Republican Candidates

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Well his plans are to increase medicare through his health plan and I believe he has a plan for social security... We need to get out of Iraq. Do you know how much we spent on the new embassy in Badghad? And the overall cost of this war?
So do you want to privatize Social Security like Rebubs want to do? I think that is a bad idea, especially given the state of the markets right now and the devalue of the dollar.
One other question... What happenend to our gold? Is it true that our dollar is no longer backed by gold in "Fort Knox"?
It doesn't matter who wrote the plan. Do you think Bush writes his speeches... let alone any policies his admin comes up with?

That's my point about McCain. He uses people who are experts in the field, just like every other candidate including Romney who has probably forgotten more about economics than the rest combined know.
The only part of Obama's plan that deals with social security is to eliminate income taxes on anyone collecting social security earning less than 50 grand a year. That removes even more revenues from a failing system. Can't be done. Paroll taxes are going to have to move up a tad a benefits are going to go down a tad to keep the system solvent.
20 years ago private accounts would have been a great solution. Too late now. I could see allowing people to do a partial opt out into approved mutual funds for any worker younger than say 45. Long term returns from the market are way better than SSI.
People don't realize a couple things about Social Security.
#1 was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income and
#2 it is more than just a retirement account. If you have minor children it's a life insurance policy. It's a disability policy as well.
My idea (like anyone is gonna listen to me) Would be to create a system where people could create an IRA type account. For every dollar they place in the account the government will match it dollar for dollar up to 20% of the Social Security taxes they aid for the year and of course their benefits would be cut. Not only does it encourage personal savings it will increase rate of return on Social Security.
I would also change the law so that any person who has reached the age to collect full Social Security benefits has the option to delay collecting benefits and continue working but expempt them from income tax and the employee portion of the payroll tax. You could maybe put time and income levels on that but it seems to mee it would do a lot to prop up the System and give people a chance to save up some extra money before retiring. You fugure just the payroll tax is 7.5% with no deduction. Someone earning decent pay could put away quite a bit in a few years.
But like I said, whos gonna listen to me
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
....
As far as Economic plans - Hilary's is very vague... Many of the top ecomomists and Washington Post are giving top marks to Obama's Plan.
Show me a single quote from a non-partisan economist who likes more govenrment involvement in our economy...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
it is 150 billion right now.
social security has been in the red for a while.
I don't know what I'm going to do, I have serious serious problems with each candidate.
There is still more money being collected in Social Security taxes than is being paid out in Benis. Last I saw the break even point was 2017 but that date gets moved up every few years.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
...
I don't know what I'm going to do, I have serious serious problems with each candidate.
As do I... at least in the Primary.
Don't get me wrong though... Come November I'll vote for whoever has the (R) behind their name.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Why is McCain electable?
Because he pulls in independents better than anyone including Obama and can get the Reagan Democrats too. It's really hard for the media to paint him as a right wing extremist because he has so many high profile accomplishments (good and bad) working with the other side. Even when the media turns on him (notice i didn't say if) they are going to have a hard time convincing the public that he is a radical partisan.
Romney is going to be attacked as a flipflopping tool of big business and there will be a serious whisper campaign about his religion. If this was 2000 or even 2004 I would say he had a shot but not this year. The Republicans are just to far behind the 8 ball. Might make a prime VP candidate though.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
As do I... at least in the Primary.
Don't get me wrong though... Come November I'll vote for whoever has the (R) behind their name.
You got that right brother
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
That's my point about McCain. He uses people who are experts in the field, just like every other candidate including Romney who has probably forgotten more about economics than the rest combined know.
The only part of Obama's plan that deals with social security is to eliminate income taxes on anyone collecting social security earning less than 50 grand a year. That removes even more revenues from a failing system. Can't be done. Paroll taxes are going to have to move up a tad a benefits are going to go down a tad to keep the system solvent.
20 years ago private accounts would have been a great solution. Too late now. I could see allowing people to do a partial opt out into approved mutual funds for any worker younger than say 45. Long term returns from the market are way better than SSI.
People don't realize a couple things about Social Security.
#1 was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income and
#2 it is more than just a retirement account. If you have minor children it's a life insurance policy. It's a disability policy as well.
My idea (like anyone is gonna listen to me) Would be to create a system where people could create an IRA type account. For every dollar they place in the account the government will match it dollar for dollar up to 20% of the Social Security taxes they aid for the year and of course their benefits would be cut. Not only does it encourage personal savings it will increase rate of return on Social Security.
I would also change the law so that any person who has reached the age to collect full Social Security benefits has the option to delay collecting benefits and continue working but expempt them from income tax and the employee portion of the payroll tax. You could maybe put time and income levels on that but it seems to mee it would do a lot to prop up the System and give people a chance to save up some extra money before retiring. You fugure just the payroll tax is 7.5% with no deduction. Someone earning decent pay could put away quite a bit in a few years.
But like I said, whos gonna listen to me

Obama's plan also talks about $97,500 cap that I posted earlier. Your plan possibably could work. The problem I see is for lower income people perhaps not wanting to or having the ability to put an appropriate amount of funds towards the account. I agree with not privatizing s.s because it is too late, and with the markets being so unstable... I don't think that you can consistantly guarantee a sufficient return for all people at all times.
Another benefit for all people paying into the system which I neglected is that this also covers disablity.
 

rylan1

Active Member
I think McCain would stand a far better chance against Clinton than he would against Obama.
Do any of you have concerns about McCain's age and past health issues?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Because he pulls in independents better than anyone including Obama and can get the Reagan Democrats too. It's really hard for the media to paint him as a right wing extremist because he has so many high profile accomplishments (good and bad) working with the other side. Even when the media turns on him (notice i didn't say if) they are going to have a hard time convincing the public that he is a radical partisan.
Romney is going to be attacked as a flipflopping tool of big business and there will be a serious whisper campaign about his religion. If this was 2000 or even 2004 I would say he had a shot but not this year. The Republicans are just to far behind the 8 ball. Might make a prime VP candidate though.
A republican isn't going to out liberal a liberal. It doesn't make any sense to me to appeal to liberals by becoming more liberal. Reagan appealed to those reagan dems by showing them that he was right with conservative idealogy. McCain is going to win liberal votes, when there is a real liberal that running against him.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Here is a link about possibably going back to the gold standard.
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/12641/...-standard.html
This is a very intersting article, I don't really agree with it because it assumes some stuff that I'm not willing to conceed. But it does have some interesting points. Here is some backround that will help better understand the article.
It assumes that the USA is well was the biggest economy in the world.
It says that the US Dollar is the leading most desireable currency in the world.
First it assumes
1. The reign of of the US Dollar is over.
2. It lists 3 potential leading currencies, something eastern probably Chinese. The US Dollar, and the Euro.
It rules out the Euro because,
1. Potential loss of labor (the main source of revenue in a service based economy)
2. Loss of power because of weak union, and it is weakening because of more people coming in.
It likes the Chinese because
1. They have a plethora of capital (40% savings)
2. They are growing really fast.
3. The Chinese don't have the entitlement programs. (I'm not sure where they are comming from on this)
The problems are with the chinese
1. They don't have a financial system capable of handling being the leading currency.
So they conclude that
1. Gold is the answer, since it is simple. And there really isn't a good heir to follow the dollar as the worlds lead currency.
The biggest reason that most economists argue against a gold standard is because it is impossible to have leverage on a currency fixed to gold. And without leverage we would have a world wide recession. (It give a good explanation of leverage) But to put it in a nutshell with a gold standard is a fall in the money supply. And a fall would create a world wide recession.
So this leads me to believe that they are advocating some sort of system that we had during the mid 20th century. That is a quazi-gold standard system.
My problems are
1. I don't believe that the reign of the US Dollar is over.
2. I don't see how a system of currency controls will be a more simple system. It isn't.
3. How in the world do the communists not have a social safety net?
4. How in the world will you leverage money with a Gold standard, you can't, because the MS is fixed, and only expands when you add more gold to the system, Thus the Gold Standard.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
If you want a good summary of this so called subprime market crash it is in your article.
Historic bank panics of the past were largely fueled by two things: 1) a lack of fiscal transparency, making it hard for investors and depositors to be aware of unsafe habits and practices, and 2) the moral hazard of guaranteed government bailout, allowing banks to go wild knowing Uncle Sam would step in if things went bad.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think McCain would stand a far better chance against Clinton than he would against Obama.
Do any of you have concerns about McCain's age and past health issues?
Obama isn't an issue. He won't beat Hillary in the Primary.
The press hasn't discussed this much (at all) but even if Obama wins the majority of primary and caucus votes, he still faces an uphill battle at the Democratic Convention.
The Democratic Convention implemented "superdelegates" in the 70's giving a large block of delegate votes to the DNC head and Democratic insiders. The Clinton's definitely have the inside track here.
Not that it matters. Hillary has opted to bow out of SC to court the Hispanic vote and racially divide the Democratic Primary vote. Barak can't win that fight.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Obama's plan also talks about $97,500 cap that I posted earlier. Your plan possibably could work. The problem I see is for lower income people perhaps not wanting to or having the ability to put an appropriate amount of funds towards the account. I agree with not privatizing s.s because it is too late, and with the markets being so unstable... I don't think that you can consistantly guarantee a sufficient return for all people at all times.
Another benefit for all people paying into the system which I neglected is that this also covers disablity.
You want to fix social security, let me opt out.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
A republican isn't going to out liberal a liberal. It doesn't make any sense to me to appeal to liberals by becoming more liberal. Reagan appealed to those reagan dems by showing them that he was right with conservative idealogy. McCain is going to win liberal votes, when there is a real liberal that running against him.
Exactly my concern. I think we are being duped by the crossover voters who won't vote the same way come November. As for the Media, they love McCain because they can always count on him to give juicy soundbites from a "Republican" standpoint when he goes rogue and bashes the President.
I think McCain can win, more because of the fear of Hillary than any love for him, but at what cost to the Republican party long term? My fear is we nominate McCain forever abandoning what our party stands for.
I'm afraid it could be a case of winning a battle but losing the war.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Exactly my concern. I think we are being duped by the crossover voters who won't vote the same way come November. As for the Media, they love McCain because they can always count on him to give juicy soundbites from a "Republican" standpoint when he goes rogue and bashes the President.
I think McCain can win, more because of the fear of Hillary than any love for him, but at what cost to the Republican party long term? My fear is we nominate McCain forever abandoning what our party stands for.
I'm afraid it could be a case of winning a battle but losing the war.
I got online and read that whole paper by Hucky where he was quoted saying that "arrogant bush policy." And the moron bashes bush for his policy, then advocates the same policy. He just armchair quarterbacks it a little bit.
I don't know what he was thinking.
 

tarball

Member
Here is another respected documentary done by Frontline, a PBS production.
It details the rush to war, the willingness to accept unsubstantiated information, No matter how flimsy or untrue it is, too support a war against Iraq. This documentary is
Supported by, DOD members, CIA officers, Political leaders, weapons Inspector,
Dept Director of the CIA, NSC Counter Intelligence Director, Dept Commander
Of Centcom, Former Director of CIA, Legal council, Authors & Sr reporters
from major news papers.
The Dark side
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view
Anyone with an ounce of respect for the truth will easily see after watching this video,
coupled with the last video called, “Behind closed doors” That Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, wolfowitz, & many of the collected groups by Bush, had full intentions of invading Iraq. One does not have to do much reasoning to see Bush & the collected group of the neo-conservatives had full intentions of invading Iraq & establishing a permanent presents in the Middle East. WMDS is without a doubt their excuse.
Would of made them look like heros if they were right, But look what happened. They got exposed.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Tarball, say it as often as you like, it still doesn't change history.
*Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions
*Saddam refused to give unrestricted access to the inspectors
*Saddam was warned we were going to attack if he didn't compy
*Saddam repeatedly attacked Allied pilots in the No Fly Zone
*Saddam supported terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and paid for attacks against Israel
All he had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job...
 

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
permanent presents in the Middle East.

You're right Tarball, we have given them permanent presents, freedom from a sadistic dictator, food, money, the list goes on. Glad to see you're coming around.
 
Top