« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Business Groups Blast Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  October 14th, 2011 at 10:10 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, growing criticism of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, and our drive to get Francis on NPR’s Marketplace.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

More Reasons Why Conservatives Should Take Occupy Wall Street Seriously
A few random thoughts on Occupy Wall Street, flash mobs, and 9/11
Spending on housing and vehicles
Business groups blast Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as job killer
Cain’s Sales Tax Would Hurt Consumer Spending ’For Some Years’
Let’s Start All Over Again
David Frum bids farewell to Marketplace
Email NPR and tell them you want our very own Francis Cianfrocca to replace David Frum on Marketplace
Sign up for Ben’s daily email: The Transom

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    It’s time for a flat tax. I’m not a fan of a national sales tax, but I would take it over the current system. Cain should be clearer about what would be exempt from the sales tax (e.g., food, real estate).

    A flat tax on income and business profits is simple and clear. It allows people to plan. I am a small business owner and I would like to see corporate taxes eliminated, but absent that I support a 9% level.

    • mvosteen

      I don’t ever see congress passing this sales tax. But if they were to pass it would it 9% eliminate the federal tax on gasoline, and all the other hidden excise taxes we pay ? If it does my tax bill would go down, if not then it’s not so good.

      • dio55

        ELECT ROMNEY same as brad jackson otherwise we would have a discussion with counterpoints from Art laffer Paul ryan ang Club for growth not a drive by hit piece ala New York Times how very PROGRESSIVE of you

        • http://newledger.com Brad Jackson

          Are you saying I have the same political beliefs as Mitt Romney?
          “ELECT ROMNEY same as brad jackson”

          • dio55

            if you give one side without balancing with the counterviews on the only chalenger left to romney then that IS a hit piece that benifits only one Person, Romney. So i stand by my statement .

          • streiff

            Brad is a front page contributor on the site so it isn’t like his views on Romney are hardly obscure.

          • http://newledger.com Brad Jackson

            Streiff is right.

            You’re clearly not a regular listener of Coffee and Markets or a regular reader of my work here at RedState.

            All I need do is point you to two recent items. One is the Tuesday show from this week: http://www.redstate.com/tex_whitley/2011/10/11/records-show-romneys-advisors-met-with-white-house-to-craft-obamacare/ and two is this piece where I supported Perry’s decision to provide in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants: http://www.redstate.com/tex_whitley/2011/09/23/rick-perry-is-right-on-in-state-tuition-for-immigrants-in-texas/

            If there is anything I’m not is this world, it’s in the tank for Romney.

          • dio55

            But knowingly or not by only presenting one side of the argument you are perpetuating the circular firing squad of conservatives and hence make RinoRomney the nominee. I will not be herded like sheep with half an argument . respecting your fellow conservatives means giving all sides of a story and let the readers judge. if not ITS A HITPIECE as simple as that After the Rubio camp underhanded shilling for Romney in florida (which they NOW deny) As conservatives we should be wary very wary of half arguments because they signify a clear Agenda

          • dio55

            a few days ago took the same tact and i called you out on it too here is the stupidity of both of your posts.
            1. the main and only line of criticism is “crazy democrats in the future can turn 999 into 20 20 20″ ie use it as yet another tax stream
            ANSWER . they can do that now can d they not But with 999 they cant hide it as hidden taxes in 2300page bills it will be in the open so the argument is stupid. and that is the what Art laffer Paul ryam Larry kudlow and Club for growth have said . instead you just want to level the same criticism over and over hoping it will stick without ever giving the counterargument rendering your poin moot.
            Question is WHY? I simply pointed out that the only person this helps is MITT ROMNEY win the nomination if you have another reason lets hear it because the alternatives to my theory are far worse

        • tngal

          how delightful the more it gets understood the more people come on board. I’m not blind to the fact that it would probably never be adopted just the way its out there now, but man its refreshing to have a starting point. Kudlow’s arguments at NRO are spot on.
          Plus herman said yesterday he’s got an op-ed coming out Monday which hopefully will answer the questions some still have.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      because like it or not, a VERY LARGE section of the public wants some sort of progressivism in the tax structure.

      I think you would find about 80% of the independents and probably even as much as 30% of the republicans who would not be in favor of a tax without any progresivity.

      • APA Guy

        I’d like to see the actual numbers matched against your assertion that “about 80% of the independents and probably even as much as 30% of the republicans who would not be in favor of a tax without any progresivity”. I don’t believe the actual numbers would be anywhere near that high…probably more like 30-40% I and less than 15% GOP, which I could live with. I’d even venture to say that 20-30% of moderate Democrats would approve of such a plan.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          I think you might be speaking to a lot of conservative people in your sphere, the public at large is brainwashed into believing in the rich have to pay more.

          • APA Guy

            i.e. the Hoosier State. They were brainwashed last time..not so much in 2010 and 2012.

            Of course, with a flat tax the rich DO pay more…they pay far more DOLLARS than anyone in the low and middle income classes. All it would take is a Republican candidate to explain this to the voting public for an overwhelming swell of support to ignite. As it is, more than half of the American public supports it.

      • APA Guy

        would change subsequent to actually paying federal income taxes. About 50% of them do not pay those taxes now and would love tax reductions if they actually paid any.

      • APA Guy

        Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults favor a tax system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes, up 10 points from last year at this time. Twenty-six percent (26%) oppose such a system, and another 19% are undecided about it.

        …that includes 64% of middle-class Americans. Only 26% oppose…and the swell for flat tax reform is growing.

        Food for thought…

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/march_2011/64_say_middle_class_americans_pay_the_largest_share_of_their_income_in_taxes

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          It is a bad poll. You can get a lot of answeres when you do not present people with the alternative.

          If you ask them do they favor a flat tax right after someone tells them that the rich are not paying their fair share, then you get a totally different number.

          • Doc Holliday

            that haters are way to greedy to support that.

        • Doc Holliday

          but this is really fungible. That percentage will be cut in half when the left gets done class baiting and then you have the space cadets who will never believe the rich play it straight.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    1) I don’t think the “free market” mortgage market can be compared to the 30s, as securitization means that banks won’t keep the loans like they used to and thus they won’t need to ensure the same levels of down payment/credit/term that they used to before FNM (having said that, without government involvement mortgages would be more expensive).

    2) Define middle class, because from my analysis, this could be regressive (ie mean higher taxes) for virtually any family making even upwards of $100k/year (depending on if their are exemptions/deductions in it).

  • govreaganfan

    A 9% sales tax is a new tax……… and a whole new tax mechanism the Congress can play with at their will. Cain is insane……………

    • trickamsterdam

      that can’t even get 50 votes for a “millionaires’ tax”, is going to have the guts to raise a sales tax on EVERYONE?

      And can’t this same logic be applied to a conventional flat tax or the FAIR tax? After all you could start out w/ a flat tax of 15% and raise it to 25% right? And raise the FAIR tax the same way correct?

      Or just slap a “millionaires’ tax” over and above the flat tax. Or jack up cap gains or dividend. Or do anything really. Or once you have the FAIR tax, bring back an income tax only for “millionaires”.

      It makes absolutely no sense to apply the “they’re going to raise it at some point” logic to 999 and not to the flat tax and the FAIR tax.

      That being said, the real problem w/ 999 is that it has no chance whatsoever of being passed. It raises taxes for a majority of people in the US, I believe (i.e. those paying no income tax, those in the lower brackets). So that dog won’t hunt.

      Cain should back off 999 in a subtle way. Say he supports it, but as President would look at other ideas, such as Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan. That would work this out w/out making him seem like a flip flopper.

      Btw, just for the record: if 999 were implemented, it would lead to incredible job growth and a boom economy. It’s just that it can’t do that, cuz it can’t pass (sort of like in “Training Day”, when Denzel Washington tells the rookie cop “It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove”.

    • Lamplighter331

      I understand the hesitancy of implementing a new tax, and my issue with 9-9-9 is the having a sales tax and an income tax at the same time. I would support a flat tax (national sales tax), if the 16th Amendment were repealed and the income tax eliminated.

      Nonetheless, while Cain’s proposal undergoes continuous bashing, it is interesting to note Art Laffer’s support:

      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828

      Now are we to disregard positive reflections on the plan, and continue to hope that Perry will step up and be the anti-Romney?

      • Doc Holliday

        compared to the Cain haters? They are mainly women spurned because Perry turned into a pumpkin way, way too soon.

    • eabjr

      In reading the Herald article you see that it points to politicians and lobbyists that “blast” the plan, while folks like ART LAFFER, CLUB for GROWTH, and Paul RYAN speak favorably of 999….what is misleading is the national sales tax panic by conservatives as if what we have is worthy to be tinkered with…

      • Lamplighter331

        NT

        • Xasteius

          it was a bold plan and we need bold plans.

        • Xasteius

          is your pen name a reference to Fallout 3? Just curious.

    • n2sooners

      that congress currently plays with. The most important idea from the tax plan is FLAT. Contrary to the thought process of many conservatives, democrats don’t just mindlessly want to raise taxes. If they did, they had the perfect opportunity last December when all they had to do was nothing. Democrats want to shift the tax burden (and we have been helping them). They don’t care as much about how much they are bringing in as to who they are sticking it to and who they are sucking up to. A flat tax takes away all their power because in order to stick it to the rich, they have to stick it to everyone. No more class warfare.

      • paulplantowin

        Awesome point. Progressives want to redistribute money in order to create a larger dependent class
        9-9-9, Fair Tax changes everything.
        Few dispute that it would be HIGHLY favorable for the economy.
        It WILL be attacked by all who are benefiting from the current system, many of whom are corrupt.
        The base of taxpayers will increase.
        There are – of course – a few downsides or it would have been done long ago.
        It will be a vast improvement over what we have now.
        The bad points do not outweigh the good.

    • Doc Holliday

      historic homes to get out from the yoke of statism. Cain’s plan ENDS taxes such as capital gains, death taxes, FICA and others. Why don’t you people cheer about the END of those taxes?

      You know, I will never ever play the race card. But I find it funny (in a sick, miserable way) how Perry supporters got away with calling RS’ers RACIST because they correctly pointed out Perry would suffer for his in-state tuition for illegals plan. At the same time, it is open season on trashing Cain, people calling him a “lap dog”, and “insane” (all today on RS), and hiding behind the intellectual critique of 999.

      If Perry ran in Germany, and sucked as badly as he has to date, they would say “Nein!, Nein!, Nein!”

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        9-9-9 is all ate up with problems.

        It would never be enacted, if it did , then it would not generate enough revenue, It would indeed hurt the poor and lower middle class harder, Thus giving ammunition to the left. And it would, of course, be only temporary. In short order the congress would increase it to 35-35-35 or something like that (I am totally convinced that would happen and you should be too).

        In short, it sucks. I suppose Cain should be applauded for coming up with something, but in this case something is definitely worse than nothing.

        BTW our taxes are pretty low right now historically, Spending is the problem, not taxes.

        • Doc Holliday

          and an anti business government. What I don’t get, and what I probably will never get, is that people seem to dismiss Cain BECAUSE he came out with a bold plan. The others don’t highlight their plans, they don’t mention them on a regular basis, and for that they remain unscathed.

          I want people who are willing to come up with bold ideas and push them. If we just assumed conservative ideas would never pass, then why would we even compete in this arena? I still believe that if government gets out of the way, the American economy can reach heights previously unimagined We can still increase productivity, increase wealth, and increase tax revenues even with lower rates.

          But even if Cain’s plan was flawed, does that put him below the opponents with no discernible plans? Are we to penalize Cain for trying something and credit those who offer more of the same? I say if we took all economic plans aside, Cain is still wiping the floor with the others.

          I still hold out hope for Perry, and eve Gingrich, but they have to EARN my support. The vile attacks on Cain (by others) using 999 as a proxy are not going to pull their men up. In the end, we must have someone with the chops to take on, and defeat, Obama.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            that is good, Like I said, I would certainly support him over the Romneybot.

            But I really and truly do not think taxes are the big deal right now. It is spending, and regulations. IF we don’t get a handle on those and reign them id soon, then no amount of tinkering with taxes will make one bit of difference.

            even if you put pro growth tax rates in, they will do nothing because the runaway spending is crowding out other investment, and scaring away business activity.

          • lineholder

            when it comes to cutting entitlement spending, especially for healthcare. As for curtailing regulatory measures, I definitely agree this needs to be high on the list of priorities.

            BLS data source
            http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

            We’re at 9.1% unemployment with a minor demand-side crisis. Manufacturing companies have been building up inventory for months, but this is rapidly coming to an end. Unemployment is projected to reach 10.3% by April of 2012.

            http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm

            If unemployment increases, we could very easily move to a moderate demand-side crisis. Growth and development of any sort has flatlined. If we move to a moderate demand-side crisis, demand for products and services decreases more than it is now, with the potential to generate even greater unemployment.

            One of the few sectors of industry that has been expanding month after months since the first of the year has been healthcare, and part of the reason for this expansion happens to be due to entitlement spending. Regardless of how “bunk” the principles of socialism might be, there can be a point where entitlement spending props up the economy as a whole, and we aren’t far from reaching that either.

            If spending is cut first, we take the risk of generating even greater reductions in expendable income, greater reduction in demand, and moving into the territory of what could become a major demand-side crisis. It depends on how the situation unfolds, but if we get anywhere close to this point, resistance to reductions in spending will be much greater than what we have now.

            It just makes more sense to try to approach it from the viewpoint of spurring growth and development first, particularly in the private sector, in the hopes that this will keep our economy stable enough and provide us with more options. Reductions of regulatory measures might be advantageous in this respect, but we are in need of something bold.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            taxes are already LOW! there is a point under the Lafer curve when tax cuts won’t do anything for growth.

            Since we have had tax cuts, and little growth I would say that is where we are.

            If we don not reign in spending, any downturn you fear will be much worse.

            DAMNITT! This is a pretty dire situation when we are fighting the Democrats and now we have to convince Republicans to cut government spending!

          • lineholder

            If I had a magic wand that I could wave and suddenly alter the reality of the economic situation we’re facing, I would. I’m not arguing against spending cuts. I am saying that we do have to look at the big picture when it comes to considering what kinds of cuts can be made without having any further detrimental influence on our economy, and that we have more options in making entitlement cuts if we go after implementation of actions that could spur growth and development in the private sector first.

            Go back and look at the unemployed, underemployed and temporary staffing data included in the BLS report. At lot of these people are partially dependent on some type of social program assistance simply because of circumstances where jobs are concerned. Change the circumstances, change the job environment, and we could see dependence on these programs decrease. If it decreases, this opens up more options in making cuts to those programs. If individual income increases due to jobs, this is likely to spur an increase in demand for products and goods, which could generate more jobs.

            After tha, we’re looking at fighting against a major societal issue…the mentality of entitlement. That isn’t going to be easy. We do have people who genuinely believe that the government is responsible for providing things for them rather than succeeding on their own, and as far as they are concerned, they are entitled to that support. It’s going to be easier by far to wean people away from entitlement dependency if we have jobs being generated within our economy. They might not want to work for a living, but if push comes to shove and it means keeping a roof over their heads and food in their mouths, sure, they’ll do it. But we have to have the jobs there that will let them do so.

            Also, we haven’t gotten as far along as Europe has in generating the kind of job environment that is highly dependent on regulations implemented by government. They have implemented so many different types of regulations into their society that it has stifled any chance of significant growth or development in their private sector. Germany has proven to be the one of the few exceptions, but it required implementation of protectionism policies for them to prevent this type of phenomenon from progressing any further that it had. We could still back away from this particular type of phenomenon at this point by selective reduction of regulatory measures, and it is possible that it can be done in such a way that it generates jobs, which is to our advantage right now.

            It’s not about making NO cuts. It’s about how to proceed in developing a course of action that would let us begin to tackle our largest and most significant area of government spending, i.e. entitlement programs, and which course of action is likely to have the greatest chance of succeeding in the long run.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            on a very very very very difficult major tax reform?

            It is the right message at the wrong time.

          • lineholder

            Just about everyone agrees that tax reform is badly needed, but in an economy like the one we’re facing now, it isn’t something many people are going to even try to touch because it is difficult and it is challenging. Cain has developed a plan that could reform our tax structure yet open the doors to stimulate a pro-business environment at the same time. Do we have any guarantees that it will succeed? No. But he has proven beyond any shadow of the doubt that he doesn’t shy away from the tough challenges, and he has proven that he be creative and innovative in the approach that he is taking by incorporating our current economic environment into context in the development of his plan. He is raising the bar in regards to what we will ask of ourselves as a nation. Those are qualities that we genuinely need right now, in order to make a strong enough move back to the right to offset the entrenchment of policies that have been implemented by Obama.

            Plus, some of what people are considering as wasting his political capital isn’t quite what it seems to be. And I hope the other comment I made below reflect that.

          • lineholder

            Our current tax structure is based on income, and it isn’t just entitlement programs that liberalism uses as a mechanism to redistribute the wealth…they use our tax system as well. If the tax structure is altered, how much of that mechanism is removed?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The only real need we have at this moment is CUT SPENDING!!!

            It amazes me that people cannot see that, If you think that there is enough time, political goodwill, and political favors for both entitlement reform and a major tax reform you are wrong.

            and as I said elsewhere Tax cuts are not magic! Tax reform might not do a goddamn thing to spur the economy because of the crowding out of capital due to our debt, and because of the uncertainty of such a large change. And also because we are probably on the left hand side of the Lafer curve right now.

            It is exactly the wrong thing right now.

          • lineholder

            of information in this. Granted, this is purely anecdotal, and I don’t know how widespread this particular type of mentality is, okay?

            I’m white. One of the ladies I work with is black. Her comments to me were somewhat garbled, but basically here’s what she said…Republicans may have freed the slaves, but it is Democrats who have promised reparation. Without reparation, no atonement is made for slavery. Without reparation, black people can not become equal within our society. Reparations include redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, with a significant portion of black people in our society being poor. (And yes, for those of us who understand the policies of socialism, we can see how easy this could be manipulated.) This is their “cause”…reparations and restoration. In order to succeed, they have to stay loyal to the cause because this is the only way that they can put enough pressure on our society and on our government to follow through with reparations and restoration.

            My opinion of this, as someone who is white, doesn’t matter. What does matter is that she genuinely believes this to be the case. Do you remember back when Obama said “We are the ones we have been waiting for?” This was taken to mean different things by different people, but according to this lady, this was meant as an indication that the time for reparations was drawing near. That’s how it was perceived at the time.

            But it hasn’t happened. First black President. They’ve been waiting all these years. Total power in our government for almost two years. And it didn’t happen.

            So now, there’s a certain amount of division that is starting to happen within the context of “being loyal to the cause”. How much longer are they supposed to wait? You get the idea, right?

            Along comes Cain, and he says, “Black people have been brainwashed” and “Black people need to divorce the Democrat Party”. Plus, he provides an example of how someone who is black can succeed on their own without having to sit around and wait for these promises to be fulfilled.

            He sets out a plan that is bold. Yes it has plenty of problems, but it is bold nonetheless. And he follows it up with empowerment zones targeting high unemployment areas, which includes a lot of inner city areas where significant number of black people happen to live. It isn’t addressed at ONLY black people, though…it is an effort to try to generate some type of plan that will target areas where unemployment is highest.

            He is challenging the left by doing this, and I mean this is a significant challenge to them. If the bonds of loyalty are broken and more black people decide that they are capable of making it on their own…that hurts both Democrats and those who want to see our society move in the direction of becoming more socialistic.

            Cain represents a threat, both on an economic front and on a societal front. Until recently, they more or less were willing to just write him off, but that’s changing.

            Regardless of what we as Conservatives might decide regarding who will be our nominee for President, Cain is in an extremely unusual position to challenge these kinds of obstacles that have existed within our society that no other candidate can even touch. If he succeeds in this much, he will have done our nation a tremendous service, okay? So regardless of what our opinions might be on his economic plan, where the societal element is concerned, we’d be wiser to leave it be and let sectors of the black community within our society decide which direction they want to go in from this point forward. It could be very, very advantageous for Conservatism as a whole if there is a shift in trends that comes about as a result of this.

            This was long, I know, and I’ll apologize for the length. But I don’t apologize for the content, because it needed to be said.

        • aesthete

          Well, they could always be lower, but I’m not going to scream too much about where my taxes are at right now.

          The bigger problem with our tax code is that it is complex, and that it supports winners and losers both in the marketplace and in the personal sphere.

          I do agree that spending is the priority, but I would like to see simplification efforts from our candidates.

      • windwaker24

        Because not all of us have many deductions to begin with. Some of us are already on the low end, struggling to get by. My tax liability is already $3,000 because I have no deductions. Cain’s plan isn’t going to decrease that number by much because I’m already on the low end of the spectrum (I’m between 13%- 15%). The only thing that will change is now I will be taxed 18.25% on everything I buy.

        Now, I honestly feel for people with a higher tax bracket. I think 28% and above is outrageous. That’s why I just favor a flat tax of around 15% for everyone. The government gets their flat, predictable cut, and I’m free to do what I want with the rest.

        • Doc Holliday

          illegals, visitors, and tax cheats. Also, almost every model shows the flat tax will not stay flat. IMHO, if the plan does not lead to the end of the IRS as we know it, it is just not worth our efforts.

          I believe the end game should always be a sales only tax. Government should not disincentivize earnings and savings. Since we must have taxes, let them be on consumption, not earnings and savings. People will always consume, but we have seen them stop producing and saving.

          • Jim Tomasik

            .,/.

          • merryj1

            — a 17% flat tax, in the 1990′s (if memory serves, he was seriously contemplating a Presidential run, probably for the 1996 Primary, and his flat-tax plan was probably connected to that).

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            My own plan would be a PFTT, progressive final transaction tax.

            They way it would work is that all final transactions for most goods and services would be taxed one time. Also taxed would be all real estate and securities purchases.

            the tax rate would be progressive (in order to sell it, and maintain support for it) So for instance, if you buy a 30,000 new vehicle you might pay 16%. if you buy a $120,000 vehicle you might pay 17%.

            raw materials and other factors of production would not be taxed.

          • windwaker24

            No tax plan will ever end the IRS! As long as the government collects and enforces some kind of tax law there will be an IRS. I talked to an RA today about Cain’s plan. She laughed and said if he actually becomes President, he is in for a rude awakening if believes that he will end the IRS. There are two sides to the IRS: compliance enforcement and collection. Cain’s plan will increase the IRS because you add another avenue of tax collection that needs to be enforced and administered. You need more agents and departments to do that.

            I agree with your assessment of a flat tax, If we could, I would like the 15% rate be solidified and protected in a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to keep it secure. But I disagree that we should be hittin’ up the visitors. :) They are guests, and we should treat them as guests. Illegals need to leave, not pay taxes. Tax cheats will always be with us, no matter what plan is introduced. It’s just human nature.

          • Jim Tomasik

            ?

          • windwaker24

            They work in the compliance enforcement branch of the IRS. We know them commonly as “Auditors”. Revenue Officers (RO) collect the tax assessed after the Revenue Agent reviews your case and determines that you are not in compliance. They work in another department within the IRS.
            Criminal Investigators (CI) get in the picture if the RA deterimes fraud is involved and/or is not cooperating with the RA or RO. They also work in another branch of the IRS. The IRS is bigger than most people think…

  • bzip

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/rick-perrys-extensive-energy-plan-echoes-palin-drill-baby-drill/

    Wondering if Redstate could get some input to Perry’s Plan

    • wrenhal

      a jobs plan? And how is it different to what all others have already said regarding energy independence. I do believe that almost everyone on that stage (except the RINOs Mitt and Huntsman) have said drilling here is good for America.

      • Doc Holliday

        companies are not going to produce oil to the point they won’t make money. I don’t care if the company is American or Saudi, they will always seek to maximize profits. People who think opening up oil fields will cause American companies to produce until oil is $20 really don’t get business.

        It is just like farmers, when corn prices are high, they plant more corn, when prices are low, they stop planting corn.

        Of course I am for opening up ANWAR and other oil fields, but I still understand how supply and demand affects how all companies do business. Oil is a world market, the price will never be based on American oil independence. Having said that, I certainly think American companies should throw off the chains our government has put on them. American companies should be at the forefront of E&P, and our oil production workers should be the best in the world.

  • bzip

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/rick-perrys-extensive-energy-plan-echoes-palin-drill-baby-drill/

    Wondering if Redstate could get some input to Perry’s Plan

    http://www.politico.com/morningscore/1011/morningscore437.html

    • sunshinek67

      Perry’s ONE plan = JOBS JOBS JOBS. Another fact, Perry is unveiling his plan on a Friday and will dominate the pundit pits all weekend into the coveted Sunday morning rounds. So smart~

      • Scope

        Far left radical thinkprogress is already calling Perry’s energy plan- Drills gone Wild. Hahahahahaha. This is what we will be coming out of every lefty and environmentalists mouths for the foreseeable future. That along with Perry wants to dirty our air, and this is the Bush/Cheney energy plan. I love it.

        I hope their heads explode.

        • tyman

          I remember when Algore said that in the 90s about the Republicans in Congress as though Republicans have a separate stash of clean air and water so that when everybody else’s is messed up we’ll still have the good stuff.

          Stupid, stupid, stupid!

          If we don’t drill, somebody else will (aka China) and they won’t care about what they mess up. But we’ll still have to buy the energy.

          Better to do it here, and do it our way!

          • tyman

            Rush just mentioned that cartoon that Ted Turner did back in the 90s where they went after corporations that destroyed the environment.

            I wonder how many kids were endoctrinated based on that.

            “The future is yours!”. Ted, go shovel some buffalo poop.

          • Lamplighter331

            Considering that China will drill in the Gulf off of Cuba (less than 90 miles away), I wonder if our dedicated leftie fanatics will start trying disrupt this activity as the drills start pumping?

            The granola eating environmentalists could drop off more oppressed Elian Gonzalez types on their way to Havana.

          • texabama

            This is the part of their logic that never makes sense to me. They profess to be all about Mother Earth, but refuse to consider allowing the most technologic and problem solving nation to use her natural resources. Instead we are supposed to get them from other nations who laugh at the environmentalists concerns. Remember setting the oil wells on fire in Quwait?

    • n2sooners

      And no reason it can’t be combined with a flat tax of some sort (9-9-9, flat tax, fair tax….)

    • runner12

      It seems like a great common sense plan that would bring a ton of jobs. It would also finally do something about our dependence on foreign oil, which is not just a domestic issue but a national security one as well.

  • bzip

    That is our Perry

  • clintonformccain

    This Texas Tribune article has links to video from all five of Perry’s morning show appearances today:

    Morning Show links

    • bzip

      Drill Baby Drill

      • clintonformccain

        the media plotline for Rick Perry does not include asking about actual jobs plans or governing.

    • clintonformccain

      here’s the link to the full text of the plan.

      • Scope

        to talk about the rollout, Dan Weiss, Center for American Progress.

        “Gov. Perry’s plan will cause increased deaths of our children and seniors, and those with respiratory illnesses.”

        He kept insisting that domestic energy production is now at the highest that it has been in 8 years, then went on to blame the leaseholders of underwater drilling sites for not moving on their leases. Denied that permits are not being given out.

        Again, Perry is a child murder, and now the leftists have their proof. LOL

        This should be good.

        • Scope

          that Perry’s plan is full of phony numbers made up by some in the energy industry. Classic.

          • bzip

            The liberals are having a screaming fit over Perry’s plan of drill baby drill. I can’t believe how many liberal sites are having a cow over this.

          • izoneguy

            If he is getting that much flak….

            It will be interesting to see what else he comes up with.

          • Scope

            and the Perry detractors a chance to catch their breath between plans. We don’t want them to have heart attacks and die before they vote for Perry.

          • Scope

            n/t

      • wrenhal

        41 pages of “Drill Baby Drill”??? couldn’t he add anything?? I thought he had “Steve Forbes” as his advisor and was going to do a flat tax?? I’ve heard so many things about “just wait until he releases his plan”… He should have had a plan for something this big in the beginning. He jumped into this race KNOWING that the jobs/economy thing was being hammered down the conservative throats at the debates. And now all he comes up with is “Drill Baby Drill”?
        How is drilling a jobs plan? And how is it different to what all others have already said regarding energy independence. I do believe that almost everyone on that stage (except the RINOs Mitt and Huntsman) have said drilling here is good for America. This will add a short term bump in jobs for the mfg. and drilling but for sustaining a rig when it’s pumping takes less people. I?ve had relatives working in oil before. Once the initial drilling of an area is done, those jobs move on or go away and fewer are left for maintaining the pumping. America needs more than just oilfield jobs in this economy.

  • jrhode2873

    So where’s the RedState headline about Club For Growth coming out in favor of 999?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/conservative-group-backs-cains-9-9-9-plan/

    I’m not holding my breath.

    • Scope

      are willing to put their credibility on the line for a plan that is still not fully released, articulated, or priced. I’ve seen far more negative articles on 999 than positive ones.

      • jrhode2873

        “I’ve seen far more negative articles on 999 than positive ones.”
        This proves once and for all that 999 is a bad plan.

        Anyway, I would argue the opposite logic. Too many conservatives are coming out against 999 before studying the plan as a whole and its impact on tax policy and the economy.

        As far as the plan not being fully released or articulated, just go to Herman Cain’s website and read about it. It’s pretty well articulated to me.

        • goodasgold

          One need only realize that Hermain cain is proposing adding a completely new way for the federal govt to tax it.I can stop right there and tell you it’s stupid. I don’t need to study anything.

          • jrhode2873

            Because it also eliminates the following taxes:

            1. Payroll Tax
            2. Capital Gains Tax
            3. Death Tax
            4. Alternative Minimum Tax
            5. Double taxation of dividends

            In addition, it reduces income taxes to flat rates of 9% and corporate taxes to 9%.

            And all you can do is complain about the sales tax even though it will largely be consumed by the reduction in corporate taxes that are currently built into the price of goods. Yeah, you need to do some studying.

      • dio55

        And his energy plan is te already settled and asented to by every conservative “drill baby drill” like DUUUHHH

        • govreaganfan

          His mom was just on t.v. saying that he’s being bullied and she didn’t seem all too pleased about it.
          I hope she lets him out for the next debate.
          Maybe she can do his homework (economic plan) too.
          Perry is going the way of Fred Thompson….. Even a guy with running on giving congress a new tax avenue is beating him for gods sake……..

        • wrenhal

          It’s “Drill Baby Drill” for 41 pages. I see that a large influx of jobs at first, but I’ve had relatives working in oil before. Once the initial drilling of an area is done, those jobs move on or go away and fewer are left for maintaining the pumping.

          • wrenhal

            not an economic policy. We have more than just oilfield workers out of work. and we need a much BOLDER plan that increases jobs across the board.

          • clintonformccain

            Jobs = better economy

            Lower energy prices = economic growth. Nearly every sector of the economy has an energy cost.

            Lower gas prices = increased consumer spending/economic growth

            More domestic energy = reduced imports, better balance of trade

            Less reliance on Middle East oil = fewer wars = deficit reduction = better economy

            Under Perry’s plan, every dollar of increased federal oil revenues will be applied to deficit reduction. Lower deficit spending = more economic confidence = economic growth

          • clintonformccain

            ..the United States isn’t really in position to complain that some of newly created contruction jobs might only last for five years.. Last time I checked, we had a severe unemployment problem that is an anchor on the economy.

          • wrenhal

            have an increase of jobs across the board. Decrease regulations and rewrite the tax code. The 2 BIGGEST things that most businesses worry about on a day to day AND long term basis.

          • clintonformccain

            Is not even a sort term jobs/economic producer. It’s a long term benefit, at best. Heck, it would take two years, absolute minimum, to even get a comprehensive tax overhaul through Congress. It would be like Obama spending the first two years ramming Obamacare through rather than focusing on jobs and the economy. I have not heard any jobs plan from Cain.

          • wrenhal

            Perry’s “Job” plan has been espoused already by most others on the stage. Anyone who follows these things close will immediately see he’s just “restructuring” the drilling plans of the others. He has NO real unique plan.
            Cain’s plan is not a restructuring as it is more a “remove/replace” plan. Ultimately he is ending with the Fairtax in Phase 2 which will be an ultimate replacement of the IRS. Just think “No more April 15th” as a looming day of doom. You HAVE to think long term. The libs have done so much damage to this country that while many immediate fixes are there, if we don’t shore it up with long term as well it’ll just go back again and they can then say the conservatives just put a band aid on it.
            Cain is looking at also doing away with czars. Getting rid of the overbearing regulations from EPA and such. All of his stances on government etc.. will create jobs (except for the staff of the czars who can go get some real job). I suggest you familiarize yourself with his stances on all parts of government and see that 999 is only PART of the plan truly because you can add it all up to mean nothing more than JOBS JOBS JOBS.

          • clintonformccain

            I only care about a President who has enough experience to understand how to get the economy rolling and jobs created NOW. Long term tax restructing is all well and good, but it doesn’t address the immediate problems.

            For example, which candidate has a team in place that actually knows what “overbearing” EPA regulations to get rid of. I don’t think we can stand many more years of amateur hour in the White House.

      • paulplantowin

        rather than factual, balanced treatments. Do you add up negative articles to make decisions on everything?
        A closed mind is hard to reach – many seem to be reactive rather than responsive.
        Liberals operate on emotion and ‘gut’ knowledge. It makes them immune to facts.
        Not calling you premature responders liberal – just saying..

  • steveprost

    … National Review’s financial guy… to those like Paul Ryan, Club for Growth, Arthur Laffer, Mark Levine who speak positively about Cain’s plan.

    …the (conservative) media establishment (and Red State headline articles over past weeks) attempt to smear Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as not to be taken seriously (or taken seriously as conservative) as ‘dumb’ should now be declared officially over.

    Deal with it on the merits, but stop the rolling eyes attitude thinking or playing us for stupid with headlines like this.

  • steveprost

    … National Review’s financial guy… to those like Paul Ryan, Club for Growth, Arthur Laffer, Mark Levine who speak positively about Cain’s plan.

    …the (conservative) media establishment (and Red State headline articles over past weeks) attempt to smear Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as not to be taken seriously (or taken seriously as conservative) as ‘dumb’ should now be declared officially over.

    Deal with it on the merits, but stop the rolling eyes attitude thinking or playing us for stupid with headlines like this.

    • steveprost

      Forgot to include the cite to the article:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlows-money-politics

  • wiredaces80

    Here is my “un-spun” critique of some of the arguments people have made against 9-9-9 (mostly from the debate the other night, and a few from what I read and hear on this blog and Erick’s radio show). At this rate, Cain is going to run away with this thing, because these arguments are just pathetic (no offense):

    Bachmann: ?If you turn it upside down, it says ?666? and therefore the devil is in the details. Herman must obviously then be the antichrist.?

    Bachmann: ?It isn?t a jobs proposal, it is a tax proposal. Even though my conservative position hinges largely on the assumption that how people are taxed plays a central role in job creation, I am going to ignore that position in these 5 brief seconds because it isn?t convenient for me.?

    Romney: ?It?s too simple. But rather than explain why tax codes have to be complicated, I?m going to refrain from that because I speak in an authoritative voice and exude confidence which is more important to the American people than actual logic. My own tax proposal is so complex that I don?t even know some of the details in it, but that makes it better because I said ?some things aren?t so simple?. Therefore the fact that I don?t understand all the details my own tax proposal proves it is better than the 9-9-9 plan.?

    Jon Huntsman: ?It is a catchy phrase that sounds like the price of a pizza, and that?s the ONLY reason people like it. Oh, and I like a straight up flat tax better, not because I want to give actual reasons as to why it?s better, but because I can get away with just saying it is better and hope everyone takes it for granted that I know what I am talking about.?

    Multiple people: ?Politicians can raise taxes, and so they will obviously try to raise taxes under 9-9-9. So it therefore it cannot be ANY BETTER than our current system. I don?t care about the fact that under any system politicians can try to raise the tax rates, and that in the current system they can raise taxes in far more devious ways. But when taxes are hidden instead of listing 3 easy to remember numbers like ?9-9-9?, it would look worse if it became ?9-10-9? at some point, because people would be more aware of it. That makes it easier to criticize in a TV debate in front of most laymen. Also, we don?t have to worry about any of the other tax proposals going under any scrutiny if presented to congress because right now Herman?s plan is in the spotlight and therefore is the only one susceptible to this kind of argument at this stage of the game.?

    Santorum and others: ?It won?t get passed, because I am not optimistic enough to think it could pass, and would rather propose something safer and will end up even farther to the left than the 9-9-9 plan would after being scrutinized by congress. After all, why make the American people think it is actually possible for the tax code to be replaced? Why would you vote for Cain, who makes such bold proposals, when you could vote for me, someone who acknowledges the fact that we have no hope of turning around the country and have to pander to the left? Americans would rather have me, because I am a realist! Oh, and even though there are mounds of hidden taxes in the current system that would go away under the 9-9-9 plan, those hidden taxes would be replaced by an unhidden consumption tax, which is another channel of revenue for the Democrats! I don?t care that we are abolishing other channels of revenue like the capital gains tax for example, because that isn?t convenient for me when it comes to criticizing the plan. Neither is the argument that my proposal of a 0% corporate tax would be under any scrutiny whatsoever from democrats?.

    Others (outside of the debate): ?The 9-9-9 plan would be devastating to states that already have a consumption tax such as TX and FL, because the price of everything would be EVEN HIGHER in those states. Despite what you think when you read this, we CAN do math!! It?s just that we choose to ignore certain variables such as the fact that people in those states already have more purchasing power because they don?t have an income tax, and we also choose to ignore the fact that 9-9-9 is a national plan, and so the ratio of a product?s price in that state to the same product out of state would actually be LOWER after 9-9-9 than it would before, thus actually giving even more incentive for states to get rid of their income taxes. Why choose to factor in these details when the end result is that ?the prices will look higher?, and it makes it more convenient for us to prop up Rick Perry when thinking in those simple of terms??

    • ihavehadit

      in thinking goods will be cheaper if the 999 plan is put into effect and therefore the 9% sales tax ( or 10 or 12 ) will not be a factor. Don’t you think these suppliers and manufactures will be required to pay that sales tax on the goods they need to buy to make the things they are selling?????? They will pass it on to us and then we will pay even more.

      • wiredaces80

        What about the reduction of a 35% corporate tax to 9%, and capital gains from 15% (or whatever it is) to 0%? Why do you choose to ignore these? Do you think that because there would be an added consumption tax of 9%, that this would cause prices to go up?

        Even if you do think that prices would go up, do you think that the purchasing power of us all would go down? If purchasing power goes up (it would given the income tax reduction and consumer control via sales tax) then why do you think this would be outweighed by price increases (that probably wouldn’t happen anyway)?

        • tjms

          as independent truckers we see with this plan, we will be paying almost 10% more on purchases. Most independent truckers will not be affected by the capital gains, corp. tax, etc.. People need to remember if you have something at some point it was on truck. the only savings we see on this plan is the self employment tax. Truckers already pay other taxes that are not shown to be eliminated on this plan and then look at all the toll roads in the northeast going sky high, cost of fuel(and if more tax is added to it), we are now being targeted by the epa regarding trucks running. All trucks will have to in the near future add a very expensive pc of equipment-10,000 each to be able to meet the regulations. Therefore if this national sales tax is added you can bet it will be passed on and besides that alot of truckers will just not be able to make it and shut down. Truck shortage means goods shortage in turn means sky high prices.

          • wrenhal

            You don’t pay gas taxes?? Your contract companies don’t pay corporate taxes or capital gains?? Toll roads are a state issue, not federal. EPA is also something that Cain has already targeted for downsizing. He knows the weight all this “nanny state” regulation has on people and businesses. That’s just part of it. If you are on Facebook I’d recommend sending your precise situation to the cain staff facebook page to get an answer directly from the horse’s mouth. Also, there is a contact link on his main website.

          • tjms

            we pay gas taxes and fuel tax per state on top of that. the companies pay the corporate tax etc. but we as independents do not. Not sure of your point there, of course the big companies will like paying less, but will hurt independents. Toll roads are basically a state issue, but that does not stop the increases that we are paying-so again do not understand your argument.. I have asked for some clarification and have not heard back. I think they probably did not look that far into it and are now doing so. And until it is in black and white I will take it with a grain of salt.

      • wiredaces80

        First off, I didn’t make the claim that goods would be cheaper (although I am not for a second admitting that they wouldn’t). I don’t know whether things will be cheaper, but I guarantee consumers would have more purchasing power than they do today. And why do you only point to a 9% sales tax? Do you think that if businesses have to pay that tax for raw materials, that it wouldn’t in any way be outweighed by, for example, the reduction of the corporate tax from 35% to 9%, and the reduction of the capital gains tax from 15% to 0%? Why do you choose to only focus on the consumption tax, and ignore these other changes?

      • wiredaces80

        I think these suppliers and manufacturers will probably be happy that they don’t have to pay a 35% corporate tax and a 15% capital gains tax. And they will also probably be happy that consumers would have more purchasing power.

        But that’s just me….

        **As a side note, this is my 3rd attempt to reply to your comment. I’m not sure why my comments aren’t posting, but apologies if this turns out to be a triple post

      • wiredaces80

        yeah, sorry about the triple post. It must take a few minutes for comments to post. Like I said, I’m a newbie poster!

      • wrenhal

        You have it all wrong. If what is being purchased is for resale it will be TAX EXEMPT. The consumers (including all those paid under the table all the time) will be the ones paying the tax on NEW goods and services only. This is not a VAT where you are charged everytime value is added to an item. There are NO multiple taxations in this plan.

        • tjms

          truckers have to buy things(tires,gas, parts, motels, etc.) just to operate, not for resale. These things will all increase and will in turn have to be passed on to stay afloat.

          • wrenhal

            The elimination of the hidden taxes in the items such as tires, parts, etc… will then be replaced with the 9% sales tax. Thus they won’t really go up.
            I was answering that specific situation above, where the poster was thinking that taxes were paid along the manufacturing process.

            Yours is different and I answered you above already. Embedded taxes are even passed on in the price of hotel rooms. As I said above, I think you might benefit from sending your situation directly in to the Cain campaign so it can be addressed. You might even get a mention somewhere with their answer.

          • tjms

            no response. All I know is the past 3 years have almost killed the independent truckers and from what we are seeing and accoutants are telling us, this will be devastating unless these items are addressed. We are not corporations or the big companies. Most people do not realize how many extra taxes/fees trucks pay and adding more will not be a help.

          • wrenhal

            you in touch with someone that can answer that question specifically for you then.

          • paulplantowin

            Your concerns are too narrow. Truckers pay income taxes, FICA, etc, which will be eliminated or lowered under 9-9-9.
            The economy will have more growth than you have seen in a very long time, maybe ever.
            The benefits to the economy will hugely benefit truckers along with all other small businesses.

          • tjms

            exactly what we pay. And have discussed the different scenarios with our accountants. We personally will not see enough elimination or lowered to cover the increase in cost of goods and/or services to balance it out. Again nowhere in the plan does it address the other taxes we pay, heavy vehicle usage, fuel taxes, permits, etc. I am all for tax reform but at this point it is not beneficial for us to add a national sales tax.

        • clintonformccain

          “This is not a VAT where you are charged everytime value is added to an item. There are NO multiple taxations in this plan.”

          That is not correct. It is a 9% VAT.

          The 9% corporate tax is paid on gross revenues. The only exemptions are goods purchased from other US companies, capital invesment, and net exports. All other revenue is taxed. This means, for example, that employers pay the 9% tax on the wages to their employees. The employees then pay an additional 9% on those same wages.

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

          And I quote:

          ?9% Business Flat Tax

          ?Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports.

          ?Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone

    • jrhode2873

      Excellent analysis and spot on. A lot of conservatives that I respect are embarrassing themselves with their flawed logic about 999. I hope that cooler and wiser heads prevail soon.

      • wiredaces80

        Thanks, and I agree. I really don’t think it has a whole lot to do with the plan itself, but with peoples’ own self interests. The other candidates want themselves to look good, and there are also certain people who want to prop up certain other candidates. (I could be delusional, but it seems to me redstate.com is quite partial to Rick Perry, whom Herman has recently dethroned)

  • ihavehadit

    This will get us back on our feet and when we start drilling the OPEC nations will lower their prices just like they did the last time.

    • govreaganfan

      When OPEC lowers their prices, it makes exploration and drilling costs here at home a little more uneconomical…..attracting us to once again purchase their cheap oil.

      And another thing, why not bleed the world dry of THEIR OIL FIRST before we start using ours heavily? Last I checked our military vehicles and planes ran off oil products…..wouldnt it be smart to be the last country standing with oil reserves?

      Oh, one last thing, the rest of the worlds militaries run on oil products too (or not, hint hint).

      • clintonformccain

        That’s why it is so reckless of the United States to be completely dependent on foreign oil.

    • govreaganfan

      When OPEC lowers their prices, it makes exploration and drilling costs here at home a little more uneconomical…..attracting us to once again purchase their cheap oil.

      And another thing, why not bleed the world dry of THEIR OIL FIRST before we start using ours heavily? Last I checked our military vehicles and planes ran off oil products…..wouldnt it be smart to be the last country standing with oil reserves?

      Oh, one last thing, the rest of the worlds militaries run on oil products too (or not, hint hint).

      • rdm42

        . . .that this is a rather unique argument to try to prop up the lefts anti oil crusade. . .

        • govreaganfan

          First part of the word Conservative is Conserve….
          Imagine this scenario.
          You and I are walking through the desert on a particularly hot day, each of us carries a single bottle of water… each or us with pocketsfull of cash.
          Now lets add to this that we have no idea how long we will be out there or if we will ever find water again…..
          If I were to offer to sell you a portion, or all, of MY WATER for a small fraction of the cash you have in your pocket why would turn down the offer?
          Why would you drink your water at all?
          What do you think would happen if you ran out of water first and I had 3/4 of a bottle left?
          CONSERVE!!!!!!

  • intensity

    …Romney is running for the GOP nomination!

    Perry ’2012

    • govreaganfan

      It makes perfect sense to me.
      The establishment system has been “next in line” forever.
      Add to that Palin quitting on her presidential supporters just like she did to her Alaska voters…..
      And you get ROMNEY as the GOP Pres Candidate.
      The only real effect the Tea Party had on this primary was to give Romney such unelectable crazies to run against he was guaranteed the nod.
      So if you dont like Romney, thank the Tea Party Purists that gave us Bachman and Cain and spit on Newt (establishment) and those like him.

  • bzip

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-says-campaign-brought-in-2-8-million/

    I don’t think the 2.8 million is any better than what Cain raised last Q if I recall correctly. Perry brought in $17 million in half that time (since he entered late) and Romney at I think $15 million

    • wrenhal

      But I saw a link that said 8 million was more like it. Also, you have to add to the fact that he is running a debt free campaign. No one else on that stage can say that.

    • tngal

      He meandered through TN yesterday doing fundraisers and individuals were waiting to give him money. And doing it this way, it takes awhile for him to get the coffers bulging. He may not have the inside-the-beltway bundler bucks but he’s got the “everyman” vote and that counts for a lot.

      Here’s a story of him in Waverly (not a huge town)

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/15/cains-impossible-dream-resonates-with-voters/

  • tngal

    I know a lot of people wanted more on his ideas re: foreign policy. In this article Cain talks about Afghanistan, Uganda and other places as well as thoughts on Sharia law. Some will like it some won’t.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cain-rips-obamas-dumb-foreign-policy_595953.html?nopager=1

    • clintonformccain

      Cain said on Meet the Press that he doesn’t know anything about the neo-conservative foreign policy philosophy. Yikes.

      • tngal

        At NRO’s “corner” they show the full exchange. Cain says he doesn’t like labels. He admits:

        “I?m not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I?m familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement: less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.”

        NRO did several pieces highlighting his Meet the Press interview , including why he would rather be called Black American than African American and that Clarence Thomas is one of his models.

        Scroll down the NRO Corner site details with footage. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

        • clintonformccain

          with the dominant foreign policy philosophy of your own party over the last decade? How can you even understand the Iraq war without at least being familiar with the neo-con philosphy of nation-building? It’s really scary to think that a potential President could be that out of touch with stuff that is pretty fundamental to the job of being Commander in Chief.

          It’s kind of like applying for a job as a pizza cook and admitting that you aren’t familiar with mozzarella cheese.

          • Jim Tomasik

            It has always worked on me.

          • onemovoter

            a reference to the conservative wing of the republican party. It is a reference to the conservative wing of the democrat party that was hawkish on military interventionism but socially liberal on social issues. They basically melded into the republican party during the Reagan years after being angry with the Carter admin.

            It is why few conservatives really know what neo-con really means when the left talks about it. The left considers it an outcast and derides it, trying to tie it to the republican party. Just do a search on neo-con and read the cliff notes on it.

            The one thing people don’t really remember is that Reagan really didn’t intervene militarily that much, it was more a support role of the local population against the communist forces world wide. Reagan really wasn’t a fan of active nation building like GWB was.

          • clintonformccain

            Still, it’s a bit hard to imagine a serious Republican Presidential candidate not being familiar with the underlying philosophy of people like Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney and the impact that philosophy has had in shaping recent defense policy. These are not inconsequential figures in recent Republican (and US) foreign policy. It is impossilble to understand the rationale for the invasion of Iraq without knowing the neo-con principles.

            Whether you want to embrace or reject the neo-con approaches, you have to understand them to know where we have come from. Particularly for a Republican.

            At the very least, how in the world could you put together a cohesive, rational foreign policy team at the White House without a passing knowledge of the players and their philosophies?

          • clintonformccain

            GW Bush got rolled by the neo-cons. Scares the heck out of me to have a Presidential candidate admit that he’s never ever heard of the neo-con philosophy. How could he evaluate whether to heed or ignore the advice of Robert Kagan without understanding the biases?

      • cajungirl2012

        about foreign policy. He seems to be rather proud of it too.

        Sorry, speaking as a military analyst, I don’t find him serious.

        As a Repub, I wish he’d stop talking about electrocuting Mexicans on the border. Again, not serious.

        • onemovoter

          With your take on Cain’s foreign policy. In the end people want serious people that act like they know what they are doing.

          Large numbers I’m sure have seen what happens when you elect a person with no real background for President. Yes there is a reason why governors are usually elected President, they have the experience, especially one we know that has had to deal with a neighboring narco state like Mexico.

          Btw just wanted to say I’m thrilled to see a fellow Cajun on the boards here. I also appreciate the sharp wit you bring.

          • pttx333

            full-fledged Cajun supporter/cheerleader! Living in the Houston area lo these many years and having worked for a Cajun company (straight out of Lafayette) for a time, I am here to say there is no sweeter, kinder and funnier group of folks. Not to mention the food! Oh, Lordy, I drool just thinking about it!

  • govreaganfan

    Time to move on to the next flavor….can we get around to Newt some time?

    • Jim Tomasik

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

      • Jim Tomasik

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

        No falling in NH either…

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

  • intensity

    ….which poll is this from govreaganfan?? I don’t think we conservatives are ready for Cain to represent us against Obama.

    • lineholder

      Perry is the only “true” conservative, right? LOL, you do know using that phrase is setting up people’s backs? I hope so, because that’s all it’s succeeding in doing right now. Just a hint.

    • govreaganfan

      Real Clear Politics.
      Romney back on top.

      • Jim Tomasik

        link please.

        Are they the same as the ones I’ve posted just above here?

        • govreaganfan

          so i would guess if your link goes there it would show the same thing.
          I show Cain went from an 8 point lead over Romney to even and factored over all the polls Romney is back in the lead.
          I think similar things have been being shown on FOX but I bring that up only as a side note.
          Oh, sorry, but I never click on anyones links….very bad idea to do so as far as I am concerned.

          • onemovoter

            a single poll at a certain point in time and an average of polling over a period of time.

            Most single polls right now show Cain ahead or tied nationally with Romney. How long this lasts who knows. It is interesting that Romney seems to be stuck at between 18 and 23% with one outlier poll showing him at 29%. Another poll about the same time showed Romney at 18%, so it’s obvious that a lot of shifting is going around.

            The RCP though does do averaging over a certain number of weeks, which would put Romney ahead but only because his numbers aren’t fluctuating much while Cain went from 5% to 27% very shortly. Average that and you get a lower number than Romney.

            I figure once there is some consolidation behind a candidate, Romney will be finished. A 75% Not-Romney block indicates this.

          • rightwingmom52

            Since you won’t click on anyone’s link or apparently provide one, allow me to share the current data. RCP’s average of national polling shows Romney with 23.5% and Cain with 23.2%. Considering the MOE, that’s called a tie.

            In the Iowa Caucus, Romney is at 21.7% and Cain at 18%. Considering Cain hasn’t spent much time there, that’s not too shabby for Cain.

            It’s also interesting that Romney can’t seem to get much above 25% nationally.

            RCP

          • govreaganfan

            Cain spiked up for two polls, took the lead from Romney on the average for one cycle.
            Now Cain has slipped back to even with Romney losing his 8 point lead and the average lead as well.
            Hate to break out the reality card but facts is facts.
            Will Cain take back the lead? Maybe, maybe not. But my guess is that even if he does it will be for no more than a cycle or two.
            I think Newts time at the top is coming up next….(cross fingers).
            As for links…..everyone knows Real Clear Politics and Polling Report.Com, no need to pretend your confused about what I am referencing.

          • rightwingmom52

            You said Romney back on top, when in actuality, in the real world of politics, a difference of .3% is a tie.

          • govreaganfan

            I have no dog in this fight….
            But when a person takes a 8 to 10+ point lead over another for an amount of time and then loses that lead I call that losing the lead.
            1 point, 8 points, .8 points, margin of error, whatever, you are just splitting hairs.
            How about we agree if RCP has a candidate as the “average” lead, thats the person in the lead?
            Good luck to Mr Cain, I think he will need it.

  • intensity

    …the only thing setting up people are Romney, who will never win anything, and our current president, who has ruined our country.

    Peace

    • lineholder

      to stop using all caps? He’s one of the moderators here. It might be wise to listen to what he says.

      And whatever terminology you choose is up to you.

  • govreaganfan

    I guess everyone needs to get all this hate out of their system now so its out of their system by the time election time comes and they have to go into the booth and pull the lever for him.
    We could have worse ya know…..
    I’m not a big Romney fan but I will have no problem casting my vote for him as long as he doesn’t blow the v.p. pick.