Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.
Kendrick Meek for his experience he did a good job today
Marco Rubio hiding something or he didn’t want to discuss he sounds like other tea party candidates
Charlie Crist he want to win I don’t think he will but when he said “my friend Mc Cain” its remind my old republicans
I quit GOP last march because they decided not go against tea party
Tough choice for Florida voters to whom they vote
someone needs to tell Rubia that the tax cuts were in effect when we went into an economic melt down...what he is offering is more of the same
Candy, why don't you ask your panel if they've heard about Wall Street and the Banks when discussing why the economy is in the state it's in. We definitely should drop the tax cuts to the rich and we also should be getting back the money Wall St. vacuumed up from this country and around the world. Please discuss on air. Thank you Mrs. Lucille Giacino
Mr. Crist .... your view on "changing your mind" .... is ok to a certain point .... but if you do it often it is simply a manifestation of your "wishy wash ness" ... or your desire to stay in power is greater than your desire to lead the country in the right direction.
Your statement is at the very root of why voters despise politicians. We want to vote for somebody that has our values and will lead in that direction. We don't want to be mislead during the campaign just to have you change directions like the blowing of the wind.
Miami Herald Endorses the winner of every debate, MARCO RUBIO! ORALE!
Kendrick Meek & Charlie Crist blew Marco Rubio out of the water. Marco Rubio revealed himself in this debate as an idiologist who is unbending, rigid and unable to work with other parties. Bi-partisonship? I don't think Rubio knows the meaning of it and how that can help our country. Florida, wake up! Don't vote for Rubio!
The fear of increased taxation throwing the economy into a tailspin by targeting those funds earned over 250,000 is ridiculous.
We must have an efficiently run government, this takes funds. Those making over 250,000 are still getting a tax break up to that level.
Increasing personal income taxes above 250 would have a person making 350k paying roughly $4500 more a year in taxes. At that income level, those citizens should feel it a patriotic obligation.
Rubio presented this bracket representing 30% of consumer spending, then stated it was 30% of consumer spenders.
This group will save that money, it will not result in a decrease in 30% less in consumer spending. If those funds are used to help keep teachers, fireman and policemen working, that money will get spent and we get services.
70% of spending is in medicare, social security and defense. The states are squeezed, many cutting educational budgets, as well as medical reimbursements for the poor, including access to contractive services.
For every dollar given back in tax cuts, .80 goes back into the economy. Stimulus creates 1.30. Few understand the nature of what happened to result in the economic vacuum. Many people are so angry, their minds are not free to make an objective analysis. There are many available to fill the gap, however, pulling the double bind of demanding tax cuts while demanding defense and inciting people about deficit.
Most in this camp, the fear of reasonable tax policy camp, have not reasoned through the situation and are those not even affected by the policies. I would be, my neighbor would not, he wants no changes to current tax cuts but is afraid of deficit.
I do not understand the position, but I am irritated that Bush set up these cuts to expire off his watch.
Tax cuts for the rich create jobs in China.
Rubio's rejection of amnesty for working undocumented workers stinks of hypocrisy. Has he forgotten the special status we Cuban-Americans enjoy in this country mostly due to the efforts of other previous immigrants who faced hardships?
I will cost bilions to give tax cuts that the Republicans want. That's not cutting spending. That's spending more ON them, BY