put back in place, there still would not be enough money coming in to pay benefits. i know clara will get upset with the because i will take you i walk through yesteryear. everyone understands now that retirement ages 60 to and is moving back to -- anybody know what age will move back to text 67. 67, ok? when did that happen uphe? this was the brilliance of the politicians who did this. they were absolutely brilliant. they pass a bill that did not take effect for 20 years, so nobody blames them. it was brilliant. they increased the social security eligibility age by two years back in 1983, and it did

not stop -- start phasing in for about 40 years. all the people were not affected and they did not know about it. this is one of the beautiful things about congress -- they learned their lesson. all the medicare changes -- when did they take place? 20 years from now. we could do that under the reagan when we were running $80 billion deficits. now we are running $1.20 trillion deficits. we have $50 trillion and counting and we will have another debt ceiling increase. we are hemorrhaging in america. 42 cents of every dollar is being borrowed to be able to fund the government.

think about that, folks. the the young people. nowe saying to them, right this generation of people deserve to borrow 40 cents on the dollar and put the bill to you. you are not on to get any benefit from it. he will simply pay the bill. that is a heavy burden to put on the next generation, $15 trillion. we say it is not that bad, we're managing now with an 1% or 2% interest. when the economy starts percolating under my administration, what else would start going up? interest rates. we pumped so much money out there, so we will have to rein that in. how? increase rates. right? you will rein it in, and as a result our borrowing costs will go up, and now you are talking

real money. if we do not do something now -- i know, rick santorum gets elected and we do what we need to do which is deal with entitlement programs now, not 10 and 20 years from now, you will know, unlike ronald reagan who was a better politician, you will note that it was rick santorum that work together and got the american people to fix this problem. why? because it is our problem. the problem with obama, he does not want to gather you all together to fix the problem. he would rather divide and conquer. he would rather just pit one group against another, those who have and those who don't in order for him to win the election and so you do not have the chance of any thing getting down and pass the problem on to the next. we can no longer afford that,

ladies and gentlemen. my >> concern is about social security. i was amazed when i found out years ago that congress allowed -- was allowed to get into social security. now they want to raise the retirement age to 70, i have heard. we aren't that money. we worked hard for our -- week earned that money. we worked hard for our social security. why does not the government hold them responsible to get away with that? why is there no penalty? >> i love ronald reagan, but if i would point to one thing during his administration that he did a serious wrong, it was this bill, this social security fix. he bought the idea of increasing

taxes now -- always with the left wants to do -- increased taxes now, reduce benefits letter, which is exactly what the bill did. it increased taxes dramatically on workers: ford in 1983. it reduced benefits later. by increasing taxes as dramatically as they did, what did they create put the social security surplus. the surplus was not a little bit of money. it was a lot of money. they only needed about -- a 12.4% tax, and they needed about 9% or less. they had a huge amount, a quarter of the overall tax, in excess of what was needed to pay benefits. so why did they do that? why did they not just match the payment to the benefit? they were going to build up a

surplus. they had convinced ronald reagan, sadly enough, and the american public that they could build up a surplus. let's look at what they did with the money. the money came in, nine percentage points of a 12.4% payroll tax was paid out to beneficiaries. what happened to the 3.4%? what happened to this hundred billion dollar surplus? what did they do with it? what did they actually do with that money? what was the transaction they conducted, the social security administration? [unintelligible] they invested in it in treasury bills, special issued treasury bills. they take the $100 million, to get out of the trust fund, right?

$100 billion, and they gave it to the federal government in exchange for -- this is a treasury bond. them a treasury bond. what did the federal government do with the money? gone. what is over here in a file drawer in west virginia, a piece of paper that says the federal government owes the federal government $100 billion. they took more money from you in 1983 said they could create this piece of paper, spent more money in 1983, give you this piece of paper, and then at some date in the future, now, because we did not have enough money coming in to pay benefits, which will take this piece of paper

and go out and do what? get another piece of paper, this time from the chinese, and replaced it. -- and replace it. i do not believe social security is a ponzi scheme, but the surplus was a bad deal. all we did was finance bigger government in the 1980's, 1990's, and the last decade, and hide the real deficit that was going on. now we are paying the price because we have these huge government spending is that did not look like uighur in such a big deficit, and look what happened. it has been obama's policies, but it has also been the social security plus fund was -- social security trust fund was a name plus position.

i have taken the position, what are we doing cutting social security taxes? do we need -- we need that money to pay benefits, or is this just a big share rate where there is not really any trust fund, this money is not used to pay social security, it is lumped in with the federal government and why it should be treated differently than any of the federal program? which means changing it the way we want, either increased taxes were cut cut benefits. that we take it one step forward, and clara is inching back there. i was a supporter 15 years ago a personal retirement accounts. i was a big advocate of that. [applause] when i was an advocate of that in 1997, my only trip on air force one, i was a freshman

senator, my second two-year tranche, and i went out with bill clinton to kansas city about how to reform social security. we would take the surplus, that 3%, and use it instead of creating this, which was phony, and larry summers and bill clinton knew it was funny, let's create something real, creigh a real asset that can pay benefits. bill clinton to his credit wanted to create the assets, but have the government hold the assets, like a corporate bond, but something where the private sector would have to pay so it would be a real asset as opposed to this, which is simply a promise of the government to pay. to create a real asset. i wanted it to be individually

held. he wanted it to the government help. we were working on something and dressa lewinsky's t popped off. here's the problem now. that 3% that i was going to use to create this real asset? some people have suggested we need to go to the chilean system. who is going to give younger workers -- i am all for having young workers having retirement accounts, but where are you going to get the money? we have $1.20 trillion in deficits, plus a $15 trillion -- you want to increase the deficit even more so we can borrow more from social security? we got to get our fiscal house in order, and that way is we

have to adjust taxes and benefits on social security. how do we do this? my last point, how do we do this? other countries have done this. they create a formula that has to be on the benefits side, a formula that will affect -- part of it will affect benefits so that we could curb benefits for high-income seniors. that me step back again. 1937, when social security was put in place, if you look like age groups, what was the poorest age group in 1937? people over the age of 65. --s is the wealthiest group who is the wealthiest group today? >> politicians. [laughter] >> i will accede to that.

bottom line is seniors are not the poorest people in america today, it is in fact younger workers. here is our conundrum. we have to fix this. what do we do? do we say to young your workers, we will tax you more and get benefits to high-income seniors who have paid into social security -- they have earned at -- or are we going to make you pay more to hold down the economy and take more resources out of you? i have a hard time seeing how that is fair and cannot imagine that franklin roosevelt would have seen that as fair. we need to look at changing -- there is a whole bunch of ways to do it, cost of living increases, a lot of ways you can structure it so higher-income seniors -- dependent benefits.

we have benefits of children -- but it's going to children of parents who have died. a lot of these children get benefits if the mother or the father, in most cases the father, who turns 65. the child of the 65-year-old gets benefits. i am not saying all, but at least most of the 65-year-old that i know, are not hurting for cash. right? it is usually a second marriage, and we end up paying for these dependent benefits. anybody for that? there are some things we can do, little and big things. i believe and i know this is not popular that not now, but after 67, we need to continue to move it forward. why? in 1937, the retirement age was set at 65.

what was the average life expectancy in america? 61. the eligibility age was set at 65. social security was put in place for people who were so old they could not work. it was a program for people who could not provide for themselves. today, the eligibility age is 66. average life expectancy is almost 80. at the time when seniors collect social security, 70% of them take benefits at 62, what is the life expectancy for the seniors that are 62? 85. they will be on social security benefits for 23 years. now, i am saying that we are running a $1.20 trillion

deficit. this is not the only way we are qantas all this deficit. it is a piece of it. the idea that we are not gone to be honest and of the public and have this discussion, understand the problem, and here is what i say to you -- let's solve it together. let's give you the menu of options and you can decide as a society of what we are going to do. are we going to curb benefits for seniors or texas or workers, and they will because we can raise the social security taxes, tax younger workers more, can do a combination of those things. i believe based on demographics there is a preferential way. you may disagree. yes, sir, in the back. >> tell us, if you should become

president, what in hell would you do about cleaning up washington so all you politicians down there are not able to make use of insider trading? this is legal according to all your rules and regulations. if any one of us in this room to that they would hang us by our thumbs. the other part of it is cronyism. nepotism. on and on. >> insider-trading that congress members are being accused of it is specific to members of congress. they are covered by the same rules as everybody else about having knowledge. if they have a knowledge about something about a company and a trade on that, they are as guilty as anybody else. the neat thing is something we should not have, is that people

should behave well. members of congress should be ethical. [laughter] does anybody believe they should not? here is the problem. when people do not behave as they should, what happens is we have to pass laws, and they are hard to pass one, and i support it. they are going to have to have staff that you will pay for to enforce the law, will fill up the paperwork in congressional offices, all sorts of expenses related, and why? because people do not live the lives they should. i always say people care about cutting taxes and everything will be fine. if people do not live good, decent lives, government will be bigger. that is why i say they will be a part of the foundation of

economic limited government, so this is a classic example where everybody in this room is not going to pay more taxes dollars will go to enforce a law that there should not be a need for. people should not do its. what they did was get inside information about a bill that might pass that would affect a particular company and then go out and trade on it. you know that is wrong. i know that would be wrong. everyone here should know. guess what -- a lot of people do not have those values. yes, go ahead. >> getting back to what you're talking about, there are many social ills within this country that have no honest dialogue, from welfare to social security, what you're talking about now, ssi, how it affects, and how it is destroying the moral fabric,

particularly welfare. what we have done to the minority communities is an atrocity. what will you do to change that? >> it is everybody who is affected by this culture of dependency and entitlement. the reason i am in this race, the principal reason, is because of "obamacare," because i think it will turn every american into a dependent american, somebody who will rely upon the federal government's, . , right? what did obama do to get his way, the get pressure on members of congress? he did a press conference, looked into the comte -- camera and said, if congress does not pass this debt ceiling, and you do not call them right now, you will not get your social

security checks, you will not have your medicare bills paid, you, the spouse of what our men and women overseas, will not get your check. he scared you. why? because you are dependent on the federal government for your life. the more dependent he can make you come the more power he has over you. this is a tipping point. "obamacare" is the tipping point in our country. there are a lot of people in the margins of life who are legitimately getting these resources for poor and disabled. ssi is historically rife with problems, particularly children getting ssi, and i dealt with this when i worked on the welfare reform bill. if you want somebody who has a

long track record and a good one of dealing with these issues, when i was a house member of the ways and means committee, i wrote the welfare reform bill in the contract for america. i managed the bill on the senate and work with president clinton in getting a bill signed after he vetoed it twice to end welfare. we block grant that the program, got rid of federal entitlement, and i was the principal author of it in the senate, managed the bill on the floor. we stopped the entitlement. we kept the funding. we did not allow any increase in funding, gave the responsibility back to the states and said two require mets, that i refuse to compromise, was a work requirement and a time limit. poverty is not a disability.

it is a temporary condition and the expectation is the government will give you a temporary and to turn her life around, but you will do so or if you will stop receiving benefits. guess what happened -- the welfare rolls were cut in half in america, in wisconsin by 92%, and employment went up. it was a fundamental change in america, and guess what happened -- poverty levels went down to the lowest level ever for one of the areas that had the highest levels for african-american children. the idea that republicans do not care about those who are on the margin of life because we do not vote to give big government programs to provide for them is

just the opposite. that is why we want to stop these programs from creating that dependence. let's go to someone in the back. >> thank you for coming to new hampshire. as a pro-life candidate, one of the basic premises of everyone running for the position is the repeal of the "obamacare." a question was asked to ron paul about what he would do about and uninsured person with an insurable illness. i was curious whether you're a market-based reforms of health care would attempt to ensure everyone in the country, or what would you do with that individual?

>> i believe an opportunity as -- equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of result. we believe in america that -- we believe in freedom and responsibility instead of government dictating how things should be operated. i believe in free people and markets. that does not mean the government has a role. of course it has a role, of being a referee, that is supposed to run up and down the sides of a football game and throw a penalty when there's something wrong. but not to put on the pads and be a quarterback. what i have put forth over the years, starting back in 1992, i've worked with a guy named john kasich, starting health savings accounts. with dick armey i such a bill that said we should not treat

people who have employer provided insurance and equally under the tax code, because if you have insurance, every dollar your employer spends on entrance is not taxable to you. yet if your employer gives these that same amount of money, and pays it to you, you have to be taxes and then go out and buy your own insurance. depending on what were tax record is, you have to do it with after-tax dollars. the idea of having a system where we treat everybody the same, so we give tax credits to the uninsured so we can provide and equality under the tax cut about everyone. i support a system that allows that. that is why i have performed the tax code. i would get rid of the tax code,

go to two rates, 10% and 28%. 28% is the top rate established by ron reagan. five deductions -- health care, housing, pensions, children come and charities. a simple code and put in place to be able to support those who need support with health care. yes, ma'am. >> if you get elected [unintelligible] getting rid of some of them federal regulations. made in america is an import label i look for. my question is, what was your issue with nlb going after

boeing? >> you just heard about obama appointing three directors of nlrb.p the let me address manufacturing and nlrb related to boeing. obama appointed these individuals which i believe is wrong. we did not allow in the senate -- we insist the senate not adjourn for more than two weeks, some period of days because if you add jauron for that period of time, during the recess of

the senate, the president can appoint people on a recess appointment. it is allowed under the rules strict because we knew there were people out there for this consumer product safety commission that was created by -- consumer financial services commission, something like that, under dodd-frank, to allow enormous power to oversee your financial transactions and determine whether you should have them or not, what loans you should have made available to you, why? because he cannot be trusted with freedom. he cannot be trusted freedom. the senate republicans wisely said we are not going to adjourn, we will recess, and we will come back in pro-forma sessions, do this on a regular basis, so obama cannot do this. you know what?

what are rules to president obama? he is such an important man. he is the president of the united states, isn't he? as he said today in ohio, when the minority stance in the way, i will do what everett the american people deserve. who cares what the constitution says, what the law says, what the rules are? i am the president. this is pretty scary stuff. i hope the united states senate does what they are supposed to do and they should take the president court. this is not something that the president should get away with. let me answer her other question, which was, what are we

going to do about made in america? this is up my alley. i come from a steel town in western pennsylvania. people ask me, how do you win your elections? i won the elections because i had policies that were in sync with the people that i represented. my grandfather was a coal miner, southwestern pennsylvania. i grew up in a blue-collar town, and i am the stand the importance in this country of manufacture, the importance of making sure we are not just a knowledge-based economy, creating a lot of good products great medicals, devices, but we are not making that in america. we're creating, and by creating a wonderful knowledge-based economy, but manufactured them somebody else.

having travelled around the small towns in new hampshire and south carolina and iowa and having represented those small towns in pennsylvania, guess where most of the manufacturing occurs in america -- it occurs in small-town america. guess what area of the country has been hurt the worst of the past few decades. small-town america. why? the jobs have left, and with it, the ecology -- the quality of life that does not exist for blue-collar workers today. the average american worker gets paid $55,000 a year. when i was growing up, 21% of the work force was involved in manufacturing pl. it is now 9%. why did we lose manufacturing jobs? we became uncompetitive as a country.

was a time, i represented in the congress, republican, 90% conservative record, and i ran in a district that was 71% democrat . maybe you have heard of the monongahela valley. there were mills along that river as far as the eye could see. there is only one left. that area was economically devastated. that was my district. i know the impact of bad management decisions and bad labor decisions. all the government's fall, but in my opinion is now, because in every other area of business, labour and management can compete and we do compete. guess what -- we're being held from getting those jobs back because we are

20% more expensive to do business in america for manufacturers than the nine top trading partners we deal with, china, mexico, canada, india, etc. how are we going to get is jobs back? let's put labor costs a side pit we want higher labor costs. we have to be competitive on the non-labor side, which is taxes, regulation, cost of money, energy. i put forward a bold plan that takes the corporate tax for manufacturers and cuts it in half, -- four manufacturers -- we -- for manufacturers, we cut it in half. regulations that cost over $100

million -- we have this agency that looks at regulations and prices than. when you come out as a department, you have to get a cost of what you're regulation is. during clinton and bush, average number of regulations puryear cost over hundreds of millions of dollars, but the average number during these administrations was 60 a year. this year -- last year under president obama, it approached 150. people want to know why this economy is suffering? because this administration is crushing it with regulations. why? why are they doing it? because they know better than you. they do not trust you to make those decisions. they are going to prescribed to you how to do it.

we will be getting rid of subsidies on every type of every energy source and will open up drilling areas like anwr so we can have the energy we need. >> i was wondering how you -- >> how do i get my policies with climate change sides? you look at the dade and you can see change in the climate. then again, the key point in history where you have not seen a change in the climate? what is causing the climate to change? most scientists -- i assume all scientists would agree -- there are a variety of factors that cause the climate to change. no scientist and the world

would suggest there are not a variety of factors that cause the climate change. why have we decided this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact the tip of the tail that wags the entire dog? from a scientific point, why do we make the assertion that this is the case when there are a whole lot of other factors that could be affecting it? that is a question, and some people have strong feelings that it is that. there are a lot of other people who do not. let's assume for purposes of argument, not that i agree with that, that they are right. what would be a rational response? well, if you have a problem you want to craft something, what should that thing you are crafting do? solve the problem.

do any of the proposed solutions put forward by al gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? even the scientists who support the theory admit to you and it does not do anything to solve the problem. why support the solution? other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here, right? let's go back to what that agenda is. there is a common theme that he should be hearing here. they do not trust you to allocate resources in a way that they believe is best, and so they want to have a system that forces you to do what they think he should do in running more business and your life.

that is top down, and the basis in america -- and i go back to the starting comments i made -- america is based on this concept in the declaration of independence, right? writes from god, god-given rights, to pursue japanese. life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. the sanctity of life, the dignity of all life, liberty to do what? to pursue happiness. happiness as defined by our founders is not exactly what it is today. it is not, actually. today people think of enjoyment, pleasure, what makes you feel good. if you read the ddefinition at the time of the founders, one of the prominent definitions of happiness is to do the morally right thing. we have rights coming from got

to have the freedom to pursue and do the right thing, to do what you ought to do, not what you want to do. our founders understood -- the constitution was made because it was this document that had radical freedom. you look at this constitution and the 10 commandments, radical frieeedom, and our founders were concerned, as though adams and other founders said this constitution was made for moral and religious people. if you do not do what he ought to do and do what you want to do and you have this freedom to do it, then you have a situation as this gentleman was talking about, members of congress with insider trading deals, and government gets bigger and bigger as we have seen. why? because you cannot be trusted any more, because you do not do

the right things anymore, therefore we need government to make sure you do. that is the fundamental struggle here. , whether you believe that we can be a country that is good and decent and moral. edmund burke said the arkansas to the constrained from either chains from within or our own moral% or from chains from without, and america at succeeded and revolutionize the world because we believed in self-restraint, we believe in doing what you ought to do, and we have a government under president obama, who fundamentally believes it differently. one final point i will make on this. there was another constitution adopted at the same time of our constitution, and that was the french constitution, another revolution that occurred. it was modeled after the american revolution.

there is a difference. they went through 20-some constitutions, but it was a document with radical freedom, but they did not have a declaration of independence like ours. the moniker of their revolution was the birdie at fraternity -- was never the and fraternity -- was liberty and fraternity. believe that power should go to those in control, and what did they do if they did not have to respect the rights? it was the tyranny of the majority. we are going away from as got- given right the town, addition then we are on a

country on the way to france. ok, let's get some young people. young person right there. how many more questions do we have? ok. we can do breakfast. people that feel absolutely compelled that they have to ask a question. it will be the same number of hands. if you have already asked a question, you cannot ask another. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -- my gosh. you want to keep people here this long? we will keep going for a while and hopefully i will wear you down and there will not be so many hands. we're not close to closing here. >> i am from massachusetts, and

my question was -- >> only new hampshire residents can ask questions. i am not barack obama. i will not make a retroactive rule, said that role did not exist when you got up, so you will be allowed to ask a question. prospectively, and i trust you to be honest, i will not have any police here check your id, not hire anybody or pass a law, which will trust you to be good, free people. go ahead. >> all right -- >> is it your question, or is it somebody else's question? >> as a candidate who jet beads family values, in response to your nephew is as you if you want another big-government politician, support the status quo, you should vote for

michael, rick santorum. furthermore, if you receive the republican nomination, you will receive massive funding from corporations that you will need to defeat obama. how do you plan to keep middle- class americans confident that he will stand up for them and not solely for corporate interests? >> good question. i am not getting a lot of money from corporate interests, or in the interests, from that matter. -- for that matter. we did eight votes for that romney, spending $30,000 on television. to give you an idea. i love my nephew. i have 35 nieces and nephews. one out of 35 is pretty good as far as i am concerned. he is a ron paul supporter, god bless him. it is a phase, i understand it.

we all go through this thing. god bless johnny. it is wonderful. we all have to go through these things. the answer is, we have gone out there and i have laid out my plans. i laid out those plans. again, i am a little embarrassed to say how little money we have raised so far, although today we have raised at least, according to the folks that i talked to before we came in, we have raised as much money today as we did -- 50% of all the money we have raised to date we have raised today. [applause] the vast majority is online and there is not a lot of corporate interests donating to meet on line. we feel very good about the

grass-roots support we have gone today, and we are now getting into the arena of being able as we go from the grassroots states like new hampshire and iowa to the biggest aids where this -- to the bigger states -- you go to florida, it is not quite match up. you have to have more resources, and we feel blessed we're getting them. young lady in the back. >> i have something that as yet of that is important to me. when you are elected -- >> she says when i am elected. >> can you assure me your administration will not infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights to own a firearm?

>> i am a staunch defender of the second amendment. i have a 100% a-plus rating with the nra. it is very important that people understand that this decision handed down by the supreme court, the heller decision, is being maintained, because rebated ginsberg is one of the dissenters. she gave a speech not too long ago and was talking about the different corky austan needed to be overturned. the one she focused her attention on was that heller case, and those of you who are second amendment and dos yes, go out and read that the sense --

dissent. if obama is elected and one of those five justices leaves the court, the heller decision will be revisited, and given the folks that barack obama is putting of this court, they will reverse that right and go way beyond. read that dissent. we are gun owners, nra members. my wife actually owns more guns than i did. i even bought a couple of shotguns for my kids for christmas, and took my son out and went pheasant hunting. yes, four pheasants. i made a believer in it, and that is part of our family. ok, yes, sir.

you have been vigilant there with your hand. worked inyears i've the insurance industry in massachusetts and experienced health-care reform and what it has done to massachusetts. rest assured, "obamacare" is a mirror image. i am this trend -- i understand but tenets of the laws in massachusetts, and what it will do to employers across the country. one of the poison pills is the medical loss ratio. tells ensures how much they have to spend for every dollar they collect in premiums. some states have put in waivers

to say give us a chance to get our books in order so we can accept this 85% they are putting on us. carriers said they could not do business in the state, and now people have lost their insurance. i question is, if you get the nomination and you are in a debate with barack obama, will you tell him if you like your insurance, keep it. will you be willing to say to president obama you are a liar? >> i do not believe in calling people names. i do believe in ascribing facts to statements that they have made, which is if the statement they made is untrue, i will say that that statement was a

country. someone is a liar, you get the impression they had a truly do it. throughout the course of this debate, you will find that there will be a series of hunters statements and then you can make the decision whether that person qualifies or not. with respect to what -- as i have written about this and this has been implemented going into this year now, and to understand what this is the depending on whether you are a large plan or a small plan, 85% of premiums -- you have 100% of their premium dollars coming in, and according to the law you have to take 85 cents of every dollar and spend it on claims.

that means you have 15 cents of every dollar to pay for operating your business, pay the agency, the third-preparer, to pay for legal accounting, salaries, everything. is not your profit margin. you do not get a 15% profit margin. it is 15% to rent your business. i do not know if you know what it costs the insurer in new hampshire. for large companies? here you have instead of -- it is different from state to state -- there is a lot of states that are laws that have been at 60%. this is something states have done. other states do not. to come in and take and good to

85% is pushing the envelope. back in 1992 or 1993, when clinton proposed "hillarycare," rth an mlr, 90%. joint tax would score it. they look at the bill and they said if you have 90% that you have to pay out in benefits, you are not an insurance company anymore. you're not managing risk anymore. there simply paying claims. he cannot, with that small margin, make a profit can do anything spend money out to manage risk. as a result, what happened under

clinton, obama said ours is much less expensive than "clinton care." this is just a federal payment, a tax, it is an expenditure of the federal government because that companies are being a third-party payer for the government. they considered all the benefits as federal tax and revenue. what did the obama administration do? they knew if they came in with 90%, they said this is a new federal program, so they came in at 85%. this is the kind of top-down, we know how to run your business better than you do, and it is over and over again you will see this with this administration. yes, ma'am, in the back. >> medicare, how much of a

percentage is paid for through medicare? >> i do not understand what you mean. >> the cost-ratio for medicare -- allocate --you >> insurance companies should make millions and we should not make as much money. we should have to pay all of that. >> as you know, medicare is ered by the private sector. >> they do it at 4%. that is the ratio. >> it is a phony ratio. that is not what they do. they transfer costs. has such lowicare rates of reimbursement because they keep their costs low artificially. they have such low rates of

reimbursement that it cost private-sector providers -- they are no longer taking a new medicare patients because they transfer costs on to the private sector by having them -- i have talked to many physicians who tell me they can take no more than 25% medicare patients. why? if they do they will go bankrupt because medicare is such a poor payer. why? because they set the prices by the government. they tell you how much they are going to reimburse you, and you take it or leave it. a lot of providers are not taking medicare patients in the market they are not taking any medicare, some are not taking any, and 40% of primary care doctors are not taking medicare patients. you can have a medicare card and

say it is run efficiently, here is how much money you are born to pay, and it is not a market. it is not real. he cannot provide that benefit and have anybody -- if medicare ran the entire health care system there would be no providers or doctors, because they would all be bankrupt. yes, you can say, we have done a great job holding down costs because you do so by transfer costs to the private-sector. that is the false economy of medicare. it does not work because it as an artificial system that relies on the private sector to subsidize it. [unintelligible] that is a separate question. i talked about some of the ways to do so. i support the ryan plan, which takes government out of the health-care business in the dominating way in which it finds

it. give me a second. medicare does not just run the medicare system. it runs the private sector system. all the medicare cuts are used by the private sector. medicare -- you look at reimbursements, you look at what is covered, what is not. medicare and medicaid have a huge impact as well as other government regulations, as well as the regulation, and the management of the health care system. i love people saying, this health care system does not work and we need government to rent it. government is running it now and that is why the private health care system does not work, ok? [applause] >> senator, one of the things that comes to mind -- to my thinking is our 10th amendment rights are being trampled on.

one of the ways is the running over of the epa, education department, the permits sucking our money out of here and sending it down there and giving us the privilege of getting back 15 cents on every dollar we send them. how are you going to make the government smaller and much more efficient and we get our rights backe? the constitution was laid out. the government has certain powers and obligations.

it is hot just building a wall of america defending us from the tax. there is a difference. i defend myself saying i am a reagan conservative. on the tenth amendment, there are lots of ways to get to this. the best way to deal with the tenth amendment issue is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. let me just remind everybody that her back in 1995, we had three republican senators at the time. we came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment. one vote. the vote was a republican. i was 36 years old. i go in there, i am 20 years younger than the next young this guy. i go in there and buy one of the big proponent of the

balanced budget amendment. we felt we could actually do it. we're looking at the votes, working the democratic side of the aisle. the chairman of the appropriations committee, 28 years in the united states said that from oregon, stands up and announced that even though he has voted for it in the past, now that it can pass, he will oppose it. he gets up and does this, and of course, the media and just -- what a profile in courage of those that don't care about anybody at all the what to do is limit spending. he did this heroic thing and i went ahead, the rose petals being thrown in front of his feet. they said he should resign as

chairman of the appropriations committee. he betrayed a fundamental principle of the republican party as chairman of the committee that spent money. you couldn't be a republican can be given that authority if you are not going to stand up for the basic principles of limited government. that is the best way to do it. to cap federal spending at 18% of gdp. allays the bond by applause lines. -- i always step on my applause lines. that is the historical average since world war two. we are guaranteed limited government. if you are guaranteed a limited government, the government is spending upwards of 25% of the overall economy, the federal government.

as a result, government is getting bigger. if you limit it to 18%, would you have accomplished is making sure the federal government doesn't trample on the states. there are a lot of other things that limit the role of the federal government, but that is the short answer. for the purposes of people that need to use restrooms and get water, i will limit it to one. the that last person. anybody have a foreign policy question since i haven't discussed foreign policy? >> my name is michael mcgregor, i am from newmarket, new hampshire. in the middle east, there is a lot of turmoil as there always is. there are a lot of things that

could lead to a war between israel and surrounding nations either through an attack horrid forcing of their hand. if that were to happen, what steps would you take? >> people talk about how pro- israel they are, and how they respect israel as an ally. i have a track record of not only supporting the state of israel on the armed services committee, also working cooperatively with them as the authorized money for that program, but i also worked on major bills that dealt with the security of israel. when dealing with syria -- one dealing with syria. and also, secondarily with iran. i have been allies -- a laser

beam focus on iran for seven years. i was out there talking about missing the boat, we need to focus on iran because they are developing a nuclear weapon. they said, don't say that because in iraq, there were weapons of mass destruction and vega worked there. but this is true. saddam hussein didn't have a nuclear weapon and was close to getting one, but these folks are serious about it. there is no missile program, whatever they had was shut down. i had different intelligent and i continued to push forward with this bill. president bush opposed me. joe biden opposed to me. barack obama voted against my bill. and then within four months

after they voted it down, it became apparent what iran was doing, and there was a nuclear program, but the administration that opposed the hall voted for the bill. we are able to get passed -- if funded the pro-democracy movement. the folks that are trying to oppose this theocracy that is iran, help them organize, given the technology to help them organize a revolution in their country to be able to get rid of this regime that is an existential threat not just to the state of israel, but to the united states. they continue now because the president has shown his weakness, repeatedly, with respect to iran.

when president obama came into office, by the way, bush did not spend very many of them either. we had no connection to it, and worse yet, the president of the united states waited two weeks to make any comment when the revolution was suppressed. the only comment was early on in the summer of 2009 when the election results came man who which was a fraudulent election. within an hour of the polls closing, he announced that he won with 62% of the vote. president obama said it looked like a legitimate election. he is from chicago, of course it looks like a legitimate election. [applause] he continually appease iran.

i am happy he cited some sanctions today. is the first time i have seen him do anything to stand up for this regime that is building a nuclear weapon in doing so -- does anybody know the name of the town? qualm. qualm is a town outside of tehran that has a very important religious meeting for the people. it is the site of the jom kuram well. it was the residence of the twelfth imam. the man that lived from this well until the end of see would go into a suspended state and return at a time of great chaos

to help as long, curved and rule the world. this well which still exists, they all come to the well. they write things down and got things into the well to ask for the guidance. every speech that he gives, he talks about it, it is coming soon. they are preparing the way for him to come back. it just so happens that they are building a nuclear facility at a time when this man comes back at the time of chaos. they are building this nuclear facility. it happens to be in this very important town, dealing with the end of * prediction. when you hear democrats and republicans saying that iran

should not be allowed a nuclear weapon, there are a lot of countries that have got nuclear weapons. we don't want anybody else to get a nuclear weapon, but you don't see them doing anything diligently to stop it. you have republicans and democrats been arduous. the facility is being built. hobbies are folks that are not just going to build it to protect her. they are going to build it to shield the attacks as they attack others, or use its. this is the real threat. that is why we have to have a policy. i have laid out a plan that says iran will not have a nuclear weapon under my administration. period. [applause] and i will use all means

necessary. if they get a nuclear weapon, the world as you know it will be fundamentally changed. the events we saw on 9/11, there is a war occurence. it will be life with this theocracy, with the protection of having a nuclear weapon in his hands. i enjoy doing this, i can do it for a long time. i don't want to try your patience. let me thank everybody. if you like what you heard, you think this guy has what it takes to go toe to toe with barack obama, he has got what it takes on national security and

economic policy, the knowledge to transform the health care system that to do the things necessary to limit government. to stand for strong families and strong communities, and have an important effect in his favor -- thing in his favor. in heavily democratic state or district, i have been able to get elected. this certain candidate in is theel mostectable.-- is the most electable. when has that candidate run as a conservative and got any votes? never. is it because he raises the most money? we are doing ok right now. if people in new hampshire give us a shot, we will do a lot better. right? [applause]

don't buy the media hype. don't buy the line that he a mod to beerate -- you have to be a moderate to win the election. it's so funny. iowa, bush won iowa. but reagan won new hampshire. and it made all the difference in this country. interesting that i know what is the more conservative and new hampshire is the more liberal. bush, reagan. don't let this country down. new hampshire is going to do what america needs. i trust you to do that. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> thank you very much. thank you. >> keep working. >> i have got to get out. excuse me. >> thank you. i appreciate your questions. bless your heart. thank you. >> you are a battalion, right? >> we are all as italian. >> all right. >> the nda bill -- what they

need to be is more clear about what that is. [unintelligible] >> can you sign? >> i can. ok. i really appreciate that. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. thank you. there you go, sir. >> thank you. thank you very much.

[unintelligible] >> j-a-m-i-e? ok, buddy. there you go. >> thank you. hi. how are you? [unintelligible] >> and there are a lot of us here tonight, actually. children that held the family the most. >> thank you for hanging in

there. how are you? >> of the sudden the money is coming in. i heard you raise $1 million. >> things are going well, and it is a pretty good crowd for a place that does not like conservatives, i am told. >> how do you like the interaction here? >> it is great. i could go on for three hours a. >> you almost did. >> wasn't that long? -- was it that long? >> thank you for coming to new hampshire. >> i am not by passing. we are going to fight everywhere. the expectation changed. we were told we cannot compete here. we are going to prove them wrong. >> what is your thought on some

of those things? [unintelligible] >> most states already have a provision like that. i believe in state regulation of health care. if they want to do it, i am fine with that. the condition of -- the problem with the condition is if you have a pre-existing condition, what happens? people wait until they get sick to buy insurance. today, if you have insurance, and you go on an individual policy, -- >> you have a child? >> right, with a disability. >> is that state or federal? [unintelligible]

>> senator. senator, can we get a picture. sure. >> the other thing, what about the steelers? >> i am looking forward to it. i would love to see her. hello, sweetheart. hello, caitlin. how are you? >> yes severable policy. >> how is she? >> she goes to school in rochester and she is doing great.

>> very nice to meet you, caitlin. you were very good today. i heard you occasionally. >> thank you. >> i had to say hi to you, pretty girl. >> thank you so much. good luck. >> thank you. >> thank you, i appreciate your help. >> thank you very much. >> houri you again? good to see. >> you did not answer my question -- insider trading. >> i am for it. i am for the ban. >> you should not need laws? >> you should not have to have it, but i supported, because

unfortunately -- >> it is set up by a senate rule or a house roll. >> that is fine. the problem is i do not know what kind of criminal charge it would be. >> you can not. >> right. >> great to see you again. congratulations. >> that whole bit -- cronyism. that would solve a bunch of problems. >> center, you have my vote. >> thank you very much. >> you always agree with yourself, at least. can they say the same about governor mitt romney? >> my record has been consistent over the years.

>> she is with me. >> and governor mitt romney has the money, and a house here. >> we have the grass roots. there is a lot of energy. we feel very, very good. >> what is the biggest difference between you and mitt romney? >> i am a strong-principled conservative that you can't trust. when the gulf -- that you can trust. when the going gets tough, i am not going to walk away a kurd >> thank you, center. >> rick santorum continuing his swing through new hampshire. later today he is the to the republican committee. other republican presidential candidates are on the air in new hampshire and south carolina which holds their primary on

january 21. here's a look at some of those advertisements. >> the economic plan, timid. that will not create jobs, and it will certainly not defeat barack obama. newt gingrich's bold leadership balance the budget, reform welfare. is it our full plan for growing our economy and creating jobs. rebuilding the america we love with bold, conservative leadership. >> you see a president adopt policies based not upon what is right for the american worker, but their politics. the national labor relations board says to a free enterprise you cannot build a factory in south carolina because south carolina is a right to work state. that is an american. it is wrong and it is something

that will stop. i am mitt romney, and i approve this message. >> the governor is totally consistent. he said two positions on every issue. i did not -- i did not know how to respond because tomorrow he might have a different position. >> it is a matter of record. >> i have not changed my position or have changed because of the different office by may be running for. governor romney, you are the candidate of change. [laughter] >> president obama today visited the consumer financial protection bureau in washington. earlier in the week he made a recess appointment of richard

cordray to head the agency. speaking to staffers he said their job is to make sure americans get a fair shake. we will show you the president's comments in their entirety here on c-span. later, our road to the white house coverage continues with ron paul campaigning at 7:00 p.m. on east -- on c-span. we will look ahead to the south carolina primary with chad connolly on "newsmakers" this sunday. that is that 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. mrs. st. anselm college in new hampshire the site of a debate

in december between the lesser- knowns candidates -- 30 republicans and 14 democrats have qualified. the only requirement is to pay $1,000 filing fee. this debate is almost two hours. >> good evening, everyone. >> good evening, everyone. -the executive director here. i want to welcome you all to the forum. we do many events here. it is the home for politics. i invite you to the web site, and to get our news letter and find out what is happening. this evening, i want to mention a few things. thank you to c-span for being here this evening. this will be on the web

broadcast. c-span is doing their magic as usual. our secretary of state is here in the audience. [applause] >> bill is a mentor to many people, including me. our state library and is also here. our commissioner of cultural affairs, the assistant secretary of state is also here and a few distinguished people are on our panel. we have a 30-year state representative and a longtime supporter of the new hampshire primary. he sponsored a law in 1975 that mandated the secretary of state set its dates seven days or more before similar elections.

beth hall is a reporter for the "union-liter." patrick griffin, who will turn over the microphone to, you may have seen him last week in a debate. he is an author and the senior fellow here at the institute of politics. >> good evening. [unintelligible] >> tonight we will share together in this new hampshire primary where candidates you have not heard a lot about have an opportunity to share ideas. let me quickly allow you to understand how these gentlemen

were invited. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] >> how is that? better? there are 44 candidates on the ballot. invitations for the event tonight were extended for all candidates on the ballot in new hampshire seeking the nomination for the office of president who have not been part of any other national debate. that is how these folks are here tonight. we will begin with republican candidates. then when we finish, the democrats will join us to share their thoughts. a couple of quick rules. we will ask candidates to begin with a two-minute opening, and

do that in alphabetical order. following that, the panelists we have tonight will alternate asking each of them a question. i will pick the candidate randomly so we cannot keep going in and order. i will ask that you hold your applause. we will ask that you keep interruptions to a minimum. i also reserve the right to occasionally ask a quick follow- up question. everybody understands? let's start with our candidates. very quickly let me introduce them bear betzler, from philadelphia pennsylvania. timothy brewer of dayton, ohio.

dr. hugh cort of birmingham, alabama. randy crow, from north carolina. mr. l. john davis jr. is from grand junction, colorado. jeff lawman is from new hampshire. benjamin linn from new hampshire. mr. michael meehan from saint louis, missouri and the end of the table, joe story. let's give them a nice round of applause. thank you gentleman. [applause] we will immediately go to our openings. we will begin with mr. bear betzler. we'll ask you to go for two minutes. when you're two minutes are

done, i will give you longer to finish your thought. ok? all right. you are up first. >> thank you. i am bear betzler from philadelphia, pa., and it is great to be back here in new hampshire. i would like to acknowledge bill gardner and everyone at the election division that has been so helpful. as a lesser-knowns can it, people are quick to ask -- candidate, people are quick to ask why you are running, and i am grateful we have a state where the tradition allows all candidates to participate on equal footing in the primary process -- sharing their ideas and thoughts about the future of the united states. above all, my candidacy is a

celebration of that opportunity. it might seem strange, but i'm not dead into politics. i'm like a lot of america -- not that into politics. i'm a lot like, -- a lot of americans disgusted. we are familiar with the social issues that divide us. we need to focus our energy on a single issue that defects pasquale where it is within our power to make rich effects costs all, where it is within our power. the budget deficit is a fire that needs to be put out now. spending cuts and tax increases -- i know raising taxes is not a popular strategy, but if we are riding in a car, we both slam on the brakes and turn the

steering wheel. the problems of this country were not created by one party or the other. we're all in this together and we need to start acting like it. please vote january 10. >> thank you. mr. timothy brewer. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you. with less than 367 remaining counting today, i suspect we rise and shine and save the world in time. earlier this year the media said after life is possible. for over six years i have been focused on that. if there is the reason i am here, that is the reason. i am not here to insult your intelligence. i'm no better than anyone of you.

i am a natural left-handed policies like albert einstein. i like to analyze. 2005 i received a call in from my inner thoughts. i'm here to offer you the best of both worlds. the experts claim after-life as possible. what does that mean to you. you can not be destroyed. i offer the best way to communicate forever. everything i offered can be considered. i offer the best solutions for the worst-case scenario. on christmas day, this sunday, i offer my solution to contact jesus out of boston, mass. if i am allowed to.

in closing, i will show you problems i can fix if i allowed to do this. it fixes the economy, creates jobs, fixes the problem of abortion, and is wars -- you name it. every major problem known to man. if you get a chance, check me out on facebook. >> dr. hugh cort? >> i am president of the american foundation for counter- terrorism policy and research. to running for president warn america about the huge impending danger. hear this, america, and here it well -- iran is planning a

nuclear attack on the united states in the near future. the lead newspaper in iran came out with an article saying that if iran is attacked, "there are elements in america that will detonate nuclear bombs in the american cities." the leaders have a fanatical belief that if they can kill millions of americans and israelis with nuclear weapons, this will usher in the coming of their messiah. they have said this will happen in 16 months or less. there is evidence they may have smuggled nuclear bombs into america. there is evidence that hezbollah has been helping the mexican drug smugglers to dig tunnels. iran can bring anything it

wants through those tunnels -- weapons, terrorists, bonds. i was on fox news about this. to learn more, google hugh cort, american hiroshima. google hugh cort, american hiroshima. thank you. >> thank you. we'll move to randy crow. >> thank you. my name is randy crow. i was born in houston texas -- houston, texas. i started working in the gasoline business. in 1975 i started working for myself and have been self- employed primarily in the real- estate business ever since.

i also call myself an investor, and currently i am an investor. in 1984 i moved to north carolina. in 19 -- 1997 i put online my website and ran in my first political race. i have run in 18 political races. no successors. if i win in new hampshire or louisiana, that will be an exception. i have posted over 600 articles on my website. i was getting all around 100,000 hits a month when i brought it down earlier this year. september 11, a determined that in -- i determined that the planes were flown by remote control and posted the same a

couple of days later. i believe there are four major things that really need to be changed in this country if we're going to save the country like we think we are. the first thing we have to do is if you get money from the government you can not contribute to a political candidate. i will not be able to tell you all my words of wisdom, but maybe there will be some questions that will let me explain some of the other bad things that might be coming down the line in this country. >> thank you, randy crow. l. john davis, you are next. >> i am from grand junction, colorado. a couple years ago, god spoke to my heart to run for president. i've never been in politics. i wanted to do something no one has ever done before, so i decided to go to every county in

america. so far we've been 21712 counties. two things people tell me is they do not want a career politician. they want someone with business experience. my platform, my foundation, i am pro-god, family, and country, pro second amendment, and pro doing the right thing for americans. it is time to start taking care of america. we need to get back to honoring the constitution. we need to put god in the heart of this country. we need to control the borders. we need to be energy self- sufficient. we need to reduce the size of government. we need to reduce the amount of regulation on small business. we need to get rid of the irs

and go to a fair tax. it has to be we the people let's take this country back, not the politicians. i am running for president of the united states. thank you. >> thank you. mr. christopher hill. >> thank you for being here. i cannot tell you what an honor this is. i worked in on ronald reagan put the campaign in 1981 i was just 16 years old. i served in the united states air force. i'm a veteran from desert storm. i came home to new hampshire and raise my family. during that time i worked on other political campaigns. politicians come through this state, say one thing, and go to washington, d.c., and do something totally different.

i've been campaigning since august. over the past four once i have had an opportunity to meet with so many people just like us. homeless people that need our help. i have met people that told me the system is working, and bobby -- honestly, it is failing. as veterans around the world all we ever asked of politicians is that they pass on a stronger and better america for our children and grandchildren, and those politicians have failed. that is why you see a table with people like us trying to make a difference. we are called the lesser-knowns candidates. tonight we stand for the lesser- knowns americans, the people that lost their hope. they will not vote. i gave seven years of service so they could vote. i left two friends in the desert

20 years ago, so you could vote. i hope he will reconsider. there are a lot of things to talk about. my website is hill2012.com. there are a lot of things to cover. i hope we have a chance to talk about them. >> thank you. jeff lawman. >> but me say thank you -- let me say thank you to the state of new hampshire for preserving democracy. i am jeff lawman, a new hampshire resident. it is an easy name to remember and fitting for a presidential candidate. i represent a traditional republican platform in agreement with new hampshire values -- fiscally conservative, socially moderate, environmentally progressive. i encourage you to visit my

website where i have outlined a clear path to prosperity. contrary to what the top candidates pander to, no one in my neighborhood spends their day resetting the live free or die model, rather we live it. we never forget the role of the cable is to assist the needy. when a 10-day power outage threatens a neighbor, we immediately respond. there is no choice. it is a matter of duty and human decency. 2012 is a year of choices. rather than complain about government failure or excessive campaign influenced and concentrating authority within the elite seal, i focused on national solutions and run for the highest office as a complete

unknown. on january 10, new hampshire voters will have a choice to left the most qualified candidate that represents america's working families, or we can't elect big money, establishment-supported brand names. if we choose the latter, we will return in four years and discussed by and nothing has changed -- and discuss why nothing has changed. >> mr. benjamin linn. >> hello. i was born in 1973, which makes me the youngest candidate appeared. i want to say thank you to st. anselm college for inviting us. the reason i'm running is because america is in a big mess right now. we have a president said he would end the wars within the first one-to-3 -- two years of

his administration. if he would have, we could use those resources to rebuild america and we would be recovering. instead, this economy has gone from bad to worse. i am pro-life, pro-family. i believe and support the traditional marriage of one man and one woman. liberals are trying to say the two men or to the women recognize as legally married is normal. to me, that is not normal. i am raising a nine-year-old son, and i want him to have opportunities like a i did. i think it is time to pull troops out of iraq and afghanistan and bring them home. let the people in the middle east run their countries. our job is not to beat the

police men of the world. when you have fellow americans losing jobs, that is not a republican or democrat problem. that is an america problem. from george washington to george w. bush, we have an $8 trillion debt and president obama will double bed in four years. america cannot afford that. no matter who you vote for, we have to get out and vote. if you do not like the way your government is working, we need to vote a different way compared to how we voted for change in 2008. >> thank you michael meehan -- thank you. michael meehan. >> hello. i am not a politician. i'm a real estate broker, and

there is no works, so let's go into politics, right? [laughter] >> i've been doing this for over a year, and i realize how people are really angry. most people do not know that people are nervous. they are worried about their kids. for some reason, i did not know why, what hit me to become president, but i decided it was something i had to do. i'm made it official when i told my wife. that is another two minutes. i did decide to come to new hampshire. where else can you talk to people when-on-one and get a chance to hear what people are saying? i have a little book. i asked people if you were standing in front of the president of the united states, not the current one, and not myself, somebody that everybody liked, and you had one question

and comment, what would it be? a lot of people complain about different things pair wire we spending money over there when we should be spending it here? why are people driving around in cadillac's on welfare and i am working $40 an hour? that is one of the biggest ones. -- for $8 an hour? that is one of the biggest ones. the people really do care. they want something better. what i tell everybody is i'm going to new hampshire. i've been here since the ninth of no -- in november. i worked my way back down. what if someone like me could ?inish in the top five dea most of the people running are

not even here. these people take the time. i'm following christopher hill. he is a tough act to follow. what if? what if we just took a chance instead of the regular people up there? what if one of us could finish in the top five deaths do realize new hampshire -- 5? eight new hampshire would be the barometer for how the country feels. >> joe story. >> abraham lincoln quoted the bible to remind us that a house divided against itself cannot stand, yet as a nation division is growing and our values are becoming diluted and unclear. american culture, once defined with godly principles is

disappearing, and we are at war with an enemy that has invaded our homeland. i am joe story, and i'm running for president of the united states. the 10 commandments surge as the basis of our common law when america was born as a nation. christian principles defined our existence. the supreme court affirmed that we are a christian nation with liberty of conscience to all men, yet today america is in trouble. we failed to hold elected officials accountable, and we become spoiled by the benefits that a government with unlimited spending provides to us. it is frightening that 10 million children we should be raising with american values

have been replaced with illegal aliens with on known values and content. these isolated cultures serve to divide us and weaken our society. people who choose to live in america must be integrated into our culture. we should respect the differences while assuring we are one mind and one purpose on behalf of america's future. spies and terrorists have invaded our country, and we must identify and isolate these enemies before they strike again. unite with me to restore america, trust in god, individual liberty, and equality before the law. together, we can face the world with courage and confidence.

take action and pray, and vote joe story, just an average american running for president of the united states. my website is the average joe for president.com. >> thank you. will not go to panelists. the panelists will -- we will now go to panelists. the panelists will be just a question -- asked a question. the kids will have 45 seconds to desk. -- the candidates will have 45 seconds. the first will be to dr. hugh cort. >> right here, last weekend in a form with former speaker gingrich and former ambassador jon huntsman, they both agreed that iran would be the biggest

foreign policy problem for the united states in the coming decade. do you agree with that, and more importantly, what you think the united states should do about iran? >> a very good question. i am friends with general, mary, and we advocate a nuclear strike as soon as possible. iran is very close to getting it clear weapons. the revolutionary guard has been bragging they will have nuclear missiles by march, and the time to act is now. we must help israel. if iran gets nuclear weapons, america is going to be attacked. >> thank you. let me ask, how many people believe the iranians are in possession of material to make a

nuclear weapon or have already -- just a show of hands? that is relatively even the. the second question will go to mr. michael meehan. >> what reforms d.c. are still needed to -- do you see are still needed to prevent another fiscal crisis? >> regarding banking? >> yes. >> basically, what i feel it is that housing -- you cannot just give people a house with no money down or anything. i've been in realistic for many years. when things get to be a problem, they walk away. the banks turned around, and i do not blame anyone, but the appraisers had to appraise for a higher sum of money because if they did not, the appraisers would get someone else.

the banks were making the loans, and charging the fees. then you come up with these different fees. >> thank you. the next question will be from the ambassador to mr. benjamin linn. >> we are on a college campus for this debate, and least 12 states including new hampshire are considering laws to allow guns on college campuses. as you know, or probably have read, there was recently a second shooting murder at virginia tech. as a presidential candidate, what is your position on gun control, and guns on college and university campuses? >> i would say if you have campus security or local police

on the campus where trains to carry a gun, those to be the only ones. if they student is caught with a gun, you are expelled from the school. >> the next question will be from mr. davis. >> what should the united states do in regards to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants now living in this country? do you favor a path to legalization? >> control the borders. i would give every alien in the country one year to register. i will give them a work visa.

learn english, obey the law. and then i would give them citizenship. but i would control the borders. i am not for amnesty, but i am for a path to citizenship. >> next question for mr. brewer. >> this is the largest field of candidates. since 1992. why do you think the field is so large? >> probably because of obama takes more vacations and plays more golf. we might as well go in there and do some work. that is the only reason i could figure. >> what would you do about that, sir? >> i would try my ideas that i

offered to earlier. what else do we have to work with? >> the next question is for mr. joe story. >> what do you believe the government should do to provide health care for people who do not have insurance, yet can still not afford to go to the doctor? >> one of the things we should be doing is to encourage the education of people who become doctors. we provide a lot of money to doctors for education, but we do not create institutions or locations where people can access the doctors who have been trained. beyond that, i think we should also create a different means

of funding these programs. for all the benefits of the government has control of, we should move it into a benefits corporation. all the companies they bought, all the benefits themselves, if you put them into an organization, and provided stock for that, rather than having social security. you would have your retirement benefits that way. " i have to stop you there. next question. zler, what could you offer the country if you were elected that the others could not? what makes you a better candidate? >> as an underdog candidate, one

of the benefits is that you can offer on popular and effective solutions without worrying about losing your front-runner status. without being part of a larger party process endorsements, you can be free to evaluate problems uniquely and specifically and offer the best solution as opposed to pander to lobbyists. >> thank you, a serb. the next question is for christopher hill. >> you talked about the lesser- known americans. can you tell me if you were elected president, what you do to help those people? >> we need to start by beginning to restore the middle class. the middle class is what made america great. the lesser-known americans are out there. i am an airline captain, i worked the graveyard shift.

i work with people who are out there working for $10 an hour from midnight to 7:00 a.m. we need to put in place a tax system that lets them keep the money they earn. if you go to my website, i talked very specifically about allowing people to keep money they earned. above that, i am open to the prospect of taxing the rich above $250,000. letting them offer help to the people that do need help. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. lawman. >> you were recently mentioned in a "wall street journal" article about the lesser-known candidates running for president. the article referenced that during a prior economic turndown, you lost your

business. i want to ask you how you stop the current administration is handling the home mortgage crisis and the other financial crises that our country faces. >> i think the current administration is doing what he believes is the right path, but unfortunately, it is not the right path for the americans who were undergoing the downturn. the making homes affordable plan, the cash for clunkers, all of these things have been temporary band-aids. they have produced no solutions. that has fallen short of what his commitment and original obligation it was. i think it is short of what he was intending as well. >> finally -- >> mr. crow, in your opening

statement, you talked about how you used to be in the gasoline business. can you talk to me about your -- what he would do to put together -- what you would do to put together a comprehensive energy policy? >> thank you. are you hearing me? ok. because i was in the retail gasoline business in 1973, i blame the major oil companies. i believe the war is going on in the world are manipulated by the major oil companies because they are trying to get rid of the supply, get the price up, and destroyed the currencies. this is a long-term game plan with them. we have to get tough with them. all this is about is running people out of business.

they have been doing -- they ran us out of business years ago when they cut down the supply. this is what is going on right now. there are a lot of things you can do. you could make the companies divest. they are monopolies and they need to be broken up. >> i want to ask you a quick question. all of you talk a little bit about your ideology. how many of you would support whomever the republican nominee is for president? gingrich was the nominee. how many would support the nominee of the republican party? gingrich? mitt romney? ron paul? rick perry? all right.

just checking. >> the rest of them, too. >> you would support any republican as opposed to the president? did anybody vote for barack obama? >> [inaudible] >> our next round of questions will be again with beth. >> we had had attorneys and businessmen as president. as an engineer, what was your expertise in that field -- how would you bring that to the office of the president? >> ok, first of all, i cannot guarantee that more engineers will solve all our crises. it is a good start. we offer a solution is based program for everything. we are not bound by political

rigidity, corporate financing, campaign finances. we believe solutions are the best approach, even if they may not be the most popular. one thing the engineers have is the ability to model solutions much sooner than actual implementation. optimization is something i think most engineers or scientists can offer that you will not find in any other profession. >> joe story? >> mr. story, one of the most important things presidents do is appoint justices to the united states supreme court. i anticipate the next president will have the least two such appointments and perhaps even more. could you share with us the names of some people that you might consider to appoint to the supreme court? or the qualifications and credentials he would be looking for in such nominees?

>> the qualifications and credentials i would be looking for is a strict constitutional construction judgement decisions they have had in the past and they plan on using in the future. decisions made from the bench should not be based on on supreme court precedents. they should be based on the constitution. we have lost so many of our values because of the court decisions that stretched the boundaries of what the constitution says. therefore, if you go to my website, you will see some greater clarification. i appreciate your time. >> for mr. timothy brewer -- >> can you tell me what role do

you feel -- do you think that religion and state plays in the presidency? >> everything i count on has to be measured. that is what i do, i measure things. from listening to people on the internet and all over the place, i find everybody is so close. people get so close with their egos, they think they are god's. when you listen to your e -- your inner thoughts you get to the solution to everything in life. >> thank you during much. the next question will be for dr. hugh cort.

>> north korea's totalitarian dictator kim jong-il died this weekend. if you were elected president, what policies would you continue? what policies would you change? how would you handle what could be the second most dangerous situation in the world? it is close to nuclear weapons. >> yes, sir. it is a very grave danger. north korea has fired a couple of missiles off the coast. very antagonistic act. it is a very dangerous situation that this country has nuclear weapons. i think we should be very harsh on them economically. i feel like we should cut off all aid to north korea until they give up their nuclear programs. after we deal with iran, and the problem with pakistan, i think

we should turn our attention to north korea. we should apply pressure to get them to give up their nuclear weapons. or we should take military action. >> the next question is for mr. randi chrody crow. >> can you talk to me about what the president can do and what kind of policies he can pass to help small business owners? >> there has been a concerted effort to run all kinds of people out of business. i have a lot of problems with the federal reserve. one thing i would do is get rid of it and i would start issuing money by the government and not letting the banksters make the interest. they are doing everything for

themselves and big business. they are not loaning money. they have $13 trillion, and they are not putting it on main street. there is a lot of things -- the first thing i would do is to get rid of the federal reserve. that would be step one. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. meehan. >> the state of new hampshire, the legislature has legalized gay marriage. do you support in marriage? or civil unions? >> no. >> would you mind elaborating on that? >> i do not care for the question because at this point, in the history of the united states, with all the things are happening, this is not a

national issue. this is a personal issue. they even go laughter candidates for asking things like -- they even go after candidate for asking things like this. there are so many things we could be talking about to fix the country. i just don't find this an issue at all. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. betzler. >> if you were to win the republican nomination for president and the convention after nominating you were to prescribe you had to pick one of the current candidates as your running mate. it had to be one of them. who would to pick, and why? [laughter] >> i am not prepared for that eventuality. [laughter]

>> give it a shot. >> i think mitt romney. >> why? >> there is no denying his success in business and his experience in government. i have a lot of confidence that you could channel those skills. he would be a good second. >> thank you. >> mr. davis, do you acknowledge that climate change is scientifically proven fact t? what should the government do to help reduce the effects? >> i have not studied on a lot. there is so much information out there, it is hard to know what to believe. i pray -- i am afraid i do not have a good answer for you. we need to take care of the

earth. we need to take care of the air and be responsible. there is a middle ground. we have some information, but i do not know with it is true or not. >> christopher hill -- >> i will ask you to assume that one of their most generous campaign contributors has offered to finance a television ads for the new hampshire primary for your campaign. what would you put in baghthat ? >> the images i would use our images that reflect how great this country is. we are in a lot of trouble in this country. 9% unemployment and we're going off a cliff. i have worked for an airline for 17 years. i worked in 48 of the 50 states. the images i have seen are incredible.

mount rushmore, the grand canyon, the face of people who are homeless that need our help. i do not mind putting those images. the message would be pretty simple. we have to step up to the plate. we cannot count on anybody else anymore. it has to be weak, the people. it cannot be politicians in this country. -- it has to be we, the people. we cannot count on politicians in this country. >> the next question goes to mr. linn. >> you talked earlier about the need to leave afghanistan. do you have an exit strategy for getting american troops out of the country? >> yes, i think there should be out of the country right now. this president, before he was elected, it said they would end the wars in one to two years. we cannot broadcast to the enemy

when we will leave. we have to gradually trained their military and police force. and the power of the country over to them without broadcasting it to the world. in iraq, the president is going to pull out troops before christmas. we will still have troops there. the board has not ended. -- the war has not ended. we're supposed to have troops in afghanistan until 2016. the president is not living up to his promises. >> a dog is our next round of questions. we will try to -- that is our next round of questions. we will try to get through another round of questions. 45 seconds. we begin with the first question for mr. joe story. >> mr. story, the supreme court is about to take up the issue

of president obama's health care law that was passed during the administration. do you support the law? if not, what would replace it with? >> absolutely not. i do not supported at all. we need to give the dog -- did the government out of the benefits business and out of the business world altogether. the government should be a the government and provide for defense. that is from the constitution. if we separate everything out and put them into a benefits corp. and puts general motors and all the corporations the government has bought and we put those resources out along with the payments that come from our physical resources where they sell them and put it into a corporation that operates for a profit and for our benefit, we could have some major improvements. >> thank you, mr. story. >> hello, mr. betzler.

what would your first act to be? >> there is a separation of power and government. my most important issue, returning to fiscal discipline, is not something the president has the singular ability to enact down. i would spend most of the time trying to bring that issue to the forefront of the american mind set. they can apply pressure to the other branches of government to make it their top issue as well. >> for mr. brower, ambassador? >> mr. brewer, i would like you to ask you -- i would like to ask you to follow on what you said about immigration. if you were elected president, what would you do with regard to that hot topic in american politics?

>> i support everybody on the planet. i do not care who you are. it is not my place to criticize anybody. i offer different options. >> mr. meehan the next question is for you. >> for your lesser-known candidates, it can sometimes be hard to get your message out. what do you think should be changed about the presidential election process to make it easier for lesser-known candidate to be able to reach the voters? >> maybe a little bit of air time would not hurt. i do not know -- i am going person to person. i am talking to newspapers.

i have heard that one newspaper turned down a lesser known candidates, would not even write an article. some of us have the ideas and people do not want to hear them. they want to believe the major candidate have the answers. dad is a fluke -- that is a fluke, isn't it? >> mr. linn, gov. perry of texas has suggested the members of congress should have their pay and their time spent in washington cut in half. do you agree or disagree? >> i agree with him because they are already making too much money. a lot of these two are -- a lot of these are professionals and

they're already making money in the real world. i would definitely cut their pay in half. until they get to work for us, we do not have to pay them. it is time to start working for the american people. we need to cut their pay. when they start to work for us, we will give them a raise later on. they're not doing their job. >> next question is for mr. davis. >> mr. davis, some of the republican presidential candidates have talked about wanting to get rid of some government agencies, the department of energy, for example. do you see this as a path for reducing the size of government? >> i do. one of them i would get rid of is the department of education. i think it should go down to the state and mostly to the communities. who knows better how to educate your kids than the people in the community and the parents? the government is too big.

it takes all of our money. it is of to the community to educate their kids. that is all i have to say. >> mr. crow? >> our government is based on some basic principles, including that we have free, a separate, equal branches of government. yesterday, on a sunday morning television talk show, former speaker gingrich suggested that the united states supreme court made a decision that the president did not agree with, perhaps it would be ok or proper for the president to not in force that decision. he cited some historical examples. do you agree with the speaker? >> no, i definitely disagree.

it is part of the balance of power. we are never going to have anything that is close to a balance of power until you stop the bribery. if you make money in the government, get money from the government, you contribute. you have the executive branch that, in my opinion, has walked into the direction of the dictatorship, mainly because they did so much money from people that get them elected. the money has got to be taken out first. we need three branches of government. >> your next question is for mr. hill. >> mr. hill, congress approval rating is at an all-time low. a lot of people, frankly, i feel it is very difficult for congress to be able to do

anything. if you were elected president, how would you work to get bills passed and to see policies through congress? >> i would begin with this. the reason the popularity is so low is because they failed america. before we work with congress, we need to put term limits in place. i would lead american people, calling on an amendment for term limits for congress. that is the most vital thing that will be direct this country. when i was 16 and i worked for ronald reagan, 30 years ago, some of the same numbers in the house and senate but some of the same members in the house and senate are still serving today. the problem is with congressmen and senators that served 30 and 40 years and have turned washington into an aristocracy. >> thank you, mr. hill. the next question is for mr.

lawman. >> you are running for the office of president. until 1952, we did not have term limits. a lot of people think that was a mistake, to impose a two-term limit on the president of the united states. what is your opinion? do you think there should be a two-term limit for president of the united states? why or why not? >> i absolutely do. even though it has not been enacted until after fdr, prior to fdr, there had not been more than a two-term president. i do believe we should keep that. i believe we should keep term limits in congress.

it keeps america turning over new ideas and new faces. it is ridiculous to think that with 311 million people in this country, only 535 have answers and solutions. that leaves another 310 million who have no voice. >> thank you very much. last question tonight comes from beth and will be addressed to dr. cort. >> i am going to stray away from iran for a moment and ask you about the theme of the presidential race this year. it has been jobs, jobs, jobs. as president, what would be the first thing you would do to grow jobs in america? >> [inaudible] that a very good question.

thank you. if our economy is going off a cliff, this huge part giveaway that president bush was in favor of. you can not print a lot of money without restoring the economy. we have to stop the giveaways. we have to stop the runaway spending in congress. we have to slash spending. we have to do away with the fed. i am favor of ron paul's idea to have -- to return to the gold standard. >> thank you very much for your answers and your time. thank you for adhering to what was fairly quick time. i also want to thank everybody for a hearing to my memo about blue blazers. the night, everybody. the democrats are up next. [applause]

>> ok, everyone. patrick griffin. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> testing. there we go. thank you for continuing to join us. we had a great session with the republicans. now we have the chance to have a

great session with our friends from the other side. we will adhere to the same rules as before. there are 44 candidates running for president here in new hampshire who are on the ballots. candidate who were asked to participate tonight are all registered and on the ballot in new hampshire, running for the office of president. they have not been part of any other national debate. that was the criteria to be here tonight. we will try to do this in a manner that is as even as possible. each candidate will be given a two-minute opening. i will be watching our timer. i will let the candidates know when we get to 15 seconds. when you see that sign, that is an indication you were at 15 seconds. we will hold you to that 15 seconds. to-minute openings.

each of our panelists will ask questions and you will have 45 seconds to answer the questions. let me reintroduce our panelists. let's give them a warm hand. [applause] as i introduce each of you, on your microphone, there is a button to turn it on when it is your turn to speak. let's start at the far end of the table. from vermont, -- bob green, robert jordan, edward randall terry, john

wolfe. [applause] >> we will try to get to as many runs as possible. we will start down at the far end of the table. >> i am a thinker who has been published on three continents. i have some important ideas about our most serious problems. most of which are ignored by the establishment. my most basic message is, let's get organized, americans, and start solving our problems. we ask obama and all national politicians worldwide, do you agree, mr. president, that the top five problems of the planets are the nuclear arms race.

it is the only problem that can destroy us. ozone coming up quickly on the outside rail. excessive population and population growth. the stagnant super wasteful economy. disparity between the rich and pouor. the environment. the master of ceremonies problem that never leaves us, that we sell only in degrees. if you do not agree, mr. president, what are the top five problems of the planet? what is your plan to solve them? i do not have the answers. it is we, not me.

president obama, snow white and seven dwarfs, if you do not like these ideas, come up with something better. the world wide debate will have begun. thank you for your kind attention. >> dr. bob breen, you are next. >> good evening. my name is bob green. i hold a ph.d. in physics. i have some very good news for you. i am writing to educate the candidates through a tremendous opportunity available to the united states. i am here to tell you about an overlooked energy alternative. we had and ask for yom for all our power needs for well over 1000 years. a lifetime supply is about the

size of a golf ball. for more details, please go to my website. www.greeneforoffice.org. what is in it for you? we could stop importing foreign oil. this means we will be able to stop fighting oil wars. that equals jobs and an improved economy. energy is a large component of manufacturing variable cost. cheap local power will revitalize our manufacturing sector. manufacturing and shipping a reactor today, we could replace all fossil fuel plants in 50 years. this should stall climate change and global warming. because this technology can process are millions of tons of

existing nuclear waste, we might be able to use the 10% of the 24 billion nuclear waste sitting on the sidelines for project development. we need to mount a project floor, up with enthusiasm and zeal of the apollo project. last, the chinese academy of sciences announced the official launching of the reactor system. they say they intend to have all the intellectual property rights. this is going to happen with or without us. are going to be the leader or a customer. it will change everything. >> thank you. >> i have three main proposals. the first is health care.

replace our health care with a national health service, modeled on the british national help service. that system works. it has been in place for 63 years. it is popular with the people. it is incredibly more efficient at 42% our cost with a savings of over $1 trillion in year. third, it covers everyone. life expectancy is greater. the service is paid out of a progressive tax system as opposed to a regressive premium tax imposed by the health insurance agencies. i propose a return to a

progressive income tax. specifically the 1965 kennedy- johnson coachede. it is fair. it ends money hoarding. under that code, the top 1% of households received 10% of the income. today, that 1% receive 24% of the nation's income. it grows the middle-class. it will shrink the dead. bt. it will save capitalism. without a progressive tax, it all goes to the top.

>> mr. jordan? two minutes. >> sorry about that. mr. jordan is not here. that is mr. o'donnell. >> we need love, kindness, mercy, tolerance, friendliness, forgiveness, second chances, and old fashioned matters. no guns. let us tame the sadness of man and make gentle life of the world. no wars. mental health courses in high schools. a non-violent foreign-policy based on feeding, clothing, educating the third world. christmas is the most wonderful

event in world history. the message is no matter how much of a mass someone has made of their life, if they make a decision to allow other people, there can be happy ending. when my knees was very young, i said, -- niece was very young, i said, why is santa claus always happy? she said, that is because all the does is give. >> gingivitis has been eroding the gum line of this great nation long enough, and must be stopped. for this -- a country's future depends on its ability to fight back. we can no longer be a nation indentured trade together, we

must brace ourselves. as the cross over to the bridge work into the 20. century, let us bite the bullet and together make america a sea of shining smiles. some people will tell you this mandatory and toothbrushing law is about the secrets dental police kicking down your door at 3:00. it is not. some will mention the dental reeducation centers for the preventative facilities. it is about none of these things. it is not about dna gene splicing. what is mentoring to expressing what is really about a strong teeth. i am firmly fascistic.

-- friendly fascist. i do know what is best for you. i will promise anything. you are my constituents. you are be informed of voting public. i have no intention of keeping any promise that i make. a vote early, and vote often. i would like to take this moment to acknowledge my mother. that is my mother. five years ago this april, i gave for a kidney. >> thank you, mr. supreme. >> mr. randall terry?

" what did i do wrong but i have to be after that? barack obama may well go down in history as the worst president we ever had. he is at war with life, liberty, and justice. if i were elected president of the united states, that would mean that we have liberty. liberty is defined, you are not compelled to labor for the benefit of the other. the essence of socialism, which we have become a social estate, is that you were forced to labor for the benefit of another. justice, the -- foreign policy needs to be based upon human rights, not upon our while interest. right now, we are propping up islamic dictatorship. we're paying for terrorism at the gas pumps.

most of the major paradigm shifts have come through the courts, not their elected officials. we are seeing what could be defined as a ruling oligarchy and it needs to be rain dance. finally, president lincoln said could it be that the civil war was the judgment of god? that every drop of blood that was drawn by the masters what would be repaid on the field of battle. we've come to the insane place where we have killed over 52 million of our children by abortion. that blood is crying out to god for judgment. we will never restore the greatness of this nation as long

as we are killing our own offspring. if you would like to see some of my television ads, go to my website. >> mr. wolfe? >> i am an attorney from chattanooga, tennessee. thank you for all the graciousness of your invitation. i would like to say i do not think we are a socialist country. you have one-fifth of the people that own 94% of the financial assets. i do not think that is proof of socialism. i am in this race because there is a progressive avoid laughter by president obama. president obama is a democrat,

but president obama has lost the promise of the democratic party. he has basically sided with wall street from the day he has been in office. most of its funding comes from wall street. he surrounds himself with people like ge. he has people around that like him and they have a lot of influence on the oval office. the outcome of that, the product of all this, it is an administration that has policies that are very favorable to wall street. president obama opposes a 1% tax on the wall street derivatives.

president obama has not tried to stop that. we need a progressive who is going to get in there and fill the void. did the things the president has failed to do. that is the breach i want to fill. i hope to answer your questions tonight. >> thank you. that concludes at the opening statements. we will now go to our panelists. 45 seconds. the first question -- the clock is right over here. thank you. the first question is to mr. wolfe. >> thank you for your opening

statement. falling onto your opening statement, i think everyone agrees we have a really serious deficit problem in the united states. you have identified that as one of your big issues. it appears that we can also agree that nothing seems to be getting down to address it. what specifically would you do to get our debts under control? >> the deficit isn't 15 -- the deficit is at $15 trillion right now. if you cut government spending, you would just heighten the recession. right now, we do not have the fear of inflation. i propose a $1 trillion

stimulus. it will not create inflation. it will go to small businesses. that is the way we need to handle this. we need to get people back to work. we cannot do that by contracting the economy. you are just going to -- with an alternative federal reserve, you can give money directly to these local people. we can get america back to work. we cannot do it through an austerity program. it is wrong, and it is counterintuitive. >> thank you. the next question is for dr. greene. >> you talk about thorium as being a solution for the nation's energy problem. how do you get it?

what impact does it have on the environment? >> you did it by mining, of course. it just so happens that it is a byproduct of uranium mining. you can start by mining already sunk mines. you can also try the coal ash pits. we have large concentrations of lead in the west. >> how do you use this to get energy? >> it is not radioactive. you have to put it into a reactor were you bombarded with neutrons. >> the next question is for mr.

kerrey. >> i have a two-part question. do you believe in states' rights? new hampshire is one of the six states that has recognized a marriage. -- gay marriage. do you believe the state's rights should control on this issue? do you believe there should be a national law mandating what each state should do? >> the founders gave us the 10th amendment to keep the federal government for micromanaging the vast majority of details. however, it could never have conceived of a moment in which we would become so debauched that we would elevate homosexual marriage or civil unions to the level of marriage.

did the states have right to have laws that protect slaveholders? the answer is no. there are some things that are fundamentally evil, like slavery. there is no state right to own another human being. there is no state right to kill your offspring. there is no state right to of homosexual marriage. it is a deal breaker. >> the next question is for -- >> the government -- in the political debate, there has been a lot of discussion about wealth disparities and about the wealthy having more money and lower and middle class is

shrinking. can you tell me what you would do as president to reduce that disparity? >> i think we need to alter the tax rates so that it goes after some of the money at the top. it lightens the load of the middle class and the lower classes. i had some experience working graveyard shift on the minimum wage. you cannot begin to live on what poor people are making. there is tremendous disparity and it needs to change. it is certainly not christian. thank you. >> next question is for mr. haywood. >> i saw a recent full-page ad that gore campaign took out --

that your campaign took out. he criticized president obama for his on warranted, in your opinion, extension of the bush tax cuts. stating that president obama was eighth weekend and principled leader and calling for him to step aside so that you could be elected president and and the great recession. could you elaborate on how you do that? >> going back to the johnson- kennedy tax plan. that was fair. it -- you have to redistribute the income. thank you. -- why don't you take a drink? i will come back to you.

we will come back to you, is that all right? >> let's move on. the next question will be from mr. o'donnell. >> in your opening statement, you said there should be no guns. are you saying that all guns in the united states should be made illegal? >> including for hunting. in england, australia, japan, no one has a gun. we had 30,000 or 40,000 wounded. there is no need for guns. >> how many of you folks believe the second amendment should give us the freedom to bear arms? anybody else? >> what is your question? >> guns?

>> of course. >> let's try one more time. mr. haywood? >> i have answered the question by stating for the reasons why i think we should go back to the kennedy-johnson tax. it provides the end, -- the income for the government. president obama has proposed replacing a lot of our infrastructure, but he does not have the money to deal with. that is all on my website.

>> the final question goes to vernin supreme. >> welcome back. >> this is not your first rodeo. this is not the first time you have run for president in the new hampshire primary. president -- i am asking you, do you still stand by your pledge made in 2008 to provide a pony for every american? >> yes, i do. my platform is a jobs creation program.

will be able to restock our soil. the important thing to realize is it is a federal pony identification program. you will need it with you at all times. thank you very much. >> that >> that is our first round of questions for the candidates. how many of you on the stage tonight will support -- i have heard more variations with democrats than republicans -- how many of you will support president obama if he is the nominee of your party? it appears he will be. two of you? three of you? the rest of you will look for republicans -- what? >> undecided. >> anyone else? >> i am going to by myself in.

i am the best candidate. -- i am going to write myself in. >> all right, looks like we may have found some running mates tonight. let's begin back with the second round of questioning. >> mr. o'donnell, and i understand that charitable giving is very important to you. what, as president, would you do to help those on the bottom? >> every church, every synagogue, every mosque, every temple -- it's a coordinated, every homeless person could sleep inside every night with a nice matches, nice blanket, food, love, friendliness -- if

they coordinated. the gwen is pennsylvania quaker meeting had six homeless people living in their meeting. the greatest thrill in the world is to help a homeless person, a prisoner, turn their life around. >> the next question will come from the ambassador shumaker. >> good evening. this debate is taking place on a college campus. because of the loss of equity in many americans' homes, loss of employment, and the ability of both parents and students to get loans, it is becoming harder and harder for students to attend colleges such as this. there is a serious threat that pell grants and other governmental funding will cut even more availability of funds for tuition.

what are your solutions for this serious crisis? >> there is no question that universities and colleges in america are expensive. there are plenty in america, and that is one of the assets we have. i would like to see us lower tuition whenever possible. we need means of pumping money into education. one way -- i totally agree we need to a absorb the federal reserve into the treasury department. it is a collection of banks, basically. we need for the federal reserve to be absorbent to the treasury department -- absorbed into the treasury department and have

a lot more money available to colleges for tuition. >> your next question comes from beth lamontaine hall. >> do you support stronger environmental regulations when it comes to clean air and clean water? >> absolutely not. no. >> would you mind elaborating? >> i will go back to the other one and tie it all in. it is getting to the place where i feel like i am riding on the good ship lollipop. we talk about raising taxes on the rich, the more money into colleges, raise the income tax -- people, we are going broke. this is a debt that will crush our children. it will never be paid back. the nonsense of taking money from the rich is based on jealousy and greed. god says pay 10% across the board. these green regulations people are pushing are going to cripple

us even further economically. china is welcoming the jobs. china is welcoming the money. you cannot even open up in a paper plant in america. obama is trying to stop this pipeline coming from america. how many jobs must we lose because we are battling down to snails and polar bears? >> the next question will be directed toward mr. green. >> thank you. and this question was submitted by a student here. as you know, because you lived in new england, it gets very cold here in the winter. our region is heavily dependent on heating oil. if elected, what would be your position on the proposed drastic cuts to the low-income heating assistance program that help poor people keep their families warm in the winter?

would you support those cuts in order to balance the budget, or would you restore the funding? >> i do not support those cuts. i would restore the funding. i think we showed an incredible lack of imagination in our fund- raising ability. i have identified about $2.40 trillion worth of new revenue that i could generate through three separate programs. they would be barely felt by the populace. i would go to a royalty system on patents. i would go to tariffs, and i would go into a different way of calculating the amt on corporate income taxes. >> thank you. your next question is for mr. supreme. >> i wanted to follow-up on the question regarding the ponies.

>> yes. is that the only government entitlement program that you support? what other government entitlement programs are you for? >> just that one. that is enough. in the vein of energy production, i favor harnessing the oxygen power of zombies. we have giant turbines we are working on, and we will have lots of zombies and just dangle brains in front of them, and they will turn the giant turbines, creating energy, to lessen dependence on foreign oil in america today. >> president obama has been in office for over three years now. what has been -- and i would like you to be as specific as he can -- what has been his biggest missed opportunity in your

opinion, and what would you have done differently as president? i would ask you to respond on some issue other than the tax piece you have already talked about. his biggest missed opportunity. >> to lead us into a national health service. >> could you elaborate please? >> insurance schemes, whether they be medicaid, medicare, united health, blue cross -- you name it. they are not the answer. they are the problem. so inefficiently run systems. we could save 42% -- the british system runs at 42% what we are paying. that will save this country $1 trillion a year. it is being paid as a regressive tax.

insurance premium is not technically a government tax, but it is still a tax. it is something you have to pay for what you have to have. >> thank you. final question in this round is for mr. wolfe. >> as you may or may not be aware, one well-known new hampshire resident walked across the united states in her elder years to draw awareness to campaign finance reform. do you feel there is more that needs to be done to rein in the amount of money being spent in national politics? >> the only thing we can do now, given the supreme court decision in january 2010 -- i think it was called citizens united -- we are going to have to go ahead and probably get a constitutional amendment, which redefines what first amendment rights are and excludes corporations.

that is the only way we can do it under the present law. i would be in favor of that. it is hard to put a harness on free speech wherever it comes from, but the amount of money that the people -- the corporate people, the fortune 500 people can spend every year -- it is now unlimited. they did not have to report it. it can come from any source. it will have a terrible and deleterious effect on law making, and it has already been seen. they can intimidate people who are progressive. people have to marshal that tune. they know if they do not marshal the corporate tenant, they will be inundated in money spent by their opponents to just swamp them. we probably need to go ahead and get a constitutional amendment. >> we are short on time for another round. what we're going to do is give each of you a 30-second close. not enough time for another round, but enough time to give each of you a 30-second closing statement. i will start randomly.

we will begin with mr. green. you have 30 seconds for a closing statement, sir. >> thank you. i feel that i bring a totally different perspective, due to my background in physics. physics teaches you to do -- think widely and broadly and deeply, so i would recommend that as one of my qualifications. i think we need to send a message to the politicians that they have to talk seriously about energy. they are not doing that today. and if they have any discussion that does not include the word thorium, you have not heard a serious energy discussion. also, the national labs have not served president obama well in this regard. >> thank you, sir. >> at the core of the cancer that is destroying america and the world, we find the banks sucking down the vitality of

modern civilization, and it has to stop. finally, i would say to conservatives, jesus christ was a liberal, not a conservative or reactionary roman who loved killing machines and voracious capitalism. jesus christ was about love. >> thank you, sir. mr. wolfe, your closing statement, sir. >> i want to say that i want to be the progressive alternative to president obama. i want to represent the people. i do not think that you all should have austerity. i do not think you should have to pay for wall street's mistakes. but a lot of derivatives, a lot of speculative instruments throughout the economy, and it ruined the economy and caused a meltdown. democrats and republicans alike are trying to impose an agenda of austerity on the people to cut their social security benefits, cut back on student

loans and assistance to the students. that is wrong. we should tax wall street. we should tax corporations. we do have a progressive income tax. taxes now are the lowest since 1928 on the rich, and we need to correct that, or we will not have a good economy. >> every person in here is made in the image of god. thomas jefferson in the declaration said that our rights come from god. all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights -- the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. if we are going to be restored as a nation, we have to be returned as a foundation to the source of ethics, the source of policy. we're going to become a nation of people who kill their children and who put forth every provision and wickedness, then

we will go the way of the greeks and romans and the other empires that have perished before us. but if we will be restored, we must return to life and liberty and justice under our creator. go to terryforpresident.com for more. >> i will address what i did not get to in my opening statement, which is the continuing veto of the united nations attacks against israel are not the answer -- those vetoes are the problem itself. had our country not embraced an there wouldzionism have been no iraq war, 9/11, afghanistan war. my proposal is that we veto --

stop the killing united nations actions and let it do what it is supposed to do and free the palestinian people. >> thank you. mr. supreme, your 30-second closing statement. ♪ >> ♪ my name is vermin my name is vermin supreme and you can vote and you can vote and you can vote for me for president if you want to add my name is vermin ♪ thanks very much for coming up today. one more thing -- jesus told me to make randall terry gay. whoo! he's turning gay! whoo! >> mr. o'donnell, please take us

out of this with 30 seconds of your final thoughts. >> jesus christ did one thing -- he helped people. go to mcdonald's new castle, delaware. gary and larry dickenson, they do that every day. >> thank you very much for your time. let's give a hand for all of our candidates. >> thank you. [applause] c-s [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> if you really want to see the candidates, c-span's road to the white house political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. >> it is encouraging. i am please we are seeing the kinds of crowds we are seeing. >> go to town halls, campaign rallies, and meet and greets. [unintelligible]

>> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> i do have a question for you. are you planning on taxing some of these big companies shifting the work overseas. >> i want a tax code that clears out all of the loopholes -- >> watch the new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and on our web site, c-span.org. road to the white house coverage coming up today and this weekend on c-span, live at 7:00 eastern tonight, ron paul will bring a town hall meeting at the university of new hampshire in durham. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look back at the 2004 new hampshire

primary, the victory speech of senator john kerry, and second place finisher howard dean's primary night speech. this weekend, we will look ahead to south carolina put the presidential primary as we talk with the chairman of the south carolina republican party. he is on newsmaker sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> every week and on american history tv, the people and events that help the american story. saturday at 8:00 eastern from lectures in history, univ. of new hampshire professor smith on the history of the new hampshire primary. at 10:00, how young, said an upper-class women viewed the north and president reagan. senate 3:00, former "washington post" reporter lou cannon on the post coverage of vietnam, watergate, and president nixon. this weekend on c-span3. >> and the president obama came

to office talking about to commit reform. people leave out the one part that is going to make a difference, which is lawmakers. you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district, right? that is where it always stops. >> as editor of military.com, ward california provides 10 million members with news, information, and support. sunday, he will discuss how american tax dollars are spent by the defense department and current procurement procedures on c-span's "q&a." >> president obama visited the consumer protection bureau in washington. earlier in the week, he made a recess of one of former ohio attorney general richard cordray to head the agency. they spoke to about 100 employees for just under 20 minutes. >> well -- [applause] i am richard cordray, the new

director of the consumer financial protection bureau. [applause] i am very pleased to have the president of united states here with us today. this is a very important week for all of us. it is a very important week for the bureau. it is a very important week for the country. the president is someone who understands the important role consumer finance place in the lives of every american. consumer financial products and services can help each of us achieve our dreams, but when risks are not clear and these are hidden, they can make our lives much harder. we saw that the other day when we visited an elderly couple in cleveland, ohio, and heard their personal story about a toy lending first hand, predatory lending that almost cost them their precious home of many years. because the president understands this, going all the way back to his days of community organizing, helping

working class families cope with their struggles on the streets of chicago, he has been a strong supporter of rules of the road to make the consumer financial system safer for all americans. we are now an independent federal agency. we are responsible by law to act in the public interest to protect american consumers in the financial marketplace. to do our job well, we will be reaching out and working with public officials from both sides of the aisle and from every part of this country, including not only the president, but senators, representatives, federal officials, and state and local leaders who want to work with us as we stand up for consumers. we are proud of the work that you all do, and we want the president to see it firsthand. it is my pleasure to introduce to all of you and to welcome to the consumer financial protection bureau the president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] behind you. thank you. -- thank you. thank you. it is wonderful to see all of you. i thought i would just drop by to help your new director move in. [laughter] he has been a little busy, so i thought maybe some boxes -- [laughter] it little plant -- a little plant. [laughter] i also just wanted to say hello to all of you who have just been doing extraordinary work and standing up for what i think will be one of the most important agencies for people. i know that all of you have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy, and many of you are here making significant sacrifices with your families to make sure this agency gets up

and running well. i want to say thank you to all of you. let me begin by saying a few words about the latest economic news. this morning, we learned that american businesses added another 212,000 jobs last month. altogether, more private-sector jobs were created in 2011 than any year since 2005. a lot of people that are still -- [applause] there are a lot of people that are still hurting out there. after losing more than 8 million jobs in the recession, obviously, we had a lot more work to do. but it is important for the american people to recognize that we have now added 3.2 million new private-sector jobs over the last 22 months. nearly 2 million new jobs last year alone.

after shedding jobs for more than a decade, our manufacturing sector is also adding jobs two years in a row now. so we are making progress. we are moving in the right direction. one of the reasons for this is the tax cut for working americans that we put in place last year. when congress returns, they should extend the middle-class tax cuts for all of this year to make sure that we keep this recovery going. it is the right thing to do. there should not be delayed. there should not be a lot of trauma. we should get it done. the american people, i think, rightly understand that there are still a lot of struggles people are going through out there. families are still having a tough time. small businesses are still having a tough time, but we are starting to rebound. we are moving in the right direction. we have made real progress. now was not the time to stop. i would urge congress to make

sure they stay on top of their jobs to make sure everybody else is able to enjoy hopefully in even more robust recovery in 2012. so the economy is moving in the right direction. we are creating jobs on a consistent basis. we are not going to let up, not until everybody who wants to find a good job can find one, but we have a responsibility to do even more than just try to recover from this devastating recession and financial crisis. we have a responsibility to make sure that the economy that we are rebuilding is one where middle-class families feel like they can get a head again -- ahead again. a lot of the problems we're dealing with our problems that existed even before the recession, before the crisis. for a decade or more, middle- class families felt like they were treading water, that they were losing ground. what we want to do is make sure not just that we are getting

back to the status quo. we want to make sure we are dealing with those underlying problems. getting to a point where middle- class families feel like they can get ahead again, where hard work pays off again, where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. that is where all of you come in. everyone of you here has a critical role to play in making sure that everybody plays by the same rules, make sure that the big banks on wall street play by the same rules as community banks on main street, to make sure that the rules of the road are enforced and that a few bad actors in the financial sector cannot break the law, cannot keep working families count -- cannot cheat working families, cannot threaten our entire economy all over again. that is your mission, make sure the american people have someone in their corner, that american consumers have someone who has got their back. you finally got a great director

who is tailor-made to lead this agency in richard cordray. [applause] you have also got an extraordinary team that is lined up behind me here who did a great job in getting this agency up and running and are going to continue to show extraordinary leadership on and all the various issues that you are going to be addressing. i also want to give a special shout out to the woman who dreamt up this agency and spent so much time turning it into a reality, our friend, elizabeth warren. [applause] just to be a little more specific, millions of working americans use financial products like credit cards, stallone's,

and mortgages, and that is a good thing. these products have a tremendous potential to make people's lives better. byproducts to earn an education, for the home, raise a family. we all use them, but when they are sold in an irresponsible fashion, they can also make life brutally hard on people. they can turn the dreams of a family into a nightmare. things like hidden fees, traps on credit cards and student loans, cost working americans billions of dollars. things like subprime loans, skyrocketing interest that you cannot escape can not only bring families to their knees, but the entire economy to its knees. richard just mentioned the example of the elderly couple we met when we were in ohio

yesterday. these are folks -- the gentleman was a marine who served in korea. they had been married for 42 years. he had worked all his life. they have poured their savings into this home. because of a code violation -- obviously, they are on a fixed income and not have a lot of money. they thought maybe they could get a loan to make some modest repairs. what initially was promised as and $8,000 line of credit to make these repairs ended at being and $80,000 debt with no repairs that threaten them going into foreclosure. and those kinds of stories are replicated all across the country. it not only hurts those individuals, it hurts the entire economy. that should not happen. not in america. that is why we are here. we are here to put an end to

stories like these. already, your work is making a difference. the know before you owe campaign you have been working on for months is doing three big things -- making home loan applications more transparent so families will know what they owe on their mortgages. it is making it easier for students to compare financial aid packages and know what they owe each month when they graduate -- i could have used that. [laughter] in fact, i have a law school classmate who probably went through the same thing i did. it is making credit card agreements shorter and simpler so that credit card holders will know what they owe and what they're getting into. i know that folks all across america have been sending in their stories to help shape these new initiatives. this is not something where it is just a washington top-down process. you are gathering the experiences of individual families, seeing how they got hurt, how they might have got

cheated, and that helps define how you enforce these rules, and that is vitally important. now that richard is your director, you can finally exorcise the full power this agency has been given to protect consumers under the law. now that he is here, irresponsible debt collectors and paid a lenders and irresponsible loan providers are all bound by the same rules as everyone else. no longer are consumers let alone to face the risk of unfair or deceptive or abusive practices. not anymore. so we can make sure the folks do not lose their homes or their life savings just because somebody saw them as an easy target. we can make sure students do not start out in life saddled with debt that they can never pay back just because of a lousy deal. we can safeguard families and seniors and veterans from toxic financial products. we can help get everybody the

clear and transparent information they need to make informed financial decisions and have companies compete for their business in an open and honest way. that is richard's commitment. that is my commitment. that is the commitment of everybody standing on this stage, and that is your commitment. that is why this agency is so important. i want to thank all of you for choosing to serve your country in these challenging times. your mission is so important. it is vital to the strength of our economy. it is really important to the security of working families, and i know that it might be personal for some of you. you may know a friend or family member whose life was turned upside down because of some of these unsavory practices that this agency is designed to root out. maybe you were then determined to prevent that from happening to somebody else. now you can. we are not going to let those folks down all across the country. when i meet americans all across

the country or i read letters that i get every night -- you know, they really do not ask for much. they are not looking for a handout. they are not looking for special treatment. they just want a fair shake. they just want a fair deal, and we have a chance to give it to them. so let's do everything we can to make sure middle-class families can regain some of the security they have lost over the last decade. let's help to protect what they have worked so hard for and give them a chance to hand it down to their kids. i know you guys are ready to go to work. i am, too. i could not be prouder of you, so congratulations, richard. [applause] ♪

>> road to the white house coming up today and this weekend on c-span. live at 7:00 eastern tonight, ron paul told in a town hall meeting at the university of new hampshire. on c-span3 at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look back at the 2004 new hampshire primary with the

victory speech of senator john kerry and second-place howard dean's primary speech. we look ahead to south carolina as we talk with chad connolly, chairman of the south carolina republican party. he is on "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> every weekend, the people and events that tell the american story. saturday at 8:00 eastern, from lectures and history, univ. of new hampshire professor on the significance of the new hampshire primary. at 10:00, "confederate daughters" on how young, southern upper-class women viewed president lincoln and the war. american history tv this week and on c-span3. >> joining us from manchester, new hampshire

this morning. he is the president of a group called josiah bartlett center for public policy. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: why don't you tell us a little bit about your organization and where you fit on the political spectrum? where does your point of view emanate from? guest: we're a free market oriented think tank. we are economically conservative. generally, we think taxes are too high and the government spends too much money. host: can you give us your snapshot of the new hampshire voting public and where they are today? guest: well, there are two different snapshots of the voting public. one is the general boating public. democrats and republicans, and independents, and the other is

the primary. new hampshire has historically been a more republican state than the rest of the country. in the last few years, maybe the lesast decade and a half, it has become more of a tossup. george bush won won and lost one. in each case, it was a nip and tuck battle. the last election was a little wider. i think that it is trending a little bit more right of center that it had been, but not nearly as much as it had been in the early 1980's and 1990's. host: the economy in new hampshire seems to be doing much better. why is that? guest: historically, the economy has done better. some of it is economic policy. during a recession, companies lose jobs and they tend to close

a bunch of facilities. when they reopen, sometimes they reopen in more competitive states. we have a tax competitive advantage. we are the only state in the country without a sales or income tax. i think that is an advantage, especially compared to some of our neighbors considered high tax states. we tend to lead that. despite our good economic situation and significantly lower unemployment and lower poverty rates than the rest of the country, i think there is still a relative unease about the economy here. people are nervous about the economy. whether they should be or not, we can argue, but they are. some of that has to do with, you know, you are brought on tv and newspapers with a series of people saying we're in a very precarious state. i think that makes people nervous. host: the latest channel 7 news suffolk university poll, which has romney in the clear lead at 41%.

ron paul, 18%. rick santorum, 8%. i wanted to ask you, as you look across the candidates, how are they going into this crucial weekend shaping up messages to the voters? guest: there are fewer disagreements among the candidates than they would have you believe. i think the voting populace sense is that a little bit. the leadership issue and the ability to lead a country tends to dominate. mitt romney comes into this with a very substantial lead. it struck a little bit in the last couple of days, but not very much. i think he wants to not make any

errors and keep the notion of a strong presence, a steady hand on the wheel. that is his message. the other people are fighting less with romney, although some of them are taking shots at romney. they are really fighting for position. ron paul like to maintain a second place position to suggest his movement continues and he is a candidate who has a niche to himself, so to speak. santorum and gingrich are sort of fighting between themselves to be the leader of what you might call the non-romney, non- paul faction. there's a romney group that he is obviously ahead of. there is a more libertarian audience, which is very much dominated by ron paul. there is another conservative

group that had been gingrich, santorum, bachmann, and perry competing for. bachmann is out and there is no rick perry in new hampshire. one of them wants to make the case that you should not waste your vote on the other guy. i am the only viable non-romney, non-paul candidate. host: which fits the thinking of your think-tank? guest: that is a good question. i want to be careful how i answer that. i do not want to imply anything about where we lean. i have board members who are with every major candidate in the race. i'm not with anybody. i am actually undecided. on economic issues, part of it

is ron paul has a very sort of traditional libertarian message. you could describe some of our politics as economically libertarian. he is certainly there on some issues. frankly, all the candidates are. we believe in reforming medicaid. we believe in social security along the lines of the old plan. the guy who most resembles where we stand is paul ryan. he is not running. host: we also have an line have resident -- a line for new hampshire residents. mitt romney pick up the endorsement of senator john mccain. "the boston globe" announced it was backing one of his competitors, in fact, jon huntsman paid for the primary

voters in new hampshire, do either of these two events mean anything? guest: they do not mean nothing, but they do not mean a lot. it would rather have an endorsement of somebody over not. in jon huntsman's case, he would rather get the endorsement and not get the endorsement. "the boston globe" is a widely read paper. its most influential editorially among people who are unlikely to vote in the republican primary. on the other hand, there are a lot of moderates voting in new hampshire. i tell people that if you look at exit polls from 2008, in iowa, 88% self-identified as conservative, the highest of any state in the country, among the 30 states with exit polls. in new hampshire, 55%. that means 45% of the primary

electorate four years ago identified themselves as moderate or liberal. endorsements do not always mean as much. the mccain endorsement is a little bit different. people from a variety of stripes like john mccain. he has a very strong following among conservatives, as well. i think it helps mitt romney. to some extent, because it was expected to go to mitt romney, is not as much of a boost for romney. he is probably happy mccain endorsed him than anybody else. it would give other people a little bit of a lift. host: as we talk about who the candidates appealed to, one of our viewers on twitter

handicaps' them this way. i'm going to ask whether or not you would like to strongly disagree with any of those characterization's? guest: one suspects that person is a ron paul voter. right and left is sort of in the eye of the beholder. mitt romney is an interesting case. four years ago, he portrayed himself as the conservative alternative to john mccain. this year, people like your tweeter -- is that the right phrase? host: yes. caller: saying he is a liberal in the race. it is hard to characterize mitt romney as a liberal. although, is a sense of where the republican party has become morehas become more conservativ. bob dole in 1980 was one of the

conservatives running for president, and 16 years later he was one of the more moderate candidates. mitt romney is sort of the same way. i would characterize mitt romney as a moderate conservative, i would characterize ron paul as a libertarian conservative. >> they will all be in new hampshire except for governor rick perry who is focusing on south carolina. is that the correct decision? if you were advising him, would you tell him? guest: after coming in fifth in iowa, it becomes difficult to decide what to do at all. interestingly, if you look at the results in iowa, they are similar to 1996 when upstart conservative like pat buchanan almost knocked off of the more moderate front runner, and got a big boost. the guy and fourth place was a very idea driven conservative who had led in my polls among the earlier, then steve forbes, now newt gingrich. the guy in fifth place had a lot

of money -- phil gramm's decision in 1996 was to drop out. rick perry that a decision was almost that and he changed his mind. i suspect what is going on his got money in the bank, $3 million, and i suppose you could only use it to run for president. somebody said, listen, maybe new hampshire is not fond of you somehow, but in south carolina, you are culturally in sync with them. you have a lot of money. you are the only real southerner in the race so roll the dice. i guess if i were rick perry, i would go to south carolina and roll the dice. but then if i don't do quite well there, win or close the second, i would go home. host: next is a call from new hampshire. martin, independent.

caller: i think that that poll you showed from suffolk university is a little skewed. because new hampshire is pretty geographically, it has a geographical significance -- below the appalachian mountains there is a pretty strong democrat -- and above the appalachian, much more rural, quite a staunchly libertarian base. i think they will jump at the chance to vote for ron paul. and i would like to hear your guests comments about that. guest: i think there's a lot of wisdom in that statement, that in new hampshire, what we call north of the notches, the northern part, there is a more

libertarian flavor. the difficulty is it is only 3% or 4% of the whole population of the state, but i think ron paul will do very well in that area. no. carroll county. think it is very friendly to him -- a libertarian, "leave me alone" message. but i do not necessarily think the poll numbers are necessarily skewed. i do not want to pick on the university because their numbers are fairly in line with the other polling we have seen. the magellan pulled from the "new hampshire journal" nd ppp pulling the and i think cnn had a poll out as well. they are fairly similar but you could borrow with some of the numbers are probably not the ranges. host: next is a telephone call from south carolina.

marcus, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: can you hear me? i just have a few comments. first of all, the way you opened -- it a lot of the republicans -- as far as the candidates. that is true, with the exception of ron paul. because economically, they are all the same. they are following some of the same sound bites -- basically they are the same. basically no different from bush. and everybody should just know that and take heed. a second of all, rand paul -- people like him for being honest. everybody knows he is honest. that is a good quality about him. but i think people should be careful because a lot of left

leaning independents want to vote for him basically on one issue, drawing down the military. they need to think about if ron hall had his way, that they would really be damaged -- if ron paul had his way. i want people to know all the issues ron paul expressed. it seems to me to be honest. that is a good thing. i am not ragging on him but people need to look at all of his policies and all that he stands for. host: thank you, marcus. guest: i think there is a lot of wisdom in what he says. ron paul is different -- and i stressed the similarities between the candidates but there are significant differences. ron paul is very different on foreign-policy, and some of them have taken exception with it. paul'start with

attractiveness as a candidate is that he is not a typical candidate. he is not overly telegenic. he is not a pretty boy in the political terms. and it is not that he is older and grumpy, but he is a typical -- atypical. what you see is what you get and you do not have an impression when he speaks that he is making it up and it is not coming from the heart. it is absolutely who he is. so, on foreign policy, he has more, you might call it isolationist or non- interventionist. he wants to bring all the troops home at once. he is less concerned about iran and then other candidates and some criticize him for that. and some people who like him for that. so, he has an appeal to moderate to liberal voters or left- leaning independents as well as

libertarian voters on that issue and that is why he won moderates in iowa and independents and why he has won them hear it. and his economic policy is very strong. i have a lot of friends -- and not a lot, but i have some friends is a i like half of ron paul. i absolutely love half of his candidacy. i have friends like the one half and friends like the other half. but i also know people like both halves. but he has a non-traditional crowns -- cross section appeal and it will be interesting to see how well he does. he is running second right now at a much higher level than pundits have predicted was possible two years ago. two years ago people would have said no way he gets more than 9% or 10% of the vote. he is getting 16, 17%, 18% of the polls and easily north of 20. host: charles arlinghaus has in

the past been a campaign consultant to senator john sununu, campaign consultant to the republican national committee and hosted a weekly radio commentary and public affairs television show. he has been the head of the center for public policy, which will learn is focused on state and local policy issues, particularly on a conservative economics and how it affects them. jersey city, new jersey. mike, republican. good morning. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. i am actually a lifelong democrat. i always voted democrat. north jersey is a democratic base. but after voting for obama, i feel completely deceived and i really have turned into a storage ron paul supporter. this is the first time -- i had to change my party affiliation just to campaign for the man, do

anything i can do, because i feel like he is our last chance in america. nobody talked about ndaa and the patriot act and civil liberties. to me this is what the election is all about. he is the only clear candidate different from the rest. to me, they are a bunch of puppets. host: we will be covering ron paul, one of the campaign advance. tonight at the university of new hampshire in a dorm, and then afterwards we will talk to some of the new hampshireites there and take your calls. and former speaker -- former speaker newt gingrich will be with us starting at 10:20 a.m. at the dartmouth medical school and taking viewer calls. for charles arlinghaus, this question from twitter. let me preceded by shoring --

showing that coverage about rick santorum. this captures it. "the new york post." one of our viewers as to do you think rick santorum's social agenda is in sync with new hampshire? guest: an interesting question because of the differences in our electorate. what people referred to, new hampshire is the least churchgoing state in america, which was a surprise to me when i read it. i did not say it with pride. i go to church and think you should, too. but people do not in new hampshire. so it is different. so, people think for themselves. new hampshire is economically conservative, not socially conservative. so i think it's misses the boat a little bit. we had a series of strong social conservative senators. gordon humphrey, followed by smith, followed by sununu, all

of which very much pro-life senators. judd gregg, his entire time in the senate, although he did not emphasize the issue but it is one of the issues. people are willing to vote for -- it may not be the defining issue of their choice, it might not be the wedge issue that draws you to campaign, but also not a disqualifying issue with a lot of campaigns. so, i do not think santorum will be necessary ruled out for something like that. in addition, i think it sort of helps define who he is and where he is coming from. he talked a lot about economics as well on the campaign trail, but it all seems part and parcel -- his mantra is a family, faith, and freedom. i think when you merge all of it together as a candidate, you get a sense of who he is. so, no, are we the most socially conservative state? far from it. but by the same token, the

republican primary does not necessarily spurring social conservatives. pat buchanan won here and reagan. host: two debates this weekend. a saturday night and sunday morning. some other time will be correct -- prepping for that. a viewer tweets -- caller: congratulations from the ozarks. and i want to congratulate you guys are having the only non- biased news programming on cable television. i and then independent, libertarian i guess now, i am appalledite, and starts to it -- i am a paulite -- i know it sounds like a conspiracy because so many of us are calling in.

i wrote -- i read a letter to president obama from dr. paul about taking the benefits away from the vets. incidently, of the people standing on the republican platform, he was vet, is a vet and he served in vietnam -- he did not go but he served as a surgeon in the air force. he sent a letter -- he wants to cut the bills, but he sent a letter saying not on the backs of our vets and our serving military. the second one is, he is against the repeal of -- and i would like him to comment on that. and he does not believe in this corporate citizenship. i would like him to comment on that. i think the people who put the

bill out there to begin with, i think was mccain and lieberman. if he could comment on those and thank you so very much and i enjoy your show. your show is made for redial. host: appreciate you watching. charles arlinghaus? guest: it is insisting the number of independents and libertarians, the calls we are getting. i think congressman paul has a different credibility on military issues and, frankly, on his non-interventionist status, because his -- he served in the military itself and it explains why there are a number of murders -- military personnel supporting his campaign. at one point his campaign said they have more military donors than any campaign. i do not know how true it is but it sounds possible. it gives one to cut government

but not veterans benefits, some tried to argue it is inconsistent and i would disagree, simply because the general argument is you made a commitment to the people as part of a contract with the serving and you have to fulfill the terms of the commitments. veterans benefits should not be cut because you promised them already. it makes a lot of sense. i do not know anything about the coomittatus bill -- i have not seen that. it sounds like it would be a mistake but not an issue i followed. and i forgot entirely the third issue. host: i only have those two written down, too. we talk about military service. governor rick perry was in the air force. he had military representatives at his post-election rally in iowa. i am wondering if that changes your thoughts at all about military service in the candidates.

guest: well, my big pz point is big -- my big point was ron paul has credibility because he served. host: our next caller is from pennsylvania. john is a republican. caller: good morning. since the first the bush tax cut in 2001, we have not been able to balance a budget. we just keep getting farther and farther apart in being able to balance the budget. the argument seems to be with obama, he wants to raise taxes on the richest people. governor mitt romney said it was just plain wrong to have a tax policy gingrich wants to have when romney says all of his income -- income comes from capital gains and newt gingrich was not taxed any of that money.

i think those should be brought out in debates, where they stand on capital gains talks -- tax because it is an important part of the discussion of how much of the richest people should pay in america. newt gingrich, nor romney, would pay any tax. isn't that a fair discussion and shouldn't it be asked at the next debate? guest: i think tax policy has been a very important part of the discussion and there have been discussion about the capital gains tax and what you raise taxes. the people who want to cut taxes, what they point to is it would help spur economic growth and economic growth is the only way to balance the budget. it is true, the budget has not been balanced sense of the tax cuts but a lot was on the spending side and the economic losses that affected revenue.

spending has increased dramatically since 2000 what -- 2001 as well. we spend a lot of money during a time we were not taking in a lot more money. the worry when governor mitt romney says we shall not be raising taxes -- it makes a lot of sense to me, because when you are in economic turmoil of any sort -- and i know we cannot of the recession technically but there is still a lot of economic unrest -- raising taxes at a point like that -- if you think of taxes as a price of economic activity, which they are, but you do not want to raise the price on anything you want more of and there is no economic activity right now that we want less of. i did not think there is extra room where we could afford to raise the price on economic activity. the capital gains tax, i should point out that in 1990's -- and speaking bridge once to cut the capital gains tax -- we did try this when he was speaker years

ago. we did cut the capital gains tax and tried to balance the budget. during the time period, the next four years from 1995 until 1999, spending went up about 12%, but its spending, according to the federal documents. revenues, despite the tax cut, or may be because of the tax cut, some would argue, went up 35%. the result was not just balancing the budget but a surplus. there was a notion we would start to pay off bank the national debt at a significant rate. i think there is some evidence tax cuts do work but not everyone would agree. host: this is a "usa today" story --

philosophically, where are you on the super pacs and their role? guest: it is very and port the political spending be accounted for and there be complete transparency and reporting and i think in this day and age reporting is much more instantaneous -- a weird phrase -- instantaneous. within 24 hours, 48 hours. maybe we need weekly or monthly update. it is hard to read stories, based on finance reports ending september 30, we know this about the candidates. no, we don't. candidates' finances change more often. transparency is important, knowing what they raise is important and knowing what they raise it from. super pacs of the latest attempts to get around the most recent finance laws. money will find its way into politics. we spend a lot of money in this

country on politics but we spent a lot more money in this country on dog food than we do on politics. and i think we need to be careful when we are regulating it because i lot of times well- meaning regulations and changes lead to some sort of way around that. we used to know much more about money that was going into, say, the republican national committee and the democrat national committee, then we did what was going into the super pacs. now we are able to limit the amount of money in the committees, transparent committees, spend, but the,pacs crop up. be careful what you push on because it creates these kind of environment. host: "usa today" tells us these new groups to not have to disclose donors until january 31 -- next, or question is from democrat from richmond, virginia, demerara -- deborah.

caller: good morning and happy new year. i also agree with the previous caller. i love your show. you did a beautiful thing. what other programs are a little scared to do. my question is on ron paul. i followed him ever since he ran the last time. he looks like a beautiful little man that could not hurt a fly. he says everything the right way. but i would like your guest to elaborate on one little big thing -- he has a very close relationship with david duke and the group. which goes completely against everything he states that he is for. i can't understand that close relationship between david duke and the group. thank you so much for being on.

i will let you elaborate on that. guest: i think he has come under criticism about people who support him. the relationship of the david duke would surprise me. it is true there are some people like that who are reprehensible who do support him for other reasons. and you can argue about whether or not he has been strong enough in denouncing them. but i think it really is unfair to say he has a relationship with david duke. it is not true. he has some very libertarian leanings and there are some people to -- who support every candidate who we don't like, and that does not mean just because somebody supports you means you support them. but i think that congressman paul has made it clear he does not support that sort of agenda. i have not heard any reference he does. there are some questions about

some newsletters he has written in the past or has gone out under his name and how much he knew and the phrasing. but i don't think anyone really thinks he has any of those kinds of views himself or in any way support of of people like david duke. host: in our final segment, 9:15 a.m. eastern time, we will have the director of the university of new hampshire's service center and we will do a deeper dive into the new hampshire electorate. we will learn more about the people who have the responsibility of testing the first in the nation primary vote. a question from twitter -- i think it will be more -- in the republican primary it will be more than 2008 and it will be hard for me to say what the percentages.

the total vote in the primary will be significantly more than half of the registered republicans total. about 60% probably registered republicans and 40% registered undeclared, which we call in new hampshire independents. the turnout in new hampshire tends to be much higher in the presidential primary then and general primary in the more typical regular primary in september but significantly less than the general election in november. about more than half the electorate. lest this time because until there is no real democratic primary. the president is on the ballot and there are some other lesser known candidates but nobody substantive that anyone would have heard of. he will get 80% or 90% of the vote.

some of the people who might vote democratic -- voting in the republican primary. but the republican turnout should be higher for that reason. host: jon huntsman picked up " the boston globe" endorsement. he is staking much of the future of his campaign on the hampshire. what message is bringing to the voters in new hampshire and you believe it is resonating? guest: he is a little bit harder to describe because he is sort of an interesting mix -- former governor of utah, very conservative tax plan -- i like very much. it might be my favorite tax plan of all of the candidates in the race. so, on a lot of economic issues, he is very much a conservative in the mainstream cents. although he then mixes in with the that, some discussion about tax cuts for green energy and

things like that which is actually not something i would support. he has some appeal to more moderate voters for some things like that, he makes noises about green energy and while socially conservative himself, he is sort of libertarian on gay marriage issues, although pro- life, so that he is sort of a mix. so, he has a strong appeal to some of the more moderate voters, which is why "the boston globe" endorses him, and some of the more moderate newspapers, some of the more moderately- liberal papers. he is appealing to them. there is some thought that he and mitt romney appealed to the same electorate although romney's appeal is probably broader. but his support has been growing, but growing slowly. you can argue -- i think he said he needs to come in third in new hampshire to continue.

that is about where he is pulling. if you could see him rising a little bit. i know a lot of people who say i am taking a second look at huntsman. those people tend not to be the ones considering santorum or gingrich as an alternative. and less likely to be considering ron paul, although some of ron paul's more monitors aboard is attracted by his foreign policy issues, also consider huntsman because he has more of a "let's bring the troops home in" attitude. host: we have three minutes left for charles arlinghaus. it las vegas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span listening to me in this public forum. i have a couple of economic points i would like to hear comments from your guests. one thing that has bothered me, and it has to do with unemployment -- there are over

400,000 green cards legally issued every year that this place american workers. this topic never seems to be talked about by any candidate. and they have quite a long expiration date. and the other topic is, income taxes, there are millions of puerto ricans who work in the united states for 30, 40, 50 years, an income tax is not deducted from their paychecks. i would like to hear your guest's comments on these things. at guest: my understanding is on the puerto rican income tax, if you live in puerto rico you did not pay but i am not aware if you are from pr that in the united states, in the 50 states, you do not pay an income tax. i am not sure it is the case. it sounds to me unlikely,

though. but on your former point about green cards -- immigration is one of those issues, and people need to keep in mind we are talking about legal immigrants. i think all of us support some degree of legal immigration. legal immigration. green cards and work visas and things like that are a difficult thing because you did not want to allow too many of them in an area where there is significant unemployment. you do not want to many people to come in and displace jobs. but in a lot of places people are hiring temporary workers or, in some cases, engineers and things like that, when they are having trouble finding workers in other areas and those people come here becaus accompanied that decided to employ them and found them. i don't mind having some openness on the borders that way. i have a friend who was the legal counsel for a technological company and he says, we would much rather hire

american engineers, we would much rather hire domestic u.s. citizens as engineers, because there is a lot less paperwork to fill out. it is a lot easier for us certainly in the legal and other departments to hire engineers. when we are bringing people in from, in his case, india, it is not that we prefer it but it is kind of pain for us, but we have trouble filling slots so we did that. so you have to kind of bridge the gap between those two competing interests. host: i looked up the pr and tax -- this is wikipedia, with that in mind -- puerto rican tax. at that are required to pay the most u.s. taxes with the exception being the federal u.s. personal income tax. residents pay social security and are eligible for benefits upon retirement but excluded from ssi and island receives a

small fraction of the medicaid funding it would receive if it were a u.s. state. we have a little bit more information. charles arlinghaus, last call is from virginia beach. ruby, a republican. caller: i am calling because there is a gentleman -- and i thought this man could tell me -- running for president who used to be a former governor of a southern state and a former u.s. house representative, and i think his name starts with a b. he received 31 votes in iowa and he is in wisconsin running. he is getting wrote -- votes but nobody lets him debate. why is that? guest: i think the candidate you are referring to is buddy roemer, who was wanted the governor and congressmen of louisiana. in an odd 1 cents with another caller, was ousted from his governorship in a primary that included david duke. and i think edwin edwards might have won that race.

why is he not getting much support? he is not in the debates because he is not getting much support. 31 votes in iowa and he had significantly less of a campaign that some of the other candidates. i do not know i necessarily agree with that. i would like as many candidates as possible in the debate, but there are limits. there are something like 39 people who are going to be on the ballot in new hampshire and some of them are really waging a very serious campaign and some less so. there is an intermediate group, and buddy roemer is part of that, and some other candidates as well, who, although making an effort, have not risen to the top tier. and networks and people like that make a decision based on availability and the fact they cannot have 30 people on the stage. a disappointing for buddy roemer supporters. he is an interesting man. he is a good guy. but he is the kind of candidate right now who will get about 31 votes in a iowa and less than

1000 in new hampshire as well. host: when will you make your decision? guest: probably tuesday morning in the voting booth. i am having a lot of trouble. host: is that typical for you? guest: is atypical for me. >> "road to the white house rich coming up today and this evening on c-span. ron paul holding a town hall in north -- in new hampshire. and a look back to the 2004 new hampshire primary with the victory speech of john kerry and howard dean's primary night speech. we will look ahead at south carolina's presidential primary. we will talk with pat connolly. he is on newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern.

if you want to see the candidates, c-span's political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. >> it is encouraging. the kind of enthusiasm we have is pretty exciting. >> go to campaign rallies and meet and greet. >> to know who is the first author? i am responsible for his victory. >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it was a pleasure. you have a listening ear. >> how can you bring manufacturing back to you united states?

are you planning to go to these big countries -- companies that are shipping work overseas? >> watch our new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. morning. andy smith is with us. he is the director of the service center of the university of new hampshire. we will focus in on the population an electorate of new hampshire. thank you for being with us. we just heard that resident of new hampshire defending the new hampshire primary. that is what we wanted to look at the people who live in new hampshire. give us an overview. guest: a small state, about 1.3 million people. it is largely white among the adult population.

it is a wealthy state. gh income.cation, hidin eight wealthy, largely suburban state. most of the area of the state is more compacted by the bad economy than the suburban area of the state. host: we will talk about new hampshire residents. we have a line set aside for the people of new hampshire, as well. who is new hampshire today? the have the extraordinary spotlight on them -- they have. we welcome your comments and questions. a couple of bullet

points. the population is about 1.3 million people. host: let's look at the population growth numbers. we have some charts about new hampshire's population growth. new hampshire exceeds in projection the growth figures of its neighboring new england states. what is bringing people to new hampshire? guest: new hampshire is the only state in the northeast that has experienced significant population growth over the past several decades. a large amount of that is suburban sprawl coming across the border from massachusetts

and southern new hampshire. people commute into the greater boston area to work. there are certain advantages to living in new hampshire compared to living in massachusetts. we asked people who moved out of massachusetts why they moved to other states. the number-one reason is that housing is cheaper here. you could find a house $100,000 less. also, taxes were lower in new hampshire. that is something that is quite attractive to people and to businesses. they have been able to bring business here and businesses bring jobs with them. there were fewer democrats and liberals in new hampshire than in massachusetts.

we have the last of the republicans who moved across the border. it is a beautiful state. we have mountains and oceans and beautiful towns. it is a great place to live. people move here may be to let a second home and decided they want to live here permanently -- people moved here to maybe have a second home. it is a great state to raise kids. environmental reasons, social reasons. host: how did it do during the recession? guest: we did pretty well. our unemployment rate is below the national average. we are third or fourth with the lowest unemployment rates in the country.

we tend to come out of recessions more quickly. economists argue that because of the tax structure and the economic structure of the state that relies on high levels of education who can move from one type of business into another car move their product from one market to another. there's more flexibility. host: the unemployment number is 5.2%. the foreclosure rate is one out of every 735 housing units. those numbers do not seem to go together. guest: the banking systems in new hampshire are in pretty good shape. that means they can foreclose on

houses. often banks are in such bad shape that they do not want to foreclose on homes because they will have to do something with that bad debt. it is less problematic to carry a bad loan rather than to foreclose. it is higher but not as high as that figure indicates. caller: hello. i'm a first-time caller. happy new year. thank you for being non-biased. the economy is slow but it is getting better. the republican party does not want it to get better because they want to get in. but they are not for all people.

the republicans only talk about those with the money. they are going to ruin the lower and middle class. when the workers go to another tax bracket, we pay higher taxes. the rich should, too. the housing industry destroyed. i like to say to all republicans -- rick santorum, you have good ideas. ron paul has got ideas. good ideas onul's letting the congress work part- time. they are not going to do it. good ideas.s denied i come from a big family.

ere porr.t know we worked f or. -- poor. ho host: what are the major industries in new hampshire? guest: the biggest employers in the state -- first it is walmart. after that, bae systems. fidelity mutual insurance, the mutual fund company has a large presence in new hampshire. liberty mutual insurance has more employers in new hampshire than in massachusetts. some people in the finance

section and real estate section of the state. our biggest employer is the tourism sector. new hampshire has been one of the first places where destination tourism started in the united states. we have a summertime tourism and we have wintertime and tourism because there is snow in the mountains. tourism is the biggest employer in the state. small manufacturing is the driver of the new hampshire economy. more money is generated from that sector than the tourism sector. we're to believe right in the top five or six in terms of the highest median income for households. there is very low poverty in new hampshire. we'll start with have the lowest poverty rate in the country. it is a very compressed

incumbent pyramid. host: a snapshot of the hampshire. days before the primary. caller: hello. new hampshire is most likely beautiful if it is close to maine. i notice newt gingrich and rick santorum talking about welfare and food stamps. are people talking about g.e. and the major corporations not paying a dime in federal taxes and sometimes getting rebates? no one is bringing this up. host: thank you very much. federal taxation. guest: it resonates in new hampshire. we don't have an income-tax or

sales-tax. we have a pledge which local politicians are required to take that they will not pass an income tax or sales tax if they want to be a governor in new hampshire. george w. bush broke that and was a major reason he suffered a challenge from pat buchanan. tax issues are near and dear to people in new hampshire. when you talk about some of those things, you're getting into minutia. i would doubt people can point where the cayman islands are on a map the alone the tax policy of these banking havens. the candidates are not talking about that because the voters are not bringing that up as an issue. this is something that is

important to the caller, but this is not something that's been coming up over the course of the town hall meetings and not something we are seeing in our polling. host: new hampshire, a republican. caller: good morning. i have been a resident of new hampshire for 33 years. i'm in the real estate business. we've been hit the hardest up here. i think we're probably hire nationally because of the investment in the vacation homes. people from massachusetts are losing their home than in other areas. that will pushes up quite a bit. host: what are you seeing about the economy and which way to keep moving in the state? caller: we were hit harder

because of the vacation homes. host: is that affecting the overall economy? are you seeing signs of improvement? caller: we're probably getting because of this year the economy and because of the snow. it us yet.had as y host: you mention that tourism dollar being important to the state. guest: the white is green in the northern part of the state. we have not had much snow. an inch of snow in boston is worth a foot of snow in the mountains about being a good day to go skiing or not. the rural parts of the state is

largely driven by tourism and hard hit by ups and downs in the tourism business. the tourism business in new hampshire has gone down. with that people coming across the border from canada. the canadian dollar is strong. we're importing tourists from the north rather than the south. host: we had two guests this week including the mayor of manchester, two different views of the demographic. let's listen. clip: it is to most white state in the country behind only vermont. it is in the low single digits.

clip: mitt romney was at central high school yesterday. 2400 students, 80 different languages being spoken at that school. there is great diversity. we have people coming in from all countries that sell all right here in manchester. host: who is right? guest: they are both right. 96% of the adults are white. there is diversity within the large cities. the center of nashua is becoming ethnically diverse. the rest of the state is really, white.ly host: donald is a democrat from michigan.

good morning. caller: first time i got through. host: that is great. caller: i just came back in the house and the last part of the interview with the two gentlemen rothe round table in nei sie's diner, whatever it was. they complained about things not being working. they seem to indicate that congress is whether problem is at. the gentleman that called in about the cayman islands and the tax shelter down there, he aws ed to indicate the l

have to be changed. something beyond the scope of the president. your comment, please. guest: i do not want to get to the debate in the presidential election, whether the president is at fault for the state of the comet or the congress or republicans in the house of representatives. i think republicans and democrats will have ample opportunity to make their case in the coming months. blaming the president -- when the economy is bad, everybody is angry and they're looking for somebody to blame. that is the political implications of a bad economy.

if the economy is bad, and there is a sour mood and that will be the big political battle fought out in november. host: we have a comment on twitter. we have another set of numbers on party registration. there is an undeclared statistics that seems to have dropped during this decade and rising again. these are census department numbers of republicans, democrats, and on declared in lared.ate -- undec guest: the undeclareds are referred to as independents. most of them have partisan leanings.

35% are democrats and behave like registered democrats. only about 30% of those are trulyeds independent. the state has not become more partisan. it has been easier to state registered as an independent. if you are not declared, they will ask you which party ballot you want to take. when you leave, you can change your registration back to un declared. historically you would have had to make a separate trip to change your registration backto to undeclared. a lot of people voted in the

primaries and went the primariesin 2008. a lot of those people talk about for the republicans or the democrats and probably forgot to fill the form as they walked out. now they're registered as members of the party in whose primary they voted. the secretary of state purges the voter list periodically. undeclareds get purged more. they tend to move in and out of the state more frequently. the migration into hampshire is very important. it is not just the percentage of overall migration into the state. we have upwards of 200,000 people per year that churn back

into new hampshire. it is not a stable population. those people who are most likely to be registered undeclared of the new arrivals into the state. host: if we look of these numbers, my parents differ in what way? guest: this points out what is happened over the last 20 or 30 years. we have seen a shift where roughly where evenly balanced between republicans and democrats and the election represents that. so democrats are a slight plurality over republicans.

people are far more likely to be democrats then those people that lived here for years and years. so the old republicans are either dying or retiring to further or points further south. that is changing the politics of the state and it is likely to continue as the older republicans die and the new people move in. people moving in from massachusetts tend to be slightly republican. the rest of the migration is making the state more democrat. host: the blue area of the map, democrats. red for republican.

mountain city, tennessee -- guest: it is important to see were the republican vote is clustered. it is clustered along the corridor of 93 which runs from manchester down to boston. that area is often called the bermuda triangle. that is those people who have moved over the border from massachusetts and that is now the core of republican base in the state. host: the tip of the state has state gop. guest: it has but they're very few people there. more moose than people. host: danny from tennessee. caller: i used to have made

small business framing houses. i wrote big checks and pay my taxes every year. i want to explain something to people that do not understand this. i didn't pay no taxes. that was figured into the price i bid to frame house. they do not pay taxes now matter how big of a check they write to the government. it was figured in before they ever started building the product that you bought off the store shelves. republicans will say that or not said that at all, really. democrats will say -- tax the wealthy, tax the corporations. whoever finds their product is paying that tax because it

doesn't matter how big the check is that they are rwrite. they are not paying it. it is good business. host: comments from danny. a question for our guest, andy smith. this is from twitter. guest: i do not know what the numbers are. we have the lowest poverty rate in the country. i could not tell you too much about that. i should get back to -- we talk about race. the non-white population is

asians, not african-americans or hispanics. the minorities we have tend to be highly educated compare with minorities in other parts of the country. the welfare population is going to of a higher representation of hispanics and african- americans than the overall white population. the overwhelming percentage of the poor population is white and largely rural white. caller: thank you for taking my call. did i hear you correctly that an undeclared democrat can vote in the republican primary, and is and that a dishonest system?

truly they are a democrat but they are trying to alter the republican outcome. is there a survey on the republican in new hampshires. do they see themselves as conservative, moderate? thank you so much. guest: that is an excellent point. we have a semi-closed primary. those undeclareds can choose to vote in either primary. anderere an undeclared voted, some may decide that they will vote in the republican primary. some people are truly

independents and they may vote in the republican primary. what we see when we look at the electorate, my best estimate is that about 60% of the republican electorate will be registered republicans. about 20% will be undeclared voters, but they are really republicans. only about 10% will be made up of democrats, undeclared voters who are democrats who are truly independent. the registered republicans and the undeclareds vote the same way and mitt romney is doing well with those groups. you see some of the things that the caller was alluding to going on.

ron paul gets his support from those groups. that segment of the electric only makes up a total of about 20% of the people that will show up on tuesday, which kind of limits the impact that they have. every quarter years we're about the new hampshire independence and that they can throw the election either way -- every quarter yeafour years. this is largely a myth. to the heart to get them to come out inand vote in the opposing primary. host: the conservative breakdown. guest: new hampshire is not a particularly conservative state. it is a fiscally conservative state.

it is a small government state. on the biggest social issue in the country, abortion. the likely republican primary voter is more pro-choice then the country as a whole. gay marriage -- when democrats had control of the house and senate, but passed a bill that legalized gay marriage to the legislative process. republicans took back control in 2010 and they wanted to repeal that the marriage law. only 45% favor repeal of gay marriage in new hampshire. 43% oppose the repeal. the hampshire is not a very religious state. gallup have a server at said new

hampshire is the second least religious state. one of your guests commented that new hampshire is the lowest state in terms of a church attendance. this is a state that is not particularly religious. it is a state for which republicans are concerned more about fiscal issues. the candidates who can win in iowa, mike huckabee finishes in a distant third place after winning in iowa. rick santorum of a difficult time converting that win in to support of new hampshire because of the kind of voters -- caller: that happen to answer my

question. whether rick santorum could succeed as well as he did in iowa. it does not seem to be the case. i wonder whether he think jon huntsman will of a chance succeeding in new hampshire given that republicans tend to lean more fiscally conservative, which is something that jon huntsman hinges his campaign on. guest: they are more fiscally conservative but they are still republicans. jon huntsman made a mistake by distancing himself from the other republican candidates, saying he believes in evolution and he thinks that global warming is a real, not like those other republicans, wink, wink.

he clearly tried to define himself as something different than the other republicans running. he had worked for the obama administration as ambassador to china. he says he is not like the other republicans but the work for the democratic administration. the jon huntsman campaign is not taking votes away from the other more moderate candidate, mitt romney. he is fighting for the same votes as ron paul. jon huntsman is limited because he has chosen to run as a non- republican. he did not tell republicans in the state about his background as governor of utah, where he

was a quite conservative governor and had good economic growth in the state but that message never got out. the message that got out was that he is not like the other republicans and he worked for a democratic administration. host: steve from phoenix, a republican. caller: good morning. i was going to ask you about repairing. -- rick perry. i think he is the man. he's the only one that doesn't have the baggage and i think -- he is not the greatest soccer of >> are cameras are in the auditorium of the university of new hampshire tonight.

we are at the university of new hampshire, where students are on a winter break. the congress is pulling in second place behind mitt romney. he may have a tough battle, and depending on how well rick santorum does. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you for coming out tonight. rather than be doing the introductions, i want to introduce kellie. [applause] >> i am very excited tonight to introduce dr. paul. he is just wonderful. i am an independent, not a republican, not a democrats. dr. paul is somebody that is just completely different and everything that is out there. it is not status quo. i am really hoping tonight that

some undecideds will get a chance to ask him some questions and understand and you will be able to see the differences between his ideas and the rest of it. i will let him get right on it. jim is going to ask him some questions and then we'll open it up to the audience. [applause] >> i will ask a few questions. my first question, dr. paul, you served in congress for 12 terms much of your life was spent as an obstetrician. why did you decide to pursue your career in medicine? >> i decided in my junior year of medical school to go into medicine.

there were a couple of things. i was better in science and i was in languages. it tends to work that way. i had an easier time and sciences. looking at the professions you could go into, over the years before that, it had crossed my mind -- in some ways it was a political thought. i remember world war ii and korea and many relatives and neighbors would go off to war and some did not come back. i can also remember watching a lot of war movies. i know the thoughts crossed my mind. it was almost like a subliminal. i cannot ever go and shoot somebody. i will probably get drafted some day. i thought, i would be better off if i was taking care of

people who were suffering rather than thinking that could ever do that. low and behold, 1962, they drafted me. the idea of helping other people. there was this thing about the type of introduction i had to so many wars. i knew i did not want to participate in a violent manner. >> how has that influenced your outlook on government policy? >> the practice of medicine, obviously, i was very much engaged in the madison. when i first got out of medical school, i practiced a couple of years. before medicare, medicaid, things were different. i did some extra work within the military, but i was also doing work in a catholic hospital. the practice of medicine was very different. and in the introduction can end of government.

-- and then the the introduction came in of government. over the years, it got worse and worse. that was not the motivating factor for me to get into politics. when i first went into congress, i was considered a fluke. i ran for other reasons and i ended up getting elected. i thought it was fortunate that i could do it. what really got me involved in politics was economic policy. it seems a little bit strange, practicing medicine, but i came across the austrian school of economics. i was curious. the greatest gift i was ever given is the fact that i was curious. why are people unemployed? why do you have inflation?

how do you finance the wars? austrian economics, they explained this very well. i became convinced that they were on the right track because their predictions were always correct. they predicted in the 1960's that the pseudo gold standard would collapse. sure enough, on august 15 of that year, 1971, it did collapse. this made an impact on me. i decided i would just speaking out. like i said, i did not expect to win. my wife is sitting over here. [applause] i told this story about when i decided i was going to run for congress. we had a lot of years of college and medical school. we were doing quite well and i loved it.

i had this extra interest. i told her i was going to run for congress. she said, why in the world would you want to do that? i told her i needed to get this off my chest. they were going in the wrong direction. i would like to talk about economic policy and the direction of the country. she said, this could be a dangerous thing. how in the world could be dangerous? she said, you could end up getting elected. i was not going to play the role of santa claus. it was going to be just the facts. in 1970, i thought we were spending too much money. " speaking of spending, you recently -- he unveiled a plan to cut the deficit and to balance the budget in three years. why would you think that this

helps the economy? >> that is an economic policy -- fallacy. there is a certain amount of work -- wild in the economy. all wealth is created by voluntary action. when governments spend money, they take the money out of d.o. economy, which is productive wealth. it is very negative. if they have a trillion dollars and they take it from you and put it into washington, you have lost your trillion dollars. since governments are not productive, they spend a trillion dollars on interfering with your life. getting involved in a war they should not be involved in. we the taxpayers get hit twice. that is why a trillion dollars is a real boost. people get nervous. some of those people are not very productive.

it was harder to make a sale back in the 1970's on what we anticipated would happen. today, we are there. we know what has happened. we have consumed our wealth. we cannot borrow more. we cannot tax anymore. we have this huge debt. we are just behind. we are -- they have to either print the money or borrow the money. the economic growth is not there. it is not just the united states problem, it is a worldwide problem. it is a monetary problem. the basis of all the monetary system is the u.s. dollar. it has given us an advantage over the many decades. the disadvantage is that we exported dollars and our jobs went with it.

there is a limit to how much? you can sustain. when a country is wealthy, the republicans and the democrats get along pretty well. for decades, they did whatever they want. you spend your money, we will spend our money. i do not think it is lack of bipartisanship. i think it is bipartisanship doing the wrong thing. they have done this for so long. catkins and the wealth and that is why we are facing a crisis -- they have consumed the wealth and that is why we are facing a crisis. [applause] >> as an air force pilot, i flew out of saudi arabia, iraq bosnia. i saw firsthand there is a big

difference between overseas military spending versus defense spending. the cuts you are proposing to make in your budget, it does come out of military spending for defense spending? >> the spending that would cut would not touch defense. i think defense will go up. it will be improved because we will not get ourselves involved in things we should not be involved with. our defense is not enhanced by starting wars, occupying nation's, and in the policeman of the world. our military -- are defense -- [applause] there are a couple of different ways you can measure the cost of the military occupation and the activities we have. i put it in the category of overseas spending. state department spending,

building embassies in baghdad, the military operations, foreign aid. it is about $1.40 trillion in europe. we can cut a lot from that. that -- is about $1.40 trillion a year. we can put a lot from that. too often the republicans and democrats got together and agreed on spending. it should be -- it should be that we could get together and agree not to spend money overseas. we should be helping the american people. [applause] half would come from overseas spending. $500 billion. the rest would come from departments. five department i would cause. the department of education, i do not see why we need a department of education. [applause] it would still need a lot more to get to a trillion dollars.

we would have to move the baseline back to about 2006. government was not too small in 2006. it was too big event. just going back to that base line, we could have real cuts. whenever you hear the congress or the president talking about these cuts and super committee is putting a trillion dollars. it has nothing to do with cutting. what they're doing is cutting proposed increases built into the system. it is to be we complained about the communist having five-year plans. we have 10-year plans of continued deficit financing. they would cut one trillion dollars over 10 years. $100 billion a year. i am talking about real cuts. going back to the baseline. we could do it. we could have the budget balanced in three years.

the economy surged back. it might even happened sooner. we have to do something. we can not to believe that just spending money and printing money and borrowing money is going to bring the economy back. europe right now is in big trouble because we are all interconnected. china had a thing going there, we exported dollars, we imported their stuff. they have are dollars of the there. -- our dollars over there. they have us over the ropes. they have inflated their currency, too. there is a lot of distortion. there will be some changes over there as well. we have to think about sound economic policies. when i talk about that, we have to think about what our constitution says, what liberty is, what sound money is all about, having a proper foreign policy.

[applause] >> you get twice as many contributions for military with all the other candidates. that becomes very clear. speaking of economic recovery, the new jobs report, are we out of the bloods? has the economy recover? >> -- are we out of the bloods? woods? has the economy recover? >> i watch the markets closely because they discount everything. even though it might not be long term, they immediately discounted. this will be very favorable. before you knew it, the stock market closed down. the market players did not think too much of this. there were increased jobs. they're not telling you the truth compared to what?

they said unemployment was up to 9%. now it is down to a plan 5%. that is not counting the people who have been out of their jobs for more than four weeks. they do not count them anymore. people who are very partially employed have just part-time jobs, they do not count them anymore. if you count the way they did during the depression and other years, unemployment is probably closer to 20%. that is why there is a disconnected. the people feel worse than the government tells you you are supposed to feel. the unemployment rate is much bigger than the inflation is much worse, standard of living is going down. people on fixed incomes know about it. the middle class is speak -- shrinking. this country lives beyond its means. free-market and sound money given to the largest middle- class, which we used to have.

now our middleclass is shrinking in size and the standard of living is going down. if we do not change our policy, this will continue. we could go over a cliff and suddenly have it sink rapidly. that is why i think it is so important that we do something to prevent ourselves from getting in that bad of shape. >> thank you. >> we will open it up to the audience for questions. as i imagine there are a couple of ron paul supporters here. the primary is only four days away. we need people that are not sure who they are going to vote for to ask questions. this is a big group. let's leave the questions for undecided voters. there will be some people going around with microphones. >> i would like to thank you on

behalf of the 110,000 self- employed people in new hampshire. for supporting our equity. the equity for our nation's self-employed act. it would enable us to doc are health insurance premium as a business deduction. that is sold important. -- that is so important. self-employed in this nation are really suffering from this self employment tax on all of our income. the first question, would you consider cutting back in half? i really do not know the answer to this, but what is your position on corporate personhood? >> on the taxes, my goal is to get the tax is as close to zero as possible. [applause]

we did pretty well up until 1913. we did not have an income tax. but the government was very small. the people should be in charge of their money. we are a long way off from that. anything we can cuts is good. on the medical, being able to deduct that as a small business comment that bought out a flat back in the 40's -- and that got out of black back in the 1940's. -- whack back in the 1940's. it was a very unfair. and the corporations should have been -- it would have been better for all of us to assume responsibility. look for the policies that are automatic and transferable. it became a problem because your insurance was associated with

your business. then you had to say, we will move its and it will go to another company. it should have been private all along. i would do anything i could to get the proper deduction. this is going in the opposite direction of what obamacare does. what we should do is make sure that anybody and everybody can get their money back. tax credits of some sort. maybe have a tax savings accounts. that is totally tax deductible. if that is tax-deductible, did a major medical policy. the important reason for that, and we did the doctor and patient talking to each other again. now it is corporate medicine and lobbyists in washington -- some of the big players do not care about how big the government is. they just want to get part of the pie. you have the drug companies, insurance companies, it is very

much a corporation. on personhood of the corporations, personhood implies rights. only individuals have rights. you do not have rights by groups. [applause] the difficulty with having rights by groups, to reasons why that is not good. you punish a group, which we have all had to live through a system of punishment. that is wrong. privileges to groups are not any better. that is why we should all be individuals. if you have a legal organization, it is the individual that should be responsible. the corporation itself is not a person. only we as individuals are. [applause] >> good evening, dr. paul.

thank you for being here. my question is a continuation of the health-care issue. i spent most of my life as an advocate for children. especially disabled children. i understand from your plan that you would like to see the end of medicaid and medicare because they are government run programs. that is possible, but how would be a sure that people who are virtually all uninsurable would be covered to buy companies and better in the profit-making business? that is a tremendous concern and i guess in families that cannot coverage if they do not have -- there is nobody that is going to take care of those kids. >> it is and important question. even if one agrees we should

have never started it, we are not there now. we have a system where we are very dependent. i know some people say it sounds like i will cut those medical programs. in a way, i have a very modest position on this. earlier on, i mentioned were i would cut. overseas spending, wartime spending, some of the department's going back to a certain level of budgeting. i think social security beneficiaries, the promise has been made. we took the money. the money has been spent. i still think we should try to provide the promises and take care of the promises. medicare is the same way. child health care would be the same thing. my budget proposal does not take -- does not diminish it. i would hope to see the day or

we could work our way of out of bed and think of a better way. this is rather new in history. in my lifetime, and the time i practiced medicine, there was a time when people would go to hospital and if they needed help, there were charity hospitals. i worked in a catholic hospital for a while. even in the midst of all the government, there is a bird hospital in galveston, texas that takes care of any child that is burned for free. just think how much more prosperity we would have if we had a free-market economy. now the concern is we are broke, we cannot pay any of our bills. how will we make -- how will we service all these people? the only way you can do that is to cut that kind of spending. if you go along with this idea that you do not have to cut anything, you are kidding yourself. those programs will exist, but

already those checks are buying less. we are on a dead-end course. in order to take care of some of those programs, you have to cut the spending elsewhere. but they are not my top priority. i would hope that someday we would be able to work our way and make encouragement that we get back to self-reliance. [applause] >> dr. paul, is there any way you would consider allowing citizens my age -- >> medicare benefits? >> even though i am a lot younger than 65, i should not be denied the right to have those benefits the elderly have. >> they are struggling and they cannot even take care of the elderly right now.

medicare is in worse shape than social security. financially, there is no way. if young people do not have a job and take care of themselves, and they have the medicaid programs. that is something i do not attack. that would not work. as the dollars are not there. the previous generation are depending on you to work to pay for their medicare. at your age, it is not going to work. we need a very prosperous economy where you have good jobs. did your own benefit and your own deductions rather than the corporation's being involved in giving a tax break. [applause] >> welcome to new hampshire.

my concern is related to foreign policy. there has been a lot of discussion regarding your policy on air safety abroad, pulling troops back where they be felt -- where we feel they should not be deployed. we face some serious threats in the middle east, particularly iran. how would you handle iran? nuclear iran [inaudible] >> all nuclear bomb scare me. we have had way too many of them. [applause] some of my opinions come from the experience i had when i was in the air force during the 1960's. i went in with the greatest confrontation with the soviets occurred in the october of 1962. that is when i received my draft notice. that was over with by the time i was sworn in. i was in during the vietnam era.

they had 30,000 -- they have been killed but. we were about to have a nuclear exchange. compare that to the problem we see with iran. maybe someday getting a nuclear weapon. the danger is way overblown about them having one in the near future. i think they would like to, that would be a concern. i do not want them to get one. the u.n. says they have no evidence there on the verge of a nuclear weapon. are all in cia says that. to give you some reassurance, the secret police for israel said if iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will not pose an

existential threat to israel. they are saying, hold off, let's not get overly excited. let's not start dropping bombs. the three generals have said, they are against doing anything radical. my greatest fear is that we will overreact, go in and not have a good reason. like we went into iraq. it thinks of -- think of all the things that were stirred up about iraq. weapons of mass destruction. al qaeda. all these things related to 9/11. none of it was true. and then we ended up occupying afghanistan. we have lost 8500 americans. hundreds of thousands of begging for help. we should only go to war with a great deal of caution. [applause]

it is not that i dismissed it and that is not important, it is that there are different ways to do it. i felt very fortunate in the october 1962 because kennedy at least had the wisdom to talk it out. they both agreed to move their missiles out. khrushchev moved them out of cuba and kennedy move them out of turkey. i am suggesting that more can be achieved without resorting to violence. the need to get involved over there right now -- this whole thing of sanctions, that is the first step to war. this is really very dangerous. we had sanctions on iraq for 10 years and finally went to war against iraq.

i want you to think about a golden rule for foreign policy. what if china did in the gulf of mexico what we are doing in the persian gulf, how would we act? what if china is moving their ships and and used drone of missiles to bomb a few of their enemies that might be on our land. we would not like that very well. we never see it from their viewpoint. we just see it from our viewpoint. i think sometimes it is a distorted view. . they have not forgotten 1953. we went into iran and overthrow their government. they were practicing democracy but we did not like him because he did not want to give the oil benefits to the british and the americans, he wanted to keep the benefits for the iranians. we overthrew him and put an the shaw who was there for 26 years. he was a ruthless dictator.

what did that do? that stimulates radicalism. that is how radical islam got going in iran. most of us do not know that or care about it or see the relationship. there are reactions to this. there is blowback. our cia knows about it. this is what we should be more cautious. i talk about what happened in the 1960's and 1950's. the french and the americans were fighting the vietnamese. we did not declare war, we went over there and got involved in a civil war. we were going to stop the movement of communist -- communism. we lose 60,000 lives and then we walk out. there was no domino effect of communism. the chinese moved toward

western economics. they have not done so badly. the vietnamese have become westernize. just think of what happened in peace that we could not pursue in war. the use of force should be the very last thing you do. [applause] also, i think it is worthwhile -- it introduces the religious attitude. i think there is nothing wrong with considering the just war principles that have been around since st. augustine. they are not bad principles. you fight a war in defense and you do it proportionally. you have to do it to protect your own people. there is nothing wrong with those principles.

they are a universal principles. i just try to follow those because i think the goal is peace. it is not occupation. [applause] >> i wanted to ask about current health-care system that was voted in that costs a lot of money. do you have any plans? the direction you could go to make that not as bad as it could be if he were president. >> is she talking about obamacare? >> yes. >> anything we could do it could make it better i would think. if we cannot reverse it and get congress to repeal the entire thing, the one thing we always

should preserve when government gets overly involved is always give the people the option of getting out of it. opting out is very important. if it is a bad deal to be involved in one of these programs, i think everybody should have a chance to get out of it. it is sort of like the way a lot of people complained about our educational system. i do not think federal control of education helps. we also are able to opt out and a lot of people do. they have the right to go to private school. i think that is very good. in medicine we ought to be able to opt out, too. there are a lot of things we can do. obviously, i voted against obamacare and we should repeal it. there is no way can be paid for the way we are going. and there will be rationing.

there already is rationing. that is a bad thing. once government get involved -- the big problem is since the 1960's when the government got involved, the pomp money. whether it is pumping money into education or medicine or housing, it usually does not give us better quality. it pushes prices up. if it pushes the cost of education way up. that is what government does in medical care. it makes the prices and the cost skyrocket. they say the government has to come in and give more money out to poor people who cannot afford it. if the problem is really a monetary policy and then a government intervention policy, if you want the maximum efficiency in delivering goods and services you have to look to the free market. that is the way to deliver free -- that is the way to deliver

goods and services. [applause] >> how about up here. i know this gentleman has been waiting. >> thank you. i traveled here from rhode island. i want to say thank you for letting us ask the questions. i have been following the news a little bit. i watched cnn, msnbc, fox. i do find there seems to be a lot of people that keep saying you are an electable. you are unelectable. i start to see that on twitter and facebook among friends and family. whitey you think that the media keeps saying things like that. is there some sort of agenda behind it? i do not understand. >> i think it is wishful thinking on their part. [applause]

we take on all the special interests whether it is the military industrial complex, everybody that has gotten a bailout. we take on the federal reserve. anybody close to the establishment has something to try to protect. the other thing that they do -- when they ask me this, i am supposed to get angry and upset. it makes me laugh they said, how come you are so dangerous? you people are dangerous. yes, i endangers because i live in the constitution. that is a dangerous thought. [applause] and other dangerous idea, i do not think we should be printing money. we should only have gold and silver as money like the

constitution says. [applause] my goal is free markets, the protection of civil liberties, sound money and property rights, contract rights, sensible foreign policy. the other thing i sometimes do not see how this could be dangerous because i see great danger in our country right now. it is against our liberties. if you protect liberty, you protect the marketplace. he protect your property. you do not have this foreign- policy we have. right now liberty is very much threatened in this country. after 9/11 there was a lot of fear. i understood it and i was concerned and i voted to go after the guys that did it. but there was a lot of overreaction, too. immediately they brought up a bill that had been floating around congress for a couple of years and passed it in one week. that bill was not patriotic even though they called it the

patriot act. we should repeal the patriot act. [applause] now, if it would have called the bill what it was really doing -- any time you see a bill in washington that sounds good, figure it is doing the opposite. that is a safe bet. if they would have called the repeal the fourth amendment act, a lot of people might not have voted it. they do not name and what it is. it has gotten worse since then. one year ago the president send somebody over to the senate to announce any policy. under certain circumstances, the president has authority to assassinate american citizens. that is the law of the land, at least he assumes it is. he has already done it three times. maybe one out of three might have been a bad guy. that people deserve a trial as

well. -- bad that people deserve a trial as well. [applause] can you think of anything worse than the nazi war criminals? they even got trials. there is nothing we should be intimidated and so frightened of that we allow our presidents to assume this power to assassinate american citizens with no charges. not only that, two weeks ago they passed the national defense authorization act, another bad bill. people always know about it and i am very pleased about that. it is very bad. it gets rid of the prohibition against the military and forcing domestic law. there were only seven senators that voted against it. my son voted against it, let me tell you [applause]

that means an individual who may be associated with an organization that might have done something bad -- that is all they need, associated forces. a website or donation or what ever, no matter how in the senate was. even if it was not an asset you are still supposed to get a trial. for now the military can haul you often put you in a secret prison and an attorney is the night to you. one senator boldly said if we pick you up because we suspect you belong to al qaeda, do not ask for a lawyer. a u.s. senator saying that. that has to reverse. we have to protect civil liberties. liberty is the most important item. we are a free and prosperous country and at one time was very wealthy because we are honored and understood this. it was written into our declaration of independence. it was acknowledged that

governor -- government did not give us our rights, our life and liberty came from our creator and comes in a natural weight. if we lose that, worrying about paying some bills is academics because life will not have that much meaning. one thing i have noticed in the last four years, there has been a sudden change in interest in the economic issues that have been talking about for a long time but also the foreign policy issues. even in the last four months there has been a tremendous surge in interest in what our campaign has been talking about and why it offers us so much. it is not offer us something new and strange that we have to invent something new. all we have to do is look at our traditions and look at what we were given. do not let what we started disappear so casually. right now it has been slipping away. in an economic crisis, which i

anticipate will come. if we do not clean up our act the economy will get much worse. the destruction of currency can have a lot of violent repercussions and a lot of demonstrations in the street if not violence. if they have all these laws against us, who knows? if you happen to be locked in a group that happens to be construed as anti war -- oh, and you might be an associated force. you cannot tell what they might do. that stuff need off the books. we need somebody an office to say the top of a president is to protect your freedom. it is not to run the world. it is not to run your life. [applause] it is not to run the economy. the president, the bureaucrats, the politicians do not know how to do that. our obligation should be the

protection of liberty. this will work its way out. then we have a very good chance that once again our calls will be peace and prosperity, which should be our goal all the time. thank you very much. [applause] >> give me a favor. here is what we are going to do. before we go any further, we will ask the press to move over. we will give people time to that to get pictures. we have to give them some room. will the media please move back. form a line over here. folks who are not interested in

that can exit over there. on the photos you are going to have to go to our web site www.ronpaul2012.com. click on the new hampshire site and you will have to download it. the we have a photographer here. he will do the -- she will do the photos and we will applaud them and you can get them. that is the program. thank you very much. come on, guys. it gives us some room.

again, we are doing the photos. we're not going to use of funds to do that. we want everybody to have a chance to get a photo. >> hello, how are you doing? >> good, how are you? >> bought it? >> thank you. good luck. >> a very good. how are you?

did you just get interested? >> i have been interested for a while. >> look at that camera. all right. how are you doing? got it? >> how are you? >> thank you very much. >> hello. you know it is against the world. -- against the rules. ok. >> hello. >> hi, how are you? >> i have been a fan of view

since the early 1990's. >> thank you. hello, there. >> very good. >> hello, nice to meet you. very good. hi, how are you? >> folks, again --

[unintelligible] >> a good to see you. hello. how are you? hello. >> hello. >> how are you? >> i appreciate you coming.

hello, there. >> are you together? >> ok. >> hello. how are you doing? i am glad you came out. >> hey ron. >> high. -- hi. >>got it? >> hello. good to meet all of you.

>> thank you. hello there. >> a good to see it. -- good to see you. >>hello. >> there you go. >>hello. how are you? >>ok. you are up. >> thank you. >>you can do whatever you want.

what do you want to do? all together. squeeze in a little bit. not too much. >> all right. good to see you, everybody. thank you. glad you made it. how are you? good to meet you? hello. >> hi. >>good to meet you. >>glad you came over today. good to meet you appreciate you coming. hello. good to meet you. >>dr. paul, good to see you.

>>ok. good to meet you. >> nice to meet you. get a picture. glad you are here. there you go. >> a family taking pictures. i can hold this. >> hey. how are you? >>thanks for coming. hello. pleased to meet you. there you go.

hello. good to meet you. thanks for coming. hello. >> thank you, ron paul. >>how are you? >> good to meet you. >> all right. >> good luck. >> all set? >> good to meet you. >> thank you. hello there. >> do you want to take a picture? >>can we get a picture?

>> she got it. >> all right. >> hello there. >> making it all right? >> got it? >>ok. thank you very much. >> thank you. >>you're up. >>ok. >> how are you? are you together? >> thank you. >> how are you?

hello. good to see you. >> i can grab your coat. >> very good. >> hello. good to meet you. >> nice to meet you. >> how are you? >> thank you very much. thank you very much for coming. >> thank you. good luck, dr. paul.

>> my husband never stops talking about you. >> thank you for coming out. >> all right. >> how are you? glad you came. all right. very good. hey. how are you? >>i appreciate it. >> i came up here to work on your campaign.

>> glad you made it out tonight. >> thank you. >> hello there. very good. >>hello. how are you? >> happy to be here. >> got it? ok. hello.l >> got it? ok. there we go.