The 2012 Election Thread

[otoc]

Nice try at setting up and knocking down the "other taxes" strawman.. but we are talking about income tax here.
Those 33bil millionares seem to already be paying a disproportionate amount... yet are getting que'd up for another hit while that bottom 50% goes on paying 0. Your own link states as much but oddly the CPBB does not seem horribly interested in detailing who is paying. I'll let Heritage take it from here:

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

What are you talking about? I've been clear I'm discussing Cain's 999 plan and that includes most everything, including the added value fed ST to the state ST. You seem to want to talk about tax anomalies, including now 2008 which was addressed in my earlier post. 50% even with your cherry picking of only using 2007 & 2008 fed income tax only, doesn't exist in terms of where the baseline taxes will resume.

And come on, you've had 3 chances to rebut my point about 999 and you keep changing it to the poor and the rich. Now it's total contribution as a group. Of course the rich pay more in total contribution. That's because the ratio of income got skewed over the last 30 years that was a reversal of what was going on for the 30 years prior. The funny thing is the upper 1% has been seeing some nice tax reductions over the last 30 years. And the poor? Their income levels haven't even kept ahead of inflation. That's why progressive taxation is used.

And with Cains 999 plan, the upper 1% pays an average of $.5 mil less compared to today.

[Enmore]

Handy tip of the day: 999 is our emergency phone number over here, like your 911.

Maybe Cain plans to call a Waaaambulance?

[otoc]

Agree that part of congress want's to address spending. Unfortunately a good chunk of those on the left including the bus tour loving dude in the WH would simply like to tax more and spend more.



The reality is that none of what you just stated bears and resemblance to... reality.

The debt level was not brought on in a "bipartisan" way.. it was purely partisan:



Wars and military spending impact:

Flashback: Obama’s Failed Stimulus Cost More than 9 Year Iraq War



Tax breaks with CBPP spin addressed:

Tax Cuts Are Still Not Driving the Budget Deficit: The Critics Fall Short



The debit was partisan.. the wars had lil effect and tax breaks not so much as well. Gotta admit though... pushing the opposite of reality seems effective on a good majority of drum circle and union types.

It's funny. You accept war spending and tax cuts as reasons for debt increases, but won't even cut this administration a break for spending us out of a recession so bad it would have been a depression if the banks failed.

And the total over the last 10 years for both wars was 1.1 trillion. The number used in your link was the CBO's best guess for a number that excluded amounts that normal military budgeting was used to fund the wars. So how much were the tax cuts?

[/\/\adGamer]

Cains plan will never get thru thats my answer to all 9-9-9 questions NEXT

[Invictus]

I'm not supportive of a national sales tax.

That said, to be fair, his 9-9-9 plan reduces corporate tax considerably, so the price of a new car should come down... whether by a comparable 9%, I just don't know. But that's the theory. Additionally, if your own tax rate goes down, you'd have more available cash to purchase a new car. Conversely, if you use deductions (i.e. write it off for bizness), it may make a new car purchase less attractive.

Speaking selfishly and as a person who likes to buy cars when they're a year or two old, and understanding that the 9-9-9 plan doesn't apply to used vehicles... I like this part of it.

New car buyers are of two ilks... people with money to blow or suckers for a bad deal. Anyone who floats a loan to buy something that's worth 25% less when they first use it... well, sucker fits.

My favorite parts of Cain's 9-9-9 plan are the essential elimination of the IRS as a grandiose entity carrying far too much power and the inclusion of everyone having skin in the game.

I get your straight line accounting... every national program can be confused with it. But to be fair, we have to consider what's eliminated while we look at what's tacked on.

I'm not sure if the price of a new car will go up and wonder if you are either. If it does, I doubt it will destroy the economy. We have rather normal pick-up trucks selling for $60,000 and they sell as well as anything else.

Sorry for the week late response. Ive been out of commission...so to speak .

The new car was obviously just an example. But based on just that example. Yes the price of a new car would go up. As every component involved in making that car would have an additional 9% tax on it.

We can agree on it limiting the irs. I think we both look forward to that. But i believe Ron Paul's plan does a much better job of addressing our current economic issues.

One of the main problems i have with Herman Cain's plan, is it keeping funding the federal government at current levels. We need to defund the government, not find ways to keep the current problem alive.

[/\/\adGamer]

We need to defund the government, not find ways to keep the current problem alive.

Indeed

[jimzinsocal]

Lets see how this pans out: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...270547222.html

[Invictus]

^^^

Under my plan, we will establish a clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020.

It wont amount to much.


Ron Pauls plan has a balanced budget by year 3 of his 4 year term. And he has a real economic plan to boot.

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/


Even Rush Limbaugh cant help but support his plan .

[JustinC939]

The republican race will come down to Romney and Bachmann with Ron Paul as a wildcard. Romney will win over his opponent by a narrow margin. Obama will then defeat Romney, but only with about 45% of the popular vote because the Independents will take around 15% of the popular vote in 2012, and they may even win a few electoral votes.

[bk94si]

^^^

Don't know which polls you are looking at but Bachmann is fading into the sunset. Looks to be between Romney and Cain for now.

[liteman]

[AMDScooter]

^^^

Don't know which polls you are looking at but Bachmann is fading into the sunset. Looks to be between Romney and Cain for now.

And Bamma is losing to that "generic" guy by like 5 points a year out. Bamma is lining up for a bad thumping in 12'... and he's prolly gonna spend another billion bucks doing it.

[kbohip]

^^^



It wont amount to much.


Ron Pauls plan has a balanced budget by year 3 of his 4 year term. And he has a real economic plan to boot.



http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/


Even Rush Limbaugh cant help but support his plan .

You forget. Ron Paul is considered "crazy" by the so called Republicans. Flat Tax! 9-9-9! Now those are some great ideas! Actually I do like the idea of a flat tax, but rest assured the Republicrats will screw it up beyond all recognition and we'll all be paying more taxes than we are now.

[AMDScooter]

You forget. Ron Paul is considered "crazy" by the so called Republicans. Flat Tax! 9-9-9! Now those are some great ideas! Actually I do like the idea of a flat tax, but rest assured the Republicrats will screw it up beyond all recognition and we'll all be paying more taxes than we are now.

You know we have a lot of common ground with RP on economic issues.. but the guy's ideas about foreign policy and such are simply batsh*t crazy.

[Enmore]

He'll be 77 by election time too.