Herman Cain

madmallard wrote: But that tax won't affect them as much as it will affect the business, its employees and its customers. Your Ipad will cost more, and the worker will take home less pay. Then higher taxes on the rich person directly, they say. you can see from here how this line of thinking either starts to break down, or becomes unpalatable to continue for most...

There's no reason that a tax on a business' profits (not a tax on gross revenues, not an added fixed cost like property taxes, but a tax on only the profits) would necessarily affect the price that it charges or the wages a worker earns. It's still operating in a market. It will still act in a manner to maximize profit, even if that profit is reduced by a tax. It will still charge the amount that the the market is willing to pay for the goods. As always, if there is another business in the market that is willing to operate at a smaller profit, it will exert downward pressure on prices, or be there to hire the workers whose wages were cut. I would agree that if you add a fixed cost, that will be passed along to the customer (it's an additional barrier that has to be overcome in order to turn a profit, and it must be paid whether the business is profitable or not), but a tax on a business after the profit is achieved would not exert the same pressure. If anything it might encourage businesses to be less profitable on paper and to reinvest their proceeds into capital improvements or expansion/new hires rather than taking profits, but even that's unlikely to be strongly encouraged unless the tax rates are astronomical. The scenario you describe seems to assume a business that has an unwavering mandate to achieve some defined level of profit, and if taxed must raise prices to achieve that level of profit even at the peril of being left behind in the market by a competitor that doesn't subscribe to that mandate.

In reply to Josh:

You are making associations that are simply not true. Have you ever run a business?

Businesses frequently structure themselves to NOT make profit. It's not unlikely at all- it's normal. They can easily take money that would be "profit" and shift it into assets and capital to have minimal profit, therefore minimal tax.

Businesses selling at a lower PRICE do not mean at a lower PROFIT. There's always a way to make it cheaper without hurting revenues, which then DO NOT have to be reported as profits.

Don't assume businesses aren't smart enough to see another way.

Cain said his opponents, including former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, were too focused on what kind of plan could pass Congress. He said he wasn't worried about Congress. That's the "difference between a politician and a problem-solver," Cain said.

Problem solvers don't worry about whether their solutions have any chance of being implemented and politicians do? My experience in the corporate world is that people who claim to be problem solvers usually just run their mouths and never do much of anything else. Cain's status as a talk show radio host and as a preacher don't persuade me that he'd be any different.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Josh: You are making associations that are simply not true. Have you ever run a business? Businesses frequently structure themselves to NOT make profit. It's not unlikely at all- it's normal. They can easily take money that would be "profit" and shift it into assets and capital to have minimal profit, therefore minimal tax. Businesses selling at a lower PRICE do not mean at a lower PROFIT. There's always a way to make it cheaper without hurting revenues, which then DO NOT have to be reported as profits. Don't assume businesses aren't smart enough to see another way.

I feel like your agreeing with 95% of what Josh just said while saying hes dead wrong.

no, he's using business specific language correctly, but most folks can't clearly define profit, margin, markup, profit margin, revenue, net, asset, liability, capital, etc... and only vageuly grasp it in terms of 'making money.'

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Do you actually believe Republicans are pulling strings so Cain gets high polling numbers before the first delegate casts a vote, or are you just enjoying a Rocky Mountain high?

Oh God no. I was just making a joke. Sorry, I thought it was obvious. No as I said before, if I were a Republican, this whole thing with Cain leading the polls would drive me nuts.

but you've got to admit, he does look a little bit like Uncle Ruckus.

madmallard wrote: lol I think you see pretty clearly now that while I'm oft misread, the truth of my discourse is I'm not clever enough to simplify my language any further.

I'm glad you took that as I intended. I thought we had gained enough respect for each other's opinions that I could get away with that without making you mad.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I thought we had gained enough respect for each other's opinions that I could get away with that without making you mad.

I hope most of the regular posters feel that way across the board. None of us feel exactly the same on every issue.

I have to say, speaking as someone who has gone off half cocked or less more than a couple of times, it's a pretty good group of folks on here to shoot the BS with. Even with the stupid stuff I've said, I don't think there's anyone who posts in these threads regularly I wouldn't want to meet at an autocross and buy a beer at the end of the day.

AngryCorvair wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Do you actually believe Republicans are pulling strings so Cain gets high polling numbers before the first delegate casts a vote, or are you just enjoying a Rocky Mountain high?

Oh God no. I was just making a joke. Sorry, I thought it was obvious. No as I said before, if I were a Republican, this whole thing with Cain leading the polls would drive me nuts.

but you've got to admit, he does look a little bit like Uncle Ruckus.

...and he is sure causing a ruckus with the mainstream Republicans.

Maybe I need to put a Cain sticker on my Ruckus.

Snowdoggie wrote: Maybe I need to put a Cain sticker on my Ruckus.

Maybe this one -

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Maybe I need to put a Cain sticker on my Ruckus.

Maybe this one -

Dat works. But you know some honky is going to call me a racist.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

Only if their vehicle sports one like this:

I just heard some Herman Cain supporters ripping Andrew Wilkow a new one on Sirius Radio. Wilkow kept saying that Cain can't win, that none of the other guys can win and that you guys should all just shut up, get in line and support Romney.

Romney is a moderate Eastern Wall Street Republican with a hawkish, Bush Doctrine foreign policy that will guarantee us big deficits for a long time to come. I don't see him as in the same universe, much less the same party as somebody like Ron Paul, a populist libertarian with a minimalist foreign policy. I'm not sure if Cain even has a foreign policy.

Yeah. Shut up and line up for Romney.

They should make that a bumper sticker.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

I suspect Cain is formulating a foreign policy but is wisely keeping it under wraps as he collects more information. At this point, no candidate has been really questioned about their positions but several have offered theirs.

Something to keep in mind is President Obama's oft-stated foreign policy positions during his campaign. Once elected, he got intel briefings and learned much more than he could ever have imagined. There are damn good reasons he back-tracked on those pledges.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

He is probably right. It might be necessary to support Romney if the Republicans want a win.

Cain's 15 minutes should end soon.

I agree with Ron Paul on most things but not on the economy. He latched on to the Austrian school of thought decades ago and won't let go. I think even the Austrians have probably given up on those goofy theories by now.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: I suspect Cain is formulating a foreign policy but is wisely keeping it under wraps as he collects more information. At this point, no candidate has been really questioned about their positions but several have offered theirs. Something to keep in mind is President Obama's oft-stated foreign policy positions during his campaign. Once elected, he got intel briefings and learned much more than he could ever have imagined. There are damn good reasons he back-tracked on those pledges.

But Romney is even more hawkish than Obama. He wants to go into Iran and increase our presence on China's doorstep. At least Obama kept the boots off the ground in Libya.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Cain's 15 minutes should end soon. I agree with Ron Paul on most things but not on the economy. He latched on to the Austrian school of thought decades ago and won't let go. I think even the Austrians have probably given up on those goofy theories by now.

I haven't!

Also, I doubt it...

Even if you think that the Austrian school might be right, it would be a huge risk to make such sweeping changes. Even if it did work better in some ways, I think negative unintended consequences would be rampant.

The ideologies of Paul and Cain are largely irrelevant because they don't have much of a chance of implementing their plans if they are elected.

I could be wrong about Cain flaming out. I've been wrong plenty of times before...

Romney is a moderate Eastern Wall Street Republican with a hawkish, Bush Doctrine foreign policy that will guarantee us big deficits for a long time to come.

Well, there's one thing we can agree on. Also, he and Bush III talk like a couple of little berkeleying girls. The more I think about it, the more Newt seems like the best guy to beat Obama. It would at least make for much better debate material than the garbage in the last one.

Remember all the Clinton worship a few pages ago about budget surpluses, welfare reform, etc.? Newt's congress made that E36 M3 happen and a lot of it Clinton fought tooth and nail, and later took for it.

To your point, there was a "cute" albeit sickeningly annoying skit on SNL this weekend where the Romney character said something to the effect of "I'm like the drunk girl at the club. I don't mind if you take a lap around the bar in the search for something better, but c'mon, at the end of the night, you know you're going home with me."

I lawl'd.

In reply to poopshovel:

...while Newt tried to impeach Clinton and pushed "character counts" bumper stickers while he was cheating on his wife and later ended up with some major ethics sanctions. Do people forget Newt left DC in disgrace?

Newt did seem to have the ability to compromise (disregarding all his conservative bluster). I like that.

Newt at least has to change his name. It reminds me of a bad Monty Python skit, or that little girl in the second Alien movie.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to poopshovel: ...while Newt tried to impeach Clinton and pushed "character counts" bumper stickers while he was cheating on his wife and later ended up with some major ethics sanctions. Do people forget Newt left DC in disgrace? Newt did seem to have the ability to compromise (disregarding all his conservative bluster). I like that.

I care as much about who Newt stuck his weiner as I did/do Clinton. He would berkeleying destroy thee "Uhhhhhhh"bama in a battle of wits, and I'd like to watch it happen. Romney will get all in a girly little tizzy like he did with Perry the first time Uhhhhhhbama attacks his record.

Did anybody else think it was creepy when Romney put his hand on Rick Perry's shoulder in the last debate. He reminds me of a slick used car salesman.

In reply to poopshovel:

I am not clear. Did you care a lot about Clinton's weenie suckage? Thus you care a lot about Newt's?