I can say that I feel almost the same way you do, but coming from the Romney side. So in all I agree with about 85% of what you have written, but can allow the other 15% just because you didn’t say it in a “Your wrong, I’m right” attitude.

I blogged for Romney about 1.5 years leading up to the primaries. I was very careful to only promote Romney, and not tear down other candidates, though at times I felt I could select some choice words for my feelings about Huckabee. I once had high esteem for Mike Huckabee when I knew little about him. I have my own reasons for not liking him, which don’t exactly match up with what you stated in your post, but what you wrote does hold true for many.

I don’t know if I’ll have time, but if I do I would certainly like to write a lengthy response and layout how I see the whole Romney – Huckabee feud. And I will do my best to be honest yet civil.

Again, great writing Maidensong. The world could use a lot more people with your unoffending character.

Nate G.
http://planetromney.org
http://committedtoromney.org

God Bless,
Jonathon

Mike Huckabee

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

Mike has made it to round two.

2Ch 7:14 – If my people, which are called, by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Besides the fact that the two comments have only one word in common? Just kidding…

My philosophy is that if a person won’t work, neither should he eat. But if that person CAN’T work, we should take care of them (If a person can’t FIND work, we should try to help him out there.) For a variety of reasons, I think it should be done by private charity. But what if private charity doesn’t step up? I’m not saying none necessarily would. But what if none did? Shouldn’t we at least have some type of safety net set up? Or, for the greater good of privatized charity and a free society, should we risk some dying from lack of care?

Please understand that this is an issue which I struggle with and I ask these questions sincerely.

I just don’t think the way it seems to you is accurate, but, then, of course, that’s just the way it seems to me, so we may be in an endless quagmire there.

But the FairTax, as I’ve pointed out, would accomplish a great many things: make our products more competitive at home; make our products more competitive abroad; save some $200 billion and 5.8 billion man hours of tax compliance costs; eliminate politicians’ abilities to manipulate the ridiculously complicated and convoluted tax code in order to provide special benefits to whom they want in the form of tax cuts and deductions (essentially, subsidies); make it more difficult for politicians to raise taxes by making the tax code more transparent and fair; allow people to save money, invest money, give money away, and pass money onto heirs without the government first getting to plunder it; allow the thrifty to get the most bang for the buck by only taxing new retail goods–not used goods; provide the poor with a chance to better their future by giving the Prebate for necessities so that they can save more money; bring off-shored money back into the U.S.; encourage investment in the U.S.; etc.

It’s quite apparent that Americans will try to find a way around any taxation. I guess that’s just human nature. But, as of now, we’ve got illegal immigrants, pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, loophole finders, and people who off-shore their money paying almost no taxes at all. Under the FairTax, anyone who ever buys anything (product or service) from any reputable business (online or on Main Street) will have to pay taxes. In reality, they already sort of do with the average 22% embedded tax. But, in this way, they wouldn’t have the advantage of paying no income or payroll taxes.

A poll tax, where everyone paid the same amount, might not fund government at it’s current levels. That it why it is imperative to DECREASE SPENDING! Doesn’t the collection of 3 trillion a year offend you? It does me. It isn’t the “governments” or the “peoples” money, but the individuals who earn it.

I agree that government will not give up the power of secular “charity” easily. That is why, Christians especially, (because they are more centered morally) must step up to the voting booth and vote for candidates who will reduce government “charity” rather than simply rearranging it. Huckabee doesn’t seem to be fighting this fight. He seems to claim to give “charity” better. Just my opinion, obviously.

How do you see the government “making the ordinary Joe feel like they have a say”? We all get to vote. All I can think of when I hear that is how the ordinary Joe in America has their hands out constantly. I personally refused to have the government pay for my son’s birth, which cost me over 30k, more than I made in a year at the time. My wife cried when I told her it would be IMMORAL to reach in our neighbor’s pocket to pay for OUR son. But we did it anyway, because it WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! More Christians need to do this, but instead are supporting a man who SEEMS TO ME, to blame it on all those who don’t pay. So instead of questionable terms like “vertical politics” a true conservative should be talking about the morality of paying your own way. I just don’t see this from Huckabee.

The “fair tax” is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. SPENDING is the problem, not how the Fed collects it’s 3 trill a year, WHICH IS WAY TOO MUCH.

“But what I mean is that we can’t expect government to stop helping those really in need until we show that we can take care of them on our own. I don’t know if we’ve shown that yet.”

Marx wrote “from each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED”. How different is your comment from his? I don’t mean that as an attack. Ayn Rand correctly pointed out that you increase the qualities that you reward financially. If you reward “need” you create more of it. Not exactly what I think most people consider “charity” or “caring”.

I don’t think “Vertical Politics” is class warfare rhetoric. It’s not about redistributing wealth. It’s about Ordinary Joes feeling like they have a say in their government again.

I really don’t think we’re far off on our views of government welfare. I would like to see the government totally out of that business. But two things:

1.) Just because Huckabee doesn’t want to totally eliminate the welfare system doesn’t mean that he’s the same as the Democrats (That’s the whole essence of welfare reform but not destruction.).

2.) I think we’ll only see government reform its welfare system proportionately to the level that individuals and churches step up to the task. Actually, I take that back. The government won’t just give up their power that easily, because government charity is great for secular humanists. But what I mean is that we can’t expect government to stop helping those really in need until we show that we can take care of them on our own. I don’t know if we’ve shown that yet.