Topic: Herman Cain's 999 Plan

[Libertas]

Herman appears to be guilty of trying to have it both ways, not being a career politician means he totally sucks at this aspect of the game.  Having said that I am by no means defending his equivocations.  I merely ask where that leaves us?  So far only the word screwed comes to mind.

I think I'll go into hibernation now.

[Janny]

LINK

If there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm.  Who knew?

So, if I question Cain's plan, that means I love the current tax code, blah blah blah? And you are applauding that?

From the comments on the American Thinker article:

Here's some critical thinking. 45% of the country pays no income tax (and many of those receive "Earned Income Tax Credit"). For these voters, the Cain 9-9-9 appears to take their tax burden from zero (actually less than zero) to 9% income tax (if they work) plus 9% sales tax. That adds up to 18%. Seems this 45% of voters will be solidly behind Obama in 2012 from day one. Not a great way for Herman Cain to kick off his election campaign. The fact that Mr. Cain has never been elected to public office is not surprising. The 9-9-9 plan is probably the best news Obama has heard in quite some time.

Food for thought for those who are promoting a brand new "consumption" tax as just dandy.

There are also assumptions that the decreased payroll taxes will be actually applied to people's salaries, aka "take home pay." You do realize that for people who have health insurance through their employers, a lot of their "income" is HIDDEN IN THOSE BENEFITS?  Then there is another assumption, which is that the decreased corporate taxes will result in a decrease in the prices of goods, which will MORE THAN offset the sales tax. Excuse me for being skeptical of both these assumptions. Simplified explanations of how this plan would work, and assumptions based on other assumptions of what it would lead to don't cut it.

[Janny]

LINK

If there's one thing that the ongoing national debate over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan has exposed, it's how much some conservatives love our current tax code and its enforcement arm.  Who knew?

That would be the Ruling Class types!

 

Who knew?  We did/do and we know, as Libertas sez, who to blame.

That said, I don't want to be berated by the likes of Wright --

" ... when the dust settles, I am fully confident that 9-9-9 will at least pass muster on the cause of liberty and reduced government influence in our lives, if not on all the details."

---  for wanting "all the details".  The days of passing the bill so we can know what's in it ARE GONE.  It's our duty and responsibility and right to question until we're satisfied.

Wright can kiss my fat rear end. The biggest value of us evaluating Cain's plan, and questioning it is in not letting the Democrats do it for us! What is indeed in question for most of us, IS THE DETAILS of how this plan would work, and I still question, like delornin, these "empowerment zones" and how they would work. I'm tired of being told I am acting like a liberal if I criticize a Republican candidate. That's what the primary is for!

[Janny]

Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan?  I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time?  I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan.  Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed.  Do I have a point?  Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!

I'm sorry, but if the plan is not worthy of such criticism, then why would it need a lot of tweaking of the quirks!

I would like nothing better than to get rid of the current tax code, as we know it, and start from scratch with a brand new one. But the only thing that I could see that could possibly be implemented is a flat tax, and that will impact "the poor." The things the Feds are financing are ubiquitous and pervasive. I really think that the assumption that this plan could possibly be implemented in place of all other federal taxes is very naive.

 Completely revamping the tax code will impact so many things! We have to face facts, and be able to DEFEND what we are promoting, not just sit and nod our heads in agreement with 90%.

[charlesoakwood]

Revising the tax code is a good idea.  Back before the idiots started destroying the nation it would have been a
bold undertaking.  However, some of our greatest prosperity happened under the watchful eyes of the IRS.  The
tax code did not create our dilemma and changing it will not get us out of it.  Cain is a good man and a good
manager, he needed something to set himself apart from the field and the 999 plan is it.

[LadyVirginia]

Apparently, we can't have a candidate that can come up with some ideas that can survive scrutiny.  So perhaps we should look for someone willing to engage in a conversation with the American people about what we do want.  How about a little honesty along the lines of I've heard the criticisms on 999 and I understand the concerns so I'm thinking that...yada yada..."

First of all this sitting around getting atttacked on  his big idea then rolling out a new piece as "a plan" is BS.  How is that a healthy approach?

I'd rather he say-- hey the people don't like this idea and I'm ready and willing to find something they like that will work--here are the principles I believe in and I want to develop something that fits with those.

[AmericanPatriot]

Food for thought for those who are promoting a brand new "consumption" tax as just dandy.

There are also assumptions that the decreased payroll taxes will be actually applied to people's salaries, aka "take home pay." You do realize that for people who have health insurance through their employers, a lot of their "income" is HIDDEN IN THOSE BENEFITS?  Then there is another assumption, which is that the decreased corporate taxes will result in a decrease in the prices of goods, which will MORE THAN offset the sales tax. Excuse me for being skeptical of both these assumptions. Simplified explanations of how this plan would work, and assumptions based on other assumptions of what it would lead to don't cut it.

I guarantee my employer won't give me a nickel of the savings.

When I went off the company health plan, he refused to share any portion of the savings

I do think there is a good possibility that prices will fall.
Not necessarily out of altruism but competiton

[Libertas]

Just an innocent question here, are we looking to be overly critical of Cain's plan?  I mean there is still going to have to be congressional approval on anything that gets proposed, so, could some of the quirks be worked out at that time?  I mean it seems like we may be replicating the sins of the Left as it pertains to how we let them destroy the Ryan Plan.  Having offered a plan that is 90% good should still be better than attacking it which can only benefit those who want to see it or the person who proposed it destroyed.  Do I have a point?  Questions I have, but I am not willing to throw a candidate on the fire if I like 90% of the rest he has to offer, especially when I consider what the alternative might be!

I'm sorry, but if the plan is not worthy of such criticism, then why would it need a lot of tweaking of the quirks!

I would like nothing better than to get rid of the current tax code, as we know it, and start from scratch with a brand new one. But the only thing that I could see that could possibly be implemented is a flat tax, and that will impact "the poor." The things the Feds are financing are ubiquitous and pervasive. I really think that the assumption that this plan could possibly be implemented in place of all other federal taxes is very naive.

 Completely revamping the tax code will impact so many things! We have to face facts, and be able to DEFEND what we are promoting, not just sit and nod our heads in agreement with 90%.

What I am hearing is though is the same crap we let the Left get away with over the Ryan Plan, it's just damn good fun to attack someone else's plan, especially when you have no plan of your own.  Why are we giving the other candidates a free pass?  What is being ignored in this whole thing is "which one of these people has a better plan"?  If this is the field, ya gotta pick someone.  Who you gonna pick?

[Janny]

What I am hearing is though is the same crap we let the Left get away with over the Ryan Plan, it's just damn good fun to attack someone else's plan, especially when you have no plan of your own.  Why are we giving the other candidates a free pass?  What is being ignored in this whole thing is "which one of these people has a better plan"?  If this is the field, ya gotta pick someone.  Who you gonna pick?

I think you completely misunderstood my point. My point was not to criticize what you said, but to clarify why I think it's not a good idea to just give Cain a "pass" on this, because we agree with 90% of what he says.

I think you're exaggerating, though. I don't think Cain's plan is being "attacked," but if Cain's plan is not workable or capable of being implemented, then it deserves to be questioned and even attacked.

The time to point out the differences between the candidates of the "R" party is during the primary. If we can't do that without being accused of being overly critical and "attacking" and "acting like liberals," then why bother to even vet the candidates at all. Let's just let the liberals set the table for us. 

And I've already told you who I'm going to pick. I'm gonna pick the one I think is the most conservative who can beat Obama. I haven't decided who that is yet, so maybe you shouldn't rip me for not jumping on Cain's bandwagon, because I may yet end up doing that.

[Janny]

Food for thought for those who are promoting a brand new "consumption" tax as just dandy.

There are also assumptions that the decreased payroll taxes will be actually applied to people's salaries, aka "take home pay." You do realize that for people who have health insurance through their employers, a lot of their "income" is HIDDEN IN THOSE BENEFITS?  Then there is another assumption, which is that the decreased corporate taxes will result in a decrease in the prices of goods, which will MORE THAN offset the sales tax. Excuse me for being skeptical of both these assumptions. Simplified explanations of how this plan would work, and assumptions based on other assumptions of what it would lead to don't cut it.

I guarantee my employer won't give me a nickel of the savings.

When I went off the company health plan, he refused to share any portion of the savings

I do think there is a good possibility that prices will fall.
Not necessarily out of altruism but competiton

Yes, indeed. Prices may fall, but how do we know that they will fall enough to offset the tax? We don't. It's all assumption. And if the plan doesn't work as advertised, then we have to implement more legislative changes to it. That's the crux of my point. Cain is trying to make something which is very complex, sound very simple, and that's a mistake, IMO.

[Janny]

And just to clarify, I have not given any of the other candidates "a free pass."

 I have most certainly voiced my displeasure over Romney and his flip-flopping ways.  I have ripped Perry on immigration. I have ripped Bachmann on her gaffes. I have ripped Newt on his (lack of) morality and his cozying up to Bela Pelosi. I have not saved all my questions and criticism for Cain...not by a long shot.

If the other candidates want to question Cain about his 9-9-9 plan, then they are allowed to do that, and presenting their "own plan" isn't a requirement to do so. Cain has justifiably ripped Perry on immigration.  Did he give a thorough explanation of his "plan" when he did so, or did he simply point out where he thought Perry was wrong?  I think there are some that are being overly critical of Cain, but I also think that there are some who are being overly defensive on behalf of Cain. I'm trying to remain objective and judge all the candidates on their merits. I don't want to be told I'm acting like a liberal for using common sense and logic.

[IronDioPriest]

I'm with Janny. It's taken me a little while to come around to it because I wanted to believe that there was a conservative among the candidates who could challenge Romney for the nomination. I won't write Cain off out of hand, and I don't think Janny's suggesting anyone should. But I think it does no service to conservatism or the nation if people fail to heed the warning flags that are being sent up about Herman Cain from his own mouth. It's up to him to put forward a candidacy worthy of support. All he's done since the spotlight has been on him because of 9-9-9 is send out conflicting signals that bring into question who he is, what he believes, and how equipped he is to be president.

It's up to him to clarify and rehabilitate his candidacy. He spent weeks asserting that 9-9-9 was vetted independently and that criticism of it was wrongheaded and based on non-factual analysis. Now at the first serious scrutiny, he's ready to cede that critics were right and put forward progressive elements to the plan?

Listen to your gut. This guy needs renewed scrutiny.

[charlesoakwood]

Consider this: 
                    Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Perry are mutes.  They must be evaluated by
                    what they have accomplished and opinions they have written in the course of their
                    professional career.   
 

[Libertas]

Sorry if I ruffled feathers, that is not my intent, and I am not saying questions cannot be raised, but I get frustrated when it appears to me, just my opinion, the others get a pass because they have no plan.  It seems like the process of feeding upon every wound takes precedence and makes it appear incredibly politically stupid to even attempt to offer a plan of any kind because of that certainty.  It is no wonder we wind up with cookie-cutter candidates who speak in platitudes and generalities and end up disapointed when they get elected and try to translate slogans into policy only to discover people hate the present under the wrapping.  If this debate exposes the ideas of the other contenders/pretenders then perhaps some good will come of it.  As it stands I am not sure where we are headed with this group.

[charlesoakwood]

Sorry if I ruffled feathers, that is not my intent, and I am not saying questions cannot be raised, but I get frustrated when it appears to me, just my opinion, the others get a pass because they have no plan.  It seems like the process of feeding upon every wound takes precedence and makes it appear incredibly politically stupid to even attempt to offer a plan of any kind because of that certainty.  It is no wonder we wind up with cookie-cutter candidates who speak in platitudes and generalities and end up disapointed when they get elected and try to translate slogans into policy only to discover people hate the present under the wrapping.  If this debate exposes the ideas of the other contenders/pretenders then perhaps some good will come of it.  As it stands I am not sure where we are headed with this group.

I think these debates have brought to light things we needed to know about the candidates.
The field should now be winnowed and in future debates the candidates should be allowed
more time to elaborate, to develop their thoughts.  The fast and furious is good for round one.
We should proceed to an extended development and then possibly allow extended confrontation.
This would separate the glib from the thoughtful and allow us better insight into the candidate.

[Janny]

Sorry if I ruffled feathers, that is not my intent, and I am not saying questions cannot be raised, but I get frustrated when it appears to me, just my opinion, the others get a pass because they have no plan.  It seems like the process of feeding upon every wound takes precedence and makes it appear incredibly politically stupid to even attempt to offer a plan of any kind because of that certainty.  It is no wonder we wind up with cookie-cutter candidates who speak in platitudes and generalities and end up disapointed when they get elected and try to translate slogans into policy only to discover people hate the present under the wrapping.  If this debate exposes the ideas of the other contenders/pretenders then perhaps some good will come of it.  As it stands I am not sure where we are headed with this group.

I very much agree with you that it seems as if sometimes we just zero in on any negative point and focus on it way too much. That's why I made the comment previously about how I wonder how people who aren't as focused on politics view all of this give and take.

I also think that it's perfectly appropriate to consider how the left will ATTACK these negative points, but that shouldn't be our MAIN focus, either.

We are all frustrated by the negative turn our republic has taken. We are all on the same team. No ruffled feathers here!  

[Janny]

I'm with Janny. It's taken me a little while to come around to it because I wanted to believe that there was a conservative among the candidates who could challenge Romney for the nomination. I won't write Cain off out of hand, and I don't think Janny's suggesting anyone should. But I think it does no service to conservatism or the nation if people fail to heed the warning flags that are being sent up about Herman Cain from his own mouth. It's up to him to put forward a candidacy worthy of support. All he's done since the spotlight has been on him because of 9-9-9 is send out conflicting signals that bring into question who he is, what he believes, and how equipped he is to be president.

It's up to him to clarify and rehabilitate his candidacy. He spent weeks asserting that 9-9-9 was vetted independently and that criticism of it was wrongheaded and based on non-factual analysis. Now at the first serious scrutiny, he's ready to cede that critics were right and put forward progressive elements to the plan?

Listen to your gut. This guy needs renewed scrutiny.

Exactly. It's not just one or two issues with Cain. It's the "whole picture" which has become a concern. This "walking back" stuff shows us a man who may very well not have the ability to lead, IMO. My biggest concern yet. I really like the man, and I think he'd be a much better president than Obama, but so would my cat, Jerry.
 

[Pandora]

How come your cat as candidate keeps making an appearance here?  I think you are pushing a Manchurian Catidate.  I wanna see his tax plan!  And the dog owners object!


 

[AmericanPatriot]

Yes, indeed. Prices may fall, but how do we know that they will fall enough to offset the tax?

Even if prices don't fall, I've demonstrated up there in the thread that (at least to me) I will come out ahead

But, I do think a 9% corp tax rate will help with competitiveness and could possibly help re-shoring of some companies

The devil is in the details and it will depend on what a business is able to deduct as to whether there actually is a savings

Additionally, getting rid of the IRS and the social engineering in the existing tax code is a big plus.

But, I would like to see it properly vetted,too

[Libertas]

Thanks Janny, hope we get to have a team we can coalesce around...I'd hate to see this opportunity screwed up.  I've been saying quite a while now this may be our last chance to electorally effect positive direction for this nation.

Hey, I'll take the Manchurian Catidate, he cute!  And he has no negatives (yet)!

Jerry!  Jerry!  Jerry!