Mitt Romney Knows Business
January 24th, 2008 at 05:07am Mark Noonan
The mantle of Reagan is still not secured by any candidate, but Romney shows that he understands economics:
Kernen: “Some of the things we see on the table right now most are temporary. I look at your plan, I see the word ‘permanent’ in many more places. Can you explain what you think we ought to do?”
Governor Romney: “I think what we should do is take action both of a short-term stimulative nature, but primarily, our action should be to pull forward some of the long-term growth objectives that we had, such as lowering the corporate income tax rate. That kind of an act will long-term help our economy, encourage businesses to stay and grow here, have businesses have more capital to invest back in the U.S. Those kinds of actions, I think, have the long-term effect that we’d like to have as well as lowering the tax rate. Lowering tax rates on individuals, particularly the savings rate on individuals – capital gains and dividends and interest – those will create long-term growth in the economy. A combination of short-term and long-term effects, I think, is the best to get our economy going again.”
While Democrats are promising the Moon and proposing to pay for it by taxing “the rich” and corporations, Mitt Romney knows that what is really needed is to further free up “the rich” and corporations to expand, and thus grow the economy. It is good to keep in mind, by the way, that “the rich” the Democrats speak about are actually just people with high earnings - you’ll never see Democrats proposing a tax on real rich people, like Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards, etc. Also, when you tax a corporation all you’re doing is moving money around - a corporation pays precisely zero in taxes. Oh, to be sure, you might see a check from Corporation X showing up in DC at tax time, but every dime of that is paid by the employees and/or the public - in the form of lower wages, less jobs, higher prices or a combination of the three.
We are not our GDP - America is an ideal, but in the continually striving after the American ideal, we need a vibrant economy to provide the sinews of our work. Given this, it is vitally important that we have a President who knows how the economy works. Mitt Romney knows.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Economy, Republicans
21 Comments
1. js | January 24th, 2008 at 5:57 am
What Im wonder is; with all these corp’s being bought out and moving to 3rd world NAFTA nations, what makes us think that a tax reduction for them will actually benefit our economy?
Id say give them the tax break, but to impose it for foreign owned/run companies. No need to make it any cheaper for China to dump thier junk in this country.
2. Romney » Mitt Romne&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
[…] Donklephant wrote an interesting post today on Mitt Romney Knows BusinessHere’s a quick excerptDemocrats are promising the Moon and proposing to pay for it by taxing “the rich” and corporations, Mitt Romney knows that what is really… […]
3. Brian | January 24th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Mitt Romney proposed a $240 billion dollar “stimulus” plan, which easily dwarfs the size of the President’s plan.
Romney’s economic plans sound more like a liberal’s: big spending and huge government increases. He is no conservative.
4. liberalT | January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am
typical failed policies of the right. Look at what a disaster the Bush tax cuts have been so far. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you want to get money flowing you don’t give it back to the rich? It is a proven fact - study after study has shown - that the rich just keep the money. However if you give breaks to the poor they feed that money back into the economy very quickly. That is not just rhetoric - it is an established fact.
Plus - the fact that corporations are good at finding holes in tax laws is hardly a reason not to tax them more. I suppose you don’t think its a good idea to have laws against clever criminals because they would find a way to avoid them..
wait wait - even better - there can’t be companies not paying taxes because its illegal. ha ha ha ha ha
5. anarchist | January 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am
LiberalT, I’ve got a good poem for you.
“And what do you mean to be?”
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
“We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society’s plan;
Then what to you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?”
“I want to be a Consumer,”
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed into the Bishop’s face
In innocence open-eyed.
“I’ve never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along.”
“I want to be a Consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that’s needed most,
I’ve heard Economists say,
I won’t just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on.”
“But what do you want to be?”
The Bishop said again,
“For we all of us have to work,” said he,
“As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?”
“Why, no!” the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.
“I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I’ve heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further trade.”
“I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I’ve heard Economists tell.
I’ve made up my mind,” the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
“I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today.”
6. neocon | January 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am
libT once agains demonstrates her complete ignorance. How many jobs have the poor created libT? How much of that money given to the poor will just go to retire debt? How much will go into the black market? How much will be sent over seas?
Romney has other long term growth plans including accelerating depreciation schedules, incentivizing R&D funding, etc. which will also help companies expand and employ.
The following is further evidence of libT’s complete stupidity and indoctrination. Poor dear has no sense of reality.
Among the 30 wealthy countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks second, just below Japan, for the highest combined tax rate (federal and state) on corporate profits. Our position in the world hierarchy is relatively new. In 1994, the U.S. ranked 18th. But since then, other nations have been cutting rates—from an average of 37 percent to 28 percent—while the U.S., at 39 percent, has maintained its high level
7. neocon | January 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Mark,
Is this your endorsement of Romney?
And once again Mark, The current liberals that frequent this post are just too stupid to carry on a debate with. They continue to regurgitate baseless, debunked liberal propaganda, seemingly having zero ability for cirtical thinking. We need to employ an idiot filter, which would lead to the deletion of 90% of libT’s drivel.
8. anarchist | January 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
BTW, “Romney has other long term growth plans including accelerating depreciation schedules, incentivizing R&D funding…” and I’ve heard of expensing of some equipment.
If you take economics 101 you will learn of the Cobb-Douglas production function. If you improve the effeciency of capital relative to labor, people will invest more in capital than labor. This is a bad plan for someone that will “fight for every job”, at least in the short run. Capital is indifferent to wether it’s employed or not, labor is not. Rommney shouldn’t be promoting the employment of capital at the expense of labor as a short term solution to a economic downturn.(or at least that’s my opinion).
9. Kahn | January 24th, 2008 at 8:18 am
The liberals here join the New York Times in attacking Romney. OK - I’m even stronger for him than I was.
Andiamo!
10. neocon | January 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Anarchist,
In 1985, Reagan gave huge incentives for Corporate R&D, encouraging them to develop new products and new markets, which resulted in the technology boom of the late 80’s and 90’s. That sector ended up employing quite a few people, wouldn’t you say?
Also, by lowering corporate tax rates and coming more in line with the rest of the world, we may stop the flow of corporations setting up shop across the seas. Thus, employing more people here in the US. Just some food for thought. And incidentally, I prefer real world results and applications versus some economics 101 production theory.
Remember, those that can’t do, teach.
11. Pain | January 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“There is no greater formula for economic and political success than the generous application of free market capitalism in the hands of liberal minded workers in support of progressive thinking employers.”–Pain, On Democracy, Terra Immortalis, Codex cxviii.
12. Retired Spook | January 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I prefer real world results and applications versus some economics 101 production theory.
Neocon, in college (way back in a previous life) I had a minor in economics. Much of what I learned has been disproven as all my profs were Keynesians. The one thing that has not changed is the truth of the old joke — “if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn’t reach a conclusion.”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you want to get money flowing you don’t give it back to the rich? It is a proven fact…
Actually, if all you’re looking at is short-term “cash flow”, your statement is probably correct, but it misses the bigger picture of what is the best way to stimulate stable, long-term economic growth. Neal Cavuto was pointing out a couple days ago the idiocy of a massive government stimulus package in the wake of 3% economic growth, 2-1/2% inflation and 5% unemployment. What, he asked, would we do if unemployment was at 8%?
I’m curious, LibT, would you be in favor of taking a percentage of the accumulated wealth from the richest (in terms of assets), say, 1% of Americans and dividing it up among, say, the bottom 25%?
13. neocon | January 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Spook,
I frequently watch CNN in the morning and the last couple of days they could barely contain their glee of the pending recession and the possible huge declines on Wall Street. I think they mentioned recession with every other word and had a little tracker of how far down the market was.
To their dismay the market recovered Tuesday and then remarkably was up nearly 300 points yesterday, much to their chagrin. Today, they have completely abandoned the talk of a recession, instead focusing more on Heath Ledgers death. However, during the market segment, they still found some negative market news and completely glossed over the 300 point upswing yesterday.
Remarkably agenda driven.
14. Brian (Boston) | January 24th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I am for lowering taxes for corporations and individuals, as long as they close all the loopholes. As Warren Buffet pointed out, the rich pay a less percentage than the middle class. I would also penalize companies for importing goods from overseas, if more than a certain percentage is imported. If we create more manufacturing jobs in America.
15. Retired Spook | January 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I frequently watch CNN in the morning and the last couple of days they could barely contain their glee of the pending recession and the possible huge declines on Wall Street.
Neocon, I finally got to the point where I just couldn’t watch CNN any more. One of the last times I watched a couple years ago, Judy Woodruff was forced to say something positive about President Bush, and she literally broke into tears.
I am for lowering taxes for corporations and individuals, as long as they close all the loopholes. As Warren Buffet pointed out, the rich pay a less percentage than the middle class.
Brian, an excellent selling point for the “Flat Tax”. As originally envisioned by Jack Kemp back in the mid-90’s, it would exempt the first $36,000 for a family of 4 and tax everything above that at 17%. IIRC, it was fairly revenue neutral, but because of the up-front exemption, it actually ended up being quite progressive, and you could file it on a post card. Russia, I think back when Boris Yeltsin was President, enacted a 13% flat tax and both revenue and compliance increased dramatically. I realize we’d have to retrain a bunch of tax accountants, but I think it would be one of the most positive moves we could make for the future economic health of this country.
16. Kahn | January 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Brian, Thats because Buffet and others don’t actually have “earned income”. They have Capital Gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. I hear the arguments on both sides of the Capital Gains argument and I’m not sure how I feel about it.
17. anarchist | January 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am
“I hear the arguments on both sides of the Capital Gains argument and I’m not sure how I feel about it.” - Kahn
I like Rommney’s plan, no capital gains tax for people making under 200k a year. Because of the government and all their excessive regulations it’s so difficult to start a new buisness if you’re relatively poor, this gives poorer people a way to invest in productive enterprise. Right now the cost of entry is so high, established buisness owners have a privileged position.
” I would also penalize companies for importing goods from overseas, if more than a certain percentage is imported. If we create more manufacturing jobs in America.” - Brian(Boston)
What percentage should that be? The US allready makes 25% of the worlds manufacturing goods with only 5% of it population. If you think consumer prefrence is choosing the wrong things, what should government fiat choose for us instead? What service jobs should the government shut down and what manufacturing should the government subsidize?
18. Joe | January 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Mark,
Saying that “the rich just keep the money” is no worse than you believing that giving the rich a tax cut will create jobs.
Why do you believe that all rich people are creating jobs? Why do you feel that a middle-income person couldn’t start his/her own business and create jobs?
Why do you want to create more jobs to make more goods if nobody but the top 1% have the money to buy the goods?
19. Tractatus | January 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
where do you think the rich people keep their money? Stuffed in a mattress?
According to you, the rich (liberals, by the way) all hide their money in tax shelters.
All this “don’t give breaks to the poor–give ‘em to the rich!” rhetoric you guys are throwing around really proves that the GOP is the party that stands with the poor against the elite, by the way. Well done.
20. Ali A. Akbar | January 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Mitt Romney knows Pandering…. that’s about it.
21. Mark Noonan | January 25th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Joe,
Well, along with G K Chesterton of old, I’m a Distributionist in economics - meaning that each family should have the wherewithal to live without let or hindrance from big government or big business. This is made rather hard because big business doesn’t like independent people, while big government positively loathes such…the primary reason behind my support for social security privatisation is because it would allow people to build the economic means to be entirely independent by the time they are in their 50’s…and it is when people are independent that they are really able to govern themselves.
Of course, I’d prefer if we could get such a thing while a person is in their 20’s, but big government and big business have been going far too long for us to envision that sort of system any time soon - at least we can eventually get the middle aged and old off the government/big business teat.
The curious thing about all this is that the most ardent anti-globalisation anarchist has got nothing on me in despising big business - now, especially, that I’ve been working in a huge multi-national for the past 7 years I’ve really developed a hearty contempt for such things…massive organizations mostly designed to hide incompetance, if you ask me. Any large organization which isn’t built with an ethic of self-sacrifice is bound to be incompetant - so, while the Church and the US Army work fine, large organizations like GM and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are bound to fail.
There are a raft of changes I’d put into our economy and government in order to re-create, as best we can, a nation of independent small-holders:
1. Privatise SS in order to allow common people to build up liquid capital at a rapid pace.
2. Change incorporation laws to make it that each share of stock is of equal power and value as any other share of stock in a given corporation - in other words, put the means of production into the hands of the people, as far as possible, by giving anyone who takes a mind to buy stock a say in how a company is run. One share, one vote.
3. Return to the gold standard - I know, this is a bit of economic kookery (as least in the opinion of most people), but there’s a reason for my kookery on this: a currency which has a fixed value is not subject to manipulation by financial sharks and government bureaucrats. The dollar you borrow or lend today will be worth a dollar tomorrow. No more built-in inflation, no more ability of government to pay people back with bad money for the good money lent to the government earlier (I’ve actually worked out a pretty good way - in my view - to accomplish this, but I’ll not bother with the details here).
4. Make and enforce usury laws - just nonsense that a credit card can have a 32% or higher APR. If a person qualifies for such a thing, then 10% is about the upward limit…if a person only qualifies for 32%, then that person doesn’t actually qualify and shouldn’t have a credit card (and with a gold standard, even a 3% return is great - so allowing a 10% return is vastly generous to the banks).
5. Pass a law making the family invoiable in public law and policy except in cases of murder, rape and incest. No more officious government bureaucrats presuming to tell parents how to raise their kids…this does mean an end to compulsory public education but, then again, there’s nothing quite so stupid as compulsory education…as if you can compel someone to learn.
On and on I could go - but the basic thrust of my argument is to make people independent to the greatest possible degree…