Nice article about Huntsman

[Amelia]

Jon Huntsman on the tea party, the polls, and his hair: the Yahoo News interview | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Told me a couple of things I didn't know.

I like this guy a lot.

 

[eflatminor]

I took a good look at Huntsman. I won't support him in the primary but I think he'd make a hell of a Secretary of State. We'll see.

The reason I don't support him for President is because he doesn't speak to the importance of reducing government spending. His tax plan is fine, nothing special, but a step in the right direction. However, no tax plan will begin to fix our debt; that requires massive reductions in spending and he's not even talking about any reductions (not that I could find). Also, he talks too much about "...compromise and working with Democrats in order to "get things done"" Well, I see what compromise between the establishment of both parties has gotten us; $15 trillion of debt and rising. We need less compromise and more spending cuts.

Secretary of State, he's perfect. President, I can't go there.

 

[Amelia]

I'm one of the few Republicans left in the nation who don't think that compromise is a dirty word.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm one of the few Republicans left in the nation who don't think that compromise is a dirty word.

It's not a dirty word. The actual result of those compromises is:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$132,430 owed per taxpayer...and rising fast.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm one of the few Republicans left in the nation who don't think that compromise is a dirty word.

It's not a dirty word. The actual result of those compromises is:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$132,430 owed per taxpayer...and rising fast.

But lack of compromise isn't going to do anything to stop our rising debt. I say put them all to a litmus test on reducing the debt by each side giving in on something instead of just drawing a line in the sand and not budging.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm one of the few Republicans left in the nation who don't think that compromise is a dirty word.

It's not a dirty word. The actual result of those compromises is:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$132,430 owed per taxpayer...and rising fast.

But lack of compromise isn't going to do anything to stop our rising debt. I say put them all to a litmus test on reducing the debt by each side giving in on something instead of just drawing a line in the sand and not budging.

If by that statement, you mean we should cut entitlement programs AND the military, then I would agree with you. If you mean raising taxes now in exchange for a promise to reduce the planned rate of increased spending by some insignificant amount at some future date (all I've ever heard from the Progressives), then no, I'm not buying.

What exactly do you mean by "a litmus test on reducing the debt by each side giving in"?

 

[Mad Scientist]

What you posted read like a "puff piece" so instead I looked at his actual website. What kills it for me is that he's under the mistaken belief that "free trade" has been good for us. He must be completely ignoring NAFTA and GATT agreements that have shipped millions of our jobs overseas and lowered our standard of living here.

Jon Huntsman on the Issues: Jobs, Foreign Policy, & More | Huntsman 2012

Jon Huntsman appears to be just another Globalist.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Also, he talks too much about "...compromise and working with Democrats in order to "get things done"" Well, I see what compromise between the establishment of both parties has gotten us; $15 trillion of debt and rising. We need less compromise and more spending cuts.

"Getting Things Done" usually turns out to be Republicans and Democrats working together to fuck US Citizens.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's not a dirty word. The actual result of those compromises is:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$132,430 owed per taxpayer...and rising fast.

But lack of compromise isn't going to do anything to stop our rising debt. I say put them all to a litmus test on reducing the debt by each side giving in on something instead of just drawing a line in the sand and not budging.

If by that statement, you mean we should cut entitlement programs AND the military, then I would agree with you. If you mean raising taxes now in exchange for a promise to reduce the planned rate of increased spending by some insignificant amount at some future date (all I've ever heard from the Progressives), then no, I'm not buying.

What exactly do you mean by "a litmus test on reducing the debt by each side giving in"?

What I mean by a litmus test is acts by individuals in Congress that supersede ideology and display true willingness to solve problems. In other words country over ideology.
Part of my job is to sit on a committee whose goal is to improve business and expand our business. Many ideas are fielded. Then, we as a committee act on the ideas, for the most part many ideas are molded into one idea that everyone agrees on. It's a compromising of ideas to succeed and success is the bottomline for everyone. It has worked beautifully even during tough economic times. Most successful businesses operate under the same blueprint. Our government should be run like a business instead of a battle of ideologies trying to impose their agenda no matter what and no matter when. It's totally nonconstructive.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From No Labels:

What We Expect
We understand that Congress must represent a wide range of views, that the major parties exist for a reason, and that there is no way of removing political considerations from policy debates. We do not seek bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake but out of a conviction that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas and that gridlock is unacceptable when our country’s future hangs in the balance, as it does today.We want a Congress whose members have relearned the art of turning their differences into a source of strength. We think it is reasonable for us as citizens to expect our elected representatives to find ways of coming together to solve our country’s problems in practical and sustainable ways. That is why we send them to Washington.We believe that Members of Congress should adopt the following code of conduct:

Be civil in public discourse and behavior, and stand against incivility wherever it is encountered.
Treat respectfully those with whom you differ.
Take evidence seriously. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Act to promote the long-term health of the Congress, not just the short-term advantage of your party.
When it comes to the common defense and general welfare, put country before party, and even before your own political interests. If there are no issues over which you are willing to risk electoral defeat, you don’t deserve to be in office.
We will draw attention to how individual Members of Congress put this code into action by carefully and impartially monitoring their conduct in areas such as:

Does the member use civil and respectful language and call others—including fellow party-members to account when their conduct falls short of that standard?
Does the member make a good faith effort to articulate and act on facts and sound evidence, even when some of it cuts against preferred positions?
Does the Member seek bipartisan cosponsors when developing and introducing legislation?
Does the Member work with Members of the other party to help craft legislative compromises?
To what extent is the Member willing to depart from party-line votes, especially when the fate of critical legislation is at stake?
Does the Member actively participate in congressional caucuses and other groups that promote dialogue and problem-solving across partisan and ideological lines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[California Girl]

I'm one of the few Republicans left in the nation who don't think that compromise is a dirty word.

Although I am not a Republican, I don't think that compromise is a dirty word either. Shocking, huh?

 

[Amelia]

I have a healthy regard for gridlock as an alternative to giving Democrats free reign. But the kind of gridlock we have right now is not the kind which lets job creators see Washington as an irrelevant force. It's the kind which could actually kill Washington and let the giant rotting corpse fall across the heartland and crush us all.

The "we're not going to pass anything Obama wants" business has gone too far. And the social agenda legislation coming out of the Congress right now is insane. Does the Tea Party Caucus enjoy looking like fruitcakes? I get the feeling that they do. I don't understand them.

Voting for a candidate who promises to completely ditch the present tax code is as naive as voting for Obama was. That would be setting the Republicans up for failure, and setting the nation up for a downward economic spiral.

 

[BDBoop]

And on another note - I could vote for Huntsman.

 

[eflatminor]

In other words country over ideology.

A fine idea. Now tell me how adding another cent to the already crippling debt is in the best interest of country? When more spending and more debt is ALL we hear from the meddlers in both parties, compromise becomes a sure path to bankruptcy and hyper-inflation. The compromises should be about WHAT spending we're going to cut, not IF we'll cut spending.

 

[kiwiman127]

In other words country over ideology.

A fine idea. Now tell me how adding another cent to the already crippling debt is in the best interest of country? When more spending and more debt is ALL we hear from the meddlers in both parties, compromise becomes a sure path to bankruptcy and hyper-inflation. The compromises should be about WHAT spending we're going to cut, not IF we'll cut spending.

"The compromises should be about WHAT spending we're going to cut, not IF we'll cut spending"

Agree!