The American Spectator

Michael Tomlinson| 9.30.11 @ 6:33AM

I like Herman Cain, but the author is spot on his 9-9-9 plan is not as good as it first sounds. We do need tax reform (flatter and fairer), but a national sales tax, VAT, "fair tax," etc. is ultimately a jobs killer as one finds in Europe. For those who think we’ll get more bang for our “buck,” because everyone pays fail to see the problem with hidden taxes – they tend to go up, up, up . . . Americans need to know and see what they’re paying in taxes or once the Democrats are back in power they’ll soak the American people for their pet projects and special interest groups. Look how the oil companies are demonized when gas prices rocket upward when the most onerous part of the price is the state and Federal taxes.

Tax reformers should look back to Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes for inspiration on this issue. A simple flat-tax (preferably two-tier) that allows for mortgage and charitable deductions would be far more palatable to the American public. The same would hold for corporate taxes too. A simple 10% (Federal and FICA) for those under $8 million and 20% for those above that would be easy to understand and swallow. Corporate taxes should be no hirer than 20% and capital gains should be taxed at the correct flat tax rate or abolished all together along with the "death" tax. This would unlock capital and spur the economic growth we need to recover from Barack Obama and Democrat’s failed policies.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 8:17AM

Damned Straight.
A Federal Income Tax & A National Income Tax Are An Open Door For Big Government Parasite Leeches To Suck Americans Dry.

This Is Euro-Crap.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 8:19AM

Typo: & A National Sales Tax

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:06AM

Ross;

It looks like the 15% federal take is based on actual federal revenues; it does not include the deficit spending which takes the number to 25.5%. (links below) Excluding the deficit spending from the federal "take" is as logical as excluding your credit card expenditures from your household budget, because, 'that is cash we don't payout.'

You might argue that some portion of that deficit is long term debt, analogous to an individual's mortgage; but if you buy a new house every year, then it is only reasonable that the whole of the indebtedness be included in your annual budget. (And boy, do we buy a new house every year!)

Also, did not Milton Friedman win a Nobel prize for identifying the "crowding out" of private borrowings when the Federal government goes on a borrowing spree? (I believe he did.)

So I wonder that Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is not as bad as Hoover makes it.

Also consider two positive impacts:

1. A national sales tax, which I truly hate, is an avoidable tax that encourages saving (the true source of all investment, no?) by individuals. I hate it because we have been lied to by Congress many times, most infamously that Social Security was insurance, not an entitlement. But a sales tax is a tax I can avoid which is always better than one I cannot!

2. Consider the reduction in corporate and individual expenses associated with the current, hopelessly-convoluted income tax system that induces all sorts of non-economic behaviors and investments, just to escape the Byzantine IRS. And the cost avoided by not having to pay legions of CPA's and tax attorneys just to figure out what the feds should get. Warren Buffet's billion dollar tax scuffle would go away with a one page letter: "Mr. Buffet, you only sent in 7%, send in the other 2%, please, now." A caveman could do it!

The national sales tax is preferable to a VAT tax. Why? A VAT favors large, vertically integrated firms over the smaller, dis-aggregated firms, i.e. the small, flexible, innovation-driving medium and smaller firms (where all the jobs are created!!!) The little guys will have higher value added taxes because they pay it on every transaction, not just on the sale of finished goods to consumers ala sales tax.

So there's stuff I don't like in ol' 9-9-9; but there's stuff I do like. And if Mr. Cain would need a Constitutional amendment, maybe we could limit federal spending increases to population and inflation increases only at the same time.

Maybe Mr. Cain is not oblivious to the need for an amendment but is using that as a method of actually cutting taxes by taking the middle 9 out of the plan. Weirder things have been legislated in this country.

You know who really dislike Mr. Cain? The establishment Republicans, the damned statists who keep playing ball with the out-of-control Democrat spendaholics, that's who.

DTOM

PS And I hope Chris Christie does jump in- he'll force Romney to join Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann on the sidelines. And when people find out about Chris's other positions, he'll join them in about two weeks...DH

PPS I'm still looking for Mrs. Palin. Why? Because there is no candidate who has walked the walk in their own life more reliably and predictably than Sarah. Period. And that's why America loved Reagan: he said what he meant, meant it, then walked it. Case closed.

References for tax/gdp stuff..

http://forecast-chart.com/forecast-us-gnp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 11:46AM

Dan,

You are absolutely right that (again, from Milton Friedman) the true measure of government burden is spending, not taxation.

However, the data on taxation as a share of GDP is thorough and available, and we can then also add analysis of the deficit to get to the numbers you describe.

My recollection is that the Fair Tax supporters (and, I presume, but I don't know for sure, Cain's plan) has been designed to be revenue-neutral.

I don't want it to increase revenue other than by stimulating growth, of course, but my point is that a revenue neutral plan does not deal with the deficit, which is, after all, a spending problem not a revenue problem.

Sarah Palin is one of the few Republicans who can't beat Barack Obama.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:14PM

RK;

Another missing element from this is the fact that there are future, unfunded liabilities that we are absolutely pretending do not exist and not adding to government spending. Pensions, healthcare, government loan guarantees, nuclear fuel disposal, blah, blah , blah.

These can no more be ignored than the family budget ignoring the family's twin daughters acceptance letters from Harvard with the disappointing postscripts saying 'sorry, no scholarship for you.' I'm just saying...

DTOM

PS I am willing to risk a second beer on this, subject to our initial wager, i.e. this'd be a M.A.D.* style double-or-nothing, no?

* Mutually Assured Destruction, natch...

Logistics to be named later, or I'll have to keep doubling down...or maybe you'll have to...

HeeHaw
DH

irish19| 9.30.11 @ 1:00PM

Shouldn't that mean "Mutually assured drinks?"

irish19| 9.30.11 @ 1:00PM

Shouldn't that mean "Mutually assured drinks?"

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:04PM

Dan,

Remind me what our first bet is, and I don't understand what you want to bet on here, but I'm always up for a wager!

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 8:31PM

We were betting a glass of wine against a beer whether Mrs. Palin would get in; I said yes, you said no...

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 9:34PM

Cool. I have a terrible memory, so I will trust you to be a man of honor and remind me of our wager when you lose. ;-)

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:24PM

Typo: Cains 999 should be read 180 degrees in order to understand the BS in Cain's "plan" for economic recovery.

Jack in Wi.| 10.1.11 @ 3:00PM

Herman Cain is for a few things I don't like. Endless bailouts of the elites by the Federal Reserve, TARP. He also favors endless wars for Israel. His tax plan is nonsense and will only be used to raise more money for the government to waste. I would rally like to see how much government money ole Herman got when he was heading Godfather's Pizza. As a minority he was eligible for huge amounts of government loans and grants. I found over the years that minority business's that I dealt with mostly got by with numerous loans and government grants. I don't think I ever had dealings with more then a few who weren't shams.

Alan Brooks| 9.30.11 @ 9:58AM

"I like Herman Cain"

[he is black, but not like that community organizer from Chicago]

"but the author is spot on his 9-9-9 plan"

[look, Cain owned Godfather's Pizza ferchrissake]...

...

Alan Brooks| 9.30.11 @ 10:05AM

..."long as we get one o' our people in the saddle next year, 'n' not that muslim socialist ag'in.
He hates America 'n' wants to destroy it; so we'll nip his re-election in the bud 'n' ship em back to Chi-town toot sweet."

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 10:17AM

WHAT has Obama ever done to indicate to you that he likes America and believes in American exceptionalism?

WHAT?!?!?

Alan Brooks| 9.30.11 @ 10:38AM

write:

"offing bin Laden weren't nothin'. Obama wasted bin on May 2nd jus' fer show; he secretly liked bin cuz they's both muslims 'n' are out ta get America"

ncatty| 9.30.11 @ 11:11AM

Knock off the Harvard accent, won't you?

Frekki| 9.30.11 @ 11:38AM

Obama was playing golf when Panetta sent in the troupes. He was pulled off the course and offered a choice; Pull 'em back or let 'em go. That's all he did. Don't believe me? Look at the photo of them watching that flat screen, he's in a golf shirt.

Alan Brooks| 9.30.11 @ 12:56PM

Okay! Obama flew flight 11, but jumped out right before it hit the WTC; then he jumped into the cockpit of the other plane and flew it into the other tower-- jumping out just before impact as well. Alrighty?
Are you satisfied?

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:30PM

You a Panetta fan? You gotta' be kidding! Panetta the security risk!Panetta is as left wing as they come. Fore!

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Panetta voted in the following manner on Defense issues:

• NAY on the reaffirmation of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan.

• YEA on continuing foreign aid to the Sandinista government of Communist Nicaragua.

• YEA on extending most favored nation status to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states.

• YEA on ceding control of the Panama Canal to the pro-Soviet Panamanian government.

In addition to his voting record, in 1986, Rep. Panetta publically opposed what he called President Ronald Reagan’s “illegal and extraordinary vicious wars against the poor of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.” This, Panetta said, as he pledged his support for the Soviet satellite government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua as well as other KGB and DGI (Cuban intelligence) backed Marxist paramilitary groups throughout the Western Hemisphere in Latin America.

Panetta’s solidarity with these communist-backed forces may have been in part due to his close affiliations with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Marxist think-tank in Washington D.C. In a 1978 article in National Review, Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described the IPS as being the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB."

TrueBlue| 9.30.11 @ 2:15PM

Step 1) Repeal the 16th Amendment.
Step 2) Institute 9-9-9 tax plan as an Amendment. Write into the Amendment that no new taxes can be instituted by the federal government without first repealing the Amendment. Ensure that no "adjustments" to the tax rate included in the Amendment are allowed by law. This will make sure they cannot increase the rates without getting rid of the Amendment first. Of course, it assumes the SCotUS does its job, but this one should be pretty cut and dry even for them.

The biggest issue with the 16th Amendment is that it left it open for the federal government to adjust the tax rate as it sees fit whenever they want. If they had written it to block that loophole we wouldn't have this issue, but it's my belief that it was written that way specifically to allow the government to expand upon at a later date without making that fact clear to your average citizen.

No his 9-9-9 plan as it is currently explained is not perfect, but it is still better than our current tax rate that buries both our citizens and companies in tax rates so high that Communist China looks like a friendly place to do business. Both the repeal of the 16th and the passing of the new Amendment would have to be timed to allow for little gap time or the government would default on payments due to having no income, but it COULD be done if handled by someone with any practical knowledge in planning (of which bureaucrats have none).

DG in GA| 9.30.11 @ 6:55PM

Herman Cain is a huge fan of the Fair Tax, which requires the repeal of the 16th Amendment. I would like to add that we eliminate withholding, and require every American to write a CHECK every year for their entire tax burden. No matter what the income tax rate is, if the American people each had to write a check annually for "their fair share" we would see TRUE tax revolt in this country. And it's about darn time!

I heard Cain on a radio show recently where he basically said that the 9-9-9 plan is a precursor to the Fair Tax because the liberals (and the big-spending Republicans) will demagogue the Fair Tax to death. Bringing in an interim plan like the 9-9-9 plan will get We the People used to the idea, and it will also give us time to get all of the big spenders OUT of Washington. It will also give Cain time to eliminate a lot of the useless Federal Departments (like the EPA and Education) that he has vowed to eliminate.

TrueBlue| 9.30.11 @ 7:19PM

*gasp* You mean to say the guy that turned around a failing company in just a few months actually has a plan to cover the intervening time between repeal of one Amendment until another can be put in place? Who knew?!

((This was not meant to be a slight in any way to your comments DG, just couldn't resist poking at the people who don't realize that Cain actually does plan for the future and point out flaws in anything he says.))

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:32PM

Then why isn't Cain championing the abolition of the 16th amendment instead of peddling his farce 999 formula?

TrueBlue| 10.1.11 @ 10:13AM

Anyone that even partially grasps the idea of a Fair Tax knows you have to repeal the 16th Amendment first. Not sure if it's a mistake or not, but he's doing what a lot of Republicans do, assume people are intelligent enough to connect the dots.

mames| 9.30.11 @ 3:27PM

Ditto. Cain is a class act with an active focused mind. He needs to correct his 999 and focus on a flat tax approach with a super majority of congress required to increase it.

TrueBlue| 9.30.11 @ 4:58PM

Hell with a super majority. Remove the 16th and institute any new tax laws as an amendment that cannot be changed period without repealing it.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.30.11 @ 6:34AM

I think that a 10% CUT, across the Board, is needed FIRST. And, none of this Baseline Budgeting B*llsh*t. Not a Cut in the INCREASE. A REAL Cut.
Then, a 17% Flat Tax, no deductions.
Aaaaaaaaand, EVERYONE pays something. If you make $1000, you pay 17%.
"But their poor!"
Yeah. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any "Skin in the Game".
They're gonna be getting Government Assistance. There's no reason they can't chip in.
As far as Medicare and Medicaid are concerned, AGAIN, everybody Pays something. I cannot believe that someone can't come up with $5 for the Doctor, or $5 for the Pharmacy. How many BILLION$ would that save these Programs?
As Stewart Gilligan Griffin, so famously said: "That's my plan. Where's yours?"
Indeed.

irish19| 9.30.11 @ 1:02PM

Skin in the game is the most important thing. If you have that, you have more incentive to get involved in how the money=your money taken from you by the gum'mint-is being spent.

TrueBlue| 9.30.11 @ 2:18PM

I despise "baseline budgeting." The government should not be legally allowed to spend more money than they received in revenue the previous year. Anything beyond that needs to be cut. None of this passing on debt to later generations bull. Back before the Fed was created Congress used to actually pay off any debts they incurred as quickly as possible. We need to get back to doing that.

Walking Horse| 10.3.11 @ 11:51AM

There is only one honorable baseline - zero.

Brian Mc| 9.30.11 @ 6:49AM

I don't care what the rates are just so long as they are not destructive at the particular levels enacted. Once agreed upon, the rate must not be tampered with unless the intent is to lower it. Might as well beg the sea to stop churning.

I do care that there is a bully with his gang of thugs in tow, roaming the playground and demanding my wallet and then after assessing its content, taking all they want...all the while mumbling something about the common good.

I thought extortion was against the law; or might be it still is, unless you work for the fed. The socialist mindset that allows the sixteenth amendment existence needs to be eradicated. Smirk all you want; this is the root of all our evils...the notion that someone else is affected while we 'enjoy' watching the crocks feeding on others.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.30.11 @ 7:09AM

Timothy is right we need to get away from baseline budgeting. That is causing bigger government at higher and higher costs.

In cutting government let's hope the "Special or Super" committee will abolish waste like AMERICORP, the Peace Corp, legal aid (rich Democrat trial lawyers can work for the poor pro-bono), the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (frick'n Bill Moyer should have been paying us all these years not us paying him). That's just to name a few of the easy cuts -- there are a lot more.

spoofproof| 9.30.11 @ 7:18AM

Repeal of Amendment 16 would be a stroke of genius. Can We The People get it done? A world without IRS? Yes We Can! Is it possible that Mr. Cain is floating nine-nine-nine to ignite the national debate on taxation? One thing's sure: We must do SOMETHING because FedGov Tax Code is like FedGov in general: F.U.B.A.R.

DG in GA| 9.30.11 @ 6:56PM

That is exactly what Cain is doing!

Mike Rogers| 9.30.11 @ 7:21AM

I like the Stewart Gilligan Griffin quote, Mr Pennell. Cain has a plan, and currently he can say to the rest: "Where's yours?". Even Perry, while bragging about Texas' employment situation, does not say how he will spread that miracle to the whole country.
On the other hand, many economists, including the well respected Stephen Moore of the WSJ say that the 9/9/9 plan will supercharge the economy.

RossPutin (love that handle), this is a great article, and one which the Cain Econ team would do well to address. We know that Cain is one of the best spokesmen for the FairTax, which he understands very well, and it is his goal to sell the American people on it within his first term.

His initial offering was to cut business and personal top tax rates to 25% (and no sunset date), capital gains and death taxes to zero, then start selling the FairTax.
The dire straits the economy finds itself in has led to his proposal of a bolder, catchier, first step. Since this also eliminates payroll taxes, the poor will start off with more money, easily offsetting the sales tax.
The devil, however, is in the details: Just as with the FairTax, any legislation which sets up a sales tax MUST include, not only strong limits on tax increases, but also a poison pill which kills the sales tax by a date certain if the 16th is not repealed.
My personal thoughts on the FairTax are that the concept is superb, especially the part where American workers and businesses are not taxed directly at all, but all goods, regardless of origin are taxed equally. The bit I'm not so keen on is the "prebate" to avoid punishing the poor, which makes every American the recipient of a Federal Check, and thus beholden to government.
One part where I disagree is that sales taxes, far more than income and payroll taxes, far from being hidden, are very visible, and thus subject to public outrage - this is a good thing. We should avoid the horrors of a VAT - much, much worse than a point of sales tax.

I am personally a HUGE fan of Herman Cain, having been an observer and admirer of his work and speaking skills for two years, and I wish I'd discovered him sooner. The man has precisely the leadership skills we need, and I don't think it will take much evolution of his economic plan to make it saleable to a broader base.

Solo| 9.30.11 @ 7:23AM

The biggest problem with Mr. Cain's "9-9-9" plan is that, as soon as democrats win back control of government, it will become a "20-20-20" plan.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:13AM

Does not Colorado have a state constitutional requirement that limits all state budget increases to inflation + population increases? If we need to put that in the US Constitution, couldn't we get the House to pass it now?

I say, start the process now - make it a campaign issue. Watch the Democrats dodge that one.

Heck, introduce in the House, call it the Obama Jobs creation bill! He still hasn't introduced 'his' jobs bill in Congress. Then he'll stop screaming, 'if the Republicans would just pass my bill.... ' in a New York minute.

DTOM

HeeHaw

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 11:48AM

Dan, theoretically yes. But we have perhaps the most partisan state supreme court in the nation. And they recently said that if gov't calls a tax hike a "fee" that they can then ignore that constitutional requirement.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:19PM

Two options,

Aw the hell with it...

or

Slap the justices up side the head with Merriam Websters's. Although is no this fee/tax question about to face SCOTUS review as a part of Obamacare?

We could get lucky- Limbaugh said he thought the Supremes would throw out Obamacare just 'cause BHO dissed them so bad at the 2010 SOTU on Citizens United v. FEC... Weirder stuff has happened...

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 12:57PM

" Supremes would throw out Obamacare just 'cause BHO dissed them so bad at the 2010 SOTU "

I've been thinking that for months. Hopefully they will drag it out until after the election so it stays fresh in everyones minds.

irish19| 9.30.11 @ 1:06PM

"Slap the justices up side the head with Merriam Websters's."
Make sure you use the unabridged version.

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 1:54PM

I prefer the desktop verion. Desktop PC that is.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 4:41PM

That was the edition I had in mind!!!

DTOM

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:34PM

Flip Cain's plan over and you will get the bigger picture!!! http://thenewamerican.com/usne.....uelessness

Michael Tomlinson| 9.30.11 @ 7:37AM

Exactly Solo. Herman Cain would make a good President, but 9-9-9 that is ultimately to evolve into the "Fair" tax is dangerous unless the 16th amendment isn't repealed first. If that happens its a game changer.

One fear I have is if taxes are hidden they can be raised and blamed on the "evil" corporations and big "bad" business. That would have many in the Tea Party and middle class hopping mad at the wrong culprits.

Solo| 9.30.11 @ 7:51AM

Agreed!
And while we're about the business of repealing the 16 Amendment, we should repeal the 17th Amendment along with it.
Both Amendments have proven to be abject failures and a threat to the liberties of the People.

2Anglico| 9.30.11 @ 9:13AM

The "Fair Tax" proponents have always stated that the Federal Income Tax be repealed first. Herman Cain has stated so himself, although not in the so-called "debates".

martin j smith| 9.30.11 @ 7:43AM

Plans can be debated and modified. So lets debate it--but I think Herman Cain deserves credit for touching the sentiment of many voters who are tired of the Republican Elite. Cain went from almost nobody to a somebody and with that he deserves credit.

Paul Bot| 9.30.11 @ 7:46AM

Ron Paul Ron Paul...Cain was for TARP...Liberty Freedom Constitution...Romney RINO Romney RINO...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Jefferson was a tyrant...Only Ron Paul can save America...Perry is for open-borders...Ron Paul Ron Paul a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Liberty Freedom and the Constitution...Cain is a Stepin' Fetchit...Israel owns America...9/11 was an inside job...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Vote for Ron Paul or you hate Liberty Freedom and the Constitution...Don't call me names you low-life scum-sucking Israel-Firster...Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul...fish-sticks...Mrs. Paul...Ron Paul...Pope Paul...Opus Dei Bilderberg conspiracy...damn Jews...Ron Paul Ron Paul...Ron Paul...Ron Paul.

I win the debate.

Solo| 9.30.11 @ 7:55AM

LOL!
Yep! Those debate tactics and narrative certainly look familiar!

Sean| 9.30.11 @ 8:23AM

Ron Paul the choice of America's military, but not the chicken hawks.

http://www.northwestmilitary.c.....-WANT-HIM/

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 9:34AM

Assuming that your link is accurate...so what???

Members of the military each have one (1) vote in the election, like all other US citizens.

If they choose to vote for Ron Paul, that's their right.

BUT...(now pay attention)

They can only vote for Ron Paul in their respective state primaries FIRST.

Meaning...Unless Paul is the nominee, MOST members of the military from states with late primaries will NEVER get a chance to vote for Paul!

Sorry to burst your bubble, and make your post irrelevant...

...But I just did.

Paul Bot| 9.30.11 @ 1:36PM

Damned Straight. Big Government Parasite Leeches Will Suck Americans Dry, You Fixated Obsessed Creep & Your Zany Crazed Ugly Mug. Creepy Freak! Put Up Or Shut Up, Punk Ass Creepy Fanatic Head Case. You're A Liar. Whack Job. The Tehran Neo-Chickenhawk Is In The Building. This Is A Non-Starter. The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here. Why Don't You Try To Make Us? Israel Firster.
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha! Buffoon. Imbecile. Bitch Dog Fluffy Dog Humper. RINO CINO Slandering Liar. You're The Al Sharpton Of Israel Firster Hustlers. Go To The Watermellon Festival. Big Yellow Bus, Lemon Pie Yellow Without The Mittens. Do Your Homework & Don't Be An Uninformed Constitutional & Fiscal Useful Dupe. Duuuuuuuhhhhh! Asked & Answered.

Dr.Ron Paul Never Voted For An Earmark Or An Appropriations Bill.

I Win The Debate.

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:36PM

You aren't nothing but a lefty plant trying to smear RonP aul with your anti -jewish crap.

Sean| 9.30.11 @ 7:53AM

Mr. Kaminsky is correct on the 9-9-9 plan.

Rurik| 9.30.11 @ 9:14PM

Let me reoly to Herman Cain in German:
Nein! Nein! Nein!

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 7:56AM

So let's join hands and vote for Romney!

Oops! RomneyCare!

On to Perry!

Oops! Soft on immigration! Gardasill!!

On to Newt!

Oops! Personal issues! Career politician! TV ads with Nancy Pelosi!

On to Huntsman!

Huntsman?? Get real...

On to Ron Paul!

Oops!! Kook! Weak on foreign policy! Blames America!

On to Gary Johnson!

Oops! WHAT is this guy smoking?? (Seriously...how much pot did he smoke in the 70's???)

On to Santorum!

Oops! He lost his Senate seat by 18%! Too conservative!

On to Bachman!

Oops! She's "crazy"...and she believes in God!!!

On to Christie!

Oops! He's NOT a Conservative!!!

...Obama re-elected...

OOPS!!!!

Sean| 9.30.11 @ 8:23AM

Ron Paul the choice of America's military, but not the chicken hawks.

http://www.northwestmilitary.c.....-WANT-HIM/

emilio lizardo, PhD| 9.30.11 @ 8:48AM

word

W| 9.30.11 @ 10:20AM

Well written and to the point, Doc.
There is no perfect candidate. Not even Ronald Reagan was perfect.

W| 9.30.11 @ 2:40PM

Latest Rasmussen Poll:

Obama
42%
Romney
44%
Sep 28-29, 2011

Obama
44%
Christie
43%
Sep 28-29, 2011

Obama
39%
Cain
34%
Sep 26-27, 2011

Obama
44%
Paul
34%
Sep 24-25, 2011

Obama
44%
Perry
38%
Sep 22-23, 2011

Obama
48%
Bachmann
32%
Sep 20-21, 2011

Obama
43%
Huntsman
35%
Sep 16-17, 2011

Obama
47%
Palin
35%
Aug 31-Sep 1, 2011

Obama
45%
Santorum
31%
July 10-11, 2011

Obama
48%
Gingrich
30

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 4:45PM

W,

Only 411 polling days left before the election, think these'll hold?

For the more mathy, that'd be 4.1X longer than the time frame of the polls you quoted.

And polls rarely reflect actual voting totals....

I'm just sayin...

DTOM

W| 9.30.11 @ 8:13PM

Dan,
No, they are snapshots, but Rasmussen is the most reliable. His polls usually reflect the actual vote when the poll is closer to election.
You can't ignore polls. Clinton had Morris poll every issue, even when and where to vacation.

The interesting part of this poll is the Obama gets his highest numbers against Bachman, Santorum, Palin, and Gingrich.These must energize the Dem base. Still Obama does not crack 50% even against the most conservative candidates.

But Obama gets his lowest number against Cain. Romney and Christie do the best.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 4:49PM

Harris Poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney Would Top President Obama

Released on Tuesday, September 27, the latest Harris Poll surveyed 2,462 adults and was conducted between September 12 and 19. According to the poll, if Texas Congressman Ron Paul wins the Republican presidential nomination he would beat Obama by 51 percent to 49 percent in the general election. On the other hand, if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination he would top Obama by 53 percent to 47 percent in the general election.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:40PM

Ronald Reagan on foreign policy: "I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. "
---RR
"Peace"
"war as last resort"

Sounds like Ron Paul on foreign policy.

Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 11:10AM

RWR never made a unilateral promise to an enemy that we'd leave them alone, especially with out getting real, verifiable results, before he made the promise. He quite often did the opposite, he threatened them with disaster. Remember his crack while testing a microphone, "We've just outlawed the Soviet Union and the bombers are on their way in five minutes." You think that was unintended? Do you have a lot of unredeemed teeth under your pillow?

Comparing Ron Paul to RWR, is as sensible as BHO comparing himself to RWR. Dr. Paul sounds very French in his unilateral, unconditional free gift with his "we won't attack you" promise. And very naive, very naive...

LOOKOUT!!! Paulbot flashmob imminent!!!

Tough toenails, Doc. It is what it is.

DTOM

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 7:56AM

So let's join hands and vote for Romney!

Oops! RomneyCare!

On to Perry!

Oops! Soft on immigration! Gardasill!!

On to Newt!

Oops! Personal issues! Career politician! TV ads with Nancy Pelosi!

On to Huntsman!

Huntsman?? Get real...

On to Ron Paul!

Oops!! Kook! Weak on foreign policy! Blames America!

On to Gary Johnson!

Oops! WHAT is this guy smoking?? (Seriously...how much pot did he smoke in the 70's???)

On to Santorum!

Oops! He lost his Senate seat by 18%! Too conservative!

On to Bachman!

Oops! She's "crazy"...and she believes in God!!!

On to Christie!

Oops! He's NOT a Conservative!!!

...Obama re-elected...

OOPS!!!!

LiveFreeOrDie| 9.30.11 @ 10:14AM

What's wrong with Huntsman?

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 10:19AM

Nothing, if you're a Liberal Republican who believes in the hoax called "global climate change" and the junk-science called "Darwinian evolution"...

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 11:48AM

You had me until the last few words, Doctor...

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 12:57PM

I assume you're referring to Darwinian evolution.

If so, I recommend you read "Darwin's Black Box", by the decidely non-religious biochem PhD Michael Behe, who lays it all out in painstaking, scientific detail that Darwinian evolution is utterly, totally, completely unable to account for the development of complex cellular micro-systems that are (here's the main part) co-dependent and inter-systemic.

In other words, the organism CANNOT survive without ALL of the specific, separate systems working together, sometimes in unison, sometimes in perfect, pre-specified order. This means that the overall system could NOT have "evolved".

As examples, Behe goes through (again, in complete scientific detail) the function of cellular flagella, and the coagulation cascade of human blood, an unbelievably complex system of checks, balances, and feedback loops that could never have happened by random chance.

If you choose not to believe Michael Behe, then how about Lyn Marguils, PhD (Botany), and expert in single-celled life, as well as the former wife of noted astronomer Carl Sagan:

"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as...a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology Proponents of the standard theory wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him. Neo-Darwinism, which insists on the slow accrual of mutations, is in a complete funk."

Or, take the words of the late Harvard Professor and evolution proponent Stephen J. Gould, who admitted the fraud by stating:

""The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

Or how about Famous fossil expert Niles Eldredge, who confessed:

"...Geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

Finally, Ross...consider the computer you use to type your posts...

I think you'd admit that it's a highly complex machine that did NOT form by itself over time, by random mutation. It was designed.

And yet...the human body, and of course, the human brain is infinitely more complex than the most sophisticated computer, which is really nothing more than an adding machine that uses binary code to store information.

DNA, Ross, uses QUATERNARY code! It's based on 4 specific "elements", not 2 (as with a binary code). This means that it is far more complex, and offers far more potential results than a binary code.

So the question then becomes...If your lap-top was designed (and it was), then HOW could your body...and the vast, differentiated forms of life on the earth...be random????

Answer: They can't.

It is mathematically impossible.

I await your thoughtful reply.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:11PM

Doctor,

I really don't like debating religion. You are offering a non-falsifiable proposition based on faith. I have no interest in insulting your faith.

I simply don't share it, and I do not accept as science something which by its definition cannot be tested.

By the way, the idea that Behe is nonreligious strikes me as untrue.

Also, I believe that if you have enough stuff mixing around in a certain environment for millions of years, it is not just possible but probably for basic life to start. And evolution strikes me as reasonable whereas intelligent design doesn't.

Again, I realize your view is a matter of faith, and I realize that some creationists (which is what believers in ID really are) say that my view is itself a faith.

However there's a big difference: I admit that it's still a theory and that things can change with evidence. Just because we don't understand everything about evolution or even that some things we think we understand turn out to be wrong doesn't mean that the basic idea is wrong.

Meanwhile, ID is not even subject to this sort of discussion and therefore is not science.

Best,
Ross

Doctor Right| 10.3.11 @ 9:58AM

Again, Ross, you have it exactly backwards.

Evolution is NOT science. Period. It does NOT stand-up to the scrutiny that "science" itself puts forth for validating observations and evidence.

And sorry, but your statement that "if you have enough stuff mixing around in a certain environment for millions of years, it is not just possible but probably for basic life to start" is hopelessly naive, and decidedly UN-scientific.

WHERE and WHEN has the phenomenon you describe ever been observed to happen???

The issue is that you've made up your mind about ID and evolution, and no evidence will ever change it for you.

That's not scientific either...

Bob K.| 9.30.11 @ 8:17PM

You don't have to go into that much detail. There is a fundamental difference between human life and all other forms of life which Darwinian Evolution cannot explain.

Humans have free will.

No other form of life on this planet has it. Evolution can't explain why either. Neither can science.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 9:34PM

Why do you say evolution can't explain it?

Bob K.| 10.1.11 @ 10:05AM

"Perhaps the Darwinian notion of human life on this earth has been wrong on both ends. At the one end Darwin and his scientific followers fantastically elongated the history of man on this earth pushing its beginnings back from the Biblical version of a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years, as they point to the bones of what they call Java or Peking man. On the other end their presumption also involved the future, reflecting their basically nineteeth-century scientific optimism, since according to their time scale Homo sapiens would have a long history of progress ahead of him. Yet, in our present historical situation, the question arises whether this still makes much sense. When these words are written, in the 1960's we certainly have a different view (and a different feeling) about the end of history than even a generation ago. Because of many events (and especially because of the "progress" of science and technology) the end of the world, through OUR OWN capacity of destroying all human life, has become, for the first time in history, a reasonable possibility. ...."

From "Historical Consciousness--The Remembered Past." by John Lukacs, pp271-272 Forward by Russell Kirk.

Part of the Library of Conservative Thought. Published by Transaction Publishers. 7th printing 2009 ISBN 1-56000-732-X Paperback.

Should Have Impeached| 9.30.11 @ 10:24PM

"It is mathematically impossible."

I always thought so, although I haven't gotten around to working out the numbers. :)

Should Have Impeached| 9.30.11 @ 10:28PM

Not enough fingers, you see.

Should Have Impeached| 9.30.11 @ 10:43PM

By the way... Speaking of the vast differentiated forms of live on earth... Doesn't it seem odd that out of the gazillions of animal species AND plant species (plant life alone is varied enough to boggle the mind. add animals and: WOW!!)... it seems we are losing species rather than gaining them. I'm thinkin' the evidence is more on the side of the earth didn't start out with one life form which descended into many, but rather that the earth started out with, like, way more than we have now (!!) and is dwindling. I'm just thinkin' it but don't quote me.... :0) Seems to me if you could prove that numerically, that seems like good evidence against the idea that we all developed from one cell via natural selection... or however you wanna describe it. But then that would suggest creationism which, as we all know, is just religious hokum. (sarcasm) So that kind of "evidence" wouldn't hold.

Clint| 10.1.11 @ 2:59PM

"Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 12:57PM
I assume you're referring to Darwinian evolution.

If so, I recommend you read "Darwin's Black Box", by the decidely non-religious biochem PhD Michael Behe"

Dr. Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic, who went to St Margaret Mary's Grade School & Bishop McDevitt High School In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Doctor Right| 10.3.11 @ 9:55AM

Read Behe's book, genius.

He describes himself as not particularly motivated by religion in his conclusions.

Clint| 10.3.11 @ 10:23AM

Read your Post Anti-Catholic Asshole.

Dr.Reich, "If so, I recommend you read "Darwin's Black Box", by the decidely non-religious biochem PhD Michael Behe"

Clint| 10.3.11 @ 10:32AM

Do Your Homework,Pseudo-Intellect Elitist Wannabe,Anti-Catholic Dr.Reich.

" To a question from host Melinda Penkava about how his ideas differ from creationism, Behe disingenuously answered, "Well, now to tell you the truth, I'm not real knowledgeable about creationism. I'm a Roman Catholic." Behe used his "I am a Roman Catholic" mantra more than once to divest himself of the creationist label."

Doctor Right| 10.3.11 @ 2:10PM

Actually, I would read that as a COMPLETE vindication of my original post.

The bottom-line is that Behe has no particular axe to grin in the ID vs Evo debate.

If you were able to think critically, you'd understand that.

Clint| 10.3.11 @ 3:12PM

You would, because you're moniker says it all. You're one of these clowns who pretends, he knows it all & is always right, even when he's hit in the face with what really is right.

You wrongly try to state:
"Dr.Reich, "If so, I recommend you read "Darwin's Black Box", by the decidely non-religious biochem PhD Michael Behe"

Despite Behe's own admission that he's decidedly Catholic.

You're A Pseudo-Intellectiual Fraud Elitist Wannabe , Dr.Wrong.

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:41PM

What isn't wrong with Huntsman!

Israel Firster| 9.30.11 @ 8:05AM

Bibi Netanyahu, Bibi....Paul Wants To Audit FED....U.S.S. Liberty Opps, Sorry...Gaza Palis.....Anti-Semites.Dhimmmies.....Non-Humans,Bad.....Golda Sexy....Only Israel Saves Us.... Americans Pay Us...........Paul Won't Give Us Our Welfare Payments, Bad Man,Bad,Bad .....Seinfeld Very Bad Man......Bibi, Sharon...
Foreign Aid,Show Us The Money.... Nukes ,We Got Em, Iran Don't,....... Jonathan Pollard, Misunderstood, Patriot.... Bibi,Netanyaha For President.....Wag,Dog,Tail..... Bibi,Bibi,Bibi.......Evil Arabs,Ragheads.......Bibi,Bibi,Bibi......

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 8:10AM

I applaud Cain for having a specific plan---however much tweaking it may need. It's such a welcome change from the vagueness of the typical "I'm for lower taxes" pols.

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:51PM

If you are thrilled by specifics RonPaul has plenty of them! Here are a few of theem:

A) Put enough Border Guards to plug the open borders that Bush and Obama have left gaping wide for the terrorists to enter our country !
B) Abolish the Fed
C) Persuade congress to put gold back into our monetary equation to back the dollar and end legal tender laws that force Americans to accept debt ridden promises from the Fed as "money."
D) End the wars abroad and bring troops home from 130 countries.These countires don't worry about their defense budget because the US taxpayer funds their huge defense budgets.
E) Veto any unbalanced budgets
F) veto any bills that violate the Constitution.
G) Paul's solution is USA Number 1. None of this BS about 999.

martin j smith| 9.30.11 @ 8:15AM

Christie !Christie ! Christie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--No, not really.
Look I will tell you this --and I am sure I am hardly unique. Voters smell rats in our political world and are now more informed and alert than ever.

We are looking for a Leader and focusing on one idea -well we could eliminate all who are in the running but anyone else who will enter the race like Chris Christie for example or Sara Palin.

The only people who I could not vote for as of now are Ron Paul ( sounds like Obama on foreign
affairs and national insecurity ) and John Huntsman as in what Party are you in ?.
Cain's being in contention is a good thing because it will force more of the truth of our candidates to come out.

If Chris Christie stops playing footsie and actually enters the race he too needs a good going over--and Romney and every last one of them!!!!!!!!!

JohnC| 9.30.11 @ 8:29AM

I agree with Mr. Kaminsky -- 9/9/9 is a terrible idea for all the points he mentioned. Plus it will kill high-end purchases. Most consumers will be paying a combined federal & state sales tax of 15% more or less, thus it would tack on $3000 for a 20 K car. A goal of a flat LOW income tax is surely a more conservative way to go and more saleable.

Cain is also to the left of Obama and Perry on immigration enforcement. As Commander in Chief he would wash his hands of this crucial federal responsibility and let the states do their own thing – a chaotic policy, which will guarantee open borders and sanctuary cities for most Border States.

In addition, Cain’s first instincts were not to audit Helicopter Ben and his reckless printing of money.

What is it with the conservative base that pick a candidate on how he presents himself (first Perry, now Cain) rather than on his past positions or current ideas?

Prester John| 9.30.11 @ 9:07AM

"Cain is also to the left of Obama and Perry on immigration enforcement. As Commander in Chief he would wash his hands of this crucial federal responsibility and let the states do their own thing – a chaotic policy, which will guarantee open borders and sanctuary cities for most Border States."

Uh, not quite. He wants to secure the border, enforce current law, and keep the current naturalization process. Cain's comments on letting the "states do their own thing" was about supporting Arizona when it passed SB1070 in response to the disaster occuring on its border with Mexico.

http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:17AM

Danged facts....

DTOM

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.30.11 @ 8:31AM

This article is utter garbage, written of course by the already utterly discredited Ross Kaminsky. The only excuse that can be made for him is that other idiots (such as James Antle, Quin Hillyer, and Aaron Goldstein) have already irrevocably and utterly discredited AmSpec, so Kaminsky cannot discredit AmSpec any further. Nonetheless, this article is BS.

I shall first discuss the FairTax, and then Herman Cain's policy on the FairTax.

Here's THE TRUTH about the FairTax Act (which Kaminsky either knows nothing about or is deliberately lying about):

1) The FairTax is NOT a VAT. It's a proposed national sales tax, which would be levied only at the retail store level, and only on new goods. VAT is levied at all stages of the manufacturing/retail chain.

2) The FairTax DOES NOT, repeat, DOES NOT contain any deductions, credits, or exemptions for anyone and DOES have different rates for different products. Its rate is the same for all products: 23%. Anything other than that is not the FairTax and should not be called the FairTax.

3) The FairTax Act (H.R. 25) contains a provision which says explicitly that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed within 7 years after the FairTax is signed into law, the FairTax Act sunsets AUTOMATICALLY.

4) The FairTax Act would replace (and not coexist with) ALL, repeat, ALL current federal taxes - from the CGT to the gasoline tax.

5) The FairTax would NOT create a black market, because under the FT, prices would stay roughly the same as they are today. The current hidden taxes embedded in the price of everything Americans buy would be replaced by this transparent tax, which would show the American people exactly how much they pay in federal taxes.

6) This would lead the American people to DEMAND lower taxes and lower spending.

7) The FairTax would tax those who currently work illegally and don't pay taxes - prostitutes, drug dealers, and illegal aliens.

8) Credible economic analysis has shown that the FairTax would produce an economic boom and bring back $1 trillion that's currently parked offshore back to the US.

9) Here's a tricky question that, by itself, debunks this entire litany of lies written by Kaminsky: if the FairTax would really allow politicians to greatly increase taxes on the American people and to use double taxation, WHY ON EARTH HAVEN'T THEY PASSED IT ALREADY? If it was the case, I'm sure the RINOs and the Dems on Capitol Hill would've already teamed up to get it passed quickly and send it to Obama for his signature. They never miss an opportunity to raise taxes on the American people, so why would RINOs and Democrats oppose the FairTax? Because it's nothing of the sort that Kaminsky claims it is.

As for Herman Cain's policy on the FairTax, it needs to be underlined that HE NO LONGER SUPPORTS THE FAIRTAX. Why? I don't know. I guess some Establishment Republicans have visited him and have used some scare tactic on him. Maybe they've threatened to have the GOP's whale donors withhold donations to Cain unless he would back off the FairTax. Maybe they've used some other scare tactic on him. Whichever, it's clear that they've managed to scare Cain so badly that he has dumped the FairTax.

If Cain had steel for a spine, instead of a limp noodle, he would've continued to support the FairTax. But he no longer does. He now promotes the 9-9-9 plan (i.e. double taxation) as his solution, not the FairTax.

His supporters claim that for him the 9-9-9 plan is only a "transitional step". Kaminsky seems to have bought this lie, for whatever reason. But Cain means it as a FINAL step, not a transitional step. He no longer mentions the FairTax in any debates or interviews. He mentioned it twice during the first debate, but since the second debate, he has NEVER even ALLUDED to the FairTax during any debate or interview, while explaining his 9-9-9 plan in detail many times. During the last debate, Herman Cain never even ALLUDED to the FairTax and continued to promote his 9-9-9 plan, while Gary Johnson mentioned it twice and defended it as fair.

His supporters claim that he doesn't have enough time during debates to even mention the FairTax.

But that's garbage. If Ron Paul can badmouth America's foreign policy and its honorable military in every answer he gives, regardless of what question is he answering, then surely Cain can find at least 2 seconds during each debate to utter the phrase "Fair Tax".

Like I said, Herman Cain no longer supports the FairTax.

Last, but not least, I'd like to note that this is by far the most ridiculous, pathetic, and idiotic article I've ever seen published on AmSpec. It's even dumber than Antle's anti-defense screeds. AmSpec should remove this article quickly and sever its ties to Ross Kaminsky.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 8:49AM

Uh Oh !

Ziggy, The Tehran Neo-Chickenhawk Is In The Building.

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Margie| 9.30.11 @ 2:19PM

In other news today, Ron Paul condemns the killing of another terrorist!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....0-10-34-45

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 2:50PM

I wish Ron Paul would make up his mind. He screams that this is a assasination and that Anwar al-Awlaki should have been arrested.

But if we followed his plan we wouldn't have troops over there to arrest or assasinate Al-Awlaki.
I guess we were just supposed to wait for him to come home for a visit and arrest him.

Margie| 9.30.11 @ 4:35PM

DS,

First of all, you aren't supposed to respond to me because I'm a troll (and much, much worse) according to the Catholics here.
But since you have I will just say that Ron Paul probably would have like to "counsel" the poor bloke. Perhaps he could have got together with the Darwinists here and teach him a thing or two about another fantasy, who knows?
But I doubt very much he would have wanted any harm to come to the poor, poor, misunderstood terrorist.
After all~ according to Ron Paul, it's all our fault he is the way he is.
He's the leader of the Cult of Blame America First!

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 5:15PM

Margie,

Not directed at you personally but I may not always agree with someones sentiments but I agree with anyone I please. If it makes some Catholics mad, sorry. Same as if it makes others mad when I agree with Catholics. This (to me) is a political opinion site and I don't take religous sides here. Even the people I disagree with I occasionally learn something (well not Clint so much but go figure). Even If i piss everyone here off would my life change? Nope, other than stimulation conversation.

That said sounds like we both agree, Ron paul is hard to figure out. Have a great weekend.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 9:30AM

In short, while the Fair Tax might not start out with exemptions and preferences, it will certainly evolve into something with preferential and punitive rates, i.e. different sales taxes on different items. It's just how politicians work.

I continue to oppose turning so many Americans into tax collectors.

The idea that this will eliminate the IRS is just silly. If it got rid of the IRS, it would just have to create IRS-2 to collect the sales tax.

Of course it would create a black market. Denying that is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter how the prices would compare with today's prices. It matters how much cheaper prices would be on a black market compared to in the "official" market.

The way to get people angry about government spending is to end paycheck withholding and make people write checks for that money.

I think a flat income tax is much better than a national sales tax.

John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 10:25AM

Ross Kaminsky,

While not a proponent of the "Fair Tax", I am unpersuaded by these comments.

Americans are already tax collectors almost universally at the point of sale. The remit sales taxes and returns are audited to ensure the retailer isn't pocketing the tax.

Income taxes encourage "off the books" and cash transactions - a black market, if you will.

Wasn't it Joe Kennedy who implemented withholding? It would make people angry to make people write checks to the government which is why it is illegal to pay gross wages. The pols may be criminals but they are not stupid.

In general, I prefer a consumption tax rather than an income tax as it puts the government in the same boat as the consumer when times are tight.

Pecos Pete| 9.30.11 @ 11:43AM

Ross: An income tax at any percent still requires that a "taxable income" be calculated. Lots of room for creative accounting to lower the taxable income amount. A sales tax, NOT a VAT, is much fairer and harder to evade.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 11:53AM

Pecos: I don't think it will be harder to evade.

John: Similarly, I think a national sales tax at a rate like 23% as the Fair Tax legislation proposes will create MUCH greater black markets than the current system.

Also, I really dislike the idea that everyone from eBay sellers to the guy my wife buys bread from at the farmer's market will have to become tax collectors for the federal government. The regulatory burden, especially on Internet businesses and small business, will be enormous.

Pecos Pete| 9.30.11 @ 12:15PM

Ross: The regulatory burden on Internet businesses would be acceptable if they ONLY had to collect a flat rate sales tax, not the many varied rates of all taxing authorities which is most certainly very burdensome.

John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 1:27PM

Ross Kaminsky,

As I said, I'm not a proponent of the "Fair Tax". I agree that a 23% marginal tax will be a strong incentive to cheat (just like a 23% income tax). I propose we limit the government to what it is constitutionally obligated to do and then these discussions will become moot.

Still, each and every store front are tax collectors already. I don't see the regulatory burden you do. I have to agree with Pecos Pete on than one.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:17PM

John,

What percent of eBay sellers or Amazon associates do you think collect sales tax now? I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a single digit percentage.

John Navratil| 10.1.11 @ 10:12AM

Ross Kaminsky,

Point taken... just as my private sale of a television at a garage sale goes unreported.

However, I regularly pay sales tax on internet sales where there is a presence in the state. Try purchasing on-line from Best Buy. Amazon is in the news on this topic recently as they claim no presence in any state by virtue of separating their warehouse from their retail sales operations. Their problem, as claimed, isn't collecting the sales tax, but having to manage the miriad different sales taxes by buyer.

I will have no doubt that Pay-Pal will happily manage the collection of a uniform sales tax. It is the principal method of exchanging money for e-Bay transactions.

Rurik| 9.30.11 @ 9:31PM

Consider the recent spate of Lemonade-stand suppressions reported here and elsewhere.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 11:16AM

I tend to think that the flat tax would be simpler to administer but the thought of drug dealers, prostitutes and illegals paying taxes under the fair tax is too delicious.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:19AM

And didn't we use to use tax evasion as a primary enforcement tool against those selfsame criminals??

DTOM

Narcissist boomer| 9.30.11 @ 8:37AM

I can't even consider anything outside my self absorbed ME,ME,ME world and use the word I at least once in every sentence. I don't want to pay taxes once I retire and they might raise the rate which would mean I would have to pay even more.
I don't care if it's for the greater good of the country, life is all about ME,ME,ME.

Prester John| 9.30.11 @ 8:50AM

The thing to remember is that "9-9-9" is an intermediate step between the mess we have now, which costs the economy anywhere between $300 billion and $400 billion in compliance costs alone (think tax attorneys, CPAs, tax software etc), and the Fair Tax.

"9-9-9" lowers income taxes and capital gains taxes, and eliminates payroll taxes and estate taxes. Everyone will now have skin in the game as it were and an interest in keeping taxes low.

The concerns about how to keep a national sales tax (which does not apply to used items and is not the same as a Value Added Tax) from being increased by Congress and getting rid of the 16th Amendment are absolutely legitimate.

I would ask that people keep an open mind on this and do a little research on their own.

Here is a nice summary.

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 8:59AM

You Do Not Allow The Big Government Parasite Leeches To Have A Federal Income Tax & A National Sales Tax At The Same Time.

This Is A Non-Starter.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 2:51PM

Your cutting and pasting your own errors.

National Sales tax, when you meant National Income Tax.

Tsk, Tsk.

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 3:21PM

Correction, my mistake. You cut and pasted correctly.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 5:33PM

Get Bent

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 5:51PM

Clint...

You mean "Get bent over", right?

So you can do violent things to another man's posterior.

Let go of your rage, Clint. Embrace who you are. Find joy in diversity.

You don't have to hate yourself anymore.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 10:18PM

More Fixated Fag Talk From American Spectator's Resident Creepy Freak Obsessed Fag , Nazi Dr.Reich.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 9:19AM

The 9-9-9 plan is good for business executives like Mr. Cain and other affluent yuppies with no or few dependent children. The Kudlows of the Republican Party find it attractive. Yet the Cain plan is anti-family, as I understand it. Child exemptions are eliminated. And Mr. Cain's 9 percent sales tax is a regressive tax.

As a father of six with my wife a homeschooling mother, I find the Cain 9-9-9 a dagger aimed at my family's heart. At present, I pay virtually no income tax and absolutely no sales tax. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would raise my taxes enormously as it will much of the Republican family and Christian base. It is a severe disconnect that much of the Republican business base is supportive of the Cain plan. As for me and probably very many conservatives with large families, I would have to either sit out an Obama-Cain election or vote for President Obama. Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would impoverish my family.

Solo| 9.30.11 @ 10:25AM

Congratulations on your HUGE family. That's your right.

But....where in your mind do you derive the justification that I (and others ) should be underwriting your reproductive choices?

If you want to have a gaggle of kids, fine. That's your business. But YOU SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEM.....NOT US.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 11:20AM

I am a conservative and not an egalitarian, Mr. Solo. Egalitarians belong on the Left. I do not care so much for some sort of "fair" tax burden but rather support less taxes and less government. As a conservative, I believe in Western Civilization and what it sprung from- Christianity. I believe in small government. I believe in the Old Republic of Washington, Jefferson and Jackson. I believe in the pre-Lincoln Constitution. I love the actual land of the nation and prefer a rural republic. But I am definitely not a libertarian parading as a conservative. And I am suspicious of Wall Street stockjobbers who play the system by using entities like Federal Reserve Board.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:26AM

Derek,

Well, since you think it is fine that you don't pay any cost of our government, who should?

Only heathens? Only singles? Only couples who find themselves barren? Only somebody else?

It almost sounds like you have styled your life to avoid tax payments. Aren't you supposed to render unto Caesar?

Waiting....

DTOM

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 11:45AM

The United States has NEVER had equal taxation in any of its 235 year of history. As I sometimes must tell others who think they are "conservative", egalitarianism has no place in conservatism properly understood.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 12:19PM

Fundamental fairness and personal responsibility are the underpinnings of conservatism. No one expects a low earner to pay the same dollar amount as a high earner, but paying the same (hopefully very low) percentage is fundamentally fair.

Sean| 9.30.11 @ 11:47AM

Maybe he wants to only support government that is Constitutional, which I agree with. The thought that we need to payout trillions a year to the federal government is nonsense to a conservative.

I must say though that the 9-9-9 plan does cut payroll taxes, which is a lot more than 9%,

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 12:21PM

I would love to support only the portion of government that I deem constitutional too. The problem with that is I'll go to jail.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 9:19AM

The 9-9-9 plan is good for business executives like Mr. Cain and other affluent yuppies with no or few dependent children. The Kudlows of the Republican Party find it attractive. Yet the Cain plan is anti-family, as I understand it. Child exemptions are eliminated. And Mr. Cain's 9 percent sales tax is a regressive tax.

As a father of six with my wife a homeschooling mother, I find the Cain 9-9-9 a dagger aimed at my family's heart. At present, I pay virtually no income tax and absolutely no sales tax. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would raise my taxes enormously as it will much of the Republican family and Christian base. It is a severe disconnect that much of the Republican business base is supportive of the Cain plan. As for me and probably very many conservatives with large families, I would have to either sit out an Obama-Cain election or vote for President Obama. Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would impoverish my family.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 9:35AM

You and the rest of the 50% who pay "virtually no income tax" are the reason we're in this mess. Man up and pay your fair share.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 10:12AM

The chief American fiscal problem is massive government spending, including military, roads, social security, Medicare and the multi-thousand government programs that violate the soul of the Constitution, Mr. leftasrain. The problem is not revenues, of which any decent conservative would say should be decreased.

On another tangent, Mr. leftassoot, all political parties and political movements are coalitions of smaller groups. If a Cain Republican Party wishes to win without cultural conservatives, good luck to you. Without cultural conservatives and various Christian families, the Republican Party will never win another election. The Cain plan is a stiletto aimed at the cultural conservative heart of the Republican Party. Et tu, Brut.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 10:26AM

Of course we have a spending problem--elimination of bloated, redundant, unconstitutional and corrupt government programs will go a long way toward getting our fiscal house in order. But we need taxes too. Just about the only thing I ever agreed with Obama on (and he didn't really mean it) is that everyone has to have some skin in the game. Everyone should pay something toward the support of this great country of ours--at as low a rate as possible. The problem with your position is that you seem to think that other people should pay but not you. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, why should the 50% of Americans who pay no taxes ever care about how high they get on the other 50%? The nonpayers can vote themselves all the free government lollipops they want and the rest of us suckers (pun intended) will have to foot the bill.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 11:43AM

Although much of you say is true, especially towards the end of your post, it is also true that for most of American history we had no income tax, at least legal income tax. The Wilsonian effort to centralize and Germanize the republic culminated in the vile 16th Amendment and even then very few Americans paid much in income taxes until modern times. The Cain plan succeeds in feeding the Wilson- FDR- LBJ- Kennedy Family- Obama beast.

In the end, because millionaires seem to be the financial base of the Democratic Party, why not heavily tax enemies like Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Bill, Melinda and Grandpa Gates, George Soros, Sean Penn, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Zuckerman, Martha Stewart, the wealthy husbands of Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Johnny Depp, Barbara Streisand and any Wall Streeter who has ever denoted money to the coffers of the contemptible Chuck Schumer.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 4:57PM

Derek;

104 years of 237 - close to 44% of our history that ain't a small percentage of our history, it almost half!

And while I read your list of unfriendlies, I do not want to be taxing people by name or political persuasion or earnings. I cannot imagine a more odious arrangement. Good grief, I'd take King George back!

Adam Smith, the real one from Scotland, wrote in the Wealth of Nations that everybody needed skin in the game and that the best approach was a fixed percentage, not some sliding scale because we think you don't need that much.

BTW-I was raised in a family of six kids. It was not easy, but until the '70's my Dad could support us pretty darn well by himself. But once taxes started shooting up, my Mother had to work, too to get the ends familiar with each other again...

We all went to church schools and thereby paid tuition twice...and my Dad did pay taxes. I don't think he would have considered it honorable to do elsewise, even if he could finagle his way to a zero tax bill.

DTOM

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 11:57AM

Derek,

As much as I hate to say it, you are part of the problem.

A deduction for dependents is simply a wealth transfer from those with no kids (or few kids) to those with many kids. But why is it my job to subsidize you?

Furthermore, are you not as benefited by having a strong national security as anybody else, perhaps more than most because you want your kids safe?

So why do you have any moral right not to pay any income tax?

No, sir, your description of yourself is one of a freeloader, your "family values" being a cover for wanting the rest of us to allow you to live without truly paying your "fair share", to paraphrase Obama. The quantity of kids you have is your choice and your costs should not be on my shoulders.

John Navratil| 9.30.11 @ 2:08PM

Ross Kaminsky,

Derek has structured his life (like Warren Buffet) around the tax code. He in entitled to do so and sees 9-9-9 as an economic threat. His critics, also correctly, lambaste him for "free loading". Any plan which seeks to draw more people into the ranks of taxpayers will have its critics. The more the louder; it is an essential threat to this country. Unfortunately they see the direct costs to which you refer in your "black market" comments, but not the indirect benefit. No one has the moral right to free-load and a simpler, broader tax code will help with that hazard.

The argument for "subsidizing" children is purely demographic. We need another generation. Put another way, children are a "capital investment" in the future. Of course, there is no subsidy, just a paltry deduction (almost an insult) of a fraction of the costs of raising children. I'd settle for having my $5K/yr in school taxes back to use for the private school tuition I pay because the schools are so bad.

I argue that the wealth transfer goes the other way when those who do not have children are drawing Social Security from the children they do not wish to subsidize. Social Security is another mess entirely. But the point remains that without the next generation you can kiss entitlements good bye. I ask, sarcastically, whether the solution to bloated government is just to quit having children. And answer that is precisely what Europe has done.

It costs $250,000, I have read, to raise a child to adulthood. I'll have that in university tuition, alone. My son came home to visit and asked why I hadn't bought a new car in years. I told him that he was going to school in my new car. I wouldn't change a thing, but I would be one million dollars ahead of the game if I'd have no children. Would society have preferred that? Would that benefit you? Perhaps you over-simplify your relationship with society.

Bob K.| 10.1.11 @ 6:57PM

That is well said Mr. Navratil and in it's way it explains our government's policy of having an open door, one way, from Mexico into the United States.

Our political leadership recognized this demographic problem years ago which is why we have this open door policy with our southern neighbor. And that is why, ultimately, it will not change no matter who is elected.

We may not like it: I do not like it; but without this incentive for our own citizens to have children someone has to be available to invest in America, to take care of our aging population and to protect our shores.

John Navratil| 10.2.11 @ 9:04AM

Bob K.,

Thanks for the compliment.

In re-reading this post, it seems it could be read as an argument for "subsidizing" progeny or for entitlements. I was not intended to be. As I have noted elsewhere, if the government were smaller, we wouldn't need this discussion. Were we not so entitlement driven, the economics would not be so dismal. Demographers project our country to have a population of 400 million by 2050 driven largely by immigration; one presumes legal immigration. Out total fertility ratio of 2.1 keeps our population stable. It's much better than Europe, but will not allow the population to grow. This will present cultural challenges which we seem unwilling to confront.

As to your "open door" policy with Mexico. I observe that a closed border isn't necessarily secure and an open border isn't necessarily insecure (compare U.S./Mexico and those of Europe). It is our immigration system which is flawed as it does not address or solve the economic demands placed on it - particularly for labor. Labor is the hardest economic component to export. It is why jobs move to China rather than Chinese move to make computers here. The reason we have such a demand for inexpensive Mexican labor is that we haven't figured out how to export our home building and lawn care. When unemployment was 4% (full employment) one cannot argue that American jobs were taken. With unemployment at 9% you will observe that illegal immigration has all but stopped. Why? At least part of the answer is that it's cheaper to be unemployed in Monterrey than in Houston.

The argument that the border must serve as an economic fence preserving "American jobs" from cheap competition who will work for less than a "living wage" is attractive to many, but is not economically sound reasoning. "American jobs" have been well paying when American productivity makes that premium worth it. It's why the engineering remains in the U.S. even as the manufacturing leaves. This is not a happy set of circumstances for the American laborer but is one that must be faced. As a programmer, I can attest to the effect of inexpensive Indian software talent on my job market. We are seeing the effect of clamping down on the illegal Mexican labor force in agriculture now. The effect will be to put the Georgia lettuce farmer out of the business in favor of the farmer in Monterrey. The short term market protection will result, ultimately, in the collapse of that market. Unfortunately, the entitlement mentality, colors the political debate in favor of protectionism. It cannot last. To solve this problem, we must secure the border, reject protectionism and permit regular flows of labor to the markets where they are demanded. It is better economically and culturally for both sides. The alternative is more of the same - as I predicted when I first wrote on this topic in 1986 as Simpson-Mazolli was being debated.

If we don't fix it, the last thing we will out-source will be our government.

Bob K.| 10.2.11 @ 10:10AM

You have raised here the political questions about our current immigration policy which our elected leaders are reluctant to address because they are first and foremost politicians and always looking forward to their next campaign.

This is always a big problem in nations that elect it's leadership more and more by democratic methods with out reasonable safeguards and balances.

Here in the USA our Congress has more and more ignored these safeguards put into our Constitution and has allowed the Executive Branch with it's increasingly bloated bureaucracies to take over it's responsibilities. And Congress has also refused to keep the unelected Federal Judiciary from usurping it's power over the purse to to create a new culture and a legal dominance over all aspects of our society.

John Navratil| 10.2.11 @ 12:39PM

Bob K.,

No disagreement here! Perhaps we are waking up. I certainly hope so.

Derek Leaberry| 9.30.11 @ 2:35PM

As I wish little from federal, state and local government, I am not a "freeloade"r or "part of the problem". I do not choose to school my children at government expense but am forced to subsidize others. I am forced by the government to fund and "join" Social Security and Medicare. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, I support drastic reductions in military spending and support bringing home the troops from the many faraway lands where they are stationed. I am tired of subsidizing the military lobby. The Interstate Highway system, which should have been abolished thirty years ago, involuntarily shakes me down with various gasoline taxes. One could go on but you get the drift. I ask and get little from the government.

Any sort of conservative should be able to agree that the deficit problem is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. The true "freeloaders" are the various flim-flam men and scam artists that inhabit our capital. Big labor. The teachers' lobby. The NAACP. The Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers. The Big Agriculture lobby. The road-building lobby. The Military-Industrial Complex. And a thousand more.

In the end, Mr. Kaminsky, all political parties are coalitions of disparate groups with some overlapping agenda items. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is an economic dagger aimed at the heart of culturally conservative families. You know, the families who actually have the guts to have children unlike, say, the many Inside-the- Beltway man-child "conservative" scribblers who are afraid of the responsibility of raising a family. Children have a great tendency of being the future, you know. If the libertarian- free market wing of the Republican Party wishes to write off cultural conservatives, that is their prerogative. But it seems to me that the Republican Party can not win national elections without cultural conservatives.

Sean| 9.30.11 @ 2:50PM

The libertarian wing of the party is with you. They want to cut spending and taxes both; and get government out of our lives.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:20PM

Derek,

That's not my point. My point is that anyone who is not poor, on an income basis, (and maybe even the poor to a nominal degree) should have to pay income tax to fund the few legitimate constitutional functions of government such as national defense.

I want to cut government to those constitutionally authorized functions, and I think everyone should have to pay something. Even someone who makes only $10K/year should have to pay $20 in income tax.

Our political system has been slowly but steadily destroyed by creating a now-near-majority of Americans who pay no income tax and it has to stop.

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.30.11 @ 9:33AM

I guess that if I were dropping in out of the blue to a country where something like the 999 plan was in place, I might not dislike it all that much. Of course, we're not dropping in out of the blue, we are talking about changing from what we have now. Since I DO very much dislike what we have now, I am certainly open to considering creative alternatives. However, this is a change. We are not just talking about moving the goal posts here, but moving to an entirely new playing field. How do you even begin to figure out how that will actually work in practice? Thus, I wouldn't worry too much about whether a 999 plan will bring in enough or too much revenue, or whether or not we'll be able to hold at 9% for each tax. It is just a SWAG to get the idea on the table. Good enough for government work.

As for the idea of a national sales tax, before we all go into hysterics let's reflect on a couple of things. First of all, it is not like we have no experience with sales taxes over here. Many of our states already have them, so let's look at that. Have our state sales tax rates all soared unchecked into the stratosphere? Actually, no. It could be argued that the rates are too high in some states. In general, though, the higher they get, the more voters get resentful and oppose further hikes. Because the sales tax is a broad-based tax, there is none of this "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree" crap. For this reason, I suspect that a national sales tax would be more inherently self-limiting than income taxes ever have been. Remember, we've had top marginal rates above 90% before, there is no guarantee we couldn't see them again.

Secondly, the US differs significantly from Europe in that those countries tend to be unitary governments, while we are a federation with substantial powers and sovereignty devolved to our 50 states. The total US tax revenues as a percent of GDP is a little lower than what is typical in Europe (thank God!), but just a little. The real constraint on federal revenues is the reality that our state and local governments need to raise their own revenues, and the federal government thus needs to leave room for them to impose their own taxes. This is a bigger reason than most people realize why there is as much political resistance as there is to increased federal taxation. State and local governments are closer to their people, and what they do tends to be more visible to their voters/taxpayers. It is not the case that state and local taxes are "on top of" federal, but the other way around. People tend to see what their state and local governments do as being necessary, and are grudgingly willing to pay for it as long as things are kept within reason. If they are not, then they vote with their feet. Hardly anyone really understands what their federal tax dollars are going for, though. This is seen as being more marginal. Thus, I suspect that rather than opening the floodgates to unlimited increases, we are going to find that our federal government will be far more constrained against any national sales tax increase than any European government has ever been with their VAT.

Two final notes, though:

I am not sure that most people realize that the proposal is to apply a national sales tax in order to totally replace and eliminate payroll taxes. At 15.3% (employee + employer), our payroll taxes are very steep and very regressive. The question isn't just whether or not you like a national sales tax, it is which you prefer: a national sales tax or a payroll tax? The national sales tax would end up being less of a burden on working households, but it would be more of a burden on retirees and high-income workers. You can argue that each way, I guess, but it is not a clear cut pro or con in my mind.

The other thing that needs to be understood is that 9% on corporations isn't on their net income, as the present tax is. It is on their GROSS income, less deductions only for cost of goods sold, capital investments, and dividend payouts. That really is not just moving the goal posts but moving to an entirely different field. I would imagine that labor-intensive service businesses that don't pay high dividends would scream bloody murder. On the other hand, maybe those have been too much of the tail wagging the dog of our economy. I don't think most people have really read the fine print and thought through what this means, though.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 12:00PM

Stefan,
The one comment I would make is to ask you when is the last time you saw a state sales tax level decline.
Of course state rates are lower than the proposed federal rate because the state has to do a lot less, and also collects a lot of property tax on the county level to pay for education which is often a state's biggest expense.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:25PM

In Wisconsin a number of municipalities and government entities have been cutting tax levies and rates since evil Governor Walker gave them the tools to alleviate some of the unconscionable results of past collective bargaining agreements.

Others have hired more teachers...oh well, some days you eat the bear, other days he eats you...

It can and should happen. This TParty thing is not small and it's just beginning to be felt. Just wait...

DTOM

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.30.11 @ 2:53PM

Actually, my own state of NC just lowered their sales tax rate after having raised it a couple of years ago. It does happen, although you are right that it is uncommon.

hardcard| 9.30.11 @ 9:34AM

As I read the comments, they are mostly negatives for this one or that one. Let's find a valid consensus or it's another four years of commander O and the end of our republic.

GW| 9.30.11 @ 12:37PM

Oh come on. I don't see many people on here NOT voting for a Cain, Romney, or Perry due to one particular issue they disagree with just to let Obama win. What is going on is important. As far as I can tell, there are both good and bad aspects to Cain's plans. These need to be discussed, debated, and rehashed in conservative circles before any "consensus" can be found.

Valley Forge Tea Party Patriot| 9.30.11 @ 9:48AM

It has been brought to our attention that someone named on this forum is posing as a member of our organization, and attempting to link our organization, and the Tea Party movement as a whole, to Ron Paul.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While there are many things to admire about Dr. Paul, his service to our nation, and his political positions, and that some of our members are supporters of Ron Paul (indeed, various individual members of our organization support all of the GOP candidates) our organization has not endorsed any particular candidate at this time.

Additionally, it has also been brought to our attention that certain individuals, while posing as members and/or representatives of Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots, have regularly made offensive and derogatory remarks about individuals and religious/ethnic affiliations. In that regard, Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots would like to go on record and officially condemn this type of behavior as it is not representative of our organization, our goals, or our individual members.

Please continue to notify us about any future incidents similar to the ones that have been described. We take the reputation of our organization very seriously, and would like to protect it.

Sincerely,

Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots
http://www.meetup.com/VFP-TeaParty09/

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 10:29AM

Anytime You, Fixated Obsessed Creepy Dr.Reich Wanna Come To One Of Our Valley Forge Patriots Meetings, I'll Be Glad To Confront You & Your Zany Crazed Ugly Mug.

Name The Date, Creepy Freak.

Check Our Calendar.

I'll Be Waiting For Ya.

Now, Put Up Or Shut Up, Punk Ass Creepy Fanatic Head Case.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 10:35AM

By The Way Creepy Freak Adamski Said You're A Liar.
And He Checked Out Your Creepy Posts,Dr.Reich.

" On 9/9/2011 12:37 AM, David J. Adamski Jr. wrote:
> Could you get me the website this was posted at please.
> Dave "

Put Up Or Shut Up.

Dave Will Call You A Liar To Your Face, Whack Job.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 1:03PM

Just saw this, Clint-wit!

Apparently, the folks at VFTPP have heard of your exploits, and are quite annoyed by them.

And FYI, on 9/072011, at 8:33 pm, Mr. Adamski replied to my intial inquiry with the following:

"Like any politically-based organization, even we have our share of cranks and hangers-on. Please don't judge our efforts by some of the company we keep, as it's occasionally unavoidable."

I put up.

You can shut up, or keep making a fool of yourself.

Personally, I hope you choose the latter, as it's much more fun that way.

:>)

Clint | 9.30.11 @ 1:45PM

Apparently , You're Still The Same Sneaky Ass Sociopathic Fixated Creepy Freak Serial Liar You Were Back In Early September, Dr.Reich

You Can Show Up At Our Next Meeting And Show All Of Our Dr.Ron Paul Supporters What A Total Head Case You Are,Creepy Freak.

Put Up Or Shut Up Gutless Little Hide Behind Your Computer Keyboard Whack Job.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 2:20PM

Pssssst...

Clint..? Can I let you in on a little secret?

I've already BEEN to VFTPP meetings, dummy...

I know EXACTLY who you are.

But you don't know who I am.

Dum-da-dum-DUMB!!!

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 2:54PM

Does he look like the mental image most of us get when reading his homophobic name calling?

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 3:11PM

Anytime Ya Wanna See Me,You Can Come To One Of Our Meetings, Coward & I'll Call Ya A Fag To Your Face & See What You Can Do About It, Cupcake.

Which Will Be Nuthin'.

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 3:22PM

I know you are. I know you are. What's wrong Clint did your hamster die?

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 3:27PM

Get Bent.

Drunken Sailor| 9.30.11 @ 3:38PM

How do you know my mental image of you was bad? Yet you continue with the Homophobic rants. Your Freud is showing.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 5:21PM

Get Bent.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 5:58PM

He means "Get bent over."

Preferably in a secluded location, with duct-tape.

Remember the infamous scene from "Pulp Fiction" with Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames?

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 9:47PM

More Fixated Fag Thoughts By American Spectator's Nazi iFaggot, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 6:10PM

What are YOU gonna' do about it, Cream Puff??

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 10:04PM

Start Something & I Can Legally Defend Myself & I'll Give You The Boxing Lesson You've Been Lookin' For, Gutless Coward Nazi Dr.Reich.

You'll Never Hear The Man Count Ten, Keyboard Coward.

Put Up Or Shut Up.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 5:56PM

Yup.

He's exactly the way you would imagine.

There's a reason for stereotypes...there usually grounded in some kernel of truth.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 10:08PM

Then You're The Stereotypical Keyboard Coward , Still Hidin' In Joisey That You Proved You Are, Dr.Reich.

Show Up Or Shut Up.

Drunken Sailor.| 10.1.11 @ 10:50AM

Figured as much. Ran into his kind a few times in the military. Overtly macho, agressive mannerisms to hide their insecurities. Whatever gets them through the night.

Clint| 10.1.11 @ 1:04PM

Figured as much. Ran into this kind a few times in sports. OvertTrash Talkin' Pseudo-Man, Big Mouth-No Game.

Can't Bring It On The Playin' Field.

Clint| 9.30.11 @ 3:06PM

Like I Said,You're Still The Same Sneaky Ass Sociopathic Fixated Creepy Freak Serial Liar You Were Back In Early September, Dr.Reich.

Show Up Or Hide Behind Your Computer.

Doctor Right| 9.30.11 @ 1:04PM

Oh, BTW, I bristle at the term "Ugly Mug".

Given your repressed proclivities, you'd probably find me QUITE handsome.

Clint | 9.30.11 @ 1:48PM

Bristle All Ya Want Assface Gutless Coward.

Show Up Or Hide Behind Your Computer.

martin j smith| 9.30.11 @ 10:03AM

I do not endorse any candidate-though I disendorse two. My feelings are that while Ross you may or may not have a point on 9x3 --I want to let the debates and speeches of candidates play only and not focus on any one element of any candidate.
Some posters are trolls. I smell them You readers can figure them out for yourselves..
At any rate, Ross take a pill and sit back and you know what --let the voters decide.. Its the big picture its the forest from the trees. NOT ONE CANDIDATE IS PERFECT--NOT A ONE. And if Christie gets in that includes him. Every candidate needs vetting. This is a small fraction of that process.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:31PM

mjs;

So, why don't you think RK should get to throw his 2¢ on the pile? He's vetting, too, isn't he? At least he climbs down and kicks sand back and forth with the rest of us...

C'mon, play fair!

DTOM

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:22PM

Thanks, Dan.

Martin: I thought I was at least somewhat clear that I do like Mr. Cain even though I don't like this plan.

Anyway, I get paid (a little) to offer these opinions in what I hope is both an informative and entertaining way. I am not trying to talk anyone out of supporting Mr. Cain and I hope he continues to inspire.

Fallgold| 9.30.11 @ 10:23AM

There is a big problem with a national sales tax. Currently, about half of the country does not pay income tax. In fact, many get 'reverse' payments from the Gov. Do you think that Liberals, (or even many Republicans) would actually make them pay a sales tax?? No!

For the people currently not paying any income tax, I can see their future IRS form now if we had a national sales tax; Question 1: Did you pay any Sales tax last year?
Question 2: If your answer is yes, how much do you think you paid? Question 3: Where would you like your refund check sent?

Also, Don't waste time discussing a flat tax. The same 50% (see above) would be exempted from that also. Also, the lawyers and accountants will never allow a simplification of the tax code.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 10:32AM

The beauty is there probably wouldn't be any IRS forms.

W| 9.30.11 @ 10:24AM

A national sales tax would be ok ONLY and ONLY if the 16th amendment providing for an income tax is repealed, and a stake driven through the heart of it, and maybe some religious or pagan ceremony .

If you adopt a sales tax and simply reduce the income tax, the income tax WILL and WILL be increased whenever there is a majority in Congress that wants to incease it.

The end result is a sales tax and an income tax, and we are Europe.

William L. Gen sert| 9.30.11 @ 10:36AM

A national sales tax would collapse consumption in America by making everything more expensive. If you collapse consumption in the United States, you will collapse production in China and Japan, in fact, in every nation that markets products to Americans. In the end, the collapse of the entire world economy is not just a possibility, but also more likely a probability.

axbucxdu| 10.1.11 @ 9:17PM

Consumption has collapsed yet we have no national sales tax.

Erik Morrice| 9.30.11 @ 10:39AM

As long as Democrats and RINOs are electable,the citizens will never be safe from rapacious government no matter what the tax system.

JohnC| 9.30.11 @ 10:41AM

To Prester;

I believe I heard Cain several times during the debates punt to the states on immigration enforcement -- if so, he is to the left of Perry and Obama.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 10:42AM

We have to stop being so negative about the chances of a fair or flat tax. Sure it will take some selling to get the nonpayers to contribute something toward the support of their country, but the time to do it is now while we're hovering at 50%. Once more than 50% of Americans pay no income tax (as will surely happen) we can forget about tax reform.

George S| 9.30.11 @ 11:03AM

The fair/flat taxes and Cain's 999 would run into one insurmountable roadblock: the mortgage deduction. This is a third rail of tax policy, homeowners will not listen to any reason for eliminating their prized deduction.

Hence the dilemma: If Congress makes an exception for mortgage interest, the tax rates are no longer across-the-board. Congress has given itself the power to amend the flat tax and it won't be long before it turns into a 10,000 page tome that looks no different to today's tax laws as other moneyed interests "convince" Congress their deductions are just as sacred.

The problem is not paying for government services; the problem is the transfer of money from earner to retiree or Medicare patient. Covering for those who don't work can never be sustainable under any tax scheme.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 11:33AM

Heck, I heard NOBODY is actually paying their mortgage payments anymore...

The elimination of the 23% payroll taxes (you presently see 15.5% deducted, your employer pays another 7.5%) would more than offset the loss of the mortgage deduction, unless of course you are already too far in over your head. Which is not our problem, it's yours.

DTOM

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 12:02PM

I think this could be done by limiting the deductions to, say, 50% of the currently deductible amount as part of implementing a flat tax at a low level.

I will never support a national sales tax.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:37PM

I said I hate it. I don't want it, either. But it is a tax on consumption, not on earnings and not on savings. What do we need more of? Consumption, savings, or earnings?

In your heart, you know we need more savings and earnings, not consumption.

I absolutely hate it, but I hate our attacks on savings and earnings, worse. And you can avoid it by saving (investing!) rather than consuming.

But I really do hate it. Hate peas, too. (Did I just agree with the President? OMG!)

I'm just saying...

DTOM

Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 12:58PM

Earnings. They drive consumption and savings.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 1:15PM

Yes, but if earnings increase and savings don't, there is no money available for investment, which is where growth comes from. Growth is also where jobs come from. Notice how all the stimulus has been trying to increase consumption, not savings or investment.

We need more SAVINGS!

I hate the stinking taxes on consumption, it's way more fun than saving. Saving is boring, it's no fun, I can't impress the neighbors with it.

But it's what we need more of. Savings IS investment, investment is what makes jobs for the longer term. Short term bumps in consumption give you short term bumps in employment.

It's a fact. Savings, savings, savings is what we need.

And, Mrs. Pelosi, how many people put their food stamps and unemployment checks in the bank and save them?

I say nobody. Increased consumption is like crack cocaine...you'll be hungry again in a little while. Remember how people talked about Chinese food in the 1960's? (You'll be hungry again, real soon.)

Are you capice - ing me yet?

DTOM

Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 3:18PM

Dan, savings are indeed very important. Right now, companies and banks are sitting on trillions of savings that they acquired through two waves of recessionary lay offs and cutbacks.

Of course, savings in private sector average citizen area is a train wreck. Those that have saved have lost trillions in retirement and personal investment as well as their homes and that long term investment. Thus, personal consumption is now at lower rates and many people are cutting back to make payment on their bills.

Of course, without vigorous demand, we end up with lower production of goods and services. With government wasting more and taxing more, we have less earnings to both buy and save. Most intelligent people like yourself know that gov spending really does not stimulate long term growth.

So, it is all interelated. I was being a bit fecicious when I said earnings.

What really needs to be done is repeal stupid, unproductive regulations, stop corporate taxing, encourage offshore money to return to America, simplify and stabilize the tax code, reduce waste and fraud and reduce size of government, appeal Obamacare and pass effective alternative health care laws that encourage competition, reduce waste and fraud, and correct systemic issues, enforce illegal alien laws on companies that are breaking the laws, and finally, reevalutate our military involvements for more effective and efficient use of defense fundings and national security concerns. Tall order? Yes. Everyone of these factors is significantly contributing to our destruction.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 5:42PM

Simon;

Companies sitting on cash is not the "savings" we need, that is actually not even "savings." The economic system works only when saved funds are made available for investment in potentially productive projects. The concept of companies not re-investing excess cash or loaning it to others to invest is absolutely other-worldly.

The message in this is that the fundamental assumptions made in constructing economic models are not operating. I.e. firms believe that the current economic environment is so risky that they do not see ANY investment with a return that once corrected for risk (multiplied by the percentage probability of success) and inflation (divided by 100%+expected inflation percentage) will return greater than the 1 - 3% interest rates being charged for borrowing funds.

Heck, the money is in their bank earning maybe 1 - 2%. Normally if they could find something to do that would earn them more than 1 or 2 percent profit in a year, they would.

But right now, things have gotten very, VERY uncertain. Think about it:

Obamacare's costs blossoming, ballooning, blooming right in front of them

EPA gone wilding, wanting to add 230,000 employees and shut down 25% of our electrical generating capacity,

the NLRB deciding where they'll let you build your next plant and that you need to continue to have certification elections at your plant until the union wins,

Obama telling Ford what they can and cannot say in their ads because they didn't accept government bailouts, oh and the UAW can strike Ford tomorrow, but not FiatChrysler or GovernmentGM until 2015

and the Fed is getting ready for the next QE IV - XIV, the Titanic, the Lusitania or the latest dance craze "Twist," the "Frug," or the "U can't swim"

Nobody, no one, not anyone other than God knows where we are headed. So actually "savings won't help until the Obamadness is cured. Period. Then it'll still take a year or two.

You may not remember waiting for the economy to comeback after we bounced that knucklehead Carter in 1980, but it was two long, long, long years. We're in a far worse pickle now, but I think that with the improvements in logistics and inventory systems, it'll not take quite so long.
But nothing will breakout until this uncertainty is given the oaken cross through the heart treatment.

So I'm with you on stupid regulations, illegals, and most of that stuff. It's not going to get better without a decisive 180 turn on government behavior.
DTOM

PS. I knew you were being facetious...DH

Simon Templar| 10.2.11 @ 3:49PM

The banks are sitting on billions as well, my freind. The savings of corporations are what drive the expansion, research and development, capital acquisition, new hiring, ect. People do need collateral when borrowing millions and billions from the finance sector. So, you have corporations dealing with such uncertainty realtive to health care cost, regulations, and the tax code and holding back cash reserves that are piling up not willing to invest or take any risk. Banks sitting on their cash making it hard to get a loan. Consumers moving out of stock and others investments in 'cash is king' positions, particularly older people. Markets are stagnant. Speculation and fear rampant.

I think we agree. Not sure where we disagree...

Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 12:10PM

ST:

We do agree a lot. But, to me "corporate savings" is an oxymoron. Companies are economic entities whose fundamental purpose is to generate profits for their owners by producing products which they sell at a profit.

Under normal conditions, they are always looking for assets which they can use to increase their production and subsequent profits. Historically, a corporation with cash on hand in excess of its operational needs was always a takeover target. Investors don't need a board of directors to save for them; the corporation should return the cash to the investors. Think of it like this: savers are paid interest by those who invest those savings to make profits. Consequently, profits must be larger than the interest paid on savings. But a corporation that is saving, is making less than it should be able to by producing. If it cannot, it has no reason to exist because investors do not need a company to save for them, they can do that themselves at greater return.

Thus, I say that a corporation cannot rationally engage in saving. And that today's corporations are in a very dangerous place if they think that saving behavior is a good idea. They had better be ready for the moment when overseas investors start comparing their liquidation value to their market capitalization. Anybody seen George Soros poking around Wall Street lately?

DTOM

DH

Keith D. Rodebush| 9.30.11 @ 11:11AM

The devil is always in the details. To criticize this plan by assuming it will be twisted and raised by politicians is a straw man falacy of the largest order. Cains plan is a stepping stone to a flat tax. This takes the need for lobbying by business at the feet of the gov't unnecessary. That is the most bold and fresh idea in many years. Get on board, then help us to put the right ppl into Congress to make sure the law is written and implemented properly. And if it's not, we'll kick them out and try again. And again. And again. That is the sad reality of anything and everything we want to do to reform the federal government. We will have to be vigilant forever as all gov't is corrupt. The founders told us this, we just forgot.

Pecos Pete| 9.30.11 @ 11:54AM

Control spending, that is reduce real spending, and much of the discussion about revenue methods becomes less important.

rightasrain| 9.30.11 @ 11:57AM

The unfairness might be less glaring,, but there still will be 50% that pays a disproportionate share of income taxes and 50% that pays nothing

Casey Abell| 9.30.11 @ 12:15PM

The reason Cain gets away with the national sales tax proposal is that nobody really takes him seriously as a contender for the nomination.

If Romney tried this idea, the RIIIINNNNNNOOOOO screams would be deafening. Of course, Romney always gets those screams. But a national sales tax? He'd be pounded daily, hourly and minutely in the conservative media.

James Davenport| 9.30.11 @ 12:26PM

Mr. Kaminsky makes great points in this article about Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan. The institution of a VAT tax or national sales tax without repeal of the income tax amendment, would allow our government yet another avenue to coerce our property.

However, I think we must take a moment to look at this. Mr. Kaminsky states Mr. Cain is a problem solver. I like that, we need a problem solver in Washington. Were we to elect yet another standard politician, nothing would change despite all the phrases used to the contrary, recall the last president to really shrink government was Calvin Coolidge, and he was known as "Silent Cal".

Mr. Kaminsky’s article really is an argument for the status quo. The details of the 9-9-9 plan can be hammered out later, first we must elect an individual willing to try and solve the problem.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:43PM

James;

You used the phrase 'standard politician.' You do mean statist, right?

A conservative wants to go back to the correct application of the proven principles, i.e. the Constitution.

A liberal wants to throw out everything that has been shown to work in favor of stuff that makes him feel better. (Here's a fish for you, and one for you, and you, and you..and No fish for you! conservative)

A statist says 'Don't change anything - I got everything exactly how I like it, except I need just a little bit more.' Cf. GM, GE, BofA, UAW, SEIU, Democrat party...

DTOM

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:45PM

Oops!!

And the most important statists of all, "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS!!!!"

That was my whole point. Sheesh.

DTOM

Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 1:51PM

James, very good points. Cain has admitted he does not have all the answers and will seek the best advice and integrate all points of view in an attempt to develop the best plan.

Yes, what we need is someone who is willing to face the problems and come up with the best solution.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:24PM

James,

I am not arguing for the status quo.

I didn't get into it in this piece, but I support a flat tax with few deductions and fewer loopholes, and making far more Americans contribute, even if nominally, to the nation's finances.

Of course all this while slashing spending and the growth of entitlements.

James Davenport| 10.1.11 @ 2:34PM

Mr. Kaminsky:

My point, I was trying to advance no candidate will be perfect. However, look at a certain former governor of a New England state, he claims, he has conservative principles. Yet in the end his governorship was no different than if an Democrat had been elected.

I do not know if Mr. Cain is the answer to our problems. I do know, who is not. Your article pointed out a very series problem with Mr. Cain's "9-9-9 plan".

My concern by looking for a perfect solution we waste our energy and end up electing just another status quo politician. Then at end of his term, his tenured would have been no different if a Democrat had been elected.

fmm| 9.30.11 @ 12:30PM

We already have a flat tax known as the AMT. If interested, pull up the AMT guidelines from the internet and give it a read. Basically, if you must file the AMT, normal deductions are eliminated and the tax rate is 26% on net income. It would be simple to reduce the tax rate and go with this system in place of the current one. Political consensus is all that is needed.

Dan Hirsch| 9.30.11 @ 12:39PM

SATAN wrote the AMT law. Freaking SATAN!!!

Look out, it's coming for you - especially after these knuckleheads start with the inflation. Remember the phrase "bracket creep?" It's coming for us all!

DTOM

Len| 9.30.11 @ 12:50PM

This focus on taxes as somehow being the problem always finds me wondering at people's analytical abilities. The problem is not taxes (though getting rid of withholding would do wonders..think people realizing how much is really being taken.), but what government does. Was the federal government rightly confined to providing for the enabling of the freest commerce possible and common defense, then I guarantee our taxes across the board would be less than 10%.

I would even argue that those who fixate on tax rates as somehow being the problem, rather than unjust and unconstitutional government are not fit to be in a federal office, and are only contributing to the problem by not bringing to bear forces on scaling the federal government back. Think this through, just how often has Herman Cain actually talked about getting rid of unconstitutional programs? He has supported TARP, supports the Federal Reserve, didn't see the housing bubble, and supported Romney, who supports keeping medicaid, medicare, and social security.

On a fine point, to add, his presumption of some executive authority to institute tax rates is frightening also, for under the USC it is the congress that has taxing authority, so is he setting himself up to be merely another power accruing executive in violation of the USC? He should be talking about bringing back the presidency to it's narrow confinement as allotted through the USC.

Bill A| 9.30.11 @ 1:16PM

This whole debate is nothing but a shell game. Until congress spends less than total revenues, tax rates, plans and all else are meaningless.
If we did away with all government subsidies, and all taxes except on income and capital gains, both to be taxed at the same rate, how difficult would that be. Exclude the first 20 or 30 thousand from taxation. This plan would never fly. Too many accountants and lawyers would be out of work.

BackToBasics| 9.30.11 @ 1:24PM

Cain brings one thing that no amount of tax revenue can buy any white male Republican candidate and that is that he does not have to worry anywhere near as much about being politically correct.

There are some intangibles such as leadership and the freedom to speak about issues more clearly that we need to start to fix the PC-cords by which ALL white male Republicans are bound. The 9-9-9 plan is a start and can be brokered through congress and the public. The other intangibles cannot be bought.

Joe D.| 9.30.11 @ 1:34PM

I agree with you for once. We don't need a VAT (NEVER!!!). We need a much smaller Fed. Gov't doing only that which it should do (See the Constitution).

Paul Bot| 9.30.11 @ 1:37PM

Damned Straight. Big Government Parasite Leeches Will Suck Americans Dry, You Fixated Obsessed Creep & Your Zany Crazed Ugly Mug. Creepy Freak! Put Up Or Shut Up, Punk Ass Creepy Fanatic Head Case. You're A Liar. Whack Job. The Tehran Neo-Chickenhawk Is In The Building. This Is A Non-Starter. The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here. Why Don't You Try To Make Us? Israel Firster.

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha! Buffoon. Imbecile. Bitch Dog Fluffy Dog Humper. RINO CINO Slandering Liar. You're The Al Sharpton Of Israel Firster Hustlers. Go To The Watermellon Festival. Big Yellow Bus, Lemon Pie Yellow Without The Mittens. Do Your Homework & Don't Be An Uninformed Constitutional & Fiscal Useful Dupe. Duuuuuuuhhhhh! Asked & Answered.

Dr. Ron Paul Never Voted For An Earmark Or An Appropriations Bill.

I Win The Debate.

Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 1:45PM

Very good imitation of Clint.

Paul Bot| 9.30.11 @ 2:16PM

Clint is a liberal.

Ron Paul.

Ron.

Paul.

Ron Paul.

I win the debate.

Israel Firster| 9.30.11 @ 2:01PM

We Must Stop Ron Paul. He's Too American.

Paul Bot| 9.30.11 @ 2:23PM

Sneaky Ass Sociopathic Fixated Creepy Freak Serial Liar Total Head Case Creepy Freak Gutless Little Hide Behind Your Computer Keyboard Whack Job.

Ron Paul.

Ron. Ron Ron.

Ron Paul.

I win the debate.

Israel Firster| 9.30.11 @ 4:34PM

We Attacked The U.S.S. Liberty & We'll Attack The American, Ron Paul Too.

Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 1:40PM

Ross,

Every single tax scheme and proposal ever offered in this last century has had both critics who firmly say it will not work and supporters that fight to the death claiming it is the next best thing to slice bread.

Not being an economist with Phd in tow, you and I should remain a bit more open minded as well as skeptical. There were a many great comments in this thread. Some of them challenged your view on this matter. Some supported it. I do not think it is a good idea to dismiss the proposal at this point before fully researching it.

Mr. Cain should be commended for having the guts to offer something and the willingness to try something other than the trash we have now for a tax code. Just what has the opposition offered?

What is your proposal? Please give details other than the simple response, "a flat tax." This flat tax proposal has also been trashed and said to not work as well.

Cain is willing to bring this critical issue to the table with an idea that does have some merit if applied with some nuance, carefulness, and respect to some of the concerns you laid out. Right now we are looking for leadership and a willingness of a leader to tackle these issues not skirt them or tell us what we want to hear.

Perhaps rather than just dismissing his proposal outright, TAS might want to seek expertise on various proposal and discuss their pros and cons.
One thing is certain, however, there is no proposal that everyone is going to be satisfied with and will not feel some pain about.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 8:26PM

Simon,
I have never seen a study from anyone other than leftists which suggests that a flat tax is a bad idea or won't work.

Many eastern European nations have moved to a flat tax and their economies boomed. They also forced tax competition into western Europe which has been a great thing.

FYI, check out op-ed in today's WSJ about flat tax.

rightasrain| 10.1.11 @ 12:28PM

You don't have to look all that far left (politically or geographically) to find crusaders against a flat tax. During the 2009 NJ Republican primary, Chris Christie ran constant ads pandering to every group that pays no NJ income tax--especially seniors--warning them that their taxes would go up under his opponent's 2.9% flat tax plan. I really had to swallow hard and vote for Christie after such repellent behavior. Of course, after he was elected, he started praising the flat tax. Just one of many, many reasons why Christie is no conservative savior.

BackToBasics| 10.2.11 @ 10:59AM

And Christie's public, I'm running, I'm not running, I'm running..... indecisivesness is not a character trait of a strong leader. Add Huckabee to that list who is also reconsidering for the second time since he dropped out.

Simon Templar| 10.2.11 @ 4:07PM

Thanks for responding Ross. I have definitely heard all sorts of people speak against it as saying it will not work. Please do not get me wrong. I am not against the idea and would like to know more about it. I was just making the point that we have to clearly review and be open to alternative schemes and just not dismiss them outright without some real deep and thorough research. Perhaps, the final system may take shape that involves elements of both a flat tax theory and a 999 plan?

We have to start believing in ourselves again that we are AMERICANS andthat we have the ability to solve these problems and those that are willing to face them head on need to be encouraged and helped. We can develop a reasonable and EFFECTIVE TAX CODE by pulling all our ideas together. Conservatives I believe are the best to do this.

Margie| 9.30.11 @ 4:37PM

Herman Cain 2012!

Peppermint Tea| 9.30.11 @ 5:05PM

Please Herman,
Can you make 9-9-9
go to 6-6-6?
Then we could get the hell outta here.

buckeyeman| 9.30.11 @ 9:33PM

That conversion happens automatically when Clint makes him bend over.

buckeyeman| 9.30.11 @ 10:12PM

I bend over for Bibi.

Oldefarte| 9.30.11 @ 5:33PM

IMHO, the problem for this country is not REVENUE based, but instead EXPENSE based. A discussion/concentration on the former is counter-productive at this critical time, and the sole debate should be upon the latter. Government has presently enough revenue [possibly too much], and instead should be forced to DOWNSIZE [as private companies are forced to do in economic hard times]. These candidates instead need to focus upon which governmental departments/agencies/bureaus etc need to be eleminated or seriously reduced. Which are essential for the citizens-taxpayers and which are not [and not which benefit the indigents, of which government dedicates itself to presently]. Elect the candidate who campaigns on a specific platform of such elimination/reduction of government areas; and the economic/financial benefits to this nation will be immediately witnessed. Stock markets, employment, real estate, credit etc will increase substantially. This nation is a CAPITALISTIC, not a SOCIALISTIC one; and we need to get back to the former!!!!!!!

Bruce Berger| 9.30.11 @ 8:50PM

I have two issues with a consumption tax.

The first should be obvious to conservatives, but often seem to escape them. That is, whatever neat ideas that conservatives implement while they are in power, ultimately backfire when liberals come back into power. So, if 9-9-9 becomes law under a Cain administration, it will be 15-15-15 the next time the Democrats are in control of Congress and the Presidency. Conservatives should never enact anything that creates or empowers vehicles which can be used to grow the size of government. Never ever.

The second is a more mundane, but important, point. Consider the retiree who has invested his/her money in mutual funds. Assume that throughout the years he/she has been re-investing dividends and capital gains in the mutual fund to draw down upon retirement. All along he/she would be paying taxes on those imputed gains. Now, under a consumption tax he/she would have to pay another tax that is 100% over and above what he/she had planned for many, many years. It is patently unfair and wrong.

PS I am not a retiree, but would like to be some day.

axbucxdu| 10.1.11 @ 9:42PM

A necessary and sufficient requirement for any consumption tax is that it cannot coexist with an income tax.

Simon Templar| 10.2.11 @ 3:57PM

Good point. Cain has proposed that it will need a two thirds vote of congress to raise those 999 tax levels. This will put a severe restrain on their attempt to raise them without severe justification.

sirbourbon| 9.30.11 @ 9:21PM

"After responding (to applause) that he'd get rid of the current EPA and start over."

Congress created it and congress has to vote to get rid of it. That is the procedure according to the original rules that all law-making power is in the "LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

The only thing the president can do is veto congress' bill to abolish the EPA ( assuming the congress introduces such a bill) or signs the abolition bill. The POTUS can NOT do this on his own. You should know that, shouldn't you?

But let's back up to Cain's "START OVER" proviso. What does that mean exactly? Will Cain do as Richard Nixon did and create another EPA-type agency with an "executive order?"

Will Cain rearrange the chairs on the EPA Titanic?

greggs| 9.30.11 @ 9:24PM

I don't think u understand a sale tax... vs income tax, if my income is taxed I don't get to use the money to further myself, it's all gone. If I get to use the money to purchase x and pay y, at least I have been able to acquire z (products), I think 3-3-3 frozen for eternity would be great.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.30.11 @ 9:38PM

Greggs,

Yes, anything in all single digits frozen for eternity would be great.

But there is no way to guarantee such frozenness short of a constitutional amendment.

In any case, for a variety of reasons I prefer a flat income tax to a consumption tax.

SGT Baker (Native Coloradean)| 10.1.11 @ 3:05AM

You know, I do have one little question about this whole plan.... So we would have a 9% national sales tax ON TOP of the state and local sales taxes?

juggling marshmallows| 10.1.11 @ 3:59AM

Interesting exchange of ideas, opinions, insights. In view of the paragraph below, I keep wondering how a perfectly respectful and enlightening give- and- take can be interrupted by some off-topic interloper whining about the Valley Forge Tea Party's good name only to stir Clint out of his stupor for about 86 lines of obscene gibberish. The paragraph I refer to is "Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted or grossly impolite." Will someone at TAS define those terms for me?

That applies to Paul Bot, too. Perhaps others understand what sets these lunatics off.

I get it with the occasional Darwinists vs Creationists who now and again mix it up- -or I think I do, although it sometimes gets me to wondering, if Darwin was right, why do we still have apes? Which leads me further to the thought that if we had had a Cro-Magnon GWB, we would have had a No Ape Left Behind program and we would then have no apes.....but I guess we would still have Clint and Paul Bot.

In this lengthy discussion, I have read a lot of enthusiastic embracing of no income tax. No income tax means no IRS. Which means an army of unemployed beady-eyed, really resentful government drones to deal with. Are we prepared for that kind of rioting in the streets? Or angry hoards going on emotional disability. . .

rightasrain| 10.1.11 @ 12:57PM

I too have often wondered what the heck Clint and PaulBot are talking about but then I decided it's best not to know.

Nice| 10.1.11 @ 4:47AM

You know who really dislike Mr. Cain? The establishment Republicans, the damned statists who keep playing ball with the out-of-control Democrat spendaholics, that's who.
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com

Nice| 10.1.11 @ 4:52AM

The only thing the president can do is veto congress' bill to abolish the EPA ( assuming the congress introduces such a bill) or signs the abolition bill. The POTUS can NOT do this on his own. You should know that, shouldn't you?
http://www.bestbootsforsale.com

martin j smith| 10.1.11 @ 7:44AM

In AT there was an article that focused on Sara Palin's criticism of Fox News basically stating that Fox ( paraphrasing ) builds up candidates only to then tear them down citing Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman as examples. And of course Palin is unelectable according to FOX pundits I must say I have found FOX NEWS very fishy in the last six months or more. By fishy I mean negative to Conservatives and Tea Party guests.
So when Cain won the Florida straw pole I was really glad because this is a message to the media and Establishment Republicans. I think voters ought to continue to send a message that they will not be manipulated. But, not just in a knee jerk manner. Watch the candidates,watch the manipulative media and pundits. Trust ( not ) and verify.

BackToBasics| 10.1.11 @ 11:58AM

Yes, and subtle too. In a Fox interview of Cain after he won the Florida straw poll, the camera pans to the right and left of Cain so that he's not even in the picture. Then it goes to the interviewer and doesn't even show Cain when he's speaking for about one minute. Then the interviewer apologizes to him. Also, an second interviewer tried a gotcha on Cain when Cain was speaking about Morgan Freeman. The interviewer, without smiling so no joking, interrupts Cain and says, "But Morgan Freeman played the part of a president." Cain picked up on it but it was designed as a "gotcha" that didn't work. I think these subtle things are meant to trip hi up so they can start to paint him as a dunce the same way they did with Sarah Palin.

And now the states are hurrying up the primary process. They did it in 2008 but nobody moved their primary into December of the prior year they way it is being talked about now. The RNC shows no leadership in stopping this.

This only happed after Cain won the straw poll and I suspect that it is not just about being the first state to have a primary but mostly rather to hurry up the process so that especuially Cain but also even Bachman or Santorum do not have time to get greater name recognition and be heard. Cain winning Florida's straw poll by such a large margin sent shockwaves through the Republican establishment! The RNC will not stop it outside of issuing wrist slaps because they do not want to.

BackToBasics| 10.1.11 @ 12:00PM

BOTH of the above incidents were on Fox news.

rightasrain| 10.1.11 @ 12:54PM

Just the other day I read an article about how Roger Ailes is steering a "course correction" at Fox News to make it more "moderate."

martin j smith| 10.1.11 @ 12:17PM

So the lesson of this is simple: Don't be fooled. Pass the word vote for who you want not what MSM wants or any pundit and keep giving the Establishment and Socialists the word--voters will decide not them

BackToBasics| 10.1.11 @ 12:34PM

True and now they not only want to try to fool us with ultra RINO Christie but the establishment is even urging RINO Huckabee to get back in. Of course the push for Huckabee is being done because Cain is being helped largely by the evangelical vote and the establishment hopes to dilute it further to "ensure" an establishment candidate.

I've said it before, evangelicals, never fall for Huckabee, should he get back in. Cain has a lot more going for him and he is much more conservative and he can beat Obam. The Establishment knows that he can beat him and that is why they are scurrying for an alternative.

juggling marshmallows| 10.1.11 @ 6:43PM

You are a thoughtful gathering of citizens. Please consider and tell me - - Seriously, on that golden day we do away with income tax - what happens to the livelihoods of that anthill known as the IRS. What happens to income tax lawyers? What happens to CPAs, H.R. BLock, Turbo Tax (well, that was too hard to master anyhow, Timothy Geithner couldn't....) Maybe even Ross Kaminsksy would favor me with an educated guess.

I am not against abolishing it, I just wonder. When I hear folks say there ought not to be withholding, folks should have to feel it, by writing a check, I think of all the student loans that don't get paid.

It seems to me that other than income tax the only way to go would be a stiff sales tax. Perhaps the put- upon middle classes, making only $100,000 a year would quit buying their kids $185 running shoes and ipods, ipads and wii. Maybe even Welfare recipients would learn to manage money better and spend their food stamps on sensible food. I think it is an odd law that allows person to walk into a Subway and order a foot long monster sandwich and chips and a coke - or a breakfast burrito and pay for it with food stamps - - Food stamps should be for a giant box of oatmeal and powdered milk and rice and beans and chicken and wholesome fresh vegetables Instead, we have a program that takes people out to lunch every day.

I wonder if tattoo parlors take food stamps $$? I never see a young, white or latino, single mother in grocery line with her basket piled high with food someone else paid for that doesn't have her shoulders, neck, arms - - well, every inch visible, festooned with curlicue art. I even saw a 3-D scorpion or lobster once on a girl's back. The artist must have pumped it full of collagen for a realistic effect. I read someplace that it costs $100 an hour to get yourself mutilated like that. Somebody pays for it.

But I am going astray - I only wonder what will happen to the industry dedicated to filing our tax returns and the bureaucracy that comes after us if we filed it wrong, that bureaucracy that sends refunds to folks in prison.

Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 12:26PM

What would happen to the CPA's and all? Same thing that happens to all the misapplied assets in an efficient market. They will have to find other, productive work. Just like every other obsoleted worker. From telephone operators, to receptionists, ditch diggers, to farmers, to buggy whip makers, to plasterers, to a million different extinct professions.

They're supposed to be real smart, think of how much useful work they might actually do, when not spending all their time trying figure out the hopelessly byzantine IRS regulations...one of them might cure cancer!

DTOM

WM| 10.1.11 @ 7:02PM

The 9-9-9 Plan would be a disaster. Not only would instituting a national sales tax without repealing the 16th Amendment lead to an out-of-control tax situation, but it would harm the working poor, who would see their effective tax rate skyrocket.

The criticism of the Fair Tax is inaccurate, however. The Fair Tax is straight up - there are no exemptions by item. Everyone gets a prebate at a set per capita rate so the working poor do not get screwed. If the entitlement programs were sunsetted and government cut down to proper size, there is no reason why the Fair Tax would not generate enough revenues to pay for the functions of government.

Still, instituting it would be a lower priority for me than rolling back government.

POST American| 10.2.11 @ 12:11AM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

Latest polls reveal more than 85% of the
American public is DEMANDING and
end to the illegal 'Federal' Reserve.

"Notice, as the elections near, we get
NO discussion, NO spotlight of the
REAL issues --such as the FED, of the
RED China sellout ----(or GMO,
CHEM-trails, FUKISHIMA fallout,
weeaponized injections and meds
and other pro-active EUGENICS programs).
They give we, the ITs the chicken feed of
personality and social benefits."
-ALAN WATT

Are we going to stand for another 4 years
of CFR---USURY----EUGENICS agenda
setting, corruption and rot?

----------------------ARE WE?----------------------------

Dan Mathewson| 10.2.11 @ 5:38PM

I'm in. I could stand another four years.

martin j smith| 10.2.11 @ 7:56AM

Yes, lets discuss Real Issues such as: Do we want socialism or Freedom ? Lets look into the 2008 election which was a fraud. Lets look at all of the current curruption of the Obama regime. Lets look at money being paid to our politicians for favors and support. Lets look at crony capitalism.
Lets look at the curruption endemic in both political parties. Lets look at the uncivil and violent aspects of the Socialist brand while we examine the curruption of Establishment Republicanism. Lets look at the utter uselessness of our currupt MSM and how they cozy to the Socialists. Lets look at the deals made with foreign governments such as Mexico behind our backs made by Socialist and Establishment Republicans. But for the immediate I think the Choice Americans must make is numero uno: What kid of nation do we want. Fopcusing on one element of one guys campaign is a sham. Lets move one.

no hussein 2012| 10.2.11 @ 10:32AM

No 999, no cain.

no hussein 2012| 10.2.11 @ 2:32PM

Now Cain is pulling the race card, what a shock.

Silver Bullet| 10.2.11 @ 10:19PM

Who are you? Perry's ranch has a barely-concealed racial epithet on a rock at its entrance. If Cain is "pulling the race card," then I will join him! (Note: I am "Caucasian.") But a racial epithet hurts EVERYBODY, including WHITES!! Rick Perry had better have a damned-good explanation for having such a thing on his ranch -- or, so far as I'm concerned, Perry is irredeemably disgraced; and simply can NOT be President.... You, "no hussein 2012" -- YOU, dear sir, need to do some homework on what "pulling the race card" means -- it means FALSE or UNFOUNDED allegations of racism. It is hard to believe that Perry has a VALID excuse for what has been discovered at HIS ranch. HERMAN CAIN IS RIGHT!!! And, you, sir (no hussein), YOU are WRONG!!

John Navratil| 10.3.11 @ 12:13PM

Silver Bullet,

My mother grew up in England in the 1940's when a certain color of stocking was called "Nigger Brown". Sometimes things just aren't racial.

I'm no apologist for Perry, but there is something a bit too incidental for a place called "Niggerhead" before Perry's family ever leased it as a hunting ranch being used to damn Perry.

So Perry's dad leased the place (they do not own it) and painted over the offensive name, and the debate is how recently did Perry distance himself from something not of his own making.

This is, at best, a sin of omission. The reaction is thin-skinned.

Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 12:28PM

It's thin, thin, gruel, but it's all they have....

DTOM

ALumen| 10.2.11 @ 3:23PM

I’ve decided to back Cain. Romney and Perry can pander all they want but I want nothing to do with them.

Perry has a position on illegal immigration that’s indistinguishable from Jerry Brown’s. And Romneycare is another name for Obamacare.

When men like Romney and Perry say they are conservative and there is a fundamental flaw in their conservative policy, I have to ask myself if they are sincere about anything.

Clint| 10.2.11 @ 6:36PM

Cain's Playin' The Race Card On Perry For The " Niggerhead Rock ."

Dan Hirsch| 10.3.11 @ 12:56PM

I listened to Cain's response to ABC's Christiane Amanpour question about the rock with the offensive term. It was brought up to him. He said that if it were true, it would be seen as insensitive to black people. I don't disagree with him on that. I'm sure you don't either.

He also said "If that were true.." that being the word's appearance on the rock. Cain was not playing the race card, if anything he gave Perry an out if Perry can show that the term had been painted over years ago.

One thing stinks about this situation, Perry is being asked to prove the existence of a negative - he's got to prove that no one ever saw it. A logical impossibility. Consequently this is ABC News impossibly-dirty trick. Next, they'll ask him when he stopped beating his wife...

I also find it incredible, unbelievable, that this rock would have been visible during Perry's gubernatorial races and terms and was not ever brought up by the competition.

So I don't see any problem with Cain on this; I think Perry has taken another hit, the magnitude of which remains to be seen. Maybe, Perry can fix it or maybe not. I don't think I would have been comfortable going to a place with such a name.

Maybe Democrats (Perry was one then.) don't have the same instincts...

This is weak for the BHO campaign, very, very weak...

DTOM

proreason| 10.3.11 @ 10:40PM

9 9 9 is nutty across the board.

Right out of the box, no candidate should focus on taxes when government spending is the problem. Doing so plays right into the hands of the demagogues of the Left.

9 9 9 would significantly RAISE taxes on the poorest elements of society, including going deep into the middle class, and crushing a heavy perentage of retirees. At the same time, taxes will be lowered on the wealthiest elements. Fair is fair, but that's CRAZY.

If he thinks he can sell the dog, his judgement is really suspect. The plan would result in a landslide for Obama.

And if by some miracle he did manage to get elected, the plan would be dead on arrival in Congress.

Why support somebody whose signature idea is a fantasy that can't possibly be implemented?

Die Fledermaus| 10.4.11 @ 12:49AM

Well thought out post.

John Barleycorn| 10.4.11 @ 8:16AM

RK -

Logic isn't really you're strong suit, is it?