Republican nominations - Page 128

On October 19 2011 03:19 Kiarip wrote:
Well first of all according Bloomberg it's no revenue neutral and is short 200 billion dollars worth of revenue which is approximately 9% of the tax revenue.

He also claims/implies that he eliminates the payroll tax, but it's in fact rolled into the corporate tax, because there's no deduction to the corporate/business tax based on the income tax in his tax plan, so the payroll tax is still there at 9%.

So this tax change actually raises the taxes for a lot of the lower and middle class that he claims it actually lowers them for.

On October 19 2011 04:23 methematics wrote:
There is a "curve" in economics called the laffer curve, named after Art Laffer who i believe was an economic advisor to Regan. The idea of the laffer curve is as follows: at 0% tax rate the government earns nothing, and 1% the govermnet earns more then nothing. At 100% tax rate (in a capitalist country) the government earns nothing because no one works, at a 99% tax rate the government (possibly) earns slightly more. Thus the function of taxation percentage to government revenue must decrease at some tax percentage, since it starts out increasing and ends up decreasing. This (i believe, not to sure) is what motivates the idea that Regan had in which lowering taxes will generate more revenue, by assuming that we are passed the tax rate at which the maximum revenues are generated. The laffer curve cant identify if there is only 1 local (and thus global) maximum or if there are several local maximums. Think of an upside town parabola as having one local/global maximum and a sin function having several local/global maximums (where each global maximum is equivalent, scale the since function with an amplutude per time or position scalor to remove this). Also, there are many different taxes which scale dramatically with other factors, so I believe the laffer curves also assumes some flat tax.

I was surprised at how receptive Art Laffer is of the 999 plan, its a big deal coming from his mouth imo.

Note that lower taxes can increase revenue iff our current tax rate is too high assuming a single global maximum in the laffer curve.

On October 19 2011 03:58 xDaunt wrote:

This is more of a philosophical difference. From my perspective, EVERYONE should have some skin in the game. In fact, this is one of the core principles of Jefferson's notion of "republican virtue," which he believed to be vital to the survival of the republic.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I do realize that my opinion regarding the last point maybe in the minority, and Herman Cain realizes this, too. This is why he's looking to soften the blow a bit with this "empowerment zone" modification to the 999 plan. We'll just have to wait and see what he has in mind.

actually I think most republicans want to just straight up ban gay marriage.

It is the libertarian view however.

that's part of his private life...

what are you even trying to say?

On October 19 2011 04:54 Belial88 wrote:


Grand Old Party for a reason.

I think most Americans want to ban gay marriage - it's not just Republicans, every single time states vote on gay marriage, or people are polled, people vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage.

Now personally, I support gay marriage, I even voted in favor of it in my state, but if a state is dominated by a bunch of religious nutjobs, then it should be allowed to ban gay marriage. Virginia, for example, is an extremely christian state, and if they want to be intolerant, or 'christian', then they should have the right to do so.

My point is that most people are against gay marriage in America, despite what everyone you know tells you because everyone you know is on the college campus or the city. So yes, most republicans are against gay marriage, but so are most democrats.

But, I do think a lot more republicans are against gay marriage on a personal level. However, most republicans recognize that it's a state issue. There was the whole federal mandate fiasco Bush proposed, but that was in response to federal activism, or in essence support for states rights (by taking it away... yes, confusing). I think Democrats want a federal mandate passed, and Republicans want each state to vote for it. I think most Republicans would be perfectly happy if straight marriage was no longer federall supported through taxes and etc as well.

I'm trying to say Obama is a christian nutjob too, so the idea that only republicans are religious fanatics is ridiculous when Obama goes to church every sunday just like they do, talks about god just as much, has certain beliefs just because a book told him (just like republicans). Obama went to Rev. Wright, and irregardless of the controversial things he said, this man has said some extremely... 'religious' stuff. I'm sure Obama just went every.single.sunday to this guy's church because he only pretends to be christian right?

If someone believes in some book and some imaginary god, then I definitely want to know about his 'private life'. I think it's a little relevant. My point is, is that Obama is no less a religious fanatic than Republicans, yet liberals always talk about how religious republicans are, yet when Obama refuses to grant gay marriage, it has nothing to do with how extremely religious he is.

I'm trying to say Obama is a christian nutjob too, so the idea that only republicans are religious fanatics is ridiculous when Obama goes to church every sunday just like they do, talks about god just as much, has certain beliefs just because a book told him (just like republicans). Obama went to Rev. Wright, and irregardless of the controversial things he said, this man has said some extremely... 'religious' stuff. I'm sure Obama just went every.single.sunday to this guy's church because he only pretends to be christian right?

If someone believes in some book and some imaginary god, then I definitely want to know about his 'private life'. I think it's a little relevant. My point is, is that Obama is no less a religious fanatic than Republicans, yet liberals always talk about how religious republicans are, yet when Obama refuses to grant gay marriage, it has nothing to do with how extremely religious he is.

Belial88: Because attending church on Sundays makes you a religious fanatic. I think you have it backwards, bro. You're just an anti-religious fanatic. And most of educated America will probably agree with me. Try taking a less extreme approach as extremism tends to be wrong because it is far too biased to make objective conclusions. Sometimes you see things you want to see, and in this case, you're trying really hard to see negatives.

Republicans are all about preserving the Christian Protestant marriage with the power of the government... there are no real conservatives left amongst them.

I think it has more to do with the fact that it's still unpopular to support gay marriage. Same with the fact that most Americans are Christians, and it's standard to try to make yourself relatable. I think Obama is pretty secular tbh.

The government isn't allowed to take civil rights away from minorities just because it won a 51% vote, there are protections against it. The USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Language about state rights is just code for finding a way to avoid being a constitutional republic, by identifying pockets of the country where you have a majority for some bigoted thing. You'll see republicans use different measures if they're ever in a state without them having a majority.

On October 19 2011 09:03 xDaunt wrote:
The debate is starting now on CNN.

EDIT: Seriously, WTF is with CNN and these stupid, corny, and over-the-top candidate introductions? I thought CNN was supposed to be "the serious" news network....