Carson seemed to waffle at first when asked about a 10 percent flat tax he proposed as a type of tithing. He changed the figure to 15 percent after some stammering.

Carson said a 15 percent tax on everyone would work because he would eliminate all deductions.

This would have a very bad effect on the housing industry as homeowners count on the mortgage interest deductions. He would also eliminate exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings.

This info can be found on page A6 of today's Daily Sun.

Carson may be very likable but certainly is not Presidential material.

I hope Fiorina was being cutesy when she said she would pare down the tax codes from 70,000 pages down to 3 pages. Agree that 70,000 is ridiculous but 3 pages? Not even realistic.

Winner last night? Christy.

Originally Posted by Guest

Carson seemed to waffle at first when asked about a 10 percent flat tax he proposed as a type of tithing. He changed the figure to 15 percent after some stammering.

Carson said a 15 percent tax on everyone would work because he would eliminate all deductions.

This would have a very bad effect on the housing industry as homeowners count on the mortgage interest deductions. He would also eliminate exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings.

This info can be found on page A6 of today's Daily Sun.

Carson may be very likable but certainly is not Presidential material.

I hope Fiorina was being cutesy when she said she would pare down the tax codes from 70,000 pages down to 3 pages. Agree that 70,000 is ridiculous but 3 pages? Not even realistic.

Winner last night? Christy.

Obama won and he was an unknown entity!

Maybe Fiorina is off by stating 3 pages. Make it 6. The 69,000 + pages are most legalese...

When I was in business I use to advise folks they could use as many pages as they wanted to present something for my approval, BUT there had to be a one page cover sheet that would determine if I even turn the page!

She has the right idea.

Originally Posted by Guest

Obama won and he was an unknown entity!

Maybe Fiorina is off by stating 3 pages. Make it 6. The 69,000 + pages are most legalese...

When I was in business I use to advise folks they could use as many pages as they wanted to present something for my approval, BUT there had to be a one page cover sheet that would determine if I even turn the page!

She has the right idea.

The Democratic internal's make Rubio the most "feared".

After a few debates and reading, I have to concur.

Carson could never hadle a debate with Hillary.
Trump or Christy only have the moxie to cut Hillary down to size.
She is a lier and can't be trusted.

Originally Posted by Guest

Carson could never hadle a debate with Hillary.
Trump or Christy only have the moxie to cut Hillary down to size.
She is a lier and can't be trusted.

Just keep in mind, debating Ms Clinton is only the beginnings. IF you beat her, and my wish is so fervent in that regard, then you will be President of the United States.

THAT is the main thing.

I find Ms Clinton to be perhaps the most appalling and dreadful candidate for President in my life. Disagreeing with issues is one thing, having a President who has made a career of backroom deals and horrid crimes of distorting truth is simply terrifying.

BUT...she is a good debater and my point is, she needs to go away, but the country is more important.

Whomever is pitted against her must win and then must take this country in a new direction, thus as you look at these candidates, remember they must manage our country should they win.

Republicans have to beat not only Ms Clinton, but overcome the media, and last night was a great thing for me. We need the Republicans to become much more offensive...much more aggressive...and begin to call out people publicly.

I am hoping that with Ryan now the speaker, the party will do just that.

I thing I posted the link to the game plan used by Obama to defeat her and it was to attack her character and I am hoping that the Republicans do it with great vigor...honestly but with no sympathy.

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.

Message to the Sand Trap......I am gone.....you guys win I suppose but I do not have any cute little thingie to add.

Your posts and antics are so easily identifiable

Take care

Originally Posted by Guest

Do we really want a President who will cut taxes but at the expense of taking away all deductions? Remember Carson's tax rate would be the same for a CEO as for a file clerk. Yes, the tax lawyers will still find some method of having the CEO pay less tax than a mid-manager - perhaps in offshore accounts.

Carson has absolutely zero chance of besting Hillary in a head to head debate. She would make mincemeat out of him and his stammering that makes him look incompetent.

No one wants Christy as President. No one wants Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Santorum. Rubio has the best shot. Trump will run as a third party.

Hillary wins. End of arguements.

Lacing the X-X-X kool aide with a little PCP again?

In my view

Carson has many fine qualities but he is not good at public speaking.
Rubio is excellent and he conveys his words convey his emotion which allows an audience to test his sincerety.
The same with Cruz but Cruz gets too evangeical
Fiorina is detailed and intellectual but she appears too rehearsed
Bush is simply awful in the arena too clumsy too uncomfortable
Christie is the ultimate show horse
Paul succinct in response but leaves one flat
Kaisch comes across as manically
Trump is Trump bombastic confident but his just trust me attitude does not instill trust with voters
Huckabee is an excellent communicator

But remember we must remind ourselves that we are not choosing the best show horse but the best work horse (qualified to lead).

Carson's people developed a tax plan that he has a difficult time explaining and that concerns me.

Fiorina's is a former CEO and experience has taught her to ask for more in order to get what she will need. Despite what critics say she is spot on with a tax code that even challenge the best of accountants. Its shear madness and its a waste of time, money paper, digital space. Its also very deceptive

Rubio in my view was the clear winner. Its also clear that the mainstream media think so and hence the Democrats also think so. He is the candidate to beat and the opposition knows that and so the mud feast begins. the mainstream media will do everything and anything they can to stop Marco Rubio. To suggest he has to wait his term as the Republican Establishment has done and the mainstream media latched onto is illogical on its face. If you have a gifted child would you allow education wonks to tell you that the child could not moe ahead but had to wait his/her turn. I doubt it.

As to this nonsense of his missing votes McCain, Kerry and Obama all missed a greater percentage than did Rubio. Further and most important of all most people recognize that if Rubio meets the criteria based on nomination and elections that he is of more value to us in the White House then in the Senate. Jeb Bush's half- hearted attempt to take a swipe at Rubio over this issue clearly demonsrates the concern many people have that Rubio is going to be the nominee and Rubio can make mice meat of Hillary any time any where.

Personal Best Regards:

Please forgive my editing and keystroke mistakes. However we all have the same limitation because this forum does ot allow us the opportunity of editing our final draft before submitting.

Personal Best Regards:

The candidate's tax plans do not matter. Congress has to approve the plan, unless you are Obama. Any plan the new president will have, will be torn apart and inspected in detail. The fact that they(candidates) have a plan is good enough for me. The most important detail in our future will be to put our budget on a diet, balance it at the very least, and at best have a surplus that could be used to pay down on the National Debt.

Step one is to tear apart Obamacare so that it doesn't cost so much. Repealing it would be my ideal but the probability is slight.
Step two is to figure out a way to build a Social Security surplus to sustain if for the future and have some left for a rainy day situation. That may mean making some drastic changes to age qualification. There are many folks that receive SS that never invested in it(spouses, survivors, etc). We need to figure out a way to fix that. It wasn't meant to be a primary retirement pension. If it is to be, then we need to build it up. Not something I wish to see, because that is leaning toward socialism. I am a capitalist.
Entitlements are a big chunk of our budget. We need to separate entitlements from gov business and then we can trim down the gov to workable levels.

You can't raise taxes every time congress decides to buy some votes with new entitlements. Taxes should be a set percentage and gov expenditures should be dependent on the level of the economy. Better economy, more tax revenues. That would force the gov to play nicely with business. This country is run backwards, similar to socialist countries. The gov dictates to business. For a thriving and profitable country, it should be business dictates the size of the government. Sounds skewed but that is how you have a healthy lifestyle. Lifestyle is controlled by the economy, not the gov. The gov never improves lifestyle, only the economy. And the economy dictates the size of the gov budget. And the economy dictates the quality of your lifestyle, NOT the government.

I also meant to add that when we go war, we should fund it with a war tax, or war bonds.

Originally Posted by Guest

The candidate's tax plans do not matter. Congress has to approve the plan, unless you are Obama. Any plan the new president will have, will be torn apart and inspected in detail. The fact that they(candidates) have a plan is good enough for me. The most important detail in our future will be to put our budget on a diet, balance it at the very least, and at best have a surplus that could be used to pay down on the National Debt.

Step one is to tear apart Obamacare so that it doesn't cost so much. Repealing it would be my ideal but the probability is slight.
Step two is to figure out a way to build a Social Security surplus to sustain if for the future and have some left for a rainy day situation. That may mean making some drastic changes to age qualification. There are many folks that receive SS that never invested in it(spouses, survivors, etc). We need to figure out a way to fix that. It wasn't meant to be a primary retirement pension. If it is to be, then we need to build it up. Not something I wish to see, because that is leaning toward socialism. I am a capitalist.
Entitlements are a big chunk of our budget. We need to separate entitlements from gov business and then we can trim down the gov to workable levels.

You can't raise taxes every time congress decides to buy some votes with new entitlements. Taxes should be a set percentage and gov expenditures should be dependent on the level of the economy. Better economy, more tax revenues. That would force the gov to play nicely with business. This country is run backwards, similar to socialist countries. The gov dictates to business. For a thriving and profitable country, it should be business dictates the size of the government. Sounds skewed but that is how you have a healthy lifestyle. Lifestyle is controlled by the economy, not the gov. The gov never improves lifestyle, only the economy. And the economy dictates the size of the gov budget. And the economy dictates the quality of your lifestyle, NOT the government.

Well written post.
Your part regarding Social Security is interesting. Most of Social Security recepients are not retirees. They are people in need due to disability or for children. These people have never contributed to the system. To prop up the Social Security, you would need means testing for retirees. Retirees should only receive SS retirement benefits if they are in need. Yes, everyone would still pay into SS but only those in need get to withdraw when they retire.

The war tax concept is interesting.

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Originally Posted by Guest

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Proof that some pay so that others play. Kind of extreme statement, but true. Many receive benefits from SS that never contributed. That's socialism, because we were not given a choice.

Am I heartless because I complain? I am complaining because liberals rant about how great SS is, but the truth is that it is another program of handouts for many folks that did not contribute, or did not contribute long enough to receive full benefits.

Many also don't tell you that you can get early SS when you are 62 years old, no matter how they moved the retirement (full benefit) age up to 66 or 67 years old. Anyone that is smart and wants to retire early, can start receiving benefits at 62 years old.