its peak to trough job growth during an economic cycle that is the measure you should be looking at.
I say lets stick to the hear and now and the reality of the times that all of the policies from 2008 all the way until 1930 will not work in 2011. Why, because everybody is fighting for the same thing how to get America back on track to being great but everybody has different ways of doing it. It's a clash between people saying MY POLICY IS THE BEST NO MY POLICY IS NO MINE IS THE BEST. To me you have to be able to recoginize that nobody's policy is the best. Instead I think you got to everything you can including the 10% tax rate cut for corporations and the infrastructure spending to get our roads and bridges rebuilt. So anyone who feels that there's a candidate out there capable of blending both policies while also inspiring both sides to come to an agreement then that's who I will vote for.
Mr. Greer: Jon Huntsman ?
Okay, so Mitt wants to lower the existing tax rate for corporations by about 10%. The only thing is that corporations pay virtually no taxes today. A recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows that between 1998 and 2005 67% of American corporations paid no Federal Income taxes. In addition, during that same time frame 68% of foreign corporations doing business here in the US did not pay any Federal Income taxes.
If the GOP is going to reduce the corporate tax rate even further, does this now mean that corporations are now going to start receive money from taxpayers?????
Think about it ...