"A Better Deal" Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks

[Thanasig]

I'm guessing the people complaining about the rich not getting taxed didn't watch the part where he said people making under 100k receive a 33%+ cut on average and over 100k is only about a 28% cut.

How can you be delusional enough to object to keeping 33% more of the money that you have EARNED and WORKED for in the first place and belongs to YOU not the government?

[healthfreak101]

Now I am a citizen of Minnesota. And things here aren't great. Governor Pawlenty's ruthless attack on education has caused me to have to learn in a classroom with 38 other students. Our schools are broke and a lot of it has to do with the Governor's cuts. Tim Pawlenty's government of Minnesota is the best example of the failures of "conservative government". Our schools have declined, our state is in debt, and our home prices are plummetting. The only way to change that is to vote Democratic.

[healthfreak101]

@BeaverQB The problem is that we already give away huge corporate tax cuts.. During Bush's 8 years in office we consistently lowered the corporate tax rate on a huge scale. Corporations have such a low tax rate that it's sickening to any average American. But we now see the result of lowering taxes for big business; economic decline. If your going to promise major tax cuts, like Governor Pawlenty has, then it is ownly right that you give Americans making 300,000 or less a tax cuts instead.

[demetriuslinden]

Great.

[rlaycock]

Sorry Dafy there's an emergency clause in all the versions of that amendment. The Congress itself has passed spending control laws themselves also with emergency releases. The trouble is the thieves in Washington whom you admire so consider every chance to steal more money from Americans to constitute an emergency. Crisis to crisis they get fatter and we get the shaft.

Only an amendment will slow them up. How about if they don't have the balls to Declare War it ain't an emergency?

[dafeltre]

It's true that a balanced budget amendment would have prevented Obama from spending trillions unnecessarily, but it would also have meant we couldn't have participated in WWII. Why is nobody mentioning this?

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I like the fact that Pawlenty is not afraid to challenge some Republican sacred cows, as opposed to "I heart ethanol" Romney. I don't think he can get a balanced budget amendment because of how hard it is to change the Constitution, but smart policies would make one unecessary IMO. Conservatives who are "looking for another Reagan" may want to take a look at Tim Pawlenty instead.

[rlaycock]

@WestVirginiaRebel I'm impressed. He makes Romney look like the pandering clown he really is.

[rguyshipe]

This is awesome. I'm getting more and more excited about Pawlenty. In particular the aspects of simplifying the tax code. The tax code is currently so full of loop holes and gimmicks that the little guy gets nailed and the giants pay nothing or get subsidized. It is all politics. Let's simplify the thing and get this economy going!

[oliversenord]

@rguyshipe Hahahahahahahahahahahaha I just read Pawlenty's new buget plan, which cuts taxes on the rich to an extent that the gap between richa dn poor will expand beyond belief,I mean the gap in the USA is already the biggest in the developed world. How much more do you want the middle classes to pay for bankers horrific mistakes? Seriously It means the Paris Hiltons and the corrupt bamkers of the world will profit while your average Teacher, Policeman will suffer big time. You want that?

[rlaycock]

@oliversenord You're an ignoramus if you fall for that Marxist bullshit. Most of the super rich vote with you nitwit. All your leftist pals are raping small business with those taxes.

The rich don't have income to tax unless they choose to. They're rich. Steve Jobs makes $1 per year. He and Bill Gates and your bud Soros are worth billions. They don't have to declare any income for the next ten years if they don't want to. They're RICH.

You folks are just plain stupid.

[rlaycock]

@oliversenord To give you clueless lefties a hint of reality let us define "Rich". It isn't a couple making $250,000 per year as the Commie-in-Chief claims. Baron Rothchild's definition, "One is rich if you can live well on the interest on your interest". In other words the real rich, who mostly vote left now days, can live like king's on tax free bonds if they wish.

You can raise the rates to 90%, which they once were, they'll just live well without declaring any taxable income.

[BeaverQB]

(cont'd) Add in his proposal to remove the loopholes, incentives, and write-offs in the tax code and you have a potential route to a more healthy economy.  I like it -- good luck getting it through Congress. :P

[BeaverQB]

Reducing the taxes on corporations allows them to invest their money in new projects, innovations and products.  More investment by businesses means more jobs for American workers. More workers means more wages paid to those workers. More wages earned by workers means more taxes paid to the government. More people paying taxes to the government (even at T-Paw's lower rates) means an overall increase in tax revenue to the government.

[grannytoni17]

Gosh, somebody that makes sense! I wonder if the democrats are listening.

[sheridanbucket]

Let's see h'ya:

1. The Government spends more than it takes in, yes?

2. A further reduction in the amount which Govt, takes in (i.e. reducing taxes on businesses) will increase the deficit... unless you plan to INCREASE TAXES on individuals to make up the difference (hopefully breaking even in the process).

3. Smart businesses pay little to no taxes already, thanks to loopholes, incentives, write-offs, etc. (i.g. GE>> $9 Billion pRoFiT = $0 taxes!)

4. How's that "Free" Trade workin' for ya?

[srhintz]

Wow! Well said sir. Bring on Palin, West or Cain as VP and we have a winner.