Herman Cain [Archive] - Xavier Message Board

Snipe

10-05-2011, 10:19 AM

From Public Policy Polling (a liberal leaning polling outfit):

Cainmentum (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/10/cainmentum.html)

Is the new Republican frontrunner Herman Cain? Maybe for this week anyway. PPP polled Republican primary voters in three pretty different states over the weekend- North Carolina, Nebraska, and West Virginia- and found Cain leading the way in each of them as Newt Gingrich surged, Mitt Romney stayed steady, and Rick Perry saw a collapse in his support.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/.a/6a0133f2dd8001970b014e8c04e3de970d-pi
Here are the numbers:

North Carolina: Cain 27, Romney/Gingrich 17, Perry 15, Paul/Bachmann 6, Santorum/Huntsman 2

Nebraska: Cain 30, Gingrich 16, Romney 13, Bachmann/Perry 10, Paul 5, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2

West Virginia: Cain 24, Gingrich 18, Romney 16, Perry 15, Bachmann 8, Paul 6, Santorum 3, Huntsman 1

Cain rises to the top

The thing fueling Cain's lead in all of these states is strong support from the furthest right segment of the Republican electorate. Cain is at 35% with 'very conservative' voters and has a 14 point lead over Perry with them in North Carolina. In Nebraska he's at 36% with them, putting him up 22 points over Gingrich and Perry. And in West Virginia he gets 25% with them, giving him a 9 point edge on Gingrich and Perry.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/.a/6a0133f2dd8001970b01539210d074970b-800wi

The hard right loves Herman Cain. The Tea Party loves Herman Cain. At least this week. Things have been fluid in the Republican race and the only constant is change.

Newt Gingrich is also making a run in the polling:

Newt surging?

Even more surprising than Cain's leading all three of these polls might be Gingrich's finishing second in each of them...and where his support is coming from. In both Nebraska (21-15 over Cain) and North Carolina (27-18 over Romney) he leads with moderates. Those voters have previously tended to give Romney first place status- it really says something about the state of the Republican field when Newt Gingrich becomes the choice for centrists.

Gingrich has better favorability numbers than front runners Romney and Perry in all three states. In North Carolina he's at +27 (58/31) to +19 for Romney (50/31) and +7 for Perry (44/37). In Nebraska he's at +17 (49/32) to +11 for Romney (45/34) and even for Perry (35/35). And in West Virginia he's at +24 (50/26) to +15 for Romney (42/27) and +13 for Perry (38/25).

This popularity for Gingrich is new found. His net favorability in NC is up 28 points from a month ago when he was actually on negative ground at 42/43. And he's up 19 points in West Virginia from 41/36 in September.

Could a Cain / Gingrich ticket be in the Republican future? You would have been laughed off the stage suggesting such a thing just a week ago. Cainmentum indeed.

I admire and respect Herman Cain, and I think he would make a fine President. If the race comes down to Romney vs. Cain in the Ohio primary, I will vote for Herman Cain. I would also like to see Gingrich and his ideas continue to gain traction. He is one of the premiere idea men on the political right.

Here is Herman Cain’s website:

Herman Cain For President (https://www.hermancain.com/donate#sc=929webAD16)

I think that Herman Cain would secure our border and put an end to massive third world illegal immigration. That is important to me, because we simply can't afford anymore to be the welfare state destination for Latin America. I think that Herman Cain has the courage to do this. He is also a businessman and not a politician. He has never held an elective office. I think that would be a nice change of pace, electing a no-nonsense common sense conservative who gets results instead of just another politician beholden to the special interest lobbiests.

I think not being a politician will likely hurt his campain, because he isn't used to being attacked by a largely liberal media that is pro-Obama and anti-conservative. They will lay traps for him and do their best to destroy him. In my opinion the liberals don't want Herman Cain in this fight. They would like to see a Bachman, Palin or Perry to fight against. I don't think they want a piece of him at all. It will be interesting to see how they try to discredit the man.

From his wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain) bio:

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, politician, syndicated columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy.[2][3] He lives in the Atlanta suburbs, where he also serves as a minister at Antioch Baptist Church North.

Color me impressed by this outstanding American. Like him or not as a presidential candidate, you cannot deny that Herman Cain is a Great American!

HERMAN CAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Muskie

10-05-2011, 10:24 AM

Am I bad Republican for not getting swept up in a presidential election yet?

bobbiemcgee

10-05-2011, 10:33 AM

'pubs must be desperate dusting off the old Newt relic......not friggin' again please. This guy needs to just go away or move in with Hannity.

I think Cain/Rubio might get it done.

powerofX

10-05-2011, 11:07 AM

HERMAN CAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew I liked you! Strong Cain supporter here...and my wife is an even bigger fan. Not sure if he will make it through as the top repub...but we will try and make it happen. At a minimum, he is doing a great service. Speaking directly about his ideas, his plan, and his vision of conservatism. Agree or not, you know where he stands and you can debate from there. I'm not completly sure where others stand on various issues.

Plus his background as a success story is awesome.

HERMAN CAIN!

xu95

10-05-2011, 11:29 AM

How can you not like the guy who was the CEO of Godfather's Pizza?

Seriously though, am I the only one getting tired of Christie making an announcement every day that he isn't running?

xu95

xu95

10-05-2011, 11:30 AM

'pubs must be desperate dusting off the old Newt relic......not friggin' again please. This guy needs to just go away or move in with Hannity.

I think Cain/Rubio might get it done.

I think Cain and a 12 pack of beef jerky could beat Obama right now.

xu95

HuskyMuskie

10-05-2011, 11:40 AM

It made my day to see someone else posted about Herman Cain already. I am incredibly excited to cast a ballot for Mr. Cain, and put somebody with an extreme amount of business experience into the White House. This country needs to be ran like a company in today's economic situation, and Herman seems to be the guy to do it.

Cain is Able!

waggy

10-05-2011, 11:45 AM

Don't Cain from any of the others, but I know he's a liar. All of them are, suckers.

GoMuskies

10-05-2011, 11:57 AM

There's a huge problem with all of this: Herman Cain is black. We all know that the only reason anyone in this country would vote against Obama is because Obama is black.

The only way to reconcile all this is that Cain MUST be an Oreo. How else to explain it?

Porkopolis

10-05-2011, 12:00 PM

How can you not like the guy who was the CEO of Godfather's Pizza?

I almost posted the exact same thing. I used to love Godfather's Pizza. Haven't had it since I was in high school, though.

Juice

10-05-2011, 12:07 PM

I almost posted the exact same thing. I used to love Godfather's Pizza. Haven't had it since I was in high school, though.

I had never even heard of it until he got in the race. Is it good?

I like Cain too. Whether you agree with his 999 plan, at least he has proposed a concrete idea. That is better than 99% of the other politicians.

Porkopolis

10-05-2011, 12:20 PM

I had never even heard of it until he got in the race. Is it good?

I loved it back in the day, but teenage boys aren't too picky about their pizza.

spazzrico

10-05-2011, 09:02 PM

I had never even heard of it until he got in the race. Is it good?

I like Cain too. Whether you agree with his 999 plan, at least he has proposed a concrete idea. That is better than 99% of the other politicians.

I agree. I personally don't like the plan, but I like a creative idea and an attempt to shake up what doesn't work. I wasn't actually aware of his plan until this thread, so I looked it up. Among some articles, I found this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0930/Herman-Cain-s-999-plan-long-overdue-tax-reform-or-job-killer/%28page%29/3) helpful....IN case anyone is interested.

Also, where did he come from? I know he was Godfather CEO and such, but why the presidency and why now? It feels so random. Not that I need to have heard of him before, but I'm generally interested in how he ended up in the field.

xu95

10-06-2011, 07:36 AM

I loved it back in the day, but teenage boys aren't too picky about their pizza.

It's good, if you like a lot of cheese. I would say it is average at best.

xu95

xu95

10-06-2011, 07:37 AM

Now Sarah Palin isn't running either. I think I am going to schedule a press conference to announce I am not running for President and that DC Muskie will not be my running mate.

powerofX

10-06-2011, 08:18 AM

I agree. I personally don't like the plan, but I like a creative idea and an attempt to shake up what doesn't work. I wasn't actually aware of his plan until this thread, so I looked it up. Among some articles, I found this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0930/Herman-Cain-s-999-plan-long-overdue-tax-reform-or-job-killer/%28page%29/3) helpful....IN case anyone is interested.

Also, where did he come from? I know he was Godfather CEO and such, but why the presidency and why now? It feels so random. Not that I need to have heard of him before, but I'm generally interested in how he ended up in the field.

His time as the head of the National restaurant association was really his first step into politics. It's a lobby group for the industry. See his video interacting with Clinton during the Hillarycare debate. He was also on the board of the KC fed so he has had to look at monetary policy. He has run for office in Georgia and lost.

As for running for president out of nowhere...it is kind of true, but here is what I think happened. He has a well liked conservative talk show in Atlanta. I think that with the rise of the Tea party over the past few years, a few folks put a bug in his ear to be an advocate for conservative views in the african-american community. He started going out and speaking about a year ago..prior to running. His message was clear and just resonated with folks (all conservatives, not just AA conservatives) and momentum grew. I bet that if you asked him 6 months ago could he win, he would have honestly said no...he was there to make sure that his ideas were at least brought up and might be influential to a few of the front runners. And then he started killin' it in the debates and the momentum still grows.

I still don't know if he can win the primary, but he has at a minimum been a thought leader in how to approach things from a new direction and his influence can and will be felt.

spazzrico

10-06-2011, 11:00 AM

Thanks for that, it makes a lot more sense to me now.

ArizonaXUGrad

10-06-2011, 11:09 AM

powerofX

10-06-2011, 12:45 PM

I am not a republican, but I will have to read up on Cain. He honestly wasn't on my radar. I have not been on board with some of the things Obama has done but he fits my political leanings more than anyone on the right.

Palin is a TV whore and only campaigns for a salary now. Newt served his divorce papers to a cancer ridden wife. Christie might have actually gotten my vote but is not running. Romney for some reason just scares me a bit.

Living in Az I am really watching the Russel Pearce recall (State Senator who gave us SB 1070 immagration). He is DIRTY.

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Professor and consumer advocate, running against Scott Brown in Mass. I believe she is going to clobber that guy and I actually like him. I am a 35 year old hoping she throws her Dem hat in the ring 4 years from now for President.

If your idea of the perfect candidate is Elizabeth Warren, you will despise everything you will read about Cain. I don't think there could be two more opposite viewpoints of how the country should be run. Case in point...Warren "Nobody ever made anything on their own" Cain..."If you are not rich, are unemployed, blame yourself"

I might add, I'm on the Cain side. :)

xu95

10-06-2011, 02:13 PM

I think his slogan should be free pizza for everyone.

ArizonaXUGrad

10-06-2011, 04:26 PM

If your idea of the perfect candidate is Elizabeth Warren, you will despise everything you will read about Cain. I don't think there could be two more opposite viewpoints of how the country should be run. Case in point...Warren "Nobody ever made anything on their own" Cain..."If you are not rich, are unemployed, blame yourself"

I might add, I'm on the Cain side. :)

Yeah, I am on Warren's side there. I don't stick to party lines and vote for the best candidate. It's just that for the most part who I view as the best hasn't quite made it to the final two in quite a while.

Read her entire rationale behind that quote. She makes valid points.

I honestly wish Evan Byah didn't retire. I would have voted for that guy over Obama. I got to vote for him when I lived in Indiana 18 years ago.

SixFig

10-06-2011, 07:14 PM

This country needs to be ran like a company

Oh you mean like ENRON, The Auto Industry, the Bank Industry, and the Airline Industry?

Suuuuure

DC Muskie

10-06-2011, 07:18 PM

Now Sarah Palin isn't running either. I think I am going to schedule a press conference to announce I am not running for President and that DC Muskie will not be my running mate.

I would be an awesome running mate. Free pizza for everyone.

I have to say I always enjoy the love shown to people who never win a race for elected office. The best candidates it seems re the ones who don't win. Mit Romney should be the most favorite candidate of all time!

DC Muskie

10-06-2011, 07:21 PM

Cain..."If you are not rich, are unemployed, blame yourself"

I might add, I'm on the Cain side. :)

Interesting theory.

HuskyMuskie

10-06-2011, 07:23 PM

Oh you mean like ENRON, The Auto Industry, the Bank Industry, and the Airline Industry?

Suuuuure

The biggest corporate fraud in American history, no. Run like a company that needs to stay afloat, have a functioning budget, and not be exempt from paying their tab like every other company in the United States, yes.

Herman Cain is suuuuuurely the only candidate who has expressed interest in doing this.

DC Muskie

10-06-2011, 07:33 PM

The biggest corporate fraud in American history, no. Run like a company that needs to stay afloat, have a functioning budget, and not be exempt from paying their tab like every other company in the United States, yes.

Herman Cain is suuuuuurely the only candidate who has expressed interest in doing this.

You know that the country has only balanced its budget once right?

That was in 1835. Andrew Jackson was president.

Then recession hit from 1837 to about 1844.

So basically you think this country has been run fiscally irresponsible for about 176 years.

Now, I'm not suggesting we create the biggest deficits we can. But there is a happy medium between the two thoughts of balance budgets and huge deficits.

X-band '01

10-06-2011, 07:44 PM

Only balanced it once or been debt-free once? There's a major difference between the two.

From WhiteHouse.gov - turn to Page 25 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf)

Beginning on Page 25, they show historical deficits and surpluses year by year; if you go forward to page 131 they also show the national debt from about 1940 onward. It steadily grows from about $50 billion up to the $9 trillion range (when the budget went to print).

DC Muskie

10-06-2011, 07:46 PM

Only balanced it once or been debt-free once? There's a major difference between the two.

He paid off the debt, and the budget for that year did not run a deficit.

PM Thor

10-06-2011, 10:50 PM

So this week it's Herman Cain with the bump? Is Huntsmans bump next week? When will the Repubs realize they aren't replacing Romney yet? They need to get their crap together, because all I have seen so far is Romney always the #1, and people hyping yet another two, which seems to change from week to week. Just look at the money being raised, and you'll see the true lead. However sad that is.

I HATE dayton.

xu95

10-07-2011, 07:21 AM

PM Thor

10-07-2011, 07:34 PM

I hear Romney wants to keep you from buying new fire equipment.

xu95
Ha, that's funny, but it's a weird dichotomy, no matter who is in charge or controlling Congress, they always seem to have these grants to hand out to safety forces. See the city getting one to retain 25 cops, and the CFD getting one for some experimental breeching equipment. One side does it supposedly support employees, another does it to bolster Homeland Security, yet they both go to the same end. Weird.

I HATE dayton.

xeus

10-07-2011, 07:51 PM

Ha, that's funny, but it's a weird dichotomy, no matter who is in charge or controlling Congress, they always seem to have these grants to hand out to safety forces. See the city getting one to retain 25 cops, and the CFD getting one for some experimental breeching equipment. One side does it supposedly support employees, another does it to bolster Homeland Security, yet they both go to the same end. Weird.

I HATE dayton.

Kind of undermines your whole "I'm a victim" argument doesn't it?

PM Thor

10-09-2011, 08:15 PM

Kind of undermines your whole "I'm a victim" argument doesn't it?

Who says I'm a victim? All I want is to keep my right to binding arbitration in lieu of striking. Give me one or the other, don't remove both, because in doing so it gives me no way to argue or protest what the city could do. That's all.

And as for the Feds giving money to localities to bolster manpower and equipment, there's two things to that. First, the grants only last a couple of years, then the locals are right back where they started, and two, many times the grants are misappropriated or misallocated. I mean, in the greater Cincy area, Homeland Security purchased 18 tractor trailer sized decontamination units (meant to be used in case of a mass casualty incident, like a dirty bomb). They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Once purchased though, which in my opinion was a serious waste of money, guess who has to pay for the storage, maintenance and training on the units? Of course the local municipalities. In many cases, the locals get these things foisted (word of the day) on them and sometimes they don't want, nor need them.

I HATE dayton.

xeus

10-09-2011, 08:45 PM

Who says I'm a victim? All I want is to keep my right to binding arbitration in lieu of striking. Give me one or the other, don't remove both, because in doing so it gives me no way to argue or protest what the city could do. That's all.

Who says you have a right to binding arbitration in lieu of striking? Your union tell you that?

Kahns Krazy

10-10-2011, 11:46 AM

I admire and respect Herman Cain, and I think he would make a fine President. If the race comes down to Romney vs. Cain in the Ohio primary, I will vote for Herman Cain. I would also like to see Gingrich and his ideas continue to gain traction. He is one of the premiere idea men on the political right.

You have claimed to be a registered democrat on this board many times. I don't think you get to vote in the Republican primary.

Kahns Krazy

10-10-2011, 11:56 AM

Ha, that's funny, but it's a weird dichotomy, no matter who is in charge or controlling Congress, they always seem to have these grants to hand out to safety forces. See the city getting one to retain 25 cops, and the CFD getting one for some experimental breeching equipment. One side does it supposedly support employees, another does it to bolster Homeland Security, yet they both go to the same end. Weird.

I HATE dayton.

I don't think dichotomy means what you think it means.

All I see here is that unions exert an unbalanced influence on politicians. Why do you think "they" have these "grants" (my tax dollars) to "hand out"?

X-band '01

10-10-2011, 12:13 PM

You have claimed to be a registered democrat on this board many times. I don't think you get to vote in the Republican primary.

Ohio Secretary of State's Webpage (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=4137)

Ohio is semi-open in the sense that you can switch political parties, but you must sign a statement at the polling place that confirms the change of your political party (if it was different in the 2008/2009 primaries).

I don't think dichotomy means what you think it means.

Public reps for the Princess Bride reference.

Kahns Krazy

10-10-2011, 12:20 PM

Ohio Secretary of State's Webpage (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=4137)

Ohio is semi-open in the sense that you can switch political parties, but you must sign a statement at the polling place that confirms the change of your political party (if it was different in the 2008/2009 primaries).

.

The intent is clearly not to permit hopping back and forth for primary voting purposes. The statement you sign indicates that your change in affiliation is not for those purposes, but rather reflects the party you are affiliated with.

It is true that there is no real way to get "caught" changing your affilliation for primary voting purposes, but that doesn't make it right.

X-band '01

10-10-2011, 02:11 PM

I agree that the intent is to keep primaries from being rigged by outside voters, but Ohio for whatever reason isn't as strict as other states that have closed primaries.

It would be foolish to pretend that only Republicans will be voting in the 2012 primaries.

Snipe

10-10-2011, 06:20 PM

You have claimed to be a registered democrat on this board many times. I don't think you get to vote in the Republican primary.

I am a registered Democrat. I have only voted in Democratic primaries. I have never voted in a Republican primary. The real vote in urban districts is often in the Democratic primaries. Who gets to be judge, state senator, or state representative is often much more competitive in the democratic primary than the general election. That is why I pull the ballot, because I want a say in local elections. I am a libertarian, but they don't really field any viable candidates anyway.

Ohio Secretary of State's Webpage (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=4137)

Ohio is semi-open in the sense that you can switch political parties, but you must sign a statement at the polling place that confirms the change of your political party (if it was different in the 2008/2009 primaries).

That is not really semi-open, but wide open. Anyone registered to vote can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Since the Democratic primary will not be competitive, Democrats can vote in the Republican primary if they don't care about who is on the Dem ballot in local elections. Many Dems have local favorites so they don't switch, but they can and if they have an interest I would recommend it. I voted for Hillary in 2008. Even though she got more votes than Obama, he found a way to work the caucus states that still seems a bit on the dirty side.

I think we have a few people that voted for Obama over Hillary in 2008 on this board, and that was the first time they had voted in a Democratic primary. If they haven't voted in a primary since then, they are registered Democrats in the State of Ohio.

The intent is clearly not to permit hopping back and forth for primary voting purposes. The statement you sign indicates that your change in affiliation is not for those purposes, but rather reflects the party you are affiliated with.

It is true that there is no real way to get "caught" changing your affilliation for primary voting purposes, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't see that intent at all. I don't see any intent to keep anyone from changing party affiliation every two years. I don't think they care one bit. See the wording below. I think you are reading something into it that is not there.

I agree that the intent is to keep primaries from being rigged by outside voters, but Ohio for whatever reason isn't as strict as other states that have closed primaries.

It would be foolish to pretend that only Republicans will be voting in the 2012 primaries.

Again, I don't see any intent to discourage anyone from voting in any primary that they seem fit. Ohio has an open primary.

Here is the relevant passage from the Secretary of State:

In a primary election, how do I establish which political party’s ballot I am entitled to vote?

You may vote the primary ballot of the political party with which you currently wish to be affiliated. If you wish to vote a party’s ballot different from what you voted in 2008 or 2009, you must complete a statement at your polling place confirming the change in your political party affiliation.

That seems pretty simple and open. I think that any anti-war Democrats should vote in the Republican primary and vote for Ron Paul. I don't think that is wrong in any way, it is a legal way to speak your voice through the ballot and be represented.

If you like a candidate, say for instance like HERMAN CAIN!!!, just go to the polls on primary day and pick up a Republican ballot and vote for HERMAN CAIN! That is just a hypothetical, of course.

The thing is, both races are usually decided by the time it gets to the Ohio primaries. We don't get a lot of tight contests. So even voting is largely meaningless. I will probably be pulling the Dem ballot and voting against some of the crooks I have come across.

If it does get close though, I would encourage anyone with a genuine interest to pick up a ballot and vote.

X-band '01

10-10-2011, 07:30 PM

Maybe I'm just thinking that a truly open primary is where you can just pick a party ballot during a primary election without any strings (or affidavits) attached. I don't have time to look up all 50 states, but I would imagine that some states are more open than Ohio is in terms of who is allowed to vote which party, and I would also assume that other states place more strict restrictions on voters who do switch parties from one election year to the other.

Snipe also brings up another good point - one advantage of being a registered Democrat (depending on where you live) is that some races are for all intents and purposes decided in the primary stage. But the Republican presidential primary is shaping up to be big next year. Of course, that could change depending on what date and how late in the primary season that Ohio's election takes place. Are we going to see the same thing that happened in 2008 happen in reverse - namely a competitive Republican presidential primary and subsequent decisive general election victory over Obama?

PM Thor

10-10-2011, 10:58 PM

Who says you have a right to binding arbitration in lieu of striking? Your union tell you that?

No, The Ohio Supreme Court told me that. Prior to 1984, safety forces were subject to the Ferguson Act, which in part led to some wildcat strikes, like the one in '79 where Cincy cops walked off the job after there were 4 deaths in less than a year and the city wasn't moving forward with bullet proof vests and better equipment. Then came the Ohio collective bargaining act in '84. In the law it recognized that striking was a basic right of workers. Instead of allowing strikes for safety forces, it recognized binding arbitration as a fair compromise.
In 1989 the collective bargaining act was challenged. In Rocky River vs State employee relations board, the Ohio Supreme Court Specifically stated the value of binding arbitration for safety forces. Since we cannot strike, both in the Ferguson Act and in the Collective Bargaining Act, The supreme court ruled that, quoting here "For safety forces, R.C. 4117.14(I) is at the heart of the Act. Absent binding conciliation, the bargaining rights of safety forces become virtually useless."

I HATE dayton

Snipe

10-11-2011, 10:41 AM

A new Gallup poll is out:

Cain Surges, Nearly Ties Romney for Lead in GOP Preferences
Romney and Cain closely matched near 20%, with Perry at 15% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149990/Cain-Surges-Nearly-Ties-Romney-Lead-GOP-Preferences.aspx)

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/04ywcnmxdukmjomvle7p0g.gif

Interesting to look at those numbers. 10% were undecided last month, and that number has doubled. It looks like many of the voters that were going for Perry are now undecided. Lots of votes up for grabs right now. Romney has seen his support weaken from 1/4 to 1/5 of the vote, even while his main rival (Rick Perry) collapsed.

Big night tonight for Herman Cain and Rick Perry with another Republican Debate in New Hampshire. This one is focused on the Economy.

Perry has had a string of unimpressive debates and if throws up a clunker in this one he may well be finished. What we have seen in the last month is the political equivalent to a run on the bank, and if he doesn't stop the bleeding tonight there might not be anything left to salvage as he sinks into single digits. A month ago a little under 1 in 3 voters were polling for Perry, now it is closer to 1 in 7.

Herman Cain takes the center stage for the first time tonight. I believe they will be putting him right next to Romney in the center of the debate (they have 8 candidates). Rick Perry will be presumably pushed one slot to the side, reflecting the new poll realities. In previous debates, Herman Cain he was always on the outside representing his polling on the political fringe. This will make him the subject of more attention and more pointed questions from the press.

Cain will be under some fire tonight, as Republican debates have less softball questions than Democratic debates. This probably reflects media bias, as the press likes to give "gotcha" questions to Republicans, but it also helps the vetting process and helps Republicans field stronger candidates. The current hack in the White House who had no experience ever running anything is an example of the lazy vetting process which our left leaning media does on the Democratic candidates.

Will Herman Cain respond well under fire and the the glow of the center stage? I don't know but I hope so. If he is outstanding tonight he may well be the leader of the pack tomorrow. If he flubs we will probably return to the meme of Republican "flash in the pan" candidates surging and then burning out in a Romney race to lose. He could also have both high and low points and hold position. I think that just about covers it. Not being a career politician, I think he is more prone to a trap than the other candidates. I am rooting for him, so I can't say objectively what to expect.

Other previews~

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is always calm cool and collected. He has been running for President since 2007. He is running the long race, and he is presidential. He doesn't care so much about the opposition. He will do well tonight. He does solidly in every debate. As Thor noted, he is the smart money pick to win the nomination. Expect every hair to be in place.

He is one of the few candidates that self-released his grades (first in his class):

10 Things You Didn't Know About Mitt Romney (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2007/02/01/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-mitt-romney)

4. Mitt and Ann married on March 21, 1969--four months after he returned from his mission. Future President Gerald Ford was a guest at their wedding. Ann was attending college at Brigham Young University and Mitt transferred there, eventually graduating first in his class in 1971 with a degree in English and a 3.97 GPA. Their first son, Taggart, was born on their first anniversary.

5. The young couple moved to Boston so Mitt could attend Harvard Law School. He was also accepted into a joint M.B.A. program at Harvard Business School. Their second son, Matthew, was born and in 1975 he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and in the top 5 percent of his class at HBS.

That last sentence confused me a bit. It sounds like they are saying his son Matthew graduated Harvard Law School. Romney at the time was one of 15 students in a new program at Harvard that combined a law degree with an MBA. He both was cum laude in Law and the top 5% of the business school at the same time.. He did this while also having a newborn baby. Mitt has 5 sons.

I think he would make a fine President and he was my favorite of the pack last time out that choose John "I don't know nothing about economics" McCain. Mitt is brilliant, he is hard working, well-connected and incredibly wealthy. He has no major flaw, and his only weakness is that he doesn't have a weakness. It makes him seem plastic and unreal. Expect Mitt to be Mitt tonight, and don't expect many people to get excited about the tortoise going up against the hare.

Rick Perry

It is do or die for Perry as stated above. I don't have high hopes for him. He has not impressed in any debate so far. His presentation is lacking. Some of his views, like on immigration go against the popular will of the majority of the Republican party. Even when I agree with him (Social Security is a ponzi scheme, don't blame the messenger), he fails to articulate his views in a way that is enlightening or even Presidential. He has been doing debate prep, so while I expect a better performance tonight my gut tells me it won't be enough.

Newt Gingrich

As far as I can tell, Newt has won every debate on points or merit so far. That doesn't change the fact that he can't get anyone to poll for him. Despite consistently brilliant performances, he is currently polling at 7%.

I expect him to win the debate again tonight, and for nothing to change. Quite tellingly, when the candidates were asked who would be the best VP candidate in the last debate, more named Newt than anyone else. I don't think a single one of them would choose him (he is somewhat toxic), but it is a sign that his mind is widely held in high regard on the right. No matter who gets elected if Republicans win, I think it is imperative that Newt Gingrich be part of the braintrust of the next administration. I think with his experience as Speaker he could work as a White House conduit to Paul Ryan in the House to balance the budget.

When it comes to translating conservative principles and ideology into nuts and bolts legislation that will both enact and promote them, their is no better political mind in America. In the economic debate tonight, expect Gingrich to shine above all others.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a man of principle, which may be a dying breed in our political circles today. He is probably one of the most disliked but respected people in America today. Most people on the left and right don't agree with his radical agenda of peace and human liberty, but they respect his resolve. He is a libertarian, and I have been reading his thoughts since 2001 on the radical libertarian website lewrockwell.com. I don't always agree with him either, but I love and respect him. I also think he is largely right on the issues.

Strangely enough, he is the only anti-war candidate on the ballot of either political party running for President. This at a time when most Americans are exhausted with the sheer cost of all these wars. You would think he would have more traction. He is also popular with the tea party. None of that has translated into the polls or favorable media coverage (which may be a chicken and egg thing). He will never be President. He is old and short. He isn't handsome. His voice squeaks. He isn't presidential and he is a radical for liberty. He will make his points about the economy tonight. We can't afford the empire. He is right about that. He will be soundly defeated by public opinion. My only hope is that he is laying the groundwork for his son Rand, who should hopefully become President somewhere between 2020-2030. You are now in Snipe fantasy land.

Michelle Bachman

If we wanted a speechmaker that has never successfully run anything, we would be Obama voters. Fail.

Rick Santorum

Saying anything is saying too much about this failed Senate candidate. Fail.

Jon Huntsman

I like him. Sharp guy who would make a great President. Has been an effective leader before. Has lived and worked in China and speaks fluent Chinese. He is a media favorite. Nobody cares. He gets 1%-2% and that is that. Wish his media coverage would have gone to Paul.

Snipe

10-11-2011, 10:42 AM

More Thoughts on Herman Cain

Herman Cain needs a strong night tonight. The debate is supposed to be about economics so it should be interesting (or not depending on how you view it). Cain needs to be able to articulate his 9-9-9 plan in the 1 minute segments that they give him. It is tough to explain an economic plan (or anything else for that matter) in a minutes time. I would like to see more expansive debates which go deeper into the issues, but we live in an instant gratification sound-byte society. I think it stunts our philosophical and ideological development.

Herman Cain is a fan of the Fair Tax (fairtax.org). The Fair Tax is a progressive consumption tax coupled with the elimination of the IRS, Federal Income Taxes, and the Federal Corporate Tax. He sees 9-9-9 as a way of transitioning from our current system to the Fair Tax. I have long been a huge fan of the Fair Tax. What Herman Cain will be essentially calling for tonight represents a paradigm shift in our politics and American Federal Government. I hope and pray that he can articulate and present his points so as to animate and give them resonance to a wide array of people.

Herman Cain is also for securing the border. He should find a way to bring that into the economic debate. Immigrants cause a huge financial burden on society (75% of first generation Mexican immigrants access welfare). A huge flow of unskilled labor also depresses working class wages and increases unemployment. This message could especially resonate with black people. Obama hasn't done much for them. Herman Cain could do a lot more for them if elected just by shutting down the third world hoards that come to dominate construction sites. Like only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only a black Republican could reassert American sovereignty on our borders and shut them down. It is easy to call a white Republican a racist for doing so. Hell, white republicans are racist by definition by modern liberal media standards. Painting Cain as a racist for closing down the border would be a tough stretch.

Kahns Krazy

10-11-2011, 10:51 AM

A new Gallup poll is out:

Cain Surges, Nearly Ties Romney for Lead in GOP Preferences
Romney and Cain closely matched near 20%, with Perry at 15% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149990/Cain-Surges-Nearly-Ties-Romney-Lead-GOP-Preferences.aspx)
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
.

Am I the only one that reads Snipe's posts like this?

GoMuskies

10-11-2011, 10:51 AM

Am I the only one that reads Snipe's posts like this?

No.

muckem muckem

10-11-2011, 11:01 AM

I would vote Snipe for President.

ArizonaXUGrad

10-11-2011, 11:04 AM

GoMuskies

10-11-2011, 11:10 AM

I just read about Cain's 9 9 9 tax plan. What a mess, yes it's way less complex but the unfotunate who have a low income get a 9% tax increase. Taking money away from the people who need it most. That is very unwise.

I think there's a legitimate "skin in the game" argument to be made that everyone making an income should be contributing something, even if it's a very small amount.

Frambo

10-11-2011, 11:28 AM

I just read about Cain's 9 9 9 tax plan. What a mess, yes it's way less complex but the unfotunate who have a low income get a 9% tax increase. Taking money away from the people who need it most. That is very unwise.

I've heard Cain explain that this would eliminate other taxes which would have the lower incomes taxed at 9% instead of over 15%. So if I heard him correctly, they would have "skin in the game" but at the same time would have more $ in their pockets.

Kahns Krazy

10-11-2011, 12:15 PM

I just read about Cain's 9 9 9 tax plan. What a mess, yes it's way less complex but the unfotunate who have a low income get a 9% tax increase. Taking money away from the people who need it most. That is very unwise.

I read a hilarious quote today that 22% of taxpayers pay zero or less than zero total taxes, after credits. This includes sales tax, payroll taxes and income taxes.

Uhh. Those aren't taxpayers. They are tax collectors.

The "People who need it most" already have a number of other programs to help them with their needs. They do not also deserve cash handouts from other taxpayers.

One of the things that I understand Cain is aiming to do is eliminate the low-income benefits curve that currently proides a disincentive to try to work your way out of a poverty situation. Currently, if you make $100,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, your net income goes up by $5,000, less your applicible tax bracket. If you make $15,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, that may make you ineligible for thousands in benefits you receive at your $15,000 income level. The marginal net take-home pay increase is much lower for the low income individual, which functions a huge disincentive to try to climb out of poverty by working harder.

I also believe that he's still working on his plan, and certain items would be exempt from the sales tax, such as raw foods and basic clothing.

powerofX

10-11-2011, 01:07 PM

I read a hilarious quote today that 22% of taxpayers pay zero or less than zero total taxes, after credits. This includes sales tax, payroll taxes and income taxes.

Uhh. Those aren't taxpayers. They are tax collectors.

The "People who need it most" already have a number of other programs to help them with their needs. They do not also deserve cash handouts from other taxpayers.

One of the things that I understand Cain is aiming to do is eliminate the low-income benefits curve that currently proides a disincentive to try to work your way out of a poverty situation. Currently, if you make $100,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, your net income goes up by $5,000, less your applicible tax bracket. If you make $15,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, that may make you ineligible for thousands in benefits you receive at your $15,000 income level. The marginal net take-home pay increase is much lower for the low income individual, which functions a huge disincentive to try to climb out of poverty by working harder.

I also believe that he's still working on his plan, and certain items would be exempt from the sales tax, such as raw foods and basic clothing.

You illustrate what I love about Cain. It is a paradigm shift and will be uncomfortable for some to grapple with. He advocates to work hard and be rewarded. His biggest challange will be to change the mentality of those in the entitlement culture. It will be hard. hard. hard. But I think he has the strength to try. It's the basic teach a man to fish parable. we have been giving fish for too long. Pride in self and pride in ones work needs restored.

boozehound

10-11-2011, 01:10 PM

I read a hilarious quote today that 22% of taxpayers pay zero or less than zero total taxes, after credits. This includes sales tax, payroll taxes and income taxes.

Uhh. Those aren't taxpayers. They are tax collectors.

The "People who need it most" already have a number of other programs to help them with their needs. They do not also deserve cash handouts from other taxpayers.

One of the things that I understand Cain is aiming to do is eliminate the low-income benefits curve that currently proides a disincentive to try to work your way out of a poverty situation. Currently, if you make $100,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, your net income goes up by $5,000, less your applicible tax bracket. If you make $15,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, that may make you ineligible for thousands in benefits you receive at your $15,000 income level. The marginal net take-home pay increase is much lower for the low income individual, which functions a huge disincentive to try to climb out of poverty by working harder.

I also believe that he's still working on his plan, and certain items would be exempt from the sales tax, such as raw foods and basic clothing.

Interesting stat about the 22% who pay zero total taxes. I had heard before that 47% of people paid no federal income tax, but the total taxes stat is new to me.

Regarding the second paragraph, it seems amazing to me that something like this hasn't happened yet. People have been talking about this problem for years, off and on. Get rid of the clearly defined cutoffs and develop a system with a more gradual phasing out of benefits / credits as income increases.

powerofX

10-11-2011, 01:12 PM

I also believe that he's still working on his plan, and certain items would be exempt from the sales tax, such as raw foods and basic clothing.

And specific to this.,..I agree. He is a marketer. 9-9-9 is easier to explain in little sound bites. He needs to first layout the basics, which is what he is doing and what is allowing him to gain momentum. To get something like this passed, I would think it would need to exempt essentials like raw food and maybe have a slightly larger tax on "luxury" items. I don't really like the higher rate on big ticket items because the gov would be back to picking winners and losers in this space by defining what is "luxury." However, it will appease folks that abhor the 9% income tax on higher earners.

GoMuskies

10-11-2011, 01:26 PM

powerofX

10-11-2011, 01:34 PM

An extra tax on luxury items is silly for really the reason you state. Why, by government fiat, should the laborer who builds yachts or assembles private planes have his or her job security more in jeopardy than the guy who's working in a light bulb factory?

I'm with you. I support 9-9-9. I just don't know how it can get passed. If it was an open public referendum, I'd vote for it tomorrow. In congress, folks would be voting to reduce their power...and from what I've seen they like power:)

Kahns Krazy

10-11-2011, 01:58 PM

Interesting stat about the 22% who pay zero total taxes. I had heard before that 47% of people paid no federal income tax, but the total taxes stat is new to me.

Regarding the second paragraph, it seems amazing to me that something like this hasn't happened yet. People have been talking about this problem for years, off and on. Get rid of the clearly defined cutoffs and develop a system with a more gradual phasing out of benefits / credits as income increases.

The programs that I am most familiar with do have phase-outs. The problem is, the base level of assistance is often too high. When that happens, you either have steep phase outs or you have a single guy making $50k who is still eligible for $10 a week in food stamps.

Combine that with the fact that there are many of these programs that are independently set up and administered, and you have a compound effect of the phase outs that may not be set up to work well together.

The number of assistance programs available to a truly indigent family of 4 is rediculous. I'd like to see someone put together a true analysis of what the break-even point is between sitting on your butt and taking all the handouts available, and working a full time schedule to earn enough to pay for all those services. I'm pretty sure it's a higher number than my first full-time job.

Snipe

10-11-2011, 02:37 PM

Am I the only one that reads Snipe's posts like this?

I am surprised you didn't print it out and use it for a coffee table companion for tonight's debate. I command everyone to do just that.

I don't even read my posts. It isn't like I twist anyone's arm though. I am excited about tonight's debate. I need professional help.

I read a hilarious quote today that 22% of taxpayers pay zero or less than zero total taxes, after credits. This includes sales tax, payroll taxes and income taxes.

Uhh. Those aren't taxpayers. They are tax collectors.

The "People who need it most" already have a number of other programs to help them with their needs. They do not also deserve cash handouts from other taxpayers.

One of the things that I understand Cain is aiming to do is eliminate the low-income benefits curve that currently proides a disincentive to try to work your way out of a poverty situation. Currently, if you make $100,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, your net income goes up by $5,000, less your applicible tax bracket. If you make $15,000 and you get a $5,000 increase, that may make you ineligible for thousands in benefits you receive at your $15,000 income level. The marginal net take-home pay increase is much lower for the low income individual, which functions a huge disincentive to try to climb out of poverty by working harder.

I also believe that he's still working on his plan, and certain items would be exempt from the sales tax, such as raw foods and basic clothing.

I wanted to make sure you won't read this either.

The bolded part of your message reminded me of something I read a couple of years ago on the blog of the Ludwig Von Mises (amazing Jew) institute (http://mises.org/daily/3822):

The Dead Zone: The Implicit Marginal Tax Rate (http://mises.org/daily/3822)

To say that antipoverty programs in the United States are perverted may be an understatement. When you take into account the loss of means-tested benefits (e.g., cash assistance, food stamps, housing subsidies, and health insurance), and the taxes that people pay on earned income, the return to working is essentially zero for those in the lower two quintiles of the income distribution.

For many of the working poor, the implicit marginal tax rate is greater than 100 percent. The long-run consequence of undermining the positive incentive to work is, of course, the creation of an underclass acclimated to not working; the supplement of cash and noncash benefits with income from crime and the underground economy; and the government resorting to negative incentives such as mandatory work programs.

Below, I show the relationship between earned income and after-tax income plus subsidies for a hypothetical Virginia family of three, consisting of one adult and two minor children. As you can see, the relationship is essentially flat from $0 to about $40,000 in earned income.

With this he gives us two graphs which amaze the mind:

http://images.mises.org/3822/Figure1.png

See the dot on the far left? That is how much a single mother can make without doing anything. How far do you have to go to the right to get her to get off her fat ass and get motivated to work full time? How much money would you have to give her? If you give her $50,000 how much better off would she be after losing all the benefits? Is it enough to make her want to work full time? What about $60,000? And who wants to pay a typical single mother that type of money? Given her actions of single motherhood, she doesn't make great choices and is probably lazy from sucking on the government dole. She is never going to work in that graph, and nobody sane would ever want to pay her what she would want to give up her whoring and druging in her spare time.

Here is another graph from the same article:

To see exactly what is happening, I developed the following chart. It shows the implicit tax paid on the last $10,000 of earned income (initially by comparison to the welfare grant and then by comparison to income less taxes plus subsidies).

http://images.mises.org/3822/Figure2.png

At A, the marginal tax rate is quite high, essentially because of the generosity of the package of cash and noncash benefits provided to those on welfare. At B, the marginal tax rate is relatively low (!) because of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). From B to D, we (or, rather, the working poor) are in the Dead Zone, with implicit marginal tax rates mostly exceeding 100 percent.

How stupid and evil must our elected representatives be to do this to the working poor! Actually, this being a democracy, there is nobody to blame but the electorate. Especially the left-liberal do-gooders. Since Milton Friedman developed the negative income tax, waaay back in the 1950s, there can be no excuse for any educated person to not be aware of the fact that taxes and means-tested benefits destroy the lower classes' positive incentive to work.

When your tax rate in this graph is at 100%, for every extra dollar you make a dollar is taken away. You can see the highpoint on the graph at around an income of $30,000. He calculated the implicit marginal tax rate of this family at 140%, meaning for every extra dollar earned they would lose $1.40 of a combination of taxes and welfare benefits. I can't scream this enough: Look at that! This is your government paying people not to be productive.

Read the rest at the link above.

That seemed to short of a post, so I thought I could squeeze in another.

From Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedg e+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+fo r+everyone+drops+to+zero%29):

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedg e+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+fo r+everyone+drops+to+zero%29)

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/Money%20Earned.jpg

I bet the Mexicans have figured that out. That is why 3 out of 4 (75%!) first generation Mexican immigrant families access at least one welfare program.

Look at that graph! Notice that if you make $14,500, you could more than double your income to 30k and end up over $10,000 poorer along the way.

You have to wonder if the liberals are that stupid, or if they just want the whole system to collapse. I happen to believe it is a mix. Their are people on the left that are Marxists that would like to get rid of the rich and private property altogether. Their are also many useful idiots that go along because they pride themselves for their own good intentions ("doing it for the children").

This is one reason why I believe the whole system will one day collapse. Our perverse incentives have been going on for generations. They are so far ingrained in people in the "entitlement culture" that I can't see these things being taken away without some civil strife, burning buildings and bloodshed. Gird your loins.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Snipe

10-11-2011, 02:40 PM

I'd like to see someone put together a true analysis of what the break-even point is between sitting on your butt and taking all the handouts available, and working a full time schedule to earn enough to pay for all those services.

Ask and you shall receive (if you read it!). Always glad to be of service...

BBC 08

10-11-2011, 02:46 PM

I am surprised you didn't print it out and use it for a coffee table companion for tonight's debate. I command everyone to do just that.

Really? Another debate tonight? Why is there another debate? There is no need to have this many debates in the age of the internet.

Snipe

10-11-2011, 05:40 PM

I think more debates give more time for hard questions and less time for spin. It also allows candidates that don't have huge funding advantages to have somewhat equal time and get their say. Cain doesn't have the funding Romney or Perry does, but if he shines tonight he will be a contender.

The debate is at 8:00 tonight. I just looked it up and it on Bloomberg TV. I don't know if Time-Warner even carries Bloomberg TV. I guess they have a live stream as well. I should have looked that up before I posted. Big time fail. If it is hard to find I doubt many people will watch it with all the debates they seem to have. I guess people will hear if anyone really screws up or if someone has a nice zinger.

Another one is coming up next week on CNN.

Woo Hoo!

Frambo

10-11-2011, 05:42 PM

BBC 08

10-11-2011, 05:43 PM

For those wondering, here is a list of every Republican debate between now and Marc: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

Snipe

10-11-2011, 06:45 PM

thanks for the channel update Frambo. It is a subscription channel that I don't have, the "Choice Package".

I am going to stream it to my TV, or at least try. I haven't done that before.

GoMuskies

10-11-2011, 06:51 PM

Bloomberg TV, eh? Considering the hatchet job Bloomberg just did on the Kochs and the fact that Cain has some ties to the Kochs, this might not be a friendly venue for Cain tonight.

Snipe

10-11-2011, 07:37 PM

I like Charlie Rose. I think he is an honest broker. They have some chick from the Post though, don't know much about her.

Interesting that all the questions are on Economics. Never seen a debate like this. I bet nobody asks a question about immigration, Bloomberg loves immigration and they probably don't see it as an economic issue. Like somehow flooding the country with millions of low skill, uneducated labor that strains social services and public schools wouldn't affect the economy...

vee4xu

10-11-2011, 08:15 PM

I haven't followed it very closely, but think I saw something in today's WSJ that tonight's debate would focus pretty much solely on the economy.

JimmyTwoTimes37

10-11-2011, 09:12 PM

Bachmann is so ridiculous its hard to watch.

She blasts Perry for once 'supporting Al Gore' in 1998. Perry responds by saying he became a republican at a younger age than Ronald Reagan.

Then politifact reveals that Bachmann supported Jimmy Carter and the democratic party back in the day.

Snipe

10-11-2011, 10:28 PM

I would like it if they had a 5% threshold and eliminated Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman from the debates. 8 is too much to include everyone, and they should give more time to the serious players. They have had 7 debates. If you can't poll 5% give it up already.

I am not a big Bachman fan.

Romney cruised to a win tonight. I though Cain did alright and Newt always shows well. Cain complemented Alan Greenspan and I don't think that will play well.

They had a series where the candidates all asked each other questions. Most of them teamed up on Romney and he handled them all well. He is cool as a cucumber. When it came time for his question he threw a softball to Bachman. He doesn't have to get dirty. He has no rival. He is running the long race and he is the money man.

New poll tonight from Public Policy Polling puts Cain ahead in Iowa though 30-22 over Romney. Rick Perry (9%) is 4th behind Ron Paul (10%).

Cain is a legitimate contender, and if Romney does win I think he would be hard pressed not to pick Herman Cain as a VP pick. People like the man, and Romney has been very complimentary of him of late, even commenting in New Hampshire that if people voted for Cain it would be a good pick. Who says that? A confident man running the long race.

DC Muskie

10-12-2011, 07:27 PM

Newt always shows well.

What do you base this on?

Newt definitely thinks he is the smartest man on planet. Throw Dodd and Frank in jail! Burn the Fed!

Newt doesn't want the media to help these candidates turn on each and tear each other down. This is the same guy who earns a paycheck being a member of the media. He is the Bobby Knight of politics.

This guy is begging for whatever person wins the nomination, because it certainly won't be him, by complimenting everyone. If he is just going to do that, get back on Fox News and pat everyone on the back. Because it's not helping you win the White House.

bobbiemcgee

10-12-2011, 07:48 PM

There's no way Neuter can win with his despicable personal history. Just wasting time and money until he can get a bigger contract @ Fox.

Snipe

10-12-2011, 07:54 PM

waggy

10-12-2011, 08:02 PM

Jail my ass. They should be shot.

The government is corrupt.

Snipe

10-12-2011, 08:09 PM

Two new polls are out showing Herman Cain in the lead!

From the Wall Street Journal:

Cain Vaults to Lead in Poll (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576627282855836292.html)

Cain 27%
Romney 23%
Perry 16%

And from Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_10121122.pdf):

Cain 30%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 15%

Cain/Gingrich forever!!!!

hehehehe

Snipe

10-12-2011, 08:12 PM

Jail my ass. They should be shot.

The government is corrupt.

First Against the Wall when the Revolution Comes!

DC Muskie

10-12-2011, 08:15 PM

I tend to agree with Newt. The premise of the question is that people from Wall Street should be in jail. If that is the premise, why shouldn't people from Congress be in Jail? Why is that absurd? Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had more to do with this crisis than anyone else. If we are going to campaign in the press to have Wall Street show trials and lock someone up we might as well lock someone from Congress up too. Dodd and Frank have both used their positions for inside dealing. You can make a case they should both be locked up.

If your premise that Dodd and Frank had more to do with this crisis than anyone else, then we should jail all conspirators who helped them achieve their actions, since you know they can't do it by themselves.

So why didn't Newt suggest we jail the following people:

Kyl and McCain
Martinez
Chambliss, Craig
Mitch Mconnell
The Senators from Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Tennessee, Utah, who all voted for HR 1424.

Oh and President Bush who signed the Bill. Why didn't Newt suggest throwing him in jail?

That's what Newt does. Make irrational, baseless, brash statements. And he thinks he is a leader? Okay.

Newt didn't think he was the smartest man in that room last night, he knew it.

It's like being the tallest midget. Although Newt might have trouble claiming that.

Snipe

10-13-2011, 08:56 AM

Chris Dodd was on the Senate Banking committee. He got special loans and VIP treatment for being one of the "Friends of Angelo" (Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's CEO). Countrywide was a major player in the sub-prime loan meltdown, and they needed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack to buy their crappy loans portfolios so they could sell even more.

Chris Dodd also received more political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other political candidate. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now fully backed by the US government (which means you), but that didn't stop them from blowing all of that money on Chris Dodd's reelection and buying Countrywide's crappy loans. Countrywide also gave special loans to the head of Fannie Mae. It was a financial love triangle when the only person who loses is you the taxpayer. Dodd got bought off and co-opted by the people he was tasked to watch, and we get stuck with the bill.

Dodd also bought and "Irish cottage" vacation home with a "partner" who was a disgraced Bear Sterns Executive convicted of insider trading by the SEC. Dodd had lobbied for a pardon and won it for his partner during the Clinton Administratin. He bought out his partner's share of the home based upon a valuation of around 250k. In later Senate filings, Dodd estimated the value of the home to be $658,000, and others have estimated it's worth as over 1 million. Now how does a guy smart enough to be a Bear Stearn's executive leave $400,000 to $800,000 on the table in a buyout? I bet Edward Downe, Jr. believes he got his money's worth.

I would like it if Chris Dodd went to jail but like Kinsley said, the real scandal isn't what is illegal, it is what is legal.

I believe his care is indeed different than every Congressman that voted for HR 1424. I think the Occupy Wall Street people should protest Chris Dodd.

JimmyTwoTimes37

10-13-2011, 09:23 AM

Can you imagine the white supremacist crybaby reactions if Cain gets the nomination against Obama? That alone is almost worth seeing that presidential election battle

With that said, its a long race. I don't see anyone beating Romney over the long haul. First it was Bachmann and the flawed Iowa straw poll even with him in the ratings, then it was Perry, now its Cain. He has been the one constant and he's outraising everyone else. They all tried to attack him at the last debate and nothing could stick.

Also, the GOP establishment knows he has the best chance vs Obama in a general election with the independents.

bobbiemcgee

10-13-2011, 09:39 AM

Had an epiphany last night. Black guy came to deliver my pizza. It was 9.99 plus tip.

BBC 08

10-13-2011, 03:45 PM

Article on the 999 plan presented without comment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-9-9-9-plan-for-an-average-household-and-for-a-wealthy-one/2011/08/25/gIQAGKYzhL_blog.html

GoMuskies

10-13-2011, 04:28 PM

Article on the 999 plan presented without comment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-9-9-9-plan-for-an-average-household-and-for-a-wealthy-one/2011/08/25/gIQAGKYzhL_blog.html

Why did the author charge the guy making $50k with the full 9% corporate tax under the 999 plan but not charge him 35% under current tax law?

Snipe

10-13-2011, 04:48 PM

Let's hear what two of the most respected economic minds on the right have to say about this.

Economist Arthur Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) is on board! (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828):

The Godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer, has given Herman Cain's signature "9-9-9" economic plan a critical boost, even as it has come under heavy fire from his GOP presidential competitors

The famed economist told HUMAN EVENTS that the proposal was pro-growth and would create the proper conditions for America's economy to expand and thrive again.

"Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy," Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. "The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates."

Added Laffer: "Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."

Laffer also said that "such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment."

Paul Ryan joins the bandwagon!

Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan Gets Major Boosts From Paul Ryan (http://ology.com/politics/cain%E2%80%99s-9-9-9-plan-gets-major-boosts-paul-ryan)

Paul Ryan ‘loves’ Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/paul-ryan-loves-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/)

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan says he “loves” presidential candidate Herman Cain’s signature “9-9-9″ tax plan.

Ryan told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that Cain’s plan is a good starting point for debate, and shows the GOP presidential campaign season has entered into a more advanced stage where ideas — not just personalities — have come to the forefront.

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said. “I’m more of a flat-tax kind of a guy.”

The budget chairman went on to say that ideas like Cain’s plan could help shape the debate over tax reform moving into 2013.

I have been a fan of the Fair Tax, which is a progressive national consumption tax for a few years now. I also like some of the advantages of the Flat tax. Cain is trying to unite the Fair Taxers and the Flat Taxers on the right, and I believe that he is doing it as a way to transition to the Fair Tax. You can read about the Fair Tax on www.Fairtax.org.

Herman Cain is leading the polls, and now he has some big names giving some credence to his ideas. Our system is broken. Why tweak it? Cain is thinking outside the box, and he is attempting to fix the system. It is a bold plan indeed. That man has some guts.

I also like that Drug Dealers would be paying 9% federal taxes when they buy their 40s. Bout time they paid a dime.

"There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."

I think that America could use some of that. It would also make our companies more competitive in overseas markets by stripping out of the embedded tax costs in the products. Time to get this country working again!

HERMAN CAIN!!!

Kahns Krazy

10-13-2011, 05:21 PM

Ask and you shall receive (if you read it!). Always glad to be of service...

I have no idea how I missed that when you posted it, but that is exactly what I was looking for. Marginal effective tax rates above 100% are a problem. Someone should fix that.

chico

10-13-2011, 05:50 PM

Let's hear what two of the most respected economic minds on the right have to say about this.

Economist Arthur Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) is on board! (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828):

[/B]

Does anyone know what this says? Anyone? Anyone?

Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Anyone? Something economics...Anyone? Voo-someting economics...Anyone?

vee4xu

10-13-2011, 06:20 PM

A couple of excerpts from an article in today's Wall Street Journal after the level of scrutiny has been raised regarding Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

Liberal critics, however, say it would raise less revenue while boosting the tax burden on the poor. Some anti-tax conservatives and business people, meanwhile, argue that the plan's new federal sales tax might tempt lawmakers to spend too much, in addition to damping down consumer spending growth and penalizing producers of new goods and services.

and

Asked how that would apply to a computer designed domestically but containing Malaysian components and assembled in China, he (Mr. Cain) replied, "I have no idea."

Wonder what Steve Forbes is thinking?

X-band '01

10-13-2011, 07:05 PM

Does anyone know what this says? Anyone? Anyone?

Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Anyone? Something economics...Anyone? Voo-someting economics...Anyone?

Something - d-o-o economics.

Voo-doo economics.

rhyno2110

10-13-2011, 07:07 PM

I Looooooove Herman Cain! He is truly confident in his ideas which resonates well with the American people. Its about time someone stood for a bold plan that actually sounds reasonable.

However, I have long had questions about the facets of his policies. Most prominent of which is his foreign policies. One may find this to be a possible weakness of Cain's, but I think his overall charisma will allow him to successfully offer fearless solutions. He explained in an interview tonight with Erin Burnett that he has a vision to identify our friends and foes, strenghten our ballistics system, which he acknowledges is already strong, and stop giving money to our enemies. Also, he described how we will compete with, and overcome China in the economic area.

I know my vote is for Herman Cain as of now because he offers straight up solutions, has no vagueness in his solutions, and allows anybody to view the specifics of his ideas. I don't see that from the likes of Romney (however I do think he is competent) or Perry (uhhhhh, never). I think Gingrich is trying to be overly complementary to all candidates in an effort to get the vice presidency. I don't really know how much I like that.

Cain all the way

XU 87

10-13-2011, 07:26 PM

I was about to write that while I really like Cain, I don't like his national sales tax proposal. Giving congress another means to tax scares me. But if the great Art Laffer is for it, then I may need to reconsider.

DC Muskie

10-13-2011, 07:38 PM

If Cain won the White House, and his 9-9-9 plan actually became law, it would be interesting to see how anyone would want to create new products, like cars and homes, and instead we would rely on used goods so that they wouldn't be subject to sales tax.

Luckily none of this will ever happen.

Snipe

10-13-2011, 10:25 PM

DC, why should we push consumption. Do you know what happens when people consume less? They save and invest in capital. Capital formation though savings and investment is critical for the future, like giving the next generation a better tomorrow than we have today. That is what we used to do, pay it forward. We didn't always get 2nd mortgages to buy new stuff or have Presidents that tell us all to "Go Shopping" as the patriotic thing to do.

And what is wrong with used goods? Cains plan would give incentives for conservation. Environmentalist should like that. I know I do. Does everything we have need to be disposable? Consumption should be taxed. We don't do it. Saving should be encouraged. We don't do it. Instead, we tax productivity. By doing that, we decrease the incentive to be productive. No wonder we have a nation of lazy fat bastards that likes to spend more than they have and consume tomorrow today. It doesn't have to be that way. We need to work on getting our incentives aligned with our true priorities.

What these articles don't capture is that the price of every good would fall with a more transparent and easy tax system. This would be because of the stripping away of all the taxes that are embedded at every level of the process. A substantial portion of the price you pay for each good you buy is for the taxes that are already embedded along the way. The cost of those taxes, and the cost of the compliance is quite high. Americans spend hundreds of billions each year just paying people to fill out their tax forms on a personal level. Think of what businesses spend. Think of the scores of accountants and tax lawyers, and think of the expensive lawsuits with the IRS. Warren Buffet owes more than a billion in taxes if you listen to Uncle Sam, or if you listen to Berkshire's lawyers it is a different story. Some huge companies find ways to pay no taxes at all, but I am sure they spend a pretty penny to get such tax avoidance.

Also think about how a simple tax structure might affect Washington and our politics. Who is going to lobby if you can't get special exempt status. Who did GE have to pay to pay no taxes and insert lines into legislation. You could cut out quite a bit of special interest legislation and level the playing field.

Our system is broken. I am up for other proposals to fix it, but I don't hear anyone else coming up with a plan. I think that people should take his plan seriously and offer alternatives. What we are doing now isn't working. Half the people don't even pay federal income taxes. I like consumption taxes because drug dealers and illegal immigrants pay them too. Why not broaden the tax base with those criminals? I like the sound of that. It is about time we got some of that welfare money back.

BBC 08

10-14-2011, 08:05 AM

Did Cain get the 999 plan from SimCity? http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=999+plan+simcity

Kahns Krazy

10-14-2011, 09:43 AM

I really like the concept of scrapping the whole tax code and starting over with something simple. It will get bastardized over the years, but starting over isn't a horrible idea. The IRS spends nearly $100 per tax return filed. Savings right there.

XUglow

10-14-2011, 01:21 PM

Why did the author charge the guy making $50k with the full 9% corporate tax under the 999 plan but not charge him 35% under current tax law?

The article referenced is dumber than dumb. Why would this guy add 9+9+9 to get 27% tax for an individual? One of the 9's is corporate tax yet he doesn't even attempt to explain why he counted corporate tax towards an individual's tax bill.

In summary: 999 might be dumb, but the author's analysis IS dumb.

Kahns Krazy

10-14-2011, 02:41 PM

The article referenced is dumber than dumb. Why would this guy add 9+9+9 to get 27% tax for an individual? One of the 9's is corporate tax yet he doesn't even attempt to explain why he counted corporate tax towards an individual's tax bill.

In summary: 999 might be dumb, but the author's analysis IS dumb.

I was going to comment on it, but it was so painful to read I stopped. The first major flaw is assuming that an individuals' annual salary stays the same under a new tax structure. Beyond that, it's all pointless since all of the numbers are in percentages of base salary.

XU-PA

10-14-2011, 02:44 PM

Whether Cain's people got the 999 plan from Sim City, or just pulled 3 numbers out of their butts because it sounded good, it's very obviously not a well thought out plan.
Looking at any number of analyses it doesn't cover the needs of govt, it hits the working poor/middle class way too hard.
And just in numbers, how many of us would feel good about tacking about 30 cents on to each gallon of gas, and adding another 9 percent to the state sales tax we already pay. So in some cases sales tax would be 19%. I'm in Maine where the sales tax is low, but making it 16% on the items deemed tourism related? Not a chance, unless Cain expects the states to do away with sales taxes all together and just slam income, businesses and property. The only purpose the 999 plan serves is for the Cain campaign to get a snappy little saying that the media will pick up on, it satisfies the need for an 8 second mindless sound bite. If the plan were well thought out it would certainly have 3 different numbers.
Any change in the tax code needs to be done in small chunks, there's no way a big group of lawyers (congress) is going to vote to eliminate the very complex tax code that their ilk, tax lawyers, live off of. Needless to say millions, full or part time, would be put out of work by a simple tax code.
It's sad to say, but we are stuck with the 1040, the IRS and the massive headaches we all get every year trying to figure it out all over again.

Kahns Krazy

10-14-2011, 03:14 PM

Any proposal that includes a national sales tax will probably be structured in a way that the national sales tax is included in the shelf price of the item. The concept is that lower corportate taxes lead to lower prices for goods and services, so the 9% is not added to the current shelf price of an item.

Simply adding 9% to current sales prices and saying "extra x cents per item" oversimplifies the impact of such a plan, and certainly makes it seem less attractive. I disagree that we are "stuck" with the 1040 and should resign ourselves to it.

GoMuskies

10-14-2011, 03:20 PM

Also, in theory I believe federal gas taxes would be eliminated, so you wouldn't be seeing 30 cents extra per gallon for gas. The price at the pump would probably go down.

XUglow

10-14-2011, 03:35 PM

The sales tax on gasoline wouldn't add 30 cents. The currents excise tax runs from 18 to 24 cents per gallon now. That would be replaced by 9% sales tax. It isn't the hit you imagine.

I don't know if the numbers are right, but if the IRS is running us $1,600 per person per year. We need to figure out how to lower that number.

In Denmark, you don't even file taxes if you have a salaried job. Your tax is based on a pay period. If you make X, a portion of that gets withheld and sent to the government. It's gone. Poof. End of story. Sales tax is based on a series of discrete operations. In Denmark, salary tax is treated the same way. I make $1000 this week. I get a check for $910. Done.

BBC 08

10-18-2011, 05:13 PM

The 999 plan will supposedly raise taxes on 84%, study shows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/999-plan-herman-cain_n_1018462.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Muskie in dayton

10-18-2011, 05:26 PM

The Huffington Post has a negative analysis of a Republican idea?!? It must be bad then.

BBC 08

10-19-2011, 08:09 AM

The Huffington Post has a negative analysis of a Republican idea?!? It must be bad then.

What if I linked to a Fox News story quoting the independent study? Would you be more likely to take it seriously then?

paulxu

10-19-2011, 08:42 AM

Voila! Instant credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/study-cain-tax-plan-raises-taxes-on-84-percent/

BBC 08

10-19-2011, 08:49 AM

Voila! Instant credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/study-cain-tax-plan-raises-taxes-on-84-percent/

Thanks, Paulxu.

spazzrico

10-19-2011, 09:15 AM

The Huffington Post has a negative analysis of a Republican idea?!? It must be bad then.

Say what you will about the Huffington Post, but they are pretty much just reporting on a study by the Tax Policy Center. And they quote a number of GOP candidates that don't like it and here is quote from an economist at a conservative think tank. This is pretty much a straight news story.

William McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation, said Cain's plan to move away from taxing savings and investment "would be a very good thing for growth in the long run."

But, McBride said, the national sales tax would be a nightmare to administer because so many state and local governments already have sales taxes, and the bases are different.

In most states, food and medicine are excluded from sales tax. Cain has said his sales tax would be applied to all new goods – only used goods would be exempt.

"It's not as simple as having all these jurisdictions simply tack on 9 percent and send it to the federal government," McBride said in an interview.

muckem muckem

10-19-2011, 09:55 AM

bobbiemcgee

10-19-2011, 10:06 AM

Plan is DOA with 36m AARP members and anybody on SS/Pension. Cain sez they can buy "used". Food, for example.

bourbonman

10-19-2011, 10:54 AM

Federal Income Tax
State Income Tax
City Income Tax
Social Security
Matching Social Security
Commercial Activity Tax
Ohio Consumption Tax
Medicare
Property Tax
Water Retention Tax
License Plates
Federal Excise
Fishing Fu***** License
Gas Tax
Blah, Blah Blah........

You got to Tear That Mother Down

Excise tax on beer, wine and spirits (Federal and some states)
Excise tax on tires
Excise tax on guns
Hunting license
Entrance fees to many state and national parks
Marriage license

This could be a fun list ... yet depressing

Muskie in dayton

10-19-2011, 11:14 AM

What if I linked to a Fox News story quoting the independent study? Would you be more likely to take it seriously then?

Absolutely not! As a political independent I can smell crap a mile away, which includes (and especially includes) Fox and MSNBC. Huffington post is not far behind.

This idea has merit and we should look at critically and objectively - the way our liberal arts university taught us. Don't disregard this based on biased media (crap).

Muskie in dayton

10-19-2011, 11:18 AM

Say what you will about the Huffington Post, but they are pretty much just reporting on a study by the Tax Policy Center. And they quote a number of GOP candidates that don't like it and here is quote from an economist at a conservative think tank. This is pretty much a straight news story.

Think maybe the other GOP candidates don't like it because they're running aginst the guy who came up with the idea? Hmmm...

paulxu

10-19-2011, 11:19 AM

Absolutely not! As a political independent I can smell crap a mile away, which includes (and especially includes) Fox and MSNBC. Huffington post is not far behind.

This idea has merit and we should look at critically and objectively - the way our liberal arts university taught us. Don't disregard this based on biased media (crap).

That's exactly the point. Both Huffington and Fox were reporting statistics about the plan from an independent 3rd party group. The crap you smell may be coming from the reporting site, but just go and read the 3rd party report "critically and objectively" about the "idea."

BBC 08

10-19-2011, 11:20 AM

Kahns Krazy

10-19-2011, 11:22 AM

The Huffington Post has a negative analysis of a Republican idea?!? It must be bad then.

The 999 plan will supposedly raise taxes on 84%, study shows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/999-plan-herman-cain_n_1018462.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

I really don't see a problem with that. The current administrations repeated tax cuts to the bottom 50% really haven't done anything for us except run up the debt. Spending needs to be cut, and taxes need to be raised.

Cain's idea has a catchy name. He's a candidate for president. Of course there will need to be modifications to a plan based on "9-9-9". Think of how humiliating it would be to every politician, economist and tax man over the last 100 years if some pizza guy came strolling into the fray and said "9-9-9", and after everyone had a chance to look over the numbers, it was exactly neutral for everyone.

My biggest concern is for corporations in low net margin industries. I understand the 9% corporation tax is not based on net income, but rather sales. I don't really get how that works for a company that is currently making a 5% net margin on sales.

I also can't wrap my mind around how many people and companies are involved in the tax business. Major and smaller CPA firms around the country, tax companies like H&R Block, annual tax software releases like quicken, all the IRS employees (93,000 there alone). I can't imagine how much time and money is spent complying with and enforcing the tax code. What a waste.

I am quite certain that 9-9-9 over-simplifies the concept, but I'm as certain that major tax code overhaul is necessary.

ArizonaXUGrad

10-19-2011, 12:42 PM

Kahns Krazy

10-19-2011, 01:45 PM

Just think of the amount of unemployment destroying the tax code would create. :eek:

That said, his plan taxes the poor far too much for it to work. It reduces the tax liability on the rich which is also exactly what this country doesn't need right now.

The economic issues we are facing right now stem from the fact that this country is canabilizing it's own middle class. The populus is turning into a whole lot of poor and not a whole lot of rich and nobody in between. This country prospered when there was a mass number of people who could afford to consume a large number of goods. We just can't do that now.

The poor are already taxed on everything they buy because of corporate income taxes. If the price of an item today is $1.00, but drops to 92 cents because of the elimination of corporate taxes, and the price, including sales tax is $1.00, that's not really an incremental tax since the poor end user is paying the same out of pocket.

Many of the analyses I've seen assume that prices stay fixed and salaries stay fixed. I think that is a substantial flaw in analysis.

bigdiggins

10-19-2011, 01:52 PM

The poor are already taxed on everything they buy because of corporate income taxes. If the price of an item today is $1.00, but drops to 92 cents because of the elimination of corporate taxes, and the price, including sales tax is $1.00, that's not really an incremental tax since the poor end user is paying the same out of pocket.

Many of the analyses I've seen assume that prices stay fixed and salaries stay fixed. I think that is a substantial flaw in analysis.

Bingo. Lot of costs tied up in compliance with the current code. Those costs are already incorporated into the cost of the good.

DC Muskie

12-04-2011, 02:48 PM

I hope everyone who supported Herman Cain here is doing okay after yesterday.

Kahns Krazy

12-04-2011, 07:04 PM

I hope everyone who supported Herman Cain here is doing okay after yesterday.

I would reply, but I'm afraid I would hurt someones feelings, so I can't.

Snipe

12-04-2011, 08:16 PM

Cain self destructed. That is the value of the primary season, it allows that stuff to play out before the general. Looks like it is down to Newt and Romney. I am leaning towards Newt. Both of those guys are sharp.

At the begining of the race I predicted Tim Pawlenty would win it. He was the first to drop out. I also predicted that the State of California would emerge as a big issue, and the State of Wisconsin has dominated the headlines compared to other states. That won't stop me from predicting again. And if I ever get one right, you can bet your ass I will tell you all how I called it. I did predict that Obama would be like Bush but would just spend more money. I think that one turned out OK.

Tim Pawlenty should have stayed in the race. With all the candidates that got a look I think that at some point people would have looked at him and liked him. He didn't run much of a campaign though, he just shook a lot of hands and told everyone he is the most electable guy. Even if you are a very electable guy, I am not sure anyone wants to hear you say it. Let other people say that stuff.

Whoever wins is going to get a billions dollars spent against them, coupled with the major liberal media outlets attacking them. I wonder who in their right mind would really want that. Obama can't run on his record, he is going to run a partisan attack campaign with all of that money. Imagine having a billion dollars spent against you, demonizing you. And then even if you win we don't have any money. You are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending and everyone will hate you. Didn't take long for Obama to get those grey hairs. The Presidency is a crappy job, and the American people expect all their perks and don't want to pay for any of it.

Should be interesting though.

I don't really feel bad for Herman Cain. He should have figured some of that stuff out on his own. I do feel bad for his wife though. Doubt she deserved that.

Cheesehead

12-04-2011, 10:09 PM

Cain showed he was not ready for prime time and a long campaign season. He needed to go regardless of any cheating or harassment issues. He is not qualified.

bobbiemcgee

12-04-2011, 10:13 PM

Hmmmm, Newt had affairs with wife #2 and #3 while still married to #1 and #2. Expect more of the same.

Snipe

12-04-2011, 11:10 PM

I wasn't looking to marry him, but thanks for the advice.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 07:59 AM

Whoever wins is going to get a billions dollars spent against them, coupled with the major liberal media outlets attacking them. I wonder who in their right mind would really want that. Obama can't run on his record, he is going to run a partisan attack campaign with all of that money. Imagine having a billion dollars spent against you, demonizing you. And then even if you win we don't have any money. You are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending and everyone will hate you. Didn't take long for Obama to get those grey hairs. The Presidency is a crappy job, and the American people expect all their perks and don't want to pay for any of it.

Should be interesting though.

I don't really feel bad for Herman Cain. He should have figured some of that stuff out on his own. I do feel bad for his wife though. Doubt she deserved that.

Let's be honest here, both sides are going to run attack campaigns. These guys are all (or at least almost all) total scumbags who will do anything to get elected.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 08:02 AM

I wasn't looking to marry him, but thanks for the advice.

I'm not saying you have done this, but if you are going to give Gingrich a pass for being a horrible person you cannot then vilify other candidates for being a horrible person.

I personally think that we tend to place too much emphasis on the personal lives of our elected officials, but if you as a candidate are going to attack others for their morality then you need to make sure that your own house is clean.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 08:21 AM

Let's be honest here, both sides are going to run attack campaigns. These guys are all (or at least almost all) total scumbags who will do anything to get elected.

I would be surprised if Republicans ran a campaign attacking Obama in a personal way instead of attacking his record. His record is horrible and difficult to defend. Obama will not be running on his record, he will have to attack his opponents and make them look like crazy unhinged radicals who don't care about the poor or minorities. Seems like that is the "politics of the past". There is some hope and change for you.

I think Gingrich or Romney would just keep hammering Obama on his record over and over again.

And for the record, I don't think they are all scumbags. I don't even think Obama is a scumbag. I do think he is a failure, and that is what is important.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 08:33 AM

I would be surprised if Republicans ran a campaign attacking Obama in a personal way instead of attacking his record. His record is horrible and difficult to defend. Obama will not be running on his record, he will have to attack his opponents and make them look like crazy unhinged radicals who don't care about the poor or minorities. Seems like that is the "politics of the past". There is some hope and change for you.

I think Gingrich or Romney would just keep hammering Obama on his record over and over again.

And for the record, I don't think they are all scumbags. I don't even think Obama is a scumbag. I do think he is a failure, and that is what is important.

Romney might not be a scumbag. Gingrich definitely is.

I really don't view the Republicans as 'above' personal attacks. They went crazy with that 'birther' crap the first time Obama ran.

For the record, I am about 90% sure that Romney will get the republican nomination at which point I would be about 90% sure that I would vote for Romney. Gingrich is just a distraction at this point with no realistic shot at the nomination. The worst thing that could happen to republicans, IMHO, is Gingrich getting the nomination over Romney.

I would like to see both parties run a clean campaign without resorting to personal attacks and character assassination. We'll see how long that lasts.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 08:55 AM

I don't think that Newt Gingrich is a horrible person. He has flaws. Democrats hate him. That will make him "polarizing" all of the sudden in the media. I don't think Bill Clinton is a horrible person. I also think that people only like to note the moral flaws of candidates that they tend not to agree with.

A big problem with "hate speech" is that it really depends upon who is saying it. A Supreme Court justice can say they thought Roe vs. Wade was put there to get rid of "unwanted populations" i.e. those people. If they are the most liberal justice it doesn't cause that much of a stir. If a conservative talked about the benefit of ridding ourselves of unwanted populations that would qualify as hate speech.

We are all biased towards the people that we like. We tend to overlook their flaws. We are all human, and we are all sinners. But when that person is someone we don't agree with, those same flaws show how evil that person is and reinforce all the bad things we all think about them. It is human nature and I try to check myself of that from time to time. I am frequently unsuccessful. We like to believe the worst of the people we don't like.

Mostly, the people that will hammer Gingrich for being a bad person will be the same people who wouldn't have voted for Gingrich if he was a choir boy.

Gingrich only has a chance in the first place because our world still teeters on the edge of financial collapse. Our debt and deficits are unsustainable, and people here don't want to be Greece. The Euro might not last another year, or even another six months in its current form. Things are bad all over. It is a serious time and we need some serious solutions. We don't need someone who votes present. We need to make major changes and Newt probably has the most brilliant and creative political mind of anyone in politics. When it comes to innovation and practical solutions he can't be beat. He put together the Contract with America, and when he led the party and we passed his laws the economy was healthy and the debt was reigned in. I am not sure if anyone alive can do that again, because we may already have passed the point of no return. We may not be able to avoid collapse. If we are going to do, we need a serious player. Newt is that guy.

And if people were really values voters, no better candidate has ever existed than Mitt Romney. I am not sure he has ever sinned. SNL did a parody of it, "Mitt gone wild" or some such thing. Guy graduated at the top of his class, as in #1. He is the only candidate to release his grades. He is brilliant, financially successful in the private sector, and a popular former governor of a blue state. Even they liked him. He has probably never even had a drink and he is a happily married family man with a bunch of kids. He would make a great President in my book and I backed him last time around. His major flaw in my book is that he doesn't have a flaw, and it seems like his whole life he was destined to be President. If his resume doesn't impress people I am not sure what they hell they want.

Personally I still like Ron Paul, and he is recently surging in Iowa to tie Romney. I would still encourage any democrat that is anti-war to participate in Republican primaries in support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul would end these wars. You could save a lot of money right there, and he is the only man I can see that will actually do it. He would also gut every federal department that he could get his hands on and do his level best to balance the budget. Most of the other Republicans have gotten their shot at the top spot, but Paul hasn't and the media doesn't like him. A lot of Republicans don't like him, and a lot of Democrats don't either. His strongest support comes not from Rs or Ds, but independents and interestingly enough young college students. Independents would go for Ron Paul over Obama. He is actually electable if you could get him into the general. I would like to be out of these wars and all the foreign aid. I would like to worry about America and let other people solve their own problems. Even we we try to solve other people's problems, we end up spending money and young lives and everyone still hates us in the end anyway. They don't deserve our money or the lives of our children. They aren't even grateful. Screw them, and let them live in their own third world sewage. I would love Ron Paul, and I would advocate that you should too.

Of course I am a partisan, but that is my take.

Porkopolis

12-05-2011, 08:59 AM

I don't think either party will run attack ads nor will either candidate. They'll simply stand back and let the 527s do it for them.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 09:05 AM

Romney might not be a scumbag. Gingrich definitely is.

I really don't view the Republicans as 'above' personal attacks. They went crazy with that 'birther' crap the first time Obama ran.

For the record, I am about 90% sure that Romney will get the republican nomination at which point I would be about 90% sure that I would vote for Romney. Gingrich is just a distraction at this point with no realistic shot at the nomination. The worst thing that could happen to republicans, IMHO, is Gingrich getting the nomination over Romney.

I would like to see both parties run a clean campaign without resorting to personal attacks and character assassination. We'll see how long that lasts.

That "birther crap" was started in the Democrat primary by a Hillary Clinton supporter. It is of Democratic origin and McCain didn't use it in the election. A substantial number of Democrats continued to believe that Obama was not born in this country even after elected. That wasn't a Republican plot.

Gingrich is the front runner, so much for your 90%. As it stands today Gingrich will get the nomination. Things may change as they often have, but he is leading in every early primary except New Hampshire, and even gaining there. To some it looks like a fait accompli. I am not sure anyone can stop him either.

I am not saying that Republicans are above personal attacks either, but I certainly don't expect either Romney or Gingrich to go after Obama on a personal level, (meaning that he is a bad person). They will go after Obama because he is an abject failure, and he is.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 09:07 AM

I don't think either party will run attack ads nor will either candidate. They'll simply stand back and let the 527s do it for them.

That is true. You need clean hands and let others do it for you. Democrats rely largely on the media to define Republicans in a poor light.

But honestly, what are Republican 527's even going to say bad about Obama as a person? It is a losing argument. People like Obama as a person, they just think he is doing a crappy job. Why not just agree with the people and reinforce what a crappy job he has done? He really doesn't have a leg to stand on. It is Obama and the Democratic media machine that will need to attack, because he can't run on his record.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 09:45 AM

That "birther crap" was started in the Democrat primary by a Hillary Clinton supporter. It is of Democratic origin and McCain didn't use it in the election. A substantial number of Democrats continued to believe that Obama was not born in this country even after elected. That wasn't a Republican plot.

Gingrich is the front runner, so much for your 90%. As it stands today Gingrich will get the nomination. Things may change as they often have, but he is leading in every early primary except New Hampshire, and even gaining there. To some it looks like a fait accompli. I am not sure anyone can stop him either.

I am not saying that Republicans are above personal attacks either, but I certainly don't expect either Romney or Gingrich to go after Obama on a personal level, (meaning that he is a bad person). They will go after Obama because he is an abject failure, and he is.

Perry was the front runner at one point, how is that working out for him now? There have been several front runners for the Republican nomination thus far. I firmly believe that Romney will be the one left standing at the end. I could be wrong though. There are issues with Romney, for sure.

Romney is interesting as a Republican candidate. Many of the hard core Republicans don't like him because he was the Governor of a pretty liberal State. He has supported some pretty liberal things. He is also a mormon which doesn't necessarily sit well with the far right. I think that is why there has been so much fluctuation at the top of the Republican polls. The end result is that Romney could struggle in the primaries.

Having said that, if the Republicans nominate Gingrich they might as well just skip the whole election process and hand it to Obama, IMHO. The issue with Gingrich is that the far right loves him, but the moderates generally don't and would struggle to vote for him. Gingrich has also said and done a lot of dumb things over his career that will resurface and become issues if he gets the Republican nomination. Romney, on the other hand, would play fairly well with moderates, particularly fiscally conservative moderates, and would appeal to undecided voters.

I would like to see Romney emerge from the scrum. He is the one that I could really vote for. Gingrich is basically a career politician in my eyes. Romney has been very successful in the private sector, which I think we need right now. I also think that he would be the most likely to compromise with the left to drive change.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 09:52 AM

I wasn't looking to marry him, but thanks for the advice.

You're safe, Newt wouldn't go for it anyway.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 10:40 AM

Gingrich only has a chance in the first place because our world still teeters on the edge of financial collapse. .

So we should hire a guy who kited 22 checks and got censured for violating ethics to rectify this problem.

pizza delivery

12-05-2011, 11:53 AM

Snipe

12-05-2011, 12:30 PM

Feel free to educate us on his kiting checks and his violation of ethics. I am not familiar with the details. Enlighten me.

Is it this?: House banking scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal)

The House banking scandal broke in early 1992, when it was revealed that the United States House of Representatives allowed members to overdraw their House checking accounts without risk of being penalized by the House bank (actually a clearinghouse).

This is also sometimes known as Rubbergate (from the expressions "rubber check" and "Watergate)". The term is misleading because House checks did not bounce; they were honored because the House Bank provided overdraft protection to its account holders. It was also sometimes known as the "[B]congressional check-kiting scandal".

The Scandal

The House banking scandal ultimately involved more than 450 representatives, most of whom did not break any laws. Twenty-two congressmen and -women were singled out by the House Ethics Committee for leaving their checking accounts overdrawn for at least eight months out of a sample of 39 months.[1]

The following 22 House members were singled out by the House Ethics Committee:

Name State Party # of checks Months overdue
Tommy F. Robinson Arkansas Democratic/Republican 996 16
Robert J. Mrazek New York Democratic 920 23
Robert W. Davis Michigan Republican 878 13
Doug Walgren Pennsylvania Democratic 858 16
Charles F. Hatcher Georgia Democratic 819 35
Stephen J. Solarz New York Democratic 743 30
Charles Hayes Illinois Democratic 716 15
Ronald D. Coleman Texas Democratic 673 23
Carl C. Perkins Kentucky Democratic 514 14
Bill Alexander Arkansas Democratic 487 18
William F. Goodling Pennsylvania Republican 430 9
Ed Towns New York Democratic 408 18
Ed Feighan Ohio Democratic 397 8
Harold Ford, Sr. Tennessee Democratic 743 30
Mickey Edwards Oklahoma Republican 386 13
Bill Clay Missouri Democratic 328 9
Tony Coelho California Democratic 316 12
John Conyers Michigan Democratic 273 9
Mary Rose Oakar Ohio Democratic 213 18
Joseph D. Early Massachusetts Democratic 124 13
Douglas H. Bosco California Democratic 124 13
Jim Bates California Democratic 89 9

I just did a wiki. I knew nothing about this before hand. Is this really what you are talking about? Is that your reason for not supporting Gingrich. The wiki also said this:

In the early days of the scandal, when the media began reporting on the loose practices, Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as the Gang of Seven or "The Young Turks," made the strategic decision to publicize the scandal in an attempt to sweep congressmen with overdrawn accounts, most of them Democrats, out of power. Gingrich realized that far more Democrats could be implicated in this scandal than Republicans, so he made the decision to make the identities of all of those involved public and "let the chips fall where they may." Jim Nussle, one of the Gang of Seven, came to national attention when he made a speech from the well of the House while wearing a paper bag over his head to protest the "shameful" ethical behavior involved in the scandal.

Gingrich pressured the then Speaker of the House Tom Foley to ensure that the special counsel appointed to investigate the matter informed the voting public of the overdrafts and the identities of all of the Congressmen responsible.[4]

Again, I am not sure if that is what your talking about, I just googled Gingrich Kiting Check. The wiki says the total number of members involved was 450. That is odd in that there are only 435 members in the House. It must have involved multiple terms. It also appears that Newt was integrally involved in bringing the scandal to the attention of the taxpayers. I can't see how that could hurt him with independents. Is that really your beef?

Give me your take. I wasn't that clued into politics when this happened and have no recollection. Did Gingrich really kite checks? Did he defraud people of money with checks that bounced? Did he steal other people's money? I would like to know.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 12:49 PM

I don't know much about Gingrich, but I just see him as unstable. I think he's academically fair minded, but a complete ideologue when it comes down to it. I think that's a dangerous thing for someone who is mindful of history and yet would find himself making history. I really think he'd get carried away. Or maybe he'd be a brilliant leader. If he had more give than Boehner on polarizing issues that would be great. I don't see him as a deficit hawk, which would probably bring a malaise upon the conservative base. He'd beat up on the poor in favor of the military just to save face. I do like Ron Paul's military stance, as conservatives need to be more honest about what's really driving the deficit.

Why would you see him as unstable? Isn't there something strange about how people on the left view people on the right as some sort of cognitive mental disorder? Newt not agreeing with you makes him unstable? Like he might just go off and start killing people any minute now?

He didn't support Clinton's warmongering in Bosnia. Was that unstable? Heaven help us if he ever gets his finger on the button!

And what about him being an ideologue? What is Obama? What is Pelosi? What is Reid? Who has been running this country? I think Newt does believe in his ideas, and I think your problem is that you don't like his ideas.

Why do we have a progressive income tax? It was an idea that someone had. Karl Marx had that idea and it became popular. He wrote a book about it. It isn't a part of natural law or the natural order of man, it is an idea.

I think that's a dangerous thing for someone who is mindful of history and yet would find himself making history.

I am still trying to parse that out. He has ideas. He believes in them. He is mindful of history. What is the alternative? Someone bereft of any ideological beliefs, someone who doesn't know history? I wish Obama had taken a history lesson, then we probably wouldn't have put up with the same failed policies re-branded and repackaged as "hope and change".

And get this. Newt once held considerable power. He had the chance to advance his beliefs. It was called the "Contract with America". It proved to be both stable and quite successful. Why don't you study that history? You may learn a little something.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 01:08 PM

Snipe

12-05-2011, 01:44 PM

Guessed you missed this part:
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000.[65] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [66] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[67] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.

Apparently you see no problem with running overdrafts, check kiting, etc. These are interest free loans to the power elite not available to others. When they got caught, I'm sure some special interest took care of the huge overdrafts for them. Did you think Congress was going to censure themselves? Nah. Slap on the wrist, the way it's always done. Kite a check in Hamilton County and you will probably do a little time.
These crooks run the country the same way.

My whole point is Newt can't be TRUSTED. He's a liar and a cheat. He's lined his pockets thru "donations" from corporate America to provide them government access. But he sez he wasn't a lobbyist, so what the hell did he do? He took 1.6 million from Freddie Mac. For what? Did he tell them to stop buying bad paper? It was just a political contributuion to Newt disguised as "consulting". This is how your guvment works.

As for the "guess you missed this part", that part wasn't in the link provided. I asked you a question if that was what you are talking about. You didn't even answer my question. I didn't know about the check kiting scandal that you spoke of. I provided a link to what I found and asked you a question.

You didn't provide a link to your quote, which was NOT at my link. I wasn't hiding anything. I don't like you acting like I was. I searched and your quote came from Newt's wiki.

Here is the full quote of the entire section on Ethics, which you selectively quoted above:

Ethics sanctions

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000.[65] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [66] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[67] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated[68] and left that issue up to the IRS.[69] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[70][71]

I don't remember much or any of this stuff. I wasn't particularly involved politically at the time to be honest.

What should all of this mean to me? They filed 84 ethics charges against Gingrich. How many did they get him on? Did they get him on one of them? I honestly don't know. A special council thought that he lied and broke tax law, but yet in the following sentence which you didn't quote it clearly says that the full committee panel did not agree, and that the IRS ended up clearing the organization. Is this supposed to mean something big to me, or anyone else. I confess I am ignorant of the facts. All I read was the wiki. That is all you quoted from.

And from that wiki, the major charge against Newt is that he tought a college course that was "run for a political purpose", whatever that means. Seriously? That is what you got? Ever been to college? Ever taken a political course? Ever have a liberal, socialist or even Marxist professor? They are out there in acadamia. I commented on "hate speech" earlier in the thread, and my take on hate speech is that it is often more about who is doing the speaking than what is said.

So people didn't like Gingrich. They filed a bunch of ethics charges against him that didn't stick. And in the end they waved the bloody flag because he taught a college course they they thought pushed a conservative political agenda. That is all I see that you have got. For shame. What an evil man. Do you realize just how weak your argument is? Really? If you have a better argument, go ahead and give it.

For the record, Sarah Palin had lots of ethics charges filed against her. Every time they filed on it made the press, and the press and partisan advocates kept a running tally of just how many had been filed. To my recollection, not one of them ever stuck. But she had to play money out of her own funds to defend herself. She eventually resigned, citing the legal costs and the effect that the barrage of ethics charges would not permit her to govern effectively. She got bashed for that too. But she was never found to have done anything wrong as far as I can recall. So much for the party of tolerance.

Newt resigned from Congress too. 84 ethics charges probably had a lot to do with that. What did they get him on? Teaching a college course with a political bias? Geez, what an evil man. Thank you for alerting us so that we can save ourselves from this menace to society.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 02:11 PM

Guess you missed the points. He ADMITTED to lying. He admitted to the check kiting. Wrote one to the IRS! He says he's for "Family Values" when he cheated on two wives ( one with cancer and the other diagnosed the day before with MS). He was in high school geometry and married the teacher. Creepy. How can you be for "family values" when you're out destroying the family whenever times get rough in your marriage. He admitted to mutilple affairs. He was trying to impeach Clinton while going home to "ho' wife #3 he was dating for 6 yrs. while still married. BTW, he was her boss, but let's not go there. Hypocrite.
Check Kiting is writing a check on an account with no money in it and receiving cash from the bank where you deposited it before it clears. Totally illegal unless you work for Congress and run the "House Bank" where they will just charge said check to your already huge overdraft when it bounces for no fees (actually picked up by taxpayers). Crooked.
People who support this clown are giving the election to Obama. The Dems must be loving it. Bring on the attack ads.

paulxu

12-05-2011, 02:15 PM

Newt resigned from Congress too. 84 ethics charges probably had a lot to do with that. What did they get him on? Teaching a college course with a political bias? Geez, what an evil man. Thank you for alerting us so that we can save ourselves from this menace to society.

The college course problem was only one of the 84. Not sure what the others are, but this is interesting from today:

Nancy Pelosi told Brian Beutler that she’s got tons of dirt on Newt Gingrich from her time on the House ethics panel investigating him, and hinted that some of it could come out if Gingrich continues his presidential surge.

Gingrich couldn’t be happier with the news.

“I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift,” Gingrich told reporters in New York today. Gingrich said that if Pelosi does release information from the ethics committee, she’s risking ethics charges of her own.

“That’s a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it,” Gingrich said.

If it's against the rules to release that stuff, I'd assume she wouldn't release it. But it sounds like the old smoke/fire thing. I wonder why he's even running? Sounded like he had some good gigs going. He's not quite my idea of what a president ought to be.

pizza delivery

12-05-2011, 02:16 PM

Why would you see him as unstable? Isn't there something strange about how people on the left view people on the right as some sort of cognitive mental disorder? Newt not agreeing with you makes him unstable? Like he might just go off and start killing people any minute now?

He didn't support Clinton's warmongering in Bosnia. Was that unstable? Heaven help us if he ever gets his finger on the button!

And what about him being an ideologue? What is Obama? What is Pelosi? What is Reid? Who has been running this country? I think Newt does believe in his ideas, and I think your problem is that you don't like his ideas.

Why do we have a progressive income tax? It was an idea that someone had. Karl Marx had that idea and it became popular. He wrote a book about it. It isn't a part of natural law or the natural order of man, it is an idea.

I am still trying to parse that out. He has ideas. He believes in them. He is mindful of history. What is the alternative? Someone bereft of any ideological beliefs, someone who doesn't know history? I wish Obama had taken a history lesson, then we probably wouldn't have put up with the same failed policies re-branded and repackaged as "hope and change".

And get this. Newt once held considerable power. He had the chance to advance his beliefs. It was called the "Contract with America". It proved to be both stable and quite successful. Why don't you study that history? You may learn a little something.

Wow dude, settle down.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 02:23 PM

I have two major issues with Gingrich:

1. He is a career academic and politican.

He has never built, or even run, a business. He was a college professor (at a crappy school), then a politician, then a political consultant. Republicans lambasted Obama during the last election because he "never ran anything" and had no executive experience. Gingrich is just as bad in that regard. I don't want to turn the country over to a guy who has essentially zero experience with business and no executive experience in a time in which our economy needs fixing. I didn't want to do it with Obama, and I don't want to do it with Gingrich. Hell, he hasn't even been a state Senator. His entire career was in the house of Representatives.

2. He is a hypocrite of the highest order, and a consummate politican

Remember the Lewinsky scandal? Remember how Gingrich launched the investigation into the Lewinsky scandal? Gingrich was having an affair at the very same time with Republican staffer Callisa Bisek! This was not his first affair either. He was absolutely demonizing Clinton and calling into question his ability to lead the country because of his moral transgressions and was carrying on his own affair at the same time. He repeatedly called for Clinton's resignation. All the while he was doing the same thing. That takes some serious balls.

Eventually he was forced to resign from the House of Representatives after a failed coup by members of his own party who questioned his ability to lead. While he survived the initial attemped coup his resignation was all but assured when the Republicans had one of the worst mid-term elections in their history.

Why are we seriously talking about this guy running the country?

Kahns Krazy

12-05-2011, 02:23 PM

Wow dude, settle down.

This may be the single most common initial response to any Snipe post, or real life encounter for that matter.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 02:25 PM

Snipe

12-05-2011, 02:35 PM

Bobbie, if he hadn't done any of those things, would you support him or get behind his ideas? My guess is no. Was Clinton a good President? I think so. I wouldn't want him to watch my neice for the weekend, but that wasn't his job.

I would not recommend that any of us marry Newt Gingrich, or even apparently accept his checks (none of which seemed to bounce).

Boozehound, a career politiican and academic who is a hypocrite and a consumate politician? Sounds like Obama. Someone who has never run anything? Did you hear that he was Speaker of the House. Ever hear of that Contract with America stuff? I don't know if they write about that at your Puffington Host. He really did do some things. You might want to look into it.

Pizza, consider it settled.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 02:36 PM

Newt got 1.6 million from Freddie Mac (read taxpayers) for what? You got to shitting me!
We could've sent _LH over there for free.

"I offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do," he replied. "My advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, 'We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do.' As I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane."

Read more: Gingrich defends his consulting work for Freddie Mac - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19352712#ixzz1fh4ySogO
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

WTF? They tell him they are making shitty loans and he throws it back @ them for 1.6 million? It took him 9 years to figure this out? Has anyone from Freddie gone to jail for this? No, they get bonuses and pay out more millions to idiots like Newt. He was broke kiting chex in Congress, now a multi millionaire. He's a white collar crook with colusion from the gov't he wants to represent. No wonder he's running for President. Bigger Gravy train.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 02:37 PM

You know he cheated on all his wives "partly because he loves his country so much", right (his own words)? The man is a patriot!

You crack me up. You say that you don't care about the personal stuff and you want to see a clean campaign, but this has to be your fifth post on the Republican frontrunner in the last week in relation to his infidelity. You apparently do care about the personal stuff, at least when it is someone you don't like. And you feel free to overlook it when it is someone that you do like. Most people are that way, but quit deluding yourself.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 02:39 PM

How many billions has Obama given to Freddie Mack? How many do we continue to give? I would shut that place down.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 03:18 PM

Boozehound, a career politiican and academic who is a hypocrite and a consumate politician? Sounds like Obama. Someone who has never run anything? Did you hear that he was Speaker of the House. Ever hear of that Contract with America stuff? I don't know if they write about that at your Puffington Host. He really did do some things. You might want to look into it.

Pizza, consider it settled.

I don't like Obama, so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. You are saying that Obama is a career politician as well? I agree. I'm not trying to draw unfavorable comparisons between Gingrich and Obama. I don't want either of them running the country. You are correct that being the Speaker of the House does give him some leadership cred, although I would feel better about it if his own party hadn't critisized his leadership of the house while they were asking for his resignation. That still isn't the same to me as having true executive experience running a state or a company though. Romney has done both.

I also think that your "puffington post reference was a cheap shot. I don't read the huffington post. I linked it once several years ago in error and I have since admitted that I shouldn't have quoted it. It came up in a google search and I didn't check my source. I much more frequently link Foxnews.com which is where I typically get my news from. It kind of feels like a personal attack which confuses me a little bit because I don't feel like I have been attacking you at all. If you felt that anything I said was a personal attack it certainly was not my intention.

You crack me up. You say that you don't care about the personal stuff and you want to see a clean campaign, but this has to be your fifth post on the Republican frontrunner in the last week in relation to his infidelity. You apparently do care about the personal stuff, at least when it is someone you don't like. And you feel free to overlook it when it is someone that you do like. Most people are that way, but quit deluding yourself.

I have stated my case on this issue very clearly a number of times: I don't have a problem with his infidelity. I have a problem with his hypocrisy. I haven't critisized Cain at all for his infidelity and I don't really like him. I supported Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.

I care about Gingrich because he scares me. I believe that if he gets the nomination Obama will likely get reelected. I see Romney as infinitely more electable than Gingrich. Someone, I think it was you, had a great quote regarding Romney saying that it was almost like he was born to be the president. I want Romney. I want a person who has successfully run a business and understands how business works. I want a person with executive experience.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Gingrich can get through the primary. He does well with the far right and their voting power is magnified during primaries. If Gingrich get's the nomination, the Republicans are going to be in trouble. Moderates and undecided voters are not going to vote for Gingrich. Members of his own party called him a "Lightning Rod for Controversy" prior to his resignation from the house. I don't think he is a smart choice for the republican party.

I think that we both want the same thing, we just disagree on how best to get there.

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 03:29 PM

How many billions has Obama given to Freddie Mack? How many do we continue to give? I would shut that place down.

Newt sez please cut him another check or two before you do. He wants to tell someone over there they shouldn't make bad loans. What a friggin' ripoff. Give us our money back, Newt.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 03:56 PM

I don't like Obama,
I also think that your "puffington post reference was a cheap shot. I don't read the huffington post. I linked it once several years ago in error and I have since admitted that I shouldn't have quoted it. It came up in a google search and I didn't check my source. I much more frequently link Foxnews.com which is where I typically get my news from. It kind of feels like a personal attack which confuses me a little bit because I don't feel like I have been attacking you at all. If you felt that anything I said was a personal attack it certainly was not my intention.

I am just playing around. I was trying to take a dig at you with the puffington host reference. I guess it has been awhile. You were quoting Media Matters around the same time. I remember jumping all over you for that.

Here is my thing on this issue, and it is a bit critical of you. You have talked about Romney in the past on this board as "polarizing", and you said that Republicans needed someone other than Romney as the nominee. Now that Romney is no longer the frontrunner, you find fault in the new frontrunner. You don't like Gingrich and pine for the days of Romney. But you didn't like Romney when Romney was the frontrunner.

It is like democrats that like Huntsman. If Huntsman won the nomination they wouldn't vote for him. They would vote for Obama because they are democrats. McCain was a favorite of moderate democrats when he was bashing Bush, but became an extremist who was unfit for office once he was going up against Obama.

So I have my suspicions about you and your Puffington Host & Media Matters past. I have my suspicions of you not liking Romney when he was looking strong and liking him now that Newt is leading in every state but New Hampshire. Lots of guys like to play the "rational sensible "middle of the road" independent" guy. I guess their bashing looks more credible if they come off as a moderate and not a partisan.

But it strikes me that you seem to know a lot about Newt and his personal life. More than I knew and I follow politics pretty intently. I am even a fan of Newt Gingrich. I used to subscribe to American Solutions so I have followed him for a few years. Not only do you know quite a bit of his seedy history, you have felt the need to opine about it on multiple posts on multiple threads, always with the caveat that you don't like it when people make politics personal and wishing for a clean campaign. You strike me as being disingenuous on this issue. I have encountered this before. DC Muskie was a centrist and a member of the Republican Party. PM Thor always represented the sensible middle. Muskienick was McCain's biggest fan when Bush was in office, but somehow fell out of favor when McCain actually wanted his support. It appears to me that many "centrists" come to the conclusion that Republicans are just to radical and extremest for their sensible views.

So I suspected that you weren't being honest, because I have usually dealt with the same type of stuff before. You certainly have a hard on for Gingrich, and no love for Romney ("polarizing") before he faded out of first.

I could be wrong.

Snipe

12-05-2011, 04:01 PM

Bobbie, if some offered you a million dollars for consulting, would you take the job? And if you did take the job, would that make you a bad person and unqualified for office?

bobbiemcgee

12-05-2011, 04:57 PM

First of all, no one in a real private business would be that stupid. I would not be qualified for the gov't handout they gave him. No political clout.
Newt came up with "My advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, 'We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything....."
This, of course, is worth 1.6 million of our tax dollars after he taxed his brain to come up with it. No experience in the business, no financial analysis done, just, gee, we should stop buying these crappy loans. No shit, Newt. It took you from 1999 to 2008 to convey this message?
"His advice as a Historian? WTF does that mean? Did he jump in and audit the 80% of crap loans Countrywide was selling to them every day for the 9 yrs. he was "consulting"? NO.
He was given a poltical handout pure and simple. 'pubs were in power. Take care of our buddy Newt. How it's done in D.C.

Having Newt consult for a gov't funded MORTGAGE Co. is like calling a plumber for indigestion. Pure payoff.

boozehound

12-05-2011, 05:15 PM

I assure you that my political views and postings are not part of any kind of plan to 'dupe' you or anybody else. That seems like a lot of effort. My views on different political parties and candidates are subject to change however so if you back several years I may have changed my opinion on a number of issues and/or candidates.

Is this my quote you are referring to regarding Romney? When I searched for posts I had made containing "Romney" this is the only one that came up seemed to fit your description.

I am hoping that the Republican party has someone better than Romney, Huckabee, or Palin waiting in the wings to run in 2012. Those are some very polarizing candidates, IMO. I think that Huckabee is likeable but ultimately not Presidential material. Romney is not overly likeable but might actually make a pretty good President, particularly in an era where fiscal management and financil reform are poised to be key issues. He is the best of that group to me. If I recall correctly he didn't play well with the far right though.

In all fairness, my criticism of Romney as polarizing was lumped in with Huckabee and Palin in a one paragraph comment. I immediately followed that up by saying that while he was not overly likeable that he might actually make a pretty good president. I think that your characterization that I had 'no love' for Romney was a bit strong. It's not like I wrote a missive on why Romney was a bad candidate. I don't even recall ever stating that I didn't like the guy.

I will say with the benefit of hindsight that it actually was extremely unfair to lump him in with Palin and Huckabee as polarizing though. Romney is far less polarizing than either of those candidates.

The thing about Romney (for me at least) is that the longer other people campaign the more I like him. He almost doesn't have to do anything while guys like Perry and Cain flame out. I don't think that I ever really said that I didnt' like Romney.

Regarding my knowledge of Gingrich's past, I thought that his marital infidelity issues were widely documented. I don't really see that as a suspicious amount of knowledge. I also did a bit of research on his Wiki page to refresh my memory on the specifics, which is where I got my breakdown of his career history. It's all right at the top in 1 paragraph.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about my being 'disingenuous' in my stance surrounding Gingrich's personal life. I don't see anything disingenuous about my stance on him in particular for reasons I have outlined several times. You may disagree and that's fine.

You are obviously a fan of Gingrich, and that's fine with me. I do think that you may have reacted a bit strongly to my criticism of him though, and I'm not sure how my dislike of Gingrich as a republican candidate leads you to believe that I am somehow misrepresenting myself.

bobbiemcgee

01-17-2012, 01:56 PM

I like Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with the logic!)

'I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.'

1) 'The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will apologize to the world for our 'interference' in their affairs, past & present.. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those 'good 'ole' boys', we will never 'interfere' again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting withGermany , South Korea , the Middle East, and the Philippines . They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are from. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign 'students' over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a 'D' and it's back home baby.

6) The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not 'interfere..' They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army.. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us 'Ugly Americans' any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE. Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' '

ArizonaXUGrad

01-19-2012, 10:20 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-ex-wife-135852543--abc-news.html

Awesome, :eek:

I am not that much into the personal stuff but it's the lieing double sided nature of the guy that makes him a scumbag. I am really getting sick of scumbags in Washington.

I am really pushing for Elizabeth Warren to beat Scott Brown in Mass. Not that I don't like Scott Brown since if I was living there I would want Warren and Brown as Senators, but Warren is a rising star, a consumer rights advocate, and a Harvard professor. She did her best in that political quagmire to monitor the TARP funds.

I am sure like every other candidate and potential candidate I ever liked she won't make it.

Snipe

01-19-2012, 11:13 PM

ArizonaXUGrad

01-20-2012, 10:42 AM

It appears that you are into the "personal stuff". Might as well just embrace it.

Don't know much about Warren. I remember her taking credit for Occupy Wall Street, so she has that going for her.

Her history as a Harvard Law professor, acadenic research on consumer debt, and time as a consumer advocate is almost word for word what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about. I have followed her work for the last 4 years give or take.

Her quote FYI, was "I created the intellectual foundation for what they do." I am sure much like Gore inventing the internet this quote will get skewed to suit whatever purpose you desire.

Edit: My point was that it's not that he wanted an open marriage or cheated on his wife/wives, it's that he so openly and fervently attacked Clinton for the same transgression and now lies about his own marital issues and for the only reason to try and get the egg off of his face.

If he is so willing to lie about this and hide his own hipocrisy, what else is he hiding or worse what else will he do, justify, and hide in the future?

Snipe

01-20-2012, 12:02 PM

Did you read "The Two Income Trap"? If so, how did you like it?

And you don't know if he wanted an open marriage or not. And you clearly wanted to bring up the fact that he cheated on his wives as well as the open marriage thing, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. Bill Clinton had his minions calling Paula Jones "trailer park trash". Look at that white trash slut, who can believe her? He also took advantage and tried to molest a grieving widow among others.

For the record, I have always thought that Clinton was a great President and that the Clinton/Gingrich years were the best years politically during my aware political life. I didn't fault Clinton for chasing some tail. I graded him on his job. I wouldn't trust him if I had a daughter, but he isn't my babysitter and I don't have a daughter. If anything, I think Republicans were in poor form spending tens of millions of dollars chasing Bill Clinton around Washington with a blue cum-stained dress while Osama Bin Laden and our enemies were bombing embassies, the USS Cole, and plotting 911.

I don't care what you think of the relationship that Newt had with his ex-wife, and I don't care about his ex-wife. You obviously do, all denials aside. Good for you. That is your right. Power to you my friend. Just don't deny it.

Is Newt any worse than Algore? He was whoring around on his wife and he tried to force a woman down on him. She should have known better in my opinion because nobody pays $400 for a back rub, but there is the rub! And Johnny on the Spot Edwards knocked up some cunt when his wife was literally dying of cancer.

All I know is that the dollar is about to collapse, and if Newt gets hired his job isn't about his phallus, it is about the budget. I admire people with morals that can be role models. Most of our politicians aren't those guys. If you want a faithful guy who says what he means, I guess you want George W. Bush. I remember how that worked out, and our national debt can't take another honest man like that.

ArizonaXUGrad

01-20-2012, 12:51 PM

Again, you either missed my point about his failure to tell the truth or did so on purpose. My post was pretty specific about what I didn't like about him. I am not a fan of politicians lieing, no matter what it is about.

If you can justify not telling the truth about one thing you will justify it about another and another until it spirals out of control.

Honestly, I think it is time for the American people to demand a real and honest candidate. If the person is gay, in an open marriage, uber-rich, not that book smart but street wise, not very religious, so be it. Let the people make an informed decision, especially if the candidate was asked a very direct question.

Yes I have read the Two Income Trap. I didn't necessarily agree with everything in it. Shockingly, I can support a candidate without supporting everything they believe.

Did you read "The Two Income Trap"? If so, how did you like it?

And you don't know if he wanted an open marriage or not. And you clearly wanted to bring up the fact that he cheated on his wives as well as the open marriage thing, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. Bill Clinton had his minions calling Paula Jones "trailer park trash". Look at that white trash slut, who can believe her? He also took advantage and tried to molest a grieving widow among others.

For the record, I have always thought that Clinton was a great President and that the Clinton/Gingrich years were the best years politically during my aware political life. I didn't fault Clinton for chasing some tail. I graded him on his job. I wouldn't trust him if I had a daughter, but he isn't my babysitter and I don't have a daughter. If anything, I think Republicans were in poor form spending tens of millions of dollars chasing Bill Clinton around Washington with a blue cum-stained dress while Osama Bin Laden and our enemies were bombing embassies, the USS Cole, and plotting 911.

I don't care what you think of the relationship that Newt had with his ex-wife, and I don't care about his ex-wife. You obviously do, all denials aside. Good for you. That is your right. Power to you my friend. Just don't deny it.

Is Newt any worse than Algore? He was whoring around on his wife and he tried to force a woman down on him. She should have known better in my opinion because nobody pays $400 for a back rub, but there is the rub! And Johnny on the Spot Edwards knocked up some cunt when his wife was literally dying of cancer.

All I know is that the dollar is about to collapse, and if Newt gets hired his job isn't about his phallus, it is about the budget. I admire people with morals that can be role models. Most of our politicians aren't those guys. If you want a faithful guy who says what he means, I guess you want George W. Bush. I remember how that worked out, and our national debt can't take another honest man like that.