danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:How about a 0-0-18? All in favor say I!

18% Sales tax and nothing else at Federal level?

If you don't like the retail sector, I guess it's a winner.

(oh, and on a pedantic point, those who agree would say 'Aye', as opposed to 'No')

\
It was a play on words to signify MY support for such a plan. Hence, the "I" Sorry for being too obscure...

Too regressive without some kind of "prebate" for those under a certain income threshold. When you start adding State sales tax to 18% and then consider those on low or fixed incomes, or those unemployed, we're talking about 25% to every purchase. Not good and not "fair."

My goodness. How socialist of you. This is roughly ho the HST is applied in Canada. Those who've filed taxes below a certain level get rebate checks quarterly. It makes consumption taxes work . And as much as the HST is "unpopular" one an economy gets used to it, (about 4 months) is a dependble source of revenue that moves in concert with the economy. Income taxes are easier to move up and down to react to slowing economies...
The notion of simplyfying the tax code seems a terribly popular idea. However, it really hasn't ever gotten anywhere in past attempts. How would you, realistically, eradicate the current tax code and start from a blank slate. ? Is it really possible to pass blanket legislation that can accomplish this?

By the way, one important thing in tax levels. Corporate taxes should be identical to individual taxes. And the VAT or GST or HST or whatever you have should also be applied to all business transactions including stock transfers. In return eliminate capital gains taxes. Why? Discourages short term speculators and rewards genuine capitalists.
I also don't se why you can't have three or 4 levels of tax. Say 0% up to $25K 5% 25-50K 10% 50-100K and 15% above that.... Once you start seeing budget surpluses you decrease the percentages...(Or increase them if required.)

danivon wrote:He reminds me of Perot as a self-funding, 'insurgent', appealing to the fiscal conservative, who seems just a little out of his depth when it comes to details.

Again, not even close.
Self-funding? it's not like he's funding a 3rd party run. Perot was a billionaire when he ran.

Insurgent? Cain is pretty status quo. Flat taxes and "fair" taxes are nothing new.

The only thing they have in common is that they both are a one-issue candidates. Not very much for a reason able comparison.

Sorry, Guapo, but you cannot determine what crazy linkages my mind makes. They have some things in common, and Cain reminds me of Perot. To help you out with your epistemiology and ontology, let's agree that 'remind me of' is not the equivalent of 'is the same as'. Ok?

I see that Perry got out of his corner at the last debate. Has that made any impact on his chances, after weeks of sliding due to perceived weak performances?

Good news: Obama's approval numbers are fantastic!



In fact, he's about 10 points ahead of where Jimmy Carter was!



I know some of you don't like the President, but I'm pulling for him--I think he can do better than Carter.

Obama's re-election prospects should become clearer in the coming months, because Gallup analysis shows that an incumbent president's 12th- and 13th-quarter averages give a strong indication of whether he will win a second term.

From a broader historical perspective, Obama's 11th-quarter approval average of 41% ranks 220th out of the 262 presidential quarters for which Gallup has data since the Truman administration. That translates to the 16th percentile, placing it in the bottom fifth of presidential quarters. Thus, Obama's recent approval ratings are well below average.

Still, he's not far behind Clinton or Reagan, and looking at Poppa Bush, a high approval is no guarantee.

A lot depends on who the opposition is. Until the Primaries start, it's all just speculation.

A lot depends on who the opposition is.

True. But in the same polls, where they look at Obama v name of republican here.
Obama leads all the potential republican candidates.Even Romney. At least at the moment.
What isn't taken into account into approval disapproval are the voters who disapprove of Obama, but are left of centre and have no realistic options in A presidential contest ... that they could approve of more...

By the way, in the same poll that Steve Quotes

The poll also found a historically low approval rating for Congress, with just 19 percent approving of Republicans, compared with 28 percent that approve of Democrats

.
If low approval ratings are a harbinger, what does 19% say ?

rickyp wrote:

A lot depends on who the opposition is.

True. But in the same polls, where they look at Obama v name of republican here.
Obama leads all the potential republican candidates.Even Romney. At least at the moment.

Just not true. Cain leads Obama.

I cite that as an example, not as a prediction. For Obama to win, he can't run on his domestic achievements and the number one issue is the economy, so . . . he'll set out to destroy his opponent and hope to survive. That's why this will be a campaign so slimy that we will all need to wear protective suits. The press will help and they've already begun. Unlike Obama's unique form of Christianity, Romney's form will receive endless scrutiny if he's the nominee. By election day, 60% of Americans will be able to find Kolob on an intergalactic map, even if they can't find Pakistan on a world map.

What isn't taken into account into approval disapproval are the voters who disapprove of Obama, but are left of centre and have no realistic options in A presidential contest ... that they could approve of more...

Yes, that is taken into account--it's the enthusiasm gap and it matters.

The poll also found a historically low approval rating for Congress, with just 19 percent approving of Republicans, compared with 28 percent that approve of Democrats

.
If low approval ratings are a harbinger, what does 19% say ?

I'm shaking.

If you really believe Democrats will take back the House, let's wager. Make the stake really high.

What does it say? That people think Congress is doing a lousy job. They also think the President is doing a lousy job. However, "Congress" won't be on the ballot. It will be "Representative (Blank)" on the ballot and "Barack Obama." That's a big difference. He will lose, and the GOP will win both houses.

steve

Unlike Obama's unique form of Christianity, Romney's form will receive endless scrutiny if he's the nominee. By election day, 60% of Americans will be able to find Kolob on an intergalactic map, even if they can't find Pakistan on a world map.

A
ctually, part of the problem is that no one has found Kolob in any astrological survey. (nor traces of the Garden of Eden in Mississippi) . (I know. you were joking...)

Back in the 2008 Democratic primaries I remember watching a Democratic debate called "On Faith" or something. Essentially the focus of the debate was about the three candidates "faiths".
I remember that one video question featured a young man clasping a Bible asking "Do you beleive that every single word of this book is the absolute truth". (I'm paraphrasing...") None of the three expressed fundamental belief as I recall. But they all shared their various spiritual views for 90 minutes...

If this seems acceptable, why shouldn't a republicans "faith" be equally up to scrutiny Steve? I think Gingrich and Santorum have been asked about their Catholic faith (Or perhaps they volunteeed). And most of them have trumpeted their particular views. (Perry particularly has stressed his Christian faith, as has Bachman no? )
If Obama's church attendance was such a big issue last time, and some still seem to cling to the specifics of the issue 3 years later, ..., why is it out of line to ask Romney his particular views on the literal truth of Smiths' translations?

By the way, I remember Palin's pentacostal church being an internet issue, but she was never challenged directly about some of its peculiarities (speaking in tongues) or end times predictions... So is it really inevitable as you say, that the media will place LDS under a microscope? Frankly, I think the mainstream media will largely avoid scrutinizing LDS... For fear of being seen as discriminating.
And frankly, what religions myths, taken literally, stand up to modern scrutiny? If Smith had pounded out his translations of plates and papyrus 2000 years ago they might have the filter of time and the lens of antiquity to change how they are received...

Oddly, my gut feeling here is that Steve is likely tobe more right than Ricky as regards the dirtiness of the election. Mormonism is a massive weakness for Romney, who was after all a Mormon bishop in a country where some polls have shown 20% of the population would never consider voting for a Mormon. I'd say it's a nailed on certainty that his faith will come increasingly under the spotlight, although this will probably start to happen long before the primaries are concluded. Most people who say they would never vote for a Mormon are evangelicals after all, who will be a key demographic in the Republican primary battle. Chances are that Romney's rivals will look to get them freaked out about his candidacy asap. But I'm also confident Obama's team will do the same. If they can play up the Mormon angle it may depress turnout in the key evangelical group, which might count for a lot.

sass

Most people who say they would never vote for a Mormon are evangelicals after all, who will be a key demographic in the Republican primary battle.

Will the numbers and demographics of the people turned off by a wide expose of the Mormon faith's myths and founding go beyond evangelicals? Who would Obama's Chicago mnachine be going after specifically? Indpenednets who attend church regularly?
By the way....you din't weigh in on the fairness of bringing up the LDS myths, founding and beliefs...Would it be fair?
Could you vote for someone who thinks Kolob is the planet next to God? Or who thinks the world is 6000 years old?
Or who might think we are in "end times"?
Would these things be important in choosing A President?

Doctor Fate wrote:By election day, 60% of Americans will be able to find Kolob on an intergalactic map, even if they can't find Pakistan on a world map.

Great inside joke and I agree with the sentiment. However, I can't imagine the public viewing either Obama or Romney as particularly religious in a general election, so it will tend to negate the topic.

By the way....you din't weigh in on the fairness of bringing up the LDS myths, founding and beliefs...Would it be fair?
Could you vote for someone who thinks Kolob is the planet next to God? Or who thinks the world is 6000 years old?
Or who might think we are in "end times"?
Would these things be important in choosing A President?

Well no, I probably wouldn't vote for somebody with those beliefs, although that would obviously depend upon the alternative. I'm not sure that there's too much difference between the whackier Mormon beliefs and other similarly implausible aspects of every other faith though. The only real difference is that we know the history of Mormonism and know full well that it was begun by a conman, otherwise I don't see that it's especially worse than mainstream christianity (or Islam, Buddhism etc). The question is whether it's fair to specifically target Romney on matters of faith while ignoring the faith of the other candidates. Let's face it, if his faith comes under attack it's going to be because his opponents want to tap into anti-Mormon prejudice.

sass

The question is whether it's fair to specifically target Romney on matters of faith while ignoring the faith of the other candidates.

No its not.
But in the last Presidential cycle the Democrats even had a presidential primary event "On Faith".
Obama was attacked for attending Rev Wrights church.
And so far in this cycle we've seen Perry and others attend religious conventions and trumpet their faith.
The USA is a nation where religion seems to matter a great deal. For public figures its not, apparently, an entirely private matter. Even those leaders who claim it to be a private matter, always share something of their religious views...

4 years ago, Clinton, Obama and the other guy all came out when asked whether they believed in a literal understanding of the Bible and said no... I think it would be fair to ask Humtsman and Romney the same about the LDS scriptures...
I think you already have most of the other republican candidates on record as to their beliefs. (Other than Huntsman they all disavow evolution, I beleive. Which isn't exactly, definitively, a statement of religious belief. But to all intents and purposes serves to be...)

rickyp wrote:Back in the 2008 Democratic primaries I remember watching a Democratic debate called "On Faith" or something. Essentially the focus of the debate was about the three candidates "faiths".

Wow. So, there was, maybe, one debate "on faith?" Really? How pressed was Obama on the things Wright has preached? About the church's focus on supporting black businesses (imagine someone running for President whose church focused on the "white" business community)? About his describing Wright as a "mentor?" About attending the church for 20 years and sitting through all the incendiary rhetoric and only resigning when it became politically untenable?

It's a matter of degree. I am predicting the NYT, WaPo, and other media will go after Mormonism in a way like we've never seen the religion of a candidate examined.

If Obama's church attendance was such a big issue last time, and some still seem to cling to the specifics of the issue 3 years later, ..., why is it out of line to ask Romney his particular views on the literal truth of Smiths' translations?

Obama's faith was not a major focus. Please google "Obama liberation theology" and tell me how many articles you find that compare Obama's church with orthodox Christianity. I don't think you'll find many., other than rightwing blogs. I did find this NPR piece, but it's not exactly an examination.

By the way, I remember Palin's pentacostal church being an internet issue, but she was never challenged directly about some of its peculiarities (speaking in tongues) or end times predictions...

Actually, I remember video of her talking at a church and her having to defend it. Beyond that, her church situation was muddied by the fact she had changed churches.

So is it really inevitable as you say, that the media will place LDS under a microscope? Frankly, I think the mainstream media will largely avoid scrutinizing LDS... For fear of being seen as discriminating.

Why am I laughing? Because you, as a left-of-center person, are oblivious to this simple truth: the media has no problem going after conservatives for things they would never go after liberals for. How many in the mainstream media have been busy defending Herman Cain as "authentically black" or ridiculing those who suggest he is the puppet of racists?

If attacks were made on Obama in the same way they are made on Cain, there would be hell to pay.

And frankly, what religions myths, taken literally, stand up to modern scrutiny?

This is funny to me. As an aside, read this recent "scientific" discovery from the WaPo. Now, that stands up to "modern scrutiny!"

If Smith had pounded out his translations of plates and papyrus 2000 years ago they might have the filter of time and the lens of antiquity to change how they are received...

Feel free to post in the philosophy section. There are huge differences between what Smith produced and Scripture, but to the scoffer asteroids bringing water to Earth billions of years ago makes sense--so what if it can't be tested, verified, etc.?

Will the numbers and demographics of the people turned off by a wide expose of the Mormon faith's myths and founding go beyond evangelicals? Who would Obama's Chicago mnachine be going after specifically? Indpenednets who attend church regularly?
By the way....you din't weigh in on the fairness of bringing up the LDS myths, founding and beliefs...Would it be fair?
Could you vote for someone who thinks Kolob is the planet next to God? Or who thinks the world is 6000 years old?
Or who might think we are in "end times"?
Would these things be important in choosing A President?

It's all going to be an effort to make Romney unacceptable. They will go after Bain. They will try to make him Kerry on steroids in terms of flip-flopping. They will go after his religion. They will destroy him with whatever they can find. Why?

Because the President has done a pretty poor job and his only means to be re-elected is to throw every attack he can at his opponent. Obama will hope the totality of the attacks will make Romney look worse than him.

Sad times.