Republican statements will be in Red. Truth is always blue.

CAIN: But we’re not going to be able to do that until we put some fuel in the engine that drives economic growth, which is the business sector.

During 2010 and 2011, America’s companies have made out like bandits. In the first three months of this year—the last quarter for which we have official statistics—profits from current production increased by nearly $50 billion. Both non-financial and financial firms have expanded their earnings year-on-year. The bounce-back for corporations has proved so robust that their profits accounted for the highest proportion of national income ever recorded in 2010 and look to be on track for 2011 as well. The problem is not with the business sector. The problem is that the business sector is focused too much on making profit, and not hiring, not expanding, not researching, not building inventories, not creating new jobs. The problem is business. They are doing too well. A better balance needs to happen and it won’t as long as we hear we need a better business climate.

RON PAUL: You want to liquidate the debt. The debt is unsustainable. And this bubble was predictable, because 40 years ago we had no restraints whatsoever on the monetary authorities, and we piled debt on debt, we pyramided debt, we had no restraints on the spending.

Historically not true. Al Gore and Democrats led a drive to pay as you go, during the 1990’s which caused budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. Republican efforts then cut the revenue flow, and the two Bush Wars and Medicare Drug Provision, which were not paid as they went, created the deficit. Paul’s vision of letting banks liquidate is nice if it is not your money. If your bank liquidated, everything you had in there, would be gone if it were not for the Federal governmental program insuring all deposits. For examples of hardships caused by liquidation, see the historical accounts of runs on banks in small towns, where everyone’s money was lost simultaneously.

HUNTSMAN: If you want a window into what this country is going to look like in the future if we don’t get on top of our debt, you are seeing it playing out in Europe right now.

While the US built economic bubbles during the earlier part of this century 2001 to 2008, Europe got it’s financial house in order.  The Republican controlled US spent lavishly beyond their means, again for the most part, by paying for two wars and a bailout for pharmaceuticals, on the national credit card. It was because the US misrepresented the safety of derivatives, Europe and other nations used them as debt instruments. When they exploded magnificently,  those nations were put into a lurch. The US as th planet’s largest economy, can always print it’s way out of debt.  Some inflation will be experienced. So, it will not necessarily be the same as Europe is now, because with us, there is no bigger creditor we have to listen to.. We, as we always have since WWII, still get to make up the rules.

ROMNEY: Four years ago when you were running for the Republican nomination and the auto industry was suffering, you said, where is Washington? After the election, when the Bush administration was considering financial assistance for the automakers, you said, no, let the Detroit go bankrupt. Now that the companies are profitable again, after a bailout supported by your Republican governor here in Michigan, you said, well, actually, President Obama implemented my plan all along — or he gravitated to my plan.

There is nothing false there; it is all true.

ROMNEY: My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout (of the Auto Industry) with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand.

At the time of the bailout, all major banks except for Well’s Fargo, were out of money. All accepted financial aid from the US Government out of necessity. At that time, all hedge funds were liquidated to make margin calls. Gasoline, without the price support of hedge funds, fell to $1.40 a gallon, it’s natural price based on supply and demand. There was no spare  change  in the financial system for private investors to resurrect two companies the size of Chrysler and General Motors. Preventing government investment during that time, as Romney implies he’d do, would have shut both auto makers down forcing all cars being bought by Americans, to be foreign owned.

ROMNEY: They are actually deciding when to pull out of Afghanistan based on politics.

Based on the book, Obama’s Wars, written by Bob Woodward, politics was not involved.  The decision to withdraw by June 2011 was locked into the decision of whether to send more troops to Afghanistan during the initial year of the Obama presidency. The reason that exit date was set, was to provide a window of closure that the Vietnam war lacked. Whereas we won every military engagement in Vietnam, we  still lost the war. How many Americans then died needlessly? It was a fourteen year war. The in-advance, planned-out decision to provide closure was two fold. It sent a signal to troops that this president would indeed bring them home, and it sent a signal to Karzai that we were not staying in Afghanistan forever. Afghans needed to step up their part in running the country, and not hide in their palace, chiding the Americans who were fighting their battles… This decision had nothing to do with politics; it was a practical plan based on men’s lives, cost, and diplomatic necessity.  Plus, Romney seems to have forgotten in America, we have a military THAT IS UNDER CIVILIAN CONTROL..  If the majority of American people want them back, they ARE the boss.

PERRY: The next president of the United States needs to send a powerful message not just to the people of this country, but around the world, that America is going to be America again, that we are not going to pick winners and losers from Washington, D.C., that we are going to trust the capital markets and the private sector to make the decisions, and let the consumers pick winners and losers. And it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s Wall Street or whether it’s some corporate entity or whether it’s some European country. If you are too big to fail, you are too big.

In other words, blah, blah, blah,  the exact repeat of George W. Bush, 2000. Didn’t work the first time, and voters in 2008, remembered it.

GINGRICH; I think the Federal Reserve ought to be audited and we should have all the decision documents for 2008, ’09 and ’10 so we can understand who he bailed out, why he bailed them out, who he did not bail out, and why he did not bail them out.

Newt, it’s already been done with a complete set of links that show the American people exactly what and when and how much was used, how much was simply guaranteed, and how much is still available under the plan. Why waste money auditing something already audited? Look first: (it’s called Google).

Gingrich: The reason we follow — I think most of us are for tax policies that lead to jobs is because we have had two cycles in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, and the Contract with America, both of which had the same policy: lower taxes, less regulation, more American energy, and have faith in the American job creator as distinct from the Saul Alinsky radicalism of higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy with more regulations, no American energy, as the president announced again today in his decision on offshore, and finally class warfare.

This is a flat out lie. “Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s the factual  experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared? As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.”

Prosperity is a democratic commodity by a ration of 300 to 1. Anyone can make up theories if no one is checking any facts behind them. Gingrich’s idea is just that: a theory. But if it was your money, based on real evidence, with whom would you rather invest? Someone who gets you a return 300 to 1? Or would you be happy, to have a ratio of 1 to 1? That’s fact.

BACHMANN: Well, I think one thing that we know is that taxes lead to jobs leaving the country. All you need to know is that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

True: Japan has the highest corporate rate, followed by the United States, then Canada. But, on the personal side, most nations with lower corporate rates, … have far higher personal income tax rates for families, than does the United States. Only 7 nations have individuals that pay lower rates than the United States. Yes, Japan is also one of them.

But if our corporate tax rate is so high, is that so bad? One of the ways we calculate how well a nation’s economy is doing, is by using their GDP. To prevent one person in a small country skewing the GDPs, another measurement is to balance the GDP per capita…. In that ranking Luxembourg is first, followed by the United States. Then by Norway. Obviously despite our high corporate rates, things are going better in the US than they are in those countries heralded for their low rates. Bachman’s argument is theory; facts prove her wrong.

BACHMANN: We’re still stuck in a 1986 era of about a 40 percent tax rate. We have to lower the tax rate because it’s a cost of doing business.

Reminder: American corporate profits HAVE NEVER BEEN HIGHER!!!!! Cutting taxes to make them even higher isn’t going to change a thing. Nor will relaxing regulatory control. American corporate profits HAVE NEVER BEEN HIGHER!!!!!  If these astronomical profits are currently not putting people to work … so how does making them even more obscene change that, and put people to work?

BACHMANN: The biggest regulatory problem we have is Obamacare and Dodd/Frank.

Actually the biggest regulatory problem we have, is dealing with the aftermath of having no financial regulation at all. The Dodd/Frank regulations are a return to the sane years, remember?  The economic stable years that stretched from 1932 to 2002, when those same regulations were in place. As for Obamacare, the whole point of it’s being passed, was that  insurance company death panels,  were killing off Americans, based on the cost of their treatment. (Boy was it sweet attaching that to her name).

BACHMANN: But beyond that, we have to legalize American energy.

I put ten dollars in my tank yesterday…Damn,  I guess I’ll have to turn myself in.

HARWOOD: Senator Santorum, you proposed a zero tax on manufacturing businesses.

SANTORUM: I have.

HARWOOD: I understand the sentiment behind that. And the state of Michigan has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades. Isn’t that the kind of distortion in the tax code that people want to get away from in order to get rates down: flatter, simpler, fairer?

SANTORUM: I think getting the rate down to zero is down — is pretty far down. That’s good.

HARWOOD: But it’s down for the manufacturing industry, as opposed to people doing other things. Isn’t that picking winners and losers?

What is wrong with picking winners and losers? Oh, it was Perry who said so… lol.

SANTORIUM: I’ve said I’m going the repeal every single Obama-era regulation that cost businesses over $100 million. Repeal them all.

Once again, corporations are raking in the money already. Helping them more is not going to help us more.. IF they haven’t invested in America when they had record profits, how is giving them even more money, helping us?

SANTORIUM: We’ll lower taxes, repatriating funds, 0 percent tax if you repatriate those funds and invest them in plant and equipment.

(OUCH: he discovered and reads my blog which is why he and I are the only two offering this rather practical idea.)

SANTORIUM: I’m different than many of them, that I’m going to cut all the subsidies out and let the market work, as opposed to creating incentives for different — different forms of energy that the government supports.

Way back when, if it weren’t for subsidies (in the form of free land), there would have been no railroads. All new technology needs subsidies to get it started. Failure to subsidize new products in a timely fashion, yields monopolistic price increases in the old product, simply because of lack of competition.

ROMNEY: Our Democratic friends think when a corporation is profitable, that’s a bad thing. I remember asking someone, “Where do you think profits go? When you hear that a company is profitable, where do you think it goes?” And they said, “Well, to pay the executives their big bonuses.”

I said, “No, actually, none of it goes to pay the executives. Profit is what is left over after they have all been paid.”

Well, once again, American corporations made record profits (even after bonuses) and where is the investment?
That is the question that never gets answered.

Democrats say that when taxes were higher we never had that problem. If you look at charts showing domestic investment vis a vis the rise and fall with tax rates, you can see that when tax rates rise higher, more domestic investment takes place. When taxes drop lower, less, and less investment takes place.

Theory is fine for sitting around the tables shooting bull …. But Americans are getting shit by the bull.

Facts show why. Republican policy is effective only in a dream state; a state made quite apparent by Rick Perry’s sleeping through the debate, unable to focus on his third agency he’d cut… Yes, what better representation of the Republican dream state, than that?