Posted on 10/21/2007 2:19:55 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Edited on 10/21/2007 3:12:06 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Hillary tried running a WH travel office and a health care study group.”
Hillary didn’t run the WH travel office. She just wanted to give a sweetheart deal to some Arkansas cronies and the since the incumbents in the office were career civil service instead of political employees she couldn’t just fire them. She had to accuse them of embezzlement and other crimes to get them out of the way.
At the criminal trial of the guy who ran the travel office, the jury deliberated for 20 minutes before acquitting him. The jurors also said that the wrong person was on trial.
Another crime by Hillary Clinton ignored by the MSM.
Who thought up that scheme to give the highest in polls the most time? I fumed through the entire farce!
“And when Hillary or Obama trounces that ticket because they are literally a pair of unkowns...who’s fault will it be.
Assuming they some how pull out a miracle and actually WIN the nomination?”
Known and inexperienced, vs unknown and experienced. I think voters today are sick of who has become well known from either party. Unknowns might have a better chance in this election because they are unknown.
Hillary and Obama are both known to have no experience. Voters will not have a real reason to vote for them in the general election. The key here is to give voters a reason to vote for the Republican, and that will not happen if voters think the Republican is too much like those who have run on the GOP side in the recent past.
“looks like Hunter forgot to take economics 101 in college”
Hum. Decrease taxes on our exports and we will probably sell more (supply and demand), any added sales will result in more manufacturing of the same goods, which will lead to more tax dollars incoming into the Treasury, which will help offset the national debt. Who forgot to take economics 101 in college?
:) Good one!
he’s talking about increasing taxes on imports.
Duncan Hunter is also...let’s put it gently... not exactly the best when it comes to pork spending.
He’s just not a strong fiscal conservative.
Look at this
http://race42008.com/2007/03/24/fiscally-fisking-the-2008-contenders/
You can also see how bad Hillary would be on spending
A good Hillary History Lesson. We’ll need to brush up soon enough.
Aloha Ronnie - I appreciate your posts, links, and especially your service. Thank you always for the reminders.
With gratitude and respect,
from the transcript:
(APPLAUSE)
... for a long time to everybody else talk about their positions on issues.
And every single person on this stage, certainly everyone of my colleagues, I believe, bring something very unique, very special, and certainly enormous capabilities to this whole debate and to the office that they are seeking.
TANCREDO: But I must tell you, they also bring differences. And those -- it is not, I think, a sin to discuss them. I don't believe it should be something that we hold back on when we talk to the American people about what it is that actually distinguishes us.
And, yes, I do think that there are organizations that should be looked at that actually rate people for their conservative history.
And the American Taxpayers Union, for one, gives me the highest rating; the American Conservative Union, highest rating of anybody running for president of the United States; an A rating from the National Right to Life; an A rating from every organization -- every conservative organization that gives ratings to those of us who are here on this stage.
Now, those are objective. You know, there's somebody else that looks at us and says: How conservative are these people really? And what we do notice is that in a primary everybody in the Republican Party, everybody runs to the right.
TANCREDO: But, as time goes on, they all move to the left. And that's why people are so cynical about this process.
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: Congressman Tancredo, your health care plans seems intended to show how tough you would be on illegal immigration.
Your concerns involve the illegal immigrants using our hospital emergency rooms. The RAND Corporation says that illegal immigrants account for about 1.5 percent of the nation's health care costs.
You also want to import cheaper drugs, prescription drugs from Canada, though the president says there would be no way to regulate them.
Where is your help for the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance?
TANCREDO: One of the most interesting parts of this debate about health care is the fact that we continually talk about the federal government's role in it.
We should actually be debating that specific point, not what kind of government program. You know, Michael Moore went to Cuba not too long ago, and wrote this documentary about the greatness of the system, how wonderful it was to be in Cuba and have a socialized medical system.
You notice, however, that Michael Moore came back to the United States.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there's a reason that he did that, of course. It's because we have the best system in the world. And why? It's because we do rely more on individuals than not.
TANCREDO: Really and truly, it's a fascinating thing to think about this, that we have moved all the way to the point of simply debating what kind of federal plan we might have rather than debating what's the constitutional right of the federal government to get involved in this particular issue. That's a challenge I think we all have to accept.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, if there's a federal role, I completely accept the idea of giving people the greater opportunity -- individual opportunity to use health savings accounts. Why? Because that takes individuals. They become the consumer in the marketplace dealing directly with the provider.
That's called a marketplace. That will drive down the costs. Get the federal government -- don't even talk about our responsibilities, because they always -- gives people the option to think that there is -- naturally the federal government should be involved. It shouldn't.
(APPLAUSE)
HUME: Congressman Tancredo, you haven't been heard from on this issue. Please, sir?
TANCREDO: Well, I certainly agree with everything that's been said, especially with regard to the issue of structurally changing both Social Security and Medicare. We have to.
When we talked earlier, in the other debates, about what problems we face as a nation in terms of trying to reduce our deficits and the rest, all the stuff that we talk about in terms of discretionary spending that we can cut, ridiculous.
TANCREDO: I mean, not ridiculous, but on the other hand it won't matter in the total scheme of things.
You've got to go after those and structurally change them. I agree entirely with the idea of doing it by giving people the ability to control their own money, moving it from -- just exactly like they would in their 401(k).
But let me add one more thing, and Mr. Mayor quipped something to me during the break, and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you were saying.
(LAUGHTER)
The fact is that we haven't talked about this aspect of it. In reality, of course, there is a plan to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who have worked in this country. That is ridiculous. And we should never ever, ever, do anything that would harm not just the Social Security plan, but also you go back and talk to me about health care.
TANCREDO: Let me tell you what health care means, with illegal immigrants: $1 billion a year in California, 86 or more hospitals closed, maybe up to hundreds of hospitals closed, throughout this country, because they've had to provide care for illegal immigrants and cannot be reimbursed.
So there's a health care plan -- I mean, problem -- and a Social Security problem that also deals with illegal immigration.
HUME: Congressman Tancredo, thank you very much.
CAMERON: Congressman Tancredo, I saw that you had your hand up.
TANCREDO: That was it. I just wanted to say that we have to remember why this is happening in Turkey.
TANCREDO: And that is exactly right. It is because the present leadership of the House of Representatives brought up this bill, agreed to bring up a bill, a resolution, that we knew would in fact, if they did that, would cause Turkey to do exactly what they did.
Now, that goes to show you that pandering for votes, which was what this was partly based upon, and a complete ignorance of the foreign policy implications of doing such a thing, are the reasons why we are here now.
And we should take away from this some very important lessons, not the least of which is that Nancy Pelosi is not a very good speaker of the House, and she is an even lousier secretary of state.
(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)
“he’s talking about increasing taxes on imports.”
I have been listening to what Hunter has been saying. He is saying that our trade policy should match whoever we trade with. If they choose to not tax our exports, we will not tax their imports. If they choose to tax our exports, we will tax their imports also.
I heard the same thing you did in the debate the other evening, but I have heard much more from him than just that debate, and if you would have listened to all he said with that response you would have heard that he was using it as an example, not as the only option.
I forgot to mention something regarding your “economics 101” reply, if taxes go up on imports that is also a way to pay down the national debt.
Either way you slice it, more money comes into the treasury under Hunter’s plan. I think he knows his economics.
but if we tax their imports that will just increase the cost of business and living for all Americans.
[It’s just that some of us are still stuck with dial-up]
Yes, thanks for the reminder.
“but if we tax their imports that will just increase the cost of business and living for all Americans.”
And you are still ignoring the option. The option is for trade agreements to have no taxes for either country.
You are stuck on the idea that we would increase taxes to other countries, but that would only happen if they refused to allow us to trade free of taxes. It would be in their best interests to drop taxes on both sides of the equation, to get to that point, first we have to get the idea accross to them that we will not trade on an uneven playing field that gives them an advantage. When they see they can not tax our products (which could make a huge impact to the good for our economy) without us taxing their products, they are much more likely to drop taxes on both sides.
Get it?
that’s what we try to do with trade agreements but it is still better for us to have low taxes even if the other side does not reciprocate. They are only hurting themselves when they tax their imports
The more I hear about Duncan Hunter, the more I’m starting to like him and his conservative positions.....
No wonder Fox News & Guiliani hate him so much....
Rumor has it that Rudy will try to buy some of those credentials at a discount as he hasn't had any in years.
“that’s what we try to do with trade agreements but it is still better for us to have low taxes even if the other side does not reciprocate. They are only hurting themselves when they tax their imports”
No, it does not hurt them, it hurts us. That is a lot of money flowing into another country that could be invested back in the businesses doing the trading. Also, if we are trying to get a level playing field, why is it that none of our trade treaties give us any advantage. Every trade treaty gives the other country an advantage over us. We have NOT been trying to get a level playing field, we have been giving away the store, and we have been doing it for years. It has to stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
