Debate Score: Perry For the Win

Pajamas Media ^ | 10-18-2011 | Bryan Preston - OP/ED

[lentulusgracchus]

Sorry, both Perry and Romney came across to me as completely clueless when discussing the state Sales tax vs. federal Sales tax issue.

They did it on purpose, en route to their payload declamation:

"But you'll raise taxes on the poor/middle class/whoever!"

Part of the noyau scream of "unworkable, unworkable" that they hope will exorcise the Cain candidacy and clear their road to the top.

[lentulusgracchus]

I could see easily many areas which Jack Wheeler advised him.

So how did you get to know Dr. Wheeler so well, well enough to spot his influence and his coaching in Perry's debating?

Tell us again you're not a Perry fulltimer, a political professional.

[af_vet_rr]

He does have a certain air of dignity about him, as well as a strong charisma. He truly is likable and simply personable. Unlike Romney who is a plastic coated stiff with a long list of slick prerehearsed lines. But he cannot compete against an honest natural like Perry in this stage of the campaign.

You must have watched different debates than I did.

Although the air he displayed last night was reminiscent of when he and his driver wwere pulled over and told the trooper "why don't you just let us get on down the road" while she was trying to write a warning.

[af_vet_rr]

Perry had a very strong moment with the UN statement,

Not really - Perry is just rehashing an idea that Ron Paul raised in 1983 and again in 2001 (and probably in between):

H.R.3891 - United Nations Termination Act (introduced 9/14/1983)
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-22]
United Nations Termination Act - Directs the President to terminate all U.S. participation in the United Nations and in any U.N. affiliate. Prohibits appropriating funds for the United Nations or a U.N. affiliate. Makes the privileges, exemptions, and immunities of specified Acts relating to international organizations inapplicable to the United Nations or any U.N. affiliate. Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945.

Amends the Federal provisions relating to loans to the United Nations to prohibit this Act from being construed to affect the U.N. obligation to repay its loan from the United States.

Repeals specified laws relating to U.S. participation in and aid to U.N. organizations and programs.

H.AMDT.190 (A024) Amends: H.R.2500 (offered 7/18/2001)
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14]
Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.

I thought it was a strong moment for Perry and probably something he had rehearsed a great deal, but when you read what he said, he just wanted to discuss defunding it and didn't actually commit to defunding it. I'm related to one of those diehard Ron Paul types and they were livid that Perry was promoting a watered down version of something Paul was pushing almost 30 years ago.

[Sudetenland]

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul . . . Ron Paul did not invent criticism of the UN, is not the first person to criticize the Fed, is not the first person to advocate pretty much everything he is given credit for by his admirers. Heck, he didn't even invent naivete in conducting foreign policy. There have been isolationists throughout history. One of the most successful and therefore damaging was Neville Chamberlain, he was a classic non-interventionist.

Conservatives were criticizing the UN, questioning its presence in the US and its raison d'etre since it came into existence. I remember my parents saying we should be rid of it back in the 60's, so it's not Ron Paul's idea that Rick Perry is "rehashing," it is one of the very tenets of conservatism.

I'm glad that Ron Paul is on board with conservatives, but he owns it no more than Rick Perry does.

[CrosscutSaw]

Why in the world would you think I wouldn’t like someone because he is a southerner? What kind of foolish reason is that not to like someone? Your assumption is nonsense.

[okie01]

The only way that is true is if the line of producers EAT the 9% tax.

Good lord, Marty. What are you talking about?

Currently, the producers in the chain-of-supply are paying a 35% corporate income tax. Under 9-9-9, it would be a 9% corporate income tax. Is that not a savings?

Moreover, instead of a 15.3% payroll tax (FICA), they would be paying 9%. Is that not a savings?

Given a lower corporate income tax rate and a lower cost of labor, what in the world would they be EATING?

Yes, the end-user would be paying an additional 9% federal sales tax. But he would be paying it on a lower cost product -- because of the above tax savings.

Unless Mitt Romney has taken control of your mind, 9-9-9 is not a VAT.

[marty60]

You guys just don’t go to the logical conclusion.

You are ready to put TWO (2) tax revenue streams in place.

I have not heard Cain emphatically say that a balance budget amendment would have to be in place, plus a 2/3rds majority in both houses to raise taxes.

seriously, are you ready to give Dummies and RINOs the way to screw the American people even more.

The dummies will NEVER settle for 9% income tax, everyone knows that. Oh they might if the two caveats I mentioned are not included.

[okie01]

You guys just don’t go to the logical conclusion.

Marty, I'm not yet a Cain supporter. Nor, yet, a 9-9-9 supporter. I'm just trying to deal with what appears to me to be a serious case of misunderstanding.

You are ready to put TWO (2) tax revenue streams in place.

Marty, do you know how many tax revenue streams are already in place? It's a helluva lot more than two. There were, for example, 119 tax increases in Obamacare alone. Adding one (the sales tax) and restricting it to three (sales, income and corporate) is a worthwhile attempt to reduce the tax revenue streams.

I have not heard Cain emphatically say that a balance budget amendment would have to be in place, plus a 2/3rds majority in both houses to raise taxes.

I've heard him claim the 2/3rd majority rule. But not the Balanced Budget amendment. I'm waiting, too.

seriously, are you ready to give Dummies and RINOs the way to screw the American people even more.

They've already figured out about ten dozen ways to do it, why not try to reduce the opportunities?

The dummies will NEVER settle for 9% income tax, everyone knows that. Oh they might if the two caveats I mentioned are not included.

Then, don't elect Democrats, fer cryin' out loud. The dummies will NEVER settle for a Balanced Budget, either. Should we stop fighting for it?

[lentulusgracchus]

[Me] I think CNN deliberately tried to set up a brawl between those two, a la Jerry Springer. Did you see Cooper smirking?
[You] So here's my question: If a candidate is dumb enough to fall for it are they really qualified for President?

They all fell for the venue. How in the hell did they all wind up in a hall packed with Romneybot Mormons jeering and booing, being cross-examined (and in the case of Cain, post-interviewed, ambushed, and throat-cut in a side alcove like a wounded Roman gladiator, then buried by RNCbot Ed Rollins and a committee of RiNO undertakers) by a known moral degenerate, and generally made to look like fools by the format?

The RiNOs rigged that arena to be a death-trap for anybody but Willard.

[marty60]

Absolutly NOT.
Frankly, I’m back to the Forbes Flat Tax.
BTW, I NEVER vote for Dums.

[okie01]

Frankly, I’m back to the Forbes Flat Tax.

My preference, too.

But Cain's plan is better than what we've got.

[eyedigress]

Well let’s not underestimate this lying sack of excrement. He rolls lies off his tongue without any real conscience. He can spin to his minions something fierce. Real life is the way to attack this Marxist organizer. It will take a man loaded with facts to take him out.

[Allegra]

Diverting attention to me personally is in fact a valid tactic, but it doesn’t really substitute for substantive debate.

What part of "I don't debate acolyte types; it's a waste of time" was difficult to grasp? :-)

[506Lake]

An Essay on Mitt Romney Its damning. Please read in Full.

[NYCslicker]

LOL. Nothing you have said is “difficult to grasp.”

As far as acolyte, welcome to Free Republic, newbie!

[tdscpa]

I was a tax “expert”, specializing in income tax practice from 1968 to 1998. I had a very good understanding of the existing tax laws throughout all those years. I retired in 1998.

Since then, I have not studied tax law more than I needed to prepare my own tax returns and those of my brother and a few friends.

My (and other “tax expert’s”) opinions about what the income tax laws should be, should be given very little extra weight. I do believe tax practitioners should be heard for their opinions about the complexity of complying with income taxes, “flat taxes”, and “fair taxes”.