Santorum surges?

Herman Cain, wait, no.
Rick Perry, wait, um...
Mitt Romney!
or maybe Newt
No Mitt, definiely Mitt
unless it's newt.. but wait!!!!
Santorum surges!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbNidYYGjic

What the hell is going on out here!!!!

Conservatism is alive and well! Just ironic that Santorum may or may not be on the Indiana ballot...

Most people don't like Mitt because he is a moderate. The evangilacal don't like him because he is a mormon. They think it is a cult (isn't all religion a cult?) So you have the anybody but Mitt crowd. Two things are really sad about this.

1. These are the best republicans have to offer? Would have liked to see some other republicans run. i.e Christie, Jindal, Mitch, Rubio. Obama is a weak candidate due to the economy and we should have had better representation against him.

2. The media wants a winner already. Really we have had only what 8 primaries/caucuses already. Those first states should have the exclusive right to pick the nominee? The longer the better I say.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Most people don't like Mitt because he is a moderate. The evangilacal don't like him because he is a mormon. They think it is a cult (isn't all religion a cult?) So you have the anybody but Mitt crowd. Two things are really sad about this.

1. These are the best republicans have to offer? Would have liked to see some other republicans run. i.e Christie, Jindal, Mitch, Rubio. Obama is a weak candidate due to the economy and we should have had better representation against him.

2. The media wants a winner already. Really we have had only what 8 primaries/caucuses already. Those first states should have the exclusive right to pick the nominee? The longer the better I say.

Points well taken... just different this year than in the past.. I dont see anyone of these guys beating Obama...

If Mitch had run it's likely I would have voted for a republican for the first time in my life.

Pez wrote:If Mitch had run it's likely I would have voted for a republican for the first time in my life.

Didn't think you were a Mitch fan. Although fan might be too strong of a word.

To me Obama is very beatable this year. The economy, as Obamacare becomes more intrusive. I think he lost the catholic vote. Energy policy i.e. Oil companies still having hard time getting drilling permits in the gulf, and the keystone pipeline, his failed energy companies (solandry (sp) evergreen and one other green energy company that got billions from the gov't that went belly up. Remember when he was against the Patriot act and now it is worse than what GWB made it. And the class warfare he seems to promote.

You know I think the number is up to 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. You know it is time for that 50% to start contributing some $$. Even if it is a flat rate $500 for poverty level and below and a flat $1000 for the people above the poverty level up to the income level they start paying taxes.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:If Mitch had run it's likely I would have voted for a republican for the first time in my life.

Didn't think you were a Mitch fan. Although fan might be too strong of a word.

To me Obama is very beatable this year. The economy, as Obamacare becomes more intrusive. I think he lost the catholic vote. Energy policy i.e. Oil companies still having hard time getting drilling permits in the gulf, and the keystone pipeline, his failed energy companies (solandry (sp) evergreen and one other green energy company that got billions from the gov't that went belly up. Remember when he was against the Patriot act and now it is worse than what GWB made it. And the class warfare he seems to promote.

You know I think the number is up to 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. You know it is time for that 50% to start contributing some $$. Even if it is a flat rate $500 for poverty level and below and a flat $1000 for the people above the poverty level up to the income level they start paying taxes.

Agree... the bush tax cuts followed by the Obama follow ups were lunacy in the name of ideology, followed by lunacy in the name of compromise... I pay more in federal taxes than I do anything else.

And yea, I'm a Mitch fan because he doesn't seem to get hung up on the huge social issues, meanwhile is a very effective administrator and communicator. Ideology wise, he's a moderate, which I find appealing.

The keystone pipeline (IMHO) is a red herring... There's no clear evidence that its really needed, and even after you knock down the tree hugging rhetoric ten notches it's still pretty true that the environmental impact of same is not clear, yet should be. I call it a red herring because the GOP used it as a baseball bat to be able to say that Obama isnt doing anything about gas prices, and turned away from the thousands of jobs it would create etc. They tied it to the debt ceiling bill AND gave him an out... he just had to make a decision by a certain date, not approve it... so they get to say they tried, but they were obstructed by that evil democrat in the whitehouse. It's the kind of move that I (and many many more like me) is growing to despise about politics in Washington. It's like a huge, uninteresting video game.

On taxes in general, I don't think a flat tax is appropriate, but a much simplified graduated tax rate with exceptions for you, your kids, money you give to charity and money you invest in a retirement account. I do think that those at the very bottom of the earnings ladder should pay little of no tax at all, but the threshold for such should be very near or below the poverty line. Capital gains should be taxes at a rate similar to income. I cant think of a reason why it is lower than income taxes now... theoretically it provides money to companies that then, in turn, spend it on economic and corporate growth, jobs etc... however this effect is pretty indirect from the individual investor... In reality, perhaps corporations should pay part of it... $1000 invested in GM that yields $1000 gain would have the investor pay $150 and GM pay then other $150.

Add to that the tax code just needs to be much more transparent.

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:If Mitch had run it's likely I would have voted for a republican for the first time in my life.

Didn't think you were a Mitch fan. Although fan might be too strong of a word.

To me Obama is very beatable this year. The economy, as Obamacare becomes more intrusive. I think he lost the catholic vote. Energy policy i.e. Oil companies still having hard time getting drilling permits in the gulf, and the keystone pipeline, his failed energy companies (solandry (sp) evergreen and one other green energy company that got billions from the gov't that went belly up. Remember when he was against the Patriot act and now it is worse than what GWB made it. And the class warfare he seems to promote.

You know I think the number is up to 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. You know it is time for that 50% to start contributing some $$. Even if it is a flat rate $500 for poverty level and below and a flat $1000 for the people above the poverty level up to the income level they start paying taxes.

Agree... the bush tax cuts followed by the Obama follow ups were lunacy in the name of ideology, followed by lunacy in the name of compromise... I pay more in federal taxes than I do anything else.

And yea, I'm a Mitch fan because he doesn't seem to get hung up on the huge social issues, meanwhile is a very effective administrator and communicator. Ideology wise, he's a moderate, which I find appealing.

The keystone pipeline (IMHO) is a red herring... There's no clear evidence that its really needed, and even after you knock down the tree hugging rhetoric ten notches it's still pretty true that the environmental impact of same is not clear, yet should be. I call it a red herring because the GOP used it as a baseball bat to be able to say that Obama isnt doing anything about gas prices, and turned away from the thousands of jobs it would create etc. They tied it to the debt ceiling bill AND gave him an out... he just had to make a decision by a certain date, not approve it... so they get to say they tried, but they were obstructed by that evil democrat in the whitehouse. It's the kind of move that I (and many many more like me) is growing to despise about politics in Washington. It's like a huge, uninteresting video game.

On taxes in general, I don't think a flat tax is appropriate, but a much simplified graduated tax rate with exceptions for you, your kids, money you give to charity and money you invest in a retirement account. I do think that those at the very bottom of the earnings ladder should pay little of no tax at all, but the threshold for such should be very near or below the poverty line. Capital gains should be taxes at a rate similar to income. I cant think of a reason why it is lower than income taxes now... theoretically it provides money to companies that then, in turn, spend it on economic and corporate growth, jobs etc... however this effect is pretty indirect from the individual investor... In reality, perhaps corporations should pay part of it... $1000 invested in GM that yields $1000 gain would have the investor pay $150 and GM pay then other $150.

Add to that the tax code just needs to be much more transparent.

The reason given by Obama is BS. This pipeline has been on the drawing board and studied for over three years. Obama makes it sound like he just heard about it and it needs to be studied (although he acts stupid enough sometimes). I do agree with the enviromentalist it would be bad for the aquifier, but all you have to do is reroute it. Will it lower the price of crude oil for the US? no. Will it send american dollars to a more friendly nation? yes. As Canada says don't want it, fine we will build the pipeline to the pacific ourselves and sell the oil to china. So do we want to send our oil dollars to Venazula or Canada? Do we want the jobs for Americans or Canadians? Although I believe the 20,000 job estimate is sort of high.

While I would like a flat tax my example of everyone paying something wasn't for a flat tax rate. It was for the people that currently pay nothing to pay something. Everyone needs a little skin in the game. Even the poor.

I do believe capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate. Here is why: The money you buy stocks with has already been taxed at your income level when you earned it. So instead of buying that big screen TV or Mercedes, you buy stock. So why should you be taxed/penalized at a higher rate because you were thrifty and wanted to make more money by gambling/taking a risk on a company. You should be rewarded in some way for taking that risk and being prudent with your money. Investment income should have the littlest tax rate or not taxed at all in my opinion. You notice government bonds, municipal bonds are tax free from their earnings why should that be?

You are right the tax code needs a complete rewrite. Along with the safety net programs, ie. welfare, food stamps etc.

But you aren't taxed again on your investment, you are taxed on the capital gained from that investment. Invest 80,000 and earn $20,000, you only pay tax on the $20,000... so I'm not sure how being taxed again is a correct analogy. And in your big screen TV example, you are actually double taxed... your income is taxed and you use that income to pay for the $1000 TV, which rings up as $1070 at the register as you pay Indiana sales tax...

Another batshit crazy analogy: You pay for college out of pocket and become a rocket surgeon... College costs you $80,000, you graduate and earn $375,000 a year... your prudent investment in your own education isnt taxed (more accurately is deductable), but the pseudo gains you made from your "investment" are taxed (in perpetuity)... at a level higher than if you simply invested that 80,000 in Google, sat on your arse and ate bonbons.

Supposed you buy a house in the hood with that $80,000... Free and clear, outright, bringing a stack of cash to closing. You pay sales tax and closing costs, then you pay taxes for the right to own that property. In a way, property an investment where they tax your principal.

Pez wrote:But you aren't taxed again on your investment, you are taxed on the capital gained from that investment. Invest 80,000 and earn $20,000, you only pay tax on the $20,000... so I'm not sure how being taxed again is a correct analogy. And in your big screen TV example, you are actually double taxed... your income is taxed and you use that income to pay for the $1000 TV, which rings up as $1070 at the register as you pay Indiana sales tax...

Another batshit crazy analogy: You pay for college out of pocket and become a rocket surgeon... College costs you $80,000, you graduate and earn $375,000 a year... your prudent investment in your own education isnt taxed (more accurately is deductable), but the pseudo gains you made from your "investment" are taxed (in perpetuity)... at a level higher than if you simply invested that 80,000 in Google, sat on your arse and ate bonbons.

Supposed you buy a house in the hood with that $80,000... Free and clear, outright, bringing a stack of cash to closing. You pay sales tax and closing costs, then you pay taxes for the right to own that property. In a way, property an investment where they tax your principal.

Yet students whine they can't afford to pay back student loans everyday and default on there student loans everyday. I'm not saying it has to be no tax on capital gains but it should be lower than regularly earned income. I wouldn't care if they means tested it so say first 25K is 0%, 25K to 100K is 5%, 100K to 500K 10%. Once again if that person was lucky enough to wins life lottery by making money on google vs college, you should be inspired to take a chance on the market (and still educate yourself in case life lottery is bust so you can support yourself).

Using your logic 401K's should be taxed on gains, IRA's etc. Once again why are not muni bonds, and government bonds not taxed on the interest they provide? You know Sen. John Kerry gets most of his money from them and pays no income tax on those earnings.

If you buy that house the property tax is for the community, roads, schools, new million dollar elevators that are not disclosed before a election etc. Of couse if you live in that house for a period of time and it increases not all the increase is taxed until it reaches a certain level.

We just keep proving the tax code needs a complete rewrite.