Poll Republican Debate

[JoeB131]

Bachmann's greatest achievement - The Lightbulb Bill.

10 dollars in cuts for one dollar in revenue - too much of a strain on billionaires.

Number of "Jobs Plans" presented? Zero

Corporations are people too.

I have no doubt this was the best and brightest Republicans have to offer.

Oh, but wait, in rides Rick Perry. A man who spent his college years on "academic probation". A man who "balanced" Texas budget with 20 billion dollars Obama gave him from the "failed stimulus". Thanks Obama, now I can trash you because I balanced the budget. Red State vs Blue State all over again. One always bails out the other.

Texas actually sends more money to Washington than it gets back... So Obama gave texans some of their own money. How nice of him.

 

[Claudette]

I should have made it public sorry, I don't post many threads.

Holy cow--can you say we have got a diverse crowd here tonight--

I am a fiscal conservative and cannot vote for anyone who believes that they can legislate personal behavior from Washington D.C.

Therefore Rick Santorim is OUT He does not believe in the 10th amendment of the US constitution as far as states rights toward sovernity. He doesn't believe in STATES RIGHTS--regarding gays or anything else. Palenty--once voting for Cap n Tax and his attacks on Bachmann--thereby violating Reagan's 11 commandment==(never attack one of your own_ is OUT.)

Huntsman is just another Barack Obama--someone who doesn't lead--and or needs an appointed commission to do it for him.

The above people are my OUTS.

Who Stays In:

The SURPRISE of the night to me--was Newt Gingrich--literally taking on Criss Wallace of Fox News on one of those Gotcha Questions--and Newt called him out on it on National T.V. Newt is the most informed of all the candidates.

Mitt Romney--can hold his own anywhere--and did good tonight.

Michelle Bachmann--still not impressive enough--for me to trust with the management of this country.

Ron Paul--no doubt he says it like it is--which I agree with--just not enough "hump" to actually win. I expect his son Rand Paul will someday be POTUS.

Herman Cain--great business experience--but lacking in government experience--which may turn out to be a positive for him.

Anyone of them would be better than what we've got right now.

But what do I know--I am just one of those tea party members of this country that respect states rights-and the 10th amendment of the US constitution and not the personal opinion of politicians.

If you right-wingers continue to try and shove YOUR social values down the throats of the AMERICAN PUBLIC--you will continue to LOSE ELECTIONS.

Totally agree with your analysis.

Newt was the big winner last night IMO. He's got experience and brains. I wasn't even thinking of him at all when the debate started. He changed my mind.

 

[Claudette]

Fuck me I meant to hit Newt and Hit Pewlenty LOL

sorry lol

I think Newt by far displayed best exactly what is needed to Defeat Obama. To bad he has all the baggage.

Newt--knows more than anyone in the field--he's definitely an historian- written several books-and after tonight--he doesn't take crap off of anyone.

Newt Gingrich would cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter.

Agree.

I had totally written him off before last night.

He changed my mind and I will watch to see how he does in the upcoming debates.

Newt would surely give Barry boy a run for his money.

 

[yidnar]

i know rdean. keep taxes high and keep companies from growing. Great way to create jobs, right? Your brain is wired backwards.

R dean does not work!!

 

[yidnar]

Every one of those guys has complained that Obama has not created jobs and their only plan to create jobs is "cut taxes". That's it. Cut taxes.

the more money people have the more they invest and spend.when they spend someone has to produce the goods they are buying .companies have to hire people to keep up with the increase in consumer demand...lower corporate taxes helps companies to invest in production and labor.the new workers will be off the government dole and paying income taxes......less taxes more money...more money more spending and investing....more spending and investing more production....more production more workers .....more workers less entitlements and more tax revenue!!!

We've already gutted government revenues with tax cuts, and it hasn't accomplished a damn thing other than to line the pockets of the super wealthy. When are you guys going to realize that? How much further do you think we can cut taxes?

we gutted revenues with trillions in wasteful spending!!!and you want more,more, more!!insanity!!

 

[yidnar]

OK pull out your check book and give more to the IRS practice what you preach or shut the hell up!!

 

[Steve Hanson]

So far every "solution" has been to cut taxes for corporations.

and

It's Obama's fault.

Yes, the current plan is working oh so well.

 

[yidnar]

i know rdean. keep taxes high and keep companies from growing. Great way to create jobs, right? Your brain is wired backwards.

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

hell spending and high taxes sure has helped the europeans!!

 

[Newby]

Fuck me I meant to hit Newt and Hit Pewlenty LOL

sorry lol

I think Newt by far displayed best exactly what is needed to Defeat Obama. To bad he has all the baggage.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[yidnar]

Who do you think won?

I'm really surprised at my choice for the most experienced candidate with knowledge and leadership qualities. Newt could wipe the floor with any of them, in my opinion. I really thought I would have been more impressed with one of the others, before Newt. I am looking at the long haul. Of all the candidates tonight, I would like to see Newt with Bachmann as VP, if she would accept.

And I was hoping to find a poll when I logged on and so I "thank you" Avorysuds. Great job. I also like Marco Rubio for VP.

Newt is a genius!!!and the baggage he carries is nothing compared to the baggage named Obama libbs carry!!!would love to see Newt debate the idiot Obama!!and Rick Perry is Impressive also.Get ready lefty's you are about to be embarrassed!! LIBBS ARE GOING TO LOSE BIG TIME IN 2012!!

 

[auditor0007]

Whats the problem????
The more money corporations have, the more people they can employ. And vice versa.

Corporate American is sitting on about 1.9 trillion in capital. Dividends are rising not employment. More money in the pockets of business is no guarantee of more jobs. Until there is concrete action to stop the growing deficits both at home and abroad, nothing is going to change. IMHO, any decrease taxes, would just be used to increase dividends and cash reserves. An increase in taxes would have no effect on jobs.

Again, I concur. Without an increase in demand, we will see no economic growth. And cutting taxes even more for the wealthy is not going to drive that demand. The vast majority of spending comes from the middle class, not the super wealthy.

 

[auditor0007]

That is not a fact.

In 1950 the tax revenue was about 371 billion dollars in 2005 dollars. Today it takes the government about 2 months to collect that much money, and just over a month to spend it.

Those are facts, Bartlett's interpretation of those facts is delusional and serves the position that government has a revenue problem, not a spending one. It also serves the idea that government is somehow more worthy of our money than we are.

Truthfully, trying to discuss anything serious here is a joke. The population of the US was less than half of what it is today, and GDP was a mere $2 trillion in 2005 dollars making your $371 billion 18.5% of GDP. The way you think, we should still be spending $371 billion per year on federal outlays, which would be less than 3% of GDP. Are you seriously telling us federal spending should be less than 3% of GDP? We're spending nearly double that on defense alone. Never mind, seriously, there is not point.

Why link government spending to GDP?

Because we have a track record to show us how much spending is effective for the programs that most Americans support. Just as when spending becomes greater than historical trends, we realize spending is out of control, we should also realize when revenue has been reduced too much. Why should a restaurant use a 20% labor cost, or a 30% food cost, or whatever percentage they determine is necessary to run their business? Why don't they just ignore that? Seriously, I had given you credit for being smarter than that.

 

[RDD_1210]

So far every "solution" has been to cut taxes for corporations.

and

It's Obama's fault.

Yes, the current plan is working oh so well.

Exactly! Extending the Bush tax cuts and keeping corporate loop holes open is not working.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's got to be really irritating to rdean to think that Republicans might have the government confiscate less money from the people while they are struggling in this economy. For whatever reason, he would rather burden them more.

People tend not to want the government to take more of their money when they are already struggling to get by.

Who exactly are you suggesting is struggling?
And who are you suggesting that the government is trying to increase taxes on?

There seems to be a disconnect in what you think is happening.

 

[auditor0007]

Once again, here is the spending problem.

Population of the United States 1965 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]- 194,302,963[/FONT]

Population of the United States 2006 - 299,398,484

A 35% increase in population.

A 35% increase in median income

And a 334% increase in federal spending​

It's fun using only some of the stats that make your argument relevant. What about GDP moving from $3.7 trillion (2005 dollars) to $13 trillion? That is an increase of 352%, more than the increase in federal spending.

 

[Liberty]

Yeah there's my boy Ron. Takin it home. woop woop.

 

[auditor0007]

the more money people have the more they invest and spend.when they spend someone has to produce the goods they are buying .companies have to hire people to keep up with the increase in consumer demand...lower corporate taxes helps companies to invest in production and labor.the new workers will be off the government dole and paying income taxes......less taxes more money...more money more spending and investing....more spending and investing more production....more production more workers .....more workers less entitlements and more tax revenue!!!

We've already gutted government revenues with tax cuts, and it hasn't accomplished a damn thing other than to line the pockets of the super wealthy. When are you guys going to realize that? How much further do you think we can cut taxes?

we gutted revenues with trillions in wasteful spending!!!and you want more,more, more!!insanity!!

If you knew anything, you would know that I do support spending cuts, specifically to our most burdensome long term unfunded liability Medicare, as I support raising the age when benefits can first be taken. I have no problem with reasonable cuts in spending, because we are spending too much. At the same time, unlike so many of you here, I understand that we also need more revenue, just to pay for our current obligations. And the reason we need more revenue is that we cut taxes too much. It really is that simple.

 

[auditor0007]

i know rdean. keep taxes high and keep companies from growing. Great way to create jobs, right? Your brain is wired backwards.

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

hell spending and high taxes sure has helped the europeans!!

Just a reality check; our spending is well below that of European countries, even after including state and local government. And on the flipside, our taxes are substantially lower also. We are not like the European countries as much as you try to prove that we are.

 

[Immanuel]

Whats the problem????
The more money corporations have, the more people they can employ. And vice versa.

Corporate American is sitting on about 1.9 trillion in capital. Dividends are rising not employment. More money in the pockets of business is no guarantee of more jobs. Until there is concrete action to stop the growing deficits both at home and abroad, nothing is going to change. IMHO, any decrease taxes, would just be used to increase dividends and cash reserves. An increase in taxes would have no effect on jobs.

Do you mean to imply that the $1.9 trillion is liquid capital i.e. cash in the bank? I mean if that $1.9 trillion is in the form of plant and equipment (which honestly seems very low to me) then this line of discussion does not make a lot of sense to me. Do you want the corporate world to just liquidate their assets at a loss to solve this problem, and if so, what should they use to produce their goods and services afterwards?

Immie

 

[CountofTuscany]

So far every "solution" has been to cut taxes for corporations.

and

It's Obama's fault.

Yes, the current plan is working oh so well.

Exactly! Extending the Bush tax cuts and keeping corporate loop holes open is not working.

So you mean to say Obama has failed?