The Republicans

[Trent Lawless]

All right, fair's fair. We've got the Democrats poll. Now in the week leading up to the first caucuses and primaries, who do you think has the inside track for the Republican nomination?

I think it's safe to say it will be one of the gentlemen listed above, but for you Duncan Hunter supporters, feel free to vote "Other." (Is he even still in the race? I know Brownback and Tancredo are out now.)

Anyway, vote away!

[Aquinas]

I voted Romney....I think he's got the most realistic chance to win both the primary and the whole thing.

I personally do not like Guiliani, and just don't think he's got a whole lot to offer other than the luster he still has from how good of a statesman he was during 9/11.

Huckabee seems to have momentum, but I think his push has more to do with a fresh face and good-natured campaign than anything else. He seems wishy-washy as a legit conservative....and wishy-washys seem to alienate too much of their base.

Fred Thompson has been my favorite since he entered, but his campaign seems to have stalled already. I just don't see him getting out of that stall and making a move.

McCain has -some- areas I agree strongly with, like his war/terrorism stances....but he's always seemed way too much of a glory-hound and media-panderer. Plus he seems the type who would flip out in the face of serious adversity (maybe not like Howard Dean's bizarre meltdown)

As a conservative who almost always votes Republican -- I'm both expecting and hoping Romney seals the deal.

[gatekeeper]

I'll say McCain.

Even though I'm a Democrat, McCain is one of the few Republicans that seems like he knows what he's doing and could be a good President.

[ThePunisher]

I hope its Romney. Someone with a decent financial background to maybe turn this ship around so my money will be worth more than a stick of gum when I retire.

[Trent Lawless]

I'll answer my own question now.

I say Romney also, because that's who I think will get the nomination. I'm a Democrat, so I don't have a lot of stake in it other than looking at potential matchups from the other side. But Romney seems to me to have a pretty good middle road carved out that ought to counteract some of the religious right momentum that's going elsewhere currently. Huckabee's got some juice behind him right now, but he doesn't have a whole lot of cash on hand comparatively, which might wind up hurting him as this all goes forward.

And let's face it. Does "President Huckabee" sound right to you?

[Chewey]

markcpc said:

Huckabee's got some juice behind him right now, but he doesn't have a whole lot of cash on hand comparatively, which might wind up hurting him as this all goes forward.

Yeah, and the 23% sales tax. Where is he going to get his cash from? Not from people who have the money.

[Pete]

As another liberal I was waffling on this, but with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, I honestly think McCain will get a boost and Huckabee in particular will get knocked back a step or more.

Foreign relations and security just got moved back into the forefront and that's an edge for McCain, at least moreso than it is for anyone else in the running.

[squire]

Specifically for Chewey, if you have questions about the fair tax If you have not already, read the information on fairtax.org. I've been following the movement for a couple years now and from my own personal estimate, I would actually have more money (even if groceries were taxed) that I do now with the income tax(which is the stupidest idea ever. "let's charge people for trying to survive")

I voted Huckabee. I just like the guy. Romney gives me that greasy politician feeling. And I just cannot get behind Guiliani.

[Chewey]

squire said:

Specifically for Chewey, if you have questions about the fair tax If you have not already, read the information on fairtax.org. I've been following the movement for a couple years now and from my own personal estimate, I would actually have more money (even if groceries were taxed) that I do now with the income tax(which is the stupidest idea ever. "let's charge people for trying to survive"

Squire, thanks for pointing me to the information. I really am curious about how the flat sales tax proponents support this policy. Unfortunately, the website is blocked from my Chinese web servers (or at least the link doesn't work), so I'll have to get more information about the "fair tax" from you, if you don't mind. Forgive me if the below points are addressed on the front page of fairtax.org, but I cannot access it right now.

1. According to some people, they do not believe that a 23% sales tax is enough to cover the national budget, let alone save social security.

2. All of those people with Roth IRA accounts, all of those who are already retired, will continue to have to pay taxes when they were supposedly out of the system.

3. The proposed system still puts the most tremendous burden on the lower end of the middle class, the people who can't afford to spend more money and for whom the system does not repay enough.

4. It just doesn't make any economic sense to me. People only pay less tax if they don't spend as much. If everybody saves their money instead of spending it, other people don't make as much money. Prices go up in response. Jobs are lost. The government doesn't have enough money to do what it's supposed to do. The government raises taxes. This is my main problem of a pure consumption tax system.

I'm sure each of these are thoroughly addressed on the fairtax.org website, but I cannot get to the website. For the sake of discussion, please let me know what your website's counterarguments for each of these points are.

EDIT: Shortened down quite a bit. Sorry guys! Alcohol + being motivated = Chewey going on forever.

[ThePunisher]

I am an accountant but I still won't even try to explain the federal income tax system. Most complex thing in the entire world. And they have the audacity to change it every f'n year.


But I do think Chewey brings up some valid points aginst fair tax. The way all of our income tax laws are currently structured it would make for an ugly transition no matter how well planned. I can't remember the name of the economic theory or its creator but there is something basic that says there is a tax rate where government revenue is maximized and it normally occurs at relatively low tax rates. People will stop avoiding it through incomplete tax returns, black market transactions, etc. if they believe the rate doesn't abuse them.

[Chewey]

Thanks Punisher. Our income tax system is unnecessarily complex, but I think we do take many things into account that would be lost in a pure consumption task (i.e. the cost of starting a business when you lose your above the line deductions. Or so I've heard )

My initial point is that when a large portion of the Republican base is made up of big businesses and the people involved in them, I can't see any of these folks supporting a candidate who is in favor of penalizing their customers for giving them money.

[stephenvegas]

Although I won't vote GOP,

I think it might be Romney.

[LWPD]

As a rule I avoid political discourse but since I stumbled upon an economic comment I can help a bit...

thepunisher said:

I can't remember the name of the economic theory or its creator but there is something basic that says there is a tax rate where government revenue is maximized and it normally occurs at relatively low tax rates. People will stop avoiding it through incomplete tax returns, black market transactions, etc. if they believe the rate doesn't abuse them.

The theory is called Supply Side Economics. In the 80's Ronald Reagan's political salesmen used the work of economist Arthur Laffer (and his 'Laffer Curve') to sell the popular 'low taxes can equal more revenue' spiel of a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. There is/was truth to the Laffer Curve...but it needs to be balanced in the face of an inability to 'forecast' the ideal level at which it occurs and the US Government's proclivity to spend 'beyond' incoming revenue each and every year...regardless of the amount of revenue that is coming in.

To see how Supply Side theory worked in practice see the massive gap that occurred at the end of the fiscal year in 1981 and the bi-partisan reasoning behind the TEFRA Act of 1982. This is all a matter of public record. Also observe the level of debt that was accrued at the end of the Reagan/Democrat House-Senate tenure. China was able to become the creditor to America's debt (which is a huge problem because while outright crippling of our currency would hurt China itself...a 'strategic dumping' of the Dollar for the Euro and other more attractive vehicles is inevitable and will do 'real damage' to the average American's standard of living) due to policy choices that were imitated by the President/Democrat Congress of the 80's (policies which were then perpetuated by later predecors...both Democrat and Republican) with the creation of more debt instruments instead of the making of fiscally sound (but politically unpopular) policy choices for the betterment of this nation's future. The American economy still has tremendous strengths and advantages over the rest of the world...but it also has some very serious challenges to face as a result of poor choices made by it's government. For that we have both parties to blame.

An excellent non-partisan work that provides a very comprehensive view of how Politics, Government and Voter Rational functions on a real world level outside of the real/imagined 'images' and 'ideals' used to justify spending initiatives would be Public Finance In Democratic Process by James M. Buchanan

Whether it's 'supporting our troops' so they can fight 'the war on terror' or 'green initiatives' supposedly designed with the intent of 'protecting the environment' JB's work on Public Choice theory can help people see past the visceral codes used to sell these ideas...and uncover the 'profits' behind seemingly benign non-profit initiatives and agendas.

[ThePunisher]

The Encyclopedia Paintanica comes through once again. Laffer curve.

Insightful economic words as well. My only disagreement with anything you said comes from the "strategic dumping" comment. China knows that without American consumerism it wouldn't have an economy so I doubt that we are in trouble there. The dollar will survive as long as the US Government survives and that will be for quite a while. Yay for cheap dollars so the trade deficit is only $1 billion instead of 2.

[LWPD]

thepunisher said:

The Encyclopedia Paintanica comes through once again. Laffer curve.

Insightful economic words as well. My only disagreement with anything you said comes from the "strategic dumping" comment. China knows that without American consumerism it wouldn't have an economy so I doubt that we are in trouble there. The dollar will survive as long as the US Government survives and that will be for quite a while. Yay for cheap dollars so the trade deficit is only $1 billion instead of 2.

It's true that China would never wholesale dump their investment in US Public Debt because it is in their interest to keep their largest consumer solvent...but self interest is also forcing China to diversify into other instruments. This is why China created the CIC...to find ways to create higher rates of return on the dollars they already hold. Holding onto over a trillion dollars worth of a currency that shows a tendency to 'depreciate' in value year to year can only be justified to an extent...and the days of them propping us up with as high as 2/3rd of their national reserve are pretty much over.

CIC has been capitalizing on the sub-prime market disaster with the purchasing of multi-billion dollar stakes in US bell weathers such as Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. It's a very sound strategy because those are private institutions 'we ourselves' would never allow to go under. Yet that means less money going into Treasury Bonds...and more consequences as we have to face fiscal reality more so than in the past. If OPEC switched off the US Dollar it would be devastating...but that would trigger war and 'regime change' so I don't see that happening.

When the Federal Reserve decreed that they would no longer report on M-3 (which accounts for changes in the supply of printed money) then 'you knew' what was going to happen. It's not rocket science. I'll make more money through all this because I work on Wall Street and those 'extra dollars' have to eventually go somewhere. The average person will be in for a different surprise...and few will ever know or understand the reasons 'why'...the politicians certainly won't tell them.

[Chewey]

China: Lending Americans money to buy Chinese products. It's what happens when the Chinese government pegs the RMB to the dollar while buying up huge quantities of U.S. government bonds. Strategic dumping indeed. But now that they've allowed the RMB to at least float a little bit, I'm also poorer over here while the Europeans continue to flaunt their Euro.

The idea of China wholesale dumping their investment in U.S. debt is reminiscent of DeGaulle trying to cash in all of the European-owned dollars for gold in the 60s, but I think China is perfectly content to continue lending Americans money to buy cheaply produced Chinese goods. Now that the Euro has risen in value, the RMB has comparatively dropped because it is still pegged to the dollar, the EU is complaining about all of the Chinese products being dumped in its market as well.

On the other hand, I heard somewhere that China's possession of so much American debt has rendered the IMF somewhat unnecessary, but I defer to LWPD to confirm this as being true, and if it is then to explain why, because I can't think of the economic rationalization of this statement at the moment.

[hofclemens]

Romney was my governor and I voted for him when he ran but I can't say I support him now. too many empty promises, he was really the king of the shell game as far as economy policy in MA.

[azfan]

I'm probably one of the few conservatives on the board. McCain and Guiliani scare me a bit. I think they want to attack more countries, Thompson is just along. Beyond that its's Huckabee and Romney. I'm uncomfortable with Romney's flip flops, on the other hand he has been successful in business. Huckabee just turns me off. It's one thing to be pro-religion, but this guy has gone over the line. Not only with Romney, but in a debate where Rudy was asked a religious question Huckabee pipes up that he'll help him answer it. I can't see him winning, but if he does he'll lose in the General Election.
All these primaries are so soon, that by summer the parties are going to be having panic attacks whether they nominated the right people.
As to the taxes and deficit question, that kills me more than anything. These guys are asked how they will pay down the 9 trillion national debt , and what do they say?? Lower taxes. Now i'm all for that, but it's just not practical.

[stephenvegas]

CNN is projecting that Mike Huckabee won today in Iowa for the Republicans.

[Aquinas]

While this certainly doesn't guarantee anything, I hope Romney (or Thompson) rebound. I really do believe this is the Republican's election to lose, and I just think Huckabee is the weakest candidate. Not counting crackpots like Ron Paul.

New Hampshire ought to be a different story. Romney SHOULD take that, and if he doesn't, he's in a world of trouble.