Video: Fred a la cart! Update: Gucci loafers video added!

posted at 11:06 am on August 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

Stupid but amusing. The two main raps on him is that he’s “lazy” per his reputation for not wanting to work 16-hour days like most senators (and certain bloggers) do and that his folksy common touch is contrived to disguise the fact that he’s a wealthy Beltway insider. Hence the alleged significance of his use of a golf cart at yesterday’s Iowa state fair, which both Fox and WaPo noticed:

During Thompson’s whirlwind tour of the fair Friday, he wore Gucci loafers and rode a golf cart. That set him apart from other candidates visiting this week, such as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who took his two young daughters on rides and sat down to tuck into a pork chop.

If you’re going to put in man-of-the-people face time at the fair, own it. The media’s in narrative-building mode right now, especially as applied to the GOP. Don’t make it easier for them with penny ante crap that could easily be avoided. Especially when even Hot Air’s Fredhead commenters are grumbling that you look old.

Fun report from the Foxies, though, notwithstanding the error in the chyron about which state he’s from. Poor Carl Cameron almost chokes on having to report the idiocy that is the “butter cow.”

Update: Man, Fox didn’t miss a thing yesterday, did it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I don’t know where Al Gore and John Kerry buy their shoes, but I’m pretty sure it’s not Wal-Mart or Payless.
How come shoes never became a campaign issue until now?

Ali-Bubba on August 19, 2007 at 3:47 AM

7. People actually BELIEVE Fred BELIEVES what he says

8. Everyone else on both sides of the ticket cannot say that

9. Thats a huge, huge factor

1. Only Fredheads believe Fred believes what he’s saying. I wonder if Fred believes he actually has a Red pick-up truck, or that his son didn’t get rich of some PAC money funneling.

2. Michelle Malkin did an entire interview with Mitt Romney, posted up for our pleasure. Michelle isn’t a softy, and Mitt didn’t dodge. Nothing but sincerity comes from Mitt’s voice.

3. Agreed that being believable and people believing you believe what you say believe is a huge, huge factor.

As for the media vs. Fred Thompson? They all know he’s a joke. That isn’t fear you’re seeing in your Fred-colored glasses, it’s ridicule and mockery.

BKennedy on August 19, 2007 at 4:37 AM

A red truck may be important to you, but you just got through supporting Mitts liberal slant to survive Mass. They both do things (all candidates do) to win the vote. Is the red truck more important than stating ,I am an independent, not a conservative? Which one comes home to roost. When Mitt now says he is a conservative, was he lying, or campaigning? Was Fred lying or campaigning with his truck? If one is lying the other is also.

All of you Mitt’ens, debate this. You are so wrapped up in your red truck and its symbol. What makes this different from Mitt running from conservatism, and embracing it now?
We will just take one issue at a time and watch you squirm.

right2bright on August 19, 2007 at 8:01 AM

When, in the 9:01 comment or another one? Maybe I missed something…
FloatingRock on August 19, 2007 at 12:19 AM

If you’ll look at her post, you will see why she should have explained her position a bit better if she did not mean to imply that I said she was a fred?head.

I realize you fred?heads are perfectly fine with fred? faking you out, but the rest of us know the difference between that and a candidate nuancing his position so that the opposition will support him.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:43 PM

First, I’m not a Fredhead and second, this comment makes no sense at all. What the heck are you trying to say? Or is your blatent hatred for Fred clouding your normal conservative vision?

Neocon Peg on August 18, 2007 at 9:01 PM

She can try to parse this any way she likes, but she responded to my 8:43 comment as if it was directed to her, when it was specifically directed to someone else (right2bright). This was Jacks point.

So, yeah, she has ALL the responsibility here.

And ya know what, this was fun last night, but I’m ready to move on. Until Peg apologizes to Jack, she will been considered just another pseudo-intellectual trying to BS the entire HA community.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 8:48 AM

You guys are silly. Mitt / Fred, who cares? Rudy is in the catbird seat. You guys are just fighting for a possible VP slot. I’m serious. It’s over. Rudy is like 20 points ahead of the nearest challenger in the mega states. So, Mitt can win a straw vote in Iowa, big deal. I’ll take California and Florida, you can have Iowa. Unless someone posts a video of Rudy smacking his kid while performing an illegal abortion on YouTube, he is gonna win the nomination.

tommylotto on August 19, 2007 at 9:00 AM

OK, lets try this again…..

If you would spend more time ragging on Mitt! for the real flaws he has, many of which I have had to link articles for you, instead of worrying so much about me, we could give Mitt! a real working over.
csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Now get ready, here it comes….

Ponder what I wrote. Think about it…
right2bright on August 19, 2007 at 12:23 AM

You are complete obsessed with me. It would be flattering if it wasn’t so….obsessive.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Look Guys

First Fred isn’t in the race yet, second, if he enters the race he will win in a walk because he:

A: doesent have an explosive family past

B: Has an extensive senate voting record

C: Is a Likeable person

D: Is very anti politics

E: Doesn’t belong to a religion that 90% cannot identify with (thats not a slam at but a fact of)

F: Hates Taxes and spending

So before you flame up – remember Romney’s going to lose on the non-mormon issues first

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 1:33 AM

A) All the candidates family pasts should be irrelevant, unless we are speaking of infidelity etc AND they are pushing a family values agenda. In that instance, Rudy is equal to fred?. Mitt! is the only candidate that can run on a pro-family values platform. More on this later.

B) I think fred? made 7 votes on abortion and was pro-life every time. I’m pretty sure most of those were of no consequence in the grand scheme. freds? big accomplishment, and one he desperately wanted his name on (because he was a cheif architect of), was McCain/Feingold. A CFR bill that was an egregious attack on the first amendment. Now fred? (the self proclaimed federalist) is saying the law is working the way he thought it would. Thats funny, because the republican leadership was adamantly opposed to it. fred? just refused to listen.

C) Likability is subjective. Those who don’t trust him do not find him likable. And you can’t pretend that people are going to like him the way they like his TV character, because he refuses to get into a forum where he is challenged on his vague proclamations of rehashed conservative policies that are expeted of all conservatives.

D) That is debatable. fred? is certainly pro-lobbying and pro funneling campaign cash to his son. He even tried to justify it by saying that it is common practice in Washington. In other words, fred? is the epitome of the Washington insider. That doesn’t sound like anti-politics.

E) As we seen in Iowa and Illinois, it seems as if people are not interested in Mitts! religion. And no religion is exactly the same and all have disagreements, except in one area. Family values. If Mitt! can survive this next 2 months of religious bigotry, you are going to find that most people, dem, indy, and rep, identify completely with Mitts! very strong stance on family values. He speaks to issues that resonate with ALL Americans and will work towards strengthening laws and policies that support strong families.

F) Just go take a look at Mitts! record on taxing and spending. There isn’t one single candidate, except Rudy, that can even hold a candle to Mitts! record of fiscal responsibility. Not only has he DONE it, he lays out how he will accomplish it on a national scale. fred? has DONE NOTHING. He is all rhetoric when it comes to taxes and spending. When you hold the two up, Mitt! wins in a landslide.

fred? is going to have to come up with something to overcome all the areas that Mitt! is stronger on.

Executive experience: Landslide Mitt!
Fiscal responsibility: Landslide Mitt!
Anti-Washington insider: Landslide Mitt!
Family values: advantage Mitt!
War in Iraq: Advantage Mitt! (fred? will abdicate war policy to foot soldiers)
Motivation: Mitt!

Immigration: Equal
Abortion: Equal (both pro-choice, yet always voted pro-life)
National security: Equal
War on Islamo-fascists: Equal

Free speech: fred? loses (McCain/Feingold)

North American Union: I’m not sure, but I don’t think this is a huge issue to most people.

Those are the important issues of the day. The most important issue, Iraq, they are both equal, so people need a tie breaker. Well, why vote for a guy that only has rhetoric when you can have the same guy, but he has tons of practical experience.

Mitt! wins.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Now fred? (the self proclaimed federalist) is saying the law is working the way he thought it would

The law IS NOT working the way he thought it would.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Csdeven

Emotion, not substance, again

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Mitt has some credible conservative stances

Problems are

A: Hes’ a Mormon and does a poor job of defending his faith

B: His wife is obviously at odds

C: The Media likes him so they consensus is he’s a loser

D: He doesn’t have it the charisma he’s a Bob Dole lite

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Mitt Romney is just another rich kid son of a politician

Pure and simple – yes he’ a paper conservative, yes – he sounds sincere

At a worth made of 250 million he can afford to be a conservative – the rest of us cannot afford and obviously blow dried country club president like Bush1

Consider that everything Fred did he did on his own, his views are his own and he doesn’t apologize or waste time hand wringing

Yes Romney is a good American, not electable and his flip flopping is getting to the Kerry critical level

How many explanations has he made on why he did this or that as a Gov?

and CSDeven, no more BS, posts and links please

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Here’s John McCain, two weeks shy of turning 71 and unable to lift his arms above his head thanks to VC torture, walking around the fair in long sleeves a few days ago.

And Accuweather says it was considerably hotter on the 14th in Des Moines, than it was yesterday.

Although… given the option, I’d take the cart too.

Tanya on August 19, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Oh, and I sneer at your butter cow. At the Minnesota fair, the butter sculptures are of each year’s Dairy Princesses.

(I don’t know which one’s weirder, really. But I know which one’s more difficult.)

Tanya on August 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM

You guys are silly. Mitt / Fred, who cares? Rudy is in the catbird seat. You guys are just fighting for a possible VP slot. I’m serious. It’s over. Rudy is like 20 points ahead of the nearest challenger in the mega states. So, Mitt can win a straw vote in Iowa, big deal. I’ll take California and Florida, you can have Iowa. Unless someone posts a video of Rudy smacking his kid while performing an illegal abortion on YouTube, he is gonna win the nomination.

tommylotto on August 19, 2007 at 9:00 AM

I think we have a few primary elections to do before a nominee is selected. I am content to allow the process to complete and we rally our support to whomever that may be. No need to name-call and create unnecessary venom amoungst ourselves. That divisiveness we need to leave to the democrats.

Texas Nick 77 on August 19, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Csdeven
Emotion, not substance, again
EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

How do you figure that?

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I thought your 11:09 post was an attempt at serious discussion, but after reading these next two….

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

…you are obviously not interested in seriousness. You ask for links and posts, yet provide none for your accusations?

Can you spell “duplicity”? Because that is what you are doing and I refuse to take someone serious who engages in that behavior.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

freddie boy sez: “We are going to be getting in if we get in”.

I guess the entire group can see why you are a fred?head now. You make about as much sense.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM

She can try to parse this any way she likes, but she responded to my 8:43 comment as if it was directed to her, when it was specifically directed to someone else (right2bright). This was Jacks point.
csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 8:48 AM

It could not have been directed at me, you already know that I am not a Fred head. So either you are lying, or trying to “parse” your way out of this.
But then, don’t forget your belief…that if two bloggers are on the same side of an issue, you believe that what one says the other also “owns it”. So even if you didn’t say it, if someone else called her a fred head…you have to own it. I think it is a ridiculous position, but you subscribe to it and believe in it…or “own it” as you so aptly put it.
You also called her a fraud (or at least JackS did, which is the same as you…according to csdeven rules)

right2bright on August 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM

csdeven

Heres calling you out

http://www.massbudget.org/Facts_at_a_Glance_Census_2005_tax_data.pdf

Notice Mass is 22 overall

The State Freds from is ranked 46th

The Federal Government that Fred was apart of had surpluses

Sorry but the math in the state rankings which was on the Mass Budget and Policy website shows Mass well into the top 40% of tax burden and Freds Tennessee is in the bottom 10%

But lets get the spending multi-millionaire who will say anything to get elected into office

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM

A red truck may be important to you, but you just got through supporting Mitts liberal slant to survive Mass. They both do things (all candidates do) to win the vote. Is the red truck more important than stating ,I am an independent, not a conservative? Which one comes home to roost. When Mitt now says he is a conservative, was he lying, or campaigning? Was Fred lying or campaigning with his truck? If one is lying the other is also.

What’s the dif???

right2bright on August 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM

BTW PegtheNeocon is a fellow blogger whose conservative credentials and honesty are not in doubt, we have sparred on many subjects but she’s not a liar nor does she resort to games as well

I appreciate your vigorous defense of your positions – don’t get carried away – remember, I’m not 100% against you I just disagree with you on Romney

Let the rich kid go count his money – personally, I’m tired of the privledged being our only choices sometimes for president

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM

CsDeven

Sooo how do you explain tax and spend Romney? Mass ranks 7th in total tax burden per capita

Tennessee 45th

texas 49th

Florida 50th

Yeah lets get the rich kid tell us how he feels our pain

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Cs

Here’s the linky

http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Also

Romney increased spending at least 125 dollars per person in Mass including adjustments for population growth and core inflation

this was spending before Romney 2,690. After Romney 2,815 in 2005 and estimates for his last year are to be over 2,900 but thats not confirmed

http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/01staxrank.html

Thats an impressive record for a conservative

Notice that both states that had governors named Bush are dead last and Tennessee not far behind

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM

“My cat’s name is Mittens.”
— The Policeman’s son on The Simpsons

Montana on August 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Fred Thompson’s cruising in a golf cart could be interpreted in many ways. Would a man of the people zip around like that? A man who is still recovering from cancer would or worse a man who still is suffering from cancer for sure would. Granted FT has not formerly announced and is technically testing the waters and raising money. I am starting to see him as a globalist RINO. Will he deal like Bush in the big pharmaceutical sham. Is he just watering at the mouth at the prospects of doing business as President?

sonnyspats1 on August 19, 2007 at 4:38 PM

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Who controls the purse strings in the Mass politics?

Answer that and you’ll see how mis-leading your “links” are.

I don’t live there, but there are several persons here that do, and most praise Mitt! for doing as well as he did. But I did find this article.

So, try a different tack.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Give Fred a break. Riding around in a golf cart on a hot day in Iowa has nothing to do with your qualifications to be the president. I would have opted for the golf cart myself.

duff65 on August 19, 2007 at 7:07 PM

CsDeven

I guess I’m going to have to introduce you to the difference between a cold hard fact like Romney increased spending an astonishing 8% and a weak opinion page by a tax protesting group that you posted.

Romney shows in the terrible situation of the people of Mass being taxed too much that the rich kid’s willing to spend even more and did it every year he was governor

What an acomplishment, yes I can only imagine what he would do with the Federal budget maybe a bigdig in every pot

Freds on records voting against deficit spending and against unlimited money in politics

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM

You refuse to accept the fact that Mitts! veto’s were over ridden regularly by a legislature inhabited by liberal tax and spend dems.

Your numbers are a reflection of them, not Mitt. That is why I linked to a tax payer watchdog group who endorse Mitt!. Their agenda is tax payer protection and they have no ax to grind other than to support those politicians who are tax payer friendly.

So, I repeat…try a different tack.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Club for Growth commends Mitt!.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM

All of this because I said I was neither a Mitt nor a Fred supporter, but was waiting to see. Thanks, Eric, but I guess the supporters of Mitt are just foaming at the mouth! Is this how it is to be for conservative voters until the primaries? Gads, I hope not!

Neocon Peg on August 19, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Neocon Peg on August 19, 2007 at 9:40 PM

No, all this because you refuse to take responsibility for your words and attacked Jack.

If what you say is true; that you only used the statement “First, I am not a fred? supporter”, as a pre-qualifier for your next statement, then when you saw that your words were misunderstood, you should have explained your remark further INSTEAD of looking for a fight with whoever called you on it.

Taking you on your word, you exacerbated a very simple misunderstanding into a feeding frenzy of attacks by others who were also just looking for a flame war.

That’s taking you on your word, which I am not entirely convinced of.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 11:20 PM

CsDeven

Mitt never vetoed the budget, in fact the spending initiatives were passed at his bequest

If you want to refute something – you need to post some links that have some facts not a watchdog group – they don’t pass legislation

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:49 PM

EricPWJohnson on August 19, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Watchdog groups give context to the numbers you like to try and spin to mean what you want.

I notice you are trying to re-frame this into a budget issue in an attempt to blame your “facts” on Mitt!. The bottom line is that the dem legislature over rode many of Mitts! vetoes and that precludes you from trying to dump this in Mitts! lap.

Again, try a different tack.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 12:16 AM

I’ll solve all this. Guiliani will not select either Mitt or Fred as his running mate. He’ll select McCain. Then you Fredheads can return to watching Law & Order reruns and Mitt Nitwits can return to worshipping in their crazy cults.

tommylotto on August 20, 2007 at 1:01 AM

CSDeven

I’m not spinning I just posted facts

Its a FACT that when Romney took office Mass spend 2,690 when he left the number soared to over 2,900 a cool thousand per man woman and child over the national average

Thats called a fact

What you do is called weak spin – yes I can frame this into a tax and spending issue cause Romney CLAIMS to be a fiscal conservative and a hard lined administrator

Its a bit of a stretch don’t you think?

Hey the score card says he spent money, more than the liberals in Mass which is an astonishing feat
Yeah he’s who I want holding the fiscal reigns in Washington

EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 4:11 AM

CsDeven

A perusal of the record shows a couple of things

In his last month as Governor as he was organizing his campaign for president he quickly and quite obviously tried to use the veto unlike in the first 4 years in which he dide this

Through a combination of tax and fee increases and spending cuts the State had a $700 million surplus by 2006.[42] Romney supported raising various fees by $500 million per year, including raising fees for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[43] Romney increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional tax revenue.[44] Romney approved another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of “loopholes.”[44][45]

Hmmmm interesting, cut a few taxes and raised taxes on businessess, homeowners, and those with cars – hey sounds like a conservative to me

The state legislature under Romney’s tenure also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns, leading many towns to increase property taxes to make up for lost funding for schools and police.[46] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which lead state run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[44] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income during Romney’s governorship.[44

So he was one of those genius’ who thought that if he cut school funding the local governments like Boston wouldn’t increase taxes – what he did was gut the higher education system and further increase the burden of the middle class

What a guy!

EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 4:21 AM

Hey AP, is this an expiriment to see how many posts you can generate on one “lame” subject?

Texas Nick 77 on August 20, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Yeah he’s who I want holding the fiscal reigns in Washington

EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 4:11 AM

OK, this is the last time I’m going to explain this to you. The legislature holds the power of the purse. Your “facts” do not take into account which policies were Mitts! and which were a result of veto over rides by the legislature.

And in Washington, the same applies.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 7:24 AM

And AGAIN, you like to spout numbers with no context.

Romney supported raising various fees
Romney increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon,
but Romney defended them as the elimination of “loopholes.”

Fees are not taxes.

.02 a gallon to help rescue the state from years of democratic tax and spend policies? Spare me the tears. AND he eliminated the deficit.

The state legislature under Romney’s tenure also cut spending by $1.6 billion,
What a guy!
EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 4:21 AM

That is what conservatives do, cut spending. Spending that was instituted by liberal tax and spend dems. And he accomplished all that with a overwhelmingly dem controlled legislature. A legislature that the people of Mass keep electing. They must love the taxes they pay, because they’ve been electing dems for years and years.

And by the way, what spending did fred? cut? Oh, that’s right, fred? hasn’t done anything except assault free speech with McCain/Feingold.

What about his executive experience? Again, fred? has done nothing.

How about lobbying? freddie boy is a real pro at lobbying.

As the facts reveal, fred? is the least qualified candidate on either side.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 7:45 AM

Another advantage Mitt! has over fred? the man-whore….

Man-whore fred? sez: “I was single for a long time and yep I chased a lot of women,” Thompson told them with a grin. “And a lot of women chased me. And those who chased me tended to catch me.”

Mitt! Romney says: Gee-Whiz.

fred? loses again!

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 7:59 AM

Fees are not taxes.

Anyone who believes this, is not a fiscal conservative…and is very naive, and not very, well how can I put it nicely, astute.

The libs (and greedy weak conservatives) have been doing this for years, and pulling the wool of naive voters eyes. It is a “smog fee”, not a tax…you have to spend $50 a year forever, but it is not a tax it is a fee.

Nobody, is that stupid to believe that “fees are not taxes”. They use that to get around some states that have to have a super majority to impose taxes, or that they have propostions limiting taxes, or they are too afraid to face the voters so they creat this “fee” lie.

“Fees are not Taxes”, hey I have part ownership in a bridge to sell you. Or send me some money and I will release my uncles inheritance to you, it is worth over $3 mil.

How can you laugh out loud on this blog, at such an insane comment, fees are not taxes, that is funnnnny!

Learn a little history, then take a course in economics. This defense of Mitt is getting more stupid everyday.

“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 8:29 AM

That is your opinion. If it was a tax, it would have been called a tax. It was a fee and was called such. If they were the same, you’d have to file federal income fees every year and you’d pay sales fees at the store. Wake up.

Also, ANY rep candidate is better than freddie boy. When we have to make a choice between someone who raises taxes and cuts spending and a moron like fred? who says this: “We are going to be getting in if we get in”……it’s a no brainer, the tax and cut spending candidate with lots of executive experience is 100% better than that lying fake.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 8:42 AM

More proof that fred? is a lying fake. This clown has no shame.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 8:49 AM

I guess it’s no surprise that the fred? groupies like to confuse taxes with fees. fred? thinks lawyers and lobbyists are the same thing! What a BS artist!

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 9:00 AM

fred?, flip-flopping liar extraordinaire!

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 9:03 AM

Fred? lobbied for a brutal dictator, a pro-choice group, and a company that wanted to deny legal representation to victims of unscrupulous companies that knowingly used asbestos. He was successful. He also helped start the S&L meltdown and has taken more credit for the Watergate trial than he deserves.

Love fred?, love his lies and fakeries.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Is fred? losing his marbles? He can’t get anything straight the first time. He tries to ride the fence, but when he is called on it, ha has to nuance his comments. freds? spinning so fast even he can’t keep up with his own lies.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 9:34 AM

CsDeven

You can spin away

Numbers are numbers and facts are facts Romney transferred a collective burden a sales tax collected by all parties who do business with the states to the middle class increasing their burdens

You can scream fred this and Fred that

Romneys a rich kid – he’s already being labeled by RealClearPolitics and the WSJ as the trust fund candidate

Its over CS

Till he runs against Teddy Baby

EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 9:47 AM

fred? misses the boat.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM

I don’t care about Fred, read history and you will find a number of “fees”, fees for autos, fees for libraries, fees to own a dog a cat, fees for gas, fees to use roads, fees to transfer title, fees to park, fees to clean streets, fees to use phones, it goes on and on. But know the government is using the courts to define taxes as fees. To overturn that you must take them to court.

Listen carefully, all polititions place fees on certain things because they do not want to be known as “taxers” (that is so supporters can say “my man didn’t raise taxes”). The laws have been changed to allow fees, in place of taxes, in the public arena. That is to by-pass the word tax. A committee can pass fees, but can’t impose taxes. Therefore, a politico can point to a committee and say, “The insurance commission raised the fee, I didn’t raise the tax”.
Read your history, and read some econ books and you would never ever argue this one point. It is so basic it is embarrassing to state the obvious.
Now you know, and can pass on correct information. It is not my “thinking”. Here is a brief description.

If citizens can opt to not pay the fee, and forgo the service provided for that fee as a result, it would appear to be a genuine fee. A fee is charged for a privilege that you can start or stop at will, whereas a tax is a contribution for the support of a government required from those who live within the jurisdiction of that government.

So, can you drive a car in most states without a “smog fee”? No, so it is a tax, EPA is now trying to impose a “storm water run off fee” for any city over 50,000. If you now live in any city over 50,000, to get away from this “fee”, you have may have to move.
Fees on gasoline, can you drive a car, can you realistically live in the U.S. without an auto? Then you must pay a “fee”, it is a tax.

EMERSON COLLEGE v. CITY OF BOSTON et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
Argued Nov. 8, 1983 – Decided March 14, 1984
Fees imposed by a governmental entity tend to fall into one of two principal categories: user fees, based on the rights of the entity as proprietor of the instrumentalities used, or regulatory fees (including licensing and inspection fees), founded on the police power to regulate particular
businesses or activities… Such fees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner “not shared by other members of society”; they are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not partilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge, and the charges are collected not to raise revenues but to compensate the governmental entity providing the services for its expenses. Fees are legitimate to the extent that the ervices for which they are imposed are sufficiently particularized as to justify distribution of the costs among a limited group (the “users,” or beneficiaries, of the services), rather than the general public….

So real estate fees are not taxes, but to own or buy real estate (which is the object of the great majority) you must pay a “fee”. Liberals call them fees, conservatives call them for what they are…taxes.
BTW, fees are not used in computing tax impact, how convienient for states like Calif, New York, Mass., Florida, who have a massive “fee structure” that if re-defined would make their taxes even more preposterous.

End of class: Fees and Taxes 101

right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Mitt! surges nationally!

Mitt! is ahead in Nevada!

Mitt! builds his front runner image!

It’s over? Time for you to try a different tack. AGAIN.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 10:32 AM

right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Bwahahahahahaa!!!!

I look forward to paying my federal income fees next year. Today, I will buy some furniture and I will pay a 6% sales fee.

LOL!

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 10:34 AM

The former Massachusetts governor is at 14%, behind Rudy Giuliani (32%) and Fred Thompson (19%).

You just don’t get it. I know there are taxes (as stated in the law review), but they are hiding…oh never mind.

You are the only one on this blog who does not understand. You just can’t read and understand. Are you employed? Honestly, do you have a job where you have to read and understand and make decisions?

Read my quotes, and you should begin to understand the basic principles of taxes and fees.

Where did I mention income fees or sales fees? I am dead serious when I ask this question…do you read or skim what people write?
I know you have a hard time understanding Professor Blather and RushBaby (they are a notch above me also), so I have tried to “tone” it down for you. But I just can’t make it any more simple. I run out of mono syllable words.

Here I will try this:
There are fees and taxes. Fees are being used to replace some taxes because so people who are elected polititions people who work for the government city and bigger, do not have to impose give us a tax. We must pay income taxes and sales tax, and other tax, but those people who work for city also want us to pay more. They give us fees to pay so they do not have to say the word tax. Tax is a bad word, a no no. Fees are a good word. Can you say tax is bad, fees are good? Good for you, you are a good fiscal (fiz-col) liberal (lib-a-role).
Now go back to the sand box.

right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 10:51 AM

At last an expert has weighed in on the shoes:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/the_manolo_the_gucci_shoes_of.php

pedestrian on August 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

pedestrian on August 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

No doubt, Fred may be a shoe-in for the nomination.

right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Lazy, old, and Hollywood: three of my favorite Presidential Candidate compliants. The same three leveled at Pres. Reagan day in and day out. Now all we need is for someone to call him stupid or that he can only “play” a character and it’ll be a slam dunk. ((Does he like sweets?))

Sultry Beauty on August 20, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3