August 25th, 2007
12:56 PM ET
15 years ago

Giuliani unveils tax policy

Giuliani talks taxes in New Hampshire Saturday

(CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani Saturday proposed a tax policy that he says would give taxpayers more control over their money.

Speaking in Manchester, New Hampshire, Giuliani vowed to make permanent President Bush's tax reductions and find ways to cut them further, eliminate marriage penalties and inheritance taxes, and provide tax incentives for people who purchase their own health insurance.

Citing his accomplishments as the mayor of New York City, Giuliani said his tax cuts in the city, although they were against conventional wisdom at the time, helped stimulate the economy, attract business and slash unemployment.

Giuliani charged that Democrats are pushing for larger government and greater control of more taxpayer money.

"I have a different theory," he said. "We have to give things back to you for the common good."

"We have to make sure none of these people are elected," said Giuliani, "because if they are, we're going to see the greatest tax increase in the history of this country."

Giuliani said those tax increases could amount to $3 trillion.

- CNN Political Desk Editor Mark Norman


Filed under: Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (60 Responses)
  1. jeff richards

    He's right but Romney has more credibility on this issue.

    August 25, 2007 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  2. Brad, Columbia, SC

    By and large, Republican economic policies continue to pander to the rich. "Common good," indeed.

    August 25, 2007 01:33 pm at 1:33 pm |
  3. David, Salinas, CA

    When are some of the true conservatives out there going to demand that their candidates’ numbers add up?

    Mayor Giuliani (and the rest of the leading Republicans) want to keep slashing taxes on the rich, subsidizing major corporations, and spending trillions on an irresponsible war. Where is this money going to come from? Their answer is they’re going to keep borrowing it from China.

    Take an honest look at the math and face some facts: when it comes to our finances the Democrats have been the truly conservative party since the day Bill Clinton took office in 1992.
    He left us with a balanced budget, and President Bush spent us back into debt like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Now Giuliani wants to keep the spree going. This new breed of Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility while they’re running up our children’s credit cards. Their economics are based entirely on mortgaging our future. We literally can’t afford to let them.

    Take a hard look at Giuliani’s numbers. If you’re a true fiscal conservative, you’ll vote for a Democrat.

    (Note: This post was deleted once. I’d like to know why).

    August 25, 2007 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  4. Lance, Monrovia, CA

    Hey Rudolph, guess what?

    My kid's school doesnt have text books, my wife and I constantly worry we may get hurt, lose our jobs and thus our shoddy at best HMO healthcare, as a country we now owe more money than the country has in the banks to China for stupid wars, our cities are starting to look like third world countries with homeless people living in tents and parks.

    Our military is broken. Our manufacturing jobs are gone. Our forests and icecaps are being eaten alive by global warming.

    We are facing another dustbowl. Illigal immigration is used as a political tool instead of being solved. We're building 20 Billion dollar submarines to fight terrorists in canoes. Over 4,000 soldiers are dead and many more thousands horribly wounded.

    Our country is divided.

    Stem cells could cure millions but don't. Instead of finding solutions we pander to the pious. Gasoline costs 3 dollars a gallon and instead of taxing they'll give you higher and higher "gas taxes" by raising prices of oil, going directly to the Saudis, who will then loan us more money at interest our kids will never pay.

    We are losing our homes by the millions in foreclosure. Why? Thanks to Bush's deregulation of the morgage industry. He did the same for Enron and that worked just as well.

    Hey, here's an idea for Rudolph Guiliani and the rest of these muddy, greedy pigs. Stop playing to your idiotic, superstitious, terrified base and the super wealthiest .1 percent of the country and start talking about the real issues that will determine our fate in the next twenty years.

    I am terribly sick and tired of hearing these neocons like Guliani spout out about how we should lower taxes and how everything is just dandy.

    The economy is in the toilet we've morgaged our future thanks to the Republican greed machine.

    But guess what Rudolph... Today's pig is tomorrow's bacon. The Republican party, thanks to bad ideas like your tax cuts, have joined the way of the dinosaur you probably don't even believe walked the earth 6,000 years ago.

    When are Republicans like Rudolph going to step up and say, "Hey, guess what America. We're in a mess and we actually have to get involved. We have to sacrifice. We have to actually participate in the world instead of just sitting back and collecting our tax refunds.

    I want good schools, I want healthcare that works. I want an end to war and a decent life for our vets as well as the rest of us.

    I want to address the fact that the ice caps are becoming ice cubes while the Repubs figure out the best way to drill for oil there is. Their greed is astounding.

    What happened to an America of "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?" Hasn't it dawned on these neomorons that maybe we're willing to sacrfice a bit, maybe we're not all lazy, racist whores to the oil industry?

    Hasn't it dawned on Rudolph that we're looking for something a bit better than "Let them eat cake."

    I spent my 320 dollar tax cut pretty fast and so did everybody else. Is it worth my kid using a textbook from 1960 Rudolph? Is it really?

    That 200 Billion tax break to HMOs and big oil came in pretty handy to your campaign though, huh?

    I am tired of a government that runs on autopilot. I am tired of them saying "government is the problem not the solution."

    Guess what Rudolph? You're right, government is the problem. Guys like YOU are the problem. And the solution is to boot you to the back of the bus where you'd like to seat 99.99 percent of the American Public.

    I am conservative. That's why I'm voting for Barrack Obama, at least he calls a pig a pig when he sees it.

    Give that a tax break!

    August 25, 2007 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  5. Ru B, New Hampshire

    David,

    Clinton balanced the budget by robbing the Soc. Sec. fund. He also stole the Soc. Sec. contributions of non-citizens (who can't vote so why care about them?) by making sure they can't ever apply for them without becoming a votable citizen.

    So you suggest we elect someone who would continue to rob us, our children, our spouses? Just what we need: more dishonesty.

    Bush's tax cuts created a HUGE revenue increase of 22%. Based on a $3 TRILLION budget, that's gigantic. It more than pays for the Iraq War, however, you'll never hear the media report these things nor the Dems tout these facts. Why should they? They want to control our pocketbooks, so they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off.

    Besides, aren't the Dems for the minorities? The rich are a minority, so why won't they fight for their rights to keep the fruits of their labor? Why should the Dems try so hard to take from those who do try and succeed to give to those who don't make good or successful choices?

    I may not be for Guiliani, but I am definitely for Americans keeping and spending the money they earn themselves.

    August 25, 2007 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  6. Ken, Tucson, AZ

    This policy would further add to the debt that will come due for our children and grand children. Thanks Rudy.

    August 25, 2007 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  7. Kojo

    David your wrong,Clinton was lucky to be in office at a time of the tech boom and even by the time he was leaving office the economy had started slowing down.Just look at Europe were they tax the rich heavily and look how bad their economies are doing.
    Generally people dont like the Rich but populist economics dont work in reeality.DEmocrat economic policies failed badly in the 1960,s and 70's and even France is now talking about tax cuts.

    August 25, 2007 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  8. Myron, Honolulu, HI

    What ever happened to Fair and Balanced and America First?

    Bush isn’t known for Brains!

    We got to do better than That!

    August 25, 2007 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
  9. John Thomas, Edina, MN

    From reading this article, the message is clear: Rudy will be more of the same. We will still pay HALF of what we work for to the government. Giuliani's meaningless tripe will not alleviate anything.

    Unfortunately, the majority of people in the US don't mind WORKING HALF OF THE YEAR FOR THE GOVERNMENT, as they've shown through their action (inaction) and accepted this corrupt policy.

    So, if you want more of the same, go ahead vote a democrat or republican into office. If you truly want things in this country to change; if you want to keep your ENTIRE paycheck; if you don't want your HARD-EARNED money to lose value due to inflation; if you don't want the government to BLOW your money with ridiculous spending; if you want YOUR kids to have a bright future, not enslaved by debt and taxes, vote Ron Paul.

    August 25, 2007 03:25 pm at 3:25 pm |
  10. The Other David, Clearwater, FL

    The 'First' David asked,"When are some of the true conservatives out there going to demand that their candidates’ numbers add up?"

    GOOD QUESTION. The answers are that since 1999 – pre-Bush tax cuts – ,

    "Real GDP (in 2000 dollars) 1999: $9,470Billion 2006: $11,319Billion"

    Citation: Louis D. Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1790 – Present." Economic History Services, October 2005, URL : http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/

    So, the economy has been booming.

    As for US Tax Revenue – since 2000 – and pre-Bush Tax Cuts,
    "Federal Tax Revenue 2000: $2,010Billion 2005: $2,150Billion

    Citation: John Snow, US Treasury Secretary report Dec 8, 2005

    So, I guess those nasty tax cuts really hurt us, huh?

    And David is right that we had budget surplusses during the Clinton Administration – but that president was fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) – and the deficit is now currently shrink back towards a surplus – depite wars, despite tax cuts, and despite our Congress' (both parties, I might add) inability to reign in spending.

    Democrats are no more fiscally conservative than Republicans these days from a spending standpoint. At least the tax cuts have stimulated our economy enough to carry most of those spending increases.

    One last thing, David to David – please define what 'Rioh' means. $100K, $300K, $1Millon plus income?

    If you are talking about the $300K and up club, they constitue the current top 1% of earners yet pay and account for over 36% of all income tax revenues collected.

    Citation: September 25, 2006,
    "Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data"
    by Gerald Prante
    Fiscal Fact No. 66

    Fas as I can see, the fiscal tax-cutting policies of President Bush have been working. We really need to get Congress to stop porking our dollars away. That's what a true fiscal conservative (of any politcal stripe) would want. If that is what Rudy is for, then he has my vote.

    August 25, 2007 03:37 pm at 3:37 pm |
  11. Mark, Rio de Janeiro

    Only one candidate can say the following:

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    His name is Ron Paul. Give him a chance.

    August 25, 2007 03:38 pm at 3:38 pm |
  12. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    Ru B, New Hampshire,

    "Bush's tax cuts created a HUGE revenue increase of 22%"

    For WHO? Board members and CEOs? The people who make more in a damn DAY now than most workers make in a YEAR? Funny how consumer debt has risen along with that revenue you speak of. The tax cuts haven't done much of anything for anybody but the rich – since that's where most of the tax cuts went. And I can guarantee you they got more than 300 bucks too didn't they?

    If that revenue was so "HUGE", then why are we barely paying off the INTEREST on what we've borrowed then?

    "they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off"

    Really .. is that why your "hands off" free market and deregulation approach has led to corporate buyouts and mergers that have DECREASED competition which have raised prices for goods and services?

    Is that why their "hands off" of the mortgage industry has led to record foreclosures that is now effecting the rest of the economy too? So much so that the federal reserve (like European and Japanese banks) have had to infuse 38 BILLION of liquidity into it to stop EVERYBODY'S economy from going south via bailing out investment firms who took on more then they could chew? Why aren't you complaining about THAT?

    Because welfare for the RICH is OK right?

    Why aren't you complaining about the republicans writing energy bills with the help of the energy companies that have seen RECORD profits as a result? Isn't that another violation of your "hands off" policy?

    Could it be because you're a hypocrite? Could it be because you're a Republican who thinks anything that makes the rich richer at the expense of anybody who's NOT is great economics?

    I suggest you find a FOX blog and post there. And I hope your ignorance some day becomes painful.

    August 25, 2007 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  13. David, Salinas, CA

    To Ru B, New Hampshire:

    Your points about the Social Security fund are well taken, but they are hardly a defense of Republican deficit spending and the mushrooming national debt. The fact remains that Clinton kept spending in check, and Bush did not.

    Your comments about the rich being a minority deserving of government protection would be laughable, except that’s just how our current system treats them.

    To Kojo:

    Your point about the tech boom during the Clinton years is valid too, but doesn’t excuse the Bush administration’s reckless deficit spending, either. Maybe Clinton got lucky, but Bush is still reckless.

    I’m not pushing radical populist economics and certainly President Clinton wasn’t. But it’s the trickle-down economics that don’t work, because loopholes and lawyers ensure that not much trickles. The rich ARE getting richer and the poor ARE getting poorer and you can take that to the bank.

    And to David from Clearwater FL:

    Increases in GNP don’t translate to increases in economic advances for average Americans, who remain underpaid, uninsured and under threat of foreclosure. Yes, the economy is doing well by some metrics, but millions of Americans aren’t benefitting from the gains at Haliburton and Exxon.

    It’s not what portions of total tax burden paid by the rich that counts, it’s their ability to pay. (This is subtle, but it’s one of the big lies of voodoo economics). Sure the rich pay more of the total taxes. But the middle-class pays more than we can afford, and the rich don’t come close.

    As to my definition of rich, it’s not exact, but certainly I’m not talking about people making 100K (or even 300K on paper). I do think Warren Buffet and Rupert Murdoch should be hit up for a larger share.

    Final point: all of your arguments ignore the real spending and the real debt incurred in the irresponsible war in Iraq. If this expenditure was truly about our nation’s defense I could see your point, but it wasn’t. It was money wasted – trillions of dollars of our children’s money. That’s not fiscal conservatism and you are all smart enough to know it.

    Thank you all for your excellent and respectful posts.

    August 25, 2007 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
  14. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    The Other David, Fla,

    Read my post to Ru B concerning that "wonderful" revenue from the tax cuts and that "booming" economy.

    You're now 0-1.

    Now I'll continue from there.

    "but that president was fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)"

    The war we're spending the MOST money on was a war of choice. We're currently spending FIVE times more per month on Iraq due to Dubya's inability to listen to people who know what they're talking about rather than ignore and/or retire them. He doesn't get to use that as an excuse – and neither do you.

    You're now 0-2.

    "and the deficit is now currently shrink back towards a surplus."

    You mean thanks to the Republican fuzzy math and morphing definitions Dubya uses? Where flipping burgers = manufacturing? Where CEO pay is included as salary in its “average” salary calculations? And no numbers are EVER adjusted for inflation?

    So let me guess ... you believed the grossly inflated 2004 White House projected deficit numbers that Dubya used when he said that he "cut the deficit in half" – even though conservatives (like Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation) disagree, right?

    You're now 0-3.

    "Fas [fas?] as I can see, the fiscal tax-cutting policies of President Bush have been working."

    LOL .. strike THREE .. you're OUT!

    Better luck on your next post buddy.

    August 25, 2007 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  15. Lance, Monrovia, CA.

    To the above poster throwing out figures.... Can't deny cold hard figures right? B.S. So the rich is making a ton of money. Where's it going? Into their overseas accounts and into businesses in other countries, sweatshops that are building all our products in china and mexico and the ukraine. This is the same thing we've been doing to third world countries for years, and now corps are doing it to us too. Think they give a crap about America, hell no? They're a machine that is blind and deaf.

    Oh, and how about that booming job economy? Have you looked around at the jobs lately? If you want to work at Wal Mart or Home Depot you've got it made in the shade, but that's about it.

    You can't sustain that kind of economy. We've become a nation of consumers. You know who owns our steel plant, who broke the unions and rehired the same employees at lower wages? India. Huge indian companies now own our steele mills the same way that the Arab States own our ports for us.

    I'm sick of allowing my country to be sold off to the highest bidder piece by piece so little minded greedy people can get big tax breaks.

    oh, and you think you're paying less taxes? Bought gas lately? That's right, you're paying a gasoline tax every time you fill up. At least a dollar or more is going directly to the Saudis and China. They loan us our own money back at much higher interest. Again, exactly how we've been screwing Latin America for years, keeping them totally dependant on outside sources.

    the brilliant neocon supergeniuses that thought all this up are great at the numbers game.

    Before you start throwing around figures, really do some homework. Read something besides Bill Oriellys transcripts.

    You can start by reading "Armed Madhouse." Greg Pallast's book. It's at Borders or the Library. He lays out the entire monetary cycle and how all the money gets moved out of this country and we get the shaft.

    They're selling you a line buddy. I'm really serious. Educate yourself, then make informed comments about how GREAT the economy is.

    L

    August 25, 2007 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  16. Tricia M Charlottetown PEI

    "Citing his accomplishments as the mayor of New York City, Giuliani said his tax cuts in the city, although they were against conventional wisdom at the time, helped stimulate the economy, attract business and slash unemployment."

    Which leads me to the question, What were those accomplishments as Mayor of New York City Mr. Giuliani? And are those the only accomplishments you can cite? What are your accomplishments in the Political arena?

    August 25, 2007 05:05 pm at 5:05 pm |
  17. Tim, Acworth, GA

    That's just a continuation of our present tax policy. When is someone going to have the nads to REALLY reform the tax system instead of creating more loopholes for the top 1% of earners?

    August 25, 2007 05:30 pm at 5:30 pm |
  18. Brad, Columbia, SC

    "Which leads me to the question, What were those accomplishments as Mayor of New York City Mr. Giuliani? "

    Good question. Perhaps the NYC firefighters can illuminate us on some of the 9/11 Mayor's achievements.

    Oh wait...

    August 25, 2007 06:18 pm at 6:18 pm |
  19. Evan Esteves, Boca Raton, FL

    Whats up with all the Ron Paul plants?

    August 25, 2007 06:35 pm at 6:35 pm |
  20. Ron Nebraska

    I'm just really glad these people weren't around when FDR led us out of the Great Depression, makes you wonder what this country would look like if they had been.

    August 25, 2007 06:38 pm at 6:38 pm |
  21. Ron Nebraska

    I'm very glad these Repugs were not around when FDR led us out of the Great Depression with innovated thinking and compassion. Can you imagine what this country would look like if they had been?

    August 25, 2007 06:47 pm at 6:47 pm |
  22. Ron Nebraska

    Ghoulianis' achievements in the political realm are the same as any Repug........cater to the wealthy and manipulate the ignorant.

    August 25, 2007 06:49 pm at 6:49 pm |
  23. Maddy, Hartford, Ct.

    How refreshing!
    No swipes, no verbal attacks.

    August 25, 2007 08:45 pm at 8:45 pm |
  24. The Other David, Clearwater, FL

    Lance said: “Can't deny cold hard figures right? B.S. So the rich is making a ton of money.” Could also define what rich means? And,yes, I did cite facts (and not the wikipedia kind that I see on most blogs). So, yes, where are you facts to back up your opinon?

    “oh, and you think you're paying less taxes? Bought gas lately? That's right, you're paying a gasoline tax every time you fill up. At least a dollar or more is going directly to the Saudis and China.” So, adding additional taxes by recinding the Bush tax cuts is going to somehow improve that situation?

    "Before you start throwing around figures, really do some homework. Read something besides Bill Oriellys transcripts".

    This isn’t from O’Rielly. This is from me. I showed up with cited facts – where are yours? If you can’t bring cited facts to disprove what I’ve shown – that is truly BS.
    ======================================

    Rick: You said:
    “You're now 0-1.”

    I guess if you don’t believe the official numbers – cited for review – you’re not going to believe anything. Let’s see your facts and citations.

    “The war we're spending the MOST money on was a war of choice.” …….
    “You’re now 0-2”

    Excuse me, war of choice or not (I never did make that distinction, you did) – the GDP is still increasing, the money is still being spent on the wars and the tax revenues are still increasing with the tax cuts in place. Those are the facts. The tax policies are doing the job by putting more money into the pockets of taxpayers.

    “You mean thanks to the Republican fuzzy math and morphing definitions Dubya uses” No, I mean by the Official reports issued by the US Treasury Department. Don’t you read anything that is cited or do you just keep on bleating without checking the facts? The report shows, yes GWB has caused the biggest deficit, but we are on track to balancing the budget again eventhough the tax cuts are in place.

    Out? I think not. If you want to rail, how about railing against Congress’ inability to stop spending increases? The war is just one component of this. I made it clear that this wasn’t a one-party issue – the whole of Congress – regardless of political stripe – seem to be unable to curb and reduce spending.

    And to both of you, Lance and Rick, the discussion was about tax policy and how Rudy Guiliani was going to continue the current tax cuts. How about staying on topic?

    August 25, 2007 09:24 pm at 9:24 pm |
  25. John Thomas, Edina, MN

    Tim in GA:

    Your answer is Ron Paul–plain and simple.

    August 25, 2007 09:49 pm at 9:49 pm |
1 2 3