8:33 PM
On immigration I have to side with Rudy and McCain. Romney and Huckabee sound like the blowhards Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs on the issue. Demagoguery of an issue that really doesn’t affect that many people. I mean seriously, how many of you readers lost your job to a Mexican immigrant with little education and no English language skills? Please.
On healthcare, they were all pretty inarticulate. The solution to escalating prices is competition and getting rid of the third party payer system we currently have.
On “change” Rudy scores points. Change can be for the worse and Rudy explains that eloquently.
Fred doesn’t seem like he wants to be there.
8:34
Ron Paul repeats the “war for oil” canard that the libs are so proud of. Ugh.
McCain talks about greenhouse gas emissions. Ugh.
Thompson says no to “windfall profits” tax. Thank God someone is making sense.
8:38
Rudy talks about an energy independence program. Ugh, Here’s a clue, how about letting the market dictate when we move away from oil? When oil truly gets to expensive, consumers will demand new energy sources. There’s a reason why 5 years ago everyone was driving an SUV. Oil was cheap. Forcing that through taxation or subsidies is a mistake that will lead to inefficiency and unintended consequences.
Romney talks about innovation and I agree but it has to be private innovation.
12:47 AM
Despite my thoughts on Fred’s performance (which are influenced by the fact that I was in and out of the house because I was grilling Churrasco on the BBQ and that every time I paid attention it seemed that Mitt Romney was talking or McCain was attacking him), several people are calling Thompson the debate winner. Apparently his economically phrased answers and ability to stay out of the name-calling gave him the nod from several pundits.
12 thoughts on “Debate thoughts”
Comments are closed.
Mitt Romney is sooooooo finished.
Back on topic for a second:
McCain lost serious points with me when he went way out of his way to take a cheap shot at Romney well after that issue had be addressed by all the candidates. You can attack his positions (however many there may be) while on the topic, but McCain just felt like he needed to take an extra shot when it wasn’t necessary or appropriate. I bet you he lost some voters there.
I thought Fred did well. He did get shut out of the Romney vs all crossfire, but he looked good by staying out of it. His challenge to Giuliani to clarify his immigration policy was good without appearing to make Rudy look bad.
I think Fred won the debate hands down- he make Huckabee look foolish for his “bunker mentality” comment, he pinned Rudy down on Immigration, and he pinned Romney down on healthcare, of all issues. He comes across as the only adult in the room, poised, confident, and above the fray. I hope enough Floridians will put the brakes on Huckabee- Fred is the strongest candidate we can nominate. Any other Repubican candidate is a general election loser, IMHO.
McCain’s comment did seem forced but he wanted to get it in there. McCain’s knock is that he’s too liberal and willing to compromise. Romney’s knock is that he’s a flip flopper. The difference is minimal, but I’m willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt because as a Senator part of his job description is finding compromise. An executive that changes positions so often, as Romney seems to, is more troublesome.
I thought Rudy scored points by looking like an adult, and he did get an appropriate zinger in there when he said that Reagan would be in on of Mitt’s negative ads for doing amnesty.
Without tort reform nothing is going to make health care better.
No candidate is shining in my opinion. The lesser of the evils is Rudy based mostly on his success in NY. I don’t understand your position on energy independence. It is probably one of the most important issues we are facing in the mid to long term. I am all for competition so lets remove the incentives and the freebies given to big oil and natural gas and let the market dictate the right path.
What would the price of gas be if we removed all the subsidies on oil? We are helping fund terrorism in the Middle East and not mention Chavez.
Roly
No candidate is shining in my opinion. The lesser of the evils is Rudy based mostly on his success in NY. I don’t understand your position on energy independence. It is probably one of the most important issues we are facing in the mid to long term. I am all for competition so lets remove the incentives and the freebies given to big oil and natural gas and let the market dictate the right path.
What would the price of gas be if we removed all the subsidies on oil? We are helping fund terrorism in the Middle East and not mention Chavez.
Roly
cono Henry, I cannot believe you said that. Just b/c it doesn’t affect us doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect many people. It affects the working class of this country, and that tapers into the middle class. Last time I checked blue-collar workers were quite the numerous group.
Roly,
What incentives and freebies do the oil companies get? Last time I checked the government makes more on gasoline taxes than the oil companies make on gasoline profits. It’s the corn farmers of the ethanol industry and other “alternative” energy suppliers that get the subsidies because their products can’t compete with gasoline at market prices, even today’s elevated market prices.
And I’m not big on making big corporations into bogeymen and that includes the oil companies. If oil companies are making “excess” profits then why don’t the people that bitch about it all the time buy stock in Exxon or Chevron. Those big corporations are made up of hundreds of thousands of shareholders that are ordinary citizens.
The GOP is the party of big business because big business is what ultimately makes our economy tick. Small business can’t stay in business without big business.
Here’s a citation from factcheck.org about claims the dems make about oil company subisides:
Clinton repeated a bit of recycled bunk about tax cuts for the oil industry.
Clinton: You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.
We’ve called Clinton on this once before. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies was offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The net was a $300 million tax increase over 11 years.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_dems_turn.html
Subsidies and tax breaks are very different. I’m against all corporate subsidies. I’m for all corporate tax breaks because I don’t agree with taxing corporations. I’m not alone on that. Many supply side economists don’t like the unintended consequences of corporate taxes (corporations have incentives to not turn a profit and if they do and distribute those profits to the shareholder a double taxation takes place).
Hi Henry I think Roly is somehow right about your immigration comments, everybody is affected by illegal immigration either here in Florida or in California, on the other hand I wouldn’t be so fond of Mr. Thompson, I don’t know if you saw his opinion about Cubans, looks like he thinks that cuban immigrants are terrorist from Castro, go figure, your blog its awesome, keep the good work
First of all I can’t believe than uneducated immigrant can “steal” jobs from natural born Americans. I see the works most immigrants do:
Nannies, housekeepers, hotel maids, agricultural workers, dish washers, janitors.
Is that what the American education system is preparing our kids to do? I hope not.
You can’t do analysis where you just count the debits that immigration puts on society. You also have to look at the credits. They work and spend money. They have a downward effect on prices because they work for less money. Etc. Etc.
As legal residents and citizens they then they become eligible for government assistance that’s true, but they also become responsible for paying taxes when they do well and their children do well and their children’s children do well.
At the heart of this is the question of motivation. If you believe that illegal immigrants, mainly from Latin America, come here merely to live like sponges off of our social problems then you probably agree with the nativists. I don’t believe that. I believe most of them come here for the opportunities that this country offers to live free of government corruption and interference. It’s not just an opinion formulated out of thin air, it’s one that I have reached as a result of working with Hispanic consumers for 12 years.
Thompson said that go-fast boats coming with immigrants from Cuba might have more than just refugees aboard. Judging by castro’s actions over 49 years, I think that’s a safe assumption. He was saying that we need to solve the problem of human smuggling from Cuba because it’s not just an immigration issue.
I agree with that.