Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Policies Would Create 6.6 Million Jobs in First Two Years; Balance Budget in First Term
newt.org ^ | February 23, 2012 | Peter Ferrara

Posted on 02/23/2012 7:54:58 PM PST by Marguerite

Newt 2012 Senior Economic Policy Advisor Peter Ferrara released the following topline summary of the official score of Newt’s Jobs and Economy Recovery Plan, which predicts Gingrich policies would balance the budget within the first term of a Gingrich presidency and lead to 6.6 million new jobs created in two years:

Newt Gingrich has proposed a very aggressive, comprehensive, supply side economics, jobs and economic recovery plan. It features dramatically lower personal and corporate tax rates, the elimination of the capital gains tax and death tax, deregulation and sound monetary policy. The plan would especially roll back regulatory barriers to energy production, unleashing the private sector to maximize all forms of American energy production. Full details of the plan can be found in Appendix A.

Art Laffer, supply side economics guru and architect of Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery package, has endorsed Gingrich’s economic recovery plan as the most promising pro-growth package, saying, “Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field.” He predicts that the plan “would create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade.”

To demonstrate the impact of Newt Gingrich Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, as well as his other polices for controlling spending and reforming government, Newt 2012 hired Fiscal Associates and its lead economist Gary Robbins to score the impact of Gingrich’s polices. They were chosen because they have a fully developed economic model with demonstrated ability to estimate the effects of rate cuts in promoting jobs and economic growth.

Their study yielded the following key findings:

President Gingrich’s pro-growth policies would create 6.6 million new jobs in the first two years;

President Gingrich’s pro-growth policies combined with sensible spending reductions and increased federal royalties from American energy development would balance the budget in his first term;

President Gingrich’s structural reforms to entitlements would keep the budget balanced.

President Gingrich Pro Growth Policies Would Create 6.6 Million New Jobs In Two Years

The Fiscal Associates score projects that Gingrich’s supply side program would restore the economy to the long term economic growth path of 1947 to 2007, when the economy averaged 3.2% real growth per year, up from the current trend predicted by CBO of 2.4%. That catch up would involve average real growth over the first 10 years under the Gingrich program of 4.4% a year.

That booming economic growth would produce 6.6 million jobs in the first two years alone, reducing the unemployment rate ultimately to 4.6%. The overall results from the Gingrich path would be a 20% higher standard of living for the American people compared to the Obama path, indefinitely into the future.

This findings are consistent with the Reagan expansion resulting from similar policies. The score does not include further economic deterioration under the Obama policies likely to begin next year, stemming from his dramatic tax rate increases already enacted into current law for 2013, not to mention the further tax increases Obama called for in the State of the Union, and in his recent budget. Those policies will cause another steep recession next year. President Gingrich Would Balance the Budget in his First Term

It was Newt Gingrich’s leadership as Speaker of the House of Representatives which led to the last balanced budgets, and the Fiscal Associates score of Newt’s policies show he would achieve this goal again. In fact, with the above Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan, President Gingrich would be able to balance the budget within his first term.

The first step to balancing the budget is to restore booming economic growth, which produces both surging revenues and reduced spending, all by itself. In fact, each percentage point of increased GDP growth by itself reduces the deficit by close to $3 trillion over 10 years.

The Gingrich tax reform plan was not designed to be revenue neutral, but to maximize job creation, economic growth and prosperity. The Gingrich plan is not to bring revenues up to the level of federal spending, but to reduce federal spending to the level of revenues produced by a maximum jobs and growth economy.

The Fiscal Associates score projects a net revenue loss on a dynamic basis from the above tax cuts of $140 billion in the first year. But the pathbreaking paper published by Harvard’s Martin Feldstein in 1996 in the prestigious American Economic Review projects the present value of the net gain in GDP of shifting to personal savings and investment accounts for Social Security of $20 trillion. Based on that analysis, we estimate that the additional revenues produced by the pro-growth effects from those accounts would be at least $26 billion in the first year.

In addition, the free market energy policy referenced above, unleashing American companies and workers to maximize production of American energy from all sources, would produce at least another $18 trillion in future increased royalties and other pro-growth effects. While that too would grow sharply over time, we estimate at least $15 billion in the first year from those effects alone, reducing the net revenue loss below $100 billion.

That revenue loss would be overwhelmed by a budget policy of returning every federal line item to 2007 levels, except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, debt interest, and federal employee retirement benefits. That was just a few years ago, and America survived perfectly fine with those levels of spending. The first year savings from that policy would be almost $500 billion, growing larger in future years due to the lower trend line.

That would just be a down payment on the desirable budget cuts, as federal spending grew by one-seventh as a percent of GDP during the Bush years, and by another one-fourth already in the Obama years, less than half the time for the Bush increase. Further cuts would come from eliminating every corporate welfare program and bailout, and outdated or counterproductive programs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Repealing Obamacare would save at least $725 billion in the first 10 years alone.

Additional spending reductions proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan in his 2012 and 2013 budgets, and by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, would be adopted as necessary to balance the budget. The Fiscal Associates score shows that these budget cuts would easily balance the budget in the first Gingrich term. Indeed, that score shows that the pro-growth effects of the tax reforms alone would balance the federal budget within 10 years. The budget plan that Speaker Gingrich negotiated in the 1990s in fact produced a balanced budget in 3 years.

President Gingrich Would Keep the Budget Balanced

That budget balance would be maintained over the long run by the sweeping entitlement reforms specified in great detail at Newt.org. Those include beginning and expanding an option for personal savings, investment and insurance accounts for Social Security and Medicare, eventually expanded to finance all the benefits financed by the payroll tax today. That would ultimately shift federal spending equal to 10% of GDP to the private sector, where the private savings, investment and insurance would pay better benefits than Social Security even promises today, let alone what it could pay. The transition to the accounts is financed entirely by the reduced spending from the other entitlement reforms, as was accomplished for the personal accounts proposed in the Ryan Roadmap, as scored by CBO.

The transition financing plan also includes extending the enormously successful 1996 AFDC welfare block grant reforms, adopted under Speaker Gingrich’s leadership, to all of the nearly 200 federal means tested welfare programs, block granting welfare back to the states. Based on the results of the 1996 reforms, we estimate that would likely reduce federal spending by $4.14 trillion over the first 10 years alone, while the poor would benefit further as they did under the 1996 reforms.

Further transition financing would result from adopting the Medicare reforms proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), along with ultimately a personal account option for the Medicare payroll tax that would generate additional resources in retirement to help pay for private insurance in place of Medicare. Each senior would be free to choose among those private alternatives or traditional Medicare if they preferred. That choice would benefit seniors by freeing them to escape the rationing President Obama is imposing on traditional Medicare.

The entitlement reforms would also include repealing and replacing Obamacare with Patient Power, as proposed by the godfather of Health Savings Accounts, John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. These reforms would reduce federal spending by 50% as a percent of GDP over the long run. That would be the largest reduction in government spending in world history, and a complete solution to America’s fiscal and entitlement crisis.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: economy; jobs; newt; newt2012; obama
The Gingrich Jobs and Growth Plan

Tax rate deductions and eliminations:

An optional 15% flat tax; Federal corporate tax rate of 12.5%; Zero capital gains tax rate; No death tax; Immediate expensing for capital investment;

The plan would also slash regulatory costs and barriers, including:

Repeal of Dodd-Frank; Repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley; Repeal of Obamacare; Repeal CAFE Standards; Replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency; Modernize the Food and Drug Adminstration to enable new medicines to be developed and brought to the sick far more quickly and far less expensively.

More changes:

Personal savings, investment and insurance accounts eventually expanded to finance all the benefits financed by the payroll tax today, ultimately displacing that tax entirely. Reform of the Federal Reserve to mandate that it follow a price rule to maintain a stable dollar without inflation.

1 posted on 02/23/2012 7:55:07 PM PST by Marguerite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; TitansAFC; b9; Gator113; Marcella; katiedidit1; annieokie; true believer forever; ...

The Fiscal Associates score projects that Gingrich’s supply side program would restore the economy to the long term economic growth path of 1947 to 2007, when the economy averaged 3.2% real growth per year, up from the current trend predicted by CBO of 2.4%. That catch up would involve average real growth over the first 10 years under the Gingrich program of 4.4% a year.

That booming economic growth would produce 6.6 million jobs in the first two years alone, reducing the unemployment rate ultimately to 4.6%. The overall results from the Gingrich path would be a 20% higher standard of living for the American people compared to the Obama path, indefinitely into the future.

This findings are consistent with the Reagan expansion resulting from similar policies.


2 posted on 02/23/2012 7:57:18 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Gingrich’s Plan Contrast with Obama’s Budget for 2012:

The fourth consecutive trillion dollar deficit, while the highest deficit previously under any other President was less than half a trillion;

Further job-killing tax increases, beyond those he has already enacted into law for next year;

Continued increases in federal spending every year, totaling $3.795 trillion in 2012, an increase of over 27% during his first term alone, up another $193 billion from the last year.

President Obama’s own budget proposes that spending to continue to soar by 2022 to $5.820 trillion, the highest spending in world history. Over the next 10 years, President Obama proposes federal spending totaling $47 trillion… in his own budget!

Projected national debt held by the public to total $11.6 trillion for 2012, double the national debt of $5.8 trillion in 2008!

Consequently, by Election Day 2012, Obama will have doubled the national debt, in just one term of office. In that one term, he will have added as much to the national debt as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined!

http://www.newt.org/news/gingrich-policies-would-create-6-6-million-jobs-in-first-two-years-balance-budget-in-first-term/


3 posted on 02/23/2012 8:02:11 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Thanks for sharing. I am praying that the people support

Newt. He is what we need right now. Newt/Palin ( my ticket)

4 posted on 02/23/2012 8:24:53 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

We will know by Newt’s numbers if voters want America, as it was designed to be, to live or die. WeThePeople are at the crossroads and I pray voters don’t let the media/mitt/GOP E sway them towards their babble.


5 posted on 02/23/2012 8:35:08 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Ping for later


6 posted on 02/23/2012 8:44:19 PM PST by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Why is this campaign piece in “Breaking News”?


7 posted on 02/23/2012 9:04:59 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Here's Newt's address: www.newt.org

Send him some money. This guy will fight for us us and this country, and he can dish it out verbally, WITHOUT a teleprompter.

No one and nothing is perfect. Newt is a fighter, he has a plan of action which he has published, he hits the ground running, and he can bytch slap the traitor in OUR White House by just opening his mouth.

Go, NEWT, GO.

8 posted on 02/23/2012 9:06:33 PM PST by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Bring it!

:)


9 posted on 02/23/2012 9:07:19 PM PST by LUV W (This space reserved for a hero............my AF son........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

I’m trying to think if there is anyone else besides Newt who has the “cred” to make such bold statements and be taken seriously.

Obviously, anyone who makes such claims is going to be immediately targeted as an empty boaster... but Newt seems to me to be uniquely positioned as someone who has a proven track record of making good on what would otherwise be outlandish claims regarding changing the direction of Washington.

He may be the only person alive who can put forth such a bold plan, and be immune to the inevitable ridicule, since he’s already proved he’s able not only to be visionary, but to effectively make his vision a reality.


10 posted on 02/23/2012 9:11:28 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itssme
Here's Newt's address: ..Send him some money.

Are you serious? Did you just wake up or something? You are WAY LATE - I'm miles ahead of you.

11 posted on 02/23/2012 9:26:21 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

I don’t know why, but was glad to see the piece. I often put threads in the wrong place too as sometimes hard to tell where it should be placed.

I will support whomever our nominee is, but do hope Newt is the candidate we have to face BO in November!


12 posted on 02/23/2012 9:27:00 PM PST by seekthetruth (I want a Commander In Chief who honors and supports our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite; All

Thanks for this thread.

Now that Speaker Gingrich has outlined his economic ideas, we the voters, have something of substance to discuss.

As a case in point, Newt plans to : “ - - - reduce federal spending to the level of revenues produced by a maximum jobs and growth economy - - - .” With this Newt is assuming that: 1.) there will be a rapid return (=within a year) to “a maximum jobs and growth economy,” or 2.) Federal overspending will continue until the economy catches up with Federal spending.

The very long history of Federal Government decision results demand that Federal Spending will continue to exceed Federal income for at least one Business cycle.

A better wording would be as follows: “ - - - reduce Federal spending to 10 % below the level of revenues produced in the average of the past two fiscal years.”

In that way EVERYBODY knows what the total Federal spending will be, and the Federal Checks will be reduced uniformly to all segments of the Federal Government.

Any surplus income will be used to pay down the principal of the National Debt, and NOT the interest on the Debt.

BTW, by leaving the 10 % reduction in each year, the United States Federal Government will be forced to privatize those Federally Mandated Entitlements that continue to lose money. That was easy!


13 posted on 02/23/2012 9:38:20 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

“I’m miles ahead of you.”

Glad to hear it. Wouldn’t want you to be lagging behind.


14 posted on 02/23/2012 9:39:52 PM PST by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itssme

It’s time for you to get caught up.


15 posted on 02/23/2012 9:47:28 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Well, yeah, but then millions more will re-enter the labor force and the unemployment rate will rise, perhaps even as high as 8%!


16 posted on 02/23/2012 10:45:50 PM PST by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
I don’t know why, but was glad to see the piece.

It's not "Breaking News". FR is a different place these days, I guess...

17 posted on 02/23/2012 11:33:51 PM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Why is this campaign piece in “Breaking News”?

And why does it bother you? I really really dislike "collaborators" like we called them in France after the war. You know, people who told germans (the boss/moderators) where the jews were hidden? Yikes...hate this type of people.
18 posted on 02/24/2012 12:01:08 AM PST by American Dream 246 (Open your eyes. Freedom is not a one day fight. Enemies of Freedom are legion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
And why does it bother you? I really really dislike "collaborators" like we called them in France after the war. You know, people who told germans (the boss/moderators) where the jews were hidden? Yikes...hate this type of people.

It bothers me because it's not even remotely breaking news. This is the first time since I signed on here in 2000 that I've ever complained about a non-breaking news item in the Breaking News column. This is a pro-Newt piece from his campaign website. That's fine to post it on FR, but in no way is this breaking news.

So, American Dream 246, because I made a couple of comments about this upthread, you're actually comparing me to a vile, hateful, evil "collaborator" of Nazi Germany??

19 posted on 02/24/2012 12:08:13 AM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
There are moderators who will decide if it is or is not. That's what they're paid to do.

I'm glad it was there so I could see it. FWIW, Fiscal Associates also officially scored Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

20 posted on 02/24/2012 12:40:09 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum voted for Sotomayor, Obama's 1st choice for Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

1. We have been deficit spending for over 50 years - not once in all of those years did we ever spend ONLY what we took in in revenues.

2. If Newt wont cut “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, debt interest, and federal employee retirement benefits” he has a major problem - the total cost of these programs exceeds current revenues (2.7 Tr vs 2.3 Tr) - add the “2007” levels of the remaining programs and you will still exceed 3 Tr. AND he wants to cut taxes as well! IOW he is expecting at least 700 Billion in additional revenues from “royalties” annually(!) within 4 years ...

3. Even if he does “roll back regulatory barriers to energy production, unleashing the private sector to maximize all forms of American energy production.” The Enviro-Wackos will clog the courts for decades before anything can be done - IOW, it is nigh impossible that this promise will bear fruit in time for him to “balance” the budget in his first term...

4. It is all fine and well to have a “Plan” - but that plan must be based on reality, not another version of “hope & change”! What happens when interest rates rise on our debt (and they will!)? We currently pay ~14% of revenues on interest (@ 2.7%). If that goes up just 1%, we will be paying close to 20% of revenues on interest alone (450 Billion) . Just 10 years ago, we paid 5.7% on our debt. Carried forward that would be 680 Billion or 30% of revenues! For comparison - the current DOD Discretionary Budget is 683 Billion ....


21 posted on 02/24/2012 1:37:17 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?


22 posted on 02/24/2012 1:48:12 AM PST by OwenKellogg (Gingrich / Robinson 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OHelix; onyx; TitansAFC; b9; Gator113; Marcella; katiedidit1; annieokie; true believer forever; ...

“He may be the only person alive who can put forth such a bold plan, and be immune to the inevitable ridicule, since he’s already proved he’s able not only to be visionary, but to effectively make his vision a reality.”

Newt’s record speaks by itself.
A few highlights from his long career:

Newt started a Young Republican Club at the age 22, when he was still in college.
He never wavered from his conservative convictions. Never been “independent, reformer republican, progressive” like Romney.
His 20-year-old voting record in the House is 98% conservative.
His pro-life voting record is of 98.7% (one of the bill he voted for was taken into consideration, while not linked to pro-life topic).

Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990
(which unleashed the furor of the GOP elite).
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.

His vote and leadership against the 1990 Bush tax increase is especially praiseworthy, as it exhibited political courage to fight against a bad policy that was promoted by the president and congressional leadership of his own party.

Further, Gingrich can be one of the most clear-eyed and forceful advocates for supply-side economics and the value of free enterprise.

He has most recently favored:

an immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax;
elimination of all capital gains taxes;
reduction of the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent;
a 50 percent payroll tax cut for both employers and employees;
a 100 percent tax write off for businesses’ equipment purchases.

During his time in Congress, he had an exemplary voting record on a lot of the top spending proposals:

Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

Data from:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=903


23 posted on 02/24/2012 2:39:16 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
President Gingrich Would Keep the Budget Balanced

Bump!

24 posted on 02/24/2012 2:41:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Because the Finance Association released its report on Gingrich plan yesterday, February 23.


25 posted on 02/24/2012 2:41:51 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OwenKellogg

“So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?”

He called it “fantasy gimmick” for better words :)


26 posted on 02/24/2012 2:44:58 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The main problem I have with these type of programs is that if you have some guy who inherits all his wealth and lives off his capital gains investments he will NEVER pay any income tax. If I’m wrong someone tell me how the rest of us aren’t supporting him with our taxes.


27 posted on 02/24/2012 3:04:03 AM PST by conservaterian (Sarah/DeMint '12-XXX= Now what? Cain?XX Guess not. I GIVE UP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian

I guess it’s Mitt’s “safety net.”


28 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:27 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

An optional 15% flat tax? At least one candidate isn’t stuck on offering a progressive Democrat lite. Or Ron Paul, fail to do any GDP/Revenue projection.


29 posted on 02/24/2012 3:15:29 AM PST by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Marguerite.


30 posted on 02/24/2012 3:19:36 AM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OwenKellogg
So what’s Newt’s position on algae as an energy strategy?

I support algae as a source of energy, as long as it's private slime and not government slime!


31 posted on 02/24/2012 3:25:23 AM PST by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246; nutmeg; Admin Moderator
Don't care where the story is posted (I never understood who would, or why) but comparing a fellow Freeper to a Nazi collaborator is just despicable.

You really should apologize for your choice of words.

32 posted on 02/24/2012 3:28:42 AM PST by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Some of the suggestions sound good.  Others don't.

Replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency;

It seems to me that the problem with the Environmental Protection Agency, is that it exists at all, rather than it simply has the wrong name.

Modernize the Food and Drug Adminstration to enable new medicines to be developed and brought to the sick far more quickly and far less expensively.

This is always a real winner with the public.  Sadly, bringing drugs to market too quickly and without enough study, is the best way I know of to wind up killing people and or causing birth defects.  One drug was on the market for years before they found out it was causing damage to the heart.  Another caused serious birth defects. Another was actually killing people. We would all like to think that drugs could be released quickly and save our relatives.  Sadly, they can also be released quickly and kill our relatives, or cause damage they will have to live with for years and or shorten their lives.

Personal savings, investment and insurance accounts eventually expanded to finance all the benefits financed by the payroll tax today, ultimately displacing that tax entirely.

If this is a way of stating that Social Security and Medicare should be privatized I would agree.  I will say that keeping the insurance companies out of this as much as possible, would be the best way of doing it.  I support the quick accumulation of $10,000 in savings when people first start employment.  Once that is achieved, a person can self-insure for a number of things.  Medical, dental, optical, vehicle insurance policies with $10,000 deductables would then become the norm.  These types of policies are the cheapest, and would facilitate the increased accumulation of wealth.  In short order people would accumulate enough money to make a down payment on a home of their own.

This pretty much turns the whole system on it's head, creating a climate where people are much more self-reliant, and not dependent on the federal government for much of anything.


Reform of the Federal Reserve to mandate that it follow a price rule to maintain a stable dollar without inflation.


A price rule?  Sure would like to see that expanded upon.  I don't believe the Federal Reserve in it's present form should exist.  I do think there are times when a controling authority should be out there, but I do not think it should be a 'private' entity, that operates behind closed doors.  I do not think it should be spreading funds around without public scrutiny either.

I would like to see the Fed run by representatives of the banking and lending institutions, but I would like all meeting minutes and decisions to be made publicly available.  If this couldn't be done, then I'd like to see the Fed gone.

33 posted on 02/24/2012 3:48:55 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Where would Newt best serve in President Rick Santorum’s administration?

He would make a great Chief of Staff !


34 posted on 02/24/2012 4:07:10 AM PST by Dan.israel.2011 (Who should be on President Rick Santorum's Dream Team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

I’m ready to reelect him already!


35 posted on 02/24/2012 4:17:34 AM PST by Leep (Dueling tag lines=don't worry,you'll be a vegetable guy soon<>It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

I agree with you it shouldn’t be in Breaking News. As for FR being a different place these days, that is probably true too! Things are happening fast these days and it makes us all in a hurry I guess. :)

Hope things are going good up your way. When I see your posts I always think of my beautiful home state! Know your Primary isn’t till April 24th, so we can be sure things will be a lot different by then! I do hope Newt is leading by then, but of course will support anyone against BO!


36 posted on 02/24/2012 6:37:50 AM PST by seekthetruth (I want a Commander In Chief who honors and supports our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Photobucket
37 posted on 02/24/2012 6:38:30 AM PST by mdel747
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"It seems to me that the problem with the Environmental Protection Agency, is that it exists at all, rather than it simply has the wrong name."

I believe his emphasis is not that he wants a new name, but that he does want to completely eliminate the existing EPA and start an entirely new department with all new people. He's expressed that he does not "reform" the old one, specifically because it is stacked with environmental extremists.

I think his belief is that we do, in fact, need to protect the environment, but we need to do so reasonably and responsibly, with economic consequences and other factors in mind, not the anti-business enviro-wackism that pervades the current EPA.

38 posted on 02/24/2012 7:09:29 AM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Newt has my vote...


39 posted on 02/24/2012 7:19:00 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne; American Dream 246; Marguerite; seekthetruth; newzjunkey
Don't care where the story is posted (I never understood who would, or why) but comparing a fellow Freeper to a Nazi collaborator is just despicable.

You really should apologize for your choice of words.

Thank you, airborne. For the record, I never ran to the Free Republic moderators regarding this thread. I simply posted "Why is this campaign piece in "Breaking News"? in #7 and left it at that.

FReeper seekthetruth replied to me in post #12. I then responded to seekthetruth's post in #17 and American Dream 246 directed his/her vile, bizarre post #18 - comparing me to a Nazi collaborator - to me for some unknown reason.

40 posted on 02/24/2012 8:39:31 AM PST by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

What difference does it make? IT’S BREAKING NEWS TO ME, never seen it before, so therefore it’s BREAKING forth.


41 posted on 02/24/2012 9:04:44 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Thank you Marguerite for all your hard work, keeping us up to date and informed, BREAKING NEWS or NOT. ROFL hahahaha.

Newt Gingrich is the ONLY candidate who has the ability and know how to save America, he's been there, done that.

Post whenever, and whatever you like about NEWT, Jim Robinson won't mind, and many of us (thicker skins),won't either. lol If I have not read it, to me it's BREAKING NEWS.

42 posted on 02/24/2012 9:16:26 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246; nutmeg
Godwin's Law achieved in near record time. A dubious accomplishment. WooHoo!
43 posted on 02/24/2012 12:28:37 PM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: annieokie; nutmeg
IT’S BREAKING NEWS TO ME, never seen it before, so therefore it’s BREAKING forth.

I saw an infomercial about free government money. Have you seen it? If not, let's post it in Breaking News.

44 posted on 02/24/2012 12:31:44 PM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

Go ahead, no problem.


45 posted on 02/24/2012 3:08:44 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

I understand your focus on keeping a close watch on the environment, and hey I think that is a lofty admirable goal, as far as that goes. The problem is, we hand off the framework to the Left, and they inevitably turn things into the EPA.

We’ve got to quit making these assists, which facilitate the Left making another three-pointer. I’m not sure what the real fix for this is when it comes to the EPA.

Personally, I’m more of a mind to simply erase it and let the states pick up the pieces.


46 posted on 02/24/2012 4:32:09 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I understand your focus on keeping a close watch on the environment, and hey I think that is a lofty admirable goal, as far as that goes.

C'mon... I'm not hippy! ;o)

We’ve got to quit making these assists, which facilitate the Left making another three-pointer.

I agree with you there, for sure.

I’m not sure what the real fix for this is when it comes to the EPA...Personally, I’m more of a mind to simply erase it and let the states pick up the pieces.

I could as easily adopt your mindset as my own as not... But... since Newt has put together a plan, I am inclined to believe he has given a lot of thought to how to approach the problem and present a solution in a way that will appeal to a large majority of the nation.

I IMAGINE, that he has concluded that reform will be ineffective, abolishing it with no replacement will garner inadequate support, but that abolishing the existing monstrosity and replacing with a well engineered "environmental solutions" agency, run and staffed by smart visionary non-enviro-wackos will be both effective and "salable" to a large majority of Americans. If done properly (with REAL solutions, instead of anti-business crap) it might actually "steal" the "environmental issue" from the Democrats.

Granted, I've only heard his plan in very general terms, but, if you judge from his past, you can expect he has a solid thoughtful structure in mind.

47 posted on 02/24/2012 7:08:33 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

My only quibble with your thoughts on the well thought out plans of candidates isn’t necessarily exclusive to Gingrich, but I have often found out after the fact, that they hadn’t really thought these things out as much as I had hoped they had.

We’ll see.

You’re not a hippy? Awwwaaaah! LOL

Take care.


48 posted on 02/25/2012 12:44:25 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson