I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[ZenGum]

If the 9-9-9 plan got a B-, then getting a B+ is not very impressive.

Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code,
decreasing the burden on taxpayers.

"Decreasing the burden" means less revenue. How is he going to balance the budget?

Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested
had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax.

Total BS. The capital GAINS were never taxed, only the starting capital. Why should a speculator's income not be taxed like everyone else's?

Still, it is the least silly plan I have seen yet. Huntsman is the only one who seems to be taking this seriously.

[Lamplighter]

Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment.
Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested
had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains
are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.

This "double taxation" is a Republican myth

For an investment in stock, any dividends paid to the investor are "new $" income to the investor.
When the investor sells that stock, the "capital gain" is the selling price
minus the purchase price and fees incurred during the transaction cycle.
The same is true on purchase of equipment, real estate, REI's, etc.

Anyone that proposes that "capital gain" is different from ordinary income
is saying one $US dollar is different from another $US dollar,
... and guess who says that... the people that don't earn their living or extra $ from salaries or wages.

Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate and right along with ordinary income.
.

[Lamplighter]

I am embarrassed to say I first opened this article when I misread it's title.

But it turns out there are two interesting aspects to the article.
First Gingrich's camplaign plans, and then there is the sausage-making aspects
of a candidate even getting on various states' ballots for the primaries.

NY Times
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
December 20, 2011, 4:26 pm

Gingrich Heads to Virginia for Ballot Push

The Virginia presidential primary is not until March 6,
but Newt Gingrich is suddenly veering off the campaign trail
and heading there Wednesday with urgent business:
...get on the ballot. The deadline is Thursday.

On Tuesday, he hastily added two events in Virginia to his schedule
— a rally in Arlington on Wednesday night and a “meet and greet”
with volunteers in Richmond on Thursday morning.

He needs at least 10,000 signatures to get on Virginia’s Republican presidential primary ballot,
but the state has the steepest ballot requirements in the country.
It is not clear how many signatures he has now.

The signature-gathering exercise is where Mr. Gingrich’s lack of field organization shows;
Mitt Romney has been gathering signatures in the state since the summer and has met the goal.
Mr. Gingrich’s campaign went dark this summer and is scrambling to catch up.<snip>

and then there are the challenges to get on the state ballots...

In Virginia, candidates face the further hurdle of having to show support
across the whole state, with at least 400 signatures in each of the state’s 11 Congressional Districts.

Apart from Virginia, other difficult states are: Indiana, which requires 4,500 signatures;
Illinois, which requires 3,000; and Pennsylvania, which requires 2,000.
In Pennsylvania, signatures can come from Republicans only, and only in a three-week period.
The other states require more signatures, but they are open to all registered voters and have a longer collection period.

and besides all that:

Gingrich is slipping in the polls, and racking up negative comments from conservatives
who say he is:— a man who can “bring us together, and alienate the hell out of us,”.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul may actually be looking for a win in Iowa...Romney, not so much.
.

[Undertoad]

Gingrich to gay Iowan: Vote for Obama

“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

done and done mr gingrich

looks like somebody doesn't want to represent all Americans...

[classicman]

Wow!

[glatt]

I admire his honesty. I wish more politicians would show their true colors like that. It would make our job as voters much easier.

[BigV]

How to determine a politician's "true colors". Wow, that is really our job as citizens if we are to make an informed choice. I think they're all honest, that is, even if they're making contradictory statements, then they're honestly flexible/nuanced/flipfloppy/openminded--fill in the blank. I find Gingrich's statement surprisingly plain, but I wonder how it will be spun. And the spin matters. I can imagine that it could be ignored, or dismissed as joking or otherwise discounted.

[Lamplighter]

V's post above is appropriate to both Gingrich (above) and Ron Paul (below)

Now, as Paul appears heading towards a win in the Iowa caucuses.
several headlines are appearing with derogatory subtexts.
But it appears to me that these articles are based on controversial
Newletters published under Ron Paul's name in the 1980's.

The Atlantic
Michael Brendan Dougherty
12/21/11
The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Dec 21 201

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses,
he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out
under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report,
the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

* "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,
I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city
are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

* "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

* After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed,
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

* One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer
who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

* Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman
as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign,
Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because
they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content.
Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic
that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters.
Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation?
<snip>
Winning the Iowa caucuses would change all that instantly.

Undoubtedly the movement that Paul inspired has moved far beyond
the race-baiting it engaged in two decades ago.
Young people from college campuses aren't lining up to hear him speak
because of what appeared in those newsletter about the 1992 L.A. riots
Rand Paul tried his hardest to place Paul-style libertarianism into the context of the Tea Party.
And he will likely carry on the movement without this 1990s baggage.

The article goes on to discuss how others view those Newletters,
particularly as they are not now as "relevant" as they were in the 80's.
.

[BigV]

Speaking of dogs that won't be in fights:

Gingrich and Perry fail to collect enough signatures to qualify to be listed on the ballots in Virginia.

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the primary election in his home state of Virginia, the state's Republican Party said.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 primary.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also failed to make the ballot for the state's Republican vote. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia vote.

Gingrich (and probably Perry, too) can have write-in campaigns, of course. But this seems like a bit of a blow to their campaigns. One effect working against them is that write-in candidates are not as likely to succeed, usually because they're just... not on the ballot, they're not known. They require more work on the part of the voter. These two candidates don't have that problem though, they are known, but will they be remembered? Another effect, the Republican party has chosen to allocate their delegates proportionally, so maybe they can gather some scraps even if their chances of winning are reduced.

[SamIam]

You have to wonder what's wrong with Gingrich's and Perry's campaign staff that they can't even get organized enough to get 10,000 signatures on a petition to be placed on the ballot. If they can't accomplish a simple thing like that, how are they going to react to the far more complex duties of the presidency?

[Undertoad]

That story makes me sicker than the pepper spray murder story.

[Griff]

Organization trumping money, isn't that a good thing in politics? Granted, paying people to collect sigs is probably what most do but 10 thousand out of a population of 8 million seems like a low threshold.

[Lamplighter]

Maybe this contributed to the problem...

In Virginia, candidates face the further hurdle of having to show support
across the whole state, with at least 400 signatures in each of the state’s 11 Congressional Districts.

[Lamplighter]

Are GOP candidates likely to gain the US Presidency in the Nov '12 national
election with pledges such as this in their political history ?
Or, are they only getting their jollies in whipping up the fever
of the far right wing of the Republican party.

NY Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
December 22, 2011

Republican Presidential Candidates Embrace Granting Legal Rights to Human Embryos

Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard
that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s
and morning-after pills, could hamper in-vitro fertilization clinics and could, doctors warned,
discourage critical medical care for pregnant women.

It has also caused a bitter split in the anti-abortion movement, with traditional leaders,
including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, opposed to the idea on strategic grounds,
arguing that it would end in a legal debacle that only strengthens abortion rights.

These considerations have apparently not put off some of the Republican presidential aspirants,
who are polishing and trumpeting their credentials as Christian conservatives
in their efforts to be seen as the leading Not Romney.

This month, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have all signed
a pledge to support “personhood” at conception that was crafted by Personhood USA,
a Colorado group that has continued to push the idea in several states.

Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum have also agreed to celebrate the personhood concept
in a “Presidential Pro-Life Forum” in Iowa next Tuesday, Dec. 27,
that will be moderated by the conservative radio host Steve Deace
and broadcast live on his syndicated program.

And besides all that:

http://www.goddiscussion.com/87963/r...op-candidates/
God Discussion
December 24, 2011
By God Discussion Reporter

Ron Paul signs Personhood USA pledge, joining four other GOP candidates

Five GOP presidential candidates — Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry
and more recently, Ron Paul — have signed a pledge drafted by Personhood USA
in which the candidates promise to support a Constitutional amendment
and federal legislation imposing "personhood" laws.

Personhood USA seeks to "glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life
so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law."

The personhood legislation will recognize zygotes as human beings having constitutional rights
and ban assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research,
and "procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings."

IMO, a candidate signing this pledge is asking to be rejected by the general electorate.

[BigV]

It is a low threshold. It is the same threshold that, say, Perry and Paul were able to surpass. It is the published rule that everybody who cared about knew about. What galls me, what seriously turns me off about Gingrich is his PATHETIC moaning about the "failed system" has disqualified him. He reminds me of the peasant crying about being oppressed in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

His blaming the system for his own failure, his demonstrated willingness to blame the violence inherent in the system

-- Newt Gingrich, who says as president he would ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings he dislikes, has plenty of company among Republican candidates in vowing to blow up long-held premises of constitutional law. --

fills me with dread. We have co-equal branches of government, buddy. You should know that. And it is the definition of the judicial branch to decide, by using their JUDGEMENT, what the meaning of a law is and how it applies and the constitutionality of a law. Not the President, signing statements be damned.