Herman Cain in fight for Presidency (tax rates, money, venues)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I personally think his support of the Fair Tax proposal is problematic.

Yeah, I'd want to know more about that. I've heard some people say it's great and others who claim it's not feasible.

[AnsleyPark]

I read the book some time ago. Certainly makes you stop and think, but it only addresses the pro's.

[ATLHRLGUY]

I agree that the tax code needs to be simplified but the fair tax IMO is not the way to go. If Cain makes it that far into the race he will definitely have to address the fair tax. To overly simplify it, if you're rich or a big corporation it's great, if you're poor you're screwed. The tax burden is effectively shifted to those making less money who already pay lower taxes but would pay more overall through a much higher sales tax of goods and services. Lessen the burden on the top earners and eliminate tax on investment, and then hope and pray that spurs growth. It's just trickle down economics packaged differently.

I'm sure if the issue is addressed the Republican media machine will do another masterful job at convincing the majority of the public that wouldn't benefit from it that the fair tax is indeed good for them. The Democrats could learn a lesson or two from the right about how to form a narrative and effectively communicate their ideas to the American people. Republican leaders can look into the camera and tell the American people that 1+1 =3 and fool about half the people and make 80% think twice and have them questioning their own math.

Another reason that I think is part of why many people vote Republican, from an economic standpoint, even though it's not going to benefit them, is because I think many lower income people think that one day they too will be rich and want to preserve the pro-business pro-rich policies that have traditionally been championed by the right. But the sad part is that the majority of them won't.

[Gunluvver2]

. . .
Another reason that I think is part of why many people vote Republican, from an economic standpoint, even though it's not going to benefit them, is because I think many lower income people think that one day they too will be rich and want to preserve the pro-business pro-rich policies that have traditionally been championed by the right. But the sad part is that the majority of them won't.[/quote]

You are right. That is the main difference between the Democrat and Republican philosophy. Democrats have the mindset that the only way to get ahead is to take more from those that produce and redistribute it to those less fortunate. A pessimist.

A Republican wants the government to leave him alone and stay out of the way and he will do it on his own. An optimist.

GL2

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

You are right. That is the main difference between the Democrat and Republican philosophy. Democrats have the mindset that the only way to get ahead is to take more from those that produce and redistribute it to those less fortunate. A pessimist.

A Republican wants the government to leave him alone and stay out of the way and he will do it on his own. An optimist.

The big question I'd bring up if I were a Democrat is this: If cutting taxes on the highest income people is the way to create jobs, then why did the economy suddenly fall off a cliff toward the end of Bush's term? That was one of the biggest tax cuts in history and the economy still went down a dirt road.

The other thing is, and I guess this is really the same question -- If cutting taxes is the best way to bring down the debt, then how come it went through the roof after the Bush tax cuts?

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

. . .
You are right. That is the main difference between the Democrat and Republican philosophy. Democrats have the mindset that the only way to get ahead is to take more from those that produce and redistribute it to those less fortunate. A pessimist.

A Republican wants the government to leave him alone and stay out of the way and he will do it on his own. An optimist.

I've been both a Republican and Democrat, and I don't think that's right at all.

Since the New Deal, Democrats have argued that you build long-term economic growth by enouraging the prosperity of the working/middle-class, and that prosperity will "trickle out" from there. A large and prosperous middle-class means lots of consumers with their wallets out, and that consumer demand drives business expansion and investment. Most of the historical pillars of Democratic domestic policy -- progressive taxation, civil rights, education, social insurance, unionization, consumer protection and regulation, etc. -- have been about expanding, empowering, promoting, and protecting middle-class prosperity.

Republicans have historically argued that you build long-term economic growth by minimizing taxes and regulations on corporations and investors, and this prosperity will "trickle down" to the working/middle-class. Most of their domestic policy pillars for the last hundred years can be viewed in this light.

As with so many of these complex debates, both are true in the right context and circumstances. The last ten years have proven that deregulation and effective tax rates at historically record lows won't drive business expansion when the middle-class is struggling. Corporations and investors will just sit on their record profits and cash stocks and wait for the customers to show up again. The late 70s proved that excessive taxes and regulation can derail even a historic expansion of middle-class properity like the post-war economic boom.

IMHO.

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The big question I'd bring up if I were a Democrat is this: If cutting taxes on the highest income people is the way to create jobs, then why did the economy suddenly fall off a cliff toward the end of Bush's term? That was one of the biggest tax cuts in history and the economy still went down a dirt road.

The other thing is, and I guess this is really the same question -- If cutting taxes is the best way to bring down the debt, then how come it went through the roof after the Bush tax cuts?

Because SPENDING increased. Revenues were up but spending increased even more. Do the Math.

GL2

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Because SPENDING increased. Revenues were up but spending increased even more. Do the Math.

GL2

No need to be snarky - knowing arjay, he was simply asking folks to think. Nonetheless, of course you are right. With our military outlays, increased debt, increased interest on that increased debt, etc... And, the military outlay buys no return (okay, I know, somebody is going to say it kept out the terrorists), like, say, infrastructure investment, R&D investment, etc. So, we have to borrow more. It's a vicious cycle. I hope the folks in DC can get things back in order.

[arjay57]

Right, I"m not trying to start an argument. I'm just saying it's hard to find a link between cutting taxes and creating jobs. Politicians say that all the time. but the real world is a lot more complicated.

That ties in with my own experience. Having run several small businesses, I can say that taxes really didn't affect our hiring. We based our staffing on whether we needed more people to get the job done and keep our customers happy. If taxes went up we didn't cut anybody loose or hold off on hiring. Likewise if taxes went down we didn't run out and hire anybody.

A much bigger issue for us with hiring was the cost of healthcare insurance. Now that will just eat your company alive.

[vsmoove]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Cain joins presidential race with promise to beat Obama *| ajc.com

Another Atlantan joins the race for President in 2012! In his announcement Herman Cain harkened back to Martin Luther King's great "Free at Last" speech.



YouTube - ‪Herman Cain Presidential Announcement Part 3 of 3‬‏

Isn't this the clown who can't tell the Dec. of Independence from the Constitution and never heard of the Right of Return battle the Palestinians/Israelis are fighting over? I used to listen to him some on the radio on my way home from work and always thought he was a simple dude... which can be great in business -- just get to the point and make it happen. But it's of course horrible for politics... look at Bush II and that disaster Palin. I suspect that many conservatives would love it simply because he's Black and they can point to him to defray any racism critiques... I think he has an ad out that says the Tea Partiers are not racist... just what they need... a Black cover.