Business

Media Claim Fact Check: Santorum‘s Tax Plan Will ’Blow a Hole in the Budget’ & Give Most Tax Cuts to the Wealthy

Does Santorum’s Tax Plan Really Blow a Hole in the Budget and Give Most tax cuts to the Wealthy?

It appears former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s tax plan is the latest proposal to undergo intense mainstream media scrutiny.

“The tax plan by Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum would cut taxes for most Americans while swelling the federal budget deficit by $900 billion in a single year, according to an independent study,” writes the Associated Press.

“…the Tax Policy Center found [that] Santorum’s plan would blow a $1.3 trillion hole in the budget, gutting federal revenue by about 40 percent,” Think Progress reports.

“Rick Santorum…favors a huge broad-based tax cut that would massively increase the budget deficit…[a]ccording to new estimates by my colleagues at the Tax Policy Center,” Forbes reports.

There’s a consensus in the media: Rick Santorum’s tax plan would increase the budget deficit.

However, to accept the conclusion of these reports one must first accept the premise that government expenditures won’t be altered before or after calendar year 2015 and that the economy will remain in a static zero growth state.

But perhaps the former Pennsylvania senator understands that tax cuts without economic growth or a reduction in government spending would lead to an inflated deficit. Maybe that’s why the has also proposed to cut $5 trillion in federal spending over five years, according to his campaign website.

This is what the Tax Policy Center (TPC) analysis states [emphasis added]:

TPC’s analysis measures the change in tax liabilities against two alternative baselines: current law, which assumes that the 2001-10 tax cuts all expire in 2013 as scheduled, and current policy, which assumes that the 2011 law is permanent (except for the one-year payroll tax cut and temporary investment incentives).

The Santorum plan would reduce federal tax revenues substantially [Editor's note: via tax cuts]. TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Santorum plan would lower federal tax liability by about $1.3 trillion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 40 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be about $900 billion in calendar year 2015.

While it’s true that the difference in government expenditures and tax revenues would increase under certain tax-reducing policies, to discuss a Republican candidate’s tax policy while burying or failing to mention their plans to cut government expenditures or grow the economy could be very misleading.

This may not come as a surprise. This has long been the strategy against tax cuts: to repeatedly claim that a reduction in revenues will cause an increase in the budget deficit. Again, in order to achieve that former while avoiding the latter, it would mean that one would have to reduce expenditures – which is precisely what many of the GOP candidates have proposed.

“Most of the tax cuts in Santorum’s plan would go to the wealthiest households, according to the study,” reports the AP.

The TPC analysis does not say this. In fact, the Santorum plan would cut taxes for about 81 percent of taxpayers by an average of more than $9,700, while less than one-half percent would face tax increases averaging about $175, according to the analysis.

Furthermore, Santorum’s plan would reduce the number of income tax brackets from six to two, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent while keeping the bottom rate at 10 percent. He would, according to his plan, cut the corporate income tax in half for most companies — lowering it from 35 percent to 17.5 percent. He has also said that he would eliminate the corporate tax for manufacturers.

The AP could have mentioned that although eliminating taxes on manufacturers has many upsides, there are also some potential downsides. Economists have pointed out that eliminating taxes on manufacturers, thereby incentivizing companies to relocate to the U.S., could adversely affect the markets by encouraging companies in other industries to move into manufacturing areas — all of which could potentially create gluts (overcapacity) and/or shortages.

While the reasons for not disclosing such information remains unclear, many believe the media has ignored the downsides and/or upsides to the Republican candidate’s plans for economic growth and expenditure reduction and has instead focused solely on the downsides to cutting taxes.

“Santorum often complains that the deficit ‘is exploding,’ but his plan would do nothing to turn around the nation’s budget woes, instead spending trillions to cut taxes for those at the very top of the income scale,” Think Progress moans.

Is this accurate?

According to his proposed plan, he would triple the exemption that parents can claim for dependent children, cut the top tax rate on investment income from 15 percent to 12 percent, and retain tax breaks for charitable donations, mortgage interest and retirement savings.

One could make the argument that tax exemptions for children would disproportionately benefit lower income households, rendering the claim that Santorum’s tax cuts mostly benefit “the very top of the income scale” rather inaccurate.

The point is this: if one accepts both the premise (that base policy and the economy will stay as-is) and conclusion put forward by the AP, Think Progress, and (to a lesser extent) Forbes, then Washington should never cut or reduce taxes – ever! – because it will only increase the deficit.

Or, as Forbes put it:

…like his opponents in the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination, Santorum is proposing extremely generous tax cuts at the price of big increases in the budget deficit

Perhaps the GOP candidates realize this and that’s why, along with “extremely generous tax cuts,” they’ve also proposed “bold” plans to drastically reduce government expenditures.

[Author’s note: for a greater understanding of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, I would refer you to the Laffer Curve.]

See TCP’s Full Analysis Here

See Santorum’s Full Tax Plan Here

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

(H/T Joe Vicinanzo)

Comments (185)

1 2 3
  • Joshua7
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:50am

    I hope people wake up about Gingrich. The guy is what we call a progressive, a John McCain, republican progressive. If that is what you want then fine, but I’m am a Libritarian-Conservitive, Progressives are my political enemies and I will not vote for them.

    Report Post » Joshua7  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:57am

      Amen brother.

      Report Post »  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:59am

      Even though I think it should be about the issues, people need to see this interview out of vetting at least. Marianne Gingrich was jilted by this guy after she put so much out there by being his first mistress. Here is the interview: http://url2it.com/liid

      NOT TO BE RUDE BUT WOULD CALLISTA BE THE ‘FIRST MISTRESS(LADY)’, NO SHE WILL BE THE SECOND.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:04pm

      CHARLESTON, S.C.—Newt Gingrich has cancelled a campaign appearance in South Carolina because of poor attendance.

      The Republican presidential candidate was scheduled to speak to the Southern Republican Leadership on Friday. But a campaign spokesman told reporters that he would no longer be appearing due to poor attendance.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_19782823

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:04pm

      Santorum LIED during the debate against Dr. Paul!

      Santorum says Dr. Paul has a “50% national right to life voting record” at the 1:48 mark in the video below:

      Ron Paul has 100% right to life voting record!

      This is a screen shot from VoteSmart.org showing that Dr. Paul had a 100% voting record with NRLC in 2009-10
      http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4721/ronprolife.jpg

      and this is a screen shot from the National Right to Life website, also 100%
      http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8315/ronnrlc11.jpg

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:07pm

      Independent Study: Santorum tax plan swells deficit by $900B

      http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16551574/study-santorum-tax-plan-swells-deficit-by-900b

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:08pm

      I don’t want the first divorced president that is also a crook.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:09pm

      Four More Years, Four More Years, Four More Years

      Pick up the chant, All together now,

      Four More Years, Four more Years

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:16pm

      Rick Santorum is Tired of People Wanting a Small Government That Leaves People Alone

      http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/01/20/rick-santorum-is-tired-of-people-wanting-a-small-government-that-leaves-people-alone/

      Report Post »  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:30pm

      Santorum could not bring himself to reject PIPA and SOPA. A good reason to reject him.

      Report Post »  
    • thewatcher93
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:46pm

      What’s wrong with a conservative?

      Report Post »  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:46pm

      As a one per-center I would not mind if he wins – I will then be able to double the amount of charity I donate to be $30,000 a year instead of the $12 to $17,000 I donated each year under the current administration. Although I must admit we were able to capitalize an additional $60,000 in work related automobile purchases under the Obama administration, that was not possible under Bush. Although they are German cars, I still think it helped spur the current economic growth, and we now have heated mirrors and passenger seats!

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • BSdetector
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:57pm

      No tax plan is serious until EVERYONE pays SOMETHING.

      Report Post » BSdetector  
    • Cause4Liberty
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 2:04pm

      I will NEVER vote for this evil crook. How in the hell GB is jocking him, i do not understand. GB claims to be Libertarian at heart, but he is for Santorum? Santorum has proclaimed to be the opposition to Libertarianism. So wouldnt that mean he is the opposition to GB’s heart?

      Santorum seems like the little whiney toddler on the stage. Always complaining, always degrading, and never really saying what he would do. He is a COLLECTIVIST! He is a liar who cant keep from staring at the ground. Shifty and shady! He has NO confidence in what he says, and looks like he is lying 3/4 of the time. He is apart of Knights of Malta. He grandfather was a devout red COMMUNIST! He screwed over the veteran’s home in DC for the Catholic church. Who helped exacerbate our illegal alien problems? He shafted the vet home about $83 million dollars. HELL NO to Santorum! He is ANTI-AMERICAN traditionalist. He doesnt believe in individual liberty for goodness sake!

      GB is on the WRONG side of history. And needs to QUIT propping up this Communist!

      Report Post » Cause4Liberty  
    • fidel1234
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:52pm

      Your right,VOTE RON PAUL!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • fidel1234
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:56pm

      That’s a double Amen

      Report Post »  
    • Oring
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 4:25pm

      Here’s a nice infographic explaining the positions of the candidates on several key issues: http://www.latexmattress.org/which-candidate-will-help-you-sleep-at-night.html

      Report Post »  
    • LibertarianRight
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 5:37pm

      @ BSDetector:

      “No tax plan is serious until EVERYONE pays SOMETHING.”

      How about a tax plan where EVERYONE pays NOTHING. I’d much rather prefer a tiny government, funded through excise taxes, where it doesn‘t lay a claim on the fruits of ANYONE’S labor. Why can’t we have that? It worked beautifully for almost 150 years (1789-1913).

      Report Post »  
    • BSdetector
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 5:49pm

      @LibertarianRight
      That would be better, but I don’t think people have the will to go from where we are now, to that. Once everyone has some skin in the game, there is a much better chance of your scenario happening.
      As it is, the 49-51% who don’t pay ANY tax, have no incentive for the other half to pay less or none.

      Report Post » BSdetector  
    • Ohio Guy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 5:55pm

      The_jerk: listen again he stated clearly that this was a bad bill and would not support it. What he did say was that the Gov’t does play a role in protecting private property. Read the 5000 year leap and you will get a sense of how important this idea was at our founding.

      Report Post » Ohio Guy  
    • Carl McPherson
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 12:03pm

      You’re absolutely right on that Joshua7.

      I talk about Santorum and his budget cutting a bit in my latest blog entry here:
      http://tinyurl.com/75j5826

      The article talks about Ron Paul as well; for those interested in more info.

      Report Post » Carl McPherson  
    • phillips1990702
      Posted on January 22, 2012 at 11:22pm

      So, you’re voting for Ron Paul then?

      Report Post » phillips1990702  
  • escape_from_socialism
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:37am

    Glenn, do you know when you failed? When you start attacking one true conservative, who will withstand globalists/progressives. Instead you listen your pal Pat and bet on Cain, Bachmann and now Santorum. Thank you Glenn. You failed me.

    Report Post »  
    • NewFreedomBlog
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:49am

      Santorum’s voting record. It is not stellar at all. http://www.americanfreedombybarbara.com/2012/01/santorum-big-government-candidate.html#.TxL7xZuksr4.twitter

      As a matter of fact, his voting record IS progressive and more so than the current POTUS

      Report Post » NewFreedomBlog  
    • jzs
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:55am

      All Republican tax plans benefit the richest at the expense of the rest of the country. That’s what Republican policy is.

      As far as the Laffer curve, Reagan cut taxes and the deficit climbed as never before (that’s why he then started raising taxes). Bush cut taxes and the deficit ballooned. Sorry Laffer, it’s a nice concept to support lowering taxes on the rich guys, but it has been proven wrong time and time again.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • the_ancient
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:54pm

      Its now

      “The Rick Santorum Radio Show”
      “The Bash Ron Paul TV Show”
      and now
      “Rick Santorum Spin from the Blaze… The Truth lives here as long as the truth supports Rick Santorum”

      Report Post » the_ancient  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:34pm

      @ Escape

      I would like to say respectfully, why are you putting your faith in Glenn? You say he fails you. Glenn didn’t ask for you to put faith in him. In fact, as a regular Glenn Beck listener, I know he states that you need to do you own research. You should never take Glenn for 100% truth. Nor has Glenn said that Santorum is the perfect candidate in every aspect. Glenn feels he is the best out of the current left overs.

      I agree with him on that as well. Even the Paulbots go off on Glen. It is not that Glenn hates Ron Paul. Glenn feels that Paul’s foreign policy would hurt us. Meanwhile, the Paulbots keep going on with the talking points, and lie (yes guys you lie) about Paul’s past and his stances. While Paul had the basic domestic policies at pretty much 90% of what any person who loves freedom and liberty, his foreign policy would weakness us and make us susceptible to foreign attacks.

      I know the Paulbots will have a field day on this, but they need to realize they are not changing anyone’s mind on this: nor mine, nor Glenn, nor the others that countlessly disagree with their stances on foreign policy. The Paulbots act like we all need to be the same on the issues, but that is against what Paul stands for. Paul has his stance, I respect that. But, it is wrong.

      I will still vote for Ron Paul if he wins the seat for the primary. I honestly think that the Paulbots’ attacks are what detracts support for Paul.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:42pm

      And don’t forget, the president doesn’t make laws, nor makes the budget. That is 100% on congress. What the Dems don’t say is that the tax cuts will grow the GDP, create jobs and more taxes will be generated downstream. Heck, remove the income tax and go to a sales tax, and the tax revenue generated would be staggering.

      See Dems only complain about deficits when it comes to tax cuts or it is Republican spending bills. They never complain when it is Universal Healthcare, Social Security, Medicad, Education spending, and other social programs. Their only answer is to tax more to cover the current and future spending – but that’s because they want to collapse the system.

      Rick is a rational person that can at least be talked to. He may not like us libertarians, but he can be turned around. The Paulbots make Ron Paul look to radical and not eager to discuss possibilities. They treat the presidency more like a dictatorship with there thoughts of Ron being able to stop all this. Fact is, Paul still needs to deal with congress. He will get nothing done.

      Romney and Gingrich are not trustworthy (period). The only hope is Santorum, He has disagreements with Paul and Glenn on some domestic issue, but he sees and agrees with points of their stances. That s a really good start if you ask me.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:53pm

      @ jzs

      What like the current tax plan that benefits Warren Buffet, George Soros, Solyndra, GE, and a long list of Democrat companies that benefit from it through loopholes? I didn‘t see those progressive Democrats remove those holes when they controlled the House and Senate and had Obama in office in ’08 or ‘09. Tax cuts benefits Americans and allow that money to be reinvested and be spent in the private sector in order to inflate the GDP.

      If you think the Public sector creates wealth, name one job that is created without money generated by taxes? Post office? Privately run…. Everything else is a tax that generates the income for the public sector to create those jobs. It is either that or the Government has to print the money. Only the private sector with credit, interest, debt (which is what money is), and productivity creates wealth. The problem is that a large portion of the do not contribute to society with productivity as to balance the income discrepancy. Think I am wrong? Study Supply and Demand. The more of a product, the cheaper it is. If more unemployed worked as farmers and sold their veggies, the price would drop and food would start becoming more affordable. Demand would raise and prices would rise again.

      However, progressive want to stack the deck so they can control it, so the pass regulations that prevent people from being able to do it themselves by making it a hassle to self start a business.

      JZS – you really need to study economic

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • midwesthippie
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:17pm

      JZS is just a typical democrat parrot…nothing new here. anti GOP talking points ala Vasserman-Schultz (yes…say it like a nazi). the TWO party system is corrupt and ,like i tell my liberally blinded dad, we have got to break the cycle of the good-cop-bad-cop (R)vs.(D) game that is killing America. i don’t listen to ANYONE that professes one party is better and or less corrupt than the other.

      Report Post » midwesthippie  
    • fidel1234
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:54pm

      Your exactly right I hope his book sales and ratings go down,he is a hypocrite.

      Report Post »  
    • We are Americans
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 5:15pm

      Glenn has repeatedly called for all of
      our troops to come home. Congressman Paul
      does it and he’s a crazy man. Sarah Palin says
      vote for Gingrich. Not a word is said. A fan
      supports Gingrich and Glenn freaks out. Glenn
      loves America. But hates NYC and the whole
      Northeast and Calif. How’s that loving America?
      Glenn calls Obama a Marxist. Rips Michelle Obama.
      Then says we all have to love each other.
      Supports Santorum but won’t endorse him
      yet has him on program all the time. Im really
      not sure where Glenn stands anymore.
      I’m confused.

      Report Post »  
    • Ohio Guy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:34pm

      The man is clearly trying to come to some resolution in his own mind, he just happens to have a 3 hour radio program and a 2 hour internet show to think out loud on. He did clearly believe in Bachmann and wanted her to succeed but when that did not happen he has been all over the board, that tends to happen when your first choice is no longer an option. I myself originally liked Bachmann and Santorum, and am open to Paul but have had no interest in Romney or Gingrich.

      Report Post » Ohio Guy  
    • DOXOLOGY
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:36pm

      @Johhnymidknight
      *Agreed. The attacking of people voicing opinions on one candidate or another does not net us any gains. So why do you call people ‘Paulbots’ if you don’t like the attacking? Seems derogatory and counter productive to me.
      *Agreed. I don’t think Romney or Gingrich are trustworthy, but why give Santorum a pass and not Paul?
      *Disagree. I must question some of your words. You have the econ thing pretty figured but I wonder about your understanding of the Constitution? You say Paul needs congress to get things done. That is true in many instances yes, I doubt he would argue with you on the dangers of the abuses of power in the Executive branch. But the Constitution granted the Executive branch the ability to create cabinet agencies(enforcing Congress’s laws). These same agencies can be abolished by a later President. (Paul promises to CUT five year one! When was the last time you heard that?)The trouble is presidents rarely do. They like the power! They will whine and talk all day long about this or that but in truth they can change things, they just won’t. Example: Carter=DOE Bush2=DHS, etc, etc. The only power left that Congress has over these leviathan agencies is whether or not to fund them. But they like power too so…here we are going round and round. I‘m going with the guy who wants to shrink gov’t, including the executive branch, ESPECIALLY the executive branch!!

      Peace and Love brother,

      Dox

      Report Post »  
    • Stopit
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:41pm

      You’re not confused. Its perfectly clear Glenn is.

      Here we are in the middle of the primary and Glenn was asking Santorum today or yesterday what his position was on cutting government???!!! Santorum is a progressive also…Big Government…More laws and regulations. Here‘s the guy he’s throwing his support behind, and he doesn’t even know the answer to that. The federal debt and deficit is the biggest national security problem facing this country. Glenn is confused as you have outlined the facts.

      Next to the debt, the intervention of globalists through the UN, IMF, FED is the next. Where were the “debate” questions on this topic? And what are the candidates positions on this. The only one I know of is Ron Paul. The others are…birds chirping about the UN.

      Glenn and crew are religious fanatics about their “beliefs’. They just need to admit it, and quit trying to pretend their condemnation of the other candidates is “the truth living here”. “Wisdom is justified of her children”

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 7:23am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      Actually, In one of my later posts, I state that I agree with Ron Paul on most domestic issues (like 90%). But, I do not pretend that the foreign policy is a sound strategy. Nor do I give Santorum a pass (though many do). I see Santorum’s anti-homosexual stance as an issue in the general election. I have many gay friends who do not hate Republicans, but hate their stances on Gay Marriage. Not to mention that most evangelicals label Gays as demonic sinners the have no morals. However, some of are some of the most accepting, law abiding, and moral people save for committing sodomy. Not to mention that Sanorum’s views come from a religious stance. Who is the victim in a case of sodomy between to willing adults? Also, the Bible/Torah speaks against male homosexuality in Leviticus, so does lesbians get a pass? If we are to take the “law of God” word for word, why are we against marriage between woman and woman? The code of conduct is “one shall not lay with another man as a man lays with a woman.” The reason for anti-sodomy was that the Jews lived in a desert with little to no water at times (so it was scared and for cleaning). Sticking your member in the bacteria back end was the cause of disease, but we have anti bacterial soap and abundant water here.

      Why should select groups religious codes prevent ones right to pursue happiness?

      These questions are all Rhetorical. I don’t agree with Glenn on these, yet I do not bash him on that fact.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 7:32am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      As for the Paulbots, I am a Liberal (oh here comes the bashing). It is a label based on the beliefs. Word do not hurt unless we allow them. Please not that Libertarian came from the root of Liberal (IE liberty). Most Americans, even the Constitution, is based on Liberalism. Hell, Beck is very Liberal in some respects. The term was dirtied when the Progressive could not go by Progressive and hide as Liberals. I am a Classical Liberal, which are like Voltaire and the Founding Fathers. They believe in Constitution as written, are small government, and embrace a 100% free capitalist market.

      Another reason they are called Paulbots is that most hold to talking points and do not engage in intellectual conversation (only bashing). I use to never call them that until they started post-jacking the blaze with their talking points and anti other candidates attacks. Funny that the use humans, when someone would have invented a bot (a small program to create repetitious post or function to inflate awareness or numbers). This is why they got the name Paulbots. Not to mention that their response is quite laughable when certain facts are made that “do not compute”. They blindly attack posters from solid points, like Paul’s foreign policy and military strategy is bad for America.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 7:41am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      Here is an example:
      If we leave all bases and stop all wars and bring all the troops home. What about the aid we bring countries during earthquakes, tsunamis, and natural disasters?

      It will take months to send carriers close enough to give aid. This is not policing mind you and a sign of good will. We’ll just fly it there? What is the range on helicopters? Jet Fighters? Battle ships? Transports? How do you refuel them? Where do you get the oil?

      Now compound this on a scale of counter offensive should an attack on America happen… Iran launches a HEMP bomb from the battleship they have parked on our coast… Paul has all the Military here. We, and scientists, are not 100% on the effect on military equipment. 1 HEMP will effect a 1000 mile radius, three will take out the US and most of Canada. Putting all our eggs in one basket would cripple the military and prevent a counter offensive. Having troops stationed across the world would minimize the effect and allow the military to have some communication and ability to engage almost immediately. Even if it is a small insurgence and leads to direct war, depending on location, could we wait three months for the military get close just to be able to respond to any issue?

      Forget nations… What about the Somalia Pirates? This is not the first time this has happened. It happen under early presidencies of the US and why our founding fathers started the Navy.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 7:51am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      We are talking George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson here… They stationed ships along trade routes to keep a presence and attacked the Muslim Pirates. This is why the Navy still to this day patrols the world. With global trade, these routes are extremely important and must be protected. Where will ships port to take on supplies out at sea? This is why we have strategic ports around the globe. Ships need to take on food and fresh water on a regular basis. They don’t have the time to keep coming back to America to resupply every few months. Not to mention that the number of ships you would need to patrol the areas regularly enough would double-quadruple.

      What about, our presence is what causes the hatred? Well, this is a lie, not by Ron Paul but the opposition (IE Terrorists, Iran, etc.). They will claim that our presence causes their attacks and is the reason for their building nukes. However, religious doctrine in the extremist mind of Islamic groups that want a global caliphate and death to Israel, want to operate with little to no immediate interference from the US. So they want our bases gone. It allows them comfort to build in order to attack us. Their enemy is the Western Civilization that allows prostitution, alcohol, sex offenses, homosexuality, pornography, and a long list of sins in the eyes of Islamic doctrine. However, these are radicals that don’t want peace, they want to spread religion at the end of a sword.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 8:02am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      They want the death of America regardless what we do. For example, we were told time and time again that if Israel returned land seized during the Six Day War, attacks would stop and peace would come to the Middle East. Countless times has Israel given back land and still came under attack. Yet the groups simply ask for more land and claim the peace will come after the next round of peace talks (IE death by 1000 cuts – we take a little at a time until we get the whole… eventually).

      The Extremists will never be happy until Israel is 100% gone. After that, they will set their eyes to Europe and America with 100% full intent. They still have been targeting us and building plans. Iran is not building a nuke to create a stalemate… Heck, we could level most the Middle East in 3 days should they attack with a nuke. This is not Russia with an extensive arsenal and bases around the world. They only need three… for a HEMP attack that would cripple the US and kill 200 Million over 6 months as the network collapses and the system falls. Why attack civilians? They do it to Israel (not directly, but Iran does equip terrorist groups). What about China? What about the threat of Economic Terrorism? Bear Raids? Why did Osama attack he World Trade Center? Why do they call us Infidels?

      Please Paul Supports, answer all of these issues (and don‘t give me they wouldn’t hate us if we pulled out – that is a naive world view which is not presidental).

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 8:24am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      Lastly, there is no candidate that 100% represents me. Paul is the closest, but his major flaws are major issues for me, so I cannot throw my support in the primary. Should he get elected, I will still vote for him over Obama! I just would have to pray that should the Military be pulled out and all bases. I have heard the Paulbots claims of a Switzerland stance, but they are not versed in issues that even Switzerland is starting to experience with Islam:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8385389.stm
      http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/12-10-2011/119306-switzerland-0/
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoemMhRBKG8
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/draft-swiss-muslim-activists-sport-nazi-style-yellow-stars-to-protest-discrimination/

      But they are neutral??? Domestic policies are an issue in the Muslim world. they are not off the radar with the “caliphate”. The Swiss are in the same boat as the rest of Europe in the eyes of the extremist. So what if they do not build bases near Iran or support Israel. That is the truth of the issues.

      If I had to vote for a Candidate, I would vote for Santorum. I do not agree with his blind pro-life stance (though i personally agree with pro-life as my individual choice). Do we really want back room abortions, wire hangers and a flight of stairs as options for mothers not wanting the child? Seeing as the life is dependent on the mother, is it the parent’s right to decide? Is it not there sin and there relation with God

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 8:42am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      At that rate, might as well abolish the pill, condoms, sex, and things that lead to liberated sex… Sounds good to me, but one thing… It will not stop people from having sex, it will still not stop unwanted pregnancies, it will increase the death rate of young mothers that seek abortions through other mediums. My parents use to state, “I brought into this world, and i will take you out.” Somehow, I feel that this rings true in the sense of first trimester abortions. I personally would never choose it for a child of mine, but the mother has to consider possibly being a single mother, poverty, being ridiculed by society, and a list of other issues. Being a man, maybe i am blessed to never have to face that personally. Again, that is the mother’s personal choice and she must face her maker for judgement on that choice. Not to mention, are we going to fill jails with women for murder over these abortions?

      I feel that suicide should be legal too (even assisted). That is for the doctor and the patient to answer for. People have a right to their life, why don’t they have a right to take it too? And if so, why not allow them to die with dignity? Because it is murder? It is a sin? Sorry, that is their body, their choice.

      While I do not agree with Santorum on some of his big government ideas, his stance on homosexuality and his very conservative stance on pro-life; he is the most reasonable to speak to.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 8:55am

      @ DOXOLOGY

      Pro-life and gay rights are very low on my priority (sorry folks). My top priorities are:
      1) National Security: What is the economy when you are unable to defend it from economic terrorism and the nation from attacks?
      2) The economy: We need to create less dependency on the government for day to day living and liberate ourselves. I heard complaints of equal opportunity, but this issue is not the opportunity. The issue is the fairness of life, which it is not fair. The opportunity to succeed is available to the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich. With the poor, it requires more effort to come up with the capital. And I hate to take a concentration camp slogan, but it is truth that was perverted: Work shall set you free.

      Government needs to get out of the way and make it easier for star up business and reduce regulations that prevent the poor from simply freelancing because they at not licensed or do not have a business license. BUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO KEEP UP QUALITY? Use Angie’s List… Study the competition of a service, interview the service, ask to see the Restaurant’s kitchen. The nerfing of the system is what is preventing us to rebound economically. Not to mention the tax code and rates, which are too high and convoluted.

      3) Civil Rights: People should never be held down because of race, creed, sexual stance (IE Gay, Lesbian, Straight) or color. The movement between classes is dependent on the personal success of the person’

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • DOXOLOGY
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:06pm

      @Johnnymidnight

      Why do you think you have to call yourself a liberal? You make some points that are neocon. Labeling oneself limits ones options for debate and growth, forcing you to find reasoning within defined borders. That does little to answer anything.
      How can I answer any of your questions when you make it quite clear that you wouldn’t listen to any answer other than the one you want to hear. So why ask any in the first place if your not open to new thinking?

      Of course you could be trolling me also, I don’t know…

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:31pm

      @ DOXOLOGY

      I am not Trolling. And the questions are not about me being open minded. The question is to lead you to question the stance of foreign aid and the need for a strong military presence. Neocon is a label that was invented quite recently. Me calling myself a liberal is me reclaiming the true Classical Liberal name. I am a Libertarian, but do not agree with many of the anti war stances.

      Not to mention, WTF is with this “closemind” BS? Why do people put so much that being openminded means that you consider all options. And, how do you know I haven’t looked at the options? I am not some “I think I know it all”, but I have lived long enough and watch political and global issue all day. I am simply very educated on current affairs. I have read up on various positions. My views are rooted in understanding that the various ideals of people show a dichotomy of ideas. However, not all ideas can feasibly work with the human model.

      We need to understand that certain constants will always be:
      1) Greed
      2) War
      3) Death
      4) Intolerance

      To fail to see these as always present, or to think these conditions, feelings, and ideas could be changed is extremely naive. Which is the reason America is “supposed to be” different. Each stae is supposed to be autonomous from the federal government. If people want universal health care, they can install it on the state level.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:41pm

      @ DOXOLOGY

      If people want to create a form a social justice buy paying all workers the same from CEO down, than create the company. We as citizens are to be free to explore these options. What I am against is the government (especially on a federal level) demanding it of the entire nation. This is why the Constitution left most powers to the states and the people of the US. It was so that each state, each city, each company can compete in open markets to allow use to explore possibility.

      There is no need to weigh down all citizens to nerf the system to try and save the majority. First, we couldn’t… Salvation comes from each individuals action to which guides their actions. To force people into particular course of action, we create barriers that will cause this strife, which will lead to hate, which will lead to war. The issue is power and what we perceive as control. Meanwhile the control is really in our own hands as individuals. This is why free-market capitalism is the only model that works (and don’t give me the issue is money). In a free market, a company can choose to pay the workers however they see fit. Companies can offer the best health plans to fit their model. People can create competition without the need of government bureaucracy pandering to special interest or stagnating the market with convoluted regulations and hoops to jump through (IE pay to play).

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • DOXOLOGY
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:51pm

      @ Johnny. Can I call you Johnny?

      This is fun. Now we are starting to get somewhere.

      Do you work for a defense contractor?

      -Dox

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 5:56pm

      @ DOXOLOGY

      It is these ideals of a free-market that made America great. The reason why we falter today is because we have looked to our Government for convenience at the cost of our own civil liberties. Instead of teaching people yes you can, we teach them they can’t without the government making it fair. Meanwhile, we are enslaving ourselves to the beast of human greed and the moths that have been drawn to the flames of power.

      Yet our freedoms demand we turn or eyes to things that we may not agree with: homosexuality, drugs, sex, porn, alcohol… We must accept these so long as not victim is ever made outside of the person’s engages to whom must be willing. IE if one likes to drink, fine. But the minute they drive and kill someone, they are personally responsible for the death.

      However, these things are vices… Some cultures look to it as sin. Many will wage war to destroy the “perversion”. Many will simply be jealous with the freedoms that free markets allow (IE the Berlin Wall was meant to keep people in the Soviet controlled sectors, not vice versa). They will try anything to cripple a system or government for the sake of being correct themselves. This is why we need a strong military presence around the world. It is protection via strength. We should not be dictating how other countries rule themselves, but should act if the people are powerless and are trying to rise against their oppressors should there be signs of civil rights violation and g

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 6:03pm

      @ DOXOLOGY

      genocide. We are not the world’s policeman, but we have to stand for the rights of each nation’s civilians to rise against a truly oppressive nation (IE Nazi Germany, WWII Japan, Soviet Union). We also should not be alone in this.

      I am not saying that we need to go to war with the oppressive Government, but we could arm the rebels (provided that we as a nation properly vent them (IE no more Saddam Husseins, Osama Bin Ladens, etc.). I agree with Ron Paul of the defunding of nations that dramatically oppose us and support our enemies. I do not support removing ever base around they world.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
  • Trading_barracuda
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:33am

    The CONSERVATIVE Club for Growth today rendered an opinion on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s charge that Rick Santorum is a “big government, big spending individual.”

    Verdict: Mostly true.

    From Club for Growth analysis:

    During a particularly touchy exchange at the ABC News debate, Paul attacked Santorum for being a “big-government, big spending individual.” To back up this claim, Paul offered four substantive examples: that Santorum voted to raise the nation’s debt limit five times, that Santorum voted against “right to work” laws, that he voted for No Child Left Behind, and that he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

    Research shows that all four substantive allegations against Santorum are true.
    http://www.revolutionpac.com/2012/01/club-for-growth-confirms-santorum-a-big-government-conservative/

    Report Post »  
    • Arruba
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:46am

      Ron Paul supporters quoting motherjones and trying to intimidate conservatives. Is that how you plan to attract supporters? You should go to Obama sites, those people are already ripe for propaganda and intimidation tacktics, if your looking to expand your base that is. Ron Paul supporter’s really turn me off, whereas I would defend him (Paul) on “some” domestic policies” I can’t even consider someone with zealot supporter. Didn’t we already learn this lesson in 2008?

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:02pm

      @Arruba So i guess we can assume you yielded the point.

      Report Post »  
    • fidel1234
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:55pm

      Yeah Santorum is nothing but a big govt. war happy liberal,Ron Paul is the only one to get us back on path.

      Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:33am

    Zero tax on manufacturing costs NOTHING! It’s free! It creates opportunity here at home and we don’t get a penny tax from foreign manufacturing anyway!
    Replace the IRS tax with a consumption tax and any foreign producers pay Tax here just like everyone else. It levels the playing field and THAT is one of the few given powers to the Federal Government!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • the_ancient
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:57pm

      I have a problem with the Government Picking Winners and Losers

      Taxation is not a tool for Social Engineering, it a tool to raise revenue for government functions, PERIOD

      So everyone should pay the same rate, and have the same rules, not different rules for some people because the government favours your business activity over another business activity

      Report Post » the_ancient  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:12pm

      Bring back the MFG. sector and All sectors come back. Once MFG jobs are created (BY private company’s) unemployment decreases and service jobs expand. Everyone making any amount should have to pay Something, just to remind them that nothing should be Free. It then gives them the perspective of wanting to better themselves. But the DEMOCRAT Taker Class would evaporate, and we can’t have that happening,, right??

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • friscokid1
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:29am

    Ron Paul is the only choice to balance the budget. No other candidate has put together a pan to curve our spending. All they do is rely on crowd pandering talking points.

    Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:06pm

      America can’t afford it any more — politicians buying votes with taxpayers’ dollars.

      Report Post »  
  • PPMStudios
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:29am

    His tax plan “blows a hole in the budget and gives most tax cuts to the wealthiest”?

    As opposed to giving tax cuts to those 48% who don’t pay taxes?

    Report Post » PPMStudios  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:54am

      Exactly .. .the so called rich … many of whom are not — but hard working small business owners or others PAY THE TAXES .. who else are you going to cut! My God they really are stupid or think we are or BOTH! How about we start making it so that those who pay NOTHING (or get money back and pay nothing … which is WELFARE) pay something .. so they have some “skin in the game”?

      OMG Obama must Go 2012 ..

      Report Post »  
    • CorpsmanToPA
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:35pm

      The “hole” is created by cutting taxes (revenue) without cutting the govt spending/budget. Only Ron Paul has given a complete budget proposal – all others have only given “ideas”. Toilet paper is more productive and useful than ideas.

      Here is his real tangible plan to restore America and our economy – http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

      Report Post » CorpsmanToPA  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:13pm

      @ppm…
      My thoughts exactly!

      Oh, for those who didn’t read the article – the anti-santorum commenters…
      The 900B deficit ASSUMES NO CUTS IN SPENDING!!!
      Whereas he IS proposing 5 TRILLION IN CUTS over 5 years!!!

      Thats creates a 100 BILLION DOLLAR **SURPLUS** PER YEAR, using 1st grade math.
      Maybe you’re using “new math?“ or ”progressive math?”

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
  • patsun5
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:29am

    OK lets do our homework……..check out the facts not just rumors or someone elses viewpoint.
    Santorium is our only chance to moral and constitutional values.

    Report Post »  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:39am

      No he is not– We need to rid DC of alinsky’s radicals. We do that by electing decent conservatives and relegating progs to the minority they represent. The ones they have destroyed and engineered into groveling beggars who feel trapped into voting for them. We need Newt to get that done effectively – we then will add to the growing landslide from 2010 and a growing reserve of strong Constitutional Conservatives to serve in rotation. First things First. Newt can get it done, much the same way the Alinsky radicals have if need be! Far FAR better than we could have hoped for 3 years ago!

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • Female
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:28am

    Blow a hole in the non-existant budget…hmmm….I would prefer him to blow-up the budget and rebuild it on sound financial principals rather than the present state of no accounting what so ever!

    Rick Santorum beat Romney by 34 votes in Iowa….hey pinky (Obama)we need to destroy this guy or all our plans to take over the world will be ruined!!!! Quick call the AP and start the count down for his political anilation“ said ”Brian” (SORos, can we rename him SOgros and tell him we are adding the “g” for his god complex.)

    I have questions regarding Newt’s personal life but the recent attack through X….I am not buying at all. It has to do with the manner just like all the lying Cain accusers. And anybody who thinks Romney is a white knight in shining armor….wrong, they (the political destroyers) must be saving the real dirt (gay, incest or child molester) until after the primary, don‘t worry it probably or hopefully won’t be true. Just wait and watch!

    Interesting tv show this week on CASTLE; showed the means (murder) the cloak and dagger darkness skulkers would go to! Quite frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised at the attempted wicknesses used to keep Obummer in office.

    I want the dream team conservatives to unite: President Santorum for character; VP Gingrich for brass balls (could be reversed); fill the cabinet with Perry, Bachmann ; Cain , Romney ; Paul, Governor from Indiana, Governor from Arizona (homeland Security)! Would be the Democrats nightm

    Report Post »  
  • Trading_barracuda
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:24am

    Ron Paul Receives Key Endorsements from Three South Carolina State Senators
    Palmetto State Senators hail from Spartanburg and Greenville

    COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan 17, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul received endorsements from Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg), Sen. Kevin Bryant (R-Spartanburg), and Sen. Danny Verdin (Greenville).

    The consequential endorsements took place at a press conference at 10 a.m. EST at the South Carolina State House, located in Columbia.

    “We’re excited and grateful to have these endorsements, as it shows South Carolina is serious about cutting spending and getting our fiscal house in order,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “South Carolinians know that real change will not come from the status quo, but only come through a President Paul in office.”
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-receives-key-endorsements-from-three-south-carolina-state-senators-2012-01-17

    Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:52am

      Anyone recall seeing these endorsements being put out there by the press? I know Santorum picked up a dink governor’s endorsement today, and Perry and Palin are endorsing the slimy newt from this mornings drivel, but… sigh.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:21am

    Newt is a GOP progressive, get real. So is Santorum and Romney if you look at their records. Paul is the only true conservative, his foreign policy scares me though.

    Report Post »  
  • academica2020
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:18am

    Whig Party… 1850s… Self-destruction… Factions (Washington warned against factions)… Mindless drivel from dogmatic supporters of each candidate… Politics of personal destruction (assisted by the media who is in the tank for Obama)… Free pitchers of Kool-Aid, full of talking points, provided by desperate candidates… Bloggers paid by campaigns to populate news sites with attack commentary supporting specific candidates… And I listen to people talking about how we have lost our soul and then they turn around and gut anyone who disagrees with them…

    Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:46am

      Hey, there are serial posters here, many of whom are paid by specific political campaigns or political causes. You know who you are… Keep spouting your BS! You may sway some folks here and you may get others to stop posting comments, but you are part of the problem, not the solution. We can see you behind the curtain of your OZ. Although, the more you post, it becomes very clear why you are here…

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:15am

    I think the federal criminal government is betting the world is gonna end on 12-21-12 so they may as well spend our grand kids money now, and it doesnt look like we have to pay the chinese back either…..thats the only plan that makes sense, its gotta be it !!!

    Report Post »  
  • recoveringneocon
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:13am

    I didn’t even know that Rick Specter had a Tax Plan.

    Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • drobarts
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:54am

      He has no plan, only a mouth.

      Report Post » drobarts  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Maybe you should put put your candidate’s talking points memo down long enough to do some real research?

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:06pm

      academica2020
      Maybe you read my post a little closer…… it was a joke. Are you sure you want to play this game with me?

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:08pm

      Why are you too smart for me?

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:15pm

      Hit a nerve? Don’t like being challenged? You make hit and run comments all over The Blaze and you think it is acceptable to make sarcastic remarks about anyone you deem an idiot because they don’t share your political views. You know nothing about me other than I have a serious problem with the trash talk here and on other sites. Do you honestly think any Republican has a chance to win in November if folks like you are making the comments you do? You have no respect for anyone who has a different point of view… So, that said, have at it!

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Hossua
      Posted on January 21, 2012 at 12:08pm

      @Academica, interesting. Shout down anyone that disagrees with you and claim they shout down anyone that disagrees with them.

      Fact is the media has been pitting us against each other this whole primary, because that is the only way the government wins.

      Report Post »  
  • ares338
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:13am

    The only thing that will curtail rampant spending….is to STOP spending. This is not rocket surgery folks.

    Report Post » ares338  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:08am

    Another thing…What was so great about Reagan? Let’s get real folks, Reagan spent like a progressive. Unless we drastically scale back Gov spending we are on the road to ruin.

    Report Post »  
    • V-MAN MACE
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:15am

      Yea, he tripled the debt by spending on the military industrial complex. Ron Paul diverged from Reagan on his fiscal irresponsibility.

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • sWampy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:19am

      Reagan didn’t spend like a progressive, congress did, both houses were controlled by liberals. He let them triple spending, but he cut taxes quadrupling income to the government, and in the process caused the greatest explosion of poor people becoming middle class, middle class becoming rich, and rich becoming really rich the world has ever known. Yet someway the media spun that the rich got rich also into a bad thing, and that the spending went up even though we had more than enough to pay for it into a bad thing, and useful idiots sopped it up like it was the word of their creators.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:25am

      Why would we want to quadruple income to the government?

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:58am

      That’s what happens when you lower taxes, cut out loop holes, and allow people to spend their own money. It turns over in the economy, they stop hiding it over seas, and in the underground cash economy. If you make it easier and less costly to pay the taxes than to pay people to hide your income, people actually pay the taxes, income to the government increases. To bad they spent the money plus extra rather than paying off debt and heaven forbid saving the money for a rainy day.

      Report Post »  
    • maccow
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:05pm

      @Ubethechange
      Duh I dun no let me think. If congress had enacted the Reagan budget cuts as promised then the Quadrupled revenue would have no where to go but into National Debt reduction or back to the people in the form of further tax reductions.

      Report Post » maccow  
    • fidel1234
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 3:59pm

      Dems and Repubs have all contributed to our 15 trillion and climbing debt,I feel we put Ron Paul in and that debt clock will be spending backwards quickly.

      Report Post »  
  • ddg7
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:56am

    Glenn doesn’t care about this. Afterall, the preppy is a good and decent man. Glenn will be one of the first to whine about our deficit, taxes, constitution violations, etc.. Oh, and then there’s that foreign policy thing. When will Glenn do commercials for a foreign policy sponsor. He does them for Goldline because of the upcoming economic disaster. He does them for survival food because of the upcoming food shortage. He does commercials for tax help. He gets his money from everything EXCEPT foreign policy.

    Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:37am

      Are you paid by a company that has foreign interests and, as such, have a right to an opinion? Based upon your point, no one can comment on anything that they do not have a direct connection to or are financially supported by… It would be pretty quiet around the world if that were true.

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • Trading_barracuda
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:55am

    Santorum will sell America out to the highest bidder for his own gain. His whole voting record bears this out. Don’t take my word for it. This is how he burned our veterans that he likes to ‘praise’ in public, but assassinates behind closed dooors in backroom deals with the highest paying lobby;

    How Rick Santorum Ripped Off American Veterans
    A controversial land deal by the presidential candidate robbed a vets’ home of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enter Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.). At the behest of the Roman Catholic Church, and unbeknownst to the Home, Santorum slipped an amendment into the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act handcuffing how the home could cash in on those 49 acres. The amendment forced the Home to sell—and not lease—the land to its next-door neighbor, the Catholic University of America. Ultimately, the Catholic Church bought 46 acres of the tract for $22 million. The Home lost the land for good, and by its own estimates, pocketed $27 million less than the land’s value and $83 million less than what it could’ve made under the lease plan. Santorum‘s amendment sparked an outcry from veterans’ groups and fellow US senators, who barraged his office with complaints.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/how-rick-santorum-ripped-off-american-military-veterans

    Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:08am

      You are quoting “Mother Jones?” Nuff said… And, you played the Roman Catholic card… Waiting for you to talk about how evil Mormons are…

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Arruba
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:22am

      Motherjones.com, Really?? Are you suggesting “we the people” should belieive what a communist web site says who has as it’s goal in life to “fundamentally transform America into an imaginary Stalinist utpoia”. Perhaps we could have 100 solyndras and 46 million more families on food stamps and spend another 6 trillion dollars on these things. Only that will fix the economy and reduce the deficit? Please go back to the Huffington post or daily Kooks and sell your BS propaganda, people here actually read. Or you could stay and call everyone who doesn’t buy this BS, names when your aurgument fails. Typical commie.

      Report Post »  
    • Arruba
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:26am

      Read David Horowitzs’ “Radical Son” to understand where motherjones comes from.

      Report Post »  
    • garyM
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:27am

      I’ll do it, they’re a cult, believing a lie, they wrote there own lie, it’s called the book of mormons. The only way to know the truth is the Holy Bible. It’s not a book that can be replaced. A book written by Apostles chosen by Jesus, I talking about Jesus of Nazareth, not the imaginary jesus that supposely appeared to a false apostle called Joseph Smith and gave him another book and told him he was the head of the 12 tribe of Israel!

      Report Post »  
  • JRook
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:52am

    “So, while it’s true that the difference in government expenditures and tax revenues would increase under certain tax-reducing policies, to discuss a GOP candidate’s tax policy while burying or failing to mention their plans to cut government expenditures could be very misleading.” Maybe it is because the Tax Policy group was looking at the marginal impact. That is his tax plan would add $900 billion to the current deficit which is about $1 trillion. Also note that Santorum provides no specifics on how he would cut $1 trillion per year in spending. Even if he were to succeed in doing that, which of course is doubtful, he still would have an annual deficit of nearly $1 trillion. Sounds like Alice in Wonderland. Santorum will no doubt appeal to those who talk big about cuts in spending, but leave defense off the table. SS and Medicare are still solvent and technically separate revenue streams, so cutting them is not really cutting government spending. Perhaps they have to be recalculated and adjusted, but to suggest they have anything to do with real government spending is misleading at best. And anyone with a 5th. grade math ability can figure out that the $15 trillion cumulative deficit ($10 of which occurred under Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr.) represents prior spending and will never be dented without some form of revenue enhancement.

    Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:14am

      I find the “offered no specifics” charge hilarious, coming from the Left. Obama didn’t offer not only specifics, hell, he didn’t offer “general overview”.

      I dislike Santorum intensely, but the notion that letting me keep my own money is depriving another entity of something that they’re somehow entitled to, is the height of absurdity.

      Further, when more people keep their money, they spend it or invest it, both of which spur economic activity, which in turn spurs tax revenues. It’s a simple economic fact, to those who actually understand basic economics.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:52am

    Im not seein a President Santorum, he lost his last senate race by 20 points and the big thing for me is his endorsement of Arlen Rectum…. Sorry Rick, maybe head of health and human services… Thats it…

    Report Post »  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 4:07pm

      Santorum, just didn’t lose the race, he holds the record for the biggest loss in PA History. Now thats something to be Proud of.

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • Ohio Guy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 6:21pm

      Not a comparison to the man, but how many elections did Abraham Lincoln lose? Has anyone given any consideration to what a Gingrich presidency would look like? The man gets good poll numbers and just assumes that he obviously will be the nominee, then finishes no better than 4th in Iowa or NH and has the gall to suggest that Santorum and Perry drop out. If elected the ego would be out of control he would probably have US marshalls arrest members of congress who did’nt support his 29th brilliant idea of his first day in office.

      Report Post » Ohio Guy  
  • Darla_K
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:52am

    At least someone is thinking outside the realm of things. We need some plans pushed around and maybe we can find a good one that will help the debt and try getting this country heading in the right direction.

    Report Post » Darla_K  
  • Hammerdown
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:51am

    More failed analysis by the AP, someone needs to fact check AP.

    Report Post »  
    • Buck Shane
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 12:40pm

      See, here’s how you do it. Since 47% of the people do not pay taxex, you define the one’s that do as “wealthy.” Then, if anyone suggests a cut in taxes, you can claim, “Tax cuts for the ewealthy.”

      Report Post » Buck Shane  
  • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:51am

    Ok, now Glenn is blowing a gasket, because Newt is ahead in the polls right now. He is calling anyone who supports Newt a liar. One cannot lie to Glenn if they don’t speak to them.

    Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • bpodlesnik
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:06am

      Ummm he said they were lying to themselves, not him. Did you listen to anything he said?

      Report Post » bpodlesnik  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:44am

      If you lie to yourself, by definition you‘re lying to anybody else to whom you’re speaking.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:50am

    I think Glenn is totally wrong on Santorum, he is a big gov progressive, just look at his voting record and he “admires Newts big solutions and big ideas” (last night on Fox interview). Anytime a politician talks about big solutions and big ideas run the other way!

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:49am

    ’Blow a Hole in the Budget’ ??? Do we even mess with budgets anymore? Obama sure hasn’t.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:54am

      budget… We dont need no stinking budget…………..

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:00am

      That was exactly my first thought Gonzo. When was the last time we actually had a budget? We now seem to be winging it with no plan in sight at the Federal level. Guess that happens in any household on the verge of having bankruptcy declared by the courts though.

      The second thing that jumped out at me was the usual thing I always see in these kinds of “fact checks”, namely, that they consider my hard earned money the government’s, and not mine, ergo when I get to keep more of the money I earned, I’m somehow taking it from the government.

      Progressive/socialist thugs. God how I hate them.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:43am

    Tax cuts, cut spending, cut out wasteful government (which is most of it) and get the spending reigned in…great ideas.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 10:50am

      flat tax………balance budget amendment…………..term limits…………………

      Report Post »  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:04am

      Yeah, when I read the story, I thought the same thing. He wants to cut taxes, but at the same time, cut spending, I would think responsible people would be in favor of those ideas, especially cutting spending.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Psychosis
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:05am

      no taxes BALLS AND CHAINS for ALL politicians and MAKE THEM WORK the debt off

      Report Post » Psychosis  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:47am

      No income tax, replace it with nothing (hear me, nothing!), eliminate corporate taxes and “earned income tax” crap, drastic reduction in spending over 5 years, specifically to every department that cannot be explicitly justified, in detail, by the Constitution, with the aim to eliminate aforementioned departments.

      Balanced budget, with surplus, in less than 10 years. Guaranteed.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love