Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Loses Market Value (If it stops moving, subsidize it?)
The Daily ^ | 2/17/2012 | Dan Hirschhorn

Posted on 02/17/2012 2:50:06 PM PST by JediJones

Rick Santorum is touting his promise to eliminate corporate taxes on manufacturers...[that's] coming under scrutiny from conservatives who are decrying it as thoroughly unconservative.

...[Santorum] added: “We need to have a manufacturing base in this economy. Why? Because of our national security.”

...advocates for other sectors of the economy quietly gripe that they’d be effectively underwriting manufacturing...by paying a higher tax rate...

“Giving a preferential rate is picking winners and losers through the tax code,” said Curtis Dubay, a tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation...

“This is not free-market economics, this is trying to tilt the market toward manufacturing, and it will hurt the economy rather than help it, because resources would be artificially diverted from other sectors...”

Kevin Hassett...at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Santorum’s plan would “create the biggest tax dodge in history,” as businesses raced to redefine themselves as manufacturers.

“How do you define manufacturing?” asked Andy Roth of the conservative Club for Growth. “Do movie studios manufacture films? ...are [book publishers] manufacturing books? Companies are going to game this.”

...Romney has tried to paint Santorum as a big spender and a friend of labor unions from his days as a Pennsylvania senator.

[Santorum] said...“...it’s not like there’s a better way to make things in these other countries. It’s just the cost is higher here because of our tax and regulatory structure.”

But conservatives worry that when Santorum talks about the issue, he sounds a bit too much like President Obama, who has made revitalizing manufacturing a key plank of his economic platform.

“There’s a natural evolution of our economy toward high-intellectual-capital things like software — that’s not manufacturing, and that’s OK,” Hassett said. “To say that trend is something we should reverse through tax policy is just the height of economic illiteracy. It’s inexcusable.”

(Excerpt) Read more at thedaily.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biggoernmentrick; biggovernment; capitalism; heybigspender; manufacturing; newt4romney; prolifelikebush; ricksantorum; rinosantorum; santorum4romney; santorumbush3; socialism; winnerslosers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last
To: Mariner

I support Newt. He’d do a better job for conservatives than Rick. For one thing, he can think, walk and talk at the same time.

When a politican talks about selling incentives to multi-national corporations so he, a government official, can “create jobs”, he’s talking about more croney capitalism. Rick is way out of touch.

I think it is time to remove corporations from the US Treasury and the power to create monopolies and send their dreams of overcoming the constitution and ruling the world (globalism) packing. Hitler and Stalin were not all that wonderful.


51 posted on 02/17/2012 6:06:02 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

If by “not much” you mean repeatedly, aggressively, consistently and thoroughly from 2008 until today, then yeah. One example...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838293/replies?c=32

Obviously even a cursory examination of my posting history would reveal that I am for Newt and nor for the inferior candidates in the race.


52 posted on 02/17/2012 6:12:28 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
"...contains quotes from conservative individuals and institutions.

I wouldn't exactly calll Noot's campaign propaganda you spam every thread with a "conservative institution" nor the person who relies solely on it as credible.

53 posted on 02/17/2012 6:15:45 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

But it’s credible to respond to a post of mine with a complete non-sequitur attack that has NOTHING to do with the post you selectively clip a quote from? On the other hand that is par for the course from a Romney attack ad or from anyone else who makes it their agenda to destroy Newt Gingrich. The truth and facts do not serve that goal, hence people like you have to spin, lie, tell half-truths, take quotes out of context, misquote, mischaracterize, smear, etc. I hope if you believe in God that you have to answer for your falsehoods someday and the sooner the better.


54 posted on 02/17/2012 6:23:01 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Then I guess your calling your own candidate a liar...his words, not the revisionist campaign kool-aid you’re swilling by the gallon. Attacking the messenger isn’t helping your dead horse get across the finish line.


55 posted on 02/17/2012 6:32:04 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Nobody can “miss” the campaign literature being posted all over the web site. We can ignore the hyperbole though, because we are not all mindless lemmings who automatically believe everything we read on a campaign flier.

So, which is better — a 12.5% corporate tax on manufacturing, which means it’s still cheaper to make things in other countries and import them, or a 0% corporate tax on manufacturing?

My guess is your answer will be “but that picks favorites”. Not my question — it compares identical entities (manufacturing) and asks which is better for America, a 12.5% manufacturing tax or a 0% manufacturing tax.

Now, you could respond ‘Well, Santorum wants to tax other businesses MORE than 12.5%, so what about 12.5% service corporate tax vs 35%” — that would be a good question, if you had a clear evidence that Santorum would not back a 12.5% tax rate on service businesses.

I’m not a fan of “picking favorites”. But manufacturing is a pretty broad category. If you were cutting taxes for “prefered” manufacturers” over others in the same business, that would be “picking winners”. But it’s not like a new steel mill is going to unfairly compete with a tax preparation service — and it’s the unfair competition that is the meaning of “picking favorites”, not a “manufacturers aren’t treated the same as hospitals”.

The fact is that kind of discrepancy already exists throughout the tax code.

As to the “more conservative policy”, that was Perry’s. Nobody seemed to care. And Cain had 9%, which was better than Gingrich’s 12.5%.

BTW, there is a good reason to target manufacturing if you can only reduce corporate taxes on SOME segments of the economy (because we can’t afford to drop all corporate rates). Nobody is going to move a hospital to a foreign country. Service industries are likewise mostly bound here, as are retail businesses (mostly — obviously internet sales can be long-distance, and oddly we tax-favor the internet companies over brick-and-mortar). Tax preparation is going to likely stay local, the gas station isn’t going to relocate to japan, the local gym isn’t going to be outsourced to mexico, and your plumber isn’t going to work out of India.

Manufacturing is what is easiest to transplant, because the cost of manufacturing is a major part of the total cost, and with low taxes in foreign countries, and low pay, and fewer regulations, a company can easily move a factory, and import the final products and still save money over running the manufacturing locally.

And yet manufacturing is a major supplier of jobs, and in fact is one of the minority of businesses that actually contribute “source labor”. Source labor is labor that actually creates value-add to the economy. Other labor is useful, of course, but it’s really just “in-kind trading” with cash. I can pay you 100 to clean my windows, you take the 100 and pay someone to cut your grass, they pay 100 to someone to drive them around, and they take the 100 and pay me to do their plumbing. We haven’t created a dime of wealth, just passed 100 around and worked for each other.

It would be a shame to not look at how to stop killing manufacturing by cutting the corporate tax rate (which we all agree is a conservative principle, and it should be 0%), just because it sounds like something Obama has said once, or because it isn’t being pushed by our preferred candidate.

BTW, if Santorum was saying he was going to RAISE taxes on some people to give other people special treatment, the argument might have some slight merit. As it is, Santorum is looking to fix a real problem in the tax code, and some people are complaining because he isn’t giving THEM money back.


56 posted on 02/17/2012 6:37:01 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Your posting history reveals you've swallowed Noot’s spoon fed campaign propaganda, make excuses for his failings, and that you backed a dead horse. Your only goal is to snipe at the only other competition to Romney in the primary race and the only CREDIBLE competition to Obama in the general, although I could see you voting for a kook like Paul.

The same was done in 2008, paving the way for McLame to lose to Obama. I'll wager you were among the naysayers who said the most conservative in the race “can't win” backing your stalking horse until a McLame nomination was secured. Keep it up and Obama will thank you for another 4 years to destroy the country.

57 posted on 02/17/2012 6:44:19 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Just as bad as Santorum endorsing Sotormayor.... ew. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/#.TzxU2KpRNgM.twitter


58 posted on 02/17/2012 6:47:58 PM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist; PSYCHO-FREEP

Newt wants to reinvigorate the ENTIRE economy, including manufacturing. For example Newt’s pro-growth plan includes getting the government out of the way by cutting the regulations, gut the EPA, neuter the Fed, reduce the corp tax rate from 35% to 12.5%, allow 100% first year expensing of new equipment, eliminate the capital gains tax (repatriating billions), eliminate the death tax, implement an optional 15% personal flat tax after deductions, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, repeal Dodd-Frank repeal ObamaCare, break up freddie/fannie, and drill, baby, drill.

Go, Newt, GO!!


59 posted on 02/17/2012 6:51:30 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

If you really believed Newt’s horse is dead, then why are you wasting your time attacking him on here? But then, honest evaluations of the facts aren’t your strong suit.


60 posted on 02/17/2012 6:54:09 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster
You mean the Romney of Romneycare which has caused a net loss of 18,313 jobs?

Which is the same ROMNEYCARE THAT:

 Drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion?

WHICH IS THE SAME ROMNEYCARE THAT:

Slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376?

WHICH IS THE SAME ROMNEYCARE THAT:

Reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million?

Your nervous stuttering candidate will look like a valium pusher compared to Obama in a debate.

Give me a break.

61 posted on 02/17/2012 6:56:28 PM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Well which is it, First you defend Newt Co-endorsing a candidate with ACORN, then you say even Newt admitted it was a mistake. (Which is Politispeak, for I would like conservatives to vote for me now.) The same with Nancy Pelosi and the crazy space mirror plan.

If we weren’t 15 trillion dollars in dept with millions more being added every minute, I would say, go ahead and build your moon mine and retrieve those minerals, that will only cost 1,000,000.00 an ounce with shipping. But when 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed from the Chinese, we don’t have any money to pay for space speculation. We’re already paying for China’s space program for pete’s sake.

Newt has done a lot of good in the past, and compared to Romney, he is certainly conservative, but this close to Super Tuesday, it is hard to see Newt doing anything more than maybe finishing ahead of Paul. Of course, by hanging in at this stage, Newt is giving Romney his only shot at closing the deal.


62 posted on 02/17/2012 6:58:32 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Well which is it, First you defend Newt Co-endorsing a candidate with ACORN, then you say even Newt admitted it was a mistake. (Which is Politispeak, for I would like conservatives to vote for me now.) The same with Nancy Pelosi and the crazy space mirror plan.

If we weren’t 15 trillion dollars in dept with millions more being added every minute, I would say, go ahead and build your moon mine and retrieve those minerals, that will only cost 1,000,000.00 an ounce with shipping. But when 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed from the Chinese, we don’t have any money to pay for space speculation. We’re already paying for China’s space program for pete’s sake.

Newt has done a lot of good in the past, and compared to Romney, he is certainly conservative, but this close to Super Tuesday, it is hard to see Newt doing anything more than maybe finishing ahead of Paul. Of course, by hanging in at this stage, Newt is giving Romney his only shot at closing the deal.


63 posted on 02/17/2012 6:58:55 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist; PSYCHO-FREEP

This will not only bring about a Reaganesque economic and financial boom, but will open up all industry, ie, manufacturing, coal, gas, oil, mining, timber, construction, transportation, communications, shipping, housing, etc, etc, etc.


64 posted on 02/17/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: lahargis
Happy to know that you hold Obama in such high esteem...


65 posted on 02/17/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
If you’re getting heat from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Club for Growth, as shown in this article, then you might not deserve the “conservative” label as much as you think you do.

Actually, none of those organizations directly addressed the Santorum speech. A no-name "Ipad Newsletter" reporter got some quotes from one person who is associated with each organization. Who do these people support? One didn't even attack Santorum, he just expressed a preference for taxes being neutral (and the quote given isn't even a sentence, which suggest the "reporter" has a partial quote but didn't identify it). Two of them were more complaining that it would be hard to define "manufacturing".

But if you are really concerned that nobody attacked by these people can really be "conservative", I offer you the following links:

Club For Growth Official Press Release: "“Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting,”

Club For Growth Official Press Release: “Newt Gingrich’s comment that Mitt Romney made money from ‘no work’ is ridiculous and continues his poisonous attack on economic freedom.”

Note that both of those links are actual press releases from the organization, not just a quote from someone who works there.

But there's more:
American Enterprise Institute: "Why is Team Gingrich parroting a pro-Obama union's attack"

That's an actual article from the American Enterprise Institute, not just a quote from someone who works there.

And then there's this, from another conservative source:
Rush Limbaugh rips Gingrich over Bain Capital Attacks

Be careful about such sweeping pronouncements -- your candidate doesn't do well under YOUR STATED criteria.

66 posted on 02/17/2012 7:03:20 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Santorum supported some BIG SPENDING projects in the past along with Spector and Sotormayor. He has some explaning to do (just as the others). He will be slaughtered eventually. Newt just got an extra 10M. He has a grassroots effort that is growing.

He is a pitbull and wont put up with the press. Which is great.

Newt is such a far ahead thinker that normal people such as you cannot wrap your head around the idea of colonizing any place but your humble abode. But, hey, who blames you.

Newt is a gradiose thinker and it is amazing at the facts that he knows. It is amazing at where he has been and what he has done.

Newt has the experience and both Santorum and Romney cannot touch that. Sorry.

I say, quit hitchhiking with the Russians and let’s beat them to the moon. But, we can only do that with Newt.

But, hey, look on the bright side, at least he has more delegates than Santorum right now.


67 posted on 02/17/2012 7:08:41 PM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
That's a lot of awful reasoning there. If "picking winners" wasn't about industries, then what Obama's doing with the "green energy" industry must be okay with you. You don't see a problem with encouraging investment out of one industry and into another one, just because you like that industry better? What happened to letting the consumer decide what industries to support based on voting with their dollar?

Then you go on to talk about how it's okay to tax some industries more because they're "stuck" here and can't move overseas. Wow, doesn't morality and fairness enter into the equation for you? By that logic we should tax the rich a lot more because they can "afford" to pay it. Or maybe tax the poor more because they can't afford to dodge their taxes with tricky accounting. The ends do NOT justify the means as you seem to think they do when it comes to the tax code.

You're talking like a "central planner," someone who thinks you are smart enough to tweak the system and move the pieces around to the benefit of society as a whole. Anyone who understands conservative economic principles knows that doesn't work, only the free market as driven by individual choice works. You're operating in the same ideological realm as Obama's stimulus and bailouts. It's sad to see someone on a conservative forum who I assume is supposed to be a conservative abandon their principles just because they "like" a certain candidate. This is very reminiscent of Ann Coulter defending Romneycare.

Another thing the central planner always forgets is that the individual knows more and is smarter than them. The individual will always find the loopholes in your plan and the flaws in your analysis and exploit them. For example, you say tax preparation won't go overseas...are you sure? What happens when the Indians figure out how to master our tax law and start offering tax preparation online? Central planning can never eliminate individual ingenuity as it wants to, it can only inadvertently redirect it into areas it never intended to.

BTW, if Santorum was saying he was going to RAISE taxes on some people to give other people special treatment, the argument might have some slight merit. As it is, Santorum is looking to fix a real problem in the tax code, and some people are complaining because he isn’t giving THEM money back.

That is utter nonsense logic. There is no "problem" in the tax code, unless you consider fair and equitable taxes a "problem." Moreover, by your logic I could cut all income taxes for black people, and it's not a problem because I'm not RAISING taxes on other races. Whether something is defined as "special treatment" or not has no bearing on what "direction" the special treatment moved in. You really need to go back to Conservative Economics 101.

68 posted on 02/17/2012 7:09:40 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

Hey, your the one with the picture. Glad you keep them. ew


69 posted on 02/17/2012 7:09:43 PM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

Hey, you’re the one with the picture. Glad you keep them. ew

(Correcting my grammar!)

:-)


70 posted on 02/17/2012 7:12:28 PM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
As it is, Santorum is looking to fix a real problem in the tax code, and some people are complaining because he isn’t giving THEM money back.

When you fix a problem by cutting taxes, you do it across the board.

Anything else is the government picking winners and losers.

Government needs to stay the hell out of doing that.

Plain and simple.

71 posted on 02/17/2012 7:12:55 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Here here!

(good post)


72 posted on 02/17/2012 7:21:59 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Difference is I’m talking about actual policy advocated by the candidate, not mere campaign rhetoric. No one disputes Newt was attacking Mitt from the left with the Bain attacks. But that was just a campaign tactic and an effort in part to show that Mitt would not be as electable as people thought he might be against liberals in the fall. Campaign rhetoric blows away in the wind but government policy is a heavy weight on all of our lives.


73 posted on 02/17/2012 7:31:15 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster
Your posting history reveals you've swallowed Noot’s spoon fed campaign propaganda, make excuses for his failings, and that you backed a dead horse. Your only goal is to snipe at the only other competition to Romney in the primary race and the only CREDIBLE competition to Obama in the general, although I could see you voting for a kook like Paul.

You are such an utter freakin' LIAR which you prove over and over again with EVERY single post you write, whether they're against Newt or against me. Was Santorum credible competition after he lost every big state after his Iowa "tie?" As you know the polls and victories have shifted wildly in this race on a daily basis. Newt, by his merits as one of the greatest conservative visionaries and leaders of the 20th century up there with Reagan and Thatcher, is seriously credible competition to Romney and always has been whether he's been down or up in the polls. Newt is also BY FAR the strongest candidate to go up against Obama. You can't beat the left with "left light," e.g. the economically liberal Santorum, the socially/foreign policy liberal Paul, or the socially/economocally liberal Romney. That's why Newt's earning millions in donations and just got another $10 million from a smart money man who knows where the smart money belongs. Of course I obviously would never vote for Paul, unless I lived in Virginia.

74 posted on 02/17/2012 7:44:40 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

No, you were talking about the item posted up in the thread, which was a campaign flier. If you didn’t want to talk about the campaign flier, you shouldn’t have yelled at me for not looking at it.


75 posted on 02/17/2012 7:47:52 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

[Santorum] said...“...it’s not like there’s a better way to make things in these other countries. It’s just the cost is higher here because of our tax and regulatory structure.”

Ricky, tsk tsk tsk. In your haste you forgot to mention the impact UNIONS have on the cost of manucturing. Either he doesn’t know, forgot OR could he be a union sympathizer.


76 posted on 02/17/2012 7:59:11 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Ha! Everyone who doesn’t swallow the campaign kool-aid is a “liar”??? Newt and Romney are running neck and neck on which candidate supplies Obama with the most ammo against conservatives and both would be a repeat of McCain 2008.

Oh joy...another $10 mill from a casino owner looking to buy influence for the gambling lobby. That’s not going to end well.


77 posted on 02/17/2012 8:04:51 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lahargis

Hey far-ahead thinker, Santorum wasn’t in the Senate when Sotomayor came up for a vote. Yeah, endorsing Specter wasn’t Santorum’s best moment, but at least he didn’t have ACORN as a co-endorser. Newt’s candidate was so liberal that when she left the race, she endorsed the Democrat.

Moon Colonies and Giant Space mirrors may be visionary. But, you don’t need Newt’s far-ahead vision to realize the Country is 15 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Newt may be willing to saddle the next ten generations with big government induced poverty so that the first moon base will named Newtopia, but those of us who live in “Realville” realize, we need to pay off the second mortgage on our home, before we borrow money to pay for that new yacht.


78 posted on 02/17/2012 8:19:09 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Wow, you don’t listen. (and you respond when everyone is asleep) buy anywho. Newt is far from Obama’s and Santorum’s big spender policies.

Ever hear of the stadium dude? (Santorum) He lobbied for a sales tax to pay for a new stadium!?!?!?!?!? ugh!

Santorum is a BIG SPENDER and you know it....

http://9theranch.com/santorum-backed-pittsburgh-stadium-tax-hike/


79 posted on 02/18/2012 4:48:32 AM PST by lahargis (Every day is independence day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: lahargis

I do listen. I just think the skeletons in Newt’s closet are more disturbing than those in Santorum’s. As far as responding when everyone’s asleep. I am presently in a time zone that is 9.5 hours ahead of East Coast time, sorry if that inconvieniences you.

Anyway, I would support Newt or Santorum even though both are far from my first choice. However, since Newt is fading fast, it looks like my money will be going to Santorum.


80 posted on 02/18/2012 6:14:14 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; PSYCHO-FREEP

And as you can see, Psycho Freep both shills for Romney and attacks Santorum simultaneously. He posts links to the website by pro-Romney SuperPAC “Restore Our Future”. He’s linked to that website on multiple threads now.


81 posted on 02/18/2012 12:57:27 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Haha, just hilarious how you Newt-bashers can do nothing but spin, even in a simple discussion on a forum. Please try to get acquainted with arguing based on facts and truth. Yes I WAS talking about the item posted in this thread. You’re pretending that I’m contradicting that when I said I was talking about actual policy advocated by the candidates. But that’s an obviously false assertion. The campaign flier REPRESENTS policy. They are the same thing. You’re trying to say I’m contradicting myself when I was saying exactly the same thing both times.


82 posted on 02/18/2012 2:30:05 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

First of all, Newt proposed NO new spending for the moon base. He would be using NASA’s budget and changing what they spend on, then incentivizing private industry to lead the project.

Secondly, it’s extremely disheartening to see people not understand the critical importance of exploring new frontiers like space. Please read the below from a NASA executive and stop being so small-minded. America wasn’t founded and built by nattering nabobs of negativism like yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/miller-gingrich-space-policy/index.html

We shouldn’t just explore space, we should develop and even settle it, using the same enterprise-friendly approaches that helped open the West and the skies.

As a former NASA executive, it is clear to me that most commentators don’t understand this is now possible, let alone necessary.

In 1844, Asa Whitney (cousin of cotton gin inventor Eli Whitney) proposed to the U.S. Congress that America build a transcontinental railroad. U.S. Sen. Thomas Benton of Missouri responded that it was “an imposture, a humbug; it could have emanated only from a madman ... science was unequal to overcome the Allegheny Mountains — and now Whitney proposed to scale the Rocky Mountains, four or five times as high! Why sir, it’s madness!”... “You are one hundred years before your time.”

In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward proposed that America purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune mocked Seward, calling it “a frozen wasteland.” Alaska became known as “Seward’s Folly.” It was one of the best investments America ever made.

Gingrich’s core point is that we must change how and why we do space by leveraging the power of free enterprise.

American history proves that smart, focused action by the U.S. government can jump start entire new industries that open new frontiers — from western railroads, to the air, to the Internet - and that is exactly where we are today in space.

Space planes are the transcontinental railroad of our generation. Space planes will open the next frontier — the greater Earth-moon system — to economic activity and bind it together. Space planes will radically lower launch costs leading to new applications, new industries and new jobs. The growth in demand will lead to even higher flight rates, lower costs and new opportunities.


83 posted on 02/18/2012 2:36:48 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
We just need to retrain all those NASA engineers, or outsource them over to China.s/
84 posted on 02/18/2012 2:43:14 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

“Newt may be willing to saddle the next ten generations with big government induced poverty so that the first moon base “

That’s a LIE, invented by PRick.

Do a search on Gingrich speech at Cocoa, Florida and WATCH IT, instead of spreading false rumors.

I suppose you are among those who ridiculed president Kennedy’s declaration in 1961, that “at the end of the decade will we have an American on the moon”. Do you know what happened in July 1969?


85 posted on 02/18/2012 2:46:12 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 78 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

So, if a politician was once ridiculed about a proposed expenditure that turned out to be a good idea, then all future proposed government programs should be applauded.

Well, if you’re right then don’t criticize Obamacare, because people once criticized the purchase of Alaska you know.

Yes, maybe the next Tang would be discovered if we poured 10 trillion into building a pressurized dome on the moon. I’m willing to take that chance. At least wait until 40 cents of every dollar the government spends isn’t borrowed.


86 posted on 02/18/2012 6:16:04 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

I can’t say I was around to here JFK, but 1: We weren’t in debt to our eye-balls, 2. Planting a flag and playing a game of put put is a lot less expensive than “Moon Base NEWTron”
3. If Kennedy had told the American people that all they would get for there money was a tasty breakfast drink and “space blankets” as seen on TV, maybe that wouldn’t have went over so well.

Newt urging massive government spending when we’re on the verge of bankruptcy is like the Captain of the Titanic ordering full speed ahead after he sees the ice berg.


87 posted on 02/18/2012 6:57:07 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I don’t know — you are calling me a Newt-basher, but I have virtually avoided any thread that was about Gingrich.

This is a Santorum-bashing thread. And people in the thread are bashing Santorum, including you. I answered your argument by pointing out that the groups you claimed were attacking Santorum were not — it was just people who worked for them. And I pointed out that the groups you claimed were attacking Santorum had also attacked Gingrich.

That’s not “bashing” Newt, it’s pointing out how he fares under YOUR stated criteria. The only time I say anything “negative” about Newt is when I show that arguments that the Santorum-bashers have just said against him applies equally to Newt.

That’s only bashing if you believe your own argument. I never said I agreed with your argument; I just pointed out how Gingrich measured up under your argument.


88 posted on 02/18/2012 6:58:23 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

“Newt urging massive government spending”

THAT’S NOT TRUE.

Watch his speech, dammit!


89 posted on 02/18/2012 7:05:06 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 87 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Ok, Jim, valid points, now ? how about those Newt supporters who bash Rick Santorum with wanting to bring back manufacturing back to the USA ? ...
Also Jim ? in case some would suggest that you should ban me, I want to remind you that you gave me your word that you would not ban me from Free Republic... isn't that correct ?
90 posted on 02/18/2012 10:43:32 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You completely ignored my response to your point the first time you made it and simply restated your original point. We’ll go in an infinite loop if you keep doing that because you just force me to reiterate my response again in the hopes you won’t ignore it this time.

You are NOT using “my argument” in reference to Newt, you’re making up a completely different argument and trying to pin it on me erroneously. I am talking about Santorum’s POLICIES, not his CAMPAIGN ADS. In Santorum’s case, those groups are talking about HIS PROPOSED POLICIES AND LEGISLATION. In Newt’s case, they’re talking about A CAMPAIGN AD that proposes no policy or legislation whatsoever. That is a massive world of difference and manifestly NOT the “same criteria” as you try to say. I’m not here discussing campaign minutiae and rhetoric, I’m discussing the proposed policies these people will put in place as president.

Your trying to distinguish between the foundations and the “people who work for them” is LUDICROUS. Those people are going on record representing their organizations. They would be fired if they did that and states something the organization didn’t believe. They are spokespeople for those organizations and their views represent the views of those organizations.


91 posted on 02/19/2012 12:13:40 AM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

All you can do is distort, misquote and mischaracterize. Just like Romney, you help prove there is no way to criticize Newt Gingrich on the facts and the truth. His critics have no alternative other than to make stuff up.

You’ve been told over and over that Newt is not proposing any new spending for this.

The analogy of the Alaska purchase has nothing to do with Obamacare. The examples offered represent America’s history of expanding its borders and promoting exploration of new frontiers. Such endeavors always pay off in the long term, unlike promoting more spending on a welfare state which destroys us in the long term. If we don’t get this spirit back we will be well on our way to losing our superpower status and remaining just another stagnant welfare state like Europe, Japan, Canada, etc.


92 posted on 02/19/2012 12:17:54 AM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I’m not distorting anything. If Newt wasn’t proposing spending government money on his loony moon colony, then why campaign on it. It’s not like he’s just pointing out that he thinks it would be a good idea for private industry to bankroll this lunar “Bridge to nowhere”

So, you can’t criticize government spending when it’s on something “Visionary” that pushes the frontier like Newt’s Moon colony or Obamacare, only bad government spending. Which I assume is spening not on something you consider good.

I’m sure the left would consider all of Obama’s spending “Visionary” Newt, the Obama of the right.


93 posted on 02/19/2012 1:19:23 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

You keep ignoring that the groups didn’t actually say anything about any Santorum policies, it’s just quotes from three people who work there.

And your original point did not suggest that “heat” was only bad if it was about “policy”.

And I guess I wonder how you know that Gingrich doesn’t believe what he is saying about Bain and making money; shouldn’t we presume that people tell the truth, or are we so cynical that we assume people make things up, and we are fine with it?


94 posted on 02/19/2012 7:52:05 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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