November 10, 2011
— andy Remember how we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it? What about how the reason for its lack of popular support was that Obama himself just hadn't done a good enough job of selling it? Well Herman Cain has a message for you about 999:
Herman Cain at Big Sky Diner on his 999 plan: "When you understand it, you will demand it."
See, the problem isn't the plan; it's you. You object to giving the federal government a sales tax to go along with the income tax? Sheer idiocy. You think moving from taxing businesses on their net income to taxing them on value added opens a great big Pandora's box? Shut up and read the plan.
Honestly, I think maybe the biggest problem with 999 is that Cain doesn't understand it all that well. Here's one example drawn from the transcript of last night's debate:
MR. CAIN: My proposal is the only one that solves the problem by throwing out the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades -- (applause) -- and we need to put in something different that I've proposed: 9-9-9. It satisfies five simple criteria.It is simple. The complexity costs us $430 billion a year.
It is transparent. People know what it is. There are thousands of hidden "sneak attaxes" in the current tax code. That's why I want to throw it out.
It is fair. The reason it's fair is because of the definition in Webster, which says everybody gets treated the same, all businesses get treated the same, not having Washington, D.C., pick winners and losers. This is why I have proposed a bold plan of 9-9-9: 9 percent business flat tax, 9 percent tax on personal income, a 9-percent national sales tax. It treats everybody the same. And it will boost this economy.
MS. BARTIROMO: How do you ensure that when the government needs more revenue, that the sales tax doesn't go up and that plan doesn't turn into 19-19-19?
MR. CAIN: Tax codes do not raise taxes, politicians do. (Cheers, applause.) And as long as it's visible, the people will hold the politicians' feet to the fire. It's not the code that raises taxes, it's the politicians. Because the code -- because the approach 9-9-9 will be very visible, the American people are going to hold the rates at 9. (emphasis added)
The bolded parts give the impression that every business would be taxed identically, but that's simply not true. As a reminder, the 9 percent business flat tax is calculated as follows (with apologies in advance for introducing math at the HQ):
- Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports.
- Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone
Obvious winners under 999 totally not picked by Washington D.C.: Capital intensive business, businesses that purchase goods based on location of supplier, net exporters, and businesses that employ people in empowerment zones.
Obvious losers under 999 totally not picked by Washington D.C.: Labor intensive business, businesses that purchase goods based on factors other than location of supplier, net importers, and businesses that employ people outside of empowerment zones.
Somewhere in between falls a range of effective business tax rates, some in excess of 100% of net accounting income yet all totally transparent according to Cain.
Yeah, I can see people just lining up to demand this once they understand it.
Bartiromo's follow-up question about 19-19-19 was a good one (oddly enough). Cain's answer was naive beyond belief.
I'd point out to Cain that the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades, didn't get this way overnight. It started off simple but over time politicians put in provisions to favor things like, say, trade protectionism and inner-city revitalization. But what do I know?
Posted by: andy at
09:32 AM
| Comments (290)
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at November 10, 2011 09:36 AM (JpqtI)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at November 10, 2011 09:36 AM (7+pP9)
I like Perry's plan more. It has three things going for it...
Posted by: Lance McCormick at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (zgHLA)
The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.” According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.
During the section of Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”
During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.” Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.
“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired.”
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (JpqtI)
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (QKKT0)
I am in the construction business, it's labor intensive and 9 9 9 is a killer. You could actually lose money in any given year and still be resposible for a 9% income tax.
I don't understand anyone liking this disaster. Taxes should be on profits, not gross receipts like Cain's 9 9 9 plan is.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Lou at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (xp1pq)
Posted by: Mindy at November 10, 2011 09:37 AM (0VIEh)
Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2011 09:38 AM (YdQQY)
9-9-9 won't solve anything in that regard. On the other hand, since when do tax codes come from the executive, anyway? The idea of a presidential candidate campaigning on what he's got to make Congress do is somewhat absurd.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 10, 2011 09:38 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: Boone at November 10, 2011 09:39 AM (Jl3Mu)
Posted by: David Gregory, Smarter Than You at November 10, 2011 09:39 AM (QKKT0)
Never gotten the sense that Cain totally understands it and have never heard his supporters rebut the same old objections you put together.
Posted by: Shiggz Newt 2012 at November 10, 2011 09:39 AM (I9fXA)
Posted by: McLovin at November 10, 2011 09:40 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: Bob Firefox Saget at November 10, 2011 09:41 AM (SDkq3)
Cain will get torn up over this 999 plan, if he is the nominee. .....The MSM has to be drooling over the prospect of it.
Personally, I like the idea of everyone having to pay something....even if it is a small token amount. But a National Sales Tax would suck, for several reasons.
Cain will get beaten up with "Cain wants to Tax the Poor!" and "Evil Corporate Cain wants to Tax Food & Medicine".
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 09:43 AM (2wW4j)
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 09:43 AM (+inic)
That is how all right-minded conservatives should choose their candidate. It has nothing to do with the underlying qualities of his political thought and economic plans. It is 100% whether he is seen as being picked on.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 10, 2011 09:44 AM (ES+yV)
I'm referring to Drudge's link on Gallup reporting President Radical Gangsta Shit Marxist is now polling even with Generic Republican. If true, the dumb runs deeeeep in America.
Posted by: Lady in Black at November 10, 2011 09:44 AM (ycuSb)
Since the thread has gone OT already, there is some kind of problem with the main page. My browser freaks out and never finishes loading, the status bar says something about youtube.
Posted by: Bob Firefox Saget at November 10, 2011 01:41 PM (SDkq3)
Same here. The little blue bar flashes fast enough to trigger my epilepsy.Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at November 10, 2011 09:45 AM (7+pP9)
_________
Yeah, I've been feeling myself coming under the sway of the siren song of the Newt flute as well.
Posted by: Anachronda at November 10, 2011 09:45 AM (6fER6)
Don't count on the 999 plan (or the fair tax) to fix that. Both have the BS prebate stuff.
Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2011 09:45 AM (YdQQY)
I have to disagree with your analysis there. Cain's answer was spot on.
The stated objection to 9-9-9 (and any other flat tax) was "Won't politicians increase the rate later to raise revenues?"
Cain answered that the rate does not go up automatically, only politicians can raise it. This was true.
Now, can you make the case why this problem is peculiar to a flat tax versus any other tax scheme?
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 10, 2011 09:46 AM (PLvLS)
@ 10 I don't think Cain really knows what he is doing. In addition, playing the race card twice and blaming Perry twice for his bimbo eruptions sunk him off my list entirely.,
Well, as Perry can tell you, third time's a charm!
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 09:46 AM (+inic)
Why?
Ace has an opinion of Cain. That he is a bumbling naif who will lose to Obama.
I happen to agree.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 10, 2011 09:46 AM (ES+yV)
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 01:43 PM (+inic)
So making a company pay 9% income tax on it's total receipts when it actually lost money is fair? Interesting. There are several startups that don't project making a profit for several years, under Cains plan they will have to pay income tax for all the years they are losing money.
It's a job killer.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 09:47 AM (MtwBb)
actually it isn't
but it usually is
Too many embedded vids and pics and links will wreak havoc on this blog.
Posted by: soothsayer at November 10, 2011 09:47 AM (sqkOB)
Sorry. Try again.
Posted by: Andy at November 10, 2011 09:48 AM (5Rurq)
That Cain, he sure is a genius. /sarc
Posted by: Greg Q at November 10, 2011 09:48 AM (/0a60)
Attention all you douchebag politicians......STOP SAYING WE'RE STUPID!!!!! You're really starting to piss us off, assholes.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 10, 2011 09:48 AM (UK9cE)
Apparently basic financial analysis is beyond the capabilities of Herman Cain. We will have to wait until he becomes president, hires intelligent and competent people, and then get good analysis.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 10, 2011 09:48 AM (ES+yV)
Math is racist, and so are you.
Denounce yourself!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 10, 2011 09:49 AM (ES+yV)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 09:50 AM (P/F96)
That wasn't an answer. It was a restatement of the question.
Posted by: Andy at November 10, 2011 09:50 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 09:50 AM (zLeKL)
It is simple. The complexity costs us $430 billion a year.
It is transparent. People know what it is. There are thousands of hidden "sneak attaxes" in the current tax code. That's why I want to throw it out.
It is fair. The reason it's fair is because of the definition in Webster, which says everybody gets treated the same, all businesses get treated the same, not having Washington, D.C., pick winners and losers.
Cain's answer on this is so full of holes.
Simple?......Not really. And the complexities of it keep growing as people point out the problems with it.
Transparent?.....No its not. There are lots of people who don't understand yet how it will impact them.
"All businesses get treated the same"......Really? Even the ones in those 'Opportunity Zones'?
But then it appears that Cain can say anything, and he gets a pass on it from the media. .....At least, for now.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 09:50 AM (2wW4j)
Cain doesn't care about the long term consequences because, see his website, he sees 9-9-9 only as a stepping stone to the Fair Tax. And if he really could sell the public on that he is right. Big gamble.
Of course that leaves us with the huge flaw in the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax gives the Progs more than they could ever dream of, something they probably couldn't openly push for themselves for generations and in the end will (while loudly denouncing it of course) cause them to throw the fight and allow it to pass. The prebate is the fatal flaw, the boosters of the Fair Tax are right that without it there is no chance of passing anything like it. Their error is in not realizing WHY that is so.
You give every citizen of this country a plastic card that money appears on each and every month and the very next election cycle will see the Dems and the legacy media (BIRM) rebrand it as everyone's "Fair Share" and noting how pathetic it is, how those bastards Rs think that pitiful amount is all someone's "Fair Share" is and that Ds will make sure you get what is due. First D POTUS will make sure those plastic cards have the word "Fair Share" on them, forever enshrining the notion.
Posted by: John Morris at November 10, 2011 09:50 AM (sCRhB)
The stated objection to 9-9-9 (and any other flat tax) was "Won't politicians increase the rate later to raise revenues?"
No, it's not. My stated objection is that it taxes gross receipts instead of profit.
If you had a framing crew for example which is all labor you could do $1 Million in business, make a $100,000 profit and have to pay $99,000 in taxes. That's a 99% tax rate.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 09:51 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 10, 2011 09:51 AM (8y9MW)
@ 18 Cain will get beaten up with "Cain wants to Tax the Poor!" and "Evil Corporate Cain wants to Tax Food & Medicine".
You know, at some point, some Republican candidate - Cain or somebody else, at some point - is just going to have to bite the bullet and forge ahead with a tax plan that will make everybody pay their fair share. Even a flat tax plan, unless loaded down with so many "progressive" exceptions as to make it in effect indistinguishable from the present tax situation, will have this. "What? You want poor people to pay 10% of their income, just like rich people???"
That's why I like the idea of some sort of national sales tax - not necessarily the Fair Tax or the 9-9-9 plan, but something, IF coupled with the end of the income tax. You only pay if you buy something. You control your level of taxation more, depending on how extragant you want your own life to be. The rich will still "pay more" since they buy more, and more expensive things. Plus, the drug dealers and illegal immigrants and the rest who currently slip under the IRS radar will have to pay. It's the ultimate equaliser.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 09:52 AM (+inic)
"I am in the construction business, it's labor intensive and 9 9 9 is a killer. You could actually lose money in any given year and still be resposible for a 9% income tax."
By definition, if you lose money in a given year, do you have any gross income to tax?
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 10, 2011 09:53 AM (YQ4mh)
The real problem with the business portion is... it's just a gimmick. He raises the base to lower the rate, but the tax revenue is the same.
Ex. pretax profit = $1,000 x 35% = $350 tax
Cain taxable profit $3,888 x 9% = $350 tax
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 09:54 AM (OhYCU)
OK - I got it. The volume of anti-Cain posts has convinced me - Cain = bad. Please join me in a chant: All hail Romney, the least-unelectable scum of the bunch! (sarc)
I think it's pretty plain that the Cain tax plan is a non-starter. I can see no way that Congress would actually pass such a thing. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine that the current tax structure will really change in any way at all. To many oxen will be gored.
What Cain stands for is less important to me than what he stands against. He knows, at least at some level, that libtardedness is bad. I'm not sure Romney gets that, really. Cain knows exactly how far you can trust a Muz. He knows which side of the Israel issue to be on. As for the rest, that's what the cabinet is for - you delegate issues to the smart guys who aren't election material. Reagan didn't do it all alone, you know.
I'm way more worried about what the next prez will veto, rather than what he'll sign. I think he'll veto the right things. I don't believe that about Romney. I'd like to see Perry get the nod, but I think that's over and done. Spilt milk.
Plus, if Cain gets in the first full-black Prez in US history will have an (R) by his name in the history books. I think that alone will go a long way to undermine Obie's support among black voters, and get that miserable PoS out of office.
Posted by: Reactionary at November 10, 2011 09:54 AM (xUM1Q)
By definition, if you lose money in a given year, do you have any gross income to tax?
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 10, 2011 01:53 PM (YQ4mh
Of course you do, gross income=gross receipts.
Net Income=Profits.
Cain taxes gross receipts. With certain deductions to certian compaines that fit his criteria. For most companies labor is not a deduction unless you are in one of his enterprise zones.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 09:55 AM (MtwBb)
@ 29 So making a company pay 9% income tax on it's total receipts when it actually lost money is fair? Interesting. There are several startups that don't project making a profit for several years, under Cains plan they will have to pay income tax for all the years they are losing money.
Where did I say that i was specifically talking about the 9-9-9 plan?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 09:55 AM (+inic)
It gets even worse:
Jerry Sandusky Rumored to Have Been 'Pimping Out Young Boys to Rich Donors,' Says Mark Madden
In April, Pittsburgh radio host Mark Madden wrote a story revealing Penn State for much of the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's alleged child rape that has been exposed in the past week. While it didn't raise many eyebrows back then, six months later it looks to be incredibly accurate.
...
"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at November 10, 2011 09:55 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: t-bird at November 10, 2011 09:56 AM (FcR7P)
Since the national sales tax would require a constitutional amendment, that amendment could include a flexible cap on changing rates and a balanced budget piece. Maybe a 4/5ths vote of each House or something.
As to whether a President could force Congress to do something, I think that it can be done but, the program MUST be the centerpiece of their campaign and they must win big and have coattails. Then it's a mandate. At least for the next Congress.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 09:56 AM (GTbGH)
LEAD...FOLLOW.....OR GET DOWN WITH THE ANONYMOUS ACCUSATIONS. YOU LOWRENT FUCKERS
Posted by: Jim Thorpe at November 10, 2011 09:57 AM (ZS57m)
I believe the common definition of Gross Income under the current tax code is gross receipts minus cost of goods sold. I would assume the term carries the same meaning under the 999 plan.
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 10, 2011 09:57 AM (YQ4mh)
Posted by: © Sponge at November 10, 2011 09:57 AM (UK9cE)
Cain taxable profit $3,888 x 9% = $350 tax
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 01:54 PM (OhYCU)
Cain doesn't tax profit, he taxes gross receipts less some deductions. You can't deduct labor, rent, interest, lawyer fees, license fees etc. In other words you can't deduct the cost of doing business.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 09:58 AM (MtwBb)
@ 48 Until the government raises it, Titus
You can make that argument about any mode of taxation, so it's not particularly persuasive for or against one mode versus another.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 09:58 AM (+inic)
Posted by: Truman North at November 10, 2011 09:58 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 10, 2011 09:58 AM (tazG1)
44.....That's why I like the idea of some sort of national sales tax - not necessarily the Fair Tax or the 9-9-9 plan, but something, IF coupled with the end of the income tax.
That's the problem.....the big IF. ....I mean really, what are the odds that we can get the income tax abolished?
I would come out ahead, with Cain's 999 plan, for the most part.....so it's no skin off my nose. But millions of people will be made to see in the general election, how they would get hosed under Cain's plan.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 09:59 AM (2wW4j)
What Cain stands for is less important to me than what he stands against.
lol
He knows which side of the Israel issue to be on.
Yep and thats why his knee jerk reaction was to dump 5 mio. Palestinians onto Israel.
As for the rest, that's what the cabinet is for - you delegate issues to the smart guys who aren't election material.
Herman Cain: A True Conservative - after we told him what he is supposed to think.
Reagan didn't do it all alone, you know.
Have you actually read Reagan? His essays and commentary before his presidency? You have not, because otherwise you wouldnt dare making the comparison.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 09:59 AM (P/F96)
So....second look at Buddy Roemer?
Posted by: brak at November 10, 2011 09:59 AM (nIoiW)
I still am interested in hearing about whether this empowerment zone business is constitutional.
I'm no lawyer and I can't say which part would explicitly bar it, but regional taxation issues strike me as something that almost certainly came up. Can you tax some people differently from another based on their region? How is that not some kind of equal protection violation? Can we set different rates for different states?
I don't think he can actually do this empowerment zone thing he wants to do without a constitutional ammendment.
Posted by: Entropy at November 10, 2011 10:00 AM (XxXUI)
I believe the common definition of Gross Income under the current tax code is gross receipts minus cost of goods sold. I would assume the term carries the same meaning under the 999 plan.
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 10, 2011 01:57 PM (YQ4mh)
Two things, what you beleive is wrong. Gross Income under GAP accounting rules is gross receipts.
Net income is Gross Income minus the cost of doing business.
Cain himself says you can only deduct labor if you are in one of his enterprise zones and then only if you hire people that live in that zone.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 10:00 AM (MtwBb)
This is one thing I haven't introduced here regarding 999 because I've seen it argued both ways with no conclusive outcome, but, yeah, the national sales tax "9" is likely unconstitutional.
Posted by: Andy at November 10, 2011 10:01 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 10, 2011 10:01 AM (tazG1)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at November 10, 2011 10:02 AM (s+J9D)
Some start-ups lose money for 10 years or more, the last thing they need is to be overtaxed during that time. ANY plan that taxes gross receipts is a huge mistake and any so-called successful businessman should know that.
The national sales tax is also a horrible idea, whatever time Cain claims we would save by having a simplified tax code would be eaten by complying with an entirely new tax that would increase costs for every economic transaction made. In addition, future Democrat majorities would just hike the tax. As the economy is THE issue for this upcoming election. A candidate with a shitty economic plan should be ruled out. Cain is a fucking moron from the word go.
Posted by: Ken Royall at November 10, 2011 10:02 AM (9zzk+)
Did you look at Newt's? He has side-by-side comparisons with the other plans, but I don't think I've read an analysis of his plan.
I'm sticking with Perry because I still think that the primary problem is on the size of government/spending side rather than the tax side and I cannot support Ron Paul. But I'm curious what folks think about Newt's plan.
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:02 AM (5H6zj)
>>>You can make that argument about any mode of taxation, so it's not particularly persuasive for or against one mode versus another.
but you're giving the government another revenue stream. Sales tax.
Why in the world would we pass something that the Democrats have been wanting for as long as I can remember?
That would be like Republicans passing a healthcare mandate.
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:02 AM (wuv1c)
If we are allowed to tax different regions at different rates based on region, then my 9-9-9 plan is 9 states, 9 taxes, 900%.
California, New York Vermont, Conneticut, etc...
We'll call it the Not In My Back Wallet Tax Reform Plan.
Posted by: Entropy at November 10, 2011 10:03 AM (XxXUI)
Two things, what you beleive is wrong. Gross Income under GAP accounting rules is gross receipts.
Net income is Gross Income minus the cost of doing business.
It's GAAP. Let's just stop right there and say the rest is not correct.
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:03 AM (OhYCU)
@ 58 Since the national sales tax would require a constitutional amendment
How do you figure? Art. I, Sect. 8 says that Congress has the power to collect excises, among it's other taxation powers - an excise is a duty on the manufacture or sale or items.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:03 AM (+inic)
Net Sales less Cost Of Goods Sold = Gross Profit <--- this is taxed under 999
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:03 AM (ZS57m)
Only the Fair Tax plan has been fine-tuned enough to succeed. The country is in big enough trouble to accept a radical departure from the current clusterfuck system, so whoever the candidate is should go for it.
Posted by: jwest at November 10, 2011 10:04 AM (qeYI9)
Yes, it really is an open question as to whether the Democrats will allow the Obama tax cuts to expire at the end of next year, especially if employment stays bad, which it will almost certainly do.
Imagine if the Republicans would make than an issue in the election.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 10:04 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:05 AM (zLeKL)
My plan is do something or other with the existing tax code that I can't remember the details of right now, but it sure as shootin' is a lot better than throwing it out wholesale as Brother Herman promises to do, I think. All I know is, we need, um.... oh yeah, energy. Lots and lots of energy. Especially me, 'cause I never thought I'd have to work so hard for this and it sure is takin' the fire right outta me. 'Scuse me while I curl up on this.... uh.... what is this frame thing with a mattress on it called again? Ah hell, brain freeze. Look, I stepped in that one, but that's happened to everyone before, amiright? Anyway, I'll back in 30, uh.... not seconds, I know it's not seconds.... 30.... um.... oh you know what I mean, it's that time-unit thingy.... I'll be back in half an hour.
Posted by: Rick Perr.... uh.... hang on, I'll think of the rest in a moment.... at November 10, 2011 10:05 AM (5gckC)
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:05 AM (wuv1c)
Net Sales less Cost Of Goods Sold = Gross Profit <--- this is taxed under 999
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 02:03 PM (ZS57m)
Bullshit, go to his frickin website and read it.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 10:06 AM (MtwBb)
Cain himself says you can only deduct labor if you are in one of his enterprise zones and then only if you hire people that live in that zone.
You realize that houses in what would be considered the most critical areas needing economic development go for like $2,000?
I don't know how big those deductions are... How do you decide how long you keep subsidizing people to move into one area over another?
Man I do not like this plan at all.
Posted by: Entropy at November 10, 2011 10:06 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:07 AM (ZS57m)
@ 80 but you're giving the government another revenue stream. Sales tax.
Like they couldn't have that revenue stream any moment they chose anyhow?
Sheesh. If we got rid of the income tax, I'd take replacing it with a sales tax any day of the week.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:07 AM (+inic)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at November 10, 2011 10:07 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 02:02 PM (5H6zj)
Thanks for the link. Wasn't aware of that.
That being said....didn't the CBO do an analysis of Perry's plan and give it a pretty favorable ranking? Or was that some other outside firm that did that?
Posted by: © Sponge at November 10, 2011 10:08 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:09 AM (zLeKL)
>>>Gross Sales less Returns, Allowances & Discounts = Net Sales
Net Sales less Cost Of Goods Sold = Gross Profit <--- this is taxed under 999
Indeed.
Let me illustrate it.
Let's say your company sells(goods or services) of 10,000,000 dollars
Under Cain's plan you pay 10,000,000 * 9% = $900,000.00
Let's say to pay your employees, pay for health insurance, rent, office supplies, etc etc your cost of doing business is $8,500,000.00
Under our current tax system, you would pay this:
10,000,000-8,500,000= 1,500,000 * 35% = $525,000.00
So with Cain's plan, you would be paying $375,000.00 more
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:09 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: dagny at November 10, 2011 10:09 AM (i+Are)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 02:09 PM (zLeKL)
Precisely.
Posted by: Dude de'Afrique at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: izoneguy at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (i6Neb)
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (14jKX)
Cain is playing the doubt both ways, and I see it.
His campaigning sux, but you give him the benefit of the doubt because he must be swamped learning about all that stuff he needs to know to be a Presidential contender
Except
His policy acumen sux and hasn't had a marked improvement since September, but you give him the benefit of the doubt because he must be spending all of his time on the campaign.
One of two things has to be true at this point.
1. He is in over his head, and will neither run a good campaign in the general nor be ready for the Presidency if he wins.
2. He is apathetic toward campaigning and the finer points of US policy, and he is just going to pay attention to what he thinks is important, and do things his way regardless of our concerns.
I honestly think that being a CEO of a large company is excellent experience for the Presidency, but, they are *not* the same job and require significantly different approaches.
This is how I see a lot of how he handles off his topic questions. We'll go with an auto mechanic meme.
Cain: I've got a plan to repair your engine, your old mechanical ignition system is shot, I'm going to replace it with ELECTRONIC IGNITION.
Me: Great, I liked the mechanical system but electronic ignition has some advantages. What are you going to do about my broke throttle linkage.
Cain: What we need to do first is get that ELECTRONIC IGNITION in there, then the engine will run, and a running engine moves the car.
Me: Ok but that throttle linkage really needs to be fixed, otherwise the car will be un-drivable running engine or no.
Cain: Well what we need to be talking about is getting ELECTRONIC IGNITION in there first. Once you find out how great ELECTRONIC IGNITION is you are gonna love it!
Me: ....?
I'm not just buying one product here. I'm trying to see what *package* offers the best deal. There are other issues with the US other than the tax code.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 10:10 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at November 10, 2011 02:08 PM (qjUnn)
So sorry. That had to be a real blow for him. Was he expecting it at all?
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at November 10, 2011 10:11 AM (l/N7H)
It was an outside firm. I don't know if the CBO rates candidate plans. The Club for Growth seems to favor Perry's plan over Romney's iirc.
I like the move to a flat tax, but I would like to see more attention paid to cutting government.
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:11 AM (5H6zj)
@ 90 I just did the math for the company I work for. Cain's plan would increase our taxes enormously.
I'd like the 9-9-9 plan a lot better if it was just the 9-9 plan - without the business tax at all. Make up the revenue with tariffs.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:11 AM (+inic)
Posted by: izoneguy at November 10, 2011 10:11 AM (i6Neb)
These other plans are ridiculous.
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:12 AM (OhYCU)
@ 108 National Sales Tax-which would be really "popular" I'm sure....
Sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:12 AM (+inic)
>>>>OK here's what I don't get-
we are basically a consumer driven economy and if we aren't in recession now-it sure as hell looks like we will be-shortly.
How does a national sales tax -at this time-
help the economic recovery?
It's also fairly regressive and would never be passed by democrats.
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:12 AM (wuv1c)
WTF happened to Perry last night? Did he go blank at the start and just fall apart?
Actually he was doing very well, then had a huge brain cramp. It was painful.
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at November 10, 2011 10:13 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:13 AM (14jKX)
>>>I'd like the 9-9-9 plan a lot better if it was just the 9-9 plan - without the business tax at all. Make up the revenue with tariffs.
It's the fact that the 9% is taxing gross sales and not income. That's the killer.
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:13 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:13 AM (OhYCU)
97 OMG. My brother was just laid off from his 19 year job.
So sorry to hear that, JJS. ....That really sucks.
They are lying to us about how the economy is really doing. Out & Out lying.
Say a prayer for him.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 10:14 AM (2wW4j)
Toomey's offer was to lower and lock-in the top individual tax rate at 28% while scrapping certain deductions. Some on the committee had also discussed a top rate of 25% for corporations but that did not go anywhere.
Posted by: Miss'80s at November 10, 2011 10:14 AM (d6QMz)
No, fuck Cain. His plan is a 27% tax on me. He would triple--triple--the taxes on my wife and I. Under the current code, I'd have a loss, under Cain's, I'd owe taxes. If I'm going to get bent over like that, I'll start voting D. 'Cause at least they'll promise me free shit for all my taxes. Cain will rape me up the ass and then blame me for not being able to make any money.
"But, but! It's a starting point--it's getting the conversation going!"
No! Fuck that too. 'Cause you know damn good and well that in a few years--if not sooner--the Dems are going to propose a stand-alone national sales tax. And guess where the fuck that leaves us if we nominate this stupid ass Cain? You know, the guy who is proposing that a national sales tax will solve our fiscal problems? Right: Pretending a national sales tax is a good idea when we propose it but a bad idea when the Dems do. Real winner that position. I can see Republican majorities as far as the eye can see under that retarded stupidity.
Posted by: jimmuy at November 10, 2011 10:15 AM (pXUfx)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:15 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:15 AM (14jKX)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:16 AM (ZS57m)
He is not taxing sales. Good lord.
"Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports."
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:16 AM (OhYCU)
He was killing the question. Absolutely destroying it. It was stunning everybody on the live blog. This was the big Perry comback, a stunning answer. And in the wrap up, he talks about cutting 3 departments out of the federal government, Commerce! , Education!, and uhhh....ummmm.. he couldn't remember the third. So bad was his memory lapse, that he struggled for a solid minute, moderators were trying to help by suggesting departments, and he never could come up with it Energy.
Perry supporters wept. Some quit blogging for several minutes in grief.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 10:16 AM (0q2P7)
WTF happened to Perry last night? Did he go blank at the start and just fall apart?
Posted by: LibertarianJim at November 10, 2011 02:11 PM (PReJ3)
In a word, yes.
Several blogs have the video for your viewing pleasure. HotAir, Weasel zippers, etc.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 10, 2011 10:16 AM (UK9cE)
WTF happened to Perry last night? Did he go blank at the start and just fall apart?
He tried to name 3 agencies he would cut entirely, he named 2, forgot the Department of Energy.
I can't remember off hand which 2 he did name. Dept. of Commerce and some other one.
I really didn't think it was that - not his worst moment by any stretch in my estimation he's done much worse.
Apart from that, he actually did rather fine.
But for reasons which perplex me everybody else saw the end of the world or something. Whatever.
Posted by: Entropy at November 10, 2011 10:17 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:17 AM (zLeKL)
Perry is on with Megyn Kelly right now. In person.
She is actually being nice to him. Wow.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotterProbably 'cause she thinks he's done.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at November 10, 2011 10:17 AM (h1p5V)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at November 10, 2011 10:18 AM (s+J9D)
So he's a protectionist? Are they all proposing that?
Why should a business be penalized for going with the supplier that is best for their business, irrespective of where they are located?
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:18 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 10, 2011 10:18 AM (21lBC)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (14jKX)
I know how he feels.. I lost 4 jobs in one year back in 2009.
Jesus. My son lost his job and was out of work for 16 months. It was awful. He works at a call center now for a big bank and almost lost this one after being there for a year and a half. Although he scored 5 out of 5 on customer service and length of calls, he wasn't meeting the sales quota. Thankfully, they have re-vamped everything and he is finally breathing a sigh of relief.
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (l/N7H)
@ 121 It's the fact that the 9% is taxing gross sales and not income. That's the killer.
Yeah - and I'd still leave it off, either way.
Way I figure it, if we eliminated business taxes, this would do a lot to offset the wage/regulatory environment disadvantages that manufacturers in America also have to deal with. As a result, we'd start to see insourcing increase (especially if coupled with tariffs, remove China's MFN status, etc.). That means jobs, jobs, jobs, which in turn means more people making money to buy things, paying the national sales tax. Couple this with the removal of the income tax, and I don't think most people would be hurting too much. After all, with a national sales tax, you only pay it when you spend. If you save it, you don't pay. With the income tax now, you don't even get the option to save it all, since a percentage is skimmed off the top automatically.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (+inic)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 02:16 PM (ZS57m)
So now your changing your tune and saying Cains plan makes it easier to pay taxes on money you DIDN'T make.
Oh well that's good, let's vote for CAIN then. Jeebus.
Posted by: robtr at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (MtwBb)
>>>Hell I just saw your write up on how corporate taxes could actually go up....holy cow.
The worst part, pointed out by robtr, is that your company can lose money and you would still be taxed.
So let's say your sales were 1,000,000 but due to start up costs or unforseen costs, the cost of doing business was 1,150,000.
That would mean that you lost $150,000.00
But under Cain's plan, not only did you lose that money, you would also have to pay 9% tax on your sales.
1,000,000.00 * 9%= $90,000.00
So you owe the gov't 90 grand and you lost 150 grand.
Most start up businesses have operating loses in their first few years. (operating loses means you spend more money than you take in)
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (wuv1c)
I think it was only about 5 seconds the first time, but it seemed like an eternity. But then he came back later to the same thing and again, it wouldn't come to him.
I was mentally pushing him to just spit it out dammit. Never do lists off the cuff.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (GTbGH)
Perry is on with Megyn Kelly right now. In person.
She is actually being nice to him. Wow.
He's diddling her under the desk.
Posted by: Barbarian at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM (EL+OC)
Hell I just saw your write up on how corporate taxes could actually go up....
holy cow.
Corporation dont pay taxes.... those new tax costs get built into COGs models and passed on to consumers.
Posted by: Duke Lacrosse Team Union Local #451 at November 10, 2011 10:20 AM (C8hzL)
@ 137 He tried to name 3 agencies he would cut entirely, he named 2, forgot the Department of Energy.
Shoot, just pick any random three. Chances are good you'll name three that need eliminated.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:21 AM (+inic)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:21 AM (ZS57m)
1. Totally eliminate ALL federal taxes on everything.
2. Pass a flat tax of between 10 and 15 percent on all income from all sources with no exceptions and no deductions. Note that is income. For businesses that would be profit. And no complications, annual profit for the tax year. make this an amendment so future commies can't touch it.
3. Pass a balanced budget law/amendment that ties all spending to the previous year's income, except during a declared war. After the war is over any debt to be paid off with an increase in taxes of 1% to go strictly towards the debt until paid off.
And the only way this will ever happen is a Constitutional Convention. or perhaps a Japanese jumbo jet crashing into capitol hill during a joint session.
Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2011 10:23 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 10:24 AM (P/F96)
excellent!
Posted by: Vergeltung at November 10, 2011 10:24 AM (jttPx)
Just look at poor Rick, snoozing over there. He's lost his Goddamned mind over all this shit, and who wouldn't?! Rick never had to worry about pseudo-intellectual Establishment things like stringing words together into sentences and not making funny twisty where-the-fuck-am-I? expressions in public until you Ivy League bastards showed up and put him on the spot. This is your fault, you fake "conservatives". Rick only wanted to sleep for 30 fucking minutes but I think I'm going to leave him there all afternoon to shake off what you shit-eating East Coast heathen freaks did to him last night.
Rick and I will pray for you, that you all finally see sense. And if you don't like it you can just kiss my burning bush.
Posted by: Anita Perry at November 10, 2011 10:24 AM (5gckC)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:24 AM (OhYCU)
108 OK here's what I don't get-
we are basically a consumer driven economy and if we aren't in recession now-it sure as hell looks like we will be-shortly.
How does a national sales tax -at this time-
help the economic recovery?
If the system put in is the Fair Tax, it helps the economy by making the U.S. the tax haven of the world, drawing capital in from all sides. Manufacturers based in the U.S. would have an advantage over any other country, because they operate tax-free and their products are exported without the internal costs they have now.
Since new homes are taxed, all existing homes would increase in value to proportionately balance the difference in cost. As the U.S. is the number one tourist destination in the world, every purchase made by visitors (or illegals) would contribute 23% to the treasury.
The best answer to a recession is an increase in business and jobs. The Fair Tax insures that if youÂ’re going to do business, you would be a fool to do it anywhere but here.
Posted by: jwest at November 10, 2011 10:25 AM (qeYI9)
This is the another thing I don't get about Cain's plan. Or any of them for that matter.
Don't we all agree that businesses don't really pay taxes? They just pass the tax burden along to the ultimate consumer.
Cain even says this sometimes, he just doesn't get that it applies equally to his own plan.
If we're going to tax income, let's tax income (with businesses getting a deduction for the income taxed to individuals like they do now). If we're going to tax consumption, then let's tax consumption.
But 999 tries to establish a middle ground of both while Cain leads us to the promised land of the Fair Tax. Does anyone really believe we won't get stuck with this pig if it were to somehow pass?
And this is the centerpiece of his campaign. The answer to every question.
But, he's the truuuuuuue conservative deserving of the consolidated 75% Not Romney vote and anyone who doesn't believe that is a racist RINO. Sure, whatever.
Posted by: Andy at November 10, 2011 10:25 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:25 AM (ZS57m)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:25 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:25 AM (14jKX)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 10:26 AM (GTbGH)
152......He's diddling her under the desk.
Heh. ....Seriously though, it was a good interview. I was amazed that Megyn was being nice to him, because she has seemed to have it in for him....letting people repeat lies about him, and not correcting him like she usually does on other things.
Megyn is a lawyer. And lawyers across the country hate Perry's guts bacause of the Tort Reform that he helped get passed in Tx.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 10:27 AM (2wW4j)
Your points are fair, but I don't know how these observations turn into such an irrational rejection of the man rather than just a rational alternative concept about how to address the problem.
Posted by: JayBee at November 10, 2011 10:28 AM (Xwgt3)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:28 AM (14jKX)
excellent!
Just cause your candidate ain't getting a BJ from us? Dude sour grapes, it's primary season, were discussing. Get over it. Right now we are at least discussing policy. But to be quite honest I have nightmares of his October surprise response being anything like his harassment response.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 10:28 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:30 AM (zLeKL)
Here's how: Because the income tax was sold on the same stupid reasoning: Hey, it's only a tax on the super rich, there's no way they'd ever tax us little guys--we're watching.
And watch they did. Inflation. Gradual creep. New taxes. Emergencies. On and on--they have their hooks in you, you are the cow, they'll get to you soon enough.
They have nearly 100 years of experience lying to you about how they are going to tax your income. First, they'll start with defining how you are taxed. When they need more revenue, they'll change the definition--sure, your rate is still 9% but now you're paying that on benefits. Then, they'll have an emergency. Just a temporary increase, you see. Promise. Only it'll be one that will never go away. "But the outrage?" You mean like how all the outrage over Obamacare got it repealed already? Right. That's why we're still counting on a Hail Mary to the Supreme Court; an option we won't even have on taxes.
I think you people who buy into the bullshit that they can't raise taxes 'cause we're watching must have been born yesterday. Did you not notice how they passed Obamacare? You don't think they can pull the same shit on a rate increase from 9% to 10% Do you forget that 150 or so seats in the House and a big chunk of the Senate are permanent Democrat seats? You know, they guys who love raising taxes?
Posted by: jimmuy at November 10, 2011 10:30 AM (pXUfx)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 02:16 PM (ZS57m)
Tax preparation is a small part of what businesses -- even small ones -- use accountants for.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 10, 2011 10:30 AM (kaalw)
For those who donÂ’t think the Fair Tax plan would be voted in, just tell your average low-information voter that they will be getting a check each month from the government for $559 (family of four).
Nothing else will matter. TheyÂ’ll demand it be instituted immediately.
Posted by: jwest at November 10, 2011 10:30 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:31 AM (14jKX)
I want him for VP to whoever.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 10:31 AM (GTbGH)
I've supported him thus far believing that it wouldn't, but taking the bold plan approach as showing he had the political courage to do big things.
But then he has just totally disappointed on how he hasn't come up to speed hardly at all on US Policy. Last month it was troubling, this month it is disqualifying. Why? I figured after he got tagged a few times in interviews and debates that he would go back and take it seriously, he hasn't, I can't seriously consider him as a result.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 10:32 AM (0q2P7)
Great question. I have no easy answer. It requires the american people to take stock of the current financial mess and governments role in enabling, driving and ultimately causing this recession. After the american people recognize that it requires very limited government involvement in order to let the market to continue to crater in order to re-establish market equilibrium and reintroduce the punishing aspects of the business cycle and then to begin to rebuild. To use this as a lesson going forward that goverment intrusion creates failures larger than any thing the markets can. Do i think people will swallow that bitter pill. NO I DO NOT. Someone will complain of hardship and demand aid and the politicians will continue to spend money in the form of future debt and fictional money. Depressing huh
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:32 AM (ZS57m)
139......Probably 'cause she thinks he's done.
Maybe so, Hobbitopoly.
Megyn has been sort of pro-Romney....which I attributed to the fact that he has a Harvard law degree.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 10:32 AM (2wW4j)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:32 AM (zLeKL)
And yet, everyone did anyway.
Posted by: Herman Cain waiting for an apology at November 10, 2011 10:33 AM (5gckC)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 02:32 PM (0q2P7)
You are a racist and a rino and you should be barred from voting. We cannot suddenly have standards, can we?
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 10:34 AM (P/F96)
You'd be amazed how many Texans have never liked me.
Posted by: Rick Perr.... Rick P.... Rick.... R? at November 10, 2011 10:34 AM (5gckC)
I think you people who buy into the bullshit that they can't raise taxes 'cause we're watching must have been born yesterday. Did you not notice how they passed Obamacare? You don't think they can pull the same shit on a rate increase from 9% to 10% Do you forget that 150 or so seats in the House and a big chunk of the Senate are permanent Democrat seats? You know, they guys who love raising taxes?
EXACTLY!!
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at November 10, 2011 10:35 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:35 AM (ZS57m)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:35 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:35 AM (14jKX)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 10, 2011 10:35 AM (NMr0B)
Posted by: © Sponge at November 10, 2011 10:36 AM (UK9cE)
I'm not interested in setting up new revenue streams for this bloated, corpulent, 6000-pound sow.
Posted by: nickless at November 10, 2011 10:37 AM (MMC8r)
Tasker,
YouÂ’re confused. The 9-9-9 plan of CainÂ’s is lunacy.
IÂ’m talking about the Fair Tax plan.
Posted by: jwest at November 10, 2011 10:38 AM (qeYI9)
I think you people who buy into the bullshit that they can't raise taxes 'cause we're watching must have been born yesterday. Did you not notice how they passed Obamacare? You don't think they can pull the same shit on a rate increase from 9% to 10% Do you forget that 150 or so seats in the House and a big chunk of the Senate are permanent Democrat seats? You know, they guys who love raising taxes?
Doncha know? Cain is a True Conservative™. The normal rules dont apply here. Congress wont be able to raise taxes, just because of the sheer awesomeness of President Cain.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 10:38 AM (P/F96)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 10, 2011 10:38 AM (pLTLS)
You are a racist and a rino and you should be barred from voting. We cannot suddenly have standards, can we?
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 02:34 PM (P/F96)
I get the racist part (we are all racists here), but the RINO part troubles me.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 10, 2011 10:38 AM (ES+yV)
Does Newt have an economic policy out? If so, has anyone taken a look at it, is it any good? Newt's deficiencies aside, I seem to be liking me some Newt.
Posted by: IC at November 10, 2011 10:39 AM (jZNCU)
Posted by: nickless at November 10, 2011 10:39 AM (MMC8r)
This.
Can't we go back to that hard scrabble budget of 2006, or even 2008?
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 10:39 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: taylork at November 10, 2011 10:39 AM (5wsU9)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:39 AM (14jKX)
Could Cain supporters explain something to me?
What is his appeal? I simply don't see it.
He's not a policy wonk. He's not a foreign polciy wonk. He's not particularly good at debates. He's not very socially conservative.
I just don't see what it is about him.
I've laid my cards on the table. I like Perry's record. He's flawed in other areas, but he has a solid record on jobs and energy policy.
Romney has the electability thing going for him
Ron Paul has the purity libertarianism thing going for him
Santorum has social conservatism.
Newt has awesome debating skills and knowledge of history.
What is Cain's draw?
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 10:40 AM (wuv1c)
Has ANYBODY taken the time to look at this upside down???? Come on people ... !!!
If it has a six, it ain't a fix!
Posted by: Honey Badger at November 10, 2011 10:40 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:40 AM (ZS57m)
That's a great point. When we cut business taxes, we're really cutting taxes on us all.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:40 AM (+inic)
Which is why I think we are arguing this tax stuff backwards. We should start with the percent of GDP the govt will run on and then find way to collect that amount. I would start with the amount of 15% and work down from there.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 10, 2011 10:41 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:41 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:41 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:41 AM (14jKX)
First, because he said it and then said he was sorry he said it but then said that he shouldn't have apologized and that he said it "to make a point". http://preview.tinyurl.com/7rawc8x See a continuation of a pattern there?
Second, because the media has picked up on the fact that this was a long-running Cain nickname for Pelosi on Cain's radio show and . . . wait, what? Cain had a radio show? Where he waxed eloquent to an audience of the faithful about all his personal pet peeves and brilliant ideas? Wonder what other gems are hidden in that bonepile?
Posted by: JGM at November 10, 2011 10:42 AM (zw8QA)
What is Cain's draw?
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 02:40 PM (wuv1c)
Hello? Outsider, non-career-politician, anyone?
Posted by: Herman Cain, Professional Outsider at November 10, 2011 10:42 AM (P/F96)
There will be no more War in my administration, missy. You can just bank on that.
Posted by: PRON RAUL at November 10, 2011 10:42 AM (5gckC)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:42 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 10, 2011 10:43 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 10, 2011 10:43 AM (Kea9l)
Newt has tables comparing his plan to the other candidates'. This is a link to the Gingrich v Romney table.
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:43 AM (5H6zj)
@ 208 What is Cain's draw?
Don't blame me - I'm the guy who wishes it wasn't too late for Jim DeMint to get in the race.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:44 AM (+inic)
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 10, 2011 01:53 PM (YQ4mh)
um, you always will have gross income. unless you did absolutely no work. i think the concept has escaped you.
Posted by: chas at November 10, 2011 10:44 AM (xAq1C)
205......Can't we go back to that hard scrabble budget of 2006, or even 2008?
Budget? .....I remember those. But I don't think Fedzilla has had one of those since Hairy Reed took over the senate.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 10:45 AM (2wW4j)
"I'd point out to Cain that the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades, didn't get this way overnight. It started off simple but over time politicians put in provisions to favor things like, say, trade protectionism and inner-city revitalization. But what do I know?"
Exactly the point Cain is making, the difference is with a visdible 9 9 9 approach everyone will know when the political panders go for 10 10 10 and everyone, having skin in the game will oppose, rather than, OK tax the payers but not us little guys, or tax tobacco, oil and alcohol, but not condoms, and candy bars.
thanks for makin Cains point even though you didn't know you did!
Posted by: Concealed kerry or submit at November 10, 2011 10:46 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:48 AM (14jKX)
Don't blame me - I'm the guy who wishes it wasn't too late for Jim DeMint to get in the race.
Me too.
Posted by: jewells45, teapartyterrorist at November 10, 2011 10:48 AM (l/N7H)
@ 214 I find it hard to believe Perry is polling at 6%. Just reading the comments here and elsewhere, he really seems to have a lot of support.
Well yeah, and over at Free Republic, Cain is probably pulling 80% or better.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 10, 2011 10:48 AM (+inic)
I still shudder over that one.
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:48 AM (ZS57m)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:49 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:49 AM (14jKX)
What is Cain's draw?
Posted by: Ben at November 10, 2011 02:40 PM (wuv1c)
He's hated by the right people.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 10, 2011 10:50 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: tasker at November 10, 2011 10:50 AM (14jKX)
Someone upthread said Gingrich is like Romney on steroids. To me what you get with Newt is not tons better ideology (than Romney), but you do get someone who knows DC and has successfully pounded the shit out of Democrats on the national stage. Whether or not Newt still has it in him is a separate matter, but I don't see Romney having that characteristic at all.
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:51 AM (5H6zj)
214 I find it hard to believe Perry is polling at 6%. Just reading the comments here and elsewhere, he really seems to have a lot of support.
Don't dispair, Joffen. .....I always take these polls with a grain of salt. Polls can be so easily skewered to show whatever you want them to.
Perry has been wearing himself out on the campaign trail.....shaking hands, talking to groups, etc. ....Retail politics. That is what gets votes in a primary.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 10:52 AM (2wW4j)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:53 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Y-not at November 10, 2011 10:53 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: willow at November 10, 2011 10:54 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:54 AM (zLeKL)
I think Cain is about to come off the rails with his 9-9-9 pitch. There are a variety of ways to talk about tax code simplification without sounding like you're on constant repeat.
I think Cain's is rightly assuming that most voters are only vaguely familiar with 9-9-9 and that his compact message bombardment will help him with indifferent voters. BUT his message needs to be disseminated by a friendly press, blogosphere, radio network, and they are beginning to laugh at his constant 9-9-9 shout outs. How long before they begin to viciously mock the message he's trying to pile drive into indifferent voters? It's all ready starting. he needs to mix things up now or he'll become a parody by the end of the month.
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 10:54 AM (ZS57m)
He wasn't at the top of the list.
#1 Michelle: True Conservative.
Political Suicide: Demonstrated she couldn't keep the crazy bottled up long enough to make it through a campaign. Gaffed hard in month one, taking the reasonable "Vaccines for non casually communicable disease are a personal choice" to "Vaccines are harmful"
#2 Perry: Texas Governor with a good record.
Weakness: Can't get through a debate without finding a huge cow pie to step in.
Political Suicide: Looked his base right in the eye and called them "heartless" for having a different opinion about an issue.
#3 Cain: That business CEO dude with the bold plan.
Weakness: Doesn't know US Policy well.
Political Suicide: Doesn't take US Policy seriously enough to learn it.
Remaining candidates
Santorum: Most conservative we have left?
Weakness: Likable as an IRS auditor.
Paul: He does have a solid grasp on fiscal policy.
Weakness: Thinks Iran won't nuke the S* out of us if they had the chance.
Newt: WOW does he KICK ASS in debates.
Weakness: So much baggage he travels with a forklift. Fairly moderate.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 10, 2011 10:56 AM (0q2P7)
"I'd point out to Cain that the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades, didn't get this way overnight. It started off simple but over time politicians put in provisions to favor things like, say, trade protectionism and inner-city revitalization. But what do I know?"
Exactly the point Cain is making, the difference is with a visdible 9 9 9 approach everyone will know when the political panders go for 10 10 10 and everyone, having skin in the game will oppose, rather than, OK tax the payers but not us little guys, or tax tobacco, oil and alcohol, but not condoms, and candy bars.
thanks for makin Cains point even though you didn't know you did!
Posted by: Concealed kerry or submit at November 10, 2011 02:46 PM (vXqv3)
No. Please try not to be so dense. The current tax code started out pretty damned simple: An income tax on the super rich. In fact, some of them were proud to pay it, proved they were rich. And they'd frame their return for all to see. It was that simple. Simpler by far than Cain's plan. And in less than a few generations, look where we are.
But, I'm sure you are right, this time it'll be different. You and Cain are soooo much smarter than decades of human experience. I mean, it's not like they'd raise taxes the same way they have been, you know, "We're going to have to raise taxes on everyone OR we can just tax those guys over there that no one really likes much anyway: Which is it?"
Posted by: jimmuy at November 10, 2011 10:57 AM (pXUfx)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 10:57 AM (zLeKL)
I'm not interested in setting up new revenue streams for this bloated, corpulent, 6000-pound sow.
Has that sow a nice booty?
Posted by: Herman Cain, Professional Outsider at November 10, 2011 10:59 AM (P/F96)
There is one more thing that the Fair Tax system bringsÂ…
Freedom.
Right now, the IRS can do all sorts of mean, nasty, ugly things to you. YouÂ’re guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. They can seize whatever you have and basically screw up your life to the point of no return. With the Fair Tax, if youÂ’re just an average citizen who works and earns a living, it would be as if the IRS didnÂ’t exist. No one would have the power to know what you did for a living or how much you made doing it. You would be secure in your home, property and papers (someone wrote that somewhere).
Posted by: jwest at November 10, 2011 10:59 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 10, 2011 11:00 AM (21lBC)
Solid round-up of where we stand ant the moment. I'm hoping that the race consolidating around Gingrich, Cain and Romney will force each of them to lay it on the line. Cain has an opportunity at the moment. He can begin to substantively discuss the issues or he can continue to ride the slick marketing approach. If it's the latter then i think he's done. Maybe the rise of Newt will force herman to show if he really knows what the F%$k he's talking about or if he truly is winging it.
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 11:01 AM (ZS57m)
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 11:03 AM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Nora screaming BERTING KILL ME NOW at November 10, 2011 11:04 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Lanny Davis at November 10, 2011 11:06 AM (e8kgV)
chique', I guess the consequence for them is being voted out in the next election, but yeah it's hard to realize the state our country is in and not be certain whoever gets the prize will do what's needed, do they have the guts to do what's right rather than expediant for themselves, will they be willing to have their popularity be at risk? will they move fast instead of being willing to lose a second term?
yeah with Newt, i've heard about the wife and cancer, and it seems debunked. his pelosi moment, (was stupid) but i'm not very knowledgeable about his previous conduct or efforts, He sure sounds put togther now.
Posted by: willow at November 10, 2011 11:10 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: willow at November 10, 2011 11:12 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Burt TC at November 10, 2011 11:15 AM (TOk1P)
Hate to commit historical recollection here, but...
Back in 1980, a candidate was running for President with gimmicky tax-cut plan. His plan was to stimulate the economy with an across the board 30% tax rate cut. The Repub establishment mocked it as simplistic, irresponsible, a budget-buster, unrealistic, and undoable (the Dems had controlled both houses of Congress for 26 years!). The Dems dismissed it as dangerous, a gift to the fatcats, crazy, etc.
During the course of the campaign, the candidate tweaked his plan to spread the 30% tax cut over 3 years, 10% cut each year. As a concession to his critics.
As we know, the candidate, Ronald Reagan, won, and his victory swept in enough Senators to give the GOP the Senate. In office, he tweaked his plan again, from 10-10-10 to 5-10-10. Since there were enough conservative Boll Weevil Dems to support it, he got his plan passed--"the Reagan tax cuts." A lot of his original supporters (like Jack Kemp) thought he made a mistake by compromising, they believed a fast 30% tax cut wd have gotten the economy a faster, stronger recovery, but we'll never know. As it happens, the recovery began almost immediately after the 1st 10% cut in 7/82: the stock market boom began in. 8/82.
This tax plan was almost universally mocked as a reckless gimmick, by both parties, when it was first unveiled.
People, remember this history before you make fun of the 9-9-9 plan, 12 months before election day.
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 10, 2011 11:16 AM (PYxvn)
----
Seriously? That's all you've got? "They're hated by the right people." Who are the right people?
Posted by: Joffen at November 10, 2011 03:03 PM (zLeKL)
The people that hate them, of course. Duh!
Posted by: cthulhu at November 10, 2011 11:20 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: Herman Cain at November 10, 2011 11:23 AM (DKLl9)
259 ......I think I finally get it. Cain is running for Commerce Secretary in the Romney Administration. Which would explain why he hates Perry so much... ok, that's not all that funny, but I don't believe for a second that he's really running for President.
There are any number of treats that Romney could bestow upon Cain....or any others who help him get what he wants.
Romney owns Clear Channel Radio. ....Being appointed the CEO of that operation would be a sweet position for Cain to retire with.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 10, 2011 11:24 AM (2wW4j)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 10, 2011 03:16 PM (PYxvn)
And that '80 candidate was the two term Governor of the biggest state in the Union and a leading inellectual, public voice for conservatism and not a babbling buffoon who didnt know shit about American politics.
That Cainiacs actually dare to make that comparison is baffling.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 10, 2011 11:25 AM (P/F96)
Will it help? Who knows, but it probably won't hurt either.
Posted by: grognard at November 10, 2011 11:31 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: yomomma at November 10, 2011 11:35 AM (DKLl9)
Posted by: Breaking News at November 10, 2011 11:35 AM (ZS57m)
And once more: anyone who calls Cain an idiot or stupid is simply either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. The man may not be the smoothest speaker in interviews on earth but he's not a dolt.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 10, 2011 11:35 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Burt TC at November 10, 2011 11:37 AM (TOk1P)
And once more: anyone who calls Cain an idiot or stupid is simply either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
Strawman. Nobody says Cain is stupid. His problem is ignorance and being too lazy or too full of himself to correct that.
Posted by: Alex Jones at November 10, 2011 11:40 AM (P/F96)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 10, 2011 11:43 AM (haFNK)
Posted by: Burt TC at November 10, 2011 11:55 AM (TOk1P)
1. Bills have to come from the Congress.
2. They will get fiddles with by said Congress.
3. What are the odds that even IF Congress formulates some tax plan a la Cain's 9-9-9 that his plan is what we'll get. (probably worse but that's a different subject.)
Let's think;
1. do we want someone who's going to jettison obamacare?
2. do we want someone who will nominate conservative judges (SCJ)
3. do we want someone who'll rein in the House and stand up to the Senate (if Reps don't take it and even if they do)?
I'm voting for the guy who'll govern as a conservative and pro business anti spending, cut the budget.
I'm not voting for anyone according to some plans they have for bills. In fact the first person who says they'll veto any tax increases, spending increases without maximum cutting AND won't bother adding any more regulations and let businesses get on with making money. Gets my vote. Oh and drill baby drill.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball and not on the bunnies that even our candidates are flashing up on the screen.
This is where Newt looks a little better but Cain looks great and Romney of course is more of the same. Perry is toast; stick a fork in him he's done.
Posted by: Valar Dohaeris at November 10, 2011 12:03 PM (xqpQL)
But at least Cain has a detailed plan, and it can be re-worked by a cooperative congress.
Not that I want Cain as president...
...still looking for a candidate.
Posted by: Sgt. York at November 10, 2011 12:08 PM (EIAxq)
Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at November 10, 2011 12:36 PM (E7I0g)
Posted by: Jorn at November 10, 2011 12:45 PM (ZS57m)
Posted by: still thumping, clinging, and bitter about the betrayal at November 10, 2011 12:55 PM (GNbCD)
I agree with Ace, I don't think Cain even understands his own 9-9-9 plan. And he sounds like a fool answering every question the same way ("9-9-9"). Would we tolerate that from a white candidate? I don't think so. If it isn't a skin color thing, then what explains it? His folksiness? I don't think so. The reason he always answers with "9-9-9" is because he has so little (nothing?) to say about the other issues. He draws a blank.
And as for the 9-9-9 plan - it is NOT a good plan. Perry's plan is far better (fyi, I don't like Perry at all, but I can still support his plan). It would never pass congress anyway, so why are we pretending that it would? Could you imagine what the final plan, passed by congress, would actually look like? lol. Nothing resembling what we are discussing today.
His resume is being overhyped in terms of his intellectual capabilities. Most people lack a wide range of experience in business, because they've mainly been employees rather than business owners, so they may not understand what I mean by that. To be sure, he has had a specific kind of success in business. (A very different mind and success vs. Romney, for example. You can decide which is better). He has a certain kind of "smarts". I do not think the man is generally stupid (though he does say plenty of stupid things and is not very articulate). Cain is very good at certain things, but he is terribly lacking in other areas. IMO, the kind of intellect that you need to be a good POTUS is not the same as the smarts needed to succeed at Godfather's pizza.
When faced with evidence to the contrary, those who are enamoured with Cain refuse to recognize reality. According to his supporters, Cain is going to surround himself with experts to give him advice on the many things he is obviously ignorant of. One can debate if that is acceptable or desirable for a POTUS. But when given the opportunity to show his leadership abilities, in terms of running his campaign we have seen someone who has NOT made good decisions and someone who has NOT surrounded himself with capable people. How can anyone who has been watching his campaign from the beginning conclude otherwise? Mark Block? Seems like a nice guy. Love the smoking ad. But he's way out of his league. He can't even speak intelligently when questioned by the media. Without any proof, blaming the Perry campaign and now the Democrats. The last name (accuser #1) mix-up. Yet, Cain chose him and Cain sticks with him. We've seen that kind of behaviour in presidents before - sticking with people who are incompetent. Not a good sign, folks. The way he has mishandled the entire sexual harassment issue - no matter what the truth really is - is not "refreshingly non-politician"...it is INCOMPETENCE. There IS a difference, folks.
I like Cain. I don't think he should be the nominee. And whenever I see people ignoring reality because they just want to BELIEVE what they believe, I become concerned. That's the kind of stuff that got the disastrous Obama elected.
Posted by: mike bell at November 10, 2011 12:59 PM (Kz6PE)
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at November 10, 2011 01:26 PM (8/f0y)
Anybody who speaks ill of Dr. Herman Cain is an anti-American puke. If you're not for Cain then by definition you're a RINO, which means you need to be purged from the Republican Party once and for all.
Cain-Gingrich, '12. We're Purifying the RINO GOP one Pizza and One Tiffany's Necklace at a Time!
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 10, 2011 02:03 PM (f8XyF)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 10, 2011 02:28 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 10, 2011 02:37 PM (PYxvn)
Nothing personal, kinda skimmed until post #110 -- YOU (business) do not pay jack.
Cain's plan, the current system, flat tax, whatever... the end consumer pays all taxes.The ultimate goal of the Cain plan (FAIRAX) is to shove into your face what you are already paying and cause certain cultural shifts.
Posted by: Turduken Cannot Do Math at November 10, 2011 03:25 PM (7MFxV)
Posted by: The Golden Motorcycle Gang ePub at November 10, 2011 04:02 PM (vBcVx)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 04:02 PM (GTbGH)
The small businesses going bust cultural shift is already underway. I don't think it needs any more help.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 10, 2011 04:04 PM (GTbGH)
Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.
Posted by: Shatter Me iBooks at November 10, 2011 04:26 PM (98PUC)
Posted by: JackT at November 10, 2011 04:42 PM (2A0Hq)
Posted by: Comfort and Joy AudioBook at November 10, 2011 04:52 PM (ZCCrc)
The small businesses going bust cultural shift is already underway. I don't think it needs any more help.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna
You have clearly indicated that taxpayers knowing what they actually pay in tax, that is 'business' does not pay tax their customers do, is bad for business.
Posted by: Turduken Cannot Do Math at November 10, 2011 05:06 PM (7MFxV)
But you and Ace have the answers!!!
Right!!?
I mean that whole tax code thing is sooo easy to navigate.
You guys rock!!!
You can tell us who sucks.
But that's about it.
Awesome guys!
Posted by: Tom at November 10, 2011 05:15 PM (J9JEY)
Posted by: Then Again ePub at November 10, 2011 05:15 PM (Nh/NW)
Posted by: Turduken Cannot Do Math at November 10, 2011 05:23 PM (7MFxV)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 10, 2011 06:04 PM (vQfJ3)
Posted by: steevy at November 10, 2011 06:26 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Quagmire at November 10, 2011 06:52 PM (wl2vr)
Posted by: Eleven Madison Park ePub at November 10, 2011 06:55 PM (VELBN)
swf video converter video to flash converter flash video creator
Posted by: doumaduo at November 10, 2011 07:24 PM (+5CCv)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at November 10, 2011 11:22 PM (QBQcg)
Let's say 10 days. Just shut yer @#$%^ flap, you done enough already.
Just sayin' ....
Posted by: grelber at November 11, 2011 06:26 AM (jNNWD)
Posted by: Herve Leger Bandage at November 27, 2011 05:38 PM (Mdyrn)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2675 seconds, 418 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: theworldisnotenough at November 10, 2011 09:35 AM (JpqtI)