Republican hopefuls in TV debate

[rlg94086]

And are the economists who back this plan, as well as Paul Ryan, also stupid? Since you think the plan is stupid, perhaps you have a better plan. Have you read anything on the Fair Tax? I suspect that the 9-9-9 plan is a preface to a fair tax which I think is ultimately fair.

One of the flaws with the 9-9-9 plan, IMO, is that it introduces another tax at the federal level - national sales tax. The Fair Tax is only to be put in place if the income tax is put to an end and the 16th Amendment repealed.

I would prefer either the Fair Tax or a modified flat tax. My modifications would be that the tax starts at some set minimum income and taxes a flat rate of all income above that minimum; dependent and charitable contribution deductions…that’s it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

That hasn’t ever translated into black or hispanic majorities going over to the GOP. It’ll be a long time coming before the Dems lose those two groups, and the Jews as well.

I think its strange because usually peoples values and beliefs influence their voting. Jews are not tied to the Democrat party, that was seen in New York city recently with the election of Bob Turner, a Catholic Republican winning over a Jewish Democrat in ah heavily Democrat district. A lot of Jews generally are disenchanted with Obama.

I think the Democrat Party has 2.1 Hispanic support because they as a party have pandered more to particular groups, the Republican party has never done that. A lot of Black people still view the Republican party as racist, not knowing the truth about the civil rights history.

I think some people think the anti immigration stance of the Republican party is to blame for particularly less Mexican American support, but I am not sure if that is true. In an October 2010 Pew study they found education, jobs and healthcare were the top priorities for Hispanics, immigration came fourth.

But I do believe this is changing, because more outreach to particularly the Hispanic community has started to happen.

I think I have answered my own question, I don’t think Pat Buchanan is correct.

 

[Pirate_Talker]

I think its strange because usually peoples values and beliefs influence their voting. Jews are not tied to the Democrat party, that was seen in New York city recently with the election of Bob Turner, a Catholic Republican winning over a Jewish Democrat in ah heavily Democrat district. A lot of Jews generally are disenchanted with Obama.

I think the Democrat Party has 2.1 Hispanic support because they as a party have pandered more to particular groups, the Republican party has never done that. A lot of Black people still view the Republican party as racist, not knowing the truth about the civil rights history.

I think some people think the anti immigration stance of the Republican party is to blame for particularly less Mexican American support, but I am not sure if that is true. In an October 2010 Pew study they found education, jobs and healthcare were the top priorities for Hispanics, immigration came fourth.

But I do believe this is changing, because more outreach to particularly the Hispanic community has started to happen.

I think I have answered my own question, I don’t think Pat Buchanan is correct.

I think you answered your own question, too. the Republican party can’t 'pander" to the Hispanic or Black vote. They first have to acknowlege that they exist. They might want to try listening to their concerns and maybe they won’t have to 'pander" to them. Since when has education, jobs, and healthcare been any kind of concern to the Repuplican Party? It makes me put my head down in shame to even think about it.

 

[Alan55]

One of the flaws with the 9-9-9 plan, IMO, is that it introduces another tax at the federal level - national sales tax. The Fair Tax is only to be put in place if the income tax is put to an end and the 16th Amendment repealed.

I would prefer either the Fair Tax or a modified flat tax. My modifications would be that the tax starts at some set minimum income and taxes a flat rate of all income above that minimum; dependent and charitable contribution deductions…that’s it.

One glaring problem with the 999 plan (666 upside down, by the way) is that it will never be passed into law. When interviewed on Meet the Press recently, Cain was asked how he thought Congress would ever pass such a tax law. He began by saying, “First, you throw out the tax code…”. Quick thinking, Mr. Cain. Congress will get right on that, then the 999 plan should be easy beans.

 

[ManOnFire]

I know this is a little off topic, but don’t know where else to ask. Pat Buchannon asserts that the Republican Party will not be on a national level by 2041 because of a lack of White predominance in America.

Excerpt:

As a non White person I am curious if what he is saying about the end of the Republican Party on a national level by 2041 true? Why wouldn’t the Republican Party just take on a new face, so to speak? So instead of predominately white Republicans you would see more Hispanic Republicans? The majority of Hispanic and Black people have social conservative values.

Social liberalism has caused the rise in single motherhood from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. Social liberalism is causing the perceived need for more economic liberalism. So why aren’t more Blacks and Hispanics voting for more social conservatives who are more likely to keep dads at home to help their kids grow up great? Social conservatives seem like a natural fit. Social liberals are creating weaker men who create more dependents who experience broken homes and broken dreams. Who wants more of that?

 

[Red_Wolf]

Can’t anyone see the issues?
ARE WE A NATION UNDER GOD, or under government?
What should our economy be?

Either we believe in God, or in government.
That seems simple; either, or. How many people have tried to convince me at coffee hour that our Pope supports abortion. Maybe it ain’t so simple. Maybe only our electorate is simple.

Our economy is in a situation. Economic growth depends on increased use of energy; means that it takes more energy to “grow the economy”. We’ve got oodles of energy, BUT, we are at the tail end of affordable (i.e. cheap) energy.

The economy starts to grow, it demands more energy. That demand raises us to the pricy energy. The increased cost of energy KILLS the growth. The economy falls, untill the demand for energy falls to a point, that the price of energy falls. Then growth begins again. Sort of locks us in a narrow band of economic activity.

So, why is that a bad thing? Why do we NEED to grow the economy? Because we have a HUGE government debt to service. And that requires that our economy grow to a point that it shrinks our debt to insignificance (assuming that our illustrious leaders don’t increase the debt to match).

So, are we in trouble? Not necessarily. We can produce all the stuff we need (how to distribute it to those who need it is beyond this post). BUT!!! We cannot produce enough stuff to support a growing government debt. I see our government debt as THE major economic issue.

Assuming you believe in God, the first question is answered. As to the second, I would like to suggest that our government debt is THE MAIN ECONOMIC ISSUE of this election.

Ron Paul has outlined some cuts. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. But, it is a start in the way the dialog needs to go.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That hasn’t ever translated into black or hispanic majorities going over to the GOP. It’ll be a long time coming before the Dems lose those two groups, and the Jews as well.

Of course, as long as the Democrats keep giving away other people’s stuff, they will continue to attract the votes of those who want free goodies.

 

[aicirt]

Top choices:

• Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum
• Paul, Romney, Cain
• Perry and Huntsman are done. (IMO)

---

Gingrich is the man, but I’d love to see Bachmann as the first woman president. Santorum was good as usual, but doesn’t get the credit.

I like Gingrich too!!

Romney is not for me because of the MA health care bill and also because of the way he treated the guy who was blamed for the wall falling at the Big Dig but was not responsible. He destroyed that guy.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Social liberalism has caused the rise in single motherhood from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. Social liberalism is causing the perceived need for more economic liberalism. So why aren’t more Blacks and Hispanics voting for more social conservatives who are more likely to keep dads at home to help their kids grow up great? Social conservatives seem like a natural fit. Social liberals are creating weaker men who create more dependents who experience broken homes and broken dreams. Who wants more of that?

I don’t know if this is extremely cynical or true that they want to keep them in that environment to keep them voting for the same party. Democrats have had control of the inner cities for the last 60 years and there are hardly any jobs and broken families.

They destroyed the communities with their policies, and turn the people in the communities in to victims, and tell them that they are fighting for ‘‘equality’’ when really they are keeping them trapped. They keep them dependent on the social policies and thus the people have to keep voting for them

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think you answered your own question, too. the Republican party can’t 'pander" to the Hispanic or Black vote. They first have to acknowlege that they exist. They might want to try listening to their concerns and maybe they won’t have to 'pander" to them. Since when has education, jobs, and healthcare been any kind of concern to the Repuplican Party? It makes me put my head down in shame to even think about it.

I think the Republican party is natural fit for Hispanics, most are social conservatives; in terms of education Republican support for private school vouchers, linking student performance to teacher evaluation, more school choice etc. Lower taxes etc.

The Republicans have unveiled a jobs plan that will be based on creating jobs through economic growth rather than the Democrat plan to rely on government spending to revive economy.

The Republicans came up with a health care plan that was destroyed by a majority Democrat senate, that would of helped low and income Americans to get health insurance, dependents under 25 would of stayed on their parent’s health insurance etc. it was a good plan, far better than the unpopular ObamaCare.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the Republican party is natural fit for Hispanics, most are social conservatives; in terms of education Republican support for private school vouchers, linking student performance to teacher evaluation, more school choice etc. Lower taxes etc.

The Republicans have unveiled a jobs plan that will be based on creating jobs through economic growth rather than the Democrat plan to rely on government spending to revive economy.

The Republicans came up with a health care plan that was destroyed by a majority Democrat senate, that would of helped low and income Americans to get health insurance, dependents under 25 would of stayed on their parent’s health insurance etc. it was a good plan, far better than the unpopular ObamaCare.

But, do Hispanics agree with you? What sounds grand to you may mean little to them when they get into the voting booth. I say that they’ll stay with the Democrats (as they should!), but the next national election may prove me wrong if the majority of the Hispanic vote goes to the GOP.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think you answered your own question, too. the Republican party can’t 'pander" to the Hispanic or Black vote. They first have to acknowlege that they exist. They might want to try listening to their concerns and maybe they won’t have to 'pander" to them. Since when has education, jobs, and healthcare been any kind of concern to the Republican Party? It makes me put my head down in shame to even think about it.

Agreed.

 

[rlg94086]

Since when has education, jobs, and healthcare been any kind of concern to the Repuplican Party? It makes me put my head down in shame to even think about it.

You are equating “concern” with big federal spending program. That is typical Democrat thinking. You should probably go occupy Wall Street and poop on a police car.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are equating “concern” with big federal spending program. That is typical Democrat thinking. You should probably go occupy Wall Street and poop on a police car.

Typical Republican response.

“Concern,” however, implies no action on the “concerned” party, but spending program implies that something is being done about the problem. A real difference.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Typical Republican response.

“Concern,” however, implies no action on the “concerned” party, but spending program implies that something is being done about the problem. A real difference.

Entitlement Programs imply disempowering people from solving their problems and letting someone else do their suffering for them.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Entitlement Programs imply disempowering people from solving their problems and letting someone else do their suffering for them.

Do you believe that the GOP would abolish current entitlement programs on those grounds? I believe the programs will still be around no matter who is elected in '12.

 

[rlg94086]

“Concern,” however, implies no action on the “concerned” party, but spending program implies that something is being done about the problem. A real difference.

Doing something does not equate to a big federal spending program either. As usual, the Democrat in the room can’t put subsidiarity into practice because he needs the “I’m going to fix all your problems with a big federal program” soundbites to get elected.

Republicans believe in doing things to…just not through a Welfare State. The proper role of government is to equip people to improve their situation, not take away initiative and provide for them. However, the latter pandering does wonders to get people to vote for you, and that’s what’s more important, eh Rich?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Republicans believe in doing things to…just not through a Welfare State. The proper role of government is to equip people to improve their situation, not take away initiative and provide for them.

If you believe that, then, has it?

However, the latter pandering does wonders to get people to vote for you, and that’s what’s more important, eh Rich?

Without votes, how would any faction get their programs functioning, be they Dems or GOP?

 

[rlg94086]

If you believe that, then, has it?

We have gone off the rails by creating a bloated federal government that has killed initiative. I would like to get us closer to the Constitution and allow smaller governments (local, state) help to determine the proper amount of assistance to encourage individual initiative and charity.
Rich Olszewski:

Without votes, how would any faction get their programs functioning, be they Dems or GOP?

Sure, but when your policies are based on pandering for votes rather than what’s best for society, that’s pretty sad. Why do you defend it?

 

[Pirate_Talker]

You are equating “concern” with big federal spending program. That is typical Democrat thinking. You should probably go occupy Wall Street and poop on a police car.

Back at you, fella. You seem to have a predilection for bodily functions here, and how and when and where to display this.