not that he had a snowballs chance in hell, but with this comment he is officially done... "When Mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best. They are not sending you. They are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us. They are bringing drugs and they are bringing crime, and they’re rapists.” no coming back from this - dude knocked himself out before he was done with his first speech. OOPS!!! i hope he stays in though - it is great entertainment. plus, i like hearing about how nice his golf courses and hotels are!
The crazy thing is I don't think that comment sets him back like you and I would naturally think it should. Judging by the lovely comments on TheBlaze and Breitbart and their ilk. I think if it were say Jeb or Rand or one of the other actual politician candidates in the running, then it would set them back. Since it's Trump, I feel like most non-mexicans seem to just chalk it up to Trump being Trump.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MnDd_M7R6eE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Even though I don't always agree with him, I'd vote for Rand Paul......but there's no way he gets support from establishment Republicans so he has no shot at the nomination. Establishment Republicans would prefer to nominate someone awful like Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Jeb Bush....people who have no chance in a national election.
So Rand Paul plans to blow a massive whole in the budget by enacting a tax cut that his own analysis says will benefit the wealthy the most? He talks about an immediate massive tax cut that will be paid for by ... expected growth in the following 10 years? And in the interim 10 years while hoping the math works out in his favor, it conveniently adds an extra $1 trillion to the debt. This has never worked in the past. Why would it here? I generally don't have a problem with the underlying principles - remove most exemptions, remove payroll taxes, make all income taxed at the same rate after a baseline. But the rate's going to have to a hell of a lot higher to work.
And what is the justification for removing deductions for, say, education while keeping them for mortgage interest and charitable contributions?
His plan actually calls for some pretty massive spending cuts that would have to be incorporated as well, just not listed in that video. Not viable in my opinion. I'm interested in hearing Rubio's two tier system. I think Republicans are right on wanting to simply the tax code, but simplifying it can't just mean cutting taxes so rich people have more money. 14% for earners up to $500,000 (no marriage bonus/penalty) 28% every dollar after $500k 28% corporate tax Deductions for mortgage (with a cap on the mortgage value), healthcare costs (100% tax deductible up to $10k), child care costs (100% tax deductible up to $6000) and charitable. Child credit of $1000 per child. I'd set the minimum threshold for taxation on capital gains and interests to be something like $10k, less than that and the holding companies don't file a 1099 to encourage savings and investment. Small time investors are rewarded for saving their income. Thoughts on this system? Probably needs tweaking.
I could be wrong, but my understanding on the spending cuts is that it's the standard "Oh, and I'll cut lots of spending" without laying out any details. And the spending cuts aren't accounted for in the dynamic projections in the tax foundation studies, so that would counter the expected growth rates. I think a system like that could work. I actually think Paul's system could work with a higher rate as well, though I'd add an extra tier like you. I really like that he eliminated the payroll tax (an absolute 15% tax on poor and middle class people with no exemptions) and just made the first chunk of income non-taxable. I like having all the different types of income taxed at the same rate so we're not favoring capital over labor.
No, he's pretty specific. Cut the department of education I know is one of them, major defense cuts, cut foreign aid and turning food stamps into a grant to the states. I like my system theoretically but I won't pretend to be able to run the numbers to see if it would work. It seems like it would to me and it would check a lot of the boxes for both parties I would think.
Oh nice - I hadn't seen that. I think too many politicians take the easy way out and avoid specifics, so that's great regardless of whether I agree with any of the cuts or not. In his Op-Ed, he only mentioned that he promised to balance the budget, and the Tax Foundation analysis doesn't mention anything on that end. You should submit it to the tax foundation. But seriously, I agree that there's a lot of simplification that could be done that both parties should be happy with.
We can all think his father for politicians even talking about cutting spending at all. The first time Ron Paul ran, he was the ONLY candidate on either side that even mentioned actually cutting spending, everyone else was all for shuffling around how the ever increasing federal spending was distributed but not for making actual cuts. Now most politicians at least mention cutting spending, even if they only mean cutting the rate at which the budget increases.
Some more "Republican Nuttery", that's for sure. But honest question, before any of the Primaries begin, do you believe any of the GOP nominees that have announced their intentions to run, would have a legit chance of winning in 2016??? I am not sure, but I would like to hear other's opinions on the topic.
