Meet the real Herman Cain

[jgreiner]

At least it's not a bias source.

 

[steveh_131]

Herman Cain wrote the column.

Are you saying Herman Cain is biased against himself?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Herman Cain wrote the column.

Are you saying Herman Cain is biased against himself?

That article was in response to Joe Biden saying that the economic policy during the bush years were "abysmal".

I saw no mention of the looming credit crisis.

Perhaps it was in another article.

 

[rambone]

At least it's not a bias source.

Just commentary like any other. It provides links to Cain's own articles if you want to read exactly what he was writing.


Here's some more commentary, for your consideration.

ANALYSIS: Cain’s ’999′ Plan Would Cause Largest Deficits Since WWII, While Increasing Taxes For Most Americans

So Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”

 

[steveh_131]

That article was in response to Joe Biden saying that the economic policy during the bush years were "abysmal".

I saw no mention of the looming credit crisis.

Perhaps it was in another article.

I think the point was that he was mocking the idea that we were in a recession shortly before it became undeniably apparent that we were, in fact, in a recession.

If they don't think the argument has merit then they can certainly make their case. But simply calling the source biased achieves nothing. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Wild Deuce]

This is where he was bought and paid for. When you hear him talk about monetary policy and the federal reserve, it's more of the same.

Sad, because the rest of his history is very impressive... until he sells his soul to the central bank.

Hey, you're harshing on their adulation! I was going to rep you but INGO wouldn't let me.


The OP had my interest until I read the section you pointed out. HC isn't a lost cause for me. I'll just need to learn more. I know they say "Perfect is the enemy of good" but I say "Good is the enemy of Better."

Memo to [pick a political party], "I'm not doin the "lesser of two evils" thing."

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the 9-9-9 plan, as it leaves the door open to increase those rates, AND adds another type of tax.

The straight up analysis done, states that tax revenue, using 2007 numbers would decrease from 18.5% of GDP to 9.2% of GDP, thus his tax plan would have large deficits, right?

Well, maybe. That's assuming that GDP would remain flat, despite the fact that there would be more money in the private economy. i believe this to be a bad assumption. Furthermore, history shows us that a reduction in rate always leads to an increase in overal GDP.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think the point was that he was mocking the idea that we were in a recession shortly before it became undeniably apparent that we were, in fact, in a recession.

If they don't think the argument has merit then they can certainly make their case. But simply calling the source biased achieves nothing. That's all I'm saying.

The linked source is certainly biased, but the link within the link is not.

I agree, everything needs to be addressed on its face.

The current recession kind of happened all at once. The signs were certainly there, but by definition of a recession, which is what 2 quarters of negative or flat growth? We were not in a recession, and certainly not because of GWB economic policy, which is what Cain was getting at.

The current recession is mostly self imposed, as previous growth was largely fueled by credit which people either can't secure, or don't want to secure.

I would also say that instability in policy from washington is another major contributor to the current recession.

 

[steveh_131]

The linked source is certainly biased, but the link within the link is not.

I agree, everything needs to be addressed on its face.

The current recession kind of happened all at once. The signs were certainly there, but by definition of a recession, which is what 2 quarters of negative or flat growth? We were not in a recession, and certainly not because of GWB economic policy, which is what Cain was getting at.

The current recession is mostly self imposed, as previous growth was largely fueled by credit which people either can't secure, or don't want to secure.

I would also say that instability in policy from washington is another major contributor to the current recession.

I think YOU'RE a biased source.

Actually I agree with all of that.

 

[PistolBob]

I didn't leave the repub party. They left me. The fact of the matter is that the only time they are conservative is when they are in the minority. Once back in the majority, it's back to a spending free for all.

I would have to agree with you. I too am good and disgusted with the likes of Lugar, and moderate republicans...not to mention the liberal republicans. But sometimes you just have to work together to stop the stink that you know is there. Obama stinks, he's gotta go, and I'm voting ABO in 2012.

 

[PistolBob]

How many years did you spend sucking at the public teat?

Are you saying that the men and women that serve this nation in the military are sucking on the public teat?

I just want to be clear on that.

 

[PistolBob]

I agree. But in the meantime we need to work for the most conservative candidate possible and hold them to the fire when they get the nomination. I am of the same opinion as Mark Levin was saying not long ago: I'll vote for a dead can of tuna before I would vote for Obama. But until then I am going to try to find the most conservative candidate out there.

Smokepole, landing a conservative president is important to me, but even more important is getting this dead wood congress out of here and replenished with the new blood of conservatives that aren't indebted to third party interests for their jobs.

An all new president is only one step in the right direction.

 

[hornadylnl]

I would have to agree with you. I too am good and disgusted with the likes of Lugar, and moderate republicans...not to mention the liberal republicans. But sometimes you just have to work together to stop the stink that you know is there. Obama stinks, he's gotta go, and I'm voting ABO in 2012.

So the ABO (rino turd) nominee wins. Is his only qualification being ABO? Is he actually going to reverse anything or will he just become NBSOB (New Boss, Same as the Old Boss)? Don't get me wrong. I'd love nothing more than for you to tell me "I told you so" come January 2017.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you saying that the men and women that serve this nation in the military are sucking on the public teat?

I just want to be clear on that.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Doesn't "sucking on the public teat" mean collecting tax dollars for a living?

If so, then yes. They are. Aren't they?

 

[PistolBob]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Doesn't "sucking on the public teat" mean collecting tax dollars for a living?

If so, then yes. They are. Aren't they?

Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coasties, Guardsmen, all pay taxes. Just like the rest of us. Maybe you forgot about that. Maybe you're just a despicable human being, I don't know.

 

[steveh_131]

Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coasties, Guardsmen, all pay taxes. Just like the rest of us. Maybe you forgot about that. Maybe you're just a despicable human being, I don't know.

Who said they didn't pay taxes? What are you talking about?

 

[Phil502]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Doesn't "sucking on the public teat" mean collecting tax dollars for a living?

If so, then yes. They are. Aren't they?

I think it's better defined as :collecting tax dollars without contributing in a meaningful way. Welfare queens and congressman(for the most part) fall into this category.

 

[steveh_131]

I think it's better defined as :collecting tax dollars without contributing in a meaningful way. Welfare queens and congressman(for the most part) fall into this category.

I suppose that's a different definition than I was going by.

I do have my doubts that SemperFiUSMC contributed more meaningfully than Ron Paul, however. So I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[hornadylnl]

You have 3 pots. Pot A contains $1000 and pots B and C contain nothing. You take $200 out of pot A and put it in pot B. You take all $200 out of pot B and put it into pot C. Now, you take $40 out of pot C and put it back into pot B. Now the pots contain the following.

Pot A = $1800
Pot B = $40
Pot C = $160

Which pot gained the most, which pot gained the least, and which pot lost? Now please explain to me how pot C contributed to anything.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You have 3 pots. Pot A contains $1000 and pots B and C contain nothing. You take $200 out of pot A and put it in pot B. You take all $200 out of pot B and put it into pot C. Now, you take $40 out of pot C and put it back into pot B. Now the pots contain the following.

Pot A = $1800
Pot B = $40
Pot C = $160

Which pot gained the most, which pot gained the least, and which pot lost? Now please explain to me how pot C contributed to anything.

I see your point, but it overlooks the reason for the transfer. If pot C is gaining money in exchange for their work, an exchange has occurred... pot C's work has been bought...

The difference between "sucking the public teat" and "being compensated for providing the taxpayers a service" usually comes down to an individuals opinion regarding the necessity and value of the service.