The 2011-2012 debate schedule will take a two week hiatus and pick up again in October. The October 11th Republican primary debate is sponsored by Bloomberg News, The Washington Post and WBIN-TV, a local station which will broadcast the debate in New Hampshire. The debate will also air nationally on Bloomberg Television. Pre-debate coverage begins at 7pm ET on Bloomberg.
Air Time: Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 at 8pm ET on Bloomberg Televison
Report from The Dartmouth:
With the Oct. 11 Republican primary debate drawing nearer, Dartmouth officials are working to prepare the logistical elements of the College-hosted event. The debate, which will take place in Spaulding Auditorium from 8-10 p.m., will focus on the hot-button topic of the economy and will be moderated by PBS host and renowned journalist Charlie Rose, Bloomberg Television White House correspondent Julianna Goldman and The Washington Post’s national political correspondent Karen Tumulty.
Tumulty, Goldman and Rose have begun coordinating ideas and holding brainstorming sessions for the debate, which will focus primarily on economic issues, Goldman said in an email to The Dartmouth. “With the Bloomberg terminal, we’re uniquely positioned to back up our questioning with an enormous amount of data,” Goldman said.
Officials from the debate’s four sponsors — Dartmouth, Bloomberg News, The Washington Post and local news outlet WBIN-TV — have not yet decided on the questioning format to be used in the debate, according to Justin Anderson, director of media relations for the College. The sponsors are still considering whether Rose will ask each question or if he will also take questions from students and faculty members, Anderson said.
Of course, no participant list has been finalized since we have two weeks which can be an eternity in presidential campaigns. More details are available at a special page setup by Dartmouth College. Ticketing is closed as all available tickets were awarded first to students and faculty through a lottery system.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- next debate gop
- next debate on tv
- Republican presidential candidates will hold their next debate in Dartmouth College ________ on October 11
- when is the next debate on
- when is next republican debate scheduled
- rerun of republican debate
- next new hampshire debate
- when is the next republican debate in nh
- gop october 11
- when is the primary debate
- new hampshire debate tickets 2012
- next gop debate president
I would ask Charlie Rose what the purpose of the Bilderberg Group really is and why he is a member of it (Google "Charlie Rose and Bilderberg Group" or See http://truthquake.com/2011/06/10/bilderberg-group-2011-begins-official-attendee-list-leaks-exposing-world-most-powerful-new-world-order-illuminati/ and http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2010-prisonplanet-com-master-page.html)
Herman Cain is a great leader and he has experience solving problems, but he doesn't know enough to be President of the United States. The speech that he is wowing the crowds with now is the exact same speech that he's been doing for years, almost word-for-word. If you've actually been following him from the beginning, it's getting old and you realize that he severely lacks on substance. Newt Gingrich is the one who has the substance and is ready to lead with the 21st Century Contract with America.
My hope is that, in the next debate, Herman Cain is asked about the FairTax that he supports. Almost everyone knows that the FairTax would include a national tax on retail goods and services. What most people, even supporters of the FairTax, do not seem to know is that state/federal/local government employer's overall wages would be taxed at 23% under the FairTax. So, except for teachers/trainers and not-for-profit government enterprises, almost every other government employer's overall wages paid to their employees would be taxed at 23% under the FairTax. This means the U.S. military, local police departments, and local fire departments, for example, would have their overall wages paid to employees taxed at 23%. This is documented in a very limited way in the FairTax books and FairTax articles, but it is true. This is from the article "Why the FairTax Taxes Final Government Consumption" available at the fairtax.org site itself (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Why%20the%20FairTax%20Taxes%20Final%20Government%20Consumption.pdf):
"The FairTax determines the taxable value of governmental consumption to be equal to the sum
of:
(1) the dollar value of the labor used to provide the government service, and
(2) the cost of what the government purchases in order to provide the service.
Therefore, to tax (1), The FairTax Act of 2011 (HR25) requires each governmental unit to pay the FairTax on the total compensation paid to all its employees. To tax (2), HR25 imposes the FairTax on government purchases of all goods and services from businesses."
FairTax supporters in the article will argue that taxing your local police department's wages is to "level the playing field" with private competitors that must charge for their services. Ask yourself, who are my local police truly in direct competition with in the private sector? Paul Blart Mall Cop? Also, ask yourself is their really a reasonable expectation that having your local city policed entirely by one or more private police companies is likely, feasible, or even a good idea? Your local police are an extension of your U.S. military and must "provide for the common defense" as the Constitution defines as a role of government. And if you don't think so, think about this: Besides police officer's day-to-day keeping of the peace in our cities, who were the first on the scene to preserve, protect, and defend the city of NY on 9/11? You guessed it, it was the local police and fire departments of NY.
FairTaxers will also argue that government run agencies will have their wages taxed and that individuals working for those agencies will not have their wages taxed by the FairTax. Well, crap always rolls downhill. If a police department's overall wages are taxed at a higher overall rate of 23%, those police department's will invariably take up the increased costs out of their employee's salaries as wage cuts.
All I am saying is that someone needs to ask Herman Cain why he supports the FairTax taxation of wages paid by government employers like local police departments. I'll bet Cain either says the FairTax only taxes retail goods and services and doesn't tax wages or he will blindly support all things about the FairTax as it is the perfect unalterable gospel in the minds of FairTaxers.
Does it not appear that there is a major problem between state's rights and federal power? In the last few weeks we have watched an enormous waste of money being put into court battles over immigration and now marijuana drug laws. It appears that the old adage of local control will be fought using our own money against us by a debt ridden federal government. Should the Federal government let states lead for their own people? Why does the federal government fight so hard to protect its failed policies?
Question for Mr. Cain: I watched your interview by Lawrence O'Donnell and noticed your lack of participation in any Civil Rights protests from 1963 to 1967. Currently, you made big notice about a rock at a remote Texas hunting site from 20+ years ago. My question to you: Why haven't you brought big notice to the "well-known" lakes and other visible U.S. locations with similiarly offensive names over the past 20+ years, until it became politically expedient?
Question for all candidates,
Our current President, made all kinds of promises while campaigning, he stated he would "ban all earmarks" & lobbyists would not be in his whitehouse…what is your stand on these issues?
Question for Rick Perry:
You called a special session to pass a bill that prohibits tax payers
from having access to your travel & entertainment expenses. Why do
you think taxpayers should not have access to the way in which you
spend their money?
Question for Mitt Romney
Last week you said in a speech in Charleston that we need to spend more and modernize the military. Using the Navy as an example, why do we need 11 aircraft carriers when all the other countries on this earth have only a total of 10 and 9 of those are owned by our allies? In addition 11 our carriers are of much higher capability than any of the carries of any other country. Also every carrier requires at least 1 Aegis cruiser, 2 destroyers, 1 or 2 subs and a couple replenishment ships to support each carrier group.
Why does the US have 9 amphibious attack ships and all the other navies of the world have only a total of 5 and all of them are our friends? The last amphibious invasion we conducted was 60 years ago at Inchon during the Korean War. What country do we think we will be invading with amphibious ships in the future? None I hope as they would get wiped out given the technology that has come about during the past 50 years. Secretary Gates as much admitted this when he rejected the Marines request for a new expensive landing craft as they would be blown out of the water before they hit the beach.
Now the Navy wants to build a new 50 ship class of patrol boats to protect the sea lanes from pirates when almost all merchant ships fly a “flag of convenience” to avoid employing US sailors or paying us taxes. Are we totally nuts?
We can no longer afford to be the worlds military policeman.
Not picking on just the Navy but as a former Navy Officer I know a little more about it than the other services. I am sure other folks that are more familiar with the Army and Air Force can find equally insane expenditures with them.
Iraq was invaded amphibiously …
Just saying, your info is somewhat off.
[...] warfare” fomented by Obama.There will be a plethora of economy-centered topics to discuss on Tuesday's debate from New Hampshire. Undoubtedly the "Occupy Wall Street" protests will be an interesting discussion among all the [...]
Question for Debate??
Should we eliminate PAC's and cap the donations anyone can receive at $2000/per person or company? It seems to me that elections are BIG BUSSINESS!!!!!
It is shameful that Gov. Gary Johnson has not been invited to this debate. He is a legitimate candidate with a phenomenal record who is making a concerted effort to reach voters, and he polls well when you control for the variable of name recognition.
He would also provide a diversity of ideas, as he is the only major GOP candidate who is not a social conservative.
Question for all candidates, starting left to right: If you were a member of congress on Oct. 1, 2008, how would you have voted for the Bush $700 billion TARP bailout of the banks? Up or down votes only; no abstentions allowed. 30 seconds each to explain your vote, no rebuttals.
Thank you,
Tom Ish
Auburn, California
My question is: Given that 98% of scientists agree that global warming is strongly correlated to human activity, and given that the Pentagon has been warning for years (at least since 2004) that climate change is a serious threat to national security, what bold actions would you take to address this critical matter of concern to every human on the planet? There are job opportunities here too! Better we should create jobs to reverse this trend than have to create jobs to clean up after ever more serious hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other repercussions of global warming.
I would like to hear your views regarding leveraged ETF's & high frequency trading in our stock markets.
Why are these debates on only certain T.V. Channels? If we want a really informed public, why not put it all on as many channels as possible. Why are the taxpayers donating to campaigns when they cannot even see the debates? Many people cannot afford to have all the channels on their T.V. providers and many older people also are not computer savy. Seems to me all the debates are only created for certain T.V. channels and websites on computers to make a lot of money hosting these events. The poor smuck on the street seldom gets to view any of them.
Where is Gary Johnson?
bold action to reign in carbon emissions in the USA will entail a huge hit on our economy and make no appreciable difference since the source of ever increasing amounts of carbon are from China, India and other developing nations that will not join what has become a political crusade. The only viable solution to uncertainty about climate change will be an alternative energy source that is marketable.