Ted Cruz Rises to The Top in Polls

[shady28]

I have to say I don't care for Ted Cruz, his positions are more "establishment" than people believe while he uses wedge issues (which he mostly cannot affect) to gain support.




http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-iowa-poll/

If the caucuses were held today, Cruz would win with 24% support to Trump's 19% backing. Marco Rubio comes in a close third with 17% and Ben Carson, who was beating Trump 32%-18% in the last Monmouth University poll, has fallen to 13% support.

Behind the Cruz surge is support among evangelicals -- a decisive voting bloc in Iowa -- who selected Cruz over Trump 30%-18%.

Here are some of Cruz's political stances :

Cruz is "strongly anti-abortion" and "would allow the procedure only when a pregnancy endangers the mother's life."
...
Cruz opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
...
Cruz is a gun-rights supporter.
...
Cruz opposes the legalization of marijuana, but believes it should be decided at the state level.
...
Cruz opposes net neutrality...
...
Cruz has been described by the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies as a "free trader"[156] and as a "free-trade advocate" by the Wall Street Journal.
...
In 2013, Cruz proposed the abolition of the IRS and the implementation of a flat tax "where the average American can fill out taxes on a postcard."
...
Cruz is "adamantly opposed to a higher minimum wage."[159]
...
Cruz is a supporter of TransCanada's controversial Keystone XL Pipeline...
...
In 2013, Cruz stated that America had no "dog in the fight" during the Syrian Civil War and stated that America's armed forces should not serve as "al-Qaeda's air force".[170]
...
Cruz advocates for a 500% increase (from 65,000 to 325,000 annually) in skilled foreign workers entering the United States using H-1B visas.[151]
...
Cruz has adopted a "hard-line stance" on immigration issues during the 2014 border crisis[150] and is an opponent of comprehensive immigration reform.

Source

In my view, he makes a big deal of 'support' or 'opposing' a lot of social wedge issues which gain him voting blocks but he cannot affect anyway (what's he going to do about gay marriage or abortion when the supreme court has already ruled?).

I don't like his immigration thought process - he wants to significantly increase H1-B visas and violently opposes amnesty, but doesn't seem to want to change what's happening outside of that. So basically - give away the good jobs and let illegals stay and keep working for peanuts while taking away jobs ? WTF.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I see on first look at his policies.

I will say he seems very well versed on finances and the budget. I'm not surprised.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Bible thumping anti-abortion redneck (or at least, that's the way he acts) .... from Canada? Yeah, no thanks.

At the same time, while that might be bad with Ted Cruz, it pales in comparison to Hillary trying to talk like she has a southern accent. Few things make me want to stab people. That would be one of them.

 

[fskimospy]

I have to say I don't care for Ted Cruz, his positions are more "establishment" than people believe while he uses wedge issues (which he mostly cannot affect) to gain support.




http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-iowa-poll/



Here are some of Cruz's political stances :



Source

In my view, he makes a big deal of 'support' or 'opposing' a lot of social wedge issues which gain him voting blocks but he cannot affect anyway (what's he going to do about gay marriage or abortion when the supreme court has already ruled?).

I don't like his immigration thought process - he wants to significantly increase H1-B visas and violently opposes amnesty, but doesn't seem to want to change what's happening outside of that. So basically - give away the good jobs and let illegals stay and keep working for peanuts while taking away jobs ? WTF.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I see on first look at his policies.

I will say he seems very well versed on finances and the budget. I'm not surprised.

A quick look at his tax plan should make just about everyone run away screaming.

 

[shady28]

A quick look at his tax plan should make just about everyone run away screaming.

My general take is that he's a corpratist posing as a reformer. His tax plan would help me but are decidedly unfair to the poor.

I think he would wind up being very good fiscally at the expense of the poor, but otherwise maintain status quo and accelerate downward trends on just about everything else (more outsourcing, more business / jobs going overseas, more low-wage illegals).

For anyone that cares, he can't do jack about abortion or gay marriage, and barring an amendment we already have gun rights. I think he just takes those stances for the votes it buys him.

I personally do not care about any of those but gun rights, and those are pretty secure as no Amendment will pass and any law will get shot down in the courts.

So its a bunch of smoke and mirrors IMO.

 

[fskimospy]

My general take is that he's a corpratist posing as a reformer. His tax plan would help me but are decidedly unfair to the poor.

I think he would wind up being very good fiscally at the expense of the poor, but otherwise maintain status quo and accelerate downward trends on just about everything else (more outsourcing, more business / jobs going overseas, more low-wage illegals).

For anyone that cares, he can't do jack about abortion or gay marriage, and barring an amendment we already have gun rights. I think he just takes those stances for the votes it buys him.

I personally do not care about any of those but gun rights, and those are pretty secure as no Amendment will pass and any law will get shot down in the courts.

So its a bunch of smoke and mirrors IMO.

It's hard for me to imagine how his tax plan would do anything other than blow a huge hole in the budget. We would experience massive deficits if implemented as described, ones that I can think of no plausible way he would close by cutting spending.

I'm actually totally in favor of a national VAT to replace the income tax, but it has to be implemented responsibly and this one is not.

 

[dank69]

Cruz advocates for a 500% increase (from 65,000 to 325,000 annually) in skilled foreign workers entering the United States using H-1B visas.

I don't understand how he reconciles this with his Tea Party image.

 

[phillyTIM]

Do not let Donald Trump's behavior create a false sense of Ted Cruz being mainstream electable.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It's hard for me to imagine how his tax plan would do anything other than blow a huge hole in the budget. We would experience massive deficits if implemented as described, ones that I can think of no plausible way he would close by cutting spending.

I'm actually totally in favor of a national VAT to replace the income tax, but it has to be implemented responsibly and this one is not.

Seriously? I'm ALL in favor of VAT.

We're in a nation where 90%+ of the taxes are paid by the top 10%. Nothing would be better than making the bottom 50% contribute for once instead of taking more than they give. VAT would do exactly that - by charging taxes based on how much you consume rather than how much income you make.

However, considering the current system we have in place... that would never happen.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Do not let Donald Trump's behavior create a false sense of Ted Cruz being mainstream electable.

This. Ted Cruz is as unlikeable a candidate for President as I can ever recall. He is hated by the overwhelming majority of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In the long term I don't see how he can seriously compete with Rubio or even Bush for the nomination.

 

[stockwiz]

Another fake poll designed to dethrone Trump that will be debunked in short order.

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously? I'm ALL in favor of VAT.

We're in a nation where 90%+ of the taxes are paid by the top 10%. Nothing would be better than making the bottom 50% contribute for once instead of taking more than they give. VAT would do exactly that - by charging taxes based on how much you consume rather than how much income you make.

However, considering the current system we have in place... that would never happen.

Oh to be clear I would combine a VAT with tax credits that maintain or increase the systems overall progressivity. (Much prefer to increase)

Many people don't realize that when you take ALL taxes into account, not just federal income taxes, our system is barely progressive at all. Most income groups pay an amount in taxes roughly equal to their percent of national income. Conservatives avoid mentioning this for reasons I assume are obvious.

 

[glenn1]

Cruz is the current flavor of the month. Same thing happened in 2012 where various candidates were considered "leading" at certain points in time; per Wiki it was 11 different candidates ranging from Michelle Bachman to Herman Cain and lots in between.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Oh to be clear I would combine a VAT with tax credits that maintain or increase the systems overall progressivity. (Much prefer to increase)

Many people don't realize that when you take ALL taxes into account, not just federal income taxes, our system is barely progressive at all. Most income groups pay an amount in taxes roughly equal to their percent of national income. Conservatives avoid mentioning this for reasons I assume are obvious.

....Source?

Aside from Sales Tax, what else does a lower income person pay equally? Property taxes, perhaps? I suppose.

VAT would be a replacement for the federal income taxes. However, that doesn't mean the states/counties/cities sales tax would go away, they still need money as well - so presumably VAT would be stacked on-top of Sales tax.

We have a lower class that can somehow all magically afford an iPhone and a cellular plan to pay for data-usage, as well as cable TV, tablets, new clothes, etc... VAT Would CRUSH THEM in half. We are a consumer-whore nation. Gotta have the latest. Gotta dress like Kim Kardashian even though you're broke. Gotta get a new iPhone. Gotta get the new Apple watch. Gotta get a new car and put it on a loan paying off minimum payments.

Please for the love of god tell me how the lower class wouldn't starve under a VAT instead of our progressive tiered income tax rates.

 

[fskimospy]

....Source?

Aside from Sales Tax, what else does a lower income person pay equally? Property taxes, perhaps? I suppose.

This is the first one that came up, although I can look for better sources later if that's helpful, but I don't think many people would argue that state and local taxes are overall significantly regressive. Flat fees like permits, car registration, etc by definition take up a greater portion of a poor person's income, and most states are financed by consumption taxes which also disproportionately affect lower income people. (high income people tend to invest more, spend more on non-taxable items like housing, etc)

Poor people spend almost all of their income on consumption, because they need it to live. Therefore, consumption taxes hit them harder as a percentage of their income.

VAT would be a replacement for the federal income taxes. However, that doesn't mean the states/counties/cities sales tax would go away, they still need money as well - so presumably VAT would be stacked on-top of Sales tax.

We have a lower class that can somehow all magically afford an iPhone and a cellular plan to pay for data-usage, as well as cable TV, tablets, new clothes, etc... VAT Would CRUSH THEM in half. We are a consumer-whore nation. Gotta have the latest. Gotta dress like Kim Kardashian even though you're broke. Gotta get a new iPhone. Gotta get the new Apple watch. Gotta get a new car and put it on a loan paying off minimum payments.

Please for the love of god tell me how the lower class wouldn't starve under a VAT instead of our progressive tiered income tax rates.

Easy, you just give everyone a 'prebate' that covers the VAT for the first X dollars they spend, one of sufficient size to the federal system as progressive as it is now. This is a component of every serious flat tax scheme I've seen proposed in the US.

 

[glenn1]

This is the first one that came up, although I can look for better sources later if that's helpful, but I don't think many people would argue that state and local taxes are overall significantly regressive. Flat fees like permits, car registration, etc by definition take up a greater portion of a poor person's income, and most states are financed by consumption taxes which also disproportionately affect lower income people. (high income people tend to invest more, spend more on non-taxable items like housing, etc)

Poor people spend almost all of their income on consumption, because they need it to live. Therefore, consumption taxes hit them harder as a percentage of their income.



Easy, you just give everyone a 'prebate' that covers the VAT for the first X dollars they spend, one of sufficient size to the federal system as progressive as it is now. This is a component of every serious flat tax scheme I've seen proposed in the US.

So it's like the carbon tax, you call a tax for expediency but isn't really one since you game it such that it becomes a transfer payment instead. Instead of calling it VAT you might more honestly call it "making things more expensive for the middle class and giving the difference to the poor less a cut for government."

 

[dank69]

So it's like the carbon tax, you call a tax for expediency but isn't really one since you game it such that it becomes a transfer payment instead. Instead of calling it VAT you might more honestly call it "making things more expensive for the middle class and giving the difference to the poor less a cut for government."

AKA provide services for everyone that are paid for by people who can actually afford to pay.

 

[HomerJS]

Rafael is in the top in only 1 poll.

Title change required

 

[fskimospy]

So it's like the carbon tax, you call a tax for expediency but isn't really one since you game it such that it becomes a transfer payment instead. Instead of calling it VAT you might more honestly call it "making things more expensive for the middle class and giving the difference to the poor less a cut for government."

I said that we should keep things at either the same level of progressivity or increase it. If the progressivity stays the same then the cost to the middle class remains identical, and if you increase it you could obviously do so in a way where the middle class pays LESS than they do now, it would all just depend on the size of the prebate and the rate.

So what are you ranting about again?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is the first one that came up, although I can look for better sources later if that's helpful, but I don't think many people would argue that state and local taxes are overall significantly regressive. Flat fees like permits, car registration, etc by definition take up a greater portion of a poor person's income, and most states are financed by consumption taxes which also disproportionately affect lower income people. (high income people tend to invest more, spend more on non-taxable items like housing, etc)

Poor people spend almost all of their income on consumption, because they need it to live. Therefore, consumption taxes hit them harder as a percentage of their income.



Easy, you just give everyone a 'prebate' that covers the VAT for the first X dollars they spend, one of sufficient size to the federal system as progressive as it is now. This is a component of every serious flat tax scheme I've seen proposed in the US.

I'd like to see the numbers behind this, considering (as you mention) our current system of tax credits after someone files their return the next year. It's really nice to say you contributed 5% to taxes when you get more back with credits.

Either way, the graph seems to be overall progressive.

 

[soulcougher73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJaldOWDVxo

LOL

 

[glenn1]

I said that we should keep things at either the same level of progressivity or increase it. If the progressivity stays the same then the cost to the middle class remains identical, and if you increase it you could obviously do so in a way where the middle class pays LESS than they do now, it would all just depend on the size of the prebate and the rate.

So what are you ranting about again?

Then why don't you truthfully describe it and say you just want to increase taxes on the rich (at whatever income level you deem that is)? The rest is just details since you obviously don't expect anyone else to actually pay the new tax in the end.

BTW, one of the greatest benefits of a flat tax is exactly that it's somewhat regressive. That's because there's a large segment of the population that pays no federal income tax whatsoever or gets money back from the Treasury, thus has no "skin in the game" when voting on economic issues. Payroll taxes don't really count because in theory those are just deferred income taxes that will get returned to the same person eventually, so they don't fund general government priorities the same way. Having people not putting a basic ante into the system is a far bigger issue than your concerns about making the tax system even more progressive than it is currently.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I wouldn't mind Cruz being president as long as he stays off the television. He can be president if he restricts his media coverage to radio and print (no pictures, please).

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to see the numbers behind this, considering (as you mention) our current system of tax credits after someone files their return the next year. It's really nice to say you contributed 5% to taxes when you get more back with credits.

Either way, the graph seems to be overall progressive.

I can look them up later for you, but tax credits and other things of that sort are an important point, I agree. I also agree that our system is overall progressive, by the way. My point was that when talking about the progressivity of the system we should look at everything, not just federal income taxes. When we do, it's a lot less progressive than people think.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why don't you truthfully describe it and say you just want to increase taxes on the rich (at whatever income level you deem that is)? The rest is just details since you obviously don't expect anyone else to actually pay the new tax in the end.

I already said that I was for a system of increased progressivity. Why did you not bother to read the initial post you replied to? Maybe instead of other people not being truthful you are incompetent.

BTW, one of the greatest benefits of a flat tax is exactly that it's somewhat regressive. That's because there's a large segment of the population that pays no federal income tax whatsoever or gets money back from the Treasury, thus has no "skin in the game" when voting on economic issues. Payroll taxes don't really count because in theory those are just deferred income taxes that will get returned to the same person eventually, so they don't fund general government priorities the same way. Having people not putting a basic ante into the system is a far bigger issue than your concerns about making the tax system even more progressive than it is currently.

What you just said is that you think one of the greatest benefits of a flat tax is that poor people pay a larger portion of their income in taxes than rich people do, despite the declining marginal value of money. I find that to be a forehead-slapping level of stupidity as far as public policy goes.

The idea that poor people have no skin in the game is in large part a conservative fantasy, as they focus exclusively on federal income taxes instead of total tax/fee burden. I don't know about your wallet, but mine doesn't seem to care which entity my tax dollars go to.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is Iowa, not national. Trump doesn't score points with the religious right.