The 2012 Election Thread

[jimzinsocal]

http://www.northstarwriters.com/2011...he-9-9-9-plan/

[bk94si]

I'm not sold on 9-9-9 but it sounds vastly better than what we have now. I would rather not go down the path of a national sales tax but I would rather do that then the labyrinth of tax laws we currently use.

[otoc]

He wasn't joking before he was joking before he wasn't joking....

Herman Cain acknowledges his electric border fence idea isn't a joke after all

PHOENIX - After first apologizing for suggesting an electric fence along the border, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain told reporters here Monday that he still thinks it's a good idea for controlling illegal immigration.
"I'm not walking away from that," he said.

Where's Kerry when you need him to ignite the issue of waffling?

[otoc]

I guess Ron is fine with a large uptick in the unemployment rate due to gov workers as well as increases in State/Local taxes.

Rep. Paul Proposes $1T Spending Cut Plan

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Monday laid out an economic plan that would lower corporate and individual taxes and cut federal spending by $1 trillion during his first year in office, achieved partly by eliminating five cabinet-level departments.
Paul, a longtime Texas congressman, said he would close the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior and Housing and Urban Development, as part of a broader plan to cut federal spending. The federal work force would be cut by 10 percent. Mr. Paul also called for stopping foreign aid and "ending foreign wars.''
His "Plan to Restore America'' would end the estate tax and taxes on personal savings, "allowing families to build a nest egg.'' He would extend tax cuts on personal income, capital and dividends that were enacted under former President George W. Bush.
Mr. Paul has said he would support amending the Constitution to abolish the income tax, though that does not come up in his economic plan.
The corporate tax rate would fall under Mr. Paul's plan, to 15 percent from the current 35 percent, and corporations would be allowed to repatriate capital without paying additional U.S. taxes.
Some lawmakers have recently proposed a repatriation measure, saying it would free up capital to spur job growth. Critics of the idea argue that a tax holiday for companies with money abroad would not lead to domestic job creation.
The congressman also pledged to limit his presidential salary to $39,336, which his campaign says is "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker." The current salary for the president is $400,000 a year.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1b8WBUabA

[bk94si]

And I guess you are fine with bankrupting the country to pay government salaries. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long...

[otoc]

And I guess you are fine with bankrupting the country to pay government salaries. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long...

My God, what is it with you people? I stated an obvious result of a direct position by Ron Paul. And what do you give back? Imaginary friends and all about me.

Tell me. Where has the private sector been on job creation to spur the economy? That's what Paul is all about.

[bk94si]

And I am stating an obvious result of the government spending more money than it has.

[Dutchcedar]

So last night I was listening to the pundits on CNN and Fox and they all had the same schtick... that Cain can't gain any more traction because he has a staff of less than 40, only has about five million bucks and isn't campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Apparently he's in Tennessee and he needs to get to Iowa and work on the caucuses. He's going to get run over in Iowa by the great Romney campaign machine. OK. Maybe so. I'm not real fluent in national campaign do's and don'ts.

Then this morning I read that the latest Insider-Advantage poll shows Herman Cain leading in Iowa with 26% of the vote. Second is Romney with 18% support.

[otoc]

And I am stating an obvious result of the government spending more money than it has.

I'll take the answer to my question as nothing.

Now, if the economy gets worse then what does government do? Draconian cuts as with what Paul says? We have a revenue problem due to a bad economy.

[bk94si]

The Keynesian theory of government spending to improve an economy has been disproved and it has been argued that it prolonged the Great Depression.

[otoc]

The Keynesian theory of government spending to improve an economy has been disproved and it has been argued that it prolonged the Great Depression.

Really. I didn't realize a rebuttal is disproving. Seems to me the economy improved from where it was at the start of 2009. By your position, it should have gotten worse.

Now, instead of constantly changing the topic, how about we get back to my original point? Ron Paul's economic platform.

[modru2004]

I'll take the answer to my question as nothing.

Now, if the economy gets worse then what does government do? Draconian cuts as with what Paul says? We have a revenue problem due to a bad economy.

wait what? the government isn't a business. we don't go to them and buy goods or services. what services are provided by the government aren't "optional". the payments they require aren't "optional". i don't get to choose if i want medicare, or social security. i don't get to choose an optional income tax.

even when the economy was in good/fair standing the government was spending in massive amounts more money then they were bringing in. this isn't a new problem. the only impact the economy has on the government is there ability to get away with taxing us more. its going to destroy the country and people are finally realizing it has to stop so its been a big political line item lately. the people are fed up with it.

if the government had its way it would just print more money, go further in debt tanking the value of the dollar and call it a day.

to eliminate the massive amount of spending and reduce the deficit there are two options.

either increase income, and about the only way to do that is increase taxes. but guess what, back when things were much better and it might have been a viable option to reduce the deficit (or at the very least minimize the damage they were doing)they went nah, lets just spend more money we don't have. Now this option is something the economy simply cannot support and doesn't solve the real issue of the bloated life sucking leach the federal government has become.

the second option is to cut that life sucking leech down to size and reduce its spending. (the better option). yes its sucks that some people may lose there jobs. but it has to be done. sacrifice a limb to save the whole, or let the infection spread till it kills everything.

lol at trying to blame the current situation with the government running us into a hole on the economy.

[bk94si]

Keynesian economics said that you could not have inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. Been there, done that.

[otoc]

Keynesian economics said that you could not have inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. Been there, done that.

What are you talking about? Inflation isn't at a high. Oil has increased costs all around, climate issues have cut crops such as peanuts, past control of corn and ethanol has caused other increases. But these are all new and outside of any economic process of control. I can't agree with your point.

Again, the economy improved with government spending when it was needed. How about a comment on that? That was Keynes.

And how about Ron Paul's plan? All I can think is you agree with my points as to the effect.

[otoc]

wait what? the government isn't a business. we don't go to them and buy goods or services. what services are provided by the government aren't "optional". the payments they require aren't "optional". i don't get to choose if i want medicare, or social security. i don't get to choose an optional income tax.

Seems like a rather picked concept of our government. You want to talk federal or state and local as well as the things that aren't on the table like Medicare or Social Security?

even when the economy was in good/fair standing the government was spending in massive amounts more money then they were bringing in.

Actually, this wasn't true during the boom going on in Clinton's time. Perhaps you are too young to have noticed that. I've already done posts regarding debt increases during administrations over the last 30 years. Try searching and we can continue.

this isn't a new problem. the only impact the economy has on the government is there ability to get away with taxing us more.

Really. Which is why taxes are at historic lows? And from where do you get the economy effect on government in terms of what you bolded out of my quote? Revenue is down due to a bad economy.

its going to destroy the country and people are finally realizing it has to stop so its been a big political line item lately. the people are fed up with it.

Yeah, I guess if you are living this for the first time. I've seen anger before and the country didn't get destroyed.

if the government had its way it would just print more money, go further in debt tanking the value of the dollar and call it a day.

Which is why all three branches of government is talking debt reduction? I really don't get these things you write.

to eliminate the massive amount of spending and reduce the deficit there are two options.

either increase income, and about the only way to do that is increase taxes. but guess what, back when things were much better and it might have been a viable option to reduce the deficit (or at the very least minimize the damage they were doing)they went nah, lets just spend more money we don't have. Now this option is something the economy simply cannot support and doesn't solve the real issue of the bloated life sucking leach the federal government has become.

Like it or not, you'll have to face the reality that the private sector has done nothing substantial to prime the economy. Since you also avoid the reality that any current numbers being discussed for government action are balanced by cuts and hopefully a slight increase to the millionaires depending on investment income. So it can support it very easily.

the second option is to cut that life sucking leech down to size and reduce its spending. (the better option). yes its sucks that some people may lose there jobs. but it has to be done. sacrifice a limb to save the whole, or let the infection spread till it kills everything.

If you haven't noticed, the largest contributor to the current unemployment rate is the government sector.

lol at trying to blame the current situation with the government running us into a hole on the economy.

wtf?