Meet the real Herman Cain

[hornadylnl]

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.

Those in the military most definitely provide a service but don't produce anything. Wealth is generated by production. Pot A is the economy, pot b is the government, and pot C is the government employee.

I always thought it was the dumbest thing in the world when I was in the military for the government to send me a check and then I had to turn around and pay them money back. Why didn't they just give me my net check and save the government and the taxpayers the cost of administering the taxes?

There is another thread about someone saying that regulations provide jobs. A comment was made that those overseeing regulations don't produce anything, they just add cost. It's the same with government employees. Whether the services of government employees are necessary or not is up to interpretation. But they are a net drain on the economy. It's the same with corporations paying taxes. Not are corporations saddled with the actual cost of the tax, they have to pay employees to handle it. All of that cost is passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays the cost of administering taxes for corporations and themselves when they file their own taxes. The only thing corporate taxes benefit are the accountants and lawyers paid to administer them.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Those in the military most definitely provide a service but don't produce anything. Wealth is generated by production. Pot A is the economy, pot b is the government, and pot C is the government employee.

I always thought it was the dumbest thing in the world when I was in the military for the government to send me a check and then I had to turn around and pay them money back. Why didn't they just give me my net check and save the government and the taxpayers the cost of administering the taxes?

There is another thread about someone saying that regulations provide jobs. A comment was made that those overseeing regulations don't produce anything, they just add cost. It's the same with government employees. Whether the services of government employees are necessary or not is up to interpretation. But they are a net drain on the economy. It's the same with corporations paying taxes. Not are corporations saddled with the actual cost of the tax, they have to pay employees to handle it. All of that cost is passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays the cost of administering taxes for corporations and themselves when they file their own taxes. The only thing corporate taxes benefit are the accountants and lawyers paid to administer them.

Right, but as silly as it seems to consider it a problem, we do not need 100% of the population "producing"... Industrialization and free trade have already brought us to a place where we create enough food and necessities with only a small fraction of our work force. A large portion of the work force ends up producing luxury goods and providing services.

Now, I totally agree that the system has quite a bit of fat... positions that do not produce, and also do not truly provide a service... but at one point in time someone decided every position was a necessity - even if the necessity was simply creating a position. The problem is justifying the elimination of existing fat positions, and the possible economic consequences of doing so.

 

[hornadylnl]

Right, but as silly as it seems to consider it a problem, we do not need 100% of the population "producing"... Industrialization and free trade have already brought us to a place where we create enough food and necessities with only a small fraction of our work force. A large portion of the work force ends up producing luxury goods and providing services.

Now, I totally agree that the system has quite a bit of fat... positions that do not produce, and also do not truly provide a service... but at one point in time someone decided every position was a necessity - even if the necessity was simply creating a position. The problem is justifying the elimination of existing fat positions, and the possible economic consequences of doing so.

I understand what you're saying. My company would eliminate my position in a heartbeat if they could. I'm a maintenance man and therefore don't directly contribute to the production of our goods. However, they value my services as every time I'm not there, I get anywhere from 10-30 people telling me they're glad I'm back. I'm the only one in the company who understands my line and can fix it quickly.

I've never been one who likes to spend money on consumables or services. If given the choice of spending $20 on a meal, a night at the movies or on a material thing that I can hold in my hands at the end of the day, I'll choose the material thing. Some would rather spend that $20 on a case a beer. Their choice, their right.

But to say that government employees pay no taxes doesn't mean that you're bashing them.

 

[ViperJock]

Are you aware of how the FED is structured? There are 12 banks (systems), responsible for everything that occurs in each of the 12 regions. He was in charge of one of those 12. Arguably one of the 13 most powerful men in banking in the country, let alone the world...

Uhhhhh, what was your question again?

My question, still unanswered, is do you have any proof that he was deliberately screwing with the economy or that he was NOT at least trying to make it better. Your argument is a "guilt by association." Lets see what some of his policies were? Did he make any statements during that time that could be used to show your point? Something substantial.

 

[ViperJock]

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

It WOULD increase taxes for most americans. You know why? Because most of them don't pay taxes! Thats right! most of the taxes are paid by a very small majority of people who are daily accused not "doing their share." Anyone in a tax bracket above 9% would pay less tax (ie almost everyone who actually pays taxes to begin with) and everyone below that would pay more. The 9% sales tax would affect the rich more, because they buy more, but would also affect everyone else. The thing about his plan is that it is more fair. We each pay the same. If we make less the 9% of our check is less than someone who makes a lot more, but it our share.

Collecting money doesn't create deficit, spending does. With the current expenditures all of the republican plans (at least that they adverstise) would cause deficits. FORTUNATELY they all also plan to curb spending which should negate an increasing deficit.

 

[88GT]

Those in the military most definitely provide a service but don't produce anything. Wealth is generated by production. Pot A is the economy, pot b is the government, and pot C is the government employee.

There are no service sector wealth generators? None?

I always thought it was the dumbest thing in the world when I was in the military for the government to send me a check and then I had to turn around and pay them money back. Why didn't they just give me my net check and save the government and the taxpayers the cost of administering the taxes?

Not when you consider that you may not actually have to pay it all back when everything else is said and done. On the assumption that the .mil isn't significantly different than anybody else, there are a gajillion ways to change the final amount owed or credited come April 15.

It WOULD increase taxes for most americans. You know why? Because most of them don't pay taxes! Thats right! most of the taxes are paid by a very small majority of people who are daily accused not "doing their share." Anyone in a tax bracket above 9% would pay less tax (ie almost everyone who actually pays taxes to begin with) and everyone below that would pay more. The 9% sales tax would affect the rich more, because they buy more, but would also affect everyone else. The thing about his plan is that it is more fair. We each pay the same. If we make less the 9% of our check is less than someone who makes a lot more, but it our share.

Collecting money doesn't create deficit, spending does. With the current expenditures all of the republican plans (at least that they adverstise) would cause deficits. FORTUNATELY they all also plan to curb spending which should negate an increasing deficit.

Can't rep you again yet, but kudos for stating the obvious.

 

[Thomas Carey]

I have actually wanted to him to run since I heard him full in awhile back for one of the big conservative talk radio shows. Every time I heard him on. People kept calling pretty much begging him to run. I never thought he actually would.

 

[GREEN607]

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?

Have you absolutely no shame? Or even common sense?

We certainly don't pay our military members enough, for putting their lives on hold.... in fact for putting their lives on the line, ...... many of them daily..... in serving their country. Tax dollars or not, they earn every penny! How about having a little gratitude for those who so bravely serve this nation, in our Armed Forces. What a cad!!!

I noticed your 'rep line'......... and wonder how you got so many badges. Must be because you are a "funny man" or impressed a lot of people with your firearms knowledge..... cause it certainly ain't for your noble and respectful 'political' comments.

How dare you refer to those who serve this great nation in our military, and defend the very freedoms you enjoy (and obviously take for granted) as "sucking on the public teat"! Just what is it that you do for a living..... that so greatly contributes to the the betterment of this nation and her people???

 

[g00n24]

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

What's the pay roll tax? 15%? is 15% more or less than 9%? The 999 gets rid of the payroll tax. Giving people more options and freedom to spend their money on what they choose.
Oh, and I forgot how horrible of an idea it is to ask people who have a voice in American policy (everyone who can vote) to pay into the system, perhaps they will be a little more responsible at the ballot box when they have skin in the game.

 

[rambone]

It WOULD increase taxes for most americans.

Maybe this is the platform that conservatives want to rally behind in 2012.

 

[jsgolfman]

If a democrat said it, they would be apoplectic.

 

[g00n24]

Maybe this is the platform that conservatives want to rally behind in 2012.

So, its good that 47% of Americans don't pay income tax then?

 

[jgreiner]

It WOULD increase taxes for most americans. You know why? Because most of them don't pay taxes! Thats right! most of the taxes are paid by a very small majority of people who are daily accused not "doing their share." Anyone in a tax bracket above 9% would pay less tax (ie almost everyone who actually pays taxes to begin with) and everyone below that would pay more. The 9% sales tax would affect the rich more, because they buy more, but would also affect everyone else. The thing about his plan is that it is more fair. We each pay the same. If we make less the 9% of our check is less than someone who makes a lot more, but it our share.

Collecting money doesn't create deficit, spending does. With the current expenditures all of the republican plans (at least that they adverstise) would cause deficits. FORTUNATELY they all also plan to curb spending which should negate an increasing deficit.

It would DEFINITELY increase taxes on the 47% that now pay NO federal income taxes. And I see that as a good thing. When people are freeloaders...they don't appreciate what they have. Tis true of public housing, etc. When you have to WORK for something, you tend to take better care of it.

Gov't is far too large. And it has been growing dramatically under the pat two administrations, especially the CURRENT one.

This needs to stop.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Have you absolutely no shame? Or even common sense?

We certainly don't pay our military members enough, for putting their lives on hold.... in fact for putting their lives on the line, ...... many of them daily..... in serving their country. Tax dollars or not, they earn every penny! How about having a little gratitude for those who so bravely serve this nation, in our Armed Forces. What a cad!!!

I noticed your 'rep line'......... and wonder how you got so many badges. Must be because you are a "funny man" or impressed a lot of people with your firearms knowledge..... cause it certainly ain't for your noble and respectful 'political' comments.

How dare you refer to those who serve this great nation in our military, and defend the very freedoms you enjoy (and obviously take for granted) as "sucking on the public teat"! Just what is it that you do for a living..... that so greatly contributes to the the betterment of this nation and her people???

I am always very discouraged when I see posts like this.

Very sad...

 

[melensdad]

What's the pay roll tax? 15%? is 15% more or less than 9%? The 999 gets rid of the payroll tax. . .

But wait, there's more.

It is improper to directly equate the 999 tax to the 15% tax in the way you did it.

Really you have to equate the 15% tax to something closer to an 18% tax.

15% flat tax is based on your income. So 100% of what you have coming in gets taxed at 15%.

The 999 taxes 9% of what you have coming in, and 9% of what you have going out. Assume 3% to 5% of your income is put aside for "savings" and its very possible that the 999 plan and the 15% rate are pretty much EQUAL.

 

[steveh_131]

Have you absolutely no shame? Or even common sense?

We certainly don't pay our military members enough, for putting their lives on hold.... in fact for putting their lives on the line, ...... many of them daily..... in serving their country. Tax dollars or not, they earn every penny! How about having a little gratitude for those who so bravely serve this nation, in our Armed Forces. What a cad!!!

I noticed your 'rep line'......... and wonder how you got so many badges. Must be because you are a "funny man" or impressed a lot of people with your firearms knowledge..... cause it certainly ain't for your noble and respectful 'political' comments.

How dare you refer to those who serve this great nation in our military, and defend the very freedoms you enjoy (and obviously take for granted) as "sucking on the public teat"! Just what is it that you do for a living..... that so greatly contributes to the the betterment of this nation and her people???

What on earth are you ranting about?

Ron Paul's credibility was attacked based on the fact that his paycheck comes from tax dollars. I simply pointed out that the person who said this also derived his paycheck from tax dollars for a period of time.

I'm not sure how this translates to ingratitude or a lack of common sense. But please, don't let me interrupt a good rant. Rage on.

 

[jmiller676]

What on earth are you ranting about?

Ron Paul's credibility was attacked based on the fact that his paycheck comes from tax dollars. I simply pointed out that the person who said this also derived his paycheck from tax dollars for a period of time.

I'm not sure how this translates to ingratitude or a lack of common sense. But please, don't let me interrupt a good rant. Rage on.

Politicians don't return anything to their country, our soldiers fight for us.
Politicans make way to much and are in D.C. for far to long during the year. The political stage was not meant to be a full time job. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I would rather pay for the well being of our soldiers and their families. Then the high society living of pieces of ****.

Politicians-Sucking

Soldiers-Making a living

 

[CarmelHP]

So, its good that 47% of Americans don't pay income tax then?

Yes, it would be better if 0% paid income tax. The federal government was never meant to be all things to all people. It was meant to lead in times of war, keep commerce open between the states and handle mail and be ignored the rest of the time. Pretty much everything else has been haphazardly grafted on to it to the detriment of the nation.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Politicians don't return anything to their country, our soldiers fight for us.
Politicans make way to much and are in D.C. for far to long during the year. The political stage was not meant to be a full time job. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I would rather pay for the well being of our soldiers and their families. Then the high society living of pieces of ****.

Politicians-Sucking

Soldiers-Making a living

What about politicians who used to be soldiers, marines, airmen, or sailors?

 

[steveh_131]

What about politicians who used to be soldiers, marines, airmen, or sailors?

I think i just heard some heads exploding.