Response to Obama, 8: The Importance of Culture

[1goodsport]

Mr. Gingrich is a very smart man. Of all the pundits I have ever heard speak, he is among the most rational and logical. He gets to the heart of the matter without worrying about pollical correctness. He says what he knows in his mind to be true. Some people don't like people like that. I suppose the truth hurts and people would rather live in the denial of political correctness. He would make a great president.

[escdelesp]

Im neither right nor left but can a conservative explain to me how this guy was not chosen for heading the GOP in the last election? Surely it cant be bc he called Hillary a bitch 15 years ago And PLEASE dont tell me bc Palin is a milf!!!

[MikeTMerciless]

@escdelesp I'll deign to answer this question in spite of your classless rhetoric. He simply didn't run. That's it. He didn't want to get active in politics anymore but rather write books. But now, as of the last Fox News Sunday, he might run. Even so, there is a sizable statist element in the GOP that does not like conservatism because, in essence, implementation of conservatism would deprive them of power they'd like to have if they were at the helm of government.

[mhearstify]

"Cultural change begins in the people.."

You're right but Gingrich is also correct in saying that "..if you want to reinforce that change, you want to design government policies which reward.."

I'm Australian. You guys have a good man there in Newt Gingrich.

[joshua504079]

Government cannot improve cultures, and it's not intended to. Cultural change begins in the people and ultimately changes government. Sadly, we have created a culture of dependency, and our government is feeding off the culture we created. Want to change your corrupt government? Then let us change our corrupt culture.

[finepaid]

Obama and opera are and abomination! they do not know God and do not stand for righeousness. they will destroy america!

[cc2009dotus]

finepaid, yep! your 100% right!

[parakeethands]

who is this man to tell me which way is the right way and which way is the wrong way to go? we live in america buddy. freedom buddy.

[pgrath1]

Everyone, even the poorest should pay some tax, so they have stake in the system. Not everyone should go to University. All schools should require some tuition, even public schools (or no one will value their education)

[badger5079]

ALL taxes are a redistribution of income - from the taxpayer to the government which is then responsible for improving society with these funds.

[marek4400]

smart man

[badger5079]

If the U.S. were more like South Africa's townships then the kids would aim higher? Maybe Newt should propose that rich Republicans stop hoarding all the wealth and evading their tax responsibilities so they can aim higher.

[Debonair73]

badger5079, you know we paid 2.4 trillion in taxes last year 18% of GDP. I can see now that Obama is going to destroy this country with this bullshit redistribute the wealth rhetoric. When had 5 trillion dollars in wealth transfer with the Great Society programs from rich to poor and poor people are still poor. You can give every poor person in the country a $1 million and 80% will be broken in 5 years.

[badger5079]

Obama talks about giving the middle class a tax cut - he doesn't talk about giving money to the poor....but I suppose anybody who earns less than $250,000 per year is considered poor by Newt and yourself.

You can give every rich person in the U.S. a 10% tax cut and you will just have an expanded deficit with a lengthening recession as middle class spending power is hampered by paying extra taxes so the rich don't have to. If the middle class don't spend, the economy is going to tank for everyone

[Debonair73]

Why does he want to raise taxes, refundable tax credits are income transfers. Obama

's whole platform is big government spending and refundable tax credits. He does care about deficits. That 250,000 number was a lie from the start. Obama said he wanted to reverse the top 2 tax rates back to Clinton levels. That's the 35% or 33% and 33% bracket starts at 164,500 single/182,500 HOH/200,300 married. You can google 2008 Federal Tax Income brackets.

[Debonair73]

badger5079, plus Obama said he will not renew the Bush tax cuts in 2010 which will raise taxes on everybody because Bush cut taxes across the board for everybody. You can google Clinton 2000 tax rates and the tax rates for this year. You can be for Obama but he economic policies are going to make things worst. Dems just want people to pay more. They are just going give out some big services to their supporters and pray the business cycle recovers. If it don't they will blame lazy rich people.

[badger5079]

I don't agree with keeping tax cuts for everybody. The rich are not paying enough. There is a growing divide between the richest and the poorest in the U.S. and it is not due to the stupidity or wastefulness of the poor. It is due to the rich avoiding their tax responsibilities.

[Debonair73]

badger5079, What responsibilities are those? Why put the responsibilities on the people paying and not the people doing the spending?

[badger5079]

The rich have a responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes...especially in an economic downturn. The people doing the spending are called the government and they are responsible for leading the country (so they clearly have the responsibility on their shoulders already).

[SrhLun]

The rich pay the most taxes in this country - PERIOD, economics 101 my dear. You were right when you said that with tax cuts companies "reinvest in the company"- also econ.101. The only factors that make companies even think about paying higer wages are specilization,government mandates or organized labor ( mass strikes like back in the day).

[spikedds]

I was kind of following you until this post. If you give "every rich person" (however that is defined) a 10% tax cut, how do you get to the middle class paying extra taxes? They'll be paying the same tax rate, but now the "rich" will be able to afford to offer more jobs or higher wages to the middle class.

Why would you not also offer a similar tax cut to the middle class? (however that is defined)

[badger5079]

Let's define the rich as the top 10% of earners for the sake of this discussion. The poor are the bottom 15% and the middle class are in between. (Maybe somebody can tell me how that works out relative to the minimum wage because I am just throwing those figures out there). Now imagine that a certain amount of tax revenue is needed. If the rich pay less then the middle class will have to pay a greater proportion of the tax take, otherwise the tax take goes down and the deficit goes up.

[badger5079]

Company owners who find that they are making more profit because they are paying less tax don't turn around and try to spend that extra money on extra wages. They re-invest it in the company (or pay it out in dividends to the shareholders if they are in the stock market). The profit motive drives them which is fine...but the role of government is to create order in society and this means that profitable companies should not be allowed to exploit their financially struggling workers.

[badger5079]

I would never advocate just giving the taxpayers' money to the poor as a welfare check.

What I am saying is that the economy is stronger when the middle class have more disposable income and the poor aren't allowed to multiply and create strife. Of course the non-fascist way to solve the latter problem is to create many opportunities for poor people to become better-off. Whwnever a society has too great of a rich-poor divide, there is rebellion and disharmony.

[robsoletethinking]

I can agree with a lot of this. Here's my only objection: we need a different definition of "prosperity."

The kids all want iPods and sneakers because of prosperity's ailing side-effect: materialism.

The very entrepreneurs Newt wants these kids to become would be the same ones marketing material excess and false "needs" to the next generation.

When we can divorce prosperity from materialism, we'll be able to make this sort of progress.

[greg2009]

I hate to say it, but I agree with Newt Gingrich. I am a teacher and I see kids not rewarded for hardwork and striving for excellence. I can't stand Newt, but he makes sense. The seed of high expectations and desire has to be planted in every child before the enter the classroom. When this is done failing schools will disappear and so will dispair in may downtroddent sectors of American society. Otherwise, let God's kingdom come!! Come Lord Jesus!!!!!!!!!!

[badger5079]

There should be special advanced courses for highly intelligent children - not private schools for the often dopey children of the rich. It will take a government initiative to do this. There is no incentive for the rich party to back this proposal for it may involve subsiding advanced courses for intelligent children from lower income families....and the

Democrats won't do it because they are scared of encouraging elitism.

[badger5079]

Not everybody can be rich or intelligent but opportunities should be available for all intelligent children. The aim should be to identify and maximise potential regardless of the income of the child's family.

Also, the rich children who are sent to private schools don't necessarily appreciate or make the best use of their time despite the fact that their parents are paying.

[thedudeabides76]

Sounds kind of liberal. People have the right not to persue what Newt says they should. Im all for rewarding responsible behavior, but not for an elitist to set penalties for not going along with his plans. It sets a system that is waiting to be abused by future politicians.

[MeanPokerFace]

I think the "making it expensive" part is an allusion to being left behind for not participating in the incentives for advancement. I would'nt say it's Liberal, I'd akin it to his philosophy of Government adopting what works in the free market. In this case, reward for meeting goals as it is in a capitalistic system. Otherwise, its educational welfare like some schools have now - the have nots deserve an F(=$0), but get a D(=$Gov Cheese) to keep them from clogging up the gutters. See?

[thedudeabides76]

I'm just saying that if Newts philosophy caught on, and became the standard. Then a liberal got in and started determining what is responsible, it could take on a whole different meaning. Reward for conserving energy, penalties for driving what you want to drive. Reward for industry having a low carbon output, penalties for the ones that do not. Maybe it was a bad choice of words by newt, but I take politicians by their words. He should've said reinforce the historic standards in schools.

[snowtrot]

very true. incentive creation, not charity, that's the way to a healthy society. you must begin with culture to get at the minds of individuals. then the rest at the macro level will follow.

[greenfury87]

"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson

Stop thinking the government should run our lives and take care of us. It is immoral.

[James92802]

Question:

Would you rather, have your government pay your healthcare bill year after year. Or would you rather your government, start researching such projects as a $2000.00 per year solution to family energy needs? The goal being for under $2000.00 a year, a family would have enough energy to power a home, and 2 cars for a year.

What would save you the most money? What result would be the best for America? Please I would love to see America's answers on this.

[ESSAYONSMFER]

OK, I'll bite, Well of course the theory sounds great. How do you plan to implement this idea/plan.

[crazyforcrowe]

Newt thinks along the same lines as Fred Thompson. What a dream team those two would have been....... (sighing heavily) =0)

[vitalfinds]

Wow, Newt has a YouTube channel ... how cool!

[hellorodney]

and yet,,,,ANOTHER 5* VIDEO,,,,,thanks so much

[Bonecrkr]

Newt Gingrich is right about alot of these things. However, he is the wrong person to say them. He's a big part of the problem.

Way back at the beginning of his career, HE was the one responsible for sealing the FBI surveillance of Martin Luther King jr, investigating his communist ties, after that testimony was presented to Congress. It proved many horribly corrupt and negative things about MLK and the civil rights movement in general. And he buried it.

Obama is a direct result of that.

[driftersmanifesto]

hey newt, bite me you corrupt bastard

[AmericanKnowItAll]

The RACIST Obama has been CAUGHT.

1) His WIFE says she isnt "proud" of America

2) He VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES a 20 yr relationship to this thug pastor who HATES whites and HATES America.

3) His OWN CAMPAIGN prohibited this pastor from participating in Obamas campaign.

4) Obama calls his Grandmother "Typical" of whites. HIS OWN FREAKIN' GRANDMA!!!

5) NOW, Mr. OBAMA says white country people are so backwards that they will turn to guns when they are disenchanted.

Stubid Liberals!

[optimistbre]

Newt just said that there is a "right way and a wrong way to change the culture." This is the wrong way. I personally want to know what he might do about having a "white" caucus. He wants to do something about Africa,well what that be? Why does he say he is getting out of Iraq and tell the veterans he will increase the military and forthermore where would he get the increase?THE DRAFT?I have morequestions but since he wants to stay on the issues I can TRY! He will just brush it of his shoulder!

[JSMan55]

What relevence does your post have to the subject mater of this video? Newt is making a fairly common sense statement about how to change culture using financial incentives and disincentives. And you post about Iraq and and a white caucus? Curious indeed.