I guess my understanding of fiscal conservatism is different than these new-fangled conservatives. Cutting taxes without reducing spending is irresponsible. Cut the spending, balance the budget, make sure we are on a sustainable path to take care of our NEEDS. Then cut taxes.
I don't know if y'all noticed, but we are at war. Our military has a lot of capital investment needs. We're trying to fight a multi front war and grow the force. We have these baby-boomers who are going to want to retire sometime soon and they're going to expect their Social Security and Medicare. We might even want to repair some bridges and highways someday. If the fiscal conservatives have a plan to meet the needs with less spending than we have now I'm all ears. But no more "I'll gladly pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today"
I guess it's because I'm one of those filthy backwoods Social Conservatives, I believe in saving the unborn, not in taxing them. |
|
"Spending is a real problem, but to tie spending to tax cuts is nothing more than a liberal ploy to keep taxes high."
No wonder the government is in the fiscal situation it is in. This offhanded logic is simply ridiculous. At 24, I myself am old enough to remember when fiscal conservatism had something to do with balanced budgets. I'm having more difficulty remembering when spending hawkishness played a central role in any liberal ploy of domestic policy. The "starve the beast" theory of fiscal policy you espouse is demonstrably faulty. Tax cuts do play a crucial and constant role in stimulating economic growth, but they do nothing, per se, in the way of "keeping the government's grubby hands off more of our money". Nothing - as any survey of the last 6 fiscal years of chaos demonstrates. George Bush's fiscal policy has not only bankrupted the government, but has simply foisted the inevitabilities of tax increase and long-term fiscal insolubility on the next president. Hopefully that one will be more responsible than this one. I submit McCain. |
|
PR, this is another one of your disingenuous posts to discredit McCain, and "stop him in his tracks in NH." You're beginning to sound like a paid Mitt-bot, you know that?
Why don't you disclose for us who you're currently on the 'take' from? It's kind of hard to believe you could be such a pro-Rudy guy, then knife him in the back when he sank in the polls. Now you're going after McCain, the only other moderate in the race -- and the only GOP voice of common sense when it comes to earmarks and spending reform.
McCain has said many times before he didn't vote for the Bush Tax Cuts because they failed to be coupled with any meaningful cut in spending. He's also been clear that he would now maintain the tax cuts, rather than let them expire, as that would mean a tax increase.
Put down your Romney kool-aid, PR, because it's starting to drip down your face. |
|
|
that McCain, sadly, fits too closely. The older he gets, the more King Baby appears in his behavior. We had a true malignant narcissist at Pennsylvania Avenue in the 90's. John is far, far tougher and way more honorable than Bubba, but victimized by his large character defects, nevertheless. Not suitable wiring for the job he's after. His High Chair Pounding can be limited and baffled in the US Senate. It could go unhinged in the Oval Office. |
|
Other Republicans used to accuse him of kissing up to the news media. But when the Iraq war was at its worst, and other candidates were hiding in the grass waiting to see how things would turn out, McCain championed the surge, which the major Republican candidates now celebrate.
He did it knowing that it would cost him his media-darling status and probably the presidency. But for years he had hated the way the war was being fought. And when the opportunity to change it came, the only honorable course was to try.
And now he pushes ahead, building momentum, but desperately needing a miracle win in New Hampshire. Everyone will make their own political choices, and you might plausibly argue that the qualities John McCain possesses are not the ones the country now requires. But character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.
That human point seemed worth remembering, even amid the layers of campaign pretense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html |
|
If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.
And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r= 3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |
|
I found this comment on the PP explaining issues regarding the fair tax. I hope you find this as educational as I do!
Buzz- I worked in sales taxation for better than 20 years for 9 Fortune 500 companies, and the FAIR???tax bears faint resemblance to state sales taxes.
Objection #1 - It is a CON JOB. The founders of FTorg gathered seed money to the tune of $tens of millions from Enron, Shell Oil, and other capital intensive companies. These $millions were shelled out to the “expert” economists cited ad infinitum in “the Book” as being authoritative. (They are authoritative as any other whore, I suppose, but then I digress. )The capital intensive manipulators have $hundreds of billions in deferred income tax liabilities that are FORGIVEN the moment FT passes.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fair-tax-or-con-jo b
|
|
ROFL, he has more lobbyists bundling than any rival! McCain-Feingold has worked like a charm. Got that evil money out and shut up those evil grassrooters.
"money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/ 30/ST2007123002933.html
--snip—
Ever since, McCain has made high ethical standards a hallmark of his public persona. In his 2002 memoir he wrote that "money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many." Just this month in Detroit he told reporters that he had "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group -- that's a clear, 24-year record."
Nonetheless, a recent study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute and the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen found that McCain has more lobbyists raising funds for his presidential bid than do any of his rivals. He has 32 "bundlers" of donations who are lobbyists. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is the closest to him with 29 lobbyist bundlers, followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with 18.
McCain's campaign has also been guided by lobbyists. Davis, the campaign manager, is a former lobbyist who represented major telecommunications companies. The campaign's senior adviser is Charles R. Black Jr., chairman of BKSH & Associates, which represents drug companies, an oil company, an automaker, a telecommunications company, defense contractors and the steel industry, among others.
|
|
Kos Kids,
In business, Olympics and governorship, the Romney career has created more value, jobs and growth than all of you Democrat and independent friends combined.
The CATO grade for Romney is better than Florida. And the CFG makes no question of Romney's economic and fiscal thinking. His record with an 85% opposition research is excellent, and all of Romney's interviews on Kudlow and so forth prove his knowledge and experience. |
|
I question the judgment of McCain's fiscal policy.
He is all over the map. He has multiple responses. It is pure double-talk express. McCain argued against expansionary fiscal policy—a mind-boggling response at a time of recession and war. He also argues that no, he wanted tax cuts with spending constraints—another pointless response at a time of recession and war.
Then as the 2007 primary approached, McCain indicated that he did indeed support the tax cuts.
His campaign argues that his change has nothing to do with their cadre of lobbyists or with their new financial economy friends like JPMorgan. They are merely friends: "We tried to get him around to a lot of those kinds of things," said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. "We were very much in the friend-making business."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/ 30/ST2007123002933.html
Now as McCain needs his independents and liberals he once again attempts to double talk fiscal policy. And McCain’s “media organizations” are more than happy to attack Republicans. Truly wonderful, exploit McCain-Feingold and double talk fiscal policy. McCain do us a favor. Go join the Democratic Leadership Council were you belong.
|
|
|
|
A vote for Romney is a vote for increased power to the MSM.
Romney lacks any core beliefs.
Therefore, a President Romney will be much more easily swayed by the MSM. |
|
& what are Romney's core beliefs?
Club for Growth. 21 August 2007. "Mitt Romney's Record on Economic Issues"
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on _economi.php
Governor Romney's history on tax policy is scattered with inconsistencies. As a candidate for governor, Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge distributed by the local Citizens for Limited Taxation. He opposed Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax and proposed an auto excise tax on SUVs and a greenfields tax on the development of ocean space.[13] In 2003, the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank[14], and was even open to a federal gas tax hike[15]. His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn't a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a "tax cut for fat cats".[16] Even today, Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax "unfair."[17]
Overall, Romney's record on tax policy is mixed. His record is marred by questionable statements and positions, and his fee hikes and "loophole" closures are troubling. However, his support for broad-based tax cuts in liberal Massachusetts together with his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush tax cuts on the campaign trail offers hope that Governor Romney's previous ambivalence on tax policy is more a function of Massachusetts politics than his core beliefs.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/mit t_romney_is.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=135f54bc-32f0-47ec-94d c-9aa605272711%40b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=23a78e88-4d1a-47bd-8a7 a-60aa8109e297%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
|
[CDubber on December 31, 2007 5:40 PM]"Doesn't 'F' stand for Fail?"
Yes. CATO's Huckabee grade is mentioned in:
Mitt Romney proposed $500 + $140 + $170 million in increases in taxes & fees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0e6b6858-0c5b-4a0a-88d 5-c8841acdb1fc%40e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com
"And maybe sometimes you should actually *read* some of the articles you incessantly vomit up URLs to?"
I've read many articles. Just finished today the items at
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
Romney has no core beliefs as far as I can tell. If he becomes the nominee, and if he then becomes President, the base will have to put constant pressure on him to try to keep him from 'evolving' leftward. Have you heard of the 'Greenhouse effect'?
"you get paid for linking"
What do I have to do to get some Romney money? Be a key figure in Iowa, NH, SC, NV, MI, etc.?
Mooney, Brian C., Stephanie Ebbert, and Scott Helman. 30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
They conceived the Commonwealth PAC, a political
action committee that enabled Romney to travel the
country with a checkbook, currying favor with
Republican leaders by contributing to their
campaigns and causes.
Romney's advisers organized the PAC in an
innovative way, setting up affiliates in six key states
- including some states with no limits on
contributions, which allowed Romney's wealthy
associates to give five- and six-figure sums. In all,
the PAC raised $8.8 million and doled out $1.3
million, much of it in key presidential-primary states.
Romney: abolish PACs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to&feature=related
|
|
|
... makes Hillary look like a breath of fresh air. |
|
a DISASTROUS POTUS!
In fact, a name change would be his first actm John McKing.
Better learn how to genuflect. The 72 year old "royal" would expect it. |
|
Newport Dude post! Loved it, entirely. Just turned 2008 here in Florida and me and Missus Neo watched a bunch of stuff from our lakeside...After
screening my PGA DVD of "No Country For Old Men". OMG!! The Coen Bros.on crystal meth. A perfect film for this out-of-step T-Rex. Brilliantly perfect. No false beat. Yoots won't come near 'getting it'. |
|
I don't see where McCain said anything wrong.
George Bush cut taxes. Great.
But I'd rather have him cut taxes and cut spending.
I applaud McCain for saying what he did.
McCain will have my vote if Fred doesn't pull it out.
|
|
WE DON'T HAVE A PERFECT CANDIDATE IN THE GOP!
I'm uncertain that a true perfect conservative ever existed. Reagan was awesome, but does Star Wars (not the movie) ring a bell? I'm not putting down his track record, just pointing out that people can surprise you.
As for McCain, I'm an AZ resident. We know him well. The GOP ripped him a new one with the McCain, Feingold...Reform Bill. Most people who shoved their opinions on that down the throats of our nation haven't even read the bill. It's non-partisan and it is anti- BIG govt. The fact that he was associating his name with the left, raised a bunch of eyebrows. I read it 3 times front to back and don't see the liberalism in it. Those who claim it is liberal seem to have a need to collect extra campaign donations.
I noticed that somebody said Romney voted against tax cuts. They must have meant that he said he would or publicly disagreed with them, because he is a Governor. However, the deal with McCain wanting to raise taxes is also inaccurate. McCain voted against and publicly disagreed with the Bush tax cuts, due to OTHER things in the proposal. He also did not want to cut the taxes in a time of war, because he wanted to be certain to be able to fund the troops appropriately. He probably knew that the greedy liberals in office and in society would start screaming to end a necessary conflict and threatening to cut funding to those who need it.
I have bashed Giuliani, BUT that is because he IS NO CONSERVATIVE, ESPECIALLY on SOCIAL issues, Christian rights and gun rights. I urge you to research this for yourselves. He is less Conservative than Joe Lieberman. Let’s direct our vehemence at the REAL liberals in our party and take on moderate fiscal Conservatives when we are safe in not completely liberalizing our party.
McCain's at LEAST 80% Conservative on the fiscal side; one or two issues off from being 100% Social Conservative.
Tina |
|
|
|
|
as a Republican. As I commented earlier on Hewitt's blog, this guy is the worst thing to happen in the Senate. If he would quit kissing up to his buddy Leahy and force judges out of committee with his Gang of 14 he insisted on to prevent filibuster rule override, he would do the nation a favor. It is a shame how bad a decorated patriot like this has fallen. John, retire. Totally. |
|
Have you lost your gourd? Let's explain a basic concept of the economy. If the US government spends more money than it has, it decreases the value of the dollar. As the value of the dollar decreases individuals will be able to purchase less with the same amount of money. If we decrease taxes to a point where the federal tax income drops and do not decrease spending, we are inevitably decreasing the value of the dollar. So whether you take an extra 5% of everyone's cash or increase the cost of milk by 5%, the result is the same...individuals cannot buy as much milk.
Further, like it or not, the Senate is a complicated place. Senator McCain may have realized that the tax cuts would be beneficial, but was sending a message of concern over our party going into a spending frenzy. Just like the "surge" strategy, he was right. Our party did go into a spending frenzy and bought itself out of a job last election.
Wake up and don't let it happen again! |
|
|
...is that such an intelligent observer of Republican politics would think that fiscal conservatism and supply side economics were the same thing, and so obviously the same thing that McCain's succinct description of a traditional fiscally conservative position would be considered somehow outside the party mainstream. How far we've come... I consider myself more a supply sider than not, but wonder if we haven't gone too far - treating a willingness to withstand deficits as a license for corruption. I'm glad to see so many others here who are aware of this dynamic. If anything, this anti-McCain post makes one of the best arguments for McCain's position that I've seen: On this issue, whatever you think of him either personally or politically, and however attracted you might be to Thompson's more lackadaisacal or Paul's unhinged defense of parallel principles, McCain's been by far the most forceful true conservative on the Republican side. |
|
My appologies, I read your post incorrectly.
But I stand by my comments about McCain. |
|
You are wrong about McCain. He is a back-stabbing RINO.
HERE'S FOOD FOR THOUGHT....."Roy Beck at Numbers USA said that Fred Thompson's Illegal Immigration plan "blew him away". He said it will work. But that message is being ignored." |
|
|
Immigration may not have been THE reason for why the GOP lost its majority in 2006 but it guaranteed it. And I agree with your list except that I would add back in those you took off from my list. McCain, Kyl (McCain-Kennedy was resurrected with Kyl's name on it after the 2006 election and he had fought for both bills), Graham and many others. The last 7 years have been a total corruption of bipartisan government. |
|
|
There's a debate on as to how conservative Mutt Romney or Mike Huckster-Bee may or may not be but the debate was over two years ago about McLame-- HE'S A LIB! Who are these alleged Republicans that havent gotten the message? I read an article on Drudge from CBS News about McLame's big crowds but all they do is quote Democrats about how he is the best. Can betrayal after betrayal mean nothing to real conservatives? |
|
We have far too few illegal immigrants in this country, far too many conservative judges, and far too much free political speech. Sen. John McCain will put an end to these evils. (Besides, he understands the savings and loan industry.) |
|
It was not far right zealots who damaged the party, it was hypocrites who said they were Republican and then acted like Democrats on issues involving sexual impropriety, spending, and expansion of government. And a President who let the Iraq War flounder for a couple of years.
The GOP did not lose its majority over Wagner, McCain, Graham, and Kyl, it lost it over excesses by Hassert, Stevens, DeLay, Foley, among others. At the time there was a general feeling that Bush did not have any control over the Iraq War and that things were spinning out of control there.
The immigration fight pissed off people like you, but that is not why the GOP lost its majority in 2006 in House and Senate. Nor did that switch of parties have anything to do with campaign finance reform or the Gang of 14.
So try not to rewrite history too much.
|
|
|
How about giving us a break with "during the last 7 years have seen this party destroyed by the far right zealots". Huh? Far right zealots? Could you explain that comment please? It's the RINOs (democrats in Republican uniform - like Bush, McCain, Kyl, Frist, Graham, and so many others) who went "native" once entrenched in DC. The Reagan coalition, which persuaded me to become a Republican in the first place in 1980, is still here. It's you RINOs who trashed the conservative label. The GOP is has now surrendered power to choose its nominee to Democrats and democrats. If you guys (I'm independent now) don't nominate a conservative this time, the GOP will shrink to below 20% of all voters. Kind of like being a Clipper fan because you can't get Laker tickets. |
|
I have been saying for awhile that John, Mitt, Rudy, and Mike are RINO's and this column helps prove my point.
There are only 2 Conservatives running for the GOP. That would be Hunter and Thompson. Duncan has no money or organization, Thompson has both.
Do not let these RINO's move the Republican party further to the left, please help save the party. |
|
New poll tonight will show McCain winning in NH. DMR tonight will show McCain in a strong third place in IOWA!!
GO JOHN!!!! |
|
McCain is smoother than Huck. The key issue here is that the size of the McCain tax cut was much smaller and would not have stimulated the economy. McCain offered a Dem lite alternative tax cut with minor spending cuts so he could cover himself no matter what. Truth is he was very apposed to the Bush tax cuts and played games to cover his opposition.
McCain is a very slick weasel. He is almost as good as Bill Clinton on saying one thing and leaving that impression (straight talk) knowing that his legislation will do just the opposite of what he says it will do.
I have seen McCain do this over and over again. The press never calls him on it. He is able to promote the MSM agenda while pretending to be a Republican.
He slides around all over the place on issues (sometimes within weeks) while calling anyone who makes an honest change a flipper. McCain is a master at projection. |
|
|
|
|
You really think that your post is in any way intellectually honest? Seriously? "Real Conservatives," as you like to call them, believe in a balanced budget and DECREASING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. Two things Bush HAS NOT DONE. I think McCain's stand of conscience should be applauded not criticized as not being conservative enough. Your man Romney is a Johnny come lately to Reagan conservatism so you attack against McCain can only go so far. |
|
|
It's New Years Eve, stay away from Blackies and the Beach Ball. Good knows what will crawl out of there around midnight. |
|
It is good to know that most of the people posting here disagree with Patrick's outrage. Once upon a time conservatism meant keeping spending to a minimum and lowering taxes.
Enter George Bush. He cuts taxes and dramatically increases spending. Not any spending increase mind you, but spending increases that will haunt us indefinitely in the form on new entitlements. It is telling that there are now "conservatives" who think that calling for reigning in spending before we do anything else is somehow liberal.
McCain wouldn't raise taxes, but he'd sure raise hell when he put an end to earmarks. The outrage from those that feed at the federal trough would be priceless. |
|
Steven, its, "staunch", not stauch---you stated this incorrectly, twice---small detail.
However, thanks for sharing your affiliation with "Newport Beach".
How California dude of you.
Come to think of it, from my recollection, did'nt they actually change its name to, "New Part Beach", given the huge number of physical "enhancements" and surgical procedures so many of its affected residents have undergone?---small detail number two.
Personally, I am guessing that you want that address so very badly that it kills you to be actually living in Costa Mesa.
Geeeeeeesh. |
|
I guess yesterday I said, "I get it, you hate Romney!" However, from your posts I should have said, "I get it you hate Mormons!"
Gosh, did you find our horns? I thought we had hidden them so well.
You are such a joke! |
|
First, I'm not going to fall into your lame religious trap. Sorry. Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about (regarding LDS theology and the presidency), nor do I have any idea what it would have to do with discussing presidential candidates.
It's amusing (and deceptive) that you mention CATO's "C" grade for Romney while failing to mention CATO gave Huckabee an "F." Doesn't "F" stand for Fail? And maybe sometimes you should actually *read* some of the articles you incessantly vomit up URLs to?
Not that I expect rational thought from the Huckabee Army's spambot extraordinaire. Hey, you get paid for linking, not for thinking. |
|
I'm shocked and appalled that people here dare to criticize a war hero.
Sen. McCain should be beyond criticism. |
|
|
John McCain, his advisors and his followers don't realize how DEEP the distrust in Republican circles goes for this man. This is a perfect example of John McCain NOT understanding what it means to be a conservative. If he can't understand there is NO connection between over-spending and tax cuts, we may as well elect a person with the honesty to call themselves a democrat and not a republican. |
|
CDubber wrote on Monday, December, 31, 2007 4:50 PM, talking about taxes.
I had some questions for you, CDubber.
I recall hearing portions of a 2-day interview of an ex-LDS relative of Joseph Smith, the interview being done by Hank Hanegraaff on his 'Bible Answer Man' radio program.
The woman being interviewed mentioned something along the lines of, in LDS theology, there's something significant about a Mormon becoming President of the U.S.
According to LDS theology, what is significant about a Mormon becoming President of the U.S.?
LDS Church and the Romney campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sG8CnxesY0
Romney flip-flop on LDS theology.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
[CDubber on December 8, 2007 1:55 PM]"Huckabee is a tax-and-spend 'conservative,' if there is such a thing."
Details?
Michael Medved: AR tax growth w/ Huckabee tad better than Romney MA taxes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2d1d6b5f-7d2a-4ba4-af3 8-ce935abe2d7c%40e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Mitt Romney proposed $500 + $140 + $170 million in increases in taxes & fees;
CATO gave "C" to Romney
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0e6b6858-0c5b-4a0a-88d 5-c8841acdb1fc%40e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com
Fee-Fee Romney's Taxes & Fees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=23a78e88-4d1a-47bd-8a7 a-60aa8109e297%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
Phil,
Give us all a break with I am the "stauch conservative" bit. This is the Republican party not the Stauch party. Life is about compromise not extremism. I am looking for political solutions and they are won via compromise.
CDubber,
NO ONE said tax cuts are evil. As for small government, lets get real that is not reality in todays world. I want efficient and effective government. Not all government is bad just like no all business is good. I am sure that Romney had some nice fat government contracts. I bet he did not complain about evil government programs then.
|
|
11 April 2003 Boston Globe. Cited in
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to
endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's
economic program, but he told members of the
state's congressional delegation during a private
meeting he also would not oppose the cuts because
he has to maintain "a solid relationship" with the
White House.
==
"I was very pleased," Frank said afterward. "Here
you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse
a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the
height of his wartime popularity."
According to the observer, who spoke on condition
of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he
"won't be a cheerleader" for proposals he doesn't
agree with, "but I have to keep a solid relationship
with the White House."
|
|
What's astonishing is that you don't understand short term vs. long term. McCain understands that in the long term, the tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth, etc. That's why he favors tax cuts and has proposed a tax cut of his own during the course of this campaign. But in the short term, the costs of the tax cuts must be covered by cutting costs. This is the true conservative way.
I'm sure you are well aware of this and are feigning stupidity to rile up people who are as dim as you are pretending to be. That's the Romney way. |
|
For all of you who see tax cuts as evil, here's my suggestion: let's add a "Donate to the Federal Government" line on the Form 1040. Those of you for big taxation and big government can go ahead and add an amount of your choosing on that line. Hey, liberals are always complaining that taxes are too low - here's their chance to "make things right."
The rest of us who prefer low taxes and small government (you know, *conservatives*), we'll continue to support candidates who want to lower the tax burden.
Say what you will about Romney (and a lot of the blabbermouths here have plenty to say), but he's the *only* candidate that instills any confidence in me regarding reining in an out-of-control government spending machine.
Efficiency and fiscal streamlining is what Romney built his business on. There's no reason he can't do it for the government. |
|
|
running for the GOP nomination. I'm getting the feeling that my prediction that McCain will run independent with Lieberman is going to come true. Bloomberg, McCain/Lieberman, Ron Paul and who else? This is going to be a stampede just because both "major" parties have sold out their bases. This works in favor for a smart conservative who dares to depart from the fog of "bipartisan" one-world political correctness and makes it clear that he is going to be a staunch conservative. Maybe it's Romney, maybe not, but it certainly isn't McCain, Giuliani or Huckleberry. It would be a shame if the NH/IA committments allowed Democrats to dictate who will be the nominee for BOTH parties. Too many democrats running and most of them are Republicans. |
|
He stated: "Wasteful earmark spending is a disgrace, and it caused us to alienate our Republican base."
As if his positions on amnesty and other special privileges for SS Fraud/Tax Evasion felons in this country illegally, his attacks on Free Speech under the guise of Campaign Funding Reform, and his treasonous comments about US torturing detainees were of no concern...
The guy must have hit his head or something... |
|
This article is a piece of trash. I have voted Republican in every election since 1989 but during the last 7 years have seen this party destroyed by the far right zealots. Cutting taxes for the wealthy is not the cure all! We have been in control of the government and we failed to control spending. I supported Rudy until I went to a fundrasier and saw him tow the line with I will cut taxes. How about I will end our energy dependence on Mideast oil so we can stop funding terror. How about the will stand up to China and their slave labor practices and create job in America. We need to be a party of all people not just rich people. Mccain is not perfect but he is honest. He gets my vote and contributions from this point forward.
|
|
LOL... Since when does McCain care about "alienating" the Republican base? McCain Kennedy Amnesty, McCain Feingold, Gang of 15... The guy's made his career out of alienting and pissing off the base.
Bottomline: McCain will NEVER admit a mistake. Because he's "Legend" you know.
Not to mention, a Class A Fraud. |
|
Let's see ... a lack of commitment by Republican on controlling spending?
I guess one of Romney's first positions, that of holding all non-defense spending to COL minus 1% prolly doesn't work for you, eh?
You really want to hoist the flag of restrictions on free speech and amnesty for illegals for your boy Big John? I don't think you want to go there. |
|
"You always have to cut taxes first to empty the coffers, thereby forcing the tough decisions of which services to cut. No government will ever make decisions to cut services until the coffers run dry."
The only way this works is if you outlaw (or heavily restrict) deficit spending.
If you give a politiican (of either party) a choice between giving up goodies he can distribute to his cronies; raising taxes to pay for it; or floating bonds/borrowing from foreign banks to pay for it, he will always choose the latter.
It's easier than convincing the public that the government needs more taxes, and it lets him continue to loot the nation without consequence.
At least until the bills start coming due; the bonds stop selling; or the Fed has bought so many that the currency starts to drop like a lead brick. |
|
I had to edit much of that post for length, but the context was that the Bush tax cuts were incorporated into various cuts for Massachusetts for Medicare reimbursements and the like.
So Romney did in fact have a dog in that fight on behalf of the people he represented too. Certainly many governors over the years have fought a White House when their state was getting the shaft in some way...
But I appreciate your admission that one can't have it both ways..you don't speak out on some federal matters and run behind the state curtain on others. |
|
|
and is adamantly against them. Problem is that it easy for him to side with the Dems on the tax cut side but he doesn't raise a finger against to fight runaway spending. It doesn't take courage to accommodate the enemy. That is not a "good" principle to fall back on when "standing up" to the base. Why is that a good thing for the McCainites? Why does that make him a principled man? It makes him a traitor to his own team. |
|
But Romney In 2003 Refused To Publicly Support President Bush’s Tax Cuts. “In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda.” (Casey Ross, “Mitt Changes Tax-Cut Tune,” Boston Herald, 2/8/07)
Mitt Romney is not in a position to challenge John McCain on this issue.
|
|
and Ruffini knows it. Because McCain has said he would not raise taxes or reverse the Bush tax cuts. His primary beef has been a lack of commitment by Republican on controlling spending.
I guess Patrick was told be the hatchman against McCain. At least go after him on things that are legitmate like campaign finance and immigration reform. |
|
..corresponding spending reductions is the reason Democrats are now regarded as the party of fiscal responsibility. I never woulda guessed it, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Never in a million years. But it turned out the Repubs could not walk the walk. They could hand out goodies in the form of tax cuts, but never quite had the discipline nor the character to match off on the spending side of the equation.
McCain was an exception. Now he is being castigated for being "opposed" to tax cuts, but if Republicans had followed his lead, they would not be universally scorned as the borrow-and-spend party. |
|
|
After reading and listening to this and other attack ads, media baloney, CNN and MSNBC going off on Rudy and Mitt, one wonders who will be left standing to meet the Dem candidate!? The Reagan coalition will be destroyed unless Pubs unite. Rudy looks better to me in spite of some of his flaws than these attack guys who are destroying each other. They don't realize that Her Highness will use the same commentary nationally. Enough is enough. Get Iowa and NH over with please. Two states which mean nothing electorally and we just keep forgetting the other 48 states. Enough. |
|
but I agree, too, that he should not have said anything at all . . . so you are right on that point.
however, i probably have to call horsepuckey on myself b/c then I'd be a hypocrite for supporting his outspoken support for the federal marriage amendment.
Point, Steve. |
|
|
. . . sounds to me like he did what he should - stay out of a federal matter being handled by the representatives his state elected to federal matters. |
|
|
I do not believe this means McCain would be opposed to tax cuts if elected President. |
|
Close, but not quite true.
You always have to cut taxes first to empty the coffers, thereby forcing the tough decisions of which services to cut. No government will ever make decisions to cut services until the coffers run dry.
That's why tax cuts HAVE to lead.
McCain knows this (or should). He's just not a small government guy . . . |
|
on tax cuts because he was a governor, not a Senator. What he could have done is shown leadership on the issue, such as declaring his full support for the value of such cuts.
Instead we got this (but at least he pleased Barney Frank - something I look for in my GOP Presidential candidates):
Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program, but he told members of the state's congressional delegation during a private meeting he also would not oppose the cuts because he has to maintain "a solid relationship" with the White House.
Representative Barney Frank of Newton asked the governor whether he had spoken against the $726 billion worth of tax cuts the president is currently pushing at the federal level.
Romney said he had not publicly opposed the cuts, according to one observer at the meeting, prompting Frank to ask, "Will you?" Romney replied that he probably would not. The answer triggered laughter in what both sides described as an otherwise bipartisan session.
"I was very pleased," Frank said afterward. "Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity."
According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he "won't be a cheerleader" for proposals he doesn't agree with, "but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House."
Shawn Feddeman, Romney's spokeswoman, said the governor has neither endorsed nor opposed the tax cut plan because "it's just not a state matter."
|
|
Patrick writes:
"Real fiscal conservatives understand that tax relief is a good in and of itself, generating economic growth and keeping the government's grubby hands off more of our money."
But tax cuts combined with UNRESTRAINED DEFICIT SPENDING is a recipe for disaster. Who are these conservative economic theorists who claim pushing the country deeper into debt promotes prosperity? |
|
I'm with Steve in Corona. Fiscal conservatism shouldn't be defined merely by one's willingness to cut taxes while totally ignoring spending. While you can make an argument for "starving the beast", there's just as strong an argument that spending won't be cut until people feel that spending in their wallet, which never happens when tax rates are totally disconnected from spending. McCain was wrong on campaign finance reform and on leaving the border porous, but he was/is right on the occasional need to hold tax cuts hostage to spending cuts.
Hugh's finally moved me to a stance of "any Republican but Romney". |
|
I thought Hugh would be all over this one by Huck. I bet it will be his next post.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ |
|
Real fiscal conservatives understand that without a subsequent reduction of government spending tax cuts provide a temporary stimulus to the economy and government revenues today while deferring the costs (plus interest) to tomorrow.
It is precisely because our political masters are incapable of addressing spending that our currency will continue to debase itself and our taxes will go up to pay for the promises of yesterday.
|
|
I missed the part where Romney voted against the Tax Cuts . . . b/c he didn't. Only McCain did.
|
|
Romney opposed the Bush Tax Cuts as well in addition to increasing taxes (which he referred to as "fees" by almost a billion dollars in his first 2 years. Neither McCain nor Romney are true fiscal conservatives. But at least McCain is honest and has a proven track record of opposing pork. Romney on the othe hand is a proven liar who illegally instituted "gay marriage" and established abortion as a "healthcare benefit" in his own healthcare plan. http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf
By the way, Romney also favored brady gun control, McCain-Feingold, and McCain Kennedy amnesty bill.
Romney is a total fraud, the proverbial "elephant" in the living room that the elites like Hewitt- especially Hewitt can't (or choose not to) see. |
|
Giving Romney a brand new soundbyte one week before the primary that reinforces the contrast ads Romney has been running. Christmas came late, but it came all the same.
Romney's press people must by high-fiving each other and jumping up and down.
The Straight Talk Express is going Straight off a Cliff! |
|
Since Ronald Reagan, lower taxes have been the glue that have held the modern Republican party together.
--------------------------
Note - McCain is saying no cuts without spending cuts too. He is not saying we should RAISE taxes, as in fact Reagan did on multiple occasions.
I am thankful that Reagan lowered dramtically the top rates - but let us not rewrite history either.
Frankly, I despise McCain - but I have a little more respect for him each day when he answers a question like that, rather than doing a flip-flop, backtrack and run from his record in hopes of pandering to the GOP base. |
|