Grading Republican Prospects at the RNC

A party convention isn't just a chance to celebrate the current presidential candidate, it's where the search for the next one begins. TIME grades 10 promising Republicans who spoke at the 2012 RNC in Tampa

  • Share
  • Read Later
153 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Ralph Mcnertny
Ralph Mcnertny

clint is done and ryans a weasel ,game over,,bring back newty

ChowT
ChowT

Dear hard working Americans, the 99%.

Why did the GOP prevented George Bush from the convention.

Because it will remind everybody the financial mess left by Bush.

Disquskurr
Disquskurr

The honor of being the top GOP lies at the lotus feet of the following personalities,

The Clint !!!

The Donald !!!

and

The Romney !!!

ChowT
ChowT

and the 100 million Sidney who purchased Mitt Romney.

Auntie Warhol
Auntie Warhol

Well of course Condi looked jittery, she had to say nice things about desegregation to a room full of tea partiers.

ChowT
ChowT

Ugly Condi thinks she is white.

politathiest
politathiest

paulebj,

yes your graph about who pays how much federal income taxed is very colorful . One thing you conserves always seem to forget is that federal taxes aren't the only taxes people pay . I'm going to leave you below an article that explains it to you . hopefully your brain can understand the large words . when all said and done, adding up all taxes income, gas, FICA, star sales tax etc. As a percentage of income, under our current tax code , the wealthiest actually pay about 2 percent less than the middle American .

but even if that werent true, we have a progressive tax system for a reason . someone making $15k , even if paying a total of all taxes of say 10 percent , that $1500 maybe the difference between food and medicine , house payment or water bill . that just shows how selfish and uncaring towards each other this country has become . I'm sorry if I don't well up in tears because some mega billionaire have to make due with 500,000,000 instead of 700,000,000 each year. I can't hardly see how you guys can live with yourselves defending those poor , abused , taken advantaged of billionaires ! such a sad statement .

http://www.christianhumanist.n...

ChowT
ChowT

Correct, Gopers will deny that. You see they even prevent GW from attending. History is being erased.

politathiest
politathiest

paulebj,

yes your graph about who pays how much federal income taxed is very colorful . One thing you conserves always seem to forget is that federal taxes aren't the only taxes people pay . I'm going to leave you below an article that explains it to you . hopefully your brain can understand the large words . when all said and done, adding up all taxes income, gas, FICA, star sales tax etc. As a percentage of income, under our current tax code , the wealthiest actually pay about 2 percent less than the middle American .

but even if that werent true, we have a progressive tax system for a reason . someone making $15k , even if paying a total of all taxes of say 10 percent , that $1500 maybe the difference between food and medicine , house payment or water bill . that just shows how selfish and uncaring towards each other this country has become . I'm sorry if I don't well up in tears because some mega billionaire have to make due with 500,000,000 instead of 700,000,000 each year. I can't hardly see how you guys can live with yourselves defending those poor , abused , taken advantaged of billionaires ! such a sad statement .

The ,in an April 13 2011 by David Leonhardt, reports that 47% of households owe no Federal income tax for 2009 but concludes that figure is highly misleading because it does not tell the whole story. The usual suspects on cable television and talk radio are using that number ahead of the Tax Day Tea Party protests coming up on April 15 to suggest that “the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.”

Leonhardt makes three important observations on why that conclusion is misleading:

[a] Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially for the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, . [emphasis mine]

[b] Taking into account both taxes and tax credits, the average household in this group paid a total income tax rate of just 3 percent…. But the picture starts to change when you look not just at income taxes but at all taxes. This average household would have paid 0.8 percent of its income in corporate taxes (through the stocks it owned), 0.9 percent in gas and other federal excise taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. Add these up, and the family’s total federal tax rate was 14.2 percent.

[c] State and local taxes … may actually be regressive. That is, middle-class and poor families may face higher tax rates than the wealthy. As Kim Rueben of the Tax Policy Center notes, state and local income taxes and property taxes are less progressive than federal taxes, while sales taxes end up being regressive. The typical family pays a lot of state and local taxes, too —almost half as much as in federal taxes.A week ago I wrote an article entitled in which I noted that the stated objective of the tax cutting movement is to lower the “marginal” Federal income tax rates to benefit the wealthiest Americans. The essence of the argument is “fairness” and the tactic is a proposal to eliminate differential income tax rates in favor of a “flat tax” that everyone would pay at the same rate. The question of tax “fairness” is a complicated one that could be answered in different ways depending on what values and assumptions are considered in the discussion but, regardless, the practical effect of lowering taxes on the wealthy inevitably involves shifting more of the burden onto the middle class and the poor. That is not an opinion—it is just a mathematical fact.

It is reasonable to argue that “fairness” of the tax burden means fairness in terms of ability to pay and that those who are wealthy have profited more from society and should pay more for its support. It is also obvious that requiring a wage earner with a middle class income to pay 10% of his income as tax, which cuts into the amounts required for food, clothing and shelter, creates a much greater burden on the middle class than a 10% tax on the income of a millionaire creates on the lifestyle of the wealthy. Does anyone seriously doubt that is true?

Remember, as pointed out above, the current real Federal tax rate paid by most of that 47% taxpayer group is 14.2% which includes payroll taxes of 7.65% for Social Security and Medicare taxes, so it is important that the implications of the Flat Tax proposal be compared on an “apples to apples” basis. In other words, does the Flat Tax proposal include all Federal taxes, or does it intend to exclude the 7.65% FICA tax paid now by all wage earners, because if the FICA tax is in addition to the flat tax rate, then to get the actual rate paid by lower and middle income taxpayers you need to add the two rates together for a real Federal tax rate of 17.65%.

To clarify the fuzzy math of the flat tax advocates, as I argued in more detail in an earlier essay, [ ] here is a fact, from the IRS, about the super wealthy–they paid an effective tax rate of 16.6% on their average income of $344.8 MILLION, a tax rate slightly lower than my tax rate, because of loopholes, capital gains and other tax gimmicks that favor the wealthy.

Here’s another fun fact about how the tax system transfers wealth from lower income people to the wealthy—Social Security tax is paid on wage income up to $106,000 at a rate of 7.65%. An individual making $50,000 per year has $3825 taken out of his wages. An individual making $2.5 million has $8109 taken out of his wages, for a net FICA tax rate of 0.324%. The lower paid person pays a rate 23.54 times HIGHER than the millionaire.

For the doubters out there, here are the actual calculations:

$50,000 x7.65% = $3825 total social security tax on the individual.

$2,500,000 income is taxed only on the first $106,000. $106,000 x7.65% = $8109 total tax on the individual.

$8109 divided by $2,500,000 is a rate of 0.32436%.

The person making $50,000 pays 7.65% of their income ($3825) to social security.

The person making $2,500,000 pays 0.32436% ($8109) of their income to social security.

7.65% (the rate paid by the lower income) divided by 0.32436% (the rate paid by high income) is 23.58 times higher.As David Leonhardt states in the article referenced at the beginning of this essay, the amount of tax money that goes into the Treasury accounts as Social Security and Medicare funds and the tax money that goes into the Treasury as Federal Income Tax funds are just bookkeeping entries. The fact is that they are all Federal tax funds. This is important in looking at the implications for the Flat Tax concept. Here’s why. If the Flat Tax applies only to the portion of Federal taxes designated as income tax and all taxpayers continue to pay the FICA tax as now structured, the inequity of the present system is compounded because a person making $50,000 would be taxed on his earned income at 17.65% and a person making $2.5 million would be taxed on his income at 10.3%. The absurdity of this should be obvious. That is neither reasonable nor fair.

Contrary to the argument made by the wealthy, lowering taxes on the wealthy and shifting the burden onto the middle class involves a wealth transfer (redistribution of wealth, anathema to the right) from the lower and middle class to the wealthy, and that cannot be fair in any reasonable sense of what “fairness” means. This is a message that needs to be constantly repeated to the Flat Tax advocates. It sounds on the surface like a good idea, but the Flat Tax approach will not pay the bills without transferring the burden away from the wealthy to the middle class, and that is clearly the primary objective of the big money donors behind the flat taxers despite their regular denials.

Richard Giles
Richard Giles

Paul Ryan is simply a liar.  A bold, belligerent, arrogant, stubborn and obnoxious liar.  He lies about Obamacare just to cater to Special Interests and to neglect responsibilities to the people.  The more the people understand Obamacare, the more they don't want it repealed; to fine tune it okay but to do away with preventing using preexisting conditions to deny coverage or to still have millions without insurance or loosing other benefits and then to naively expect those who aggressively fought it to come up with a responsible new solution is simply ludicrous.  Ryan has also lied about his budget plan as he deceptively advocates more concessions for the very wealthy and more costs for the majority.  He lied about his actions as he stubbornly blocked and arrogantly faulted all efforts to address the problems while just protecting tax cuts for the wealthy and ignoring the needs of the people.  Ryan lied in his speech as he blamed Obama for everything and failed to accept any responsibility.  Along with Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Bachmann and others Ryan has totally catered to the interests of "the money", their strong supporters and masters, as they just take the people for granted and assume that with the power, influence and mega-millions provided by "the money" they can simply use the abundant propaganda to just con the people, as if "pawns" in their game.

Are the Democrats all "pure and holy"?  Of course not, not even close but they are dependent on the people for their support and power which forces them to concentrate on the people's interests.  The trouble is that it means having concern for all of the people and that naturally creates conflicts.  The people need to pressure the Democrats to do better, to be stronger, more aggressive and more unified while accepting they can't totally resolve all issues for all people at the same time.  There literally is no hope for the majority from the Republican / Tea Party as they are totally owned and controlled by "the money", by the likes of Norquist, the Koch brothers, Adelson and others, the 1%ers, and just committed to and cocky confident in conning the people, the 99%, as they stubbornly pursue their political ambitions and just focus on serving only "the money".

Would it be nice to have a strong third party concentrated on serving the people, the middle-class that makes this country work?  That would help to keep the other two straight and to dilute power, forcing beneficial compromise.  You bet that would be a plus but to ever make that feasible the first need would be to get money out of politics, to create a "level playing field" and make costs reasonable for more and better, altruistic candidates, without their ever needing to sell out to "the money".  The Supreme Court voted against that and supported having unlimited funds spent, thereby giving the distinct advantage to "the money".  The money would aggressively fight any change and the only way the people could ever see any progress there, would be to reject 'the money's" control, to completely reject the propaganda, refuse to be controlled and to firmly reject their "puppet" candidates and break the stranglehold "the money" has over our politics.  It would be very interesting if the people could actually refuse to be controlled by the propaganda and seek to accomplish all of this ... but then that is likely wishful thinking.  Even Romney in a third party, not tied to "the money", could possibly be capable of representing the people - but there really is no chance of that today and the only question now is "whose interests will be served, "the money's" or "the people's"?"

Paul Dirks
Paul Dirks

One of the most blatant paradoxes of today's Republican party is how they like to scream and moan about deficit spending but that the moment anyone mentions that increasing revenues would address the problem they utterly clam up. The following article is a long read but it explains clearly the History behind this particular brand of doublethink:

PDF File

The money quote comes from Milt Friedman:

There is an important point that needs to be stressed to those who regard themselves as fiscal conservatives. By concentrating on the wrong thing, the deficit, instead of the right thing, total government spending, fiscal conservatives have been the unwitting handmaidens of the big spenders. The typical historical process is that the spenders put through laws which increase government spending. A deficit emerges. The fiscal conservatives scratch their heads and say, “My God, that’s terrible; we have got to do something about that deficit.” So they cooperate with the big spenders in getting taxes imposed. As soon as the new taxes are imposed and passed,the big spenders are off again, and there is another burst in government spending and another deficit. (1978b, 11)

ChowT
ChowT

Gopers are religious hypocrites.

paulejb
paulejb

Paul Dirks,

Great point, Mr Dirks. Giving more in tax revenues to big spenders is like giving crack to an addict. No matter how much you give them they will always want more.

ChowT
ChowT

are you a crack addict?

politathiest
politathiest

C aring .... If it doesn't cost a tax hike

O ut of touch with real workers

N o you can't have any, its all mine

S ervicing Americans......that count

E veryman for himself, (see "N")

R ighteous......in their own minds

V iolent, angry, war mongers

A rogant

T ax cheats

I rrational

V itriolic

E (see first "E" , it warrents saying it again)

paulejb
paulejb

poliathiest,

L ong on talk. Short on results.

I rritating  

B umptious

E rror prone

R acial arsonists

A rrogant

L ibelous

ChowT
ChowT

referring to yourself?

politathiest
politathiest

Liblies writes,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you can see, poltergeist doesn't use any sources or other sites to back up his claims.

Unlike the conservative morons on this site I don't rely soley on an article that is cut and paste or linked to. I do my own research and not from completely biased sources . I figured out on my own by going to places like that government budget office, IRS etc. it's there I look at the actual revenue sources to see that the Conservatives have been popping up this myth about Reagan, he did not double revenues in 3 years like many claim . he actually didn't do a whole lot better in increase than Carter did during his time . Funny thing about that though is if you take the mass of deficit that Reagan put on the books and subtract that from revenue , Carter had a better net outcome then he did . Deal with it. I was also able to figure out based on what source of income the revenue was coming from that there was a massive shift from wage in come to capital gains income among the wealthiest . that's why so many CEOs like being paid in things like stock options . and it's because of bad tax policy like this that we have had a explosion in wealth disparity . you conserve are just too stupid to realize you're being controlled by basically an oligarchy . and if Ronnie gets his way capital gains will go to 0 and people like him will pay less than 2 percent tax . but for you people that need to cut and paste articles to read I'll give you a couple to start .

WWW.inequality.org. (sorry I put com b4)

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...

pay special attention to that second one. you can really see based on the chart of total debt, as well as the chart on annual deficits , other than during the war years in which we actually had a higher debt per GDP, from the 50's the annual debt is tiny , tiny, tiny, along comes Reagan ......EXPLOSION! I like the commentor from last night that the Democrat should put that debt clock back up there with boener and Ryan and Romney underneath it with a big sign "WE BUILT THAT". you can use all the conservative sources and rhetoric you want but the problem is the facts are there and there's only so far you can try and spend that . There are many other sites and resources to look up the actual facts and figures , I would list more here but I figured those 2 were about all you conservs could handle in 1 sitting .

groovecity
groovecity

I don't have to research the Carter and Reagan years politipissant. I lived through them. Nuff said. My research now involves looking at the world around me, (you should try it). The resounding message and conclusion I keep hearing and seeing is: B.O MUST GO!!

ChowT
ChowT

Really? My conclusion is Mitt Romney is a danger to all hard working Americans.

But good for the 1%.

politathiest
politathiest

Groove,

Economic policies usually take many years and sometimes decades before their full effects are realized . we came out of a recession as 1 usually does and for a few years did well which is exactly the same as we did and even better result when Clinton took over . that doesn't mean it was necessarily any or all of their policies that made it happen . think of it like asbestose, for years it was a wonderful product that was very useful . unfortunately it took decades to figure out that it was really causing cancer . I realize it is hard for conservatives to think beyond a time frame of 1 or 2 years , but Reagan's policies of a giveaway to the wealthy didn't start becoming apparent until the 90's . the problem is that although we had a time of prosperity , it was being offset by the massive deficit that was growing exponentially starting with Reagans policies. we were in a sense putting our "prosperity" on the deficit "credit card". we didn't care about this growing government deficit because at that time it was not significantly affecting us yet . now after Reagan and Bush 1 , a little added by Clinton but we know that the annual debt was coming down , and then add Bush and his unnecessary Wars and tax cuts for the rich.....all of a sudden it comes and smacks us in the face . of all national debt from the 50's up until the day George junior went home , it was Republican administrations that rack up almost 85 percent of all that that . now all the sudden every conservatives crying too much debt too much debt ! biggest freaking hypocrites in history . I could go on but maybe you should look into these first and give yourself a reality check !

ChowT
ChowT

GOP= must take responsibilities for all the financial mess. But they will deny that.

They even prevented George Busg from appearing at the convention. Why? Because it will remind all Americans for all the 'Good Things' GW has done.

Gopers want to erase history.

groovecity
groovecity

Again I don't have to "look into" anything. I think you're the one with the memory that's incapable of thinking beyond a year or 2. Not even that long really. You have that liberal gene that will only allow pure 1oo% allegience to liberal policies, even though they clearly have never worked, here or in any country, in any time period. I've spent 5 decades on this earth, and my research involves what i've seen and been through in that time period. And no matter how a tax addicted liberal tries to spin it, raising taxes has never done anything other than suppress an economy. You can't stop the wealthy from doing what they want with their money. Tax them excessively, and they leave. Regulate them excessively and they leave. It's just a fact of life. Love them or hate them, they are  the job creators. 

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Could this be representative of what the electoral college map looks like today, and the reason we are seeing Obama in Iowa so much?

You can do your own electoral map. I put PA, OH, MI, CO in Obama's numbers. I put VA, FLA, NC, NH in Romeny's. The totals came out Obama 264 and Romney 268. The only hold out was Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Then the question comes up as who would win the election if Obama got Iowa?

No winner, because the totals would be a tie.

If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the Vice President by majority vote, with each Senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes.

Source(s):http://www.archives.gov/federa...

politathiest
politathiest

trying to figure out more ways to steal elections aayy.

ChowT
ChowT

Florida again?

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

The one voting block, seniors, Obama is set to lose by the 2010 numbers which were posted at that time.  Obama is down 21 points at this time, the same as it was in 2010.  In 2008, Obama's difference with seniors was about 9 points.  Obama will win the minority vote and the youth vote.  

But, all the rest will go to Romney in record numbers.

groovecity
groovecity

Not to mention the fact that the youth and minorities aren't gonna turn out in near the numbers that they did in '08. A whole lotta repubs stayed home in '08. Not this time.

politathiest
politathiest

you seriously need to look at something outside of Rasmussen. I know they give you a nice tingling feeling all over but unbiased they are not .

Peggy Tepper
Peggy Tepper

These are two wonderful Americans, they care about our country and our people.  Not what we have had for four 444444444444 long years. America open your eyes and see where we ARE HEADDED  PLEASE

groovecity
groovecity

Don't worry Peggy. The eyes are opening.

Benevolent Lawyer
Benevolent Lawyer

REJECT RYAN AND ROMNEY! 

Do you have evidence that Romney will do better? I have evidence from our great Commonwealth of MA, that Romney totally shredded our economy.  This your cry is as silly as the man who wants the Networking system in his company to work more efficiently, and is about to hire a plumber for the job.  Hysteria and irrationality, just like the cries for Romney, the one who  RUINS. 

Romney said he would transfer his venture capitalist experience to our economy in MA. He did NOT.  Instead he increased taxes on corporations amking us the 4th most expensive State to do business, Txed the H*** out of us, and provided no jobs. Even the two Republican governors that preceded Romney admitted that he did a very poor job.  What miracle are you expecting from Romney on a national level. HE COULD NOT EVEN RUN OUR SMALL STATE. I could send you comparative statistics so you can compare Obama''s performance to date with Romney's, Romney is far far far worse.

You agitating for Romney, is just wildly emotive. Do not reel off to me what Obama has done or not done. Those are talking points even my dog knows. Tell me what you know that Romney did, in the only public elected position he held.  Romney should not be elected president, he was a horrible governor and would be a TERRIBLE president.  I Say REJECT  RYAN AND ROMNEY.  RRR

ChowT
ChowT

Mitt Romney promised 12 million jobs.

hahahahahaha. it is a joke.

Mitt will promise anything.

politathiest
politathiest

so peggy with 5 percent owning 85 percent of all assets. the top 1 percent raking in 25 percent of all income up from 9 percent in the 80's . the bottom 80 percent making only 13 percent of all income, ...... please explain to us how the middle class is going to get any disposable income to fix the economy. Peggy, explain how all the rich that have all the money are going to magically give it away to everybody else ? tell me how do you grow an economy when the middle class wages have been stagnant and actually declined with inflation but during that same time the top 1 percent have seen their income increase by 280 percent ? go home and get your dictionary out and look up the definition of a plutacracy and oligarchy .......THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HEADED! I await your answer to these questions and please no simplistic rhe toric

ChowT
ChowT

That what is ailing the economy.

The GOP have sucked up everything from the 99%.

With 99% struggling, the economy will tank.

Morever the rich eavde taxes and hide their wealth in offshore accounts.

73yearoldVet
73yearoldVet

politath,

I think you pulled those numbers out of your a*s?

politathiest
politathiest

Thegorf,

I didn't believe them at first either that's why I actually went to the Congressional Budget Office and IRS to look up histories . those numbers are very disturbing aren't they? the last time we had this much disparity was 1929 and after the Gilded Age . this isn't about not wanting somebody to be successful. in a pure libertarian capitalism we would have no problems with monopolies . if a company has the best product and can sell it the cheapest then why shouldn't he be able to continue . the reason we don't allow monopolies is because they tend to use their power and wealth to take advantage of their competitors . paying business is not to put their products in the store even if they have to take a loss until that other company is run under. it's really no difference with this much disparity . greed breeds more greed and excessive greed. that's probably why Jesus spoke out more again wealth and it's corrupting influence more than anything else . I fear it too late to stop the total domination that's coming even if Romney doesn't get his 0 percent capital gains .

TheGorf
TheGorf

I'm a 74-yr. old vet, and I too thought the numbers were a bit exaggerated.  So I thought to mow them down with a little research.  Much to my surprise, the numbers are about right!  TIME Magazine confirms some of them (liberal right?), but so does the Wall Street Journal (you have to read between the lines a bit).

politathiest
politathiest

and yet I don't see any actual facts or figures from you to refute it . but for your limited mental ability I left you a post above for you to look for yourself

politathiest
politathiest

did I fail to mention that if we get Romney's tax plan with capital gains at 0 .... mister Romney will be paying 2 percent in taxes and the average American family will have theirs increased by 1300 ! open your eyes and get that conservative brainwashing turn around . Ryan plan wants to cut 11,000,000 of Medicaid and increased seniors Medicare premiums by 6500 ......ok but these are 2 great American that care about the American people ......at least the ones that count !

ChowT
ChowT

All hard working Americans will be screwed.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

As you can see, poltergeist doesn't use any sources or other sites to back up his claims.  He just throws crap out there and hope someone is stupid enough to believe it.

Ignore this troll please.  

Thank you

MrObvious
MrObvious

3x

No, under Paul Ryans plan there would be no capital gains tax and with a medicare voucher system it'll be about 6k more in medical costs for seniors.