Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[BigSqwert]

Um, the human element?

 

And no, there's not. But I'd say the chance of creating life after becoming pregnant is pretty damn high.

 

Edit: and the rolling eyes comment was more for making this a partisan issue when for 10 pages it hasn't been really.

 

I was responding to a comment mentioning "crazy left wingers".

[Texsox]

Kinky for Perry

[The Sir]

Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life.

 

Edited August 25, 2011 by God Loves The Infantry

[mr_genius]

i wish this thread would go back to being about what a douche Jon Huntsman is.

[StrangeSox]

you have the power

[StrangeSox]

Ron Paul usually gets attention for his Austrain economic policies and isolationist foreign policy, but one thing that's usually ignored is that he's a staunch social conservative.

 

Stuck in Washington as Congress faces votes on continued funding of American military action in Libya, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, making his third bid for the White House, spoke via Skype to pro-life activists convening in Jacksonville.

 

“I talk a lot about right-to-life,” said Paul, who called it “the most important issue of our age.”

[vandy125]

Ron Paul usually gets attention for his Austrain economic policies and isolationist foreign policy, but one thing that's usually ignored is that he's a staunch social conservative.

 

That may be true, but he always says that it is the right of each state to decide those issues, not the federal government.

[Balta1701]

That may be true, but he always says that it is the right of each state to decide those issues, not the federal government.

Except his own platform states that he has also endorsed a "Sanctity of Life Act.” which would put into federal law a statement that life begins at conception, thus defining abortion as murder in federal law.

[Rex Kickass]

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-a...-161046437.html

 

Rick Perry has signed a pledge to back a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage — a reversal from a month ago when the Texas governor said he so supported individual states' rights that he was fine with New York's approval of same-sex marriage.

The pledge by the National Organization for Marriage states that, if elected, Perry will send a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification, and appoint U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution."

Others vying for the Republican presidential nomination, including Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, have also signed it, according to Brian Brown, president of Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage.

 

[StrangeSox]

States Rights!

 

Are all these pledges something new or is this pretty standard Republican politics?

[GoSox05]

States Rights!

 

Are all these pledges something new or is this pretty standard Republican politics?

 

Grover Norquist has been dishing out pledges since the mid 80's.

[Texsox]

Perry understands that as our President he will have a much different mandate than as the Governor of one state. Just like anyone else who receives a promotion at work, you have to change and you can't always hang out with your buddies and fight for their rights, you become management and have to support the position of management.

 

 

[Texsox]

Except his own platform states that he has also endorsed a "Sanctity of Life Act.” which would put into federal law a statement that life begins at conception, thus defining abortion as murder in federal law.

The party of inclusion even brings in fetuses. (as long as they are heterosexual, second generation citizens) Take that Dems And fwiw, that is out of step with what most Republicans I know believe so SS et al no need to distance yourself from his position. Same with same sex unions.

[Balta1701]

For those who still think he's a moderate, Ambassador Huntsman released his tax policy document yesterday. Basically, it takes a lot of the "Deficit commission" disaster recommendations from last year. Some of the highlights:

 

3 tax rates, 23, 14, and 8%. The highest tier is 23%, amounting to an income tax cut of ~1/3 on the highest bracket.

 

Elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on income from dividends.

 

Pays for that by getting rid of "Tax expenditures". Pretty much all of them. The employer healthcare deduction, the earned income tax credit, tax credits for education and child care are gone, all Social Security income becomes taxable, Veterans and disability benefits are taxed, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

For those who still think he's a moderate, Ambassador Huntsman released his tax policy document yesterday. Basically, it takes a lot of the "Deficit commission" disaster recommendations from last year. Some of the highlights:

 

3 tax rates, 23, 14, and 8%. The highest tier is 23%, amounting to an income tax cut of ~1/3 on the highest bracket.

 

Elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on income from dividends.

 

Pays for that by getting rid of "Tax expenditures". Pretty much all of them. The employer healthcare deduction, the earned income tax credit, tax credits for education and child care are gone, all Social Security income becomes taxable, Veterans and disability benefits are taxed, etc.

So he is favoring getting rid of individual tax breaks, in exchange for lowering overall rates and simplifying the system. I don't think that's the worst idea ever. But I am only OK with it if the effective tax reductions for lower and middle incomes are at least on par with those at the higher levels in the new scheme.

 

[Balta1701]

So he is favoring getting rid of individual tax breaks, in exchange for lowering overall rates and simplifying the system. I don't think that's the worst idea ever. But I am only OK with it if the effective tax reductions for lower and middle incomes are at least on par with those at the higher levels in the new scheme.

Since the only rates that are being cut are the top tier rates, the removal of all the tax credits hits everyone who isnt' a high earner, while the drop in the rates passes the buck to anyone who used to be in the 35% tax class. And since Dividend income is no longer taxed at all, the effective rate on heavy investors would be much lower.

 

Edit: Eliminating the EITC, for example, would be a substantial tax increase on families who earn under 50k per year, with the increase in taxes getting larger as income decreases. Increase of literally $2k in a lot of cases.

[NorthSideSox72]

Since the only rates that are being cut are the top tier rates, the removal of all the tax credits hits everyone who isnt' a high earner, while the drop in the rates passes the buck to anyone who used to be in the 35% tax class. And since Dividend income is no longer taxed at all, the effective rate on heavy investors would be much lower.

 

Edit: Eliminating the EITC, for example, would be a substantial tax increase on families who earn under 50k per year, with the increase in taxes getting larger as income decreases. Increase of literally $2k in a lot of cases.

Clearly the effective impact of cap gains and dividend taxes is biggest on high earners, no argument there. But I am not sure you are right about the effective increases on low earners either. You eliminate the EITC, but the brackets that use that (low to middle income) are either already in a zero bracket (and still would be), or have a lower overall rate.

 

The devil is in the details here. For zero fed income tax payers, this is a non-event. But above that zero line (or if the zero line has moved), what was the effective rate after various levels of special deductions and credits, versus the gain in the overall rate being lowered. This cannot be anwered in any sweeping way, it would take time and math to put together some sample slices.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

For those who still think he's a moderate, Ambassador Huntsman released his tax policy document yesterday. Basically, it takes a lot of the "Deficit commission" disaster recommendations from last year. Some of the highlights:

 

3 tax rates, 23, 14, and 8%. The highest tier is 23%, amounting to an income tax cut of ~1/3 on the highest bracket.

 

Elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on income from dividends.

 

Pays for that by getting rid of "Tax expenditures". Pretty much all of them. The employer healthcare deduction, the earned income tax credit, tax credits for education and child care are gone, all Social Security income becomes taxable, Veterans and disability benefits are taxed, etc.

Also, what is your definition of a moderate? I think there are two "ways" one can be a moderate, and they are sometimes used interchangeably. One is a person who is in the "middle" on issues, which is to say a moderate on each and every issue. Another is that some of their views are right-leaning, others left-leaning. That latter description fits me, and I think a lot of people, whereas the former becomes more rare the more issues you include.

 

Huntsmann is middle-ish on some issues, but really he is an amalgam of right and left leaning views, more right than left.

 

[StrangeSox]

That "zero line" exists because of the EITC. The lowest marginal rate is 10%. This would essentially result in a huge tax hike on 90% of Americans while giving huge tax cuts to the top 10%.

[Balta1701]

Also, what is your definition of a moderate? I think there are two "ways" one can be a moderate, and they are sometimes used interchangeably. One is a person who is in the "middle" on issues, which is to say a moderate on each and every issue. Another is that some of their views are right-leaning, others left-leaning. That latter description fits me, and I think a lot of people, whereas the former becomes more rare the more issues you include.

 

Huntsmann is middle-ish on some issues, but really he is an amalgam of right and left leaning views, more right than left.

I'd say that on tax policy, advocating eliminating the EITC and using the funds to drop the top tier to 23% is about as far as you can get from moderate.

[StrangeSox]

Clearly the effective impact of cap gains and dividend taxes is biggest on high earners, no argument there.

 

That's an understatement. Non-home wealth for the bottom 40% is actually negative. The top 20% control 93%. Pensions, corporate stocks and financial securities account for roughly 1/3 of non-home wealth, and business equity (which receives big tax breaks) another 1/3.

 

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

 

There's no way you can argue that this isn't a far right economic proposal.

[NorthSideSox72]

That "zero line" exists because of the EITC. The lowest marginal rate is 10%. This would essentially result in a huge tax hike on 90% of Americans while giving huge tax cuts to the top 10%.

Hm, perhaps I am misunderstanding that aspect of the tax code. And Huntsmann's plan. I'll have to take a look.

 

[StrangeSox]

This Forbes article breaks it down, there is a threshold of zero taxes thanks to standard deductions that it sounds like Huntsman wants to eliminate that accounts for roughly half of "nonpayers," and the rest get zeroed out thanks to mortgage deductions, EITC etc. that would all be gone.

[southsider2k5]

That's an understatement. Non-home wealth for the bottom 40% is actually negative. The top 20% control 93%. Pensions, corporate stocks and financial securities account for roughly 1/3 of non-home wealth, and business equity (which receives big tax breaks) another 1/3.

 

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

 

There's no way you can argue that this isn't a far right economic proposal.

 

The bottom 40% also have a negative net tax rate.

[StrangeSox]

The bottom 40% also have a negative net tax rate.

 

Only if you ignore every tax except FIT, and they would see massive income tax hikes under Huntsman's plan.

 

Edited September 1, 2011 by StrangeSox