Republican Debate Numero Tres

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]

What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]

I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]

Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]

Like the States?

The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.[/quote]

If we are talking about a consumption tax then ya, I think the states could collect it, but you’d still need a federal revenue collector.

What I really meant was that you might save federal tax dollars, but states will need more resources to collect a federal consumption tax and you’d be talking about a lot of lost jobs, both public and private, if the code is simplified.

I’m not saying that’s a bad think, but it’s a consequence we should be aware of.

42

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]

What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]

I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]

Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]

Like the States?

The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be collected much more efficiently particularly if the code is vastly simplified. The only real consequence would be the displaced IRS workers and tax accountants. And that is a problem that would have to be dealt with, but its not a sufficient reason to keep a bad setup. Presumably a simplified tax plan would create jobs in the free market due to a boost in the economy so I would think it would balance out.[/quote]

You’d be destroying a lot of small businesses (like H&R block) as well. I’m also not sure simply cutting the red tape down will stimulate the economy without a drop in rates (ie more cash available for investment) as well.

43

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]

What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]

I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]

Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]

Like the States?

The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be collected much more efficiently particularly if the code is vastly simplified. The only real consequence would be the displaced IRS workers and tax accountants. And that is a problem that would have to be dealt with, but its not a sufficient reason to keep a bad setup. Presumably a simplified tax plan would create jobs in the free market due to a boost in the economy so I would think it would balance out.[/quote]

You’d be destroying a lot of small businesses (like H&R block) as well. I’m also not sure simply cutting the red tape down will stimulate the economy without a drop in rates (ie more cash available for investment) as well.[/quote]

Your objection is duly noted and the impact must be considered in any such overhaul. It is not, however, a reason to keep the tax code as it is currently.
With any such overhaul a drop in rates would be assumed as part of the solution. But you also must consider how much capitol in terms of time and money is dedicated to paying taxes that even if rates stayed the same, a lot of cash would be freed up interms of the overhead required to manage to current method of taxation.
In other words, merely simplifying the tax code would free up a lot of cash that is otherwise dedicated to meandering through the piles of paper work associated to paying taxes.
Just like finding a cure for cancer would put the world of oncology out of business, but saving the oncology industry is not a reason to resist curing cancer.
The current tax code is just a train wreck in slow motion.
2-5% of the GDP is swallowed up by the process of tax collection. If we could reduce that to .5%, that would inject a lot of money into the economy.
The system is inefficient. Any fix is going to impact jobs and industry dedicated to taxation. It still needs to be done.

44

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]

What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]

I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]

Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]

Like the States?

The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be collected much more efficiently particularly if the code is vastly simplified. The only real consequence would be the displaced IRS workers and tax accountants. And that is a problem that would have to be dealt with, but its not a sufficient reason to keep a bad setup. Presumably a simplified tax plan would create jobs in the free market due to a boost in the economy so I would think it would balance out.[/quote]

You’d be destroying a lot of small businesses (like H&R block) as well. I’m also not sure simply cutting the red tape down will stimulate the economy without a drop in rates (ie more cash available for investment) as well.[/quote]

Your objection is duly noted and the impact must be considered in any such overhaul. It is not, however, a reason to keep the tax code as it is currently.
With any such overhaul a drop in rates would be assumed as part of the solution. But you also must consider how much capitol in terms of time and money is dedicated to paying taxes that even if rates stayed the same, a lot of cash would be freed up interms of the overhead required to manage to current method of taxation.
In other words, merely simplifying the tax code would free up a lot of cash that is otherwise dedicated to meandering through the piles of paper work associated to paying taxes.
Just like finding a cure for cancer would put the world of oncology out of business, but saving the oncology industry is not a reason to resist curing cancer.
The current tax code is just a train wreck in slow motion.
2-5% of the GDP is swallowed up by the process of tax collection. If we could reduce that to .5%, that would inject a lot of money into the economy.
The system is inefficient. Any fix is going to impact jobs and industry dedicated to taxation. It still needs to be done.[/quote]

Agreed Pat, the idea of creative destruction is growing on me and if a reduction of the tax code can be done that boosts the economy and saves tax dollars I’m all for hearing it even though it hurts the accounting profession.

45

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]

I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]

HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]

Oh yeah, given the overwhelming foreign policy successes of the last 6 years, starting with the ME apology tour and the Russian ‘Reset’ button.
We need more of that kind of success.[/quote]

The GOP has lost its traditional edge in foreign policy. Clinton is far and away more experienced and more learned in this regard than anyone the GOP has to offer in 2016. Rubio is the only one who seems to have half a brain.

http://www.cfr.org/world/rebooting-republican-foreign-policy/p29717

[/quote]

I don’t disagree she has the most experience. She just sucks at it.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/why-hillary-can-t-run-on-her-state-department-record

46

Very entertain debate. LOVED seeing the candidates finally call out the media for what they are.

https://gop.com/nbc-letter/

Hopefully they stick to their principles.

48

The Republicans suspending their partnership with NBC pretty much sums up the 3rd debate.

As far as winners I would say the big winners of the night are Fox and CNN for actually putting on watchable debates.

As an independent my opinions haven’t changed as far as the candidates. I like Rubio and Kasich. I also thought Christie did well in this debate. The line nobody cares about Bushes fantasy football team was pretty good.

49

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
The Republicans suspending their partnership with NBC pretty much sums up the 3rd debate.

As far as winners I would say the big winners of the night are Fox and CNN for actually putting on watchable debates.

As an independent my opinions haven’t changed as far as the candidates. I like Rubio and Kasich. I also thought Christie did well in this debate. The line nobody cares about Bushes fantasy football team was pretty good.

[/quote]

Hopefully, this episode will put everyone on-notice.

By doing so, HOPEFULLY we will have more informative debates.

However; we do have to be careful. If these things go too far in the “opposite” direction…they become no more than stump speeches that are moderated for duration. That would be a shame.

One other thing to keep in mind…the RNC has “suspended” the relationship with NBC. They are in discussions. These things mean a lot of money to more than a few organizations, including the networks and the RNC/DNC.

(It will be interesting what kind of “Bump” Rubio, Cruz and Christie get in the credible Polls. Cruz and Christie needed pretty significant increases to take them out of single digits).

Mufasa

50

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
The Republicans suspending their partnership with NBC pretty much sums up the 3rd debate.

As far as winners I would say the big winners of the night are Fox and CNN for actually putting on watchable debates.

As an independent my opinions haven’t changed as far as the candidates. I like Rubio and Kasich. I also thought Christie did well in this debate. The line nobody cares about Bushes fantasy football team was pretty good.

[/quote]

Hopefully, this episode will put everyone on-notice.

By doing so, HOPEFULLY we will have more informative debates.

However; we do have to be careful. If these things go too far in the “opposite” direction…they become no more than stump speeches that are moderated for duration. That would be a shame.

One other thing to keep in mind…the RNC has “suspended” the relationship with NBC. They are in discussions. These things mean a lot of money to more than a few organizations, including the networks and the RNC/DNC.

(It will be interesting what kind of “Bump” Rubio, Cruz and Christie get in the credible Polls. Cruz and Christie needed pretty significant increases to take them out of single digits).

Mufasa
[/quote]

I think you mean, many organizations stand to make plenty of money due to the Carson/Trump show, because if they don’t show up, the viewership drops by at least half.

If someone like Rand Paul threatened to not participate, no one would give a flying fuck about his clown hair not showing up.

Hillary Clinton talked about being broke when she and Bill left the White House, I wonder if CNBC (or anyone else) would have asked Hillary if she was qualified to manage the country’s finances since she could not manage her own.

52

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It was terrible. I wanted to hear more about the various tax policies not about fantasy fucking football or Rubio’s personal financual choices. CNBC or MSNBC or whatever they are called sucks.[/quote]

I’m with USMC on this one.

This was SUPPOPSED to be a debate on Economics (isn’t MSMBC supposed to be a business channel? I don’t watch it). Most (if not all) of these candidates have tax plans (especially Cruz) that I wanted to hear more about.

So I relish the fact that the Moderators were Bitch-Slapped…they needed to be.

Then there was Bush.

He has been a headscatcher, for sure. He needs to save face and quietly bow out…he really does…

“Winners” in my opinion? Rubio, Cruz and Christie (even though many pundits feel that Cruz and Christie will not get enough of a “bump” to make them true contenders).

After the New Year and the first Primaries, I’m personally ready for the GOP field to become more “Lean and Mean”. We need to start sifting the proverbial “Wheat from the Chaff”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Not to pick a fight with you but I have been claiming for many years that the media leans far left and you have argued with me on that very topic. I’m glad to see that you’ve had your eyes open my friend.

53

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The first one to call out the liberal bias on the moderators part was Marco Rubio followed very powerfully by Ted Cruz.

John Kasich also had a good night as did Chris Christie. Fiorina seemed flat, Trump was a bit more calm and Ben Carson was certainly up to speed. Jeb Bush was the big loser other than the CNCB moderators,

[/quote]

I’m a big Kasich fan but I didn’t think he had a great night. I think Trump stuck it to him with the Lehman Brothers comment. I’m still hopeful he gets a VP nod.

I agree with you on Christie, but as Mufasa said, probably not enough to make a big change in polling. Fiorina was flat, she might be running for a VP or cabinet position.

I disagree with you on Ben Carson, he stumbled a couple of times and didn’t have a clear answer for how to make a 10% tax work. That might be bias of me talking, so I’d be curious to hear other people’s opinions of Carson’s night.

A lot of people are agreeing that Bush at best did ok and probably lost big. With his campaign needing momentum I’m curious if this was the nail in the coffin or if he will stick around. Does anybody think that he is better than Rubio at this point?[/quote]

Before Bush embarrasses himself even more he needs to drop out. He has zero chance to capture the nomination and not much better to be picked as VP. He looks weak and unsure of himself. At this point if he wants to be viable in 8 years he should walk away quietly and endorse the man he tried to harm (which backfired) Marco Rubio.

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Rubio is the last hope of the GOP. [/quote]

I bet he pulls it off and eventually gets the nod.
[/quote]

Yep!

55

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]

I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]

HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]

Hillary has no edge in this election. She lied about Benghazi, her emails and a multitude of other things in her long 23 year political career dating back to her first lady status. She might be all popular with her left wing supporters but when she gets out in the real world general election she is going to find out how much people hate her. This is not a year for long-term run of the mill standard politicians.

56

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]

What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]

I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]

Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]

agreed but not them! They have abused the right.

57

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
The Republicans suspending their partnership with NBC pretty much sums up the 3rd debate.

As far as winners I would say the big winners of the night are Fox and CNN for actually putting on watchable debates.

As an independent my opinions haven’t changed as far as the candidates. I like Rubio and Kasich. I also thought Christie did well in this debate. The line nobody cares about Bushes fantasy football team was pretty good.

[/quote]

If you re call the CNN debate was not much better than the CNBC debate. The seeds of rebellion were planted in the republican team during that debate. The CNN moderators pitted one republican against another repeatedly. They were perhaps one or two steps above CNBC that’s it.

Does anyone ever stop to think why the democrats will not have a FOX moderated debate?

They are too smart. And it’s time Rance Prebius the imbecile Chairman of the republican party think the same way.

58

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
The Republicans suspending their partnership with NBC pretty much sums up the 3rd debate.

As far as winners I would say the big winners of the night are Fox and CNN for actually putting on watchable debates.

As an independent my opinions haven’t changed as far as the candidates. I like Rubio and Kasich. I also thought Christie did well in this debate. The line nobody cares about Bushes fantasy football team was pretty good.

[/quote]

Hopefully, this episode will put everyone on-notice.

By doing so, HOPEFULLY we will have more informative debates.

However; we do have to be careful. If these things go too far in the “opposite” direction…they become no more than stump speeches that are moderated for duration. That would be a shame.

One other thing to keep in mind…the RNC has “suspended” the relationship with NBC. They are in discussions. These things mean a lot of money to more than a few organizations, including the networks and the RNC/DNC.

(It will be interesting what kind of “Bump” Rubio, Cruz and Christie get in the credible Polls. Cruz and Christie needed pretty significant increases to take them out of single digits).

Mufasa
[/quote]

I think you mean, many organizations stand to make plenty of money due to the Carson/Trump show, because if they don’t show up, the viewership drops by at least half.

If someone like Rand Paul threatened to not participate, no one would give a flying fuck about his clown hair not showing up.

Hillary Clinton talked about being broke when she and Bill left the White House, I wonder if CNBC (or anyone else) would have asked Hillary if she was qualified to manage the country’s finances since she could not manage her own. [/quote]

Nor could she manage the State Department but that’s another topic.

59

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]

I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]

HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]

Hillary has no edge in this election. She lied about Benghazi, her emails and a multitude of other things in her long 23 year political career dating back to her first lady status. She might be all popular with her left wing supporters but when she gets out in the real world general election she is going to find out how much people hate her. This is not a year for long-term run of the mill standard politicians.[/quote]

Foreign policy vis-a-vis the likes of Carson and Trump, yes she does. In regard to Benghazi, refer to SMH and my posts in the Next President of the US II thread.

60

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]

I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]

HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]

Oh yeah, given the overwhelming foreign policy successes of the last 6 years, starting with the ME apology tour and the Russian ‘Reset’ button.
We need more of that kind of success.[/quote]

The GOP has lost its traditional edge in foreign policy. Clinton is far and away more experienced and more learned in this regard than anyone the GOP has to offer in 2016. Rubio is the only one who seems to have half a brain.

http://www.cfr.org/world/rebooting-republican-foreign-policy/p29717

[/quote]

I don’t disagree she has the most experience. She just sucks at it.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/why-hillary-can-t-run-on-her-state-department-record

[/quote]

Carson and Trump can’t grasp the theory of foreign policy, much less its practice. The SecState carries out the executive branch’s policies, they do not create their own. Regardless, Clinton is widely regarded by practitioners and scholars to be a highly effectual SecState, though she doesn’t rank among the greats.