GOP Primary Megathread!

[Phillip V]

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

'I've visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.

China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.'

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/

[CountDeMoney]

Because Americans that go into the sciences and mathematics are socially awkward and introverted.  It's not a good match.

[MadImmortalMan]

Because Americans that go into the sciences and mathematics are socially awkward and introverted.  It's not a good match.

And too smart to get involved in that weasel mudwrestling pen we call politics. In order to be a politician, you have to be that rare combination of ambitious, stupid and self-entitled.

[Ideologue]

Well, as Al pointed out, there's a lot in that post that's just straight-up incorrect, too.

Anyway, the top rate should be around 50%, I'd say.  But the bigger issue is taxing capital gains fairly.  I'd be willing to believe that "fairly" would be at more than the income tax top rate, but it should at least be equal.

An issue here is that many capital gains (including dividends that are taxed at the capital gains rate) are a form of corporate earnings. Corporate earnings are taxed at 35% (with additional state taxes), which is behind only Japan in the developed world. So if I get a dividend from Microsoft, while I only pay 15% on that, it has already been taxed at 35%.

Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.

Iirc (been a while since tax) there are various methods of reducing taxable capital gains income, as well, which people use/abuse.

[Berkut]

Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent.

[derspiess]

It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.

It will be the Mormon.  It's Mitt's turn.

Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate.  Almost.

[CountDeMoney]

Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent.

American anti-intellectualism has been a facet of American life and society since before the Revolution.

[derspiess]

Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent know-it-all types.

FYP

[Jacob]

It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.

It will be the Mormon.  It's Mitt's turn.

Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate.  Almost.

On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?

[alfred russel]

Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.

The vast majority of corporations don't pay corporate income tax, and there are a number of legal structures (LLC, LLP, etc.) that also avoid corporate income tax but get limited liability.

[Ideologue]

But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly).  It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln.  I guess Eisenhower was OK.

He also imposed price controls, lost control of the budget, was forced into a humiliating reatreat from Bretton Woods by France, wasted thousands for American lives on a flawed US strategy in Vietnam, was forced into another humiliating retreat there and got outfoxed at the negotiating table, brought America its first experience of stagflation, repeatedly and flargrantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs and oh yes, directed a plot to subvert American democracy.

Other than that, terrific.

NIXON SHOCK!  But seriously, was there any way around that?  I don't know that much about the subject.

But as for the rest: political corruption minus one, EPA plus one billion.  And like I said, he was only one of the best Republican presidents (Eisenhower may be better, and I forgot about Roosevelt); and, viz. Democratic presidents, I said that he was better than Wilson and Carter only (and I meant president, not person; Wilson played a major role in setting up World War II, and although WWII was in many ways a net good, it's still not the best of all possible outcomes; and whatever else Carter might have been good for, the impotence with which America responded to an act of war by Iran was probably the greatest humiliation suffered by the United States in the 20th century).

[Ideologue]

Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.

The vast majority of corporations don't pay corporate income tax, and there are a number of legal structures (LLC, LLP, etc.) that also avoid corporate income tax but get limited liability.

Sorry, shouldn't be free.

[Ideologue]

It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.

It will be the Mormon.  It's Mitt's turn.

Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate.  Almost.

On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?

Derspeiss is perhaps a bit like me, he votes against people more than for them.

I mean, if they ran Kucinich, I'd still bite the bullet just to vote against the GOP.

[alfred russel]

Sorry, shouldn't be free.

That really doesn't make sense to me. If I eat something from Frito Lay, I have no reasonable expectation that I can recover anything from some random guy with stock in his account if I get food poisoning. Why should the government charge for an arrangement that is the only one that makes rational sense?

[derspiess]

On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?

He's too much a social conservative when what we need IMO is fiscal conservatism.  He speaks too much about his religion for my liking.  And I think he's too soft when it comes to illegal immigration (which I'm guessing comes from his Catholicism).  I fear a Santorum presidency would be a return to Compassionate Conservatism and that's something we can't afford.

Plus, on a base level I never really liked him, despite Marty's best efforts to push me in that direction by posting a couple anti-Santorum rants.

That said, presidential elections are a binary choice.  The only scenario where I would make a protest vote for a third party candidate is if the election was sure to be a landslide either way.