Republican candidates for 2012

• bigdaddy2003

  

  I'm only 40 minutes into the debate so far but Newt has definitely edged the competition.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;859616 wrote:Fair Tax is a horrible execution of a good idea. I've said before we are going to need a VAT at some point, but Fair Tax is so wildly off the mark I couldn't touch anyone who would remotely associate with it. Simply put, the tax code is complicated because of the progressive and socialist nature, both for individuals and corporations/business sectors. There is 0 reason to believe Fair Tax would quickly be any different without sweeping change in the Washington approach to income redistribution.
  
  If you're suggesting he supports it on the principles of tax reduction and reform that's about as disingenous as politics can get. Fair Tax in practice would infuriate it's base because it is 110% DOA. It completely perverted pretty sound economic analysis from Kotlikoff, who supports a VAT mainly as a way of solving the SS/Medicare issue. Essentially the brain child of two hacks who apparently know next to nothing about economics. If you can find any comments at all from heavyweight economists, it's a non-starter completely dismissing that a 23% inclusive rate would be close to revenue neutral.

  
  So your issues with it are what exactly? That 23% isn't high enough? Then raise it. It's not progressive enough? I already made a suggestion for that. If little tweaks like this are your problem, they are easily solved. The idea of replacing income and FICA taxes for the 99% of population with a sales tax and eliminating corporate income and capital gains taxes sounds like just the thing we need to spark the economy.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;859749 wrote:So your issues with it are what exactly? That 23% isn't high enough? Then raise it. It's not progressive enough? I already made a suggestion for that. If little tweaks like this are your problem, they are easily solved. The idea of replacing income and FICA taxes for the 99% of population with a sales tax and eliminating corporate income and capital gains taxes sounds like just the thing we need to spark the economy.

  
  It's a hell of a lot more than little tweaks. It is a fundamentally disastrous and flawed plan. There is nowhere to begin and end with that thing it is 1000% utter crap. It's a redneck grassroots organization supported almost exclusively by people who don't know jack shit about economics, because no one with a clue would ever support it.
  
  The fact they promote a 23% rate, which is intentionally misleading because people think of sales tax exclusive which would be 30%, and that's STILL nowhere near enough to balance things should tell you everything you need to know. If I come in pitching a huge sale to you, and the first line out of my mouth is a bald-faced lie, you probably don't listen to the rest of the pitch. But the more you get into FairTax, the worse it gets.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;859829 wrote:It's a hell of a lot more than little tweaks. It is a fundamentally disastrous and flawed plan. There is nowhere to begin and end with that thing it is 1000% utter crap. It's a redneck grassroots organization supported almost exclusively by people who don't know jack shit about economics, because no one with a clue would ever support it.
  
  The fact they promote a 23% rate, which is intentionally misleading because people think of sales tax exclusive which would be 30%, and that's STILL nowhere near enough to balance things should tell you everything you need to know. If I come in pitching a huge sale to you, and the first line out of my mouth is a bald-faced lie, you probably don't listen to the rest of the pitch. But the more you get into FairTax, the worse it gets.

  
  Well no tax is going to be near enough to balance a $4 trillion budget. I don't care if the Fair Tax or something similar does or not. If it, along with tweaks like I suggested, can bring in an average of 18% of GDP while eliminating corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes and all income taxes for 99% of the people, I don't see a downside. I'm not saying the Fair Tax is the best plan or only plan, I'm saying I like the concept. Obviously spending has to be gutted for us to ever balance the budget.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;859862 wrote:Well no tax is going to be near enough to balance a $4 trillion budget. I don't care if the Fair Tax or something similar does or not. If it, along with tweaks like I suggested, can bring in an average of 18% of GDP while eliminating corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes and all income taxes for 99% of the people, I don't see a downside. I'm not saying the Fair Tax is the best plan or only plan, I'm saying I like the concept. Obviously spending has to be gutted for us to ever balance the budget.

  
  That's the problem, Fair Tax can't come remotely close to 18% of GDP. To be revenue neutral, many economists believe the rate would have to be nearly double (this was before the monster monster deficits, meaning a 30% sales tax would generate approx. 10% of GDP). On top of that, they have this crap prebate and other exclusions. It's no magic bullet - the more you read about it the more you realize it will be effectively the same system of taxation but collected on consumption rather than income. The complexity of the revenue code comes from the desire to use tax engineering to achieve certain social. progressive, and economic goals. Most people don't seem to understand that will always and everywhere prevent having a simple straightforward code.
  
  That plan is just crap crap crap. It is completely unsound from a fundamental economic perspective. I agree we need a VAT, but that is by no means justification for the disaster that is Fair Tax (I realize that's not where you're saying, we're basically on the same page). Thank God that thing died off, though I suspect they may try to mobilize the rednecks again come 2012. Fortunately, looks like a lot of those supporters have gravitated toward the Tea Party.
  
  I've only seen one or two articles seriously suggest a VAT. I've heard nothing from Washington, and my guess is because both the Repubs with "no riasing taxes" and Dems with "soak the rich" have backed themselves into a corner where neither can support a VAT. Closing loopholes and lowering rates is an interesting idea to raise revenues, but I don't expect much from it. Corporate taxes are only 11% of revenues, and collecting 50% more without doubt makes our rates uncompetitive. The main reason you can't really soak the rich is most of their income is capital gains, and hiking that much more than 5% is also going to be a drag on the investment/economy. Reality is we need to raise taxes on EVERYONE, that means bumping FICA and the employer match and a VAT. That is the only way to get beyond 18% of GDP because those are REAL tax increases that are difficult to evade/avoid/manage. Everyone wants European style socialism (no idea why) but they don't want to pay for it, nor is there an effective way to get the rich to foot nearly all the bill.
• Ty Webb

  

  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/08/12/democrats_take_lead_in_generic_ballot.html
• BGFalcons82

  

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
  
  So who you gonna believe, Ty? Gallup or Rasmussen?
  
  BTW, Rasmussen also shows BAM getting only 20% strong approval. His mountain to climb is getting bigger and bigger by the day. Also...the Senate has 23 D's defending their status and only 10 R's are up for re-election. Looks like the Senate will be out of Harry's grasp in 15 months. Maybe Nancy and he can have a good cry together.
• Ty Webb

  

  Gallup....by alot
  
  They are much much less biased than Rasmussen
• BGFalcons82

  

  Ty Webb;860497 wrote:Gallup....by alot
  
  They are much much less biased than Rasmussen

  
  Bullshit. Rasmussen has outperformed ALL pollsters since 2006. They target the "likely voters", not just a phonebook full of Democrats. Gallup could care less about who will vote, just who will answer the phone.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Didn't watch the debate last night, but good to see in foreign policy terms all are idiots:
  http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/gop_candidates_flub_facts_on_foreign_policy
  
  BTW, I'd love to see any of them talk about the reduction of the DoD budget and what it means for American power in the next decade.
• jmog

  ptown_trojans_1;860551 wrote:Didn't watch the debate last night, but good to see in foreign policy terms all are idiots:
  http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/gop_candidates_flub_facts_on_foreign_policy
  
  BTW, I'd love to see any of them talk about the reduction of the DoD budget and what it means for American power in the next decade.

  If you really want to go down the list of "gaffs" that Obama or Biden has had, either one of them could out "gaff" all 8 of those repub candidates combined.
  
  57 states? I mean come on, lets not pick on foreign policy gaffs when the current President got the total number of states in OUR country incorrect.
• gut

  What does it mean for American power in the next decade when we default? We really, really don't need to outspend the next closest country on defense by 4 to 1.
• believer

  

  jmog;860924 wrote:57 states? I mean come on, lets not pick on foreign policy gaffs when the current President got the total number of states in OUR country incorrect.

  No. He thinks there are 58 states: "I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go."
  

  gut;860960 wrote:What does it mean for American power in the next decade when we default? We really, really don't need to outspend the next closest country on defense by 4 to 1.

  We outspend 4 to 1 because our military procurement system is chock full of inefficiencies and flat out corruption. Getting rid of these practices alone would mean we'll outspend 2 to 1 and still boast the most powerful military system on earth.
• jmog

  believer;860969 wrote:No. He thinks there are 58 states: "I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go."
  
  
  

  I stand corrected, I forgot about the 1 more he had to visit .
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog;860924 wrote:If you really want to go down the list of "gaffs" that Obama or Biden has had, either one of them could out "gaff" all 8 of those repub candidates combined.
  
  57 states? I mean come on, lets not pick on foreign policy gaffs when the current President got the total number of states in OUR country incorrect.

  
  That was then, this is now.
  If Obama makes gaffs, I'll call him out on it now.
  I haven't heard anything from any of them that would switch my vote so far.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ptown_trojans_1;861014 wrote:That was then, this is now.
  If Obama makes gaffs, I'll call him out on it now.
  I haven't heard anything from any of them that would switch my vote so far.

  
  Is Geithner still employed? That's his newest gaffe. What has he done to deserve a vote now? Are people still clinging to the '08 religious fervor? He's out-Cartering Carter in his administration.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ptown_trojans_1;861014 wrote:That was then, this is now.
  If Obama makes gaffs, I'll call him out on it now.
  I haven't heard anything from any of them that would switch my vote so far.

  
  Paul and Cain are the only ones who spoke any differently than anyone in Washington does now. Hell, Santorum sounds like he is ready to send a few hundred thousand troops right into Iran his first day on the job. Romney and the other RINOs aren't going to cut your precious defense budget.
• jmog

  ptown_trojans_1;861014 wrote:That was then, this is now.
  If Obama makes gaffs, I'll call him out on it now.
  I haven't heard anything from any of them that would switch my vote so far.

  
  What has Obama done to keep your vote?
• sleeper

  

  Rick Perry officially announced his bid for president.
  
  rickperry.org
  
  As of now, he's got my vote.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  jmog;861091 wrote:What has Obama done to keep your vote?

  
  The million dollar question.
  
  I didn't hear anything during the debate that sounded idiot-like. I would easily take of any of them over Obama.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  P-town is blind where foreign policy is concerned. He has a set view and I don't believe any Republican has ever conformed to it. However, apparently a policy of appeasement is something he does like, since Obama is keeping his vote.
  
  Honestly, P-town, I don't know how anyone can be worried about foreign policy over domestic policy in the next election. If the economy keeps going to hell and we default, it won't matter what our foreign policy is. We'll be dead in the water.
  
  I'd say the first step toward having a strong defense is having a healthy system at home. If that's falling apart, all the rest is going to follow pretty soon after.
• believer

  

  jmog;861091 wrote:What has Obama done to keep your vote?

  My question as well.
  
  Obama's disastrous domestic policy speaks loudly enough. His initial world wide apology tour, his pathetic handling of Israeli diplomacy, and the Libyan debacle all tell me what I need to know about BHO's foreign policy decision-making.
  
  ANY of the Republican candidates would be an improvement.
  
  With Perry now in the race, things could get very interesting.
• BGFalcons82

  

  sleeper;861185 wrote:Rick Perry officially announced his bid for president.
  
  rickperry.org
  
  As of now, he's got my vote.

  Barring a last-minute Chris Christie change of heart, Mr. Perry has my vote. Prepare for the assault on him because he's from Texas. We're about to find out how being from one of the 58 states can be a negative.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;861381 wrote:Barring a last-minute Chris Christie change of heart, Mr. Perry has my vote. Prepare for the assault on him because he's from Texas. We're about to find out how being from one of the 58 states can be a negative.

  The "Bush is also from Texas" comparisons will be the first tactic.
  
  Perry will pose a major threat to Obama. We can rest assured that the MSM will pull out the big guns from the start to protect their Appointed One's bid on a second chance to really screw up this country.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  I'm still in Romney's camp. I just trust him to turn the economy around more quickly than the rest of them.
  
  If there is a God, Bachmann will not win the nomination. I wish the first primary/caucus wasn't in Iowa, so the GOP didn't have to cater to rural Christians up in arms about unimportant issues.
  
  I don't think many Presidential candidates have a good grasp of foreign affairs. They aren't getting the top secret briefings. When that happens everything changes.