Republican Candidates

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
All these guys are "middle of the road to left of the road republicans" why aren't we seeing massive support for these turkeys. If that is the case. Reagan was a far right conservative who won in land slide elections.

This whole "appeal to the middle" doesn't seem to float. Bush appealed to the "middle." It doesn't work.
Well I don't know if Bush appealed to the middle but if he did it aparently worked since he got elected to two terms.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I don't know if Bush appealed to the middle but if he did it aparently worked since he got elected to two terms.
I think the "media" builds up this false notion, and they get what they want, and they still have tried to lynch him.

 

[tangwhispr]

Its ironic that people bash Ron Paul, but yet he continues to set records with his fundraising, he has raised more from the vets, and pretty much everyone else. He will win NH, just wait and see.

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The only religious views being forced on anyone in this country are from the Atheists...

Touche'

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
Athiests and Islam...Have you noticed that too?
Touche' X2

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Lets look at the negatives...
It discourages spending and economy growth and encourages saving... If you have 3 people who make $50,000, $100,000, and $1million... and they all have the same budget... they all pay the same $ amount in taxes. Meaning guy#1 30% of income taxed....guy#2 19% of income taxed...Guy#3 2% of income taxed.
What about state taxes? There is no account for this.
Basically for those who can afford to save a large chunk of their income pay less, the burden of taxes in any given year likely shifts to lower earners.

So you're saying that saving your money is a negative? Well heck, go get those credit cards and max them out for the good of the national economy!
I myself am trying to figure out your logic on your scenario above. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you just didn't use a calculator to get your percentages. If you went with the flat tax system, then depending on how each of these individuals spend, their final 'income tax' would be different. Let's use your three examples. Each of these incomes spend $30,000 on goods in a year, at a sales tax rate of .23 on the dollar. So...
$30,000 X .23 = $6,900 of tax on those goods.
For the person who made $50,000/year that's a net tax on his income of - 6900/50000 = .138 or 13.8% 'income tax'.
Take that same $6,900 against a $100,000/year income -
6900/100000 = .069, or 6.9% 'income tax'.
The $1,000,000/year income -
6900/1000000 = .0069, .69% 'income tax'.
So if you go with a flat tax, the rich get richer as long as they spend the same AMOUNT as the lower income individual. As Noob stated, that won't happen. So theoretically, if each income bracket spent the same percentage of their income -
$50,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$25,000 X .23 = $5750
5750/50000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
$100,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$50,000 x .23 = $11,500
11500/100000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
$1,000,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$500,000 x .23 = $115,000
115000/1000000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
So if every income bracket spent the same PERCENTAGE of their income, then a flat tax essentially would mean the same 'income tax' for all three income brackets.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by TangWhispr
Its ironic that people bash Ron Paul, but yet he continues to set records with his fundraising, he has raised more from the vets, and pretty much everyone else. He will win NH, just wait and see.

One of the guys I work with is his grandson, he is an honest man who really believes what he says. But come on, abolish the Fed? We are the problem in the world? To stuff like Musaraf is our puppet dictator. At least he doesn't claim to have seen UFO's.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by TangWhispr
Its ironic that people bash Ron Paul, but yet he continues to set records with his fundraising, he has raised more from the vets, and pretty much everyone else. He will win NH, just wait and see.

You're joking right? I just went to his web site, and it showed he raised a whopping $439,000 this QUARTER for his campaign. Hillary and Obama made that much in the first WEEK of their campaign. The newspaper and political analysts don't even talk about Ron Paul in the Caucus primaries. He came in fifth in the Iowa caucus. If he stays around, I hope he goes back to his Liberatarian Party and runs as an Independent. That'll just suck more votes away from the Republican candidate.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
So you're saying that saving your money is a negative? Well heck, go get those credit cards and max them out for the good of the national economy!
I myself am trying to figure out your logic on your scenario above. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you just didn't use a calculator to get your percentages. If you went with the flat tax system, then depending on how each of these individuals spend, their final 'income tax' would be different. Let's use your three examples. Each of these incomes spend $30,000 on goods in a year, at a sales tax rate of .23 on the dollar. So...
$30,000 X .23 = $6,900 of tax on those goods.
For the person who made $50,000/year that's a net tax on his income of - 6900/50000 = .138 or 13.8% 'income tax'.
Take that same $6,900 against a $100,000/year income -
6900/100000 = .069, or 6.9% 'income tax'.
The $1,000,000/year income -
6900/1000000 = .0069, .69% 'income tax'.
So if you go with a flat tax, the rich get richer as long as they spend the same AMOUNT as the lower income individual. As Noob stated, that won't happen. So theoretically, if each income bracket spent the same percentage of their income -
$50,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$25,000 X .23 = $5750
5750/50000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
$100,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$50,000 x .23 = $11,500
11500/100000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
$1,000,000 income spent half their earnings on goods at the .23 tax rate --
$500,000 x .23 = $115,000
115000/1000000 = .115, or 11.5 % income tax
So if every income bracket spent the same PERCENTAGE of their income, then a flat tax essentially would mean the same 'income tax' for all three income brackets.
The question is can you assume that all these people are going to spend The same percentage of their income. A poor demographic may spend 100% living paycheck to paycheck, while a rich person will not need too.
It boils down to, there is no way that the public would let this get passed. and I think Fred's fear is quite real, what is to stop them from restarting an income tax? You'd need a constitutional ammendment, (highly unlikely). And between the class envy so commonly played my the democrats and the media, I don't see that ever happening.

 

[reefraff]

As long as religious extremists and bible thumpers were brought up how do you guys feel about a candidate who is a member of a racist church?
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Click here to read about Dr. Wright’s talking points for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System.
A google search for "obama's church" will bring up the "About us" page from the church he is a member of.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by TangWhispr
Its ironic that people bash Ron Paul, but yet he continues to set records with his fundraising, he has raised more from the vets, and pretty much everyone else. He will win NH, just wait and see.
It wouldn't be a bad thing if that were true. However, what you are saying i outside the bounds of reality. It really doesn't help your cause to spout false statements, it's actually counterproductive.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Yes, I have been to many different countries and generally things are much cheaper outside of the US...
My point is people will find ways around taxes and having high sales tax encourages people to spend their money outside of these areas... Sure most people are going to buy their necessities locally, however rich people will be more likely to buy luxuries (a huge part of their spending) outside of the US.
That's why the Consumer tax plan should have a monsterous tarrif on foreign goods. If you really want to kill US jobs and buy your Mitsubuishi that's fine, but pay the 100% tarrif first.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
All these guys are "middle of the road to left of the road republicans" why aren't we seeing massive support for these turkeys. If that is the case. Reagan was a far right conservative who won in land slide elections.

This whole "appeal to the middle" doesn't seem to float. Bush appealed to the "middle." It doesn't work.
Agreed.
A Charismatic Strong Conservative would dominate the GOP right now.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
...A google search for "obama's church" will bring up the "About us" page from the church he is a member of.
I can't speak as to Obama, but I can say I've heard that "pastor" and I can say I'm convinced 100% he's a blazing racist.
How you could be a member of a "church" like that is beyond me.

 

[stdreb27]

I wonder when that is really going to hit the fan?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by TangWhispr
Its ironic that people bash Ron Paul, but yet he continues to set records with his fundraising, he has raised more from the vets, and pretty much everyone else. He will win NH, just wait and see.
And Why is it that EVERY time I hear why i should vote for Ron Paul, I hear, oh he has raised all this money bla bla bla? What on God's green earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefraff
As long as religious extremists and bible thumpers were brought up how do you guys feel about a candidate who is a member of a racist church?
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Click here to read about Dr. Wright’s talking points for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System.
A google search for "obama's church" will bring up the "About us" page from the church he is a member of.
I just do not see anything here that would backup your claim of racism. Could you clarify?

 

[notsonoob]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
The question is can you assume that all these people are going to spend The same percentage of their income. A poor demographic may spend 100% living paycheck to paycheck, while a rich person will not need too.
It boils down to, there is no way that the public would let this get passed. and I think Fred's fear is quite real, what is to stop them from restarting an income tax? You'd need a constitutional ammendment, (highly unlikely). And between the class envy so commonly played my the democrats and the media, I don't see that ever happening.
The old adage. The more you make...the more you spend. I don't think I've seen too many people that say...gee...I'm going to stuff my mattress with this extra hundred bucks I found...Well, that generation that lived through the depression is less and less now.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I just do not see anything here that would backup your claim of racism. Could you clarify?
You don't think an organization that identifies itself by the race (not races) of its members is racist?
rac·ism
NOUN:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

 

[michaeltx]

a couple that I have noticed are huckabee and clinton if I had to choose between those it would be clinton.
huckabee is a bad choice alot of people dont realize what he has done in this state
for example smokers rights * not getting into right or wrong on it* he passed a clean air act in this state which I have no problem with. what scares me is the way it was passed there was no vote he found a loop hole and just signed it into law that smoking in public places was unlawful. now like I said its not the law I have a problem with but the way it was inacted.
He also started a madatory BMI report for all kids in school because he lost a lot of weight he went on a state wide weight loss campaign targeting kids in school. It caused more problems than good. there are many many more things but those 2 are ones that just jump in the face of democracy IMO>
clinton would get my vote and not because of reasons that are very clear.
when a president first goes into office they sign presidentail decrees. a freind of mine has the papers here that print all the decrees that are signed by the new presidents. Now bill clinton had his faults but did more for the working class and disable then most will know because they dont depend on those resources to live. but he has clintons decrees and he has bushes decrees alot of bushes decrees were overturning clintons decrees. in the long run my freind on disability since 90 for heart problems was able to live off the wages and help that clintons decrees made available as soon as bushes decrees overturned clintons he had more out of pocket expenses and had to find people to come share his houshold expenses because he could no longer afford what he needed to live and pay his meds and utilities. The way its structured now he makes 851 a month has to pay 110 a month premiums for medicaid and medicare plus copay of presceptions which total about 200 a month that 310 a month on insurance and meds that are needed leaving 541 a month to live on for rent and utilities and food. he does get food stamps of $10 yes $10 a month because he makes to much money!!! it wasnt that way under clinton. Now if anyone thinks that hillary didnt have her hands in the administration your crazy LOL she had a big hand in it.
but anyway I know this is long and rantful but in essence I would vote for clinton again because of what has happened in the past listening to all of the candidates give me a headache anymore because they all seem to repeat the other canidates on what they stand for.
Anyway LOL thats my take on it.
Mike