Wasn't Mitt associated with taking money from Klan members?

Wasn't Mitt associated with taking money from Klan members?

No. And you're a little late in trying to start that rumor.

let's take a look at this...

is huck a social conservative?...yes

is the fair tax a conservative position?...yes

is huck aligned with the republicans on foreign policy?....yes

has mitt been a consistent social conservative?...no

did mitt raise fees in Mass.?...yes

yet he's the real conservative?...right.

Karol thinks there's nothing unusual for a 60 year old guy to change his mind on a bunch of positions....I smell a fraud.

You say that the "Fair" Tax is a conservative position?

Bullshit.

Did Hucksterbee raise taxes, including those you don't excuse by saying "Well the courts mandated so"?

Hell yes.

Is it possible for an older man to change his mind? Certainly. My father was a Reagan Democrat, for example. And I, for one, never begrudge anyone for turning to the truth.

saying the fair tax isn't a conservative position because you say it's bullshit; is a bullshit response.

you huck bashers need to get over this tax hike mike crap....reagan raised taxes as governor...sometimes you have to do what you have to do.....he believes in less government...period.

ofcourse people can change their mind, but changing a bunch of positions when he wants to run for president....fraud.

Joaquin Ochoa wrote;
----------
"Wasn't Mitt associated with taking money from Klan members?"
----------
No, that was Ron Paul.
But Barry Obama's church Pastor famously gave out a "Man of the Year" award to that raging anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan.

"...reagan raised taxes as governor..."

Oh, and not JUST as governor!

That's what I find so peculiar, about so-called conservatives constantly invoking Reagan's name, hitching on to his coattails, as if that would buy them any sort of credibility.

Reagan not only raised taxes when he believed it was necessary, but he also spent the nation into debt like a drunken sailor!

How can these so-called (uber)conservatives, who are taking pains to (unsuccessfully) distance themselves from Bush's legacy of failure, set Reagan, and themselves, as paragons of virture against Bush, when both Reagan AND Bush squandered the nation's treasure on corporatist indulgences and nonexistent threats, just like drunken sailors, and expect to get it away with it?

And how do these born-again Reaganites reconcile their McCain hate on the amnesty for illegals issue when Reagan granted amnesty to illegals himself?

weedhead, Reagan did increase a few minor taxes, but overall, he slashed federal taxes massively. If one of your taxes is increased by 10%, but overall your taxes are cut 50%, do you say that your taxes go up? Of course not. The one tax he did need to raise was the Social Security payroll tax, which Bruce Bartlett has spoken of unfairly. The point isn't Social Security itself, but that if the pyramid scheme is to remain solvent, people simply can't expect to retire after contributing only a few percent.

Reagan isn't held up as a perfect standard, but he's held up as a standard because of his ideals, and what he managed to accomplish despite the opposition. When he arrived in D.C., he unfortunately faced the same problem he did in California: tax-and-spend Democrats. He agreed to maintain high levels of social spending so that Democrats would agree to his tax cuts, but in the end, it was still a net gain for the American people.

Reagan deserves credit for restoring the American people's optimism, and especially for pushing the Fed to work with him for economic stability. Reagan and his advisors knew that a recession was an unavoidable consequence of ending the Fed's inflationary tactics, but after the pains, the U.S. came out of it as strong as ever. Massive tax cuts produced ever greater amounts of tax revenue -- who'd have thought? Instead of the 1970s where we'd go through malaise years at a time, we now have mild recessions of perhaps several months at most. We have 4.9% unemployment, and yet people think we're in a recession. France could only hope for such an economic downturn.

Now, I don't fault Reagan for his amnesty move. The people were already here. How can you deport millions of them, especially when merely being here shouldn't inherently be a crime? "Because it's against the law" is no argument, because laws are not inherently right -- laws can be and often are wrong. The thing to do about illegal immigration is simple: don't give them government benefits. If they don't get welfare, free schooling and free emergency room care, then they're not a drain on society, and the only ones who'll want to come here will be only those who want to work, and those who are criminals. And we can deal with the criminals.

You can spare us the "oh these corporations are bad and evil" rhetoric. Say something concrete for once, instead of vapid Marxist phrases. Any "corporatist indulgence" that Reagan did was to let businesses grow and decide for themselves. Forget the fact that Reagan's slashing of taxes and regulations led to more jobs and more growth, and the average Joe being able to start buying stocks without fear of the government taxing the profits away: it's a freedom issue of letting people dispose of their own property as they see fit, without government robbing them or telling them what to do.

All right, Larry, let's see you give an answer to this. The bottom line is that the "Fair" Tax cannot be a conservative position, because it leads to at least as much bureaucracy, which is anethema to conservatism's stated ideal of limited government.

Let's first examine what "Fair" Tax proponents say. The idea is that by eliminating income taxes, even after paying the "Fair" Tax, overall retail prices will be lower than before. Because businesses will no longer have to pay an income tax, they can pass that on to consumers in the form of lower prices. This isn't just theoretical, but reality: sellers cutting prices is an everyday occurrence because of competition.

So a $10 widget might drop to, say, $7. The same would apply to cars and homes, perhaps not with the same percentage, but similarly, because real estate brokers and car salesmen wouldn't have to pay taxes on their large commissions. Now, it's true that "Fair" Tax proponents are misleading, by talking about the 23% when they mean a percentage of the new total price. But even 30% on $7 is only $9.10. Consumption spending will go up, businesses will do better, and with no corporate income tax, businesses will want to relocate here (just as many multi-national corps set up shop in Ireland, lured by its low corporate income tax).

However, the price drop is assuming that "Fair" Tax theorists are correct. Economists can calculate price elasticity near current prices, but do we trust their prognosticative powers on such a wide swing, especially when "Fair" Tax proponents will have the bias of overly optimistic calculations? Impartial economists have a hard enough time calculating inflation based on product "baskets" -- and that's analyzing something now, not predicting.

If the "Fair" Tax results in less revenue, that's not inherently bad at all. "Fair" Tax opponents say that there will be a great incentive to go underground and not pay it, which I think is not bad, but great: anything so government gets its grubby hands on less of people's money. A government revenue shortfall is ideally good, because ideally, government would cut spending to match. But in the real world, we say, "Yeah right." Government will simply find another tax to raise and/or borrow more. Here in New York, selling more government debt each year is a tradition. NYC sells more bonds every year, as does my home county of Westchester, and the entire state.

Worse, a percentage tax always has the dangerous implication that it can be raised as government desires. As I was telling a friend when we talked about the "Fair" Tax, look at the original income tax. It was a classic bait-and-switch: "Oh, it's limited only to the very top of wage earners, and even then only a small percentage." Income taxes were introduced as the substitute for lowering tariffs on imported goods. That's not how you want to lower taxes. You need to simply cut or eliminate taxes, not try to substitute them with something that's supposedly lower.

It's claimed the "Fair" Tax will allow us to abolish the IRS. Oh, the same way that 1994 Republicans wanted to abolish the Department of Education? Forget it: the beast not only won't die, but no real efforts will be made to kill it, and it will come back even more powerful. I've heard "Fair" Tax apologists say that the collection apparatus already exists, because states collect sales taxes already, and it's just a matter of changing the percentage figures. That only means the IRS bureaucracy might be euphemistically be renamed the "Fairness Compliance Bureau," devoted to ensuring that the states are collecting enough, aka "their fair share."

The same aforementioned friend asked me yesterday what I think about Neal Boortz. I've met the man, and he's otherwise a pretty smart, very entertaining guy. But on the "Fair" Tax, as I said, "He's an idiot."

As for me, I'd choose a Thompson two-tier Flat Tax as the better of the two choices. But if I had my way, I'd go for a Milton Friedman head tax. Now, as a Randite who believes coercive taxation is theft, taxation should have the option of not paying, and then you'd be on your own as far as police, fire, sanitation, etc. There might be a free rider problem when it comes to national defense, but until the Civil War the federal government managed to get funded by a very modest import duty (applied uniformly as a matter of getting revenue and not for protectionism). That, though, leads to a topic for another time.

Oh yes, and the rebate.

Supposedly it will work by giving a rebate directly to each person, deposited directly into a bank account. The first reaction any rational person should have is akin to, "Oh for the love of heaven!" The potential for fraud here is huge. Conservatives claim we're undercounting illegal immigrants now, but rebates will ensure overcounting. I'm fairly open on immigration, but "let's get real." Paco and Juanita will suddenly want to report themselves, plus their five children and maybe a few more that don't exist. And people of "legal" residence status will also have a temptation to borrow each other's families, create fake identities, etc. You might as well go to New Orleans and say, "OK, who didn't get a $2000 debit card, just raise your hand and I'll give you one."

And at best, so much for eliminating bureaucracy, because we'll need an apparatus to distribute the rebates. Moreover, just how will the rebate be calculated for different regions? Different states have different costs of living, but such costs can be extremely disparate within individual states and even individual counties. Even if people receive different sized rebates based on, say, zip code, and putting aside that potential for fraud, consider people's daily mobility. Prices where they live and work can be and are different for many Americans.

Any questions?

All right, Larry, let's see you give an answer to this. The bottom line is that the "Fair" Tax cannot be a conservative position, because it leads to at least as much bureaucracy, which is anethema to conservatism's stated ideal of limited government.

Let's first examine what "Fair" Tax proponents say. The idea is that by eliminating income taxes, even after paying the "Fair" Tax, overall retail prices will be lower than before. Because businesses will no longer have to pay an income tax, they can pass that on to consumers in the form of lower prices. This isn't just theoretical, but reality: sellers cutting prices is an everyday occurrence because of competition.

So a $10 widget might drop to, say, $7. The same would apply to cars and homes, perhaps not with the same percentage, but similarly, because real estate brokers and car salesmen wouldn't have to pay taxes on their large commissions. Now, it's true that "Fair" Tax proponents are misleading, by talking about the 23% when they mean a percentage of the new total price. But even 30% on $7 is only $9.10. Consumption spending will go up, businesses will do better, and with no corporate income tax, businesses will want to relocate here (just as many multi-national corps set up shop in Ireland, lured by its low corporate income tax).

However, the price drop is assuming that "Fair" Tax theorists are correct. Economists can calculate price elasticity near current prices, but do we trust their prognosticative powers on such a wide swing, especially when "Fair" Tax proponents will have the bias of overly optimistic calculations? Impartial economists have a hard enough time calculating inflation based on product "baskets" -- and that's analyzing something now, not predicting.

If the "Fair" Tax results in less revenue, that's not inherently bad at all. "Fair" Tax opponents say that there will be a great incentive to go underground and not pay it, which I think is not bad, but great: anything so government gets its grubby hands on less of people's money. A government revenue shortfall is ideally good, because ideally, government would cut spending to match. But in the real world, we say, "Yeah right." Government will simply find another tax to raise and/or borrow more. Here in New York, selling more government debt each year is a tradition. NYC sells more bonds every year, as does my home county of Westchester, and the entire state.

Worse, a percentage tax always has the dangerous implication that it can be raised as government desires. As I was telling a friend when we talked about the "Fair" Tax, look at the original income tax. It was a classic bait-and-switch: "Oh, it's limited only to the very top of wage earners, and even then only a small percentage." Income taxes were introduced as the substitute for lowering tariffs on imported goods. That's not how you want to lower taxes. You need to simply cut or eliminate taxes, not try to substitute them with something that's supposedly lower.

It's claimed the "Fair" Tax will allow us to abolish the IRS. Oh, the same way that 1994 Republicans wanted to abolish the Department of Education? Forget it: the beast not only won't die, but no real efforts will be made to kill it, and it will come back even more powerful. I've heard "Fair" Tax apologists say that the collection apparatus already exists, because states collect sales taxes already, and it's just a matter of changing the percentage figures. That only means the IRS bureaucracy might be euphemistically be renamed the "Fairness Compliance Bureau," devoted to ensuring that the states are collecting enough, aka "their fair share."

The same aforementioned friend asked me yesterday what I think about Neal Boortz. I've met the man, and he's otherwise a pretty smart, very entertaining guy. But on the "Fair" Tax, as I said, "He's an idiot."

As for me, I'd choose a Thompson two-tier Flat Tax as the better of the two choices. But if I had my way, I'd go for a Milton Friedman head tax. Now, as a Randite who believes coercive taxation is theft, taxation should have the option of not paying, and then you'd be on your own as far as police, fire, sanitation, etc. There might be a free rider problem when it comes to national defense, but until the Civil War the federal government managed to get funded by a very modest import duty (applied uniformly as a matter of getting revenue and not for protectionism). That, though, leads to a topic for another time.

Oh yes, and the rebate.

Supposedly it will work by giving a rebate directly to each person, deposited directly into a bank account. The first reaction any rational person should have is akin to, "Oh for the love of heaven!" The potential for fraud here is huge. Conservatives claim we're undercounting illegal immigrants now, but rebates will ensure overcounting. I'm fairly open on immigration, but "let's get real." Paco and Juanita will suddenly want to report themselves, plus their five children and maybe a few more that don't exist. And people of "legal" residence status will also have a temptation to borrow each other's families, create fake identities, etc. You might as well go to New Orleans and say, "OK, who didn't get a $2000 debit card, just raise your hand and I'll give you one."

And at best, so much for eliminating bureaucracy, because we'll need an apparatus to distribute the rebates. Moreover, just how will the rebate be calculated for different regions? Different states have different costs of living, but such costs can be extremely disparate within individual states and even individual counties. Even if people receive different sized rebates based on, say, zip code, and putting aside that potential for fraud, consider people's daily mobility. Prices where they live and work can be and are different for many Americans.

Any questions?

Perry?

Bonzo raised taxes eleven times.

Unprecedented debt load, that it took the better part of two decades to pay down.

If I'd have needed a human trafficker's opinion on "free trade", "fair taxes", and immigration, I'd have sent for your one-world ass, paragraphs ago...

If I'd have needed a human trafficker's opinion on "free trade", "fair taxes", and immigration, I'd have sent for your one-world ass, paragraphs ago...

Umm........what?

weedhead, if we'd needed the opinion of your two toke-addled neurons, whose synapse misfires but still somehow produces your moronic "what's yours is everybody" mindset...wait a minute, we don't need it.

You can stop putting words into my mouth. I never said I'm "one-world" or anything close at all to it. If you must know, for years I've wished the U.S. would simply pull out of the UN, which is hardly a "one-world" belief, now is it?

What I do support is more open immigration. The U.S. didn't fear immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries, why should it fear it now? Kill the welfare state, and there's no problem with it.

So you can actually refute what I said, or you can simply shut up now and cease embarrassing yourself further.

"Bonzo raised taxes eleven times."

Eleven individual taxes, which were far more than offset by income tax cuts alone, not to mention the sudden spurt of job creation. Even Paul Krugman admits that Reagan's tax cuts lowered taxes overall.

Now getting back to the subject, before your toke-addled brain takes on another tangent...

"Unprecedented debt load, that it took the better part of two decades to pay down."

In absolute dollar terms, yes, but not as a percentage of GDP. The economy was so much stronger under Reagan's fiscal policies and the Fed's new monetary policies, that such debt was manageable. If someone earns $1000 per year, $100 in debt is a lot. If the person later earns $2000 per year, $150 is an increase in absolute numbers, but hardly an increase as a percentage of income.

Nice spin, freakjob.

Unfortunately, the state of the nation and the collapsing dollar proves your fanciful theories false.

Oh, I forgot...you have to actually give a damn about America to tell the truth about its worthless dollar...

You seem to have a far more comprehensive knowledge of druggie terms than I ever had. Hanging around ghetto schoolyards to "soak up local color" again, Perborate?

As one who's never partaken of illegal drugs, my christening of you is based only on what I've heard in common media. You, on the other hand, wish to demonstrate your knowledge by the moniker you chose. My continuing advice: put the stuff down, and come live with us in reality for just a day. It's healthier for both mind and body.

And you're stereotyping the ghetto, tsk tsk. And you'd have us believe it's only conservatives who are so racist and class-driven.

You claim "spin" instead of offering a single rebutting point. Moreover, you again put words into my mouth and are completely dishonest about it. If you had bothered to check me out more (and I know you've been peeking around my blog and elsewhere), you'd know I don't deny the dollar is being wrecked. It's something I've argued about with a friend who thinks all is well. But what's happening is not because of what the federal government is doing (i.e. fiscal policy), but the Federal Reserve's monetary policy of higher inflation (under the misguided notion of "supply credit").

The one thing you don't know is that last month, for the first time in my adult life, I shifted a not insignificant amount of money into savings not denominated in dollars. But according to you, that shows I have strong confidence in the dollar, huh?