On Thursday, May 12, 2011 Mitt Romney gave a speech defending his healthcare reform bill as Massachusetts Governor as being different than "Obamacare" which he calls a "Powergrab" by the Federal Government. He says his plan is different because it was a state based plan and not a federal plan mandated on the states. Listen to his speech in the video, Do you believe Mitt Romney Clarified his health stance against "Obamacare"?
Mitt Romney is one of the Republican front-runners in the GOP Primary Race. If he were to win the GOP nominee for the 2012 elections, can he beat President Obama?
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Argument Against RomneyIn Obama's Running Mate: Mitt Romney's ObamaCare Problem, the editorial the from May 12, 2011 Wall Street Journal Editorial argues 2012 Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney as "compromised and not credible" because of his waffling stance on Health care. The editorial contends there is no difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare stating "[a]s everyone knows, the health reform Mr. Romney passed in 2006 as Massachusetts Governor was the prototype for President Obama's version and gave national health care a huge political boost," and "Like Mr. Obama's reform, RomneyCare was predicated on the illusion that insurance would be less expensive if everyone were covered" because "Mr. Romney also introduced the individual mandate, first in the nation, requiring everyone to buy coverage or else pay a penalty."The editorial also asserts Romney continues to defend his Massachusetts Plan pointing out "[i]n the paperback edition of his campaign book "No Apology," he calls the plan a "success," and he has defended it in numerous media appearances as he plans his White House run." They continue "Mr. Romney has lately qualified his praise, saying in a speech in New Hampshire in March that "our experiment wasn't perfect—some things worked, some things didn't, and some things I'd change." The editorial suggests Romney must completely abandon his stance on healthcare in Massachusetts and say it was wrong. Otherwise, he is guilty of supporting ObamaCare.Mitt Romney Letter to WSJ in ResponseIn Romney Responds to Health-Care, Romney writes the following letter in response to the WSJ article:I was not surprised to read yet another editorial in the Journal yesterday criticizing the health-care reforms we enacted in Massachusetts ("Obama's Running Mate," May 12). I was, however, not expecting the distortions of what we accomplished. Let me deal with some of them.One, the editorial asserts that people in Massachusetts who wouldn't buy coverage, even though they could afford it, was not a major fiscal problem. But as a state we were spending almost $1 billion on free care for the uninsured. What we did was convert that money into premium support for those who needed help buying a policy, and require those uninsured who could afford to buy coverage to take personal responsibility for their own health care. Two, while it's true that insurance premiums in Massachusetts are among the highest in the nation, that was also the case before reform. A truer statement would be that getting everyone insured is not by itself enough to bring down the costs of health care. And finally, it is simply wrong to say that state spending on health care in Massachusetts has skyrocketed. The cost of the health-care plan to the state budget is "relatively modest" and well within projections, according to the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. They conclude that the new state spending on reform has amounted to less than 1% of the state budget each year.While I have had my disagreements with the Journal's editorial board, where we find common ground is on the need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that empower states to craft their own solutions. A one-size-fits-all plan that raises taxes and ignores the very real differences between states is the wrong course for our nation.Having seen both arguments, who is right about RomneyCare
I was not surprised to read yet another editorial in the Journal yesterday criticizing the health-care reforms we enacted in Massachusetts ("Obama's Running Mate," May 12). I was, however, not expecting the distortions of what we accomplished. Let me deal with some of them.One, the editorial asserts that people in Massachusetts who wouldn't buy coverage, even though they could afford it, was not a major fiscal problem. But as a state we were spending almost $1 billion on free care for the uninsured. What we did was convert that money into premium support for those who needed help buying a policy, and require those uninsured who could afford to buy coverage to take personal responsibility for their own health care. Two, while it's true that insurance premiums in Massachusetts are among the highest in the nation, that was also the case before reform. A truer statement would be that getting everyone insured is not by itself enough to bring down the costs of health care. And finally, it is simply wrong to say that state spending on health care in Massachusetts has skyrocketed. The cost of the health-care plan to the state budget is "relatively modest" and well within projections, according to the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. They conclude that the new state spending on reform has amounted to less than 1% of the state budget each year.While I have had my disagreements with the Journal's editorial board, where we find common ground is on the need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that empower states to craft their own solutions. A one-size-fits-all plan that raises taxes and ignores the very real differences between states is the wrong course for our nation.
Sylvester Stallone made a comment stating that the US apologizes too much for its actions overseas. Mitt Romney decided he would tweet that he agrees with Stallone, and adds he hopes Stallone "doesn't get in trouble with Hollywood friends." Do you agree with this sentiment, that America apologizes too much around the world?
In President Barack Obama's Address on Middle East Foreign Policy, he stated the borders of a future Palestinian state should be based on the pre 1967 6 Day War borders. This has caused an uproar in the media and the Republicans, such as Mitt Romney stating Obama "threw Israel under the Bus." Do you think the 1967 borders should be used as the basis for negotiations?
On June 13, 2011 CNN held the second Republican Primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. Seven GOP presidential hopefuls gave their positions on policy and exchanged jabs over their differences with President Barack Obama. The participating candidates included: Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman of MinnesotaMitt Romney, former Governor of MassachusettsRich Santorum, former Senator of Pennsylvania Ron Paul, Congressman of TexasHerman Cain, Businessman and Talk Show HostNewt Gingrich, former Speaker of the HouseTim Pawlenty, former Governor of MinnesotaDid any of the candidates separate themselves in the debate?
Mike Richards mailed in a question asking the following: "With the controversy surrounding Robert Jeffress, is it acceptable to let the issue of a candidate’s faith shape the debate?" CNN's Anderson Cooper says "this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter Summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of — said that 'Mitt Romney is not a Christian,' and that 'Mormonism is a cult.' Those were his words. Should voters pay attention to a candidate’s religion?"Rick SantorumCongressman Santorum responds saying "I think they should pay attention to the candidate’s values, what the candidate stands for. That’s what is at play. And the person’s faith — and you look at that faith and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person’s belief structure. So that’s — those are important things. I — I’m a Catholic. Catholic has social teachings. Catholic has teachings as to what’s right and what’s wrong. And those are legitimate things for voters to look at, to say if you’re a faithful Catholic, which I try to be — fall short all the time, but I try to be — and — and it’s a legitimate thing to look at as to what the tenets and teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and — and how you would govern this country. With respect to what is the road to salvation, that’s a whole different story. That’s not applicable to what — what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job."Newt GingrichCooper next directs the question to Speaker Gingrich asking him if he agrees with Santorum. Gingrich responds saying: "Well, I think if the question is, does faith matter? Absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truths which begins we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? How can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters. That’s the order: religion, morality and knowledge. Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree." But I think all of us would also agree that there’s a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I’d wonder, where’s your judgment — how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray? Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you’re endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America."Rick PerryNext, Cooper says asks Governor Perry to repudiate the comments by the pastor. Perry replies saying: "Well, our faith — I can no more remove my faith than I can that I’m the son of a tenant farmer. I mean, the issue, are we going to be individuals who stand by our faith? I have said I didn’t agree with that individual’s statement. And our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of — of freedom of religion. And this country is based on, as — as Newt talked about, these values that are so important as we go forward. And the idea that we should not have our freedom of — of religion to be taken away by any means, but we also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn’t agree with it, Mitt, and I said so. But the fact is, Americans understand faith. And what they’ve lost faith in is the current resident of the White House."Mitt RomneyGovernor Romney responds to Perry saying: "What I actually found was most troubling in what the reverend said in the introduction was he said, in choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion. And someone who is a good moral person is not someone who we should select; instead, we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious belief. That — that idea that we should choose people based upon their religion for public office is what I find to be most troubling, because the founders of this country went to great length to make sure — and even put it in the Constitution — that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion, that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there’s a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance for other people and faiths. That’s bedrock principle."And it was that principle, Governor, that I wanted you to be able to, no, no, that’s wrong, Reverend Jeffress. Instead of saying as you did, 'Boy, that introduction knocked the ball out of the park,' I’d have said, 'Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong. We should select people not based upon their faith.' Even though — and I don’t suggest you distance yourself from your faith any more than I would. But the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think, is a very dangerous and — and enormous departure from the principles of our — of our Constitution."Which GOP Candidate do you agree with on the issue of the relevance of a candidate's faith?
Hasan Abu Nimah wrote an article titled Why is it Open Season on Palestinians in US Presidential Race? for the Electronic Intifada recently. Nimah says "it seems that the Palestinians, or more precisely bashing and demonizing them, preoccupy a disproportionate amount of the candidates’ attention. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the Palestinians never sought to make Americans or the US their enemy nor did they do anything to harm the US." In many of the Republican Primary Debates, it appears as though the candidates are fighting over who can say the most racist and hateful things towards the Palestinians. Here are a following of the things each candidate has said:Newt Gingrich said the Palestinians are an "invented people." Mitt Romney claims they are taught terrorism and to hate Jews in their schools.Rich Santorum said "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land"Michele Bachman believes Palestine should die so Israel can live.Rick Perry attempted to have all persons aboard the Palestinian Freedom Flotilla's arrested for terrorism.Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't said any racist and hateful comments towards Palestinians. Those are just examples of a few of the candidates comments. Look up some more and then decide, Which Republican Presidential Candidate hates the Palestinians more?
As soon as President Obama finished his Middle East Foreign Policy address, Republican and Conservative politicians and pundits jumped all over him for saying the the pre-1967 Six Day War borders to be used as the building block. This is nothing new. Was it an overreaction for the following:Mitt Romney: "threw Israel under the bus" giving a victory to the Palestinians before the negotiations get started. "It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally."Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."Rick Santorium: "The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policiesThe current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies."Tim Pawlenty "The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided. At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem"Michelle Bachman: "a shocking display of betrayal" to the Israelis. "Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first."Sarah Palin: via twitter: "Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks, Concerned Americans"
Sarah Palin began a bus tour on May 29 to visit historical sites throughout the Northeast United States. Her website sarahpac.com contains updates on her visits to monument like the Liberty Bell and Ellis Island. The blurb on her site explains the "One Nation Tour" as "our new campaign to educate and energize Americans about our nation's founding principles," but some commentators wonder if it isn't about a different campaign -- a presidential campaign. The Huffington Post has an intelligent analysis of Palin's role in the Republican landscape. Toward the end of the article the journalist looks at her odds against the other viable candidates, including Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, complete with support percentage breakdowns. The article also observes, "If the former VP candidate does not decide to run, the bus tour and the film could be seen as an attempt to hang on to relevance." Real Clear Politics opens their coverage with the statement, "In a move designed to propel her closer to a presidential run, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will set out on a bus tour." Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert also had fun speculating on Palin's intentions.So do you think Palin's tour is preparation for a presidential run? Or just an attempt to keep her from fading out of the public eye?
Sarah Palin began a bus tour on May 29 to visit historical sites throughout the Northeast United States. Her website sarahpac.com contains updates on her visits to monument like the Liberty Bell and Ellis Island. The blurb on her site explains the "One Nation Tour" as "our new campaign to educate and energize Americans about our nation's founding principles," but some commentators wonder if it isn't about a different campaign -- a presidential campaign.
The Huffington Post has an intelligent analysis of Palin's role in the Republican landscape. Toward the end of the article the journalist looks at her odds against the other viable candidates, including Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, complete with support percentage breakdowns. The article also observes, "If the former VP candidate does not decide to run, the bus tour and the film could be seen as an attempt to hang on to relevance." Real Clear Politics opens their coverage with the statement, "In a move designed to propel her closer to a presidential run, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will set out on a bus tour." Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert also had fun speculating on Palin's intentions.
So do you think Palin's tour is preparation for a presidential run? Or just an attempt to keep her from fading out of the public eye?
According to all people involved in the Middle East Peace Process, the only just solution to a peace between the Palestinians and Israelis depends on a Palestinian State in the pre-1967 borders. For some reason, Republicans across the board disagree with it. Here are their statements:Mitt Romney claims Obama's Middle East vision "threw Israel under the bus" giving a victory to the Palestinians before the negotiations get started. He also says "It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally."Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls President Obama's speech "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."Rick Santorium on Obama's Middle East Speech states "The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policiesThe current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies."Tim Pawlenty on the Obama Speech concerning Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: "The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided. At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem"Michelle Bachman calls Obama decision over pre-1967 borders "a shocking display of betrayal" to the Israelis. "Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first."Sarah Palin left Obama a message via twitter: "Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks, Concerned Americans"
During the Republican Primary Debate, the candidates received a question via twitter that asked: "How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country? And how does it relate with your message?" CNN's Anderson Cooper opens this question with Herman Cain because "two weeks ago, [he] said 'Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself.' That was two weeks ago. The movement has grown. Do you still say that?"Herman CainCain quickly answered, "Yes, I do still say that. And here’s why...They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they’re directing their anger at the wrong place. Wall Street didn’t put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn’t spend a trillion dollars that didn’t do any good. Wall Street isn’t going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration. So I do stand by them." (See 1st paragraph under Paul before reading the 2nd paragraph under Cain.) In response to Paul's first paragraph below: "All I want to say is that representative Paul is partly right, but he’s mixing problems here. It’s more than one problem. Look, the people — the banks — yes, the banks and the businesses on Wall Street, yes, the way that was administered was not right. But my point is this: What are the people who are protesting want from bankers on Wall Street, to come downstairs and write them a check? This is what we don’t understand. Take — go and get to the source of the problem, is all I’m saying. And that's the White House"Ron PaulPaul immediately followed Cain saying "I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There’s a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can’t blame the victims. But we also have to point — I’d go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I’d go over to the Federal Reserve. They create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that you can’t solve these problems if you don’t know where these bubbles come from. But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? The big corporations of people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world’s going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved. But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks." (Read paragraph two under Cain now)Yes, the argument is it’s — the program was OK, but it was mismanaged. But I work on the assumption that government’s not very capable of managing almost anything so you shouldn’t put that much trust in the government. You have — you have to trust the marketplace. And when the government gets involved, they have to deal with the fraud. And how many people have gone to jail either in the government, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, that participated in this heist? And nobody suffers the consequences. All these investigations, and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses, it’s their fault, according — that’s why they’re on Wall Street. And we can’t blame them. We have to blame the business cycle and the economic policies over the last 10 years that led to this disaster"Mitt RomneyAfter allowing Cain and Paul to go back and forth, Cooper tells us Romney had "originally called the protests 'dangerous'...[and] 'class warfare,'" but "recently sounded more sympathetic." Cooper asks Romney "Where do you stand now? What is your message to those people protesting?"Romney responds saying "we can spend our time talking about what happened three years ago and what the cause was of our collapse. But let’s talk about what’s happened over the last three years. We’ve had a president responsible for this economy for the last three years, and he’s failed us. He’s failed us in part because he has no idea how the private sector works or how to create jobs. On every single issue, he’s made it harder for our economy to reboot. And as a result, we have 25 million Americans out of work or stopped looking for work or in part- time work and can’t get full-time employed. Home values going down. You have median income in America that in the last three years has dropped by 10 percent. Americans are hurting across this country, and the president’s out there campaigning. Why isn’t he governing? He doesn’t — he doesn’t have a jobs plan even now. This — this is a critical time for America. And I — and I can tell you that this is time to have someone who understands how the economy works, who can get America working again. Instead of dividing and blaming, as this president is, let’s grow America again and have jobs that are the envy of the world. And I know how to do it."Of the three GOP Hopefuls, Who Do you agree with concerning their impression of Occupy Wall Street?
Texas Governor Rick Perry has released a new campaign ad on YouTube to help boost his slumping numbers in the 2012 GOP Primary Race. The ad targets the Christian Evangelical base of the Republican Party. Specifically, its intentions are to string a cord within the Christian Evangelical community and garner their support by conveying an extremely homophobic and highly theocratic message. Following embarrassing performances in several Republican debates, Perry's numbers have plummeted in the polls. Perry entered the race to become the GOP Presidential nominee on August 13, and he immediately became the front-runner in the polls. He held that spot for five weeks peaking with a 19 point lead over Mitt Romney on the 1st of September, but then his numbers began to steadily decline. Now he finds himself near the bottom of the candidates with only 5% support in the most recent Gallop Poll. Perry needed to act and act quickly in an attempt to re-energize his campaign and create enthusiasm and support from potential GOP primary voters. As one of several Evangelical Republican potential nominees, Perry's campaign needed to create some noise to separate himself from the rest of the group. Therefore, his campaign chose to draw a staunch line in the sand with the following message in his ad: "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."Is such bigoted and theocratic language acceptable in America? Isn't America supposed to represent equality and justice before the law and equal opportunity for all to strive to achieve one's goals? And which Church liturgy would Perry like our public schools that are paid for by tax funds from ALL AMERICANS, including Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Hindus, and other faiths, to forcibly teach our children? Personally, I am an Orthodox Christian, and I don't want Protestant guided prayer to be taught to my children. In particular, I don't want Evangelical Christianity to be taught to my children whatsoever. However, this is besides the point and only an example of why even Christians don't all agree or want schools being involved with guiding our children's spiritual growth. America is a secular country, and has never been a theocracy. The Separation of Church and State is a fundamental underlying principle in our Constitution protecting individual liberties and freedoms. The Constitution grants Americans the right to choose what religion to follow, and whether to follow a religion at all. State institutions are barred by the Separation clause from favoring any religion, and this includes Christianity.In the year 2011 is such homophobic and discriminatory language still acceptable from a politician running for president? Yes, what Perry said is not just homophobic, but also discriminatory to gay and lesbian Americans. Singling out one group (gay/lesbian Americans wanting to serve in the military) and denying them the right to freely participate in any aspect of society that all others are permitted (all other Americans are permitted to serve) is the very definition of discrimination. Finally, is this what defines the fabric of Christian America? Is the evangelical message the message of American Christianity? It definitely is not for me, and I wish it did not define the voice of American Christianity. However, there is no counter Christian block in American politics to the Evangelicals. Unfortunately, those of us Christians that love and accept all people and judge them by the content of their character have no representation in US Christianity and Politics. We are too few and far apart. I obviously don't think Perry's anti-gay ad should be acceptable in America, but I do unfortunately believe his Evangelical Christianity is the American brand of Christianity. Of course, there are small pockets of Christians here and there that do not adopt the Evangelical message, but their voice is not a part of the political discourse that represents Christianity in US politics. Anyways, what do you think?Is Rick Perry's new anti-gay ad acceptable in America? Does this message define the fabric of Christian America?
"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."
The first question of the night asked of the candidates was "What's your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?" After asking the general question to all the candidates, CNN's Anderson Cooper specifically asked Congresswoman Michele Bachmann why she believes Hermain Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9% sales tax, a 9% income tax, and 9% corporate tax, would destroy our country?Michele BachmannEssentially, Bachman makes two points. The first is that if we were to give Congress a 9% sales tax, then it would only be a matter of time before Washington increases it. She continues saying "we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you’d be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit. That’s the worry." When asked whether she "would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don’t pay taxes," Bachmann said "I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar. Everyone needs to pay something in this country. That’s why with my tax plan, I take a page out of not theory but what’s provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That’s the plan that I look at. I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have."Rick SantorumSantorum is asked if Cain's Tax Plan will raise taxes, and Santorum says "reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That's the analysis. And it makes sense, because when...you don’t provide a standard deduction, when you don’t provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and...a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we’re talking about major increases in taxes on people." Santorum also criticizes the plan as taxing single Americans as much as a family of three. According to Santorum, "since we’ve had the income tax in America, we’ve always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to — to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes — we gave some breaks for families. He doesn’t do that in this bill."Rick PerryAnderson Cooper tells us Texas has a 6.25% sales tax, and then asks Governor Perry "would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?" Perry responds by saying "you don't need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire where they don't have a sales tax and you're fixing to give them one. They’re not interested in 9-9-9. What they’re interested in is flatter and fairer...right here in Nevada you’ve got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that, and nine cents on a new home — or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more? I don't think so, Herman. It's not going to fly."Ron PaulCooper states Paul called Cain's plan dangerous and wants him to elaborate. Paul says it is "because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it’s regressive. A lot of people aren’t paying any taxes, and I like that. I don’t think that we should even things up by raising taxes. So it is a regressive tax. So it’s very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues. But the gentlemen asked the question...what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That’s what we should replace it with. I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it’s a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people...we borrow the money...[or] we print the money. And then when prices go up...that is the tax. So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer."Mitt RomneyCooper says to Governor Romney "you have your only 59-Point Plan. In the last debate, Mr Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?" Romney responds by saying "oftentimes simpler is better...now let me make this comment...We’ve got a lot of people in America that are out of work...We’ve got home prices going down. We’ve got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes, and tax is part of it. I want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle income families...I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector as opposed to putting a damper on it. I want to get trade, opening up new markets for America...This is time to get America growing again. And that’s what this campaign ought to be about."Newt GingrichOn what type of tax system he would like to see implemented, Gingrich says "I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100 percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right"Herman CainAfter Cooper points out several conservatives are saying the 9-9-9 Tax Plan would raise taxes on the middle and lower class voters, Cain responds by saying "the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don’t want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that’s simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess." On the specific attacks concerning whether his Tax Plan created a value-added tax, Cain says it is simply "not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available...I'm sorry, Representative Bachmann — it’s not a value-added tax. It’s a single tax. And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least."Which of the stated Tax Policies do you most support?
One big issue discussed in the GOP debate on 10/18/2011 in Las Vegas, NV was how the candidates would deal with illegal immigration. CNN's Anderson Cooper opened the first question of this series to Herman Cain by simply asking if Cain would attempt to build a border fence across the entire border between the US and Mexico? Herman Cain"Yes, I believe we should secure the border for real, and it would be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas. I don’t apologize at all for wanting to protect the American citizens and to protect our agents on the border, no. Secondly, the second thing that I would do — see, I believe in let’s solve the whole problem. We must shut the back door so people can come in the front door. Secondly, promote the existing path to citizenship by cleaning up the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.Thirdly, enforce the laws — the immigration laws that are already on the books. And here’s another one of these bold ideas by the non-politician up here. Empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing in terms of enforcing those laws."Rick PerryAfter Cain's response, Cooper asks Governor Perry whether it was "possible to build a fence...across the entire border" of Texas? Perry replied that you could build a fence, "but it takes anywhere between 10 and 15 years and $30 billion. There’s a better way, and that’s to build a virtual defense zone...along that border, which...you can do it with strategic fencing in the obvious places where it matters. But the way you really stop the activities along that border that are illegal...is to put boots on the ground...You use Predator drones to use that real-time information to give those boots on the ground that information, and they can instantly move to those areas. And that is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border, and really make America safe."Michele BachmannNext, Cooper asks Congresswoman Bachmann agreed with Governor Perry? Bachmann replied saying "last Saturday, I was the very first candidate that signed a pledge that said...I will build a double-walled fence...with an area of security neutrality in between...on the entire border, and I’ll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year...I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. And every — every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen...I think there’s a very real issue with magnets in this country. And I think the issue...is the issue of anchor babies. And that’s an issue that...the state is very concerned, because when someone comes illegally across the border, specifically for the purpose of utilizing American resources for having a baby here, then all of the welfare benefits then attach to that baby."Mitt RomneyFormer Governor Romney just sort of jumps in with his opinion saying "in terms of how to secure the border, it’s really not that hard. You have a fence, you have enough Border Patrol agents to oversee the fence, and you turn off the magnets. And that’s employers that hire people who they know are here illegally. That’s why you have an E-Verify system so they can know that. And, number two, you turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally. It is not that hard. We have to have the political will to get the job done."Ron PaulCongressman Paul says "when we approach this immigration problem, we should look at the incentives and that — or the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate, you must give them free education. You have to remove these incentives. But I don’t think the answer is a fence whatsoever...But I might add about the border control...is we lack resources there. I think we should have more border guards on it, a more orderly transition, and run it much better. But where are our resources? You know, we worry more about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to bring the guard units home and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border."Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not answer this question during the debate.Which of the stated Border Fence Policies do you support the most?
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
