[hocndoc]

Here's another transcript of the Interview, without the typos in the CNBC version, at Time magazine http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/

I've left out the middle portion that highlights the weaknesses of Romney and Cain, I would like to emphasize the strengths of Perry.

[hocndoc]

http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/

Here’s that link.

To the Point is a subscription site. I joined after reading an excerpt here. Maybe others want to also.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup, and here's the winner.

[iowamark]

Wise up!

Perry’s Open Borders, subsidies for illegals, trash conservatives politics is a recipe for the destruction of America. Such evil politics may work in the short term, but are nothing short of Death.

[Darkwolf377]

"... To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for." OMG. That's the ballgame

"OMG" no, it's not. Reading that, even the dopiest lib could respond, "But that's the problem they're NOT starting new businesses, they're keeping it for themselves." Of course, this answer would be BS, but it's one of those loverly 'populist' responses that got Obama in in the first place.

And I see no evidence that Perry would beat Obama in debate so handily--has this writer even watched any of the actual debates?

I'm certainly not anti-Perry, but he's far, far from being the only choice conservatives have.

[Utmost Certainty]

lol@Rick Perry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiJhmoFKkw

I’m sure he’s a nice guy or whatever, but this isn’t acceptable.

[CSI007]

Rick Perry the answer? Bahahahaha. Rick Perry is more of the same...Another Texas republican - NOT conservative - who probably has just as hard a time tying his shoes as he does speaking the English language.

[AmericanInTokyo]

All -- There is no time left to "watch Cain" further (sic). Look, it is either s*** or get off the pot time, folks. Big time. We are T-67 days, a mere 1,608 hours counting to the first big event of Campaign 2012.

It is one thing to say all these nice things about Herman Cain.

And then another to add a "but" ("but" he cannot be elected, "but", we have to watch him more closely). This is called at some time, running out the clocking, keeping the opposition to RINOs in a state of suspended animation, frozen while the devil can go ahead and do his deed.

For PETES SAKE, the ship is leaving the harbor and Romney could be at the helm, DAMMIT!

Commit to Cain, the People's Frontrunner, to stop Romney the Elite's Boy, lead, follow or get out of the way!!

[Yosemitest]

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[kearnyirish2]

“DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?”

Yes, but we don’t live in a conservative country. Argue it all you want, there is little in the past thirty years to suggest that a majority (or even a large minority) of Americans are conservative. The “progressives” (Dems & Repubs) have won on a national level on just about every issue (excluding gun control in parts of the country): abortion, unfettered immigration, complete separation of Church & state, affirmative action, attacks on the nuclear family, growth/intrusion of government (nanny-state socialism), etc.

[Yosemitest]

Perry's tax and economic reform proposal ?

Here's a comparison that's worth your time.

Let's Bump Plans: A Comparison of Gingrich and Perry's Flat Tax Plans




Gingrich's Plan Far Bolder than Perry's Plan and Will Lead to Far More Robust Job Creation and Capital Investment in United States

	Gingrich	Perry	Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Rate	15%	20%	Gingrich has advocated for several years an optional flat tax rate of 15%, which when coupled with Gingrich’s bold entitlement and regulatory reforms, will usher in another era of booming economic growth and new, higher-paying jobs. The Perry rate of 20% is higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes proposed in his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign.
Who Gets to Make Deductions for Charitable Giving and Home Ownership??	Everyone	Families making less than $500,000/year	By creating two separate classes of taxpayers, the Perry plan buys into the same class warfare that characterizes the Obama and Romney economic plans. The fact that there are still two brackets – even under a supposed “flat tax” plan – calls into question whether this is really a flat tax at all.
State and Local Tax Deductions	Not deductible in optional flat tax plan	Deductible in optional flat tax plan	The Gingrich plan has a lower rate so less need for state and local deductions.  The deduction is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher state and local taxes. Removing the subsidy would lead states to reduce state and local taxes, or adopt their own flat tax reforms. The Perry plan erodes states’ competitive advantages by making state and local taxes deductible in his optional flat tax plan.
Who Benefits from Elimination of Capital Gains Tax?	Everyone	Depends whether capital gains is long term or short term.  Perry’s plan eliminates cap gains only for long term.	The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax. The Perry plan only goes halfway, and by levying up to 35% tax on short-term capital gains, it will discourage investment, venture capital, and new jobs creation.
Corporate Income Tax	12.5%	20%	The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Perry plan relies upon a short term “tax holiday,” then only drops the corporate tax rate to 20% -- only average in the developed world, and still over 20% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%.  Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Taxes	Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results	No change in existing payroll tax	Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit	Both the EITC and the Child Tax Credit are preserved in Gingrich's optional flat tax system.	No information provided.	Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans. Gingrich passed the first child tax credit as Speaker in 1997, and will preserve this credit and the EITC under his optional flat tax system.
Record in Achieving Dramatic Jobs and Economic Recovery at the National Level?	Yes. Substantial. See record at right.	None.	Speaker Gingrich's Record (1995-1999): •    Eleven Million New Jobs •    Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s. •    Unemployment rate of 4.2%. •    Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year). •    Venture capital investments grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs. •    Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty. •    Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down

Download this chart as a PDF.

Gingrich's Advocacy of the Flat Tax Dates Back to 1997

From Item 2 in Gingrich's 21st Century Contract with America (September 29, 2011)
All tax filers would be given the option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions.

Release of Jobs and Prosperity Plan Upon Announcement of Campaign (May 13, 2011)
Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year.

In his 2010 book, To Save America
To generate another lasting economic boom, we need fundamental tax reform, similar to that proposed by Steve Forbes. We should adopt the optional 15 percent flat tax with generous personal exemptions.

In his 2008 book, Real Change
This concept of an optional flat tax was developed by Steve Forbes when his flat tax campaign was undermined by criticisms that it would take away popular tax breaks. Steve Forbes and Stephen Moore have both proposed giving American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions. They call it the free choice flat tax, and it's an idea whose time has come.

In a 2008 National Review op-ed with Texas Representative Michael Burgess
An optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.

In Foreword to Steve Forbes' 2005 Book Flat Tax Revolution
I believe there is a real opportunity for a similar grass roots revolution imposing the flat tax on Washington. As people learn how much money and time they can save through a flat tax they are going to demand a simple alternative to the complexity and uncertainty of the Internal Revenue Service. As people spend hours in frustrating and seemingly endless paperwork and record keeping and preparing they are going to demand the freedom for their own time offered by a flat tax....As people watch the endless maneuvering of the lobbyists and the special interests they are going to demand the fairness of a flat tax.

As Speaker of the House in 1997
There are things I would like to do like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS.

**UPDATE: The chart above has been updated to reflect information about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

Of course if you get paid in cash, like most of Perry's ILLEGALS, you don't pay any tax.

[Scotsman will be Free]

So Cain is a RINO, but Perry isn’t? LOL!

[Da Mav]

I’d gladly support Perry in the general if he gets the nom, but I think conservatives would be better served by Herman Cain. Cain is bold and is a first rate orator able to think on his feet. His experience is all private sector and it ahows.

Unfortunately, both men are gaffe prone. Fortunately they both are honorable, with strong values and drive.

I tip my hat to your emphasis on what’s good about your favored candidzte and not trying to tear apart other conservatives and look forward to uniting with you in getting Obama out of the White House in 2012.

[Jim Noble]

Conservatives DO want to win, badly, but they are greatly disadvantaged by the two-party system and the fact that the Republican organization is not conservative.

40% of the voters identify as conservative. That is the largest voting bloc, twice the size of the communists (25%) and bigger than the social democrats (35%).

The communists and social democrats have formed a ruling coalition since 1933, and have gradually imposed their vision on society.

It is the perceived need to sustain and to continue a GOP that works against our interests that has handcuffed the conservative plurality.

In a three-way race, the conservative would win every time.

[org.whodat]

Perry, stick a fork in him he's done, what does cooked rino taste like?

[CAluvdubya]

This article calls Cain a Rino and promotes "You're Heartless" Perry?

Yeah, I'm gonna listen to this guy for sure.....

[TADSLOS]

I refuse to push a half hearted pretender like Perry across the finish line. FReepers felt compelled to drag the fraud McCain through the general in 2008 with disastrous results. We can’t afford that scenario again mo matter how in love you are with Rick.

[MrEdd]

La Raza Rick, whose record is so indefensible he is looking at withdrawing from the debates?

Keeping him even in the picture is part of someone’s idea of conservatives winning?

I smell a Tokyo Rove.

[Godebert]

Will Those Who took an Oath Save Our Republic?

[Caipirabob]

I simply don't want another "open borders, welcome amigo here's your college diploma, Al Gore wasn't such a bad guy" compassionate conservative. They simply don't register as conservatives.

The whole lot can go South of the border for all I care.

Give me a real conservative. I'm not doing another "kiss mccain's butt because he can win" thingy. I dropped out of the republican party after that fiasco and I'm not playing that game ever again.

A RINO candidate will be the end of the GOP pure and simple. The GOP RINO Elite should start figuring that out, because they won't have anyone left in the party to complain to when it collapses.

[USS Alaska]

One of these days, conservatives are going to have to figure out that we're not to going to get better than Perry. And that he really is our best chance to rescue our economy, indeed our country.

Forget about the black man that is leading in the polls, he's not our kind of guy.

"We are not going to get better than Perry" just another opinion.