A competent campaign would also acknowledge that the 15% tax rate actually would be the effective tax rate for overseas investments not subject to our corporate tax rates, while a proprietor of a small business here in the States would face an effective tax rate well above 30%; and that, on the whole, the system is grossly unjust in that it directly favors investments in offshore finance over investments in productive activities here at home.

It's a campaign that was competent enough to get on the ballot in every state, even Virginia.

Ironically, Presidential campaigns are decided on the ability to get your candidate on the ballot. They are also decided on the ability to be organized in all the states so you can not only compete in them all, but you force your opponent to commit resources to compete in them all. Any candidate who focus on their base, and doesn't compete everywhere will open themselves up to a strategic defeat because their opponent can simply just heavily pick off 1-2 states and you lose.

You have to play simultaneous offense and defense in election campaigning. It's FAR more than just spinning a good answer in a debate. Something that Romney is decent at, and Newt excels at. But when it comes right down to it, organization and leadership matters, and Newt has only shown himself capable of talking and thinking well. That's good to have as a member of a team, but not a leader.

I don't get that double tax argument... just because it was subject to a high corporate or personal tax rate, doesn't mean that Bain or whoever actually paid taxes at that rate.

Here's your answer, as it seems you lack the knowledge to understand:
- Income is derived by subtracting expenses from receipts.
- Corporations then pay taxes on the income.
- Monies left, after taxes have been paid, are either kept on-hand, or distributed to partners.
- Partners receiving income, which has already been taxed as corporate income, then pay capital gains income, at this point 15%, in addition to the income taxes alreeady paid by the corporation.
- States also take their share of taxes from both corporate and personal income.

Say a company made $15 million, after expenses and deductions. Corporate tax rates for that income level ($10 mil - $15 mil) would be $3,400,000 + 35% of the income amount over $10 Mil. In this example, the amount would be $5,150,000 = 34.3%. In addition, each individual takes another 15% on any amount paid out as investment income, bringing the total federal (this does not take into account additional state and county taxes) rate to 49.3%, before state taxes.

Not too difficult to understand. The concepts are pretty simple. All one needs is a computer, the desire to understand and do some homework, and a calculator.

I doubt that seriously, otherwise you could have taken the minute or two it would have taken so show where he was wrong... Alas, "alleging" that one is wrong and actually proving it are two very different things.

You have proven nothing except that you can type coherent sentences...

This is not much different than trying to explain to the average brainwashed moron why the death tax is double taxation. The Democrats will lie and demagogue (and so may Gingrich or his sycophants), and Romney will unfairly come out looking like a greedy crook.

This. You can't win on this one. The left will twist any argument to their advantage.

No it won't, not if the explanation is simple, direct, and involves no math. See here: External Link  (or my post below).

Assume you're addressing Harrison Bergeron's mother.