The party of no?

[ivanm]

• Tweet

Are the Republicans really the part of no?  I don't think so and a visit to
AmericanSolutions.com will reveal a number of ideas for trying to get the economy moving and to address some very critical issues such as energy. 

See http://www.americansolutions.com

Yep, Newt Gingrich is an opinionated man but the ideas presented on this web site have merit. 

[ivanm]

The following article has been copied from American Solutions and has a number of ideas for job creation that are worth considering.

A Clarion Call For Jobs
By Newt Gingrich on October 21, 2009 1:59 PM
Small businesses, which have created 70% of new jobs in America over the last 10 years, have been particularly devastated by this historic recession.

The latest jobs numbers dealt another blow to struggling small businesses: The unemployment rate increased to 9.8%, the highest level in 26 years. This number includes 15.4% of African Americans and 12.7% of Hispanics out of work. If you factor in workers who gave up looking or settled for a part-time job, the unemployment rate is an astounding 17%.

With 21 straight months of job loss and more than 15 million people out of work, there is clearly a desperate need for policies that create jobs.

The $787 billion stimulus bill that was rammed through Congress without being read turned out to be a pork-filled, big-spending bill that had more to do with welfare than job creation. In addition, the unemployment rate is 25% higher than the ceiling the American people were promised if the stimulus passed. The stimulus has been so spectacularly unsuccessful that the administration has resorted to the indefensible claim that it has "saved or created" jobs--even though 3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus became law.

From Washington's perspective, the stimulus was a success because it gave politicians more taxpayer money to pay off supporters through bigger bureaucracies. But small businesses are the real engine of growth in our economy, and they are the ones being squeezed by Washington's irresponsible tax-and-spend policies.

To get the economy growing again, the country would be wise to learn from President Reagan.

Reagan entered office in the middle of a deep recession. He spent the first months of his presidency focused on building bipartisan support for his economic recovery plan. Despite a Democratic majority in Congress, Reagan signed into law his signature tax cuts by August of his first year.

Reagan's historic 25% rate cuts were the first tax relief Americans experienced in 20 years. They kicked off an unprecedented period of economic expansion and job growth. Reagan understood that providing incentives for investment and job creation were his first priorities.

In February, a CBS News poll reported that, by a 59-22 margin, the American people favored business tax cuts over more government spending.

We need real job growth, and the following five very bold tax changes focused on small businesses and manufacturing companies should be at the top of President Obama's list.

A Two-Year, 50% Cut in Payroll Taxes. This means a substantial take-home pay raise for every employed person and more money for employers to hire new workers and invest in new technology. Paid for by redirecting unspent stimulus funds, it would bolster small businesses and lead to an explosion of new jobs.

Abolish the Capital Gains Tax. To compete with China for new jobs and investment, we need to match their capital gains tax: It's zero. Abolishing the capital gains tax would produce the investment required for new factories, new companies and new technologies to create long-lasting, high-paying jobs in America.

Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. American corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. Simply by matching the Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5%, America could become the most desirable economy in the world to open a factory, create a new job or develop new production capacity.

Permanently Eliminate the Death Tax. If we want to be a pro-work, pro-savings and pro-family nation, it's past time we stop punishing Americans who work, save and provide for their families.

Incentives for Small Business Investment. Allow small businesses to expense 100% of new equipment purchases each year to help them invest in new, more productive technologies.

This five-step plan for creating jobs would have an immediate effect by putting spendable income in the hands of American workers and helping small businesses and manufacturers compete in the world market.

By any objective measure, the first stimulus failed to help small businesses create jobs. A second big government stimulus package should be soundly rejected.

What the economy really needs is a jobs plan for small business and manufacturing.

This piece was originally published in Forbes and was co-authored with Dan Varroney, Chief Operating Officer at American Solutions.

[when the dust settles]

What did Newt do for small business when he was Speaker of the House?  Do you have any idea?  What did Bush and the republicans do fo rthe small business man when they had the power from 2000 - 2008?

Bush gave a HUGE welfare check to the big banks so that they would "Do the righ tthing" and provde small loans to the small businesses to keep afloat.  No bank has done that yet.  Bush failed to write legisltaion in his huge welfare check which would have required banks to do it.  How do you think the republicnas have any solutions when they not only created the problem, they offer nothing of substance now.  What do you find of substance in what Newt has said?

[IM2]

Its funny how Ivanm, wants us to take seriously the ideas of a man in a party who considers a small business one that earns between 5 and 15 million dollars per year.

Reagan entered office in the middle of a deep recession. He spent the first months of his presidency focused on building bipartisan support for his economic recovery plan. Despite a Democratic majority in Congress, Reagan signed into law his signature tax cuts by August of his first year.

Gingrich has a real lose memory.

When the Fed under Paul Volcker tightened interest rates to curb inflation, the economy plunged into recession and Reagan's popularity dipped with it. He reached a low-point—below what he would experience during the Iran-Contra scandal—in January 1983 when a Gallup survey gave Reagan an approval rating of 35 percent. Given the monetary circumstances Reagan inherited, it is unlikely that a recession could have been avoided. But the Reagan tax bill worsened the deficit. Reagan's prediction that the tax cuts would increase revenues missed the mark, at least during the 1981-1982 recession. The 1982 budget deficit was $113 billion—more than $30 billion more than when Carter left office. Unemployment rose to 11 percent, and Reagan was often picketed when he campaigned for Republican candidates in the 1982 midterm elections.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/biography/4

Here's more:

Leading Republicans, including Senate leader Howard Baker, urged Reagan to break with the Federal Reserve, but he refused to do so, believing that tight interest rates would eventually work. "Stay the course," Reagan proclaimed over and over again. Over time, despite the human costs of the recession, the Fed's policies did work. Tight money and reduced inflation laid the basis for a boom that began in 1983 and was still going when Reagan left the White House in 1989. Once the economy turned upwards, Reagan chided his critics, saying "They don't call it Reaganomics anymore." One reason for this was that Reagan himself no longer indulged the more extreme claims of supply-side economics. The President stopped talking about balancing the budget and in 1982 supported the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), a measure presented as a tax reform bill that was also a tax increase. Congress passed TEFRA, and Reagan signed it into law. In 1984, he supported another tax increase, again packaged as reform.

2 tax increases. Not tax cuts.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/biography/4

Reagan did not inherit a recession,not according to this presidential historian.

When the Fed under Paul Volcker tightened interest rates to curb inflation, the economy plunged into recession and Reagan's popularity dipped with it.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/biography/4

How could the economy plunge into a recession if we were already in one?

So before republicans can present a plan, they need to look back at what was really done and stop trying to make up  stuff.

Cause you sure won't get it right if you look to Gingrich for ideas.

[lucy]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed by Clinton, btw.

So, it isn't just the Republicans, but many of the Democrats as well that have not only profitted from the political policies of the past few years, but mostly have not really protected the interests of American citizens or the integrity of our laws/constitution which they are under oath to uphold.

imo/

[IM2]

Lucy,

While the Glass Stegal Act was signed by Clinton, the republicans had the majority. If he had not signed it, they could have ovverridden his veto.

Gram-Leach-Bliley was made by republicans. When the democrats were in the majority the banks tried and tried to get them to repeal Glass- Steagall and they could not get it done. So then we gotta look at who crafted the bill, who fought to get the bill passed, and stop trying to say because Clinton signed his name on it that democrats hold an equal share in this.

It's just like the Iraq war resolution. If all the democrats had not voted for it, it would have passed anyway.

[lucy]

This is what I do not understand. Why more voices of opposition are not out there debating issues openly as they happen and when they happen? Why do leaders of any party just seem to roll over and play dead when a major event or issue needs to be addressed just because the OTHER PARTY has more numbers to vote, more clout, etc. at the time....This is not the hallmark of an intelligent universe.

[Velleity]

So, it isn't just the Republicans, but many of the Democrats as well that have not only profitted from the political policies of the past few years, . . .

It wasn't just Republicans but it is the death of dominant ideology of the past 30 years.

[IM2]

lucy,

This is what I do not understand. Why more voices of opposition are not out there debating issues openly as they happen and when they happen? Why do leaders of any party just seem to roll over and play dead when a major event or issue needs to be addressed just because the OTHER PARTY has more numbers to vote, more clout, etc. at the time....This is not the hallmark of an intelligent universe.

Maybe they did.

And then there is this:

On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[12] [13] and by the House 362-57.[14] [15] This legislation (whose voting margins, if repeated, would easily have overcome any Presidential veto) was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[16]

So there was no way Clinton would have been able to stop it even if he wanted to. And rgardless of the amouht of debating and arguing, repubclans had such a majority that democratic opposition was irrelevant. Because unlike the democrats now, the republicans in 1994 were not about lisitening to any democrat, or for any type of bi partisanship. They were all for total republican domination. They got it.

And look what it caused.

This is why you cannot simply state that because Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley that democrats are just as responsible for the mess this law created.

The reality is that people who voted in a republican majority whose stated goals were to dismantle regulations such as this from jump, are the ones responsible for the mess it created.

[Velleity]

So there was no way Clinton would have been able to stop it even if he wanted to.

Go watch the Frontline I linked. Clinton's advisors were all on board.

[Observer]

The reality is that people who voted in a republican majority whose stated goals were to dismantle regulations such as this from jump, are the ones responsible for the mess it created.

That is typical Leftist thinking.

If I repeal the law against murder, who is responsible when a murder occurs, me or the guy who commits the murder?

Leftists really do seem to think that people can't live without someone holding their hands and telling what to do what not to do 24 hours a day... from birth to deat.

[Velleity]

That is typical Leftist thinking.

If I repeal the law against murder, who is responsible when a murder occurs, me or the guy who commits the murder?

Leftists really do seem to think that people can't live without someone holding their hands and telling what to do what not to do 24 hours a day... from birth to deat.

You "conservatives" can't live without your reactionary anti-leftist notions.

[Pepsi]

Fresh ideas?  Looks like the same shit over and over and over again.. cut taxes, less regulation, what else is "Newt" spouting?   

[Velleity]

Fresh ideas?  Looks like the same shit over and over and over again.. cut taxes, less regulation, what else is "Newt" spouting?    

Pretty much.

Do you think they're going to figure it out? I don't see any evidence of that, with Sarah Palin endorsing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York. It's like they actually want to implode.

[IM2]

Observer,

That is typical Leftist thinking.

If I repeal the law against murder, who is responsible when a murder occurs, me or the guy who commits the murder?

Leftists really do seem to think that people can't live without someone holding their hands and telling what to do what not to do 24 hours a day... from birth to deat.

This is dumbshit.

If you repeal the law against murder you are responsible for murder. Plain and simple. Because you make murder legal by repealing the law against it.

Secondly, if you repeal the law that stopped the banks from making the same mistake they made in the  1920's and then the banks make the same mistake they made in the 1920's again, then you are responsible for the mess created.

And this is exactly what Gramm-Leach-Bliley did.

Spare me you opinions on liberals dumb ass. Especially when conservatives want to tell people who they can partner with, who they can marry and who they can fuck.

Because if that's not holding peoples hands and telling them what to do or not to do 24 -7-365, then there is no such thing.