Posted on 12/29/2011 6:53:23 PM PST by CutePuppy
Officially, the recession ended two and a half years ago. President Obama tells us the economy has been moving in the right direction since June 2009.
Few will take solace in that statistic. Americans are suffering. For nearly three years, nearly one in 10 have been out of work. Almost double that number are either underemployed — working part time when they would rather be full time — or have simply given up looking.
Historically in America, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. By historical standards, we should be completing the second year of a booming recovery. Recall that, just like President Obama, President Reagan inherited a terrible economy when he took office. But Reagan enacted historic income tax rate cuts, regulatory reforms and spending controls. The recession officially ended in November 1982, and in the following two and a half years the unemployment rate dropped 3.6 percentage points, more than eight million Americans went to work at new jobs, and the longest period of economic growth in American history commenced.
Mr. Obama's policies have been just the opposite: trillion dollar stimulus-spending waste, a government takeover of the health-care system, an activist EPA attacking businesses, and demonization of job creators. The president barnstorms the country advocating tax increases for investors, entrepreneurs and small businesses, teeing up the country for another crash in 2013 when the Bush-era income tax rates expire. Meanwhile, America's businesses continue to suffer from the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, with no relief in sight.
This nightmare will not end until Reagan-era economic policies are restored: tax reform, a sound dollar and smarter regulations. If they are, within a year the American economy will take off on another historic boom.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Newt makes the point that these reforms are not designed to be "revenue-neutral" but to maximize job creation, wages and economic growth, which will help grow revenues and, along with spending cuts, will help balance the budget.
Let’s wait a bit for Pat Buchanan to weigh in. He must have an axe to grind against Reagan. All of his latest books are little more than attacks on politicians who defeated him.
Yes, I started reading his Suicide of a Superpower, and I’m disgusted that in the first few pages he has quote a CFR stooge a couple of times and levels more attacks at Bush than Obammie the Commie.
Come on, Pat. We know Bush was a big government spender, but the WOT is not what is bankrupting this country.
Stop using every book as nothing more than a soap box to ream the guy who defeated you.
For someone who claimed the era of Reagan was over not long ago, Gingrich sure keeps bringing Reagan’s name up and trying to give the impression he is the new Reagan.
Sometimes Gingrich talks so much he talks himself in circles.
Why? Because far too many conservatives do not view his talk now as that of a true conservative, and suspect he will revert to his 'cuddle-up with the Dims' actions shortly after he walks into the Oval Office.
I thought this outline showed an excellent, even exciting plan.
It is true that the Reagan Era is over. However, Gingrich is not trying to recreate Reagan or his policies, but is trying to come up with new solutions adapted to these new times but based on those principles. I thought these were all great ideas and would really revitalize the economy and our creative spirit.
and romney will do what????????????????
No offense to Newt..but I am totally tired of hearing people use Reagan here and Reagan there. Reagan was not perfect..but I loved him and he was the right man for that specific moment in our history. We were very blessed to have him.
Newt is not Reagan and he often comes off as a wannabe or as a creator of Reagan. Newt is running..not Reagan. I don’t like it when everyone else swears to do it the “Reagan way”.
I’d love to know what Reagan thinks about the GOP these days. I bet he wouldn’t be too happy with the cave-ins and big spenders and none too happy that they spout his name every chance they get.
With all the other candidates out of the race, with the possible exception of Perry, Gingrich is likely to take very close to 50% of the vote, and immediately put him in the lead in terms of the delegate count, which is the only count that counts.
After Florida, there will only be three candidates left: Romney, Gingrich and Paul. Gingrich gets close to 60% in most of the remaining states. Case closed.
The key to realizing who will win and who will lose the nomination is that once you conclude that Romney has a ceiling of probably somewhere near 30% of the Republican vote, it's just a matter for the rest of the field to whittle down to the candidate who is most acceptable in most of the states. And that clearly is Gingrich, who has an established national track record.
-Excerpt from TheStreet.com today
“For someone who claimed the era of Reagan was over not long ago,”
The era of Reagan is over. It ended when George Walker Herbert Bush became President. I think Newt wants to resurrect it to what degree he can. The RINOs are coming down hard on him for it.
I didn’t see anything in there about getting the numerous Clinton cronies out of Wall Street where Billy Jeff, and the Democrats “influenced” their hire, and their control, but I guess that’s not something for the campaign is it.
But, now that you mention 'romney' - he's 'likely' to be the nominee at this point - simply because he has more money, has polled better than others for a longer time, and seems to have the backing of most of the GOP insiders. All while conservative voters polled are all over the map, unable to get behind a single candidate other than 'romney.'
Same here on FR - there seems to be little strong consensus, or argument for any of the candidates.
The bloody media has done a great job of marginalizing every candidate other than 'romney' - and the GOP in VA is doing its best to marginalize all candidates, other than 'romney' and crazy Paul.
'Nuff said. Now you tell me what you think 'romney' will do.
“and romney will do what????????????????”
And Newt will do what? “Cut federal spending in half”??? LOL. This is just another fairy tale list for primary voters. No chance of getting much of that list through Congress. He would be better off proposing realistic things like a 10% cut in the federal workforce. (that was Mittens idea)
Newt, alone among the eight reindeers, offers concrete proposals and commitments. Others concentrate on telling us how good they’ve been and how bad things are. One of them, I hear, bore 47 children.
Newt will do the same thing to America that the Turdminator did to CA's economy and it's statewide Republican Party. They're two peas out of the same pod!!! Not in the Reagan mold whatsoever!!!
Several of them have bored 300,000,000 Americans...
Hope you’re right.
That's because he is/was stating an objective, undeniable fact - the "era of Reagan" was over as soon as George H.W. Bush uttered and proceeded with his "kinder and gentler" era, followed up with CLinton's era of "I feel your pain", followed by George W. Bush and his era of "compassionate conservatism".
The only time when the U.S. came close to - or even exceeded the domestic policy results - the "era of Reagan policies" was when the same Newt Gingrich led the Gingrich / Second Republican Revolution in 1994. Four years later when he handed the reins over to Bob Livingston Danny Hastert, any similarity to the "era of Reagan policies" was over, even with GOP in power for full 6 years.
Reagan and Gingrich (Reagan's Ghost Writer?) - FR, 2011 November 19
Tony Blankley: Gingrich would be the most conservative president since Reagan - FR, 2011 November 26
Of the entire sorry Republican field, only Gingrich has policies achievements and fresh policies portfolio, and, yes, it reads like something that Reagan would be proud to endorse had he faced today's environment and today's challenges.
Newt was the only one who had the courage to state the obvious and objective truth ("the era of Reagan is over") and he is also the only one who adapted conservative policy portfolio to deal with the problems left by Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses and activist courts since both Reagan and he left the government.
Rush Limbaugh either didn't hear or didn't understand what Gingrich was talking about during that interview and went on absolutely embarrassing rant, not even letting Newt explain what he meant ("era of Reagan is over" but Reagan's fiscal and conservative tenets and policies are not), that Rush can't let go and admit to this day (after all, he is "certified" to be "factually" 99.9% right).
It's a strange and misleading spat, and Rush should either own up to it or, at least, stop bringing this up - this one is not to his credit.
GINGRICH: That's just objectively a fact. I think if Governor Reagan were here today, and he were looking at where America should go, he wouldn't be saying, "Let's go back to 1980." He'd be saying, "Here are the solutions, here are the policies, here's what will carry us into the future." And I think we've watched these guys run around saying, "I'm like Reagan. I'm like Reagan." Reagan was a unique one-time personality whose great achievement in eliminating the Soviet empire was historic. Now we have a different world with a different set of problems. I don't think it can be, "Here's how you go back 28 years to reinvent Reagan." It's gotta be, "Here's how you apply conservatism to solve America's problems today." RUSH: Wait a minute, Newt, how are you going to apply conservatism to today's problems when you just said it's dead? Reaganism is simply conservatism. That's all it is, and if the era of Reagan being over is objectively a fact, then conservatism's finished. Now, nobody's talking about going back to the 1980s and reliving the same set of policies. What we're talking about is applying principles, which is what Reagan did, to the existing problems of that era. ..... DOOCY: Some comments you made over the weekend I heard replayed on Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Is it true, sir, that you think that the Ronald Reagan era is over in America?
Where did Newt say that "conservatism is dead"? He said quite the opposite, how to apply conservatism / "Reaganism" ideals to today's problems.
They were saying almost the same thing; Gingrich was not talking about "Reaganism" or "conservatism" as the ideals being over, he was stating a fact of political life in the U.S. over the last 20+ years, which is bemoaned every day on FR and elsewhere.
Rush flew off the handle for no reason. It's sad that so many people keep repeating something completely misinterpreting its meaning.
Oh yeah. His idea of health care reform is promising to cure Alzheimers.
(Truly -- I could not make that up.)
Sounds good, doesn't it?
Too bad he's a charlatan who will promise anything to anyone with a straight face and not an ounce of sincerity, intention or ability to deliver.
Can we say the same today? Which is more likely to be said by most U.S. citizens, including FReepers, today - that "the era of Big Government is over" or that "the era of Reagan is over"?
Why don’t you promote your monkey instead of dissing others with unsupported accusations and idiotic characterizations! What does he or she propose? 47 foster children? We are waiting.
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.