Just sat down to watch it. John Hawkins has is live blogging it as usual. I’ll update if I have any thought, but I’m tired so I might avoid thinking all together.
UPDATE:
Dude. I’m watching off DVR, so I’m a little behind, but Fred Thompson just creamed Huckabee (almost explicitly calling him a Democrat after listing his policies) and the crowd went wild — first applause of the night, I believe. Not a good sign for Huckabee that him finally getting thoroughly trashed caused such a cathartic release.
UPDATE 2:
Ron Paul finally gets asked about his Truther nuts, and he dodges it like the moral coward he is.
UPDATE 3:
Here’s video of Fred Thompson dropping the hammer on Huckabee (via Hot Air who has more video including his “virgins” line). Must see.
UPDATE 4:
BTW, there was a great moment during the Iran question where Ron Paul gets laughed and just stands there looking confused. I think that pretty much sums up his whole candidacy.
UPDATE 5:
The split screens of McCain looking bemused while Ron Paul talks are hilarious.
UPDATE 6:
In response to a questioner pointing out that Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas, he responded that he also raised… (wait for it)… “hope.”
He should lose the support of any self-respecting man after that answer. That’s a line I’d expect from Edwards.
UPDATE 7:
I can’t tell you where I heard this, but I have it on a good source that Osama bin Laden is hiding out on Ron Paul’s blimp.
UPDATE 8:
In case no one mentioned it, they call McCain the sheriff.
UPDATE 9:
Dang. The DVR cut off the end. Last thing I saw was Ron Paul talking about immigration (one of the few places he doesn’t sound crazy). What I’d miss?
It looked like Fred Thompson was really on fire tonight, but I thought it was a good night for McCain since he comes off as very knowledgeable on Iraq and no one really went after him on his amnesty.
BTW, here’s the Ron Paul moment I talked about earlier.
UPDATE 10:
It looks like about everyone in The Corner thinks Fred Thompson ran away with it. Maybe NR should rethink their Romney endorsement.
That reminds me: The mystery Fred Thompson endorser should be revealed tomorrow…
Now this almost sounds like hyperbole, but it’s pretty much true. Well, give if you can. It’s looking like Fred Thompson (who I was just talking to earlier today) is going to get some huge momentum out of this (apparently the Frank Luntz focus group loved him, so it’s not only the pundits) and the media won’t be able to ignore him, but he has to keep up until the South Carolina primary a week from Saturday. He really can win this, but it’s going to take a strong showing in SC to get lemming Republicans from jumping off the McCain or Huckabee cliffs.
UPDATE 11:
I thought I should put this video up again in celebration:
Get hyped!
UPDATE 12:
Apparently part of Fred Thompson’s performance tonight was because the spreading of the rumor about him dropping out after Iowa to endorse McCain really pissed him off.
Fred basically just out-and-out called Huckabee a RINO. I was like “oh snap” (actually what i said was stronger than that)
Fred just told The Huckamonster how it is…
GO Fred!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He is the only conservative in this debate!
Fred just laid it down hard against Iran. BUUURN!
Hey MSM, does Fred have ‘Fire in the belly’ yet you morons?
Fred with the Muslim jokes…even more reason to vote for him.
Ron Paul…I wish Fred would slam dunk his ass. And even the moderators are giving him “WTF are you talking about” looks right now.
Well somehow Ron looked like even more of a foreign policy rookie. He drew quite a bit of boos there.
Fred needs to start crying. That’s where the votes come from!!
Here, play this for him – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzezIg2Ei0A
See, now that’s good stuff there.
Has Fred said anything about guns? This is South Carolina!
A hard jab at Mitt “No ‘Weapons of Unusual Lethality’ for you Peons” Romney would make my month.
When Paul gets a question, I invariably don’t last more than 10 seconds before switching channels.
As far as I’m concerned, they can ask everyone to leave and just let Senator Thompson address the audience on all matters.
Huckabee: Raising hope… for criminals.
Paul = Wacked ^ 2
Great line from RWN (which most of y’all are probably reading anyway, but what the hell, it’s good):
10:12: Fred is just beating Huckabee to death tonight. He has done everything but whip out a cane and just thrash him. D*mn, Fred is good tonight.
Go Thompson!
“Oh snap!” is right. That’s gotta hurt.
Has there been ANY talk about immigration. C’mon Fox! Give Fred a chance to bash McCain with it.
We had no trust in you. Hmm, I wonder why?
Nothing tastes better to Fred than fresh grilled RINO.
Focus group loved FRED! HECK YEA FIRE IN THE BELLY! Also caused severe burns on nearby bystanders!
Fred Thompson: Badass.
Fred was the best I’ve ever seen him. Even better than the “No hand shows” debate. My only regret is that he didn’t get enough time to smack McCain. Still, tonight was great.
¡Viva la Revolución Reagan!
I do agree w/ Bryan @ HotAir: He should be mopping the floor with McCain. Sure, Huck has made himself a target because of his antics, and going after Robble Paul would be like hunting for quail with a .50 cal, but McCain has so much more to answer for. Thompson needs to take the gentleman from AZ out behind the woodshed & beat him like the proverbial red-headed stepchild.
But seriously, Fred gave the most realistically based sensible answers, especially on immigration, and Ron Paul should become a democrat, period end of Midol induced insanity upon a member of the male species.
I’m glad I watched the debate.
Much as I support everything Fred’s doing, I think he’s going to avoid drop kicking McCain wherever possible. I seem to remember some quite well reasoned explanation/excuse in the early days of Fred! Frenzy that Fred and McCain are buddies and that was one of the reasons Fred “didn’t want to get in earlier”.
Celebratory wine has stopped me from tracking down any supportive evidence though. Anyone else have any recollection of this?
Debate ranking:
1. Fred – he actually tried!!! 🙂
2. Mitt – ’cause he got a pass on universal health care
Tie 3. Huck – sorry I guess I’m gonna get hated now…
Tie 3. McCain
5. Don Rudi
6. Psyco boy
“In case no one mentioned it, they call McCain the sheriff.”
Lobo?
Fred stepped in and kicked peoples balls into their eye sockets. In fact when I looked at Ron Paul all I saw were testicals
You all seem excited about Fred Thompson’s comments but let me explain how horrible his joke was. Fred said he believes that the terrorists will go to heaven. He said when they die they will get to see “those virgins they’re looking forward to seeing.”
But Huckabee – who had the much better joke and better final destination for the terrorists – said the terrorists will see the “Gates of Hell” when they die.
So Thompson wants to reward the terrorists by sending them to Heaven while the much smarter Huckabee would punish the terrorist by sending them to Hell. That stupid joke probably finished Thompson’s campaign.
But neither have my vote because Ron Paul kicked both of their asses and spoke the truth. He also won the debate by a very large margin according to Fox News.
Fred is the Thompsunami and Huck is the little bamboo hut on the shoreline… Demolished!
#23 – Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob on January 10, 2008 11:29 PM
Er, no Ron Paul probably shouldn’t be a democrat… but he isn’t a Republican thats for sure. He is a capitol L Libertarian.
#28 – Posted by: RonPaul!! on January 11, 2008 12:04 AM
Delusion much?
No really, the paulistas attacked the text poll and “proved” that he “won.”
The focus group had different thoughts.
When Fred gets the nomination, HER army of flying monkeys will mean nothing!
Delusion much?
You think? Maybe you are an idiot that wants the terrorists to go to Heaven instead of Hell. Ask anyone where they would rather have the terrorists go and they would say Hell. Therefore, Huckabee freaking kicked the crap out of Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson looks like a huge moron loser for wanting to give the terrorists the gift of Heaven. Plus, Fred’s joke actually followed Huck’s comments making him like an even bigger loser. Seriously AR if someone said the terrorists will go to Hell who would be stupid enough to follow that up by saying the terrorists should go to Heaven instead? Apparently, Fred Thompson is that stupid because he just did it today in the debate. No SC win for him. Game over.
Really dude? Wow
The focus group had different thoughts.
The tiny Fox focus group said Fred won this debate but they also said they still weren’t going to vote from him. So crazyjetguy there still aren’t many people planning to vote for Fred, a crazy man who thinks terrorists deserve Heaven over Hell.
You all seem excited about Fred Thompson’s comments but let me explain how horrible his joke was. Fred said he believes that the terrorists will go to heaven. He said when they die they will get to see “those virgins they’re looking forward to seeing.”
Frank explained this a long time ago, there’s foreigner heaven and hell and then there’s American heaven and hell and no matter how successful they are at getting into foreigner heaven, they’ll still be barred from American heaven, which will make them curse their existence. Fred Thompson understands this – for he is wise.
He also won the debate by a very large margin according to Fox News.
Yeah, gee the focus group said he was the overwhelming loser, but he won a phone poll — how do ya suppose that happened?
In all of the debates so far, it seems that when Fred speaks, Mitt looks at him as if to say, “I wish I was as cool as Fred!”
Maybe its just me…
I was never really into ripping Ron Paul. In this debate, he showed he’s nucking futs.
US Navy vs speedboats is no contest? Dipshit, ever hear of the USS Cole?
We never funded bin Laden. More of that twoofer bullshit that refuses to die, despite a mountain of facts.
He has no idea that not backing allies, even in “cold wars” means China et. al. gain power, broker more favorable trade deals to the disadvantage of the US, and will threaten and coerce other nations to submit to China’s (or whomever’s) will . . or else. President Paul would just shrug it off and watch the world fall under another Iron Curtain.
One more thing. That dope Huckabee must have a new definition of “arrogant” considering how he wants our military to handle any threat. I support the captain’s decision 100%. I also think we need to give them flexibility. But Huck playing up to the Dems with the “arrogant” card and trying to play Billy Badass during this debate smacks of Clinton.
Glad folks are rallying round Teh Fred. Honestly (since social conservative issues weren’t on the table), I thought Rudy had a great night. Regardless, Fred had a strong showing.
And I want to bang that brunette chick in Luntz’s focus group.
And Ron Paul is as crazy as his bat-shit goofy base.
Wow. I can imagine all the paulbots climbing out of their basement armchairs, saddling up on the keyboards and getting busy.
#32, if you (and Ron) had listened to what was going on at the time, instead of formulating your next blistering attack on … non-existant strawmen, you’d have heard that the audience ‘got it’, when Fred said what he did. I know to you irony might be stuff that gets attracted by magnety, but the audience figured it out.
Unless you have some cunning plan on how you’ll spam the Diebold machines, it really doesn’t matter what you hear and if you get the point. It’s whether the normal people casting votes and attending caucuses do. And they did.
Pauldude… in a heads up match, FRED! would PWN the Paul. RP has a small yet fanatical base. He has NO chance of expanding that.
The magical 10% he keeps getting. That is his ceiling bud.
FRED! has room to grow, there is no ceiling. He resonates with a much larger population than RP could ever hope to reach.
Cut your losses and join the winning team.
I just have to say it again.
Ron Paul showed he is clueless when it comes to national security. Absolutely clueless. Not a shock to me, since most libertarians are head in the sands types, but Paul took it to a new level.
He made Huckabee sound credible tonight.
Oh yeah. I went there.
Hey, Ron Paul troll: what’d you think about the entire audience laughing at Ron Paul for making a fool of himself while he stood there looking confused? And how bout the looks of “wtf-is-this-crazy-guy-talking-about” and contempt from all the other candidates. You might not have recognized those for what they were because I’m assuming you also get those types of looks all the time. But trust me, those aren’t good things.
Could Carl Cameron look any more gay than when he bobbles his head and rolls his eyes !!!
And he giggles every time they acknowledge him.
Fred should have grabbed him by the ankles and beat RP and the Huckster to death with him.
Go Fred!!!
One last thing.
Paul says he backed the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuke plant.
Genius, what planes did they fly? Punch that into the “we shouldn’t fund anyone” computer and draw some simple conclusions.
Had we not funded Israel and offered them military hardware, they could never have pulled it off.
What a dipshit.
Let me be as clear as I can be. As a Marine Corps officer originally from Mississippi and a proud member of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) if Huckabee gets the nomination I will vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or not vote at all. He promises an expanded nanny-state with the foreign policy of Clinton. Not only did Huckabee expand government and taxes in Arkansas while governor, as a preacher he failed to side with conservatives within the SBC when liberal theologians were trying to take over our convention and turn our denomination into a touchy-feely version of the Unitarians. Unless the GOP wants to become a lame version of a European Christian Democratic Party then we need to strongly reject Huckabee and his lame economic populism, big government nanny-state orientation, and sovereignty surrendering capitulation to European interests.
Joel Leggett
Paul says he backed the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuke plant.
You can add to that, though.
He said he supported it. He supported a pre-emptive attack. Doesn’t that completely f’n invalidate his argument against Iraq?
I don’t know if you caught it, but when he was talking about 9/11 conspiracies and his supporters he also said he’s not going to ask them to abandon it –
“The important thing is I’ve abandoned it”
Now it’s possible he misspoke, but isn’t that implying he at least used to be a Truther?
Fred Thompson understands this – for he is wise.
Doubt it. Fred certainly didn’t explain it that way. At least a few people are going to think Fred Thompson said the terrorists will go to Heaven and Huckabee said the terrorists will arrive at the Gates of Hell. Not good for Fred.
Here’s how i scored it.
Ron Paul – A+ (pointed out a lot of historical facts people don’t want to hear. Yes, we did fund Bin Laden peeps in Afghanistan and gave them weapons so they would fight the commies from Russia)
Thompson B+ (it was a B but I raised because of the weird Frank Heaven explanation thing. It was his best debate even though he wants to send the terrorists to Heaven)
Romney – B (would have had a B+ but he made a lame Ron Paul joke)
Huckabee B- (got hammered by Fred but sent the terrorists to Hell!)
Guiliani – C+ (He goes to 9-11 a lot but it still works for him)
McCain – C (so boring. plus he wants to stay in Iraq forever and is confusing about immigration)
This was Fred’s best debate but I just don’t see Fred getting double digits in SC. Sorry. 🙁
My extremely accurate prediction for SC:
Huckabee: 27
McCain: 24
Romney: 20
Paul: 11
Thompson: 9
Giuliani: 9
[This guy better be a parody of a Ronulan or I weep for humanity. -Ed.]
Doubt it. Fred certainly didn’t explain it that way.
Dude, I was joking – thought that was obvious
pointed out a lot of historical facts people don’t want to hear. Yes, we did fund Bin Laden peeps in Afghanistan and gave them weapons so they would fight the commies from Russia
No, we didn’t. We funded the mujehedin in Afghanistan. The elements bin Laden hung with arrived late to the party and were not part of the groups we funded.
Try pulling that nonsense when a former intel analyst isn’t in the area.
WAL forget it man, this paulbot doesn’t understand subtle irony.
Hey, Ron Paul troll: what’d you think about the entire audience laughing at Ron Paul for making a fool of himself while he stood there looking confused? And how bout the looks of “wtf-is-this-crazy-guy-talking-about” and contempt from all the other candidates. You might not have recognized those for what they were because I’m assuming you also get those types of looks all the time. But trust me, those aren’t good things.
I saw that. It was sad but he was brave and said what he believed. There were also people in the crowd cheering for him. I think we need both sides in this country. We need checks and balances on the more Hawkish politicians. We have always had them and it has served our country well. Sometimes the hawks are right and sometimes they are wrong and we are overcommitted like we are right now in the Middle East. That’s what debates are for 🙂
we did fund Bin Laden peeps in Afghanistan and gave them weapons so they would fight the commies from Russia
We did not fund Bin Laden. The only people who knew him at the time have said he was hostile to us even back then and, either way, he’s not a guy who has ever needed money from us or anyone else for that matter.
What we did do is fund the mujahideen – the problem with people using this to say we supported Bin Laden is that this largely constituted the people who came to power when the war was over and the people that Bin Laden didn’t support, but helped topple to form his own government in the 90s. The guy was a minor bit player in the whole Afghanistan affair whose chief claim to fame was not getting his ass completely kicked during one retreat from the Soviets; moreover the overwhelming bulk of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were people who were still little kids when this all took place, not capable of fighting there as our allies even if they had wanted to.
I just wanted to add for the record, GO FRED!!!
He kicked the crap out of the competition tonight, and I hope he can continue to pick up steam and pick up votes. At this point, he’s the only candidate I would feel good about voting for.
The more I see, the more I dislike the other candidates. Huckabee is an economic RINO and clueless on foreign policy; Guliani is a social RINO; what Romney did as governor is opposite of what he says he’ll do as president, so I don’t trust him; and McCain is horrible on illegal immigration.
And Ron Paul, well, I dislike a lot of his ideas. (I’m being nice since the last Ron Paul comment I saw, #46, didn’t sound like it was written by a screamming child, in stark contrast to usual Ronulan posts.)
i should have known that fred thompson was pissed off when it got dark here two hrs earlier than normally!!
Ron Paul looked sooo stupid…and like the Iowa Debate…he claims he can not hear…well we all knew he was dumb…but now it’s official he is deaf too…..after Fred drop kicks his head he will be blinded by Fred’s awesomeness LOL LOL LOL
Ron Paul is finished…did you see Frank Luntz monitors on responses…Paul scored the lowest that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, EVER scored that low LOL LOL LOL
Huckabee lame joke about “if your getting flack that must mean your on target”. Just exept your verbal thrashing from Fred, dont pander for an amnesty clap.
Acording to the flack=target theorem of the theory of huckativity, Ron Pual actually won the debate
I think the Pauliacs should be careful what they wish for…. Paul got to come to this debate…he would have faired better if he had not showed up LOL LOL LOL
Watch it guys…I have seen posts on other forums that claim alot of the Pauliacs are not Americans posting…some are Muslim Extremists and CAIR people. mostly when it talks about Muhajadean (SP) and middle east stuff. People on the web are not all they seem. On the one forum I go to…the one person let it kinda slip he was in Eqypt…and was using America slang words.
Watch it guys…I have seen posts on other forums that claim alot of the Pauliacs are not Americans posting…some are Muslim Extremists and CAIR people. mostly when it talks about Muhajadean (SP) and middle east stuff. People on the web are not all they seem. On the one forum I go to…the one person let it kinda slip he was in Eqypt…and was using America slang words.
Disagreeing with people and LOLing at them is one thing but calling them terrorists is fracking lame. What a load of crap. On what forum did you find a terrorist trying to be a Ron Paul supporter?
Good article here about Ron Paul winning tonight’s debate.
Ron Paul won the text message poll with 32% of the votes and that clearly irked Hannity. The text message poll shows that the broader television audience clearly believe that Ron Paul was the winner of the South Carolina Republican Debate and Sean Hannity’s view is in the minority.
W00t, dude. I totally bow to the nerdy power of the Ronulans.
“We r in ur texxt msg pol, pwning ur histogrmmz”
At least the democrats throw real elections with real dead voters.
huh, it’s too bad nobody holds real elections by text message. I wonder why that is?
First they ignore you, so you incessantly spam every website that doesn’t make you register & then ban you outright.
Then they ridicule you, especially when your pseudo-candidate nearly gets laughed off the debate stage.
Then they fight you, & they soon realize that, metaphorically, it’s like pulling a shotgun on a quadriplegic.
Then you whine.
Ron Paul for Fluffer ’08!
Honestly, if you think that the recitation by Fred of Club for Greed talking points was taking him to task, you guys are kidding yourselves.
The GOP is not going to survive being the pimp for Corporate America. If we keep putting Wall Street’s interest’s above main streets, we are going to lose by Goldwater level proportions in 2008.
I also noticed that Fred isn’t really attacking McCain, who is sort of the frontrunner at the moment, which I find interesting.
Hey, Huckster…better put some ice on that…
Hucksters,
No one needs to recite the Club for Growth talking points to knock Huckabee’s record out of the park. Your boy stammers and sputters whenever someone brings up the massive tax increases in his state. He tries to go back to cutting “94 taxes,” but Republicans know more about taxes. It matters which taxes are cut and which are raised. Your boy blew it and is hoping Republicans are as clueless as Democrats. He will continue to get hammered over this, like all Republicans who raised taxes did before the “Club for Growth” came to be. It’s always been a point amoung Republicans.
Get it?
I’m just a helpless pawn of my Club for Growth overlords.
I guess I’m trying out a new spelling of “among.”
My point isn’t what Republicans think, it’s what the 70% of Americans who aren’t Republicans think. We have to convince at least 21% of them to vote with us, and really, holding down the working man while letting Corporate America do a Ned Beatty from “Deliverence” on him isn’t going to really win a lot of people over…
But keep voting for the guys who want to ship your job to India…
But keep voting for the guys who want to ship your job to India…
That’s not good. Don’t ship jobs to India. Sounds like Fred is a ship-tons-of-jobs-to-india and protect the cigarette companies kind of guy. People are tired of stoopid publicans that keep doing that kind of stuff. Booooo! Booooo!
The Huckster always says “The Courts made me raise taxes” to which a real conservative should tell him that the courts have no business telling a sitting governor to raise taxes and he should have told the courts to go F themselves!
The Huckster always says “The Courts made me raise taxes” to which a real conservative should tell him that the courts have no business telling a sitting governor to raise taxes and he should have told the courts to go F themselves!
He’s talking about stupid Bush and how Bush made the states spend more money with No Child Left Behind. Bush basically raised taxes and was a big government huge spending loser. The vast majority of Americans hate him but everyone needs to understand what a horrible president he has been. Bush is a total liberal.
The problem is that Hucksters and Huckabee think that government creates prosperity. Government stops recession. Government is the answer.
You could hear it in the answers when first asked about the economy. For many (until Rudy, honestly) talked about government programs for this and that.
You want the economy to create jobs? Cut the corporate tax and permanently remove the death tax, which kills small businesses.
You want more educated workers? Give tax incentives to corporations for work programs so they have an economic incentive to train Americans to do jobs they need but can’t fill.
Everyone talked about cutting taxes to raise federal revenue. That’s precisely the wrong way to look at it. You cut taxes to allow the private sector to grow.
When you tax, you take money from entities designed to make money and grow the economy and put it in the hands of the government, which is not designed to make money.
It’s really that simple.
But Huckabee and McCain and Romney talked about guvmint programs as the saviors of the economy.
Now, on to populism. Populism is the cotton candy of politics. Tastes great, isn’t filling and can eventually rot the infrastructure. It is not the government’s job to make me healthy, wealthy or wise. The government must secure the opportunity to allow me to work to be healthy, wealthy and wise.
Populists rail against business owners as greedy and uncaring. No one cares for the proletariat. Oops, I mean the working man. There is a deep divide between the haves and have nots. We got to force them to give us “fair share.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Uhhh, I mean, corporations are shipping jobs to India!
Populism? No thanks.
Cut the corporate tax rate. Offer additional tax incentives to corporations to start training classes. Corporations will stop finding ways to move operations and jobs overseas when they can do the same here. “Greedy corporations” are still comprised of your neighbors.
Demolish the barriers between states and allow companies and individuals to comparison shop for healthcare (Rep Shadegg’s resolution).
Create a private sector run “NASA” for environmental concerns. I doubt it would need it, but if it takes one time seed money from the government to get it started, so be it. Start an environmental research organization to explore new energy alternatives (molecular depolarization, for example), ways to improve environmental standards without crushing businesses, and to find the “unknown unknowns” that comes from raw R&D and the American mind. Allow tax payers to give money from their tax return (not government money, but a direct donation) to the organization. Publicize, tap Hollywood to get it moving, ensure the bylaws are carefully written so as to insolate it as much as possible from government/political pressure. Let them combine the natural enthusiasm for a healthy environment with free market principles. Find ways to make it in a businesses interest (i.e. bottom line) to move to cleaner practices.
Stimulate the economy. Increase healthcare competition and accessability. Address environmental concerns by infusing free market spirit and American inginuity with environmentalism.
Remind all Americans, as Reagan did (and folks miss this point), that everyone has a stake in the future. You may not earn a nickel over your debt in a year, but you can be a part of a stronger America by rejecting socialism and populism, which only consolidates government power, and embrace conservative principles, which have made America stronger. Conservative principles in action broke the greatest threat to the world in the 20th century. Conservative principles in action radically changed out tax policy so that politicians are scared to raise the idea of raising taxes. Consevative principles ended welfare as we know it and it may never return. Conservative principles can be applied to areas that we now concern ourselves with since we have greater security and prosperity (again, thanks to conservative principles adopted in the 80s). Apply the principles to healthcare, education, infrastructure improvement. They are policy issues and folks with core principles, sticking true to principles that work, can find ground-breaking solutions to those problems.
And, in case our populist friends missed it, the above can be done without spending a nickel of government money or creating a new government program.
And, in case our populist friends missed it, the above can be done without spending a nickel of government money or creating a new government program.
Tell that to Bush. Biggest spending ahole president ever. Everyone knows it but all idiots like Fred do is praise Bush for the war. You never hear Fred Thompson bashing Bush which he should. He should be bashing Bush like crazy. Anyone who doesn’t can’t win the nomination for either party or the presidency.
Bush isn’t running next year, dude.
I don’t know of many (any?) conservatives Bush isn’t running next year, dude.
I don’t know of many (any?) conservatives that were pleased with his inability to veto a spending bill. Too much of Bush, Sr. in his son.
But it makes no sense to go after Bush on this issue. State your case for limited government. State your case for tax cuts. Going after Bush does not help you in contests against other Republicans because you’re trying to tell people why you should vote for you, rather than the other five guys on stage. Saying folks should vote for you because you’re not like some guy not on the stage and not in the election allows others to say what they want about you, since you’re busy railing against Bush.
And let’s not forget that in the coming year, Bush and Cheney will be major fundraisers for the Republican campaign.
It just doesn’t make sense to attack Bush. You waste time, make unneeded enemies, and the Democrats will be all too happy to help.
I hate it when people intentionally misunderstand things.
“You think? Maybe you are an idiot that wants the terrorists to go to Heaven instead of Hell. Ask anyone where they would rather have the terrorists go and they would say Hell. Therefore, Huckabee freaking kicked the crap out of Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson looks like a huge moron loser for wanting to give the terrorists the gift of Heaven…
#32 – Posted by: RonPaul!! on January 11, 2008 12:15 AM ”
It is obvious that they both are wishing the same thing for the terrorists, the gift of DEATH. Fred’s comment was just a bit wittier.
Fred is winning me over.
Great posts, RockThrowingPeasant! You’re actually talking about real issues and real ideas. That’s what Fred! did last night, and we need more of it in the Republican party.
As for the Huckabee supporters, last night Fred! blasted Huckabee ON HIS RECORD AS GOVERNOR. Do you have any (logical) response to that, or are you just going to continue to repeat tired platitudes: “Club for Greed! Screw corporate America! etc”
Now we might actually listen to you if you can point to something Fred actually did that was him, “putting Wall Street’s interest’s above main streets” or “ship-tons-of-jobs-to-india and protect the cigarette companies”. But then, you’d also have to explain how Fred’s actions actually hurt America.
If you can’t actually find anything like that in Fred’s record, maybe you need to rethink who you’re suppporting and why.
And I do apologize for the overuse of the word “actually” in my previous post. I claim lack of sleep and lack of proofreading as my excuse.
OK, just to clarify things, Fred, Huck and Paul are all running for the office of President of the United States -not God. God decides who goes to heaven and hell.
Since Muslims believe when they die in battle Allah will give them 72 virgins, Fred’s point was that the US Navy would have arranged the meeting.
Besides, what makes you think getting 72 virgins is a good thing? What if there’s a reason they’re still virgins? Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Helen Thomas? If that’s your idea of heaven…
Cave Troll take poll and 100% of people polled who were not subsequently crushed with big rock by Cave Troll said Cave Troll won debate. So, take that, Ron Paul text poll winner morons!
Vote for Cave Troll – he crush neo-Nazis and troofers with big rock, not kiss and hug them like Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters.
…it’s what the 70% of Americans who aren’t Republicans think. -JoeB131
So, you’re the guy with all the stats. Good to know. I always wondered who had the facts, and it looks like it’s you! But why waste your time here? You could be a man on a mission, educating the cluless hordes in the heartland. Go, brave soul, go!
Tell that to Bush. Biggest spending ahole president ever. Everyone knows it but all idiots like Fred do is praise Bush for the war. You never hear Fred Thompson bashing Bush which he should. -BloBH
Yeah, because that has yet to be done by whiny retards who haven’t got the IQ to make toast in less than half an hour. BTW, Bob, you forgot, “F**K Boosh!!!”, “Boosh Lied! Kids Died!!!”, and the ever popular “Worst Preznit Evah!!!”, which was coined by the 2nd worst former president ever, the first being Hillary’s bitch. (P.S., do you smell toast burning, Bob?)
Fred kicked ass, and I anticipate that he will continue kicking ass for the next 11 months.
on second thought, to hell with that…I’m voting for Cave Troll. Where do I get my Cave Troll ’08 bumper sticker?
But keep voting for the guys who want to ship your job to India…
I’ll vote for the guys who want to ship you dumb-ass trolls to India. Well, OK, we need to keep a few here to amuse us with their antics. But the rest can be shipped off to India!
Or, better yet, to some other dump that isn’t used for customer support phone calls. If you trolls are shipped to India, it’ll be even harder to get someone who speaks English properly….
Wow, Master Shake, wouldn’t it be nice if you had AMERICANS answering those customer service calls instead of some guy named “Pradip”?
Now, with all these CS jobs going to India and all the manufacturing jobs going to China, exactly what are the 99.999% of us who aren’t bloodsucking corporate executives going to do for a living?
OH, that’s right. Cut the estate tax. That’ll do it.
To Rock Throwing Peasent…
When you cut Estate (not death) Taxes and Corporate Taxes, where do you think the money ends up coming from to make that up…
Well, either the government has to borrow it, or they have to shift the tax burden onto someone else. Cutting unneeded programs would be nice, but it never happens. What oftens happens is exactly what you guys rip Huck for. The Federal Government sends less to the states, and they have to make up the difference by raising property, sales and income taxes.
Now, if you like getting rid of these things, you should vote for Huck, since he wants to replace the whole tax code with a Fair Tax.
Now, with all these CS jobs going to India and all the manufacturing jobs going to China, exactly what are the 99.999% of us who aren’t bloodsucking corporate executives going to do for a living?
And with utterly moronic statements such as that, you expect us to take you seriously?
Yes, it would be nice if actual Americans answered the phones. What is your plan? Make the President a dictator who can require businesses to do whatever you think is “right”? But then, why am I arguing who should be the Republican nominee with a Socialist/Communist? You should be spending your time trying to choose the Democrat nominee….
He’s just mad because talking on the phone was his only job skill. Any else would be heavy lifting, and God forbid a leftard to have to actually work.
Don’t worry, Joe! You’re why welfare exists.
When you cut Estate (not death) Taxes and Corporate Taxes, where do you think the money ends up coming from to make that up…
Gee, it’s an “estate” tax? So, when does the tax occur? When someone estates?
It’s a death tax. It’s a tax on assets, including a business or a large family farm, you accumulate over your lifetime — having paid taxes on that money already. Twice taxed money.
Take a deep breath and say it with me: It’s okay to be wealthy. It’s okay to work your whole life and to leave your family with financial comfort. The government did their level best to take every dime it could from you during your life and now they want to tax your passing.
Enough.
You miss Reaganism entirely, as do all populists. It’s not the government’s MONEY! The government isn’t entitled to tax you when you die. The government isn’t entitled to half your assets (in excess of $2 million) when you die. It’s already taxed that money, at least one time.
You worry about where the money will come from to make up the difference.
I and other conservatives (read: not populists) say, “The feds never had the right to tax it in the first place. Removing it is just making things right. Not allowing the government to tax everything isn’t ‘punishing’ the federal government. It’s not their money.”
Had the government not abused Americans in the past with this absurd tax, there would be no debate.
That said, targeted tax cuts do work. You can raise revenue with tax cuts. But that should not be the philosophy that drives the tax cuts. The philosophy behind tax cuts is to remind the government that it’s not their money and that the private sector is a better steward of corporate revenue than ineffective bureaucracies.
You fundamentally do not get Reagan-conservatism.
You should re-examine your class warfare rhetoric and recognize it for what it is. Modern day liberalism/socialism/wealth redistribution. Each according to his needs, indeed.
Joe – If foreign companies can conduct their business for less, they have the edge and they’ll eventually put American companies that are restricted to domestic workers that they are forced to pay higher wages out of business.
This is what happened to the steel industry. For a brief period, because of unions, they raised their wages and actually provided a fairly decent living, until the 60s. Then, they went belly up and everybody lost their jobs anyway.
There are two ways around this, allow companies to hire foreign workers or take away restrictions that keep wages up here. I’d like to be more humane, but as well-intentioned as the measures you want to take are, the results backfire.
An economic policy based on emotions and just based on good intentions doesn’t do well.
Ss far as taxes – Laffer Curve. If you try to soak companies and the rich they’ll just move and do less business where you are at. The end result is that not only have you screwed over your economy, but you get less in taxes anyway. If your taxes are too high, you will improve both the economy and the amount of revenue you collect by lowering them (this is how Ireland went from being one of the poorest countries in Europe to having a booming economy and why the revenue we collected in the 80s rose despite the fact we lowered taxes).
WAL,
Kennedy and previous presidents also saw the effect of targeted tax cuts and increased revenue. I think the Cato Institute had a paper about this years ago.
Yes, it would be nice if actual Americans answered the phones. What is your plan? Make the President a dictator who can require businesses to do whatever you think is “right”? But then, why am I arguing who should be the Republican nominee with a Socialist/Communist? You should be spending your time trying to choose the Democrat nominee….
#87 – Posted by: Master Shake
Uh, the government ALREADY tells business to do the right thing. That’s why when you go to the faucet, you won’t be drinking water that is full of arsenic, mercury and other industrial wastes. And the raging socialist who gave us an EPA? Yup, Richard Nixon. And Bush’s Dad elevated it to a cabinet level position.
Now, I am sure a rugged individualist like yourself would rather have industry be allowed to dump whatever they feel like into the water.
So why would it be such a big deal to require companies doing business in the US to hire American citizens?
Gee, it’s an “estate” tax? So, when does the tax occur? When someone estates?
It’s a death tax. It’s a tax on assets, including a business or a large family farm, you accumulate over your lifetime — having paid taxes on that money already. Twice taxed money.
Take a deep breath and say it with me: It’s okay to be wealthy. It’s okay to work your whole life and to leave your family with financial comfort. The government did their level best to take every dime it could from you during your life and now they want to tax your passing. – RSP
No, dude, it’s an ESTATE tax. They aren’t taxing you twice. You are dead. you can’t take it with you. It doesn’t matter to you if your heirs get it, the government or the homeless guy under the viaduct. You are dead, and where you are going, money doesn’t do you a whole lot of good.
The person being taxed is the one who inherited your estate, and they didn’t work for it. Therefore, it isn’t unreasonable to ask for a percentage of it just like any other income.
In principle, yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing that go away, but there are a lot of other taxes that hit people struggling to make a living that need to go first, like gasoline taxes.
No, dude, it’s an ESTATE tax. They aren’t taxing you twice.
So, folks didn’t pay income tax when accumulating the assets? Business taxes? No taxes at all?!?! Heck, death tax from the previous person who died? This money was never taxed?!?! Well, I didn’t realize that!
You are dead. you can’t take it with you. It doesn’t matter to you if your heirs get it, the government or the homeless guy under the viaduct.
Um, yeah. It does matter to me who receives the fruits of my labor when I die. I bust my can every day for my family, not the government, not taxes, not the homeless guy. My family.
You are dead, and where you are going, money doesn’t do you a whole lot of good.
True enough. But just because something doesn’t effect me directly (like the death tax — I’m a peasant, after all), doesn’t mean I don’t care about an issue or want to see the right thing happen.
But if folks want to give their assets to the federal government they can. Folks can leave their assets to the federal government in their will. They can pay more income tax then they need to and not take exemptions. Warren Buffet talks a mean populist game, but he does everything he can to prevent taxation, including the death tax he purports to support.
The person being taxed is the one who inherited your estate, and they didn’t work for it.
Says you. Family members work in family businesses, on family farms. Families make shared sacrifices in order to improve (long term) the quality of life.
All this, of course, misses the underlying point that the death tax is fundamentally wrong.
Therefore, it isn’t unreasonable to ask for a percentage of it just like any other income.
It’s not the government’s money.
In principle, yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing that go away, but there are a lot of other taxes that hit people struggling to make a living that need to go first, like gasoline taxes.
In forty years, gasoline went from $.30 to $.40 a gallon to $3 a gallon (and I think we agree that it is artificially high due to the conflicts). Two generations. Gas isn’t breaking anyone’s budget. The cable bill, internet service, nights out on the town, etc do more to bust budgets.
Me? I’m po’. Wife and I don’t go out much. We live within our means and don’t bellyache when others do better. We’re working and saving so our boys can go to college without loans. We’re working so we own our home before our oldest graduates high school. And, if in some amazing turn of events, I accumulate a considerable amount of assets when I die after a lifetime of hard work, I’d prefer if my sons get the money and not a pork project in Des Moines, Iowa.
But that’s me.
You are free to donate all your money and assets to the benevolent federal government when you pass. No one will stop you.
Overall, Thompson has found a use in this campaign..
McCain can’t directly engage Huckabee right now. He knows he’s already on the outs with the Christian community because of some of the dumb things he’s said in 2000, and McCain-Feingold. The last thing he can be seen doing at this point is beating up on the Christian canidate.
Conversely, Huckabee isn’t going to go after McCain at this point. He doesn’t want to get the bad rap Dubya got for hitting the war hero.
So Thompson does McCain’s dirty work, repeating Club for Growth talking points.
Now, when the feild winnows down a bit more, they might have to engage directly. ON the other hand, if we have four candidates going into Super Tuesday, we might be looking at a brokered convention.
RPS, if you are a poor person, then why do you even care? Seriously? The estate tax doesn’t even kick in until the first 2 million is deducted.
My problem is that right now, because our government borrows money to pay for that pork project in Demois, we end up being owned by China. They are buying up our debt. That gives an unreasonable amount of influence over our economy to a potentially adversarial nation. And Corporate America keeps shipping our jobs over there…
#94 Right. It’s your money. The fact that your last material impact on the world is to hand your hard-earned residual gains over to whoever you like. Be it family, charity, or even, yes, an unsolicited donation to the Fed.
It was YOUR money. No government has any moral call on it. And the real weaselly concept here is that YOUR bequest is someone else’s income. It’s not income. It’s no more ‘income’ than your birthday presents are from your family.
Goddamn it, it’s bad enough that they tax you on the unrealized gains when your estate is liquidated.
Joe, it’s just that some people have principles and aren’t motivated to screw people just because they have something you don’t.
And if you don’t like the government ‘borrowing’ money to spend on projects you think are wasteful, there’s a solution out there. You find representatives that represent your interests.
And to return to your constant whine, why does Evil Corporate America ‘send jobs overseas’? Because 30-odd percent of every dollar you earn never maes it into your paypacket, so you have to soak those evil companies for more per hour than a guy in Mumbai.
Hiring Indians to take customer service calls is the same as dumping toxic waste in the water supply to you? Great Maker, are you delusional! Set up your “worker’s paradise”, comrade, and see what wonderful environmental standards you get….
(And here I thought it was just the Paulestinians who were providing “teh funny” around here. The neo-Coms are in the running now.)
RPS, if you are a poor person, then why do you even care? Seriously?
Again, you really don’t get “Reagan conservatism.”
It appealed/appeals to “Reagan Democrats,” because – as I noted earlier – it communicated to everyone willing to listen that we all have a stake in the prosperity of America.
I will not engage in class warfare out of jealousy. It’s a dangerous and destructive sin/trap. You covet your neighbor’s life and forget the blessings G-d has provided.
I know the truth. I know I will never accumulate $20 million (today’s money) by the time I die. That’s still no reason to turn against a fellow American because they’ve been given a different life by my Lord.
We look at wealth as only a net “good.” Is it? How many wealthy families have you met that can’t get along? That fight and bicker over material things?
I live a life of comfort. My comfort comes from accepting Christ as my Savior and being thankful for what is provided. I don’t think you fully realize how blessed we are to have been born in the US (assuming you’re a native born, but good on you if you immigrated legally and are making a life here).
Try to tear down my fellow American because they have been blessed with X, Y, and Z – when I’ve been blessed with A, B, and C?
No thanks.
The death tax was unfair. It has no business returning. I’ve made my secular argument prior and my personal spiritual argument here.
You don’t understand what drive moderate Democrats to Reagan and can bring them back again. Full disclosure: I’m not described in any circle as a moderate Democrat. I’m a conservative.
RPS, remember when you wrote all those awesome posts? Uh, that was awesome. (Chris Farley voice)
Keep it up! You truly fight the good fight.
Now I am totally convinced that Thompson is in this as a favor to his Senate buddy, Qwai Chang McCain as a stalkinh horse to split the votes of true conservatives between Romney/Huckabee and himself.
Huckabee is toast in a National election, but Romney could be acceptible to the Independents and possible stop Hiylery. With Thampson and Huckabee sypgoning off the Conservative vote, McCain pulls in enought Independents to pull of awin and we get to choose betweena Democrat and a closet Democrat in November.
Teddy K, the DNC’s version of Jabba the Hutt, is down on the Cape laughing his ass off as he plots the final destruction of America.
BLC, people might take you more seriously if you learned to spell and/or use proper grammar. Also, it would help if you didn’t come across as a deranged, conspiracy lunatic. Just some advice.
rolls eyes
At least BLoCkhead didn’t start extolling the virtues of Obamalamadingdong again, his favorite Muslim/Catholic Black/White Male/Democrat hybrid.
Since when do conservatives use “wall street versus main street” or “working man vs. . . (non-working man)”? I thought that sort of rhetoric was reserved to the other party. Maybe I’m too young to remember, but didn’t Reagan talk about growth, period, without any class rhetoric. Or am I wrong about that?
RPS, you miss the whole point of who the “Reagan Democrats” were. I lived in Chicago’s 3rd District for the irst half of my life, including the Reagan years, a traditionally Democratic stronghold where Reagan did quite well and put Illinois in the
What motivated the Reagan Democrats was not “Ohhh boy, I want those rich people to be able to give huge fortunes to their kids when they die!!!!” Nope. What motivated them was that the Democrats after 1972 embraced the hippie counter-culture and the Republicans stood for traditional values and strong defense. And Reagan cut taxes across the board. He didn’t target tax cuts to the rich.
It isn’t about “envy”, it’s about what is fair. The government benefits all of us, and probably the affluent more than poor. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay their fair share to support it. It certainly isn’t fair to let some rich kid get a big windfall when daddy kicks the bucket while some working guy supporting a family has to work until May to pay off his obligation to government.
And once again, if you really feel this way about the Estate Tax, then you should probably vote for Huckabee, since he plans to replace it with a Fair Tax.
Hiring Indians to take customer service calls is the same as dumping toxic waste in the water supply to you? Great Maker, are you delusional! Set up your “worker’s paradise”, comrade, and see what wonderful environmental standards you get….
#99 – Posted by: Master Shake
Gee, exactly how are they different? They are both about the same thing, a greedy corporation hurting the larger society to make money.
Sending good jobs to India and China not only hurts the working guy, it hurts the country. Could you imagine if things keep going as they are, and we find ourselves in a future situation where we are in conflict with China, let’s say over Taiwan? We won’t have the manufacturing base to sustain a war effort like we did in WWII. We won’t have the revenues coming into government to fund a war. Right now, our War in Iraq is being funded because the Chinese are buying up our T-bonds. Don’t think they’ll be so accommedating if they are the enemy.
I don’t fault a corporation its right to make money, but it has to follow reasonable rules. Don’t poison the water and don’t poison the working man.
Henry Ford once said, “If the working man can’t afford to by my product, I don’t have a business.” He was far-sighted, and realized that a healthy working class was his strongest asset. Eisenhower understood this. Reagan understood this. I’m not sure if most of our current crop of Republicans do.
It should be pointed out that America enjoyed its greatest prosperity in the 1950’s, when much of the work force was unionized and the top earners paid their fair share. Now we are backsliding, and it’s because our party is allowing corporate America to steal everything that isn’t nailed down. Enough. We let you make your money, but you have to play by the rules.
Since when do conservatives use “wall street versus main street” or “working man vs. . . (non-working man)”? I thought that sort of rhetoric was reserved to the other party. Maybe I’m too young to remember, but didn’t Reagan talk about growth, period, without any class rhetoric. Or am I wrong about that?
#105 – Posted by: huckleberryhounder
Probably happened after we found out that Corporate America is about ripping off your pension fund, sending your job to India and shipping Chinese lead poison to your kids…
Reagan dealt with a Corporate America that was still America first. The current bunch is just about stealing whatever they can… and both parties have kind of let them do it. (Let’s not forget,most of the Enron shennanigans happened on Slick Willy’s watch.)
I have no problem with Corporations that are good citizens. They realize they need to provide jobs and services. My problem is with the “Greed is Good” mentality that infects some of them with it’s amen corner in the GOP.
It isn’t about “envy”, it’s about what is fair. The government benefits all of us, and probably the affluent more than poor. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay their fair share to support it. It certainly isn’t fair to let some rich kid get a big windfall when daddy kicks the bucket while some working guy supporting a family has to work until May to pay off his obligation to government.
And once again, if you really feel this way about the Estate Tax, then you should probably vote for Huckabee, since he plans to replace it with a Fair Tax.
#106 – Posted by: JoeB131 on January 12, 2008 09:47 AM
Joe,
Can ya offer specifics–i.e., what’s your definition of fair share here? Do you pay half your income in taxes each year? I can’t speak for others, but a person you’d consider rich in my city does.
We’ve all met our fair share of snobby brats and I have a lot of sympathy for you here, but let’s say I’m some aging rich guy, I’m the guy you’re talking about – Do you think I’m going to work the same amount as I currently work if it meant my money would go towards supporting your kids?
Would you do the same for me?
Now when I don’t put the same effort into it, or when I just look for loopholes or move so I don’t have to pay those taxes – what do you think that’s going to do to the amount of revenue the treasury collects?
To put it in less flippant terms towards the poor and more flippant terms towards the rich – You can sheer a sheep many times, you can slaughter him only once and the problem here is that you seem intent on slaughtering them without regard to the fact they’re perfectly capable of running away.
Maybe it’s not envy, but admit it, it’s definitely emotion. When you use words like “daddy,” your intent here is to get even with rich people despite the fact that the policies you want would really screw up both the economy and tax revenue.
I have no problem with Corporations that are good citizens.
Honest question, which were these and when?
Reagan dealt with a Corporate America that was still America first.
Joe, I love capitalism as much as the next guy. In fact, you might consider me a shill for the kind of stuff ya hate, but even I’ll say this – If there was a time when Corporate America was America first, that time hasn’t existed for decades and sure as hell didn’t exist when Ronald Reagan was in office.
Could you imagine if things keep going as they are, and we find ourselves in a future situation where we are in conflict with China, let’s say over Taiwan? We won’t have the manufacturing base to sustain a war effort like we did in WWII
There are a lot of pundits out there who worry about this and I’m sure you can get people who agree with you, but – We go to war with China, that war would last six seconds and we’d all be dead. (actually that’s assuming they can reach all of us – I know we have missiles that can reach all of China, but I think they can just reach the West Coast…So you guys on the West Coast are screwed.)
Add to that their main consumer base disappearing (they need us to buy their goods to make money off it) and them currently holding a lot of U.S. debt including notes that wont be due for years and I really don’t think we’re going to have a war with each other anytime soon. We’ll do power plays and the country will do more than enough thing to try to infringe on what we’re doing, but I really wouldn’t hold my breath for this.
thing = “things”
The problem is that a working guy often does pay close to half his income. The difference is that rich folks can afford it and working class folks can’t.
Yeah, an estate tax socks it to the rich, but something like the social security tax socks it to the poor, especially when the upper limit on earnings to be taxed ends at I think $102,000, and everything above that is free of the 12% tax. (It’s a 12% tax on social security because your employer has to match the 6% you pay in.) YOu have property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc that all hit the working guy harder than the rich guy. Gasoline taxes are another one, since a rich guy doesn’t have the same percentage of his income going to fuel.
Usually, when apologists like Limbaugh get our there and huffily let us know that 10% pay most of the income taxes, he leaves out that income tax is only part of the picture.
So I find it interesting that of all the taxes you want offer relief from, the one you guys hit on is the Estate Tax, something that effects the people who really need the relief the least.
So I find it interesting that of all the taxes you want offer relief from, the one you guys hit on is the Estate Tax, something that effects the people who really need the relief the least.
uh Joe, last time I checked, you’re the one who brought up the estate tax in this thread, not us.
Yeah, an estate tax socks it to the rich, but something like the social security tax socks it to the poor, especially when the upper limit on earnings to be taxed ends at I think $102,000, and everything above that is free of the 12% tax. (It’s a 12% tax on social security because your employer has to match the 6% you pay in.) YOu have property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc that all hit the working guy harder than the rich guy. Gasoline taxes are another one, since a rich guy doesn’t have the same percentage of his income going to fuel.
A poor guy is going to get social security payments back and at the way it’s been going, chances are he’ll get back more than he put into it. Sorry, we may have to agree to disagree, but I’m not going to concede this one.
Sales taxes may take more from a poor guy more than a rich guy, but I’m not sure about that. They’ll definitely affect him more in that it covers stuff he can’t afford to mess around with and he has little wiggle room in his budget. If you’re dealing with a percentage of income, though, a rich guy pays a sales tax on an expensive car just like a poor guy does.
I really don’t get why you think property taxes would affect the poor more. Not only are rich people much more likely to own a house, they’re far more likely to own large pieces of property (causing them to pay a lot of taxes).
Joe, you don’t pay half your income in taxes. Look, just . . . you don’t. I know you have your animosities, I know you have your positions, but – just . . . step off the soapbox for a second – You don’t pay half your income in taxes and an average poor guy doesn’t.
JoeB131,
We’re going in circles here. I don’t even want to roast that chestnut of the Fair Tax. I like the idea of a consumption tax because, as I said, I’m a saver and not a spender. But other candidates have even more viable plans, such as Fred and Rudy. You will have to pull back your devotion to Huckabee and honestly appraise their policies. I’m not sure if you can.
You seem alone in thinking that Reagan would warm to class warfare.
I will not vote for a RINO, like Huckabee. He’s a liberal with some conservative positions, not the other way around. Hw views government as the first means to address issues. That’s the driving force behind the modern liberal.
The more you rant about class warfare, the more it seems obvious to others here and around you that you fundamentally misunderstand Reagan.
Class warfare…honestly. When has that rhetoric ever been a part of the Republican platform?
Good luck in life. Maybe, as Romney noted, Reagan will appear wiser as you age.
To others still reading:
Teh Fred is right. This election is about a fight for the soul of the Republican party. We need to find ways to effectively reach folks, like Joe, who are falling for the populist/liberal cotton candy. We need to re-connect with folks so that politicians like Huckabee can’t remake Reagan into their image for political expediency and cover.
I realize we can all have different interpretations of the same event. That’s human nature. But Reagan never spoke about class warfare and how corporations were the problem and government was the solution. I can’t imagine a more wrong way to view Reagan’s philosophy.
Before I start another post, I just want to say my abbreviation makes more sense as RTP, not RPS. DOn’t know how that came about.
Sales taxes may take more from a poor guy more than a rich guy, but I’m not sure about that. They’ll definitely affect him more in that it covers stuff he can’t afford to mess around with and he has little wiggle room in his budget. If you’re dealing with a percentage of income, though, a rich guy pays a sales tax on an expensive car just like a poor guy does.
I really don’t get why you think property taxes would affect the poor more.
WAL,
Sales tax is a regressive tax.
Two people, one makes $10,000 a year and one makes $100,000 a year.
Covering basic taxable expenses (not luxuries, for example, just clothes, deodorant, etc) will cost each $5,000 or whatever the current standard exemption is, $5,000 makes easier math.
Say each pay 5% sales tax on that $5,000. Each pays $250 in sales tax.
$250 is a greater share of $10,000 than it is of $100,000.
Now, while the second can can but more and pay more tax, he doesn’t need to do so in this model. His basic needs are met with $5,000.
That’s how sales tax and to a lesser degree property taxes are/can be regressive. The tax collected takes a greater share of lower incomes than the higher incomes.
Flat taxes, like Pennsylvania uses, is just that – flat. There are also progressive taxes, in which higher incomes pay a greater share of the total income than the lower incomes. The federal income tax is in many way a progressive tax system.
RTP – I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing here:
(above)
They’ll definitely affect him more in that it covers stuff he can’t afford to mess around with and he has little wiggle room in his budget.
My problem with Joe is when he talks about fair share – rich people could get away with it, they can avoid paying a big check in property taxes – but the fact of the matter is the guys Joe wants to get at are mailing that check in fairly often.
When a recession comes, Joe will feel the heat/some truly rich guy will just have less amenities – but there’s a decent chance that what he has in mind as “fair share” is already the case. I’m really not sure he has a specific goal in mind (a percentage, a specific amount) or if the goal isn’t actually already surpassed by the current tax system and that’s what I’m trying to get (after listening to some of this stuff, I’m just willing to bet it is) – it’s just “soak the rich bastards.”
If he wants his taxes lowered and for more people to focus on those, awesome – sign me up, but it seems like hating rich people is really more of the focus here, whether he wants to admit it or not. I think he really has it concluded that the government is socking it to him on tax day while letting some high six-figure guy off – dude, it’s not.
RTP- I’m not ever going to consider Fredo Guiliani’s plan because honestly, he’s the kind of guy who will drive me to a third party. Fred had his oppurtunity with me, and honestly, he blew it. Now he’s just a stalking horse doing McCainiac’s dirty work for him, and I am starting to
Please stop invoking Reagan (whom I campaigned for twice. Yes, I’m that old) as a patron saint. He did a lot of great things, but he made a lot of mistakes as well.
The reason I have stopped drinking the Supply Side Kool-Aid is because after 4 jobs working for the Corporate World, I see the middle class doing less well every year, not better. I’m not doing as well as my father, despite having more education. And looking through history, the fact is that we peaked as a lifestyle in the 1950’s, when you had the rich paying their fair share, the workforce was unionized, we had trade barriers to protect most industries from unfair foreign competition. You know, the various “populist cotton Candy” that actually worked, which is why both Republicans and Democrats largely embraced it. Eisenhower didn’t reverse the New Deal. Nixon didn’t reverse the Great Society.
Unfortunately, we’ve slowly been chipping away at the protections of the American Middle Class (both Republicans and Democrats) and what do we have?
A middle class that is largely disappearing.
Poison toys coming in from China
Jobs being shipped to India
Illegal Alien scabs getting jobs that should go to American union guys.
A workforce that is less than 7% unionized.
My message to Corporate America is, “Guys, you can still make money, but you have to play by the rules.”
The reason I have stopped drinking the Supply Side Kool-Aid
Ahhh, well at least we’re getting more to the point.
You say you’re more in line with Reagan, but you won’t drink the “Kool-Aid” that brought about an incredible economic revival.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, provided an analysis of the effects of supply side economics. Libertarians share a good deal with conservatives, but you could never accuse them of carrying the water for Reagan simply because he’s a Republican. The case is clear. Laffer economics is effective in growing our economy and improving our quality of life.
I’ve been intrigued by the Austrian school of thought regarding economics, but I confess I haven’t had the time to really delve into it. On the surface, it seems to makes sense (reliance on entrepreneurship, for example).
Look, you’re a Huckabee guy. I’m a Thompson guy. You believe the future of America should include protection barriers, increased taxes, and government programs to protect the working man. I believe the future of America needs reduction in corportate taxes to make our corporations more competitive, less government involvement and regulation, and a reinvigoration of the American spirit of self-reliance. You’re more to the Left of me and I’m to the Right of you on economic matters, at least (I won’t presume it stretches to other topics).
I think people like me need to find ways to make others understand that it’s the American spirit that made America great and not the American government.
actually, what made America great was when the Robber Barons of industry were brought under control by the progressive policies of another great Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy realized that when the wealth of a nation is concentrated in the hands of a few, you can’t have true freedom or true prosperity.
Unfortunately, since Reagan, we’ve had a steady chipping away at the very things that made us a great nation. Union membership is down to 7% in the private sector. Many Americans have to work two jobs to make ends meet. (Kind of defeats the concept of a 40 hour work week)
The thing about Reagan is that he didn’t run on the “Economic” Conservative platform. He ran on the social conservative platform, that we had an idealized life in the 1950’s, and that is what we need to get back to. In short, he used social conservatism to get the trojan horse of economic conservatism into the walls, and unfortunately, a lot of us bought into it.
As far as tax cuts spurring growth, I’m not sure that dog will hunt. A Democrat can argue that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and we had not only vast economic growth but a balanced budget as well. It’s not really a compelling argument.
He ran on the social conservative platform, that we had an idealized life in the 1950’s, and that is what we need to get back to.
Look, sorry to harp on this, but
We had an idealized life when the economies of all our possible competitors had been decimated by World War II or communists takeovers. Joe, it’s no longer the case and it’s that union control that ultimately drove those jobs out of here in the first place.
It’d be great if we could pay everybody who had union jobs the highest possible amount, but the end result has been foreign companies, which didn’t do this, kicking the ass of domestic companies that did (Ford, GM, the steel industry, the rust belt). These places weren’t just depleted by some evil corporate exec taking away blue collar jobs, but by those companies literally going belly up.
It’d be cool if we could use tariffs to take care of that, but the end result of that is people in the U.S. paying more for the current goods they buy and our companies still not being able to able to deliver their products at a competitive price overseas.
It’d be great if there was a way around this. There isn’t.
As a tangent, btw, this has been one of the benefits of the weak dollar.
We’ve been complaining for years about China undervaluing its currency, thus allowing it to sell goods more cheaply over here and have a competitive edge over our companies.
For the same reason, the current position of the dollar has been causing a lot of foreign companies to go ape-shit. This is why Boeing had a great year and Airbus was concerned about going into bankruptcy. A weak currency has been allowing our companies to sell goods much more cheaply and made it tougher for foreign companies to do business here.
Now, it wouldn’t be good for us if the weak dollar is permanent, but, since so many people have been complaining about it lately–it does have its benefits.
A Democrat can argue that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and we had not only vast economic growth but a balanced budget as well. It’s not really a compelling argument.
And history points to the recession later in Clinton’s presidency. His economic record in the first term was nothing remarkable. In his second term, it took off. Then, of course, he left Bush with the recession.
You really aren’t a Republican, are you?
Union membership, class warfare, tax-raising, Huck supporter (purported), etc.
I think you’ve let too much slip out.
WAL,
You have no idea what you are talking about. Japan has unions for their major industries, just like we do. In fact, they have unions because the democrats whe ran things in the post-war era imposed them on a defeated Germany and Japan. what killed our auto industry was its own greed, and its inability to see that no one wanted their big, gasguzzlers when gasoline was so expensive. We can’t sell american cars in foreign markets because they won’t meet the fuel and emmission standards of most countries. Today, most “Japanese” cars are made in the US, and they have most of the same union benefits that the American automakers do. What they don’t have are greedy CEO’s insisting on paying themselves eight figure salaries for losing money and cutting jobs. But, hey, let’s give that guy a tax cut.
RTP- Wow, that’s right. Man, those unions, those guys are the enemy, the ones insisting on fair pay for working guys. DOn’t they know that business is designed to pay 8 figure salaries for greedy CEO’s! And then we need to give them tax cuts because they’ve earned them, dammit!
Once upon a time, Republicans actually responded to the unions. My Dad was a Union man for 30 years, and he supported Eisenhower, Nixon even Goldwater and Ford. Even Reagan got some union support. Then, somewhere, busting the unions became a goal, wages were driven down, benefits were taken away and many of us found ourselves working two jobs to make ends meet.
Finally, in Huckabee, we’ve got a guy who says, “I’m still a conservative on social and security issues, but we are going the wrong way on economic issues!” Suddenly, we have a bunch of people wanting to burn hiim at the stake.
I had a talk with my boss on Friday, and he said he’d vote for a Democrat before Huckabee. Now, this is the same guy who think its cool to fire half his staff and regulate everyone else to 3% raises which don’t keep up with inflation, because HE and his bosses let the most important account we had walk away due to neglect.
I don’t think I’m on the wrong side of this. I think that the “Thank you, sir, may I have another” element of CEO apologists are the ones driving this party into the ditch. You are driving away the very social and security conservatives who still have to feed their families at the end of the day.
Japan has unions for their major industries, just like we do.
Today, most “Japanese” cars are made in the US,
Joe,
Japan has unions . . . and yet for some reason most Japanese auto companies don’t build a lot of their cars in Japan . . .
Do you not see a problem in using those two statements together to defend unions?
(In point of fact, union membership in Japan has actually collapsed a lot from where it used to be and their unions both strike less than in the U.S. and have been more open wage cuts when a company’s doing badly. BTW, if you don’t think Japan has greedy CEOs who pay themselves eight figure salaries for losing money, I’d offer as Exhibit A the last 15 years of their economy.)
As far as “I have no idea what I’m talking about,” I have no interest in getting into personal attacks with you, but if you insist on getting into personal attacks with me, I have seen nothing in the past few threads that would make me decide to defer to your opinions on economics in these areas.
I know it sucks for someone to lose their job, but you seem to be incredibly emotionally invested in deciding what the cause of that job loss is and have put blinders on when anybody in these threads try to point out other things. You look for a two sentences in a critical post that you can attack and spend the thread ignoring the rest of it. I know this sucks, but that doesn’t change a very big root problem here (the power of unions in the 60s and 70s) that you want to avoid.
My father worked in a union too (steel, though I’ll admit it was far more briefly than your father). They did accomplish a lot. The unions obtained a good standard of living back then to the point where steelworker vs. graduate school was actually a much tougher decision than a lot people today and on this website would expect. Then the company went f’n belly up.
Dude, I worked for a Japanese company for a year and a half.
The reason they make cars here (with union workers) is because it’s cheaper to make them here than make them in Japan, put them on a boat, ship them across the ocean and then pay a tarif to get them into the country.
Yes, Japan has had some problems in the last 15 years, but that’s because demographically, their population is aging and they aren’t allowing enough immigration to make up the difference. It certainly isn’t because they don’t allow the outright greed of American CEOs. Personally, I can’t see why ANYONE needs to make an eight figure income. What the hell would you spend it on? I also can’t see why you have a guy like the one who ran Home Depot, lost money, and he still got a 120 million severance package.
The problem is that the dismantling of unions has caused a decline in American standards of living. I know union busting has become part of the GOP mantra, and that is why it is in the minority right now.
Oh, incidently, I haven’t “lost a job”. I’ve been working since I was 16 and I am 46 now. I am just pointing out what I have observed in Corporate America. These people need minders.
Joe, you tout Japanese unions, then say it’s cheaper to make things here than in Japan. You then being up things that are screwing up their economy that having to do with either unions or CEOs. If you just switch to another argument after one doesn’t fit what’s the point?
Now, I have a job to work on, if you want I’ll pick this up at lunch or after work.
You mean I realize problems are “complicated”, yes, I do.
I think I’ve made my point. The Japanese set up factories here, partially because it was cheaper, partially because various elements of government made it easier to do so. But you know what, when they did, they used unions, because they recognized unions are valuable.
A last point, because I know that a few of you Fredheads are disputing my Republican bona fides, doesn’t it seem funny to you that the two GOP frontrunners are McCain and Huckabee, who have the good sense to realize that pandering to the mega-rich is not the way to go?
Sorry for the late reply
“You mean I realize problems are “complicated”
What I mean is a contradiction (though that’s a decent job of explaining it) – more importantly just avoiding a decent amount of things in the last few threads completely.
For starters, you want to go back to the ’50s, but they were not just a time of union dominance, but a time when all of our competitors had been beaten to a bloody pulp and some couldn’t even be legitimately called first world countries. To reach this, you don’t need merely different economic policies, whether yours or mine, but a time machine – outside of World War III, it’s not gonna happen.
“But you know what, when they did, they used unions, because they recognized unions are valuable.”
I’m not even sure they could keep unions out without breaking the law, but even if they could, the bad publicity, especially given the anti-Japan sentiment a few years back, would be enormous.
The reason people here are questioning your Republican bona fides is not merely that we think that you’re making Democratic arguments, but that a lot of their code words are being included. When you’re taking stuff out of “What’s the matter with Kansas”, do you really find it that odd that anybody would question whether you’re actually a Republican? If you’re merely trying to cover all your bases here, good for you, but ya can’t really fault other people for being that suspicious about it. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with this stuff and the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people who’ve voted Republican who agree with you, so debating this stuff is worthwhile and where someone is on their personal positions is almost beside the point.