Posted on 11/05/2011 7:19:16 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
Having watched several of the debates, I am becoming convinced that Newt might be the only one that can beat Obama. He will destroy Obama in the Presidential debates. Can he overcome the destruction that Big Media rained down on him in the 90's?
he’s the much lesser of the Rhinos a term that would even apply to Limbaugh according to most posting on these pages.
SWo you think the answer is Ron Paul. Laughable.
I like him but unfortunately he has a terrible case of foot-in-mouth disease.
Nobody's a Saint, and Wikipedia's not the best source for info, but in addition to some political doozy decisions (couch with Nancy, etc), Gingrich has made some horrible personal ones.
He fools around and divorces his first wife, then does the same with his second wife DURING THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL, and blames it on his passion for the country... WTF?? Sounds like Jesse Jackson "counselling" Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal while fathering his own love child, or John Edwards sowing his oats while his wife battles breast cancer.
Add his personal and political missteps = not trustworthy. IMHO
A man who cannot be honorable in his marital relations cannot be expected to be honorable in any other.
- Harry S. Truman
Not so shocking. Newt’s a smart guy. Better than a Romney or a Perry. Cain and Newt would be way better than the current socialist occupant in the White House.
Sorry not being suckered yet again.
Sorry no interest at all in working to elect yet another good little faux Conservative Liberal GOP Establishment water boy like Newt. The time for political temporizing and expediency is over.
Lead or get out of the way.
It appears the GOP Establishment still does not get it. Our nation is too far past the point where this "politics as usual" nonsense the GOP Establishment wants to play in 2012 is a viable political strategy
I’m not.
Newt would castrate Obama. And the media will do everything they can to castrate Newt.
Well, anybody is better than Obama. It occurred to me yesterday that -—because of Ronald Reagan’s Social Security tax increase that brought Social Security revenue surpluses for 30 years-———it gave them Democrats their “trust fund” and obligated taxpayers to pay it back with interest. I consider this a huge political and economic blunder by Reagan and payroll taxes are tough on small business and wages and creates obstactle to work and save and create new jobs.
Arthur Laffer claimed that the most important tax change is to get the top tax rate under 30%——and Reagan raised the Social Security tax and gas tax to do that-——really making our fiscal situtation worse and skewing the debate about Social Security.
In order to get the top income tax rate under 30% for everybody......Reagan had to raise the SS tax, take away middle class deductions-—and make the tax code STEEPER—by having the highest rate of 28% rate kick in at just $18,500 taxable income.
There’s no reason why there should be a cap on the Social Security tax and no reason why businesses should have to pay it except to disguise its size. Small business is at a disadvantage because of the payroll tax-—because the small businessman has to pat double payroll tax on himself and on each employee, whereas the CEOs of big corporations only have to pay half as much payroll tax—if that.
If you look at what Reagan left us-—ie a SS “trust fund” to pay back and higher government spending and debt-——you have to say he was better than Carter but not a good or great president. He raised the capital gains tax and appointed Greenspan to the Fed—with his “conudrums” and “irrational exuberances” and inexplicable rate cuts and increases and errabt economic forecasts and poor oversight over banks and lending.....
But—besides creating a Social Security “trust fund” that forces us to pay it back with interest-—the Reagan tax policy had people earning less than $50,000 a year—when you add up their income tax and payroll tax and business side of payroll tax———and they were paying up to 40% and more in tax to the Federal government under Reagan.....which harms BOTH the supply and demand side of the economy.
Reagan was a man of the past and his own time-—and it’s a BAD idea for Republicans always to look backward at Reagan and Reaganomics—which ended with the Savings and Loan crisis.
Ironically-—even though Reagan was barely better than Democrats with his tax policy towards most people and his fiscal policy...BUT
because he raised taxes as president and as governor of California-—then Reagan himself does not even fit with the current Republican defintion of “Reagan Republican”. We should bury the term and be leaders looking into the future and not followers of the Reagan who never existed.
It would be wise for Republicans to apologize for the Social Security tax surplus and trust fund created by Reagan and to eliminate payroll taxes to make up for their Reagan past.
Because there’s no tax cap on Medicare and because Social Security pays for disability and survivor’s benefits for children, then there’s no reason why the rich should NOT pay their fair share—and you do that by eiminating all payroll taxes and the corporate income tax and taxing all income as “regular income”.
Arthur Laffer never explained why first dollar payroll taxes don’t count in his calculations about rates and thus he has little credibility except with some people of the right.
I say we go back to the Clinton tax code but without payroll taxes or the corporate income tax...with only ONE deduction...ie a $16,000 standard deduction. And because we get rid of payroll taxes, we raise the lowest rate to 19%.
Thus.....after your $16,000 standard deduction, you pay rates of 19% and 28% ( at $125,000) and 31% (at $250,000) and 36% (at $500,000) and 39.8% at $1 million—indexing the standard deduction and brackets for inflation and eliminating business payroll taxes and the corporate income tax and taxing all income the same without distinction between investment and regular income. But you bring back income averaging...so that people can spread out capital gains over time——
and regarding the “death tax”-—you let people pay that over time and if people take over a family business, then you only tax it when they sell the business, but not if they continue running it.
And maybe you exempt some capital gains income held for retirement.
Having tax deductions for charity and even for children is bad policy and bad morals. We spend a lot of money on children and therefore we cannot afford to say that the people with the most children for government to support should pay the least taxes.........
Having a single , larger standard deduction of at least minumum wage and no payroll taxes—sends the right message about work and incentive to work and save and invest and it treats single people fairly and people without dependent children fairly, too. Remember you DO have SS child survivor’s benefits-—so how can you have a big child tax credit, too????
Deductions for charitable giving are a terrible idea-—and it would be better to have a $25,000 standard deduction on income tax and no payroll taxes than to allow any deductions for charity.
Right now, the standard deduction is below minimum wage but the “rich” can deduct more for charitable giving than the working poor can to support themselves. Does that make sense” NO!!!!!
You want inventives for WORK, not giving your hard-earned money away. Why should there be MORE reward for giving the money away you EARNED by producing a good or service or providing capital for such-— when we don’t reward people for earning it in the first place????
Republicans put themselves in deep doo-doo because Reagan’s policy created the Social Security trust fund that Republicans now don’t want to have to pay back......and by also signing on to Obama’s pandering TRICK of cutting the SS tax for one year prior to election year, thereby
daring the Republicans to raise the SS tax in an election year.
Republicans need to come clean on Reagan and the mess he created by running Social Security surpluses for 30 years on the back of the middle class and small business.
The BEST was to remedy that is to do what I say above-—or else just go back exactly to the Clinton tax code in 1993-—but with payroll taxes or corporate income tax—but by raising the standard deduction to minumum wage....
The more I listen to Newt the better he sounds. During the debates the other candidates are not even in the same ballpark with him. That being said I am still not sold on anyone
So, I guess that makes you "originalbuckeye of Newt."
It's time to pick our candidate and fight, not to run in fear every time we get attacked.
I think Perry would kick butt all over Washington but alas, he is fading fast
I don’t think people give a crap about all of this personal stuff anymore...we have bigger problems that something that happend in peoples’ personal lives decades ago. The fact that the Cain smear didn’t phase his polling numbers reflect this.
You can bet that Newt knows exactly what will be thrown at him...and he has a response prepared for every upcoming smear.
That’s my emerging position, too.
Thanks for the laugh. But please know, ‘I am not a witch’!
I find it appalling that in the USA, anyone can be trashed for spending their own money. A Leftist position......all your money is mine as you don’t do the right thing with your money. This expenditure is NO ONE’S BUSINESS! Unless you are a Leftist who thinks that all the money in the country is yours to do with what you want.
Well, I never thought I would forgive him for the Pelosi ad, but I must admit, he is looking better all the time. I think he would be a very good —> great president, but can he beat Obummer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.