Republican debate

[Kamd50]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/27/king.gop.youtube.debate.preview.cnn?iref=videosear ch

[Red50Go]

I'm surprised nothing posted yet. I'd be curious to hear from all you die-hard Republicans. Surely you watched right? So who did you like? And please, save the "anybody but a Democrat" speech.

I thought Romney got twisted around alot, and Guliani got some boos. Huckabee seems to be the guy making headway. McCain did well too I thought but dont think he is electable. Paul has no chance either but am glad both are in it cuz they need to be heard. They balance the party somewhat, instead of the usual GW rubber stamp policies Reps have been in lock-step w/. I also give Guliani credit also for sticking to some of his convictions which were apart from the base. BOTH sides need to move closer to the middle and thats what I am looking for next election.

[TigerLily]

I’m kind of leaning towards Mike Huckabee now. Last night he said
he would send Hillary to Mars!!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

[massillon catholic]

I'm surprised nothing posted yet. I'd be curious to hear from all you die-hard Republicans. Surely you watched right?.

The election is months away. Do we really need to watch this stuff now?

[pnthrfan]

I thought Romney got twisted around alot, and Guliani got some boos. I agree with you.....Romney seemed to be a bit lost last night. I also feel that Thompson comes across as not knowing what to say and when to say it. I don't know if it is his nerves or if he truly has no idea what's going on.

Huckabee seems to be the guy making headway. McCain did well too I thought but dont think he is electable.' I have to say, I do like Huckabee. As far as for President....... I don't know if I want a Minister in office. As for what you said about McCain.....you're right, he isn't electable.

[Red50Go]

The election is months away. Do we really need to watch this stuff now?

Depends on how much you care which of the candidates from your party get nominated to run for President. I guess not if you vote straight ticket no matter what. The primaries actually begin in about 5-6 weeks. Iowa will be the 1st, I think Ohio is early March.

[Kamd50]

The election is months away. Do we really need to watch this stuff now?

Being as they are taking place now, yes. That is, at least as far as I am concerned, if you want to learn about the candidates and try to figure out what they stand for and what direction they envision taking our country into for the next 4 years.

I do not have a clue as to who I am going to vote for yet. I vote by conscience, not party lines. Therefore I feel it is each of our duty, as voters, to be as well educated and informed as possible about all who are running for the highest office in the land in order to make the best decision possible based on the information available.

[WheatCity]

I'm surprised nothing posted yet. I'd be curious to hear from all you die-hard Republicans. Surely you watched right? So who did you like? And please, save the "anybody but a Democrat" speech.

I thought Romney got twisted around alot, and Guliani got some boos. Huckabee seems to be the guy making headway. McCain did well too I thought but dont think he is electable. Paul has no chance either but am glad both are in it cuz they need to be heard. They balance the party somewhat, instead of the usual GW rubber stamp policies Reps have been in lock-step w/. I also give Guliani credit also for sticking to some of his convictions which were apart from the base. BOTH sides need to move closer to the middle and thats what I am looking for next election.

I was all about Huckabee until I found out more about his fiscal policy. It seems that he may be just another spender like Bush. I also would like someone tougher on immigration. I'm leaning McCain now.

Hell, vote for me. Simple platform
1) 17.5% flat tax
2) shut down the border
3) leave counties in charge of granting amnesty to only those that have displayed a) talent, b) have taken measures to become a citizen
4) constitutional ammendment forbidding earmarks on legislation.

[Red50Go]

WheatCity, if I may ask, which of the Democratic candidates do you like? Full disclosure, I am a registered Democrat, but increasingly Independent, and have voted both parties. Recently Gore 7 yrs ago and Bush last election.

[massillon catholic]

Being as they are taking place now, yes. That is, at least as far as I am concerned, if you want to learn about the candidates and try to figure out what they stand for and what direction they envision taking our country into for the next 4 years.

I do not have a clue as to who I am going to vote for yet. I vote by conscience, not party lines. Therefore I feel it is each of our duty, as voters, to be as well educated and informed as possible about all who are running for the highest office in the land in order to make the best decision possible based on the information available.

In case you havent been able to tell Im a Republican. However, much to Carl's dismay, Im not sure if I like any of the candidates on either side and I have watched a couple debates along with many of the news shows about them. I like Rudy but not his abortion position. I like Huckabee but not his tax plan. I like Duncan Hunter the most, but he doesnt have a chance. Hell, it may come down to who has the best VP when it comes general election time.

[Kamd50]

Yes, I have been able to figure that one out, MC, lol! Which would seem all the more reason that you as a Republican would want to be informed on the candidates as best as possible in order for you to be able to make up your mind. As we all should be. In all fairness to all candidates, dem and rep in particular, I think that it is all but impossible to find one who any of us could completely agree with on every position he or she may have. In general, I am not fond of politicians, yet have to rely on them to run our country.

[TigerCoach]

I think most people get too hung up on a candidate's personal position on individual topics (abortion, guns, immigration, etc.). The President is only the figurehead, it's Congress who decides the fate of those topics. Sure, the President has a lot of influence, especially within his party, but for the most part, he is the tail of the dog.

We need to focus on a candidate who is a strong leader, has the respect of Congress, and knows how to surround himself with top quaility people. Ronald Reagan was the perfect example of this. Hell, he was an ex-actor, no formal training in politics before becoming Governor of California. But he was a great speaker, was influential in his ideals, and had great people around him. That's the type of candidate we should be looking for. Not Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, Dennis the Menace, etc.

[WheatCity]

WheatCity, if I may ask, which of the Democratic candidates do you like? Full disclosure, I am a registered Democrat, but increasingly Independent, and have voted both parties. Recently Gore 7 yrs ago and Bush last election.

This may not be the answer you want, but should a Democrat win the election, I would want 2 major things:

1) good communicator - if nothing else but to improve int'l image of the chief executive of the greatest nation in the history of civilization
2) someone who does not have the political clout or experience to get anything done. I feel an idle government is the most effective.

Obama fits this criteria. We cannot afford another tax and spend Democrat because we are just getting rid of a don't tax but spend Republican. They all have a piece of their agenda that scares me. So do the Republicans.

Dems all seem to support some form of Universal Healthcare. Yikes. The best thing they could do would be to phase out medicare and medicaid, which basicly subsidize the healtcare industry, and allow for the private sector to compete. Economics 101 dictates that when there are multiple firms, competition between them yields the most efficient market.

Like I mentioned in my post above. A moderate flat tax is proven to generate more wealth than a convoluted tax code like ours. Estonia, a country w/ about the same PPI (purchasing power index) rating as Oklahoma is loaning the US money because they have to move government treasury funds to avoid deflation, because their economy is growing so fast.

I think our nation has to ask a very specific question of ourselves. Do we really want all these social programs (univ. healthcare, the "baby bonds" that Clinton proposes, an increase is "greater society" type programs, free college education, etc.,...) and a tax burden of 45-55%?
Or, do we want the government to cut our taxes and allow us to generate wealth for the entire world, like we always had, w/out such a bloated federal government? I'm a big proponent of small government. Deliver the mail, protect the borders, our foreign interests, increase relative economic and military power over revisionist nations, keep the parks in good shape, and leave me alone. History has proven that the American people are the most dynamic and productive society is history, when allowed to be.

[TigerCoach]

This may not be the answer you want, but should a Democrat win the election, I would want 2 major things:

1) good communicator - if nothing else but to improve int'l image of the chief executive of the greatest nation in the history of civilization
2) someone who does not have the political clout or experience to get anything done. I feel an idle government is the most effective.

Obama fits this criteria. We cannot afford another tax and spend Democrat because we are just getting rid of a don't tax but spend Republican. They all have a piece of their agenda that scares me. So do the Republicans.

Dems all seem to support some form of Universal Healthcare. Yikes. The best thing they could do would be to phase out medicare and medicaid, which basicly subsidize the healtcare industry, and allow for the private sector to compete. Economics 101 dictates that when there are multiple firms, competition between them yields the most efficient market.

Like I mentioned in my post above. A moderate flat tax is proven to generate more wealth than a convoluted tax code like ours. Estonia, a country w/ about the same PPI (purchasing power index) rating as Oklahoma is loaning the US money because they have to move government treasury funds to avoid deflation, because their economy is growing so fast.

I think our nation has to ask a very specific question of ourselves. Do we really want all these social programs (univ. healthcare, the "baby bonds" that Clinton proposes, an increase is "greater society" type programs, free college education, etc.,...) and a tax burden of 45-55%?
Or, do we want the government to cut our taxes and allow us to generate wealth for the entire world, like we always had, w/out such a bloated federal government? I'm a big proponent of small government. Deliver the mail, protect the borders, our foreign interests, increase relative economic and military power over revisionist nations, keep the parks in good shape, and leave me alone. History has proven that the American people are the most dynamic and productive society is history, when allowed to be.

I agree with most of what you say, but why can't a Republican fit this mold? I don't know of any Democratic candidates who want to lower, or even revise, tax rates. President Bush's administration has proven again that if you reduce marginal tax rates, overall tax revenue increases the Treasury's coffers.

Also, you mention that we currently have a "don't tax but spend Republican". Part of a sound fiscal policy by the federal governement includes increased government spending in times of economic corrections. If you look at the GDP, approximately 70% of it consists of Consumer Spending. When we have a corrective economy (an economic slowdown, but short of a recession), consumer spending falls. In order to maintain some GDP growth, and avoid a recession (2 straight quarters of negative GDP), the government steps in and increases spending within the economy in terms of good and services and also by buying back U.S. Treasury bonds. Both actions generate cash into the economy, interest rates fall and gives businesses and consumers incentive (low interest rates) to spend again, which increase GDP.

I agree with your concept of privatizing Medicaid & Medicare. Insurance companies competing for that business would drive prices down, but eventually would lead to only a few companies controlling a large portion of the business, and we'd be back in the same boat.

[WheatCity]

I agree with most of what you say, but why can't a Republican fit this mold? I don't know of any Democratic candidates who want to lower, or even revise, tax rates. President Bush's administration has proven again that if you reduce marginal tax rates, overall tax revenue increases the Treasury's coffers.

Also, you mention that we currently have a "don't tax but spend Republican". Part of a sound fiscal policy by the federal governement includes increased government spending in times of economic corrections. If you look at the GDP, approximately 70% of it consists of Consumer Spending. When we have a corrective economy (an economic slowdown, but short of a recession), consumer spending falls. In order to maintain some GDP growth, and avoid a recession (2 straight quarters of negative GDP), the government steps in and increases spending within the economy in terms of good and services and also by buying back U.S. Treasury bonds. Both actions generate cash into the economy, interest rates fall and gives businesses and consumers incentive (low interest rates) to spend again, which increase GDP.

I agree with your concept of privatizing Medicaid & Medicare. Insurance companies competing for that business would drive prices down, but eventually would lead to only a few companies controlling a large portion of the business, and we'd be back in the same boat.

I'm not saying that a Republican doesn't fit this role. I was asked which Democrat I prefer.
Your point about government spending is absolutely correct. However, I'm talking about expanded government programs that require MUCH higher taxes to fund and operate. Government spending is an essential function in times of economic correction, but the last recession was 2001.
I'm all for responsible gov't expenditures, I am vehemenently opposed to increased gov't programs.

I agree w/ your prediction that a few large firms would eventually control the market. But at that point, there is a price expectation. In an oligopoly, there is almost always some sort of government oversight to prevent collusion and the subsequent price increases that collusion allows. This is usually done w/ utilities.

I think the easiest paradigm to understand is this:
Gov't Run Universal Healthcare vs. A Few Large, Private Health Care Providers
is the same choice, in terms of service and efficacy as
The BMV or Social Sec. Office vs. You Electric Co.

I think we can all agree that the electric company is much more efficient.

[dataintsmiff]

I’m kind of leaning towards Mike Huckabee now. Last night he said
he would send Hillary to Mars!!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

Hillary in mars would suit me just fine, maybe she could find someone up there who will agree with her views, nah that would never happen would it?:treehugger:

[MR EMPTY PANTS]

mccain standing up there rambling on about waterboarding and defending these radical islamists like they should be part of the geneva convention, he loses all credibility. how can anyone justify not using any means to get information from these idiots. i`m all for torturing these creeps, it saves lives by the info we get. what are we supposed to do, serve them tea and cookies and hope they give in?

i`m leaning toward rudy, thompson and tancreado but he`s got no chance.

[massillon catholic]

mccain standing up there rambling on about waterboarding and defending these radical islamists like they should be part of the geneva convention, he loses all credibility. how can anyone justify not using any means to get information from these idiots. i`m all for torturing these creeps, it saves lives by the info we get. what are we supposed to do, serve them tea and cookies and hope they give in?

i`m leaning toward rudy, thompson and tancreado but he`s got no chance.

McCain has no chance. Im all for sticking needles in the eyes of these terrorists if it means saving American lives.