Herman Cain

Snowdoggie wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Everybody is still avoiding the main issues - Cain lacks an understanding of taxes, foreign policy, basic math, etc.

You do realize the guy has a bachelors degree in math coupled with a masters in computer science, and spent his younger years calculating ballistic trajectories for the Navy, right? You may not like his numbers, may disagree with the assumptions, etc., but to say he doesn't understand basic math is a bit disingenuous, no?

Probably explains his campaign performance. He's a math/computer geek. We like actor or trial lawyer candidates who are smooth public speakers.

Yeah. The downside is we end up with smooth talking lawyers running the place...

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Well, the math for his tax plan doesn't work. Perhaps he has never taken a pencil to his own tax plan. Perhaps he is lying about his tax plan. Perhaps he is bad at basic math. I am not sure any of these are great answers for a presidential candidate.

Cain told us he even worked out the math himself. Someone earning $50,000 a year would pay less in taxes under his 9-9-9 than they do under the current system, he said. Under the current system, a person who earns $50,000 a year "pays about $10,000 in taxes," Cain said. "A big part of that is the payroll tax." Cain then walked us through his 9-9-9 plan and said the same person would "still have $2,000 left over."

Ok, so we are down to he is a liar or bad at math. You guys can take your pick. Maybe the line of CPAs saying his math is wrong are just a bunch of dirty whores looking for money and attention.

Anyway you slice all this, the GOP aint happy with how this is all going with this thread being a nice little example of why. Cain is sucking bandwidth, he is not going to be the candidate, Romney is, and all this "I'm not racist! YOU ARE THE RACIST" is making the GOP look like they fielded a bunch of idiots. Cain was not prepared to be a frontrunner, this was not supposed to be happening. Bachmann is not qualified, Palin was never interested, she was just wasting everybody's time to pump her brand, Huntsman is way too moderate, Paul occupies his own space far to the right of the party on some issues, and off into libertarian land on others. Gingrich? Ha! I, along with many sensible Republicans, wanted something much more substantial than this. So the GOP is stuck with Romney- a North East moderate who is going to get through all this just by staying out of the way of these endless train wrecks. I could have comfortably voted for Chris Christie, his inclusion would have required Romney to actually compete, and it would have raised the bar on everybody's performance. Romney does not fire up the faithful, and he is not the right candidate for the GOP in this election cycle. Cain? - blah blah blah, whatever.

I think that trying to re-jigger the tax system right now is kind of like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and arguing over whether they are sneaking more chairs into the First Class section.

I think you guys are reading too much into these debates.

You do realize they are actually just auditions to be paid Fox News consultants right? That's why Palin's not in them, she already has the job.

Shaun wrote: Anyway you slice all this, the GOP aint happy with how this is all going with this thread being a nice little example of why. Cain is sucking bandwidth, he is not going to be the candidate, Romney is, and all this "I'm not racist! YOU ARE THE RACIST" is making the GOP look like they fielded a bunch of idiots. Cain was not prepared to be a frontrunner, this was not supposed to be happening. Bachmann is not qualified, Palin was never interested, she was just wasting everybody's time to pump her brand, Huntsman is way too moderate, Paul occupies his own space far to the right of the party on some issues, and off into libertarian land on others. Gingrich? Ha! I, along with many sensible Republicans, wanted something much more substantial than this. So the GOP is stuck with Romney- a North East moderate who is going to get through all this just by staying out of the way of these endless train wrecks. I could have comfortably voted for Chris Christie, his inclusion would have required Romney to actually compete, and it would have raised the bar on everybody's performance. Romney does not fire up the faithful, and he is not the right candidate for the GOP in this election cycle. Cain? - blah blah blah, whatever.

That pretty much sums it up. I think I'll shut up for a while.

I'm thinking I'm just going to write my name in the blank come election day. At the rate things are going the Big O is getting another 4 years. At best Obama lite (Romney) will be in there. 4 more years of the same old crap. You can only swirl around the bowl for so long before you end up in the E36 M3 tank.

Guns, Ammo and Food are on my Christmas list.

Shaun wrote: I could have comfortably voted for Chris Christie, his inclusion would have required Romney to actually compete, and it would have raised the bar on everybody's performance. Romney does not fire up the faithful, and he is not the right candidate for the GOP in this election cycle. Cain? - blah blah blah, whatever.

I think that there are a lot of smart guys like Christie who don't want to run this time. The unemployment rate is high and wages are lower because corporations are outsourcing work to countries where workers are hungrier and willing to work for less and hiring more immigrants both legal and illegal who will also work harder for less money and there isn't really much a President can do to fix that, especially when Congress is getting campaign contributions from the exact same people who are outsourcing and hiring the immigrants. If a Republican replaces Obama, three months after he is in office the economy will be his fault and all of those angry unemployed and underemployed people plus all the new graduates who can't find work will have a new whipping boy to beat on while Obama sits on the beach in Hawaii and writes books while enjoying his government pension.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Well, the math for his tax plan doesn't work. Perhaps he has never taken a pencil to his own tax plan. Perhaps he is lying about his tax plan. Perhaps he is bad at basic math. I am not sure any of these are great answers for a presidential candidate. Cain told us he even worked out the math himself. Someone earning $50,000 a year would pay less in taxes under his 9-9-9 than they do under the current system, he said. Under the current system, a person who earns $50,000 a year "pays about $10,000 in taxes," Cain said. "A big part of that is the payroll tax." Cain then walked us through his 9-9-9 plan and said the same person would "still have $2,000 left over." Ok, so we are down to he is a liar or bad at math. You guys can take your pick. Maybe the line of CPAs saying his math is wrong are just a bunch of dirty whores looking for money and attention.

I was curious, so I whipped out the old Excel. I get the same $2k that he does when I run those numbers (actually $1900, but I'm cool with rounding), so I guess I'm also bad at math. Bachelors in Mechanical Engineer, Masters in Business FWIW.

I'm not planning to vote for Cain. None of the current crop of GOP candidates light my fire either. But here's the big thing that always bugs me come election time: the big problem is not the President. He/she/it can only set the tone.

The REAL problem with what's happened/happening in this country is in Congress and those races don't get near the attention the top job does. Once in, since there are no term limits on them it's easier for the sheeple to pull the 're elect so and so' trigger than to put any real effort into thinking about just how the country will be affected. (Want proof of that allegation? How about Strom Thurmond?) But they will jump up and down and scream because the President didn't fix (insert least favorite problem here) and lay the blame at his/her/its feet and we get to throw the bum out after 2 elections because that's written into an amendment. While the REAL problems just keep leeching along.

Go ahead and complain about the Presidential candidates all you want. It shows the misdirection has worked yet again.

Curmudgeon wrote: The REAL problem -

is that there are no term limits on the people who can buy a congressman, senator or president his campaign. The money never sleeps and it has an agenda that is not "for the people, by the people". It just buys the whole set so that it does not matter which one wins.

Vote for whomever you like - but if they didn't finance themselves they aren't working for you and if they did - they are all alone and incapable of getting anything done.

Curmudgeon wrote: The REAL problem with what's happened/happening in this country is in Congress

I've been telling people that for 20 years and they still don't pay attention to anything but the presidential election.

For me right now the big issue is at the state level. The state government has come out with a redistricting plan. It was very carefully gerrymandered to disenfranchise residents of the largest county in the state. They split the county in half combining each half with other counties so that the voting power of the county would disappear. This would insure the change of party for at least one if not two congressmen.

Fortunately at least one group has already filed suit in federal court to overturn this mess.

How would we put term limits on those who have the money? Not real easy. So instead put term limits on the whole bunch in Congress. It wouldn't address the true problem but it would shorten the time horizon for them to be able to do something nefarious.

The country was founded on the idea of the citizen legislator. But it has instead morphed into a ruling class not unlike the peerage system of the House of Lords in England, where it wasn't unusual for a seat to be passed down from generation to generation. At least the British had the good sense to dissolve Parliament every 5 years and then elect a new one, how's that for term limits?

Hal is right, gerrymandering is one strong way to put the screws to the sheeple. There have been some really tortured maps put together to ensure that someone gets reelected. Jim Clyburn's redistricting of the 6th District down here is an excellent example. The district changed so much it was amazing, the worst part was the way it was railroaded.

Snowdoggie wrote: The unemployment rate is high and wages are lower because corporations are outsourcing work to countries where workers are hungrier and willing to work for less and hiring more immigrants both legal and illegal who will also work harder for less money and there isn't really much a President can do to fix that, especially when Congress is getting campaign contributions from the exact same people who are outsourcing and hiring the immigrants.

You know except trying to get the ball rolling on making the US a competitive place to do business. Lower tax rates on businesses. An education system that actually provides decent workers (although that shouldn't really be a federal issue in my mind).

I think really though until we get a major change on three things nothing will ever change in this country. One campaign financing. As long as corporations can buy politicians nothing will get better in the US.

Two the way the media works. Right now everything in politics is just sound bites. The issues don't mean anything.

Three. Term limits.

Curmudgeon wrote: How would we put term limits on those who have the money?

Do not allow it to be contributed by "corporations as a person" and do not allow individual contributions to exceed the candidates own personal investment.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: How would we put term limits on those who have the money?

Do not allow it to be contributed by "corporations as a person" and do not allow individual contributions to exceed the candidates own personal investment.

This. But add term limits as well.

But the Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are considered to be protected speech. And if some goober has, say, $10 million of his own money to invest and his (more worthy) opponent has, say, $100k which one is more likely to get elected?

I'm at the point where I think maybe we should just shut down campaign contributions and private money altogether, then have each candidate for a given office provided a flat amount (might have to add a new tax for this, though: ducks rain of broken bottle and bricks) and let them duke it out on a level playing field, so to speak. Nahhh, never happen.

Curmudgeon wrote: But the Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are considered to be protected speech. And if some goober has, say, $10 million of his own money to invest and his (more worthy) opponent has, say, $100k which one is more likely to get elected?

Time for an amendment then.

93EXCivic wrote: I think really though until we get a major change on three things nothing will ever change in this country. One campaign financing. As long as corporations can buy politicians nothing will get better in the US.

Change that to "organizations" and you're on to something.

93EXCivic wrote: Two the way the media works. Right now everything in politics is just sound bites. The issues don't mean anything.

Ain't gonna happen. Besides, that would require federal intervention and I'm hoping you just didn't think this through very thoroughly. Be careful what ask for and all that..........

93EXCivic wrote: Three. Term limits.

I'm good with that.

oldsaw wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I think really though until we get a major change on three things nothing will ever change in this country. One campaign financing. As long as corporations can buy politicians nothing will get better in the US.

Change that to "organizations" and you're on to something.

93EXCivic wrote: Two the way the media works. Right now everything in politics is just sound bites. The issues don't mean anything.

Ain't gonna happen. Besides, that would require federal intervention and I'm hoping you just didn't think this through very thoroughly. Be careful what ask for and all that..........

93EXCivic wrote: Three. Term limits.

I'm good with that.

I know that the media isn't going to change because as you said that would take federal intervention (bad) or a change in the way we as Americans think which is what I am wishing for but I know that is just a pipe dream.

As far as the campaign financing, I should have said organizations. I don't want to complete get ride of lobbying though. Not all of it is bad. I am sure most of us on here like the work the SEMA lobbying group does.

Uh oh. Look who's endorsing him now.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-caught-camera-joking-anita-hill-165414641.html

DILYSI Dave wrote: I was curious, so I whipped out the old Excel. I get the same $2k that he does when I run those numbers (actually $1900, but I'm cool with rounding), so I guess I'm also bad at math. Bachelors in Mechanical Engineer, Masters in Business FWIW.

I just thought it was interesting how everyone who had been pulling this up as an argument has ignored your point. So in case they "accidentally" passed over your post, I thought I would quote it for good measure.

There is no way that they are just ignoring you because they are wrong...

93EXCivic wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: But the Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are considered to be protected speech. And if some goober has, say, $10 million of his own money to invest and his (more worthy) opponent has, say, $100k which one is more likely to get elected?

Time for an amendment then.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with Herman Cain, nor this election cycle.

It's not possible for this to happen before the next election. Therefore, it is a flounder to this thread.