Republicans gather for fight night in Vegas

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
Newt and the rest of them should probably first worry about performing in and winning the Republican debates and winning the Iowa caucus to obtain a ticket out of Iowa for a chance to meet Romney in NH.
Click to expand...
Then, maybe, they can debate the Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton.😉
 
_Abyssinia said:
I don’t think Mitt Romney would knowingly allow illegal immigrants to do jobs on his property, knowing the political damage that that could do. I trust him on this, I think if he gets a contractor and that contractor employs illegal immigrants and they work on his property then later he finds out about it and lets them go, that is not his fault or responsibility but the contractors.

What Mitt Romney does have is a presidential calm even in the middle of a quick sparring debate.
Click to expand...
You hire a landscape company and they mow your yard and trim your trees. Later an employee of the company you hired is deported for being here illegally. Next day the press carries a story about you hiring illegals to do work around your home.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I don’t think Mitt Romney would knowingly allow illegal immigrants to do jobs on his property, knowing the political damage that that could do. I trust him on this, I think if he gets a contractor and that contractor employs illegal immigrants and they work on his property then later he finds out about it and lets them go, that is not his fault or responsibility but the contractors.

What Mitt Romney does have is a presidential calm even in the middle of a quick sparring debate.
Click to expand...
Right I don’t what happened in Mass, only what was said. I find it amazing how easy information like this, which has nothing to do with the computer is gained. I don’t see its a crushing blow to Romney just the usual dirty pool. Astounding its become so normal today is a period where we are “suppose” to be more civil? I don’t know how one justifys that.

Listen, I had guys do the Roof on my home a couple weeks ago, if there were illegal workers there how would I have known? The owner had a license and insurance and did great work for me before. Does he pay immigrants under the table? Who would know that? 😃

Peace
 
Perry rattled Romney and Romney came across as mean. It was actually kind of scary. Not sure if that will be good for either man.

Cain lost the debate. The question in my mind is did Cain hurt himself enough yesterday to lose his support. If so, that support will probably return to Perry. It isn’t, I don’t think, going to go to Romney. I think most Evangelical would actually like Perry’s answer to the faith question. He didn’t say faith was not important and he didn’t embrace Romney’s faith in any way or say it was to be ignored. It may not be the PC answer CNN and the pundits wanted to hear but it may be what he had to do to gain evangelical support. We will see.

Newt won the debate, but he probably won’t gain much support from it for the presidency. I think advocating Lincoln v Douglas style debates is a silly idea. And they were not really debates the way most Americans are use to using the word. They were more like hour long speeches.
 
I am just so sick and tired of Romney.

Perry looked better except when he and Romney were bickering.

Cain took some strong hits, ok seriously the electrified fence :eek: and also to his 9-9-9 plan

I just love Santorum.

I love that Bachmann talks numbers most of the other candidates don’t.

At this point I’m ready to fast forward past Romney and Perry when they fight. At least Perry attempts to back himself up with numbers when attacked on job creation ect. Cain and Romney stick with the whole, that is just wrong or incorrect and then they pivot. You are wrong is not a sufficient explanation or defense.

Gingrich won again IMO.
 
Pork_Roll said:
There were a ton of Mormons at that debate. You could hear them support Romney religiously. One more reason not to vote for him. It’s too bad we’re going to be stuck with Romney. The powers that be have chosen him
Click to expand...
Well yes, Las Vegas has a significant Mormon population. I knew his support would be strong there.
 
I think Perry accomplish last night what he needed to. He was a lot more aggressive and kept Romney on the defensive.

I think we are seeing the high water mark of Herman Cain. His 9-9-9 plan does not hold up to close scrutiny and his unforced error on saying he would negotiate with terrorits and then furiouslly backpedalling cannot help but hurt his chances. . Having said that I like him a lot and wonder if he would make a good VP candidate
 
_Abyssinia said:
I don’t think Mitt Romney would knowingly allow illegal immigrants to do jobs on his property, knowing the political damage that that could do. I trust him on this, I think if he gets a contractor and that contractor employs illegal immigrants and they work on his property then later Mitt Romney finds out about it and lets them go, that is not his fault or responsibility but the contractors.
Click to expand...
The argument was that he was told by the media ( the newspaper) and that a year later he still had them working there. This is first I heard of it, so I have no idea if it’s true or not. Just stating the point Perry was trying to make. It wasn’t oh look your landscaper sent illegals one day. It was hey you were told and there were still illegals a year later.

Personally I think there are bigger problems with Romney than this.
 
Cider said:
The argument was that he was told by the media ( the newspaper) and that a year later he still had them working there. This is first I heard of it, so I have no idea if it’s true or not. Just stating the point Perry was trying to make. It wasn’t oh look your landscaper sent illegals one day. It was hey you were told and there were still illegals a year later.

Personally I think there are bigger problems with Romney than this.
Click to expand...
When the president has relatives here illegally, you can’t really make hay out of a landscape firm that hired illegals. Not that Obama is personally responsible for his aunts or uncles, but it is an easy comeback for Romney if the issue came up. Perry can make it an issue, but not Obama. Plus, the voters won’t care. If you can get them a job, they’ll probably vote for you.
 
Cider said:
The argument was that he was told by the media ( the newspaper) and that a year later he still had them working there. This is first I heard of it, so I have no idea if it’s true or not. Just stating the point Perry was trying to make. It wasn’t oh look your landscaper sent illegals one day. It was hey you were told and there were still illegals a year later.

Personally I think there are bigger problems with Romney than this.
Click to expand...
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.
 
estesbob said:
I think we are seeing the high water mark of Herman Cain. His 9-9-9 plan does not hold up to close scrutiny
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. The math is very good. The problem is that it is vulnerable to weasel-words and other forms of immoral deception. I wish I had a nickle for every time someone made a completely misleading statement about how 9-9-9 “raises your taxes,” or whatnot. These positions are only kept from being bald-faced lies due to semantics - like pretending that employees don’t carry the burden of the Payroll Tax or pretending that Social Security and Medicare with holdings aren’t taxes.

That’s not even going into the fact that 20%+ of the purchase price of goods in America goes back to the Federal Government an Embedded Sales Tax already.

No, let’s play along with the Statist’s games and pretend none of that’s really taxation.

The real vulnerability of 9-9-9 is that dishonest people can obfuscate it.
and his unforced error on saying he would negotiate with terrorits and then furiouslly backpedalling cannot help but hurt his chances.
Click to expand...
Actually, the “gaffe” in question was Mr. Cain being polite in not condemning the president of Israel for negotiating with the Palestinian Authority over prisoner swaps. If Mr. Cain hadn’t said that he “would need to consider all the facts” to arrive at a decision the same people throwing mud at him now would be smearing him for “acting like a cowboy” and how “we’d never have had a Sunni Awakening with President Knee-jerk Cain in the oval office.” Never mind the cricket-chirps in the room when Ron Paul pointed out that president Reagan swapped weapons for hostages during his administration.

I guess the call for invective to be strewn about boils down to what definition of “negotiating with terrorists” is most opportune for your political campaign.
 
mlund said:
Actually, it does. The math is very good. The problem is that it is vulnerable to weasel-words and other forms of immoral deception. I wish I had a nickle for every time someone made a completely misleading statement about how 9-9-9 “raises your taxes,” or whatnot. These positions are only kept from being bald-faced lies due to semantics - like pretending that employees don’t carry the burden of the Payroll Tax or pretending that Social Security and Medicare with holdings aren’t taxes.

That’s not even going into the fact that 20%+ of the purchase price of goods in America goes back to the Federal Government an Embedded Sales Tax already.

No, let’s play along with the Statist’s games and pretend none of that’s really taxation.

The real vulnerability of 9-9-9 is that dishonest people can obfuscate it.

Actually, the “gaffe” in question was Mr. Cain being polite in not condemning the president of Israel for negotiating with the Palestinian Authority over prisoner swaps. If Mr. Cain hadn’t said that he “would need to consider all the facts” to arrive at a decision the same people throwing mud at him now would be smearing him for “acting like a cowboy” and how “we’d never have had a Sunni Awakening with President Knee-jerk Cain in the oval office.” Never mind the cricket-chirps in the room when Ron Paul pointed out that president Reagan swapped weapons for hostages during his administration.

I guess the call for invective to be strewn about boils down to what definition of “negotiating with terrorists” is most opportune for your political campaign.
Click to expand...
Heres a good analysis:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/GIF/T11-0374.gif]
 
I recommend looking into the work of better economists like Laffer on the matter.

The first footnote is very worrisome, because it seems to indicate accounting slight-of-hand. It does not account for the elimination of the employee contributions to Social Security and Medicare under 9-9-9. While lots of political weasels like to pretend that the SSI and Medicare with holdings on my paychecks are not a tax, the government itself only go the SSI/Medicare levies past Constitutional muster by arguing, before the Supreme Court, that there were a tax. I consider eliminating my SSI/Medicare charges to be a reduction in my taxes - and a significant one considering it is around 8% of my income and I don’t get to take any deductions against it.

Oh, and it is also ignoring the fact that the Employer portion of the SSI/Medicare take (IE, the Payroll Tax) actually comes out of the funds allocated to employee salaries. So instead of it being another 8% cut to the amount of my income being removed by the government they instead want to count it as a tax-cut for my employer.

Never mind the continuation of the age-old political shell-game of ignoring the 20+% Embedded Income Tax we already pay on purchased goods.
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
No, it really isn’t a good analysis at all. I recommend looking into the work of better economists like Laffer on the matter.

The first footnote shows it to be another act of slight-of-hand: it does not account for the elimination of the employee contributions to Social Security and Medicare under 9-9-9 because, like so many deceitful political operations, they like to pretend that the SSI and Medicare with holdings on my paychecks are not a tax, even though the government itself only go the SSI/Medicare levies past Constitutional muster by arguing, before the Supreme Court, that there were a tax.

Never mind the slight-of-hand of ignoring the 20+% Embedded Income Tax we already pay on purchased goods.

Of course, this is why such an “analysis” dumps numbers onto a spreadsheet without actually showing the math being used - just more Realpolitik.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
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
 
Actually, the numbers do add up. Even the article you link to does not support that premise at all. You just tagged it for the headline - which is wildly inaccurate. It is also literally yesterday’s news:

nationalreview.com/corner/280493/changes-coming-9-9-9-katrina-trinko

Mr. Moore has clearly stated that it would be more politically expedient to replace the 9% National Sales Tax with a 9% Payroll Tax because people are already familiar with paying a payroll tax. (Albeit a 16% Payroll tax only on the first 100,000 they make each year).

That isn’t an argument to the economic merits of the two proposals, but rather an acknowledgement of the fact that people are going to have a field-day being deceitful about the Sales Tax, just like Mitt Romney was during the debate last night.

The alternative 9-9-9 (income, business, payroll) is still a vast improvement over the current tax code, but the payroll-tax variant is worse on the fiscal merits for the following reasons:

1.) It compounds in the embedded taxes on a product each time you use U.S. Labor instead of foreign Labor at a point in the supply chain.

2.) You can’t mitigate how much you pay to the Government even if you save your wages, invest them, or use them to pay down debt.

But sure, if you have to split the baby on these lines just to avoid all the dishonest demagoguery about “raising your taxes!!!11111shiftone” it isn’t a terrible compromise. (And yes, while it it technically correct that if I impose a $0.02 shoe tax I’ve “raised your taxes” even if I reduced all your other tax obligations to 0 - but it substantively an utter lie - the kind only a politician could love.)
  • Marty Lund
 
The first step to fiscal reform is pulling back the curtain so people have to stop denying how the sausage is made.

1.) Medicare and Social Security are taxes, not trust-funds.

2.) The payroll taxes your employer pays come out of your pocket.

3.) Around 22% of of the Sale Price of consumer goods you pay goes to paying embedded taxes to the government.

4.) Domestic goods suffer additional disadvantages against Chinese-made goods because of our embedded taxes.

5.) Black-market labor is much more profitable than higher starting wages for legitimate employment due to our tax code.

It’s time to stop this grifter’s shell game.
  • Marty Lund
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top