I'm looking forward to watching Fred Thompson tonight to see how he does. I predict that he will flip a few times, but ultimately will flop. I don't think the guy has anything close to what it would take to be president.

IYHO, right?

Of course. I just think he's overhyped and overrated, kind of like USC this year. Plus, I think he's too old anyway.

He's age 65 with an almost-one-year-old child.

How come it's always OK for the guys, but I get asked if I'm "the grandma" again today. Sigh.

Merkin, take some comfort. Unlike Fred, nobody is worried that you might eat the baby. Everyone keeps an eye on him around pets too.

After watching the debate:

Fred Thompson: Unimpressive. Wants to increase military spending, decrease Social Security benefits. Too old. Over hyped and going nowhere fast.

Rudy Giuliani: Too concerned about Hillary. Don't tell us how you're different from Hillary or the Dems, tell us how you're different from the other nominees! 9/11 and the anti-hillary aren't going to cut it. Although I think Rudy would be the most tolerable GOP prospect of them all.

Mitt Romney: Too slick, too mormon. He talks a good game, but ultimately, America won't trust a cult member.

John McCain: He probably won the debate tonight. But, he's too old and too similar to Bush. If the GOP stands any chance, they must be the anti-bush candidate for the national election.

Mike Huckabee: Seems like a nice guy and has a lot of good points. I like the idea of a fair tax but it's too radical and our process doesn't embrace radical ideas overnight. Plus, he's out of the mainstream socially and is borderline unelectable.

Ron Paul: This will be my favorite review. If I'm a heterosexual man, some of Paul's ideas are a hot, thin blond. Others are a short bald hairy man. His points regarding monetary policy are right on, as are his point about foreign policy.

Tom Tancredo: Complete xenophobe and should be barred from any further debates. A complete buffoon and a waste of air time. I think less of Colorado as a state for having elected him to the House.

Duncan Hunter: Boring, wrong, and unelectable. Kick him out as well.

Sam Brownback: Family is not the tonic to solve our ills as a society. Out of the mainstream socially and completely unelectable. He should be booted too.

Fred Thompson doesn't seem to have ANYTHING going for him. Uninspiriing. Seems WAY too ok with being uninspiring. I think he regrets getting in at all - late or not. He knows it ain't gonna happen. It shows.

Guiliani is already running against Clinton. Probably right. It's risky - but not that risky. He's probably going to run directly against her. I think he'll probably lose.

Romney pisses me off to no end. How does that man embody ANY kind of change? Sure, yeah, consult lawyers to bomb Iran. Pretend that you answer a question from a guy in a wheelchair - but don't really answer it. Hope that nobody notices. I noticed.

McCain wasn't helped by audio problems that made it hard to hear. " What's that sonny? " Decent content. Actually answered more questions than just about anybody.

Huckabee does have good ideas. It's hard to picture him announcing as President very many of them.

Paul's mildly indignant tone ( borderline condescending ) is actually the most accurate reflection of how I feel about the REAL state of things. As many others tried to answer questions or give solution, I found myself WANTING Paul to jump in and say " That's not a good idea at all." God I wish he got to be President and implement his ideas. They are ALL worth a shot to me.

Tancredo - yeah - I can't really add anything more than what Vitalogy said.

Hunter...who?

Brownback. Pandering bugs me. He did a lot of that.

I give it to Paul for lighting a fire and giving ME hope.

I watched part of the debate (when I could listen through the loud groans from the kids for me having it on) ... some observations:

-Fred Thompson is out there, man. I don't buy this credence of "being too old" to be President ... Bill Clinton said one line regarding Bob Dole in a 1996 debate that I remember to this day, and it describes Thompson well: "Senator Dole is not too old to be President. His ideas, however, are."

-I can't embrace Guiliani. Yeah he's probably the most moderate of the GOP candidates, but he went into detail about how we REALLY need to be in Iraq, and how it was a hotbed of terrorism before ... the same crap the Bush administration is spreading. I can't buy that.

-Romney ... the more I see, the less I am impressed. The most polished of the lot, very well spoken. He just doesn't seem to bring much to the table.

-I still like McCain. He brought up decent points on conservation and the need to develop alternative fuels, etc. I loved it when he shot back at Brownback (I believe it was) about asking the folks of Florida and California if THEY wanted off-shore drilling in their states ... but at the same time, said he would do nothing to ensure that the big oil companies and their record profits used some of them to develop alternative fuels, saying "the onus is on them". Unrealistic.

--Huckabee I was somewhat impressed with. I am a big flat tax guy, I think it's the most fair form out there for everyone. Socially, however, he is way too conservative.

-Ron Paul reminds me of Ross Perot. Kinda looks like him. Kinda sounds like him. He's a straight shooter though, and I REALLY like that. Doesn't stand a chance though.

Tancredo and Hunter - who? Hunter spent the whole debate bumbling and stumbling, and Tancredo has about as much charisma as a wet paper towel.

Brownback seemed to do a lot of pleading and begging ... I'll pass.

When is the next Democratic one?

Huckabee did well and remains my first choice.

Herb

Brian, you do realize that a flat tax would mean an enormous tax hike for you, right?

>>>"Brian, you do realize that a flat tax would mean an enormous tax hike for you, right?"

Really? What are the actual numbers since you have made this profound declaration as a statement of fact.

Deane, I'm assuming you're being sarcastic rather than incredibly stupid.

All one has to do is look at the tax brackets to realize that if a flat tax rate is LOWER than the highest tax bracket rate, this means an increase in the tax rate for everyone below who will have to make up the shortfall due to the lowering of the top bracket. Married couples earning more than $349,700 pay 35%. How many people here pay 35% to the Feds?

id=164272%2C00.html,http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

There's a reason why guys like Steve Forbes want the flat tax as it would be a boon for people in his income bracket and a bust for almost everyone else.

Steve Forbes also wanted to get rid of all the loopholes and credits and breaks that the highest income enjoys. He also I believe had the flat tax set at 10 percent, across the board. Simple process, and it would rid us of the IRS, probably the biggest and most inefficient government bureaucracy in existence.

Trust me, in restaurant management and one morning a week at the radio station, I am NOT making that much ... yet about 20 percent of my paycheck goes towards federal income tax. Not including FICA, SSA, unemployment, or the state of Oregon.

10 percent is a lot less than 20 percent by my calculations.

It would be much simpler if we had an across-the-board flat tax, while at the same time eliminating the loopholes the most wealthy enjoy so much that the rest of us don't. If it got rid of the IRS in its current state, all the better.

A 10% flat tax would never collect enough money. think of all the people making more than $349,700, they would see their tax burden slashed from 35% to 10%. Whose gonna make up that shortfall??? YOU!! And, you don't pay 20% for your Federal tax, that's just a withholding. Look on your return and see what your effective tax rate is (actual income tax paid divided by net taxable income before taxes, expressed as a percentage.) It's way below 20%. Not to mention, getting rid of deductions such as the mortgage interest and child deductions would hammer the middle class.

Bottom line, a flat tax will raise your taxes unless you're wealthy.

What would 10% of the gnp be? thats what a flat tax would bring i.

Okay, let's do a real world example of three wage earners who are single and see how the 10% flat tax works. Tom has taxable income of $35K. Dick has taxable income of $75K. Harry's the lucky duck, his taxable income is $240K.

Using 2007 tax brackets, this is how much each one pays:
Tom: $5173
Dick: $15,174
Harry: $65,268
Total income tax paid: $85,615

Using the 10% flat tax, this is what they pay:
Tom: $3500 (saves $1673)
Dick: $7500 (saves $7674)
Harry: $24,000 (saves $41,126)
Total flat tax paid: $35,000 (a deficit of $50,615)

That's a 60% drop in revenue! Notice how the savings accelerates as you earn more money?

In order for the flat tax to be REVENUE NEUTRAL, the flat tax rate would have to be 24.5%. Being that we already have massive deficits, I think any change would have to be revenue neutral. So, let's look at the numbers now and compare them to the current tax brackets!

Tom: $8575 (an increase of $3402)
Dick: $18,375 (an increase of $3201)
Harry: $58,800 (a decrease of $26,815)

Still think a flat tax make sense?

Where is DJ when the facts are given???

In the potty going pee.

The flat tax percentage I had always heard was around 17%-18%. I think the wealthy would pay more than the charts show because a lot of loop holes and shelters would be eliminated. The small person has no shelters to eliminate.

Don't forget, we should be encouraging people to earn more and to keep more of it for themselves. I know that sort of flies in the face of the Democrat agenda of keeping people dependent on the government.

" I know that sort of flies in the face of the Democrat agenda of keeping people dependent on the government."

Yep. That's always been my goal. There could not possibly be any other reason to want change for a " small " person. It's only about me - 24/7 - and big screens that Republicans pay for me to have.

Thanks for speaking for me, Deane. And thanks for my television. I find it has SO much power over me now.

But Vitalogy, yout using taxable income,how about all the non-taxable income. Most income in this countru is non taxable. I made just over 97,000 last year, only a little over 40k was taxable.

And I am not unique, actually my wife says I am, but I'm not sure she means that in a good way.

Also my income doesnt show the gains in stock I have, or in the rise in the value of my 2 houses.
I would like to see a 10% tax, on income and the gain of all assets. It could be a rolling 3 or 5 year average, or some other formula to level out losses and gains. That would bring in over twice what the current tax system does.

But Vitalogy, yout using taxable income,how about all the non-taxable income. Most income in this countru is non taxable. I made just over 97,000 last year, only a little over 40k was taxable.

And I am not unique, actually my wife says I am, but I'm not sure she means that in a good way.

Also my income doesnt show the gains in stock I have, or in the rise in the value of my 2 houses.
I would like to see a 10% tax, on income and the gain of all assets. It could be a rolling 3 or 5 year average, or some other formula to level out losses and gains. That would bring in over twice what the current tax system does.

sorry duplicate

OK. Fine. You don't have to pay ANY tax.

Nowkie, taxable income is taxable income, so it's an apples to apples comparison. Deductions would disappear on a flat tax. My overall point is, the flat tax rate would have to be higher than the percentage most people are paying right now, because the wealthy would have a huge discount in their tax rate, and that deficit would have to be made up by someone else.

Now, if you made $97K and only had taxable income of $40K, that means you have lots of deductions. A flat tax would eliminate all of those deductions you're taking on your two homes, business expenses, etc. Nwokie, a flat tax would double your taxes as compared to what you pay now.

Yep, except I will be fully retired in 2 years, and will have very little income.

My point is, if all income was taxed at a flat rate, the rate wouldnt have to be that high.

But you have to include all income. When you start letting people hide significant parts of their income, is where there are problms.

And I dont like to use the word income, I prefer wealth increase.