Herman Cain looks and acts more Presidential by the day!

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by joeym1991

 

I have looked into the 9-9-9 plan.

What problems do you see with it?

it will not provide the federal government with enough revenue to maintain the safety net. they will start cutting social programs which we the people have paid in to. (Not that they aren't already cutting social programs).

If by "presidential" you mean someone who obviously has his strings pulled from the top of his party?... then I agree he looks very much Presidential.

reply to post by joeym1991


We already arent brining in enough money to cover the entitlement programs. I am not sure that over the next 10-20 years we could bring in enough to cover them no matter what we did. They wont have to be eliminated entirely but they will have to have significant adjustments, regardless of who is president.

The 9-9-9 plan is revenue neutral, meaning it takes in as much tax as currently being collected. It should, hopefully, create growth and so that would in the end create more revenue and lower entitlement costs as we get more and more people back to work and off of entitlements like welfare and unemployment.

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by joeym1991

 

Thats a valid point but its all we have to go by now.

Thing is, Herman Cain is going to keep going up, because nobody really wants Romney. Romney doesnt even know what he believes in.

Bachmann willl go down soon and Herman will get her support. I think some Ron Paul supporters will move over to Cain once they realise that Paul just cant get above 12 pct. I like Paul, but sometimes he shoots himself in the foot. I like that because at least he stays true to what he believes, but it doesnt help him in the big picture.

Ron Paul I personally think is a whack job not as bad as his son, but still pretty bad. I do agree with his point of view on the war and certain national issues but most everything else he mentions has a radical and extremist haze about it.

I liked the 9-9-9 plan but if Cain does not talk about it along with serious cuts then yes, it would be a disaster. What is he going to cut? So I think a mix of income tax and sales tax is a great idea, but I agree with those who have said it's not enough money IF you don't cut anything significant.

reply to post by Novise


There isnt enough money under any plan if you dont make significant cuts. Even taxing those making over a million dollars at 100% of income isnt enough to even cover the yearly deficit. Its only going to get worse. There is no money in the SS trust, just 2.5 trillion of IOUs. The money is already spent. Even if that money were there SS and Medicare would be underfunded by 75 trillion dollars. Beyond that Harvard says that the government cooks its books, so the government is closer to 200 trillion dollars underfunded.

Originally posted by Novise
I liked the 9-9-9 plan but if Cain does not talk about it along with serious cuts then yes, it would be a disaster. What is he going to cut? So I think a mix of income tax and sales tax is a great idea, but I agree with those who have said it's not enough money IF you don't cut anything significant.

They will cut funds to anything that is productive and efficient or good for the people. Science programs, education, SS etc.

Originally posted by joeym1991

Originally posted by Novise
I liked the 9-9-9 plan but if Cain does not talk about it along with serious cuts then yes, it would be a disaster. What is he going to cut? So I think a mix of income tax and sales tax is a great idea, but I agree with those who have said it's not enough money IF you don't cut anything significant.

They will cut funds to anything that is productive and efficient or good for the people. Science programs, education, SS etc.

Yeah that is true. They will have to cut everything and soon, including defense. It doesnt mean complete elimination, it means cuts. They will have to be drastic in some cases and we are going to have to as a society weigh the cost/benefit of each program.

Why do you think Obama keeps putting SS and Medicare cuts on the table. Its because he knows they are going to get cut in the future, because they are unsustainable.

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by joeym1991

 

We already arent brining in enough money to cover the entitlement programs. I am not sure that over the next 10-20 years we could bring in enough to cover them no matter what we did. They wont have to be eliminated entirely but they will have to have significant adjustments, regardless of who is president.

The 9-9-9 plan is revenue neutral, meaning it takes in as much tax as currently being collected. It should, hopefully, create growth and so that would in the end create more revenue and lower entitlement costs as we get more and more people back to work and off of entitlements like welfare and unemployment.

So you are suggesting that we are in debt because of entitlement programs? Because if that were the case you are presenting i strongly disagree .

Originally posted by joeym1991

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by joeym1991

 

We already arent brining in enough money to cover the entitlement programs. I am not sure that over the next 10-20 years we could bring in enough to cover them no matter what we did. They wont have to be eliminated entirely but they will have to have significant adjustments, regardless of who is president.

The 9-9-9 plan is revenue neutral, meaning it takes in as much tax as currently being collected. It should, hopefully, create growth and so that would in the end create more revenue and lower entitlement costs as we get more and more people back to work and off of entitlements like welfare and unemployment.

So you are suggesting that we are in debt because of entitlement programs? Because if that were the case you are presenting i strongly disagree .

Nope that isnt what I am saying. My answer is that we are in debt because we have spent way more than we are taking in for decades. I trace it back to starting with the oil embargos in 1973, but I could be totally wrong.

What I am saying is that spending has to be brought under control, and very soon. If you want me to lay blame, its both sides fault. They overpromised and under delivered. Its easy to get votes by telling this group and that group you will give them what they want and make their dreams come true. Both sides are guilty.

The thing is we are running out of time. We are down to printing money to buy our own debt. Where do you go when that stops working?

Originally posted by Convicted
Actually, having spent the last 15 years as a business consultant I think my customers think I know a little bit about business. The focus of my work is to help clients develop processes to serve their customers at the highest level while remaining efficient and profitable in doing so.

Fair enough. However, we again come to the main point; government is not a business. Profit is not a motive in government (at least, it shouldn't be.) And whiule I obviously have no idea how well you do your job, peronally, I do understand the larger picture of how the whole shebang operates. Quality goods and good services at fair prices simply aren't what makes what's considered a "good profit" anymore. You don't rake in a salary that's 600% larger than that of your employees by means of quality product and fair practices.

You are correct, sometimes that means job losses, more times over the course of a year or two it means job gains as the business grows its sales, because it has customers who are happier and that refer their friends and families, and business acquaintences to this company because they are pleased with their interaction with these companies.

Again, this doesn't work when applied to government. After all, there's only one government (unless i guess, you're wealthy enough to shop around for the best country for your interests...) It's not competitive; if the government does poorly, you can't just go "Okay well, let's give our business to Poland."

And the people talking about "streamlining" it also happen to be the same people who talk about "drowning it in a bathtub." So we have a clear conflict of interest there; people dedicated to the utter destruction of something shouldn't be handed the keys to it, and i'm sure that principle is pretty standard in the busness world as well, right?

Truth is, some jobs should have never been created in the first place as they were the result of poor business processes created out of ignorance or desperation. Some jobs should be eliminated, because there are now better, more efficient ways to do things then there were even 10 years ago.

Possibly so. However again, consider who we're talking about. Just at a glance, the best solution of government waste is a consolidation of departments in an effort to remove redundancy. There are in fact very few government functions that literally do nothing, but redundancy often becomes a problem. But we're talking about people who want to destroy rather than repair.

It doent do the company, its employees, or its customers a damn bit of good to be inefficient or deliver low quality customer service. As an extreme example, if a company fails to deliver they will go out of business and all the employees loose their jobs. Is that good for anyone?

So when it comes to government, should we be "hiring" people like Cain who have a stated, vested interest in making the "business" even more inefficent as a method of excusing demands for its demolition?

Thats what you need to look at with the Federal government. We are over 14 trillion in debt, with 75 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We are running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit year after year with no end in sight. You cannot do that for very long before your economy collapses. When the company collapses it hurts the elderly, the young,and the poor the hardest. There will be no money for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc... What good does that do anybody?

And according to Cain and the other "businessmen" in Washington, the answer is to obliterate all services to those same people whole continuing the gigantic expenses going to the Pentagon and corporate welfare cases. Why? Again because they come from a school of thought - the modern business school of thought - that customers are negligible, easily replaceable, while hte police (military) and big investors (corporate donors) are the really important people

reply to post by Convicted


For starters it is designed to do one thing, crush the poor and obliterate what is left of the middle class. It puts the bulk of the tax burden on those that can least afford it. The 9 for sales tax is very misleading in that it is a 9% National sales tax in Alabama that puts your general sales tax at 13% in Ohio 14.5%, North Dakota 14%, and Texas 15.25%. This is just adding the State general sales tax to it, without even going into what the local sales tax adds to it.

This alone requires those at the bottom to settle for lower and lower quality goods while accepting lower and lower wages. The bulk of the working class income is spent on the things that they need to survive, this disaster of a plan leaves them with even less discretionary income i.e. less money being put back in the economy. Couple this with a 9% income and corporate tax rate which brings in less revenue, requiring draconian cuts to programs that help people make ends meet and increase the amount of discretionary income they have like WIC and home heating programs. It isn't too hard to see that this so called plan isn't just a continuation of current policy, but rather an accelerant to what is already happening.

Originally posted by Convicted

Originally posted by joeym1991

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by joeym1991

 

We already arent brining in enough money to cover the entitlement programs. I am not sure that over the next 10-20 years we could bring in enough to cover them no matter what we did. They wont have to be eliminated entirely but they will have to have significant adjustments, regardless of who is president.

The 9-9-9 plan is revenue neutral, meaning it takes in as much tax as currently being collected. It should, hopefully, create growth and so that would in the end create more revenue and lower entitlement costs as we get more and more people back to work and off of entitlements like welfare and unemployment.

So you are suggesting that we are in debt because of entitlement programs? Because if that were the case you are presenting i strongly disagree .

Nope that isnt what I am saying. My answer is that we are in debt because we have spent way more than we are taking in for decades. I trace it back to starting with the oil embargos in 1973, but I could be totally wrong.

What I am saying is that spending has to be brought under control, and very soon. If you want me to lay blame, its both sides fault. They overpromised and under delivered. Its easy to get votes by telling this group and that group you will give them what they want and make their dreams come true. Both sides are guilty.

The thing is we are running out of time. We are down to printing money to buy our own debt. Where do you go when that stops working?

We are in debt be cause of Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. do agree to an extent that it is both parties fault.

reply to post by joeym1991


read Senator Bernie Sanders' Independent from Vermont petition to Obama.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Convicted

 

For starters it is designed to do one thing, crush the poor and obliterate what is left of the middle class. It puts the bulk of the tax burden on those that can least afford it. The 9 for sales tax is very misleading in that it is a 9% National sales tax in Alabama that puts your general sales tax at 13% in Ohio 14.5%, North Dakota 14%, and Texas 15.25%. This is just adding the State general sales tax to it, without even going into what the local sales tax adds to it.

This alone requires those at the bottom to settle for lower and lower quality goods while accepting lower and lower wages. The bulk of the working class income is spent on the things that they need to survive, this disaster of a plan leaves them with even less discretionary income i.e. less money being put back in the economy. Couple this with a 9% income and corporate tax rate which brings in less revenue, requiring draconian cuts to programs that help people make ends meet and increase the amount of discretionary income they have like WIC and home heating programs. It isn't too hard to see that this so called plan isn't just a continuation of current policy, but rather an accelerant to what is already happening.

Can I meet you please lol. Brilliantly said.

Again, this doesn't work when applied to government. After all, there's only one government (unless i guess, you're wealthy enough to shop around for the best country for your interests...) It's not competitive; if the government does poorly, you can't just go "Okay well, let's give our business to Poland."

That is exactly what is happening everyday in this country. Businesses look around the world and say where is the best place I can do business. Then they go there. You can do an awful lot of things anywhere in the world. You can ship things from anywhere in the World for $500 per container. You have internet access that is global, which means you can create a presence in a country you dont even exist in. You can have a US phone number and website that goes to a company in the Phillipines for instance. P&G are moving their financial services, high end jobs, to South America. Why? Because they can and they are voting with their feet.

So when it comes to government, should we be "hiring" people like Cain who have a stated, vested interest in making the "business" even more inefficent as a method of excusing demands for its demolition?

Yes we should as he isnt trying to destroy government but to make it more productive and to produce a greater return for the American taxpayer. Thats not a return in profit, its a return in cost/benefit.

And according to Cain and the other "businessmen" in Washington, the answer is to obliterate all services to those same people whole continuing the gigantic expenses going to the Pentagon and corporate welfare cases. Why? Again because they come from a school of thought - the modern business school of thought - that customers are negligible, easily replaceable, while hte police (military) and big investors (corporate donors) are the really important people

He isnt trying to obliterate all services, he is trying to get to break even. His 9-9-9 plan eliminates all corporate welfare. No business that will be in business long thinks its customers are negligible. Customers mean revenue. revenue is the only life blood for a business.

Not a fan, the guy used to be a fed cronie, talks like a fed cronie-so if A, and B are true, then C must apply.

Again, not a fan, but the only reason he is still around after his last epileptic seizure on America is our current MSM, thus i am definetly not a fan when MSM is on board for him

That's what they said about Obama.
That's all I'm saying. Not implying a thing.

Originally posted by joeym1991
We are in debt be cause of Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. do agree to an extent that it is both parties fault.

We are not in debt because of wall street greed, we are in debt because our politicians decided to bail them out for failed decisions.

The other stuff I agree with and I would just like to add that we are also in debt because SS was originally designed at a time when people were expected to live to 66, not they live to like 85. Medicare was designed at a time when there werent endless amount of drugs and processes to make you live longer, regardless of your quality of life. Welfare was designed at a time that a very small percentage of the population was jobless, and before people got smart enough to realise that if they work the system right they can choose not to work at all.

Another reason we are in debt is because instead of keeping their commitment to set aside SS and Medicare money for the future they spent it.

Originally posted by Convicted

Again, this doesn't work when applied to government. After all, there's only one government (unless i guess, you're wealthy enough to shop around for the best country for your interests...) It's not competitive; if the government does poorly, you can't just go "Okay well, let's give our business to Poland."

That is exactly what is happening everyday in this country. Businesses look around the world and say where is the best place I can do business. Then they go there. You can do an awful lot of things anywhere in the world. You can ship things from anywhere in the World for $500 per container. You have internet access that is global, which means you can create a presence in a country you dont even exist in. You can have a US phone number and website that goes to a company in the Phillipines for instance. P&G are moving their financial services, high end jobs, to South America. Why? Because they can and they are voting with their feet.

So when it comes to government, should we be "hiring" people like Cain who have a stated, vested interest in making the "business" even more inefficent as a method of excusing demands for its demolition?

Yes we should as he isnt trying to destroy government but to make it more productive and to produce a greater return for the American taxpayer. Thats not a return in profit, its a return in cost/benefit.

And according to Cain and the other "businessmen" in Washington, the answer is to obliterate all services to those same people whole continuing the gigantic expenses going to the Pentagon and corporate welfare cases. Why? Again because they come from a school of thought - the modern business school of thought - that customers are negligible, easily replaceable, while hte police (military) and big investors (corporate donors) are the really important people

He isnt trying to obliterate all services, he is trying to get to break even. His 9-9-9 plan eliminates all corporate welfare. No business that will be in business long thinks its customers are negligible. Customers mean revenue. revenue is the only life blood for a business.

I'm not buying any of that venom you just spewed out of your mouth at all.