The Huck was STRONG.
And MITT!! just has that Eddie Haskell vibe about him. I mean this guys implements a socialized form of health care in MA and then bashes Hillary for wanting to do the same for the rest of the Country. I am all for bashing Hillary, but come on. Does anyone know what this guy believes in anyway?
Posted by: The Commander Guy | January 25, 2008, 9:12 am 9:12 am
Huckabee hound steals all his ideas from Ron Paul, at least his good ones. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has any knowledge about what a real thriving economy should look like. He makes the rest of these men look ignorant on this topic.
Posted by: mike | January 25, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am
Huckabee rocked last night!! He is extremely forthright and well spoken. In addition, his quick wit really allows him to connect with people. I support him strongly and it sickens me that the “Republican Elitists” don’t see how strong a candidate he can be. I think the elitists (like Romney) are completely out of step with the heart of today’s republican constituency.
Posted by: grabber | January 25, 2008, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Romney Looked, Sounded Great. I Trust Him More Than Any other Candidate, especially over McCain and Guiliani
Posted by: Tom | January 25, 2008, 9:48 am 9:48 am
To my understanding, Romney’s health care activities in MA were based on the private sector (not on government handouts).
Huck is a nice guy, but he really is dwindling in the polls. He said some controversial things in South Carolina and he is low on cash. I imagine he will be dropping out in the next month or two (if not earlier).
Posted by: Dave | January 25, 2008, 10:19 am 10:19 am
Romney is the most presidential candidate running… He addresses the issues that Americans want to hear.
Posted by: David | January 25, 2008, 10:30 am 10:30 am
I believe that Mitt Romney did best in the debate and would be the best one to handle the BIG debates with the Democrat candidate in a few months. He is energetic, smart is a STRONG advocate for conservative principles.
Mike says that Romney implements socialized health care: the difference between Romney’s plan and Hillary’s plan is like day and night. Government does not control run Romney’s plan – it is handled by private insurance companies – BIG difference! If you don’t think that health care is a problem, just try getting private insurance (not through your employer) and see how fast you are denied coverage. I was sick and unemployed for awhile and tried to convert my work insurance to private insurance. Until then, I had no clue that I could be denied and could not get insurance. Now, I know what they are talking about! Mitt Romney is right on top of the problem. He not only has experience in health care, but he has successful experience in applying the conservative model of lowering taxes and creating jobs! He understands the economy through his career of turning around failed companies to become profitable again and even the failed U.S. Olympic Games! With this experience, he is the most likely candidate to succeed in turning around our Government to make in efficient in serving the needs of our country.
Many try and hang a flip-flop label on Mitt for being “converted” to pro-life. There is no flip-flop, but only a deliberate change of direction. Sometimes converts make the best advocates of a principle. Paul was against Christianity until he was “converted” then he became the strongest missionary. I have no doubt that Romney will pick the right judges for the Supreme Court when elected President and he has the determination to get them confirmed and not roll-over to the Democrats. Mitt is the man to represent conservative principles. I’m for Mitt Romney!!!
Posted by: Alabama Bob | January 25, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Dave, you mentioned: “I imagine he [Mike Huckabee] will be dropping out in the next month or two (if not earlier).” I agree!
The Florida Primary on Tuesday is big! But it will not be the defining moment. That distinction will be a week later on Feb 5th.
On that day Rudy Giuilani will have his defining moment. NY (his home state), CT, NJ, DE and MS all hold primaries. And NY, CT, NJ and DE are winner-take-all states. If he wins big in the Northeast, he is in the race for the long haul; and could actually take the lead in the national delegate count. If he loses all 5, he will drop out the race next day. If he can’t win his home state…
On that day Mike Huckabee will have his defining moment: AR (his home state), AL, GA, OK, TN all hold primaries. Unfortunately, AR is a proportional primary. So even should he win his home state, other candidates will probably garner a significant number of delegates. However, the other states are somewhat winner-take-all primaries but by district and statewide. TN is winner-take-all IF a candidate wins over 50%, otherwise it is proportional. So he would really have to win all five of these states to remain a viable candidate. But if he wins AR and runs 2nd in the other four states, he might still stay in for two more weeks for the LA, Washington DC, MD, VA, WA and WI primaries. But unless he significantly raises his delegate count by then, he will drop out before the end of February.
Posted by: James Danley | January 25, 2008, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Sorry, I meant MA — Massachusetts — has it’s primary on Feb 5.
Posted by: James Danley | January 25, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
All of the candidates performed well, respectively with the exception of McCain when asked about economics by Dr. Paul. McCain himself admitted to knowing very little about economics. Worked for the previous president, eh?!?
I wish people would stop touting Mitt. There is now way he will win over any anti-war democrat. He seems to think like Giuliani that 9/11 and Iraq are still connected.
America wants to end this war that is killing endlessly, destroying our economy, looting the American people Monday through Friday with inflation and out of control spending, and eradicating the Constitution.
That leaves just one man to restore the GOP and that is Ron Paul.
Posted by: Max | January 25, 2008, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
Huckgomerpyle is not original. His fair tax theory clearly will not work. His only talent seems to be to take an original idea from someone and plagiarize it as his.
Posted by: Cindy | January 26, 2008, 12:42 am 12:42 am
Cindy, I’m curious! Why do you believe the fair tax “clearly will not work?”
Posted by: James Danley | January 26, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am
James,
Those who earn less than $25,000 per year are better off under the fair tax. But, it’s not true that the plan would untax the elderly. Retirees who are living on money they have saved,money that was taxed when they earned it,will still have to pay the consumption tax, meaning that, in effect, many seniors will be taxed TWICE. Huckgomerpyle claims that everyone will pay less is a fantasy. The fair tax claims to be revenue neutral. That means that it has to collect the same $2.4 trillion that the current system collects. The fair tax replaces corporate income and payroll taxes. So,individuals have to pony up to replace those in addition to replacing the sums collected via personal income and payroll taxes. So, Huckgomerpyle is suggesting that the fair tax will generate exactly the same revenue while collecting nothing from corporations and still costing everyone less than they are currently paying. This does not compute!
Cindy, under the Fair Tax there will be no income tax, no tax on savings, no capital gains tax and no tax on Social Security benefits. It will enable workers to keep their entire paycheck and retirees to keep their entire pension. Individuals will only be taxed (23%) when they purchase goods and services.
Right now there are tens of millions of individuals who do not pay income taxes or payroll taxes as they are paid under the table. Under the Fair Tax these individuals will pay their fair share of taxes when they purchases goods and services.
The current U. S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices. It is expected that the Fair Tax will decrease associated production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs. As an example, the government currently imposes about 30 taxes on a single loaf of bread in the process of production from farm to the store. These taxes account for 27.2% of the cost of the loaf of bread. The Fair Tax will eliminate all of these taxes. Therefore, in theory, the consumer will pay 23% tax on a loaf of bread that should be now be 27.2% cheaper. (At least on this product there is a net savings of 4.2%.)
Right now payroll taxes are collected on only the first $97,500 of income. Currently there are 3.3 workers per Social Security beneficiary. It is projected that by 2032 there will be just 2.1 workers per beneficiary. In 2017 Social Security benefit payments will begin to exceed Social Security tax income. In 2040 only about 74% of benefits will be paid — unless changes are made. Under the Fair Tax there is no cap. As long as you purchase goods and services you pay the tax. And a portion of that tax will go towards Social Security and Medicare.
Under the Fair Tax, as currently being discussed, every individual will receive a monthly advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. It is this portion of the Fair Tax which I, personally, oppose. Printing and mailing monthly checks to everyone is extremely costly. Instead I prefer Alan Keyes’ proposal of opening up tax-free stores. These stores will carry basic neccessities: food, clothing, personal items, generic appliances and possibly even generic hybrid or electric cars. Anyone can make purchases from these stores without paying the federal sales tax. But if an individual wants to splurge or purchase something fancier and more luxurious he or she will have to shop in stores that charge the federal sales tax.
Consumer spending is what drives our economy. By allowing individuals to keep their entire paycheck consumer spending will increase.
Posted by: James Danley | January 26, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
I did see part of the Repubs’ roundtable yesterday evening, but wasn’t aware at first that I was watching the debate. Instead, I thought I had mistakenly tuned into a bad remake of “The Night of the Living Dead!”
The Huck was STRONG.
And MITT!! just has that Eddie Haskell vibe about him. I mean this guys implements a socialized form of health care in MA and then bashes Hillary for wanting to do the same for the rest of the Country. I am all for bashing Hillary, but come on. Does anyone know what this guy believes in anyway?
Posted by: The Commander Guy | January 25, 2008, 9:12 am 9:12 am
Huckabee hound steals all his ideas from Ron Paul, at least his good ones. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has any knowledge about what a real thriving economy should look like. He makes the rest of these men look ignorant on this topic.
Posted by: mike | January 25, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am
Huckabee rocked last night!! He is extremely forthright and well spoken. In addition, his quick wit really allows him to connect with people. I support him strongly and it sickens me that the “Republican Elitists” don’t see how strong a candidate he can be. I think the elitists (like Romney) are completely out of step with the heart of today’s republican constituency.
Posted by: grabber | January 25, 2008, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Romney Looked, Sounded Great. I Trust Him More Than Any other Candidate, especially over McCain and Guiliani
Posted by: Tom | January 25, 2008, 9:48 am 9:48 am
To my understanding, Romney’s health care activities in MA were based on the private sector (not on government handouts).
Huck is a nice guy, but he really is dwindling in the polls. He said some controversial things in South Carolina and he is low on cash. I imagine he will be dropping out in the next month or two (if not earlier).
Posted by: Dave | January 25, 2008, 10:19 am 10:19 am
Romney is the most presidential candidate running… He addresses the issues that Americans want to hear.
Posted by: David | January 25, 2008, 10:30 am 10:30 am
I believe that Mitt Romney did best in the debate and would be the best one to handle the BIG debates with the Democrat candidate in a few months. He is energetic, smart is a STRONG advocate for conservative principles.
Mike says that Romney implements socialized health care: the difference between Romney’s plan and Hillary’s plan is like day and night. Government does not control run Romney’s plan – it is handled by private insurance companies – BIG difference! If you don’t think that health care is a problem, just try getting private insurance (not through your employer) and see how fast you are denied coverage. I was sick and unemployed for awhile and tried to convert my work insurance to private insurance. Until then, I had no clue that I could be denied and could not get insurance. Now, I know what they are talking about! Mitt Romney is right on top of the problem. He not only has experience in health care, but he has successful experience in applying the conservative model of lowering taxes and creating jobs! He understands the economy through his career of turning around failed companies to become profitable again and even the failed U.S. Olympic Games! With this experience, he is the most likely candidate to succeed in turning around our Government to make in efficient in serving the needs of our country.
Many try and hang a flip-flop label on Mitt for being “converted” to pro-life. There is no flip-flop, but only a deliberate change of direction. Sometimes converts make the best advocates of a principle. Paul was against Christianity until he was “converted” then he became the strongest missionary. I have no doubt that Romney will pick the right judges for the Supreme Court when elected President and he has the determination to get them confirmed and not roll-over to the Democrats. Mitt is the man to represent conservative principles. I’m for Mitt Romney!!!
Posted by: Alabama Bob | January 25, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Dave, you mentioned: “I imagine he [Mike Huckabee] will be dropping out in the next month or two (if not earlier).” I agree!
The Florida Primary on Tuesday is big! But it will not be the defining moment. That distinction will be a week later on Feb 5th.
On that day Rudy Giuilani will have his defining moment. NY (his home state), CT, NJ, DE and MS all hold primaries. And NY, CT, NJ and DE are winner-take-all states. If he wins big in the Northeast, he is in the race for the long haul; and could actually take the lead in the national delegate count. If he loses all 5, he will drop out the race next day. If he can’t win his home state…
On that day Mike Huckabee will have his defining moment: AR (his home state), AL, GA, OK, TN all hold primaries. Unfortunately, AR is a proportional primary. So even should he win his home state, other candidates will probably garner a significant number of delegates. However, the other states are somewhat winner-take-all primaries but by district and statewide. TN is winner-take-all IF a candidate wins over 50%, otherwise it is proportional. So he would really have to win all five of these states to remain a viable candidate. But if he wins AR and runs 2nd in the other four states, he might still stay in for two more weeks for the LA, Washington DC, MD, VA, WA and WI primaries. But unless he significantly raises his delegate count by then, he will drop out before the end of February.
Posted by: James Danley | January 25, 2008, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Sorry, I meant MA — Massachusetts — has it’s primary on Feb 5.
Posted by: James Danley | January 25, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
All of the candidates performed well, respectively with the exception of McCain when asked about economics by Dr. Paul. McCain himself admitted to knowing very little about economics. Worked for the previous president, eh?!?
I wish people would stop touting Mitt. There is now way he will win over any anti-war democrat. He seems to think like Giuliani that 9/11 and Iraq are still connected.
America wants to end this war that is killing endlessly, destroying our economy, looting the American people Monday through Friday with inflation and out of control spending, and eradicating the Constitution.
That leaves just one man to restore the GOP and that is Ron Paul.
Posted by: Max | January 25, 2008, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
Huckgomerpyle is not original. His fair tax theory clearly will not work. His only talent seems to be to take an original idea from someone and plagiarize it as his.
Posted by: Cindy | January 26, 2008, 12:42 am 12:42 am
Cindy, I’m curious! Why do you believe the fair tax “clearly will not work?”
Posted by: James Danley | January 26, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am
James,
Those who earn less than $25,000 per year are better off under the fair tax. But, it’s not true that the plan would untax the elderly. Retirees who are living on money they have saved,money that was taxed when they earned it,will still have to pay the consumption tax, meaning that, in effect, many seniors will be taxed TWICE. Huckgomerpyle claims that everyone will pay less is a fantasy. The fair tax claims to be revenue neutral. That means that it has to collect the same $2.4 trillion that the current system collects. The fair tax replaces corporate income and payroll taxes. So,individuals have to pony up to replace those in addition to replacing the sums collected via personal income and payroll taxes. So, Huckgomerpyle is suggesting that the fair tax will generate exactly the same revenue while collecting nothing from corporations and still costing everyone less than they are currently paying. This does not compute!
Posted by: Cindy | January 26, 2008, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
Cindy, under the Fair Tax there will be no income tax, no tax on savings, no capital gains tax and no tax on Social Security benefits. It will enable workers to keep their entire paycheck and retirees to keep their entire pension. Individuals will only be taxed (23%) when they purchase goods and services.
Right now there are tens of millions of individuals who do not pay income taxes or payroll taxes as they are paid under the table. Under the Fair Tax these individuals will pay their fair share of taxes when they purchases goods and services.
The current U. S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices. It is expected that the Fair Tax will decrease associated production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs. As an example, the government currently imposes about 30 taxes on a single loaf of bread in the process of production from farm to the store. These taxes account for 27.2% of the cost of the loaf of bread. The Fair Tax will eliminate all of these taxes. Therefore, in theory, the consumer will pay 23% tax on a loaf of bread that should be now be 27.2% cheaper. (At least on this product there is a net savings of 4.2%.)
Right now payroll taxes are collected on only the first $97,500 of income. Currently there are 3.3 workers per Social Security beneficiary. It is projected that by 2032 there will be just 2.1 workers per beneficiary. In 2017 Social Security benefit payments will begin to exceed Social Security tax income. In 2040 only about 74% of benefits will be paid — unless changes are made. Under the Fair Tax there is no cap. As long as you purchase goods and services you pay the tax. And a portion of that tax will go towards Social Security and Medicare.
Under the Fair Tax, as currently being discussed, every individual will receive a monthly advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. It is this portion of the Fair Tax which I, personally, oppose. Printing and mailing monthly checks to everyone is extremely costly. Instead I prefer Alan Keyes’ proposal of opening up tax-free stores. These stores will carry basic neccessities: food, clothing, personal items, generic appliances and possibly even generic hybrid or electric cars. Anyone can make purchases from these stores without paying the federal sales tax. But if an individual wants to splurge or purchase something fancier and more luxurious he or she will have to shop in stores that charge the federal sales tax.
Consumer spending is what drives our economy. By allowing individuals to keep their entire paycheck consumer spending will increase.
Posted by: James Danley | January 26, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
I did see part of the Repubs’ roundtable yesterday evening, but wasn’t aware at first that I was watching the debate. Instead, I thought I had mistakenly tuned into a bad remake of “The Night of the Living Dead!”
Posted by: chuck | January 28, 2008, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm