Third Party & Independents: Archives

David, I have to say that this is a completely unreasonable and reprehensible smear of Guliani.

As mayor of New York he accepted a 3 million dollar donation for the families of victims of 9-11 from a sheik who was a family member of somebody who would later be identified as someone who had harbored Khalid Muhammad, the 9-11 mastermind?

Give me a freaking break. This was money for victims of 9-11, not for Guliani personally, and it came from somebody who was two degrees of separation removed from someone else who had not even been identified yet as having been involved in 9-11.

What’s more, Guliani publicly refused money from a Saudi prince who made inflammatory statements.

Are you saying that the proper response for Guliani would have been to just tell all Arabs and Muslims to go to hell? This is very far from anything that has the makings of undoing Guliani’s campaign and has the markings of a smear.

Posted by: Liam at November 28, 2007 11:22 PM

Liam, read and respond to the evidence presented in the links. Rejection and denial of it, is not a debate. Just an “I don’t care what others say or evidence they provide, I disagree” biased response.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 12:14 AM

Liam said: “What’s more, Guliani publicly refused money from a Saudi prince who made inflammatory statements.”

Guess Giuliani didn’t want to court Bush’s Middle East supporters, but cultivate his own. :-)

Also, how can you call this article a smear when it simply recites other sources of breaking news regarding him? I never say any of it is true. I provide the links to the stories for readers to decide for themselves. Your comment appears designed to deter others from researching the evidence themselves. Was that the intent of your comment’s overreaction?

Provide evidence that the claims are not true. The authors of the linked articles provide evidence that their claims are true. Can you not match their effort? If not, why should your comment carry any weight at all for consideration?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 12:15 AM

David, I did the read the links and specifically referred to the precise arguments set out therein.

If it’s a debate you want instead of just making inflammatory statements like “Rudy’s ties to terrorist sponsors” without bein willing to justify them, then answer these questions.

Did Giuliani know that this donor was related to someone with ties to the mastermind of 9-11? The article doesn’t even say that. Even if he did know it, does being related to someone with terrorists ties make you a terrorist as well? If Timothy McVeigh’s aunt donates money to charity, should the charity return that money in disgust? What kind of guilt-by-association are you proposing here? Or is this just a standard that applies to Arabs in your view?

Another thing: it’s definitely true that if Giuliani is nominated, a lot of people, especially New York City Democrats and union members, will try to chip holes in his record on a number of issues. There will also be tons of people, firefighters and cops, who will be standing by to refute these claims.

Some of this will undoubtedly damage him, but the Democratic candidate (probably Hillary, though the same will hold true of anyone) will also be confronted with issues of there own.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that large numbers of people will believe that the mayor of the largest city in the country should be personally held responsible for picking out, testing, and vouching for the radios used by firefighters. Is that considered the personal responsibility of any mayor, even in a small town in the middle of nowhere? It just seems ridiculous to me. Does the mayor personally choose the axes of firefighters? The tires on cop cars? This is nothing but a desperate and fairly silly reason to attack someone.

Posted by: Liam at November 29, 2007 12:30 AM

Liam, you must not be watching TV. Footage of Guiliani shaking hands with and sitting down and smiling in conversation with Qatar’s emir is pretty strong evidence that Guiliani has ties to promoters of terrorism. Then there is this from the Village Voice:

The contradictory and stunning reality is that Giuliani Partners, the consulting company that has made Giuliani rich, feasts at the Qatar trough, doing business with the ministry run by the very member of the royal family identified in news and government reports as having concealed KSM—the terrorist mastermind who wired funds from Qatar to his nephew Ramzi Yousef prior to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and who also sold the idea of a plane attack on the towers to Osama bin Laden—on his Qatar farm in the mid-1990s.

This royal family member is Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, Qatar’s minister of Islamic affairs at the time, who was later installed at the interior ministry in January 2001 and reappointed by the emir during a government shake-up earlier this year.

CNN has footage of Guiliani in the late 1990’s praising this emir. The ties are on news media video tape. That is undeniable. What is debatable is how much about these people did Guiliani know and when did he know it? And why, years after the discovery of the links to terrorists, is Guiliani still doing business and taking profits from these people?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 12:47 AM

Liam, as mayor he is the provider of budgeted resources to the firefighters. He knew their radios weren’t working before 9/11, and failed to correct the situation. Too busy in extra-marital affairs, perhaps? I don’t know. But, the question is begged. With prior knowledge that his fire department was crippled in the are of communications, why did he not act to help them with this vital component of their job and safety?

He certainly gained politically by championing himself as their leader during 9/11. If actions speak louder than words, where was Giuliani’s responsibility to them regarding replacing the radios? When you benefit from others without giving back, it is often construed as USING those others. Has Giuliani been using the NY Firefighters for political gain after failing to respond to their needs? NY Firefighters seem to think so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 12:51 AM

I watched the debate, too. Of course I disagree with them all ideologically, but here are the style points.

Huckabee - Came across the best. Folksy and articulate.

Romney - Nervous, flip-flopping BSer. He insulted everyone’s intelligence when he tried to claim that when he previously said (roughly) “I look forward to the day when gays can serve openly in the military” he didn’t mean what he plainly meant. He should have just admitted that he changed his mind (yet again).

Rudy - OK, no good moments or bad ones.

McCain - Earned his “straight talk” reputation. Really showing his age though. It looked like there was a kleenex stuck in his cheek.

Fred Thompson - Mediocre. It’s become a cliche, but he doesn’t look like he’s really even trying. I seriously wonder if he is just running for president so he can tell his wife that he tried.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 29, 2007 07:56 AM

Polls show in the general election, almost any Democratic nominee would beat Huckabee. His support for the regressive national sales tax so called The Fair Tax to replace the progressive income tax will draw lightning bolts from the average moderate voter …

The un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax is a fraud. It’s a gimmick. It gets applause, but it is a scheme to make the tax system even more regressive than it already is … which will worsen the 30+ year disparity trend.

As for illegal immigration, it should not be forgotten that Republicans had 6 years to do something about illegal immigration and did nothing (as a whole) until the very last minute in late 2006 when their poll ratings were in the toilet. Besides, the proof is in the pudding. Our borders and ports are still nearly wide-open, existing laws are still not being enforced, and millions of illegal aliens are still streaming across the borders every year. The problem is too many Republican and Democrat politicians want profits from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes.

But then, too many voters keep rewarding both parties for it with 95% to 99% seat re-retention rates (96.5% on average since 1980). Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters become more responsible and accountable, and that ain’t gonna happen by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible and corrupt politicians with perpetual re-election.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 09:47 AM

d.a.n. and David,

I was going to let the comments about the ‘regressive’ tax system offered by the fairtax slide, since they aren’t really on topic, but since they continue…

The simple fact, one that you both choose to ignore even though it has been pointed out previously, is that the fairtax is the most progressive tax available, because it removes all tax burden from those below the poverty line completely, including all hidden taxes. Something that the current tax system and d.a.n.’s proposed flat tax simply cannot do.

You can continue to call it regressive, when it isn’t, because you ignore part of the plan (the prebates), in order to try to win the political fight over it, but more and more people are seeing through the rhetoric and looking at the actual facts, the facts being that by eliminating hidden taxation and making it visible and THEN refunding the money spent on necessities, the lower income tax payers would be tax payers no more.

So, carry on, continue to misrepresent for political reasons, but until we can eliminate the failed income tax experiment this country implemented less than 100 years ago there really won’t be much of a country left 100 years from now…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2007 11:13 AM

Rhinehold wrote: So, carry on, continue to misrepresent for political reasons,

Nonsense.

Look at the math. All the talk about hidden taxes and other fuzzy logic can all be addressed by eliminating corporate taxes which merely get passed onto consumers as the equivalent of a hidden sales tax. Conclusions mean nothing without the math to back it up. If you can disprove the math, you’ll hae an argument. Otherwise, saying it is so and proving it are two different things.
As for supporters, there are only 91 (86 are Republicans) Congress persons that support the un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales tax.

So, Mike Huckabee is a minority, and so are the other un - FairTax.org 30% National Sales Tax supporters.

After the prebate runs out, it is nothing more than a flat sales tax, and all sales taxes are REGRESSIVE, unless everyone spends ALL of their income OR spends the same percentage of their income.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have MUCH smaller and efficient government. I’m all for that. But gutting the system isn’t the solution. The best and fastest thing we can do immediately is to simplify it (like this with a flat 17%). Warren Buffet paid a 17.7% income tax rate on his 46 million income in 2006, while his secretary paid a 30% income tax. Don’t you think an equal percentage is more fair? Some obviously do not. If any of the candidates would do that, they’d probably find a lot of support for it. However, you have the Dems trying to create an increasingly PROGRESSIVE tax system, and the Repubs trying to create an increasingly REGRESSIVE tax system, and what we are left with is a mess that is essentially REGRESSIVE due to a myriad of tax loop holes.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 11:33 AM

Thanks for the good info d.a.n.
The 30% sales tax certainly looks like a predictable regressive scam packaged for consumption by the gullible middle class while intended to benefit the wealthy ‘buy what you need before the tax takes effect smart guys’.

Keep all your money and revenue nuetral - happy days! Let the suckers pay.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 29, 2007 12:49 PM

The Fair Tax takes control away from Washington and puts it into the hands of individuals. No wonder it will never become enacted.

Personally, if I spend 1/2 my gross income in the taxed environment I’d pay about 15% in federal taxes @ a 30% rate. That compares to the 6% federal income tax I pay now (after deductions) plus the 12% Social Security tax (both sides) = 18% of gross that I pay now. And in theory my disposable income went further. The problem is, of course, I’m a big second hand buyer of stuff and wouldn’t pay taxes on many transactions. The Fair Tax would be good for the environment (recycling) but I’m afraid the IRS would leave their audit desks and start knocking on people’s doors (them revenuers).

Enough of that and on to the debate.

This morning the news is all about CNN and not about the candidates or their positions. The caricature of Republicans portrayed by CNN, those Bible toting, gun throwing, rebel flag waiving red necks, was so contrived it was laughable. In doing so they cemented their on caricature (as promoted by Rush) as the Clinton News Network. And is Gays in the Military really a big issue in this cycle? I think the Clinton plant got more mike time then Tancredo.

McCain is no longer a maverick; he’s just a cranky old vet who’s right about everything.

Did you know that Rudy was there on 9/11? If not he’ll tell you so.

I thought Romney did alright. He’s a Mass Governor so he has plenty of skeletons in his closet for conservatives to shoot at, but all in all he’s pretty professional. Same problem for Huckabee. Both of these guys are better in front of an audience then they are on paper where their records get in the way.

Slow, fumbling, stumbling Fred is the real Reagan conservative in the race. He has no fire, but if the mud slinging knocks off a few of the others he could become the “electability” candidate and would make an excellent choice against a “shrill” Hillary for middle America. Sad though that he came out slinging his own mud which will do him in.

Ron Paul is an angry looking fellow.

Tancredo shows up to listen to the others. That’s not a bad thing.

Hunter held is own but that’s not nearly good enough.

All in all the debate was good for a laugh. I even watched some of the post debate analysis (where Bennett gave Cooper the bombshell that he’d been set up). That’s only because the Randy’s Turd episode was a repeat.

Posted by: George in SC at November 29, 2007 01:57 PM

Look at the math.

d.a.n., your link does look bad for whatever fictional plan you’ve put yours up against and named ‘the unfair tax’ plan. I wonder how it would do against the actual plan being presented?

All the talk about hidden taxes and other fuzzy logic can all be addressed by eliminating corporate taxes which merely get passed onto consumers as the equivalent of a hidden sales tax.

Much of the hidden tax is corporate taxes but not all of them. And if we could pass a plan that does eliminate the hidden taxation that would be great, but I don’t see that plan being debated anywhere but by you. This one is at least real AND it eliminates the income tax altogether which is, IMO, the of the greatest evils of the 20th century. Your plan keeps the IRS and the evils of taxing income that exist today.

As for supporters, there are only 91 (86 are Republicans) Congress persons that support the un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales tax.

Cosponsoring and supporting are two different things, and Huckabee is not the only candidate that is supporting the fair tax. But if it did come to a vote at the present it would lose, you are right.

So I guess you are saying is that we shouldn’t support things that aren’t in the majority favor, and then go on to support your plan that isn’t even introduced and has no supporters (that I am aware of) running for office in 2008? I’m a little confused with that line of debate…

best and fastest thing we can do immediately is to simplify it (like this with a flat 17%)

Which would change nothing, keep the income tax in place, and result in a tax system much like we have now within 25 to 30 years, because we’ve done this before. We did have a flat tax at one time, but because of politics and offering people other people’s money as an incentive for voting for them, it will eventually degrade into the nightmare we have now. And the violations of civil liberties that the current plan falls into now would still exist as well.

Proponents believe that the FairTax would have positive effects on civil liberties that are sometimes charged against the income tax system. Some of these include social inequality, economic inequality, financial privacy, self-incrimination, unreasonable search and seizure, burden of proof, and due process. The FairTax would remove the exemptions and deductions that discriminate against gays, singles, childless couples, and others based on spending and lifestyle choices. The principles of an income tax regarding individual liberty are also argued by critics. Frank Chodorov wrote “… you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects.” The government “unashamedly proclaims the doctrine of collectivized wealth. … That which it does not take is a concession.”

Currently, 47% of all income in this country is collected by the government to run it. And some say it isn’t enough.

Your plan would NOT change that.

Nevermind that it would bring companies to the US that aren’t here now and even the imbalance between what US companies have to pay to operate and foreign companies have to pay to operate, effectively bringing back the jobs that have been lost over the past few decades.

Nevermind that it would also spur on saving, something that our economy doesn’t seem to want to do anymore.

However, I don’t mind that someone doesn’t support the fair tax plan, it’s a matter of difference of opinion of how we should pay for the operation of our government. But when you detail out a fictional plan that is not beind discussed and tell people THAT is what the fairtax plan is… Well, that’s a tactic called ‘misdirection’ that is often used in politics to the detrement of the best policies getting implemented. I for one would like to avoid it if possible. Which is why I will only discuss fact based discussions on the topic anymore.

And, of course, ask that everyone look at the plans themselves and decide for themselves, not rely on someone else to tell you what the plan is or does… Which is why, IMO, the plan is gaining in popularity every day.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2007 02:46 PM

Huckabee is so spot on. No matter what most of the frothing liberals say about him on this blog, he is hands down the most articulate and principled man in the crowd. No waffling, just straight talk.

If, unfortunately, the fair tax doesn’t have the support it needs to go through, then why worry about that issue when it concerns him. Bush thinks social security is going bankrupt (which it is) but the Dems wouldn’t let him have a victory for the lower class so America suffers, just like it will continue to suffer under the penalty-for-productivity system we currently have.

I want a man in the white house who has some integrity - and while there are volumes of dirt on the other candidates (plus a lot of personal dislike for delivery - read Thompson quotes above) the only thing anyone dredges up on Huckabbe are tiny wordplays about the exact number of times he cut taxes.

The difference is that he’s not trying to say a bunch of garbage to make people like him, (integrity & principle) he knows by saying he is pro life that people will hate him, he knows that by saying he supports the death penalty (for very heinous crimes) that the left will hate him, he knows that the left doesn’t want people to be rewarded for working hard and being productive, but I think more of America feels the way he feels, I certainly do, so I burn my candle and hope my $4600 went to a worthy cause.

Here’s to a man who isn’t pandering to the other side. Here’s to a man who deserves to lead.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 29, 2007 02:56 PM

The debates have some worth, but the candidates voting records tell us more:
Giuliani is flip flopping on illegal immigration.
Huckabee is all messed up on taxes.
Romney flip flops too much and looks like it is for political reasons. He also wants to end taxes on interest, dividends & capital gains. Nothing like more tax cuts for the wealthy when the tax system is already regressive.
Hunter is so far right it isn’t funny.
McCain is a war hawk and too belligerant (a bad combination)
Tancredo is messed up on taxes too, but one of the few really serious about illegal immigration.
Ron Paul is messed up on taxes too, but his supposed desire for smaller government is somewhat attractive.
Fred Thompson is relatively weak.

Too bad no one asked about Constitutional violations, such as Article V. They all avoid that like the plague, but it is one of the few Constitutional methods to reform a corrupt, bloated, Do-Nothing government.

And how about campaign finance reform?

And how are they going to lower taxes and go to Mars with a 9.1 Trillion National Debt, $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, $450 Billion PBGC pension debt, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and interest of over $1 Billion per day on the $9.1 Trillion national debt?

It’s a sad line-up, and it ain’t any better on the Democrat side. They’ve got big plans on spending, and most (if not all) pander to the illegal alien vote (and profits from cheap labor). But Republicans ain’t much better really.

Hillary said she wants to be president again.
Biden is a great writer (or plagiarist?)
Dodd is about as left as you can get, except for …
Kucinich, who is really messed up on illegal immigration. However, Kucinich was right about Iraq.
Edwards wants caps on CEO salaries and says he is for the little guy. Hmmmmm.
Obama is soft on illegal immigration.
Richardson gave drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens in New Mexico.
Gravel is severely messed up on immigration too. But, most Democrat politicians are.

None of them seem to give a damn about existing laws, border security, or the Constitution.

Not a one of them agree with the majority of voters on immigration, border security, Iraq, taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Debt, Spending, energy vulnerability, government bloat and waste, education, healtchare, or the environment.

It seems to me if just one candidate came along that matched the majority of voters on those major issues, they would get elected in a heart beat.

But then, just because they make promises doesn’t mean they’ll keep them.

• United States presidential election, 1900 - Republican promises to end the Philippine-American War quickly


• Woodrow Wilson’s promise to keep the United States out of World War I


• Herbert Hoover’s 1928 pledge to end poverty


• Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to decrease government spending by 25%


• Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 promise to keep the US out of World War II


• Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 promise to win the “war on poverty”


• Richard Nixon’s 1968 promise to quickly resolve the Vietnam War


• George H.W. Bush’s 1988 “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge


• Bill Clinton’s 1992 promise of a middle class tax cut. But it may depend on what the meaning of “is” is?


• George W. Bush’s 2000 pledge that the military would not be used for nation building.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 04:09 PM

Rhinehold wrote: d.a.n., your link does look bad for whatever fictional plan you’ve put yours up against and named ‘the unfair tax’ plan.

It looks bad because it is bad.

You say it is fictional but posed nothing to disprove the math.
It’s not really that complicated:

• After the puny rebate runs out, it is a simple flat tax, and all sales taxes are regressive.


• After the puny rebate runs out, it is a simple flat tax, and it is REGRESSIVE unless everyone spends ALL of their income OR spends the same percentage of income. That will hammer the middle income groups by making them pay much higher percentages of their income to taxes.


• A wealthy person can make $46 million (like Warren Buffet) on capital gains, spend $20 million with $6 million in taxes for the 30% sales taxes, which is a 13% income tax. A middle income person can make $46K (the median income), spend $30K with $9K in taxes for the 30% sales tax, which is a 20% sales tax.


• Taxing spending is REGRESSIVE, since the middle class will spend MOST of their income, and the wealthy don’t have to.


• Taxing spending can NOT prove, not matter how hard one tries, that income will be taxed close to evenly

Rhinehold, rather than try to prove that taxing spending will effectively tax income equally, why not just come right out and say you don’t care if it does or not. That’s what usually happens in the end when proponents of the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax can’t prove that income will be taxed even close to being equal.

Rhinehold wrote: I wonder how it would do against the actual plan being presented?

That’s not hard to prove at all.

Just look at income and spending as income increases. As income increases, spending as a percentage of income decreases.
And vice-versa. As income decreases, spending as a percentage of income increases.
And that is the major flaw in any sales tax system.
Also, it has already been demonstrated OVER and OVER that sales taxes (in practice) are REGRESSIVE.

Rhinehold wrote: Much of the hidden tax is corporate taxes but not all of them. And if we could pass a plan that does eliminate the hidden taxation that would be great, but I don’t see that plan being debated anywhere but by you.

Not true. Flat income tax systems have been proposed, but with higher percentages (e.g. former Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) introduced the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act (H.R. 4585)). Our current system is REGRESSIVE due to a myriad of tax loop holes and deductions. A flat income tax rate would be an improvement. Eventually, much lower taxes all the way around would be better, but that’s difficult if we also want Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

Rhinehold wrote: This one is at least real AND it eliminates the income tax altogether which is, IMO, the of the greatest evils of the 20th century. Your plan keeps the IRS and the evils of taxing income that exist today.

Nonsense. What is evil is unfair taxation. Whether it is an income tax or a sales tax, it is a tax out of the tax payers pocket. The goal is to do it in the most fair way. Taxing spending is not the fairest way.

Rhinehold wrote: Cosponsoring and supporting are two different things, and Huckabee is not the only candidate that is supporting the fair tax. But if it did come to a vote at the present it would lose, you are right.

I included supporters and cosponsors, which totaled 91 (86 Repubs and 5 Dems).

Yes, I don’t think the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax stands a chance.
Once people look at the history of sales taxes and who pays (as a percentage of income) most sales taxes, they’ll get the picture.
There are MANY other problems with the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax.

Rhinehold wrote: So I guess you are saying is that we shouldn’t support things that aren’t in the majority favor, … .

What majority? 91 of 535 Congress persons is NOT a majority.

Rhinehold wrote: … and then go on to support your plan that isn’t even introduced and has no supporters (that I am aware of) running for office in 2008? I’m a little confused with that line of debate…

Again, flat income tax plans have been proposed, but haven’t received enough support either.

And the reason is because the wealthy like the current REGRESSIVE tax system we have now. Just ask Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% income tax on his $46 million income and his secretary who paid %30 income tax on a $60K income.

Rhinehold wrote: Which would change nothing, keep the income tax in place, and result in a tax system much like we have now within 25 to 30 years, because we’ve done this before.

False. The current tax system is complex and REGRESSIVE.

As for abuses creeping into the tax system, that can happen with ANY tax system (including a sales tax system). Thus, that argument doesn’t hold water.

Rhinehold wrote: We did have a flat tax at one time, but because of politics and offering people other people’s money as an incentive for voting for them, it will eventually degrade into the nightmare we have now. And the violations of civil liberties that the current plan falls into now would still exist as well.

Again, a sales tax system would not cure corruption, abuses, and unfairness. In fact, it would make it worse, give rise to black markets, make the tax system severely REGRESSIVE, and the rebate system would have rampant fraud as exists with any system in which the government distributes payments.

Rhinehold wrote: Proponents believe that the FairTax would have positive effects on civil liberties that are sometimes charged against the income tax system.

Their beliefs are not supported by the history of sales taxes or the math.

Rhinehold wrote: Some of these include social inequality, economic inequality, financial privacy, self-incrimination, unreasonable search and seizure, burden of proof, and due process. The FairTax would remove the exemptions and deductions that discriminate against gays, singles, childless couples, and others based on spending and lifestyle choices.

No, it would be a VERY REGRESSIVE system.

Besides, all of those inequalities could be reduced (or eliminated) by simply eliminating ALL tax deducuctions and tax loop-holes. A simplification of the existing system would help tremendously.

Rhinehold wrote: The principles of an income tax regarding individual liberty are also argued by critics. Frank Chodorov wrote “… you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects.” The government “unashamedly proclaims the doctrine of collectivized wealth. … That which it does not take is a concession.”

That problem arises when the tax is not collected when paid. That is, tax evasion occurs due to delays and complexities. That could all be eliminated with simplification of the income tax system.

Eventually, some day, it would be great if the federal governmnet could operate on a tiny sales tax. However, that isn’t easy when so many people want Social Security, Medicare, welfare, education, prescription drugs, etc., etc., etc. What I am proposing would be easy to do and immediately be more fair than the mess we have now. The un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax requires many changes, will be REGRESSIVE, will give rise to black markets, and will

Rhinehold wrote: Currently, 47% of all income in this country is collected by the government to run it. And some say it isn’t enough.

The severely bloated government gets TOO much already (about $2.7 Trillion per year).

Then it borrows and prints some more money.
I will not argue about the severely bloated, corrupt, incompetent government.

Rhinehold wrote: Your plan would NOT change that.

My plan would be an improvement over the existing system.

Eventually, the goal would be to decrease the 17% tax rate lower and lower as the size of the federal government is decreased.
However, that ain’t gonna be easy any time soon with $9.1 Trillion National Debt, $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent out of Social Security with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, $450 Billion PBGC pension debt, hundreds of billions of unfunded Medicare liabilities, and hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

Rhinehold wrote: Nevermind that it would bring companies to the US that aren’t here now and even the imbalance between what US companies have to pay to operate and foreign companies have to pay to operate, effectively bringing back the jobs that have been lost over the past few decades.

Eliminating corporate income taxes would eliminate hidden taxes passed on to consumers as hidden sales taxes and lower the corporations’ prices on exports. Corporate income taxes overcomplicate everything.

Rhinehold wrote: Nevermind that it would also spur on saving, something that our economy doesn’t seem to want to do anymore.

That ain’t likely, based on what is already known about the REGRESSIVENESS of sales taxes.

What it will create is a black market.
Especially after you add in a 8.5% state, city, and county tax to the 30% National Sales tax (for a whopping %38.5%) sales tax.

The people that will be doing the most saving will be the wealthy, which will make the tax system MORE REGRESSIVE.

Rhinehold wrote: However, I don’t mind that someone doesn’t support the fair tax plan, it’s a matter of difference of opinion of how we should pay for the operation of our government. But when you detail out a fictional plan that is not beind discussed and tell people THAT is what the fairtax plan is… Well, that’s a tactic called ‘misdirection’ that is often used in politics to the detrement of the best policies getting implemented.

Nonsense.

Former Republican House Majority Dick Armey (R-TX) introduced the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act (H.R. 4585)).
Steve Forbes proposed a flat income tax plan.
So did Sen. Richard Shelby, who proposed a flat 17% income tax plan.

Rhinehold wrote: I for one would like to avoid it if possible. Which is why I will only discuss fact based discussions on the topic anymore.

I’ve presented many facts which you have yet to disprove a single one.

Rhinehold wrote: And, of course, ask that everyone look at the plans themselves and decide for themselves, not rely on someone else to tell you what the plan is or does… Which is why, IMO, the plan is gaining in popularity every day.

91 of 535 Congress persons is not very good (86 Republicans and 5 Democrats).

Especially when only 5 of 298 Democrat Congress persons support it and Democrats have the majority.

Especially when enough Americans understand how REGRESSIVE the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system is.

It won’t be hard at all to demonstrate the REGRESSIVENESS of any sales tax, despite a puny rebate.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 04:10 PM

David Remer,

Though you and I may be offended by the list of crimes you have laid out in your post, you have to keep in mind that to the average wing nut, they are seeing all of this as Rudy being very highly qualified to take over as the next crime boss after the bush crime family has done their last dirty deed!!!!!!!!

Remember bush the compassionate conservative who laid to waist Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying the lives of thousands of people and stealing their resources!!!!! Using 9/11 to clean out our treasury department with no bid contracts for all his buddies and all the other crimes that have take place by the wing nut crime wave that are too numerous to even begin to mention. The wing nuts can’t wait for the next crime boss to take over where the smirking chimp left off!!!!

Rudy and his crime boss swagger is the perfect replacement for the smirking chimp!!!!!!!

Your list of dirty deeds will only put him way out in front of the rest of the wing nuts!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at November 29, 2007 04:22 PM

Sales taxes are normally considered regressive, but the FairTax provides a rebate that supporters argue would create a progressive effective rate on consumption. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% of their income on taxable goods and services. According to economist William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution, the percentage of income taxed is regressive (using a cross-section time frame). However, when presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low-income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time, as savings is tax-deferred). The effective tax rate is progressive on consumption, as a person spending at the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 0%, whereas someone spending at four times the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 17.2%.

Households at the lower end of the income scale spend almost all their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving; households at the extreme high end of consumption often finance their purchases out of savings, not income. These savings would be taxed when they become purchases. Income earned and saved would not be taxed immediately under the proposal. In other words, savings would be spent at some point in the future and taxed according to that consumption. FairTax advocates state that this would improve taxing of wealth. Economist Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University states that the FairTax could make the tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable. “Their view that taxing sales is regressive is just plain wrong. Taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth.” Kotlikoff finds that the FairTax significantly reduces marginal taxes on work and saving, which substantially lowers overall average remaining lifetime tax burdens on current and future workers at all income levels. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University concluded in a 2007 study on distributional effects that “replacing income and payroll taxes with the FairTax would make the United States federal tax system more progressive than it is now and would benefit the average individual in almost all expenditures deciles.”

The ‘puny’ rebate makes the effective tax rate for lower income individuals 0. For some, if they purchase used items (which are not taxed) instead of new ones (which most wealthier individuals do more than poor) their effective tax rate is actually less than zero. They can effectively make money by being frugal…

The current system has no way of doing this.

So you argue against a straight sales tax and ‘simply ignore’ the parts of the plan that turn it from being regressive to progressive, like the prebates and taxing only new items and services, and you think you have it all figured out.

But, I guess your math is better than that of Boston College, Yale and Suffolk University…

http://www.beaconhill.org/FairTax2007/DistributionalAnalysis%20FairTaxBHI4-25-07.pdf

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenTaxRates.pdf

http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2007 04:51 PM

Outraged, I am no defender of Giuliani, that’s clear. But, the only claims in the article’s links of possible law breaking are in reference to his use of tax payer dollars for private and personal purposes, and the evidence there is debatable, so far.

The rest of negative claims refer to his integrity and moral character, not any criminal activity. Qatar is host to many American corporations and businesses despite the regime’s harboring, protecting, and sponsoring terrorism. The Bush Administration holds Qatar out as an ally. These bedfellow relationships should not sit well with those Americans voters who believe Americans should not be profiting such regimes, or from them, as Giuliani’s security firm does in contracting with individuals who are associated with terrorists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 04:57 PM

In 2000, quite a few people in this country thought that George Bush was a man of integrity. Instead, Bush turned out to be a petty little man with a weak mind that could easily be manipulated by Dick Cheney.

If one wishes to associate the Huckabee campaign style with another campaign, I suggest one should reexamine the 2000 Bush campaign. The primary difference is that Huckabee comes across as a good old boy that you would like to go to a prayer meeting with rather than have a beer with.

The only thing that the Huckabee campaign lacks is a good dirty trickster. If Huckbee does well in the first few primaries, I would not be the least bit suprised to see Carl Rove join his campaign.

Posted by: jlw at November 29, 2007 05:16 PM

Rhinehold wrote: The ‘puny’ rebate makes the effective tax rate for lower income individuals 0.

About $2400 for a single person and $5900 for a family of four.

Duh!
So what?
I was expecting just that … a bunch of links to the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax web-site.

How may times did I write above “after the rebate runs out” ?
What then?
The rebate only makes the BOTTOM region of the tax curve progressive.
After that, it is NOTHING more than a simple flat, REGRESSIVE 30% Sales Tax.
Therefore, the argument that the rebate makes the system PROGRESSIVE is a half truth; a fraud.
It only affects the lowest income group.
Very clever, but there are plenty of Americans smart enough to see the fraud.

Rhinehold wrote: For some, if they purchase used items (which are not taxed) instead of new ones (which most wealthier individuals do more than poor) their effective tax rate is actually less than zero. They can effectively make money by being frugal…

Nonsense. Used versus new items is not going to save the day, nor change the REGRESSIVENESS of the un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax system.

Rhinehold wrote: The current system has no way of doing this.

The current system sucks, and I’ve never defended it, and have repeatedly acknowledged that the current system is REGRESSIVE and unfair.

Rhinehold wrote: So you argue against a straight sales tax and ‘simply ignore’

False.

How may times did I write above “after the rebate runs out” ?

Rhinehold wrote: … the parts of the plan that turn it from being regressive to progressive, like the prebates and taxing only new items and services,

Rhinehold wrote: … and you think you have it all figured out.

Funny!

Funny how some people assert the very thing they do themselves.
Have you really done any of the calculations, or are you just taking others’ word for it?

Rhinehold wrote: But, I guess your math is better than that of Boston College, Yale and Suffolk University…

Some maybe, and some maybe not.

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and have studied more math than I’ll ever use.
One thing is for certain.
All those tables and such are a complete fraud, which is very easy to reveal.
Their calculations play clever games with the numbers.
Especially based on your very own quote above:

“Sales taxes are normally considered regressive … “

You are relying on others math, without doing it for yourself.
The web-pages I’m linking to are pages I created.
I’ve done the research and the calculations … probably more than you.

The only place the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is progressive is at the very bottom of the curve.
After the rebate runs out, it is nothing but a simple flat 30% SALES TAX, which is REGRESSIVE.

There is NO way you or anyone else can prove (after the rebate runs out) that a 30% SALES TAX is NOT REGRESSIVE.
The only way (after the rebate runs out) any flat SALES TAX can be PROGRESSIVE (relative to income) is if the wealthy spend a LARGER percentage of income (that is, as income increases, the percentage of income spent increases).

So, for anyone to prove the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax (after the rebate runs out, which only affects the lowest income brackets) is PROGRESSIVE, they must prove that as income increases, the percentage of income spent increases.

Good luck proving that.

Especially if there are no income taxes on intertest, capital gains, and investment income.

Again, if you think you can prove the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax plan is progressive (after the rebate runs out), then you’ve got your work cut out for yourself.

The ONLY persons that will have more to invest is the increasingly wealthy, due to the REGRESSIVE nature of the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax.
For example:

Married with 2 children:

• FairTax.org’s Prebate = $5902


• TAPOGI = Tax As Percent Of Gross Income

Income _ Spending _FairTax__Prebate _NetTax____TAPOGI
$20K ___ $20K ___ $6,000 __ $5,902 _ $98.0 ____ 0.49%
$30K ___ $28K ___ $8,400 __ $5,902 _ $2,498 ___ 8.33%
$45K ___ $41K ___ $12.3K __ $5,902 _ $6,398 __ 14.22%
$60K ___ $53K ___ $15.9K __ $5,902 _ $9,998 __ 16.67%
$90K ___ $65K ___ $19.5K __ $5,902 _ $13,598 _ 15.11%
$150K __ $90K ___ $27.0K __ $5,902 _ $21,098 _ 14.07%
$1.00M _ $350K __ $105K ___ $5,902 __ $99.1K __ 9.91%
$9.00M _ $2.50M _ $750K ___ $5,902 _ $744.1K __ 8.27%
$100M __ $17.0M _ $5.10M __ $5,902 _ $5.094M __ 5.09%

___________LEGEND:____________

• [] = income tax above prebate (i.e. untaxed due to $5902 prebate; essentially untaxing the first $19,673 spent)


• X = income tax on gross income

____( REGRESSIVE ) 30% SALES TAX:____

30% []
27% _ []
24% _ _ _[]
21% _ _ _ _ _ []
18% _ _X_ X_ _ _ _[]
15% _ _ _ _ _ _ _X _ _ _[]
12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X _ _[]
09% _X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X _ _[]
06% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X _[]
03% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_[]
00% X_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X[]
__$0K $50K 100K 150K 200K 300K … $1.00M $100M $200M $300M $400M $500M $1B $5B $10B …
Notice (after the prebate runs out) how the tax rate decreases as income increases? That is REGRESSIVE.

• It is easy to understand why the wealthiest will love that tax curve above.


• AFTER the puny prebate ($2400 for a single person, $5902 for a family of 4) is gone, the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is a REGRESSIVE 30% Sales tax.


• AFTER the puny prebate runs out, all money spent is taxed at 30%. That is, an item priced at $100 will cost a total of $130 with the 30% sales tax. The talk about a 23% tax is deceptive.


• AFTER the prebate is gone, like ALL sales taxes, the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is REGRESSIVE.


• The prebate ONLY makes the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sale Tax progressive at the very lowest income level; after that, it is REGRESSIVE. As you can see in the table above, after the PREBATE runs out, the TAPOGI increases up to the middle-income level, and then as income increases above the middle-income level, the tax begins to decrease. This is why many wealthy people are throwing large sums of money at FairTax.org to push for the BILLs HR-25 & S-1025. Also, take a close look (below) at who is FOR this Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax: 86 of the 91 are Republicans (no surprise there).


• No other issues used to cloud the issues can change the REGRESSIVE nature of the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax.


• A 30% Sales Tax will guarantee black markets.


• Yes, with a whopping 30% Sales Tax on new items, there will be a HUGE market for used items (or, supposedly used, eh?). A used market is not going to save the day. Sometimes, used things start costing more than new things.


• All sales taxes are REGRESSIVE, unless everyone spends ALL of their income OR an equal percentage of their income, which is increasingly unlikely as income increases.


• The FairTax.org’s web-site claims to be progressive, but that is a lie, since it is only progressive at the lowest income level. After the prebate runs out, it can NEVER be progressive. The best it could ever mathematically be is NEUTRAL and that is ONLY if everyone spends ALL of their income. Thus, the progressive claim is a fraud.


• Taxing from the spending side is a very clever way to over-complicate the tax system so that the wealthiest can pay less tax.

And that is why this Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax will never come about … if it does, it will worsen the disparity trend that has already existed for over 30 years. People should study this regressive FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax carefully, because it is not by mere coincidence that so many regressive systems have been foisted upon the middle income groups for over 30 years.

There is NO doubt about that most of the wealthiest will absolutely LOVE the Un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system (see above).
People should ask themselves two questions:

• (1) WHO will love the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system?


• (2) Any WHY?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 05:43 PM

jlw, on most issues, Huckabee’s positions are indistinguishable from Bush’s. Exceptions are the UnFair Sales Tax, and border security. If folks want another GW Bush, Huckabee is their man regarding his policy positions. Stay in Iraq, cut taxes and increase spending, privatize Soc. Sec., ignore Medicare’s 40 trillion dollar unfunded mandate, federal tax dollars in support of religious sponsored activities, anti-abortion, etc. etc.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 06:39 PM

BTW, did anyone else notice that Huckabee said he would abolish the IRS, but, never mentioned the UnFair national sales tax he would replace it with? Are his pollsters telling him his UnFair tax stance would hurt him, even amongst GOP voters?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2007 08:02 PM

Good point. But there’s little doubt he was referring to the un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax. Interestingly, in year 2000, he was against any sort of national sales or VAT tax.

FairTax is 23%; Bush’s study missed prebate & other aspects. (Nov 2007)

FairTax untaxes productivity & things which we export. (Oct 2007)

FairTax eliminates all taxes on productivity & saving. (Sep 2007)

Gut this incredibly complex and arcane tax code. (Aug 2007)

Attacked as tax-and-spend by several anti-tax groups. (Aug 2007)

Tax system penalizes productivity; needs complete overhaul. (Aug 2007)

FairTax puts Going-Out-of-Business sign on IRS. (May 2007)

FactCheck: FairTax requires 34% sales tax +$600B entitlement. (May 2007)

Flatter, fairer, finite, family friendly overhaul: Fair Tax. (May 2007)

First governor in Arkansas history to ever lower taxes. (Jan 2007)

Wouldn’t propose new taxes, but won’t pledge against taxes. (Jan 2007)

Raised Arkansas taxes 5 times, but lowered taxes 94 times. (Jan 2007)

Supports national flat tax to keep up with globalization. (Jan 2007)

Eliminated AR marriage penalty & capital gains on home sales. (Jan 2007)

Remove the poorest taxpayers from the tax rolls. (Jan 2001)

No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000)

Let states independently determine estate taxes. (May 2001)

Also, Mike Huckabee:

• Stated three strikes is based more on revenge than restoration. (Jan 2007) {that may be why each time we hear about another child molestation, it’s the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or more time it has occurred}


• Gay tolerance reflects lack of fixed societal standards. (Jun 2007)


• USA has gone from Barney Fife to Barney Frank. (Jan 2007)


• Nonsense of Three-Strikes makes system overrun with people. (Sep 2007)


• Build more prisons, and privatize their management. (Nov 2002) {privatize; bad idea}


• More drug courts & rehab, instead of incarceration. (Sep 2007) { … yet …} Drug education fails; drug punishment works. (Jun 2007) { … and …} Stricter penalties for drug-related crimes. (Nov 2002)


• Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
{Hmmmm, and how about Islamic or Buddhist schooling? … Doesn’t the 1st Amendment state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …}

• Ending school prayer was one step in society’s moral decay. (Jun 2007)


• Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007)


• Incorporate character education into school curriculum. (Jan 2007) {Hmmmm … will that include “Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling” }


• Support displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. (Nov 2002)


• We answer to our Constitution, not to international law. (Sep 2007) {Really? What about Article V, eminent domain, Habeas Corpus, spying on citizens without civil oversight, etc.?}


• This country can never yield its sovereignty for any reason. (Sep 2007) {Then why are the borders open and immigration laws still not being enforced?}


• China trade contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007) {Really? The U.S. trade deficit with China alone is the largest in U.S. history with one country ($201 billion). That deficit has cost an estimated 410,000 U.S. jobs and job opportunities in the past two years alone (according to the Economic Policy Institute). The U.S. trade deficit is further increased by China’s manipulation of its currency, the yuan.}


• Farm subsidies are OK because Europe & Asia do same. (Jan 2007)


• Ok if church identifies candidates who favor its principles. (Sep 2007) {Fine, but they should then be subject to FEC rules like everyone else if they want to meddle in politics and influence government}


• Attacking others’ integrity reflects people’s own immorality. (Jun 2007) {Not if it is true and verifiable.}


• Honor the Tenth Amendment & strengthen the states. (May 2007) {But ignore Article V? If only Congress controls the amendment process, it controls the Constitution}


• Limit campaign contributions, but no public funding. (Nov 2002) {Of course not; Cha - ching!}


• Disclose political gifts, but don’t prohibit them. (Oct 2000)


• Dems want government in charge; GOP want consumers in charge. (Jun 2007) {Really? From all the corporate welfare, pork-barrel, graft, and bloat, it’s hard to tell. Both parties do it.}


• Guantanamo prisoners are treated very well. (Jun 2007) {Spc. Sean Baker}


• Better to make mistakes at Guantanamo to protect Americans. (Jun 2007)


• Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)


• Path to citizenship if illegals admit guilt & pay fine. (Jan 2007)


• Import farm workers from Mexico. (Sep 2001)


• Supports farm subsidies & fully-funded crop insurance. (Sep 2007) {a lot of these are corporations; some of this is corporate welfare}


• Plenty of choices for candidates who don’t believe in God. (Jun 2007)


• One worldview will prevail: God-centered or human-centered. (Jun 2007)


• Pastors & politicians have same skill set in common. (Jun 2007)


• Ten Commandments are basis for appropriate behavior. (Jun 2007)


• A “grace Christian”: dislikes “law Christians” AND liberals. (Jun 2007)


• My faith does affect my decision process; it explains me. (May 2007)


• We are a nation of faith, and we are stewards of God’s world. (Jan 2007)


• George W. Bush has done a magnificent job. (Jan 2007) {What planet has he been on?}


• Replace payroll tax & fund Social Security with FairTax. (Sep 2007) {I can not vote for Huckabee or anyone who supports a regressive 30% National Sales Tax. All flat sales taxes are regressive unless everyone spends all of their income, or the pre-bate is huge. Do the math. It’s not that complicated. There is a better way by fixing the current system.}


• FairTax eliminates all taxes on productivity & saving. (Sep 2007) {There is nothing fair about any regressive 30% Sale Tax.}


• Gut this incredibly complex and arcane tax code. (Aug 2007) {Yes, but not with a regressive 30% Sales Tax}


• No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000) {the FairTax.org plan is just that with a prebate; after the prebate (e.g. $2400 runs out, it’s still a regressive tax}


• More bible; less blogs; more music; less network TV. (Jan 2007)


• Supports Internet sales tax. (Nov 2002) {all sales taxes are regressive}


• Don’t judge Iraq war while we’re in the middle of the war. (May 2007)


• Opposing Bush’s troop surge is a dangerous position. (Jan 2007)


• Supports Charitable Choice for funding faith-based providers. (Dec 2006) {Doesn’t the 1st Amendment state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …}

Many may like him, but he’s not getting my vote.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2007 08:25 PM

Good job d.a.n., let’s keep talking about Huckabee, they say no press is bad press, and all press is good press. I’d love to know from which liberal site you cut and pasted your latest few lengthy blog entries.

If you guys are so confident that any Democrat will crush Huckabee, then cheer him on. If he is so blatanly evil and confused and regressive then here-here right? GO neocons GO! Vote for Huckabee so we can crush him in the next election.

That’s a battle I’d give my campaign maximum to see. Bring it on.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 30, 2007 02:26 AM

Yukon, how like folks on the losing side to put derogatory words in the mouths of their adversaries. Words like, “blatanly evil and confused and regressive”.

You are the only author here using the words “blatantly evil, confused, and regressive” about Huckabee. Huckabee’s tax plan is regressive, not Huckabee. Huckabee appears to be a person whose life has been one of striving for good, not evil. And he certainly does not come across as confused in the debates.

Odd that such words should be authored by one of his apparent supporters. Huckabee will lose the Presidential bid, but, he is no loser. I don’t see him reaching deep in the barrel of underhanded techniques to prop up his position.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 03:17 AM

Yukon Jake wrote: Good job d.a.n., let’s keep talking about Huckabee, …

Thanks!

Yukon Jake wrote: … they say no press is bad press, and all press is good press. I’d love to know from which liberal site you cut and pasted your latest few lengthy blog entries.

Funny! Those are Huckabee’s very own voting records and public/platform statements (above). If any of them bother you, that’s Huckabee’s fault. If you would like to see all politicians voting records, simply go to OnTheIssues.org or the U.S. Congress Votes Database

Yukon Jake wrote: If you guys are so confident that any Democrat will crush Huckabee, then cheer him on.

I never wrote that. I simply said he wasn’t getting my vote (for MANY reasons listed above). Look at voting records. Try that instead of merely watching a 60 minute debate (which can be helpful) that is woefully inadequate in determining the real core values of any candidate. Look at their voting records and platform statements, because it is often very enlightening. I don’t think Huckabee is evil or confused. I simply do not agree with much of his platform. By his many statements and votes, I sense some religious intolerance, zealotry, and bigotry. And his position on taxes is severely flawed, and that one thing will sink his candidacy because ONLY 91 of 535 in Congress support it (and 86 of those 91 are Republicans, and Republicans are a minority in Congress and likely to grow smaller yet with such wacky ideas on tax reform).

Yukon Jake wrote: If he is so blatanly evil and confused and regressive then here-here right?

Evil? Who said he was evil? I didn’t see anyone write that.

Yukon Jake wrote: GO neocons GO! Vote for Huckabee so we can crush him in the next election. That’s a battle I’d give my campaign maximum to see. Bring it on.

Neocons? That’s a label to be proud of?

Huckabee may have a chance, but he won’t get my vote.

So, there was nothing in the list above of Huckabee’s voting records and platform statements that bother you? Were you not even aware of these things, or are you fine with all of them? Either way, that’s fine. That’s your right and you are entitled to it. Just curious. Because all you did here was merely criticize others for not sharing your love of Huckabee, but you offered no real reasons supported by facts and voting records.

Huckabee stated: We answer to our Constitution, not to international law. (Sep 2007)

What a farce. Every single Congress person officially chose to violate Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Care to explain that?

Huckabee stated: Guantanamo prisoners are treated very well. (Jun 2007)

Really? Perhaps they should ask Spc. Sean Baker who was posing as a detainee and was beaten by guards and sustained brain damage. Besides, have you never heard of Habeas Corpus?

Also, I don’t think Huckabee has a clue about the 1st Amendment.

Huckabee stated: Supports Charitable Choice for funding faith-based providers. (Dec 2006)

The 1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …

Yet, Huckabee wants to pass laws to use tax dollars for funding faith-based providers ?

Yukon Jake wrote:No waffling, just straight talk.

Think so? Did you not notice that in year 2000, Huckabee was opposed to a national sales tax? Now he’s for the un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax. What would you call that? A simple change-of-mind? Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2007 09:22 AM

Guiliani may flame out early. As a former New Yorker, I assure all of you it would NOT be in the best interests of our country for Guiliani to be president. I say this honestly, in the spirit of wanting the best candidate from both parties to run. We cannot afford to have another inept president. As a candidate, I would expect he would be dead in the water very early as the media begins to spotlight the tsunami of slime, inexperience, and poor choices the man has made.

Posted by: Max at November 30, 2007 02:56 PM

Yukon Jake said: “if Huckabee is so wrong on so many issues in your opinion, then why not cheer on his primary?”

That kind of illogical approach is what killed the GOP, which is why I at least can’t vote for GOP candidates (McCain excepted at one time). Cheer on a candidate’s bid because they are wrong? Very much like adding 3.35 trillion dollars to the national debt in the name of fiscal responsibility. That’s a GOP approach to things that makes no sense to me. Makes no sense to the majority of American voters today either.

And there are many others, like Peace through War. Or fairer taxation by shifting the burden of total taxes to those making less, not more, as Huckabee’s plan calls for. Or, defend the Constitution by violating its provisions time and time again, in the name of fear and security.

Such GOP actions finally just made no sense to the American people. Huckabee is running on the GOP ticket. That is sufficient reason for the majority of Americans to NOT vote for him, given the GOP record since 1994. And it will show in the 2008 election, as it did in the 2006 and 2007 elections where the voting trend is clearly away from the GOP.

The American people were very slow to match up the actions of the GOP with their rhetoric and witness the great divide. That worked to the GOP’s advantage through 2004. Now that same dynamic will prevent a GOP majority for at least another generation, if the Democrats make just half their actions match their rhetoric, which of course, is not assured, as elections go by in their favor.

I don’t buy into yet, but, some analysts say if the Democrats disappoint, the people will not flip flop back to the GOP, but champion a new party. It has possibilities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 05:43 PM

But Huckabee does have that Gomer Pyle charm, wholesome, aw shucks, style. It is beguiling to those who don’t put much faith in real world rational thought and decision making aimed at solutions the populace and Constitution can support. So, he will have some support, no doubt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 05:47 PM

Max, I think as long as Giuliani is running against another candidate whose record is not nearly as controversial as his alleged ties to the mob, terrorists, and affairs and trysts, he cannot win. Of course, that raises some concerns if he runs against Hillary with her alleged ties to corporate lobbyists, the illegal immigration movement and amnesty, flip flop on universal single payer health insurance, and free trade treaty policies of her husband. It could be a closer race than many Democrats would wish.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 06:00 PM

Yukon Jake, and d.a.n, I junked each or your last comments for the borderline personal insult nature contained in each of them.

Crossing the line on our Rules for participation will result in loss of comment privileges, here. Critique the politics in each other’s comments, not each other.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at November 30, 2007 07:06 PM

David,
If hypocrisy is defined as saying the rules apply to you but not to me, then you are guilty of it.

You remove dan and my previous comments because of the borderline personal insult nature contained in each (I never did see his) mine simply stated I would not state how I feel.

Then you proceed to say Huckabee’s approach:

—is beguiling to those who don’t put much faith in real world rational thought and decision making aimed at solutions the populace and Constitution can support.

How is that different than I, knowing you voted for Nader (as you know I support Huckabee), were to say, those who vote for Nader display a child-like naivete’ that almost makes you want to grab their cheek and say “Aw shucks, one day you’ll grow up and stop acting like such a poopsy woopsy bufoon.

Your actions are hypocritical, and ever so typical of liberals.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 30, 2007 09:11 PM

David,
Why do you identify yourself as an independent? I have never heard you agree with a single conservative principle, and independent (in my mind) means you agree with enough points on either side to keep you from choosing a side.

So if that is not the case, and all conservative points are too flawed for your agreement, then bag the false pretense that you are an independent and call a spade a spade. You’re as liberal as they come.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 30, 2007 09:29 PM

Yukon, I described those beguiled by Huckabee. Does that include you? I don’t know. That is your call not mine. If I define the dimensions of a medium coat on Ebay, it is up to the reader to decide if that coat would fit them or not. The person defining the dimensions cannot say as they don’t know the attributes of the reader.

Which is an entirely different thing from saying all Men will fit this medium coat as in your example of Nader voters. If this difference doesn’t make sense to you, well, it wasn’t for trying to provide a basic lesson in logic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 11:53 PM

Yukon, I am indeed liberal on some issues. And if you had read my volume of works here, you would also know that I am at least as conservative John McCain on fiscal issues, and more conservative than most Republicans on monetary issues. I understand however, that reading before speaking is a great temptation for many.

I thank you however, for dropping to the personal level out of the frustration of not being able to hold up that end of the debate in a rational and logical fashion. I always take it as a sign that the debate has been won and conceded by the party reducing the debate to the personal labels and projections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2007 11:58 PM

Yukon Jake, your junked comment read and I quote:

“(I sense a lot of things about you dan, but it would violate watchblog policy to list them here.)”

That is flame baiting and a personal attack. DO NOT DISCUSS this again here. Read the Rules for Participation and follow them or you are out of here! THIS SHOULD BE CLEAR ENOUGH !

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 1, 2007 12:08 AM

Now it appears Huckabee argued and advocated for the pardon of a rapist who went on (after being pardoned) to rape and murder another woman ?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 5, 2007 07:57 PM