John Kasich needs to be prez

[GearSolidMetal]

What is this revisionism?

According to the MSM reported at the time, yes. But conservatives have always been consistent on what we thought if recent nominees.

Mitt Romney's electability in a national election was a huge question mark due to his religion. He was a proven administrator. That was about the only major plus sign in his "Electability" column where he stood above the other candidates.

Romney was always a question mark because he was a moderate governor that instituted Romneycare in Massachusetts, which was the blueprint of Obamacare, since they both had the same author.

Between these two runs Gingrich would have been the "electable establishment" pick.

Romney was always the establishment pic.

And McCain was doing FANTASTICALLY until he brought aboard a dumb trophy VP pick trying to pander to the same Tea Party base that drives Cruz.

Um no, McCain was doing fantasically, according to the media, until he won the nomination. 'Time to turn around and support the Democrat nominee, now that we helped our desired moderate win the Republican nomination!' So, every move McCain made, was a bad one, there after.

This is the uncompromising wing of the party that blew up that GOP chance at the Presidency, not the other way around.

Ah yes, that's correct, it's The Right that needs to compromise, and compromise, and compromise some more.

To the point of reporters asking Republicans who just won elections 'So what are you willing to compromise with Democrats on?'

Compromise on every campaign promise is broke, and every principle compromised.

And that's exactly how the game is played in Washington, for the right to consistently compromise, to get anything done.

It's a pity narcissists like Trump and Cruz suck so much oxygen out rooms that only the mouth breathers can respire quickly enough to regurgitate some hot air. It means reasonable guys like Kasich have a tough time getting a word in.

Kasich had alot of screentime on the debate on Saturday. In fact, he's been getting alot of screentime on Fox as well.

But, he's just like Bush. Even if he spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising, doesn't mean he's going to get more support.

 

[SODACKER]

Note that lower-income people generally don't even have net income-tax obligations, and even median-income people currently pay very little. But Cruz is proposing a large VAT that would have the effect of increasing the amount of taxes paid by most Americans even while drastically reducing overall revenue (hence the point that he's paying for a massive giveaway to the rich partly through debt and partly though tax increases on everyone else).

I don't know how much a large increase in eic would offset vat taxes but for the truly bottom income rung I would think it would offset it substantially. And corporate taxes are essentially a sales tax, a company must overcome the taxes on there income and they do it by passing it onto consumers. All companies are paying the tax so all have to incrementally increase their price to overcome this.

It seems like a tax break on everyone, paid for by debt mostly.

 

[Fawlty]

When gas prices are high - NOBAMA'S FAULT!
When the stock market is in the tank - NOBAMA'S FAULT!
When unemployment is high - NOBAMA'S FAULT!

When gas prices are under $2.00 for the first time in several years - NOTHING DO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT!
When unemployment goes a few % lower than what Bush left with - BUT THEY'RE NOT GOOD JOBS!
When the stock market hits all time highs - BUT BUT BUT...UH...HUSSEIN.
When US exports rise over 30% (even though he wanted 50%) - HE'S A DANG MOOSLAM!
When oil imports/reliance on foreign oil goes down 60% and there are steep rises in wind and solar power - COMMY!

When a Republican raise the deficit for a war based on misinformation - DATS COO WIT ME.
When a Democrat continues to raise the deficit because of the aforementioned war - ENTITLEMENTS! NO STEAK FOR POOR PEOPLE! GAAAHHHHH!

It pains me that we get stuck in this cycle of basic partisan hypocrisy every damn time. It doesn't seem to matter how far out of touch the right shifts, because they're clearly absurd now and refusing to admit it. I guess the left just has to beat the shit out of them in the general election, because all they seem to understand is force.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know how much a large increase in eic would offset vat taxes but for the truly bottom income rung I would think it would offset it substantially.

Depends on the size of the increase, which I have not seen specified. It would have to be very large to have a net positive effect. But, again, it's not just people at the very bottom rung that barely pay or don't pay income taxes. Even people in the fourth quintile (at just under $100K household) pay less than 15% of their total income in federal income taxes.

And corporate taxes are essentially a sales tax, a company must overcome the taxes on there income and they do it by passing it onto consumers. All companies are paying the tax so all have to incrementally increase their price to overcome this.

No, that's not how it works. For one thing, companies pay taxes on profits, not on revenue. Cruz's plan would actually make things the way you incorrectly think they already are.

It seems like a tax break on everyone, paid for by debt mostly.

Again, most people would pay more, the rich would pay way less, and the debt would rise a lot (plus, he plans to cover some of the revenue shortfall with spending cuts, which would likely further hurt the non-rich). I don't really see how this is a good idea. Even as someone who would likely benefit from the first-order effects of the changes, I'd worry that the harm it would cause to the economy as a whole would more than outweigh the benefits (not to mention humanitarian concerns, which are paramount but not directly relevant to the discussion). In the context of electability, surely you can see the problem. Even Republican voters are split pretty evenly on the question of taxing the rich *more*. The Trump campaign is showing that they're tired of being taken for a ride--voting for Republicans who promise the moon in terms of identity politics and then don't deliver anything but tax cuts for the rich.

 

[SODACKER]

Depends on the size of the increase, which I have not seen specified. It would have to be very large to have a net positive effect. But, again, it's not just people at the very bottom rung that barely pay or don't pay income taxes. Even people in the fourth quintile (at just under $100K household) pay less than 15% of their total income in federal income taxes.



No, that's not how it works. For one thing, companies pay taxes on profits, not on revenue. Cruz's plan would actually make things the way you incorrectly think they already are.



Again, most people would pay more, the rich would pay way less, and the debt would rise a lot (plus, he plans to cover some of the revenue shortfall with spending cuts, which would likely further hurt the non-rich). I don't really see how this is a good idea. Even as someone who would likely benefit from the first-order effects of the changes, I'd worry that the harm it would cause to the economy as a whole would more than outweigh the benefits (not to mention humanitarian concerns, which are paramount but not directly relevant to the discussion). In the context of electability, surely you can see the problem. Even Republican voters are split pretty evenly on the question of taxing the rich *more*. The Trump campaign is showing that they're tired of being taken for a ride--voting for Republicans who promise the moon in terms of identity politics and then don't deliver anything but tax cuts for the rich.

Taxing pre or after tax income on a company is pretty irrelevant. The industry is going to have its margins required to stay afloat and more or less taxes on that company affects more what it's costumers pay than how much after tax profit it makes. I get that you think these vat taxes are going to make every thing considerably more expensive to consumers but I think there is more to it than all quasi excise taxes hurt poor and help the rich, but I think it needs more analysis than that. Removing payroll tax and corporate tax and changing it to a vat tax seem to a pretty neutral affect on consumers. Increasing eic undoubtedly helps low income families. Having a flat tax undoubtedly helps high income families. It's all about the magnitude of each.

A healthy chunk will be paid for by debt which isn't great but isn't necessarily the end of the world either, as we have seen. And simplification of the tax code is undoubtedly a good thing, which this also accomplishes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Taxing pre or after tax income on a company is pretty irrelevant.

???

The industry is going to have its margins required to stay afloat and more or less taxes on that company affects more what it's costumers pay than how much after tax profit it makes.

That is really not how business works. Companies don't get to set their own margins, and many companies aren't even profitable. Ultimately, companies want margins to be as high as possible. Until I started reading sports discussions, I never realized how many people work off this bizarre model where businesses have a set margin and any added expenses just add to prices.

I get that you think these vat taxes are going to make every thing considerably more expensive to consumers but I think there is more to it than all quasi excise taxes hurt poor and help the rich, but I think it needs more analysis than that. Removing payroll tax and corporate tax and changing it to a vat tax seem to a pretty neutral affect on consumers. Increasing eic undoubtedly helps low income families. Having a flat tax undoubtedly helps high income families. It's all about the magnitude of each.

I agree that it's the middle that would take the biggest hit and the top that would get almost all of the gains. Again, I don't see where the numbers are for that kind of thing.

A healthy chunk will be paid for by debt which isn't great but isn't necessarily the end of the world either, as we have seen. And simplification of the tax code is undoubtedly a good thing, which this also accomplishes.

When there's a demand shortage, we want higher short-term deficits to make up the gap. When the economy is doing well, higher deficits will legitimately put a drag on growth. So it's not as simple as "we had high deficits a few years ago and it didn't cause any problem, therefore they never matter."

 

[afrdzak]

LOL@ being so sure of a Republican presidential victory.
Been hearing this sure-fire confidence for a solid 8+ years now! It's completely separated from reality.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

According to the MSM reported at the time, yes. But conservatives have always been consistent on what we thought if recent nominees.


Romney was always a question mark because he was a moderate governor that instituted Romneycare in Massachusetts, which was the blueprint of Obamacare, since they both had the same author.


Romney was always the establishment pic.


Um no, McCain was doing fantasically, according to the media, until he won the nomination. 'Time to turn around and support the Democrat nominee, now that we helped our desired moderate win the Republican nomination!' So, every move McCain made, was a bad one, there after.


Ah yes, that's correct, it's The Right that needs to compromise, and compromise, and compromise some more.

To the point of reporters asking Republicans who just won elections 'So what are you willing to compromise with Democrats on?'

Compromise on every campaign promise is broke, and every principle compromised.

And that's exactly how the game is played in Washington, for the right to consistently compromise, to get anything done.



Kasich had alot of screentime on the debate on Saturday. In fact, he's been getting alot of screentime on Fox as well.

But, he's just like Bush. Even if he spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising, doesn't mean he's going to get more support.

This whiny victim mentality is pretty pathetic TBH. Stop crying.

 

[Denter]

Dammit didn't post right.

 

[Sasquatch Smith]

LOL@ being so sure of a Republican presidential victory.
Been hearing this sure-fire confidence for a solid 8+ years now! It's completely separated from reality.

When you only associate with people who hold the same beliefs as you I suppose it's easy to convince yourself that your beliefs are more commonly held than they actually are. Such seems to be the case with GSM actually thinking Ted Cruz might be president. Hilariously unlikely (but frightening) concept to most, reality to him because he most likely knows several people who like him and he gets his "news" from Breitbart and shit so doesn't actually understand the climate of the presidential race even though he thinks he does...and will just be disappointed again with the results before the succession from the union talks start again from likeminded simple folks.

 

[VroomyJeeps]

kasich came off well tonight but ive seen every debate and at times he comes off as a bit of a lunatic no way i would ever vote for him

 

[Tigerknee]

The base will not support Kasich, he's not gonna win the nom

 

[VivaRevolution]

To anyone that argues that Sanders won't be able to do anything if elected, I would like to debate you on the grounds that the only way Sanders wins the election, is with a populist wave carrying him there.

Anyone that wants to stand in front of a populist wave, is free to do so, but they will not be standing there for long.

 

[VivaRevolution]

kasich came off well tonight but ive seen every debate and at times he comes off as a bit of a lunatic no way i would ever vote for him

lol at looking at the GOP nominees, and calling Kasich the looney one.

 

[VroomyJeeps]

lol at looking at the GOP nominees, and calling Kasich the looney one.

I just find it hard to take the guy seriously after his "We need to punch Russia in the nose" comment. Him and Christie would start ww3. Christie saying he would shoot down russian planes in Syria, right.

Trump is actually the most sensible sounding when it comes to using the military IMO. Ted Cruz was saying everything Trump always says at the last debate it was actually quite funny.

 

[UpaLoompa]

We need a nominee that will inspire the Republican base to get out and vote, and a moderate won't do that as recent history has shown.

The republican base is not large enough to win.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Kasich seems like a decent human being for a republican. He was a managing director at Lehman Brother's from 2001 until their bankruptcy in 2008. He's not getting the nomination, so it doesn't really matter.

Any CEO who worked at a failed financial institution during the2008 financial crash should not be able to sniff the inside of the White House ever.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

So it'd be the least electable Democrat VS the least electable Republican.

I guess you're referring to his tax code proposal. But ask yourself - Isn't that kind of shit already happening? Like GE getting huge tax breaks that effectively lowered the amount of federal taxes they owed, to zero, for Obama's first two years in office?

The tax code is 70,000 pages long, understood by no one, contradicts itself several times over, and the rich employ those that specialize in getting every possible loophole, tax credit, and refund to pay as little to the government as possible. Some cases, they've recieved even more back.

Wouldn't it be nice to cut the bullshit, stop punishing success, and tax everyone the same rate across the board?

A flat tax.

The final nail in the coffin the republicans have been pushing for since I could remember.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The republican base is not large enough to win.

Yup, both Bush 41 and 43 were great Democrat Presidents.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Yup, both Bush 41 and 43 were great Democrat Presidents.

And bush Jr. Literally set th country on fire like a kid who found a lighter in the yard.