Republicans gather for fight night in Vegas

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Romney fires the illegal immigrant in question, but the same company employed illegal immigrants again. I don’t think it is Romney’s job to micromanage the company who he hired to do a job for him, and scrutinize every single worker, a landscaping company in this case.

If anything this shows a bigger problem, that a business did not learn its lesson from employing an illegal immigrant once, but did it again.
Your argument makes no sense. Have you ever hired a company to cut your lawn? Because either you hire an individual to do it, in which case you hire and fire that person at will. Or you hire a company ( which you then have NO control over who works for them). If you find out that they are hiring illegals, you don’t have the power to fire that one person. But you sure as heck can fire the company.

The argument that he fired one person working for the landscaping company and then the sent out another illegal is not the way business works. I don’t get to go to the bank and fire the teller. She works for the bank not me, even if I am a customer.

Either way if he still had either the same illegal person working a year later, or was still contracting with the same landscaping company that hired the illegal he is responsible. If it was a totally different person or company with illegals then I’d say he didn’t do due diligence.
 
I just finished watching the debate. My impressions…

Newt hit it on the head at the end - the format maximized bickering, which made several candidates look bad - Romney and Perry, especially, but Santorum at one point, as well. I did like the fact that some real discussion about taxation started it off.

Despite the bickering, I think Romney still did a good job of defending himself on Romneycare and overall looked okay. I don’t think he hurt himself.

Cain, despite the fact that I disagree with his 999 plan, did extremely well. I think his appeal is in the way he speaks. He was very professional and less involved in bickering. His negotiate with terrorists issue was odd. Apparently, he spoke in error and didn’t understand the question in his earlier interview?? I think he is strong on the economy issue, but I would prefer to see him in a VP slot than President.

Perry hurt himself IMO. His illegal immigrant hiring charge against Romney was petty and hollow. That said, I liked his comments on the fence issue - using predator drones to direct boots on the ground makes sense and could be enacted immediately. I also liked his comment about the 10th Amendment.

Santorum presented himself better in this debate than he has before. His “I’m the only one who has won an election in a swing state” was a weak selling point, though. On policy matters, I still agree with him on most things. I’m still not comfortable with his leadership ability, and I’m not sure he could beat Obama.

Gingrich did great! Again, I would prefer seeing him in a VP slot. His past experience as Speaker would be valuable to a President to work on all the politicking necessary to influence legislation on behalf of an administration. His only flub was on the healthcare mandate denial…“broader”…that was funny.

I was surprised by Bachmann. She actually looked pretty presidential. I still think she uses a little too much hyperbole, but it least she didn’t come off like a whack job.

Paul was Paul…good points in some areas, too libertarian in other areas - especially defense. Too extreme to beat Obama. We aren’t a country of revolution, and he wouldn’t be able to get much of what he wants done…unless he were elected dictator.

Huntsman had his best showing to date. 😉

Oh…who won? That’s a tough one. I would say Gingrich or Santorum did the best, but I don’t think it will give either of them much traction.
 
I have. The numbers dont add up. Even some of those who helped put it together are haivng second thoughts:

CAMPAIGN 2012

**Economist Behind Cain’s ‘9-9-9’ Plan Says It’s Time to Drop a Nine **

nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/economist-behind-cain-s-9-9-9-plan-says-it-s-time-to-drop-a-nine-20111019
Not only that, but I am not sure he really understands his own plan. During the debate he denied that his business tax is a value-added tax - but business transfer taxes are value-added taxes. Even the “analysis” posted on Cain’s own website refers to it as a value-added tax.

A 9 percent value-added tax PLUS a 9 percent national sales tax PLUS a 9 percent flat income tax would be extremely regressive–as both Paul and Santorum pointed out. Those guys are not exactly bleeding-heart lefties–if Paul and Santorum both think your tax plan is too hard on the poor that is saying something.
 
I understand that at the current moment Newt Gingrich probably does look like a solid Vice Presidential pick. But, first, Newt doesn’t want to be Vice President, he was already Speaker of the House… he’s definitely qualified to be the President.

Secondly, I would submit that Newt Gingrich is going to be the final anti-Romeny candidate. We’ve had Bachman, Perry, and Cain fail to do this (and even Donald Trump way back when). But, now there aren’t going to be any more entries into the field. Christie and Palin have both said they aren’t entering. And, it is my opinion that Herman Cain is not going to be able to keep it together after last night.

What Newt Gingrich has that all of the other anti- Romenys don’t is an impressive command of policy issues. He could debate Mitt Romney 1 on 1 for an hour and come on top. Even people that dislike Gingrich have to admit he could give Romney a run for his money in a debate. Could you say that about Bachman, Perry, or Cain?

I think he’s going to have staying power. And, honestly… it’s because he’s a politician. Bachman, Perry, and Cain all have this kind of outsider thing going on… obviously Cain does, but even the other 2 do. And, while they can relate to the American people in a kind of “I’m one of you” spirit. The average joe schmo American isn’t qualified to be President. We need someone well versed in policy, and Newt… long involved in think tanks, and founding his own think tanks and policy centers is just that guy.

Sure, I can relate to someone who gives me straight talk. But, none of the candidates can give straight talk like Chris Christie could. In the end of the day, Bachman, Perry, and Cain all stumble over themselves trying to explain their positions or their claims against other candidates. Whereas Gingrich, like Romney, is always an effect communicator.

We saw Romney, Perry, Santorum, and Bachman all yelling at each other last night… so I think Gingrich is right to call them out for “acting like seventh graders”

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/19/8400310-why-so-serious-gingrich-likens-opponents-to-seventh-graders-in-a-cafeteria

In my opinion, Gingrich is going to be the flavor for the next 3 months. Which will lead all the way to the first contests.
 
Not only that, but I am not sure he really understands his own plan. During the debate he denied that his business tax is a value-added tax - but business transfer taxes are value-added taxes. Even the “analysis” posted on Cain’s own website refers to it as a value-added tax.

A 9 percent value-added tax PLUS a 9 percent national sales tax PLUS a 9 percent flat income tax would be extremely regressive–as both Paul and Santorum pointed out. Those guys are not exactly bleeding-heart lefties–if Paul and Santorum both think your tax plan is too hard on the poor that is saying something.
OTOH, it is not fair that nearly 50% of the population pays zero federal income tax. It gives them absolutely no incentive to not vote for tax increases (and more spending)
 
Not only that, but I am not sure he really understands his own plan. During the debate he denied that his business tax is a value-added tax - but business transfer taxes are value-added taxes. Even the “analysis” posted on Cain’s own website refers to it as a value-added tax.

A 9 percent value-added tax PLUS a 9 percent national sales tax PLUS a 9 percent flat income tax would be extremely regressive–as both Paul and Santorum pointed out. Those guys are not exactly bleeding-heart lefties–if Paul and Santorum both think your tax plan is too hard on the poor that is saying something.
This is the way I understand how he would tax a loaf of bread. The farmer pays a tax when he buys the seed. The harvester pays a tax when he harvests the wheat, the baker pays tax when he buys wheat, the grocery store pays tax when they buy the bread and the consumer pays tax when he buys the bread. . This looks like a value-added tax to me in everything but name. I am sure the Cain supporters will point out the taxes are paid at every step of the way now but these taxes are paid on net income, not on the gross as Cains tax does. In my community I would pay 16% every time I purchased groceries plus state income tax at the end of the year . . Since most state income taxes are based on your federal taxable income it would appear that all the states are going to have to revamp their state tax system or all taxpayers are going to continue to fill out an income tax return just like they do now so I dont see ehre with savings on at end is going to be. . As always the devil is in the details.
 
OTOH, it is not fair that nearly 50% of the population pays zero federal income tax. It gives them absolutely no incentive to not vote for tax increases (and more spending)
Well, I disagree with that. All of the poor and a big chunk of the middle class pay no federal income tax, but they do pay plenty of other taxes. The poor and middle class also have plenty of other incentives to vote for good governance, and even if they did not they are not exactly driving economic policy right now.

Do you think it is fair to increase taxes on the least well-off 84% of Americans and provide a huge tax break to the wealthiest 16% of Americans? That is Cain’s plan.
 
Well, I disagree with that. All of the poor and a big chunk of the middle class pay no federal income tax, but they do pay plenty of other taxes. The poor and middle class also have plenty of other incentives to vote for good governance, and even if they did not they are not exactly driving economic policy right now.

Do you think it is fair to increase taxes on the least well-off 84% of Americans and provide a huge tax break to the wealthiest 16% of Americans? That is Cain’s plan.
Although I think an income tax system that exempts 47% of the population from paying federal income tax has big problems I don’t think Cain has the solution. There is no way around the fact that the 9-9-9 plan is very regressive.
 
This is the way I understand how he would tax a loaf of bread. The farmer pays a tax when he buys the seed. The harvester pays a tax when he harvests the wheat, the baker pays tax when he buys wheat, the grocery store pays tax when they buy the bread and the consumer pays tax when he buys the bread. . This looks like a value-added tax to me in everything but name. I am sure the Cain supporters will point out the taxes are paid at every step of the way now but these taxes are paid on net income, not on the gross as Cains tax does. In my community I would pay 16% every time I purchased groceries plus state income tax at the end of the year . . Since most state income taxes are based on your federal taxable income it would appear that all the states are going to have to revamp their state tax system or all taxpayers are going to continue to fill out an income tax return just like they do now so I dont see ehre with savings on at end is going to be. . As always the devil is in the details.
That is also my understanding. Because they pay the tax on net income, it is a “subtraction-based” VAT-- you subtract your cost of goods from your sales revenue and only pay taxes on the “value-added”. That way, the seeds in your example are taxed only once, not multiple times. But there is a double taxing because once you get to the market the consumer pays all those included VAT taxes and also pays a 9% sales tax on top of that.
 
That is also my understanding. Because they pay the tax on net income, it is a “subtraction-based” VAT-- you subtract your cost of goods from your sales revenue and only pay taxes on the “value-added”. That way, the seeds in your example are taxed only once, not multiple times. But there is a double taxing because once you get to the market the consumer pays all those included VAT taxes and also pays a 9% sales tax on top of that.
How is that different than the current corporate income tax? Doesn’t it also tax net income? Wouldn’t that be passed along in the same manner?
 
Your argument makes no sense. Have you ever hired a company to cut your lawn? Because either you hire an individual to do it, in which case you hire and fire that person at will. Or you hire a company ( which you then have NO control over who works for them). If you find out that they are hiring illegals, you don’t have the power to fire that one person. But you sure as heck can fire the company.

The argument that he fired one person working for the landscaping company and then the sent out another illegal is not the way business works. I don’t get to go to the bank and fire the teller. She works for the bank not me, even if I am a customer.

Either way if he still had either the same illegal person working a year later, or was still contracting with the same landscaping company that hired the illegal he is responsible. If it was a totally different person or company with illegals then I’d say he didn’t do due diligence.
I have done some more research on this. In 2006 the Boston Globe reported that illegal immigrants were in the crew that would landscape his lawn. It was a legitimate company, Romney said he gave the landscaping company a second chance providing that they would ensure their workers were legal. You and Perry claimed a year later those illegal immigrants were working for Romney, but there is no evidence to support this.
 
How is that different than the current corporate income tax? Doesn’t it also tax net income? Wouldn’t that be passed along in the same manner?
\

I beleive Cains tax would be on gross receipts.
 
😊
I have done some more research on this. In 2006 the Boston Globe reported that illegal immigrants were in the crew that would landscape his lawn. It was a legitimate company, Romney said he gave the landscaping company a second chance providing that they would ensure their workers were legal. You and Perry claimed a year later those illegal immigrants were working for Romney, but there is no evidence to support this.
To be honest I dont know of many landscape companies that dont employee Illegal aliens. The idea that are responsible for the legality of the employees of a company you employ seems a little speciois tp me
 
I have done some more research on this. In 2006 the Boston Globe reported that illegal immigrants were in the crew that would landscape his lawn. It was a legitimate company, Romney said he gave the landscaping company a second chance providing that they would ensure their workers were legal. You and Perry claimed a year later those illegal immigrants were working for Romney, but there is no evidence to support this.
How do you “know” someone is illegal? You can have your suspicions but how do you prove they are illegal if they present the proper identity? You are barred by law from acting on those suspicions - to run “extra” background checks on a person because they “seem foreign” is a violation of their civil rights and you can be sued by the Department of Labor and the Justice Department. If that can happen to an employer I have to wonder how Romney figured out a person was “illegal” just by looking at them.

Just read the I9 form.
 
I have done some more research on this. In 2006 the Boston Globe reported that illegal immigrants were in the crew that would landscape his lawn. It was a legitimate company, Romney said he gave the landscaping company a second chance providing that they would ensure their workers were legal. You and Perry claimed a year later those illegal immigrants were working for Romney, but there is no evidence to support this.
From the transcript of last nights debate

ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.

I love how Romney’s argument is " I can’t have illegals, I’m running for office".

Really, I’m running for office. That was what mattered. Not the legality of morality of it. I can see it playing now in an upcoming ad.
 
Although I think an income tax system that exempts 47% of the population from paying federal income tax has big problems I don’t think Cain has the solution. There is no way around the fact that the 9-9-9 plan is very regressive.
Well, no way around it other than to stop lying about it, anyway.

When people stop pretending that the Federal Income Tax is the only tax the Federal Government takes out of the wage-earner maybe we can have a cogent discussion about taxes. The “Federal Income Tax” on individuals does not include the Payroll Tax against their wages (hidden by taking it out pre-paycheck from the employer) and it doesn’t include the Medicare / Social Security “contributions” (read: Tax) against their income that doesn’t allow for any deductions.

The Federal Government taxes away 16% of your wages (under $100,000) before it even bothers to factor in deductions and apply your Federal Income Taxes.

The Government also taxes away an average of 22% of your consumer dollar through embedded taxation that’s hidden from your sales receipt.

9-9-9 eliminates the Payroll Tax, Social Security, and Medicare With-holdings - all taxes paid by anyone earning income that otherwise “pays no income tax.”

9-9-9 reduces the Embedded Taxes on goods made in America by reducing the rates that got embedded in the first place - like a 35% marginal rate on most businesses and the payroll tax.

9-9-9 makes transparent that the Federal Government is collecting taxes out of the sale of goods you buy by being honest about a Sales Tax.

So, to recap here:

1.) Those people with incomes under $110,000 pay a disproportionate amount of their annual income in social security taxes and medicare taxes, while their employers get to write off their payroll taxes as expenses. The existing SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme is already “regressive”.

2.) The government already collects a hidden 22% Sales Tax because all the embedded taxes are passed down to the point of sale to the consumer.

3.) You can only read a “tax cut for the wealthy” out of this plan if you mislead people by pretending that SSI/Medicare aren’t taxes and continue to play out the farce that the Fed isn’t collecting a de facto Sales Tax under the current system.

The only real selling point for the alt. 9-9-9 (business, personal, payroll) is that people seem more comfortable paying their Federal Sales Taxes when that ball is kept safely under the shell instead of out in the open. It eliminates the regressive nature of the SSI/Medicare/Payroll scheme in place at a fair rate.

FYI, full-time minimum wage is $14,500 per year. Under the current tax code you’d pay $1100 in FICA (and your wages are reduced by the $1100 payroll tax your employer paid). Then after the $5,800 standard deduction you’d have an effective tax rate of 6% (minimum tax bracket is 10%) for another $870 in personal income taxes. The Fed’s total take of your paycheck before temporary credits and gimmicks is $1970 / $14500 or 13.6%.

Under Alt 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 4.5% from you (and 4.5% from your employer) in payroll taxes for $623 and 9% in income tax for $1305, giving a total of $1928 / $14500 or 13.3%.

Under Reg 9-9-9 the Fed taxes 9% from you (and 0% from your employer) in income tax for $1305, or 9%.

Then you’re just deciding whether you want to pay a large embedded tax (current 22%), a smaller one (alt 9-9-9), or a tiny embedded tax one with an explicit Income Tax. (Basically decide how much competitive advantage you want to give to Chinese-made products / how much more U.S. labor you want to put out of work by the smoke-and-mirrors of embedded taxes.)
  • Marty Lund
 
From the transcript of last nights debate

ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.

I love how Romney’s argument is " I can’t have illegals, I’m running for office".

Really, I’m running for office. That was what mattered. Not the legality of morality of it. I can see it playing now in an upcoming ad.
You can always take something minor and blow it out of proportion in a mudslinging TV ad. This would be nothing new. The fact that it is a cheap attack won’t be lost on people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top