It Appears Herman Cain

[dominicansoul]

...its too bad when obama spoke during his campaign, people swooned and fainted like idiots...





i like Cain...


i like Paul...


whether or not they can stop abortion, we just need to put someone in power who will do everything in their power to stop the killing of the unborn, rather than advance it and advance the killing machine Planned Parenthood like the current administration has...

[Winchester]

Schiff is correct that all taxes based upon employment must be covered by the productivity of the worker. Labor costs should be deducted from "profit" in any tax scheme. Labor is no less a cost than purchase of any other capital good.

[homeschoolmom]

The GOP has a wonderful opportunity to take the WH, but they will lose it because they have no decent candidates. Or, they will get it-- with Romney... whoopee.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1318937833' post='2323118']
That's a [b]bad[/b] thing. Reagan oversaw the largest increase in national debt. Remember that ceiling thing that serves no purpose?[/quote]
Under Reagan, revenue grew with tax cuts. The problem was spending was not capped as Reagan wanted, and the cost to repair a dilapidated defense was costly. And yet, none of all that activity compares to the outrageous levels of spending under Obama. We at least got to reap the rewards of Reagan's defense spending.

I think Perry's initial appearances show how last minute his decision to run was. I think his campaign is getting more polished and better as time passes. He has already published some realistic, substantive plans. Perry has been so Texas focused for so long that it's taking a little time for him to scale up. He'll get there.

I thought the last debate's was Bachmann's best appearance. All of her answers were triples or better except for the goofy "999 upside down" joke. If she doesn't make the prez, I hope she has a place somewhere in the president's circle.

Santorum is a very principled guy. His positions are based on a foundation and after much thought, but he comes off as angry in the debates.

Bloomberg published an article saying [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bad-math-hurts-herman-cain-s-good-tax-intentions-ramesh-ponnuru.html"]Cain's 999 math doesn't work[/url]. It's a message that keeps coming up more and more. I really don't like introducing a new way for the government to tax you.

Edited October 18, 2011 by kamiller42

[kamiller42]

I see three top priorities for the next president:[list=1]
[*]Fix the economy.
[*]Jobs, jobs, jobs.
[*]Fix the size and scope of the federal government.
[/list]
All three are linked, but I see only one candidate with a record of success in all three, Rick Perry. Texas is a miracle in the midst of a national economic blood bath. I marvel in how it has been able to hold steady and even grow in these times. This is not opinion, but mathematically proven. Perry doesn't all the credit, as is the case for any good government executive, but he deserves a lot.

This is one of the many charts out there documenting the Lone Star state.

[img]http://www.willisms.com/archives/texasownstheusa-thumb.gif[/img]

I read there are [b]1,000 people a day[/b] pouring in Texas looking for jobs. Incredible. In the last 5 years, California has lost just over one million jobs. Ouch goes the liberal policies!

This number cruncher, who says he is not a Perry supporter (Doesn't say why not.), provides [url="http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590"]an extensive analysis of Texas' success[/url].

Now, if Perry could just find his national voice, it's game on! Speaking of, go Rangers! :-D

[Winchester]

Government cannot fix the economy. It can only get the floopy out of the way.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1318971426' post='2323327']
Government cannot fix the economy. It can only get the floopy out of the way.
[/quote]
Getting out of the way would be fixing it.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1318971632' post='2323332']
Getting out of the way would be fixing it.
[/quote]
It would be permitting it to be fixed.

But I agree.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1318697523' post='2321618']
Seriously, why do you people not like Cain? His 9-9-9 plan was just endorsed by Reagan's economic adviser. He's staunchly pro-life, saying that life begins at conception. He comes off as very real, not fake or phony like all the other candidates.
[/quote]
I heard him speak last summer and got the exact opposite impression. I could be very wrong, maybe I was just having a bad day, but he really really really rubbed me the wrong way.

In my perfect world, my governor would be president. Or the governor of Virginia. Or the one of Louisiana. But none of the other candidates I've seen.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Totus Tuus

[Adrestia]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1318969755' post='2323313']
Under Reagan, revenue grew with tax cuts. The problem was spending was not capped as Reagan wanted, and the cost to repair a dilapidated defense was costly.
[/quote]
[url="http://mises.org/daily/1544"]That's not true[/url]. These excerpts are from an article written in 1987, courtesy of Winchester.

[quote]Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again.

In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes [i]even though[/i] the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.[/quote]

Please read the article that Winchester posted.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1318975798' post='2323367']
[url="http://mises.org/daily/1544"]That's not true[/url]. These excerpts are from an article written in 1987, courtesy of Winchester.

Please read the article that Winchester posted.
[/quote]
Mises Institute is a libertarian organization where I have disagreed with their articles. The last one I read made false arguments to make Hayek look like a central planning liberal. It was quite unreal and not credible.

Here is an example how the article fails...
[quote]In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes [i]even though[/i] the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.[/quote]
Taxes went down across the board. The schedule did not remain the same. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._income_taxes#1861_-_2010"]Just look it up[/url]. The brackets were redefined, but only after taxes went down again. And taxes continued to fall all during Reagan's term... except for the the upper 2 brackets where it stalled for a few years. That should tickle modern critics who want to soak the rich.

The article is also dishonest about Reagan proposing fatter budgets. If you look at the actual numbers, Reagan's budgets came under Congress'.
[img]http://www.presidentreagan.info/images/budgets.png[/img]

[Adrestia]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1318994947' post='2323497']
Mises Institute is a libertarian organization where I have disagreed with their articles. The last one I read made false arguments to make Hayek look like a central planning liberal. It was quite unreal and not credible.

Here is an example how the article fails...

Taxes went down across the board. The schedule did not remain the same. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._income_taxes#1861_-_2010"]Just look it up[/url]. The brackets were redefined, but only after taxes went down again. And taxes continued to fall all during Reagan's term... except for the the upper 2 brackets where it stalled for a few years. That should tickle modern critics who want to soak the rich.

The article is also dishonest about Reagan proposing fatter budgets. If you look at the actual numbers, Reagan's budgets came under Congress'.
[img]http://www.presidentreagan.info/images/budgets.png[/img]
[/quote]
You claim that the Libertarian site is biased, so you quote "Reality Hammer - http://www.presidentreagan.info" for unbiased interpretation? The chart does support the statement that I quoted. There is not a large difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Maybe you should look up [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986"]Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986[/url]. It was the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly.

Do you have anything to say about the increased national debt during Reagan's presidency?

[Era Might]

Not that I would have voted for Rick Perry anyway, but he lost me when he looked at Mitt Romney and said "Mitt, you lose all of your standing from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home, and you knew about it for a year."

Wow. Grow up. Mitt Romney had ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!11111111 working in his home. So what. George Washington had slaves working in his home.

I'd hire illegal immigrants to work in my home before I'd hire Rick Perry to work in my white house.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Era Might

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1319034862' post='2323652']
You claim that the Libertarian site is biased, so you quote "Reality Hammer - [url="http://www.presidentreagan.info"]http://www.presidentreagan.info"[/url] for unbiased interpretation? The chart does support the statement that I quoted. There is not a large difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.[/quote]
The point is the libertarian site's interpretation and recollection of the Reagan budgets was incorrect. I provided a source which cites their sources for verification, which is something your Mises article did not do. If you do not believe the site, look it up.

Reagan proposing a cut or not is not the issue. The issue is Reagan proposed budgets which were less than what Congress wanted.

[quote]Maybe you should look up [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986"]Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986[/url]. It was the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly.[/quote]
The bottom brackets had their taxes cut in the years prior. (Review the history of rates link I posted.) Remember when I said there were some years the upper bracket tax rates were no longer cut but the lower were? The cut for the upper was finally due.

In addition, the adjustment in the tax rates was the natural fallout from a substantial simplification of the tax system. While the rate went up, deductions were raised and new credits became available.

[quote]Do you have anything to say about the increased national debt during Reagan's presidency?[/quote]
It was the very first thing you replied to me about.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1319037117' post='2323666']
Not that I would have voted for Rick Perry anyway, but he lost me when he looked at Mitt Romney and said "Mitt, you lose all of your standing from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home, and you knew about it for a year."

Wow. Grow up. Mitt Romney had ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!11111111 working in his home. So what. George Washington had slaves working in his home.

I'd hire illegal immigrants to work in my home before I'd hire Rick Perry to work in my white house.;
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, slavery was legal in Washington's day, and illegal immigrant labor is illegal today.

I think Perry's point was valid though small. I think the campaign is trying paint a picture of Romney as two faced, which he is. I would have prepped Perry on providing a solid answer on tuition for illegals, and there is one. One detail of the tuition plan that is always overlooked, but is important, is the fact the immigrants are enrolled in a naturalization program in order to receive in state tuition.