Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SBXVII;846621]I feel sorry for the Republican party. I'm an Independant and vote for whom I think will be the best candidate, but Republicans must be scratching their heads like me wondering why they are letting better candidates simply opt out.

Bob McDonnell-Virginia
Jeb Bush-Florida
Donald Trump[/quote]

I see this upcoming presidential election for the Republicans, the same way it was for the Democrats in 2004. They have an incumbent president that should be easy to beat, but they will put a candidate that the party will "settle for" and lose.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;846624]Cain's 9-9-9 plan is just the first phase in moving to the FairTax system. If you haven't read about it, it's worth looking into. It will jump start the economy and reduce the IRS to a small fraction of what it is today. It removes the complexities of the tax code and closes virtually all tax loopholes.

I'd be comfortable with Romney or Herman Cain, both would do a good job as POTUS. I think Gingrich would do well as POTUS, but he could never win a general election.[/quote]

I guess I should look a little more into it but it didn't sound like a "Flat Tax" which I'm all for. Cut the IRS down to small fraction and make sure everyone pays their fair share. Everyone gets hit the same based off of what they earn. No loop holes.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Ruhskins;846625]I see this upcoming presidential election for the Republicans, the same way it was for the Democrats in 2004. They have an incumbent president that should be easy to beat, but they will put a candidate that the party will "settle for" and lose.[/quote]

and this is what I'm afraid of. It seemed like the Republican Party would come out swinging to take back the presidency, knock Obama off his seat with disenchanted voters, but now it just feels like the options are limited to which crap is better then the other to throw on the ballot.

It's not like it's the Redskins RB situation where we are all like "no we should use this RB more, or that RB more, or this one should be given a shot." Heck it's more like "Ok if we have to who do we pick? WR TO, WR TJ Housh, etc. etc. etc.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;846614]I don't think the Cain sales tax has any affect on the states taxes. Why would it?[/quote]


Of course it would have an impact. Sales tax in states like Washington which has a 9.8% sales tax would have to be adjusted otherwise every time you go buy anything your tax bill bill be 17.8% which is quite regressive for the poor and the middle class. 22 states have a sales tax of at least 8%....17%+ taxes on sales? You try that shit and you're going to have real nice tea party on your door step real quick!

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Ruhskins;846625]I see this upcoming presidential election for the Republicans, the same way it was for the Democrats in 2004. They have an incumbent president that should be easy to beat, but they will put a candidate that the party will "settle for" and lose.[/quote]

most of my peers feel the same way. Was at a party a couple weeks ago and a guy said the samething. My vote is up for grabs, but I really dont see a taker. Their are several canidates I will not vote for though Newt Dogg, Perry, Bachman, and RS.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, two women that have run Fortune 500 companies, both lost races last November for senator and governor, respectively. Linda McMahon, CEO of WWE, is another example of a person with business acumen, but wasn't able to translate her successful background into winning a national race. I think people tend to overstate the importance of a business background when considering candidates for national office. It's important, but as much as people hate to admit it being a credible and effective politician actually matters more. You don't govern in a vacuum.The American economy isn't like signing checks for GM; compromise really is the name of the game.

That's why Donald Trump is such a non-starter on so many levels. He spent months wasting time requesting to see Obama's birth certificate while the president was busy giving the green light to kill Bin Laden. Made a fool of himself and has been pretty quiet ever since. Trump's also on the record telling China to go eff themselves and he'd take America's share of oil from middle east countries - no questions asked. He just isn't a serious candidate. Point blank.

The best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for some of the Tea Party congressmen to lose their seats next year. If I'm the GOP I'd be less concerned with maintaining a very unpopular majority in Congress and returning to sensible policy that encourages good candidates to step forward and run for office, than making a bunch empty threats about repealing Obamacare, overturning abortion, and shutting down the government. Get on with the business of the country for crying out loud.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846636]Of course it would have an impact. Sales tax in states like Washington which has a 9.8% sales tax would have to be adjusted otherwise every time you go buy anything your tax bill bill be 17.8% which is quite regressive for the poor and the middle class. 22 states have a sales tax of at least 8%....17%+ taxes on sales? You try that shit and you're going to have real nice tea party on your door step real quick![/quote]I haven't done detailed reading on the 9-9-9, but at first pass this phase (Phase 1) is very similar to FairTax (where Cain is ultimately going), what will happen is with corporations/manufacturers/distributors having a lower corp tax rate (or no corp tax under FairTax), the embedded cost for taxes within a product will be forced out by the market. An item that previously cost $ 100 + say 8% state sales tax = $ 108 for item. Under FairTax, the cost of the item would be reduced by slightly less than the Federal Sales tax, so that $ 100 item would now cost $93 + 8% state sales tax + 9% Federal Sales tax = $ 108.81. I'm not exact on the numbers/percentages but that's the concept.

Keep in mind payroll taxes & medicare taxes (which are highly regressive) and fed income taxes are gone. IRS is greatly reduced, tax loopholes gone, underground economy is now taxed at point of sale. Prebate checks are sent out to all valid SS card holders in US to cover for essentials using current HHS poverty level guidlines.

[URL="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer"]Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation[/URL]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEjcnS-244"]Herman Cain Rebuts Misleading Ad Against FairTax - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;846598]ML, our troops will be home by year's end (knock on wood). So what new wars has Obama started?[/quote]


Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen. Libya is all on Obama. Yemen is too, but only drones were used. We had a presence in Afghanistan pre-Obama but he sent 30k more troops. While troops are starting to come home (against the advice of generals) it will be at least another year before the entire surge he sent comes back, and after that another 75k will remain.

If Obama had limited his involvement to just Afghanistan he probably would easily be able explain himself as just finishing the job Bush had started and that he didn’t want to desert the Afghan people when they needed us most. But he decided that he wanted to get his hands dirty in Libya and Yemen, while ignoring Syria and other middle eastern countries.

Ill admit I have no idea what we are doing in Afghanistan or what 75k will do after we supposedly pull out, or the complications of the Arab Spring and general unrest in the middle east, but unfortunately the same is true for the majority of Americans. But our lack of current foreign policy understanding isn’t necessarily because we don’t care its more because its extremely difficult to understand. Which makes it extremely difficult to defend while extremely easy to criticize. Imo Obama’s screwed when it comes to his foreign policy.

And youre right his brand isn’t gone and he is still adored by many and will get a lot of votes, but there are a lot of people who voted for him and feel completely ripped off. I don’t think the republicans can win with anyone but i think they could win with Cain, Romney, Perry or Newt and maybe Paul or Bachman. Although I think that if Romney, and only Romney, gets the nomination Paul could end up running on a third party ticket and give the election to Obama a la Nader or Perot.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;846638]The best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for some of the Tea Party congressmen to lose their seats next year. If I'm the GOP I'd be less concerned with maintaining a very unpopular majority in Congress and returning to sensible policy that encourages good candidates to step forward and run for office, than making a bunch empty threats about repealing Obamacare, overturning abortion, and shutting down the government. Get on with the business of the country for crying out loud.[/quote]I think you may want to leave GOP strategy to someone else. I wouldn't call repealing Obamacare an empty threat depending on what happens next Nov., if the GOP is smart they'll adopt a "state's rights" stance on abortion, and when Ds control the WH and Senate....it takes two to shutdown the gov't.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

The end goal of Cain's 9-9-9 plan is commendable, it's convincing people that the means will justify the ends

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="2"]I want to chime in a little bit because there is a lot of non-sense going on about Herman Cain’s 999 plan. Ill admit I haven’t read it in detail but I have read the jist of the idea and have heard ol’ Herm talk about it. SS33 talked about how it wont cause prices to go up. Here are some of the sausage making details worth understanding:

Payroll taxes are 15.3% of your income up to 100k, with half paid by you and half by your employer (7.65). If 999 happens everyone earning under 100k, regardless of marital status, would get a immediate 6.3% bonus (people who earn more would get less). A lot of idiots out there are attacking this and saying that since employees only pay half of the payroll tax we will end up paying more, 9% instead of half of the 15.3%. That will never ever ever happen. The fear is that greedy employers are gonna just pocket the half of the payroll tax they pay and not pass any of the savings on to you. But employers would never ever be given that option, they would be forced into giving you the full 6.3% savings (15.3 previously paid, 9% now paid = 6.3% savings).

The other major issue is that 47% percent of American households currently pay no federal income taxes because of all sorts of tax credits out there (more on this later). So the 47% who are non-federal income tax payers will now be paying 9% instead of zero BUT most of them were still paying 15.3% in payroll taxes which would now be eliminated so theyre better off and everything is good, right? Wrong! While that’s true for most of the 47% about 10% of us get so much money back through refundable credits that they effectively pay not only zero federal income tax they also pay zero payroll taxes and a very small percentage may even pocket money after all taxes are satisfied.

Im not certain but I posture that the vast majority of that 47% that pay no income taxes would still benefit from a 9% income tax when accompanied by the elimination of the payroll tax. I would also make the assumption that about 15% (my number) or so who would not directly benefit from paying a 9% income tax that coincides with the elimination of the payroll tax are primarily single parents. Although anyone single that receives financial support from others for their child may be better off since the person providing that financial support will now most likely be better off.

Additionally the 10% of households who are paying nothing, don’t actually pay nothing, until they get a refund check back. So the single mom who gets a massive refund relative to her reported income doesn’t get it over the course of the year she gets it as soon as she is able to file taxes in late January. Cain’s plan would instead give her 6.3% more each pay check to help her out but it would still be less than the windfall she otherwise get in January. But I don’t think the 10% of people who pocket money after their income and payroll taxes are satisfied, get significantly more than the 6.3% marginal amount it would take to be better off. Intuitively it doesn’t seem like they could be getting too much more but I have no idea where to look to confirm it. We may be only talking a few percent. And I think most poor people would rather have their money now and not have to wait for a refund, even if meant paying a couple percentage more.

I was raised by a single mother who no doubt was part of that 10% and truly feel for people who are just trying to make ends meet but continually fall short even with the governments help. Assistance can still be provided for people who truly need it without refunds through the current tax code. Although I believe that part of the government’s responsibility is to help the needy it should never do so if it means enabling them.

The tax code is such a monstrosity that NO ONE is capable of knowing the entire thing. Since 2001 there have been 4,428 changes to the tax code, more than 1 per day! Since the tax reform act of 1986 there has been tens of thousands!!! There is no reason any of us should be okay with that, none whatsoever. People need to think about tax credits and deductions as what they actually are; incentives to do shit. There is a incentive to buy a house, get married, have a kid out of wedlock, have more kids, buy federal and local government bonds, put money into a retirement account, raise horses, invest in qualified oil drilling programs, buy a hybrid, take out student loans, own a safety deposit box and all sorts of other crap. And the business tax code is even worse with providing these incentives (loopholes) to big companies like GE while keeping the barriers to entry high for new companies and new innovations. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;846643]I haven't done detailed reading on the 9-9-9, but at first pass this phase (Phase 1) is very similar to FairTax (where Cain is ultimately going), what will happen is with corporations/manufacturers/distributors having a lower corp tax rate (or no corp tax under FairTax), the embedded cost for taxes within a product will be forced out by the market. An item that previously cost $ 100 + say 8% state sales tax = $ 108 for item. Under FairTax, the cost of the item would be reduced by slightly less than the Federal Sales tax, so that $ 100 item would now cost $93 + 8% state sales tax + 9% Federal Sales tax = $ 108.81. I'm not exact on the numbers/percentages but that's the concept.

Keep in mind payroll taxes & medicare taxes (which are highly regressive) and fed income taxes are gone. IRS is greatly reduced, tax loopholes gone, underground economy is now taxed at point of sale. Prebate checks are sent out to all valid SS card holders in US to cover for essentials using current HHS poverty level guidlines.

[URL="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer"]Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation[/URL]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEjcnS-244"]Herman Cain Rebuts Misleading Ad Against FairTax - YouTube[/url][/quote]

You have stated the ideals and potential benefits now the question I have is what are the problems with this plan? Just looking at what you wrote and what I gathered from Cain's speeches I see holes a few sizes bigger than Andy Ried's waist line in this plan.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

first problem is that 9% of someones pay thats making $25000.00 a year is a helluva a chunk compared to someone making $100000.00

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=dmek25;846736]first problem is that 9% of someones pay thats making $25000.00 a year is a helluva a chunk compared to someone making $100000.00[/quote]How much does someone who makes 25K pay in SS & Medicare tax? Right now I believe it is 7.2% SS and 1.6 Medicare. That person's company is required to match those amounts. Under FairTax SS & Medicare income taxes go away.

Let's look at the dollar amounts: 25K = 2,250.00 100K = 9,000.00

The person making 100K is already paying 4 times as much in Fed taxes, why should the person making 100K be forced to pay a higher percentage as well? What gov't services does that person making 100K use that dicates paying a higher % in addition to the higher $$$. While we're at it, why should a single person pay a higher percentage than a married person?

Another point often ignored by detractors of FairTax is the prebate check which would be sent to every SS card holder in the U.S. to cover the taxes paid on essential items.

[URL="http://www.fairtax.org"]www.fairtax.org[/URL] is the website. All the information about the plan, including FAQs are there. There are also two books out by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder on the FairTax, great reads if you are interested.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846730]You have stated the ideals and potential benefits now the question I have is what are the problems with this plan? Just looking at what you wrote and what I gathered from Cain's speeches I see holes a few sizes bigger than Andy Ried's waist line in this plan.[/quote]Here's a letter of support of the FairTax plan signed by (80) independent economists.

[url=http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8351]Americans For Fair Taxation: An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code[/url]

Let me know where you see specific problems and I'll address them as best I can.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;846638]Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, two women that have run Fortune 500 companies, both lost races last November for senator and governor, respectively. Linda McMahon, CEO of WWE, is another example of a person with business acumen, but wasn't able to translate her successful background into winning a national race. I think people tend to overstate the importance of a business background when considering candidates for national office. It's important, but as much as people hate to admit it being a credible and effective politician actually matters more. You don't govern in a vacuum.The American economy isn't like signing checks for GM; compromise really is the name of the game.

That's why Donald Trump is such a non-starter on so many levels. He spent months wasting time requesting to see Obama's birth certificate while the president was busy giving the green light to kill Bin Laden. Made a fool of himself and has been pretty quiet ever since. Trump's also on the record telling China to go eff themselves and he'd take America's share of oil from middle east countries - no questions asked. He just isn't a serious candidate. Point blank.

The best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for some of the Tea Party congressmen to lose their seats next year. If I'm the GOP I'd be less concerned with maintaining a very unpopular majority in Congress and returning to sensible policy that encourages good candidates to step forward and run for office, than making a bunch empty threats about repealing Obamacare, overturning abortion, and shutting down the government. Get on with the business of the country for crying out loud.[/quote]

Well hold on there partner.... lol,

[B]1st para-[/B] I don't think the candidate themselves need to have had experience in running their campaign but they definitly need a campaign manager who has experience. I'll agree with you that it's probably overstating when people play up the business background, cause technically you could have a idiot running the country so long as he hires some really good advisers.

[B]2nd para- [/B]Trump was doing what he does best, playing to the public. There is a large number of people out there who still don't believe Obama's certificate was real and Trump was being Trump, meaning it put him on TV, his name was in the paper, he made news. It forced Obama to show his hand and honestly it was a weak hand. I don't think it embarrassed Trump more then it has embarrassed Obama for two reasons:

1- It was childish and showed a lack of maturity when Obama made his little joke about Trump at the dinner. Then to learn the President had just prior to the joke given his ok to green light someone.

2- Obama being forced to provide a certificate with a number as to the birth order of each citizen in that state and it doesn't match up with his date of birth? His birth number is directly after twins that were born just before him yet his birth day he gives is 3 days prior to their birth day? WTF?
[url=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/]Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake …Update: More Expert Opinion | The Gateway Pundit[/url]

[B]3rd para- [/B]I agree they do need to go candidates who are more likely to do a better job and or win the election and ask them to step up to the plate for their party and make a run at it instead of bowing out and letting them. States are fighting Obama care and trying to repeal it not so much the Republicans, heck several Republicans signed the darned thing agreeing with it. If one party does not like what the other party is presenting they try to use the whole shutting down of the gov. as leverage. The Democrates have done the samething in years past. Personally I'd rather see our elected officials vote for what is best for the common man whom put them in their offices vs. making decisions based along party lines or giving a vote in order to get a vote. Someone also needs to put a stop to the Pork Belly BS. Don't add 15 other issues to one bill and make it a pass all or nothing. Force our elected officials to do their jobs and vote on each item independantly.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;846756]Here's a letter of support of the FairTax plan signed by (80) independent economists.

[URL="http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8351"]Americans For Fair Taxation: An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code[/URL]

Let me know where you see specific problems and I'll address them as best I can.[/quote]


That's nice, the link provided didn't answer the question I asked. How about you give it a try?

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

So Obama showing his birth cert made....Obama look foolish? Um...big fat fail, sir. And some "expert" maintains it's still a fake? C'mon man.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=dmek25;846736]first problem is that 9% of someones pay thats making $25000.00 a year is a helluva a chunk compared to someone making $100000.00[/quote]

Its not really 9%. Its more like 9% minus 7.65% (not exactly, but close enough). Whats so important to understand about the 999 plan (and maybe the Fair Tax) is that both employee and employer payroll taxes are eliminated and the payroll taxes the employer would otherwise pay becomes an instant bonus to the employee.


2 single people without kids currently:


Making 25k. Pays 7.65% (1,900) payroll taxes and around 12% (2,750) effective income tax rate for a total of $4,650 or about 19%

Making 100k. 7.65 (7,650) payroll and around 19% (19,000) effective income tax rate for a total of $26,650 or 26%


999 Plan:

Making 25k: Now makes 26,913 due to the 7.65% “bonus” from the elimination of employer provided payroll tax. Total taxes at 9% are now $2,422

Making 100k: The bonus pops him up to 107,650 and taxed at 9% brings his total to $9,688


The problem with the above comparison is that its completely flawed to think about these people as making different amounts but otherwise the same. There are hundreds of thousands of different tax situations that could make either person pay more or less than the other, due to credits and deductions. Plus there are family and cost of living factors to be considered. Should a person who only makes 25k but lives at home and has their parents pay for everything be taxed the same as the girl trying to make it on her own without any family support. And is someone’s financial situation the same as mine if we make the same amount but they live in NYC while im stuck in Richmond? How about the person who loves what they do and the person who hates their job, should one be taxed less if they make the same? Or manual vs. white collar or employer vs. employee. And retail vs. service vs. production vs. government? The responsible thing to do is to tax everyone the same percentage at the income level while giving support through training and temporary aid for the poor.


The only accurate comparison of the current tax vs. 999 plan is to first understand that only 53% of households actually pay income tax and those that do will automatically be better off plain and simple. The vast majority of the remaining 47% that pay no income taxes will also be better off, although 10% will not be (those who pay no income or payroll taxes due to refundable credits). My guess is that in addition to those 10 another 5% or so would also be adversely affect, although, at a greatly diminishing rate. However the entire 15% or so would only be worse off by extremely small amounts. Im thinking around 2-3% maybe less.


But there are still benefits for those techniqely worse off. Instead of forcing the poor to wait for their tax refund they will be getting 6.3% more each pay check and not have to worry about filing and being concerned how much theyre actually gonna get this year, being unprepared for the times they get significantly less then what they are used to, and being forced to wait to make certain purchases centered around tax refund time. Plus the “time value of money” alone will make up for a big part of that 2-3%. I do think you would have to coincide the 999 plan with welfare reform so some of the very poor don’t get screwed over, but the changes should be minimal and most would agree its time for reform anyway.


Basically the vast majority of people will be better off, although the rich may be “more better” off in a relative comparison. It sometimes seems like people are okay with being worse off as long as the rich are “more worse” off.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Few questions since you guys are to cowardly to ask and answer the obvious tough questions.


1. Are you planning on mandating the payroll tax be given to employees as bonuses as part of the tax code overhaul or will you leave that up to the employers?

2. What about grandma and grandpa who don't have income? Where are their bonuses going to come from or should I say their medicare and social security?

3. Let's not forgot about the future of our children too...where the hell is the money to pay down the debt going to come from? I am guessing not from the plummeting tax revenue.

4. What if you're disabled? Are you on your own or will there be any safety net for you?

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;846792]So Obama showing his birth cert made....Obama look foolish? Um...big fat fail, sir. And some "expert" maintains it's still a fake? C'mon man.[/quote]

It was an embarrassment because Obama thought by simply showing his or a fake certificate the public would shut up and move on. Instead it brought about more questions which he has failed to answer. He would have been better off simply saying he couldn't locate a copy and move on as he had done for the first part of his tenure.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SBXVII;846823]It was an embarrassment because Obama thought by simply showing his or a fake certificate the public would shut up and move on. Instead it brought about more questions which he has failed to answer. He would have been better off simply saying he couldn't locate a copy and move on as he had done for the first part of his tenure.[/quote]

What on God's green earth are you talking about? And for the love of Christ, please stop trafficking World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and the rest of those nuts over there.

The State Dept says his citizenship is good, the state of Hawaii, which has a Republican Gov., have provided both long and short forms. But of course all of these different players, the White House included...and don't forget the FBI and Supreme Court, that have thrown out case after case, are all a part of a mass cover-up to keep Obama in office. Yeah, okay.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SBXVII;846823]It was an embarrassment because Obama thought by simply showing his or a fake certificate the public would shut up and move on. Instead it brought about more questions which he has failed to answer. He would have been better off simply saying he couldn't locate a copy and move on as he had done for the first part of his tenure.[/quote]


There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that a credible news organization such as CNN isn't enough to persuade you, because in your mind CNN is in collusion with gov't officials at every level to cover-up this embarrassment. In fact, I'm sure there was a secret internal memo circulating to literally thousands of federal and state government employees forbidding them to come forward and blow the lid off this whole thing.

[url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS]CNN investigation: Obama 'birther' claims have no merit - CNN[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SBXVII;846823]It was an embarrassment because Obama thought by simply showing his or a fake certificate the public would shut up and move on. Instead it brought about more questions which he has failed to answer. He would have been better off simply saying he couldn't locate a copy and move on as he had done for the first part of his tenure.[/quote]

oh wow. SBX you really sounding like a Trump supporter on this one.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

We're really back on this birther crap?

:doh:

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SBXVII;846823]It was an embarrassment because Obama thought by simply showing his or a fake certificate the public would shut up and move on. Instead it brought about more questions which he has failed to answer. He would have been better off simply saying he couldn't locate a copy and move on as he had done for the first part of his tenure.[/quote]

Amen brother....preach on. I was thinking the other day how it's possible for a man not born here to be president and it dawned on me that the mother fcker has to be the most connected person in the history of the world! I mean, you got to figure a shit ton of people are helping him cover it all up. Sometimes I wonder if the GOP is in on it too. Or maybe they're just powerless to stop whoever is behind Obama's presidency? Who do you think is that powerful? The mob? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Saudis? Skill and Bones?


All of this makes you think the world ain't right. Hopefully it isn't too late to take our country back.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846841]Amen brother....preach on. I was thinking the other day how it's possible for a man not born here to be president and it dawned on me that the mother fcker has to be the most connected person in the history of the world! I mean, you got to figure a shit ton of people are helping him cover it all up. Sometimes I wonder if the GOP is in on it too. Or maybe they're just powerless to stop whoever is behind Obama's presidency? Who do you think is that powerful? The mob? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Saudis? Skill and Bones?


All of this makes you think the world ain't right. Hopefully it isn't too late to take our country back.[/quote]

You're a fool. A damn fool....we all know it's the Stonecutters running sh**

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846820]1. Are you planning on mandating the payroll tax be given to employees as bonuses as part of the tax code overhaul or will you leave that up to the employers? [/quote]Up to employers. However keep in mind that these taxes are already embedded in the cost of all the goods/services we use today, costs of goods/services before the FairTax Tax is added will go down significantly.

[quote]2. What about grandma and grandpa who don't have income? Where are their bonuses going to come from or should I say their medicare and social security?[/quote]SS & Medicare stay as is. Social Security and Medicare programs are spending programs. FairTax is focused on revenues (tax collection) only. FairTax would be implemented to be revenue neutral, spending programs and fixing SS & Medicare are separate issues.

Also, for each Head of Household or each individual with SS card, a prebate check will be sent monthly to cover the cost of the embedded Federal tax on basic necessities using current HHS poverty level calculations.

[quote]3. Let's not forgot about the future of our children too...where the hell is the money to pay down the debt going to come from? I am guessing not from the plummeting tax revenue.[/quote]The FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. I would argue that with no corporate, capital gains, death, etc. taxes the climate for business expansion will be excellent and we will see increased revenues to the Fed. Worst case, the percentage of the FairTax would have to be increased to cover debt reduction. A balanced budget ammendment and fiscal discipline will allow us to put our financial house in order without increases to the FairTax % IMO.

Another revenue stream that FairTax catches is the underground economy. Folks getting paid "under the table", money from illegal activities, people paid in cash/tips that aren't claimed as income. Since the FairTax is embedded in products sold, when anyone buys a prodcut/service pays the tax, no matter where/how they made their money.

[quote]4. What if you're disabled? Are you on your own or will there be any safety net for you?[/quote]see #2

Wasn't "cowardly", just had to contribute to GDP this morning and help cover the costs of Obama's spending programs and Solyndra loans.

I did make an error in a previous post in the thread. The FairTax wouldn't be added on the price of a product at the cash register as an additional cost (exclusive), like a state sales tax. The FairTax would already be an embedded cost in the price of a good/service (inclusive).

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SmootSmack;846843]You're a fool. A damn fool....we all know it's the Stonecutters running sh**[/quote]LOL

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c&feature=related"]The Simpsons: Stonecutters Song "We Do" - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846841]Amen brother....preach on. I was thinking the other day how it's possible for a man not born here to be president and it dawned on me that the mother fcker has to be the most connected person in the history of the world! I mean, you got to figure a shit ton of people are helping him cover it all up. Sometimes I wonder if the GOP is in on it too. Or maybe they're just powerless to stop whoever is behind Obama's presidency? Who do you think is that powerful? The mob? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Saudis? Skill and Bones?


All of this makes you think the world ain't right. Hopefully it isn't too late to take our country back.[/quote]

Its probably the same people who blew up the WTB and made it look like a terrorist attack.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846820]Few questions since you guys are to cowardly to ask and answer the obvious tough questions.


1. Are you planning on mandating the payroll tax be given to employees as bonuses as part of the tax code overhaul or will you leave that up to the employers?

2. What about grandma and grandpa who don't have income? Where are their bonuses going to come from or should I say their medicare and social security?

3. Let's not forgot about the future of our children too...where the hell is the money to pay down the debt going to come from? I am guessing not from the plummeting tax revenue.

4. What if you're disabled? Are you on your own or will there be any safety net for you?[/quote]

Ill answear a little differently:

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1) Absolutely it has be a mandate when initially rolled out.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2) Currently 50% or 85% (depending on AGI) of SS, and i think medicare, income is counted towards your current taxable income and then taxed. These numbers would have to be adjusted to reflect a "bonus" to seniors, simply because AARP and the senior voting block is powerful enough to dictate it. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]3) Revenues may not go down like some say. Some reports say its going up, some say going down while Cain says it will be revenue neutral. The thing missing from Cain's plan are details, which he can finalize based off of the current public reaction. I will also add that capital gains and estates are currently not taxed under 999, so he has a couple easy revenue boosters to employee if needed. Plus if need be you could always tax income of the wealthy higher, nobody likes those guys anyways. So maybe 9/9/9 up until you make like 250k then its 20/9/9. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]4) Im not really sure what you mean? Entitlement programs not part of the tax code will continue for disabled people just like food stamps will continue for poor people. Maybe youre talking about SS and Medicare. Though 999 doesn’t detail how these are funded theyre not going away, it would be politically impossible. As long as it’s a revenue neutral event and still pulls in 2.2 trillion then neither will go away and everyone’s happy. Cain also touts the Chilean Model for SS for fixing SS. Medicare is the much bigger issue but that will have to be dealt with anyways. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=SmootSmack;846843]You're a fool. A damn fool....we all know it's the Stonecutters running sh**[/quote]

for real tho.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;846850]Up to employers. However keep in mind that these taxes are already embedded in the cost of all the goods/services we use today, costs of goods/services before the FairTax Tax is added will go down significantly.

SS & Medicare stay as is. Social Security and Medicare programs are spending programs. FairTax is focused on revenues (tax collection) only. FairTax would be implemented to be revenue neutral, spending programs and fixing SS & Medicare are separate issues.

Also, for each Head of Household or each individual with SS card, a prebate check will be sent monthly to cover the cost of the embedded Federal tax on basic necessities using current HHS poverty level calculations.

The FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. I would argue that with no corporate, capital gains, death, etc. taxes the climate for business expansion will be excellent and we will see increased revenues to the Fed. Worst case, the percentage of the FairTax would have to be increased to cover debt reduction. A balanced budget ammendment and fiscal discipline will allow us to put our financial house in order without increases to the FairTax % IMO.

Another revenue stream that FairTax catches is the underground economy. Folks getting paid "under the table", money from illegal activities, people paid in cash/tips that aren't claimed as income. Since the FairTax is embedded in products sold, when anyone buys a prodcut/service pays the tax, no matter where/how they made their money.

see #2

Wasn't "cowardly", just had to contribute to GDP this morning and help cover the costs of Obama's spending programs and Solyndra loans.

I did make an error in a previous post in the thread. The FairTax wouldn't be added on the price of a product at the cash register as an additional cost (exclusive), like a state sales tax. The FairTax would already be an embedded cost in the price of a good/service (inclusive).[/quote]

Are we talking about the 999 plan or the FairTax? Regardless of which plan we are talking about I am under the impression that they would both eliminate the payroll tax which means there will be no deposits Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security bank accounts. Ore maybe we're talking about the SS33 hybrid plan?

If one thing is fairly certain it is that if given the option of not matching employee payroll contribution most employees would probably choose to count the money and put it in their back pockets much like the airline companies did with the airline surcharge. I am not interested in doing going to do Arthur Anderson accounting here so unless you are fairly certain individuals are going to get that money in their pockets for sure you shouldn't count that money as income.

The idea of the cost of goods going down is also far fetched. It is more likely that companies would invest their savings in expanding their business or rewarding its investors. That's what I would do and if I were to lower the prices of my goods it wouldn't be by much and for long. Now if if business is booming and my demand grows I can see my price being elastic but where is this new consumption going to come from? Maybe China and India.


[quote]Another revenue stream that FairTax catches is the underground economy. Folks getting paid "under the table", money from illegal activities, people paid in cash/tips that aren't claimed as income. Since the FairTax is embedded in products sold, when anyone buys a prodcut/service pays the tax, no matter where/how they made their money. [/quote]To think the FairTax can capture revenue from under the table payments is ludicrous. This is by far the stupidest selling point I have ever heard regarding the FairTax. How are you going to count this money if it's unclaimed?


[quote]
The FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. I would argue that with no corporate, capital gains, death, etc. taxes the climate for business expansion will be excellent and we will see increased revenues to the Fed. Worst case, the percentage of the FairTax would have to be increased to cover debt reduction. A balanced budget ammendment and fiscal discipline will allow us to put our financial house in order without increases to the FairTax % IMO.[/quote]Designed to be revenue neutral? At what percentage and what date is this revenue nutrality to be had? What do we do in times of war? Increase that tax rate? The details is all in the math. I am not comfortable signing on unless we have credible figures in place.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;846862]Are we talking about the 999 plan or the FairTax? Regardless of which plan we are talking about I am under the impression that they would both eliminate the payroll tax which means there will be no deposits Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security bank accounts. Ore maybe we're talking about the SS33 hybrid plan?[/quote]I am talking about FairTax, this is a documented plan that's been on the table for a few years now. Cain supports FairTax. I haven't read enough about this 9-9-9 to know all the details, but I believe Cain should just go straight to FairTax without all the 999 mess.

Anywho, we could go back and forth with page long posts here but I suggest you go to the FairTax site and take a look at the books I mentioned to read the details of each. They will explain much better than me.

In short, FairTax is simply a replacment for the current system of collecting federal taxes, nothing more. The current estimated percentage of embedded federal sales tax needed to be revenue neutral is approximately 23%. Currently there are approximately 22%, of embedded federal taxes in the final cost of a good/service today. That's how the final cost of an item to the retail consumer only raises slightly with FairTax.

[quote]If one thing is fairly certain it is that if given the option of not matching employee payroll contribution most employees would probably choose to count the money and put it in their back pockets much like the airline companies did with the airline surcharge. I am not interested in doing going to do Arthur Anderson accounting here so unless you are fairly certain individuals are going to get that money in their pockets for sure you shouldn't count that money as income.[/quote]The SS & Medicare payroll taxes are part of the embedded tax in a good/service. These will be filtered out by the market, if companies want to remain competitive.

[quote]To think the FairTax can capture revenue from under the table payments is ludicrous. This is by far the stupidest selling point I have ever heard regarding the FairTax. How are you going to count this money if it's unclaimed?[/quote]Remember FairTax is an embedded tax collected at the point of sale. Everyone has to buy goods/services.

[quote]What do we do in times of war? Increase that tax rate? [/quote]In the case of a declared war, approved by Congress, yes. It's been done before. If not, then POTUS/DoD need to figure it out with their yearly appropriations.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Have either of you guys seen Politifact's breakdown of Cain's 999 plan. It's a pretty straight forward comparison to the current tax code, but there are still many details that haven't been revealed yet.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;846886]Have either of you guys seen Politifact's breakdown of Cain's 999 plan. It's a pretty straight forward comparison to the current tax code, but there are still many details that haven't been revealed yet.[/quote]I have not, but I'll take a look.

EDIT: Just got done on Politifact and I'm coming away from that and briefly reading some critics analysis on the 999 plan, thinking it needs some serious tweaks. If the ultimate goal is FairTax, run on that and go straight to it. It think this 999 interim step is a mistake and an unnecessary complication.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[URL]Study: '9-9-9' Raises Taxes on 84 Pct.[/URL]

Low- and middle-income families hit hardest. [URL="http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20111018/US.Cain.Tax.Analysis/"][COLOR=#0073ae]Rich Win Most[/COLOR][/URL]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Cain had trouble, lots of trouble, explaining his plan tonight.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

[yt]Yr6rVVuBwO8[/yt]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

quit mudding the water? 9 plus 8 equals 17 in any school...