Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/huntsman-gaslights-gop-compares-the-party-to-communist-121283.html

Huntsman compared the GOP to China's communist party, failed to let words escape his mouth about his support for Mitt Romney (nodding instead that he still backs him) and echoed the Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan would "likely not" get elected in the current, hard-right Republican party.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/huntsman-gaslights-gop-compares-the-party-to-communist-121283.html

Huntsman compared the GOP to China's communist party, failed to let words escape his mouth about his support for Mitt Romney (nodding instead that he still backs him) and echoed the Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan would "likely not" get elected in the current, hard-right Republican party.

What a joke! If Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain were able to obtain the GOP nomination, how could it be plausibly be claimed that Reagan was too far to the left for the GOP?

The reality is that the establishment has twisted the process to favor moderate candidates. It is candidates like Reagan that aren't welcome in the modern GOP.

[Senator Clarence]

Well- I guess he doesn't want to run in 2016!

[mondale84]

Boss...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So basically he's Chuck Hagel? Another right-wing Republican who says some sane things sometimes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP.

[Cory]

Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP.

[ModerateCoward]

Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP & Democrats.

Probably true as well.

[Cory]

Probably true as well.

Yeah the Chinese leadership seems to be intellectually leagues and bounds above the USA these days.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

LOL

[King]

Considering the modern bridge is steel and concrete, Huntsman's match will be about as effective as his Presidential campaign.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Good

[Simfan34]

Considering the modern bridge is steel and concrete, Huntsman's match will be about as effective as his Presidential campaign.

What?

He's completely right, but not original, we all know the modern GOP is mad and really is facing an indefinite period of unelectability.

[greenforest32]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

But what about that Jon Huntsman guy?  This week three different people told me, quite independently of each other, how sorry they were that Governor Huntsman never gained any traction in the Republican Presidential Primary.

I told them that they should get over it.  Huntsman wasn’t any better.

It somehow counts as an act of courage for Huntsman to have tweeted:  “I believe in evolution.”  Of course, it would have been more courageous if Huntsman had said that to a Tea Party audience, and then they tore him limb from limb, thereby disproving the theory of evolution right before our eyes.

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(1) The Government can’t create jobs.  (Tell that to FDR, who created four million jobs in three months.)

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

(3) A fetus is a baby.

(4) The poor have too much money.

(5) Cutting the federal deficit will end the recession.

(6) The rich are incentivized by tax cuts, while the poor are incentivized by lower wages, no benefits, an end to the minimum wage, and unemployment.

(7) An unwanted child is God’s will.

(8 ) Everyone who wants health insurance has it.

(9) The problem with education is the teachers.

(10) The “free market” satisfies every human need.

(11) There is no discrimination in America anymore.

(12) The distribution of wealth and income are irrelevant.

I don’t remember Jon Huntsman disputing any of these myths.  And these are the ones that do the real damage.  Show me a candidate who is willing to take on these myths, and I’ll pay more attention.

[Simfan34]

Nonsense.

[ModerateCoward]

How is the GOP more Communistic than the Democratic party? The GOP supports free markets and economic freedom, the Democrats support corrupt unions and affirmative action.

hack

[True Federalist]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

[Simfan34]

How is the GOP more Communistic than the Democratic party? The GOP supports free markets and economic freedom, the Democrats support corrupt unions and affirmative action.

That's not what he's talking about.

[Bacon King]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

[Simfan34]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

[Bacon King]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

[Rooney]

Huntsman represents the very worst of the Republican Party: a wealthy whiny prick who won't stop complaining about how conservative the party is. Reagan would probably be nominated now because he could mouth reactionary talking points, talked up Biblical prophecy and did not like gays. That is all you need to be the Republican nominee for President.

The Republican Party is conservative and they do not try to hide it. Huntsman is just an asshole who I hope is never allowed into public office again.

[Politico]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and fulfilling promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). The endgame is economic freedom, personal liberty, and a fiscally responsible, minimalist government.

There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK.

[Politico]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

Alan Grayson

Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths.  The myths that are killing us.  Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head:

(2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit.  (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?)

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK.

Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions.