Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

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.

[firstdown]

It will be fun to watch as Cain gains momentum how is the left going to bash him without being the raciest they call everyone who disagrees with Obama?

[SmootSmack]

I see. Well I just thought it was interesting that you seemed to be touting Trump for his business experience but not considering Romney a businessman

[12thMan]

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

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.

[mlmpetert]

I didnt know much about Newt, besides the fact that hes supposed to be really really smart, but over the last couple days ive heard some very troubling things about the guy. He seems like everything you hate and dont want in a politician......

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access - YouTube

(its a Ron Paul ad, but more a anti-Newt ad then anything)

and this:

Newt Gingrich Can't Beat Barack Obama | Newt Can't Win

The Iowa primary is Jan 10th, and no way do i see Newt's recent rise lasting that long. At this point last year McCain was done and basically out of the race and Rudy G. was the front runner, so who knows whats going to happen. Bachman, Perry, Cain and now Newt have all challenged Romney so maybe the GOP just wants to say "well look we gave everyone else a chance" before picking Romney. Maybe Huntsman and/or Paul will surge and get their time in the spot light too. I could also see Perry re-surging or Cain coming back.

I said a while back that if Romney gets the nod that Paul could end up running on a third party ticket, i think thats even more true now if Newt were to get the pick. If Paul were to win Iowa (very possible) but continues to get dismissed i can really see him running as a 3rd party guy. This is probably the scenario the GOP is most afraid of for multiple reasons.

Then you have Trump throwing a tamper tantrum because people arnt paying attention to him and threatening to run as a third party candidate. Sorry Trump but if you lead the birther movement people arnt going to respect or acknowledge you when you want attention. The guy isnt fit to run anything right now, he needs to just focus on his businesses.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

Well hold on there partner.... lol,

1st para- 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.

2nd para- 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?
Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake …Update: More Expert Opinion | The Gateway Pundit

3rd para- 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.

[SmootSmack]

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

[mlmpetert]

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.

[dmek25]

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

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.

www.fairtax.org 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.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

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.

[saden1]

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?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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).