Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote:It's beginning to look a lot like caucus season everywhere you go:

Nevada’s jump ahead in the GOP presidential nominating calendar has prompted new rounds of finger pointing, insider wrangling and political threats. But some Republicans worry the biggest losers may turn out to be voters.

Republicans in the Western state announced earlier this week that they would hold their caucuses on Jan. 14, a shift that triggered a domino effect forcing other states to rethink the timing of their own contests. And now, despite private warnings from Republican officials in Washington, it’s looking more and more likely that Iowa and New Hampshire could schedule the nation’s first presidential voting for the height of the coming holiday season.
...
Nevada is among a host of states that violated party rules by pushing up their elections to garner more influence in the presidential nominating process. It’s unclear whether there will be any consequences. An RNC spokesman declined to comment publicly Thursday.

The spotlight now turns to New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has the sole discretion to schedule the Granite State’s first-in-the-nation primary. Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn said he would like to schedule Iowa’s caucuses for Jan. 5, hoping that Gardner sets the New Hampshire primary for Jan. 10.
...
Gardner, who has set eight primary elections over the last three decades, said he is not likely to make a decision before Oct. 17. Strawn said he would make a decision in the next week to 10 days.

One consideration is a provision in New Hampshire law that directs Gardner to schedule the primary at least seven days before any other similar contest. It remains to be seen whether Gardner will interpret the Nevada election — which entail caucuses — as “similar” or not. Recent history offers a handful of examples of a New Hampshire primary less than a week before caucuses in other states.

Some of the elements centered on building America’s military might, including accelerating the construction of Navy vessels and reinvigorating the nation’s missile defense program. On Thursday, Romney had also called for boosting troop levels by 100,000.

“God did not create this country to be a nation of followers,’’ Romney said, adding “America must lead the world, or someone else will.’’

Grundbegriff wrote:I think it's hilarious when people call Romney a RINO, as if there hasn't always been a moderate, corporate wing to the Republican Party. Name "Rockefeller" ring a bell?

Kraken wrote:If I was entertaining any thoughts of supporting him, those just went out the window. OK, I wasn't. But still.

It's totally going to be Perry-Rubio. This will fire up the base (even beyond the Tea Party) while making a play for Hispanics. It has all kinds of aura, including the launch of a new generation of virile male conservative leadership. It plays on-screen like Clinton-Gore, back when Gore was svelte.

Zarathud wrote:That now makes me think of Bachman as the Church Lady.

Holman wrote: Isn't picking a charismatic but insubstantial VP the same mistake McCain made?

SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...

Arcanis wrote:

SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...

It states lowest possible is 9%
summary of it from the link is ditch most taxes & deductions and have 9% tax on business, individual gross income, and a federal sales tax. All of this to set up a transition to the "fair tax". I heard some talk about this the other day and that it is a plan that has been tossed around economist circles for 20 years, but never got any traction. I don't know how well it would work but at least some of it sounds good to me, but i'm not an economist so my idea of what kind of reactions such a plan would cause probably aren't very accurate.

noxiousdog wrote:

Arcanis wrote:

SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...

It states lowest possible is 9%
summary of it from the link is ditch most taxes & deductions and have 9% tax on business, individual gross income, and a federal sales tax. All of this to set up a transition to the "fair tax". I heard some talk about this the other day and that it is a plan that has been tossed around economist circles for 20 years, but never got any traction. I don't know how well it would work but at least some of it sounds good to me, but i'm not an economist so my idea of what kind of reactions such a plan would cause probably aren't very accurate.

Seems like that wouldn't be enough revenue.

Arcanis wrote: I think it depends on the details. As there would be a larger tax base, there are no loopholes (only deduction is for charitable donations), in theory it revs up the economy so 9% of a bigger pie, and the sales tax should generate a lot as well. Then again we are talking about guessing at what people will do with their money, so all bets are off. That is also intended to be phase 1 and moving to a fair tax plan which would hopefully be a long term solution, no details on that in the link.

Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

noxiousdog wrote:Currently his 'income' that contributes to AGI includes capital gains taxed at at least 15%.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

...unless the VAT exempts food, clothing, and medicine, as most states' sales taxes do.

Michele Bachmann wrote:When you take the 9-9-9 plan and turn it upside down, I think the devil's in the details

Jon Huntsman is boycotting next week's Republican presidential debate in Nevada.

The former Utah governor and other candidates say Nevada has unfairly shifted the date of its presidential caucuses. But Huntsman becomes the first to announce plans to skip next Tuesday's nationally-televised GOP debate in protest.
...
Huntsman's decision is not a huge surprise. His rival Mitt Romney has strong political support in Nevada. And Huntsman has staked his political future on New Hampshire.

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

Pyperkub wrote:

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

You'd better donate a lot of cash then, or at least put your money (and time) where your mouth is, because he isn't a serious candidate with his current bankroll and his organization is pretty thin.

msduncan wrote:I didn't say he was going to win. I said I may vote for him.

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

Biyobi wrote:

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

I think if that hat was in a houndstooth pattern your vote would already be locked in.

msduncan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

You'd better donate a lot of cash then, or at least put your money (and time) where your mouth is, because he isn't a serious candidate with his current bankroll and his organization is pretty thin.

I didn't say he was going to win. I said I may vote for him.

Daily Finance wrote:Speaking on Fox News, the Minnesota congresswoman stated that she wants to adopt Ronald Reagan's tax plan, a rate structure that is much higher than current tax rates.
***
During the Reagan years, the total effective tax rate ranged from 29.2% to 30.7%. By comparison, today's rate is 27.7%. In other words, depending upon which year of Reagan's presidency one considers, Bachmann's proposal would raise taxes by between 1.5% and 3%, across the board.

Anita Perry, the wife of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said she sympathized with the unemployed Friday because her son resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father, reports CNN.

"He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she said at a Pendleton, S.C. diner, in response to a middle-aged voter who lost his six-figure job and now works as a handyman. "My son lost his job because of this administration," she added. CNN reports that the SEC recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity.

Holman wrote:Rick Perry's family feels your pain:

Anita Perry, the wife of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said she sympathized with the unemployed Friday because her son resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father, reports CNN.

"He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she said at a Pendleton, S.C. diner, in response to a middle-aged voter who lost his six-figure job and now works as a handyman. "My son lost his job because of this administration," she added. CNN reports that the SEC recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity.