Hey, Remember the ’80s? Gingrich Wants to Bring ‘Em Back.
Newt Gingrich’s economic plan is not Reaganesque. It is not, as so many of his Republican presidential rivals’ claim their plans to be, inspired by Reaganomics. It is Reaganomics, cryogenically frozen in 1981, thawed 30 years later, and pumped full of Newt-style steroids in order to save the American people from slow growth. The plan features massive tax cuts (which would largely benefit businesses and the wealthy), less government spending (through the privatization of entitlement programs), interest-rate hikes, and rampant deregulation.
Awesome. Of course, The Atlantic spins all this as a bad thing. One of their great complaints is that “tax cuts = massive drops in revenue,” which, of course, is just wrong. Gingrich wants to drop the corporate tax rate to 12.5% which would of course reduce tax revenues… until companies start flooding back *into* the US. Gingrich wants to eliminate capital gains tax… which would be a massive incentive to invest, and to sell when you *want* to sell, not based on trying to game the tax system. He wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security, which, despite what many leftist talking heads like to yammer on about, is a pretty good idea and can work quite well.
None of the Republicans are really blowin’ my skirts up. Cain looked good for a while, but he either pussed out… or knew that his past was about to jump up and down all over him. Romney…. ZZZzzzzZZzZZzzzsnorkZZZzzzZzz…. Gingrich has a supertanker of baggage, both real and invented, and kinda stinks at the whole “diplomacy” thing… but unlike the current resident of the White House, actually has a brain and some ideas.
31 Responses to ““The Atlantic” makes the case for Gingrich”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think Obama will win again through the lack of any alternative.
Obama will win. Not necessarily ’cause he’s the best that a really bad system like the American polity can throw up but rather because he’s the only organised and coherent candidate. All the GOP ones are fruitloops. They are representative of the weird, the incoherent, the megalomaniac and religious fundamentalism that is the American Right. Where are the middle-of-the-road, the intelligent and above all else, moderate candidates?
> They are representative of the weird, the incoherent, the megalomaniac and religious fundamentalism that is the American Right.
And that argues against Gingrich’s economic ideas… how, exactly?
His economic views are obviously just as much “voodoo economics” as was the original Reaganomics. I believe that comes under “weird”.
I simply cannot understand why Americans believe they can have a free ride. They want services from their government but believe they shouldn’t have to pay the taxes which will fund them. They also believe those that can afford, shouldn’t pay any tax at all! Now, that is weird!
Who says we wanted all these expensive “services” that benifit no one but chronies? Givaways to special interest groups for votes, and the expense to the many. crushing reglatory “services” that squash new businesses, and drive old ones overseas.
Also theres the little detail that the federal government has grown so big theres not enough non gov. economy to tax to get more tax money. The tax cuts under Regan JFK and Bush INCREASED tax revenue to the gov byfreeingup the economy. The tax increases under Clinton were strangling things – but it was covered by the false dot.com boom that lead to the collapseat the end ofhis term
Oh horror, Gingritch might force us to face strong economic growth, reduced inflation, and more opportunity like in the ’80’s. Smite him down.
;/
> His economic views are obviously just as much “voodoo economics” as was the original Reaganomics.
Which worked. Bring on the voodoo.
> I simply cannot understand why Americans believe they can have a free ride.
Too many Americans have been infected with the same greedy socialism that is bringing Europe down.
> They also believe those that can afford, shouldn’t pay any tax at all!
Very few Americans believe that *nobody* should pay taxes. Too many Americans believe that *everybody* *else* should pay taxes.
>Which worked. Bring on the voodoo.
You don’t think that most of the long-term systemic problems your economy is facing today had their foundations laid in the 1980s under Reagan?
>Too many Americans have been infected with the same greedy socialism that is bringing Europe down.
So you agree that your taxes should be increased?
>Very few Americans believe that *nobody* should pay taxes. Too many Americans believe that *everybody* *else* should pay taxes.
Do you suffer from it as well?
> You don’t think that most of the long-term systemic problems your economy is facing today had their foundations laid in the 1980s under Reagan?
Social Security and the Great Society programs long preceded Reagan.
>>Too many Americans have been infected with the same greedy socialism that is bringing Europe down.
> So you agree that your taxes should be increased?
That’s an odd conclusion. Sort of 180 degrees to reality.
>>Too many Americans believe that *everybody* *else* should pay taxes.
> Do you suffer from it as well?
Nope. I believe that all Americans should be equal under the law…meaning all Americans should either pay a flat income tax or no income tax at all but instead a flat-percent sales tax on all end-user items. I prefer the latter.
So, you’d prefer say a 33% sales tax – ’cause that is what would be needed I suspect to replace income tax in the USA and still provide the same level of services.
Unless of course you believe that defence, education, health, social security, roads, sewage, water, garbage collection, etc. should all be cut?
> Unless of course you believe that defence, education, health, social security, roads, sewage, water, garbage collection, etc. should all be cut?
Some more than others, but yes. BTW: most of those are state & local responsibilities, not federal. The federal responsibilities in your list are defense… and, well, that’s it, unless by “roads” you mean “interstate commerce infrastructure.”
And a 33% sales tax wouldn’t be so bad, considering that the income tax system currently takes around 25% directly from those paying it… not counting the myriad of stages of income taxation that raise that level well above 25%. And unlike an income tax system, if you’re living under a sales tax system and you feel yourself overtaxed, you have *direct* control over how much you’re taxed. Don’t buy so much stuff. This would be a *fantastic* lesson for both the public and the FedGuv.
>Unless of course you believe that defence, education, health, social security, roads,
>sewage, water, garbage collection, etc. should all be cut?
All those together are about a fifth of the federal budget. About half Obamas first year “stimulus” budget. Less they the yearly interest payments on the federal debt.
Ah, some taxation is better than federal taxation? State and local taxes are OK but Federal ones aren’t?
Seems a strange position for someone who claims to be a Libertarian to take.
The problem with indirect taxation is that it only works if everybody spends. Rich people spend proportionally less than do poor people in the main. Therefore they would, once more end up ducking tax.
As far as I am concerned, a flat tax, without any deductions for anything is what should be aimed for. There should be a threshold, for the poor where those earning under that amount pay either no or reduced tax. The rich pay the same as everybody else. No ducking by anybody, all paying their fair share.
I’d also get rid of all state governments. They are an anachronism of the past where distance and communication precluded centralisation. It is only through centralisation that you get economies. Why have 50 different entities all doing the same job across your nation? Let the central government handle it.
Keep the local level but they can’t levy taxes but can levy charges for services provided.
This would get rid of the patchwork quilt of state and local laws which presently exist in the US. It would also get rid of the overlapping jurisdictions of the multitude of police forces. I’d also stop government departments and entities raising their own police forces to enforce their laws at the expense of the greater community’s.
What the US badly needs is some coherence and order. It doesn’t need more laws, it doesn’t need harsher laws what it badly needs as far as I can tell is some uniform laws and taxes. That you have three levels of government all taxing you is just crazy.
> The problem with indirect taxation is that it only works if everybody spends.
And the problem with income tax is that it only works if everyone works.
> There should be a threshold, for the poor where those earning under that amount pay either no or reduced tax. The rich pay the same as everybody else. No ducking by anybody, all paying their fair share.
“All paying their fair share” is inconsistent with “pay either no or reduced tax.”
> I’d also get rid of all state governments.
Uh-huh. Let’s revisit this when the EU nations stop being “EU nations” and become one unified mass.
> This would get rid of the patchwork quilt of state and local laws which presently exist in the US.
Which is exactly why your idea is bad. Right now, states have varying laws regarding income, sales and corporate taxes, labor laws, various other regulations, etc. If you as an individual or a company don’t like the laws or taxes in your state, you can vote with your feet.
> What the US badly needs is some coherence and order.
And that is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause.
>I’d also get rid of all state governments. They are an anachronism of the past where distance and communication precluded centralisation. It is only through centralisation that you get economies. Why have 50 different entities all doing the same job across your nation?
Centralization of production and centralization of political power are two completely different things. The degree of centralization of political power is inversely proportional to individual political power, and directly proportional to the level of corruption. People are not widgets, and thinking that reducing the levers of power so they can be manipulated by a handful of people is a fallacy based on the human tendency to produce simplified models of hyper complex problems and then applying those models them even if they don’t apply. This tendency is particularly pernicious when the feedback is corrupted due to “spin”.
It never fails to amaze me that the words “fascist” “communist” “authoritarian dictatorship” can be considered something horrible by some people who will still propose political solutions which are only slightly removed from same.
>As far as I am concerned, a flat tax, without any deductions for anything is what should be aimed for…
Completly agree – but that would dramatically lower the amount of taxes the rich pay – so “progressives” don’t like it and rouse public class war to stop it.
Also it limits the amounts of special favors congress can grant special interest groups. So congress fightsit.
>I’d also get rid of all state governments. They are an anachronism of the past where
> distance and communication precluded centralisation….
No they were developed that way to allow greater adaptability and decentralization of control – as well as allowing internal competition between the state. Hence why the migration of busness and industry away from the high tax high gov control/service northeast states, to the lower cost, lower cost of living, more open southern and western sttaes (excluding thewest coast states of course).
>.. It is only through centralisation that you get economies.
> And the problem with income tax is that it only works if everyone works.
Not quite. Those that are incapable or unable of work should not pay tax. A society is judged upon how well it looks after those that are poor, rather than how well it looks after the rich.
> “All paying their fair share” is inconsistent with “pay either no or reduced tax.”
If you are incapable of paying why should you be made to pay? See my point above.
> Uh-huh. Let’s revisit this when the EU nations stop being “EU nations” and become one unified mass.
They have been moving in that direction for some time. However, the EU Nations are sovereign recognised nations whereas your states are just that, basically provinces of a greater whole.
> Which is exactly why your idea is bad. Right now, states have varying laws regarding income, sales and corporate taxes, labor laws, various other regulations, etc. If you as an individual or a company don’t like the laws or taxes in your state, you can vote with your feet.
Why is why it is insane trying to do business in the USA. Uniformity would ensure that all regions were considered equally rather than separately by potential employers.
> And that is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause.
Funny, its only the zealots in the extreme Right in the US who claim that. Must be something lacking in the water or something. 🙂
Tell, how easy is it to travel across the US clutching to your bible and your gun? 🙂
> Those that are incapable or unable of work should not pay tax.
And who determines who is unable to work?
> A society is judged upon how well it looks after those that are poor
A pity. A better society would be judged by how well it moves the poor out of poverty, rather than just looking after them. It’s better to teach children to grow up than to train them to remain children.
> EU Nations are sovereign recognised nations whereas your states are just that, basically provinces of a greater whole
Ah. So, you are ignorant on this topic as well.
> Uniformity would ensure that all regions were considered equally rather than separately by potential employers.
You say that like it’s a good thing. I guess you are opposed to diversity. Equality Uber Alles!
> how easy is it to travel across the US clutching to your bible and your gun?
I’d sure like to know if this actually makes sense to you, or if it’s random gibberings to you as well.
> And who determines who is unable to work?
A combination of the individual and society. I suppose it is much easier to have handicapped people begging on the streets, now isn’t it? ’cause that is the direction this point appears to be taking.
> A pity. A better society would be judged by how well it moves the poor out of poverty, rather than just looking after them. It’s better to teach children to grow up than to train them to remain children.
That can be a component of how it looks after them. The point is a society is judged as being better when it doesn’t just throw the poor on the scrapheap and ignore their plight. Poverty is caused by circumstance, usually beyond the control of the individual.
> Ah. So, you are ignorant on this topic as well.
Nope. US States may claim sovereignty but they are not recognised as being sovereign by other nations. European Nations are.
> You say that like it’s a good thing. I guess you are opposed to diversity. Equality Uber Alles!
It is a good thing. Why should there be a patchwork quilt of legislation across the nation? It is insane,
> I’d sure like to know if this actually makes sense to you, or if it’s random gibberings to you as well.
Obviously you lack both political knowledge and any sense of humour. Of course it makes sense if you remembered what President Obama once said and understood the difficulties of transporting a gun across various state jurisdictions in the USA. Perhaps you need to brush up on your right-wing political credentials? 🙂
>The point is a society is judged as being better when it doesn’t just throw the poor on the scrapheap and ignore their plight.
This, right here, is the point at which it becomes obvious to pretty much everyone that you are seriously fanatical and that further discourse with you would be pointless. To you, it’s a binary world… either the government provides full cradle-to-grave care for the poor, or society “just throw the poor on the scrapheap and ignore their plight.”
The fact that you cannot even *imagine* that there may be alternatives (never heard of “charity?”) is an indicator that you cannot be taught. I have expended a sufficiency of time and effort here.
Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY.
Another point in his favor http://www.space.com/13920-gingrich-moon-mining-republican-debate-romney.html
I hear Newt now wants to arrest Judges who’s judgements he disagrees with. Now what was said about how weird the Republican candidates were?
> I hear Newt now wants to arrest Judges who’s judgements he disagrees with.
You’ve heard wrong. He wants Federal judges who make controversial rulings to come before Congress and explain their reasoning. Congress, like it or not, does have the power to compel people to come before it and answer questions. Where “arrest” would come in is when someone refuses to come before Congress, and “contempt of Congress” comes into play. Personally, I find “contempt of politicians” to be a perfectly fine thing, but the law is what the law it.
And if the judges refuse to face Congress he’s said he’d send the rozzers ’round and have them arrested. So much for the principle of the separation of powers.
If a judge breaks a law, he gets arrested. Being a judge – or a Senator, or a President – does not set one above the law.
For example:
Georgia Judge Accused of Misconduct Will Resign
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us/accused-of-misconduct-judge-amanda-williams-of-georgia-will-resign.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
Judges who don’t do their jobs, or who do their jobs poorly, *should* get the opportunity to explore new career options. Same applies for Federal judges.
>If a judge breaks a law, he gets arrested. Being a judge – or a Senator, or a President – does not set one above the law.
And handing down an unpopular judgement breaks what law? How do you determine if a judgement is unpopular? Hold a referendum? The legal system has a mechanism for self-correction. Its call “appeal”. If you don’t like a judgement or its unsound _legally_ then you appeal. You don’t harangue the judge and put them before Star Chamber. That is what happens in a totalitarian society where politics over-rules the law. What do you want, Judges who are brave enough to hand down justice or Judges who are cowered and only hand down “popular” decisions.
Gingrich wants to control the judiciary in order to get through the decisions he wants. Thats a dangerous road to go down and if you can’t see that, then you really are straying, like him out into the far Right and into Fascism territory.
I shouldn’t have to explain the principle of seperations of power. However, its interesting how often I’ve seen people who describe themselves as being of the Right or conservative who fail to understand it. Do you know what it is and why its important in a Liberal Democracy?
> And handing down an unpopular judgement breaks what law?
None. Who said it did?
> How do you determine if a judgement is unpopular?
If the judge is a federal judge, then Congress, or some committee of it, would make that determination.
> You don’t harangue the judge and put them before Star Chamber.
A) Who says you don;t harangue the judge? What do you have against free speech?
B) No “star chamber” is proposed. Judges can be impeached. That’s an existing part of the system. There is no such thing as a judge who has the job for life no matter what.
> I shouldn’t have to explain the principle of seperations of power.
Ah. So you’d be opposed to Congress impeaching a President, or a Federal Judge bringing down a ruling against a Senator?
> you really are straying, like him out into the far Right and into Fascism territory
Which is it? “Far right,” or “Fascism?” Since Fascism is a subset of “Far Left,” “Right” and “Fascist” are mutually exclusive.
> None. Who said it did?
Gingrich
> If the judge is a federal judge, then Congress, or some committee of it, would make that determination.
Really? Then you are removing the seperation of powers principle which holds that the judiciary is free of political interferences from either the executive or the legislature. You are making the judiciary subject to the political will of the legislature. Doing so, I would suggest need a rewriting of the US Constitution. As we have seen about gun fetishism, you don’t think that is possible. Stop being inconsistent!
> A) Who says you don;t harangue the judge? What do you have against free speech?
Nothing. However, when the haranguing comes from politicians and is done before the legislature or the executive you enter into the bad old days of the Star Chamber. Your nation went through that once before or have you forgotten what the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities thought about the rights of Freedom of Speech and Association?
>B) No “star chamber” is proposed. Judges can be impeached. That’s an existing part of the system. There is no such thing as a judge who has the job for life no matter what.
Judges can be impeached but they can’t be impeached for handing down unpopular judgements. They can only be impeached if they are to be charged with, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Now, unless you wish to criminalise matters of judgement (ie interpretation of the law), then you are going to have problems impeaching them. So, it appears you desire to outlaw opinions and legal precedence that you disagree with. You really want to go down that road? I suspect you do… (viz your comments on “Hoplophobia”).
> Ah. So you’d be opposed to Congress impeaching a President, or a Federal Judge bringing down a ruling against a Senator?
Nope. However, again they could only be impeached on the basis of charges of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” These can be proved or unproven as the case might be. Opinion and legal precedence is something else.
> Which is it? “Far right,” or “Fascism?” Since Fascism is a subset of “Far Left,” “Right” and “Fascist” are mutually exclusive.
If you believe that, then your political education was sadly lacking. There is considerable differences between the ideologies of the far Left and the far Right and Fascism squarely falls into the realm of the far Right. Perhaps that is your problem? You have no understanding of the terms you keep using?
> Then you are removing the seperation of powers principle which holds that the judiciary is free of political interferences from either the executive or the legislature. … Judges can be impeached but they can’t be impeached for handing down unpopular judgements.
Who does the impeaching?
>They can only be impeached if they are to be charged with, “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Ok. That being the case, what problem do you have with having judges come in and explain their decision making process?
> There is considerable differences between the ideologies of the far Left and the far Right and Fascism squarely falls into the realm of the far Right. Perhaps that is your problem?
Sigh. This idiocy again. Sorry, no, Fascism by its very nature a collectivist political philosophy. Once again, this issue has been discussed here before: http://up-ship.com/blog/blog/?p=5701
The reason why fascism is incorrectly viewed as a right wing philosophy is because *Stalin* decreed it so, not because it actually is right wing. The Far Right wants the smallest possible government (down to virtually *no* government), strictly controlled by a Constitution. The Far Left wants the largest possible government, which has the flexibility to do whatever it seems to feel it needs to do to “help people.” One of these describes fascism; the other does not.
> Who does the impeaching?
Immaterial. Basically you are subjecting them to a legal charge simply because you disagree with the decision they have handed down. That is political interference in the independence of the judiciary adn therefore an overturning of the principle of the seperation of powers. This sort of thing only occures in dictatorships, not Liberal Democracies.
> Ok. That being the case, what problem do you have with having judges come in and explain their decision making process?
Nothing – if it is a request from the legislature. When it is impeachment, it is not a request but a demand. Further, if such explanation is accompanied by a command to change that decision making process to fit into the idea of popularity, then again you are interfering with the independence of the judiciary and as we know, that sort of thing doesn’t occur in Liberal Democracies.
> Sigh. This idiocy again. Sorry, no, Fascism by its very nature a collectivist political philosophy. Once again, this issue has been discussed here before: http://up-ship.com/blog/blog/?p=5701
Merely because you have stated an opinion does not make it fact. Every objective definition of what constitutes the “left” and the “right” of the political spectrum places Fascism at the extreme end of the right side of that spectrum. Only it appears do American conservatives have created a different definition.
> The reason why fascism is incorrectly viewed as a right wing philosophy is because *Stalin* decreed it so, not because it actually is right wing.
Actually, it is considered right wing because of its methods and objectives and of course, most essentially it maintains and reinforces the individual right of ownership of property and the means of production. The extreme Left does not.
> The Far Right wants the smallest possible government (down to virtually *no* government), strictly controlled by a Constitution. The Far Left wants the largest possible government, which has the flexibility to do whatever it seems to feel it needs to do to “help people.” One of these describes fascism; the other does not.
No, that is not what the Far Right wants. What you are describing is what would be called a Conservative position and that is considered “mid-Right” by most observers. Again, it maintains the private ownership of property and the means of production. Therefore it is of the Right.
The size of Government has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional political spectrum which is based primarily upon economics. We have had the example of the government of George W. Bush which saw Government in the US grow enormously yet that government by objective observers was described as being of the Right because its economic policies (as disasterous as they were) were of the Right.
As for Constitutional control, here’s a question. Is the Government of the UK controlled by a Constitution? Is that government of the Right or the Left at the moment?
The reality is that the UK’s Constitution is merely an act of Parliament which can and is regularly amended by the UK’s Government through its control of Parliament. Yet the present UK Government as have many in the past been of the Right.
The traditional viewpoint of what constitutes “the Right” is that it believes broadly in the maintainance of private ownership of property and the means of production. Tends but is not always authoritarian in nature and is usually socially conservative in its outlook and is often racist in its outlook. The further right one goes on the spectrum tends to reinforce those points until one reaches what is generally considered to be Fascist (which throws in elements of the cult of the personality and repression of Opposition viewpoints). Libertarianism is merely a more extreme version of Conservatism and is much closer to Anarchy than anything else in many of its beliefs.
The traditional viewpoint of what constitutes “the Left” is that it believes broadly that the private property should be constrained and that the means of production should be in public hands. Tends but is not always authoritarian in nature and is usually socially liberal in its outlook. The further left that one goes on the spectrum again tends to reinforce those point one reaches what is generally considered to be Communist (which in elements of the cult of the personality and repression of Opposition viewpoints). Socialism is slightly more extreme version of what is refered to as “progressivism” by many nowadys (and erroneously called “Liberal” by many Americans unfortunately).
As you can see, Communism is the antithesis of Fascism, although both share common elements. This is one reason why many such as yourself mistakenly consider them the same.
> > Who does the impeaching?
> Immaterial.
Uh-huh.
> most essentially it maintains and reinforces the individual right of ownership of property and the means of production
Bullcrap. Property ownership and production under fascism is at the pleasure of the government. Yes, you can own a factory… so long as you make what the government wants to to make, and you sell it to the government at the price they say.
> The traditional viewpoint of what constitutes “the Left” is that it believes broadly that the private property should be constrained and that the means of production should be in public hands.
Fascism in a nutshell.
> Communism is the antithesis of Fascism
No. Communism is simply an extension of fascism.
>> Immaterial.
> Uh-huh.
No, immaterial. Remember it doesn’t matter who impeaches whom. We are discussing whether the act of impeachment is interfering with the principle of the seperations of powers, not who does the impeaching. You seem to have problems understanding principles. I wonder why?
> Bullcrap. Property ownership and production under fascism is at the pleasure of the government. Yes, you can own a factory… so long as you make what the government wants to to make, and you sell it to the government at the price they say.
Let me tell you a little truth. This is the same throughout history for most national economies. The goverment will always reserve to itself the power to direct the populace when it desires. Naziism started out respecting private property and ownership of the means of production but moved to a directed economy. So did the UK, so did the USA. Only the Soviet Union remained the same as it always had been – a directed economy. Now, did that mean the UK and the USA were Fascist or Comnunist regimes? Your comment reveals your naive ignorance about the things you’re talking about.
>> The traditional viewpoint of what constitutes “the Left” is that it believes broadly that the private property should be constrained and that the means of production should be in public hands.
>Fascism in a nutshell.
No and I’ve explained already why not. It is increasingly obvious you are ignorant of the most basic premises of Political theory.
>> Communism is the antithesis of Fascism
> No. Communism is simply an extension of fascism.
You may desire that but the rest of the world knows different. I am unsure why you persist in this. I wonder if you have ever studied political theory at all in any formal sense. This is first year University Politics. Perhaps you should stick to writing about spaceships and aeroplanes? You might not get tripped up so easily.