Political thread 2011
-
Afsil80;325320 wrote:
I don't think it's fair to say that Cain is the next Palin...The man is gaining too much steam, and he isn't playing second fiddle to anyone....John McCain was a contender, and Sarah Palin got thrown into it as a complement to his campaign (and I think she inadvertantly scuttled it) and that package wasn't enough to grab the Independent/middle spectrum vote from Obama.
Herman Cain has already stated that he has no interest in being a VP to one of his competitors. He has a solid economic plan, which is the key ingredient to this election. I will call it now...if he wins the primaries, he will win the Presidency. Obama ending the wars will not be enough...he has to put people back to work, and he cannot accomplish it because of his arrogance and unwillingness to compromise. Obama's legacy will ride on the fact that Osama Bin Laden was killed while he was in office, and that's about where it will end.
He's more intelligent than Palin, but then again so is the lint in my pocket.
Otherwise I agree with Jim. It's all about publicity and selling books for him IMHO. By being at the forefront of the GOP race he can now command higher appearance fees when he speaks.
His economic plan is far from solid and does little to encourage growth since the incentive is to save vs spend. It's affect on the lowest wage earners in this country will be devastating as everything that you buy will now be 9% more expensive due to sales tax. It also lacks the ability to even come close meeting our current spending needs (which need to be cut, but will never get to the point where his tax would be feasible during his potential 8 years as president). Plus he'd never get the votes to pass it, even with a republican super majority.
-
i wanna vote for the dang cabinet. almost as important is the guy in office imo.
-
Trafik Jamz;325325 wrote:
He's more intelligent than Palin, but then again so is the lint in my pocket.Otherwise I agree with Jim. It's all about publicity and selling books for him IMHO. By being at the forefront of the GOP race he can now command higher appearance fees when he speaks.
His economic plan is far from solid and does little to encourage growth since the incentive is to save vs spend. It's affect on the lowest wage earners in this country will be devastating as everything that you buy will now be 9% more expensive due to sales tax. It also lacks the ability to even come close meeting our current spending needs (which need to be cut, but will never get to the point where his tax would be feasible during his potential 8 years as president). Plus he'd never get the votes to pass it, even with a republican super majority.
Right with you chuck...
His fee's went from 25,000 to 75,000 in the past two months and he continues to book speaking events rather then campaign in key primary states (does that really sound like a viable canididate to you?).
His tax plan went from 9-9-9 to 9-0-9 but really, who wants a state AND federal sales tax?
And Yes dave, I'll take some of those mints. He's pretty much let me down on every issue I cared about.
-
I could be wrong too, but based on the way his campaign as being portrayed as disorganized and unfocused in the early primary states I have a hard time seeing him surviving past the first couple of primaries. My opinion: 5 minutes of fame left out of his initial 15
That and I think that Cain flip-flops worse than Kerry.
-
DaveH;325329 wrote:
I disagree with you guys about Cain. I could be wrong, but I don't think he gives a rats about making more money. He's worth about $5 mil already, the speaking fees are chump change.I'd agree that the speaking fee's are chump change, but he is hawking a book and some other stuff too that potentially is a lot more then 75k here and there.
-
Trafik Jamz;325330 wrote:
I could be wrong too, but based on the way his campaign as being portrayed as disorganized and unfocused in the early primary states I have a hard time seeing him surviving past the first couple of primaries. My opinion: 5 minutes of fame left out of his initial 15I'm not sure what to think about the guy. Either he's a genius and is changing the way a winning campaign is done... or, he needs to hire someone that knows how to run a campaign.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Eurofan;325323 wrote:
+1not everyone is a racist bigot like you. Why the fuck would it matter if they were a minority or not? If they held ideals that were consistent with yours, had a good economic plan and all the other credentials that define a good candidate... you wouldn't vote for them because he/she is black/hispanic/(insert race here)??? That is fucked up beyond belief the same way that it is fucked up when people vote for people that are minorities just because they like the idea of a minority in the oval office.
you must listen to rap music, wear skinny jeans, and smell like a fruit stand from abercrombie
-
Rexwagon;325338 wrote:
you must listen to rap music, wear skinny jeans, and smell like a fruit stand from abercrombieLmao. Are you gracing us with more of your intelligence?
Still doesn't make up for your bigotry.
Lets keep the thread on topic and refrain from any personal attacks.
-
Rexwagon;325338 wrote:
you must listen to rap musicYes, daily.
-
DaveH;325359 wrote:
That explains it. /shakes headEh, it's what I grew up on mostly....that and metal.
I like most music though.
-
I want Ron Paul to win the nomination, but...
I'm gonna take a long shot and say Newt is going to ultimately be the nominee, if he can get some capital together. I say this because he is BY FAR the best debater of all of them (we live in the USoE, United States of Entertainment), and there are MANY debates left in this primary cycle. He's like the professor in the room who chimes in with history lessons and attempts to keep everybody's eyes on the ball, which is defeating Obama. His polls have been moving up, slowly but surely. Let's not forget that at this time in 2007 it was (correct me if I'm wrong, going by memory) Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on top.
(the following is in no particular order)
Romney is NOT a long-run non-contender as his beliefs just depend on what day it is and who he's speaking to (or maybe that's why he'll win?). Either way, the man can't hold a steady belief to save his life.
Hermain Cain's 9/9/9 plan will ultimately be his demise because people will eventually realize it holds no teeth and has a large chance (it's Washington D.C...99.999999% chance) of being misused and changed without placing it as a Constitutional Amendment and repealing the 16th Amendment simultaneously. It gives Congress an open door to an entire new tax (national sales) without getting rid of the income tax. I'm all for a national sales tax (i.e. Fairtax, which Hermain states his 9/9/9 is a path to) if it replaces the entire federal tax system, but his plan doesn't do any such thing. It is nice that he opened up the debate for a restructuring of the tax code, however.
Ron Paul has the best messages, but he is a poor communicator. Same story for Gary Johnson.
Santorum is the only one really championing social issues important to social conservatives. There is one thing he took issue which I think he needs to push more about, and that's the breakdown of the American family...Divorce rates, single parents, sense of entitlement, etc.
Bachman is done.
Huntsman still has a shot, although a long one.
Perry is done. He'll be used by the other candidates to help take Romney down.
I could be wrong on this, but this is what my gut tells me.
-
Trafik Jamz;325325 wrote:
His economic plan is far from solid and does little to encourage growth since the incentive is to save vs spend. It's affect on the lowest wage earners in this country will be devastating as everything that you buy will now be 9% more expensive due to sales tax. It also lacks the ability to even come close meeting our current spending needs (which need to be cut, but will never get to the point where his tax would be feasible during his potential 8 years as president). Plus he'd never get the votes to pass it, even with a republican super majority.It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in directly visible (I say directly visible because the 9% business tax will be passed along to consumers as well) federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.
To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something
-
torbs;325366 wrote:
It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something
Sorry torbs, but I LOL when I hear "there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced". Taxes seldom get reduced and would likely never do so across the board.
But let's look at the rest of your points. You've said over 50% of American's pay zero federal income tax. I can't argue with that. It is a fact. But it's a fact that will make my point in just a second. 52,000,000 working people had no tax liability in 2008 (latest numbers I could find in the 45 seconds I looked, of them about 1000 are millionaires bringing the total to 51,999,000 "non millionaires" without tax liability...is it ok if I use 52million for my calculations though? thanks!). By your calculations $3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9) per person would be collected.
Simple math tells us that this means there would be $178,776,000,000 in new taxes being collected. This sounds great, right?
Well, maybe not. That also means that there is >$178BILLION that will not be spent at businesses which will decrease the amount of money spent at businesses. Guess what? Poor people shop too. I've been to Walmart, I can verify this. I don't think our economy can absorb an additional 178 billion in lost sales. Considering that 1/2 of American's have less than $2000 in savings I think it's fair to say that the average poor person spends almost every dollar they earn.
Then there is the other loophole in the 9/9/9 plan, it turns our Cain means 9/0/9 for the poor, or as Cain put it: If you aren't paying any income taxes now, you won't under my plan either. (paraphrased). This means that instead of $3438/year collected, the dollar amount drops to $93,600,000,000. So now we "only" take 93 billion out of the economy since they still have to pay the sales tax portion of it.
Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.
-
Chuck, 9/9/9 replaces taxes businesses currently pay. Therefore, by its very definition, it would lower business tax burdens (at least it appears to on the surface). Also, I used $20K per year on taxes as an example. Please do not assert that it is an average for all individuals in that ~50% that don't pay taxes; I did not at all state that. You're playing a political word game in an attempt to make me look incompetent. Valiant effort, however.
Keep in mind I'm for minimal taxation on all individuals, I believe every person should be paying the same percent(ages) for each type of federal tax. A booming economy leads to more jobs, more taxpayers, and an overall larger pie. If somebody moves from making $20K to $30K, even at having to pay 9% both on the income and sales side when they didn't before, they are at a net gain from the 9/9/9 system. They will therefore have more money to spend and put into the economy. I'm not saying 9/9/9 will work, but it's at least something and in its concept may work.
-
Trafik Jamz;325367 wrote:
Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.It seems like you are making the typical conservative argument, that you can't take more money from people in taxes because then they have less money to spend. Interesting.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login