Herman Cain

oldsaw wrote:

Duke wrote: Hmmm - look where "anybody but Bush" got us. At this point, it's pretty much "anybody who's not a Republican or Democrat". It makes me wonder why Lyndon LaRouche, Angela Davis, Ralph 'Mr. Excitement' Nader, and some of the other perennial losers haven't been crawling back out of the woodwork.

I'm respectfully disagreeing on your "anybody but Bush" claim. The economy was in melt-down at the same time the election cycle was occuring. After eight years of Republicans at the helm, voters perceived the "R's" as the source of their woes; the voters were only half correct. If voters (and the media) vetted the '08 Obama with anywhere near the scrutiny any other candidate has or will receive, the election (might) have been gone the other way. Even so, that was never a likely result. Now, Obama (and his administration) have been thoroughly revealed by their actions in spite of a generally sympathetic and supportibe media. The voters know first-hand about the current administration and the media will follow along with its' usual predictability. Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

The 'anybody but Obama' cry sounds to me just like 'anybody but Bush'. The strange thing is that Obama is a whole lot more like Bush that his supporters are willing to admit, and that Romney is a whole lot more like Obama and Bush and only a good choice if you like things the way they are.

In the next election you will only get one choice, and that choice is Obomni. Those decisions have already been made for you in smoke filled rooms. Cain, Paul, Nader, La Rouche and all the rest are just distractions to make you think you have some kind of choice.

tuna55 wrote: Well, as a solid member of the middle class with a two income family of five, I completely endorse the idea of a flat tax with few/no loopholes and/or a consumption tax rather than the current income tax with breaks for everything.

+1

Yes, with a flat tax, that will hurt me more being under 25,000 a year, but I'm willing to deal with it because everyone should be taxed.

oldsaw wrote: Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

Wait, what are Cain's "credentials" that qualify him for office?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

Wait, what are Cain's "credentials" that qualify him for office?

The big ones to me are leadership and problem solving.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.

OK, so lets compare. Big girl, big hole. Rich guy on a flat tax pays 10%. He's 10% hole. Small girl, all hole. Poor guy pays 10% so he's 10% hole.

I fail to see the correlation. Maybe thats your point.

My Microeconomics professor, who is conservative, spent a large part of my hour and a half lecture talking about Cain's 9/9/9 plan. After explaining how it all would work he asked the class "How will increasing taxes on lower income families help our country?" and "How will lowering taxes on the top earners help our country (if all they do with their extra money is invest it in the stock market instead of using it to create jobs)?"

He also mentioned how Arthur Laffer is now endorsing Cain's 9/9/9 plan, which is in my opinion, with no pun intended, laughable. However, I have a feeling that most of the people on here arguing about how great flat taxes are don't know who Laffer is or what idea he proposed...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

Wait, what are Cain's "credentials" that qualify him for office?

It doesn't really matter. The press is going to rip him apart and then ignore him. He doesn't have the money or the organization to take on the big boys.

He will gain a few hard core supporters then make money writing books and hosting talk shows after the election is over.

Snowdoggie wrote: In the next election you will only get one choice, and that choice is Obomni. Those decisions have already been made for you in smoke filled rooms. Cain, Paul, Nader, La Rouche and all the rest are just distractions to make you think you have some kind of choice.

Those smoke-filled rooms are full of fearful puppet-masters.

At this point, only the Republican party is under any kind of pressure to amend its' philosophy. The Democrats are under pressure, too, but from influences that want to press further a philosophy that a majority of voters cannot endorse.

There is still a measure of accountability in our electoral process and the big pooh-bahs are threatened by that reality.

Joshua wrote: My Microeconomics professor, who is conservative, spent a large part of my hour and a half lecture talking about Cain's 9/9/9 plan. After explaining how it all would work he asked the class "How will increasing taxes on lower income families help our country?" and "How will lowering taxes on the top earners help our country (if all they do with their extra money is invest it in the stock market instead of using it to create jobs)?" He also mentioned how Arthur Laffer is now endorsing Cain's 9/9/9 plan, which is in my opinion, with no pun intended, laughable. However, I have a feeling that most of the people on here arguing about how great flat taxes are don't know who Laffer is or what idea he proposed...

I have heard of the Laffer Curve...

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

Wait, what are Cain's "credentials" that qualify him for office?

The big ones to me are leadership and problem solving.

+1

A pertinent question is what were Obama's credentials that made him a superior candidate over McCain?

Snowdoggie wrote:

Joshua wrote: My Microeconomics professor, who is conservative, spent a large part of my hour and a half lecture talking about Cain's 9/9/9 plan. After explaining how it all would work he asked the class "How will increasing taxes on lower income families help our country?" and "How will lowering taxes on the top earners help our country (if all they do with their extra money is invest it in the stock market instead of using it to create jobs)?" He also mentioned how Arthur Laffer is now endorsing Cain's 9/9/9 plan, which is in my opinion, with no pun intended, laughable. However, I have a feeling that most of the people on here arguing about how great flat taxes are don't know who Laffer is or what idea he proposed...

I have heard of the Laffer Curve...

Suffice it to say that having Laffer endorse your plan is not good.

oldsaw wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Whomever becomes the Republican candidate, that person's credentials still put him ahead of the man currently in office.

Wait, what are Cain's "credentials" that qualify him for office?

The big ones to me are leadership and problem solving.

+1 A pertinent question is what were Obama's credentials that made him a superior candidate over McCain?

He black. He young. Suruh paylin tawk dumb.

alfadriver wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: And he does want to raise the taxes like crazy on the poor and middle classes while granting tax breaks to the rich. But I am not sure that is good idea either.

Credible source as to Cain's intent? Put some bait on that hook................

Simple math. A person who earns $10,000 a year will use it all to survive on. 9% tax. A person who earns $100,000 a year will save some, less than 9% tax. A person who earn $1,000,000 a year will save even more, and be able to spend money outside of the US- a lot less than 9% tax. If you need reseach to come up with that, I'm dissapointed in the state of thinking for conservatives.

+1

In reply to oldsaw:

I wanted the pre-campaign McCain. He seemed to turn into a wishy-washy puppet once he declared his intentions to run for president. Maybe that is just the nature of snagging the nomination but it made me sad to see a man of conviction lower himself.

why is it fair to argue about tax burdens being proportional....

...but its NOT fair to argue about social service consumption burdens being disproportionate in a particular segment?

poopshovel wrote: He black. He young. Suruh paylin tawk dumb.

Your name is poopshovel and your avatar picture says "drink like a champion."

I wouldn't go making those kind of jokes if I were you.

madmallard wrote: why is it fair to argue about tax burdens being proportional.... ...but its NOT fair to argue about social service consumption burdens being disproportionate in a particular segment?

Because people like Mitt Romney and Cain, who are millionaire's don't need to consumer social services. Right?

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: In the next election you will only get one choice, and that choice is Obomni. Those decisions have already been made for you in smoke filled rooms. Cain, Paul, Nader, La Rouche and all the rest are just distractions to make you think you have some kind of choice.

Those smoke-filled rooms are full of fearful puppet-masters. At this point, only the Republican party is under any kind of pressure to amend its' philosophy. The Democrats are under pressure, too, but from influences that want to press further a philosophy that a majority of voters cannot endorse. There is still a measure of accountability in our electoral process and the big pooh-bahs are threatened by that reality.

In that way I would actually like to see a Herman Cain or a Ron Paul break through and win the Republican Primary. At least these guys are throwing out some new ideas although I would not agree with all of them.

I really don't see a whole lot of difference between Obama and Romney. Obama implemented Romney's health care plan that Romney actually got from the Heritage Foundation, but now Romney is against it because his party thinks that forcing you to buy health insurance from a private company is 'socialist'. Both of them supported the bank bailout. Obama increased the number of troops we had in Afghanistan and is now sending troops to Africa. Romney wants to attack Iran and send battleships to patrol China's front door.

Joshua wrote:

madmallard wrote: why is it fair to argue about tax burdens being proportional.... ...but its NOT fair to argue about social service consumption burdens being disproportionate in a particular segment?

Because people like Mitt Romney and Cain, who are millionaire's don't need to consumer social services. Right?

How many social services did Cain consume on his way to millionaire status?

In reply to oldsaw:

Maybe neither of them, but plenty of rich politicians have declared bankruptcy in business ventures. That is an informal tax on the rest of us.

oldsaw wrote: A pertinent question is what were Obama's credentials that made him a superior candidate over McCain?

1) Not Republican.

2) Videotapes well.

3) Young.

In that order.

N Sperlo wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.

OK, so lets compare. Big girl, big hole. Rich guy on a flat tax pays 10%. He's 10% hole. Small girl, all hole. Poor guy pays 10% so he's 10% hole. I fail to see the correlation. Maybe thats your point.

See... the hole is the same size... it just a bigger part of the small girl.

In reply to Joshua:

I didn't say exemption from use.

I said proportionality.

If the discussion of fairness hinges on proportionality, why is it only discussed from one angle of proportion and not all?

Its a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is that the person's idea of fairness that reflects this is simple Marxism. They should pay for no other reason than 'they can afford it.' That's fairness in that person's mind, and one can cry and scream that calling it Marxism is enciting or polarising all they want, but its also factual to call it that.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Maybe neither of them, but plenty of rich politicians have declared bankruptcy in business ventures. That is an informal tax on the rest of us.

There's no denying that point.

But, how do you apply that specifically to either Romney or Cain?

madmallard wrote: In reply to Joshua: I didn't say exemption from use. I said proportionality. If the discussion of fairness hinges on proportionality, why is it only discussed from one angle of proportion and not all? Its a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is that the person's idea of fairness that reflects this is simple Marxism. They should pay for no other reason than 'they can afford it.' That's fairness in that person's mind, and one can cry and scream that calling it Marxism is enciting or polarising all they want, but its also factual to call it that.

Hi fives all around Sometimes its hard to put thoughts from the head into words. You just did.