Rubio's Iowa visit sparks 2016 speculation

AmyAnn Pearson has her photo taken with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., during Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's annual birthday fundraiser, Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012, in Altoona, Iowa. / AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

Sen. Marco Rubio said the way to turn around the nation's struggling economy is not to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals, but rather to make "poor people richer" as he visited this politically important state in a trip certain to stoke speculation about Rubio's plans.

Ostensibly, Rubio's visit to this early nominating state was for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's birthday party. But the political implications of Rubio's visit were clear from the start as the Republican Party looks ahead to 2016's presidential contest.

"For Gov. Branstad's birthday, his 66th," Rubio said, flashing a grin when asked what he was doing in the state.

But his birthday wishes for Branstad were more like a roadmap for his party looking for a new direction and an argument for a Rubio presidential campaign.

Lower taxes to spur economic growth. A compassionate immigration overhaul to help those who want to become Americans. Reduced regulation to let small businesses grow. Stronger families to give children more stability at home.

• Karl Rove reflects on Romney's loss
• Romney's "gifts" remark ignores his own fatal flaw

In a 24-minute, campaign-style pitch to fellow Republicans, Rubio ticked through conservative goals while urging his party not to lose hope in the wake of Mitt Romney's loss on Election Day. He said the results should not be taken as a rejection of Republicans' views.

"We need to do a better job of going out and convincing our fellow Americans who perhaps don't see things the way we do," Rubio said.

At the center of that sales pitch: higher take-home pay for all Americans.

"The way to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer, it's by making poor people richer," Rubio said, criticizing President Barack Obama's insistence that taxes for those making more than $250,000 increase as part of a deal to avoid pending automatic budget cuts and tax hikes.

Rubio also blamed Congress for that looming threat.

"Look at this fiscal cliff. I don't know if any of you have heard about this," Rubio said to chuckles. "You know who created that? Congress."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[APDonnelly]

2016 Starting Gun?

[hillzhaveays]

RollotheNorman replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Representative government defines "fair" not the individual. Learnto read. Your argument is the rich-boy whine. Doesn't wash, Congress defines "fair" just like the founders envisioned. That's whats in the Constitution; you don't like it, same advice as I gave to Z, move.
________________________________________
In the 60's and 70's, that's just what the rich and businesses did when Sweden instituted it's entitlement programs and raised taxes to sustain them - they moved. Learn history.

And while you're at it, and to show what a moron you are the US Constitution reference uniformity of taxation. If you don't know what that means, then you are a fool and clearly unqualified to comment.

[hillzhaveays]

I said to define "fair" - your response was that it is in the constitution. But apparently in the few minutes between then and now, you forgot.

Quit smoking pot. It affects your short term memory. Then look up "fair" and tell me where in the constitution "fair" is defined, moron.

[hillzhaveays]

Typical of libs, when you can't win the argument, you change the subject. Kind of like a little child.

[hillzhaveays]

spinner-or-winner replies:
During the 1950s, America had a 91 percent high-end tax rate. If the 50s had been a dismal economic decade, then it could stand as "Exhibit A" for the GOP to use in attacking high tax rates today.

But in reality, it was an extremely prosperous decade for America.
_________________________________________
Only a moron references the 91% tax rate of the 50's and uses that as the reason for prosperity in the 50's. You must be related to ciggle, time or shallow/republicon. If you stayed in school past the third grade, this is what you know about the '50's:

The 90% tax rates are true but no one paid them.

The post-war 1950s were unique in economic history. The US had the advantages of cheap capital, cheap energy, relatively cheap labor and the only intact advanced manufacturing base in the world. The US economy would have flourished in that decade NO MATTER what the tax rates were.

The 90% rates were paid on any dollar made over $360,000. Two problems here: 1) Average incomes in 1950 was $5000...PER YEAR. Only about 6 people earned more than $360,000. Problem 2 is if they did earn enough to qualify for the 90% rate, they were business owners who had access to any number of loopholes, exemptions and deductions that allowed them to drastically drop their tax liability, if they paid any taxes at all, that is.

So in reality, the rates you talk of, while literally true, were not responsible in any way for the prosperity. The prosperity was due to the conditions above.

Don't get caught up in Liberal Myths that partisan hacks use to support their baseless arguments. It makes them look like fools.

[hillzhaveays]

The IRS keeps records back that far. Prove that the rates over 60% brought in enough Federal Revenue to "make the country prosperous", which is the basic premise of the 91% argument. If you can't the argument is baseless and therefore meaningless.

Pick a correlation between higher tax rates and job growth and prove the higher tax rates were the catalyst for the growth.

The fact, and you should look up the definition of "fact", is that you can prove neither of these things. Which is why you libs rely so much on "correlation" instead of facts.

[hillzhaveays]

Ah, so you're saying tax increases are NOT a catalyst for growth. Ok, fine.

I was busy or I would have replied sooner. You can "prove" a point - you use what is called "evidence". I was obviously not talking about a mathematical proof. I'm not all that impressed with your logic. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying, even though it was in plain english.

The fact is that the claim by Liberals, which is repeated daily on this site, that higher taxes will increase growth, is baseless.

I have also said on a number of occasions that lowering taxes does not increase growth in and of itself.

I would support a tax increase if it could be proven that some benefit would result. An increase of $70 billion or so in Federal Revenue does nothing. So, without a substantive net benefit to the increased taxes, one must seek other motivations for the Liberal attack on the rich. The only one that makes any sense is...Wealth Envy. I find it contemptible that those who aren't successful succumb to their greed and try to force the successful to give up more when they already pay $7 out of every $10.

[hillzhaveays]

RollotheNorman says:
In other words, from my point of view, and more importantly the point of view of the Constitution and the founders, a cheesy t--d that can't pay his/her fair share as determined through representative government is the real thief
_________________________________
Define "fair" and justify it against the top 10% already paying $7 out of every $10 in Federal Revenue received from individual filers with a positive AGI.

Oh, right, there is no justification except for wealth envy.

[Larnan5]

A note to Rubio:
If the GOP continues to deny women basic rights over their own bodies it will become extinct.The grown ups in the GOP have let the socially insane take over. The GOP can not be the Good Old Party of the ultra zealot Christians...The citizens of the United States will not abide by another Inquisition.

[hillzhaveays]

A note to Larnan: Any US citizen or illegal immigrant, anywhere, anytime and for any reason, can acquire contraceptive medication and care in this country right now, even if they cannot pay for it.

You people really need to educate yourselves so you don't get caught regurgitating the tripe they peddle on lib blog sites.

[hillzhaveays]

If that's what you think spinner/time/republicon/shallow, then you are a bigger moron than I thought. Only kids put words in people's mouths and then get a big laugh out of it. To point out the blatantly obvious, I meant any woman, regardless of status.

You can't cure stupid spinner. And it's blatantly obvious you have a terminal case.

[aintfakin]

I wonder what all the right wingers who were trashing Obama for campaigning 6 months before the election have to say about this?

[ludvig1-2009]

As I said before, all Republicans are clones with the same idea, we can't tax rich people, we have to go after poor people. They're all the same and I'll never vote for one of those greedy people.

[Twaker]

Another flash in the pan, flavor of the month politician with NO experience. We already have one: Obama. He means well but we can't afford any more on the job training!!!

[AOCGUY]

I would like nothing more than to see Rubio leave FL politics for good but inexperienced he is not. He has been the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and is now a US Senator. Now I will admit he has no executive experience but that has not been, in the past, an impediment to successful leadership.

[nohater]

if hillary runs, rubio wouldn't stand a chance. hillary has sound credentials as a senator and sos. she also has strong background in foreign policy.

[jimmybilly100]

All this crap about 2016 really needs to stop. This is why nothing is getting accomplished by politicians.

[cubscout09]

I recall Governor Dean throwing then Senator Obama's hat into the ring immediately after the 2004 election. Somehow, I don't think Rubio is going to have that sort of impact.

[twmat311]

This isn't planning, etcc, it's permanent campaigning. Just like McConnell (talk about scary-looking) talking about doing more in the primaries next time, when he ought to be busy helping to get the "cliff compromise" put to bed.