Your view represents the conventional wisdom, I think.

My opinion is that Cain has the potential of lasting much longer, though. I think he could be in minute 6.

Latest Faux-news-at-the-gym update: Lou Dobbs hates Obama's jobs plan. Shocking. News at 11.

I really hope the Daily Show does a montage of everything the republicans were asking for a few months ago when they were in their "When are we going to talk about jobs Mr. President?" mode, which morphed into "We only believe in tax cuts as stimulus" mode, which now of course has morphed into "Tax cuts? Meh. REGULATIONS!!!" mode.

I'm pretty sure other than the millionaire's tax, most of the stuff in Obama's plan is stuff the republicans were clamoring for a few months ago. But of course now it's all the devil. And they've finally stumbled on something that is pretty much impossible for Obama to call their bluff on - in the amorphous, impossible-to-pin-down REGULATIONS! boogeyman.

I'm pretty sure a few months ago reps were talking about cutting spending. Not spending more. Obama's arguement "that most everythig is stuff Reps have been for" is a historical reference going back many years like prior to the tea party influence.

They were talking about tax breaks for small businesses and workers up until literally a month ago. You don't get much more tax-breaky for those groups than cutting FICA from 6% to 3% like Obama wants to do.

Yet now the republicans are cool on that idea. Let's guess a) because it was Obama's idea? b) because it might actually stimulate the economy? or c) all of a sudden after 50 years of rhetoric that tax cuts are the answer to every problem, with absolutely zero discussion or action towards commensurate spending cuts - including the completely unfunded Bush Tax Cuts - now, just in the last few months, republicans have finally seen the light that tax cuts w/o spending cuts to go along with them are a bad idea? GMAFB.

In before SS is going broke and therefore we shouldn't cut FICA. Why, when it all goes in the same pot? Because it was Obama's idea and Fox told me so.

I think Ryan and the Reps have argued for is a permanent change to our tax policy not some temporary gimmick reduction. The short term tax rebates and/or temp cuts really have not shown they stimulate anything. Reduced taxes for small businesses if they going to help "job creation" need to be reductions that employers can count on in the future.

But that is one area you said "most" when in the last couple months have any Rep supproted spending? Did they even support the last stimulus, because this is about the same thing.

His Eminence St. Grover is not amused by 9-9-9 plan: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/news....htm?hpt=hp_t2

Fun Grover Norquist facts, he is married to Samah Alaryyes formerly director of the Islamic Free Market Institute and took second place in the 2009 "Washington Funniest Celebrity Contest."

For a minute I thought Grover would be against 999 because it would raise taxes on lots of lower income Americans. Turns out it's some BS thing about adding a "new kind of tax." What was I thinking?

Also, super-hilarious that a guy who is president of Americans for Tax Reform would say this: "Just take the present system and prune it back like a rose bush." That's some F+ reform right there.

Cain's advisor

"He also said the sales tax would not increase costs for consumers, because lower corporate taxes would lead businesses to cut prices in order to stay competitive."

LOL, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, this just rings pure BS.

"For the bottom end it's certain to be a tax rise of substantial proportion," he said."

Is there a theme here?

Uhm, libertarians started the tea party long before OWS in response to the same ****. It's OWS that's 3 years late. They should have joined in with the libertarian tea partiers before the Republican establishment corrupted the movement. Instead, they sat on their asses and hoped that someone who was obviously an establishment Democrat would fix things while the libertarians were laughing in their faces. You seriously have the gall to suggest that the libertarians are the ones late to the party here????

Sorry how could I not give you credit for unleashing the awesomeness that is the tea party on the world? My bad.

I've wanted the frothy mix to leave the race for a while, dude is so damn annoying. However, if he's going to keep bringing the lulz by complaining of media "bullying" I'm for him sticking around a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1016212.html

This is the PDF version of Ron Paul's plan to Restore America (from ronpaul2012.com).

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf

See link for 10 pages of budgets, graphs, and other colorful good stuff.

Even if you thought this was a good idea long term, surely we can agree doing it in one year would be unnecessarily disruptive?

No, we can't agree on that. Ending social security, medicare, medicaid in a year would be disruptive.

Any Ron Paul fanboi who thinks that the chance of that happening "during the first year" of any presidency would be greater than 0.0000000000000000000001% has a lot to learn about American politics.

Ron Paul can't win in 2012. No further discussion is necessary.

who is arguing about the chances of it happening? certainly not me.

I was being snarky about orestto's post. My bad.

So does Ron Paul have no chance?

Way to miss the point as usual. Don't worry though, whatever comes from OWS will be as scary in 3 years as the tea party.

Wow@swinginglory talking about the evil Germans and Russians earlier. The spirit of McCarthy is strong in this one.

Romney supports basically every Obama foreign policy move. But of course after supporting everything Obama does he says that Obama is doing it wrong. Meh. As long as he gets his money from Texans who are basically doing it as a bribe it's not that noteworthy imo. If he starts pulling in money from the rest of the country I'd say it's an achievement.

FWIW, there was a little item on NPR about financing saying that most of Perry's money was from contributors who had already hit their maximum but that Romney still had a bunch of donors who had done less than the max so could be hit up again.

IIRC, the NYT ran a story several weeks ago making the same type of comparison between Romney and Obama. I thought that the point was that Obama was still relying on small contributors who would give repeatedly, but that Romney was relying on large, one-time contributors. But perhaps I'm remembering wrong.