Monday, November 26, 2007
|
|
Why Attacks Aren't Sticking to Huckabee
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:00 PM
|
Bob Novak's column today on Mike Huckabee is, as usual, spot-on.
... But will the opinion of a political columnist matter?
In this case, probably not. As polls in Iowa indicate, Mike Huckabee is catching on in Iowa, and elsewhere -- a fact that I have witnessed personally by numerous family members who, until I inform them of his fiscally liberal background, are excited to ask me about him.
Obviously, Huckabee is fortunate to be competing against a field of candidates whose social conservative credentials are, at best, questionable. His superficial attributes; his ability to speak well (as a pastor, this is his metier) have also been a tremendous resource.
But I believe there is one last ingredient which is helping him, and that is the fact that it is harder to comprehend fiscal issues, and thus, harder to indict him (and easier to indict his opponents).
"Abortion is murder," is a bumper sticker message that is easy to understand. Arguing the Byzantine differences between "Monetarist" doctrine versus "Keynesian" orthodoxy, by contrast, requires a bit more time and knowledge. Sure, people understand tax cuts, but the waters have become muddied by sophistry, and politicians are able to parry the question by arguing they raised some taxes, but cut the tax "rate", etc. Besides, much of what bothers me about Huckabee is his class warfare comments, which are truly scary, but hard to explain.
When it comes to conservative public opinion, it's easier to get away with being a fiscal squish than it is to get away with being a social squish. What is more, Iowa may be the perfect mileu for Huckabee to pull off his populist message.
For this reason, Huckabee's ascendancy does not reveal a growing chasm in the Republican Party (as some would have us believe). People aren't knowingly rejecting fiscal conservatism by supporting him.
Meanwhile, Huckabee's opponents are desperately seeking to educate the public on Huckabee's past fiscal positions because while some social conservatives are populists, the vast majority have a free market ethos ... it's just not their primary issue, so the apostasy isn't much noticed and the fecundity of the anti-Huckabee animadversion is in question.
I've always thought that there were two GOP candidates who had the greatest chance of being under-estimated by inside-the-beltway bloggers and reporters: Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. I still believe this to be true. But in the case of Huckabee, it may be because it's simply hard to explain his fiscal failings.
While the conservative panjandrum is limning him as a fiscal liberal, Huckabee continues to gain among average Republican voters. The unusual recent endorsements of Chuck Norris and wrestler Ric Flair play right into this strategy. No doubt, the redoubtable Huckabee is well aware of this ...
|
|
The Fair Tax is MORE PROGRESSIVE than the current monstrosity known as Title 26, because:
1. It repeals the single most regressive tax we inflict on ourselves: The FICA tax.
2. It provides every legal resident with a Pre-bate equal to the amount of tax payable on poverty level expenditures.
When considered in conjunction, those two facts result in a sales tax that is more progressive than the current, income based system.
|
|
Dave writes:
Mike Huckabee...is by far the best of any of the candidates in either party.
Saturday, December, 01, 2007 5:18 PM
Can you be more specific? I mean is he the best candidate from AR? The best candidate with a theology degree? The best governor in the race? The funniest? Best voice? What is it?
We know he isn't the most honest or the least corrupt. He certainly isn't the most conservative or the most consistent.
Is it his position on abortion? How can he claim to be the most prolife, while at the same time promoting embryonic stemcell research? Does he not know where emryos come from? Dr. Paul is consistently prolife, because he opposes embryonic research. Paul realizes the hypocrisy of opposing abortion with our mouths and encouraging it with our wallets, by funding such research (dead babies aren't the only source of stemcells).
Is it his position on civil unions? Huckabee's approach to opposing gay marriage is to turn all marriages into civil unions. If you ask me, that's a downgrade from a religious covenant, and a minister should know better.
Keep this in mind, though: Huckabee is the candidate the Clintons most want to face in the general election. In fact, Bill practically endorsed the Huckster back in June. Not too surprizing, though; after all, they do have a lot in common. |
|
|
I am 100% FOR Mike Huckabee. He is by far the best of any of the candidates in either party. He is as good as the big media are atrocious. The hatchet jobs by his detractors will only make him stronger. |
|
brettc,
Ron Paul is far more conservative AND consistent on every issue you mentioned. The Huckster is hiding behind the Fair Tax, because his tax record is so terrible (it's an election year conversion...it's his shield). Huck is playing a shell game. Paul wants to get rid of the tax system, because it robs Americans of their earnings. Huck still wants your money, and is just hoping you're too stupid or lazy to figure out that he is simply replacing the IRS with the POS (Point-of-Sale "revenuer").
Huckabee is Bill Clinton with a Theology degree.
|
|
Most of the attacks on Huckabee's ethics, and the totally false assertions being spread about him in relation to Wayne Dumond, are easily refuted. I answered Matt Brantley, the liberal journalist from Arkansas who has been obsessed with Huckabee for years and whose recent column in Salon is at the heart of most of the lies being spread about Huckabee, with this:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/ca6ad240-6e92-40b5-ad2a-8005 76998d7b
On the tax issue, I notice a lot of people bashing Huckabee seem uneducated on the actual facts about his Fair Tax plan -- it is NOT the Flat Tax, and the old arguments against the flat tax that keep being trotted out (including reference to studies on it etc) in fact are NOT legitimate critiques of Huckabee's very different plan. |
|
I've been a fair tax proponent for years now. Thank goodness there is at least one candidate who gives a chance to return to the founders ban on income tax.
And the attacks from Ron Paul libertarian nuts can only help any REAL CANDIDATES canpaign.
PRO-LIFE
2ND AMENDMENT CHAMPION
FAIR TAX
PRO-FAMILY
PRO-EDUCATION REFORM
PRO-HOME SCHOOL
That is an exciting combination!! He is also a governor. (we never elct anything but governors and vice presidents it seems)
Oh, yeah, I LIKE MIKE!
|
|
The so-called "fair" tax (those words should remind you of these: The PATRIOT ACT, No Child Left Behind, New Freedom Initiative, and similar twaddle) is Plan B in the big-gov-loving NeoClowns' soak-the-people scheme; too many people are waking up to the fact that the income tax is a fraud, so the NeoClowns have another trick up their collective sleeve -- just in case you start rubbing your eyes.
The fiscally liberal Huckster is the natural waterboy for the NeoClowns' latest scheme, because they're using him to fleece the flock. Huckabee claims to want to slay the IRS dragon, but is really proposing shifting the tax burden even more heavily to the wage-earner, getting EVERY American hooked on monthly gov't checks, turning every small businessman into an unpaid federal publican, labeling the neighborhood boy who mows your lawn a "public enemy," sending granny to prison for holding a "black market" garage sale, and much more.
Huckster is capitalizing on the skepticism of many social conservatives toward the huge federal leviathan our unwitting complicity has helped to construct. But instead of leading his people out of bondage, this would-be Moses offers us a New Egypt, a chance to trade-in our flimsy old shackles for a shiny-new "more secure" set.
The reason there is increasing establishment support for an alternative soak-the-people scheme is precisely because so many people are waking up to the fraud of the old scheme. Don't fall for the Hucksters shell game.
The only viable GOP candidate that really wants to lead America to the land promised by this nation's architects is Ron Paul. Paul wants to destroy the IRS leviathan, but (unlike the Huckster) does NOT want to build a new one in its place. It's time to start doing your own homework, America. Come to the head of the class. Reclaim the promise of America. Join the Ron Paul Revolution.
RonPaul2008.com |
|
Dismiss his socialist (oops.... sorry, populist) leanings and join the ranks of those who think a bigger federal bureaucracy is what we need right now.
I'll stick with those who believe a concentration of power in Washington D.C. is a bad direction to move towards. Especially given the current state of affairs where the most successful legislators are those who funnel the greatest amount of federal tax money into their constituencies (also known as pork). Especially when a good deal of the electorate will be moving towards retirement, and many of those will rely exclusively on social security for their entire income. It's like being on a slow-moving train creeping towards a broken bridge over a ravine and everyone is just telling you to calm down!!
No I'm sorry Huckster disciples, I refuse to abandon Barry Goldwater's sound and relevant philosophy of liberty and progress through self-reliance, adherence to the Constitution, and an appropriately limited government. I refuse to throw the Constitution in the recycle bin.
You know what populism and Constitutional weakness has produced? Abortion.
A Mike Huckabee nomination means one thing: President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama. Take your pick Hucksters
|
|
Huckabee fought for and secured the release of convicted rapist Wayne Dumond. Huckabee claimed that the rapist had been given a "raw deal." He usurped the authority of the Arkansas criminal justice system for political purposes.
And the result of such an abuse of executive authority? A woman is raped and murdered in Missouri (and Dumond is suspected of a 2nd murder, but will never be tried because Dumond was killed while incarcerated).
And Huckabee's response? A shrug of the shoulder and a lame, hyper-technical pass-the-buck argument of "I denied the petition for clemency."
The full story is that Huckabee lobbied the parole board for them to revisit their decision denying parole, and used his political muscle to obtain parole for Mr. Dumond. The fact is that Huckabee wrote a letter starting off with the words "Dear Wayne" and congratulated Mr. Dumond on his newfound freedom. Shortly thereafter a woman was brutalized and murdered by "Wayne."
|
|
Huckabee fought for and secured the release of convicted rapist Wayne Dumond. Huckabee claimed that the rapist had been given a "raw deal." He usurped the authority of the Arkansas criminal justice system for political purposes.
And the result of such an abuse of executive authority? A woman is raped and murdered in Missouri (and Dumond is suspected of a 2nd murder, but will never be tried because Dumond was killed while incarcerated).
And Huckabee's response? A shrug of the shoulder and a lame, hyper-technical pass-the-buck argument of "I denied the petition for clemency."
The full story is that Huckabee lobbied the parole board for them to revisit their decision denying parole, and used his political muscle to obtain parole for Mr. Dumond. The fact is that Huckabee wrote a letter starting off with the words "Dear Wayne" and congratulated Mr. Dumond on his newfound freedom. Shortly thereafter a woman was brutalized and murdered by "Wayne."
|
|
|
|
|
will fade after Iowa. Naturally he wins big there. It's a rural state much like his own. Isn't RINO Grassley Senator of that state? He and Huckabee have much to agree on. |
|
I'm conservative on fiscal matters in so far as needed to oppose social programs exist to "redistribute wealth" which undercuts personal responsibility, and only in so far as it means a balanced budget to stop foolhardy gluttony. Want to increase the size of government? Want to improve my roads? Expand the military? Great! I want a government that can manage its finances, not a government that is operating in debt constantly due to a push for ever lowering taxes.
I'm also a populist. That means I like a level playing field in the labor market, and free trade has done anything but provide for a level playing field. I believe in the existence of market failures, and that these failures often work to the advantage of corporate executives, and I think Huckabee will help address these.
I am first and foremost though a social conservative, and there is no candidate more solid on these sets of issues than Mike Huckabee.
Does he have some faults? Sure. All the candidates do. The question is on which issues he has faults, and how damning they are. For Huckabee, they're benign, and ones I can easily overlook. He'll have my vote come January. |
|
According to the math he is Liberal in his fiscal agenda. that is his history, and I does not take away the fact he is a fun person and a nice person, how is a minister.
I wanted to see Huckabee as VP, But he killed that when he attacked someone on false grounds and now it is his turn to eat humble pie. God will repay, and if he is really honest he will apologize, instead of excusing himself. He knows who that is because he claimed he was of flip flop and he never was a flip flop.
MITT ROMNEY'S ABORTION HISTORY
http://e-spirituality.townhall.com/g/293921b5-ad12-48f6-9ca 8-38ecee06cd83
Let understanding multiply, in life in stone, in heart of man, of God's unyielding loving Hand. |
|
Rather than actually working towards proving some of the accusations you pose, you insinuate that the reader, if he dare question your pulp fiction, is not just misinformed, but stupid; too dimwitted to possibly understand fiscal issues. So you don't even bother to try to explain the fiscal issues you speak of. You wrote, "Besides, much of what bothers me about Huckabee is his class warfare comments, which are truly scary, but hard to explain." So why even mention it? Because you want the reader to feel as though supporting Huckabee means he's stupid, that's why. What a cheap shot.
If, on the off chance you do decide to get froggy and write a comprehensive piece about Huckabee's fiscal record as Governor of Arkansa, please be sure to include what the taxes were for, be sure to note the condition of the roads and nursing homes before and after the taxes took place, the education system testing scores when he left office compared to the scores when Clinton was Governor, and also please at least mention the tax cuts and the budget surplus that he left when he departed the office. His ability to accomplish so much with a Democrat legislature is a testament to his flexibility; you fail to realize that the past decade of backbiting spiteful "politics as usual" has left many of us searching for a candidate who has a proven record of compromise coupled with accomplishment who doesn't alienate the very people who have the ability to make things happen. THAT'S why Huckabee's soaring. (I need to point that out for you because I fear you may too dimwitted to understand). |
|
We have to consider that good ideas implemented in at a bad time, are a bad Idea. Anyone who is willing to risk their Candidacy on a potentially good idea, while they have not the grasp at the helm of the ship, should first undertake to first gain competence in the latter, before overhauling the steering mechanisms.
Not even the seasoned financial and business genius Mitt Romney wants to venture such a step, no matter how good it sounds. Like running for president, it needs to be seen from all angles, and that has not been done yet.
Put it on the back burner for now, or you may lose it entirely. You should welcome critics; they help us to discover any potential or unrecognized problem. This could be one thing that may cause the Republican Party lose the nomination, and it is not the time for a leap of faith. It is not urgent and necessary now so prepare and package it for the future.
Huckabee need to have respect for the immigration laws, and others or he is an outlaw. |
|
"Honey...I'm Home!" In Jack Nicholson Style, Robert Novak Swings His Hatchet At Huckabee
(check out photo of hatchet/axe yielding Novak, along with full article at http://www.politicsandchristianity.com)
by Susan Stilley
Excerpt:
The only thing that Robert Novak's article, "The False Conservative", proves is that Novak has apparently mastered the 'copy and paste' function on his keyboard. No journalistic digging and reporting, only repetition of rants by Arkansas discontents and organizations who feel their power threatened.
Novak cites as supposed evidence that Huckabee is not a true fiscal conservative, the fact that Huckabee criticized Bush's veto of SCHIP. What he conveniently left out (either because he didn't do his homework or because he intentionally wanted to mislead) was the fact that Huckabee was very much opposed to SCHIP. Huckabee's criticism was aimed at Bush's failure to prevent the bill from coming to him in the first place. Huckabee was on target--the veto fanned the flame of public perception that 'Republicans don't care about kids.'...
|
|
What in the world are you talking about, "My services would be in even greater demand under the FairTax than the current tax system."? As someone who has also worked in tax industry I must patently disagree. The majority of filers of sales tax would be businesses that already file sales taxes to states already. Its really not that hard for a business to understand x dollars for the sales tax needs to be filed monthly or quarterly with the government. Plus, 100's of millions of Americans would no longer need to file returns. As a former tax professional, I would agree with you to say the wealthy definitely pay their fair share currently, but they also have numerous loopholes to hide income (just as middle and lower class Americans do). A sales tax would tax consumption on everyone, including those who avoid the system entirely through the black market. You can say there would be more work for you, but I just don't see it.
As a CONSERVATIVE who beleives in free enterprise and OWNS his own business I find CEO and officer pay very disturbing, particularly at a time when companies are laying off workers. There is a growing frustration of us on main street that finds the Republican party (and don't get me started on the Club for Growth, what a joke...), tilting more and more towards the super rich in policy. Its not a class warfare thing to me, certainly not at all, but its a right and wrong thing. When your company is losing millions and you are laying off 1,000's yet a CEO still is walking away with a pay raise and millions of shares of stock, something is intrinsically wrong with that picture and it only contributes to the class warfare arguments of many on the left.
I'm voting for Huckabee because I beleive he is sensible, honest and above all I beleive a man who tells you straight up how he sees things. Call him a false conservative, whatever, I can see the truth through the attacks. |
|
Mike Huckabee's fiscal possition just got easier to explain.
November 13, 2007
Updated Huckabee White Paper
Update: Over the past ten months, it has become abundantly clear which path Governor Huckabee has chosen, and it looks more like the path of John Edwards than it does a limited-government, economic conservative. Huckabee himself admits that he is a "different kind of Republican,"[73] a code word for more government involvement, less personal freedom, and greater dependence on government bureaucrats. Huckabee is proud of his tax hikes, his spending increases, and his regulatory expansions as governor, and he has not indicated that he would govern any differently as President. Nominating Mike Huckabee for president or vice-president, would constitute an abject rejection of the free-market, limited-government, economic conservatism that has been the unifying theme of the Republican Party for decades.
73] Boston Globe, 08/18/07
(Source) Club For Growth:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/updated_huckabee_white _paper.php#73
|
|
|
|
|
|
And/but/so writes:
"Wealthy White Christian guys are a smaller and smaller part of the electorate. Even though Huckabee (like ALL the other Repub hopefuls) is a wealthy White Christian guy, he sees the writing on the wall, and wants to recruit minorities to the party. If the Republican party is going to survive, it will need to gain a sigificant chunk of these voters in the future."
This is about as ignorant as saying that only WWF wrestling fans support Huckabee. I was born in Guatemala and came here LEGALLY. My family came here not because of entitlements, or affirmative action. They came here because of our Constitutional system of government, that distributes powers not only among different branches, but ensures that the federal government is a government of very limited powers.
I'm a minority who is against Huckabee because he either fails to understand the underpinnings of our founding principles, and the dangers of concentrating power at the federal level, or he ignores them.
Please stop with the "anyone who's not for Huckabee is just another white country club Republican." Minorities can think for themselves, and many of them do. You statements that seem to suggest minorities will only vote for a Republican if he offers them federal money make you sound ignorant. |
|
The Marxist Neocon Jacobins here on Townhall.com and elsewhere are pushing Huckabee as hard as they can. Why do I say this? Just look at the liberal Main stream Media every night and you will see how they talk about Huckabee and give him more publicity than most of the other candidates and yet he has not even raised even a million dollars yet.
Of course there is a strategy behind all of this. The strategy for the Marxist Neoconservative Jacobins is to split the evangelical vote because they know that it will most likely help Rudy Guiliani...their Neocon Point man who has already been anointed by Sean Hannity and most all of the Neocon establishment.
Last but not least, its the anyone but Ron Paul factor. Although Dr Paul has raised close to 10 million dollars the liberal MSM does not really give him the kind of name recognition that they do the other candidates...but its not just Dr Paul...its Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter too who I call the Three Muskateers....and who are probably the most Conservative candidates...this should tell you something about how they...have tried to stack the deck! |
|
|
|
|
|
Previous NON_taxpayers will now pay!
Wealthy persons, who have tax attorneys sheltering their money in legal loopholes --under the FairTax now pay like everyone else.
Actual income tax evaders, protestors, and other hiders of income under the table will pay like everyone else --because they will pay the FairTax.
The CRIMINAL class, pimps, drugdealers, prostitutes, illicit gamblers, theives of various sorts, etc. who neither have payroll witholding, nor file with the IRS, will be paying taxes as well, --after all they shop at Wal~Mart too!
This is the factor (in theory) that will keep the rate down for the rest of us because taxation is spread across a bigger population-pool of payers. |
|
MA also has powerful Dem opposition. Not to mention the Boston news papers (owned by the NYTs).
The so called fair tax has some advantages and many disadvantages. There are well known economists on both sides. They disagree on both the intended and unintended consequences.
I personally think the Dems will mop the floor with that issue. It is a loser in the general election. Further, most people worry about massive changes in the tax code as it is often a hidden tax raise of some type. |
|
So what if, when put up to a vote, the people of Arkansas decided it was worth their money to fix their own roads?
The problem is with the huge federal government because when the money leaves the local or state level, it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep track of where it’s going, thanks to the massive, unaccountable federal bureaucracy. This is why local tax policy is DIFFERENT federal tax policy.
It is why I give Huckabee a break on his Arkansas record, more so in light of the powerful Democrat opposition he was up against.
So next time the Club for Growth sends me one of those emails begging for a generous donation (in fairness, they’ve only done it once), I think I’ll just send “a buck for Huck” instead…AND I’M NOT EVEN FULLY SUPPORTING THIS GUY YET! But the Club for Growth’s irrational attacks on a talented communicator like Huckabee make me suspicious, and have actually hurt their cause with me.
As for “not understanding fiscal issues”, I don’t believe you should have to be a Pat Toomey just to be able to understand your taxes. It should be simple, and The Fair Tax promises that. Isn’t it GOOD that investments aren’t taxed? Doesn’t that encourage MORE investment, leading to more jobs for everyone? And if you’re NOT rich, it encourages hard-work and savings…fiscally conservative virtues, no?
Huckabee is also spot-on about evolution. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals CHUCK NORRIS allows to live.
http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com
|
|
|
Thanks for printing the other side. It's about time someone explained some of the Club for Greed's motivation for working so hard against Huckabee when Mitt Romney was governor of Taxachusetts. Romney raised taxes and spending much more than Huckabee, but they don't seem very concerned about that. |
|
Mike Huckabee hosted a conference call with some of his bloggers today, of which I am one. We were privileged to speak with him for about 30 minutes. To read some of the highlights of the call, as well as see his brand new TV AD, recent polls, graphs, and statistics, check out:
"Give Hope Another Chance"
http://www.mike-huckabee.blogspot.com |
|
"Query: Why do you believe income is the proper basis for taxation?"
I didn't say that I believed income is the best tax base. I said that an income tax tends to be progressive while a sales tax tends to be regressive. I also said that switching from an income tax to a sales tax would tend to shift the tax burden from rich to poor. Whether these things are good or bad requires a value judgment. As others in this thread have pointed out, a sales tax encourages investment. A sales tax might distort economic behavior less than an income or property tax. You could rationally conclude that, on balance, a sales tax is better than an income tax.
However, all that is beside the point. The point Matt raised is that such topics are far more difficult to convey in a sound bite than are the social issues Huckabee is running on. That's not a slight on people's intelligence. Some things are simply more complex than others. |
|
The rise of Gov. Mike Huckabee, is, I think, a much more complex and nuanced socio-political phenomenon than either Lewis's false dichotomy or Novak's hit-piece simplistically caricature.
This is well-contrasted in Star Parker's defense here at TownHall: http://tinyurl.com/ys4nrz
And, thoughtfully elaborated in the Newsweek Web Exclusive: http://tinyurl.com/yvsqwf
--with some of the same features as Newsweek explored in this NYTimes video exposé: http://tinyurl.com/2cdvbw
Huckabee's political personna is a curious combination of some of the strengths and weaknesses of Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, Joe Lieberman, and yes, even Bill Clinton.
He's got Buchanan's moralist-and-nationalist prism by which he views many issues, yet when it comes to governmental details, he's a pragmatic deal-maker like Dole, with the charm of Bill Clinton but with the reassurance of the honest and good genuiness of Lieberman.
All of these features show to some degree over the course of the Glenn Beck interview: http://tinyurl.com/yu2gam
Huckabee's pragmatism will flesh out different at the national level than it did at the state level, because his philosophy of national government is different than his philosophy of state government. Governor's HAVE to DO things --especially balance their state's budgets.
At any rate, the other area which both Lewis and Novak allude to, which they haven't fully taken account of is the fact that for all the of issues dear to religious conservatives Republicans have largely given only lip-service and not delivered.
If a "Club for Growth"/"CATO" approved candidates could deliver on the social issues (which are higher on the hierarchy of importance) -- after all if we descend into the moral abyss, like ancient Rome, then what will the money do for us? |
|
|
I've read quite a bit about Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas and I disagree with the rap that he is a fiscal liberal. My wife and I are in the top 1-3 percent income group and have always been passionately in favor of lower taxes and smaller government. Huckabee's Fair Tax proposal, if enacted would be the best thing that has happened in this country from a fiscal perspective since I don't know when. Even if that never happens, I still trust him at the helm of our financial ship. Besides that, I believe that he is the republican candidate best suited to defeat Hillary, Obama, or whoever the democrats run. |
|
Mike Huckabee has 80% of the USA population that is Christian, and more is of other religions who are appreciating his call back to the Moral attribute that has made this Nation Great and will bring it back to it's glory again. Mike will continue to grow and grow and grow. There is no stopping him.
His record in Arkansas is one that followed Bill Clinton who left the state in a fiscal mess and being Mike had to deal with a democrat congress, with four republicans, is incredible, that in just 10 years, he was able to change the direction of the State, giving Arkansas the first real tax cut in it's history and 93 other cuts. Yes there was raises in early years, but he had to have a budget balanced and the democrats would not cut anything. His frugal spending in Arkansas is reflected in how well Mike is doing in his campaign for President, being the low funded candidate, yet in second place nationally and tied for first in Iowa. So go ahead and throw your mudd, the truth follows.
Here is some truth of all the other candidates who continue to support the same crap we have had for the past 98 years. The 16th amendment was adopted on 07/12/1909 and the manifesto back then was proclaiming to slowly bring this country around to communism, one bite at a time. Now we stand on the crevice of becoming so, right Clinton Dynasty? How many candidates support income taxes?
"A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.", Karl Marx
What have we done?
It is time for the Fair Tax! http://www.fairtax.org
|
|
Huckabee is now getting a good hard look. Up till now he has been free to park in IA and retail politic in the boon docks with no opposition.
He helps Romney as long as he does not get to close so Romney has left him alone. He helps Rudy to some extent if he gets to close to Romney but then Rudy looks bad and a poor showing in IA hurt him.
He kills Fred if Fred does not run ahead of him in IA.
Now that Huck has gotten the attention of Romney, maybe Fred, and Rudy seems to realize that Huck is causing him as much trouble as help, Huck is getting examined for the liberal that he really is.
Huck has a ceiling just like Pat Robertson. Fred however, is the key to Huckabee. If Fred does not do something to take Huck out, Huck will replace Fred as the Southern candidate or he will split the Southern vote, handing the South to either Rudy or Romney.
So far Fred is really not running a smart campaign. Huck and Rudy have teamed up and they are crushing Fred and he seems to dazed to do something smart about it.
The problem with Fred is that he does not do the right things at the right time. Now is the time to move. Early voting happens next week in NH and soon in other states.
|
|
and I will not vote for Huckabee. The so-called FairTax will just be added to our income tax unless the Constitution is changed.
Read the Amendments to the Constitution, our current income tax is authorized by an amendment to the Constitution. Unless the Constitution is changed by another amendment we will still have income tax and if upchuck Huck is elected POTUS we can add the "FairTax" to what we are already paying in taxes. |
|
|
Reading through the candidates' websites: Huckabee wants more art and music classes in education. Tancredo co-sponsored the Fair Tax. Fred Thompson wants an optional Flat Tax available to people. |
|
NRO is making the case that there are sub races within the nomination race.
When McCain goes down Rudy goes up and vice versa.
When Fred goes down Huck goes up and vice versa.
They further make the case that give Romney the middle with about 30% of the vote in the early primaries. They also suggest that 30% exists nationally and that Romney can potentially pick it up as the race progresses. |
|
Poor Fred Thompson. I think he thought he could just go out and propose some sound policies and be well received. Little did he know that you have to be a flim flam artist like Huckabee to make a splash. |
|
icies.
I don't care if he's another tax and spend liberal like Bush or not. (sure, Bush cut taxes but when you spend you tax. In Bush's case the taxes are in the form of debt (taxes on our children) and inflation (taxes on savers, pensioners, consumers).
But even if he's not, who cares. He is pro illegal immigration. That alone disqualifies him from the get go.
And don't give me this bs about Huckabee supports border enforcement because those of us who have been active in the immigration reform movement know this guy well, and he stinks to high heaven on this issue. |
|
Query: Why do you believe income is the proper basis for taxation?
Did you know the Communist Manifesto prescribes a heavily progressive income tax?
The FairTax is a CONSUMPTION based system of taxation. Spend money....pay a tax. Go to work, save the fruits of your labor, invest, educate your children, buy food and clothing up to the family consumption allowance....pay no tax.
And a consumption based system of taxation will de-fang the WTO. See "End this damaging tax and trade charade" here: http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID= 197
The FairTax is not borne of or based on, class-warfare, envy or greed. It will place US manufacturers on an even footing with Europe, China and India. It will restore financial privacy. It is consistent with the vision of the founding fathers. It will eliminate your job. |
|
I've been looking for a "quick hit" type button on each candidate's site that deals with trade
Romney's site: No link to an "Issues" category dealing with trade
McCain's site: He's strong on Free Trade (no direct links to the issue, though)
Thompson' site: wants to open markets (I assume he's for Free Trade, then) Under the "principles" button rather than the "issues" button
Giuliani's site: nothing apparent about trade
Hunter's site: wants "fair trade"
Paul's site: is for free markets
Huckabee's site: (Under taxes/economy) Free trade but "fair trade"
Tancredo's site: nothing specificaaly about free trade that I could see; opposes fast track authority |
|
|
But we won't starve our children for you. We won't loose our farms for you. And we won't keep hearing promises about abortion and gay rights, then send you off to DC to cut the taxes of the people in Hollywood and the liberal philanthropists who undermine our faith and our views on social issues. So make no mistake, we "get it" on the fiscal issues, we just maybe don't see it as necessary to sell our own jobs and families down the economic river anymore for a bunch of elitist fiscal conservatives who want our votes but not our opinions. Too bad -- you're going to be getting our opinions, in SPADES, from now on, and Mike Huckabee will come deliver the message to you on our behalf. |
|
|
And finally, the notion that if we only understood what those bright economic conservatives were trying to explain to us, we'd all jump ship on Huckabee, is flat-out false. We get what you're saying, we know it's mostly lies anyway, we suspect your motives the moment your lips move, and yeah when it comes to a choice between our God or your wallet, sorry but you and your wallet DO come in second. We aren't fiscally conservative just for the sake of being in favor of tax cuts for you and program cuts for ourselves, ya know. We are fiscally conservative in terms of distrusting the government, and knowing we are more free the less the government interferes in our lives, in general, and that the best way to restrict government is to keep it on a meager allowance. |
|
... is that Huckabee supporters, and most people in general, are too unintelligent to understand economic issues. Otherwise, why would the economic criticisms fail to take root? Well, perhaps part of the problem is that the accusations are untrue. Further, those tossing this mud tend to be fiscal but not social conservatives, and social conservatives can see that and know that the person flinging the mud looks down their elitist nose at "ignorant religious" conservatives, so we're more inclined to realize we're being lied to (which the fiscal cons think will be easy, since we're so dumb!).
|
|
|
Romney on taxes: He wants to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, simplify the tax code, etc. etc. I agree with all of it, but it's pretty general stuff. The Fair Tax is a concrete proposal, already a bill in Congress, that lays out specifically what the legislation will involve. Even if the Fair Tax is not a good idea (I think it is a good idea), it's refreshing to see what steps will be taken to reform the tax system, rather than just relying on vague promises that something will be done. |
|
I find the main thesis of this article downright ridiculous. Essentially Lewis is saying that people are supporting Huckabee because they're too stupid to understand how he is "fiscally liberal." That's absurd.
The Christian conservatives are simply not too concerned about a moderate tax record -- that is not what is under attack. Christian values ARE under attack, and so what you see is a "so-what?" attitude about his fiscal record (which honestly, is not as liberal as some try to make it.) His support of the FairTax is also helping to squash the faint criticisms his opponents are throwing at him.
We care about our culture, we care about our values, and we care about America's security. We know we can trust Mike Huckabee on each of these issues, as his stances are clear.
We trust Mike Huckabee to lead this country in strong, responsible way.
|
|
Huckabee is perhaps the most pathetic kind of Christian politician. I am a Christian also, but not the lets-use-government-to-improve-the-world kind. Those kind will do things like pre-emptive wars with non-enemies. Those kind favor nanny-state solutions like banning cigerettes. Those kind say silly things like "The Lord is giveing us another chance to treat an oppressed people with compassion (hispanics) since we failed so miserably with the negroes." Those kind of world-improvers (witness Wodrow Wilson) are even more dangerous than non-Christian statesman who just want to leave people alone. (Witness Thomas Jefferson, the deist founding father.)
Huckabee would be just as dangerous as Giuliani. |
|
|
I've watched the California Republican Party go from a position of competitiveness to total irrelevance because an obsession with 'social' issues drove average, middle-of-the-road people into the arms of the Democrats. Huckster-Bee will be the first candidate to lose fifty states. I will not vote for a tax-raising, big-government liberal from Arkansas EVER!If the evangelicals want to find out what a small minority they are, this is the way to do it. |
|
One of the bigger problems with Huckabee is his insistance that as President he will declare war on Internet Poker sights...???
I do believe THAT is a STATE ISSUE...So much for being a Conservative.
AND even if he can't go after Internet Gambling, his proposal to SPY on YOUR internet usage will hold true when it comes to 'other' business conducted on the net under the guise of, let's say...
1. Making sure everyone is paying their share of that FAIR TAX when they shop on-line and "examining your internet records" to accomplish the feat is not out of the realm of possibility! And once Pandoras box is open, look out!!
BUT not to worry too much. To impose his plan means he would first have to win the White House...FAT CHANCE.
NOT when you think that the current President is having a hard enough time convincing Lib-Dems that we should be spying on terrorists to disrupt their plans and keep the country safe.
Do you really think the Dem candidate will let the Hucksters plan for using the internet to spy on U.S. Citizen-Gamblers go by without tearing him a new one?
And that is just one reason the MSM isn't picking him apart now. They're hoping he can dupe enough Republicans to get the nomination before they lay bare his Orwellian plan which would guarantee a Democrat (even a Mrs Rodham-Clinton) win next November.
Wake up folks....you're being played again!
If Jay Leno likes him you know there's something wrong with him!
BTW >In case you couldn't figure me out either, I Don't Like Mike!
W/O= |
|
Under the Fair Tax, nothing would be exempt unlike state sales taxes. Everyone would get a monthly prebate check up to the poverty level to account for the necessities of life. This would help to offset your concern of a regressive tax.
As far as your client...He spends 20% of his income on consumption. That's pretty healthy chunk of cash. The rest is invested. Your client is taking the risk of investing the money, right? Why should he have to share that money with the gov't. The gov't doesn't share with him the risk but yet they should reap the rewards?
What about the guy making $75k a year that's still getting banged out on his saving acct or CD or mutual fund dividend? Don't we want folks to become less dependent on the gov't. You can only do that by accumulating wealth. |
|
Contrast this with the typical sales tax (of which the FairTax is a more complex example). Since the rich spend less of their income (measured as a percentage) on things subject to the sales tax, a sales tax will almost always be "regressive". ("Regressivivity" is the opposite of progressivity -- a regressive tax is one that goes up, as a percentage of income, as income goes down.) For example, suppose a sales tax rate of 10%. Suppose also someone earning $50,000 spends 80% of income on items subject to the sales tax, resulting in a tax bill of $4,000 (or 8% of income). Suppose someone else making $100,000 spends 70% of income on items subject to the sales tax, resulting in a tax bill of $7,000 (or 7% of income). Since the amount of tax falls as income rises, this hypothetical sales tax is regressive.
To avoid this result, you can make a sales tax more complex by exempting items from the tax (such as food and clothing) or by giving people credits against the tax. This makes the sales tax a lot more complex than it otherwise would be. It's also just a band-aid to the real problem. (I have a client who makes more than $10 million each year. He "only" spends $2 million of that on consumption. The rest is invested. The FairTax would exempt more than 80% of his income from tax. No system of credits or exemptions would address this kind of situation.)
By using "sales" as the tax base, you almost always end up with a regressive tax. The income tax, in contrast, is almost always progressive. So, by switching from an income tax to a sales tax (assuming both tax systems would raise the same revenue), you'll be shifting the tax burden from rich to poor. |
|
Do rich people spend more than the less rich? Of course they do. They tend to spend a lot more. They just don't spend more AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME. A "progressive" tax is one where someone's tax bill, as a percentage of his or her income, goes up as income goes up. For example, suppose we have a flat tax rate of 10% on income above a standard exemption of $25,000. Someone making $50,000 would pay a tax of $2,500 (or 5% of income) while someone making $100,000 would pay a tax of $7,500 (or 7.5% of income). This would be a "progressive" tax system because the amount paid as a percentage of income goes up as incomes increase. (Note, there is no need for progressive income tax brackets to have a progressive tax.)
Continued below... |
|
In the bill as written there are NO loopholes in the Fair Tax.
The organization that came up with the concept and congressman Linder all understand that the Fair Tax will only work if there are NO loopholes.
What loopholes are you talking about. I'm an American and I have a family. Bring on the Fair Tax. Let me keep all of my money and let me give the gov't taxes on MY terms. Not theirs. |
|
In the interests of full disclosure, I am NOT a Huckabee supporter. I am a Thompson supporter. In fact, the Fair Tax is really the only thing I like about Huckabee.
With that said, I think many of you are overlooking a key aspect of the Fair Tax. The Fair tax is made "progressive" through government issued "prebates." Everyone gets a check every month to cover the cost of the tax for the essentials. If we assume that every person needs to spend $1000 per month, the government would send each person a check to cover the amount that person would spend on the national sales tax paying for those things. If you choose to spend more, you are paying taxes on the amount ABOVE the $1000 which is covered by your prebate.
With that said, I don't think the Fair Tax has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere. I also have serious concerns about how such a tax system would effect the very sizeable tax professional industry (of which I am not a part). |
|
|
Fair Tax....do you ever want to scream WAKE UP! I feel like I'm in a dream and that the real world isn't listening. The Fair Tax will be the biggest hit on the American Family. There has to be a better way. |
|
"Why? Because the rich spend much less of their income on consumption than do the less rich. That is, the rich INVEST, rather than spend, a greater proportion of their income."
Really? So new Lexuses, BMWs, big houses, beach houses, yachts, designer clothes like $5,000 handbags, fancy restaurants, lobster etc. are all cheaper than Fords, small apartments, McDonald's dollar menu, etc?
GIMME A BREAK.
Rich people spend more money than poor people. Yes, they do invest a large portion of it as money makes more money, but they also spend a lot, and a lot more than poor people. One new Lexus that a rich person buys is worth as much as one person's entire year of spending on everything.
If anything, the FairTax is going to shift the burden onto rich people more.
Currently instead of paying a few single digits or barley double digits income taxes on their investments, they will be paying 23% on everything they buy. And that money must be spent eventually (otherwise, what good is it?). |
|
And how's the conservative movement going?
Nowhere...!!!!
You are blessed that Huckabee is in this race.
And all this about what you're against...how about telling someone who you're for? |
|
That most of the field seems to miss: the electorate of the future does NOT look like the Republican party of today.
Wealthy White Christian guys are a smaller and smaller part of the electorate. Even though Huckabee (like ALL the other Repub hopefuls) is a wealthy White Christian guy, he sees the writing on the wall, and wants to recruit minorities to the party. If the Republican party is going to survive, it will need to gain a sigificant chunk of these voters in the future. |
|
Please explain how the con artist, AKA The Huckster, reinvented himself to promote a pro-life amendment from touting the Federalist approach!?
On 2/12/95 an article Ralph Z. Harlow from the Washington Times wrote under the caption "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion" the Huckster said this:
"In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday."
On 4/2006 in an interview with John Hawkins on RightWing News the Huckster was talking the same talk: http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php
"It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application — that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern — than there is a human life issue — and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I’ve never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous."
BUT then on 11/19/07;
Huckabee Rejects Letting States Decide Whether to Allow Abortions
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312107,00.html
"If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong."
|
|
... and very insulting:
"People aren't knowingly rejecting fiscal conservatism by supporting him."
"His superficial attributes; his ability to speak well (as a pastor, this is his metier) have also been a tremendous resource."
In other words, only rubes suppot him. The same rubes you and Hugh and others are more than willing to laud and praise, as long as they are voting the way you want them to!
I think Huckabee is a bit crazy. I can't in good conscience support someone who rejects evolution. I'd prefer McCain, for a whole host of reasons. But compared to a fraud like Romney, who changed almost all his positions in the past 5 years, Huckabee seems sincere, honest, and likeable. Huckabee recognizes the reality of climate change. Most conservatives deny it, although a new meme of, "Sure its changing, but it's not really a problem" is now cropping up (see George Wills recent column). Romney, predictably, tries to talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, depending on the audience. Yuck!
If Huckabee is the nominee, I'll vote for him. Same with McCain or Thompson. I'd even consider voting for Rudy. At least I believe what these guys all say... |
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21977213/for/cnbc
Quit Huckabee bashing, Fred Thompson antagonizing, minimalizing McCain, and punishing Romney. They are the best alternative to Rudy and each for different reasons. The best way to find out is Lincoln Douglas style debating. It could be held on AM Radio and would be a greater look at our wonderful field of candidates. All of which now are leading Hillary head to head. It's not a question of if GOP will win, but which GOP will win. My vote is Huckabee, my support is for all of them. |
|
"The FairTax doesn't seem fiscally liberal at all...in fact, it's the most radically conservative tax platform of any candidate running."
This sentiment proves Matt's point. The FairTax, like almost all economic issues, is far more difficult to explain than the social issues, like abortion. But, the FairTax, fairly explained and understood, is anything but fair. A sales tax (which is what the FairTax is) is regressive, meaning the FairTax would dramatically shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Why? Because the rich spend much less of their income on consumption than do the less rich. That is, the rich INVEST, rather than spend, a greater proportion of their income. Investments are NOT taxed under the FairTax. So, unless you are one of the fortunate few who are in the top 5% of household incomes, the FairTax will result in a HUGE net tax increase. Try explaining that in a 10 second sound bite.
Or try to explain why Huckabee's rants about fair trade would do more to harm low income families than it would do to help them. Matt's point stands: Huckabee's no fiscal conservative, but explaining that is difficult compared to the relative ease of questioning another candidate's social conservative credentials.
Full disclosure: I'm a tax professional and I benefit from a complex tax system. (For this reason, I'm pretty sure my wife's been voting for Democrats for years.) My services would be in even greater demand under the FairTax than the current tax system. While you might not think so -- because you're not responsible for filing the tax forms -- a sales tax is MORE complex than an income tax. |
|
In a couple months when Huckabee's campaign has soured, Matt Lewis will probably write a post about how...constant attacks on Huckabee by conservatives hurt his campaign !
|
|
The average American is interested in protecting themselves & society than strictly protecting the interests of Wall Street and the billionaires.
Huckabee's message is resonating because he's not allowing his campaign or the people he's trying to reach to be polarized by the two social issues that the GOP has polarized us with in the past: abortion and gay marriage. Yes, these are important social issues, but so are education, the environment, jobs, healthcare, energy independence, tax reform, etc.
The FairTax doesn't seem fiscally liberal at all...in fact, it's the most radically conservative tax platform of any candidate running.
Huckabee is bringing real ideas and solutions on education, the environment, jobs, healthcare, etc. that people can understand and rally behind. He's genuine, down-to-earth, and cares about all Americans...regardless of their party affiliation. That's a threat to the GOP establishment, and the Wall St. billionaires...so I can understand their cynicism and fear. |
|
ACLU: 7% (indicates very conservative)
American Conservative Union: 92%
Americans for Better Immigration: A+
Americans for Tax Reform: 88.5%
Campaign for Working Families: 100%
Christian Coalition: 100%
Concerned Women for America: 100%
Eagle Forum: 100%
Family Research Council: 100%
Federation for American Immigration Reform: 100%
Gun Owners of America: A
NARAL: 0% (indicates a pro-life record)
National Federation of Independent Business: 100%
National Rifle Association: A+
National Right to Life Committee: 100%
National Tax Limitation Committee: A
National Taxpayers Union: B
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
team then he must be good, eh?
I'm still voting for Hunter... |
|
|
|