Gingrich Tax Plan Puts ‘Hole’ In Deficit: Study

[Thump553]

No need to be against Newt Gingrich. He'll just increase government revenue somewhere else and he'll do everything a liberal like yourself could want the government to do. When prices are too high because of Obamacare, he'll just add the public option. The poor will just have to pay for it like they do in Europe. personally, I don't give a fuck how poor I am, I want a fucking choice and the tyannical PC left wing governments have already done well at robbing me of my inheritance.

There are no inheritances in anarchy, as inheritance is a direct result of a system of law. You don't believe in inheritances do you?

 

[ShawnD1]

Big Insurance isn't that big and you don't need insurance for health care anyway.

Big Pharma is big because of patents and protectionism. Without patents, the price of drugs goes way down, like to 1/3 or less of what they are and the drug creators can still make a profit if they're efficient.

There's no reason to research new drugs if it's just going to be jacked by some Chinese company. Patents are why new drugs exist.

 

[theeedude]

And some people still believe it was Gingrich and not Clinton who was responsible for balancing the budget in the 90s 😀

 

[Ausm]

Big Insurance isn't that big and you don't need insurance for health care anyway.

Big Pharma is big because of patents and protectionism. Without patents, the price of drugs goes way down, like to 1/3 or less of what they are and the drug creators can still make a profit if they're efficient.

LMAO Are you serious? I realize you can get healthcare in SOME places without insurance but who ends up paying for it if these folks default on their bill?

And to claim big Insurance doesn't run the show in Washington is a joke...They paid off Politicians to kill the Public option.

 

[cybrsage]

And some people still believe it was Gingrich and not Clinton who was responsible for balancing the budget in the 90s 😀

It was both.

The President had to sign the bill to turn it into a law. It is possible to turn a bill into a law without the President signing it, but this did not happen in this instance.

The President cannot sign a bill which does not exist, though. Congress had to create the bill for the President to sign. There is no way around this one.

So both were responsible. You were not saying something silly like it was all Clinton, were you?

 

[fskimospy]

No need to be against Newt Gingrich. He'll just increase government revenue somewhere else and he'll do everything a liberal like yourself could want the government to do. When prices are too high because of Obamacare, he'll just add the public option. The poor will just have to pay for it like they do in Europe. personally, I don't give a fuck how poor I am, I want a fucking choice and the tyannical PC left wing governments have already done well at robbing me of my inheritance.

The kid with hilariously dumb ideas from a tier 4 school is mad that he can't leech off his parents for the rest of his life because of tax laws.

Why don't you go out and make your own money instead of being a mooch for your whole life?

 

[airdata]

Isn't it unanimous that Newt is of the worst breed of slimey politician? Is anybody actually behind him without the media pretending he's the front runner?

 

[Macamus Prime]

Yes, but it's a rethuglican doing it, so it's OK!!

 

[fskimospy]

Not impressed with the article or their "study"

First, their title is (likely) erroneous. I suspect Gingrich's economic plan is not soley about taxes. If it was it should be referred to as a 'tax plan'. I.e., what does his plan include bout the spending side etc.?

All they have done is compare projected revenues under his tax proposal to those which will likely never actually happen. I do not believe that current tax law will "run it's course". That would mean a repeal of ALL Bush tax cuts. That means Obama would be raising income taxes on the poor and middle class. I just don't see that happening.

I.e., they've compared Gingrich's plan to a 'fantasy plan' and says his raises $1.3 trillion less in revenue.

From the link:



I'm guessing ANYBODY's tax plan would result in a "hole in the deficit" under their criteria.

Fern

Of course it wouldn't. He could easily say that passage of his tax plan would be contingent on spending decreases elsewhere, or he could include those spending cuts in his tax plan to begin with.

It's not just a case of semantics, but do you honestly doubt that if he were president and could pass his tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts that he wouldn't do it? That's pretty naive. The description of the plan is fine the way it is.

I don't really see why this is news anyway, the Republicans have never cared about deficits when it comes to tax cuts. Their objection to deficits comes from wanting to attack social programs but not being able to do so in an upfront manner due to those programs' popularity.

 

[Anarchist420]

And some people still believe it was Gingrich and not Clinton who was responsible for balancing the budget in the 90s 😀

There was NOT ANY BALANCED BUDGET SINCE EISENHOWER WAS PRESIDENT!

It was both.

The President had to sign the bill to turn it into a law. It is possible to turn a bill into a law without the President signing it, but this did not happen in this instance.

The President cannot sign a bill which does not exist, though. Congress had to create the bill for the President to sign. There is no way around this one.

So both were responsible. You were not saying something silly like it was all Clinton, were you?

PLEASE SEE ABOVE!

Clinton and Gingrich were responsible for deficit spending.

Here's the logic behind it:
Gingrich voted to fund abortions.
Gingrich voted to fund the omnibus crime control bill of 94.
Gingrich later said he regretted having the government shut down.
Gingrich actively tried to block Dr. Paul's return to Congress.

Let's look at that last one: He supported a former Democrat against Dr. Paul. If he supported Greg Laughlin over Dr. Paul, how could he care about balancing the budget?
Gingrich never introduced a means testing bill for medicare and SS.
Gingrich created the blue print for the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition to it not making sense that they would want to balance the budget, the treasury website says they didn't. The national debt went up each year clinton and Gingrich were in office. The Federal government via the treasury website even admits to that. The best Clinton did was an $18 Bn deficit. Was it relatively close to balanced? Yes. Was it actually balanced? No.

Eisenhower was the last President to bring in a true federal surplus and he only did that 1 or 2 years of his presidency (see harry Browne's "non existant surplus"). The last Administration to bring in more than it spent was the Coolidge Admin. Clinton used some accounting tricks to say that he brought in a surplus, but it wasn't really a true Federal surplus.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The kid with hilariously dumb ideas from a tier 4 school is mad that he can't leech off his parents for the rest of his life because of tax laws.

Why don't you go out and make your own money instead of being a mooch for your whole life?

Sounds like your talking about our OWS friends...just substitute "corporate greed" for "tax laws". However I would venture a guess that you probably don't see it that way...but perhaps now you can empathize with those that do.

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds like your talking about our OWS friends...just substitute "corporate greed" for "tax laws". But I would venture a guess that you probably don't see it that way...but perhaps now you can emphasize with those that do.

I'm not aware of anyone in the OWS movement that said they wish to never have to work for their entire lives and would be able to do so if it were not for corporate greed. This is certainly news to me, can you provide a link?

Like I've said to you many times, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not aware of anyone in the OWS movement that said they wish to never have to work for their entire lives and would be able to do so if it were not for corporate greed. This is certainly news to me, can you provide a link?

Like I've said to you many times, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I saw irony and in hindsight I should keep such thoughts to myself about you. Sorry.

 

[sourceninja]

There's no reason to research new drugs if it's just going to be jacked by some Chinese company. Patents are why new drugs exist.

And when the patent wears out, they do something like patent the test to determine dosage, or the method of administering the drug or changed it slightly and re-patent.

Patent system is so horribly broke it can not be fixed. EVER.

 

[fskimospy]

I saw irony and in hindsight I should keep such thoughts to myself about you. Sorry.

This was probably due to a poor understanding of either what I wrote or lack of knowledge of Anarchist's posting history. No need to apologize, friend DSF.

 

[Thump553]

Isn't it unanimous that Newt is of the worst breed of slimey politician? Is anybody actually behind him without the media pretending he's the front runner?

I think it's safe to say that in the eyes of nearly all GOP primary voters it is a tossup between Romney and Gingrich as to who is the slimiest politican, but I think you are right. Both are career politicians (possibly plus points to Gingrich as Romney nearly always loses), Gingrich has made literally millions of dollars selling his inside political "wisdom" and influence without bothering to register as a lobbyist.

The overwhelming factor in Gingrich's favor in the slime race is he is the architect and foremost proponent of modern day GOP partisanship where party loyalty is paramount-something this country has suffered greatly for.

In Gingrich's favor, he is a thinking man while Romney seems like nothing more than a country club robot.

 

[Ausm]

Of course it wouldn't. He could easily say that passage of his tax plan would be contingent on spending decreases elsewhere, or he could include those spending cuts in his tax plan to begin with.

It's not just a case of semantics, but do you honestly doubt that if he were president and could pass his tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts that he wouldn't do it? That's pretty naive. The description of the plan is fine the way it is.

I don't really see why this is news anyway, the Republicans have never cared about deficits when it comes to tax cuts. Their objection to deficits comes from wanting to attack social programs but not being able to do so in an upfront manner due to those programs' popularity.

Well put and QFT!

 

[Ausm]

More details on the Gingrich 2-2-2 plan

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/introducing-newt-gingrichs-2-2-2-plan

 

[Anarchist420]

There's no reason to research new drugs if it's just going to be jacked by some Chinese company. Patents are why new drugs exist.

http://blog.mises.org/18198/

LMAO Are you serious? I realize you can get healthcare in SOME places without insurance but who ends up paying for it if these folks default on their bill?

And to claim big Insurance doesn't run the show in Washington is a joke...They paid off Politicians to kill the Public option.

http://blog.mises.org/18198/

 

[theeedude]

It was both.

The President had to sign the bill to turn it into a law. It is possible to turn a bill into a law without the President signing it, but this did not happen in this instance.

The President cannot sign a bill which does not exist, though. Congress had to create the bill for the President to sign. There is no way around this one.

So both were responsible. You were not saying something silly like it was all Clinton, were you?

Clinton signed the bill Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 that created the tax rates which later balanced the budget. Every single Republican voted against it.

 

[momeNt]

I think it's safe to say that in the eyes of nearly all GOP primary voters it is a tossup between Romney and Gingrich as to who is the slimiest politican, but I think you are right. Both are career politicians (possibly plus points to Gingrich as Romney nearly always loses), Gingrich has made literally millions of dollars selling his inside political "wisdom" and influence without bothering to register as a lobbyist.

The overwhelming factor in Gingrich's favor in the slime race is he is the architect and foremost proponent of modern day GOP partisanship where party loyalty is paramount-something this country has suffered greatly for.

In Gingrich's favor, he is a thinking man while Romney seems like nothing more than a country club robot.

Romney is not a career politician. Not that that takes away anything from what you said, just pointing out he was in private business for quite some time.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
It's not just a case of semantics, but do you honestly doubt that if he were president and could pass his tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts that he wouldn't do it? That's pretty naive. The description of the plan is fine the way it is.

No, the description is not. If it's a tax plan is should be labeled as that.

If it's an economic plan, to focus on only a portion of it and then cast that as the sum of the impact is 100% deceptive and misleading.

For the record, I do not believe he would pass a (substantial) tax cut without spending cuts. (I also do not believe he could even if he wanted. I don't think the rating agencies would approve.) I also believe if he could, even without a tax cuts he would pass spending cuts. And I think he'd cut stuff that the Dems wouldn't like.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

No, the description is not. If it's a tax plan is should be labeled as that.

If it's an economic plan, to focus on only a portion of it and then cast that as the sum of the impact is 100% deceptive and misleading.

For the record, I do not believe he would pass a (substantial) tax cut without spending cuts. (I also do not believe he could even if he wanted. I don't think the rating agencies would approve.) I also believe if he could, even without a tax cuts he would pass spending cuts. And I think he'd cut stuff that the Dems wouldn't like.

Fern

Like what? Medicare?

 

[Fern]

Like what? Medicare?

Well, firstly I think if Newt could do what he wanted the obvious are cuts to groups like ACORN types and Planned Parenthood etc.

I thought Newt has already gone public with opposition to cuts in SS & Medicare? So, no, not Medicare.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

No, the description is not. If it's a tax plan is should be labeled as that.

If it's an economic plan, to focus on only a portion of it and then cast that as the sum of the impact is 100% deceptive and misleading.

For the record, I do not believe he would pass a (substantial) tax cut without spending cuts. (I also do not believe he could even if he wanted. I don't think the rating agencies would approve.) I also believe if he could, even without a tax cuts he would pass spending cuts. And I think he'd cut stuff that the Dems wouldn't like.

Fern

You honestly don't? Can you point to a single instance in the last three decades or so that a Republican White House/Congress has declined an opportunity to cut taxes even if they would increase the deficit? Oh, and if the Republicans controlled the House and Senate he most certainly could. They don't actually care what the rating agencies say.

I'm sure that Gingrich would like to pass spending cuts, but if he can't he would absolutely settle for just cutting taxes. I'd also LOVE to see where he's going to come up with the $1.3 trillion in ANNUAL cuts that he would need in order to pay for this. I mean what a joke.

What you're suggesting simply runs counter to everything the Republicans have done for decades and if you think that one of the primary architects of Republican strategy over that time has suddenly had a change of heart then I've got a bridge to sell you.

EDIT: Oh, and the other reason they are 'focusing' on that part of his plan is that it's the only part that has any details to it. The rest is just the usual 'I SWEAR IF WE CUT REGULATIONS THAN WE'LL MAKE A ZILLION JOBS' thing. There isn't anything else to evaluate.