It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rick Santorum's plan of economic disaster and overpopulation

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

How Santorum, unafraid to talk about poverty, differs from GOP on economic policy




Santorum would cut federal spending by $5 trillion over five years, and pare non-defense spending back to 2008 levels -- a reduction of around 30 percent from 2012. He also backs a balanced budget amendment, which would limit federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product -- around $2.6 trillion for this year. He even wants to stop lawmakers from being paid if they don't pass fiscally responsible spending bills on time.

The plan also calls for a flatter tax code, with just two income tax rates: 28 percent, and 10 percent. That would likely mean an income tax cut for many of the richest Americans, who currently pay a 35 percent rate, though Santorum also pledges to eliminate "most deductions," which tend to benefit the rich. And he would cut the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 12 percent, which would help Wall Street professionals and others who make money through investments.

His plan would also likely mean a cut for many of the tens of millions of households making between $17,400 and around $50,000. They'd presumably fall into the 10 percent bracket, down from the 15 percent rate they currently pay. In keeping with his traditional views on social issues, Santorum also wants to encourage family formation (he and his wife have six children themselves), by tripling the personal deduction for each child, and by scrapping marriage tax penalties.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Santorum has said he opposes a rise in the minimum wage, although he wouldn't scrap the concept altogether, as some in his party would. As well as auditing the Fed, he'd have it focus only on controlling inflation, and not on promoting employment. Santorum supports Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to save money by transforming Medicare into a system of private insurance. And like every 2012 Republican presidential candidate current or former, he'd repeal President Obama's health-care law. So far, that's a plan that sticks pretty closely to the standard GOP script. But other aspects of Santorum's proposal set him apart from his party, by grappling with issues of concern to Americans further down the economic spectrum.

Again like most of his GOP rivals, Santorum would lower the corporate tax rate. But he'd establish two new rates: 17.5 percent -- a 50 percent cut from the current 35 percent rate -- for most businesses, and zero for manufacturers. The goal, his website says, is to "multiply job opportunities for struggling middle-income families and renew communities that have lost critical manufacturing jobs."


news.yahoo.com...

This isn't feasible or possible.....there is no way to even balance this kind of budget....it's nuts! Add this to the fact that he's against all forms of contraception.....he does nothing but pave the way for encouraging people to continue having endless amounts of kids.
edit on 15-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 

You might be right, but would you please go into a little more detail on where the faults in this plan are?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, the current state our entire country is in is considered "nuts". I think we need something drastic to change our current situation.
How are his plans not possible?
edit on 15-2-2012 by PassedKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


One of the MOST important reasons NOT to vote for sanatoriums entry is that he will be able to vote into office some of the worst possible Supreme Court Justices since the Christian Crusades.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


The really crazy thing about this is he wants to cut taxation to 0% for manufacturers to create jobs. This only goes to show that he is either ignorant of where most things are manufactured in this country:


prison workers provide ninety eight percent of the total market for equipment assembly services.


source

or he is a shill for the prison industrial complex.
edit on 15-2-2012 by Q:1984A:1776 because: grammar



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


Right and he does not address how to bring manufacturing back into the US and highly regulate and tax those who in the big bailouts ran from this sinking ship into other less regulated countries. This is a big point you make here.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 

Sorry, I'm not following you. What does that have to do with his economic plan? (I'm asking about your Supreme Court post.)
edit on 15-2-2012 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 



Man, I must be really slow today.

Right and he does not address how to bring manufacturing back into the US
I would have thought that announcing that manufacturers wouldn't be taxed in America would bring a flood of employers to the US.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Ok I am not just talking about the economic catastrophe he represents but the Supreme Court appointments are just as important when considering a candidate regardless of how you stand on the issues.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You must be really slow today as you apparently missed my post. What he wants to do is cut taxation on the most evil business in America: the prison industrial complex. Our manufacturing jobs aren't just going over seas, they are being performed by what essentially boils down to slave-labor. Read the article that I linked to, and see if you still support his platform. If you do, you might want to make your signature be in bold, flashing letters.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Taxes mean nothing compared to what they have and will continue to save by overseas contracts for labor.

What it will help will be the nuclear facilities by the hundreds he supports.

Oops edit to say HI Charles! good to see you about.
edit on 15-2-2012 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
That guy says anything to get a vote, mostly untruths to scary opinion, he scares me ..hes boring, his mother is king tut,,he is like my older sisters generation that is completely lame like her, he hates van halen and harder rock, sees a distortion pedal as the anti christ,,people have the right to listen to what they want ,,I also heard santorums wife was married to an abortion doctor that was 30 years older than he is,,not that in my reality that should be judged but the mainstream society IS NOT in reality and they may care about that.,,The guy is the flavor of the week and he just came in third in maine..they have no other option but him right now, They WILL NOT mention Ron, so it will be back and forth Mitt and santorum until they start praising obama again. I guess the people that vote for santorum never looked up the definitionof his last name on google because thats what he is. T WILL ONLY VOTE RON PAUL.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 

Dear Q:1984A:1776,

I am sorry that I'm so late getting to your post, but rest assured I didn't miss it. But to your point. Don't you think there's a fair amount of manufacturing going on that's not in prison? Besides, what if, to use an extreme case to make the point, a million manufacturing jobs came into the country? How would we be hurt? The manufacturers would need support services like secretaries, truckers, raw material suppliers and more. Anyone in prison who doesn't have a job would get one. Wouldn't that give them a marketable skill and the knowledge that they can accomplish something? And if manufacturers' costs are lower, they'll cut prices to sell more. That's good, too.

Take another approach. Let's say we don't allow manufacturers to use prison labor. How are the prisoners better off? I think I'd rather be working on an assembly line with a dozen other guys than spend my day locked in a cell with Bruno.


Read the article that I linked to, and see if you still support his platform. If you do, you might want to make your signature be in bold, flashing letters.
I don't know enough about Santorum's platform to support it, just what I've read in this post. Listen, I don't have any money to contribute to anybody, and the Republican nominee will be picked without my influence, so it will be Obama versus somebody, and I don't care enough to get excited yet. Come back in September.

Oh, and for my signature? I figured out how to put it in bold as you suggested (which I did), could you explain how to make it flashing?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 

Dear antar,

It really has been too long. As usual, you've made me stop and think. May I offer a few remarks?

You should get together with Q:1984A:1776. His position seems to be that manufacturers have nearly no labor costs in the US, they use prison labor, nearly slave labor. I'll let you two fight that one out.

You know, it's probably good for my sanity that I'm not getting behind any of the candidates yet. Between our current President's record and a really odd Republican field, I worry for the next generation.

And you're right about the importance od Supreme Court nominations, but this is a little involved. If the Republicans take the Senate will they confirm any of Obama's appointees? I suppose they have to, sooner or later, but it will be fascinating to watch the manuevering. And, yeah, Santorum's appointments to the Court will be strange, but Obama has given us Kagan and Sotomayor. They're not so hot either.

Hey, I'm getting gloomy here. I'm not generally a bubbling fairy, but our country's politics has me even lower than usual. I suppose we'll just have to continue to put our trust in the people.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
If anyone is having issues on who to pull for in this election , just stack up the negatives and pick the one with the least of them, or the one who has none.RON



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by avatard
 

Dear avatard,

I'd like to vote for Paul but he isn't (yet) within shouting distance of winning the nomination. At the moment it seems to be Romney or Santorum. Have you got any thoughts on the Santorum economic plan from the OP that would make me refuse to consider him?

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join