Clinton Collapse?

[Ddrak]

The mistake you're making is thinking people weigh candidates in a vacuum. Whether anyone can be elected President depends entirely on their opposition.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

superwalrus wrote:
people don't like African-Americans

You might say you are not racist, but when you are not watching your language, your subtext sneaks out and betrays you. You could have said "Whites don't like African-Americans" But you didn't. you said "People".

[Garrdor]

Yeah, our nation isn't culturally ready for a NIGGER PRESIDENT

[Embar Angylwrath]

Wow, Embar calling someone dense, how ridiculous. (insert pot meet kettle jokes)

You realize that you just called yourself dense in your response, right? The 'ol pot-kettle thing is an illustration of equality, so if I'm dense, and I'm the pot (or kettle), and you're the other pot or kettle, that makes you dense too.

Must be that sharp lawyer mind....

Moron.

[Select]

I guess my big lawyer brain takes things for granted.

A good lawyer subtly flaunts any power or advantage. Openly saying "Hurr hurr I = lawyer. I = better" is not how you display that advantage.

[Mukik]

I dont believe Walrus meant just whites deliberately because its not just whites that 'dislike african americans' Me? I hate indians. I guess we all have our hidden dislikes, and while I have an urge of a negative connotation , I still try to subside it and deal with the person I am dealing with.

In regards to the people dont like african americans comment I would like to add something I noticed back in 90's. I was engaged to a woman who was 1/2 white, 1/4 american indian and 1/4 african american. Now her father was a prominant person in the denver community (not wellington) and she was the prodigy of basically a second home he maintained. (5 kids from a woman that wasnt his wife ..lol.) I spent many a summer days in montbello with a wonderful family, her older sister from his marriage. I did take notice of the interractions between the lighter and darker african americans along with how they regarded wellington web. A black man seems to , from the public eye of at least 3 different occiasions/families, have 1 of 2 agendas going on. Either 1. hes selling out his fellow brother. 2. hes a corrupt son of a bitch, and will fuck anything that walks, including your dog. Theres no middle ground here. And frankly look over at africa for my supporting argument. Who started world aid? whos screaming about the present violence in kenya,and who tried to stop somalia? Sheesh the list can go on and on and on.

The statement of we dont like african americans in power is a very broad, and yet catches most (80percent of the politicians out there) statement. There are a couple exceptions to the rule, but alot of people have to figure out if obama is one of them.

I have no idea now who I am going to vote for at the moment, as huckabee seemed like the logical choice untill I dug into his religious agenda.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I wouldnt put much stock into his religious beliefs, no matter how whacky they are. He can't write laws, only sign (or veto) the ones before him, and Congress isn't going to put some "national religion" bill on his desk.

Where he resonates with America, I think, is that he ahs identified with the middle class. And if you ask a poor person, or a rich person, most will say they are "middle class", with maybe an upper or lower thrown in front of the term. It doesn't really matter if the person voting is upper class or lower class (speaking strictly in economic terms here), but only how they identify themselves. Huckabee tapped into that.

Clinton and Obama preach about making things better for the working poor, and that coal miner or truck driver or ditch digger says "Ok, but what about me?" Its becasue they dont see themselves as the working poor, they see themselves as middle class.. but struggling. Huckabee has correctly identifed with the American psychology of "I'm doing ok, but those poor bastards over there..." mentality. He's taken the Alternative Minimum Tax issue and turned it in to a mainstream middle class issue (which, in truth, it is becoming). If he can sell that, he can sell anything.

[Finglefinn]

We need to elect Alan Keyes.

[Flunkie]

Obama has too many negatives to be able to get elected to the Presidency. His liberal social ideas and his lack of any experience whatsoever are a negative to many people who will vote in the Presidential election. His race and religious background are something I also put in the negative category. Regardless of whether you like it or not, people don't like African-Americans, and they might not even consciously know it. He has an uphill battle to climb. He does have many positives too, the fact that he is seen as a Washington outsider, that many liberal white democrats will vote for him just to prove to themselves that they aren't racist, he is a very eloquent speaker, he has charisma, and he has a strong message of "I'm not them." Overall though, I think that he can't win the Presidency because of the negatives I listed above.

I'll agree that he is unlikely to win the big race if he becomes the nominee, but I disagree that people dislike Obama because he is black. Obama is like a black movie star right now, people in general like him a lot, not just black people. I think Obama is a very well spoken person and a credit to America. I do believe that he is too liberal to win. One of the things that will hurt him in a lot of areas of the country is the Illegal Alien problem; he is the only candidate that favors giving drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens. That's a killer, as over 65% of the entire population is against that and immigration is probably the number one concern Americans have that is not being addressed. I think as we get closer to November, if Obama is the nominee, he's going to get beat up on that and a lot of his other liberal views such as raising taxes while the economy is in chaos. His anti-war stance, while poetic, is hardly realistic. By the time he got into office it will largely be a back burner issue anyway. Obama will be able mesmerize a segment of the population, particularly the younger voters, but I doubt he would be able to get enough overall support to with the race unless some third party candidate comes in and sucks the life out of the Republicans ala H Ross Perot.

[Partha]

I wouldnt put much stock into his religious beliefs, no matter how whacky they are. He can't write laws, only sign (or veto) the ones before him, and Congress isn't going to put some "national religion" bill on his desk.

Where he resonates with America, I think, is that he ahs identified with the middle class. And if you ask a poor person, or a rich person, most will say they are "middle class", with maybe an upper or lower thrown in front of the term. It doesn't really matter if the person voting is upper class or lower class (speaking strictly in economic terms here), but only how they identify themselves. Huckabee tapped into that.

Clinton and Obama preach about making things better for the working poor, and that coal miner or truck driver or ditch digger says "Ok, but what about me?" Its becasue they dont see themselves as the working poor, they see themselves as middle class.. but struggling. Huckabee has correctly identifed with the American psychology of "I'm doing ok, but those poor bastards over there..." mentality. He's taken the Alternative Minimum Tax issue and turned it in to a mainstream middle class issue (which, in truth, it is becoming). If he can sell that, he can sell anything.

Huckabee can't sell it to the FisCons. He will never get the nomination.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I wouldnt put much stock into his religious beliefs, no matter how whacky they are. He can't write laws, only sign (or veto) the ones before him, and Congress isn't going to put some "national religion" bill on his desk.

Where he resonates with America, I think, is that he ahs identified with the middle class. And if you ask a poor person, or a rich person, most will say they are "middle class", with maybe an upper or lower thrown in front of the term. It doesn't really matter if the person voting is upper class or lower class (speaking strictly in economic terms here), but only how they identify themselves. Huckabee tapped into that.

Clinton and Obama preach about making things better for the working poor, and that coal miner or truck driver or ditch digger says "Ok, but what about me?" Its becasue they dont see themselves as the working poor, they see themselves as middle class.. but struggling. Huckabee has correctly identifed with the American psychology of "I'm doing ok, but those poor bastards over there..." mentality. He's taken the Alternative Minimum Tax issue and turned it in to a mainstream middle class issue (which, in truth, it is becoming). If he can sell that, he can sell anything.

Huckabee can't sell it to the FisCons. He will never get the nomination.

I dunno about that Partha. He's also promising to eliminate the current tax policy and replace it with a national sales tax. I'm fiscally conservative, and I can get behind that idea.

[Lurker]

He's also promising to eliminate the current tax policy and replace it with a national sales tax. I'm fiscally conservative, and I can get behind that idea.

You can get behind a completely unworkable and extremely regressive tax scheme that would further skyrocket the national debt? Shocking.

[Mukik]

The fair tax law will actually generate more revenue then lose it. if you actually read aletter sent by 80 economists..you will see how your ass umption was incorrect.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf

[Lurker]

The fair tax law will actually generate more revenue then lose it.

Nowhere in that letter does it say that more revenue will be generated. They can claim that it will stimulate the economy, the same way supply siders say tax cuts will stimulate the economy, but the fact remains that all proposed fair tax rates would bring in less revenue than our current tax rates. It's also a fact that the tax rate would increase for the middle class, anyone making between 20k a year and 200k a year, under a 'fair tax' system; and it still wouldn't bring in enough revenue to fund the government.

As Bruce Bartlett says, the 'fair tax' proposals are unworkable and "and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it."

[Embar Angylwrath]

He's also promising to eliminate the current tax policy and replace it with a national sales tax. I'm fiscally conservative, and I can get behind that idea.

You can get behind a completely unworkable and extremely regressive tax scheme that would further skyrocket the national debt? Shocking.

You're usually not swimming in a sea of hyperbole when you post. It is neither "extremely" regressive, nor would it "skyrocket" the national debt. And the statement that it will affect the middle class more than any other class is a bit misleading. The tax rate for everyone is exactly the same under the current proposal, since its a national sales tax. It also eliminates any corporate deductions you lefties scream about... all that coporate welfare. In fact, it eliminates all deductions across the board.

And hate to burst your bubble, but the national debt is a result from spending, not taxing. Cut spending (OMG CUT PROGRAMMZ!!!) to less than the revenue stream, and the national debt goes away after a time. Overspending is the REAL cause of the national debt...

[Ddrak]

Taxing only at the retail point seems broken to me - it encourages people to set up front corporations and just buy everything wholesale (among numerous other ways of getting around it). If you're going to create a sales tax then apply it to every sale, and refund it on every non-personal purchase (ie a VAT). Even so, it's better than an income tax in my opinion.

Bartlett's argument is bizarre. You can't while about sales tax on a new home being something "new" under this system. Currently your income is taxed *before* you spend it on that home anyway so it's just shifting the point of taxation. Similarly, he ties himself in loops with the "omg the government is taxing itself" argument that seems to draw the conclusion that taxing yourself results in higher spending without higher revenue while in truth it's revenue neutral. The "omg it's 30%, not 23%" bit is just plain bullshit. In a percent-for-percent comparison with current income tax, it's 23%.

It seems workable to me, not optimum but workable.

It should also be noted that comparisons to Europe's marginal rates are a little dodgy unless you include the added government benefits you get in Europe (ie health care).

Dd

[Lurker]

And hate to burst your bubble, but the national debt is a result from spending, not taxing. Cut spending (OMG CUT PROGRAMMZ!!!) to less than the revenue stream, and the national debt goes away after a time. Overspending is the REAL cause of the national debt...

We always end up at this question right before you run away from the discussion. How are you going to cut enough spending to afford the lost tax revenue that will result from a switch to a 23% flat tax? Which programs are you going to cut? You aren't at all fiscally conservative; you're just a single issue guy (I pay too much taxes!) who doesn't care if his tax cuts are affordable or not.

It is neither "extremely" regressive, nor would it "skyrocket" the national debt. And the statement that it will affect the middle class more than any other class is a bit misleading. The tax rate for everyone is exactly the same under the current proposal, since its a national sales tax.

Wrong on all counts. A 'fair tax' would lower the percentage of tax paid for people making over 200k and raise the percentage paid for the middle class, and at the advertised rate of 23% it would drastically underfund the government. Also, most 'fair tax' programs include a monthly rebate check from the government for everyone - based on poverty-level income - so not everyone would be paying the 23% anyways.

The "omg it's 30%, not 23%" bit is just plain bullshit. In a percent-for-percent comparison with current income tax, it's 23%.

No, it isn't. The percentage is calculated the exact opposite way. If you earn $100 and are taxed 23% you'd pay $23 in taxes. If you spend $100 and the flat tax was really 23% you'd pay $23, not the $30 you pay under the 'fair tax' proposals. The actual 'fair tax' rate is 30%, and even that drastically underfunds the government.

It seems workable to me, not optimum but workable.

I disagree, and I'm not willing to flush my country away on such a crackpot proposal where the only benefit is that (surprise surprise) people making over 200k a year end up paying less. So it underfunds the government (unless you greatly increase the advertised percentage), it increases the tax rate of the middle class, and it greatly complicates the way taxes are assessed and collected. Sounds. . . dreadful.

Here's a much more detailed paper from Bartlett (pdf).

[Embar Angylwrath]

I really think you don't understand basic economics Lurker.

The tax won't underfun the government anymore than the current tax system. It merely shifts the revenue base to another collection form. The more you spend, the more you are taxed. If you are making 500K/year, and spending 70% of your income, you'll end up paying $105,000/year through the sales tax. If you make 60K/year, and spend every dime of it, you'll pay $18,000 per year through the sales tax. And one of the plans out there (Boortz' plan I think), refunds a portion of the taxes back based on threhhold income levels... I think it was 20K or so. This is refunded to everyone, rich and poor alike. And it basically neuters your statement of OMGZ REGRESSOR TAXZ. It ensures that as a person gets closer and closer to the poverty level, the less tax they pay, ending up at zero if they dont make enough. How is that regressive?

[Lurker]

The tax won't underfun the government anymore than the current tax system. It merely shifts the revenue base to another collection form.

Total bullshit. At a 23% rate it won't come close to bringing in as much revenue, especially when you consider the added spending (rebate checks being the largest) a flat tax system would entail.

And it basically neuters your statement of OMGZ REGRESSOR TAXZ. It ensures that as a person gets closer and closer to the poverty level, the less tax they pay, ending up at zero if they dont make enough. How is that regressive?

I said it was regressive for the middle class and that it would drastically shift the tax burden away from people making over 200k a year and towards the middle class. That's a fact, and that's how it's regressive.

And again, you didn't answer the question. You never do. I'm so tired of your brand of fake fiscal conservative.

[Lurker]

I really think you don't understand basic economics Lurker.

...

If you are making 500K/year, and spending 70% of your income, you'll end up paying $105,000/year through the sales tax. If you make 60K/year, and spend every dime of it, you'll pay $18,000 per year through the sales tax.

Ha!

In your example the person making 60k a year would be paying 30% of his income in taxes, and the person making 500k a year would be paying 21% of his income in taxes. And according to you that's somehow going to bring in the same revenue to the government and it's not regressive. And I'm the one that doesn't understand basic economics? Amazing.