Santorum sweeps back into the race

posted at 8:40 am on February 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Last night when discussing the trends in the three non-binding Republican contests, I tweeted that Rick Santorum’s win in Missouri was only surprising in gaining a majority, but that a win in Minnesota would be surprising — and a win in Colorado would be shocking.  As it happens, National Journal agrees with that assessment. Santorum shocked the Republican race with a clean sweep of Tuesday’s caucuses and primary, and may have pushed himself into serious consideration as the long-sought conservative consolidation alternative to Mitt Romney:

Rick Santorum on Tuesday completed his sweep of states with a stunning upset of Mitt Romney in Colorado’s caucus, according to state Republican officials, shaking up a GOP presidential race that has seen more drama than Romney’s campaign envisioned even a week ago.

Santorum earlier won Minnesota’s caucus and a non-binding Missouri primary. Romney – who won Colorado handily in 2008 — had long remained the odds-on favorite to prevail in that state’s caucus, as polls had shown him with a double-digit lead.

A jubilant Santorum told supporters that he isn’t the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney:

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” he told supporters earlier in the evening. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

Missouri had looked for some time to be Santorum’s best shot.  Newt Gingrich chose not to get on the ballot, which made the state Santorum’s opportunity to fight Romney head-to-head.  What little polling existed showed Romney to be about ten to twelve points back, but Romney ended up losing by thirty points as Santorum claimed a 55% majority.  Santorum swept every county, including the presumed Romney stronghold of St. Louis, putting an exclamation point on Santorum’s ability to beat Romney.  He also beat Ron Paul in Minnesota by eighteen and Romney by 28, a state Romney carried easily in 2008, but with a low turnout in 2012 despite appearances from both candidates in the final few days.

However, while Santorum was expected to be competitive in Minnesota, Romney was widely expected to win Colorado.  Romney stayed in Denver for the caucus results, which differed sharply from his massive 42-point 2008 victory.  Instead, Romney ended up the night down five points in a race that also had a 10% dropoff in turnout from four years earlier.  Suddenly, Romney’s organization and his ability to simultaneously compete in multiple states looks a lot less formidable than it did a week ago, and this three-state loss — especially in Minnesota, where Romney finished third behind Ron Paul — makes Romney look a lot less inevitable.

It wasn’t all that good of a night for Paul, either, though.  He managed to get into second place in Minnesota thanks to Romney’s stumble, but Paul was supposed to own the caucus states through his superior organization and fundraising.  His strategy was to win smaller-state caucuses and build a delegate count that would force Republicans to bow to his movement at the convention in Tampa.  He’s getting higher percentages of the votes but not doing much better in a four-man race in position finishes than in 2008.  As in the previous contest, his support and influence is beginning to look overrated, and Paul has to hope for something better out of Maine’s caucus this Saturday.

The man who suffered the worst night was Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich’s absence from the Missouri ballot, which was a deliberate tactical move, looks like a big mistake in retrospect.  He allowed Santorum the opportunity to probe that it would be Santorum and not Gingrich who could rally conservatives against Romney.  Gingrich’s third-place finish in Colorado barely beat Paul to stay out of the cellar, and Gingrich did finish dead last in Minnesota.  There isn’t even a fig leaf of spin from these results to which Gingrich can cling; Gingrich was entirely irrelevant in all three contests, except to the extent that he got beat.

After Maine’s caucuses on Saturday, which I presume all four candidates will now hotly contest, the next big test will be to see if and how Santorum can build on his sweep in Arizona and Michigan.  Romney had big leads in both, with Santorum in third place behind Gingrich.  We’ll see whether these non-binding contests matter to voters on February 28th — and Super Tuesday on March 6th.  If nothing else, this is a very good time for a shoestring campaign to catch fire.

Update: Byron York reports that this sweep may have been ordained in Florida, thanks to the nasty, personal battle between Romney and Gingrich:

“I think this started in Florida, when Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich went at each other with such personal attacks,” says Chuck Laudner, a longtime ally of Rick Santorum, calling late on election night from Minneapolis.  “They weren’t really on the issues.  It was investments and name calling, and I think it turned people off.  People here looked at that and said there’s got to be an alternative.”

Laudner, the Iowa conservative political operative who became nearly a household name as the owner and driver of the “Chuck truck” that carried Santorum across Iowa before that state’s caucuses, spent the last ten days in Minnesota, trying to persuade influential Republicans to support Santorum. “Ten days ago, I couldn’t get a single statehouse or senate member to go public with an endorsement,” he says.  Then, after the fighting in Florida and its continuation in Nevada, things changed.  “By the end of the week, we got a couple of endorsements, and they helped us get a couple more, and then we had a lot of names.”

The shift to Santorum was fast and overwhelming.  In the end, Santorum beat Romney by 27 points in a state Romney had won by 19 points back in 2008.  Santorum scored an even bigger victory in Missouri’s beauty-contest, nonbinding primary, beating Romney by 30 points.  And even in Colorado, where the race was closer, Santorum came out ahead.  For a candidate who hadn’t won since his narrow and belated victory in Iowa, it was three victories in one night. Santorum has now won four contests to Romney’s three and Gingrich’s one.

Speaking for myself, the Florida contest prompted my final assessment.

Update II: Santorum beat Paul in MN by 18, not Romney, whom he beat by 28.  I’ve corrected it above.

Update III: My friend Shaun Mullen wanted a little more insight into what may be going on in Minnesota  It’s important to remember that the activist conservative base drives the caucuses in Minnesota, which is why Romney won in 2008; he was seen at that time as the conservative alternative to the inevitable John McCain nomination.  Santorum has done a good job in articulating the conservative agenda while Romney and Gingrich spend their time attacking each other on Bain and Freddie Mac.  This is the consequence.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

We, as a country MUST PRODUCE MORE than we CONSUME and SAVE the DIFFERENCE. <<<<< That is the formula for growing an economy, among other things. Without savings, there is NO investment.

Obviously. I hope they taught you more than that in you “economics” class.

But “producing” encompasses a lot more than “manufacturing”. Tourism is productive… it brings in outside dollars to an economy. Why should we favor manufacturing over tourism?

We see NO benefits in the loss of jobs as the result of lower costs from lower cost producers outside the US.

Absolutely and utterly false. We all see savings in the form of lower prices of goods manufactured overseas, as purchased by everyone. The problem myopic people often have is they only see the cost of the jobs lost, because they are concentrated but few, as opposed to the benefits of lower prices, which are diffuse but many.

To say otherwise is worthy of a labor wh0re racketeer representative.

The formula is: C + G – T = 0 (zero). C here is the Domestic Private Sector Financial Balance, G is the Government Fiscal Balance, and T is the Current Account Balance, which means a country’s Trade Deficit or Trade Surplus. You can play with all three elements, C, G or T, increasing one or decreasing the other, but the formula demands that they always sum to zero. If they don’t then you have entered an extremely unstable position where one or more of the terms are about to adjust dramatically to restore the balance.

That they all sum to zero has nothing to do with the relative and absolute advantages you get from foreign trade. So what if manufacturing jobs go overseas? We can do a lot of productive work in this country to substitute for those manufacturing jobs. All giving those domestic manufacturers a tax break does is draw capital from productive industries to less productive “manufacturing” industries.

And those non-manufacturing industries are what will balance out the trade equation, eventually. Those dollars have to come back, either as investment in this country (A good thing), purchasing hard assets here, like real estate (a good thing), or participating in our economy, be it tourism, finance, education, or even what remains of our manufactured goods.

If C is rising, because consumers are saving and deleveraging, and G is rising, because government is implementing austerity measures and cutting spending (decreasing spending improves the fiscal balance), then T has to be showing a corresponding positive balance that is increasing as fast as the other two. In plain English, the only way on this lovely green planet that the private sector (consumers and business) and government can both shrink their respective inputs into this equation is if the particular country to which we apply the formula is being enormously successful at winning export share away from countries who are already dominating the global export market. And that is a tough trick to pull off, since the big trade surplus countries have wage arbitrage and demographics on their side.

In plain English, the dollars have to come back at some point, and in some way. Just because we are buying their computer chips doesn’t mean they aren’t coming to Florida to vacation. In fact, it means they are more likely to come vacation in Florida. Good thing!

Or investing in our industries. Good thing!!

Or coming to us for high-end education. Good thing!

Unless that’s not Italian for “Understand?”, sure. I understand.

You clearly know more about Italian than you do economics, domestic or international.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Okay, bitter much?

When it comes to foreign policy, Paul is batcrap crazy.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Why do you think a brokered convention will produce something better than Romney? We’d end up with Christie or Pawlenty. We swap one liberal RINO governor for another. Given the idiocy of the RNC, maybe even Jeb Bush.

angryed on February 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Exactly.

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

But yeah… He want’s to be the next Pope according to RomneyBots…

Y314K on February 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

That says more about the Romney nutballs then Santorum. Does it not?

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

ou have a lot more to learn, but at least I gave you a start…but my free lessons to you are over,

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Your free lessons are worth less than they cost.

You don’t know what you are talking about. A tax is (almost) always borne by both consumer and producer. That’s as close to economic fact as you get.

That you are willing to disregard it, tells me all I need to know about your education.

It suffered.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM

One thing about Rick, no one will ever say he is the smartest guy in the room

https://twitter.com/#!/hunterw/status/167132567122870272/photo/1

Last year he sends out a Hannukah Card with a version from a christian bible… Smart!!

georgealbert on February 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And the Bush is dumb meme begins…lol How is it that quoting his own Bible verse is wrong…. So if he was to send a muslim a card he would have to quote the koran… If he is gonna talk to a Jewish person he needs to talk to them in Hebrew now… LOL

Y314K on February 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM

First of all, I get fired up over it because I, for one, think the GOP should stand for something a little better than fag-bashing. JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Fag-bashing, huh? That’s what’s got your panties all twisted in knots? Romneycare you can live with. The republican party standing shoulder to shoulder with the creator of Romneycare – no problem, but a “fag-basher”? So go vote for Obama, he’ll preserve their right to take over the boy scouts….

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Why did the “non-binding beauty contest” in Missouri attract more voters than the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado combined? Especially when the three states involved have roughly equal populations (MO has 9 Congressional districts; MN has 8, CO has 7).

Are the voters of the Show Me State trying to show us something? Why doesn’t Santorum get any delegates for his 138,000 votes in Missouri?

Steve Z on February 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Fag-bashing, huh? That’s what’s got your panties all twisted in knots? Romneycare you can live with. The republican party standing shoulder to shoulder with the creator of Romneycare – no problem, but a “fag-basher”? So go vote for Obama, he’ll preserve their right to take over the boy scouts….

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Frnakly, I don’t give a damn what foolishness the people of MA want to engage in regarding health care. If someone in MA doesn’t like it, get out. That;s what I would do.

He has said he wouldn’t do it for the nation, and that he would repeal O-care. Good enough for me.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

You don’t know what you are talking about. A tax is (almost) always borne by both consumer and producer. That’s as close to economic fact as you get.

That you are willing to disregard it, tells me all I need to know about your education.

It suffered.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I will say it one more time, not for you, but for others to laugh at you…taxes are paid from revenue…and companies (a “producer” cannot print their own money…that’s about all you can possible understand at this time.
Talk to me when you have run a company…or for that matter have even worked for a company, I would guess you have real no experience in these matters.
In the several companies I have bought and ran, I always had revenues, from my customers, pay all of my expenses. I never printed one dollar or minted one coin, all the money came from customers or investments (which came from customers, its one of those chain type things you may have read about).
No company I had ever worked with, or known, has done any different…now if you could show me a company that creates revenue out of thin air and pays taxes, I would be interested, I am sure you must have one example, since you say they all do.
Any thing you may have been taught about “companies” creating their own wealth, and using their own money, is a lie, a fairy tale…there is no tooth fairy. Sorry to disappoint you…but you will thank me later on when you apply for a real job and you now know what not to ask.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I stand corrected…GM used Gov. money to pay their taxes, they did not have “customers”, but they did have about 160 million suckers to foot the bill…

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM

He has said he wouldn’t do it for the nation, and that he would repeal O-care. Good enough for me.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

So whatever Mitt says is good enough? You don’t need anything else besides his word?
If he said that Obama’s takeover of GM was a good thing, you would agree?

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Taxes ARE ALWAYS a business cost in the products end price.

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If you wrote that entire post to make that point, you wasted some time.

Of course they’re affect the price and cost of the good to the consumer. I’ve stated that flatly.

The point is that (other than in monopoly situations or if the good is life-or-death) the consumer doesn’t bear the entire cost of a tax. They bear some share in the form of higher prices, the producer bears some share out of potential profits, and what exactly that share is depends largely on the responsiveness of demand for that good to any changes in price.

If you know anything about economics, you don’t have to be told that. Unfortunately, there are some here who deny basic economic facts, and then pretend to be conservative.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

This republican primary comes down to this. Of the three remaining viable candidates, each one which is imperfect, which one is least likely to turn his back on the conservative principles of limited government and fiscal discipline? Hint: Romneycare disqualifies Romney.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

And what is is about what Paul has said, that drives you so crazy ?

balanced budgets ?

reduced government spending ?

Oh I don’t know, thee’s that whole 9-11 was our fault bit. Trutherism, His newsletters. And nice altering of my words. No wonder you support Paul. Loser. He wins every internet poll but is dead last in delegates. Yea, keep on dreaming.

Minnfidel on February 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

So whatever Mitt says is good enough? You don’t need anything else besides his word?
If he said that Obama’s takeover of GM was a good thing, you would agree?

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Apparently you know about as little about politics as you do economics.

If he tells me the takeover was good thing, I can demonstrate to him, in no uncertain terms and along any number of lines, why it was bad.

Are you telling me you can look at him and tell me he’s lying when he says those things? I can only assume he won;t break his word, and hold his feet, and the ffet of congress to the fire when the time comes.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Being in Texas, not too bad, thanks.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Oh really? That 17,000,000,000,000.00 debt will come calling soon.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I think it is entirely debatable that Santorum is a real fiscal conservative, and he is definitely a big government guy.

Priscilla on February 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM


That’s exactly why we need Small-Government Mitt!

/sarc, though I would hope it was obvious

tom on February 8, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Dr. Evil. I’ve actually tried to avoid exchanging in your comments lately because you seem rather animated and I really only like the knock down, drag outs with the trolls. I would hope it never comes to that between us. But since you responded to my comment let me just repeat my point because it’s true. Santorum hasn’t really had much money from the beginning and he’s been impressively strong, albeit in surges, the entire time. People can call him Neanderthals, impugn his record and even attack his family. But it won’t change the fact that what he’s been able to accomplish has been on a shoestring and going from county to county on the ground. That’s impressive grassroots in anyone’s book except for the politically jaded.

I’ve always enjoyed your comments. I’m hoping after the primaries I will again.

hawkdriver on February 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

If you go to the Google election page linked last night and look at all the states, Santorum has been a strong competitor to Romney in every single state, with the exception of two: Florida and New Hampshire.

Even in South Carolina where Gingrich won big, Santorum was within 10 points of Romney.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

If you all take this up and down in the primary to heart, you are going to end up with heart burn.

Animated – disgusted with the whole process is more like it.

Dr Evil on February 8, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Sonny, I not only answered your questions, but gave you a lesson on economics that you badly needed…now go back and re-read what I wrote, and you will not only understand (a big assumption on my part) but be embarrassed by your question.

You have a lot more to learn, but at least I gave you a start…but my free lessons to you are over, no more free ride, however if you want to learn more, I will give you an address and give you a good price on tutoring you on business econ.

And here is a hint…before venturing into an argument on business practices, do a little reading on your own, do a little research on your own, and don’t try to bluff your way through an argument with an adult that has probable about 45 years of running a business to your two years of flipping burgers.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Damn, I’ll be calling you Mrright2bright from now on.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Santmentum.I am fine with Rick

Southernblogger on February 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM

This loss for Romney was actually My Fault, my most grievous fault because I signed up to make calls for Romney, and then when he won NV, I thought all of it was the same out there in fly over country, and you all liked Trump, and how different could Colorado be from Minnesota and Missouri and Nevada, really? And it was only a caucus with a few votes, but who knew, I could have been the one that made the difference.

Next time.

Fleuries on February 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Yeah, and it is a constant fight to keep it. Franklin was no dummy. We ain’t gonna’ turn this ship of state on a dime, or two election cycles. But, we have to start somewhere, and I chose here and now with what we have instead of later with something possibly better. cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 11:19 AM

What you fail to understand (or acknowledge) is that you are acting like a dieter that promising to really start a diet tomorrow. For today we’ll start with Bush/McCain/Dole/Romney but starting tomorrow we’ll start to get serious. Enough already. ENOUGH ALREADY!

As already posted, many conservatives are jumping off this merry-go-round and will never vote for Romney. Out of petulance? No. Like it or not, the republican representative is the conservative representative. For far too long, conservatives have allowed the republican party to sway them into voting for the most electable candidate. The result? The likes of Bush (I and II and McCain and and Huntsman and Christie and Pataki and Bloomburg and Whitman and Graham and Snowe and Chafee and yes, Romney, and…..) have moved the “conservative” center, leftward – to the tune of a $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt, That rises to $40,000,000,000,000.00 if you include unfunded liabilities. Have these “conservatives” been good stewards of our liberty? F-ck no. We are now taxed at over 60% with the following taxes:

- federal/state income tax
- capital gains tax
- gas tax, phone tax
- tolls
- sales tax
- property tax
- utility tax
- this tax, that tax

And, let’s not forget the biggest taxes – the hidden tax (e.g. business taxes -food, clothing, merchandise prices are largely set by taxes that merchants, truck drivers, et al. have to pay, which are in turn passed on to the consumer – which are amoung the highest in the world). Also, I didn’t include FICA which will soon be means tested.

So what is a true conservative to do now? Go ahead pragmatist, keep telling me to follow you over the cliff.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You’re surprised? Isn’t making a point the only thing that True Conservatives™ care about? As Mitch Daniels called them when explaining how it was Republicans, not Democrats, that kept him from enacting reforms, by insisting on making the perfect the enemy of the good, they are RIMOs. “Republicans in Mouth Only”

Priscilla on February 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM


Hey helmet-clad idiot – we are CONSERVATIVES – not REPUBLICANS.
Not anymore. The Republican party decided that the city-dwelling Rockefeller branch should run things, and that us stupid rural Trogs need to sit back and just accept their socially liberal crap, shut our mouths, vote the “right” way and sign checks to “the party.”

Oh… biiiig shock… donations… down. Enthusiasm… down. Voter turnout waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy down. And you retards then try to blame the conservativeswho don’t show up anymore for your milquetoast looser democrat-lite candidates – when in fact YOU ARE THE ARCHITECTS OF YOUR OWN SUFFERING AND DEFEAT.

Well moron, you took us for granted since FORD, and now, you have effectively alienated your base – WE DON’T TRUST YOU CREEPS ANYMORE. Now go slink off and beat yourself in the head with a fencepost until that sinks in.

You don’t get a freebie vote anymore, you have shown us nothing but disloyalty, disrespect, and have taken us for granted for the better part of 80 years.

Now reap the harvest you have so carefully cultivated RINOS. This is why we hate you, this is why you loose, and this is why Willard Fillmoure Romneycare represents the death of the Whigs Republican Party.

You are either too blind or too stupid to understand why.

Obamacare has the potential to become “the compromise of 2012″ and much of the republican establishment is positioning themselves to be on the wrong side of it.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Well, he did embrace his takeover of companies, he said it was just like the successes they had at Bain, taking over a company and making it better…so your golden boy embraces one of the most nefarious things that Obama has done, along with ObamaCare, which Romney was the father of…guess that’s two things that he can’t debate Obama on…along with TARP…well that ‘s just three major things he agrees with Obama on…maybe someone can point out something he disagrees with Obama?

And I am telling you, companies don’t print their own money, honestly, when they go to the “piggy bank” to pay taxes because this years revenues aren’t enough to cover expenses…guess where that money in the “piggy bank” came from, yeah, that’s right, that’s a good boy, revenues from customers…see, companies don’t print there own money, they sell things to customers, who give them money so they can pay their expenses and make a profit…here’s a cookie for being a good boy and learning.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You say that now, but wait until you disagree with me…the normal statement is not2bright, blah, blah, blah…

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 4:42 PM

You don’t know what you are talking about. A tax is (almost) always borne by both consumer and producer. That’s as close to economic fact as you get.

That you are willing to disregard it, tells me all I need to know about your education.

It suffered.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM

It’s too much a matter of semantics to be an absolute statement. All cost in production is passed on to the consumer, by definition. The money to pay taxes comes from the revenue from the sale.

Now, if you take an existing product and raise taxes on it, then the only way that tax does not get passed on to the consumer is if it comes out of profit, and most businesses don’t have a big enough profit margin to just absorb such taxes.

The only possible exception to that is if the business finds some other way to cut costs. This is generally unlikely. If it were that easy to cut costs, it would have already been done.

So unless the tax comes directly out of the profits, it will somehow get passed on to the consumer.

In Liberal World, businesses are just making huge profits all the time and can just absorb any tax increase that comes along. In the real world, it gets passed to the consumer, or the business closes.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Frnakly, I don’t give a damn what foolishness the people of MA want to engage in regarding health care. If someone in MA doesn’t like it, get out. That;s what I would do.

He has said he wouldn’t do it for the nation, and that he would repeal O-care. Good enough for me.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I agree, but that doesn’t exonerate Romney. He still has to answer for this. No way a guy I would vote for for president would ever be a principle in this kind of goverment (any place, anywhere) overreach.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

So what is a true conservative to do now? Go ahead pragmatist, keep telling me to follow you over the cliff.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Ah yes, lose with dignity and nation be damned.

You stick with that.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Newt/Santorum ticket, has a nice ring to it. I would really enjoy the Joe Hair Plugs debate with Santorum.

DDay on February 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I have never demeaned real Reagan conservatives. Just the purist hypocrites that choose to overlook the big government bonafides of Gingrich and Santorum, but obsess over Romney’s lack of purist credentials.

Priscilla on February 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Nobody is overlooking jack squat. Idiot. Romney is just so much WORSE.

Typically, you should be able to ell the difference between the Conservative and the Liberal in a presidential race. Willard Fillmoure Romneycare blurs the lines to such a degree that I find the distinction to be trivial to the point of not mattering.

What scares me more than 4 more years of Obama is what our weasel-faced congress would do if they didn’t have to pretend to Oppose the democrat president to maintain face.
With Romney, they would have a Democrat they could safely go along with full throttle.

If the choice is Ken-Doll getting a blank check to fulfill his statist utopia, or 4 more years of at least SOME obstruction from congress, then I choose Door “A.” Anything King Barry Obama does by executive decree can be undone by executive decree when he’s replaced with something better than Himself or Romney – like an empty Packet of Carpi-Sun. Socialized Medicine ain’t going anywhere under Romney either, so screw it.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

In all, the “inevitable” nominee has now lost in 5 of 8 states.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Ah yes, lose with dignity and nation be damned.

You stick with that.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Jesus Christ cozmo, you seem decent enough, don’t just give a snarky answer, address the f—ing post. $17,000,000,000,000.00 isn’t enough to shake you up yet? We need to change the debate to a return to limited government & fiscal discipline. Romneycare disqualifies Romney (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html). Okay, answer me this. How much into debt do we go before even you can’t bring yourself to vote for another Bush (and his no child left behind, Medicare pard D, push for amnesty) or Romney? No more snark – answer the f—ing question.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Still, Romney is solidifying the perception that he just doesn’t understand how to communicate conservatism. If he is going to get the nomination, he will have to figure it out sometime very soon.

He’s finding it hard to “communicate conservatism” because Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a gun grabbing, socialized health care loving, liberal judge appointing, big spending, climate change promoting DEMOCRAT.

This is why he fails. At the end of the day HE CAN’T FAKE IT.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM

tom on February 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You generally don’t cut costs to pay taxes, it just doesn’t happen in the real world. Taxes are a set cost of doing business, you don’t escape them by being more efficient or cutting costs.
You cut costs to create profits, to hire more people, to pay for overhead. You pass taxes onto your customers, no customer ever complains to the company about being charged taxes, it’s part of the overhead that never goes away. If it’s a gasoline tax a use tax, than you may cut back on miles or heat or whatever…but we are not talking about that kind of tax.
However, if taxes are x% of the costs, and you raise it x+Y, than you raise your price the % of increase, which is greater than the actual tax increase…so a tax increase of $15 like the goofus stated, isn’t a $15 increase in the cost of goods but it is % of increased overhead. If it was 15% before than it would be 15% of $115, which would be $17.25 increase in the price of goods (simplified). And that gets passed onto the consumer or taken out of profits which are revenues from consumers…all money flowing into a company is from it’s sales basically, and sales comes from their customers, not from a magic piggy bank.
This is why it is so easy to pass taxes in the country, people think like this Galt guy, they actually think that some of the taxes are magically born by the companies…they think that health care is paid for by the companies, workmen’s comp paid by the companies, etc. It’s just strange and shows how weak our education system is in the very basic math.
Now Galt will argue until he dies he is correct, no matter the facts, and that is the danger and why people like Obama get elected, it’s just plain ignorance to ignore basic fundamental facts…but they are not taught, and therefore something else is implanted in their minds…it’s just weird.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Ask a relevant question and I might.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Oh I don’t know, thee’s that whole 9-11 was our fault bit. Trutherism, His newsletters. And nice altering of my words. No wonder you support Paul. Loser. He wins every internet poll but is dead last in delegates. Yea, keep on dreaming.

Minnfidel on February 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

If citing the lame stream media’s propaganda is the extent of your cranial capacity,this country is in much deeper trouble than I thought.

You have all the intellectual depth of a puddle.

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM

If anything, Romney’s supporters have relied too heavily on the electability argument, and allowed the ABR/purist cons to paint him as something other than a conservative.

When you say “allowed them paint him as” what you really mean is “told the truth about him.”

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a Democrat. He made his bead, he can sleep in it.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Ask a relevant question and I might.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Must suck to feel so powerless. The mind of a devout pragmatist is truly a curious one. For God’s sake, take a stand man.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:10 PM

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:10 PM

That still ain’t a question.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Must suck to feel so powerless. The mind of a devout pragmatist is truly a curious one. For God’s sake, take a stand man.

A quote comes to mind with these people willing to surrender all of their principles and beliefs to get a win.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
- Mark 8:36

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:13 PM

That still ain’t a question.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:11 PM

HOW FAR DOES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEED TO FALL INTO DEBT BEFORE YOU CHANGE YOUR FOCUS FROM PRAGMATISM?

Do you not understand how much big governemnt/crony capitalist republicans have contributed to America’s debt? “Better than a socialist” voting has brought us to a $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt ($40,000,000,000,000.00 if you include unfunded liabilities) and a 60% effective tax rate – what are you going to do about this?

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM

About 12 trillion dollars in debt ago.

Y’all seem to think only your pick for president can do that.

It will take a president and a congress. Reagan didn’t have the congress and Gingrich didn’t have the president. When there was neither, we got the debt we got with the last 12 years.

Those of you who will refuse to take the best we can get, and stay home, will give us the worst.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Paul was supposed to own the caucus states through his superior organization and fundraising. His strategy was to win smaller-state caucuses and build a delegate count that would force Republicans to bow to his movement at the convention in Tampa. He’s getting higher percentages of the votes but not doing much better in a four-man race in position finishes than in 2008. As in the previous contest, his support and influence is beginning to look overrated, and Paul has to hope for something better out of Maine’s caucus this Saturday.

Yeah it sometimes sucks to be a Paulnut. But I’m still dancing in the end zone over Mandate Mitt’s comeuppance. Dancing Victor Cruz style!!

abobo on February 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

You generally don’t cut costs to pay taxes, it just doesn’t happen in the real world.

Well, not in the real world. But it’s a very popular option in the hypothetical world!

In the real world, a business is already going to have cut costs as much as possible in order to maximize profits. The only way you cut costs to pay taxes is if you just figured out a way to cut costs that didn’t occur to you before the tax was imposed. And of course, even in such a case you’re really just cutting costs to maximize profit, and using the extra profit to pay taxes.

So taxes are still paid for by revenue, which has the single source of … the consumer.

Taxes are a set cost of doing business, you don’t escape them by being more efficient or cutting costs.
You cut costs to create profits, to hire more people, to pay for overhead. You pass taxes onto your customers, no customer ever complains to the company about being charged taxes, it’s part of the overhead that never goes away. If it’s a gasoline tax a use tax, than you may cut back on miles or heat or whatever…but we are not talking about that kind of tax.
However, if taxes are x% of the costs, and you raise it x+Y, than you raise your price the % of increase, which is greater than the actual tax increase…so a tax increase of $15 like the goofus stated, isn’t a $15 increase in the cost of goods but it is % of increased overhead. If it was 15% before than it would be 15% of $115, which would be $17.25 increase in the price of goods (simplified). And that gets passed onto the consumer or taken out of profits which are revenues from consumers…all money flowing into a company is from it’s sales basically, and sales comes from their customers, not from a magic piggy bank.
This is why it is so easy to pass taxes in the country, people think like this Galt guy, they actually think that some of the taxes are magically born by the companies…they think that health care is paid for by the companies, workmen’s comp paid by the companies, etc. It’s just strange and shows how weak our education system is in the very basic math.
Now Galt will argue until he dies he is correct, no matter the facts, and that is the danger and why people like Obama get elected, it’s just plain ignorance to ignore basic fundamental facts…but they are not taught, and therefore something else is implanted in their minds…it’s just weird.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Agreed.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Now, if you take an existing product and raise taxes on it, then the only way that tax does not get passed on to the consumer is if it comes out of profit, and most businesses don’t have a big enough profit margin to just absorb such taxes.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Well, that depends on the business, doesn’t it?

ExxonWidgets has $500b per annum in sales and $50b in profit on sales of 5 billion widgets per year, out of a total market demand of 10 billion widgets per year. It shares the market with ChevronWidgets, right across the street and with an identical price, profit and sales structure. The USG comes along and places a $5 tax per widget. Now, ExxonWidgets can simply raise the price of a widget by $5, to $105 dollars. But ChevronWidgets can decide that, rather than raise the price of their widgets by $5, they simply raise it by $2, and pay the other three dollars themselves.

All of a sudden, Exxonwidgets’ customers are seeing an opportunity to purchase their widgets at a significant discount. There is no reason for any of them to stick with ExxonWidgets, and decide to go across the street for their widget needs. (I assume there is no significant drop in demand for widgets brought about by either price increase.) Now, ChevronWidgets has the entire market, is able to market their widgets at $102 a piece, and now has revenues of $1020 billion, profits of $120b, and a tax liability of $50 billion, thus leaving them an after-tax profit of $70 billion.

Exxon, employing people who know a little bit about economics, will seek out a price by which Chevron will not find it in their economic interest to eat any more of the tax than they, Exxon, does.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Do you not understand how much big governemnt/crony capitalist republicans have contributed to America’s debt? “Better than a socialist” voting has brought us to a $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt ($40,000,000,000,000.00 if you include unfunded liabilities) and a 60% effective tax rate – what are you going to do about this?

$40,000,000,000,000.00 is actually the low-ball number using the CRAP models from the CBO and other government entities. The truth of the matter is, it’s at LEAST $60,000,000,000,000.00 and in fact could be as high as $120,000,000,000,000.00.

It will take a president and a congress. Reagan didn’t have the congress and Gingrich didn’t have the president. When there was neither, we got the debt we got with the last 12 years.

And what did the “pragmatic” “progressive” “Rovian” “Compassionate Conservative” choice George Bush II do when he had his Republican congress to tackle these issues….

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM


My feeling is, well, if it’s my money, I have a right to judge…

The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.

-Rick Santorum

So in Rick Santorum’s mind it is bad to make you buy health insurance, but it’s OK to judge others if they are costing you money, and it’s also OK to use the government to force them to do (or not do) other things based on society’s needs? Hmm…since we all pay the costs of care for the uninsured when they show up at the emergency room, his argument above could be used to justify Obamacare. Because aborted babies are not later available to pay Social Security taxes, his argument could be used to outlaw abortions (in fact, he has actually said that in the past). Because fat people use more medical care, which costs the rest of us higher insurance premiums and more in Medicare/Medicaid later, he could tell them what to eat. And chase them down (because he doesn’t believe in the right to privacy) to make sure that they follow his dietary plan.

The fact is that Rick Santorum’s idea of government is not conservative at all. Using his logic, it could pretty much make you do anything it wants. He is calling himself a conservative because it is politically expedient at the moment, but in reality he is the worst sort of statist meddler, basically Nanny Bloomberg crossed with the Church Lady.

Now there are those who agree with Santorum’s arguments above, and those that excoriate Bloomberg for his excesses and Romney for MassCare. But doing both is, to say the least, intellectually inconsistent.

HTL on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Those of you who will refuse to take the best we can get, and stay home, will give us the worst.

When it’s between Willard Fillmoure Romneycare and King Barry Husssein Obama, I fail to see a meaningful difference. You don’t want someone like to to stuff “the worst” up your ass, then stop giving me “less worse” as my only choice.

I am a conservative. Not a republican. I don’t have any allegiance to the party o’ stupid anymore. Your kind BACK-STABBED AWAY ALL MY FAITH AND TRUST IN YOU. I will vote for candidates I believe in, and if you can’t give me that, then TO HELL WITH YOU.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

And what did the “pragmatic” “progressive” “Rovian” “Compassionate Conservative” choice George Bush II do when he had his Republican congress to tackle these issues….

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:3

They spent like democrats. Is the the reason its “your way” or you’ll work to sit back and whine while the lefty’s destroy the country?

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

When it’s between Willard Fillmoure Romneycare and King Barry Husssein Obama, I fail to see a meaningful difference.
SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Then, you are at the very least, blind.

I will vote for candidates I believe in, and if you can’t give me that, then TO HELL WITH YOU.SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

And when did I ever tell you who you needed to vote for?

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM

About 12 trillion dollars in debt ago.

Y’all seem to think only your pick for president can do that.

It will take a president and a congress. Reagan didn’t have the congress and Gingrich didn’t have the president. When there was neither, we got the debt we got with the last 12 years.

Those of you who will refuse to take the best we can get, and stay home, will give us the worst.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Do you forget Bush had a republican house & senate for the first 6 years in office? Debt was already at a whopping $6,000,000,000,000.00 – 4 trillion more than you can tolerate. What did we get with that once in a lifetime trifecta? Massive debt reduction? Debt went from $6,000,000,000,000.00 to $9,000,000,000,000.00 during this period. And who needs to reevaluate their strategy going forward?

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Then, you are at the very least, blind.

Nope, I know a democrat when I see one.

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a democrat. He is a gun grabbing, liberal judge appointing, global warming charlatan, who spent like crazy, has a questionable record on killing babies, and signed his name to the Abomination that puked Obamacare out of it’s distended jowls.

Democrat.

And I could see it even if I gouged my eyes out with hot sticks.

They spent like democrats. Is the the reason its “your way” or you’ll work to sit back and whine while the lefty’s destroy the country?

As opposed to sitting back while the Democrat Ken-Doll Romney and a compliant mush congress destroys the country??

Oh, you make such an appealing sales-pitch for your crap-sandwich there.

/pass

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Do you forget Bush had a republican house & senate for the first 6 years in office? Debt was already at a whopping $6,000,000,000,000.00 – 4 trillion more than you can tolerate. What did we get with that once in a lifetime trifecta? Massive debt reduction? Debt went from $6,000,000,000,000.00 to $9,000,000,000,000.00 during this period. And who needs to reevaluate their strategy going forward?

^ Debate winner.

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

cozmo’s Mitt Romney Campaign Slogan: “You’ll still loose the entire nation – but slower! Vote pragmatist 2012! He’s the best crap we got! Now with 44.3% less gag reflex”

Yup.

/pass

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Now, if you take an existing product and raise taxes on it, then the only way that tax does not get passed on to the consumer is if it comes out of profit, and most businesses don’t have a big enough profit margin to just absorb such taxes.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Well, that depends on the business, doesn’t it?

ExxonWidgets has $500b per annum in sales and $50b in profit on sales of 5 billion widgets per year, out of a total market demand of 10 billion widgets per year. It shares the market with ChevronWidgets, right across the street and with an identical price, profit and sales structure. The USG comes along and places a $5 tax per widget. Now, ExxonWidgets can simply raise the price of a widget by $5, to $105 dollars. But ChevronWidgets can decide that, rather than raise the price of their widgets by $5, they simply raise it by $2, and pay the other three dollars themselves.

All of a sudden, Exxonwidgets’ customers are seeing an opportunity to purchase their widgets at a significant discount. There is no reason for any of them to stick with ExxonWidgets, and decide to go across the street for their widget needs. (I assume there is no significant drop in demand for widgets brought about by either price increase.) Now, ChevronWidgets has the entire market, is able to market their widgets at $102 a piece, and now has revenues of $1020 billion, profits of $120b, and a tax liability of $50 billion, thus leaving them an after-tax profit of $70 billion.

Exxon, employing people who know a little bit about economics, will seek out a price by which Chevron will not find it in their economic interest to eat any more of the tax than they, Exxon, does.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Hypothetical companies with hypothetical prices and hypothetical costs and hypothetical taxes. But even here, all the revenue used to pay the tax comes from the consumer. The cost is always passed to the consumer, unless the company is making so much profit that it can just pay it directly from the profit.

You can hypothesize companies that do this, but I don’t think you’ll find any in the real world. If they’re not making a profit, they won’t be in business long. In practical terms, the only way to look at it is that taxes are always passed on to the consumer. There can be no other way, unless the company finds some other source of revenue than the consumer.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I see the economically ignorant speaks again.

You pass taxes onto your customers, no customer ever complains to the company about being charged taxes, it’s part of the overhead that never goes away. If it’s a gasoline tax a use tax, than you may cut back on miles or heat or whatever…but we are not talking about that kind of tax.

You pass as much of the tax on to your customer as you can. See the above example. If you pass it all on to your customer, and try to keep you profits exactly the same, your competition will murder you.

If you knew about economics, you would know that.

However, if taxes are x% of the costs, and you raise it x+Y, than you raise your price the % of increase, which is greater than the actual tax increase…so a tax increase of $15 like the goofus stated, isn’t a $15 increase in the cost of goods but it is % of increased overhead. If it was 15% before than it would be 15% of $115, which would be $17.25 increase in the price of goods (simplified).

It doesn’t matter to your customer if you raise the price because of taxes, or because of increased profits, or because of increased labor costs. All that matters to him is the price. If you try to stick the entire cost on him, he will find someone who will share the burden with him, and you, sir, are the f**ked.

And that gets passed onto the consumer or taken out of profits which are revenues from consumers

And there we have the basic misunderstanding … profits are revenues minus costs., not just revenues. And the amount of your revenue (price you can charge your customer) is constrained by how much of that tax your competition is willing to eat to steal your market share.

But then again, a person ignorant of business and economics wouldn’t understand that, would he?

This is why it is so easy to pass taxes in the country, people think like this Galt guy, they actually think that some of the taxes are magically born by the companies…they think that health care is paid for by the companies, workmen’s comp paid by the companies, etc. It’s just strange and shows how weak our education system is in the very basic math.

And you somehow believe that by issuing taxes, companies are able to pass them all on to the consumer, and maintain their profit margins at the same level.

Well, if that’s the case, why do companies move overseas because of high taxes? Huh? If they bear none of the burden of taxes, why would they care what level they are set at? In your world, they can just pass it onto the consumer, and keep their profits exactly where they.

Tell me, is that really how it works on your planet?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Do you forget Bush had a republican house & senate for the first 6 years in office? Debt was already at a whopping $6,000,000,000,000.00 – 4 trillion more than you can tolerate. What did we get with that once in a lifetime trifecta? Massive debt reduction? Debt went from $6,000,000,000,000.00 to $9,000,000,000,000.00 during this period. And who needs to reevaluate their strategy going forward?

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I was actually wake during the Bush years. And I remember that the Republican Senate was actually 50/50 Republican/Democrat. The only way it could be called a Republican Senate was that Cheney could cast a tie-breaker vote.

And that derailed once Jim Jeffords was convinced to switch his party affiliation to Independent, but caucus with the Democrats.

Saying Bush had a Republican House and Senate is definitely overstating it. On almost every tough vote, there were Republicans in the Senate perfectly willing to vote for the Democrat side.

What Bush had was a Republican House and a divided Senate, until the Democrats took over the Senate.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Well, if that’s the case, why do companies move overseas because of high taxes? Huh? If they bear none of the burden of taxes, why would they care what level they are set at? In your world, they can just pass it onto the consumer, and keep their profits exactly where they.

Tell me, is that really how it works on your planet?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I think I’ll repeat that, just in case you missed it.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Take your meds.

Priscilla on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

The cost is always passed to the consumer, unless the company is making so much profit that it can just pay it directly from the profit.

You can hypothesize companies that do this, but I don’t think you’ll find any in the real world. If they’re not making a profit, they won’t be in business long. In practical terms, the only way to look at it is that taxes are always passed on to the consumer. There can be no other way, unless the company finds some other source of revenue than the consumer.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 5:56 PM

and I’ll ask once again:

Well, if that’s the case, why do companies move overseas because of high taxes? Huh? If they bear none of the burden of taxes, why would they care what level they are set at? In your world, they can just pass it onto the consumer, and keep their profits exactly where they.

Well?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM

In Colorado, where Romney campaigned heavily, turnout was down about 7% from 2008, according to data compiled by MSNBC’s First Read. In Minnesota, turnout was down by 24%. And in Missouri, which was a “beauty contest” primary with no impact on delegate allocation, voting was down 57%.

Dr Evil on February 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So, Santorum won these three states, and we found out, later, that he also won Ohio.
I still wonder why it was stated at first that Romney won Ohio. It kind of stalled Santorum’s momentum and revved up Romney’s with voters, didn’t it?!

And was that the intention?.

I would vote for Santorum over Romney the RINO anyday!

Sterling Holobyte on February 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Take your meds.

Priscilla on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Please, not you. Go away. Your kind is no longer needed, thank you.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Hey, Priscilla, the viscous attacks come from a troop of pro-Romney attack chimps and howler monkeys. csd, bluegill, Jailbreak, MJScrotus, Mittunia, Haner…

SparkPlug on February 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Can you show me a single instance over the last 4 or 6 months (I forget when I dropped the habit but it’s been at least that long) in which I was “viscous” to any poster here? That despite posts like yours which I have typically ignored.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Well, if that’s the case, why do companies move overseas because of high taxes? Huh? If they bear none of the burden of taxes, why would they care what level they are set at? In your world, they can just pass it onto the consumer, and keep their profits exactly where they.

Tell me, is that really how it works on your planet?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I think I’ll repeat that, just in case you missed it.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

They move overseas to cut costs and maximize profits, obviously. The fact that one of the costs they are cutting is taxes does nothing to change the fact that they get the revenue to pay taxes by passing them on to the consumer.

So the only way they’re not passing on the tax to the consumer in this scenario is by avoiding paying taxes in the first place. A company that moves overseas to avoid paying taxes is by definition not bearing the burden of taxes themselves.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Yes, you see when they can reduce their tax burden, they can sell at lower prices and thus be more competitive. When they have a high tax burden, they must sell for more and that reduces their sales and thus profits.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Well, if that’s the case, why do companies move overseas because of high taxes? Huh? If they bear none of the burden of taxes, why would they care what level they are set at? In your world, they can just pass it onto the consumer, and keep their profits exactly where they.

Tell me, is that really how it works on your planet?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

HAHAHAHA! Listen, they move for a variety of reasons, but of course if they have lower taxes they can keep more of the customers money, after all customers money pays the taxes, and if their are less taxes, they keep more of the customers money…you are making my argument stronger.
Seldom do I witness someone arguing against themselves, buy you are one of the few.
I never said they wanted to pass it on, all expenses Galt are paid by customers…I don’t understand why that simple concept escapes you…they don’t, honestly, companies do not print their own money, whatever revenue they bring in to pay taxes, health care, overhead, bonuses, all comes from sales of their product, at least before the bailouts happened.
That is just how it works, it’s not magic, it’s really common business sense, that somehow escapes you.
All revenues come from sales of products, all expenses and costs of running a business (yes, including taxes) is subtracted from that revenue. So all expenses are paid by the revenue, that comes from customers, who pays the taxes? No, not the tooth fairy, but the customers.
Now if they want more revenue, than they can minimize their tax burden with loopholes, or moving…but they still have to pay those taxes…now JohnGalt, who pays those taxes….that’s right, the customer.
Got it now? It’s very simple and very humorous how you are missing a simple business fact.
Now tell me, what is your business experience? I have a feeling not very much in the way of management, but I could be wrong, I have never seen a manager with your lack of knowledge but it could happen.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

They move overseas to cut costs and maximize profits, obviously. The fact that one of the costs they are cutting is taxes does nothing to change the fact that they get the revenue to pay taxes by passing them on to the consumer.

So the only way they’re not passing on the tax to the consumer in this scenario is by avoiding paying taxes in the first place. A company that moves overseas to avoid paying taxes is by definition not bearing the burden of taxes themselves.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

whoaoaoaoaoao!!! Wait a minute.

According to you and right2bwrong, taxes aren’t a cost to be lowered… they are simply passed onto the consumer, in toto. By that rationale, it wouldn’t matter to a businessman what the tax level was set at… he’d just pass it on the consumer.

So why do businessmen seek out the lowest tax climate?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

So the only way they’re not passing on the tax to the consumer in this scenario is by avoiding paying taxes in the first place. A company that moves overseas to avoid paying taxes is by definition not bearing the burden of taxes themselves.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Exactly, he actually was making the case against himself which is pretty darn funny, but I am sure frustrating to him.
He has to find some way to back out of this and save face…and he keeps getting his @ss handed to himself…I have seen this many times with his type.
It would be easier for him to calm down, look at the facts, and he would see he is on the wrong track.
Now if he could come up with a company that magically pays their expenses and overhead with something else besides customers…oh wait, TARP, and GM…gee, I guess that is why true capitalists were horrified at the bailouts, but socialists think they are great because…because…because…they think they don’t have to pay.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:19 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

A line of reasoning that would work if consumers had no choice. But rarely are they without one. If the price of corn shoots up, they can eat more wheat, for example. If GM pays much more in taxes and so has to raise their prices, consumers can buy Toyotas.

Increased prices across a market lowers demand. Increased prices for specific producers (such as domestic vs foreign) provides others with an opportunity to increase market share.

It’s not complicated.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I was actually wake during the Bush years. And I remember that the Republican Senate was actually 50/50 Republican/Democrat. The only way it could be called a Republican Senate was that Cheney could cast a tie-breaker vote.

And that derailed once Jim Jeffords was convinced to switch his party affiliation to Independent, but caucus with the Democrats.

Saying Bush had a Republican House and Senate is definitely overstating it. On almost every tough vote, there were Republicans in the Senate perfectly willing to vote for the Democrat side.

What Bush had was a Republican House and a divided Senate, until the Democrats took over the Senate.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:01 PM

So now we need control of the house, a filibuster proof majority in the senate and republican president for proof that the republicans share a huge part of the blame for the current debt? What do you think would happen if this were the case? Massive debt reduction? No, then they’s (and you’d) blame it on the few liberal republicans (Snowe, Brown, Hatch…) screwing it up. The point is they could have taken a stand. THE POINT IS THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A STAND. Wake the f-ck up.

noeastern on February 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM

So why do businessmen seek out the lowest tax climate?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

You are getting pathetic, we never said they wanted to pass the taxes on, and we never said that the companies wouldn’t want to seek more profits from various advantages…those are details, moving the goal posts…you stated that customers do not pay all of the taxes that a company must pay, lets’ keep with your original challenge.
And our contention is, whatever the expenses, costs, taxes, bonuses, etc., the consumer eventually pays.
That doesn’t change if the company seeks lower taxes, or higher taxes are imposed…they pass both onto the customer.
You claim that part of the taxes are paid by the consumer, and partly by a tax tooth fairy who works for the company….focus.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

whoaoaoaoaoao!!! Wait a minute.

According to you and right2bwrong, taxes aren’t a cost to be lowered… they are simply passed onto the consumer, in toto. By that rationale, it wouldn’t matter to a businessman what the tax level was set at… he’d just pass it on the consumer.

So why do businessmen seek out the lowest tax climate?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

You’re really being obtuse here. If the company is avoiding paying taxes in the first place — by moving overseas in your example — then they have just cut their costs. Less tax burden = less cost. Businesses like less cost, because it means more profit.

But whatever tax they do pay is a cost, and the money to pay that cost is from the sale to the consumer. Higher costs means higher prices.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:25 PM

cozmo’s Mitt Romney Campaign Slogan: “You’ll still loose the entire nation – but slower! Vote pragmatist 2012! He’s the best crap we got! Now with 44.3% less gag reflex”

SilverDeth on February 8, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Would y’all Romney hatin’ nutballs go say that to the Romney fluffin’ nutballs like PMSdeven, bluegills and buymoredanishdtuff?

They think I’m one of y’alls flavor of nutball.

cozmo on February 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

And the dumbassery never ceases…

Listen, they move for a variety of reasons, but of course if they have lower taxes they can keep more of the customers money, after all customers money pays the taxes, and if their are less taxes, they keep more of the customers money

But according to you, the taxes, regardless of the level, get pushed onto the consumer, leaving the profit leval exactly the same.

So, why would a producer care about the tax level? By your asinine theory, it has no effect on their profits.

they don’t, honestly, companies do not print their own money, whatever revenue they bring in to pay taxes, health care, overhead, bonuses, all comes from sales of their product,

But how much revenue, and consequently how much profit they take in is entirely dependent on a competitive price in the marketpalce. I’ve demonstrated how trying to foist the entire tax increase on the consumer prices you out of the marketplace with a competitor willing to eat part of the tax, and pass that along in price reduction, stealing your market share. You seem to believe that, by magic, your customers aren’t going to respond to a differential in prices b/t you and your competitors.

Which marks you as an idiot.

All revenues come from sales of products, all expenses and costs of running a business (yes, including taxes) is subtracted from that revenue. So all expenses are paid by the revenue, that comes from customers, who pays the taxes? No, not the tooth fairy, but the customers.

And you try to maximize revenue by setting price where (p*Q), p=price, Q=Quantity marketed, is at its highest possible level.

If you set p higher than your competition, as a result of a tax increase, ceteris paribus, the entire market will go to him, and he will be happy to bear some portion of the tax for his Q to max out, and your Q to go to zero.

Now if they want more revenue, than they can minimize their tax burden with loopholes, or moving…but they still have to pay those taxes…now JohnGalt, who pays those taxes….that’s right, the customer.

Or they can seek a competitor who is willing to bear part of the cost of that tax in the form of a lower profit margin, and thus a lower price than yours, and accept that new profit by taking away your customer.

Now tell me, what is your business experience? I have a feeling not very much in the way of management, but I could be wrong, I have never seen a manager with your lack of knowledge but it could happen.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I’ve put together a deal or two. I prefer to keep my money in the market, or in gold though.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

You’re really being obtuse here. If the company is avoiding paying taxes in the first place — by moving overseas in your example — then they have just cut their costs. Less tax burden = less cost. Businesses like less cost, because it means more profit.

But whatever tax they do pay is a cost, and the money to pay that cost is from the sale to the consumer. Higher costs means higher prices.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:25 PM

But according to you, there is no tax burden for the producer. How many times have you said the consumer ends up bearing all the tax.

If that’s the case, why does he care if the tax is zero, or if the tax is astronomical. According to you, he just passes it off to the consumer, and presumably hopes his competition does as well. Even though I’ve demonstrated how a competitor can eat part of that tax, and do better in terms of profit.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

If that’s the case, why does he care if the tax is zero, or if the tax is astronomical. According to you, he just passes it off to the consumer, and presumably hopes his competition does as well. Even though I’ve demonstrated how a competitor can eat part of that tax, and do better in terms of profit.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Market share JG, market share. If he is not competitive because his costs are higher he will have a vanishing market share and thus lose.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Can you show me a single instance over the last 4 or 6 months (I forget when I dropped the habit but it’s been at least that long) in which I was “viscous” to any poster here? That despite posts like yours which I have typically ignored.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I think it was around Palin time and before she decided not to run:-)

You have been doing much better:-)

bluefox on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

You’re really being obtuse here. If the company is avoiding paying taxes in the first place — by moving overseas in your example — then they have just cut their costs. Less tax burden = less cost. Businesses like less cost, because it means more profit.

But whatever tax they do pay is a cost, and the money to pay that cost is from the sale to the consumer. Higher costs means higher prices.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:25 PM

But according to you, there is no tax burden for the producer. How many times have you said the consumer ends up bearing all the tax.

If that’s the case, why does he care if the tax is zero, or if the tax is astronomical. According to you, he just passes it off to the consumer, and presumably hopes his competition does as well. Even though I’ve demonstrated how a competitor can eat part of that tax, and do better in terms of profit.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

High tax means high cost. High cost means high price. High price means less sales. Less sales means less money.

Businesses like more money.

Ergo, high taxes means less profit. Almost like taxes are a cost or something…..

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

bluefox on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

That was 6 months ago.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM

But according to you, there is no tax burden for the producer. How many times have you said the consumer ends up bearing all the tax.

If that’s the case, why does he care if the tax is zero, or if the tax is astronomical. According to you, he just passes it off to the consumer, and presumably hopes his competition does as well. Even though I’ve demonstrated how a competitor can eat part of that tax, and do better in terms of profit.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM

You have no business experience that is obvious…all expenses, all costs, are paid for by revenues, that you agree on…and all revenues are from consumers, that you agree on…there is nothing else.
If a company wants to have less profits, fine, but they have to pay taxes, and those revenues to pay those taxes come from customers….sheesh
If they find loopholes, great they pay less taxes, from revenues from customers.
But the fact is…they have to pay taxes, and what they pay comes from customers…you say they don’t…so where does the money come from to pay the taxes?
Never mind, you are embarrassed and do not know how to get out of the corner you painted yourself into…we get it.
Our education to you is over…Tom, MJBrutus and I have done our best.

right2bright on February 8, 2012 at 6:41 PM

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

And to elaborate, consider cars. Say it takes GM and Toyota $10M to set up a production run for similarly spec’ed light duty trucks. Suppose that they each estimate that they must sell 100K trucks to cover the fixed cost of setting up production. If Toyota can sell for $1k less they will sell more, earning the money for their fixed costs faster and be profitable sooner and continue to see greater profits.

Toyota may even decide to lower their margins to gain even more market share and make up the lower per unit profit through higher volume. Good news for Toyota with their lower tax burden. Bad news for Clint Eastwood unless he can get people to pay more because he’s so cool.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Market share JG, market share. If he is not competitive because his costs are higher he will have a vanishing market share and thus lose.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Thank you for getting it so quickly, sir.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:02 PM

OLD: Santorum can’t win NEW: Santorum is “frontrunner”
OLD: Only Romney has the organization and money to compete nationally. NEW: Santorum has won more states so far.
OLD: Romney is only one to be able to beat Obama. NEW: Only Santorum is polling ahead of Obama in head-to-head matchups.
OLD: Santorum must get out of race to make it 2-person contest for Newt and the “Not Romney” voters. NEW: Santorum beats Romney with Gingrich in race.
OLD: Romney will take the states he took in 2008. NEW: Romney has lost states in 2012 that he won in 2008.
OLD: Santorum can’t win over moderates and independents. NEW: Santorum won St. Louis.

Deep Timber on February 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You have no business experience that is obvious…all expenses, all costs, are paid for by revenues, that you agree on…and all revenues are from consumers, that you agree on…there is nothing else.

Nonsense!!

You are going to have to consider adjusting the price for your product when that new tax hits. You, and your competitor, have three choices.

1) Not adjust it at all, and eat the whole tax.

2) Put the entire cost of the tax on the consumer by raising the prices they must pay by the entire amount.

3) Put some portion of the cost on the consumer by raising your prices, but by some amount less than the entire cost of the tax.

Option one means your profit per unit goes way down. But if your competitor sets his price engages in option 2 when you do so, ceteris paribus you will steal all of his business, and still make more profit than before, even after eating the tax. If he also engages in option one, both of your market shares stay the same, and your post-tax profit suffers equally. If he engages in option 3, he would still lose all his business to you.

If you engage in Option 2, the exact opposite will happen. You will lose all your business to him, and he will make more profit even after eating the entirety of the tax.

Which leads both of you to follow Option 3. You find what level of price to set, independent of each other, that ensures you are able to maximize your profit, without the threat of being undercut and losing all your market share.

If you engage in Option 2

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

High tax means high cost. High cost means high price. High price means less sales. Less sales means less money.

Businesses like more money.

Ergo, high taxes means less profit. Almost like taxes are a cost or something…..

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

But according to y’all,l high tax doesn’t mean high cost. It just means high price. It is all passed on to the consumer. The firms profit margin stays the same, because neither the revenue nor the ocsts change.

So, if taxes are immediately and invariably passed on to the consumer, why would a firm care about high taxes?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Last year he sends out a Hannukah Card with a version verse from a christian bible… Smart!!
georgealbert on February 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Would you kindly explain to the group, what the difference is between the “Christian Bible”, and the ‘Orthodox Jewish Bible’?

AND NO HELP FROM THE STUDIO AUDIENCE !

listens2glenn on February 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

So, if taxes are immediately and invariably passed on to the consumer, why would a firm care about high taxes?
JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

THE HIGHER PRICE FOR GOODS OR SERVICES, DUE TO A ‘PASSED ON TAX’, WILL DRIVE CUSTOMERS AWAY.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Let’s not forget that reduced profit (such as option 3) is a self-reinforcing cycle. Share prices fall because investors are less willing to lend the business money in exchange for the lower profit expectations. That in effect is a higher cost to borrow money, further eroding profits, and on and on it goes.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Let’s not forget that reduced profit (such as option 3) is a self-reinforcing cycle. Share prices fall because investors are less willing to lend the business money in exchange for the lower profit expectations. That in effect is a higher cost to borrow money, further eroding profits, and on and on it goes.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 7:41 PM

No doubt about it.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:44 PM

THE HIGHER PRICE FOR GOODS OR SERVICES, DUE TO A ‘PASSED ON TAX’, WILL DRIVE CUSTOMERS AWAY.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM

To whom? To the competition? To other goods and services? To increased savings and investment?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Let’s not forget that reduced profit (such as option 3) is a self-reinforcing cycle. Share prices fall because investors are less willing to lend the business money in exchange for the lower profit expectations. That in effect is a higher cost to borrow money, further eroding profits, and on and on it goes.

MJBrutus on February 8, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I would,however, note that there is a limit to that. Shareholdsers have to have a place to put their money. There are only so many Treasury notes and municipal bonds to put their money into before those returns start going down, they start looking at equities again.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Anybody but Newt.

ray on February 8, 2012 at 8:00 PM

To whom? To the competition? To other goods and services? To increased savings and investment?
JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Customers will learn to ‘live life’ with a reduced amount of the goods/services, or without it all together.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2012 at 8:07 PM

So the only way they’re not passing on the tax to the consumer in this scenario is by avoiding paying taxes in the first place. A company that moves overseas to avoid paying taxes is by definition not bearing the burden of taxes themselves.

tom on February 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Dumbass.

You couldn’t even argue economic theory effectively, Galt. You’re out of your depth. As usual.

Someone get Galt an easy button.

DevilsPrinciple on February 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Should Mitt Romney consider Santorum as VP? I don’t think it would be a good idea, particularly because Rick Santorum’s reputation for extreme social conservatism would be a harmful distraction from the ticket’s economic message. Stridently ANTI-libertarian Rick Santorum, who has been an undistinguished, big-spending career politician, is known mostly for his support for banning certain kinds of consensual sex between adults (this extreme position of his is outside the mainstream), pushing requirements to teach intelligent design in public school science classes, and advocating for a melding of personal religious faith with elected officials’ public duties.

No, Mitt Romney can do MUCH, MUCH better than Santorum for his VP selection. Right now Santorum is just the fad of the week because a lot of people don’t know much about him, and also because he is the last of the bunch to get a momentary rise in the polls.

I’m happy to see people get worked up about the election, but it’s obvious that Santorum will not win the nomination. We know that Romney, who is the strongest candidate, by far, to take on Obama will get the nomination. Romney would do well to select a runningmate outside the current field.

bluegill on February 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM

The firms profit margin stays the same, because neither the revenue nor the ocsts change.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM

What are you smoking? How do revenues remain the same? Unless the good or service is perfectly inelastic in terms of price/consumption ratio?

John the Libertarian on February 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM

By that rationale, it wouldn’t matter to a businessman what the tax level was set at… he’d just pass it on the consumer.

So why do businessmen seek out the lowest tax climate?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

It’s true that taxes are passed onto the consumer, and if the tax is uniform (which it often is not because large business with more clout arrange special deals), it won’t affect a business’s direct competition. The reason for this is that in the ideal, all the other businesses have their taxes raised, too. But when prices rise for the consumer, it does still dampen enthusiasm for that specific type of merchandise being offered. For example, if a 10 percent tax is levied on movie theater owners, the cost is passed onto the consumer who then looks around for alternatives which aren’t taxed–such as Netflix offerings.

Merchants aren’t normally selling something that is indispensable like air; therefore, if prices get too high (due to taxes or regulations), consumers will use their discretion and switch to something cheaper. In Russia, that “something” became Vodka.

Burke on February 8, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10