" THE SYNTHESIS " 10-16-2011 EDITION: OBAMA’S CORRUPTION LAID BARE: RACIST POLITICAL AGENDAS, A FULLY UNRAVELED PRESIDENCY WITH IMPEACHMENT LONG OVERDUE; OCCUPY WALL STREET A PLOY FOR HIS BSJobsAct, WATCHING THE SOLYNDRA HEARINGS ON C-SPAN AND THE FAST&FURIOUS GUN SCANDAL, GOP KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE AND THE “I’M A MORMON” OBAMONEY ADS....
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8oX2J5lDgkEGemVcfawTt3udNqDoidrObCptw7mKl0/edit?hl=en_US
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief Jesus: I wonder what MLK Jr. thinks now, that his message of peace is being hijacked by Socialism, violence, and support of Obama....
2011teaparty Tea Party Chief @DSWtweets if voters didn't elect you into Congress for Dems to mismanage funds, perpetuate corruption,& kill jobs then they'll vote you out
OBAMA’S WORST NIGHTMARE COMES TRUE.....
Aja BrooksTired of seeing Democrats saying that Repubs or the Tea Party are holding jobs hostage when:
CONGRESS MUST 1) WRITE A BUDGET 2) CUT THE DEFICIT
3) repeal or declare null and void Obama's 200 new regulations
4) be less reliant on government or government programs --- ALL THREE MUST BE DONE BY CONGRESS, and we only have the power to petition them on how they should do 1-3, by holding up our end of #4 as citizens and taxpayers. Unions are a whole other animal, and they will be hit with anti-monopoly legislation and be disbanded, likely for corruption charges.
Pssst.... this means nullifying or striking funding for HR 4872/Obamacare line-by-line --- that doesn't take a genius to do that, but it was written by a monkey: only someone as clever as Charlie Rangel could write a bill the size of 5 Chicago phone books to cleverly disguise HR 3590 as a slush fund for Thomson Prison, claiming it was for health care and call a bogus lie humanitarian egalitarianism, fancy for "rob you blind by mechanized socialism legislation to fund the government machine, not your health care" and have Obama re-craft it when Rangel is censured and the bill failing from the start, only as means of cost reconciliation for the government, which translated into your premium going up, no one getting federal insurance, or anyone getting better care thanks to updated or medical sharing computer interfaces because the bill was clearly defined... it was nothing but monkey chatter, with some numbers, and a huge @ss price tag!! Now I love black people, and I certainly would not equate ALL black people as having the intelligence of a monkey, but HR 4872 was an expansion of the prison system: as in, free monkey bread and bananas for all. WAKE UP - BLACK PEOPLE: Washington D.C., Obama and his political elites don't give 2 sh-ts about your plight or that you're black, they want your vote, because they know you ain't got no money. They will lie like hell and tell you the Tea Party is racist and all sorts of other total b.s. just to make you feel better. I am not doing this to make you feel better for being black and stepped on, but to tell you that Obama is mocking his own race by lying about his Kenyan birth and that he gives a damn about black folks, BECAUSE HE DON'T.
— with Allison Brooks, David Beverage, Cholorecords Aja, Jonathan Austin, Courtney Michele Roach,Veronica Elle Ingram, Holly Rivers Hensley, John Sport Knowles, Deb Walls,Jeff Kerbo, Chemtrails Hurt, Jacob-delgodis Sims, Neal Mccorkle, Ryan Strang Smalley, Amy Broich, Stephen Aaron, Susan Dunn Kravarik, Ben Nelms, Grant Rowe, FlowerMound TeaParty, Charles E. Buckner, Brian S. Lindsey, Jeremiah Behr, RepubIican Rave II, Vincent Larry Nelms, Josh Telep Ohl, Nikolas Farmer, Jim Galloway, H Michael Doss, Sharon Vega, Debbie Ross Fallaw Redd, Conservatives Rising, D.j. LetsgetF'dup Briggs, Gary Tillman, Green Eyed Lady, Barbara Wilkinson and Ashley Wilson at GA Tea Party.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Edit · 13 hours ago
- Green Eyed Lady likes this.
| ALSO HEREBY KNOWN AS “THE TEA PARTY RECORDER” -- ENJOY OUR TEA PARTY JOURNALS http://teapartychief.blogspot.com/ and http://ga-teapartychief.blogspot.com/  http://www.facebook.com/teapartychiefOFFICIAL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM VOLUNTEER FOR THE BLACK RIBBON OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEDIA BIAS AND FORMER 2009-2010 GA LOBBYIST FOR “LIFE AND LIBERTY” EDITOR’S NOTE: AFTER 2YRS. OF PUBLICATION, “THE SYNTHESIS” IN SPIRIT OF “THE CHEROKEE PHOENIX” NOW REACHES A REGULAR AUDIENCE OF 15,000 FROM DIRECT EMAILS AND FACEBOOK COMPLETE ARCHIVE AND YOUTUBE CHANNEL: http://www.youtube.com/user/The2011Phoenix |
KNOWN AS THE “AMERICAN AUTUMN” OCCUPY WALL STREET IS A CATCHY COVER NAME FOR CRIP GANG ACTIVITY, AND WITH THE NY PROTEST NEARING 30 DAYS, REPORTS ARE SAYING THAT OBAMA PAID FOR THESE PEOPLE TO PROTEST:
Racist Occupy Wall Streeters Spray Black Cop With Liquid Then Jump Him
Sat Oct 15 2011 17:00
Wall Street Occupier tackles a police officer during a march towards Wall Street in NY, on Friday.(here)
Wall Street Occupier tackles a police officer during a march towards Wall Street in NY, on Friday.(here)This is the Democrats movement embraced by Obama and Pelosi. Make sure you get the word out, the media is PR pimping this overthrow.
The cops jumped the HIV positive protester after he threw liquid at them.
The protesters sprayed the black cop with liquid, then jumped him.
A video posted online showed a police officer punching a protester in the side of the head on a crowded street. Police said the altercation occurred after the man tried to elbow the officer in the face and other people in the crowd jumped on the officer, who was sprayed with a liquid coming from the man’s direction. Police said the man, who escaped and is wanted for attempted assault on an officer, later said in an online interview he’s HIV positive and the officer should be tested medically.
A man who identified himself as the protester, Felix Rivera-Pitre, said in a statement posted online that he didn’t provoke the officer. “I was just doing what everyone else was doing in the march,” he said. “It felt like he was taking his frustrations out on me.”
"Occupy Citibank" - 20 arrested.
protesters donned suits and got fresh new haircuts to march on banks in advance of boisterous rallies in Washington Square Park and Times Square today, but over 20 were arrested when a shouting mob invaded a CitiBank to close their accounts.
The group claimed 23 demonstrators were locked inside a LaGuardia Place CitiBank and arrested, after a shouting mob entered the bank just shortly after 2 p.m.
“[The protesters] all went in a big flash mob to close their accounts," said Adrielle Slaugh,a 24-year-old office manager who saw the clash. "There were about 30 of them. They were screaming and chanting while they were going in. Security told them to leave, but they didn’t. They stood in a group chanting things to the tellers. There were locked in, and then they were taken away.”
Read more: the rest at the NY Post
Free Republic has this on Obama's civil armies:
Protests go global, rampage, tear gas in Rome (Big Government Anarchist take over)
UPDATE: Remember that the Nazi party of Germany were the National Socialists Workers party. Sound familiar? American Nazi Party Declares Its Full Support For Occupy Wall Street Protests FOX News
Phil Kent
On the upcoming Oct. 16 program I maintain that Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed is weak in dealing with the Woodruff Park protesters. Why announce a reasonable deadline for them to leave and then not enforce it? It just encourages the undermning of the law.
Unlike · · Unfollow Post · 3 hours ago
Diane Loupe Why? Because he was bluffing. And it might not have been legal. Doesn't the constitution guarantee us freedom of speech and assembly, and isn't this a public park?
Bo Spalding Best thing to do is ignore them. If you confront them it will be all over the media, and guess whose side the media will take. Gotta love the photo in the AJC of the poor oppressed victim of American greed in her REI tent and working on her Mac laptop.
Ashford Schwall Turn on the sprinklers
2 hours ago · Like
Lucille Phillips Wright Remember, these are the "Flea Party" people and they are used to water and soap obviously.
2 hours ago · Like
Jeff Glaze It is illegal to camp in those parks. Enough of a reason. Otherwise they should let the homeless pitch tents in Piedmont park. Anybody who defends this kind of lawlessness, I'd like to invite 20 homeless people to pitch tents in your front yard and let them piss and shit in your landscaping and harass you and your kids day and night!
Michael Fitzgerald Reed probably got a call from his Socialist/Marxist buddies Obama and Holder asking him to back off and give these flea bags some slack.
2 hours ago · Like
Diane Loupe Cute. Y'all remamber your comments today the next time you feel the urge to sling aroung the phrase "class warfare."
David Marshall There are very few of us who can't honestly empathize (if we dig down to the coldest part s of our capitalistic hearts. Keep it up.. God remembers and the universe has a way of balancing life out in time. http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
about an hour ago · Like
Chenise Dodson Corporate Greed is the real culprit of America's economic woes today. I support those who take a stand against them. I personally do not need a government hand-out but, I am in support of helping those that do need help. After all, isn't that the Christ like thing to do?
Ronald Zukowski The clowns in the park are a Decoy. Mayor Reed and the APD and the Fultonians (County Commission and Law Enforcement types) should be going after the Uniformed Black Guys recruiting down on Cleveland Avenue near Metro Parkway Kroger. Who are they? what are they? What are they up to? All they need are full automatic shoulder weapons are they are an Army. WTF?
about an hour ago · Like
Ronald Zukowski seen several times (several=greater than [<] 6) over last two years. No, they are not boy scouts, totally different uni s look like military types but NOT U.S. Army. 0 identifying insignia.
about an hour ago · Like
I do not understand why citizens need to disrespect, destroy public property to bring awareness to their issues.
All taxpayers will need to pay for the actions of these disrespectful groups around the world. This makes our expenses even greater and it solves nothing. Why can't the Mayors and other law enforcement agencies remove these groups and clean up the filth and keep them off of public property. I for one do not care to pay for their camps, food, sanitation, etc in GA.
Where is the law? where is the enforcement of our laws?
Lori Pesta, President
"!Believe in America"
Republican Women of
Cherokee County, Ga
678-520-2236
Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of
the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us
Aj Reece 1st amendment gives us the right to peacefully assemble..ketword peacefully...like the tea party did...however the park rules doesnt allow folks be it a group or a person the stay more than 24 hrs.....now i agree with the mayor giving them 5 more days but that must be the deadline
28 minutes ago · Like
Aj Reece trey you keep leaving out the words of the constitution it said right to PEACEFULLY assemble...
26 minutes ago · Like
Aj Reece oops peaceably if by the letter of the doc
25 minutes ago · Like
Lucille Phillips Wright To compare these flea baggers to the tea baggers is like comparing liberals to conservatives. We conservatives are the ones with the white hats.
17 minutes ago · Like
Any Tea Party protest that was not mobile, where people marched, people were threatened with loitering or criminal trespassing, if they did not move along. Obama has obviously paid the ones in NY, reports have come out abut that, so this was an organized distraction to pass that BSJobsAct that didn't pass because it doesn't create jobs. I guess what you're saying is Chenise Dodson that if the Tea Party's problem is BIG GOVERNMENT, Occupy Wall Street's problem is the root of it, GREED. It seems like to me that Occupy Wall Street would be much more successful if it was a revival. Only a healthy desire for Jesus purges the evil compulsions and desires of greed within us. "...Nothing is greedier than the eye; that is why it sheds tears so often." (Sirach 31:13) Jeremiah the weeping prophet, sincerely wept for the children of Israel, the desire was sincere that he did not want to see them destroyed. Occupy Wall Street is epitomizing the very thing that they are protesting though, so I do not support it. I support their right to free speech and peaceable assembly and petition; but they do not have the right to block roads, cause chaos and disturb the peace hours on end, or occupy any place. I see the Occupy Wall Street protest as the barometer of godlessness increasing, and the people chanting in the streets like leeches, hollering "GIVE-GIVE!" No 2% of Jewish people are responsible on Wall Street for anyone's wealth or earnings being taken, and no one on Wall Street or Main Street owes Occupy Wall Street anything, except to tell them that these are systemic government problems and corruption with Unions. Demanding a new form of government be instituted as the law of the land when their protest is counterproductive to their cause is equally one of hypocrisy.
14 minutes ago · Like
the right to" peaceful assembly" does not mean camping and defecating on public property. They live there and if you are a US citizen you along with other tax payers clean it up. The T-groups did not set up camps and pee on cars and mailb...See More
Aja Brooks Exactly, and Nancy Pelosi endorsed the crapping on police cars.
11 minutes ago · Like
Lucille Phillips Wright The libs don't mind defecating on public property. They think their s--- don't stink.
2 hours ago · Like
the obama signs was freedom of speech which is also part of the 1st amendment you mention and the others events which i heard nothing of are crimes that should be arrested for but i never know of the tea party to "occupy" a public park or area for weeks and in the case here in atlanta which under minds the law as Phil spoke on..i say allow them to assemble people like those that out there can be shown for whom they are
2 hours ago · Like
Aj Reece and please on the racial signs stuff dems in the most part are the most racism people around.... remember the tea party want to hang up or whatever it was and so much more...... and i vote for whomever i think is best i dont support one party in general so i not a rep or a dem but not a racist either..if you dont believe me ask my girlfriend and her family
2 hours ago · Like
Lucille Phillips Wright Or maybe Obama, or Pelosi.
Aj Reece and this is a crime to record their actions in what way ? and just like the dems send "plants" i rather refer to them as reporters in the tea party rallies
2 hours ago · Like
Aj Reece and we know for sure the extreme liberals...many of this nation wealthiest people are supporting and paying these too lazy to work protesters to rally....but see when the weather gets to 40 or so how long they will stay out their actions arent true and the people whos paying them actions prove their adgenda
show me propf that 9 pct of them are law abiding..i can say what is 100 pct thou..you sat there and typed all the people that may had broke the law during the tea party rallies.... and never had you mention one crimes the mob on wall street has committed then you bring up the racial sign someone may have displayed...but you yell freedom of speech when the mob does the same thing in the reverse order......bottom line tell me when had you once seen the stars and stripes flying in a paid to protest rally...they dont know know love or respect this nation...it is all about trying to get something for nothing for their laziness
2 hours ago · Like
Aj Reece 99*
2 hours ago · Like
Aj Reece you the one that brought up the 1st amendment but didnt add peaceful to the phrase in so said amendment so must be a reson you omitted that very important word
about an hour ago · Like
Aj Reece reason
about an hour ago · Like
Aj Reece i not native dense or anything you tend to refer to people that doesnt agree with you and yes they are getting paid look on the website and see for yourself
about an hour ago · Like
I wonder why I agree that it is just as weak as the state legislature allowing loopholes in HB87, for the Atlanta Public Schools investigation to stop at Atlanta Public Schools, and the Cobb County judicial and law enforcement for not immed...See More
about an hour ago via · Like
Aj Reece well if that the case and if you want to get paid to protest the wall street folks that funded obama 1st election be my guest i myself would choose not to live in a human trash can
about an hour ago · Like
John H. Thomas I understand the Skin heads and the KKK want to occupy the park next.. wonder how that will be dealt with?
Aj Reece Johm i think you most likely have the same people for those rallied as for these
about an hour ago · Like
Aj Reece trey i didnt say you said anything racist
Ashford Schwall Democrat spending is the real culprit of America's economic woes today, not " corporate greed". Capitalism is voluntary cooperation, Socialism is collective misery.
4 minutes ago · Like
Mark as Spam
Ashford Schwall Vanessa, please tell me what was racial about Phil's comment?
Aja Brooks there are black people, Native American crip, bloods, students, and gays of various races Vanessa Phillips
a few seconds ago · Like
(THE SONG “BOTTOM’S UP” TAKES ON A WHOLE NEW MEANING....) 
- psychedelicfarts-xxx:
- Yung Joc sends a van full of food to occupy atlanta
- http://occupyatlanta.org/
- #occupy #occupy wall st #occupy atlanta #atlanta #wall street #wall st #atlanta #ows
- 6 notes reblog
- deadsky:
- “Welcome to Day 27: Despite being despised by the Republicans, we’re still here. Despite attempts by the Democrats to co-opt us and dilute our message, we are still here. And despite the efforts of a silly tax-dodger named Rupert Murdoch, we are all here and accounted for. Don’t give corporate criminals or any of these politicians and media smut-peddlers a hall pass. They need to reform from the bottom up before they are truly on our side. This will take time. Be patient. And occupy the streets and commercial zones of civilization until the power is returned to the people.”
- #we're all anonymous
- 32 notes reblog
- socialismartnature:
- TIME Poll: #OccupyWallStreet much more popular than Obama, Tea Party | The Raw Story
- A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” contains a startling revelation that the national press hasn’t quite pieced together yet: the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters have a higher approval rating than President Obama.
- The poll’s figures show that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” (25 percent) or “somewhat favorable” (29 percent).
- Comparatively, the tea party, which has essentially become the Republican Party’s attempt at a populist movement, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just eight percent being “very favorable” and 19 percent being “somewhat favorable.”
- Overall, the poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe the tea party had either a “negative impact” (40 percent) or very little impact at all (25 percent).
- A full 86 percent also agree that Wall Street and its lobbyists have “too much influence in Washington.” Furthermore, 68 percent agree that wealthy Americans should pay more in taxes.
- #obama #tea party #politics
- 3 notes reblog
- flowerbeast:
- ichewbocco replied to your photo: This is so infuriating. I do all of these things….
- Don’t blame Wall Street. It’s hard but just work harder. That’s how America worked; people came from all over the world with nothing but the clothes on their backs but they still made decent living after much sacrifice and hard work. You can do that.
- I can’t work much harder than I possibly am. I’m barely making it right now. My parents are barely making it. If I worked any more hours that I do right now then I would start neglecting my classes. (worse than I already do.) My very first year in college, I was told not to have a job, that college was my one and only job, by an academic adviser herself. None of us should be working this much and neglecting our schooling like we do. But we still do. We are working hard already. That is not the solution to this problem. My parents have been working hard for their entire lives, but where has that gotten them? Nowhere. The system is broken. kingoftheeyesores:
- 3:48 - 5:34
- This is why I love this man. He thinks exactly like I do, and it is so so so so refreshing to have someone who works in some kind of news medium who is completely unbiased and just looks at facts.
- I solute you, Philip DeFranco.
- #Sxephil
- 1 note reblog
- tricksterathome:
- CHART: Americans Support Occupy Wall Street, Oppose Tea Party
- A new Time Magazine poll found an even more positive results for Occupy Wall Street, showing 54 percent held a favorable view of the movement, compared to just 27 percent with a favorable view of the Tea Party. In the Time poll, just 23 percent had an unfavorable view of Occupy Wall street, for a net rating of +31 percent. Meanwhile, 33 percent had an unfavorable view of the Tea Party, giving it a a net rating of -6 percent.
- (via Thinkprogress.org)
- #Tea Party #news #politics
The beauty of the Tea Party is that it never gave a crap about what public opinion thought of the revolution, gave a damn about MSNBC or what CBS said about it, or what online polling indicated about its popularity or unpopularity, as the Tea Party movement is a revolution in progress overtaking Congressional seats, permeating social networks and everyday conversation, and it is still transforming government by its adherence to study, written word, and peaceable petition. Least of all, the Tea Party could care less about any merit of Occupy Wall Street, with paid protesters, and the Tea Party knows that this is a counterfeit Obama production and distraction in the wake of the vote for his BSJobsAct that failed to pass the Senate as written!!!
White House won’t turn over Obama’s BlackBerry messages on Solyndra
(HOW MANY OF YOU WATCHED THE LAWYER FOR SOLYNDRA TRYING TO COVER FOR OBAMA HIT THE PANIC BUTTON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, TRYING TO FORCE THEM TO READ THEIR SUMMARY MEMO OF THEIR INVESTIGATION AT THE START OF THE HEARING, AS YOU WATCHED THE CHAIRMAN PUT HER IN HER PLACE, BECAUSE OBAMA DOESN’T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THE SOLYNDRA FUNDS ARE EITHER POTENTIAL DONORS OF $535 BILLION TAXPAYER FUNDS, OR THAT THEY ALREADY GAVE THE MONEY TO HIS CORRUPT CAMPAIGN MACHINE SUBSEQUENT TO BANKRUPTCY, AND THAT’S WHY NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE MONEY WENT, BECAUSE OBAMA ALREADY PUT HIS GREEDY PAWS ON IT...... WHICH IS A CLEAR EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ETHICS POLICIES.....)
Cliff Stearns (right) requested internal W.H. communications earlier this month. | AP PhotoClose
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 10/14/11 8:40 PM EDT
President Barack Obama won't be sharing his BlackBerry messages with House investigators seeking communications about Solyndra, the White House told Hill Republicans on Friday.
White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders that they should still be happy with the trove of Solyndra-related documents they’re getting from federal agencies including DOE, the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget.
Listen
Latest on POLITICO
POLITICO 44
But Ruemmler said the investigators’ request for all internal White House communications about Solyndra — dating back to the first day of the Obama administration — "implicates long-standing and significant institutional Executive Branch confidentiality interests.""Encroaching upon these important interests is not necessary, however, because the agency documents the Committee has requested, which include communications with the White House, should satisfy the Committee's stated objective — to 'understand the involvement of the White House in the review of the Solyndra loan guarantee and the Administration's support of this guarantee,’" Ruemmler added in her letter, to committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and oversight subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).
CNN reported on the White House rebuff Friday evening. POLITICO later obtained the letter from a government source.
Speaking to CNBC earlier Friday, White House chief of staff Bill Daley signaled that the GOP probably wouldn’t succeed in its request for Obama’s BlackBerry messages.
“One of the things you're seeing in the last number of years in this town is an enormous amount of requests for things, seems to take up a lot of people's times,” he said, according to an unofficial CNBC transcript. “I think it's a lot of politically motivated requests. But there's been a long history of White House communications being protected … from a lot of the legislative requests.”
To date, the Energy and Treasury departments and OMB have produced more than 70,000 pages of documents to the House panel, as well as nine briefings for committee staff, Ruemmler wrote.
The Obama administration has also handed over more than 900 pages of documents that detail communications between the White House and Solyndra, company representatives and investors.
Upton and Stearns asked for the internal White House communications earlier this month as part of their probe into Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee and the company’s subsequent financial collapse.
While their letter didn't explicitly say they wanted to see Obama's BlackBerry messages, Stearns told reporters he considered anything related to Solyndra that was stored on the president's personal communication device part of his request.
“So if there's nothing on his BlackBerry, that's fine," Stearns said Oct. 6. "But if there's something on his BlackBerry, I would assume that would include that."
"I don't know how that technically works," Stearns added. "But we've asked for them, so we're hopeful we'll get some response."
Obama had to fight his lawyers just to be able to become the first president to use a BlackBerry, and so far no one has successfully gotten access to the messages.
A government source argued Friday that it shouldn't be any surprise that the request for internal White House messages was rejected.
“Not supplying internal White House communications is fairly standard historical practice,” the source said.
Emails released so far by the Obama administration have proven embarrassing on several levels. In May 2010, top campaign contributor Steve Westly warned Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett about the potential political consequences of having the president speak at Solyndra if the California solar manufacturer ran into financial trouble.
OMB and Treasury officials also repeatedly questioned DOE about the legality of their move to restructure Solyndra’s loan early this year in a way that left taxpayers on the hook for about $75 million if the company went belly up.
Ruemmler, however, argued in her letter that any GOP charges of political cronyism related to Solyndra don’t stick.
“There is nothing in the documents produced by DOE, OMB, Treasury or the White House that indicates the White House intervened in the Solyndra loan guarantee to benefit a campaign contributor,” she wrote.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 8:35 p.m. on October 14, 2011.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66018.html#ixzz1amoreH9a
THIS BRINGS US TO: WHAT IS RACIST, WHAT ISN’T RACIST, AND WHAT IS JUST PLAIN NIGGERISMIC..... (yes that is a new word)
| OKAY, SO IT SEEMS I INVENTED A NEW WORD...... Niggerismic, after the manner of Niggerism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2 results (0.13 seconds)
Niggerismic: 2 Google entries
Search Results
CAMERA SHOT OF THE CONVENIENT MORALS $$$ OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ...
de-de.facebook.com/notes/.../10150111975036225 - Germany
I'm passing out the F-WORD, we all know what it means, just like this: YOU'RE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR BEING NIGGERISMIC instead of upstanding black ...
THE TEA PARTY CALLS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA: 7-11-2011 and 7 ...
teapartychief.blogspot.com/.../7-11-2011-and-7-17-2011-double-fea...
Jul 17, 2011 – @thehill race is not prerequisite to the behavior fitting that parameter in recent times: #APS #OBAMA #WASTED9TRILLION = NIGGERISMIC ...
From your Google Reader subscriptions
Obama Runs Up a $1.3 Trillion Deficit in 2011
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2011 3:06 PMby Brian O'Connor
ShareThis
|| The Obama White House has racked up a $4 trillion deficit since taking office. ||
$4 Trillion.
The final numbers are in. During the 2012 fiscal year, the Obama White House spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in, putting the President on the hook for a $4 trillion deficit since taking office.
The government ran a $1.3 trillion for the budget year that ended last month, the third straight year it has operated more than $1 trillion in the red.
The 2011 budget deficit was the second highest on record. It’s slightly ahead of the previous budget year’s $1.29 trillion deficit but below the $1.41 trillion imbalance record in 2009.
Budget Deficit:
- $1.41 in 2009.
- $1.29 in 2010.
- $1.30 in 2011.
- $4 trillion since taking office in 2009.
The United States Government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. President Obama needs to forget his plan to raise taxes on the American people and find a way to dramatically cut spending.
IN BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE “FAST AND FURIOUS” GUN SCANDAL, ERIC HOLDER DENIED ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPERATION, UNTIL HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS ONLY NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING/INVESTIGATION INQUIRY. HE EPITOMIZES WHY THE N-WORD HAS NOT LEFT APPLICABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, ONLY BECAUSE HIS BEHAVIOR IS WARRANTING THE USE OF IT. SO DON’T GET ALL OFFENDED WITH THE WORD, BECAUSE NOT ALL BLACK PEOPLE BEHAVE LIKE THE N-WORD, AS THIS WORD SHOULD BE SPARED FOR ONLY THOSE WHO EXEMPLIFY IT:
HOLDER SHOULD KNOW HE’S OFFENSIVE AND WHY PEOPLE DON’T APPROVE OF HIS BEHAVIOR OR LEADERSHIP, AND IT’S NOT BECAUSE HE’S BLACK BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAID AND DID, THAT THEY FIND, WELL..... NIGGARDLY, OR IN THIS CASE NIGGARDLY AS IN, DASTARDLY:
| Main Entry: | dastardly [das-terd-lee]  Show IPA |
| Part of Speech: | adjective |
| Definition: | rotten |
| Synonyms: | base, contemptible, cowardly, craven,despicable, low, mean, pusillanimous,underhanded, vile |
CALLING SOMEONE THE N-WORD, MEANS THAT THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR IT AS MEANING ABSOLUTE BASENESS AT ITS WORST, WHICH IS WHY THE WORD DOES NOT APPLY TO A SINGLE RACE OF PEOPLE, NOR IS IT JUST A PLAIN RACIST TERM, UNLESS IT IS USED IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER TO STEREOTYPE ALL BLACK PEOPLE. OTHER EQUIVALENTS TO THE WORD IN REFERRING OR USAGE IN A RACIST WAY, WOULD BE REFERRING TO THE CHINESE AND “CHINKS”, OR HISPANICS AS “SPICS”.
WHEN YOU ARE TAUGHT SPANISH, OR MEXICAN, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT, YOU ARE INSTRUCTED HOW TO CUSS AND INSULT OTHERS, BECAUSE ONLY THEN WILL YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING INSULTED IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE AND WON’T LOOK STUPID.
ENGLISH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE: YOU ARE TAUGHT ALL THE OTHER WORDS FIRST, AND THEN THE BAD WORDS ARE RESERVED FOR WHEN YOU BECOME A TEENAGER PERUSING DIRTY JOKE BOOKS. AS A SUPERGEEK, WHO READ BOOKS RATHER THAN THE COMPUTER, I DID NOT REALIZE HOW PEOPLE USE COMMON WORDS TO CONVEY RACIST MESSAGES AND MOCKERY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR. SOME OF THESE I HAVE BEEN CALLED IN JEST ABOUT MYSELF BY OTHERS, MAKING HUMOR FROM RACIST TERMINOLOGY, SO LET ME JUST DISPEL THE PERVASIVE SOCIETAL GRIPING AND BLACK POLITICAL THEOLOGY THAT RACISM IS ONLY LIMITED TO BLACKS.
HERE IS A MONTAGE: TO SEE THE CHART OF RACIAL SLURS, AND FULL VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT, GO TO: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8oX2J5lDgkEGemVcfawTt3udNqDoidrObCptw7mKl0/edit?hl=en_US
Jesus: I wonder what MLK Jr. thinks now, that his message of peace is being hijacked by Socialism, violence, and support of Obama....
@TheRevAl are you so unoriginal you have to borrow the Tea Party's slogan of "Taking Back America"???
| 1. | nigger | |
A fully grown niglet Theres one of them niggers | ||
nigger videos | ||
nigger | ||
A word that everyone else is afraid to define except in utter seriousness, for fear of being branded a rascist, in total ignorance of the colloquial usage of the word, its characterization in popular culture, and the populations of people it is used most by. You shouldn't ever say the n-word, you rascist cracker asshole. | ||
nigger | ||
a term that is racist, as long as the speaker of it is not black. Forbidden on most all of television and other forms of public entertainment, at times referenced to as the "n-word". However, "cracker", a term racist against whites, is a completely acceptable term used in any context of any national broadcast...hmm... White man: I would like to know why "cracker" and, ahem, "nigger" are not equally forbidden *white man is put on trial for racist slander* |
THERE IS LESS SEEMING OBJECTION OVER USE OF THE WORD CRACKER, BUT THE WORDS HAVE NO MEASURE OR STICKING POINT WITHOUT THE BEHAVIOR INDICATIVE OF THE MEANING.
LIKE IF I CALLED JFK JR. A CRACKER, IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS IN THE FACE OF HIS STRIDES FOR PEACE WITH MLK JR.
JUST LIKE PEOPLE DON’T LIKE HEARING THE WORD SQUAW, AS IT BEING USED AS A REFERENCE IMPLYING WHORING. WHETHER YOU SAY WHORING IN ENGLISH OR NATIVE AMERICAN, THE MEANING IS THE SAME DEPENDING UPON HOW RELEVANTLY IT IS EXPRESSED. EVERYONE REMEMBERS THE ROBERT REDFORD QUOTE:
“I PACKED A SQUAW FOR 10 YEARS, CHEYENNE.... MEANEST B-TCH THAT EVER BALLED FOR BEADS.”
IN THIS CASE, ROBERT REDFORD IMPLIES THAT BECAUSE HE WAS WITH A FEMALE INDIAN THAT SHE TRADED SEXUAL FAVORS FOR BEADS, THAT SHE MADE HER WEALTH FROM SEX AND THAT WAS HER AGENDA IN THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. SQUAW USED THIS WAY HAS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION, IN REFERENCE TO RACE. INSTEAD OF SAYING IN ENGLISH “INDIAN WHORE”, HE CHOSE THE TERM SQUAW AND EQUIVOCATED THAT SHE TRADED SEX FOR BEADS. THERE IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT HOW MANHATTAN WAS LOST IN A SIMILAR FASHION, BUT WE WILL SPARE THAT STORY FOR NOW.
PEOPLE GET OFFENDED TOO EASILY ABOUT THE WRONG THINGS AND DO NOT GET OFFENDED ABOUT THE THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD BE OFFENDED ABOUT: IT IS AS RIDICULOUS AS SAYING: “JUST BECAUSE I EAT BANANAS ALL THE TIME, THAT MUST MAKE ME A MONKEY.”
HOWEVER, WHEN ERIC HOLDER SAID THAT THE REASON HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE EMAILS THAT THEY HAD AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, EXTENDING BACK FOR 5-6 MONTHS’ TIME, IT WAS BECAUSE HIS ANSWER WAS “I COULDN’T READ THEM”.
TO WHICH IT WAS APTLY AND LOOSELY REPLIED TO HIM: “YOU MEAN, WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO CAN’T READ OR WRITE?”
LAST WEEKEND, 10 SHERIFFS CALLED FOR THE RESIGNATION OF ERIC HOLDER, AND WHEN THEIR CALLS FOR HIS RESIGNATION WENT IGNORED BY ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROGRAMMING, THEY CALLED THEIR OWN PRESS CONFERENCE. CHARGES ARE PENDING AGAINST HOLDER, RANGING FROM ACCESSORY TO MURDER AND OBAMA IS FACING REMOVAL RIGHT AFTER HOLDER, FOR THE SAME RELATED CHARGES. HOLDER WILL GO FIRST, AND OBAMA IS LIKELY TO FOLLOW.
“I PACKED A SQUAW FOR 10 YEARS, CHEYENNE.... MEANEST B-TCH THAT EVER BALLED FOR BEADS.”
IN THIS CASE, ROBERT REDFORD IMPLIES THAT BECAUSE HE WAS WITH A FEMALE INDIAN THAT SHE TRADED SEXUAL FAVORS FOR BEADS, THAT SHE MADE HER WEALTH FROM SEX AND THAT WAS HER AGENDA IN THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. SQUAW USED THIS WAY HAS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION, IN REFERENCE TO RACE. INSTEAD OF SAYING IN ENGLISH “INDIAN WHORE”, HE CHOSE THE TERM SQUAW AND EQUIVOCATED THAT SHE TRADED SEX FOR BEADS. THERE IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT HOW MANHATTAN WAS LOST IN A SIMILAR FASHION, BUT WE WILL SPARE THAT STORY FOR NOW.
| 1. | squaw | |
"Squaw" DOES NOT mean vagina, or any other body part for that matter. The word comes from the Massachusett(no S) Algonquian tribe and means: female, young woman. The word squaw is not related to the Mohawk word "ojiskwa": which does mean vagina. There is absolutely no derogatory meaning in the word "squaw". "Squaw" has been a familiar word in American literature and language since the 16th century and has been generally understood to mean "an Indian woman, or wife. The Navajo people practice a dance called the "squaw dance" to this day. | ||
squaw | ||
A racist and sexist term for a female Native American. | ||
squaw | ||
"cunt" your a squaw Sophie and Maria aren't squaws |
PEOPLE GET OFFENDED TOO EASILY ABOUT THE WRONG THINGS AND DO NOT GET OFFENDED ABOUT THE THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD BE OFFENDED ABOUT: IT IS AS RIDICULOUS AS SAYING: “JUST BECAUSE I EAT BANANAS ALL THE TIME, THAT MUST MAKE ME A MONKEY.”
HOWEVER, WHEN ERIC HOLDER SAID THAT THE REASON HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE EMAILS THAT THEY HAD AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, EXTENDING BACK FOR 5-6 MONTHS’ TIME, IT WAS BECAUSE HIS ANSWER WAS “I COULDN’T READ THEM”.
TO WHICH IT WAS APTLY AND LOOSELY REPLIED TO HIM: “YOU MEAN, WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO CAN’T READ OR WRITE?”
LAST WEEKEND, 10 SHERIFFS CALLED FOR THE RESIGNATION OF ERIC HOLDER, AND WHEN THEIR CALLS FOR HIS RESIGNATION WENT IGNORED BY ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROGRAMMING, THEY CALLED THEIR OWN PRESS CONFERENCE. CHARGES ARE PENDING AGAINST HOLDER, RANGING FROM ACCESSORY TO MURDER AND OBAMA IS FACING REMOVAL RIGHT AFTER HOLDER, FOR THE SAME RELATED CHARGES. HOLDER WILL GO FIRST, AND OBAMA IS LIKELY TO FOLLOW.
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN SO RACKED WITH FRAUD, THAT THE TOP FISSURES BEING SOLYNDRA AND THE “FAST AND FURIOUS” GUN RUNNING RACKET HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO ROLL UP THE REST OF THE CORRUPTION AS RELATED AND SUBSTANTIVE INVESTIGATION WARRANTING IMPEACHMENT OVER THE 2008 ELECTION FRAUD. ANOTHER REASON THE HOUSE TABLED MY INQUIRY FOR RIGHT AT 100 DAYS, WITHOUT PROVIDING ME A DEFINITIVE “YES” OR “NO” ON HOLDING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING.
I COULD ONLY THINK OF HOW DIFFERENT OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE, IF IT WASN’T RUN BY THAT PAIR, HOLDER AND OBAMA. WHAT IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD AN HONORABLE MAN LIKE COLIN POWELL INSTEAD OF OBAMA, WHO IS OF MIXED BLOOD ALSO, BUT WHO HAS A COMMENDABLE MILITARY RECORD AND ACTUAL U.S. CITIZENSHIP??? WHAT IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOMEONE LIKE HERMAN CAIN OVER THE LAW, WHO HAS THE SPIRIT AND ETHICS TO BE A GREAT ATTORNEY GENERAL??
HOW MUCH DIFFERENT WOULD OUR NATION BE NOW?? AFTER 3YRS. OF THIS, I THINK IT IS GLARINGLY OBVIOUS !!
AND BEFORE YOU GET MAD AT ME, CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE WHITE ONES TOO LIKE OBAMA AND HOLDER (it is my policy with Native American ancestry to criticize all races equally, so as not to be racist or pander to a particular race by race as the motive for the criticism):
Pelosi’s disclosure belated in husband’s land deal
By Chuck Neubauer
Monday, October 10, 2011
Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, longtime friend of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (left), was sworn in as ambassador to Hungary in January, 2010 by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (second from right). Also in attendance were her father, Angelo Tsakopoulos, (holding Bible) and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Mrs. Pelosi’s husband, Paul, is a longtime business associate of Mr. Tsakopoulos. (State Department)
FOLLOW US ON
FOLLOW US ON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwpLPQEEj8
IF YOU MISSED IT, THE OCTOBER 11TH GOP DEBATE WAS LIKE THE GOP KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION ON HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY, A GATHERING OF ALL LEADERSHIP OF HOW TO FIX THE MESS THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA HAVE CREATED OVER THE PAST 3YRS.
WATCH TEXAS STEER RICK PERRY RIP OBAMONEY A NEW ONE, STARTING AT 4:20 on the video:
I COULD ONLY THINK OF HOW DIFFERENT OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE, IF IT WASN’T RUN BY THAT PAIR, HOLDER AND OBAMA. WHAT IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD AN HONORABLE MAN LIKE COLIN POWELL INSTEAD OF OBAMA, WHO IS OF MIXED BLOOD ALSO, BUT WHO HAS A COMMENDABLE MILITARY RECORD AND ACTUAL U.S. CITIZENSHIP??? WHAT IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOMEONE LIKE HERMAN CAIN OVER THE LAW, WHO HAS THE SPIRIT AND ETHICS TO BE A GREAT ATTORNEY GENERAL??
HOW MUCH DIFFERENT WOULD OUR NATION BE NOW?? AFTER 3YRS. OF THIS, I THINK IT IS GLARINGLY OBVIOUS !!
AND BEFORE YOU GET MAD AT ME, CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE WHITE ONES TOO LIKE OBAMA AND HOLDER (it is my policy with Native American ancestry to criticize all races equally, so as not to be racist or pander to a particular race by race as the motive for the criticism):
Pelosi’s disclosure belated in husband’s land deal
Partner is father of favored envoy
620 Comments and 352 Reactions|ShareTweet|Email|Print|By Chuck Neubauer
-
The Washington TimesMonday, October 10, 2011
Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, longtime friend of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (left), was sworn in as ambassador to Hungary in January, 2010 by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (second from right). Also in attendance were her father, Angelo Tsakopoulos, (holding Bible) and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Mrs. Pelosi’s husband, Paul, is a longtime business associate of Mr. Tsakopoulos. (State Department)Text Size: +-
STORY TOPICS
FOLLOW US ON
FACEBOOK
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Will the Occupy Wall Street protesters influence any government or economical change?
- Yes
- No
- Undecided
- Other
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s husband, a real estate developer and investment banker, stands to make millions of dollars in a previously undisclosed residential real estate project in California as a partner with the father of a woman Mrs. Pelosi helped become ambassador toHungary, records show.
Paul F. Pelosi’s investment in Russell Ranch is worth at least $5 million and possibly as much as $25 million in a deal put together by his friend and longtime business associate, Angelo Tsakopoulos, patriarch of a multimillion-dollar real estate development firm, according to Mrs. Pelosi’s latest personal-disclosure statement.
Mr. Pelosi said in an email from his wife’s spokesman that initially he invested between $1 million and $5 million in the project a dozen years ago, although its value has shot up recently as the undeveloped land moves closer to being annexed by a nearby city. He said the Russell Ranch investment had increased in value less than 5 percent per year over the last dozen years.
Despite his involvement in the project dating back to the late 1990s, Mrs. Pelosi first listed the investment in May 2010 on her federal financial-disclosure forms covering the couple’s finances during 2009. The forms are required annually and are supposed to identify assets she and her husband have that are worth more than $1,000.
The first Russell Ranch listing came a month after The Washington Times raised questions about business dealings between Mr. Pelosi andMr. Tsakopoulos and Mrs. Pelosi’s successful efforts to help his daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, become ambassador. For 2009, Mrs. Pelosi reported that the Russell Ranch investment was worth between $1 million and $5 million. The next year, she listed the value as between $5 million and $25 million.
Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi, said the California Democrat did not have to list the Russell Ranch investment because it was held in the name of another company her husband owns, Forty-Five Belden Corp., which is a Subchapter S corporation and taxes it owes are paid by the shareholders rather than the corporation.
While federal officials usually have to list the underlying assets of their privately held companies that hold investments, the House does not require such disclosures for Subchapter S corporations
Asked why she listed the project now if she was not required to do so, the spokesman said Mr. and Mrs. Pelosi “voluntarily decided to list it separately for clarity and transparency purposes.” Noting that the couple has been friends with Mr. Tsakopoulos and Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis “for more than 25 years,” he said there was no attempt to hide the asset - calling any such claim “ridiculous” and “false.”
But a government watchdog said that even if it was not legally required,Mrs. Pelosi should have voluntarily disclosed the Russell Ranch investment earlier, at least by the time she was helping Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis become an ambassador in November 2009.Mrs. Pelosi promised upon her election as House speaker in 2007 to lead “the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history.”
“She should take every effort to disclose anything that could pose a potential conflict of interest before she takes any formal action,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group.
Mr. Holman said helping the daughter of her husband’s business associate become an ambassador was “significant” and that the Russell Ranch asset should have been disclosed. He also described as a “loophole” the House rule that members did not have to disclose the underlying assets of Subchapter S corporations.
“I can’t imagine why a class of companies are exempt from disclosing their underlying assets,” he said.
Bill Allison, editorial director of the Washington-based Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group, agreed: “We have financial disclosure so that any citizen can tell if a member has a conflict of interest. When the rules allow a member to omit underlying assets, it undermines the effectiveness and flies in the face of the purpose - and definition - of disclosure.”
In the email quoting Mr. Pelosi, Mr. Elshami said the general partner at Russell Ranch, Mr. Tsakopoulos, determined that the value of Mr. Pelosi’s interest “was in excess of $5 million” and thats why it was reported in the $5 million to $25 million category. He said the value has been close to $5 million “for several years.”
The partnership was set up by Mr. Tsakopoulos, one of the largest land developers in Northern California. It bought Russell Ranch, property outside of Sacramento, Calif., for residential real estate development. It is part of 3,500 acres of land that are to be annexed by Folsom, Calif., a project Mr. Tsakopoulos has worked on for more than a decade.
FOLLOW US ON
FACEBOOK
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Will the Occupy Wall Street protesters influence any government or economical change?
Mr. Elshami said Mr. Pelosi, as a limited partner, did not play any role in the business activities of the development.
Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis declined to comment, according to a spokesman for the embassy. Mr. Tsakopoulos did not respond to emails or phone messages seeking comment
The Russell Ranch investment never appeared on Mrs. Pelosi’s disclosure statements until May 2010, after The Times reported that Mr. Pelosi had netted over the years between $1 million and $9 million from four real estate investments with Mr. Tsakopoulos and his company, AKT Development Corp. Those four investments did appear on his wife’s disclosure statements.
Mrs. Pelosi also did not mention the business ties when she sang the praises of Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis at her Senate confirmation hearing in November 2009, then as the House speaker. She said she was sure Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis would bring a “spirit of entrepreneurial, democratic ways to her service in Hungary.”
Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, president of AKT Development from 1997 to her 2009 appointment as ambassador, also had the support of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and California’s Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. She was sworn in by Mrs. Clinton in January 2010 with her father and Mrs. Pelosi by her side.
In a 2010 interview, Mr. Pelosi said there was “no connection” between his business dealings and his wife’s role in helping Mrs. Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis become ambassador. “There is no story here,” he said. “My business dealings have nothing to do with my wife’s political career.”
‹‹ previous12next ››© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwpLPQEEj8
IF YOU MISSED IT, THE OCTOBER 11TH GOP DEBATE WAS LIKE THE GOP KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION ON HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY, A GATHERING OF ALL LEADERSHIP OF HOW TO FIX THE MESS THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA HAVE CREATED OVER THE PAST 3YRS.
WATCH TEXAS STEER RICK PERRY RIP OBAMONEY A NEW ONE, STARTING AT 4:20 on the video:
GOP CANDIDATES EACH GIVE THEIR ECONOMIC Rx to FIX THE ECONOMY, AFTER OBAMACARE (HR 4872 FAILED TO RECTIFY HEALTH COSTS OR PRODUCE SUBSTANTIVE REFORM), FAILED STIMULUS AND FINANCIAL REFORM PACKAGE THAT TRANSLATED TO JOB GROWTH, ETHICS, AND LOANS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, AND THE STRANGLING OBAMA REGULATIONS, OVER 200+ HAVE SUFFOCATED JOB GROWTH.
CAIN’S Rx- OUT WITH THE OLD TAX CODE, IN WITH THE 9-9-9 PLAN
OBAMONEY’S ANSWER - 59 POINT PLAN, STOP SPENDING (HE HAS SEEN THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS ON OBAMA, HIS SPENDTHRIFT POLICIES)
PERRY’S Rx - JOBS MUST BE CREATED FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE TO LOWER FUEL AND BUSINESS COSTS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE’S DAILY LIVES
BACHMANN’S Rx - $2 per gallon gasoline/REPEAL DODD FRANK REGULATIONS&OBAMACARE
NEWT’S Rx - DETHRONE BERNANKE AND FEDERAL CORRUPTION POWER
PAUL’S Rx - AUDIT THE FED, THE PROBLEM IS FROM THE FED, AND THE BUSINESS CYCLE AND THE BOOMS CAUSING OUR ECONOMIC SICKNESS
SANTORUM’S Rx - CREATE A CLIMATE FOR MANUFACTURING JOBS TO RETURN, NO SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS, CREATE COMPETITION, ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE TAX FROM 35% TO 0%... (SANTORUM IS LOBBYING THE CORPORATE VOTE AND DONORS, AND RICK PERRY AND HERMAN CAIN JUST WINCED) AND A BOLD ENERGY PLAN, REPEAL ALL REGULATIONS COSTING OVER $100 MILLION
HUNTSMAN’S Rx - BLAMES BIG LOBBYING FOR JOBS BEING OUTSOURCED TO CHINA AND INDIA, TOUTS INNOVATIVE JOBS AND A MARKETPLACE THAT IS COMPETITIVE DUE TO TAXES AND REGULATION
WATCH AT 12:00 - RICK SANTORUM GETS THE STAGE, FINALLY, AND SAYS HIS POLICIES WOULD PASS. PERRY NOW HAS A REAL CONTENDER, NOT THE MEDIA-FLUFFED OBAMONEY, AND CAIN TRIES TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL FUNCTION IF SANTORUM SUCCEEDS IN STRIKING 35% CORPORATE TAX WHEN HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 PLAN DEMANDS 27% IN TAXES FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDES THE NATIONAL SALES TAX; WHICH IS HERMAN’S WAY OF MAKING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX TO ITEMS MORE PALATABLE THAT OBAMA COULD NOT PASS, BY MAKING ALL SOLD ITEMS AS TAXED THE SAME.
Transcript – Bloomberg / Washington Post GOP Debate – October 11, 2011- Full Text
Republican Candidates:
Representative Michele Bachmann; Herman Cain;Newt Gingrich; Jon Huntsman; Ron Paul; Rick Perry; Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum
Moderators:
Charlie Rose; Julianna Goldman; Karen Tumulty
[*] ANNOUNCER: Live from Spaulding Auditorium on the campus of Dartmouth College, the Bloomberg-Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate.
ROSE: I’m Charlie Rose. Welcome to Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, this great college established in 1769 in a state that often plays a crucial role in picking presidents. Tonight, it is the site of an important Republican presidential debate brought to you by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and WBIN Television.
This is a time of anxiety about our country and our children’s future in a continuing economic crisis. Many are in despair, not only about policy, but politics. And so we ask who has the character, who has the ideas, and who has the experience to lead.
This debate is different and distinctive. It is only about the economy. So we debate this evening about spending and taxes, deficit and debt, about the present and the future, about rich and poor, and about the role of government. And because we’re at a table — this is the kind of table I like — the kind of kitchen table where families for generations have come together to talk and solve their problems.
The rules are one minute for an answer, 30 seconds for follow-up and rebuttal. If a candidate is singled out by name for criticism, they have 30 seconds to respond. Later in the debate, they will question each other.
I’m the moderator. Joining me are Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post and Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News.
Joining us at the table, the eight Republican candidates. They are: former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman; Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann; Texas Governor Rick Perry; former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain; former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum; former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich; Texas Congressman Ron Paul; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
I am pleased to be here at this table to have an opportunity to talk to them about the issues that all of us are thinking about.
And I begin this evening first with Herman Cain. As you know, when Standard & Poor’s downgraded American credit, they noted not only the economic difficulties, but the political dysfunction. So we begin this evening with the question: What would you do specifically to end the paralysis in Washington?
CAIN: Two things. Present a bold plan to grow this economy, which I have put my 9-9-9 plan on the table, and it starts with throwing out the current tax code and putting in the 9-9-9 plan.
Secondly, get serious about bringing down the national debt. The only way we’re going to do that is, the first year that I’m president and I oversee a fiscal year budget, make sure that revenues equals spending. If we stop adding to the national debt, we can bring it down.
So the answer is, we must grow this economy with a bold solution, which is why I have proposed 9-9-9, and at the same time get serious about not creating annual deficits so we can bring down the national debt. That would re-establish confidence in our system, and I believe we could get our credit rating back.
ROSE: Governor Perry, are you prepared — even though you’ve said that you want to make Washington inconsequential — to go to Washington and, as Ronald Reagan did, compromise on spending cuts and taxes in order to produce results?
PERRY: Well, certainly as the governor of the second largest state, I’ve had to deal with folks on both sides of the aisle. I’ve signed six balanced budgets as the governor of — of Texas. So working with folks on both sides of the aisle and — and bringing ideas, whether it’s ways to redo your tax structure or what have you.
One of the things that I laid out today I think is a pretty bold plan, to put 1.2 million Americans working in the energy industry. And you don’t need Congress to do that. You need a president with a plan, which I’m laying out over the next three days, and, clearly, the intent to open up this treasure trove that America’s sitting on and getting America independent on the domestic energy side. It’s time for another American Declaration of Independence. It’s time for energy independence.
ROSE: We’ll come back to energy, also your economic plan this evening, but I go now to Governor Romney. The paralysis there, and everybody’s concerned about it. What specifically would you be prepared to do to make the country moving again on addressing its problems?
ROMNEY: I’d be prepared to be a leader. You can’t get the country to go in the right direction and get Washington to work if you don’t have a president that’s a leader. And three years ago, we selected a person who had never had any leadership experience, never worked in the private sector, never had the opportunity to actually bring people together, and he hasn’t been able to do so.
He said he’d bring us hope and change. Instead, he’s divided the nation and tried to blame other people.
The real course for America is to have someone who is a leader, who can identify people in both parties who care more about the country than they care about getting reelected.
There are Democrats like that. There are Republicans like that. I was the governor of a state that had a few Democrats. People in this room know how many we had in Massachusetts.
ROSE: So it’s essential to deal with Democrats and be prepared to compromise on the big issues of our time?
ROMNEY: You have to stand by your principles. At the same time, you know that good Democrats and good Republicans who love the country first will be able to find common ground from time to time and recognize we can’t keep on spending like we’re spending, we can’t demand more from tax revenue from people, because that kills jobs and hurts working families.
We have got to help the middle class in this country. The only way that will come together is if you have people on both sides of the aisle who listen to a leader who has the experience of leading. And that’s what America is looking for and desperately longing for.
ROSE: And back to Governor Perry, this plan that you would like to lay out, because Governor Romney has said you have had two months to produce a plan, an economic plan, he’s had a 59 point plan, what is the plan? What will you say specifically?
PERRY: Well, clearly, opening up a lot of the areas of our domestic energy area. That’s the real key. You have got an administration that, by and large, has either by intimidation or over-regulation, put our energy industry and the rest of the economy in jeopardy. And we have got to have a president who is willing to stand up and to clearly pull back those regulations that are strangling the American entrepreneurship that’s out there.
And it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s Obamacare, whether it’s Dodd-Frank, or whether it’s the tax burden. A president, particularly with the plan that I’m going to be laying out over the next three days — and I’m not going to lay it out all for you tonight — Mitt has had six years to be working on a plan. I have been in this for about eight weeks. But, clearly, we’re going to be focused on initially the energy industry in this country and making a America again independent, and clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from.
ROSE: Let me introduce my friend Karen — Karen.
TUMULTY: Congresswoman Bachmann, three years after the financial meltdown, Main Street continues to suffer. People have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their homes, they’ve lost their faith in the future. But Wall Street is thriving. The banks not only got bailed out by the government, they have made huge profits, they’ve paid themselves huge bonuses.
Do you think it’s right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?
BACHMANN: I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right back to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum level lending standards to new lows.
TUMULTY: But the federal government has also deregulated them.
BACHMANN: It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. It was the federal government that pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. It was Congressman Barney Frank and also Senator Chris Dodd that continued to push government-directed housing goals.
They pushed the banks to meet these rules. And if banks failed to meet those rules, then the federal government said we won’t let you merge, we won’t let you grow.
There’s a real problem, and it began with the federal government, and it began with Freddie and Fannie. If you look at these secondary mortgage companies which the federal government is essentially backing 100 percent, they put American mortgages in a very difficult place.
We had artificially low interest rates, Freddie and Fannie were the center of the universe on the mortgage meltdown, and we had lending standards lowered for the first time in American history. The fault goes back to the federal government, and that’s what’s wrong with Dodd- Frank.
Dodd-Frank institutionalized all of these problems that were put into effect by the federal government. That’s why I introduced the bill to repeal Dodd-Frank. It’s the Jobs and Housing Destruction Act.
TUMULTY: So, Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like Congresswoman Bachmann does not believe that Wall Street is to blame for the financial mess. You’ve said that the current protests on Wall Street are, in your words, “the natural product of Obama’s class warfare.”
Does this mean that these people who are out there protesting on Wall Street, across the country, have no grievance?
GINGRICH: No, let me draw a distinction. I think there — virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually every American has a reason to be worried.
I think the people who are protesting on Wall Street break into two groups. One is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who, frankly, are very close to the Tea Party people and actually care.
And you can tell which group is which. The people who are decent, responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activists trash the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it. So let’s draw that distinction.
If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second person to fire is Geithner.
The fact is, in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, the fix has been in. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to be angry. But let’s be clear who put the fix in: The fix was put in by the federal government.
And if you want to put people in jail — I want to second what Michele said — you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let’s look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.
ROSE: Clearly you’re not saying they should go to jail?
GINGRICH: Well, in Chris Dodd’s case, go back and look at the countryside (sic) deals. In Barney Frank’s case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to at — at Freddie Mac. All I’m saying is…
(UNKNOWN): So if he were… GINGRICH: Everybody — everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country and ought to start with Bernanke, who has still not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars.
(APPLAUSE)
And I’m going to say one last thing. I want to repeat this. Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group. I don’t see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.
TUMULTY: So, Congressman Paul, where you come down on this?
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: One thing I might — might say is, we have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. We passed a bill last year. We got a partial, you know, audit of the Fed. We’ve learned a whole lot. They were dealing in $15 trillion; $5 trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks.
But you know what? Congress did a lot. I’ve worked on it for a good many years. But Bloomberg helped and Fox helped. They had court cases, Freedom of Information Act. And there are some even at this table who didn’t think auditing the Fed was such a good idea, that we could call up the Fed and ask them and they would tell us what they’re doing. I’ve been calling them up for 30 years and they never tell me.
(LAUGHTER)
But we’re getting to the bottom of it. But if you want to understand why we have a problem, you have to understand the Fed, because the cause comes from the business cycle. We shouldn’t be asking what to do exactly with the recession — obviously, we have to deal with that — but you can’t solve — you can’t cure the disease if you don’t know the cause of it.
And the cause is the booms. When there are booms and they’re artificial, whether it’s the CRA or whether it’s the Fed, easy credit, when you have bubbles, whether it’s the Nasdaq or whether it’s the housing bubbles, they burst. And when they do, you have to have corrections. And that’s what we’re dealing with. And we can do this by building coalitions and not sacrificing any principles.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: Thank you, Charlie.
Senator Santorum, I want to turn to jobs, because you’ve said that when you were growing up in a steel town in Pennsylvania, 21 percent of the country was involved in manufacturing. Now it’s down to 9 percent. Can those jobs ever return? And what would you do to create jobs now?
SANTORUM: Yeah, the jobs can come back if you create a climate for them to be profitable. I — I — we have a lot of businesspeople, manufacturers in Pennsylvania. I don’t know a single one who wanted to shift their jobs offshore, who didn’t want them in their own community to be able to employ people and see the fruits of their labor being benefiting the community that they live in.
What happened was, we became uncompetitive. So we need to be competitive. And that’s why I’ve proposed taking the corporate tax for manufacturers and processors, taking it from 35 percent and eliminating it. Zero percent tax. Allow this to be the — the manufacturing capital of the world again.
Take that money, $1.2 trillion that’s overseas from manufacturers who did send their jobs overseas, bring it back, zero percent tax rate if you invest it in plant and equipment in this country.
Repeal every regulation the Obama administration has put in place that’s over $100 million. Repeal them all. May have to replace a few. Let’s repeal them all, because they’re all antagonistic to businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and do as Governor Perry suggested. We need a bold energy plan — I put one out there — to drill — Pennsylvania, I don’t want to brag, Governor, but Pennsylvania is the gas capital of the world right now, not Texas, because we are…
ROSE: All right.
SANTORUM: … we’re doing a great job. And energy prices and gas went down by 75 percent.
GOLDMAN: Let me just follow up, because we’re in a crisis. So what would you do right now to create jobs?
SANTORUM: The cool thing about my plan, as opposed to Herman’s plans and some of the other plans out here, it will pass tomorrow. It would pass tomorrow.
Why? Because industrial state Democrats want those jobs. And they know if we put a pro-manufacturing jobs plan on the table, it will pass over night. We’ll get votes from Indiana and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, all of those states.
So, it’s not just proposing a plan that will get things started, that “The Wall Street Journal” will smile at — excuse me, “The Washington Post” — but it’s a plan that will actually pass and get things done and bring people together. That’s why I put it on the table.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
I want to follow up now to Governor Huntsman. From the Erie Canal to the Internet, innovation is what has always fueled economic recoveries. So shouldn’t the focus now not be on trying to create the innovative jobs of tomorrow? And what do you think those are?
HUNTSMAN: We need to regain our industrial base. I would, first and foremost, disagree with Rick on one measure. That is, Pennsylvania is not the gas capital of the country. Washington, D.C., is the gas capital of the country.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNTSMAN: There are two things that critically need to be done for us to stay ahead in this highly-competitive world. And when we lose one or both of them, we lose out to the Chinese and the Indians.
One is maintaining a strong commitment to innovation entrepreneurship and freedom in the marketplace. We have the sense of innovation that no country has been able to replicate. Some have tried, and some will continue to try, but nobody does it like we do here, and that gives rise to high technology, to regular manufacturing jobs across the board. It makes this economy hum when it’s working well.
The second part of it is, you need a marketplace like Rick described a moment ago in which you can translate those innovations into products. We are losing our ability to maintain a competitive marketplace today.
ROSE: All right.
HUNTSMAN: That’s taxes, that’s regulation. We have lost it to others. So, right now, we are not able to translate innovation to the — we’ve got to regain the magic of a strong marketplace so that we have the complete package.
ROSE: Karen.
MEDICARE: How do you see Medicare as a whole and how would you fix it?
GINGRICH Rx - Sarah Palin unfairly criticized for accurately pegging Obamacare as instituting Death Panels for Medicare
BACHMANN Rx - Obamacare H.R. 4872 was Obama’s plan to collapse Medicare and put everyone on Obamacare, which turns the 15 member board into a death panel
OBAMONEY’S ANSWER - 59 POINT PLAN, STOP SPENDING (HE HAS SEEN THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS ON OBAMA, HIS SPENDTHRIFT POLICIES)
PERRY’S Rx - JOBS MUST BE CREATED FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE TO LOWER FUEL AND BUSINESS COSTS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE’S DAILY LIVES
BACHMANN’S Rx - $2 per gallon gasoline/REPEAL DODD FRANK REGULATIONS&OBAMACARE
NEWT’S Rx - DETHRONE BERNANKE AND FEDERAL CORRUPTION POWER
PAUL’S Rx - AUDIT THE FED, THE PROBLEM IS FROM THE FED, AND THE BUSINESS CYCLE AND THE BOOMS CAUSING OUR ECONOMIC SICKNESS
SANTORUM’S Rx - CREATE A CLIMATE FOR MANUFACTURING JOBS TO RETURN, NO SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS, CREATE COMPETITION, ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE TAX FROM 35% TO 0%... (SANTORUM IS LOBBYING THE CORPORATE VOTE AND DONORS, AND RICK PERRY AND HERMAN CAIN JUST WINCED) AND A BOLD ENERGY PLAN, REPEAL ALL REGULATIONS COSTING OVER $100 MILLION
HUNTSMAN’S Rx - BLAMES BIG LOBBYING FOR JOBS BEING OUTSOURCED TO CHINA AND INDIA, TOUTS INNOVATIVE JOBS AND A MARKETPLACE THAT IS COMPETITIVE DUE TO TAXES AND REGULATION
WATCH AT 12:00 - RICK SANTORUM GETS THE STAGE, FINALLY, AND SAYS HIS POLICIES WOULD PASS. PERRY NOW HAS A REAL CONTENDER, NOT THE MEDIA-FLUFFED OBAMONEY, AND CAIN TRIES TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL FUNCTION IF SANTORUM SUCCEEDS IN STRIKING 35% CORPORATE TAX WHEN HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 PLAN DEMANDS 27% IN TAXES FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDES THE NATIONAL SALES TAX; WHICH IS HERMAN’S WAY OF MAKING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX TO ITEMS MORE PALATABLE THAT OBAMA COULD NOT PASS, BY MAKING ALL SOLD ITEMS AS TAXED THE SAME.
Transcript – Bloomberg / Washington Post GOP Debate – October 11, 2011- Full Text
Bloomberg/Washington Post/Dartmoth College /WBIN-TV Republican Presidential Debate Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Republican Candidates:Representative Michele Bachmann; Herman Cain;Newt Gingrich; Jon Huntsman; Ron Paul; Rick Perry; Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum
Moderators:
Charlie Rose; Julianna Goldman; Karen Tumulty
[*] ANNOUNCER: Live from Spaulding Auditorium on the campus of Dartmouth College, the Bloomberg-Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate.
ROSE: I’m Charlie Rose. Welcome to Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, this great college established in 1769 in a state that often plays a crucial role in picking presidents. Tonight, it is the site of an important Republican presidential debate brought to you by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and WBIN Television.
This is a time of anxiety about our country and our children’s future in a continuing economic crisis. Many are in despair, not only about policy, but politics. And so we ask who has the character, who has the ideas, and who has the experience to lead.
This debate is different and distinctive. It is only about the economy. So we debate this evening about spending and taxes, deficit and debt, about the present and the future, about rich and poor, and about the role of government. And because we’re at a table — this is the kind of table I like — the kind of kitchen table where families for generations have come together to talk and solve their problems.
The rules are one minute for an answer, 30 seconds for follow-up and rebuttal. If a candidate is singled out by name for criticism, they have 30 seconds to respond. Later in the debate, they will question each other.
I’m the moderator. Joining me are Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post and Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News.
Joining us at the table, the eight Republican candidates. They are: former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman; Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann; Texas Governor Rick Perry; former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain; former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum; former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich; Texas Congressman Ron Paul; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
I am pleased to be here at this table to have an opportunity to talk to them about the issues that all of us are thinking about.
And I begin this evening first with Herman Cain. As you know, when Standard & Poor’s downgraded American credit, they noted not only the economic difficulties, but the political dysfunction. So we begin this evening with the question: What would you do specifically to end the paralysis in Washington?
CAIN: Two things. Present a bold plan to grow this economy, which I have put my 9-9-9 plan on the table, and it starts with throwing out the current tax code and putting in the 9-9-9 plan.
Secondly, get serious about bringing down the national debt. The only way we’re going to do that is, the first year that I’m president and I oversee a fiscal year budget, make sure that revenues equals spending. If we stop adding to the national debt, we can bring it down.
So the answer is, we must grow this economy with a bold solution, which is why I have proposed 9-9-9, and at the same time get serious about not creating annual deficits so we can bring down the national debt. That would re-establish confidence in our system, and I believe we could get our credit rating back.
ROSE: Governor Perry, are you prepared — even though you’ve said that you want to make Washington inconsequential — to go to Washington and, as Ronald Reagan did, compromise on spending cuts and taxes in order to produce results?
PERRY: Well, certainly as the governor of the second largest state, I’ve had to deal with folks on both sides of the aisle. I’ve signed six balanced budgets as the governor of — of Texas. So working with folks on both sides of the aisle and — and bringing ideas, whether it’s ways to redo your tax structure or what have you.
One of the things that I laid out today I think is a pretty bold plan, to put 1.2 million Americans working in the energy industry. And you don’t need Congress to do that. You need a president with a plan, which I’m laying out over the next three days, and, clearly, the intent to open up this treasure trove that America’s sitting on and getting America independent on the domestic energy side. It’s time for another American Declaration of Independence. It’s time for energy independence.
ROSE: We’ll come back to energy, also your economic plan this evening, but I go now to Governor Romney. The paralysis there, and everybody’s concerned about it. What specifically would you be prepared to do to make the country moving again on addressing its problems?
ROMNEY: I’d be prepared to be a leader. You can’t get the country to go in the right direction and get Washington to work if you don’t have a president that’s a leader. And three years ago, we selected a person who had never had any leadership experience, never worked in the private sector, never had the opportunity to actually bring people together, and he hasn’t been able to do so.
He said he’d bring us hope and change. Instead, he’s divided the nation and tried to blame other people.
The real course for America is to have someone who is a leader, who can identify people in both parties who care more about the country than they care about getting reelected.
There are Democrats like that. There are Republicans like that. I was the governor of a state that had a few Democrats. People in this room know how many we had in Massachusetts.
ROSE: So it’s essential to deal with Democrats and be prepared to compromise on the big issues of our time?
ROMNEY: You have to stand by your principles. At the same time, you know that good Democrats and good Republicans who love the country first will be able to find common ground from time to time and recognize we can’t keep on spending like we’re spending, we can’t demand more from tax revenue from people, because that kills jobs and hurts working families.
We have got to help the middle class in this country. The only way that will come together is if you have people on both sides of the aisle who listen to a leader who has the experience of leading. And that’s what America is looking for and desperately longing for.
ROSE: And back to Governor Perry, this plan that you would like to lay out, because Governor Romney has said you have had two months to produce a plan, an economic plan, he’s had a 59 point plan, what is the plan? What will you say specifically?
PERRY: Well, clearly, opening up a lot of the areas of our domestic energy area. That’s the real key. You have got an administration that, by and large, has either by intimidation or over-regulation, put our energy industry and the rest of the economy in jeopardy. And we have got to have a president who is willing to stand up and to clearly pull back those regulations that are strangling the American entrepreneurship that’s out there.
And it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s Obamacare, whether it’s Dodd-Frank, or whether it’s the tax burden. A president, particularly with the plan that I’m going to be laying out over the next three days — and I’m not going to lay it out all for you tonight — Mitt has had six years to be working on a plan. I have been in this for about eight weeks. But, clearly, we’re going to be focused on initially the energy industry in this country and making a America again independent, and clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from.
ROSE: Let me introduce my friend Karen — Karen.
TUMULTY: Congresswoman Bachmann, three years after the financial meltdown, Main Street continues to suffer. People have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their homes, they’ve lost their faith in the future. But Wall Street is thriving. The banks not only got bailed out by the government, they have made huge profits, they’ve paid themselves huge bonuses.
Do you think it’s right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?
BACHMANN: I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right back to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum level lending standards to new lows.
TUMULTY: But the federal government has also deregulated them.
BACHMANN: It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. It was the federal government that pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. It was Congressman Barney Frank and also Senator Chris Dodd that continued to push government-directed housing goals.
They pushed the banks to meet these rules. And if banks failed to meet those rules, then the federal government said we won’t let you merge, we won’t let you grow.
There’s a real problem, and it began with the federal government, and it began with Freddie and Fannie. If you look at these secondary mortgage companies which the federal government is essentially backing 100 percent, they put American mortgages in a very difficult place.
We had artificially low interest rates, Freddie and Fannie were the center of the universe on the mortgage meltdown, and we had lending standards lowered for the first time in American history. The fault goes back to the federal government, and that’s what’s wrong with Dodd- Frank.
Dodd-Frank institutionalized all of these problems that were put into effect by the federal government. That’s why I introduced the bill to repeal Dodd-Frank. It’s the Jobs and Housing Destruction Act.
TUMULTY: So, Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like Congresswoman Bachmann does not believe that Wall Street is to blame for the financial mess. You’ve said that the current protests on Wall Street are, in your words, “the natural product of Obama’s class warfare.”
Does this mean that these people who are out there protesting on Wall Street, across the country, have no grievance?
GINGRICH: No, let me draw a distinction. I think there — virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually every American has a reason to be worried.
I think the people who are protesting on Wall Street break into two groups. One is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who, frankly, are very close to the Tea Party people and actually care.
And you can tell which group is which. The people who are decent, responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activists trash the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it. So let’s draw that distinction.
If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second person to fire is Geithner.
The fact is, in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, the fix has been in. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to be angry. But let’s be clear who put the fix in: The fix was put in by the federal government.
And if you want to put people in jail — I want to second what Michele said — you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let’s look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.
ROSE: Clearly you’re not saying they should go to jail?
GINGRICH: Well, in Chris Dodd’s case, go back and look at the countryside (sic) deals. In Barney Frank’s case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to at — at Freddie Mac. All I’m saying is…
(UNKNOWN): So if he were… GINGRICH: Everybody — everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country and ought to start with Bernanke, who has still not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars.
(APPLAUSE)
And I’m going to say one last thing. I want to repeat this. Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group. I don’t see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.
TUMULTY: So, Congressman Paul, where you come down on this?
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: One thing I might — might say is, we have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. We passed a bill last year. We got a partial, you know, audit of the Fed. We’ve learned a whole lot. They were dealing in $15 trillion; $5 trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks.
But you know what? Congress did a lot. I’ve worked on it for a good many years. But Bloomberg helped and Fox helped. They had court cases, Freedom of Information Act. And there are some even at this table who didn’t think auditing the Fed was such a good idea, that we could call up the Fed and ask them and they would tell us what they’re doing. I’ve been calling them up for 30 years and they never tell me.
(LAUGHTER)
But we’re getting to the bottom of it. But if you want to understand why we have a problem, you have to understand the Fed, because the cause comes from the business cycle. We shouldn’t be asking what to do exactly with the recession — obviously, we have to deal with that — but you can’t solve — you can’t cure the disease if you don’t know the cause of it.
And the cause is the booms. When there are booms and they’re artificial, whether it’s the CRA or whether it’s the Fed, easy credit, when you have bubbles, whether it’s the Nasdaq or whether it’s the housing bubbles, they burst. And when they do, you have to have corrections. And that’s what we’re dealing with. And we can do this by building coalitions and not sacrificing any principles.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: Thank you, Charlie.
Senator Santorum, I want to turn to jobs, because you’ve said that when you were growing up in a steel town in Pennsylvania, 21 percent of the country was involved in manufacturing. Now it’s down to 9 percent. Can those jobs ever return? And what would you do to create jobs now?
SANTORUM: Yeah, the jobs can come back if you create a climate for them to be profitable. I — I — we have a lot of businesspeople, manufacturers in Pennsylvania. I don’t know a single one who wanted to shift their jobs offshore, who didn’t want them in their own community to be able to employ people and see the fruits of their labor being benefiting the community that they live in.
What happened was, we became uncompetitive. So we need to be competitive. And that’s why I’ve proposed taking the corporate tax for manufacturers and processors, taking it from 35 percent and eliminating it. Zero percent tax. Allow this to be the — the manufacturing capital of the world again.
Take that money, $1.2 trillion that’s overseas from manufacturers who did send their jobs overseas, bring it back, zero percent tax rate if you invest it in plant and equipment in this country.
Repeal every regulation the Obama administration has put in place that’s over $100 million. Repeal them all. May have to replace a few. Let’s repeal them all, because they’re all antagonistic to businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and do as Governor Perry suggested. We need a bold energy plan — I put one out there — to drill — Pennsylvania, I don’t want to brag, Governor, but Pennsylvania is the gas capital of the world right now, not Texas, because we are…
ROSE: All right.
SANTORUM: … we’re doing a great job. And energy prices and gas went down by 75 percent.
GOLDMAN: Let me just follow up, because we’re in a crisis. So what would you do right now to create jobs?
SANTORUM: The cool thing about my plan, as opposed to Herman’s plans and some of the other plans out here, it will pass tomorrow. It would pass tomorrow.
Why? Because industrial state Democrats want those jobs. And they know if we put a pro-manufacturing jobs plan on the table, it will pass over night. We’ll get votes from Indiana and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, all of those states.
So, it’s not just proposing a plan that will get things started, that “The Wall Street Journal” will smile at — excuse me, “The Washington Post” — but it’s a plan that will actually pass and get things done and bring people together. That’s why I put it on the table.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
I want to follow up now to Governor Huntsman. From the Erie Canal to the Internet, innovation is what has always fueled economic recoveries. So shouldn’t the focus now not be on trying to create the innovative jobs of tomorrow? And what do you think those are?
HUNTSMAN: We need to regain our industrial base. I would, first and foremost, disagree with Rick on one measure. That is, Pennsylvania is not the gas capital of the country. Washington, D.C., is the gas capital of the country.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNTSMAN: There are two things that critically need to be done for us to stay ahead in this highly-competitive world. And when we lose one or both of them, we lose out to the Chinese and the Indians.
One is maintaining a strong commitment to innovation entrepreneurship and freedom in the marketplace. We have the sense of innovation that no country has been able to replicate. Some have tried, and some will continue to try, but nobody does it like we do here, and that gives rise to high technology, to regular manufacturing jobs across the board. It makes this economy hum when it’s working well.
The second part of it is, you need a marketplace like Rick described a moment ago in which you can translate those innovations into products. We are losing our ability to maintain a competitive marketplace today.
ROSE: All right.
HUNTSMAN: That’s taxes, that’s regulation. We have lost it to others. So, right now, we are not able to translate innovation to the — we’ve got to regain the magic of a strong marketplace so that we have the complete package.
ROSE: Karen.
MEDICARE: How do you see Medicare as a whole and how would you fix it?
GINGRICH Rx - Sarah Palin unfairly criticized for accurately pegging Obamacare as instituting Death Panels for Medicare
BACHMANN Rx - Obamacare H.R. 4872 was Obama’s plan to collapse Medicare and put everyone on Obamacare, which turns the 15 member board into a death panel
TUMULTY: Congressman Gingrich — Speaker Gingrich, Medicare is going broke. Consider the fact that half of all Medicare spending is done in the last two years of life, and research that has been done right here at Dartmouth by “The Dartmouth Atlas” would suggest that much of this money is going to treatments and interventions that do nothing to prolong life or to improve it. In fact, some of it does the opposite.
Do you consider this wasteful spending? And, if so, should the government do anything about it?
GINGRICH: I am really glad you asked that, because I was just swapping e-mails today with Andy von Eschenbach, who was the head of the National Cancer Institute, the head of the Food & Drug Administration. But before that, he was the provost M.D. Anderson, the largest cancer treatment center in the world.
And he wrote me to point out that the most recent U.S. government intervention on whether or not to have prostate testing is basically going to kill people. So, if you ask me, do I want some Washington bureaucrat to create a class action decision which affects every American’s last two years of life, not ever.
I think it is a disaster. I think, candidly, Governor Palin got attacked unfairly for describing what would, in effect, be death panels.
And what Von Eschenbach will tell you if you call him is, the decision to suggest that we not test men with PSA will mean that a number of people who do not have — who are susceptible to a very rapid prostate cancer will die unnecessarily. And there was not a single urologist, not a single specialist on the board that looked at it. So, I am opposed to class intervention for these things.
TUMULTY: Well, Congresswoman Bachmann, of course no one wants the government to come between a doctor and a patient. But do you think that Americans are getting the most for their money in Medicare spending? And how can we make sure that the money that is being spent is being spent on the treatments and the preventive treatments that do the most?
BACHMANN: We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B trust fund is going to be dead-flat broke, so we’ve got to deal with this issue. I was in the White House with President Obama this summer. We asked him not once, but three times, “President Obama, what is your plan to save Medicare?”
And the president mumbled and he didn’t give an answer the first time, the second time. And the third time the president said something very interesting, Karen. He said Obamacare.
I think that senior citizens across the country have no idea that President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare.
And just like Newt Gingrich said, the way that Obamacare runs, there’s a board called IPAB. It’s made up of 15 political appointees. These 15 political appointees will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans. I don’t want 15 political appointees to make a health care decision for a beautiful, fragile 85- year-old woman who should be making her own decision.
ROSE: We’ll come back to Medicare, as well, and medical issues and then the cost of Medicare in the United States.
I want to talk about advisers and appointees. Tell me, Governor Huntsman, whose advice do you seek on economic issues? And who — what’s the profile of the kind of person you’d like to have advising you in your White House?
HUNTSMAN HAS HIS CARPE DIEM:
HUNTSMAN WOULD PICK SOMEONE LIKE HIS FATHER FOR HIS FINANCIAL ADVISOR, HE ADVOCATES THE FLAT TAX, AND SAYS THAT GOOD PEOPLE ARE KEPT OUT OF GOVERNMENT BY LACK OF PRIVACY AND A PROFESSIONAL GOVERNING CLASS THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. HE SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT USED TO BE A TERM OF SERVICE THAT WAS TRANSITORY TO GOVERNMENT AND BACK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THEN HE LAUGHS OFF HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 PLAN AS A SPECIAL PRICE ON PIZZA, OR THAT’S WHAT HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS AT FIRST!
HUNTSMAN: I’d like the profile of my own father, who’s a great entrepreneur. And he started with nothing, and he built a great business. And my brother now runs that business.
People who have been out in the world, who have actually had their hands on products and manufacturing and know something how to build something from the ground up, that’s what this country has always done. It’s what we need to continue to do.
But in order to have the right policies in place — and some I’ve put forward as governor of the great state of Utah — tax reform. I created a flat tax in the state of Utah. It took that state to the number-one position in terms of job creation. Regulatory reform and energy independence, I want the kind of people who understand what makes an economy work. But let’s be real about what it takes to get into federal government service these days. Who on Earth from the private sector is ever going to want to give up their privacy and enter government service with the background checks, the financial disclosures, and everything else that serve as tremendous disincentives for good people to get into government?
So what we have today, Charlie, we’ve got a professional governing class of people on one end and then you’ve got private- sector people on the other.
ROSE: And so what would you do about that to change that, to attract those kind of people so that they would be willing to serve a cross-section of people from every gender…
HUNTSMAN: Let’s get back to what we did a generation or two ago, when we were more open in terms of accommodating people from all backgrounds who wanted to take a little bit of their life and serve in government, and then leave, and go back to what it is they did best, whether on the farm, or whether insurance, or whether business, or whether academia.
ROSE: When you mention a flat tax, does that mean that you look with some favor upon 9-9-9 that Herman Cain mentioned at the beginning of this conversation?
HUNTSMAN: I think it’s a catchy phrase. In fact, I thought it was the price of a pizza when I first heard about it.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: Price of a pizza?
HUNTSMAN: Well, here’s — here’s — here’s what — here’s what we need. We need something that’s doable, doable, doable. And what I have put forward is a tax program that is doable. It actually wipes clean all of the loopholes and the deductions.
This is right out of what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended, a bipartisan group of people that took a thoughtful approach to tax reform.
ROSE: Corporate and individual?
HUNTSMAN: Individual, and on the corporate side, phase out all of the corporate welfare, all of the subsidies, because we can’t afford it any longer, in a revenue-neutral fashion, buy down the rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, leveling the playing field for businesses big and small, allowing us to be a whole lot more competitive in the second decade of the 21st century.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: OK. We will be coming back to 9-9-9, but first…
CAIN: Wait, wait. GOLDMAN: Well…
CAIN: He mentioned me.
ROSE: Give him 30 seconds.
CAIN: He mentioned me, and you didn’t give me an opportunity to respond.
ROSE: You have that opportunity now.
HERMAN CAIN GIVES A REBUTTAL AND SAYS THAT HIS 9-9-9 TAX REFORM PLAN WILL PASS, BECAUSE AMERICANS WANT IT, HE SAYS HIS ADVISERS ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CITES LOWERY WEALTH CREATOR, WHO FORMULATED THE 9-9-9 PLAN OUT OF TEXAS.
CAIN: I thank you very much. 9-9-9 will pass, and it is not the price of a pizza, because it has been well-studied and well-developed. It starts with, unlike your proposals, throwing out the current tax code. Continuing to pivot off the current tax code is not going to boost this economy. This is why we developed 9-9-9, 9 percent corporate business flat tax, 9 percent personal income flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. And it will pass, Senator, because the American people want it to pass.
ROSE: This is beginning to sound more like my table.
Julianna? I mean, Karen?
TUMULTY: So, Mr. Cain, who do you turn to for political advice and for economic advice?
CAIN: My advisers come from the American people. Now, I will have some experts. One of my experts that helped me to develop this is a gentleman by the name of Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Ohio. He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career.
I also have a number of other well-recognized economists that helped me to develop this 9-9-9 plan. It didn’t come off a pizza box, no. It was well-studied and well-developed, because it will replace the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax, and most importantly, the payroll tax.
TUMULTY: So — so who are some of these economists?
CAIN: Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Texas, is one of the economists that I have used. He’s been my lead economist on helping to develop this.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
Governor Romney, it’s 2013, and the European debt crisis has worsened. Countries are defaulting. Europe’s largest banks are on the verge of bankruptcy. Contagion has spread to the U.S. And the global financial system is on the brink.
What would you do differently than what President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke did in 2008?
ROMNEY: Well, you’re talking about a scenario that’s obviously very difficult to imagine. And –
GOLDMAN: But it’s not a hypothetical, because more than half –
ROMNEY: It is. I’m afraid it is a hypothetical.
GOLDMAN: Governor, it’s not –
ROMNEY: Do you want to explain why it’s not a hypothetical?
GOLDMAN: Yes.
ROMNEY: OK.
OBAMONEY THINKS OUR FINANCIAL CRISES OF BEING TOTAL MELTDOWN ARE HYPOTHETICAL... HE DOES NOT SELL THE CROWD OR THE INQUISITOR HERE..... HAVING HIS INPUT ON OTHER COUNTRY’S FINANCIAL CRISES WAS NOT A SATISFACTORY ANSWER, AND OBAMONEY ENDORSES BAILOUTS AS A MEANS OF SOLVING FINANCIAL CRISES.
HE CALLS IT PRESERVATION OF CURRENCY, AND HE BECOMES VERY EVASIVE ABOUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TO LEADERSHIP WHO WOULD ADVISE HIM, BUT THEN THROWS OUT HARVARD.... HE THEN ANSWERED DUPLICITY IN SAYING THAT THE INVESTOR SHOULDN’T BE BAILED OUT BUT THE CURRENCY SHOULD BE. HE LOSES ME ON THIS, BECAUSE DUE TO OUR DEFICIT, THE VALUE OF A DOLLAR IS HALF OF WHAT IS USED TO BE!
GOLDMAN: Because more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently.
ROMNEY: It’s still a hypothetical as to what’s going to precisely happen in the future. I’m not very good at being omniscient, but I can tell you this, that I am not going to have to call up Timothy Geithner and say, how does the economy work? Because I spent my life in the economy.
I spent my entire career working in the private sector, starting businesses, helping turn around businesses, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. And I know how to make tough decisions and to gather the input from around the country to help make the important decisions that have to be made.
Clearly, if you think the entire financial system is going to collapse, you take action to keep that from happening. In the case of Europe right now, they are looking at what’s happening with Greece. Are they going to default on their debt, are they not? That’s a decision which I would I would like to have input on if I were president of the United States and try and prevent the kind of contagion that would affect the U.S. banking system and put as at risk.
But I can tell you this — I’m not interested in bailing out individual institutions that have wealthy people that want to make sure that their shares are worth something. I am interested in making sure that we preserve our financial system, our currency, the banks across the entire country. And I will always put the interest of the American people ahead of the interest of any institution.
GOLDMAN: So would you or would you not be open to another Wall Street bailout?
ROMNEY: No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout. I certainly don’t.
GOLDMAN: But you said in 2008 that it prevented the collapse of the financial –
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: There is no question but that the action of President Bush and that Secretary Paulson took was designed to keep not just a collapse of individual banking institutions, but to keep the entire currency of the country worth something and to keep all the banks from closing, and to make sure we didn’t all lose our jobs. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system, wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be taken.
Was it perfect? No. Was it well implemented? No, not particularly.
Were there some institutions that should not have been bailed out? Absolutely.
Should they have used the funds to bail out General Motors and Chrysler? No, that was the wrong source for that funding. But this approach of saying, look, we’re going to have to preserve our currency and maintain America — and our financial system is essential.
ROSE: So do you agree with Speaker Gingrich about Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed?
ROMNEY: I wouldn’t keep Ben Bernanke in office. I would choose someone of my own — ROSE: And who might that be?
ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t chosen that person. I haven’t even chosen a vice president. I’m not sure I’m the nominee yet.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: Well, we would like to have — nor has anyone else, but we would like to have an idea of the kind of people that you would have confidence in, in playing this very important role, although Congressman Paul may differ about how important it is.
ROMNEY: Well, I wish we could find Milton Friedman again, although what Milton said to us was — he said, you know, “If you took all the economists in America, and you laid them end to end, it would be a good thing.” And I have more respect for economists than that.
The people who help guide my economic policy are Greg Mankiw at Harvard –
ROSE: Right.
ROMNEY: — and Glenn Hutchins (ph) at Columbia. They were both former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. And I didn’t always agree with them.
I also talk to a number of business leaders. I talked to people who are currently in the economy, in the financial sector, and in the manufacturing sector. And on the basis of these various viewpoints, I make my decisions. And I believe that drawing on the best minds of this country, including economists, is something that’s essential to make sure that we preserve our financial system.
Right now, America is in crisis. We don’t need to think about a hypothetical of what happens if Europe explodes and pulls us under, although if that does happen, you want to have someone who is smart, who has experience, who knows how the financial services sector works, who knows how to protect American jobs, and I do. I have done it.
ROSE: And as far as you’re concerned, there is no institution, no financial institution, that is too big to fail?
ROMNEY: Well, no. You don’t want to bail out anybody.
The idea of trying to bail out an institution to protect the shareholders or to protect a certain interest group, that’s a terrible idea. And that shouldn’t happen.
You do want to make sure that we don’t lose the country and we don’t lose our financial system and we don’t lose American jobs, and that all the banks don’t go under. So, you have to take action very carefully to make sure that you preserve our currency and preserve our financial system. But bailouts of individual institutions? No one has interest in that, I don’t think.
GOLDMAN: Mr. Cain, back in 2008, you wrote that the Wall Street bailout was a win-win for the taxpayer. You just heard Governor Romney. Do you agree?
CAIN IS CRITICIZED FOR SAYING THAT THE BAILOUT WAS A WIN-WIN FOR TAXPAYERS, BLAMES THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IT:
CAIN: Conceptually I made that statement based upon the concept, but I happen to agree with Governor Romney. The way it was administered is where it got off-track. They were discretionary in which institutions they were going to save, rather than apply it equitably, which is what most of us thought was going to be done. The implementation of it is where they got off-track. I didn’t agree with it. I don’t think Governor Romney agreed with it. So did a lot of us. The implementation was at fault.
ROSE: Housing is considered one of the real problems, in terms of our economy, and getting housing starts up.
GINGRICH: Can I say one thing, before we go to housing?
ROSE: Yes.
GINGRICH GIVES A REALITY CHECK ON THE WORLD MARKET:
GINGRICH: Because I think this is really important. There’s a real possibility that you can’t have the euro and the Greek economy in the same system. There’s a possibility we could have a meltdown in the next year.
The thing that is most obvious looking back is that Paulson and — and Bernanke and Geithner didn’t have a clue, not because they’re not smart, but because they were operating in a world that had suddenly changed so radically they didn’t know.
ROSE: All right.
GINGRICH: One of the reasons I’ve said that the Congress should insist that every decision document from 2008, 2009 and 2010 at the Fed be released is we are not any better prepared today for a crisis of that scale because the people who were in that crisis and were wrong are still in charge. And I think we need to learn, what did they do right and what did they do learn — wrong, precisely for the reason you raised about 2013?
ROSE: Let me go to housing, what you’d do. Would you get the federal government out of housing? Yes?
RON PAUL WOULD GET RID OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS, AKA OBAMANOMICS, AND HE WOULD GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRY, AND HE SAYS THEY ARE ONLY TINKERING WITH FIXING THE GOVERNMENT, DISSOLVE THE FED, AND HE WOULD GET RID OF THE MALINVESTMENT OF THE DEFICIT:
Do you consider this wasteful spending? And, if so, should the government do anything about it?
GINGRICH: I am really glad you asked that, because I was just swapping e-mails today with Andy von Eschenbach, who was the head of the National Cancer Institute, the head of the Food & Drug Administration. But before that, he was the provost M.D. Anderson, the largest cancer treatment center in the world.
And he wrote me to point out that the most recent U.S. government intervention on whether or not to have prostate testing is basically going to kill people. So, if you ask me, do I want some Washington bureaucrat to create a class action decision which affects every American’s last two years of life, not ever.
I think it is a disaster. I think, candidly, Governor Palin got attacked unfairly for describing what would, in effect, be death panels.
And what Von Eschenbach will tell you if you call him is, the decision to suggest that we not test men with PSA will mean that a number of people who do not have — who are susceptible to a very rapid prostate cancer will die unnecessarily. And there was not a single urologist, not a single specialist on the board that looked at it. So, I am opposed to class intervention for these things.
TUMULTY: Well, Congresswoman Bachmann, of course no one wants the government to come between a doctor and a patient. But do you think that Americans are getting the most for their money in Medicare spending? And how can we make sure that the money that is being spent is being spent on the treatments and the preventive treatments that do the most?
BACHMANN: We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B trust fund is going to be dead-flat broke, so we’ve got to deal with this issue. I was in the White House with President Obama this summer. We asked him not once, but three times, “President Obama, what is your plan to save Medicare?”
And the president mumbled and he didn’t give an answer the first time, the second time. And the third time the president said something very interesting, Karen. He said Obamacare.
I think that senior citizens across the country have no idea that President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare.
And just like Newt Gingrich said, the way that Obamacare runs, there’s a board called IPAB. It’s made up of 15 political appointees. These 15 political appointees will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans. I don’t want 15 political appointees to make a health care decision for a beautiful, fragile 85- year-old woman who should be making her own decision.
ROSE: We’ll come back to Medicare, as well, and medical issues and then the cost of Medicare in the United States.
I want to talk about advisers and appointees. Tell me, Governor Huntsman, whose advice do you seek on economic issues? And who — what’s the profile of the kind of person you’d like to have advising you in your White House?
HUNTSMAN HAS HIS CARPE DIEM:
HUNTSMAN WOULD PICK SOMEONE LIKE HIS FATHER FOR HIS FINANCIAL ADVISOR, HE ADVOCATES THE FLAT TAX, AND SAYS THAT GOOD PEOPLE ARE KEPT OUT OF GOVERNMENT BY LACK OF PRIVACY AND A PROFESSIONAL GOVERNING CLASS THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. HE SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT USED TO BE A TERM OF SERVICE THAT WAS TRANSITORY TO GOVERNMENT AND BACK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THEN HE LAUGHS OFF HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 PLAN AS A SPECIAL PRICE ON PIZZA, OR THAT’S WHAT HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS AT FIRST!
HUNTSMAN: I’d like the profile of my own father, who’s a great entrepreneur. And he started with nothing, and he built a great business. And my brother now runs that business.
People who have been out in the world, who have actually had their hands on products and manufacturing and know something how to build something from the ground up, that’s what this country has always done. It’s what we need to continue to do.
But in order to have the right policies in place — and some I’ve put forward as governor of the great state of Utah — tax reform. I created a flat tax in the state of Utah. It took that state to the number-one position in terms of job creation. Regulatory reform and energy independence, I want the kind of people who understand what makes an economy work. But let’s be real about what it takes to get into federal government service these days. Who on Earth from the private sector is ever going to want to give up their privacy and enter government service with the background checks, the financial disclosures, and everything else that serve as tremendous disincentives for good people to get into government?
So what we have today, Charlie, we’ve got a professional governing class of people on one end and then you’ve got private- sector people on the other.
ROSE: And so what would you do about that to change that, to attract those kind of people so that they would be willing to serve a cross-section of people from every gender…
HUNTSMAN: Let’s get back to what we did a generation or two ago, when we were more open in terms of accommodating people from all backgrounds who wanted to take a little bit of their life and serve in government, and then leave, and go back to what it is they did best, whether on the farm, or whether insurance, or whether business, or whether academia.
ROSE: When you mention a flat tax, does that mean that you look with some favor upon 9-9-9 that Herman Cain mentioned at the beginning of this conversation?
HUNTSMAN: I think it’s a catchy phrase. In fact, I thought it was the price of a pizza when I first heard about it.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: Price of a pizza?
HUNTSMAN: Well, here’s — here’s — here’s what — here’s what we need. We need something that’s doable, doable, doable. And what I have put forward is a tax program that is doable. It actually wipes clean all of the loopholes and the deductions.
This is right out of what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended, a bipartisan group of people that took a thoughtful approach to tax reform.
ROSE: Corporate and individual?
HUNTSMAN: Individual, and on the corporate side, phase out all of the corporate welfare, all of the subsidies, because we can’t afford it any longer, in a revenue-neutral fashion, buy down the rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, leveling the playing field for businesses big and small, allowing us to be a whole lot more competitive in the second decade of the 21st century.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: OK. We will be coming back to 9-9-9, but first…
CAIN: Wait, wait. GOLDMAN: Well…
CAIN: He mentioned me.
ROSE: Give him 30 seconds.
CAIN: He mentioned me, and you didn’t give me an opportunity to respond.
ROSE: You have that opportunity now.
HERMAN CAIN GIVES A REBUTTAL AND SAYS THAT HIS 9-9-9 TAX REFORM PLAN WILL PASS, BECAUSE AMERICANS WANT IT, HE SAYS HIS ADVISERS ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CITES LOWERY WEALTH CREATOR, WHO FORMULATED THE 9-9-9 PLAN OUT OF TEXAS.
CAIN: I thank you very much. 9-9-9 will pass, and it is not the price of a pizza, because it has been well-studied and well-developed. It starts with, unlike your proposals, throwing out the current tax code. Continuing to pivot off the current tax code is not going to boost this economy. This is why we developed 9-9-9, 9 percent corporate business flat tax, 9 percent personal income flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. And it will pass, Senator, because the American people want it to pass.
ROSE: This is beginning to sound more like my table.
Julianna? I mean, Karen?
TUMULTY: So, Mr. Cain, who do you turn to for political advice and for economic advice?
CAIN: My advisers come from the American people. Now, I will have some experts. One of my experts that helped me to develop this is a gentleman by the name of Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Ohio. He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career.
I also have a number of other well-recognized economists that helped me to develop this 9-9-9 plan. It didn’t come off a pizza box, no. It was well-studied and well-developed, because it will replace the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax, and most importantly, the payroll tax.
TUMULTY: So — so who are some of these economists?
CAIN: Rich Lowery (ph) out of Cleveland, Texas, is one of the economists that I have used. He’s been my lead economist on helping to develop this.
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
Governor Romney, it’s 2013, and the European debt crisis has worsened. Countries are defaulting. Europe’s largest banks are on the verge of bankruptcy. Contagion has spread to the U.S. And the global financial system is on the brink.
What would you do differently than what President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke did in 2008?
ROMNEY: Well, you’re talking about a scenario that’s obviously very difficult to imagine. And –
GOLDMAN: But it’s not a hypothetical, because more than half –
ROMNEY: It is. I’m afraid it is a hypothetical.
GOLDMAN: Governor, it’s not –
ROMNEY: Do you want to explain why it’s not a hypothetical?
GOLDMAN: Yes.
ROMNEY: OK.
OBAMONEY THINKS OUR FINANCIAL CRISES OF BEING TOTAL MELTDOWN ARE HYPOTHETICAL... HE DOES NOT SELL THE CROWD OR THE INQUISITOR HERE..... HAVING HIS INPUT ON OTHER COUNTRY’S FINANCIAL CRISES WAS NOT A SATISFACTORY ANSWER, AND OBAMONEY ENDORSES BAILOUTS AS A MEANS OF SOLVING FINANCIAL CRISES.
HE CALLS IT PRESERVATION OF CURRENCY, AND HE BECOMES VERY EVASIVE ABOUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TO LEADERSHIP WHO WOULD ADVISE HIM, BUT THEN THROWS OUT HARVARD.... HE THEN ANSWERED DUPLICITY IN SAYING THAT THE INVESTOR SHOULDN’T BE BAILED OUT BUT THE CURRENCY SHOULD BE. HE LOSES ME ON THIS, BECAUSE DUE TO OUR DEFICIT, THE VALUE OF A DOLLAR IS HALF OF WHAT IS USED TO BE!
GOLDMAN: Because more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently.
ROMNEY: It’s still a hypothetical as to what’s going to precisely happen in the future. I’m not very good at being omniscient, but I can tell you this, that I am not going to have to call up Timothy Geithner and say, how does the economy work? Because I spent my life in the economy.
I spent my entire career working in the private sector, starting businesses, helping turn around businesses, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. And I know how to make tough decisions and to gather the input from around the country to help make the important decisions that have to be made.
Clearly, if you think the entire financial system is going to collapse, you take action to keep that from happening. In the case of Europe right now, they are looking at what’s happening with Greece. Are they going to default on their debt, are they not? That’s a decision which I would I would like to have input on if I were president of the United States and try and prevent the kind of contagion that would affect the U.S. banking system and put as at risk.
But I can tell you this — I’m not interested in bailing out individual institutions that have wealthy people that want to make sure that their shares are worth something. I am interested in making sure that we preserve our financial system, our currency, the banks across the entire country. And I will always put the interest of the American people ahead of the interest of any institution.
GOLDMAN: So would you or would you not be open to another Wall Street bailout?
ROMNEY: No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout. I certainly don’t.
GOLDMAN: But you said in 2008 that it prevented the collapse of the financial –
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: There is no question but that the action of President Bush and that Secretary Paulson took was designed to keep not just a collapse of individual banking institutions, but to keep the entire currency of the country worth something and to keep all the banks from closing, and to make sure we didn’t all lose our jobs. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system, wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be taken.
Was it perfect? No. Was it well implemented? No, not particularly.
Were there some institutions that should not have been bailed out? Absolutely.
Should they have used the funds to bail out General Motors and Chrysler? No, that was the wrong source for that funding. But this approach of saying, look, we’re going to have to preserve our currency and maintain America — and our financial system is essential.
ROSE: So do you agree with Speaker Gingrich about Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed?
ROMNEY: I wouldn’t keep Ben Bernanke in office. I would choose someone of my own — ROSE: And who might that be?
ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t chosen that person. I haven’t even chosen a vice president. I’m not sure I’m the nominee yet.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: Well, we would like to have — nor has anyone else, but we would like to have an idea of the kind of people that you would have confidence in, in playing this very important role, although Congressman Paul may differ about how important it is.
ROMNEY: Well, I wish we could find Milton Friedman again, although what Milton said to us was — he said, you know, “If you took all the economists in America, and you laid them end to end, it would be a good thing.” And I have more respect for economists than that.
The people who help guide my economic policy are Greg Mankiw at Harvard –
ROSE: Right.
ROMNEY: — and Glenn Hutchins (ph) at Columbia. They were both former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. And I didn’t always agree with them.
I also talk to a number of business leaders. I talked to people who are currently in the economy, in the financial sector, and in the manufacturing sector. And on the basis of these various viewpoints, I make my decisions. And I believe that drawing on the best minds of this country, including economists, is something that’s essential to make sure that we preserve our financial system.
Right now, America is in crisis. We don’t need to think about a hypothetical of what happens if Europe explodes and pulls us under, although if that does happen, you want to have someone who is smart, who has experience, who knows how the financial services sector works, who knows how to protect American jobs, and I do. I have done it.
ROSE: And as far as you’re concerned, there is no institution, no financial institution, that is too big to fail?
ROMNEY: Well, no. You don’t want to bail out anybody.
The idea of trying to bail out an institution to protect the shareholders or to protect a certain interest group, that’s a terrible idea. And that shouldn’t happen.
You do want to make sure that we don’t lose the country and we don’t lose our financial system and we don’t lose American jobs, and that all the banks don’t go under. So, you have to take action very carefully to make sure that you preserve our currency and preserve our financial system. But bailouts of individual institutions? No one has interest in that, I don’t think.
GOLDMAN: Mr. Cain, back in 2008, you wrote that the Wall Street bailout was a win-win for the taxpayer. You just heard Governor Romney. Do you agree?
CAIN IS CRITICIZED FOR SAYING THAT THE BAILOUT WAS A WIN-WIN FOR TAXPAYERS, BLAMES THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IT:
CAIN: Conceptually I made that statement based upon the concept, but I happen to agree with Governor Romney. The way it was administered is where it got off-track. They were discretionary in which institutions they were going to save, rather than apply it equitably, which is what most of us thought was going to be done. The implementation of it is where they got off-track. I didn’t agree with it. I don’t think Governor Romney agreed with it. So did a lot of us. The implementation was at fault.
ROSE: Housing is considered one of the real problems, in terms of our economy, and getting housing starts up.
GINGRICH: Can I say one thing, before we go to housing?
ROSE: Yes.
GINGRICH GIVES A REALITY CHECK ON THE WORLD MARKET:
GINGRICH: Because I think this is really important. There’s a real possibility that you can’t have the euro and the Greek economy in the same system. There’s a possibility we could have a meltdown in the next year.
The thing that is most obvious looking back is that Paulson and — and Bernanke and Geithner didn’t have a clue, not because they’re not smart, but because they were operating in a world that had suddenly changed so radically they didn’t know.
ROSE: All right.
GINGRICH: One of the reasons I’ve said that the Congress should insist that every decision document from 2008, 2009 and 2010 at the Fed be released is we are not any better prepared today for a crisis of that scale because the people who were in that crisis and were wrong are still in charge. And I think we need to learn, what did they do right and what did they do learn — wrong, precisely for the reason you raised about 2013?
ROSE: Let me go to housing, what you’d do. Would you get the federal government out of housing? Yes?
RON PAUL WOULD GET RID OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS, AKA OBAMANOMICS, AND HE WOULD GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRY, AND HE SAYS THEY ARE ONLY TINKERING WITH FIXING THE GOVERNMENT, DISSOLVE THE FED, AND HE WOULD GET RID OF THE MALINVESTMENT OF THE DEFICIT:
PAUL: Absolutely. I mean, there’s no need to. Look at…
ROSE: No Freddie — no Freddie Mac, no Fannie Mae, nothing?
PAUL: The — no. You — that’s where the distortions come. That’s where the moral hazard comes from. That’s where the malinvestment, overbuild.
It was predictable. You talked about what economists we should look to. And, unfortunately, we’ve been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades. And everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were Austrian economists. They said they were coming. And yet they’re also saying — and I agree with them — that everything that we’re doing right now is wrong.
So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses. It was glaring in our face. The bubble was doomed to burst, and it came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also Community Reinvestment Act.
So who — who got into trouble? The people who did the speculating, the Wall Street, the derivatives market? They got the bailout. They got (inaudible) so what happened to the middle class? They lost their jobs. They lost their houses.
This whole system is all messed up. And you’re — what I hear here is just tinkering with the current system and not looking at something new and different, and it’s a free-market economy without a Federal Reserve system, with sound money. If you don’t have that, you’re going to continue with the bubble.
And this propping up this debt and keeping the correction, you need the correction. You need to get rid of the malinvestment and the debt.
ROSE: All right. Time.
PAUL: The debt is the burden on the economy.
ROSE: All right. We’ll be back — take a break and be right back. Stay with us from Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROSE: In order to take the pulse of America, we have partnered with LinkedIn. And they have some hundred 120 billion network professionals. And we’ve asked them to take part of this by giving us some polling that they have done.
But before I bring some of those results in, I want to take a look at a series of clips we’ll show you in this segment, beginning with this one of a former president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The single most important question facing us tonight is, do we reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share? Or do we accept a bigger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment simply because we disagree on certain features of a legislative package which offers hope for millions of Americans at home, on the farm, and in the workplace?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Let me go to the governor of Texas. Do you agree with the former president?
PERRY: Well, I think we are certainly talking about different times, because what I heard him say there, that he was willing to trade tax increases for reductions. And I don’t think he ever saw those reductions, he just saw the tax increase. As a matter of fact, in his diary, he made that statement that he is still looking around for those reductions.
So, I mean, from the standpoint — that is one of the problems that we have got in Washington, D.C. One of the reasons that I think Americans are so untrustworthy of what is going on in Washington is because they never see a cut in spending. They always hear the siren song of, you know, if you will allow us to raise taxes, then we’ll make these reductions over here.
When the fact of the matter is, the issue is we need to have a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. And the next president of the United States needs to spend his time passing a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
ROSE: But I want to stay with this idea of spending cuts and revenue increases. And go back to you, Governor Romney. This is where it is, it seems, in Washington right now. Not only the paralysis, but also you have got the super committees. And if, in fact, they can’t find an agreement, you are going to have a trigger with automatic cuts, including defense.
So doesn’t that demand some kind of compromise, as Reagan suggested?
ROMNEY: Well, I don’t know which particular compromises he was referring to, we could take a look at that. But I can tell you this, if you go back a few years before that clip and go to JFK’s time, the government at all levels, federal, state, and local, was consuming about 27 percent of the U.S. economy. Today it consumes about 37 percent of the U.S. economy. It is on track to get to 40 percent.
We cease, at some point, to be a free economy. And the idea of saying, we just want a little more, just give us some more tax revenue, we need that. That is not the answer for America.
HERE AT 34:15 IS WHERE OBAMONEY TRIES TO BECKON TEA PARTY SUPPORT, BY SAYING THAT HE IS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, STOP OVER-TAXATION OF BUSINESS, WHERE HE: 1) AGREES WITH RICK PERRY 2) SAYS THE TEA PARTY IS RIGHT, ABOUT ALL OF THIS, AND THAT OBAMA’S JOB BILL IS INEFFECTIVE TO GET AMERICANS WORKING AGAIN, AND THAT THE TEA PARTY BELIEVES THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC DANGER IS THE LACK OF REVENUE FROM SUCH UNGODLY UNEMPLOYMENT.
NOW WHILE OBAMONEY IS SAYING EVERYTHING CONSERVATIVES WANT TO HEAR, WE KNOW THAT HE CAN TALK A GOOD LINE OF SH-T, AND SO WHILE WE AGREE WITH WHAT HE’S SAYING, WE’RE STILL JUST NOT BOUGHT INTO THE FACT THAT HE, AS PRESIDENT, WILL EXECUTE CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. IT REMINDS ME OF THE SAME PROBLEM KAREN HANDEL HAD WITH THE GA GOP...... GREAT PERSONA, SPEECHES, AND LONG ON THE GOOD HAIR LIKE OBAMONEY WITHOUT BEING AS PLASTIC AS HIM, BUT VERY SHORT ON WORK ETHIC, INTEGRITY, AND DUTIFUL COMPLETION THAT SHE EXPECTED FROM EVERYONE ELSE.
The answer is to cut federal spending. The answer is to cap how much the federal government can as a percentage of our economy and have a balanced budget amendment.
And the second part of the answer is to get our economy to grow, because the idea of just cutting and cutting and taxing more — I understand mathematically those things work, but nothing works as well as getting the economy going. Get Americans back to work. Get them paying taxes. Get — get corporations growing in America, investing in America. Bring dollars back, as Rick said, repatriation dollars. Bring $1.3 trillion back from overseas. Invest in the United States. Get this economy going, and I’ll tell you, these kinds of problems will disappear.
TUMULTY: But could we get back to the actual choice that is likely to confront Congress at the end of the year, which is some mix of revenues and cuts or these draconian automatic spending cuts that would include defense, which of those two, if that is the choice, would you prefer?
ROMNEY: Well, my choice is not to cut defense. I think it’s a terrible idea to cut defense. I think it’s a terrible idea to raise taxes. Particularly at a time when the economy’s struggling, the idea of raising taxes, taking more money away from the American people so government can spend it, and can spend it — right now, the president has a jobs bill.
TUMULTY: So this is…
ROMNEY: How’d his last jobs bill work out for us?
TUMULTY: But this is automatic cuts?
ROMNEY: Not so well.
(CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: No, I do not want the automatic cuts. I want to see that super-committee take responsibility for getting the economy going again by reining in the scale of the federal government and saying we’re going to pull back on some of the programs we have and reform our entitlements so they’re sustainable.
The American people want to see growth and jobs, and they believe that the right way to do it is by cutting back on the scale of government, and they’re right.
ROSE: Without any increase in revenue?
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
NEWT PARLAYS TO TEA PARTY VOTE BY DEBUNKING OBAMA-REID DEMOCRATS’ STRATEGY TO BLAME THE TEA PARTY FOR HOLDING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOSTAGE ON SPENDING:
GINGRICH: I just want to say — I want to say one thing about the entire way Washington works, which was just posed in that question. First of all, the Congress couldn’t figure out how to get the debt ceiling done with a president who showed zero leadership, so they adopt a truly stupid bill, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
And the bill basically says, we’re either going to shoot ourselves in the head or cut off our right leg, and we’ll come in around Thanksgiving and we’ll show you how we’re going to cut off the right leg, and the alternative will be shooting ourselves in the head.
Let me just say it bluntly. All of the spending cuts that are built into the debt ceiling bill, all of them are acts of Congress. They can all be repealed at any moment. It is nonsense to say we’re going to disarm the United States unilaterally because we’re too stupid to balance the budget any other way.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: All right.
Congresswoman Bachmann?
BACHMANN: Charlie, last summer I was a leading voice in the wilderness of Washington and a lone voice, as a matter of fact, saying: Do not increase the debt ceiling. By that, what I was saying is, let’s not give Barack Obama another $2.4 trillion blank check to spend.
Think of what this means. Our government right now — this is significant — we are spending 40 percent more than what we take in. We all paid a lot of taxes this year. We paid $2.2 trillion in taxes. That’s a lot of money from all the American people. The American government spent 100 percent of that $2.2 trillion, but the travesty is they spent $1.5 trillion more than that. That’s the problem.
Every year, we are spending about 40 percent more than what we take in. Our answer has to be that we cut back on the spending so we get to balance. We can’t do this because all…
ROSE: Will cutting back on the spending…
BACHMANN, AS A TAX ANALYST, SAYS WITHOUT SPENDING REDUCTION AND CUTS, THOSE AGED 20-40 TAX RATES WILL EXCEED 75%:
BACHMANN: … all around us are young people that are going to be paying for this burden. And their tax rates won’t be our tax rates. Their tax rates could come at some point.
Their overall effective burden — I’m a federal tax lawyer. That’s what I do for a living. And my — my background is in economics. Their tax rate someday in their peak earning years, Charlie, could be as much as 75 percent. Who’s going to get out of bed in the morning to go to work if they’re paying 75 percent tax rates? We’ve got to get our spending house in order and cut back on spending.
ROSE: Cutting back on spending, in your judgment, will do it?
BACHMANN: That’s one piece of the answer. That’s not the whole answer. But we have to cut back on spending.
ROSE: Take — I want you to take a look. We’ll come to all of you. Let me take a look at another clip. This one you will recognize, as well. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAIN: It’s called the 9-9-9 plan.
(APPLAUSE)
It imposes a 9 percent business flat tax, a 9 percent personal flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: I said we would get back to 9-9-9.
Mr. Cain, you say that your plan is revenue-neutral. And last year, the U.S. collected $2.2 trillion dollars in tax revenue, but Bloomberg Government has run the numbers, and your plan would have raised no more than $2 trillion. And even with that shortfall, you’d still be slapping a 9 percent sales tax on food and medicine.
CAIN: The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: The reason it is incorrect is because they start with the assumptions that we don’t make. Remember, 999 plan throws out the current tax code. And it starts with three simple economic driving principles: production drives the economy, risk-taking drives growth, and we need sound money, measurements must be dependable.
Now what 999 does, it expands the base. When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate which is 999. The difference between the 999 plan and the other plans that are being proposed is that they pivot off of the existing tax code.
We have had an outside firm, independent firm dynamically score it. And so our numbers will make it revenue neutral.
ROSE: All right — go ahead, I’m sorry, go ahead.
GOLDMAN: But then explain why under your plan all Americans should be paying more for milk, for a loaf of bread, and beer?
CAIN: Pizza, I don’t buy beer.
(LAUGHTER)
GOLDMAN: Yes, and pizza.
CAIN: You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent. That goes to 9 percent. That is a 6 percentage point difference. And the prices will not go up. So they have got a 6 percentage point difference to apply to the national sales tax piece of that, and in doing so, they have the flexibility to decide on how much they want to spend it on new goods, how much they want to spend it on used goods. Because there is no tax on used goods.
BACHMANN EXPOSES THAT HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 TAX PLAN, WHILE REVENUE NEUTRAL, IS NOT A JOBS PLAN AND THAT IT GIVES CONGRESS A PIPELINE OF ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE OF 9% PER PERSON FROM A VALUE-ADDED TAX NAMED AS A NATIONAL SALES TAX, AND IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT OFF REVENUE STREAMS ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GET AHOLD OF IT:
GOLDMAN: But, Congresswoman Bachmann, you’re a former IRS lawyer, do you agree?
BACHMANN: I would have to say that the 999 plan isn’t a jobs plan, it is a tax plan. And I would say that from my experience being in Congress, but also as a federal tax lawyer, when you — the last thing you would do is give Congress another pipeline of a revenue stream. And this gives Congress a pipeline in a sales tax.
A sales tax can also lead to value-added tax. The United States Congress put into place the Spanish-American War tax in 1888. We only partially repealed that in 2006. So once you get a new revenue stream, you are never going to get rid of it.
And one thing I would say is, when you take the 999 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: We have given several chances to respond. I will come back. We will continue to talk about taxes and spending. We also know here that there has been a paradigm shift in the world economic order. We know about China and we know about India.
Here is our next clip and we will respond from that. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: I will label China as it is, a currency manipulator. And I will go after them for stealing our intellectual property. And they will recognize that if they cheat, there is a price to pay. I certainly don’t want a trade war with anybody. We are going to have a trade war, but we can’t have a trade surrender either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Karen.
TUMULTY: Governor Huntsman, you were also ambassador to China. And you say that this would risk a trade war. But if China is indeed keeping its currency low, that means that everything they sell in this country is artificially cheap and everything that our companies tried to sell in China is artificially expensive.
So what do you say to people who ask, aren’t we already in a trade war with China?
HUNTSMAN: Well, first of all, I don’t subscribe to the Don Trump school or the Mitt Romney school of international trade.
HUNTSMAN, AS FORMER AMBASSADOR OF CHINA, GETS CORNERED ON TEA PARTY BOYCOTT OF CHINESE GOODS, IN RESPONSE TO CHINA’S CURRENCY MANIPULATION AND ARTIFICIAL MARKET VALUE RIGGING, BY DENYING WE’RE IN A TRADE WAR.
I don’t want to find ourselves in a trade war. With respect to China, if you start slapping penalties on them based on countervailing duties, you are going to get the same thing in return because what they are going to say, because of quantitative easing part one and part two, you are doing a similar thing to your currency.
And then you’re going to find yourself in a trade war very, very quickly. And what does that do? That disadvantages our small businesses. It disadvantages our exporters. It disadvantages our agricultural producers.
So I say for the first and the second largest economies in the world, we have no choice. We have to find common ground. We have to, of course, use our trade laws and use them very, very aggressively.
But at the end of the day, we have got to find more market opening measures. We have got to get more governors from this country together with governors from provinces of China, mayors together with mayors, and exploit the opportunities that exist for exporters.
That is a job creator in this country. It is a huge job creator. And we have to get used to the fact that as far as the eye can see into the 21st Century, it’s going to be the United States and China on the world stage.
TUMULTY: You know, Governor Romney, this issue does carry a lot of resonance, especially in the states like New Hampshire, which, as you probably know, has lost a greater percentage of its manufacturing jobs to China than any other state.
But voters have heard candidates talked tough on China before. George W. Bush did it, Barack Obama did it, only to see that once elected, the president takes a much more cautious approach because of the complexity of the relationship and the fact that this is our biggest creditor.
Why should voters believe that you would be any different?
OBAMONEY TRIES TO MAKE US FEEL GOOD ABOUT CHINA BY PULLING A RALLYING SPEECH TACTIC, BUT THE TEA PARTY IS NOT BUYING IT EITHER:
ROMNEY: I’m afraid that people who have looked at this in the past have been played like a fiddle by the Chinese. And the Chinese are smiling all the way to the bank, taking our currency and taking our jobs and taking a lot of our future. And I am not willing to let that happen.
I’m in this race to try to get America to make sure we’re strong again and we’re creating jobs where the best place in the world to be middle class again. And for that to happen, we have to call cheating for what it is.
And people say, we might have a trade war with China. Well, now, think about that.
We by this much stuff from China, they buy that much stuff from us. You think they want to have a trade war?
I mean, this is a time when we are being hollowed out by China, that is artificially holding down their prices, as you just said a moment ago, and that’s having a massive impact on jobs here. It is the wrong course for us.
When people have pursued unfair trade practices, you have to have a president that will take action. And on day one, I have indicated, day one, I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator. We’ll bring an action against them in front of the WTO for manipulating their currency, and we will go after them. If you are not willing to stand up to China, you will get run over by China, and that’s what’s happened for 20 years.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: Let me go to Governor Perry and then Governor Huntsman. Governor Perry.
ROSE: No Freddie — no Freddie Mac, no Fannie Mae, nothing?
PAUL: The — no. You — that’s where the distortions come. That’s where the moral hazard comes from. That’s where the malinvestment, overbuild.
It was predictable. You talked about what economists we should look to. And, unfortunately, we’ve been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades. And everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were Austrian economists. They said they were coming. And yet they’re also saying — and I agree with them — that everything that we’re doing right now is wrong.
So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses. It was glaring in our face. The bubble was doomed to burst, and it came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also Community Reinvestment Act.
So who — who got into trouble? The people who did the speculating, the Wall Street, the derivatives market? They got the bailout. They got (inaudible) so what happened to the middle class? They lost their jobs. They lost their houses.
This whole system is all messed up. And you’re — what I hear here is just tinkering with the current system and not looking at something new and different, and it’s a free-market economy without a Federal Reserve system, with sound money. If you don’t have that, you’re going to continue with the bubble.
And this propping up this debt and keeping the correction, you need the correction. You need to get rid of the malinvestment and the debt.
ROSE: All right. Time.
PAUL: The debt is the burden on the economy.
ROSE: All right. We’ll be back — take a break and be right back. Stay with us from Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROSE: In order to take the pulse of America, we have partnered with LinkedIn. And they have some hundred 120 billion network professionals. And we’ve asked them to take part of this by giving us some polling that they have done.
But before I bring some of those results in, I want to take a look at a series of clips we’ll show you in this segment, beginning with this one of a former president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The single most important question facing us tonight is, do we reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share? Or do we accept a bigger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment simply because we disagree on certain features of a legislative package which offers hope for millions of Americans at home, on the farm, and in the workplace?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Let me go to the governor of Texas. Do you agree with the former president?
PERRY: Well, I think we are certainly talking about different times, because what I heard him say there, that he was willing to trade tax increases for reductions. And I don’t think he ever saw those reductions, he just saw the tax increase. As a matter of fact, in his diary, he made that statement that he is still looking around for those reductions.
So, I mean, from the standpoint — that is one of the problems that we have got in Washington, D.C. One of the reasons that I think Americans are so untrustworthy of what is going on in Washington is because they never see a cut in spending. They always hear the siren song of, you know, if you will allow us to raise taxes, then we’ll make these reductions over here.
When the fact of the matter is, the issue is we need to have a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. And the next president of the United States needs to spend his time passing a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
ROSE: But I want to stay with this idea of spending cuts and revenue increases. And go back to you, Governor Romney. This is where it is, it seems, in Washington right now. Not only the paralysis, but also you have got the super committees. And if, in fact, they can’t find an agreement, you are going to have a trigger with automatic cuts, including defense.
So doesn’t that demand some kind of compromise, as Reagan suggested?
ROMNEY: Well, I don’t know which particular compromises he was referring to, we could take a look at that. But I can tell you this, if you go back a few years before that clip and go to JFK’s time, the government at all levels, federal, state, and local, was consuming about 27 percent of the U.S. economy. Today it consumes about 37 percent of the U.S. economy. It is on track to get to 40 percent.
We cease, at some point, to be a free economy. And the idea of saying, we just want a little more, just give us some more tax revenue, we need that. That is not the answer for America.
HERE AT 34:15 IS WHERE OBAMONEY TRIES TO BECKON TEA PARTY SUPPORT, BY SAYING THAT HE IS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, STOP OVER-TAXATION OF BUSINESS, WHERE HE: 1) AGREES WITH RICK PERRY 2) SAYS THE TEA PARTY IS RIGHT, ABOUT ALL OF THIS, AND THAT OBAMA’S JOB BILL IS INEFFECTIVE TO GET AMERICANS WORKING AGAIN, AND THAT THE TEA PARTY BELIEVES THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC DANGER IS THE LACK OF REVENUE FROM SUCH UNGODLY UNEMPLOYMENT.
NOW WHILE OBAMONEY IS SAYING EVERYTHING CONSERVATIVES WANT TO HEAR, WE KNOW THAT HE CAN TALK A GOOD LINE OF SH-T, AND SO WHILE WE AGREE WITH WHAT HE’S SAYING, WE’RE STILL JUST NOT BOUGHT INTO THE FACT THAT HE, AS PRESIDENT, WILL EXECUTE CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. IT REMINDS ME OF THE SAME PROBLEM KAREN HANDEL HAD WITH THE GA GOP...... GREAT PERSONA, SPEECHES, AND LONG ON THE GOOD HAIR LIKE OBAMONEY WITHOUT BEING AS PLASTIC AS HIM, BUT VERY SHORT ON WORK ETHIC, INTEGRITY, AND DUTIFUL COMPLETION THAT SHE EXPECTED FROM EVERYONE ELSE.
The answer is to cut federal spending. The answer is to cap how much the federal government can as a percentage of our economy and have a balanced budget amendment.
And the second part of the answer is to get our economy to grow, because the idea of just cutting and cutting and taxing more — I understand mathematically those things work, but nothing works as well as getting the economy going. Get Americans back to work. Get them paying taxes. Get — get corporations growing in America, investing in America. Bring dollars back, as Rick said, repatriation dollars. Bring $1.3 trillion back from overseas. Invest in the United States. Get this economy going, and I’ll tell you, these kinds of problems will disappear.
TUMULTY: But could we get back to the actual choice that is likely to confront Congress at the end of the year, which is some mix of revenues and cuts or these draconian automatic spending cuts that would include defense, which of those two, if that is the choice, would you prefer?
ROMNEY: Well, my choice is not to cut defense. I think it’s a terrible idea to cut defense. I think it’s a terrible idea to raise taxes. Particularly at a time when the economy’s struggling, the idea of raising taxes, taking more money away from the American people so government can spend it, and can spend it — right now, the president has a jobs bill.
TUMULTY: So this is…
ROMNEY: How’d his last jobs bill work out for us?
TUMULTY: But this is automatic cuts?
ROMNEY: Not so well.
(CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: No, I do not want the automatic cuts. I want to see that super-committee take responsibility for getting the economy going again by reining in the scale of the federal government and saying we’re going to pull back on some of the programs we have and reform our entitlements so they’re sustainable.
The American people want to see growth and jobs, and they believe that the right way to do it is by cutting back on the scale of government, and they’re right.
ROSE: Without any increase in revenue?
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
NEWT PARLAYS TO TEA PARTY VOTE BY DEBUNKING OBAMA-REID DEMOCRATS’ STRATEGY TO BLAME THE TEA PARTY FOR HOLDING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOSTAGE ON SPENDING:
GINGRICH: I just want to say — I want to say one thing about the entire way Washington works, which was just posed in that question. First of all, the Congress couldn’t figure out how to get the debt ceiling done with a president who showed zero leadership, so they adopt a truly stupid bill, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
And the bill basically says, we’re either going to shoot ourselves in the head or cut off our right leg, and we’ll come in around Thanksgiving and we’ll show you how we’re going to cut off the right leg, and the alternative will be shooting ourselves in the head.
Let me just say it bluntly. All of the spending cuts that are built into the debt ceiling bill, all of them are acts of Congress. They can all be repealed at any moment. It is nonsense to say we’re going to disarm the United States unilaterally because we’re too stupid to balance the budget any other way.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: All right.
Congresswoman Bachmann?
BACHMANN: Charlie, last summer I was a leading voice in the wilderness of Washington and a lone voice, as a matter of fact, saying: Do not increase the debt ceiling. By that, what I was saying is, let’s not give Barack Obama another $2.4 trillion blank check to spend.
Think of what this means. Our government right now — this is significant — we are spending 40 percent more than what we take in. We all paid a lot of taxes this year. We paid $2.2 trillion in taxes. That’s a lot of money from all the American people. The American government spent 100 percent of that $2.2 trillion, but the travesty is they spent $1.5 trillion more than that. That’s the problem.
Every year, we are spending about 40 percent more than what we take in. Our answer has to be that we cut back on the spending so we get to balance. We can’t do this because all…
ROSE: Will cutting back on the spending…
BACHMANN, AS A TAX ANALYST, SAYS WITHOUT SPENDING REDUCTION AND CUTS, THOSE AGED 20-40 TAX RATES WILL EXCEED 75%:
BACHMANN: … all around us are young people that are going to be paying for this burden. And their tax rates won’t be our tax rates. Their tax rates could come at some point.
Their overall effective burden — I’m a federal tax lawyer. That’s what I do for a living. And my — my background is in economics. Their tax rate someday in their peak earning years, Charlie, could be as much as 75 percent. Who’s going to get out of bed in the morning to go to work if they’re paying 75 percent tax rates? We’ve got to get our spending house in order and cut back on spending.
ROSE: Cutting back on spending, in your judgment, will do it?
BACHMANN: That’s one piece of the answer. That’s not the whole answer. But we have to cut back on spending.
ROSE: Take — I want you to take a look. We’ll come to all of you. Let me take a look at another clip. This one you will recognize, as well. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAIN: It’s called the 9-9-9 plan.
(APPLAUSE)
It imposes a 9 percent business flat tax, a 9 percent personal flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Julianna?
GOLDMAN: I said we would get back to 9-9-9.
Mr. Cain, you say that your plan is revenue-neutral. And last year, the U.S. collected $2.2 trillion dollars in tax revenue, but Bloomberg Government has run the numbers, and your plan would have raised no more than $2 trillion. And even with that shortfall, you’d still be slapping a 9 percent sales tax on food and medicine.
CAIN: The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: The reason it is incorrect is because they start with the assumptions that we don’t make. Remember, 999 plan throws out the current tax code. And it starts with three simple economic driving principles: production drives the economy, risk-taking drives growth, and we need sound money, measurements must be dependable.
Now what 999 does, it expands the base. When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate which is 999. The difference between the 999 plan and the other plans that are being proposed is that they pivot off of the existing tax code.
We have had an outside firm, independent firm dynamically score it. And so our numbers will make it revenue neutral.
ROSE: All right — go ahead, I’m sorry, go ahead.
GOLDMAN: But then explain why under your plan all Americans should be paying more for milk, for a loaf of bread, and beer?
CAIN: Pizza, I don’t buy beer.
(LAUGHTER)
GOLDMAN: Yes, and pizza.
CAIN: You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent. That goes to 9 percent. That is a 6 percentage point difference. And the prices will not go up. So they have got a 6 percentage point difference to apply to the national sales tax piece of that, and in doing so, they have the flexibility to decide on how much they want to spend it on new goods, how much they want to spend it on used goods. Because there is no tax on used goods.
BACHMANN EXPOSES THAT HERMAN CAIN’S 9-9-9 TAX PLAN, WHILE REVENUE NEUTRAL, IS NOT A JOBS PLAN AND THAT IT GIVES CONGRESS A PIPELINE OF ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE OF 9% PER PERSON FROM A VALUE-ADDED TAX NAMED AS A NATIONAL SALES TAX, AND IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT OFF REVENUE STREAMS ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GET AHOLD OF IT:
GOLDMAN: But, Congresswoman Bachmann, you’re a former IRS lawyer, do you agree?
BACHMANN: I would have to say that the 999 plan isn’t a jobs plan, it is a tax plan. And I would say that from my experience being in Congress, but also as a federal tax lawyer, when you — the last thing you would do is give Congress another pipeline of a revenue stream. And this gives Congress a pipeline in a sales tax.
A sales tax can also lead to value-added tax. The United States Congress put into place the Spanish-American War tax in 1888. We only partially repealed that in 2006. So once you get a new revenue stream, you are never going to get rid of it.
And one thing I would say is, when you take the 999 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: We have given several chances to respond. I will come back. We will continue to talk about taxes and spending. We also know here that there has been a paradigm shift in the world economic order. We know about China and we know about India.
Here is our next clip and we will respond from that. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: I will label China as it is, a currency manipulator. And I will go after them for stealing our intellectual property. And they will recognize that if they cheat, there is a price to pay. I certainly don’t want a trade war with anybody. We are going to have a trade war, but we can’t have a trade surrender either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Karen.
TUMULTY: Governor Huntsman, you were also ambassador to China. And you say that this would risk a trade war. But if China is indeed keeping its currency low, that means that everything they sell in this country is artificially cheap and everything that our companies tried to sell in China is artificially expensive.
So what do you say to people who ask, aren’t we already in a trade war with China?
HUNTSMAN: Well, first of all, I don’t subscribe to the Don Trump school or the Mitt Romney school of international trade.
HUNTSMAN, AS FORMER AMBASSADOR OF CHINA, GETS CORNERED ON TEA PARTY BOYCOTT OF CHINESE GOODS, IN RESPONSE TO CHINA’S CURRENCY MANIPULATION AND ARTIFICIAL MARKET VALUE RIGGING, BY DENYING WE’RE IN A TRADE WAR.
I don’t want to find ourselves in a trade war. With respect to China, if you start slapping penalties on them based on countervailing duties, you are going to get the same thing in return because what they are going to say, because of quantitative easing part one and part two, you are doing a similar thing to your currency.
And then you’re going to find yourself in a trade war very, very quickly. And what does that do? That disadvantages our small businesses. It disadvantages our exporters. It disadvantages our agricultural producers.
So I say for the first and the second largest economies in the world, we have no choice. We have to find common ground. We have to, of course, use our trade laws and use them very, very aggressively.
But at the end of the day, we have got to find more market opening measures. We have got to get more governors from this country together with governors from provinces of China, mayors together with mayors, and exploit the opportunities that exist for exporters.
That is a job creator in this country. It is a huge job creator. And we have to get used to the fact that as far as the eye can see into the 21st Century, it’s going to be the United States and China on the world stage.
TUMULTY: You know, Governor Romney, this issue does carry a lot of resonance, especially in the states like New Hampshire, which, as you probably know, has lost a greater percentage of its manufacturing jobs to China than any other state.
But voters have heard candidates talked tough on China before. George W. Bush did it, Barack Obama did it, only to see that once elected, the president takes a much more cautious approach because of the complexity of the relationship and the fact that this is our biggest creditor.
Why should voters believe that you would be any different?
OBAMONEY TRIES TO MAKE US FEEL GOOD ABOUT CHINA BY PULLING A RALLYING SPEECH TACTIC, BUT THE TEA PARTY IS NOT BUYING IT EITHER:
ROMNEY: I’m afraid that people who have looked at this in the past have been played like a fiddle by the Chinese. And the Chinese are smiling all the way to the bank, taking our currency and taking our jobs and taking a lot of our future. And I am not willing to let that happen.
I’m in this race to try to get America to make sure we’re strong again and we’re creating jobs where the best place in the world to be middle class again. And for that to happen, we have to call cheating for what it is.
And people say, we might have a trade war with China. Well, now, think about that.
We by this much stuff from China, they buy that much stuff from us. You think they want to have a trade war?
I mean, this is a time when we are being hollowed out by China, that is artificially holding down their prices, as you just said a moment ago, and that’s having a massive impact on jobs here. It is the wrong course for us.
When people have pursued unfair trade practices, you have to have a president that will take action. And on day one, I have indicated, day one, I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator. We’ll bring an action against them in front of the WTO for manipulating their currency, and we will go after them. If you are not willing to stand up to China, you will get run over by China, and that’s what’s happened for 20 years.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: Let me go to Governor Perry and then Governor Huntsman. Governor Perry.
PERRY SAYS THAT VARIOUS TRADE POLICIES AND TAX GIMMICKS ARE NOT THE REAL ISSUE ON WHY SOMEONE SHOULD BE ELECTED; JOBS AND THE LACK OF TAX REVENUE FROM JOBS IS...
PERRY: We’re missing this so much. What we need to be focused on in this country today is not whether or not we are going to have this policy or that policy. What we need to be focused on is how we get American working again. That’s where we need to be focused.
And let me tell you, we are sitting on this absolute treasure trove of energy in this country. And I don’t need 999. We don’t need any plan to pass Congress. We need to get a president of the United States that is committed to passing the types of regulations, pulling the regulations back, freeing this country to go develop the energy industry that we have in this country.
I can promise you that we do that, then we will create an environment in this country where the manufacturing will come back to this country. We did in Texas.
We brought key manufacturing that had business in China back to the state of Texas. You free up this country’s entrepreneurs, where they know that they can’t risk their capital and have a chance to have a return on investment, and all of this conversation that we’re having today becomes substantially less impacting (ph).
ROSE: All right.
I want to come back to these issues, but let me introduce — speaking of CEOs and business, this is a New Hampshire native. His name is David Cote. He is chairman and CEO of Honeywell, and he is a former member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COTE: Twenty years ago, there were a billion people actively participating in the global economy. Today, there are more than four billion active participants in the global economy, with China, India, former CIS states, and other emerging economies now in the game.
While that is a good and peaceful phenomenon, it also means we need to compete more strongly that we did in the past. We need an American competitiveness agenda. We need to inspire that American competitive spirit that has served us for so well for over 200 years.
I would like to ask, what would be on your American competitiveness agenda? And with one last small request, my guess is all of us are ready to accept that we are a great country and a great people. So, if your response could focus on specifics, it would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Senator Santorum, we talked about jobs in Pennsylvania. A competitive agenda of yours would be what?
SANTORUM SAYS THAT HE WANTS AMERICA TO BE THE WORLD MARKETPLACE, NOT A STRAINED CO-DEPENDENT PARTNERSHIP WITH CHINA, THAT IS REALLY A TRADE WAR:
SANTORUM: Well, I already put forward a plan.
You know, Mitt, I don’t want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business. And we need to do that with the agenda that I outlined, which, unlike Herman’s plan, which could not pass, because no — how many people here are for a sales tax in New Hampshire? Raise your hand.
There you go, Herman. That’s how many votes you’ll get in New Hampshire.
We’re not going to give the federal government, Nancy Pelosi, a new pipeline, a 9 percent sales tax for consumers to get hammered by the federal government.
How many people believe that we’ll keep the income tax at 9 percent? Anybody?
There. That’s why people won’t trust giving people –
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: So if you keep mentioning “999″ and Herman Cain, I’m going to have to go back to him every other question.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Hold on.
CAIN: That’s right.
SANTORUM: I am not done yet. I’ve only been able to answer one question, unlike everybody else here, so let me just finish what I’m saying.
ROSE: Right.
SANTORUM: We need to repeal Obamacare. That’s the first thing we need to do.
SANTORUM: You want to create jobs? I went to OSIPI (ph) yesterday and I talked to a small businessman there, and he said, “I will not hire anybody, I will not make a move until I find out what is going to happen with this health care bill and how it’s going to crush me.”
And so, repealing Obamacare, and we can do it, not by waivers. That’s the wrong idea, Mitt. The reason it’s the wrong idea, because you get a waiver, California going to waive that? No. New York going to waive it? No. All of these states, many of them, liberal states are going to continue on, and then states like New Hampshire that will waive it will end up subsidizing California.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: We need to repeal it…
ROSE: All right. But the time…
SANTORUM: I know.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: You see the red light, time.
SANTORUM: We need to repeal it by doing it through a reconciliation process. And since I have experience and know how to do that, we’ll take care of it…
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I’ve got to go to the break, and I’m — but I’m going to give both Herman Cain and Governor Romney a chance to make their point, because they were both mentioned, first Cain, then Romney, then break.
CAIN: Therein lies the difference between me, the non- politician, and all of the politicians. They want to pass what they think they can get passed rather than what we need, which is a bold solution. 9-9-9 is bold, and the American people want a bold solution, not just what’s going to kick the can down the table — down the road.
ROSE: Governor Romney?
SANTORUM NAILED OBAMONEY ON OBAMACARE:
(APPLAUSE) ROMNEY: Rick, you’re absolutely right. On day one, granting a waiver for all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on day two, with the reconciliation bill, because as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes.
ROSE: All right.
ROMNEY: We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of Obamacare and return to the states the responsibility…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: No, not if you get rid of it. And particularly — by the way, the Supreme — the Supreme Court may get rid of it.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me finish. Let me finish.
ROSE: OK, let’s — then we’ll go to Huntsman, then we’ll go to the break, and then when we come back, each of you can question each other.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Hold on, guys.
HUNTSMAN: Thank you.
ROMNEY: Let me just — let me just say this, which is we all agree about repeal and replace. And I’m proud of the fact that I’ve put together a plan that says what I’m going to replace it with. And I think it’s incumbent on everybody around this table to put together a plan that says this is what I’ll replace it with, because the American people are not satisfied with the status quo. They want us to solve the problem of health care, to get it to work like a market, and that’s what has to happen.
ROSE: All right. Governor Huntsman, then we go.
HUNTSMAN: It’s disingenuous to — to just say that you can — you can waive it all away. The mandate will be in place. The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer that mandate. That will stay, and that’s the ruinous part of — of Obamacare. And that — Mitt, your plan is not going to do anything.
ROMNEY: I said we had to repeal it. Did you miss that?
HUNTSMAN: No. It doesn’t — it doesn’t repeal the mandate.
ROMNEY: No, no, I said I’m going to repeal it through reconciliation.
(CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: Through reconciliation, you can repeal the taxes, you can repeal the spending, and therefore, the mandate has no teeth, because there’s no tax penalty if you don’t enforce it.
ROSE: All right. We have much to talk about.
When we come back, the candidates will ask questions of each other, after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUNE IN HERE FOR GOP’S VERSION OF “DUELING BANJO” QUESTIONS:
ROSE: Welcome back. We are at the Republican presidential candidates’ debate. We are at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. And we are pleased now to turn it around a bit and have the candidates question each other.
They will each have 30 seconds to pose and answer. We’ll have one minute to respond, 30 seconds for a question, one minute to respond. We will proceed in alphabetical order. I want you to remember, as we talk about this, we are talking about the economy, or those things that affect the economy.
Beginning in alphabetical order, Congresswoman Bachmann.
BACHMANN: Thank you.
Well, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan produced an economic miracle, and while all of us were wishing and yearning for a third term for Ronald Reagan, Governor Perry, you were campaigning and co-chairing Al Gore’s election campaign for president of the United States.
You went on to increase spending in Texas by over 50 percent. And you financed that spending by increasing bond debt by over 137 percent. That is exactly what Barack Obama has been doing, increasing debt by trillions of dollars.
FOR THE RECORD, PERRY’S JOB CREATION RECORD OUTSCORES THE BORROWING ISSUE AND THE UNFAIR INCOMPARABLE COMPARISON BACHMANN MAKES OF PERRY IN COMPARING HIM TO OBAMA:
How can we trust you to not go down the Obama way and overspend and pay for that spending with indebtedness on the backs of the next generations?
PERRY: Well, I, like most people in the state of Texas and those southern states, grew up a Democrat. Michael Reagan and I were talking just the other day, Charlie, that I came to the Republican Party sooner in age than his dad, Ronald Reagan, did.
And let me just address this issue of the debt in the state of Texas. Texas has the sixth lowest debt per capita when I started as governor back in 2000. And today, Texas has the second lowest debt per capita in the United States. I think that is what America is looking for is a president of the United States that understands how to balance budgets, how to deal with the spending issue, and how to get Americans back working again.
ROSE: Herman Cain, question.
CAIN: Yes. One of my guiding principles has been and will always be, surround yourself with good people. The 999 plan that I have proposed is simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral.
My question is to Governor Romney. Can you name all 59 points in your 160-page plan, and does it satisfy that criteria of being simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Herman, I have had the experience in my life of taking on some tough problems. And I must admit that simple answers are always very helpful, but oftentimes inadequate.
And in my view, to get this economy going again, we’re going to have to deal with more than just tax policy and just energy policy, even though both of those are part of my plan.
And the other parts of my plan are these. One is to make sure that we stop the regulatory creep that has occurred in Washington. And all of the Obama regulations, we say no to, we put a halt on them, and reverse all those that cost jobs.
Number two, we have trade policies that open up new markets to American goods. And I lay out a number of things that I would do in that 59 points to open up more markets to American goods. And, we, of course, stop the cheating that goes on.
IT MAKES ME FRIGHTENINGLY NERVOUS OF OBAMONEY WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT RULE OF LAW, WHEN HE INSTITUTED ROMENYCARE IN HIS OWN STATE.......
PERRY: We’re missing this so much. What we need to be focused on in this country today is not whether or not we are going to have this policy or that policy. What we need to be focused on is how we get American working again. That’s where we need to be focused.
And let me tell you, we are sitting on this absolute treasure trove of energy in this country. And I don’t need 999. We don’t need any plan to pass Congress. We need to get a president of the United States that is committed to passing the types of regulations, pulling the regulations back, freeing this country to go develop the energy industry that we have in this country.
I can promise you that we do that, then we will create an environment in this country where the manufacturing will come back to this country. We did in Texas.
We brought key manufacturing that had business in China back to the state of Texas. You free up this country’s entrepreneurs, where they know that they can’t risk their capital and have a chance to have a return on investment, and all of this conversation that we’re having today becomes substantially less impacting (ph).
ROSE: All right.
I want to come back to these issues, but let me introduce — speaking of CEOs and business, this is a New Hampshire native. His name is David Cote. He is chairman and CEO of Honeywell, and he is a former member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COTE: Twenty years ago, there were a billion people actively participating in the global economy. Today, there are more than four billion active participants in the global economy, with China, India, former CIS states, and other emerging economies now in the game.
While that is a good and peaceful phenomenon, it also means we need to compete more strongly that we did in the past. We need an American competitiveness agenda. We need to inspire that American competitive spirit that has served us for so well for over 200 years.
I would like to ask, what would be on your American competitiveness agenda? And with one last small request, my guess is all of us are ready to accept that we are a great country and a great people. So, if your response could focus on specifics, it would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROSE: Senator Santorum, we talked about jobs in Pennsylvania. A competitive agenda of yours would be what?
SANTORUM SAYS THAT HE WANTS AMERICA TO BE THE WORLD MARKETPLACE, NOT A STRAINED CO-DEPENDENT PARTNERSHIP WITH CHINA, THAT IS REALLY A TRADE WAR:
SANTORUM: Well, I already put forward a plan.
You know, Mitt, I don’t want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business. And we need to do that with the agenda that I outlined, which, unlike Herman’s plan, which could not pass, because no — how many people here are for a sales tax in New Hampshire? Raise your hand.
There you go, Herman. That’s how many votes you’ll get in New Hampshire.
We’re not going to give the federal government, Nancy Pelosi, a new pipeline, a 9 percent sales tax for consumers to get hammered by the federal government.
How many people believe that we’ll keep the income tax at 9 percent? Anybody?
There. That’s why people won’t trust giving people –
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: So if you keep mentioning “999″ and Herman Cain, I’m going to have to go back to him every other question.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Hold on.
CAIN: That’s right.
SANTORUM: I am not done yet. I’ve only been able to answer one question, unlike everybody else here, so let me just finish what I’m saying.
ROSE: Right.
SANTORUM: We need to repeal Obamacare. That’s the first thing we need to do.
SANTORUM: You want to create jobs? I went to OSIPI (ph) yesterday and I talked to a small businessman there, and he said, “I will not hire anybody, I will not make a move until I find out what is going to happen with this health care bill and how it’s going to crush me.”
And so, repealing Obamacare, and we can do it, not by waivers. That’s the wrong idea, Mitt. The reason it’s the wrong idea, because you get a waiver, California going to waive that? No. New York going to waive it? No. All of these states, many of them, liberal states are going to continue on, and then states like New Hampshire that will waive it will end up subsidizing California.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: We need to repeal it…
ROSE: All right. But the time…
SANTORUM: I know.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: You see the red light, time.
SANTORUM: We need to repeal it by doing it through a reconciliation process. And since I have experience and know how to do that, we’ll take care of it…
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I’ve got to go to the break, and I’m — but I’m going to give both Herman Cain and Governor Romney a chance to make their point, because they were both mentioned, first Cain, then Romney, then break.
CAIN: Therein lies the difference between me, the non- politician, and all of the politicians. They want to pass what they think they can get passed rather than what we need, which is a bold solution. 9-9-9 is bold, and the American people want a bold solution, not just what’s going to kick the can down the table — down the road.
ROSE: Governor Romney?
SANTORUM NAILED OBAMONEY ON OBAMACARE:
(APPLAUSE) ROMNEY: Rick, you’re absolutely right. On day one, granting a waiver for all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on day two, with the reconciliation bill, because as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes.
ROSE: All right.
ROMNEY: We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of Obamacare and return to the states the responsibility…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: No, not if you get rid of it. And particularly — by the way, the Supreme — the Supreme Court may get rid of it.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me finish. Let me finish.
ROSE: OK, let’s — then we’ll go to Huntsman, then we’ll go to the break, and then when we come back, each of you can question each other.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Hold on, guys.
HUNTSMAN: Thank you.
ROMNEY: Let me just — let me just say this, which is we all agree about repeal and replace. And I’m proud of the fact that I’ve put together a plan that says what I’m going to replace it with. And I think it’s incumbent on everybody around this table to put together a plan that says this is what I’ll replace it with, because the American people are not satisfied with the status quo. They want us to solve the problem of health care, to get it to work like a market, and that’s what has to happen.
ROSE: All right. Governor Huntsman, then we go.
HUNTSMAN: It’s disingenuous to — to just say that you can — you can waive it all away. The mandate will be in place. The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer that mandate. That will stay, and that’s the ruinous part of — of Obamacare. And that — Mitt, your plan is not going to do anything.
ROMNEY: I said we had to repeal it. Did you miss that?
HUNTSMAN: No. It doesn’t — it doesn’t repeal the mandate.
ROMNEY: No, no, I said I’m going to repeal it through reconciliation.
(CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: Through reconciliation, you can repeal the taxes, you can repeal the spending, and therefore, the mandate has no teeth, because there’s no tax penalty if you don’t enforce it.
ROSE: All right. We have much to talk about.
When we come back, the candidates will ask questions of each other, after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUNE IN HERE FOR GOP’S VERSION OF “DUELING BANJO” QUESTIONS:
ROSE: Welcome back. We are at the Republican presidential candidates’ debate. We are at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. And we are pleased now to turn it around a bit and have the candidates question each other.
They will each have 30 seconds to pose and answer. We’ll have one minute to respond, 30 seconds for a question, one minute to respond. We will proceed in alphabetical order. I want you to remember, as we talk about this, we are talking about the economy, or those things that affect the economy.
Beginning in alphabetical order, Congresswoman Bachmann.
BACHMANN: Thank you.
Well, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan produced an economic miracle, and while all of us were wishing and yearning for a third term for Ronald Reagan, Governor Perry, you were campaigning and co-chairing Al Gore’s election campaign for president of the United States.
You went on to increase spending in Texas by over 50 percent. And you financed that spending by increasing bond debt by over 137 percent. That is exactly what Barack Obama has been doing, increasing debt by trillions of dollars.
FOR THE RECORD, PERRY’S JOB CREATION RECORD OUTSCORES THE BORROWING ISSUE AND THE UNFAIR INCOMPARABLE COMPARISON BACHMANN MAKES OF PERRY IN COMPARING HIM TO OBAMA:
How can we trust you to not go down the Obama way and overspend and pay for that spending with indebtedness on the backs of the next generations?
PERRY: Well, I, like most people in the state of Texas and those southern states, grew up a Democrat. Michael Reagan and I were talking just the other day, Charlie, that I came to the Republican Party sooner in age than his dad, Ronald Reagan, did.
And let me just address this issue of the debt in the state of Texas. Texas has the sixth lowest debt per capita when I started as governor back in 2000. And today, Texas has the second lowest debt per capita in the United States. I think that is what America is looking for is a president of the United States that understands how to balance budgets, how to deal with the spending issue, and how to get Americans back working again.
ROSE: Herman Cain, question.
CAIN: Yes. One of my guiding principles has been and will always be, surround yourself with good people. The 999 plan that I have proposed is simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral.
My question is to Governor Romney. Can you name all 59 points in your 160-page plan, and does it satisfy that criteria of being simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Herman, I have had the experience in my life of taking on some tough problems. And I must admit that simple answers are always very helpful, but oftentimes inadequate.
And in my view, to get this economy going again, we’re going to have to deal with more than just tax policy and just energy policy, even though both of those are part of my plan.
And the other parts of my plan are these. One is to make sure that we stop the regulatory creep that has occurred in Washington. And all of the Obama regulations, we say no to, we put a halt on them, and reverse all those that cost jobs.
Number two, we have trade policies that open up new markets to American goods. And I lay out a number of things that I would do in that 59 points to open up more markets to American goods. And, we, of course, stop the cheating that goes on.
IT MAKES ME FRIGHTENINGLY NERVOUS OF OBAMONEY WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT RULE OF LAW, WHEN HE INSTITUTED ROMENYCARE IN HIS OWN STATE.......
We also have to have the rule of law. By that I mean you can’t have the federal government, through its friends at the National Labor Relations Board, saying to a company like Boeing that you can’t build a factory in a non-union state. That’s simply wrong and violates the principle of the rule of law.
We also have to have institutions that create human capital. We’re a capitalist system. But we don’t just believe in physical capital or financial capital, also human capital. We need great schools, great institutions.
Finally, you have got to have a government that does not spend more money than it takes in. Those are the seven major pillars of those 59.
CAIN: So, no, it is not simple, is what you are saying?
ROMNEY: Let me tell you, to get this economy restructured fundamentally, to put America on a path to be the most competitive place in the world to create jobs, is going to take someone who knows how to do it. And it is not one or two things. It is a good number of things to get America…
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: All right. Speaker Gingrich, question.
GINGRICH: Governor Romney, I’d like to say, first of all, there is an awful lot in your plan that is very good, and that I think would be very helpful if implemented, a lot better than what Obama is doing.
But one of the characteristics of Obama in his class warfare approach has been to talk about going after people who made over $250,000 a year and divide us.
And I was a little surprised — I think it’s about page 47 of your plan — that you have a capital gains tax cut for people under $200,000, which is actually lower than the Obama model. Now, as a businessman, you know that you actually lose economic effectiveness if you limit capital gains tax cuts only to people who don’t get capital gains.
So, I’m curious, what was the rationale for setting an even lower base marker than Obama had?
ROMNEY: Well, the reason for giving a tax break to middle income Americans is that middle income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. The reason that you’re seeing protests, as you indicated, on Wall Street and across the country is, middle income Americans are having a hard time making ends meet.
WHILE IT IS TOUCHING THAT OBAMONEY WANTS THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE, AND HE DANGLES THE CARROT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX BREAK, WITH 42 MILLION IN POVERTY AND A $14.7 + TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, I SEE THIS AS A PLOY AGAINST OBAMA’S CLASS WARFARE RHETORIC FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE:
Not only do we have 25 million people out of work, or stopped looking for work, or part-time jobs needing full-time employ, we just saw this week that median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet.
And so if I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they’re taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.
ROSE: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: Since this discussion is all about economics, Governor Romney, I promise this won’t be about religion.
Sorry about that, Rick.
Since some might see you because of your past employment with Bain Capital as more of a financial engineer, somebody who breaks down businesses, destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, enriching shareholders, since you were number 47 as governor of the state of Massachusetts, where we were number one, for example, and the whole discussion around this campaign is going to be job creation, how can you win that debate given your background?
ROMNEY: Well, my background is quite different than you described, John. So the way I’ll win it is by telling people an accurate rendition of what I have done in my life. And fortunately, people in New Hampshire, living next door, have a pretty good sense of that.
(OMG... AT THIS POINT I JUST WISH OBAMONEY WOULD SHUT UP. JUST BECAUSE YOU TALK THE LONGEST WITHOUT INTERRUPTION DOESN’T MEAN YOU WON THE DEBATE. SANTORUM WON THE DEBATE AND EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR RICK PERRY, HERMAN CAIN, AND RON PAUL SPEAK EQUALLY!!)
They understand that in the business I was in, we didn’t take things apart and cut them off and sell them off. We, instead, helped start businesses, and they know some of the names.
We started Staples. We started the Sports Authority. We started Bright Horizons children’s centers. Heck, we even started a steel mill in a farm field in Indiana, and that steel mill operates today and employs a lot of people.
So, we began businesses. Sometimes we acquired businesses and tried to turn them around, typically effectively. And that created tens of thousands of new jobs.
And I am proud of the fact that we were able to do that. That is a big part of the American system.
People are not going to — in my opinion, are not going to be looking for someone who is not successful. They want someone who has been successful and who knows how fundamentally the economy works.
Look, I would not be in this race had I spent my life in politics alone. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but right now, with the American people in the kind of financial crisis they are in, they need someone who knows how to create jobs, and I do.
ROSE: All right.
Congressman Paul?
PAUL: Since the Federal Reserve is the engine of inflation, creates the business cycle, produces are recessions and our depressions, the Federal Reserve obviously is a very important issue. And fortunately, tonight we have a former director of the Federal Reserve at Kansas City. So I have a question for Mr. Cain.
Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said — you’ve used pretty strong terms, that we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you’re not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed.
But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out — Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments. And you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled — you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them.
ROSE: Question?
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Do you still stick by this, that that this is frivolous, or do you think it’s very important? Sixty-four percent of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.
ROSE: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: First of all, you have misquoted you. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from.
PAUL: I’ll get it for you.
CAIN: All right. Now, so you’ve got to be careful of the stuff that you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something that I have said.
Secondly, when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s, we didn’t do any of the things that this Federal Reserve is doing.
CAIN AGREES WITH PAUL: IN THE 90’S, THE FEDERAL RESERVE OPERATIONS FUNCTIONED COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN IT USED TO.... THAT I AGREE WITH !!!
I don’t agree with the actions of this Federal Reserve. I don’t agree with the actions that have been undertaken by Ben Bernanke. We didn’t have a $14 trillion national debt to prop up with some of the actions that they’re taking.
And I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited. I simply said, if someone wants to initiate that action, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother me.
So you — I’ve been misrepresented in that regard. I don’t have a problem with the Federal Reserve being audited. It’s simply not my top priority. My top priority is 9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: Governor Perry, question for…
PERRY: Governor Romney, your chief economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, who you know well, he said that Romneycare was Obamacare. And Romneycare has driven the cost of small-business insurance premiums up by 14 percent over the national average in Massachusetts. So my question for you would be: How would you respond to his criticism of your signature legislative achievement?
PERRY PINS OBAMONEY TO THE WALL ON ROMNEYCARE BEING OBAMACARE, IN THAT IT CUTS MEDICARE TOO:
ROMNEY: You know, the — the great thing about running for president is to get the chance also to talk about your experience as a governor. And I’m proud of the fact that we took on a major problem in my state.
And the problem was that we had a lot of kids without insurance, a lot of adults without insurance, but it added up to about 8 percent of our population. And we said, you know what, we want to find a way to get those folks insured, but we don’t want to change anything for the 92 percent of the people that already have insurance. And so our plan dealt with those 8 percent, not the 92 percent.
One of the problems with Obamacare is he doesn’t just deal with the people without insurance. He takes over health care for everyone. Then he does something else that Chris Christie said today. He said the problem with Obamacare is he spends an extra trillion dollars and raises taxes. And raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts. He also cuts Medicare. Only — but people out there are talking about cutting Medicare, it’s President Obama that did that.
And I’m proud of what we are able to accomplish. I’ll tell you this, though. We have the lowest number of kids as a percentage uninsured of any state in America. You have the highest. You…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I’m still — I’m still speaking.
(CROSSTALK)
PERRY: … criticism.
ROMNEY: I’m still speaking. We — we have — we have less than 1 percent of our kids that are uninsured. You have a million kids uninsured in Texas. A million kids. Under President Bush, the percentage uninsured went down. Under your leadership, it’s gone up.
I care about people. Now, our plan isn’t perfect. Glenn Hubbard is a fine fellow. Take a look at his quote. Some people say that. Just because some people say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
The truth is, our plan is different, and the people of Massachusetts, if they don’t like it, they can get rid of it. Right now, they favor it 3 to 1.
But I’m not running for governor of Massachusetts. I’m running for president of the United States. And as president, I will repeal Obamacare, I’ll grant a waiver on day one to get that started, and I’ll make sure that we return to the states what we had when I was governor, the right to care for our poor in the way we thought best for our respective states.
ROSE: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Romney’s before me, R.
ROSE: No, I’m sorry. You’re right. Governor Romney?
(LAUGHTER)
Very good. I — I missed school that day.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I missed school that day when they said R is before S.
GINGRICH: Think of us as your…
(CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: You’d think someone from PBS would know that.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: We’d know that, wouldn’t we?
(LAUGHTER)
I was thinking how much I was enjoying this.
ROMNEY: Exactly. Exactly right.
Let me turn to Congresswoman Bachmann and just — just as you, Congresswoman. As — as we’ve spoken this evening, we’re all concerned about getting Americans back to work. And you’ve laid out some pretty bold ideas with regards to taxation and cutting back the scale of the federal government. And there’s no question that’s a very important element of getting people back to work.
HERE IS WHERE CONSERVATIVES DIVIDE BETWEEN BACHMANN AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT OBAMONEY: OBAMONEY TRIVIALIZES TAXATION AND THE SCALE OF GOVERNMENT AS ELEMENTS RATHER THAN THE ROOT CAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT.... OBAMONEY JUST DOESN’T GET IT...
LISTEN TO BACHMANN BLAST GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS:
And I’d like to ask you to expand on your other ideas. What do you do to help the American people get back to work, be able to make ends meet? You’ve got families that are sitting around the kitchen table wondering how they’re going to make — make it to the end of the month. You’ve got — you’ve got young people coming out of college, maybe not here at Dartmouth, but a lot of colleges across the country wondering where they can get a job.
What — what would you do — beyond the tax policies you describe — to get people back to work?
BACHMANN: Well, I do understand that. I’m — I’m a mother of 28 kids, 22 foster kids, 5 biological kids. I get how difficult it is for young people right now to get jobs right out of college. It’s very, very tough.
And the solutions that I’m offering in my plan, which if I can give a commercial, are at michelebachmann.com. The solutions that I’m offering aren’t just a silver bullet. It’s not just the tax code. It’s also dealing with the regulatory burden, because businesses — my husband and I started our own successful business. I’m 55. I spent my whole life in the private sector. I get job creation, too. And the business world is looking at 1.8 trillion every year in compliance costs with government regulations.
That has to go. So I want to get rid of that, it’s the mother of all repeal bills. But the number one reason that employer say that they are not hiring today is “Obama-care.” And I was the leading critic for President Obama in Washington, D.C., against “Obama-care.” That is why I was the first member of Congress to introduce that bill to repeal “Obama-care.” I understand that is what is inhibiting job creation and job growth.
We have to repeal that. I also introduced and I fought on Barney Frank’s committee against Dodd-Frank, which is the “housing and jobs destruction act.” That’s why I was the chief author of that bill as well. There is much more to my solutions, go to michelebachmann.com and you can find out.
ROSE: Ask now?
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM SEALS THIS DEBATE AS VICTOR, JOUSTS ALL BUT BACHMANN AND NEWT ON TARP, AND STRIPS DOWN THE 9-9-9 PLAN, CITING CAIN’S LACK OF EXPERIENCE ON REVENUE ISSUES WITH GOVERNMENT
We also have to have institutions that create human capital. We’re a capitalist system. But we don’t just believe in physical capital or financial capital, also human capital. We need great schools, great institutions.
Finally, you have got to have a government that does not spend more money than it takes in. Those are the seven major pillars of those 59.
CAIN: So, no, it is not simple, is what you are saying?
ROMNEY: Let me tell you, to get this economy restructured fundamentally, to put America on a path to be the most competitive place in the world to create jobs, is going to take someone who knows how to do it. And it is not one or two things. It is a good number of things to get America…
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: All right. Speaker Gingrich, question.
GINGRICH: Governor Romney, I’d like to say, first of all, there is an awful lot in your plan that is very good, and that I think would be very helpful if implemented, a lot better than what Obama is doing.
But one of the characteristics of Obama in his class warfare approach has been to talk about going after people who made over $250,000 a year and divide us.
And I was a little surprised — I think it’s about page 47 of your plan — that you have a capital gains tax cut for people under $200,000, which is actually lower than the Obama model. Now, as a businessman, you know that you actually lose economic effectiveness if you limit capital gains tax cuts only to people who don’t get capital gains.
So, I’m curious, what was the rationale for setting an even lower base marker than Obama had?
ROMNEY: Well, the reason for giving a tax break to middle income Americans is that middle income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. The reason that you’re seeing protests, as you indicated, on Wall Street and across the country is, middle income Americans are having a hard time making ends meet.
WHILE IT IS TOUCHING THAT OBAMONEY WANTS THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE, AND HE DANGLES THE CARROT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX BREAK, WITH 42 MILLION IN POVERTY AND A $14.7 + TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, I SEE THIS AS A PLOY AGAINST OBAMA’S CLASS WARFARE RHETORIC FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE:
Not only do we have 25 million people out of work, or stopped looking for work, or part-time jobs needing full-time employ, we just saw this week that median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet.
And so if I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they’re taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.
ROSE: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: Since this discussion is all about economics, Governor Romney, I promise this won’t be about religion.
Sorry about that, Rick.
Since some might see you because of your past employment with Bain Capital as more of a financial engineer, somebody who breaks down businesses, destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, enriching shareholders, since you were number 47 as governor of the state of Massachusetts, where we were number one, for example, and the whole discussion around this campaign is going to be job creation, how can you win that debate given your background?
ROMNEY: Well, my background is quite different than you described, John. So the way I’ll win it is by telling people an accurate rendition of what I have done in my life. And fortunately, people in New Hampshire, living next door, have a pretty good sense of that.
(OMG... AT THIS POINT I JUST WISH OBAMONEY WOULD SHUT UP. JUST BECAUSE YOU TALK THE LONGEST WITHOUT INTERRUPTION DOESN’T MEAN YOU WON THE DEBATE. SANTORUM WON THE DEBATE AND EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR RICK PERRY, HERMAN CAIN, AND RON PAUL SPEAK EQUALLY!!)
They understand that in the business I was in, we didn’t take things apart and cut them off and sell them off. We, instead, helped start businesses, and they know some of the names.
We started Staples. We started the Sports Authority. We started Bright Horizons children’s centers. Heck, we even started a steel mill in a farm field in Indiana, and that steel mill operates today and employs a lot of people.
So, we began businesses. Sometimes we acquired businesses and tried to turn them around, typically effectively. And that created tens of thousands of new jobs.
And I am proud of the fact that we were able to do that. That is a big part of the American system.
People are not going to — in my opinion, are not going to be looking for someone who is not successful. They want someone who has been successful and who knows how fundamentally the economy works.
Look, I would not be in this race had I spent my life in politics alone. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but right now, with the American people in the kind of financial crisis they are in, they need someone who knows how to create jobs, and I do.
ROSE: All right.
Congressman Paul?
PAUL: Since the Federal Reserve is the engine of inflation, creates the business cycle, produces are recessions and our depressions, the Federal Reserve obviously is a very important issue. And fortunately, tonight we have a former director of the Federal Reserve at Kansas City. So I have a question for Mr. Cain.
Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said — you’ve used pretty strong terms, that we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you’re not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed.
But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out — Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments. And you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled — you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them.
ROSE: Question?
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Do you still stick by this, that that this is frivolous, or do you think it’s very important? Sixty-four percent of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.
ROSE: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: First of all, you have misquoted you. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from.
PAUL: I’ll get it for you.
CAIN: All right. Now, so you’ve got to be careful of the stuff that you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something that I have said.
Secondly, when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s, we didn’t do any of the things that this Federal Reserve is doing.
CAIN AGREES WITH PAUL: IN THE 90’S, THE FEDERAL RESERVE OPERATIONS FUNCTIONED COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN IT USED TO.... THAT I AGREE WITH !!!
I don’t agree with the actions of this Federal Reserve. I don’t agree with the actions that have been undertaken by Ben Bernanke. We didn’t have a $14 trillion national debt to prop up with some of the actions that they’re taking.
And I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited. I simply said, if someone wants to initiate that action, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother me.
So you — I’ve been misrepresented in that regard. I don’t have a problem with the Federal Reserve being audited. It’s simply not my top priority. My top priority is 9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
ROSE: Governor Perry, question for…
PERRY: Governor Romney, your chief economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, who you know well, he said that Romneycare was Obamacare. And Romneycare has driven the cost of small-business insurance premiums up by 14 percent over the national average in Massachusetts. So my question for you would be: How would you respond to his criticism of your signature legislative achievement?
PERRY PINS OBAMONEY TO THE WALL ON ROMNEYCARE BEING OBAMACARE, IN THAT IT CUTS MEDICARE TOO:
ROMNEY: You know, the — the great thing about running for president is to get the chance also to talk about your experience as a governor. And I’m proud of the fact that we took on a major problem in my state.
And the problem was that we had a lot of kids without insurance, a lot of adults without insurance, but it added up to about 8 percent of our population. And we said, you know what, we want to find a way to get those folks insured, but we don’t want to change anything for the 92 percent of the people that already have insurance. And so our plan dealt with those 8 percent, not the 92 percent.
One of the problems with Obamacare is he doesn’t just deal with the people without insurance. He takes over health care for everyone. Then he does something else that Chris Christie said today. He said the problem with Obamacare is he spends an extra trillion dollars and raises taxes. And raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts. He also cuts Medicare. Only — but people out there are talking about cutting Medicare, it’s President Obama that did that.
And I’m proud of what we are able to accomplish. I’ll tell you this, though. We have the lowest number of kids as a percentage uninsured of any state in America. You have the highest. You…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I’m still — I’m still speaking.
(CROSSTALK)
PERRY: … criticism.
ROMNEY: I’m still speaking. We — we have — we have less than 1 percent of our kids that are uninsured. You have a million kids uninsured in Texas. A million kids. Under President Bush, the percentage uninsured went down. Under your leadership, it’s gone up.
I care about people. Now, our plan isn’t perfect. Glenn Hubbard is a fine fellow. Take a look at his quote. Some people say that. Just because some people say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
The truth is, our plan is different, and the people of Massachusetts, if they don’t like it, they can get rid of it. Right now, they favor it 3 to 1.
But I’m not running for governor of Massachusetts. I’m running for president of the United States. And as president, I will repeal Obamacare, I’ll grant a waiver on day one to get that started, and I’ll make sure that we return to the states what we had when I was governor, the right to care for our poor in the way we thought best for our respective states.
ROSE: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Romney’s before me, R.
ROSE: No, I’m sorry. You’re right. Governor Romney?
(LAUGHTER)
Very good. I — I missed school that day.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I missed school that day when they said R is before S.
GINGRICH: Think of us as your…
(CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: You’d think someone from PBS would know that.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: We’d know that, wouldn’t we?
(LAUGHTER)
I was thinking how much I was enjoying this.
ROMNEY: Exactly. Exactly right.
Let me turn to Congresswoman Bachmann and just — just as you, Congresswoman. As — as we’ve spoken this evening, we’re all concerned about getting Americans back to work. And you’ve laid out some pretty bold ideas with regards to taxation and cutting back the scale of the federal government. And there’s no question that’s a very important element of getting people back to work.
HERE IS WHERE CONSERVATIVES DIVIDE BETWEEN BACHMANN AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT OBAMONEY: OBAMONEY TRIVIALIZES TAXATION AND THE SCALE OF GOVERNMENT AS ELEMENTS RATHER THAN THE ROOT CAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT.... OBAMONEY JUST DOESN’T GET IT...
LISTEN TO BACHMANN BLAST GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS:
And I’d like to ask you to expand on your other ideas. What do you do to help the American people get back to work, be able to make ends meet? You’ve got families that are sitting around the kitchen table wondering how they’re going to make — make it to the end of the month. You’ve got — you’ve got young people coming out of college, maybe not here at Dartmouth, but a lot of colleges across the country wondering where they can get a job.
What — what would you do — beyond the tax policies you describe — to get people back to work?
BACHMANN: Well, I do understand that. I’m — I’m a mother of 28 kids, 22 foster kids, 5 biological kids. I get how difficult it is for young people right now to get jobs right out of college. It’s very, very tough.
And the solutions that I’m offering in my plan, which if I can give a commercial, are at michelebachmann.com. The solutions that I’m offering aren’t just a silver bullet. It’s not just the tax code. It’s also dealing with the regulatory burden, because businesses — my husband and I started our own successful business. I’m 55. I spent my whole life in the private sector. I get job creation, too. And the business world is looking at 1.8 trillion every year in compliance costs with government regulations.
That has to go. So I want to get rid of that, it’s the mother of all repeal bills. But the number one reason that employer say that they are not hiring today is “Obama-care.” And I was the leading critic for President Obama in Washington, D.C., against “Obama-care.” That is why I was the first member of Congress to introduce that bill to repeal “Obama-care.” I understand that is what is inhibiting job creation and job growth.
We have to repeal that. I also introduced and I fought on Barney Frank’s committee against Dodd-Frank, which is the “housing and jobs destruction act.” That’s why I was the chief author of that bill as well. There is much more to my solutions, go to michelebachmann.com and you can find out.
ROSE: Ask now?
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM SEALS THIS DEBATE AS VICTOR, JOUSTS ALL BUT BACHMANN AND NEWT ON TARP, AND STRIPS DOWN THE 9-9-9 PLAN, CITING CAIN’S LACK OF EXPERIENCE ON REVENUE ISSUES WITH GOVERNMENT
TO READ THE REST OF THE BLOG, GO TO:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8oX2J5lDgkEGemVcfawTt3udNqDoidrObCptw7mKl0/edit?hl=en_US
Please fix your website. It is difficult to read anything on it.
ReplyDeletePlease fix your website. It is difficult to read anything on it.
ReplyDelete