- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
See my last post about the Dream Act. When someone can provide me with info that isn't echo chamber repeating from hyper partisan pundents then I'll believe it. Right now all I've got evidence of is him threatening to veto something that'd disallow instate tuition to children of illegals and that he'd like to secure the border first then figure out what to do with the ones in this country.
I agree Cap and Trade is huge. I also believe him when he says he does not think we should be doing cap and trade in this kind of economy currently. I also don't disagree with environmental regulation to a certain extent, but do believe its gone overboard in many ways and that it needs to be done in a way that doesn't significantly damage business. That said, this guys got the track record in regards to business to make me think he's not going to pass anything that is going to substantially KILL business. For him to do so would be to go against everything he's done in the past as governor with regards to busines.
As far as health care, I've not seen where he directly supports Obamacare. I have seen that he pushed for reform through negotiations and tax breaks for the private sector, which isn't a problem in my eyes. While he did support an individual mandate, as did the republicans at large back in the 90's anyways, he doesn't support it now and specifically in the way that its done in obamacare. Also, while people grasp onto various things he stated, the FACT of the matter is he supported and passed into law in Utah the very type of reform that Republicans were pushing for...Market-based consumer empowered reform rather than government. I'm not seeing this strong support for him for UHC, nor do I see any real evidence that he's going to push for it. I'm not worried about his views on Health Care, because his history and actions have shown that he will not veto but rather support the very type of reform that a republican congress would send him.
He stated it didn't work, stated our economys not in a place with it, stated its not at a place to even begin looking at it again. I've got no issues with that. I have no issues with the generalized theory of looking at environmental impacts of things. I have a significant issue with how cap and trade is being pushed by the Obama administration, but I have no reason to believe that if he should ever get to trying to push it again that he'd do it in a similar way. Again, for me, i'm not going to condemn a very good candidate about something that MIGHT happen at some point in the future in a way that would go against his long history of being a jobs CREATOR not a jobs killer.
Yes, I'm sure the NRO is referencing the CATO report that lays that fact out about his spending per capita. What it fails to point out, as did ptif's biased agenda driven article earlier, is that despite that he was still ranked as the 5th best governor in the country on fiscal issues. They also look at him 1) in a bubble and 2) based only on population.
His budget grew slightly more than Palin's and slightly less than Pawlenty's during their time as governor. Would you suggest that Pawlenty's got a spending issue and not trustworthy as a fiscal conservative?
Additionally, budget is often looked at as a percent of GDP. Again, when compared to Palin and Pawlenty, Huntsman's budget as a percent of state GDP went down 2% over his tenure which was the same as Pawlenty, while Palin's went up 2%. Again, if we're not lambasting Pawlenty and Palin for their spending irresponsabilities, why are we doing it to Huntsman? Even more, Huntsman and Pawlenty both kept their government spending under 20% of GDP...Palin's was about 26%. Was he superb on spending? No, but he was pretty good all things considered and in relation to others in and around the field.
And yet you fail to look at his record with business, and the affects that his particular version of cap and trade had on business in his state, and base your decisions off that as well. You only want to look at the bad you view and wish to ignore the rest.
Less of a big spender than Pawlenty, and the "conservative" Palin, and all told fiscally was one of the top 5 governors in the country. He gave his state the largest tax cut ever and institituted a flat tax.
Again, where? Because the policies he actually ended up supporting, signing, and agreeing with was not government ran health care but rather market driven tax incentive led private sector focused reform.
Again, as I said before, if he supports the Dream act that's a problem...but just because Michelle Malcan says so doesn't make it true for me. The only statement I've seen for him is that we should secure the border first, then figure out what to do with those in this country. That was the conservative mantra throughout the past 5 years.
Mr. V, I can respect why you wouldn't vote for the guy. I think you're coming at it from a far more reasonable stance, and while I still disagree with you that the guys a through and through "moderate" (I think he's a fiscal conservative with moderate social stances), you're at least not out and out calling him a liberal. My issue I guess is that if you're not going to come out and at least somewhat support someone in the running that you then at least be as equally nit picky at all of them rather than your seeming tacit ignoring of other individuals issues.
Last edited:
