Stand with Newt in 2012
Newt Gingrich is under attack, and lest you think it’s not coordinated, consider this, it’s all released in one day. And it comes directly from Mitt Romney. I have come to the conclusion that if it’s a Romney/Obama race, I will vote for Obama. Why? Simple, either way it will be a disaster and either way we will have a serial liar in the White House and I would prefer that the democrats get the blame. Can you imagine liberal Romney partnering up with the men of rubber, Boehner and McConnell? It is the worst nightmare I have ever had since the one where Janet Reno appears at my front door in a teddy and carrying 12 dozen condoms. ( To this day I still sleep with the light on)
If Obama gets reelected at least we could salvage the next four years. Should Romney win, he would be George W Bush light and condemn conservatives to the same fate of the whooping crane.
It would be one thing if the accusations were true, however they are not. I suggest you go out to the kitchen and get yourself a nice cold drink and a snack, because we are going to be here for a while.
#1 – In a new mailer from the Romney campaign, he makes the accusation that Newt was found guilty of ethics violations and was thrown out as leader of the house.
First of all, Newt was cleared of all 84 of Nancy Pelosi’s trumped up charges and secondly Newt resigned 7 years later. In fact Pelosi had Newt investigated by the FEC and the IRS, both of whom cleared him of all wrong doing. Newt was fined 300,000 for ethics violations. Again this is false. You don’t get fined when you are cleared of the charges. Newt did agree to pay the cost of the investigation that cleared him.
#2 - Newt regularly hurled insults at Reagan.
This seems to fall aprt rather quickly. During the Reagan years, David Stockman turned on Reagan and said Reagan’s economic plan was a disaster (anyone know what happened to Stockman? I think he is sharing an apartment with the guy who predicted the 62 Mets would win the World Series and the guy who invested all of his money in cyclomates) Newt had formed a group of young conservatives who stayed behind every day and spent 5 hours defending Reagan and his policies. Both nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan have said that Newt is the successor to Reagan. This accusation was leveled by Elliott Abrams , who worked on foreign policy but was not part of Reagan’s inner circle. jeffrey Lord who was close to Reagan and was Reagan’s attack dog and whose job it was to go after any republican critisizing Reagan said that Abrams did not even once mention Newt being critical of Reagan. Lord also told about an award Newt got in 1985 where nancy Reagan appeared. She said that Goldwater had handed the movement over to Ronnie and Ronnie handed it over to Newt. Now I know you conservatives know how protective she was of her Ronnie. If Abrams was telling the truth, She never would have appeared on the same stage with him. However here’s what Romney said about Reagan.:
“I mentioned nothing about politics or your position at all. I talked about what I’d do to help strengthen families, and you talked about Reagan-Bush. Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush,” Romney said, in a clear attempt to distance himself from the former president.
#3 - Newt is accused of warning George H. W. Bush in 1988, not to run as “a continuation of Reaganism.”
He did say that but listen to the entire statement by CLICKING HERE NOW! The complete clip appears here and is at the 2.5 minute mark.
So called conservatives are bashing Newt in order to elect a man whose:
- Romneycare was the basis used in Obamacare
- Who wanted gay marriage sanctioned
- Whoset up an abortion plan with a 50 dollar copay and he appointed Planned Parenthood to run it.
- We now know that he can walk under a pregnant cockroach without stooping.
- On a clear day, Romney can see the middle class and he has heard an unsubstantiated rumor of poor people living in the US.
- He may have been perfect for Mass. but he is a disaster waiting to happen for America and to the conservative movement.
Please support Newt and save me from casting my vote for Obama.
I just read something very important that reenforces my condemnation Of Abrams account. As it turned out, Abrams was lying out his Obama.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi
It appears that the establishment has won in Florida, obviously aware that Newt’s first action when he became speaker was to toss them out on their collective Pelosi’s. He did away with the tradition that committee chairmanships go by seniority. Newt, true to his conservative roots, made sure committee heads were the best people and not simply the ones who remained in office for a long time thanks to their pandering to large donors.
Go Newt!!!
If it comes down to a choice between Romney and Obama, Obama is the wrong choice!
“… if it’s a Romney/Obama race, I will vote for Obama.”
THIS would be the same as “sinking the ship” because your favorite ~ and mine ~ didn’t win the nomination… THIS would be the height of selfishness, since it’s not just you on that boat, it’s ALL of us, too! WITH four more years of obama, the 2016 election WON’T have any meaning. IT’S a SURE THING that the Republic will cease to exist as we know it, if obama is reelected… it’s a MAYBE if Mitt is elected… if nothing else, the move to socialism will be slower under Romney…
…UNDER the present circumstances, I’d rather go for the MAYBE than accept the SURE THING.
Four more years of Obama? I will move out of the country. I lived in Mass when Romney was Gov. and believe me he took on the whacko libs.
If we put another Bush in charge of the country, we might as well move out of the copuntry because no one will ever trust us again. Aren’t you tired of an endless string of losers like Dole, McCain, Bush and Romney? Romney took on the liberals? On what? Gay marriage? Nope, he endorsed it. Abortion? Nope, abortion is available with a 50 dollar copay with the rest coming from state taxpayers. On Obamacare? Nope, Romneycare is identical. Secondly, if Romney becomes the nominee, besides those positions he will have to defend himself against vulture capitalism charges especially the Bain owned Damon Inc that he served on the board of. First they defrauded Medicare and had to pay a 119 million dollar fine and secondly, he lied through his teeth when he said he stopped the fraud the moment he heard about it in mid 1992. They actually continued into mid 1993, when Bain sold Damon to Corning.
No. Because if Obama is president for the next 4 years, voters will blame the democrats. However if Romney becomes president voters will blame conservatives for the carnage a republican liberal imposes on the country. The analogy should be that I am willing to be marooned on a desert island for four years and live than to die on a sinking ship of liberalism. If we wanted a lying sneaky and unprincipaled president why bother to switch?
Aren’t you tired of Obama and his Marxists moving us closer to Communism every day? Romney is a capitalist. He has his faults but he’s nor a socialist and/or Marxist
“Because if Obama is president for the next 4 years, voters will blame the democrats.”
YOU’RE kidding, right? WE won’t have the “right” to complain or blame if we end up with 4 more of obama…
What is the difference between Romney and Obama? Raised taxes? Both did that. Government run healthcare? Both did that. Abortion? Both not only supported abortion but Romney took the extra step to have Ma taxpayers pick up the cost after a 50 dollar copay. Gay marriage? They are not the same here. Obama has never recommended that the government sanction it as Romney did. And if you don’t think Obama will point out that Romney and Bain cheated the Medicare program out of tens of millions of dollars through bogus billing and that Romney lied when he said he stopped it in mid 1992, you are sadly mistaken. Somewherer a line in the sand has to be drawn and if you suggest I should vote for an ultraliberal republican over an ultraliberal democrat, well then, that’s just plain silly.
After 4 years of Romney there will be no right. Look at the beating we took in 2006 and 2008. Obama can’t get anything through congress and we can wait four years in order to survive but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to survive for four years just so we can attend the funeral of conservatism. On a clear day, Romney can see the middle class and he has heard unsubstantiated rumors of the poor, of course he thinks that means they are forced to wash their own BMW
Steve you are a Newt Liberal. Can’t argue with the Libs. IMHO they’re all on another planet.
ANEYONE BUTOBAMA
So you want to trade Lenin for Mao?
…AS I mentioned earlier, I’ll take the MAYBE over the SURE THING…
So Anne, you say Newt is a liberal. Let’s do a little test and see who the liberal is.The answers will all be either Newt ot Mitt. Get out your number two pencil.
#1 Who made gay marriage legal by executive fiat?
#2 Who proposed and implimented tax increases?
#3 Who implimented the forerunner of Obamacare?
#4 Who forced the taxpayers to pay for those abortions then profitted Planned Parenthood by putting them on the board overseeing them?
#5 Which candidate voiced their opposition to the Bush tax cuts?
#6 Which candidate is against the flat tax?
#7 Which candidate supports ethenol subsidies?
#8 Which candidate endorsed cap and trade in 2005?
#9 Which candidate has gotten an endorsement from george Soros?
Perhaps you should check your Funk & Wagnalls and read the meaning of the word liberal because you are evidently confused.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/soros-not-much-difference-between-obama-and-romney/
I didn’t know George Soros had so many fans masquerading as conservatives.
Furthermore, Romney would be the first American president to have been found to be guilty of Medicare fraud. He was fined 119 million dollars. He even does business like a liberal. And when he was caught in the act, he admitted he knew about the fraud but once he found out about it, he put an end to it That was in 1992. That was a lie. It continued right up to the very day Bain sold Damon to Corning in mid 1993. So as director of the company, he knew of the fraud as he has admitted to, then lies and says he stopped it. He also said he reported it to authorities, another lie. Corning found the fraud, reported it and notified authorities. The fine they paid came out of Corning’s pockets and not Romney’s. Romney made out like a bandit, walking away with another $413,000 dollars and the fine wiped out Damon and every single employee lost their job. So all you Romney supporters stick your chest out with pride for your candidate.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/01/21/romney-supervised-medical-testing-company-guilty-of-massive-medicare-fraud/2/
VOTE LIBERAL-VOTE ROMNEY
Good research Steve.
Thank you. It’s easy for us Tea Party members to decide who to vote for. Newt has endorsements from Todd Palin, a near endorsement from Saint Sarah, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and other rockribbed conservatives and Romney is supported by Huntsman, Pawlenty, Dole, McCain and a variety of other moderate and liberal pretenders and losers. It makes our choice easy.
You are taking the sure thing. Romney wants you to forget his record of many years and trust him on what he says on the campaign trail. That is exactly how we got the Community Organizer in Chief. At least with Obama, voters will take it out on democrats but with Romney, he would doom the conservative movement possibly forever. This is the Tea Party site and “We the People” are not afraid of a fight to see our ideas and hopes come to fruition and understand that having a president solely to have someone with an (R) after their name is n ot necessarily the best way to achieve victory for America.
When you say faults, you mean like the fact he defrauded Medicare of millions and is endorsed by George Soros?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/01/21/romney-supervised-medical-testing-company-guilty-of-massive-medicare-fraud/
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/george-soros-there-isnt-all-that-much-difference-between-romney-and-obama.html
Wrong. It’s not letting an ultraliberal Romney destroy the republican party
If this is an actual quiz the answer to #7 may include Romney, but it also includes Newt. Newt also supported a carbon tax for many years. I don’t like Romney enough to make the case for him, I won’t vote for him, but this Newt Gingrich zealotry is absolutely bizarre to me. Instead of making the case that “well, he’s not as terrible as Mitt” the Newtons are going with a “Newt is superman” approach. I don’t get it, personally.
#7 Which candidate supports ethanol subsidies?
#8 Which candidate endorsed cap and trade in 2005?
There’s a good reason for it. See, we conservatives actually take the time to investigate facts rather than to take a fool like Romney By saying that Newt supported carbon tax gave you away. Ther only mention of Newt supporting cap and trade came only from Romney. The truth is Newt vehemantly opposed CAP. He testified before congress arguing against CAP and led a grassroots movement to kill the bill.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/06/newt-gingrich-cap-and-trade-another-way-saying-2-25
Both candidates have records. Romney has the record of a liberal in politics and Medicare fraud in the private sector. Newt has a long record of being a conservative. What we need right now is someone who will cut the budget, cut corporate taxes and starts erasing 4 years of Obama. Newt has done this before. He has weathered the massive media blitz that is sure to come to anyone trying to end socialism. He doesn’t get ruffled like Romney and Obama and quitye frankly, Obama would have Romney for breakfast in a debate because the media won’t ignore his lies like they did when he lied about Newt. Or like 2008 when Romney lied about McCain and Huckabee. It’s not enough to have a president with an (R) after his name, we need someone with conservative value and not a Medicare cheat.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/01/21/romney-supervised-medical-testing-company-guilty-of-massive-medicare-fraud/
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/george-soros-there-isnt-all-that-much-difference-between-romney-and-obama.html
I said carbon tax, not cap n trade. Cap n trade is a specific policy is, a carbon tax is a general policy. But while on the issue: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/07/newt-gingrich/gingrich-claims-he-never-favored-cap-and-trade/
Also, you can attack Romney all you want, I’m not going to defense him, he sucks. I didn’t vote for him…
The only good thing you can say about Romney is at least he isn’t a racist isolationist like Paul.
We can’t all support corrupt serial philanderers with terribly progressive neoconservative voting records. Nice going with the personal attacks, God knows you’d hate to be stuck defending Newt on his actual voting record. Newt has taught you well, when in doubt, go after someone who has brought up a legitimate point.
No, some people support the most racist, and least effective member of the house in the history of the US. In 23 years in the house, Paul sponsored 620 bills. 4 made it to votes. 1 got passed. The sale of 3 acres of land to a historical society. Now let’s compare voting records. Newt has a 97.6 prolife rating whereas Paul’s rating is about 50% He’s in Nancy pelosi territory. Paul is the only member of the house who voted no to give a freedom award to Rosa Parks and is the only member of the house to write a bill to break up Israel. All Newt did was lead the fight to cut the capital gains which led to doubling revenues, the reformation of Welfare, led the fight to cut Clinton’s budget and to 4 straight budget surpluses. And Newt did not put out a racist newspaper and then deny he even read the articles. Unfortunately, his workers have now come forward and have said he lied because he had to sign off on every article. Paul does lead in one thing. He has gotten more boos than all other candidates combined in the debates, not to mention laughter at his assinine policies. Of course I am bitter because I didn’t get the tinfoil hat concession to his campaign. And most telling is who is voting for him. In both NH (31%) and SC (40%) his biggest voting bloc was people who consider themselves as very liberal and his smallest bloc is very conservative (7% NH, 6% SC). That’s all you need to know about him. He is about to finish dead last once again today.
Legitimate point? I want a conservative not a maniac. What’s your point? One good conspiracy theory deserves another? Racism is good? Everyone should become antisemites? Sorry, but I am sane and cannot support Paul.
Ok, I bring up that Newt has supported such conservative ideas as a carbon tax and ethanol subsidies and you respond with calling Ron Paul a racist. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
On effectiveness, that’s not always a great thing… I wish President Bush was less effective, maybe we wouldn’t have Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. I suppose Medicare Part D doesn’t bother you, after all, Newt supported it and still supports it, as he boldly proclaimed to Florida retirees. Mark Sanford is probably the less effective governor we’ve had in SC history, and I’d vote for him again, if I could.
Paul has never written a bill to break up Israel, what the hell are you talking about? He never ever votes for any resolution that violates any other countries’ sovereignty. I believe you intentionally left something out about the Rosa Parks vote
. Instead of charging the tax payers for the medal he pointed out that if every member of Congress contributed $100, that’d be enough to pay for the medal. Guess the only member of Congress to vote to contribute $100 personally. Don’t worry, I’ll wait. Oh, sorry, it wasn’t Newt. It was Ron Paul.
When you want to criticize Paul, defend the War in Iraq, or the Dept of Education, or entitlement expansion, or the NDAA, or SOPA, or the Patriot Act. But anyone reading your responses, who has any bit of intellect, realizes that all you do is avoid the points that are being brought up, and go with misleading personal attacks.
Oh, by the way, abortion is a state issue, so any time you vote to let states decide, the NRL decides thats a pro-choice vote. You know who else was pro-life on a state level (Constitutionally pro-life)? Ronald Reagan. Lindsey Graham has a 90% all time rating with the American Conservative Union. What does that tell you? It tells me that the American Conservative Union sucks. Also, if you voted against TARP, the Chamber of Commerce calls you anti-business for that vote. You catch my drift. Or maybe you don’t. Its hard to tell if you actually believe your own attacks or that Newt is a conservative icon. Regardless, I’ve learned my lesson about arguing with idiots.
No. You lied about Newt supportying cap and trade.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/06/newt-gingrich-cap-and-trade-another-way-saying-2-25
Newt Gingrich: Cap-and-Trade is another way of saying 2+2=5
By:Newt Gingrich | 06/25/09 10:00 PM
Examiner Columnist.
The Obama White House has spent the week furiously working to convince its fellow Democrats in Congress to support the global warming bill that’s before the House today. Former Vice President Al Gore has been working the phones, and there was even a luau at the White House last night.
The question that must be asked, however, is why? If the case is closed on man’s role in causing climate change, as the left assure us that it is, then why the need to twist Democratic arms to do something about it?
My guess is it has something to do with 2+2=4.
This simple arithmetic – 2+2=4 – was a rallying cry during the Polish Solidarity freedom movement in the 1980s. It meant that, even though the government would try to tell the people that 2+2=5, to be free, the people had to tell the truth, that 2+2=4. Because to deny the truth was to deny reality, and to do that was to surrender freedom to the government.
Something similar is happening with the global warming bill.
The sponsors of the global warming bill, which is known as Waxman-Markey, are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of “green” energy.
In other words, under Waxman-Markey, there’s no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It’s a win-win-win.
Right. And 2+2=5.
The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price.
Estimates are that the Waxman-Markey bill will raise electricity prices by an astounding 90 percent. It will raise gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will raise the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 each year.
And, far from creating jobs, experts predict that the global warming bill will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average each year, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs.
All in all, the bill is expected to reduce our gross domestic production (GDP) by $9.6 trillion. And for what?
Even if – if – the legislation works exactly as it is intended (a rare feat in Washington), in about 100 years the Earth’s temperature will be one tenth of one degree Celsius lower than the United Nations predicts it will otherwise be.
The largest tax increase in history for a one-tenth of one degree temperature decline? No wonder the Obama Administration is working overtime on Capitol Hill.
The bill’s sponsors are also assuring us that if America unilaterally imposes these new energy costs on itself, countries like China and India will be convinced to do the same by the overwhelming power of our example.
This is another 2+2=5 message. The American people know that the authoritarians who rule China won’t be shamed into harming their own economy by the United States doing so first. It doesn’t matter how many times Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi repeat it.
I’m a conservative who deeply believes we have a moral, economic and patriotic duty to protect our environment. I’ve written a book about green conservatism. I’ve even appeared in a commercial about the environment with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But I don’t believe we can protect our environment with job-killing higher taxes and growth-stifling government regulation.
Innovation and incentives have made America great. They are what will keep us great and protect our environment.
But instead of rewarding innovation, this bill punishes Americans into living lives that the government wants them to live. Instead of recognizing that our energy problems are the result of politician who won’t let us develop domestic sources of energy, this bill punishes Americans for the faults of politicians and bureaucrats.
Instead of opening up America’s vast resources of oil, natural gas, and coal, this bill guarantees that American will remain reliant on foreign dictators if we want to continue to drive cars, heat our homes and run our appliances.
I believe in protecting our environment. I just don’t believe that 2+2=5. Neither, I suspect, do my fellow Americans whose representatives are voting on Capitol Hill today
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/06/newt-gingrich-cap-and-trade-another-way-saying-2-25#ixzz1l2wvqsQs
I already pointed this out and provided you with his article written in 2009 in conjunction with his testimony before congress and you chose to lie again. Simple as that. Now you continue your lies and support for Paul, but don’t expect anyone to buy your lies.
Medicare Part D has saved money and lives. Before Med Part D, you could not get Junuvia and Lipitor, which are too expensive for most seniors to buy but would pay for open heart surgeries and other procedures. Those procedures have decreased dramatically. But saving lives is not important to Paul and his followers especially if you happen to be black or Jewish. Tell you what you do. Go put on your sheets and pack up your matches and cross and go hang with Paul. Racisism may not be a disqualifier to you but believe me sane America is against it. That fool Paul said we were wrong to go to war against Hitler and spends his time apologizing for terrorists and blaming 9/11 on Americans. Of course it won’t matter because at the end of the night, Newt will beat Paul by 20 points. And the KKK will cry.
And Linsay graham is hardly a conservative.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/27/ron-paul-is-crazy-part-4018663/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/07/newt-gingrich/gingrich-claims-he-never-favored-cap-and-trade/
The Red State link is someone’s blog, an opinion piece. That’d be like me creating a post called Newt Gingrich is a Roosevelt style Progressive. Actually that’s not a good example because Newt calls himself that. So I suppose it’d be more like, Newt Gingrich Supports the Extermination of Mexicans. There’s no factual base to that, yet I could still write that, but it would have no credibility.
Also, for the record, I said Gingrich supported a Carbon tax, not cap n trade. You said cap n trade, not me.
And again, you just called me a racist? Jesus Christ, you are nuts. I wish you would’ve held to your promise to quit posting here. Then again, based on the lies and slander you write consistently, I shouldn’t expect the truth from you. Playing the race card is the ultimate sign of being a scoundrel
PS: My grandparents are both retired and oppose Medicare Part D, because its an expensive failure. If the GOP is going to increase entitlements, why the hell is there a democrat party? Give any justification you want, just don’t proclaim to be an ultra-conservative. My liberal co-workers use the same argument.
Actually this is a huge waste of time. When you post slanderous opinion as evidence, defend the indefensible, and ignore reason, only in your head do you win arguments. Regardless, I won’t waste my time with you anymore. In other words, continue to post your lies and mindless nonsense, just hope no one actually looks to credible sources to check your facts.
You should really read your own posts. It clearly says Gingrich would be amendable if it came with tax credits to pay for the elimination of the carbon. That’s a whole different ballgame from what you claim since the cap and trade bill left consumers to pay for the costs of eliminating carbon. You aren’t very bright are you?
The carbon tax was tax credits for companies making upgrades and my post was an oped written by Gingrich after he testified before congress. There’s a huge difference between consumers seeing their rates double and cutting down on emissions through tax credits.
I wasn’t going to do this because I have written about the idiotic economic plan of Ron Paul’s extensively, but I guess I will do it one last time.
#1 Eliminate the fed….Sounds good on the face of it but in practice can be a disaster. The fed has many functions, including printing money. At one time, before the fed could print money whenever they needed to, states and banks would issue script, which undermnined the economy because state and bank notes were so easily counterfeited. Also the fed deals with currency exchange. IS it Paul’s proposal that states deal with it themselves and would the 50 different plans create havoc with our monetary system? With no central bank, there would be little choice. The real problem with the fed is that it is self contained and self ruled, thereby allowing them to conduct any policy they wished to depending on the administration. The real answer is to put the fed under the auspices of congress. True the TARP was passed by congress but if it had followed the original bill, the taxpayers would have at least broken even. The 130 billion dollar deficit arises from Obama’s mortgage bailout (which TARP was never intended for) at a cost of 52 billion. The 48.5 GM bailout and the 12 Billion dollar Chrysler bailout, which should never have been approved. When you throw out the tax credits Obama gave them by executive order, that cost taxpayers 51 billion. Now add to that special loans to the SEIU bank in Chicago and Maxine Water’s husband’s bank andd you have another 1.5 billion. Obama has used the repaid money as a slush fund and not to repay the fed and pay down the debt as Bush requested and congress passed.
#2 Return to the gold standard. Fort Knox currently has 147.5 million ounces of gold. That amounts to a little over 243 billion dollars. The current money supply (M1) is a little over 1.4 trillion. That means we would need about 848.5 ounces of gold, otherwise our dollar wouls suddenly be worth about 18 cents on the dollar. We could do like Roosevelt and confiscate all gold coins except there are very few left. Therefore we would have to confiscate jewelry from jewelry stores and individuals and naturally, we could not reimburse people for it, otherwise it wouls defeat the original purpose. We could add silver, but silver is used in many different manufacturing plants, whereas gold is not. And who will oversee the gold since the fed is no longer around? And as the economy and the money supply increases, where does the gold come from? Or do we just shut down the economy when we run out of gold backing. The result would be a much weaker dollar growing inflation at Zimbabwe standards.
#3 Cancel GATT and NAFTA… What do we do with the 2.4 million Americans manufacturing goods for export? A tariff war would not benefit us since our marginal corporate tax is double that of our trading partners. Since we have precious little rare earth minerals we desperately need and about 80% of those minerals are found in China, how do we get them? We would no longer have the preference over China’s other trading partners. The only good thing would be that we could no longer make solar panels or wind turbines, both of which depend on those minerals. In 2010 total imports was 2.33 trillion dollars and exports were 1.83 trillion. That’s a trade deficit of 500 billion 90% of which is oil imports. In 2009 the gap was 19% smaller. That was before Obummer cut our domestic oil drilling. This too would create inflation as our union manufacturers would raise the cost of everything we buy without foreign competition.
#4 Zero out the income tax. Sounds good but he doesn’t offer a reasonable replacement of enough funds to cover the costs of infrastructure and national defense and other chores enumerated in our constitution. I don’t think I even need to explain this one. The true solution would be to cut the federal budget of all programs not authorized by the constitution and to lower taxes accordingly, not eliminate them entirely. In short, paul’s economic plan is almost as dangerous as his foreign policy.