If Republicans Win in 2016

[Tiberius]

What should be their top priorities with control of all three branches?

[3rdnlng]

What should be their top priorities with control of all three branches?

OK, I'll bite. Getting control of the federal government that is running amok is the essential first step. After that, abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy would be a good step. Since their inception they haven't done a damn thing other than increase the deficit.

[/dev/null]

Assuming the Republicans hold the Senate.

 

The problem with assume is it makes an ass out of you and an ass out. well nevermind, nobody else here will dispute the ass out of you part

[Oxrock]

Assuming the Republicans hold the Senate.

 

The problem with assume is it makes an ass out of you and an ass out. well nevermind, nobody else here will dispute the ass out of you part

Ok, but for the purpose of the question, play along for a moment.

 

1. Border security.

2. Tax cuts for corporations tied together with repatriating money from overseas by tax forgiveness.

3. Comprehensive immigration reform.

[unbillievable]

1) Pass a balanced budget Amendment

2) Secure the borders

3) End Affirmative Action

4) repeal Obamacare

5) abolish the IRS by passing a flat consumption tax.

[Dorkington]

Assuming the Republicans hold the Senate.

 

The problem with assume is it makes an ass out of you and an ass out. well nevermind, nobody else here will dispute the ass out of you part

Republicans have political momentum, so why not.

 

This thread is an interesting read. I wonder how many of the suggestions would actually happen, considering the red tape and lobbyist interests.

[/dev/null]

Republicans have political momentum, so why not.

The 2016 Senate map favors the Democrats. Republicans are defending blue and purple seats.

[TH3]

Ok, but for the purpose of the question, play along for a moment.

 

1. Border security.

2. Tax cuts for corporations tied together with repatriating money from overseas by tax forgiveness.

3. Comprehensive immigration reform.

 

1. So you believe that the rate of illegal immigration is an issue even the it has gone down tremendously in the last 8 years?

2. Despite the fact the corporate tax contribution revenue - even though it is at historic lows as a percentage GDP - should be cut before personal tax rates?

3. Never going to happen with GDP

 

1) Pass a balanced budget Amendment

2) Secure the borders

3) End Affirmative Action

4) repeal Obamacare

5) abolish the IRS by passing a flat consumption tax.

 

1. Never going to happen - it can't happen.

2. See above

3. Already is dead

4. And replace with.....

5, You must be a very high earner - a flat tax will benefit the wealthy and make everyone else pay more....

 

 

These are the issues that you wake up in the morning and think about?

Edited May 30, 2015 by baskin

[DC Tom]

 

1. So you believe that the rate of illegal immigration is an issue even the it has gone down tremendously in the last 8 years?

2. Despite the fact the corporate tax contribution revenue - even though it is at historic lows as a percentage GDP - should be cut before personal tax rates?

3. Never going to happen with GDP

 

 

1. Never going to happen - it can't happen.

2. See above

3. Already is dead

4. And replace with.....

5, You must be a very high earner - a flat tax will benefit the wealthy and make everyone else pay more....

 

 

These are the issues that you wake up in the morning and think about?

 

Profound. You should be in Congress.

[FireChan]

Republicans have political momentum, so why not.

 

This thread is an interesting read. I wonder how many of the suggestions would actually happen, considering the red tape and lobbyist interests.

0.

 

1. So you believe that the rate of illegal immigration is an issue even the it has gone down tremendously in the last 8 years?

2. Despite the fact the corporate tax contribution revenue - even though it is at historic lows as a percentage GDP - should be cut before personal tax rates?

3. Never going to happen with GDP

 

 

1. Never going to happen - it can't happen.

2. See above

3. Already is dead

4. And replace with.....

5, You must be a very high earner - a flat tax will benefit the wealthy and make everyone else pay more....

 

 

These are the issues that you wake up in the morning and think about?

How does a flat tax make everyone pay more?

 

That's the opposite of the definition.

Edited May 30, 2015 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

How does a flat tax make everyone pay more?

 

That's the opposite of the definition.

 

Simple. You just can't understand it, because you understand the distinction between "amount" and "proportion."

[....lybob]

0.

How does a flat tax make everyone pay more?

 

That's the opposite of the definition.

OK

50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income taxed the same

10% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine

.5% financial transaction tax

12% corporate tax no deductions

[IDBillzFan]

Frankly I think they should spend the first year reminding everyone that regardless of what you've seen and heard for the last eight years, America doesn't actually suck, police are not the enemy, we can kick ISIS ass, we can build a pipeline from Canada, we don't need to stick our political noses into every single mishap at the state level just to rile up nutjobs begging for a reason to burn things down.

 

Oh, and you kids can have a decent lunch again.

[Tiberius]

1) Pass a balanced budget Amendment

2) Secure the borders

3) End Affirmative Action

4) repeal Obamacare

5) abolish the IRS by passing a flat consumption tax.

Wow, probably one of the worst ideas out there. An economic doomsday machine. Draining all that capital out of the economy would be a disaster

[Chef Jim]

Wow, probably one of the worst ideas out there. An economic doomsday machine. Draining all that capital out of the economy would be a disaster

But wait. Aren't you the one that says money just doesn't disappear? So what you're saying is only the government puts money into the economy?

[Azalin]

For starters:

 

1) Dismantle the NSA domestic surveillance program.

 

2) Eliminate the IRS - replace the income tax with a consumption tax, eliminate the capital gains tax, and reduce corporate taxes to 15%.

 

3) Legalize marijuana, gambling, and prostitution.

 

4) Reform welfare by returning it to the limits imposed by the Clinton administration.

 

5) Make legal immigration requirements simpler for Latin Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc - one simple method for migrating to the US for everyone.

 

6) Rebuild the military.

[Tiberius]

But wait. Aren't you the one that says money just doesn't disappear? So what you're saying is only the government puts money into the economy?

 

No, what I have said and will probably be forced to say again is that twist every statement until it's unrecognizable. So to answer your questions, no and no. Now, what do you think would have with a balanced budget amendment? If the federal bond market disappeared, what would be the results?

For starters:

 

1) Dismantle the NSA domestic surveillance program.

2) Eliminate the IRS - replace the income tax with a consumption tax, eliminate the capital gains tax, and reduce corporate taxes to 15%.

3) Legalize marijuana, gambling, and prostitution.

4) Reform welfare by returning it to the limits imposed by the Clinton administration.

5) Make legal immigration requirements simpler for Latin Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc - one simple method for migrating to the US for everyone.

6) Rebuild the military.

How would you rebuild the military if you kill the country's ability to tax?

 

Wow, a Consumption tax would be the dumbest crap ever! Imagine the enforcement problems. The black market would be everywhere, crime, average people sent to jail for selling sneakers and it would be a joke in no time, and the country would fall to pieces with lack of government resources. Fail

[Azalin]

How would you rebuild the military if you kill the country's ability to tax?

 

Wow, a Consumption tax would be the dumbest crap ever! Imagine the enforcement problems. The black market would be everywhere, crime, average people sent to jail for selling sneakers and it would be a joke in no time, and the country would fall to pieces with lack of government resources. Fail

 

I wouldn't be killing the country's ability to tax, I'd be shifting it from taking money from people as they earn it to taxing as they spend it. People would have significantly larger paychecks, increasing their spending power. The more you spend, the more you're taxed - wealthy people spend more, and would therefore be taxed more.

 

Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously?

 

A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers. It means that drug dealers, organized crime, prostitutes - anyone who earns their income illegally automatically become taxpayers as well.

 

It also gives a greater incentive to government officials to quit screwing with the economy and allow it to flourish, since their precious tax revenue will be dependent upon a healthy economy.

 

 

And before you start giving people crap about their replies, remember that you're the one who asked.

[IDBillzFan]

 

I wouldn't be killing the country's ability to tax, I'd be shifting it from taking money from people as they earn it to taxing as they spend it.

 

The reason people like gator and birdog give people grief about moving to something like a consumption tax is because it blows up their entire ridiculous argument of ensuring people pay their 'fair share.

 

It makes sure everyone is paying their fair share, just not fair in the way liberals think of fair.

[3rdnlng]

 

I wouldn't be killing the country's ability to tax, I'd be shifting it from taking money from people as they earn it to taxing as they spend it. People would have significantly larger paychecks, increasing their spending power. The more you spend, the more you're taxed - wealthy people spend more, and would therefore be taxed more.

 

Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously?

 

A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers. It means that drug dealers, organized crime, prostitutes - anyone who earns their income illegally automatically become taxpayers as well.

 

It also gives a greater incentive to government officials to quit screwing with the economy and allow it to flourish, since their precious tax revenue will be dependent upon a healthy economy.

 

 

And before you start giving people crap about their replies, remember that you're the one who asked.

The "Fair Tax" is the way to go. It is a federal sales tax and is only levied on the end user. It is in no way a Value Added Tax which would allow the government to hide taxes and show favoritism. It also has a provision to rebate the tax to the low income people so that they would not be any worse off than they are now. While gator may have a point regarding black markets springing up and there might be a little more bartering going on, the benefits of bringing everyone into the tax base would appear to far outweigh those points.

[Rob's House]

Frankly I think they should spend the first year reminding everyone that regardless of what you've seen and heard for the last eight years, America doesn't actually suck, police are not the enemy, we can kick ISIS ass, we can build a pipeline from Canada, we don't need to stick our political noses into every single mishap at the state level just to rile up nutjobs begging for a reason to burn things down.

 

Oh, and you kids can have a decent lunch again.

I was going to say Supreme Court justices, but I like this answer better.

[IDBillzFan]

I was going to say Supreme Court justices, but I like this answer better.

 

I keep waiting for Obama to kneecap Ginsberg to move her along.

[Alaska Darin]

OK

50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income taxed the same

10% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine

.5% financial transaction tax

12% corporate tax no deductions

You're an idiot.

[meazza]

 

I wouldn't be killing the country's ability to tax, I'd be shifting it from taking money from people as they earn it to taxing as they spend it. People would have significantly larger paychecks, increasing their spending power. The more you spend, the more you're taxed - wealthy people spend more, and would therefore be taxed more.

 

Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously?

 

A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers. It means that drug dealers, organized crime, prostitutes - anyone who earns their income illegally automatically become taxpayers as well.

 

It also gives a greater incentive to government officials to quit screwing with the economy and allow it to flourish, since their precious tax revenue will be dependent upon a healthy economy.

 

 

And before you start giving people crap about their replies, remember that you're the one who asked.

Tax is 15% here and tax dodging is rampant.

[3rdnlng]

You're an idiot.

It's actually estimated that a "Fair Tax", which is nothing other than a federal sales tax would need to be in the 20-23% range to be revenue neutral to what we have now. It would appear that lyrbob pulled those numbers out of his ass. A 5% financial transaction tax? If i buy a shirt for $40 am I going to have to pay $4 in sales tax and $2 as a financial transaction tax, or is he just trying to stymie stock traders? Anyway, your response to him is probably better. No use engaging him because you know all you'll get is a bunch of useless schit. Calling him an idiot is so much easier. Yes, he's an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play?

[Chef Jim]

OK

50% flat tax on all income over $100,000

Where did you come up with these numbers.

[Azalin]

The "Fair Tax" is the way to go. It is a federal sales tax and is only levied on the end user. It is in no way a Value Added Tax which would allow the government to hide taxes and show favoritism. It also has a provision to rebate the tax to the low income people so that they would not be any worse off than they are now. While gator may have a point regarding black markets springing up and there might be a little more bartering going on, the benefits of bringing everyone into the tax base would appear to far outweigh those points.

 

I agree with this - from what I know of he fair tax, I like it. I don't get the potential for black markets springing up for common merchandise, though.

 

Tax is 15% here and tax dodging is rampant.

 

What kind of tax is it? Income? VAT? Corporate? I don't see how anyone can dodge a consumption tax.

[meazza]

 

I agree with this - from what I know of he fair tax, I like it. I don't get the potential for black markets springing up for common merchandise, though.

 

 

What kind of tax is it? Income? VAT? Corporate? I don't see how anyone can dodge a consumption tax.

 

Sales tax. It's easy, pay cash save the taxes.

[IDBillzFan]

Where did you come up with these numbers.

 

Like most progs, I'm sure he came to that number by factoring in the four key elements of all liberal economic solutions: Eenie, Meenie, Miney and Moe.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Sales tax. It's easy, pay cash save the taxes.

Right, but wouldn't the removal of our focus from making sure every individual pays income tax/dealing with all the business loopholes, free up a hell of a lot of time to focus merely on businesses paying sales tax?

 

I don't know that we need to fully abolish the IRS. Rather give it a job that for the first time in it's history is scoped properly, and one that it actually has a real chance of doing objectively/properly? I think all decisions about non-profit tax status shold be a state-level issue anyway, and only brought to the Feds when such corporations operate over state lines. Then rather than the IRS doing it, leave it the the FEC. IF you separate the acitivity from the $, etc. Have one Federal group focus on the behavior, and another on the $, then you can defeat the agenda of a Lois Lerner type, because you need both groups to take action.

[keepthefaith]

 

I keep waiting for Obama to kneecap Ginsberg to move her along.

I think her weekend at Bernie's ( as Bernie) run is almost over. I'd be shocked if she stayed on the court past 2016.

Edited June 1, 2015 by keepthefaith

[Tiberius]

 

Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously?

 

A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers.

 

 

Wow! Never heard of the black market before?

 

And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole?

[3rdnlng]

Wow! Never heard of the black market before?

 

And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole?

I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play?

[Azalin]

Wow! Never heard of the black market before?

 

And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole?

 

Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you.

 

You really ought to just go away.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you.

 

You really ought to just go away.

 

You should try to speak more nicely to a guy who is thinking about, and writing about, your dirty butt hole.

 

Do you play the banjo?

Edited June 1, 2015 by LABillzFan

[Azalin]

 

You should try to speak more nicely to a guy who is thinking about, and writing about, your dirty butt hole.

 

Do you play the banjo?

 

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but he does appear to have a creepy preoccupation with my can.

 

I don't play the banjo, but I'm told I'm pretty decent with a guitar.

[Tiberius]

 

Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you.

 

You really ought to just go away.

Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous

[Chef Jim]

Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous

 

Seeing there in no consumption tax in place now any number is going to be a suggestion. Who here is using that number as a stated fact?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Chef Jim

[3rdnlng]

Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous

I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play?