Posted on 10/17/2010 4:36:00 PM PDT by Nachum
One can only hope someone taps Chris Wallace to moderate a Presidential debate in 2012 because he has proved himself to be fairly good at not letting candidates off the hook this election cycle. Today on Fox News Sunday Wallace got in a rather contentious back and forth with California Repubican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina over how exactly she would pay for the tax cuts she’s been touting. Suffice to say he was not satisfied with her talking points.
WALLACE: So Ms. Fiorina let me ask you a specific question, because I still haven’t gotten many specifics from you….as a non-career politician, as the anti-Barbara Boxer, you tell me specifically what are you going to do to cut the billions, the trillions, of dollars in entitlements?”
FIORINA: See, Chris, I have to — you know, Chris, I have to say, with all due respect, you’re asking a typical political question. [...]
WALLACE: It may a typical political question, Ms. Fiorina, but that’s where the money is. The money is in Medicare. The money is in Social Security. We’ve got the baby boomers coming. There is going to be a huge explosion of entitlement spending, and you call it a political question when I ask you to name one single entitlement expenditure you’re willing to cut.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
It seems that the very liberal heritage of Mr. Wallace is shining through more and more.
Any increase in the SS retirement age should be matched by Medicare.
The writer shouldn't get her hopes up. The Dims refused to participate in a primary debate Fox offered to host in 2007-2008, and I don't recall Fox hosting any presidential general election debates.
The Dim candidates want NO tough questions, and certainly no tough follow-up questions during their presidential debate participation.
I saw this outrage, Walace has an agenda!! If you cut taxes
Chris, revenues to the government increase!!! proven over and over! It happened under Kennedy and Reagan Out of control spending is a Democrat specialty, Clinton got a budget surplus from the 94 Republican Congress.
Actually, the question should be how are California’s taxpayers going to pay their bills if the cuts AREN’T enacted.
The money is in Medicare, and Medicaid and the EITC and all sorts of welfare programs, but the money is not in Social Security, which has a $2.5 Trillion surplus from accumulated receipts over disbursements during the past decades. It's solvent until 2037.
IF the US government makes good on the $2.5 Trillion it owns SS, then there are 27 or so years to reform and make adjustments to that program.
Why is this not a perfectly legitimate question?
Why is it that no matter how obscenely bloated the social welfare state has become, we are STILL not in a place where candidates can talk about cutting entitlements without fear of ruining their hopes of winning?
The truth is simple, the American people have not in any way turned their back on big government, and therefore even now our candidates have to cower in fear of even discussing the smallest curtailment of the socialist behemoth.
There was nothing wrong with the question. The problem is even Republicans are afraid to speak honestly about it. And with good reason too - explaining that we need to begin rolling back entitlements, privatizing some of social security, raising retirement ages, etc, can be an instant political death sentence. This tells me that even now, even when it has become obvious what our government is doing is unsustainable, we are unable to address these problems.
I never WAS enthralled with Wallace on FNS or anywhere else. Interesting that he can let commie libs slide when he interviews THEM, and gets snotty with Conservatives.
I told my wife he was trying to seduce her into naming something specifically so that the media could cobble up a rebuttal to it. Don’t forget who his daddy allegedly was.
And whats the alternative after you've knocked the challenger's poll numbers down far enough, Chris? More Boxer?
There is nothing wrong with the question, as long as it is evenly applied.
I agree - it is a legitimate question. Even in California, on the ragged edge of bankruptcy, it’s candidates do not feel secure in asking the populace to loose itself from the government teet.
Chrissie is a Obama groupie just like his nutter father.
If your cut tax RATES, revenues will increase. We need to be explicit so that people who don't already understand will learn this fact. Most media people hate numbers and either don't understand this or desire to confuse so we must inform them as well as the general public.
Many people think that the govenment sends lots of money to rich people but only a little bit to average income people. They simply don't understand that the government takes lots of money from rich people and returns some of what they took if they took too much in withholding. Language is important.
Funniest thing I've ever read here, you really need to go back and reconsider that statement as well as the whole post.
LMAO.
Another simple answer - stop bailing our failed financial instutions and squandering money on “stimulus” packages.
Laugh in ignorance as much as you choose. What I posted is 100% correct.
And supppose you tell us all how the Government is going to make good on all of those IOU’s??
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.