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.
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.
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?
Newt is a very good speaker and great debater but is not worthy to receive a true conservatives vote in a primary when Cain is an option. I would vote for him (Newt) against commiebama but that isn’t much of an accolade and besides he won’t be the candidate. I agree the relationships with his wives are a reflection of the true man and exposes his character flaws as did his appearance with Piglosi in the Global Warning commercial. These flaws disqualify him for me, especially considered against another with a 43 year long commitment still honoring it.
There are many on here who are obviously establishment folks looking for the next Dole, Bush, McCain, etc. taking cues from the likes of Karl Rove.
Here in the Great State of Missouri we can’t wait to be able to vote for a real businessman and American Patriot who obviously loves America and would do all he could to see that the American experiment is alive and well and available to all who would be so inclined to pursue it.
I long to speak to my children about the office of the President of the United States and feel pride about the person who occupies it having REAL hope about the future of this once great nation.
No.
Newt may be the candidate of last resort...while we wait for Rubio to get ready.
Yet as much as I think Newt might be the best bet for President, I think he would be terrible as VP. Newt strikes me as one who is constitutionally incapable of playing a supporing role. Picking him for veep would be like picking a loose cannon like,... oh,... say...someone like...Joe Biden!
But as a Cain supporter I would hope that Speaker Gingrich would have a place in the future if he can stay away from those things and ideas which hurt him and the country in the past...
I’m not really happy with our choices, but I’ll vote for whomever gets the nomination. I do like Gingrich even though he has annoyed me at times. No one is perfect even Ronald Reagan.
He would make a good vice-president. He doesn’t inspire people anymore. Cain inspires people and casts visions. Without a vision, men fail.
Newt is a big government guy. He just wants to play musical chairs with it.
... to some watchers. To other watchers, especially those reporting on it, Obama will have destroyed Newt. People -- especially Obama sycophants and the MSM -- see what they want to see. Newt could clean Obama's clock -- ANYBODY could clean Obama's clock in the debates, as anyone with brains could recognize -- but the mechanism that might put Obama in office concerns neither brains nor, to a crucial degree, legitimate voters.
Obama and liberal Democrats cheat to win. Period. They have a whole mechanism constructed via many factors. They use manufactured votes. They use fraudulent votes of dead people and duplicate registrations. They gin votes from stupid people who have no business voting and would not vote at all if they weren't being led to the polls by Democrats. Whether or not Newt or anyone else can "destroy Obama in the debates" is irrelevant.
If the elections were legitimate, Obama would have lost in the first place, as most Americans despise him and despise Liberalism. The so-called popularity of liberalism, presented to us in pop culture and the MSM, is illusion, pretend, and we go around thinking there are a lot more liberals in America than there actually are; we perceive ourselves wrongly as the weak minority, and when the REAL minority wins by fraud, we're already conditioned to accept it.
We need to recognize that WE ARE THE MAJORITY, that liberals are the loathed minority, that their popularity is illusion, and that the only reason they're perceived as bigger than they are is because they make the most noise. As WE ARE THE MAJORITY, if we got tough and hard-nosed on enforcing anti-election fraud, the MSM and pop culture would scream and yell so loudly that it would appear as if we hard-nosed folks were a minority, but the TRUTH would be that we'd have the support of MOST legitimate American voters. And we'd have to move forward with the courage and faith that we are that majority -- it will have to be via courage, faith, and deductive logic (if we weren't the majority, liberals wouldn't have to cheat to win). No "legitimate" sources in the MSM or government will validate what we know is true, and thus we must rely on COURAGE and FAITH.
I could live with a Tea Party Congress and a President Gingrich. For all his Rhinoish tendencies, Newt has a lot of deep-seated conservative impulses too. His worst tendencies would be checked by the Congress and the more conservative state governments. Although I wish Perry would somehow make a comeback, I could make my peace with the Newtser.
He supports “Limited amnesty”
If you trust him about the meaning of limited, then great.
He should be Cain’s VP.
he’s clearly the brightest bulb out there....he handled the moderators perfectly on the debates, and is a shape as a tack