See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:34 pm, canb0nly1 said:

   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:28 pm, til said:

   If you cut welfare by 5 percent, what dollar amount will that yield?

   That depends a lot on what you call welfare. For my money it’s the so-called Mandatory spending, which is about 2.5 trillion. So 5% of that. $125 billion? Still small potatoes and not all that helpful. Until we start looking at cutting in the trillions of dollars, we’re still in deep doo doo.

2. #102
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:35 pm, til said:

   Just stop foreign aid, no debate Rick.

   PalinWest12

3. #103
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:35 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

   NO U.N. !!!!!

4. #104
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Hiraghm said:

   And Paul jumps the shark.

5. #105
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Whirled Peas said:

   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:31 pm, Hiraghm said:
   It took 500 years for the Roman Empire to fall (before that it was a Republic). The Soviet Empire fell, not because of Afghanistan, but because of trying to compete with President Reagan’s America.

   That was started in 1917. Reagan ran ‘em ragged with a bluff of Star Wars (SDI initiative) that wasn’t feasible to start with.

   He was the BEST CIC I ever served under, bar none!

6. #106
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Hiraghm said:

   Reagan cheated our enemy Iran on the price of weapons to use against our enemy Iraq (anti-tank weapons for example), and used the profits from that to fund the anti-communist forces in central America that our communist-sympathizing Congress would not support.

   It was a brilliant piece of strategy, and I don’t care what that establishment weasel Gingrich or that schoolmarm Paul say about it!

7. #107
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:41 pm, til said:

   Newt defends Ron, he’s a class act. Hat tip number two.

8. #108
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:42 pm, PercyJ said:

   Santorum still trying to run from his Big Government RINO past. Will never vote for the man who endorsed Specter and voted for almost every spending increase his last 2 years.

9. #109
   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:44 pm, Hiraghm said:

   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Whirled Peas said:

   On October 18th, 2011 at 9:31 pm, Hiraghm said:
   It took 500 years for the Roman Empire to fall (before that it was a Republic). The Soviet Empire fell, not because of Afghanistan, but because of trying to compete with President Reagan’s America.

   That was started in 1917. Reagan ran ‘em ragged with a bluff of Star Wars (SDI initiative) that wasn’t feasible to start with.

   He was the BEST CIC I ever served under, bar none!

   Don’t call it “Star Wars”. That denigrating. SDI could and does work.
   It’s no harder than Lunar orbital rendezvous.

10. #110
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:49 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    Hiraghm #s 106 – 109,

    +1 and +1 and thank you for your service !

    Even when RP is right, he`s still that know-it-all uncle you wish would finish his pie and just go home already.

11. #111
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:51 pm, HarryBailey said:

    Guess what, guys?

    Mitt Romney will be your candidate.

    If that disgusts you, it does me as well.

12. #112
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:52 pm, canb0nly1 said:

    Did I miss the 2nd Amendment question(s)?

13. #113
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:53 pm, Green eyed Lady said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:42 pm, PercyJ said:

    Santorum still trying to run from his Big Government RINO past. Will never vote for the man who endorsed Specter and voted for almost every spending increase his last 2 years.

    Correct;-)
    Please, don’t be fooled by Santorum people.

14. #114
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:54 pm, Whirled Peas said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Reagan cheated our enemy Iran on the price of weapons to use against our enemy Iraq (anti-tank weapons for example), and used the profits from that to fund the anti-communist forces in central America that our communist-sympathizing Congress would not support.

    And I was proud of Lt Col Ollie North’s testimony in front of the commie lovin’ congressional committee trying to hang his butt on the nearest light pole.

    He ran rings around those clowns.

15. #115
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:56 pm, Hiraghm said:

    SignPainterGuy, that was Whirled Peas. Thank him/her for his/her service.

16. #116
    On October 18th, 2011 at 9:57 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    Newt said, “maximizing bickering among the candidates is probably not the best ….”. It was on the ticker only briefly, disappeared quickly ! Hide it CNN !

    The “after-show” usual suspects still place have Romney ahead and I just hears Gurgin was it, say the O`stration should be celebrating after this debate. Holy cow, what morons !

17. #117
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:19 pm, OneNation said:

    I wish there were other choices. (sigh)

18. #118
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:25 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    I still say Cain 2012

19. #119
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:27 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    canbonly1:

    I also missed the Second Amendment questions.

20. #120
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:28 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    The cake is baked, Barack Obama will be a one term president

    Got to love Bachmann !

21. #121
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:31 pm, Hangfire said:

    The only sure thing evident after the entire debate………..

    Anderson Cooper makes my skin crawl.

22. #122
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:33 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    The comments were closed for a time. Did anyone else notice ?

23. #123
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:36 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    I was looking forward to the 2nd amendment discussion / cat fight; I read that Cain is weak there and wanted to hear it from him.

24. #124
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:43 pm, Ron said:

    I know everyone here thinks Romney is the devil incarnate, but he’s probably the best bet we have to beat Obama. Herman Cain doesn’t have an organization. Not just a big enough organization. He has no state-by-state organization. He has no money. He’s likeable, but he isn’t going to make it, and that’s the truth. Rick Perry is a poser if there ever was one. At least he woke up tonight — finally. But he can’t put two coherent sentences together. If I hear “boots on the ground” one more time, I’m going to scream. He’s always just about fixin’ to do something; just watch this space. So who’s left? Bachmann? Nope. Santorum? He’s the yappiest little dog I’ve ever seen, and he’s got nothing. Gingrich is nearly as broke as Cain, but he’s got substance. He’s also got a checkered past (marriages, Nancy Pelosi commercial on man-caused global warming, etc.) Paul is so right and so wrong at the same time. I think conservatives ought to be happy Mitt is a flip-flopper. That means he’s workable, and if conservatives could get over themselves, maybe they could work with him on some key issues and guarantee Obama goes into early retirement.

25. #125
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:43 pm, kwrxxx said:

    I love Michelle Malkin!

26. #126
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:53 pm, til said:

    Like last time I suspect the stupid party’s primaries will exclude my having a choice here in Pennsylvania.
    That’s why I’m holding out for PalinWest12.

27. #127
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:53 pm, Martin5 said:

    I have to say that I’m little disappointed in Cain, tonight. He needs to distance himself from Romney, completely, by tying him to Obama like Santorum did with the health care law. I also didn’t like his initial answer about negotiating with terrorists. He can’t be making gaffes like this. Looks like I’m back on the fence for now.

28. #128
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:56 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    til

    It looks like you`re gonna be waitin` “till” the cows come home ! Neither wants in !

29. #129
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:57 pm, BB said:

    I think conservatives ought to be happy Mitt is a flip-flopper. That means he’s workable,…

    I’m getting there too… Cain got a chunk of my change that I want back after two events, his lame dishonest walk-backs of the electric fence and the Gitmo-swap statement. The first statement didn’t bother me, the walk-back did. The Gitmo thing had me mildly furious, and the accompanying walk-back sealed the deal!

    Shark Jumped.

    Mittens/Newt 2012

30. #130
    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:59 pm, BB said:

    That’s why I’m holding out for PalinWest12.

    Gotta work with what we got, unless you have a great and workable Draft Palin plan.

31. #131
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:05 pm, sonerai32645 said:

    palin/west i was a cain guy, but no longer

32. #132
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:06 pm, mondamay said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 10:43 pm, Ron said:

    I think conservatives ought to be happy Mitt is a flip-flopper. That means he’s workable,

    What? I guess Bill Clinton was “workable”, too.

    and if conservatives could get over themselves, maybe they could work with him on some key issues and guarantee Obama goes into early retirement.

    Why should the majority of the country have to “get over itself”?

33. #133
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:07 pm, Flyoverman said:

    I had family things to do. I already decided any debate sponsored by CNN was a waste. It appears my choice was a sound one.

34. #134
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:09 pm, BB said:

    Apples and Oranges. Um, no, it’s Taxes, nothing but taxes. If he can’t defend it standing on his feet, if his most solid defense is to cite some outfit that vetted his plan and you can see it for yourself on “my website,” and everyone that has reservations about it are all simply wrong (and/or stupid) well, that just ain’t gonna fly.

    What are the “unintended consequences” of making the consumer swallow a Germany-sized VAT-like fee every time he contemplates a purchase? Or of freaking out businesses with yet another round of Presidentally Induced Economic/Regulatory Insecurity?

35. #135
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:10 pm, til said:

    If —- IF they don’t run, then as a proud, long time member of the Constitutional Party, I’ll have to vote for Ron Paul, whom I believe I heard say he would choose Newt as a running-mate in a prevous debate.

36. #136
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:17 pm, til said:

    Red face — that’s Constitution Party, not constitutional. Sheesh, I feel as bad as I would if I called the democrat party the democratic party.

37. #137
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:18 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Mitt is a flip-flopper. That means he’s workable, and if conservatives could get over themselves, maybe they could work with him on some key issues and guarantee Obama goes into early retirement.

    You won’t be working with Mitt. Mitt will be doing the agenda of the elites and the RNC. Conservatives are expected to do what you suggest every election.

    If you want Obamacare to not be repealed, the EPA to keep cramming light bulbs down your throat, green energy to keep sucking away our money, the Ryan Plan to die, the deficit to continue to climb, and government to continue to expand, vote for the RNC’s Chosen One, because they want Big Government every bit as much at the Dems.

    That chronic pain you feel in your cranium is from you voluntarily whacking yourself upside the head every four years in an attempt to work the the RNC’s Poster Child.

    Been there, seen it too many times. Not me. Not again, ever.

38. #138
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:20 pm, til said:

    Amen

39. #139
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:23 pm, mondamay said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:09 pm, BB said:

    What are the “unintended consequences” of making the consumer swallow a Germany-sized VAT-like fee every time he contemplates a purchase?

    How is this supposed to create a VAT? I’ve heard a LOT of weaseling on this. Transactions between US businesses are exempt from the Business tax. We already have the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, so we are already paying a tremendous amount in weaselly “hidden VAT” taxes.

    I’ll admit I’m not fond of the 999 compromise, I would much prefer the FAIR tax (Which I notice Cooper completely ignored the audience member’s question about, and turned it into a circular firing squad for Cain).

40. #140
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:24 pm, Flyoverman said:

    What are the “unintended consequences” of making the consumer swallow a Germany-sized VAT-like fee every time he contemplates a purchase?

    BB not to take away from your point, but to split hairs a Sales Tax and VAT tax are different. The Sales tax is applied once. The VAT tax can be applied at each stage of os products development.

41. #141
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:27 pm, BigRedFan said:

    I’ll say it again, folks…do not let perfect be the enemy of good. I’m old enough to remember that the GREAT ONE, Ronald Reagan, was not perfect as a primary candidate, either. But he kicked Jimmy Carter’s ass.

    It still…always…comes down to:
    Compared to What???

    Pick your favorite. Campaign for him/her. Send money. But in the end keep your focus: NOBAMA ’12!!

42. #142
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:29 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:23 pm, mondamay said:

    You may find this interesting …

    One of the architects of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, economist Stephen Moore, said the contender for the GOP presidential nomination needs to drop his proposed 9 percent national sales tax.

    Source

43. #143
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:30 pm, Ron said:

    Why should the majority of the country have to “get over itself”?

    Well, for openers, the majority of this country doesn’t believe what most of the people on this board believe. Ideologically, I’m a libertarian conservative, but I’m foremost a pragmatist who wants to stop what’s going on in the WH and Congress and turn things around. It’s Oct-freakin-tober. The election is 13 months away. We’ve got what we’ve got as far as candidates go. No white knight waiting in the wings. Perry cannot win a national election. Cain isn’t ready yet, and he’s starting to falter in some of this statements, as BB noted. Michelle Bachmann, as much as I like her, is not going to defeat Obama. I wish Romney were better on several issues, but I am more interested in getting Obama outta there. He can attract the independents that everyone despises…you know, the ones who actually determine elections (since 51 percent of this country is not nearly as conservative as most on this board. Sadly.)

44. #144
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:33 pm, mondamay said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:18 pm, Flyoverman said:

    You won’t be working with Mitt. Mitt will be doing the agenda of the elites and the RNC. Conservatives are expected to do what you suggest every election.

    And to echo and amplify the rightness of this point, I will also add that despite the talk of a conservative “3rd party” threat, it is far more often liberal establishment Republicans who try to play the spoiler. People like John B Anderson who thought Reagan was too conservative, and ran against him in 1980.

45. #145
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:37 pm, til said:

    Last time I was pulling for Duncan, then Mitt, ended up voting for Hillary.

    Sarah said she would not be seeking the Republican nomination; she’s most like Reagan. There’s still time.

    PalinWest12

46. #146
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:37 pm, BB said:

    How is this supposed to create a VAT?

    BB not to take away from your point, but to split hairs a Sales Tax and VAT tax are different.

    You guys are right, but that’s why I said VAT-like, as viewed from the perspective of a consumer. I’ve lived in Germany and 19% was a big pill to swallow, Cain’s pill would be just as large in most States. You wanna see a protest??? Do that!

    I just think it’s not as simple as he’d like it to be, and he surely isn’t educating anybody on the matter, even when given a platform to do so.

    I like the guy, but that ain’t enough. My Doubt-Engine started turning back at the Right-of-Return question…it’s getting up to perpetual-motion speed now.

47. #147
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:37 pm, Flyoverman said:

    One of the architects of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, economist Stephen Moore, said the contender for the GOP presidential nomination needs to drop his proposed 9 percent national sales tax.

    Ask five economists and you’ll get five different answers – six if one went to Harvard. – Edgar R. Fiedler

48. #148
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:38 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:24 pm, Flyoverman said:

    BB not to take away from your point, but to split hairs a Sales Tax and VAT tax are different. The Sales tax is applied once. The VAT tax can be applied at each stage of os products development.

    Not to split hairs, but in the end all of the taxes are passed on directly to the consumer anyway. Taxing it at 1% 20 times along the way isn’t substantially different than taxing it 20% at the end.

49. #149
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:41 pm, canb0nly1 said:

    I’m not too worried about 999. It will never get through congress so it’s kinda moot. I’m not a fan of it. It has serious flaws (the biggest is that it’s 9% x3 on the individuals because corps don’t pay taxes, we do in costs), but he’s thinking about doing something completely different. The result of the Reagan (a hero in my life) tax cuts were fantastic, but all he actually did was lower the rates. I’d be all for no federal income or payroll taxes and ONLY a federal sales (not VAT, thanks flyover for noting the difference) tax on new, retail items, but again, it ain’t gonna happen – at least not until the power brokers roaches in Washington are exterminated – er politically speaking of course.

    Romney is simply a liberal. That’s all there is to it. He can’t even put up a convincing talking-point message that stays on conservative lines. I heard him several times say things that were obviously from an advisor, “Hey, you need to throw the 10th Amendment in there somewhere. It won’t matter if it really fits the subject, just as long as you mention it. People will think you’re conservative if you say ’10th Amendment’.”

    IF we’re going to elect a liberal, the US goes farther into the toilet. Plain and simple. IF the US is gonna go down the drain, I want the blame for that to hang squarely around the neck of Democrats.

    Not that I’d throw my vote Obama’s way if it came down to him and Romney. But I just really don’t think nose holding is gonna cut it. (I know, I’m inviting the attacks with that, but hey.)

    Liberalism = end of America. That’s all. It doesn’t matter what party they’re in.

    I’m still not 100% behind anyone. I find that sad, but we’ve still got some time. I just know this nation is off the cliff, not speeding toward it. It’s more a matter of finding the people (the president and congress, and local pols) that can help pick up the pieces when we crash.

    America is, and Americans are bigger than this and we can definitely overcome, but it’s gonna suck in the meantime.

50. #150
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:42 pm, mondamay said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:30 pm, Ron said:

    I’m foremost a pragmatist who wants to stop what’s going on in the WH and Congress and turn things around.

    Nothing will be “turned around” under Mitt. Turning around will be difficult, take a lot of teaching and political capital, and is by definition not pragmatic.

51. #151
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:43 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:38 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    Not to split hairs, but in the end all of the taxes are passed on directly to the consumer anyway. Taxing it at 1% 20 times along the way isn’t substantially different than taxing it 20% at the end.

    Actually, it could be substantially different if they are compounding the tax, which given a government regulation, I can’t see them doing it otherwise.

52. #152
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:47 pm, til said:

    Which is more powerful the MSM or the democrat party?

53. #153
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:48 pm, SignPainterGuy said:

    Flyoverman,

    You`re right. Business to business transactions are called “wholesale” transactions and are done without taxation. The VAT is a sales tax at every step, from original producer of parts, to the assembler of parts, to the distributor of parts, to the retail store and finally to the end consumer. I counted five times taxes are added.

54. #154
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:49 pm, til said:

    Which is more powerful the MSM or the democrat party?

    By powerful, I mean most influential to the sheeple. Past bed time.

    PalinWest12

55. #155
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:50 pm, canb0nly1 said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:47 pm, til said:

    Which is more powerful the MSM or the democrat party?

    Isn’t that a comparison one thing to itself? A distinction without a difference?

56. #156
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:52 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:30 pm, Ron said:

    Well, for openers, the majority of this country doesn’t believe what most of the people on this board believe.

    Battleground Poll Question D3 shows statistically your statement is not correct.

    Further, it is historically factual that conservatives beat liberals virtually every time. Since 2008 conservatives have dominated virtually every election.

    If you are pragmatic as you claim, you will follow the William F. Buckley Rule and pick the most conservative candidate who can win. “Most Conservative” eliminares Romney because he is not a conservative.

    I have come to understand that people attempt to achieve success one of two ways; by winning or by not losing.

    I am here for the win. If you want to play for a tie, then you will get Bush 43 all over again….. or worse.

57. #157
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:55 pm, mondamay said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:29 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    You may find this interesting …

    I find it awfully hard to believe that a 9% payroll tax would be roughly equivalent to a 9 percent sales tax. Enough with the nines already!

58. #158
    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:56 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On October 18th, 2011 at 11:55 pm, mondamay said:

    Nein !

59. #159
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:01 am, Flyoverman said:

    Night all. Enjoyed the feedback!

60. #160
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:01 am, mondamay said:

    One other thing about Romney. If he’s anything like most of the establishment Republicans, he will consider his nomination a “mandate from the base” (IE conservatives), and then assuming he wins the Presidency, it will be an opportunity to “reach across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship”. The only “working with” he will do will be with Democrats, which is largely how we got into this mess.

61. #161
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:15 am, JonInVa said:

    My own take from this cage match was varied. I was surprised that not one candidate was courageous enough to say what needed to be said regarding “anchor babies” and the 14th amendment. Ms. Bachmann skirted it with her baloney about a “legislative” fix – meaning to deal with the magnets only, as she clearly said later on Greta. It was clear to the Framers, and should be self-evident by the very nature of our Republic that only children of natural born or nationalized parents should be granted birth citizenship. I would even settle for just at least “one parent” being a citizen. Lost opportunity in a friendly environment to answer with the true conservative and patriotic response.

    Perry should have a fork put in him because he’s done in my eyes. That is, unless the media manipulates the masses as they always do and purposefully pump him up knowing he’s the most likely to actually lose to Obama. He’s a stumbling, bumbling fool whenever he opens his mouth, in my opinion. He makes GWB look like a master of discourse and dialogue when it comes to elucidating his points. I cringe every time he tries to answer. It’s almost embarrassing.

    If only Gingrich didn’t have so much baggage (some real, some imagined) and wasn’t tied so heavily to the “old school”. He’s clearly the most articulate and intelligent person on the stage when it comes to knowledge of every issue out there. But more importantly he gets right to point of the matter and doesn’t go off on tangents in order to not answer the question. I could live with him as Prez or VP, if that was the choice.

    I like Cain but I’ve not been able to figure out 999 any better than anyone else as to how it could possibly avoid or discount every analysis I’ve seen showing the rich get a huge break and the poor and middle get a huge increase in burden. If somebody has more granular details that show this is false, I’m all ears but I’m not going to hold my breath.

    I can’t help but admire Romney’s coolness under fire. While he has a millstone around his neck with Romneycare, and is suspect on amnesty, I certainly find him more agreeable (and Presidential) than most candidates. I could live with him if he had a true conservative as his running mate (Bachmann or Santorum) to keep him honest on social issues.

    Regarding Santorum, I think his frustration shows but strangely I find it very similar to how I would react when confronted with people who so obviously twist facts or ignore questions fully to go off on some other topic (e.g. Perry asked about 14th and ends up speaking about jobs). It’s the same frustration one might experience when arguing with liberals in general. I only care for Santorum because of his stance on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the family. Otherwise, nothing special. He’s a very principled conservative family man, so I admire him for that all on its own. He deserves more time just to point out the obvious when others skirt the PC issues and pander instead (see Latino man and his question).

    Bachmann tends to oftentimes also avoid direct answers, as mentioned earlier. She also tends to play the “Obama is going down” cheerleader too much with her time. Everyone there (mostly) already wants him gone, so it’s preaching to the choir and serves no purpose other than cheap applause lines. Like Santorum, I like her on social issues, and I do feel that her experience on the intelligence committee makes her pretty game on foreign policy, threats, and defense. I could live with her and Romney, or her and Gingrich, and maybe even Cain. But as a VP at this point, I think.

    Ron Paul has some good things to say, and his wacky persona is actually sort of charming in its own way. But his isolationism and 100% disconnect from the outside world shows he’s basically naive about how the world works, and human nature in general. There is also the issue with the borders, and certain social issues like gay marriage. I just don’t see him being Presidential and managing world issues in a manner others would take seriously.

    That’s about it. It’s too bad we can’t find a candidate that takes the best of all of these to create one Super Repub monster that would crush Obama like a gnat. But alas, it is what it is. At least I don’t “think” there is a McCain in there.

62. #162
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:46 am, Roland said:

    Gingrich would be the best choice for the nomination, even given his flaws.

    If you compare those who have actually held substantial governmental power, and how they actually used it when they had it, and you factor in electability, including their ability to debate, he is the clear choice.

63. #163
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:49 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    HI WHIRLED_PEAS–#105. Good comment on President Reagan’s SDI bluff. I worked at White Sands about 3 miles West of the site being built for the testing of the 2 laser designs that would have their outputs directed up to the satellite network in space.
    ***
    We were worried about what the massive power output would do to our radar and simulation systems. Lightning bolts jumping off the equipment from the backscatter of the humongeous power from these systems might destroy our hardware.
    ***
    But a very strange operation. A few bulldozers would scrape the desert for an hour in the morning. In the afternoon a few cement mixers would show up. Almost no workers or real effort going into the work. I expected a 24/7 effort with hundreds of workers–like when the Colorado Springs area Cheyanne Mountain Air Force command center was being built inside the mountain.
    ***
    I thought the delays were due to problems with the laser system construction. It never dawned on me that this was just a sham project for the Russki satellites to photograph!
    ***
    Reagan was a pretty smart president–his plan to destroy the U.S.S.R. without a war was brilliant. I don’t think the site was ever completed or used.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

64. #164
    On October 19th, 2011 at 1:08 am, BigWolf said:

    JonInVa, I agree with most of your analysis but would amplify a few points.

    Cain’s 999 plan begs for him to be able to articulate it better. Until HE can, in a debate, under fire, it remains an interesting gimmick. It is an intriguing idea that is worthy of additional thought.

    I have immense personal respect for Romney. He is a devoted family man and personally honorable above reproach according to most of his colleagues at Bain and other groups that have worked closely with him. What that translates into as a President would be a policy question.

    The Ron Paul comments were spot on. Naive may not be the best word there, but it captures Paul’s resulting positions rather well.

65. #165
    On October 19th, 2011 at 1:14 am, BigWolf said:

    Sun Tzu is still right centuries later.

    Rocketman, your comments show the cunning misdirection that was built into the efforts to contain and eventually defeat that Soviets without out a global war.

    When your opponent is in the middle of an error, allow him the space to recognize his own defeat.

66. #166
    On October 19th, 2011 at 10:05 am, shimauma2 said:

    So can we all admit now that HERMAN CAIN is the ONLY candidate that looks like he’s going to get anything done??? Please Father God, place your favor on this man and make him our national leader, I beg in Jesus’ name. Amen!

67. #167
    On October 19th, 2011 at 11:18 am, cheapseat said:

    Yo Ron, last time I looked, people voted for their candidates, money and campaign staff didn’t. As a pragmatist, you will always settle for ok, and probbly voted in the 76 primary for Ford, and the 80 primary for GHW Bush. Those were the “safe” pragmatic votes. In order to change this countries direction from crony capitalism/creeping socialism, we will have to make more than safe/pragmatic decisions. GW Bush was the pragmatic choice and he just gave us crony capitalism/creeping socialism light, which is what Mitt and Perry want. They just want THEIR cronies sucking off the gubmint spigots. Cain is the only one offering change, and if he adopts some of Paul’s cut spending at the highest levels attitude, he offers real hope for America again. I don’t want my grandchildren to grow up in a socialist cesspool, where who you know is more important than what you know. Steve Jobs creates, the politburo just provides equal misery for all except themselves.

68. #168
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:06 pm, sidewinder said:

    Roland #162

    I agree with you regarding Gingrich. Plus I think the MSM is doing it’s very darnedest to sidetrack conservatives by pushing for the weakest candidates who Obama can beat. Divide, deflect and then conquer.

69. #169
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:09 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Plus I think the MSM is doing it’s very darnedest to sidetrack conservatives by pushing for the weakest candidates who Obama can beat. Divide, deflect and then conquer.

    Don’t have to think hard about what the Marxist Socialist Media is doing. Undermining conservatives and pushing for the weakest link among GOP candidates has been their MO for the last decade, at least.

70. #170
    On October 19th, 2011 at 12:45 pm, T-Bone said:

    I pay 15% in FEDERAL income tax. I also pay 6.2% in social security tax and 1.45% in medicare tax. Thats 22.65% in taxes to the Feds.

    State taxes are apples. The states will all do their own thing which the President has nothing to do with. He can only deal with oranges. ie Federal taxes. Thats his point on that.

    If I currently pay 22.65% in Federal taxes, his 999 plan would only have me paying 9%. Thats 13.65% of my income that I get to keep.

    For ease of calculation, lets assume I make $100,000. I now pay 22.65 or $22,650 of that to the Feds. Under 999 I would pay $9,000. Thats $13,650 that I keep. The only other part of 999 to affect me is the sales tax. However, I have $13,650 to spend on Fed sales tax before I am at the same place. That means I would have to purchase $151,666 worth of goods in a year to reach that plateau. ($151k x 9% = $13,650.) Fat chance of that happening. Therefore, I save money right off the bat.

    A rich person would seemingly pay less in income tax and more in sales tax each time they purchased a luxury yacht, a big house, or a fine car. Every time they eat out, it will cost them more. However, the limit for social security tax is $107,000. They don’t pay FICA on earnings over that so the 999 would require them to pay 9% on ALL earnings. That alone would probably cost them more in taxes than they pay now.

    The working poor don’t pay any Fed income taxes now. They do pay the FICA tax. The 999 would require they pay something. I like the idea of everyone having skin in the game even if its small. So lets see. If a poor person made $30,000 a year, they pay about $2,295 in FICA tax and thats all. At $30k a year, they probably don’t buy so much that a Fed sales tax would cost them much. A 999 would cost them $2,700 in Fed income taxes. Thats an increase of $405 plus 9% of everything they purchase. If they only make $30k a year they would only have about $20k after the 9% Fed and whatever other taxes and withholdings they have. If they spent all that and had to pay 9% that is only about $2,000 more in Fed tax. So the perosn making $30k a year would pay a maximum of about $2,500 more in taxes. This assumes expenses like rent (the biggest expense) is taxed at 9%. If it is not taxed then the poor would pay about $500 to $1,000 more a year than they do now.

    So at first glance, the rich would pay a lot more, The middle saves some money and the poor will pay more.

    There is so much more to this than that simple calculation. The poor now have skin in the game. The IRS becomes a leaner cheaper entitiy. The cost of goods should go down as hidden taxes are eliminated. Business and individuals will keep more of their money so jobs will be more plentiful. If I were poor, I would rather pay $1,000 a year and have a job, than to get 30% of my pay as an unemployment check. I would live better working than on the dole.

    Of course, accountants and tax attorneys would not fare so well under a simplified tax code but if doing business is cheaper, we can sell more and there will be more business to hire accountants and tax lawyers. A wicked web indeed.

71. #171
    On October 19th, 2011 at 7:50 pm, yaymm said:

    After watching the debates last night, I’m still staying with Herman Cain. I’d like to see a Cain/Gingrich ticket, but I’m not sure Newt would go for it, or be controllable if he was VP. As I recall, in the first debate session, Cain said he’d be willing to have Gingrich as his VP.

    Cain has stumbled a couple of times, no doubt about it, but he still champions the same things I do. I also contend that there are limits to what he can do, such as 9-9-9, unless he has a compliant Congress to agree with him. And it’s built into his plan that any increases in the program require a 2/3 approval in the Congress and that’s not an easy thing to do.

    He has the personal traits I desire in a President and think at this time and place in our history, he’s still the best and most viable candidate. None of our choices are perfect, but nearly all the others seem to me to be less perfect than Cain.