The Rev. Jim Perry wants you to drink his kool-aid.
Posted on 10/28/2011 1:45:03 AM PDT by hocndoc
DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?
This is a serious question, by no means rhetorical. Conservatives may be full of sound and fury against Zero, but it signifies nothing without actual evidence, of which there is little.
Tea Partyers can wave the American flag and proclaim their passion for reclaiming America, but you can't beat something with nothing.
If this isn't true, then why is a Total Rino way ahead in the polls? *******************
Perry's tax and economic reform proposal is far, far better (and better thought out) than Cain's 9-9-9, which keeps changing and necessitates a national sales tax. His mechanism for reducing the federal government to Constitutional levels is the best one for doing so - the 10th Amendment. He will revive the economy far, far more than Romney would by getting the government more out of the way, and by drilling, baby, drilling. (Remember that Romney's a Warmist who loves renewable energy scams.)
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.
To see why - or at least to consider this as a possibility - read the transcript of Perry's interview with John Harwood of CNBC on Tuesday (10/25). http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/ (A caveat: this is an unedited computer-generated transcription of Perry's answers with lots of mistakes and glitches, which were left in - one suspects to make Perry not as fluent as you could see on television).
What really turned me on, frankly, was his absolute refusal to be intimidated by envy-mongering. Harwood starts right off the bat with this, saying that his tax plan would be a huge tax cut for the wealthy, that "those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them." Perry immediately responds:
"But I don't care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies. 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. The entire argument of the Left is an envy-trip. What America needs more than any other one single thing is a president who says to the Dems, the Enemedia, Academia, their acolytes, the entire dog's breakfast of the Left, "I don't care about your envy!
Harwood can't get over this, so later he asks a gotcha, "Do you fundamentally believe we should not have a progressive tax system in the country?" Perry straight out answers, "I do." Harwood is shocked. "But the idea of taking-- of having-- higher rates-- of various kinds for people who earn more are [sic] not right?" Again, Perry says straight, "I don't agree with that."
I encourage you to read the whole thing. Try this on:
"I don't think this president understands basic economics. Not economics that work. He may understand some theory that someone in Princeton sat and dreamed up, but it's not working.
"This President would be wise if he addressed the economy in the way that we know it works. You give incentives to job creators. Lower the tax burden, lower the regulatory climate, and this President would be stunned I'm sure. But America's economy would take off and take off quickly.
"That's what we need in a president that respects how this country got to the point of being the greatest economy in the world. And it was done simply by giving the incentive to job creators so they knew they could keep more of what they work for."
No teleprompter here, ad lib. You really think Zero could take him in a one-on-one debate? And look how he took care of the "birther" thing:
"I don't have a clue about where the President (was born) and what his birth certificate says. But it's also a great distraction. I'm not distracted by it. If those of you in the media want to talk about it that's fine, but I hope what you'll really get focused on is how are we going to get this country back on track.
"Because if we don't, America's next generation is not going to have as good a future as what we had, and that's what I'm concerned about. I know how to do that. And you do it by giving a flat tax. You get these regulations pulled off of businesses, and you allow entrepreneurs the confidence that they can go risk their capital."
You can't get a better answer than that. Birtherism is a distraction for exactly the reasons Perry says. And for another reason. Getting Zero removed from office on a technicality would be a moral disaster.
A majority of American voters electing Zero was the most suicidally stupid and immoral act ever committed en masse in American history since the Civil War. It was complete moral collapse of the electorate to vote for a man whose preacher wanted God to damn their country.
The only way it can be rectified, to stop America from continuing to slide down the path to national suicide and resurrect their morality, is for a majority of voters to unelect him.
Moreover, to unelect him such that it reverses the direction he has taken our country. So which Republican candidate can best do this? Defeat Zero resoundingly, not even close, and pervasively reverse Zero's course?
Definitely, that candidate is not Romney. I do not think it is Cain, for as fine and accomplished a man as he is, he does not know what he is doing. I think Perry does.
I could be wrong about Cain. He is very smart, maybe smart enough to climb a virtually 90-degree learning curve in the next couple of months.
Conservatives will need to watch him carefully to see if he can do this. They can't be led by emotions, neither by a crush on Cain nor by carping on Perry. They have to choose wisely.
This is the most serious choice collectively conservatives will ever make. The literal fate of our America depends on it. Conservatives have to decide whether they want to win in 2012 or not.
There’s at least one flaw in there: Perry’s plan has a child tax credit. Everyone takes a $12,500 deduction.
The Earned Income tax credit is one way to “spread the wealth around.”
Comparing Gingrich’s record on jobs during the boom years to ours in Texas over the last 3 years is a serious error.
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.
Maybe he's just pro-USA. ;)
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.
I didn’t know any of that. Thanks for posting the information.
I just realized that even I forget the “cut spending” emphasis in Governor Perry’s plan. And then, there’s the third part, “Growth.”
These are supported by the plans to make energy cheaper and more secure, which will make food and other goods cheaper.
Even as Rick Perry rolled out his own flat tax proposal, Newt Gingrich was quick to point out that he’s been a flat tax proponent since 1997. (“There are things I would to do, like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS,” he said, back when he was Speaker of the House.)
Gingrich has his own flat tax plan on the table for 2012, and would like to “bump plans” with Rick Perry. To this end, he published a point-by-point comparison on his website. Right off the bat, I notice that Gingrich’s plan is also optional, although his rate is much lower – 15% to Perry’s 20%. The lower rate would probably win over more voluntary participants from the extremes of the income scale, but we’re still a long way from “virtual elimination of the IRS”… which would be obliged to service the old tax code, becoming the Windows 95 support department of the U.S. Treasury.
Gingrich doesn’t cap the deductions for charity and home ownership, while he notes both Perry and Romney include class-warfare caps for various aspects of their plans. Gingrich also proposes a much lower corporate tax rate of 12.5%, while Perry’s 20% is only average for an industrialized nation (although still much better than our insanely high current rates.)
Perry hasn’t talked about moving away from payroll taxes yet, but that’s usually a goal of flat tax reformers, and Gingrich would begin phasing them out right away. Besides facilitating far too much government bloat under the radar screen, the modern concept of the payroll tax always struck me as faintly tyrannical. Seizing someone’s income before they ever get to touch the money is closer to indenture than assessing a “tax.”
One of the most interesting differences Gingrich chooses to highlight with Perry’s plan is the way he treats state and local tax deductions. Perry retains this concept in his plan, but Gingrich would not allow taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes paid from their federal liability. He explains why: “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.”
That’s an interesting point, and logically consistent with the purpose of the federal tax system, which should be focused on funding the federal government in the most efficient, least painful manner possible. Our current federal system is headed for utter collapse… but several states will get there first. The federal subsidy of outrageous state taxes is one of the reasons so many states have turned into bloated, insolvent nightmares that make Uncle Sam blush.
“Plan bumping,” as Perry memorably described it to Herman Cain during the last GOP debate, is a great idea. All of these proposals can only benefit from competition with each other. Everyone on that Republican debate stage is a capitalist, so they should, by definition, be happy to engage in spirited competition to sell their intellectual products.
(Whispering) I wouldn’t bring up the Reverend thing. There’s only one Reverend in this race.
Nothing to support the CIS trash?
I’m sure that neither man will claim to have invented the flat tax.
Yeah, I'm gonna listen to this guy for sure.....
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.
Of course not. But I’ve yet to be convinced one way or the other about Perry and immigration. His lack of support for a Confederate license plate isn’t a deal-breaking position of any importance.
I definitely don’t agree with Cain’s entitlements for the poor again, just like Obama, but Perry is the energy candidate for sure!
What is so conservative about Cain’s entitlement zones? Handouts basically if you live in the ghettos.
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.