Romney keeps away from Tea Party

[Lacarnut]

I am not convinced that most folks buy a home for the purpose of getting the interest deduction.

I have owned 3 and it was certainly a consideration. Try floating that boat and see how many irate taxpayers you get.

[delilahmused]

I'm sorry, but Bok is correct.  While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates.  The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller.  Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public.  The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.

Why is it people always name two that lost but forget the MANY that won? And what about every single ****ing poll that shows most Americans have more in common with the Tea Party than they do with the political class...especially the elites like Romney. Bitch slap for sheer stupidity and being so out of touch with the average American.

Cindie

[delilahmused]

ion
Democrats and Republicans need independents if they have any chance whatsoever of winning. 

Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities. Obama campaigned as a center (even a little right) candidate. Also, during the primaries Reagan was far behind Bush as far as the polls were concerned but managed to be the nominee (who, btw was believed to be unable to beat Carter because he was just an actor and way too conservative). A week before the election he was supposedly behind 25 points.

Some people are natural leaders and fearless (Palin has a bigger set than any of the current crop). Those that call her a quitter would do well to remember she's constantly taking flak and often extremely vicious criticism...including from her own party, but she never backs down and never apologizes and NEVER gives up. Whether she'll run or be the nominee if she does run remains to be seen but, like Reagan, she's constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.

Cindie

E

[delilahmused]

I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .

Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.  

Are you confusing a flat tax with the fair tax? Flat tax would give everyone the same percentage of taxes (taken of of pay checks like they are now), say 10%. A fair tax would eliminate all payroll taxes and instead be a consumer tax. The government could easily make certain markets (like real estate and food) exempt from taxes (or taxed at an extremely low rate). I'd rather have a fair tax because you're only taxed on what you consume instead of what you EARNED.

Cindie

[delilahmused]

It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making."  That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook.  We're not.  We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit.  I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap.  Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation. 
 
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc.  Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds.  I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds.  My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security.  It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps.  I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA?  What about crucial agencies such as the FAA?  Will the oversight of airlines drop?  I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.

Why not just have the government provide only for those things specifically called for in the constitution? As for what to cut...let's start with ridiculous programs like National Endowment for the Arts and NPR and a million others. All of those useless programs should be unfunded. No farm subsidies. No bailing out companies or industries. They sink or swim on their own. Instead of paying huge pensions and other benefits because of union pressure, there's no reason a company can't decide to phase out unions (what the hell are they going to do about it...plenty of nonunion people who would love to have a job would be willing to replace them) and profits would increase tremendously. No department of Education (states can handle that). Homeland security has become a ridiculously bloated bureaucracy. Get rid of earmarks. The FAA could function quite well in the private sector as could the TSA. National highways are important for commerce and would be worthy of government funding. FBI and other national law enforcement agencies fall under the category of protecting the country (a kind of domestic "army" if you will). Phase out social security by having younger people put their money in private retirement funds. You wouldn't have to cut grandma out (this is a myth created by Democrats and not one Republican or conservative has EVER supported that). I have a 92 year old grandmother, too. Families used to care for their elderly relatives. My husband who is 8 years older than me grew up in a Donna Reed world. His grandmother lived with his family. He always had cookies or other goodies waiting for him after school. Welfare and other safety nets should have a time limit. And no extra money because you pop out an extra kid. Rather than pay for generations of lifetime recipients create jobs programs, funds for education (from adult remedial to community colleges). In the long run you would create educated, productive tax payers who don't need to suck from the government teat. Community day care centers (not funded by the government but paid for by these new workers), which would also provide jobs for ex welfare recipients, would provide a place for children of working parents to be cared for. Absolutely NO government unions. It's called government SERVICE for a reason. When the private sector who pay their salaries makes half of what they do, there's something incredibly wrong with that system. And they hold the citizens hostage. Senate and congresspersons' salaries should be reduced by half as should their aides. When members of the military are making a quarter of what they do for putting their asses on the line it's beyond disgusting. Stop funding the UN and move their asses out of the United States. There's no reason we should fund an agency who seems to exist simply to denigrate the US. Reduce the amounts we give to other countries and impose tariffs on imports so that American products can compete. That would also force some companies to open factories here in the US to avoid such fees, again providing jobs for Americans which in turn creates more taxpayers. Whether you have a flat tax or fair tax (imagine the extra profitss a company would have if they didn't have to give so much to the government). Again, this would allow them to hire more workers and would provide incentive for more people to start small businesses.

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

cindie

[Lacarnut]

Are you confusing a flat tax with the fair tax? Flat tax would give everyone the same percentage of taxes (taken of of pay checks like they are now), say 10%. A fair tax would eliminate all payroll taxes and instead be a consumer tax. The government could easily make certain markets (like real estate and food) exempt from taxes (or taxed at an extremely low rate). I'd rather have a fair tax because you're only taxed on what you consume instead of what you EARNED.

Cindie

You are correct. However, I am leery of government period when they start talking about taxes. For example, in Louisiana voters passed a bill to reduce the state sales tax in exchange for an increase in income tax. It was supposed to be a small amount. It turned out to be a large amount. Taxpayers suffered 6 years because of this law which has since been repealed.     

[Gratiot]

Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities.

...she's (Palin) constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.

While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think.  However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.

On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed.  How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect?  Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.

[Lacarnut]

Why not just have the government provide only for those things specifically called for in the constitution? As for what to cut...let's start with ridiculous programs like National Endowment for the Arts and NPR and a million others. All of those useless programs should be unfunded. No farm subsidies. No bailing out companies or industries. They sink or swim on their own. Instead of paying huge pensions and other benefits because of union pressure, there's no reason a company can't decide to phase out unions (what the hell are they going to do about it...plenty of nonunion people who would love to have a job would be willing to replace them) and profits would increase tremendously. No department of Education (states can handle that). Homeland security has become a ridiculously bloated bureaucracy. Get rid of earmarks. The FAA could function quite well in the private sector as could the TSA. National highways are important for commerce and would be worthy of government funding. FBI and other national law enforcement agencies fall under the category of protecting the country (a kind of domestic "army" if you will). Phase out social security by having younger people put their money in private retirement funds. You wouldn't have to cut grandma out (this is a myth created by Democrats and not one Republican or conservative has EVER supported that). I have a 92 year old grandmother, too. Families used to care for their elderly relatives. My husband who is 8 years older than me grew up in a Donna Reed world. His grandmother lived with his family. He always had cookies or other goodies waiting for him after school. Welfare and other safety nets should have a time limit. And no extra money because you pop out an extra kid. Rather than pay for generations of lifetime recipients create jobs programs, funds for education (from adult remedial to community colleges). In the long run you would create educated, productive tax payers who don't need to suck from the government teat. Community day care centers (not funded by the government but paid for by these new workers), which would also provide jobs for ex welfare recipients, would provide a place for children of working parents to be cared for. Absolutely NO government unions. It's called government SERVICE for a reason. When the private sector who pay their salaries makes half of what they do, there's something incredibly wrong with that system. And they hold the citizens hostage. Senate and congresspersons' salaries should be reduced by half as should their aides. When members of the military are making a quarter of what they do for putting their asses on the line it's beyond disgusting. Stop funding the UN and move their asses out of the United States. There's no reason we should fund an agency who seems to exist simply to denigrate the US. Reduce the amounts we give to other countries and impose tariffs on imports so that American products can compete. That would also force some companies to open factories here in the US to avoid such fees, again providing jobs for Americans which in turn creates more taxpayers. Whether you have a flat tax or fair tax (imagine the extra profitss a company would have if they didn't have to give so much to the government). Again, this would allow them to hire more workers and would provide incentive for more people to start small businesses.

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

cindie

A very thoughtfull post, and I agree with most of it. Plus, the last thing we need is a mushy RINO like Romney.

[delilahmused]

While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think.  However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.

On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed.  How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect?  Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.

Why would the character of the American people change? The same thing was said about people then as well...they aren't conservative enough to vote for him. Besides, more than liberal or conservative, if Americans have a choice between someone who exudes strength, confidence, patriotism, and a positive outlook and someone who is weak, ineffective, and arrogant, the former will win every time.

As for Palin, everyone said she was finished after she left the governorship, but here she is, front and center, being a voice for conservatives on the national stage.

Refudiate (it was the word of the year) has become part of the national lexicon.

Death panels became part of the national conversation when discussing the debacle that became the health care bill.

She posts on facebook or tweets and it instantly becomes news. Even if the lamestream media tries to put a negative spin on what she says they have to report her actual words, thus she gets her message out to the masses. She uses this "new" media more effectively than anyone else.

The majority of the candidates she endorsed were elected, including several governorships. Should she decide to run, she'll be able to call in quite a few favors.

Whatever else people thing of her, no one doubts her honor or integrity.

Where the hell are any of the other conservative "leaders"? Romney evidently doesn't even think he needs to speak to the American people about the concerns of the day the's earned his candidacy...he and the other elites just believe it's his turn. Palin is out there every day fighting against the elites and the left...and she scares the shit out of them.

Everyone said her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars would be her undoing (though why the actions of her ADULT daughter would have anything to do with Sara is beyond me). Yet, Bristol earned her own respect and was kind of America's sweetheart at the end.

Everyone said her Sara Palin's Alaska would show her to be frivolous and not a serious contender. Yet, many people who didn't know her were able to see her as one of them and tough as nails with an adventurous spirit, unafraid to try new things. Even my best friend's partner (who isn't the least bit conservative and thought she was kind of a joke) said he understood her better and, probably much to his dismay, developed kind of a grudging respect for her.

Cindie

[Lacarnut]

On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed.  How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect?  Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.

Palin has a plan to create millions of good paying jobs and at the same time cut down our dependence on foreign oil and thus reduce our balance of payment. No, it is not dumb ass green jobs; it is using the plentiful resources we have in this country to drill for oil and tap into our abundance of natural gas. I have asked this question many times who has more experience in this field? Most if not all of the bunch running for the nomination have never seen an oil platform in the Gulf of M.or Anwar. However, they have been to many shit hole countries throughout the world on junkets. I doubt that you can find anyone in Congress that has a Keener Political Intellect than her in the field of Energy. BTW, solving our energy problem will help to pay down our debt, create many good paying jobs and is a National Security issue to boot.

[Janice]

Some great responses to Gratiot's quire " ... How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect?  Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement."

H5 all.

[true_blood]

I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.

BINGO! You said it. DO.NOT.WANT.
I wonder what he replies to the community organizer's Hellcare will be, since he introduced RomneyCare.

[Lacarnut]

BINGO! You said it. DO.NOT.WANT.
I wonder what he replies to the community organizer's Hellcare will be, since he introduced RomneyCare.

I am hoping that Hannity will ask him that question tomorrow night. Romney is a smooth operator who will bullshit his way out of it. He will state that it was a mistake and that if he had to do it over, he would not sign it. More baloney coming from him will be the differences between the 2 plans. Both are bad and it does not matter how you slice it. Plus, it shows his poor judgement and policy making decisions.

[Janice]

Hmm .. yes. Romney is supposed to be such a good businessman, ie good on the economics front ... that he thought socialized medicine would somehow improve the States economy?

Hows that work again??

[Varokhâr]

Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities. Obama campaigned as a center (even a little right) candidate. Also, during the primaries Reagan was far behind Bush as far as the polls were concerned but managed to be the nominee (who, btw was believed to be unable to beat Carter because he was just an actor and way too conservative). A week before the election he was supposedly behind 25 points.

Some people are natural leaders and fearless (Palin has a bigger set than any of the current crop). Those that call her a quitter would do well to remember she's constantly taking flak and often extremely vicious criticism...including from her own party, but she never backs down and never apologizes and NEVER gives up. Whether she'll run or be the nominee if she does run remains to be seen but, like Reagan, she's constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.

Amen. It's only those who insist on permitting the Leftist mainstream media to influence their views who think Palin is unqualified or inexperienced or lacking in fortitude or whatever. Her own actions prove them wrong, but if people insist on having those actions filtered to them through the liberal, Palin-hating press, then they can't possibly have an accurate picture of her.

Hell, just watching Sarah Palin's Alaska shows that she's got more natural presidential ability than most of the silver-tongued slimeballs who actually get party nominations.

While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think.  However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.

On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed.  How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect?  Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.

Wait, did I log onto Democratic Underground? Nah, can't be - I don't have a membership there

Reagan's success proved that it is most certainly possible to be a staunch, patriotic conservative and attract independents. All one has to do is get one's staunch, patriotic conservatism out there, simply and honestly articulated, and the conservatism of independents will be awakened.

As for the Tea Party, if only everyone would "lash themselves" against its "rhetoric". Or rather, if only everyone would take a hint and adopt their common sense positions regarding government and the people's rights. We'd have a much better country, then.

[ConservativeMobster]

Great topic and interesting replies.  I like Palin, I really do, and respect the staunch support of her I find on this forum. 

With that out of the way, the thing that keeps flashing in my mind is the comment "if Palin isn't the nominee I will stay home"...

lacarnut, you and I have touched on this before.  I want what you want, a true conservative voice and RINO be damned.  But honestly, if we don't weed them out in the primary we are given no choice. I would NEVER stay home election night if it meant giving Barry one less vote to counter.  Can you share your thoughts on HOW we can ensure a Palin nomination?

"All that is neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

[Lacarnut]

Great topic and interesting replies.  I like Palin, I really do, and respect the staunch support of her I find on this forum.  

With that out of the way, the thing that keeps flashing in my mind is the comment "if Palin isn't the nominee I will stay home"...

lacarnut, you and I have touched on this before.  I want what you want, a true conservative voice and RINO be damned.  But honestly, if we don't weed them out in the primary we are given no choice. I would NEVER stay home election night if it meant giving Barry one less vote to counter.  Can you share your thoughts on HOW we can ensure a Palin nomination?

"All that is neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

If Palin is not the nominee, I will probably hold my nose and vote for the Repub provided it is not Romney. Obama has already done a great deal of harm which will take a real conservative 8 or more years to reverse. If we elect a weak kneed-ed pansy ass RINO, very little will improve. Cutting around the edges will not get us back on the right track. In all probably, a weak Repub President will be a one term-er. What is needed is a forcefull conservative who will run over liberals and environmentalist like a freight train and go to the people to get his or her programs passed. Not one Repub that I knows has a plan to create millions of good paying jobs except Palin. Drilling new fields for oil and natural gas will not only provide millions of jobs plus reduce our balance of payments and improve our national security.

Some Repubs think Palin is too controversial and do not give her a chance to beat Obama. I think the Magic Negro is the one that does not stand a chance of getting reelected. Unemployment will stay high and that will be his waterloo. However, an idiot like McCain stating that Obama would make a good President in the debates is not a recipe for winning.

I think at this juncture, she will make a decision on whether to run or not. The only thing we can do is to encourage her. 

[Janice]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJdJmLmz0JU[/youtube]

Gotta luv RINOs. /s

[Chris_]

Well, it doesn't make me any difference as I don't like Romney anyway.

[RealConservativePatriot]

Our nominee must be someone who believes in a strong national defense, secured borders, and economic policies that lead to lower taxes, less spending, and limited government. Now, Romney has his strong points, but I hardly call an individual mandate in health insurance something to run on. As an animal lover, it would be difficult for me to vote for someone who straps a dog on the top of his car for 12 hours and then brushes it away as a petty attack- shows the guy's character, or therefore lack of.

[Janice]

Ethanol Strategery

It's a tale of two candidates, at this point the two frontrunners in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, each trying to create contrast not only with President Obama but also with the other. With each passing day, the contrast is becoming clearer -- and in a way that could help Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty overcome former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's early lead in the Republican horserace.

It started several weeks ago with Romney's "no apologies" approach to Romneycare, a Massachusetts version of Obamacare no matter how hard Mitt Romney tries to frame it differently. >>>

This is in stark contrast to Pawlenty's repudiation of his own prior position on cap-and-trade. Pawlenty has said he made a mistake and has apologized -- which he should -- for having ever supported that policy: "I've said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I'm sorry. You're going to have a few clunkers in your record, and we all do, and that's one of mine. I just admit it. I don't try to duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away. I'm just telling you, I made a mistake." >>>

In his remarks last week, >>> Tim Pawlenty came out -- and I repeat this was in Iowa -- against ethanol subsidies:

We need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can't afford them anymore. >>>

Romney, the would-be conservative, came out with this: "I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe it's an important part of our energy solution in this country." Again, Romney's words could easily have come from Barack Obama.

========================================

Romney --- Obamalite.

[B9]

========================================

Romney --- Obamalite.

Janice,
I'm not sure what your are implying with your link to ethanol.
If against, then we agree. Romney, like a chameleon, is always changing colors.
In in Iowa, gold is as corn, both in color and for political gain.

[Janice]

If you read what I posted above ... its not just ethanol.

Been to the intro thread B9?

[B9]

If you read what I posted above ... its not just ethanol.

Been to the intro thread B9?

I have. But you introduced ETOH, and so I addressed.
Which one of these candidates, now expressed or future implied, will come against it?

[Wineslob]

Ethanol is a Greenie pipe dream. Shows exactly where Romney sides. I woulden't vote for him in a Gazillion years.