It would be really, really helpful if you could quote the part where he said that. It’s a very long speech. I found this:
“I believe as strongly as I can say that we can reform the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth without enacting new broad-based taxes.”
And he did propose new taxes on tobacco. But where’s the part where he proposes “massive new taxes on small businesses”?
Simple question for you: Have the various flat-tax proposals that have been made by politicians in the U.S. proposed to eliminate taxes on capital gains and other unearned income, or have they not?
Here’s one so recent that I didn’t even need the search engine.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4969643&postcount=110
Perhaps. But besides the fact that the admins don’t like changing names too often, perhaps we could recommend that liberals return to their roots. Henry David Thoreau was a liberal. He did not like the idea of people deciding what was good for him. “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” (Walden) What do you suppose he would make of Hillary’s “We’re going to take things from you for the common good” speech?
You really need to stop fetishing on the Armey plan, you know.
It’s an exaggeration to say that I “hate” Hilary. I was just playing along with the OP.
I disagree with her political beliefs, in some cases very strongly. And I find that her long association with a particularly dishonest politician, and the mendacity that association led Hilary to embrace, makes her a politician I oppose.
She is considered a likely candidate in 2008. FWIW, I would consider her a better candidate than Kerry is now.
But I don’t “hate” her in the way that a lot of Dopers “hate” Bush. In other words, I can participate in a political thread without turning it into an attack on her. 
Regards,
Shodan
My apologies for missing that one, Liberal.
I didn’t realize that Hillary was really that close to G.W. Bush. 
Apology accepted. I’m no better than you when it comes to pigeonholing people based on my own perceptions of their history. I shouldn’t have been so defensive.
You’re presenting a hypothetical against a concrete example… Can you think of a single (US) female politician, living or dead, who has/had as many detractors as Clinton does?
True, people might hate another woman who may run, but people do hate Clinton already, so I’d say your any person would potentially be far better received…Unless of course, we resurect Evita Peron and repeal the law that prohibits people not born in the US from becoming president and had her run in 2008.
My fault. I should have characterized it as a massive unfunded mandate on small businesses.
The end result is the same, though. Someone has to pay the bill, the money has to come from somewhere. Nothing is free.
O.K., do you have that quote for us?
No, nothing is free, but are you happy with the current system in which many Americans have no health insurance? Roads and schools aren’t free either, but certainly you wouldn’t want to get rid of them, would you?
I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
Don’t tempt them.
Oh, wait - I think I figured out what you’re trying to say. No, I was thinking more of Forbes’ flat-tax proposal. But I challenge you to show us any flat-tax proposal made by any republican in the U.S. that wasn’t just an excuse to give a big break to the wealthy by eliminating taxes on unearned income.
I’d also challenge them to show us one that made all taxes at a flat rate rather than just the progressive ones. E.g., if you make the income tax flat then what you are left with is one flat tax coupled with the regressive payroll taxes (regressive both because they apply only to earned income and because they cut out after a certain income) and generally regressive state taxes (see here for a state-by-state analysis).
“I think the most progressive taxes should be made flat and the regressive ones are not our problem” is not a recipe for obtaining an overall flat tax structure. [Not that I think an overall flat structure is a necessarily a good goal anyway…But, I sure as hell feel a regressive structure is not a good goal!]
Eleanor Roosevelt, who, except that she didn’t run for the Senate after her husband died, played much the same role as Clinton. Can you think of a single (US) female politician, living or dead, who has/had as many supporters as Clinton does?
Just out of curiosity, BG, what exactly did this contribute to the argument as a whole?
Hard to measure that except with votes, but Sens. Feinstein and Boxer were elected with something like as many votes as Clinton got in NY, and maybe more. Ex-Sen. Braun of IL is in that league, too.
And the result here would be the precise same it was in Russia – a massive, massive transfer of wealth to the upper class. A flat tax soaks the poor, slams the middle class and gives a giant bear hug and kiss to the rich.
I was about to say… I wouldn’t be holding RUSSIA up as an economic model. O_o
(BTW, Russia just nationalized their largest oil company, you still think we should be Russian?)