Who will take on Obama in 2012?

I don't understand that article, how do you qualify to NOT pay taxes?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The entire concept of a flat tax is the rich don't pay more of their income, everyone pays the same rate so the poor would theoretically pay more But even if we assume everyone who doesn't pay income taxes under the current system is not poor, the Republican hidden agenda still is most of those who are currently exempt should be paying more. But this whole thing happened when the economy crapped out so why are they making an issue of this?. Before that those who were not paying any income taxes was well under forty perent.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

It's just in reference to federal income tax. You qualify either by making below a certain amount, or making above that amount but qualifying for enough specific tax breaks or tax credits.

It took considerable effort for me not to start giggling when I came across the words "hidden agenda." Goodtimes. For future reference, if an agenda is so hidden that it doesn't even manifest itself in proposed legislation or in the party platform, you might want to consider the possibility that it, like, doesn't exist.

Re: "why are they making an issue of this?" My first recommendation would be reading the posts you're replying to:

"You also may have noticed that these comments are almost always in the context of a rhetorical turnabout: they're employed as a counter to the inane idea that the rich "don't pay their fair share." ... It's a rhetorical counter, and a good one at that."

It's an issue because people are laying into the rich, as they always do when the economy's in rough shape.

Tax credits that began under Reagan and they are only talking about income taxes. Everyone who breathes pays taxes.

Romney no longer seems so invincible.

Now it turns out he lost Iowa and it is very possible he will come in second in SC to Newt.

But he will still be the nominee. He will win Florida and that will be the end of it.

When has Romney ever been labled as "invincible"?

Regardless - I am completely nonplussed at the conservative options that currently appear before me. Looking for a Dark Horse - yeah I know: not gonna happen.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

It looked like he was invincible a few days ago. He won (it seemed) Iowa, New Hampshire in a blow-out, and had a lead in very conservative South Carolina.

Now it looks like as I have been predicting may finally come to pass, this is the year South Carolina does not nominate the Republican nominee.

Santorum isn't doing anything in SC and without a win there he doesn't have the momentum to take Florida.

So it has become a race between Gingrich and Romney.

Florida is more amenable to Romney than South Carolina and Gingrich's negatives, which are still greater than Romney, will make it difficult for him to take that state.

Romney's biggest enemy lately has been Romney. Gingrich can contradict himself and get away with it because he isn't the super slick automation Romney is who is loathe to take a position that hasn't been poll tested and isn't a pre packaged talking point.

Maybe the working poor and middle class should just refuse to pay taxes, since it no longer seems to be in their interests to do so?

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

That's backwards. The poor get far more from taxpayer-funded programs than they pay in. It's the rich that have less reason to pay it in whatever quasi-anarcho-breakdown you're talking about.

That still sounds like class warfare talk to me. Blame the poor for being poor.

Really? Show me where in that post I assigned anything even close to "blame" to anyone. Or is even making observations about taxes-to-benefits ratios now automatically considered an attack?

What I did do is point out that the poor get more for their taxes than the rich, so the idea that they hold some kind of leverage they can exploit by threatening to bow out of the system is highly confused.

which rich? the working rich or the trust fund, inherited wealth goofy rich?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Both. My statement wasn't contingent on who did more to earn the money, it was simply about the amount of taxes paid relative to the amount of government services used.

Gingrich has bloodied Romney pretty good by attacking him from the left and now in Florida Democratic groups have already started following his lead with anti Bain commercials in Florida.

But with Santorum sinking, Romney can concentrate on smearing Gingrich in Florida.

They are fixing it so any Republican candidate will be toxic in November.

by taxes, i assume you just mean income tax because rich folks in the states def get a serious edge in terms of where their offspring attend school. I don't see how that could possibly be up for debate really.

Roads, bridges, public utitilies and the like, do they count in this equation? I'm guessing the ridonkelous corporate welfare ie subsidies/bailouts 0 percent interest loans that amount to the trillions do not.

And its about time class warfare is on the table. The Serfs have been getting the raw end of the deal for long enough.

I mean total taxes paid. Living in an affluent area will likely mean a better school district, but also much higher property taxes, and usually higher state taxes, too.

Of course they don't have any leverage, as if that was a serious proposal. But the rich can do what Romney does and put their money overseas in tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

Yup, infrastructure counts, because the rich and poor alike benefit from it.

That said, we can/should definitely carve out an exception for people who directly benefit from bailouts. Thankfully, they're in the vast minority, but yes, those people get way more for their tax dollars. But we're talking about both groups in aggregate.

Not by any serious measure I can think of. But, as always, I'm willing to have a discussion about economics, growth, and income inequality with any one who wants to claim otherwise, provided they make a good faith effort to actually engage the topic meaningfully. But my experience is that most would rather just toss this canard out and assume all will take it as received wisdom.