Skip to comments.Rick Loses Market Value (If it stops moving, subsidize it?)
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 theyd 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 Santorums 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......its not like theres a better way to make things in these other countries. Its 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.
Theres a natural evolution of our economy toward high-intellectual-capital things like software thats not manufacturing, and thats OK, Hassett said. To say that trend is something we should reverse through tax policy is just the height of economic illiteracy. Its inexcusable.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedaily.com ...
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.
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.
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:
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
“Newt urging massive government spending”
THAT’S NOT TRUE.
Watch his speech, dammit!
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.
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.
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.
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?