Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Chris Santee on May 31, 2011, 05:21:38 AM
-
Dear skeptics and critics
By Herman Cain
May 30, 2011
Wow! I must be causing some people quite a concern as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. The establishment skeptics are still stuck in the traditional campaign paradigm of immediate name ID, lots of money, and having held a worthy elective office before. The critics are pounding on what they perceive as my weaknesses. And the Democratic National Committee now has me on its radar and is sharpening its blades for a Cain attack.
No one is more emblematic of the Republican establishment than Karl Rove. He has an unmatched political record from his tenure with former president George W. Bush. I greatly respect and admire what he has accomplished in his career.
But I would suggest that he take a few minutes to review my record as a leader in business and as a problem-solver before he dismisses me as the radio talk show guy form Atlanta with not much to offer as a presidential candidate. Mr. Rove’s perspective also suggests that successful business skills are not applicable to changing the “Titanic” course our federal government is on.
People outside the political establishment are starting to recognize that those business skills are applicable. Maybe that’s why Cain is rising in the polls.
One of my favorite political commentators, Charles Krauthammer of Fox News, described my candidacy as entertainment. I enjoy his perspectives because he is usually very thoughtful and often correct in his analysis. Unfortunately, this time he got it wrong. Some people would describe being able to give an informative and inspiring speech as an asset, especially if one is running for president.
Or maybe Mr. Krauthammer was thinking of the announcement rally we held in Atlanta recently, which attracted over 15,000 enthusiastic supporters. Then again, maybe it’s because we do not have the funds or the fundraising network that the more well-known candidates have. And no, my campaign is not broke, as someone on Chris Wallace’s Fox News staff incorrectly concluded from a dormant PAC account.
My presidential campaign account is called Friends of Herman Cain, just in case Mr. Rove, Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Wallace would like to make a contribution. I’m not mad! We just have temporary differences of opinions.
And to my critics who are scouting for more of my weaknesses to write about, I will give you three you have not discovered yet. I don’t know everything. I don’t pander to groups. And I am terrible at political correctness. Like any candidate, I will make some gaffes and stumble in some interviews with the press.
On the other hand, my strengths include identifying problems, properly framing problems, solving problems, surrounding myself with good and great people, and giving those overly inspiring speeches to engage the people in my common sense solutions process. Oh! I also like to smile, laugh and have fun with people. I think people can handle those qualities in a presidential candidate.
Lastly, I’m surprised that the DNC already has me on its political radar screen when not all of the potential candidates have yet to even formally declare their candidacy for the Republican nomination. Maybe the Democrats are taking my candidacy seriously, and if I win the nomination then they will not be laughing.
I realize that the road to the nomination and the White House is long and difficult. I know we will encounter many new challenges along the way, and that many people see my chances as against the odds.
When one considers that I am up against the skeptics, the critics, the establishment, the Democrats, the liberals, gotcha journalism, a liberal-leaning mainstream media, the challenges of raising campaign funds and a host of other candidates seeking the same objectives, my candidacy is against the odds.
But then, that’s been the story of my life and my career.
Maybe my middle name should have been David. He defeated a giant against the odds.
-
Cain's Economic Vision
http://www.northstarnational.com/2011/06/26/cains-economic-vision-a-job-for-every-home/ (http://www.northstarnational.com/2011/06/26/cains-economic-vision-a-job-for-every-home/)
-
Part II - America thrives again
http://www.northstarnational.com/2011/07/03/economic-vision-part-2-america-thrives-again/ (http://www.northstarnational.com/2011/07/03/economic-vision-part-2-america-thrives-again/)
-
Economic Vision, Part 3: A fairer tax
By: Herman Cain
July 10, 2011
Paying taxes is a fact of life, because there are certain things that our federal government must provide as enumerated in the Constitution. But paying taxes does not have to be unfair, burdensome and costly. Our current system of taxation is all three, and it got that way little by little over time since 1913.
The Fair Tax (H.R. 25) is a fairer tax because it is just the opposite. It is fair because the consumer determines their taxes based on their purchase behavior instead of being determined by the government based on one's capacity to produce. Our production is measured in terms of personal income and business profits.
The Fair Tax is a one-time one-point national sales tax on new goods and services. It is not collected on wholesale purchases, but rather, it is collected on retail purchases when the consumer consumes, and not when the consumer or business produces. This is totally consistent with Economic Guiding Principle #1 as described in Cain's Economic Vision Part 1.
The Fair Tax is also fair because everybody pays the same consumption rate of 23 percent. Liberals hate that concept because it does not give them a tool to redistribute the income of others as with the current tax code. The rate is revenue-neutral and replaces all federal income and payroll taxes.
That's right! There will be no more income tax fillings and no more Internal Revenue Service! That would be another day of independence worth celebrating.
As the big government liberals start screaming about how the Fair Tax is unfair to the poor, it actually empowers those with modest incomes through a sales tax pre-bate for basic necessities when coupled with a zero tax on used goods and services. My dad would have achieved his American dreams a lot sooner if we had had the Fair Tax in his lifetime.
It is a burden on every worker and business to have to keep track of nearly every financial transaction made during the year in order to try and comply with the ridiculous tax regulations. Even worse, it costs us collectively about $430 billion dollars a year. That's insane!
In contrast, each state would collect the federal retail sales tax, as about 45 of them do today for their state sales tax, by adding one additional line to the sales receipt and sending those proceeds to the newly created Sales Tax Administration (STA). The STA would be for administrative purposes only, with no authority or mechanism to harass the taxpayers. The states would enforce the collection of sales taxes from retailers as they are already doing.
It's called not reinventing the wheel.
The opponents of replacing the tax code with the Fair Tax will launch their usual distortions and lies against the Fair Tax. The most common ones include that it’s on top of the federal taxes we already pay. That’s a lie. Or, that the rate is really 30 percent, which is another lie.
Proposed legislation clearly states that the rate is 23 cents on a dollar of goods purchased. Over time, the taxes embedded in that dollar will go away due to price competition, such that the item costing one dollar will now cost 77 cents. The consumer still pays only 23 cents, which would make the 23 percent tax look like a 30 percent tax, if you divide 77 cents by 23 cents. The liberals call it inclusive versus exclusive rate to confuse people, but they don’t bother to tell you it’s the same 23 cents.
Replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax is Phase Two of my Economic Vision for America, discussed in Parts 1 and 2 in the two previous commentaries. We must take some time to introduce and explain the concept of shifting taxation from income to consumption, and how it is fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome and costly than what we are doing today.
As president, I will end the insanity of the current tax code.
It's common sense.
-
sounds good think the rest will bite?
-
Sounds way better than Obamanomics!
-
Don't count this guy out yet.......
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/22/fox-first-cain-reveals-his-economic-secret-kitchen-cabinet (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/22/fox-first-cain-reveals-his-economic-secret-kitchen-cabinet)
-
Chris,
Getting ready to head back up into the mountains, but wanted to drop a quick line while I still had connectivity. Seems like Cain's message is resonating. Very interesting results in the Florida poll. This guy might just be the answer to our problem of only having "career politicians" on the ballot. And he is a Tea Party supporter. Which means it is only a matter of time before the left, a) realizes he is a legitimate challenger and b) begins labeling him a Tea Party Terrorist. What I cannot wait for is the day the lib's label him a racist! Cannot wait to see/hear the response from the Cain camp on that one!!
More to the point, perhaps Cain can motivate others to try to get into the system and dismantle the career politicians stranglehold on the rest of us. I think it would be a great ticket to have a Herman Cain / Ron Paul or Ron Paul / Herman Cain ticket. Time will tell.
-
Thor, be safe.
Cain/Paul
Paul/Cain
I could live with either.
Howabout this for a bumper sticker next year.......
Cain versus Not Able
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-herman-cains-florida-win-should-be-written-off.php (http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-herman-cains-florida-win-should-be-written-off.php)
-
I really like the concept. I would be in favor of it, however, how would it ever get through the BS that sits everywhere else in DC.....
-
Crank it up !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPm8saNhbuQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPm8saNhbuQ)
-
did you see somewhere obama was giving a speech and somebody called him the antichrist that person was swiftly removed
-
There is a story on Cain and his tax plan on VPR today. I didnt get to hear the actual story though, just that it was coming up later.
I wont pretend to know enough about economics to have an opinion if the plan is a good idea or not.
-
In my opinion, Rod, the Obama heckler was out of line and should have been removed swiftly.
Thanks for the Cain update, GW.
-
You're welcome. I agree....best to have the raving loon escorted out so the speaker, and sane audience members, can speak.
-
I am ALL about Cain!
I am glad others are too!
"WE" need more options.
I think Cain ran a business or two,,,,,,am I wrong?
CAIN!
-
Cain is/was CEO of Godfathers Pizza which is apparently a large chain in the south.
-
Cain on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/10/04/red-chair-herman-cain.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/10/04/red-chair-herman-cain.cnn)
-
I like Cain too, but I see 9-9-9 becoming 20-20-20 when Dems get back in charge!
-
since he was in business he should be aware of how to incorporate a( poison pill) if the 9-9-9 gets modified IE congress loses its pay,health bennies
according to a bio I received he once headed up-Pillsbury"s Burger King div and took them to black ink in about 14 months then he was asked to take over the Godfather pizza div
which he made profitable and then bought them out but before this he was in theFederal reserve system #2 in the midwest and also was a mathematical analyst doing rockets and artillery for the Navy he does not come across as the village idiot, and I have not seen but believe that his school records are available along with fellow students who knew him
-
correct, correct and correct, Al.
Here's Cain on his 9-9-9 plan in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/video/herman-cain-explains-his-9-9-9-plan/C0F27595-4101-4E21-83A0-A65A8C53D4F0.html (http://online.wsj.com/video/herman-cain-explains-his-9-9-9-plan/C0F27595-4101-4E21-83A0-A65A8C53D4F0.html)
-
Zogby Poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/2011/10/06/ibope-zogby-poll-cain-expands-lead-over-gop-field-leads-obama-46-44/ (http://www.zogby.com/news/2011/10/06/ibope-zogby-poll-cain-expands-lead-over-gop-field-leads-obama-46-44/)
-
That is good stuff Chris. Glad to see it! A reasonable man, who is not a career politician, and appears to be positioning himself well. Probably the best thing about him is that he knows what he doesn't know and readily admits it, and surrounds himself with people who can help. Calls it like he sees it. And after reading farther into that poll, it appears that over 50% of the people polled are just plain tired of this knucklehead that is sitting in the chair currently and think it is time for him to find other employment. Both Cain and Romney would beat him today if the elections were today. The downside is that the elections are a year off, and alot can change in that time. Hell POTUS and his criminal cronies could do just about anything in that time to better his chances. Just like the program they were "running" in an attempt to prove that our 2nd ammendment rights should be curtailed because all of us legal gunowners were selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
-
I'm all for sane candidates with a sensible plan, he appears to be one at this point. I fear that like the current admin, whatever good intentions he may have will get cut down in the "D.C. Combine" and cast aside. What goes on there is toxic partisan crap that doesn't bode well for anyone inside or outside.
Regardless of how my republican pals here on the forum hate on Obama, I have to believe that he took office with good intentions, like others before him and has been hog tied by the BS of DC, rendering him somewhat ineffective. No president or candidate is ever going to please everyone all the time; however, he has been a disappointment, along with the entire congress. The Federal Government as a whole has been nothing but ridiculous since before the last election cycle began. The talk has been the same going back decades, for those who don't recall past elections. The odds of seeing a change in the way things are taxed are pretty slim. It would be good if a political outsider could get in to Washington and be effective, but Cain is right about the media. They will thwart him anyway possible by putting the negative spin on things. With 24/7 coverage and everyone tuned in every which way, it doesn't take long for a negative vibe to go a long way.
My only issue with his message was Wall Street not being a problem. I agree the protesters may not have a clear cause or message, but really? Wall Street didn't help create the huge mess we have with the housing bubble? Is that all a lie? Honestly? I'm sure I have read some credible magazine articles regarding that crisis, so to hear this now, just seems a little like more Corporate/DC smoke and mirrors. The consensus is generally that the American public is dumb & forgetful enough that after a few years they will forget all about this and business as usual. (sadly it's mostly true)
I keep hearing this Republican message that capitalism isn't the problem, it's the people's fault they don't have jobs or something like that--neither of which makes any sense. There are a lot of places much worse than here and many without jobs/foreclosures. When you're sitting in an OK spot it's easy to look at others and say how they shouldn't have done this or that, not be so stupid, whatever. It's also easy for people to be duped--the elderly are all the time by scammers. Not everyone is on the same intelligence field when the ball is in play. Some people are easily sold a line of crap by companies wanting to make a buck. This is obvious because of the number of people who fell for the no down payment or pay only interest mortgage scams that got us here. If you're all well versed in home finance, I applaud you. I'm not--it makes my head spin, but I am smart enough to research these things and know enough about it to know why it makes my head spin. Many people are not so lucky as you (or I for that matter)
There are two distinct very partisan messages out there that seem to go like this: "Don't blame me because I have a lot of money, I earned it! Go get your own. If you tax my big pile of money, I won't have any to create jobs with" (R)
Not everyone is going to own General Mills, Microsoft, or Exxon, but how long can this argument be used without something showing for it?
"The top 1% of earners aren't paying their fair share of taxes, the middle class is carrying the burden for the entire country. People are suffering and can't make ends meet." (D)
There are hidden taxes/fees in everything. I've heard/read more than once that under Reagan (who seems to be a Republican God now) that taxes on the super wealthy were much higher in his Admin. (??)
So which is it? Who's right? Are they both right? I came across this video and I think this woman is right.
http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs (http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs)
I'm all for people making profits, getting rich, taking what they need etc., but not being greedy. No man is an island. We often forget that. How many of us ever really consider that our personal accomplishments are the result of the combined efforts of many? Not the least of which being our families? But even more than that, as we bicker about (enter Ed's latest Obama slur-name)/liberal mindsets/all things republican good & pragmatic-democrat bad & wasteful...do we ever really consider that we are not alone that collectively we're in the same sinking/floating boat? If not for the guy who maintains the roads year round or the person who harvests/manufactures our coffee et-al would any of us achieve our goals, from getting out of bed to getting where we need to go and all in between on that road to achieving that promotion, award, new client, whatever?
A little heavy for the politics of this forum, I know, but I want everyone to think about it this election season. And listen to what this woman is saying. While it's a political campaign message, I don't feel it's a message simply for politics.
Peace, Be well.
-
Cain answered my question in this response.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/2011/10/16/9-responses-to-9-false-attacks-on-the-9-9-9-plan/
-
Obama had control of the White House, the House and the Senate for his first two years and still couldn't get things done. But he still tries to push his socialist agenda on us. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the Dems and the left MSM are all for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, even with the Democratic Socialist Party and the Communist Party of America standing with them. Not sure what anyone else reads into that, but it concerns me.
In regards to previous comments about successful folks personal accomplishments, being assisted by other people. Yes I am pretty sure that anyone who runs a small business or a large business recognizes the effect that others have on their business. But we also pay for those services. We pay taxes for the school, taxes to have roads and ifrastructure maintained, we pay the airlines to get us to the meetings on time, we pay for accountants and lawyers, etc.... so the point (as well as Elizabeth Warren's point) is null and void. We even pay for the coffee we consume, as crazy as it sounds!
Yes we are all in the same boat, but, the boat making progress is dependent on how many people are providing propulsion, through continuous effort, not acting as sea anchors.
-
Thanks for the link Mary Kay, I especially like his response to #8:
"Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two. More to the point, though, everyone has the same opportunity to work hard, earn capital and put that capital at risk. Whatever I have earned has come from hard work, good decisions (and some bad ones), a willingness to take risks and a constant honing of strategy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing. I realize many are being told there are no opportunities available to them, but that is not true and I wish people – for their own sakes – would stop listening to such doom and gloom and come to understand all the opportunity that truly exists, and learn how to access it."
-
I keep trying to understand where this pervasive attitude comes from that all people have to do is work hard to prosper, the sun will shine where it normally doesn't AND stock dividends will magically sprout out your arse???!!!
Apparently no one here or in any Republican's world has ever known someone (or yourselves) who had to make ends meet on $20-$25K/year or less. This 9-9-9 tax proposal on the surface may seem possibly reasonable, but is it really? Yeah, I've read the stuff about 'what the other side will say' and I have to ask again about the workers earning barely enough to get by. The attitude that it's their own fault seems flawed and is dubious, given the "answer to number 8." Tell that low wage earner about all his glorious opportunities: What are they? He can earn a degree to get a higher paying job? Learn a trade to get a better job? Or simply go get a different job?
Here's the flaw in that thought, as noble as it may sound: takes money to go to school, any school. If you're making $25K/yr you likely don't have any to spare. Student loans aren't going to be enough to completely cover some tuitions. How much debt do you want to incur in an unstable job market? Can he just go get a different job? Sure, but the next hurdle is will he get hired. Companies seem reluctant to want to train people and want to hire those with previous experience or an education in a certain field. As things become more technically advanced, I see this as being a bigger concern. So I don't think Mr. Cain's rosy picture of opportunity is painted on the right canvas. they have to spend
Talk to a Wal-Mart employee or anyone who works full time making a none-livable wage how it feels to be in their shoes. The land of opportunity is supposed to be for everyone to have the chance to succeed at something of their choosing. What's missing here is not the desire or drive, but the opportunity. I don't have enough math/economic skills to understand all the jargon and double talk, but I know enough simple everyday stuff to understand that a flat tax will hit a lower income harder than a higher one. Paying out 20% on a $25K income is a much harder hit for that family than paying out that same 20% on the family making 50, 80, or 100K even though their 20% would be larger figure, their 80% balance is also larger and much easier to get by on.
Everything is corrupt and broken with our government and the political parties have people arguing pointlessly. There doesn't appear to be any good will left in the country unless something catastrophic happens.The Wall Street banks took this country for a ride a few years ago, it's still on its collective knees and I hear these candidates say things like "Don't blame Wall Street, that was so 2008. It's your fault you haven't gotten anywhere." ??? Including the much lauded Mr. Cain. I can't comprehend the arrogance of it.
There are a lot of snarky comments about the socialist system and how too many people are getting too much and what not. Thor you've commented on how Obama didn't get anything done in the first two years, while I'm not entirely sure what it is you were expecting to happen, what has and hasn't taken place is this (which no one here ever says anything about): Obama did allow the Bush tax cuts to continue, something the Republican party has repeatedly harped on "Cutting taxes will create jobs!"
That move alone should have caused some job growth if that statement were true, wouldn't that be the logical expectation? I don't know why the things he tried to do didn't work. One economist will say you need to do one thing to get out of a recession another says you need to do the opposite. There are obviously at least two schools of thought and likely dozens more on the matter. Do you know the answer? I certainly don't.
Many here seem to support not raising taxes on the wealthiest people in the top 1% and seem to ignore the widening gap between those at the bottom and those at the top, buy into the idea that this is totally acceptable, because for some reason you seem to believe that those who are apparently less fortunate than yourselves are against the free market and capitalism, which isn't the case. I don't get it. I really don't. Perhaps there is some connection I'm just not making or getting. I wish someone would explain it, because unless you're all secretly Billionaires, I don't get how you support a group that continues to gain at the expense of everyone & everything else, when in fact their tax rate was higher 20 years ago or more and the country wasn't this bad off. Or didn't seem to be anyway.
Thor--I don't know who you are, I respect your difference of opinion from mine; however, your last comments make no sense. I have to assume you missed the point of what Elizabeth Warren was saying. You re-iterated it, but didn't seem to grasp it. The point is exactly that--we've all paid for this stuff that we all use to do what we do. No man is an island. Go ahead build a company, be a huge success, make all the money you can. Take all you need for yourself (no one begrudges anyone that) then tend to the others coming up behind you.
That's humanity, that's how it should be, that's likely the way it used to be when companies cared about employees, trained them, treated them well, gave and received loyalty. People felt confident in their employer, were valued, developed a bonded trust, and stayed for a lifetime. Rarely does an 18 year old get a job and stay there until retirement anymore. You can blame the employee, but I don't think that's where the problem lies in many cases. I think politics and greed are the root of the problems we face everywhere in this country. If big business wasn't in bed with Washington politicians, I think the American public would fare much better.
The social problems you complain about go beyond politics, it's a real and pervasive problem on several levels. There is the fact that people are so poor as to need public assistance and there is the problem of fraud and the entitlement mindset, which I think (I hope) is what your issue is with it all.
I haven't paid enough attention to the Wall Street protesters to be able to comment on them, but I will say that it's America and protesters don't bother me, it's a right we have as citizens of this country (so far), but the seeming lack of humanity and disconnect with average people coming from the Republicans, that concerns me.
It's more than concerning actually, it's down right scary.
-
Mirjo,
I didn't miss yours or Elizabeth Warrens' point. It is just that I disagree with both of you completely. This country was not founded on Socialist principles or Communist principles. We don't need the government to tell us what to do. We need them out of our lives. But you want Socialism. Therefore, I disagree with you.
-
as to mirjo's statement:
"My only issue with his message was Wall Street not being a problem. I agree the protesters may not have a clear cause or message, but really? Wall Street didn't help create the huge mess we have with the housing bubble? Is that all a lie? Honestly? I'm sure I have read some credible magazine articles regarding that crisis, so to hear this now, just seems a little like more Corporate/DC smoke and mirrors."
Sorry to bust your "credible" magazines, but take a look at this NYTimes article from 1999:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html)
Bush warned of Fannie & Freddie in his 2004 Inaugural Address. Does anybody remember that ?
The media was much too smart for that "dummy".
-
and then, there was an investigation into Fannie & Freddie,
but NOOOOO, everything was fine at the government backed money lender:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)
-
and the final video, you'll want speakers on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiEWCnpNnBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiEWCnpNnBQ)
I am now re-hijacking this negative thread back to the positive.
We were talking about Herman Cain, how's everyone feel about him ?
-
Bush pushed his policy of the "Ownership Society" (remember that?), which along with other factors, encouraged financial institutions to make bad mortages to people who really couldnt pay them. He certainly deserves some of the blame for this particular disaster. The largest amount of blame of course goes to the mortgage companies themselves, who got way too greedy.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center released an analysis on Cain's 999 plan.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm)
If they are correct, this would be a very bad thing for poor and working-class people, whose taxes would go up very significantly. The wealthy and ultra-rich would reap the benefits from it. If the lower income levels have less money to spend, due to higher taxes, then the economy crashes again.
I hadnt had a strong opinion until now about this plan, but this analysis and others has made up my mind. Seems like a very bad deal for America.
Mirjo, I have also been appalled by the same apparent lack of compassion that you spoke about.
As for capitalism, socialism, and whatever-other-isms, I say forget all that bull****. Go with what actually works, and forget the stupid labels of ideologies. Take the good elements of each one to make the best society possible, for the largest number of people.
-
OK, so I dragged out the 2010 tax return and did the math (after all 9-9-9 is such a simple, easy plan). Under Cain's simple, straight forward plan, my family would have payed $2990 more in federal income taxes. That is $249 out of our family's monthly budget. I don't even want to attempt to try to figure out how much a 9% federal sales tax would cost us. It would be too depressing.
So, as many of you on this forum are fawning over this guy, I hope to hell this guy does not get elected. I, for one, have no interest in buying the oranges this guy is trying to sell the people of America.
-
Hey what's fair is fair plain and simple. Everyone should pay the same percent across the board unless there is a hardship maybe a cut off at a certain household income level.
-
For example, for virtually everyone posting on this forum, their tax burden would go up (I doubt there are any millionaires and billionaires in Fairfax). Clearly, calling that "fair" is total nonsense, especially as it hits the poorest the hardest. This would send the economy back into recession, and cause another housing market crash as mortgage defaults and foreclosures soared again.
I suppose people who would support this plan could always volunteer to pay higher taxes, if it sounds so awesome…all in the interest of “fairness” of course.
Though as the conservative-elites (those who control the money and power) who rule the GOP seem to have started to line up behind Romney, the chance of anyone else winning the Republican nomination begins to fade. The GOP establishment tends to go for the guy who is supposedly “next in line”, and this election seems to be shaping up no differently. I think Cain will begin to fade soon, just as Trump, Bachmann and Perry did after their respective rises. It seems increasingly certain it will be Romney vs Obama in 2012.
-
So it is fair in your eyes to stick the entire tax burden on the rich people who make a lot of money? I agree there needs to be a cut off for low income families but if make 40,000 a year or more I really don't think 9% is that much. It is what 3600 bucks a year? mind you that is based off gross income and is without any tax deductions either. I pay more then that now!! So I guess I don't see where you all are coming from.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)
-
Josh, I hear ya.
Being Single, with no kids, don't get me started on what I pay for taxes...... I will not have an increase in taxes if this went through.
-
So it is fair in your eyes to stick the entire tax burden on the rich people who make a lot of money? I agree there needs to be a cut off for low income families but if make 40,000 a year or more I really don't think 9% is that much. It is what 3600 bucks a year? mind you that is based off gross income and is without any tax deductions either. I pay more then that now!! So I guess I don't see where you all are coming from.
Nobody said anything about putting the "entire tax burden on the rich people". You totally imagined that on your own. The 999 plan proposes to remove loopholes and deductions, hence the "simplicity" of it, and one reason why most everyone would end up paying more. The other reason being another 9% tax on purchases of almost everything. These are an additional burden on the everyday tax-paying citizens. The tax/economy problem is a large complicated issue, and we live in a large complex country. To believe that a small simple solution will fix it is illogical, and pretty improbable.
How to fix it then? Hell if know, but it is clear that this plan of Cain's is clearly a worse system for almost everyone than we already have, simple as it might be. Simple is good, but if it doesnt work, that's irrelevant.
We need better ideas. Ones that will actually work in the real world.
-
In response to the 9% Sales Tax.
9% National Sales Tax.
Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the price of goods and services, this is a replacement tax. It replaces taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher marginal rates in the production process with lower marginal rates, marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to prices being the same or lower, not higher.
-
Dear mkr,
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. In my own words, you are saying that if a 9% national sales tax goes into effect, manufacturing costs will be lower, thus, out of the kindness of their hearts, corporations will lower the price of their goods?
Can I get the address of the dream world you are living in, because I would like to move there.
-
Dear LauriH,
They wouldn't lower their prices out of the kindness of their hearts.
They would lower their prices to make more money.
When McDonalds came out with a 99 cent menu,
Burger King responded (wonder if this is where all the 9's came from?)
to make more money............
by lowering their prices !
-
Thanks MKR, that is good to clarify. It is an additional 9% on top of the purchase prices which the plan supposes will fall, but independent analysis suggests that prices would not go down under the plan. It looks like this could be wishful thinking of the Cain people who came up with these ideas. I'd be interested to see more examination of this from other reputable organizations.
Here is one non-partisan organization's (Tax Policy Center) analysis of how people would fare overall under such a plan:
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg212/mbeyna/999.png)
Take a look especially at how the least fortunate among our fellow citizens would do...ouch! Even by overall measure, taxes go up by 1.2% when you include the losers (poor) and the winners (rich).
Personally, I would be paying almost $4500 more in taxes than under the current system. In real-life terms that would mean we wouldnt have been able to do a lot of the home improvement that we did the past year, including significant weatherization to reduce our heating costs. Consequently, we'd be spending more on heating oil, putting more pollution into the air, and sending that money overseas to foreign oil producers in lands where many people hate America, rather than hiring a local contractor and putting money in his pocket. We wouldnt be starving, but sure wouldnt be happy about it. Our 250 yr-old house needs fixing up. ;) That's also $4500 less going back into the economy, and therefore $4500 less for someone else to earn when I would have bought goods or services. Less money flowing into the economy means economic slow-down, and consequent loss of jobs. More people on the edge of financial ruin would be pushed over that cliff. It's a lose, lose, lose, lose, lose prospect.
-
In response to the 9% Sales Tax.
9% National Sales Tax.
Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the price of goods and services, this is a replacement tax. It replaces taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher marginal rates in the production process with lower marginal rates, marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to prices being the same or lower, not higher.
I have trouble believing this is correct. Every business purchases items to run their business. The 9% national sales tax will increase the cost to purchase everything from office supplies to furniture and computers. Plus without the loopholes and subsidies their margin will most likely be much less if they keep their prices the same. I would expect that the cost of everything will rise and we'll have a 9% tax on top of that.
-
Sorry to bust your "credible" magazines, but take a look at this NYTimes article from 1999:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Bush warned of Fannie & Freddie in his 2004 Inaugural Address. Does anybody remember that ?
The media was much too smart for that "dummy".
Okay, I totally get the point that you're saying the Democrats are not blameless here and that's fine, whoever is to blame should own it. What happens a lot in the Republican message is the stuff that speaks ill of the Dems is what's pointed out and the rest of the story is ignored, more often than not, the ills of this country have been/are caused by both parties. Yes, according to the times article, Clinton wanted to get more people into homes. If you read the story it says a little more than that the Clinton Admin was at fault for getting the ball rolling:
"Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers."
If I'm reading this correctly, it appears as though Fannie Mae had "phenomenal" profits and the stock holders wanted to keep it coming AND there was pressure from other institutions including banks "helping" FM make subprime loans. I'm just spit-balling here, but it probably wasn't the likes of a Peoples Trust Company or Union Bank.
I also questioned the Inaugural speech warning about this impending disaster (seemed out of place for the standard inauguration day warm fuzzies). I searched both GWB speeches and didn't find a mention of banks or economy or such anywhere, but I did find this in Bush's 2005 Inauguration speech (elected fall 04):
"In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."
Again, unless I am miss-reading or miss-understanding the implied meaning, it would appear that President Bush was talking about getting people into home ownership also. The last line clearly makes a statement about things being a little more equal. As said, these are feel good speeches. It's unknown what he was specifically referring to or if he meant any of it. Campaigns and Inaugurations are grey areas to say whatever one wants to appeal to the masses. It's after that, when the rubber hits the road, when it get's more difficult to keep those promises. Regardless of what Bush's intentions may have been on Day 1A & Day 1B they didn't come through. We landed chest deep in a recession by the end of his term, despite tax cuts in the early 2000s, No child Left Behind, (a revision/addition to the existing DOE reforms) hasn't gone as well as hoped for various reasons. Same for Clinton, same for Obama, same for G.H.W. Bush before them all.
Even he had an ill fated campaign message about taxes (Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES) Yes, I know it was the democratic congress that forced the issue--to help balance the budget...Is anyone else seeing a repeat pattern here? He had veto power, they all do. Stuff coming from congress is always wrapped in so many layers of other stuff, it makes using a presidential veto a problem. It's a great game they all play.
Chris, maybe you got the speeches mixed up and it was a campaign speech or state of the union address that Bush commented on the Fannie Mae issue several years before anything happened? I'm interested, because I'm sure if you said you saw it, you did and this is just a typo--then again, I may have missed it in the text and mea culpa!
As for the YouTube video, the beginning states it's excerpts from a hearing and it is clearly edited. How then is it possible to know the accuracy of the information once someone has tampered with it? The only way to honestly prove your point is with the actual CSPAN coverage, then people can see it for themselves and decide what's happening. As we have proven here, repeatedly, there are two sides to every story and the truth is frequently a slippery slope.
So, what's being said is Bush knew things were bad with FM and couldn't/didn't do anything to circumvent the problem? I have to say I don't understand, perhaps it's ignorance on how the government works, but how is it ok to say "I knew that was going to happen" and not have done anything about it? Isn't that Obama's problem? He's too wimpy & doesn't stand up to bullies in congress? Soo..they all just play politics at the expense of the American public? That's pretty much what it seems to be about. The Dems blame the Reps & vice versa/ congress blames the white house/ the white house blames congress. A bunch of "experts" chime in with myriad differing opinions about what is "needed" all while the country continues on an out of control trajectory and the American people are collective collateral damage. Every few years another crop of out-of-touch campaigners hit the trail to smile at the cameras and force feed the same tired old rhetoric.
Washington is like the longest running bad Broadway show ever, the characters are the same, but the actors are different and the cast just keeps getting worse each year.
Current campaign rhetoric (from a Rep candidate): "In 2008 the country elected a candidate they could believe in, now they need a candidate who believes in them" (?) All the same bunk that's been said before and has never changed a thing. Appealing to the christian core of the country and preaching about politics/god in the same speech is disconcerting. It seems to me, the god I grew up with wasn't as discriminating as the god these candidates profess to live so closely to.
If any political candidate (in any party) is going to claim to be "for the people" there should be a clear across the board understanding that the American "people" are more than just white middle class married protestants.
-
[
Mirjo,
I didn't miss yours or Elizabeth Warrens' point. It is just that I disagree with both of you completely. This country was not founded on Socialist principles or Communist principles. We don't need the government to tell us what to do. We need them out of our lives. But you want Socialism. Therefore, I disagree with you.
I don't care if you disagree with me, it's still a free country. What you shouldn't do is tell me what you think I want, when you don't know what you're talking about.
I have often wondered if you know the meaning of the big scary S word that you throw around so liberally and I'm now fairly certain that you don't. Please look up the definition and think long and hard on it and the things I have actually said. Then if you can draw a straight line from being against a huge (and widening) gap between the top 1% of earners and everyone else, just since Reagan was in office, and being a socialist, I will be happy to listen to you as you give me an explanation on how you came to that conclusion. Otherwise don't tell me what you think I want, when you have an irrational fear and not a clue about what I have been saying.
I didn't hear a socialist message in Warren's video, I heard an appeal to company owners to give some back to those coming up. Where did you hear Socialism? Was it the fact that she was suggesting a giving nature? I don't get that attitude. Why shouldn't companies invest in a future work force in some manner? Isn't it in their best interest to do so? Where are you coming up with the idea that to do such a thing is Socialist in nature? Why are you tossing out words without clearly understanding the definition?
I would like to believe I'm empathetic to others, not some political ideology. I am very much in favor of the free market and people earning whatever they can. I'm not against capitalism--I believe I have said as much on more than one occasion. I am against greed for the sake of greed.
Let me put it this way (as an example): Do the banks need all the fees they are collecting off the small businesses/people for use of debit cards/ATMs or are they being greedy? The push was to get everyone to use a debit card and ATMs and once everyone (mostly) was hooked the banks that were once networked so you could use your card in a number of places w/out a lot of fees, stopped being networked it seems. Small stores like those here in town take a huge hit on fees for each debit/credit card use. I don't know how much is actually charged back to the customer or not, but is it all really necessary? I'm all for the banks making a profit--they are in business to do so, but by charging for every last transaction? Seems like a pretty big profit when it's all tallied. If you pay a fee on your checking account--those who don't have a certain balance (again, those with less money are hit harder) if you carry less than a certain amount in a savings account in some banks they take money out each month! ??? But I guess this makes sense to the CEO who is looking at the bottom line. Who wants the low lives who can't keep a minimum of $500 in the bank (or whatever). It amazes me that people just keep crushing those who have little.
For someone so against entitlements, you appear to be all for the entitlements of the very wealthy, while the rest of the people in the country take a hit. If that is not what you believe or how you feel, it is certainly how you come across every time you scream "Socialism!" You are certainly an enigma. ???
-
I am not for either party but I am for the individual. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to go to school and be what they want to be. I also understand that some people don't know what that is. It is up to us to decide, whenever that may be, what we want to be and what we want to do. If I want to be a store owner and make minimum earnings compared to a Doctor, well then, so be it. It is not up to you or anyone else to compensate my choice. If I pay 10% and you pay 10% you are still going to pay more than me. The more you make, the more you pay. To me that is fair. If I go to the store to buy a loaf of bread, the loaf of bread should be the same price. Now, if I want a lobster tail and can't afford it then I don't eat lobster. However, I do not think it is fair to expect the ones that can to buy me one. Even the poorest of families have cell phones and things that they could live without. Since when was it a necessary item to have a cell phone and or ipod. So in my limited knowledge of politics, I am of the opinion that the opportunities should be out there but the decision is up to me what I want to do. If my large group of family and friends need something, that is up to me to help. If I have a child that does not want to work, it is up to me to take care of him. Not you. I guess what I am saying is if we make less than good choices, it is not up to anyone else but ourselves or our family to take care of it. We need to break the availability for people to choose not to work. We all need to work and help one another. Helping is different than being entitled. Now, there are people that can not work. That is a different story. There again we do need to help and therefore need some sort of assistance in this case. Those people are the ones that are entitled to help. Not the ones that choose not to work and want to eat lobster. Thanks for letting me vent. I think everyone has a right to their opinion but it is not okay to be name calling just because you feel differently. I statements work really well folks.
-
Mirjo,
I do not know who you are or what you do. I would guess, by the sheer volumes that you write each time you post, that you are in journalism of some sort. Regardless, I am way less verbose, and will attempt to be "to the point" here..... I just crossed you off my Christmas card list!!
-
Mirjo,
Of course, with that said, I still hope you have a great Christmas! You just won't get a card from me.
Sincerely,
Thor
-
Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
Thor,
:D
I'm just opinionated and say a lot, you're opinionated and say little; funny, we have something in common.
I appreciate the sparring and the fact that you're passionate about what you believe in.
I hope you have a great Christmas as well, a prosperous New Year, and of course--no need to look for a card on this end either!
Best,
mirjo
-
Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
And the idiot being the one who doesn't stand in complete agreement with you?
I know a silk screener on Fletcher Rd.
I'll have t-shirts made.
What size do you wear?
-
I am not for either party but I am for the individual. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to go to school and be what they want to be. I also understand that some people don't know what that is. It is up to us to decide, whenever that may be, what we want to be and what we want to do. If I want to be a store owner and make minimum earnings compared to a Doctor, well then, so be it. It is not up to you or anyone else to compensate my choice. If I pay 10% and you pay 10% you are still going to pay more than me. The more you make, the more you pay. To me that is fair.
Slpott, I've been told I say a lot (too much really), so I will try to be brief. I agree with what you're saying, I think anyway, but it seems like you have a couple of ideas going. My issue with a flat tax is that while it seems fair that everyone is paying the same percentage 10 % of 25K or less is a harder hit than taking 10% out of 50K or more. Everyone should have the same opportunity to go to school (college or trade school, whatever) to become what they want. The question is, does everyone have that opportunity? I'm not sure they do.
I totally agree there are things that aren't necessities and if you can't afford them you shouldn't have them. Same with the lobster diet. If you have chosen a life of meager income then you have no right to expect more than what you have chosen for yourself. If you're stuck in a cycle of low pay/bad housing because you can't get a break to get out--that's different (I'm not saying you need welfare programs to help you out of it) I'm saying it's different from choosing that existence. This is where I think the country is failing people. Something is severely wrong when only the top 1% (meaning those making millions) are the only ones who have been increasing their wealth, while the rest have not. Is it really so surprising that more people would need state/fed aid? I don't think so.
I think I've been putting out fair questions here. It's not just about welfare and abusers, it's a much bigger problem that we face as a whole. People who take advantage of the system are a small percentage in the big picture.
-
Shelly - Spot on! It's like you were in my head :-)
-
Seems to be having a little trouble with the truth...might do well as a politician then. ;)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/10/31/cains_story_shifts.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/10/31/cains_story_shifts.html)
-
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
-
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Funny! So true. :D
-
we need to have an henry forum party somewhere so i can put faces with names
-
Ed, Chris,
Did you guys happen to see the Cain / Gingrich "debate"? I didn't see it live, as I have been working some crazy long days, but I was able to view segments online during my down time. Very interesting.... precursor maybe..... wouldn't that drive our counterparts crazy?
Well, time to get back to work. Another long day ahead, but no complaints here. Hope all is well back there.
-
I did not catch it, but I hope to online today, if I can find the time.
See you soon.