The only graph you need to see to understand Cain's 9-9-9 plan

Youre right! those last 2 columns need to be way longer!

reply to post by Vitchilo


isn't that remarkable! That is a 6-6-6 upside down.

eeeekkk! And his name is Cain. ....

oh lmao.... wow

reply to post by eLPresidente

The answer is simple: Cain appears real.

He has admitted to mistakes, owned up to initially supporting TARP in the GOP debate (before changing his mind over the implementation), stated his mind on several issues at risk of being 'politically incorrect', and stayed above the fray at the GOP debate. Heck, in a recent CNN interview he admitted that he cuts his own hair, and will probably continue to do so if he gets elected. All that tells me he may not be perfect, but at least he doesn't believe he is... and that is a far sight better than what we have now and what we have had in the recent past.

Go ahead and enjoy your admiration at the pre-processed, pre-packaged sound bites and manicured personal appearances. I want a President that actually does something besides look good, and who understands that government is not the driving force behind the economy... it's the brake.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I hate to butt in, but I don't think his statement was about personal appearances. Cain is basically in bed with the Federal Reserve. Cain would only continue the corrupted system he wants to "fix" instead of abolish completely, once and for all. If this was about personal appearances, I don't think "ElPresidente" would be voting for Ron Paul. Just my 2 cents.


Ron Paul 2012.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by eLPresidente

The answer is simple: Cain appears real.

He has admitted to mistakes, owned up to initially supporting TARP in the GOP debate (before changing his mind over the implementation), stated his mind on several issues at risk of being 'politically incorrect', and stayed above the fray at the GOP debate. Heck, in a recent CNN interview he admitted that he cuts his own hair, and will probably continue to do so if he gets elected. All that tells me he may not be perfect, but at least he doesn't believe he is... and that is a far sight better than what we have now and what we have had in the recent past.

Go ahead and enjoy your admiration at the pre-processed, pre-packaged sound bites and manicured personal appearances. I want a President that actually does something besides look good, and who understands that government is not the driving force behind the economy... it's the brake.

TheRedneck

I get where you're coming from but you said he 'appears' real. I'm voting for Ron Paul (not pre-packaged whatsoever, no sound bites, all truth) who IS real.

I asked you why you would vote for cain on my points that
he was a former chairman of Kansas federal reserve
he is anti-audit federal reserve
and he was director in a company that gave over 30 million dollars of bonuses to himself and his executive friends while manipulating company stock and screwing the employees

But you did not answer me whatsoever, you mentioned his admittance of mistakes, which I do admire when a man can fess up to his own mistakes.

Then you assumed I was voting for Perry/Romney/Bachmann (the pre-packaged, sound bite candidates) when my own signature gives it all away pretty obviously.

So let me ask you:
are you for an audit of the federal reserve?
would you vote in a president that was a director personally connected to a scandal like Enron?

reply to post by eLPresidente

Actually, when I was typing that, I was thinking back to Obama... Bush... Clinton... Bush... Reagan... not the present crop.

I said I like Cain, not that I dislike anyone else. Truth be known, I am looking favorably on three Republican candidates at this point:

• Herman Cain, for reasons already specified. I am not happy with his 9-9-9 proposal, however, and I do wish he was stricter on the Fed issue... but then again, no one impresses me as anti-Fed except Paul.
  
  
• Ron Paul, because I do like his libertarian stance and his anti-Fed beliefs. My concern is that perhaps he would bring too much change too fast. It took us decades to get this deep into this mess, and it will take years to get us out... too much change too soon, even in the right direction, would upset societal balances and cause more problems than it would solve.
  
  
• Newt Gingrich... yes, Newt Gingrich. I remember his "Contract with America" from his Speaker of the House days, and they were actually doing some things I liked. Newt is a true conservative, not a neo-con, not a banker-first, damn-the-people, smaller-government-when-we-want-it conservative wanna-be. I know he has some baggage, but if memory serves, that baggage comes from being railroaded by the DNC.

Romney.... created the template for ObamaCare, so he's out. Perry... sorry, sounds too much like a politician, always flipping sides and attacking instead of debating. Bachman... maybe she had a shot early on, but I don't hear much substantial out of her now except tired old soundbites aimed at Tea Party supporters. If any of these last three get the Republican nod, I will have no choice but to go third party.

As to your specific questions: I do agree that the Fed needs to be reigned in and eventually dissolved. It cannot be done overnight, however, without causing another, even deeper depression than the one we find ourselves in. This is not the time to shift that particular gear IMO... we need to dig our way back into some sort of recovery before dismantling the Fed,

But it does need to be done. I agree with Paul in principle.

As to this:

and he was director in a company that gave over 30 million dollars of bonuses to himself and his executive friends while manipulating company stock and screwing the employees

I really don't know the details. I do know that there is some sort of conventional wisdom out there that CEOs don't deserve these high bonuses, but I do not necessarily agree, Running a large business is a huge undertaking, and I would venture that less than 1% of businessmen could do so and produce profits and growth effectively. Good businessmen are in great demand, and deserve their pay as long as they perform for it. Did Herman Cain's company in question take taxpayer money for those bonuses because they were going bankrupt? I don't think so. Therefore, I can only assume that the bonuses were in response to them actually performing their job well and the money was due them.

I also don't think a comparison to Enron is apt, since Enron was in direct violation of security trading laws. There are no laws against making money, and as vogue as it may be to hate someone for having money and success, it will be those with money and success who finally bring this country out of this depression we find ourselves in, assuming anyone brings us out of it. Government produces nothing, and receives all its revenue by force of law; businesses produce goods/services and receive their money from those who wish to avail themselves of that good/service. There is a huge difference there, and one that we as a society need to again understand if we are ever to be prosperous ourselves again.

Hope that clears things up some.

TheRedneck