That position (man made global warming) takes him off my list.

 

The problem facing the GOP is that the candidates that could appeal to the masses don't energize the base of the party. The base is with the wing nuts right now (far right Christian Conservatives, Libertarian fiscally). In a general election, centrists tend to fare much better.

McCain in principle would have been a good general election candidate but the waters were poisoned because of Bush. Short of having Osama Bin Laden running against him, pretty much any Democrat could have won.

The list of candidates out there for the GOP really don't have a chance.

Herman Cain is going to face the same problem Alan Keyes did against Obama for Senate in IL. While yes he is an African American and can take some of the spotlight off of racism in the party, those that hold those feelings will not vote or they will vote for some 3rd party that has no chance of winning or they will write in someone who won't win.

Romney is pretty much dead in the water. The Christian right won't support him as he is a Mormon. He did RomneyCare which ObamaCare is pretty much a copy of and he will have no fight on that topic. He is one of the two that are most likely to make it in a general election but cannot win a primary.

Gingrich is dead in the water. He pissed the base of the GOP off by going against Medicare reform. He is suspicious in a general election as he still has the stigma with shutting down the government in the 1990's. His personal life has too many holes in it and since he is running as a Republican that is a problem. He would be better becoming a Democrat and he could get a pass on the affairs and stuff.

Ron Paul is the other candidate that may survive a general election. However, he is not well liked within the GOP. I think he could actually run on a 3rd party ticket and make some noise there. Of course doing so would ensure Obama another 4 years as he would accomplish what Perot did in dividing the party.

Sarah Palin sadly is the best bet to come out of the GOP and win the nomination. I don't get the appeal to her. Maybe it is because she isn't horrible looking and wins the affections of guys gawking at her...don't know. As far as brains, she makes W look pretty sharp. As far as temperament, she is likely to get us into WWIII within a week as she has thin skin and thinks you have to fight every fight. While she has a strong following in the base of the GOP, she doesn't have a snowball's chance to beat Obama in a general election.

My guess is that Obama will win another term simply because the GOP is so polarized right at the moment. The fight over Medicare is going to become the same noose that ObamaCare was for the Democrats in 2010. These things are like a pendulum. America is for the most part pretty centrist and the extremists on both sides don't fare well in general elections. In the off year elections, one side or the other tend to fare better as the voter turn outs are lower. The energized party seems to flood the ballot boxes (except here in Chicago...we vote early and often! LOL!).

 

I think Gingrich pissed of the base when he came out in support of Obamacare. Right after that his numbers dropped to 1-3%, well within the margin of error.

 

I get a kick out of some of the posts about the candidates that should run for the GOP ticket, name the Candidates that are RINOs ( or close to it ), and are coming from Democrat supporters / Democrat thought process members.

Sure, in those opinions, they are the better candidate, as they are a stone toss from the line of switching party affiliation, and in their mind would "appeal to the masses".
Guess a GOP candidate has never appealed to the masses before....

My thought, the GOP should put up a "sacrificial" candidate for the elections, unless some things happen in short order.

1. The Senate breaks their 750+ day streak of not dong any budget planning of their own.
1.1. Right now, they planned on voting down the house bill, and have nothing of their own, for the Senate to debate and vote on, let alone mesh with the House plan to come up with a budget for FY2012. They tossed it to Joe the VP to run with.

2. Some serious repair work to how broken the Health Care law is.
2.1. There is already a funding gap to the estimates put together with the bill the 111th congress passed due to waivers being handed out like candy on Halloween.
2.2. This does not take into account the actual costs that the CBO came up with for the Health Care law, which was ~ $ 200B short ( puts the cost in the $ 1T range ).
- These are just so it can run as passed, without going back to China to fund it, nothing to do with the hit it is going to put on people.

3. Some real policy work done to do something for the Economy, not the thinly veiled appropriations bills that were used in the past. At least the house is scrutinizing the line items that get stuffed into these "economic " bills.

These 3 items alone can cause a major financial impact to the 113th 114th Congressional terms & the next POTUS term, if left to run the way they are now ( and when the real impact of the current Health Care law hits home, there are going to be a lot of pissed off voters in 2013 - They are not going to blame the ones that passed it, it is going to be the face in front of them ).

If these are not done, I can only hope the GOP holds back any serious candidate(s), to run against who ever the Democrats have in the election after that.
The person in the POTUS for the next 4 is either going to be a complete rocks star, or damage the party affiliation for a long time to come ( as Carter did ).

Could be this is why the GOP candidate list is wishy-washy, the guy from Utah seems like another Mitt R, name just spelled differently...

Just what I see going on, so opinion, speculation,and conjecture.
Could be the real reason Ryan is saying he will not run in 2012, he is waiting for the chickens to roost, before voicing an interest.

 

I think what needs to happen to improve the economy is to increase the amount of dollars being spent on items. Therein lies the problem. The government is broke, so it can't feasibly increase spending while at the same time reducing the deficit. The government has already tried to help the economy by bailing out poor people. The problem with that approach, that I see, is they took people who were spending more than they were making and reduced their expenditures so that they were spending all of their income. The end result, no increase in spending hit the economy. At the same time the government spent a bunch of money and there isn't a return of investment for the government.

Once government figures out how to pump more money into the economy without incurring debt then they will have figured out how to keep us out of this type of problem. I think it is possible to do both of these at one time. The biggest problem is the cry will go out that the government is only helping the "rich". My solution is to increase the guarantee limits for FHA, VA, and the other federal mortgage programs. Allow people who are actually making their credit payments to refinance their mortgages to the much lower rates available today. Since these people are currently not in danger of defaulting on their loans, reducing their expenditures is a safe bet. This will allow those who are already making more than they spend to have more money and spend more. Even if these people pay off loans or save the money it is good for the economy because it gives the financial institutions more cash on hand. Once they have the required reserves money sitting around is of no use to them. They will loan it out to make more money. If the people who refinanced spend their "new" money it places more money into the economy at a sustainable rate. It'll never happen and we are going to be stuck in this funk for many years to come.

 

From the standpoint of improving the economy, dumping money on the poor isn't going to help anything. Sure they will spend it but it is generally going to be for low cost items that are made in China. It helps pump more money into the coffers of China and not the US.

Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest percentage of people isn't working either. The small tax savings isn't going to influence their ability to spend. Do you think someone like Paris Hilton gives a damn if her tax rate is 25 or 35%? She is out partying like a rock star until she gets locked up again anyway. Guys like Warren Buffet have come out saying that it is sad that his secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than he does.

I agree that pumping things up like home loans and stuff will help but accomplishing it is going to be hard. People that have already lost homes can't get a loan easily to buy another more realistic home for themselves. There is such a glut of foreclosed homes and ones that people are trying to get out from underneath it isn't funny. My primary home has lost $70k in value in 4 years and that is mild compared to some.

Until home values recover, we aren't going to get out of this. Real Estate is a big driver in our economy and when things are like this, no one is a buyer when they know they are throwing good money after bad. The fear I have is people not gaining any confidence in real estate and the prices just not budging.

 

Bush Obama Romney.. All the same guy really. There fiscal policies are or will be the same. Obamas more liberal on social issues then bush or Romney but when it come down to how the moneys spent there all doing did or will do the same things pretty much.

 

K-mac--I am in the unfortunate position to agree with part of what you said. Your reasoning is actually the point I was making. The housing market is trashed. People can't buy a new house because they can't sell their old house. The banks are unwilling/unable to loan a lot of money because people are having a difficult time financially. My proposal would result in lower house payments for those who are alright financially while at the same time not increasing the burden on the government. These people will most likely be the middle and upper middle class. Since all the government will be doing is expanding guarantee programs to allow for higher loan to value ratios for a refinance of an existing loan to people who are already making their payments on time lowering those payments carry little risk for the government. Many of these people purchased their house when the interest rates were quite a bit high than can be found today and they can not refinance because they are upside down in those loans. I am not proposing forgiving any loan amount or forcing mortgage companies to take a lower interest rate. I am suggesting a straight up refinance with the government guaranteeing the loan

 

Here we go again, just like the MSM, presenting the data to make it look worse than it really is....

Let's is really going on.

1. Social Security Tax,
1.1 secretary pays the 6.2% on all 60K of her income.
1.2. WB only pays 6.2% up to $ 106,800 of his income, all after that does not have SS tax taken out of it.
- What does this mean ?
The secretary has 6.2% of all her income taxed by SS, where WB only has $ 6,621.60 taken out of what ever amount he earns.
- If he earns only $ 213,600, his rate for SS tax is now 3.1 %. Wow look at that, WB is only paying half the percentage that his secretary is, that rich bastard, how does he get off so easy ?
Keep the amounts in mind : Secretary = $ 3,720 | WB = $ 6,621.60.

2. FICA = This is the same percentage for both, no cap on FICA like SS, so that 1.6% is the same.

3. Most of WB's income is capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a different rate than income, or 15%.
This is due to him being in the 25% or higher tax brackets, if the person filing taxes is in the 15% and under tax brackets, they pay 0%.
Yes you read that right if you make up to $34,000 single ( or up to $ 68,000 married filing jointly or $45,550 head of household ) you pay 0% on long term capitol gains from stock transactions.

Keep in mind WB makes $ 46M per year ( again most from capitol gains and dividends ) and his $50 B net worth is not liquid, it is held in stocks from his companies.
Also, part of that $ 46M is from federal tax free bonds, he has a larger mortgage interest deduction that his secretary, donates appreciated stocks to charities ( no capitol gains and gets the write off ).

The short of it, WB can stand and give the inflammatory speech on how the top end tax brackets should be higher, but this would have little impact on his percentage of taxes paid, unless the US pulls a Switzerland and taxes assets not income.
Don't think you will ever hear him suggest this, nor a single politician..

 

Ron Paul's most recent money bomb, yesterday / today, has raised over $1 million in a day with very little publicity.

His ability to raise money could make him a viable candidate. Plus, the consistency of his positions, his appeal to the younger generation, and his common sense solutions to the problems we're facing, he could go a long way.

He is the only real 'conservative' and non-RINO running this time around.

 

Again the problem lies with trying to win the GOP nomination. I just don't think he is good enough at pandering to the social conservatives. He is more of a Libertarian that a Republican.

When times are tough, conservative white people tend to grab at guns and God!

 

 

K-mac thats true, espicially when it comes to the primary voters

 

Nice. Our resident progressive is now an expert on who and what the GOP is.

You don't know what your talking about.

The one fact that you seem to ignore is the growing sea of independent, or unaffiliated voters.

"Interesting" opining though.

 

I'll take a "wing nut Christian" over this "progressive democrat" anytime : http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...overnment-com/

@K