Saturday’s ABC Poll for 2008 Presidential Hopefuls

ABC poll as reported on the Lou Dobbs CNN show, 3/3/07:

Top 4 GOP %
Giuliani, 41
McCain, 24
Gingrich, 15
Romney, 4

Top 4 Dems %
Clinton, 36
Obama, 24
Gore, 14
Edwards, 12

First, the GOP. I’m a bit surprised to see Newt Gingrich, former Speaker, in the #3 spot at this time, especially since he has not indicated whether he will in fact enter the race.

Next, I’m likewise surprised to see the #3 spot in the Dems side held by former Vice President Al Gore. He, like Newt, has not “officially” entered the race for the 2008 nomination. I’m pretty sure either or both would be happy to accept a “draft” if one was to come.

It is my memory that 2,900 Americans were KIA on Election Day, November 7, 2007. (Actual 2,996 on 12/30/06.) Today, March 3, 2007, the total I believe is 3,169 KIA. For reference, 848 were KIA in ‘04, 846 in ‘05 and 816 in ‘06.

Since the public voted NO to the Iraq war on November, 7, there have been 269 American service men and women going KIA in Iraq. We are also losing personnel on a regular basis in Afghan.

Bush43, VP Cheney and Condo Rice are bankrupt on ideas what to do next. Flailing about like 3 drunken sailors, this trio of Know It All’s is unable to articulate any kind of policy to describe how we can extricate ourselves from this quagmire in Iraq and Afghan with some degree of honor. Numbers from the “Rational Review.” Come Quick, Sweet Jesus!

[edit on 3/3/2007 by donwhite]

I can't say I like any of the field much.
Of all the major candidates I've seen over the last few years the only one I've liked much has been Howard Dean.

Far from his portrayal by the usual suspects on the far right, he's a bit of a different Democrat: while socially liberal and anti-interventionist, he's also a proponent of fiscal restraint and an outspoken opponent of gun control, which IMHO is the Dem's major political Achilles Heel.

Of the other candidates:
Giuliani: A Republican without the "social conservative" (read anti-gay) baggage, but with a disturbing authoritarian streak.
McCain: Basically decent, but he's an Iraq War supporter and has been cozying up to the Religious Right lately.
Gingrich: Forget about it. A straight up neocon lizard.
Romney: A big ?

Top 4 Dems %
Clinton: An opportunist with her own creepy authoritarian streak, albeit a lefty "nanny state" version as opposed to a rightwing "daddy state" one.
Obama: A great public speaker with scads of charisma, but a bit of a ? himself. In office he'd probably turn into a standard-issue statist liberal.
Gore: Well meaning but a bit of a drip. Then again he's already won one Presidential election if you don't count the Florida fraud in 2000
Edwards: Nice guy but a cookie cutter liberal as far as I can tell. Meh.

Really the only politician running that I actually like is Ron Paul, and he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell... he makes way too much sense.

posted by xmotex

I can't say I like any of the field much. Of all the major candidates the only one I've liked has been Howard Dean . . he's a bit of a different Democrat: . . liberal . . anti-interventionist . . a proponent of fiscal restraint and an outspoken opponent of gun control, which IMHO is the Dem's major political Achilles Heel. [I agree with your assessment of this issue but surely abortion is #2. DW]

Really the only politician running that I actually like is Ron Paul, and he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell . . he makes way too much sense. [Edited by Don W]

In 250 words or fewer, please fill me in on why you are so enthusiastic on Ron Paul.

I’m thinking Paul was an early proponent of the “flat tax” like Steve Forbes. If that be so, then for the R&Fs (Rich and Famous) the flat tax is already in effect in 2007. The 109th GOP Congress enacted 2 laws to achieve this special status for the R&Fs. 1) On income earned outside the US - say China and Mexico - a 5% tax, and 2) on dividends, the source of most income for the (non-working) really rich, the max tax rate is 15%. For the R&Fs, this anti-tax “war” is over. They won.

The “flat tax” as proposed (17%) was the last hurrah for Reagan’s plan to demolish the “welfare state” and restrict the Federal Government to only the Constitutionally delegated responsibilities as they saw it. Which meant the end of Federally administered Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, AFDC, Section 8 and all the rest of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. Deregulation with a vengeance. None of which programs could Reagan defeat on an up and down vote in Congress but which they - Reagan’s advisers - thought they could “de-fund” and thereby accomplish the same outcome. Of that they - the anti-welfare state-ers - have come close to achieving.

[edit on 3/4/2007 by donwhite]

I'm not terribly enthused about the Libertarian economic agenda, however would I trade and end to the Drug War and an and to foreign interventionism for a flat tax? In a heartbeat.

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm not terribly enthused about the Libertarian economic agenda, however would I trade and end to the Drug War and an and to foreign interventionism for a flat tax? In a heartbeat.

That is a good point, we could make up any shortcomings of a flat tax by eliminating the unecessary and unwinnable war on drugs, but I doubt the US will be out of the interventionalisty policy due to our position in the world. There will always be a place US precesnce is either requested or deemed required by our own congress. Places like Darfur come to mind, where we should be helping out in my opinion, not to mention we have a lot of interests abroad to protect out there.

Though, I'm going for Guilianni, hes more where I am with my beliefs. Being very mixed in his views on social issues as well as fiscal ones. I'll vote for Rudy come 08.

[edit on 3/13/2007 by ludaChris]

Sunday the talking heads said it was now a six way race. The 2008 thing. For the Dems, it is still 1) Hillary, and fast comer 2) Barack and steady 3) John Edwards. On the GOP side, it is pro-war 1) McCain, closely followed by hero of the Nine Eleven Event 2) Giuliani and far back, Mormon’s 3) Romney. The Big 6.

posted by ludaChris

posted by xmotex: I'm not terribly enthused about the Libertarian economic agenda, however would I trade an end to the Drug War and an end to foreign interventionism for a flat tax? In a heartbeat.

That is a good point, we could make up any shortcomings of a flat tax by eliminating the unnecessary and unwinnable war on drugs . . [and stop] the interventionist policy . .” [Edited by Don W]

A “Flat Tax?” Well, cheer up folks! The R&Fs already have it. The Republican 109th Congress thoughtfully rewarded them a 15% cap on dividends, a major source of income to the R&Fs, and a super duper 5% tax on income earned aboard Say Hello Halliburton and Dubia. Uh, how much did you send your congressperson last year? That may explain the outcome.

You should have noticed by now there is no longer any mention of a flat tax in high-up GOP circles. Sorry guys, your leaders have left you behind. Maybe they weren’t serious after all? Like a shell game, first you see it then you don’t. Or the huckster’s old bait and switch con?

For the rest of us mortals, the max tax rate is 34%. Proponents of the flat tax usually mention 17% as the rate-to-be. Realizing the inherently regressive nature of a flat or single tax rate - America has always had a progressive tax rate - there is usually a large exemption for the poor and poorer. A survival exemption. The number bandied about is usually $25,000 for a family of 2 up to $45,000 for larger families. I assume singles would get half the basic family rate, $12,5000. Example: you make $50,000 a year. You’re single. You are taxed 17% on $37,500. That is $6,375. I’ll bet you are paying less than that now?

OK, let’s go on. Don’t forget the 17% does not effect the FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions Act - deduction of 7.65% of wages matched by your employer. 15.3% if you are self-employed. On your $50,000 pay, that would come to $3,825. Plus the $6,375 totals $10,200. Plus any state or local tax on income. Your take-home pay would be about $765 a week on a $50K job. Or $691 if self employed.

At the national level, the problem is twofold. First, we are already running in the red, about $275 b. a year. This is not the whole story. This is because even in 2007, the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund are operating in the black. That is, they take in more each year than they pay out. This will change by 2011, they tell us. But the point is, that tody, 2007, the SS surplus and Medicare surplus is counted as income against the declared budget deficit. This sum amounts to about $175 b. this year.

The reality of our nation’s finances is that we are running in 2007, a $450 b. deficit, and not $275 b. Counting as “income” money already obligated. By 2020, if we don’t change our ways, and quickly, we will need $1 t. to pay our interest on debt and the short fall in SS and Medicare. It is coming. But the public prefers to shoot the messenger than to buckle down and raise taxes to make this system work. Ever year we skip our duty, it will cost more when we finally have to do our duty. Which is to pay-as-you-go for government. Not to pass the bill to our grand-children.

The second problem with the 17% flat tax. I’ve just mentioned the 2007 year and now Congress is dealing with the $2.9 t. 2008 budget. As you also know, we are not including in the budget the “supplementals” we use to fund the 2 wars, Afghan and Iraq. There are reasons for that, but none of them are good. It’s called “smoke and mirrors” in polite company. Just as the 17% is about half of the 34% top bracket rate, so also if adopted the Federal government’s revenue would be reduced by about half. That is a fiscal impossibility. End of discussion.

Which brings me to the hidden agenda of those who first advocated a flat tax back in the 1980s. Rightly or wrongly, Ronald Reagan and that wing of the GOP wanted to end the welfare state created by the New Deal in 1933. They knew they could not win in Congress on up or down votes on each individual welfare program. At least half of the Republicans in Congress would not have agreed to that. And 3/4ths of the Democrats would have resisted, too. I believe Newt Gingrich was an early devotee to the “end the welfare state” theory, but that he has now changed his position.

In the 1980s, the GOP tactic changed. It was believed they could accomplish their goal by de-funding the welfare state. By cutting taxes, they reduced Federal income to the point where only what they regarded as the constitutional duties of the Federal government could be supported. What you can’t do up front, they thought, you may get done out back. To their unexpected surprise and chagrin, the Democratic Congress kept spending even though Reagan had cut the tax rate and Federal revenue. The GOP’s attempt to de-fund the New Deal and Great Society failed. At the expense of fiscal integrity.

Like it or not, some people will always need help. I liken it to the Bell curve, the 15% percentile at the bottom end. They would do ok 10,000 years ago on the Serengeti Plain as scavengers, but they cannot “hack” it in our highly competitive 21st century. If we cannot or will not adopt China’s one family one child policy, then the numbers will likely rise.

Now that’s my take on the Flat Tax.

[edit on 3/13/2007 by donwhite]

"You have voted donwhite for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

"You have voted ludaChris for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

"You have voted xmotex for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

All three in one shot. That was a good read fellas.

*edit*

Why is this in Middle East conflict? No wonder I didn't find it sooner.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by LostSailor]