Pawlenty's Economic plan

[Trajan]

I love how in their attempts to balance the budget the Republicans insist on putting us in a deep hole first

- Cut business taxes from 35% to 15%
- Cut personal taxes from 35% to 25%
- Cut all Capital gains taxes

Oh...and by the way...I promise a balanced budget

Scary, in more ways than one

Maybe if we just cut all taxes to zero, that would leave plenty of money to grow the economy. Then as the economy grew by leaps and bounds, that would increase revenue. Oh yea, 100% of zero is still zero.

or, maybe we can have rates at 100% ...eh?

 

[Newby]

Tom Pawlenty gave a speech the other day outlining what he would like to see in terms of money mgt., tax policy and general economic guidance etc.......


thoughts?


YouTube - ‪"A Better Deal" Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks‬‏

transcript

Text of Pawlenty’s Speech on His Economic Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

After nine minutes I had heard more than enough. Basically, he wants to further reduce taxes at a time when we already have the lowest tax rates in 60 years. His argument that when we cut taxes in the 80's that it created a booming economy do not hold water at a time when taxes already are too low. His argument that cutting taxes further would increase tax revenues in the long term are also incorrect. We have seen this with the Bush tax cuts. While the Bush tax cuts did raise revenue during the housing bubble, once that bubble burst, revenues were reduced so much that it led us to the massive deficits we are now facing.

In 2000, the federal government had revenue of approximately $2 trillion on a GDP of $9.8 trillion. Last year, revenue was approximately $2.1 trillion on a GDP of $14.6 trillion. That is a massive loss in revenue. So his answer is to just do more of the same, which would only lead to even lower revenues. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

The one thing that he did say that I completely agree with is that he believes we must raise the retirement age. I've been pushing that agenda for a long time now as it makes the most sense in trying to keep SS and Medicare solvent without dramatically increasing taxes on our younger taxpayers.

You do realize that it keeps it more solvent because then people die before they collect at all or die before they can collect too much. Which basically boils down to the government stealing what was intended to be someone's retirement and handing it over to someone else. Complete bullshit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I love how in their attempts to balance the budget the Republicans insist on putting us in a deep hole first

- Cut business taxes from 35% to 15%
- Cut personal taxes from 35% to 25%
- Cut all Capital gains taxes

Oh...and by the way...I promise a balanced budget

Scary, in more ways than one

The Federal Tax rate is the lowest it's been since the 1950s. Yet, with a historic budget deficit and declining revenues, Pawlenty proposes cutting taxes even FURTHER?

Yeah, it's madness...and nonsense too. If you want to destroy the economy (and America along with it), implement a reckless plan like this. But first you have to believe that Pawlenty is serious.

All this is MEANT to do is boost Pawlenty's status with Tea Party members who don't really know a damn thing about economics or public policy.

What it will PROBABLY end up doing is create a more difficult environment for cutting spending and paying down the debt.

oh yeah, madness......GE was economically destroyed because it paid ZERO taxes in 2010....

 

[rightwinger]

I love how in their attempts to balance the budget the Republicans insist on putting us in a deep hole first

- Cut business taxes from 35% to 15%
- Cut personal taxes from 35% to 25%
- Cut all Capital gains taxes

Oh...and by the way...I promise a balanced budget

Scary, in more ways than one

The Federal Tax rate is the lowest it's been since the 1950s. Yet, with a historic budget deficit and declining revenues, Pawlenty proposes cutting taxes even FURTHER?

Yeah, it's madness...and nonsense too. If you want to destroy the economy (and America along with it), implement a reckless plan like this. But first you have to believe that Pawlenty is serious.

All this is MEANT to do is boost Pawlenty's status with Tea Party members who don't really know a damn thing about economics or public policy.

What it will PROBABLY end up doing is create a more difficult environment for cutting spending and paying down the debt.

oh yeah, madness......GE was economically destroyed because it paid ZERO taxes in 2010....

How many new jobs did GE create last year with that 0% tax rate?

 

[Trajan]

hmmm, he bottoms one bracket @ 10% for the first 50K in earnings, and an effective income tax rate of 0%, thats huge.
hello, its a flatter tax plan- growing that 18% of gdp taken as revenue, remember? the bigger the 18% the better? you could have 50% rates, it wouldn't mean squat, you'd just wind up with a smaller 18% and no further ahead...and every economist recognizes that.
His plan kills subsidies and plugs loopholes, in exchange for that drop in corp. tax rates, that also have the virtue of pulling funds back from offshore as well. wtf you people want for Christ sakes?

anyone have any suggestions? better yet, wheres the democratic plan....?

 

[eflatminor]

No, we can't cut $1.5 trillion from the budget.

Sure we could. YOU may not like what we would need to cut but we sure as hell could cut that much from the budget. Other than resistance from big spending Progressives in both parties, tell me why we couldn't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The Federal Tax rate is the lowest it's been since the 1950s. Yet, with a historic budget deficit and declining revenues, Pawlenty proposes cutting taxes even FURTHER?

Yeah, it's madness...and nonsense too. If you want to destroy the economy (and America along with it), implement a reckless plan like this. But first you have to believe that Pawlenty is serious.

All this is MEANT to do is boost Pawlenty's status with Tea Party members who don't really know a damn thing about economics or public policy.

What it will PROBABLY end up doing is create a more difficult environment for cutting spending and paying down the debt.

oh yeah, madness......GE was economically destroyed because it paid ZERO taxes in 2010....

How many new jobs did GE create last year with that 0% tax rate?

BO wanted jobs as part of the deal.....?
thot it was for green stuff...like those those shitty curlycue lightbulbs...

 

[Missourian]

I love how in their attempts to balance the budget the Republicans insist on putting us in a deep hole first

- Cut business taxes from 35% to 15%
- Cut personal taxes from 35% to 25%
- Cut all Capital gains taxes

Oh...and by the way...I promise a balanced budget

Scary, in more ways than one

Can't cut all this spending to balance the budget? Is that not an option?

What, you want to raise taxes? That will certainly help see more job creation.

No, we can't cut $1.5 trillion from the budget, which is the approximate amount necessary to balance the budget. If a gun was put to our head, which it is right now, we could find a way to cut approximately half that amount. If we increased taxes to cover $500 to $600 billion in additional revenue on top of those cuts, we would still have a deficit of $100 to $200 trillion. We could live with that for now.

Well, then let's make the cuts.

And after we've seen Congress is willing to make them tough choices AND that they are going to be good stewards of our money THEN we'll raise taxes.

(It'll never happen.)

 

[mascale]

GOP supportive posters generally do not do the math.

"President Obama has had three years to turn things around." Two years, four months, is not about a full three years. Everything else proceeds from that.

A reduction in federal taxes now does not portend will for budget balancing. Plugging loopholes is not proposed as being contingent on reducing tax rates: But is Separate, and Therefore, "Equal(?)!"

"Freedom" at GOP was invented by Abraham Lincoln. Arrest the Opposition, Shutter the Opposition Press. Impose Martial Law. Suspend Habeus Corpus. Compel Sunday Prayers for the President of the United States. Compel Loyalty oaths. Compel state participation in national government. Impose Military Conscription. Ruthlessly slaughter 150,000 White people per year.

And the real part that actually follows: Increase the federal deficit 4,300% in four years. Not even Obama has been able to get to what Pawlenty is for, and supports: Having yet to reach an increase, even of a third or so.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Many Squaws Free To Come to Lands of Nations--Do the math. Many learn that seven comes before eleven, like Pawlenty advocates!)

 

[rightwinger]

oh yeah, madness......GE was economically destroyed because it paid ZERO taxes in 2010....

How many new jobs did GE create last year with that 0% tax rate?

BO wanted jobs as part of the deal.....?
thot it was for green stuff...like those those shitty curlycue lightbulbs...

That's been the GOP mantra since Reagan. Remove the burden of taxes on big business and watch them go. What happened with GD? They managed to pay nothing in taxes, where were all the jobs?

Where's our trickle down?

 

[Skynet]

hmmm, he bottoms one bracket @ 10% for the first 50K in earnings, and an effective income tax rate of 0%, thats huge.
hello, its a flatter tax plan- growing that 18% of gdp taken as revenue, remember? the bigger the 18% the better? you could have 50% rates, it wouldn't mean squat, you'd just wind up with a smaller 18% and no further ahead...and every economist recognizes that.
His plan kills subsidies and plugs loopholes, in exchange for that drop in corp. tax rates, that also have the virtue of pulling funds back from offshore as well. wtf you people want for Christ sakes?

anyone have any suggestions? better yet, wheres the democratic plan....?

taxes under Clinton were much higher than there are now, and we saw one of the greatest economic booms in history. good job creation, rising salaries and a rise in the middle class. if low taxes are suppose to be the spur of the economy then why did this happen?

 

[Skynet]

still waiting.....

 

[JamesMorrison]

Tom Pawlenty gave a speech the other day outlining what he would like to see in terms of money mgt., tax policy and general economic guidance etc.......


thoughts?


YouTube - ‪"A Better Deal" Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks‬‏

transcript

Text of Pawlenty’s Speech on His Economic Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

A quick reply here:

T-Paw hit most of the high notes here. Since this is a campaign speech and can be forgiven for a lack of specifics I have only two areas he should have covered in addition: one is Education. I Always thought that Obama's DNA would have allowed him to address the inter-city education problem but there is one specific element of his real-world political base that prevents him from doing so for the same reason he cannot address the free trade agreements that he (President Obama) recently said he would address (to increase American jobs) with S.Korea, Panama, and Columbia that have been waiting in the wings for over two years...i.e. Unions. This refusal on his part points to the fact he is more interested in partisan politics than in the proper education of American minority children. The other is illegal immigration, but that can wait.

Education is an issue that conservatives can definitely press Obama on but Pawlenty has hit the hot button issue of jobs and the economy on the head. He also has, if not explicitly, pointed out the main conceptional difference between his conservative candidacy and Barack Obama: Who is the real power in this country, the people or the governing elite? That is, who can best decide the future of Americans, individual Americans or governmentally appointed (not elected) academic intellectuals?

The 2012 general elections will rightly be about President Obama's stewardship of the American dream, exceptionalism, and economy no matter how much D. Wasserman-Schultz (Obama appointed DNC chair) insists that it is, still, GW's fault.

JM

 

[whitehall]

What was Obama's economic plan again? Cash for clunkers and hope you still had change left from a dollar?

 

[Trajan]

hmmm, he bottoms one bracket @ 10% for the first 50K in earnings, and an effective income tax rate of 0%, thats huge.
hello, its a flatter tax plan- growing that 18% of gdp taken as revenue, remember? the bigger the 18% the better? you could have 50% rates, it wouldn't mean squat, you'd just wind up with a smaller 18% and no further ahead...and every economist recognizes that.
His plan kills subsidies and plugs loopholes, in exchange for that drop in corp. tax rates, that also have the virtue of pulling funds back from offshore as well. wtf you people want for Christ sakes?

anyone have any suggestions? better yet, wheres the democratic plan....?

taxes under Clinton were much higher than there are now, and we saw one of the greatest economic booms in history. good job creation, rising salaries and a rise in the middle class. if low taxes are suppose to be the spur of the economy then why did this happen?

it depends on where you are at the moment and the concomitant conditions in the present economy, we've tried the spend it all gimmick, what now? and then theres ...uhm you know spending? we spent less than? yes no?

 

[DiamondDave]

hmmm, he bottoms one bracket @ 10% for the first 50K in earnings, and an effective income tax rate of 0%, thats huge.
hello, its a flatter tax plan- growing that 18% of gdp taken as revenue, remember? the bigger the 18% the better? you could have 50% rates, it wouldn't mean squat, you'd just wind up with a smaller 18% and no further ahead...and every economist recognizes that.
His plan kills subsidies and plugs loopholes, in exchange for that drop in corp. tax rates, that also have the virtue of pulling funds back from offshore as well. wtf you people want for Christ sakes?

anyone have any suggestions? better yet, wheres the democratic plan....?

taxes under Clinton were much higher than there are now, and we saw one of the greatest economic booms in history. good job creation, rising salaries and a rise in the middle class. if low taxes are suppose to be the spur of the economy then why did this happen?

Please show direct causation between higher taxation and economic boom.. remembering that coincidence in timing is not proof of causation...

There were many factors in play...

And before you fumble... I will give you a hint... the higher tax rates did not cause an economic boom... just to save you time

 

[rightwinger]

Tom Pawlenty gave a speech the other day outlining what he would like to see in terms of money mgt., tax policy and general economic guidance etc.......


thoughts?


YouTube - ‪"A Better Deal" Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks‬‏

transcript

Text of Pawlenty’s Speech on His Economic Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

A quick reply here:

T-Paw hit most of the high notes here. Since this is a campaign speech and can be forgiven for a lack of specifics I have only two areas he should have covered in addition: one is Education. I Always thought that Obama's DNA would have allowed him to address the inter-city education problem but there is one specific element of his real-world political base that prevents him from doing so for the same reason he cannot address the free trade agreements that he (President Obama) recently said he would address (to increase American jobs) with S.Korea, Panama, and Columbia that have been waiting in the wings for over two years...i.e. Unions. This refusal on his part points to the fact he is more interested in partisan politics than in the proper education of American minority children. The other is illegal immigration, but that can wait.

Education is an issue that conservatives can definitely press Obama on but Pawlenty has hit the hot button issue of jobs and the economy on the head. He also has, if not explicitly, pointed out the main conceptional difference between his conservative candidacy and Barack Obama: Who is the real power in this country, the people or the governing elite? That is, who can best decide the future of Americans, individual Americans or governmentally appointed (not elected) academic intellectuals?

The 2012 general elections will rightly be about President Obama's stewardship of the American dream, exceptionalism, and economy no matter how much D. Wasserman-Schultz (Obama appointed DNC chair) insists that it is, still, GW's fault.

JM

Education?

Republicans want to eliminate the Dept of Education, Federally sponsored student aid and consider teachers to be a bunch of freeloaders

Want to start there?

 

[Trajan]

Tom Pawlenty gave a speech the other day outlining what he would like to see in terms of money mgt., tax policy and general economic guidance etc.......


thoughts?


YouTube - ‪"A Better Deal" Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks‬‏

transcript

Text of Pawlenty’s Speech on His Economic Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

A quick reply here:

T-Paw hit most of the high notes here. Since this is a campaign speech and can be forgiven for a lack of specifics I have only two areas he should have covered in addition: one is Education. I Always thought that Obama's DNA would have allowed him to address the inter-city education problem but there is one specific element of his real-world political base that prevents him from doing so for the same reason he cannot address the free trade agreements that he (President Obama) recently said he would address (to increase American jobs) with S.Korea, Panama, and Columbia that have been waiting in the wings for over two years...i.e. Unions. This refusal on his part points to the fact he is more interested in partisan politics than in the proper education of American minority children. The other is illegal immigration, but that can wait.

Education is an issue that conservatives can definitely press Obama on but Pawlenty has hit the hot button issue of jobs and the economy on the head. He also has, if not explicitly, pointed out the main conceptional difference between his conservative candidacy and Barack Obama: Who is the real power in this country, the people or the governing elite? That is, who can best decide the future of Americans, individual Americans or governmentally appointed (not elected) academic intellectuals?

The 2012 general elections will rightly be about President Obama's stewardship of the American dream, exceptionalism, and economy no matter how much D. Wasserman-Schultz (Obama appointed DNC chair) insists that it is, still, GW's fault.

JM

Education?

Republicans want to eliminate the Dept of Education, Federally sponsored student aid and consider teachers to be a bunch of freeloaders

Want to start there?

so, how IS education doing?

 

[rightwinger]

A quick reply here:

T-Paw hit most of the high notes here. Since this is a campaign speech and can be forgiven for a lack of specifics I have only two areas he should have covered in addition: one is Education. I Always thought that Obama's DNA would have allowed him to address the inter-city education problem but there is one specific element of his real-world political base that prevents him from doing so for the same reason he cannot address the free trade agreements that he (President Obama) recently said he would address (to increase American jobs) with S.Korea, Panama, and Columbia that have been waiting in the wings for over two years...i.e. Unions. This refusal on his part points to the fact he is more interested in partisan politics than in the proper education of American minority children. The other is illegal immigration, but that can wait.

Education is an issue that conservatives can definitely press Obama on but Pawlenty has hit the hot button issue of jobs and the economy on the head. He also has, if not explicitly, pointed out the main conceptional difference between his conservative candidacy and Barack Obama: Who is the real power in this country, the people or the governing elite? That is, who can best decide the future of Americans, individual Americans or governmentally appointed (not elected) academic intellectuals?

The 2012 general elections will rightly be about President Obama's stewardship of the American dream, exceptionalism, and economy no matter how much D. Wasserman-Schultz (Obama appointed DNC chair) insists that it is, still, GW's fault.

JM

Education?

Republicans want to eliminate the Dept of Education, Federally sponsored student aid and consider teachers to be a bunch of freeloaders

Want to start there?

so, how IS education doing?

Everyone on this board is a tribute to the American education system

 

[Skynet]

A quick reply here:

T-Paw hit most of the high notes here. Since this is a campaign speech and can be forgiven for a lack of specifics I have only two areas he should have covered in addition: one is Education. I Always thought that Obama's DNA would have allowed him to address the inter-city education problem but there is one specific element of his real-world political base that prevents him from doing so for the same reason he cannot address the free trade agreements that he (President Obama) recently said he would address (to increase American jobs) with S.Korea, Panama, and Columbia that have been waiting in the wings for over two years...i.e. Unions. This refusal on his part points to the fact he is more interested in partisan politics than in the proper education of American minority children. The other is illegal immigration, but that can wait.

Education is an issue that conservatives can definitely press Obama on but Pawlenty has hit the hot button issue of jobs and the economy on the head. He also has, if not explicitly, pointed out the main conceptional difference between his conservative candidacy and Barack Obama: Who is the real power in this country, the people or the governing elite? That is, who can best decide the future of Americans, individual Americans or governmentally appointed (not elected) academic intellectuals?

The 2012 general elections will rightly be about President Obama's stewardship of the American dream, exceptionalism, and economy no matter how much D. Wasserman-Schultz (Obama appointed DNC chair) insists that it is, still, GW's fault.

JM

Education?

Republicans want to eliminate the Dept of Education, Federally sponsored student aid and consider teachers to be a bunch of freeloaders

Want to start there?

so, how IS education doing?

apparently education is doing so well that the republicans feel that it doesnt need any more money or resources to succeed.