Democrats & Liberals Archives

Hey, Republicans: Bring On Mike Huckabee! (Please?)

If there is one candidate in the lacklustre Republican field that any one of the three leading Democrats could beat, it’s Mike Huckabee. Because, simply put, even George Bush’s dumbed-down America isn’t dumb enough to elect him to the Presidency.

Huckabee has some credentials. Charming. White. Southern. (Remind you of another Arkansas Governor?) But the similiarities to our last decent President end right there.

Where Clinton couldn't keep his unmentionables in his pants, Huckabee can't keep his foot out of his mouth.

In a race which is likely to be characterized by voter anger and weariness at negative campaigns, Huckabee recently began stirring his religious powerbase by asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" in a direct attack on Mitt Romney. Yes, it motivates Evangelical whites. But nobody else. And this country isn't going to stand for another religious zealot in the White House.

How about his assertion in 1992 that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." He has never refuted this quote.

Huckabee has likened abortion to the Holocaust, one of several quotes that have angered Jewish organizations. Another involved likening his weight loss as Governor to being in a concentration camp. You can see where this kind of diplomacy follows closely in the 'Yo! Blair!' school of Bushspeak.

While he no longer stands by an earlier position, that “It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population”, and that “multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research”, it is clear that Huckabee is not the most tolerant of men.

Best of all, Huckabee has firmly stated that he does not personally 'believe' in Darwinism and thinks that creationism should be taught in schools.

As a Democrat, I believe that our country isn't entirely stupid. (I firmly believe that many Republicans believe precisely the opposite, which is why their political techniques tend toward mindless character assassination and idiotic repetition of soundbites.)

If I'm right, then there's no way on Earth that we'll elect Mike Huckabee. He's a bigot, he's not particularly smart, and his tone smacks of the hateful and spiteful politics that must not, and will not, determine the next President of the United States of America.

Perhaps most important of all, America has realized that the world is waiting for us to make a better choice. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for this country both domestically and abroad; the world expects, and deserves, more from us. Americans don't enjoy being a laughing stock, and we won't let it happen again.

As I say – bring on Mike Huckabee.

Posted by Jon Rice at January 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Comments
Comment #242179

Jon Rice,
Aside from the evangelicals, I’m wondering how the majority of women in the GOP will be comfortable electing a president who was a signatory to a 1998 full page USA Today Ad declaring: “I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention”, which stated: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

Posted by: veritas vincit at January 4, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #242180

A Huckabee nomination is a win-win situation for Democrats. He’s the easiest Republican to defeat on this side of Ron Paul, so the Dems can cakewalk into the Oval Office. Or, if the Democratic nominee’s campaign implodes for some reason, Huckabee will be, as Arkansas journalist David Sanders suggests at OJ, the most accommodating Republican they could imagine.

Huck’s about as pro-union, anti-trade, pro-welfare, and anti-corporate as Hillary and Obama. And he wouldn’t be able to ramrod any conservative justices through a Democrat senate. For a lefty, what’s not to like?


Posted by: Chops at January 4, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #242182

Unless the world has turned upside down, the results of the Iowa caucuses are actually contra-indicatory of who the nominees will be. I don’t know why Iowa insists on going first. They might have more impact if they came in later in the process. The general election is 11 months away. We are probably going to get nominees who will spend so many months trashing eachother, the electorate will be sick of both of them by November.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 4, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #242192

Be careful what you wish for. Things change.

The quotes you list make it clear that he will have a hard time winning the vote of those who list ‘political correctness’ as their number one issue.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 4, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #242193

Jon,

Quiet, fool!

Republicans,

Don’t listen to him. He’s been smoking wacky tobacky with the Clintons. You got yourselves a great candidate there.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 4, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #242196

Sorry to interrupt this love-fest - I’ll do my best to deliver what you want Jon, because I think the majority of America (NOW) is more sick of our soul-less society and the current tax structure of the IRS as it sits today, than they are of the war in Iraq (shame) and more people are waiting for someone who stands for something, instead of someone who doesn’t speak until a poll has been conducted (Clinton / Obama)

Politicans who try to be all things to all people inspire no one and accomplish very little. (Clinton / ESPECIALLY OBAMA - he’s done nothing)

When we Caucus up here in Alaska, I think I will end up with a lot more in our little Huck-a-group than when I started.

It’s the hubris present in us all, but you think more of America thinks like you do, and I think more of America thinks like me. The difference between me and most raging liberals (there are many, but regarding Huckabee) is that I’ve actually watched him and read his policies, and then compared him to his actual record - not phony democrat blog lists that intentionally distort the context of everything. (Spare us the cut and paste d.a.n.)

If Huckabee doesn’t win, I’m hoping Romney does, because McCain, hero that he is, is just a D in R clothing politician (like Bush) who would sell us the rest of the way down the river toward Amnesty, Open Borders, and more crippling Free Trade. As would any Democrat Elected.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 4, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #242198

Yukon Jake: Bush is a Democrat in Republican clothing? I’ve read a lot of weird things on this blog, but that has to be the strangest…

Woody: good point! What I MEANT to say was, “oh please, Republicans, don’t vote for Huckabee, he’ll beat any Democrat running! ;)

Posted by: Jon R at January 4, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #242201

Well said Ohrealy.
I’m guessing Iowa insists on going first because it draws so much fanfare and gives a nice boost to their economy as most conventions do.

IMO, its nothing more than a glorified straw-poll meant to start weeding out the weak candidates.

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #242203

It is obvious to me that the left leaning media has held back on judging Huckabee and just reported on him. I think there would be joy in Mudville if he were the GOP candidate, I fear they view him as an easy to topple religions nut underneath. And many, no all, in the media would relish the chance to have 12-months of discourse and dialog about why Huckabee is a religions person running for office as opposed to their person who just wants to serve the American people. Americans don’t ask to hear reporters ask religious quesitons of the GOP candidates the reporters have made this call themselves. Of course not in equal numbers or questions, the Dems candidates seem to be alleviated from the burden of discussing their religion during this campaign cycle. But are allowed to remind people they are religious when it benefits them. Lovely.

Posted by: Honest at January 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #242216

When the Clinton machine finishes with their distortion and lies about Obama you won’t have any party unity remaining. A fractured Democrat party is hardly likely to win the presidency much less keep their slim majority in Congress. Democrat Zell Miller said it best in his book, “A National Party No more”. Democrat politicians are finding it more and more difficult to pander to all the diverse groups they need to win. Hillary is already “triangulating” and it cost her in the Iowa caucus.

Posted by: Jim at January 4, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #242217

Jon R et. al.:

Don’t get so excited as to think that Huckabee is the most beatable candidate in the Republican field. There are a LOT of middle Americans like the Iowans. I’m not saying he’s not the most beatable, I’m just saying that we need to work hard to win regardless of the Republican candidate.

Posted by: New Guy on the Block at January 4, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #242221
Yukon Jake wrote: Sorry to interrupt this love-fest - I’ll do my best to deliver what you want Jon, because I think the majority of America (NOW) is more sick of our soul-less society
Soul-less? If it is soul-less, how can it be sick of itself? Oh well, perhaps.
Yukon Jake wrote: and the current tax structure of the IRS as it sits today,
True. The current tax system is ridiculously complex and regressive too, as evidenced by …
  • Warren Buffet: income = $46 Million ; income tax rate = 17.7%
  • Warren Buffet’s Secretary: income = $60,000 ; income tax rate = 30.0%
However, the solution is to simplify the current tax system (at least, make it NEUTRAL instead of REGRESSIVE). Not implement a severely regressive 30% Sales Tax, like Hucksterbee wants.
Yukon Jake wrote: than they are of the war in Iraq (shame) and more people are waiting for someone who stands for something, instead of someone who doesn’t speak until a poll has been conducted (Clinton / Obama)
It’s a sad line-up. Hillary Clinton (grade = D-) and Obama (grade = D-) are all messed up on illegal immigration (see BetterImmigration.com). Despite the claims otherwise, the pandering for votes is all too obvious, but it won’t do them much good if they can’t get their shamnesty passed before the election in NOV-2008. Drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, anyone?
Yukon Jake wrote: Politicans who try to be all things to all people inspire no one and accomplish very little.
Their true colors seem to be showing quite clearly.
Yukon Jake wrote: When we Caucus up here in Alaska, I think I will end up with a lot more in our little Huck-a-group than when I started.
We ? I ? Are you working for Huckabee’s campaign?

Huckabee’ nutty 30% Sales Tax system (which has less than 17% support in Congress) and some of his other bigoted statements are going to be his demise.
That might sell well in IOWA, but what about the other 49 states?

Yukon Jake wrote: It’s the hubris present in us all, but you think more of America thinks like you do, and I think more of America thinks like me.
I doubt that. The divisions on many major issues are large, diametrically opposed, and very obvious.
Yukon Jake wrote: The difference between me and most raging liberals (there are many, but regarding Huckabee) is that I’ve actually watched him and read his policies, and then compared him to his actual record
Difference? What difference? So, anyone that disagrees about Hucksterbee is a “raging liberal”?
Yukon Jake wrote:I’ve actually watched him and read his policies, and then compared him to his actual record - not phony democrat blog lists that intentionally distort the context of everything. (Spare us the cut and paste d.a.n.)
So we are supposed to take your word for it, eh? Did you really check out Huckabee’s voting record, positions, writings, and statements closely?
Yukon Jake wrote: If Huckabee doesn’t win, I’m hoping Romney does, because McCain, hero that he is, is just a D in R clothing politician (like Bush) who would sell us the rest of the way down the river toward Amnesty, Open Borders, and more crippling Free Trade. As would any Democrat Elected.
It’s doubtful that many (if any) of them are serious about border security and stopping illegal immigration (except maybe for Tancredo, who isn’t running anymore and never stood much of a chance).
  • Posted by: d.a.n at January 4, 2008 3:45 PM
    Comment #242224

    Jon,

    I’ve long since given up on the “wish for the other guys to nominate somebody who’s easy to beat” tact. When it backfires, it backfires big time. I’d rather they nominate their candidate who I think would make the best president, just in case they win. Right now, I’m pulling for McCain. Besides in Presidential races over the last 32 years it seems that Dems have done the best against the more reasonable (in my book) Republicans: 3-1 against Ford, GHWB, & Dole; compared to 0-4 against Reagan and GWBush.

    Besides, Huckabee’s got the aw shucks personable thing going real strong. People will all too often overlook nuttiness when the likeability factor is high.

    Posted by: Walker Willingham at January 4, 2008 4:14 PM
    Comment #242229

    Top 10 Reasons Huck Will Pick Chuck As His VP!

    http://www.voterswrite.org/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

    Posted by: Nick Mockiavelli` at January 4, 2008 5:06 PM
    Comment #242244

    d.a.n.,
    I couldn’t help but notice the Savage Nation Plagiarism “Hucksterbee.” Are you a member of the PRS? Or was this a trickle down reference?

    Savage is great, but it would floor me if you admitted on here to liking his show.

    As for how a Caucus works, I invite you to do a little research: A caucus is not like a vote ( in many states - like Alaska, some it is, but not up here - or in Iowa) Up here each candidates camp gets a few public minutes to make their case and sway opinion, whereby people literally walk over and join another candidates camp. It’s kind of archaic but it is pretty cool to participate. No, I am not working for his campaign, but I am telling everyone I know that I think he’s the right man for the job - and it cracks me up how much my position seems to irritate you.

    My favorite bumper sticker is “Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy.”

    And it’s not a 30% regressive system, it’s a 23% progressive tax system, that compeltely un-taxes the poor.

    God Bless Mike Huckabee. :-)

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 4, 2008 6:57 PM
    Comment #242245

    Nick,
    That link is Hilarious - Karate Master’s in vacuum tight dungarees. ROFLMAO.

    That kills me.

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 4, 2008 6:59 PM
    Comment #242250

    Jon,

    All of conservatism’s brain trust appears to agree with you. What does it feel like to agree with Rush?

    Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 4, 2008 8:07 PM
    Comment #242252

    Sadly,

    In the end I think most people vote with their hearts not their heads. Huckabee has Ed Rollins, and is willing to play the religious card, race card, gay card, or any other fear card. Don’t underestimate this lying little creep (oops, I revealed my bias)

    I don’t think any Republican is going to win, but it’s a long time til election day.

    Posted by: googlumpugus at January 4, 2008 8:28 PM
    Comment #242254
    Hucksterbee

    Very fitting. He’s such a charlatan. There isn’t any doubt of that now that we know that “all the sales are made, the customers just have to show up.”
    I’ll just bet they stole that line directly from the Good Reverend Robertson or Dobson.

    My favorite bumper sticker is “Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy.”

    How original. That has to be the reaction to the “Annoy a Conservative” bumper stickers I’ve been seeing for years:
    Annoy A Conservative, Live Like Jesus
    Annoy A Conservative, Think For Yourself
    Annoy A Conservative, Work Hard, Do Good, And Be Happy

    But those are so OLD. Some recently spotted favorites are:

    The Republican Party: Your Bridge to the 11th Century
    The Rapture Is Not an Exit Strategy
    May the Fetus You Save Be Gay
    Evolution Is Just A Theory… Kind Of Like Gravity
    :)

    Posted by: veritas vincit at January 4, 2008 9:36 PM
    Comment #242255

    It seems that the Republicans can not nominate anyone unless they prove that they are from the ultra christian right. They are just having problems getting them elected, well at least since 2006. The three front runners from the GOP remind me of what Jonny Carson clled,”Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb and Teedle Dum-Dum.”

    Posted by: C.T. Rich at January 4, 2008 9:39 PM
    Comment #242257

    Jon Rice said:

    our last decent President [Clinton] couldn’t keep his unmentionables in his pants.

    Man, that is golden right there. Character matters to Conservatives - cheating on your wife is a reflection of no “character.” Only liberalism matters to liberals. Liebermann is flamed constantly by the left because he sways one teeny weeny little bit from the rabid herd.

    That part of the original article didn’t even register with me the first time I read it. If you think Clinton was a decent president, there are thousands of dead Serbs who dies for no reason other than to distract from the public’s exasperation over his “unmentionables” who would disagree with your sentiment - but then again you don’t appear to hold both sides of the aisle accountable in the same way.

    Ever heard the phrase “Man Bites Dog?”

    Clinton was slime, and his wife is slime. You may disagree with Huckabee on issues, but he is a better man than Clinton, AND Bush - though for much different reasons.

    Liberals just don’t like Huckabee because he is the first guy to come along in A LOOOOOONG time who isn’t afraid to (granted, in a Gomer Pyle kind of style) say what he believes and why he believes it. He doesn’t drink your liberal death-of-America politically correct koolaid. And he manages to do it without sounding like a jerk. You ask him a question, and he tells you what he believes. He doesn’t change his mind, he doesn’t sway with the weekly opinion polls, and he doesn’t flip-flop week to week as your candidates do.

    That’s the reason he could succeed in Iowa with Romney bashing and outspending him 20 to 1.

    Red blooded Americans are sick to death of “politicans acting like politicans.” Obama is seeing success for the same reasons, at least he is man enough to say he thinks 14 year old girls are young enough for consentual sex - and then not apologize for his position. People look up to someone who has the stones to believe in something - I just think his beliefs are a little to radically “progressive” for me. But I like him a lot as a speaker and a what I’ve seen of him as a person.

    And I think that a refreshingly upbeat campaign with the two of them as candidates might actually make someone look up in a dusty old political dictionary and then label them both: Statesmen.

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 4, 2008 9:49 PM
    Comment #242263
    Liberals just don’t like Huckabee because he is the first guy to come along in A LOOOOOONG time who isn’t afraid to (granted, in a Gomer Pyle kind of style) say what he believes and why he believes it.

    You’ve got to be joking. That is exactly what we’ve got in the White House now! And let me tell you, America has obviously had it up to their eyeballs with stooges straight out of Mayberry.
    Instead, it is LOOOOOONG past time for a serious change. People are more than ready for someone intelligent and articulate enough to not have to put on the Aw shucks, faith-based routine.

    Posted by: veritas vincit at January 4, 2008 10:22 PM
    Comment #242269
    You ask him a question, and he tells you what he believes.

    The problem is, it’s all about “beliefs” with him. Not facts.
    For example:
    Huckabee believes that Pakistan “does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists.”
    When those borders are on the western side of Pakistan, not the eastern side.

    Huckabee believes he should offer “apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” Which forced his aides to later correct him, saying he meant to say “sympathies” rather than apologies.

    Huckabee believes that we should be worried about martial law “continuing” in Pakistan. Although Musharraf had already lifted the state of emergency on December 15th. So, then he claimed that this wasn’t what he’d meant, but that he was instead worried about a renewal of martial law, and that some elements, including restrictions on judges and the news media, were what he had been really talking about there.

    After the release of the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Huckabee said he hadn’t heard anything at all about the report, even though it had already been widely reported on everywhere.

    Huckabee needs to get his nose out of the bible and be able to talk intelligently on something other than his beliefs, in order for America to have any confidence in him. We’ve had one completely clueless president all these years, and the last thing we need is another like him.

    And actually while we’re at it, we also don’t need clueless White House spokes-persons like Dana Perino who don’t know the difference between the Cuban Missle Crisis, and the Bay Of Pigs.

    Posted by: veritas vincit at January 4, 2008 11:18 PM
    Comment #242295

    veritas,

    Don’t let little things like facts get in the way.

    Huckabee is really a great guy, not at all a right wing demagog who hasn’t got a clue like Bush.

    If Huckabee is elected, it’ll be interesting to have a first son that is a potential serial killer, given that he tortured a dog to death as a boy scout. That’s got to be one nightmare of a family.

    Posted by: googlumpugus at January 5, 2008 3:48 AM
    Comment #242297

    I am a card caring SOUTHERN and a liberal democratic to boot. Imagine that. Please we are not all bible belt gomer pyles and certainly other parts of the country also have their gomer pyles they are just named yukon jake.

    This post has gotten so far afield that I can’t remember what the topic was. Oh yes its Huckabee: we aren’t talking about the liberal media which doesn’t exist, or Bill Clinton for that matter. When are you right wingers going to quit blaming him for everything. He is no longer president and hasn’t been for 7 years.

    Back to Huckabee. If we should have a horror movie in november, 2008 and a republican gets the nomination can anyone really live with Huckabee for president. Someone who believes in creationism and believes that women are subservient to men and should obey their husbands. I for one find him very scary. I agree there are many like him down south. I run into them everyday. They are enjoyable to talk to and are social and friendly but you wouldn’t want to take one home. I would rather see someone else carry the republican party because if they cheat like they did in 2000 and 2004 and steal the election I would prefer some one like mccain (although he is too old).

    Posted by: Carolina at January 5, 2008 9:42 AM
    Comment #242302
    Yukon Jake wrote: d.a.n., I couldn’t help but notice the Savage Nation Plagiarism “Hucksterbee.” Are you a member of the PRS? Or was this a trickle down reference?
    I’ve heard of, but never listened to Savage Nation. I just made it up the Hucksterbee reference, but I’m sure someone else already used it long before I did.
    Yukon Jake wrote: Savage is great, but it would floor me if you admitted on here to liking his show.
    I’ve never listened to it. I don’t get my philosophies from radio/TV/internet pundits. As for Huckabee, I based my opinion on his voting records, statements, actions, and writings.
    Yukon Jake wrote: As for how a Caucus works, I invite you to do a little research: A caucus is not like a vote ( in many states - like Alaska, some it is, but not up here - or in Iowa) Up here each candidates camp gets a few public minutes to make their case and sway opinion, whereby people literally walk over and join another candidates camp. It’s kind of archaic but it is pretty cool to participate.
    Yeah boy. Archaic is cool, eh?

    I’m aware of what a caucus is, and never disputed its function, purpose, activities, or procedures, so I don’t know why you feel the need to invite others to do a “little research” ?

    I was merely noting your use of “I”, “We”, and “Our” which give the impression of (perhaps) being involved with the campaign. That’s all. Just a question? No offense intended.

    Yukon Jake wrote:
    When we Caucus up here in Alaska, I think I will end up with a lot more in our little Huck-a-group than when I started.

    So, it is safe to assume you live in Alaska?

    Yukon Jake wrote: No, I am not working for his campaign, but I am telling everyone I know that I think he’s the right man for the job - and it cracks me up how much my position seems to irritate you.
    Yukon Jake wrote: God Bless Mike Huckabee. :-)
    I was merely asking. It was just a simple question. That’s all. No offense intended.

    No, your comments and support of Huckabee don’t irritate me at all, because Huckabee might go over well in Iowa, but it is highly unlikely that will happen in the majority of the other 49 states.

    Yukon Jake wrote: My favorite bumper sticker is “Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy.”
    That’s nice.

    Calling people “liberal” just because they don’t agree with you does not necessarily mean they are liberal or conservative, but the use of such labels is typical among those that have been seduced into wallowing in the circular, blame-game, divisive partisan warfare.

    Why not focus on voting records, statements, actions, and statements? Yes, it requires more effort and thinking, but it is much more convincing than labeling everyone that disagrees a “liberal”.

    Yukon Jake wrote: And it’s not a 30% regressive system, it’s a 23% progressive tax system, that compeltely un-taxes the poor.
    False; On all 3 counts:
    • (1) It is a 30% Sales Tax / Rebate System. $30 Tax on a $100 Purchase is a 30% Sales Tax.
    • (2) The tax curve is REGRESSIVE after puny rebates become insignificant. It is only PROGRESSIVE at the lowest income level.
    • (3) It does not un-tax the poor. Giving a single person a $2400 rebate merely untaxes $8000 of spending, but that does not give the poor single person $8000 to spend. That’s a big difference.
    Are you sure you have really done the math? If you really don’t want to tax the poor, then it makes more sense to simply NOT tax any income below the poverty level, as with a 17%_Income_Tax_Only_On_Income_Above_the_Poverty_Level system.

    Besides, with a massive 30% Sales Tax … can you say: “BLACK MARKET” ?

    The deceptive 23% figure used is relative to income (inclusive), and that not only dishonest, and has fooled many people into thinking it is a 23% Sales Tax (which it is not), but it is impossible to determine an effective tax rate relative to income when spending is taxed.
    The un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system is a 30% Sales tax despite the rebate.
    That is, in the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system, the tax on a $100.00 purchase is $30.00 , and $30/$100 = 30% .
    The sneaky way they come up with a 23% rate is by including the tax paid with the total cost (as is done with income tax calculations): ($30 / ($30 + $100)) = 23.0769%
    Again, the problem with this clever deception is that it is impossible to determine an effective tax rate relative to income when income is not taxed, but spending is taxed instead.
    Taxing spending is historically REGRESSIVE.
    But the un FairTax.org’s web-site and supporters go to great lengths to show that the effective income tax rate will be progressive.
    If the goal is to show that the tax system is progressive relative to income, then why tax spending?
    If the goal is to effectively tax income equally, then why not tax income equally (i.e. an equal 17% only on income above the poverty level)?
    The problem with taxing spending is that effective income tax can never be equal unless everyone spends the same amount of their income.
    But, again, the un FairTax.org’s web-site and supporters go to great lengths to show just that.

    Under the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System:
    A single person would receive a $2400 rebate (untaxing the first $8000 of spending).
    A family of four would receive a $5902 rebate (untaxing the first $19763 of spending).
    That’s a fine and dandy.
    The current tax system already has similar deductions and earned-income credits that are nearly equivalent.

    But that’s not the problem.
    The problem is that the tax curve becomes REGRESSIVE on the middle-income class.
    The regressive tax curve is essentially the top half of a circle.

    Huckabee’s support of such a REGRESSIVE and unfair tax system will probably result in his demise.
    After all, 83% of Congress does NOT support the 30% Sales Tax/Rebate tax system, and 95% of those that do are Republicans (which seems to strengthen the theory that the Republicans only look out for the wealthy, who will absolutely love the severely REGRESSIVE 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system).

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-REGRESSIVE (un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax)

  • 30%
    27% _
    24% _ _ _
    21% _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ _ _ _X_ _
    15% _ _X _ _ _ _ _X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    09% _X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    06% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    03% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    00% X_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Here’s a better way. Simplify the current system to make it PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL.

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL (17% Flat income tax only on income above the poverty level)

  • 17% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    15% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    19% _ _ _ _ X
    06% _ _ X
    03% _ X
    00% X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Which tax curve do you prefer?
    Which tax curve do you believe is more fair?

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 5, 2008 10:57 AM
    Comment #242303

    CORRECTION: The problem with taxing spending is that effective income tax can never be equal unless everyone spends the same amount percentage of their income.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 5, 2008 11:04 AM
    Comment #242317

    Sadly,Huckabee will never get the Rep nomination. He is not a corporatist and has real beliefs,making him hard to control.He will be strangled in his crib pretty darn fast.

    Posted by: BillS at January 5, 2008 2:39 PM
    Comment #242332

    Carolina,
    And all this time I thought I was alone!!
    I too am a card carrying proud to be a Southern, Carolinian, who seems to vote Democrat more and more often.

    Huckabee scares the Hell out of me for all the reasons you listed, and one more - if elected HE will be the one nominating Judges to the Supreme Court, as well as many other nominations. I find I must ask my Higher Power - God if you like, Allah if you don’t, to lease help prevent this!

    Posted by: Linda H. at January 5, 2008 4:07 PM
    Comment #242336

    Linda:

    No reason to be scared. This is the Iowa caucus. It has a terrible record for predicting much of anything in terms of winners.

    Take a look at this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

    I do think Iowa has an important function. It tells us quickly who is not going tp be president. It eliminates the bottom candidates so that the real decision making can begin.

    Look at these New Hampshire polls:

    http://americanresearchgroup.com/

    Huckabee is a distant third.

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 5, 2008 5:17 PM
    Comment #242341

    Carolina,
    I love it. Now bush not only stole the first election, he stole the second. LOL. He singlehandedn;y led his administration to orchestrate 9-11 and bring down the towers too. Better get out the aluminum foil hat, he might beam conservative thoughts at you when you aren’t looking - give me a break.

    d.a.n. - I looked at your graph, (the progressive to neutral) and I actually like the idea. I like the idea of keeping what I make as well, but that graph (assuming the 19% is a typo and should actually read 10% or 11%) would sit just fine with me. That would cut my taxes subtantially.

    You have one little flaw if the top graph and beforehand statement though - making 500k doens’t mean you pay no tax percentage? a 500K per year lifestyle has a LOT of consummables built into it, as does a 400k and a 300k and a 200K and a 100K.

    Your comment that support is 95% republican therefore republicans favor the wealthy, is like saying I’m caucasian therefore my skin takes longer to tan.

    Republicans ARE the wealthy (except hollywood). People that want to suck off the government welfare tit tend to be liberal. People that work their asses off and save their money and start a business to try and make it big tend to be Conservative.

    Has anyone ever implied anything different?

    There are lots of exceptions, but as a trend that is an accurate statement.

    Even David agrees - (I’ve been waiting and waiting to refer to post #241106 where David Remer says if you’re Poor, Sick or Stupid you’re probably a liberal.” No kidding. Go figure. So glad I’m one of the smart, healthy and wealthy group - according to David.

    Conservatives are FAR more generous with their dollars as well. And as a percentage - to boot.

    Chck it out, if you didn’t already know.

    I don’t mind paying a fair share, because I make a lot, maybe I’ll change my mind and become a scrooge when I hit 31 next Christmas but I doubt it. What chaps my behind is that I pay through the nose and it gets wasted on bogus social programs for people who are just like I WAS, but don’t have the stones to join the miltary and pull their heads out of their butts - and WORK!

    Remove the bogus welfare state, and then we won’t need to tax people to death and it won’t matter.

    But I DO like the graph you put up - that would save me over $20 grand a year in taxes by my calculation. So finally we can agree on something - :-)

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 5, 2008 6:57 PM
    Comment #242356

    I don’t like his Religious Right views either, but the first time I heard him speak (on the radio), that’s not what he was talking about. He was talking about the growing divide between the Rich and Poor (CEO pay growing as compared to workers’ pay, offshoring, etc). He was talking about Corporate Abuses (environment, etc). He showed a grasp of history and context in our foreign policy.
    I listened to him with great interest for about 20 minutes. I was thinking “maybe I am still Independent”.
    Then, he switched to the religious issues and scared me very much.
    Be careful what you wish for. I believe there are a lot of people are attracted to what I was - and unfortunately we’ve seen that they will not be turned off by the rest of the message. That makes for a very formidable opponent.
    Christine

    Posted by: Christine at January 6, 2008 1:13 AM
    Comment #242367

    YJ

    My foil hat fits just fine thank you very much. No Bush did not steal the election single handedly he had major help-the republican machine. What’s scary is that you think that stealing the election is silly and not possible. I bet if I said I thought Clinton stole the election both times you would not think it was so impossible. But of course Clinton didn’t steal the elections-he does have some morals.

    Linda- I LOVE the south with all its warts. At least we admit that our part of the country isn’t perfect and has its issues. I am tired of being embarrassed about being a southern and a liberal and will forever wear both labels proudly.

    I apologize for my post having nothing to do with Huckabee. Next time I will try harder to stay on topic.

    Ya’ll take care now-you hear!!

    Posted by: Carolina at January 6, 2008 8:14 AM
    Comment #242368

    sorry I’m back.

    YJ one last thing-I did not say Bush had anything to do with 911 that was you making that leap from stealing elections to 911. I have read everything I could get my hands on about 911 and do not think that Bush and co. caused 911 so you see I can tell the difference between fact and fiction.

    Posted by: Carolina at January 6, 2008 8:19 AM
    Comment #242406
    Yukon Jake wrote: d.a.n. - I looked at your graph, (the progressive to neutral) and I actually like the idea. I like the idea of keeping what I make as well, but that graph (assuming the 19% is a typo and should actually read 10% or 11%) would sit just fine with me. That would cut my taxes subtantially.
    Yes, the 19% was supposed to be 09%. The bottom graph (PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL) that you preferred is NOT the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System.

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-REGRESSIVE (un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax):

  • 30%
    27% _
    24% _ _ _
    21% _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ _ _ _X_ _
    15% _ _X _ _ _ _ _X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    09% _X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    06% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    03% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_ _ _
    00% X_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Here’s a better way. Simplify the current system to make it PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL.

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL (17% Flat Income Tax only on income above the poverty level):

  • 17% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    15% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    09% _ _ _ _ X
    06% _ _ X
    03% _ X
    00% X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Yukon Jake wrote: You have one little flaw if the top graph and beforehand statement though - making 500k doens’t mean you pay no tax percentage? a 500K per year lifestyle has a LOT of consummables built into it, as does a 400k and a 300k and a 200K and a 100K.
    Not really. Of course the income tax on $500K gross would not be exactly zero, but the effective income tax approaches ZERO as income increase. The graph is a approximation, and what appears to be zero is merely a resolution problem. Again, the problem with taxing spending and then alleging that taxes will be PROGRESSIVE relative to income is impossible, unless everyone spends the same percentage of their income.

    For example, to demonstrate the problem with the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System:
    POPL = Percent of Poverty Level ($25,660 for family of 4)
    Eff.Tax = Effective Tax

    For a family of four (prebate is $5902 for family of 4 and $2400 for a single person):
    POPL _ Spending __FairTax___Prebate _NetTax_____Eff.Tax
    25% ___ $6415 ____ $1,475 __ $5,902 _ ($4,427) _ -69.0%
    50% ___ $12,830 __ $2,951 __ $5,902 _ ($2,951) _ -23.0%
    100% __ $25,660 __ $5,902 __ $5,902 _______ $0 ___ 0.0%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $8,853 __ $5,902 ___ $2,951 ___ 7.7%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $11,804 _ $5,902 ___ $5,902 __ 11.5%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $17,705 _ $5,902 __ $11,903 __ 15.3%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $23,607 _ $5,902 __ $17,705 __ 17.2%

    Now, let’s add the Income and IncomeTaxRate columns for a family of 4 (what the FairTax.org 30% Sales Tax proponents do not want you to see)
    POPL _ Spending __FairTax___Prebate _NetTax_____Eff.Tax _ Income __IncomeTaxRate
    25% ___ $6415 ____ $1,475 __ $5,902 _ ($4,427) _ -69.0% _ $8,000 __ -49.7%
    50% ___ $12,830 __ $2,951 __ $5,902 _ ($2,951) _ -23.0% _ $15,000 _ -13.7%
    100% __ $25,660 __ $5,902 __ $5,902 _______ $0 ___ 0.0% _ $27,000 __ 6.65%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $8,853 __ $5,902 ___ $2,951 ___ 7.7% _ $40,000 _ 14.11%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $11,804 _ $5,902 ___ $5,902 __ 11.5% _ $53,000 _ 17.91%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $17,705 _ $5,902 __ $11,903 __ 15.3% _ $200,000 _ 8.60%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $23,607 _ $5,902 __ $17,705 __ 17.2% _ $500,000 _ 4.98%

    Yukon Jake wrote: Your comment that support is 95% republican therefore republicans favor the wealthy, is like saying I’m caucasian therefore my skin takes longer to tan.
    Only 5 out of the 91 Congress persons supporting the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system are Democrats. 86 of the 91 are Republicans, and 86/91 is 95% (i.e. 95% are Republicans). However, fortunately, the 91 supporters are only 17% of the total 535 Congress persons. So, fortunately, the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system doesn’t have much support. Those are not the only numbers and facts to substantiate the claim that Republicans politicians in Congress favor the wealthy. Lower taxes are good, but not only for the weatlhy. When a person making $46 Million (e.g. Warren Buffet) pays an effective income tax rate of 17.7%, but his secretary pays an effective 30% income tax rate on $60K, there’s a problem. Fortunately, most Americans are starting to understand that the current tax system is REGRESSIVE. At the very least, it should be NEUTRAL (i.e. a flat percentage). It would be nice if no taxes were necessary, but we can not abandon Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense.

    Especially since there are far more (150) other Republicans in Congress that reject the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System. And last time I looked, 150 is much less than 87 (i.e. the 87 Republicans that do support the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System are vastly out-numbered by the 150 Republicans that do not support it).

    Yukon Jake wrote: Republicans ARE the wealthy (except hollywood). People that want to suck off the government welfare tit tend to be liberal. People that work their asses off and save their money and start a business to try and make it big tend to be Conservative. Has anyone ever implied anything different?
    Got any numbers to back that up?

    Many in Congress are millionaires (Democrats and Republicans).
    Your conclusions are not supported by any data.
    While it is often stated that the Republican politicians are wealthier than Democrat politicians, that does not mean that the “Republicans ARE the wealthy”.

    Yukon Jake wrote: Even David agrees - (I’ve been waiting and waiting to refer to post #241106 where David Remer says if you’re Poor, Sick or Stupid you’re probably a liberal.” No kidding. Go figure. So glad I’m one of the smart, healthy and wealthy group - according to David.
    You are wealthy?
    Yukon Jake wrote: Conservatives are FAR more generous with their dollars as well. And as a percentage - to boot.
    Yeah? How much did you give to charity in 2006 ?
    Yukon Jake wrote: I don’t mind paying a fair share, because I make a lot,
    Really? What is a lot in your mind?

    So you think the PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL tax system is more fair? Me too. That is what I’ve been promoting. To me, a flat 17% only on income above the poverty level is fair. The current tax system is REGRESSIVE, hammers the middle-class, lets the weatlhy pay a smaller income tax rate than you (as evidenced by Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% income tax rate on $46 Million and his secretary paid a 30% income tax rate on $60K). But you have been defending the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate System and it is a severely REGRESSIVE tax system (as shown above).

    Yukon Jake wrote: What chaps my behind is that I pay through the nose and it gets wasted on bogus social programs for people who are just like I WAS, but don’t have the stones to join the miltary and pull their heads out of their butts - and WORK!
    No one likes free loaders, but your comments seem to imply that most people that are not conservative are free loaders.
    Yukon Jake wrote: Remove the bogus welfare state, and then we won’t need to tax people to death and it won’t matter.
    I agree completely. That is my position too, but your comments often try to mischaracterize that fact. You are calling a lot of people liberals that aren’t (I’m Centrist/Libertarian). You should take the test to see if you are really as conservative as you think you are.
    Yukon Jake wrote: But I DO like the graph you put up - that would save me over $20 grand a year in taxes by my calculation. So finally we can agree on something - :-)
    Good. You then support a PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL 17% Tax System only on income above the poverty level (which is not the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system you have been advocating).
  • Posted by: d.a.n at January 6, 2008 4:50 PM
    Comment #242528

    dan,
    I took that test, and it was funny how I read a lot of questions as very biased, but it characterized me as a social libertarian / authoritarian. I was -.15 and -1.05 :i.e. almost a bullseye in the middle of the chart.

    I know it may come across that way if you consider yourself to be an opponent in our little quizzlings here on watchblog, as opposed to your positions, but when I flame an idea as being a liberal idea, in the middle of a response to you, I am not referring to you, or characterizing you in particular, as a liberal. I just take every opportunity to remind myself and my debaters how much I despise certain very mainstream liberal positions.

    I am not, however, so myopic in my views that my opinions don’t evolve over time, it’s just there are certain things that I have seen the rabid liberals in my town champion that make me want to vomit.

    As for my being generous, and you asking me my exact donation amounts, I will tell you.

    My wife and I sponsor a needy family each year and smother them in Christmas presents that they need. That’s usually around two grand.

    I am a rotarian and have been donating obscene amounts of volunteer hours around our community for years and years now. Everything from picking and washing potatoes for the food bank, to running no-cash-bingo at the senior’s center, to giving “choices” presentations to seventh graders in our 6 area middle schools.

    Add my tithe on top of that, which I consider the best charity because of what our fabulous church does for people in need, as well as our sister church in Tabasco Mexico, and yes, I do consider myself to be fairly generous. I could do more, but I sleep well at night with what I do give of myself.

    As for numbers about Republicans being the wealthy, I was generalizing (obviously) but all of my experience in business has shown me that it is the rare business owner who is angered by tax cuts, and it is the rare business owner that seeks more (when it actually is pointless) pointless regulation. Most business owners are Republican. Most tenured employees are liberal. Again, I am speaking with regard to my experiences in Chicago, San Diego and back here in Alaska. Do I have a million dollar study to quote (wait I’ll google it real fast) I see several large organizations like the US Federation of Small Business, and others are GOP.

    I never called you a liberal (at least not intentionally) but I do disagree with you on many things.

    Thanks again for that test though.

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 8, 2008 3:28 AM
    Comment #242554

    Yukon Jake, Thanks for the score/info.
    Interesting score.
    See? It wasn’t as conservative as one might expect.
    Of course, the test has a margin of error.
    Whether conservatives/liberals or Republicans/Democrats are more generous or not is debatable. Especially since many Republicans are really Democrats, and vice-versa.

    But it is safe to say those with more money give more. I give annually to the childrens’ hospital. Gifts are important too, but it doesn’t mean much if the children aren’t alive to enjoy them.

    As for conservative/liberal politicians, I don’t see that much difference.

    but I do disagree with you on many things.
    Probably not as many things as you think.
    After all, above, did you not agree that the PROGRSSIVE-NEUTRAL 17% Income Tax system would be better than a 30% Sales Tax?
    Did we not agree on the death-penalty?
    For the most part, your disdain seems to be primarily due to criticism/posting of Huckabee’s voting record/statements/positions/writings.

    PREDICTION: Huckabee will ditch the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system.

    If not, it will sink his campaign.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 8, 2008 11:40 AM
    Comment #242899

    Touche’… you may be right. He certainly hasn’t brought it up a whole lot lately.

    Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 13, 2008 11:24 PM
    Post a comment