PDA

View Full Version : Herman Cain, "I hear China is trying to develop nuclear weapons"


Davian93
11-02-2011, 08:34 AM
http://shanghaiist.com/2011/11/01/gop_presidential_candidate_herman_c.php

So yeah, he's the current GOP frontrunner?!? God help us if he wins.


Here's the original PBS interview where he said it:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/hermancain_10-31.html


Predictions on his official excuse on the mistake:

1. Liberal Media
2. Gotcha Question
3. Obama/Teleprompters
4. "Foreign Policy isn't important for the President"

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 08:55 AM
http://shanghaiist.com/2011/11/01/gop_presidential_candidate_herman_c.php

So yeah, he's the current GOP frontrunner?!? God help us if he wins.


Here's the original PBS interview where he said it:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/hermancain_10-31.html


Predictions on his official excuse on the mistake:

1. Liberal Media
2. Gotcha Question
3. Obama/Teleprompters
4. "Foreign Policy isn't important for the President"

His comparison of Chinese and US economies bothers me more. And this deal about a payoff for two women he supposedly sexually harassed, if that turns out to be true. The nuclear thing is on par with Obama's 57 state faux pas as far as I'm concerned.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 08:59 AM
His comparison of Chinese and US economies bothers me more. And this deal about a payoff for two women he supposedly sexually harassed, if that turns out to be true. The nuclear thing is on par with Obama's 57 state faux pas as far as I'm concerned.

I'm at a loss as to how a 5% growth rate will help us beat China's 10% growth rate. Granted, I'm not a CEO and my math skills are iffy sometimes but that sounds a bit suspect. And the sexual harassment thing is just par for the course with a GOP candidate. Its not like he was leaving his cancer ridden wife for another woman or receiving BJs from staffers while publically ripping another politican for the same thing (Newt).

Not knowing that China has had nukes for nearly 50 years is a tad concerning. But then, as Rick Perry says, foreign policy isn't important for presidents.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 09:07 AM
Look on the bright side: if he's the best the Republicans have, then you should count yourself lucky they're not fielding the worst possible candidates.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 09:16 AM
I'm at a loss as to how a 5% growth rate will help us beat China's 10% growth rate. Granted, I'm not a CEO and my math skills are iffy sometimes but that sounds a bit suspect. And the sexual harassment thing is just par for the course with a GOP candidate. Its not like he was leaving his cancer ridden wife for another woman or receiving BJs from staffers while publically ripping another politican for the same thing (Newt).

Not knowing that China has had nukes for nearly 50 years is a tad concerning. But then, as Rick Perry says, foreign policy isn't important for presidents.

Or soaking damn fine cigars inside her. Everybody lies about sex. Right? Or is there going to be a double standard for this? My bet is on a double standard from the left. I personally will stick to my own guns and say its disgusting and disqualifies you whether you're on the right or the left. So while the "sex is private" thing might be ok for you, it's not for me. That puts it ahead of something that can be blamed on mispeaking.

Then add on the economy thing and that bothers me even more since he's supposed to be the king of economy.

The thing that bothers me the most though, is that the republican establishment is doing its bet to put Cain and Paul down so they can put Romney (their candidate of choice) in. I really like Paul, and in a fair world, he'd be my choice.

Anyway, that's all to say that him mispeaking doesn't bother me much. There's a lot more to worry about.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 09:19 AM
My bet is on a double standard from the left. I personally will stick to my own guns and say its disgusting and disqualifies you whether you're on the right or the left.Isn't it more a double standard from the right, though? They can't cease praising the right to bear arms, but are strongly opposed to the right to bear cigars.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 09:25 AM
Isn't it more a double standard from the right, though? They can't cease praising the right to bear arms, but are strongly opposed to the right to bear cigars.

We're strongly opposed to ruining a good cigar. Certain standards have to be met.

WinespringBrother
11-02-2011, 09:38 AM
http://shanghaiist.com/2011/11/01/gop_presidential_candidate_herman_c.php

So yeah, he's the current GOP frontrunner?!? God help us if he wins.


Here's the original PBS interview where he said it:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/hermancain_10-31.html


Predictions on his official excuse on the mistake:

1. Liberal Media
2. Gotcha Question
3. Obama/Teleprompters
4. "Foreign Policy isn't important for the President"

Not to defend him, but maybe he meant North Korea (which at least is nearby though they have crude nukes), or Iran, or some other country. I think the whole thing about him not caring to learn the names of foreign leaders is more concerning.

As for the sexual harrassment issue, that's more of a double standard with Fox News letting him slide on it than anything else.

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 10:15 AM
On the sexual double standard thing, I really think that it exists on the right. Lefty's are brutal on their own who get involved in sex scandals (Im thinking of Edwards and Spitzer..and Weiner on a smaller scale). Rightys - the family values/morals party, mind you - close ranks and circle the wagons (the aforementioned Newt, along with Ensign...they didn't come to Sanford's defense, but they didn't excoriate him either).

All that said, I DO think that sexual indiscretion (so long as it does not ALSO involve taxpayer dollars in the fraud and cover up) does not bother me nearly as much as, say, making up evidence that starts a war. Or signing statements. Or any number of other things. I discriminate between hypocritical sexual indiscretion - Edwards, Ensign, Gingrich - and non-hypocritical, such as Clinton.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-02-2011, 10:24 AM
Not to defend him, but maybe he meant North Korea (which at least is nearby though they have crude nukes), or Iran, or some other country. I think the whole thing about him not caring to learn the names of foreign leaders is more concerning.

As for the sexual harrassment issue, that's more of a double standard with Fox News letting him slide on it than anything else.

Well, I was wondering if he was thinking of their space program. But that would also work.

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 10:41 AM
On topic: So he made a goof. So what. Everyone does it. Differentiate single-statement gaffes from repeated statements that demonstrate that the candidate doesn't have a fucking clue. Save the ripping on the gaffes for SNL and focus on the real substance of what s/he stands for. Every candidate gives plenty of substantive reasons to dislike them without having to focus on the inevitable brainfarts that come with the stress of the campaign trail.

We are in an economic and political crisis in this country that rich, middle-class, poor, corporations and politicians got us into. So far, the only ones that have not paid a price to get out of that situation are the rich and corporations. Tell me how 9-9-9 is good for me. Tell me how it doesn't yet again put the burden on middle class and small businesses while yet again lightening the load on the wealthy and corporations.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 10:41 AM
Not to defend him, but maybe he meant North Korea (which at least is nearby though they have crude nukes), or Iran, or some other country. I think the whole thing about him not caring to learn the names of foreign leaders is more concerning.However, those ideas are rather shot out of the water by the figures he then uses. Neither North Korea nor Iran have an economy that is over one third the size of the American economy, nor do they have 10% growth rates.
My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy -- much bigger -- but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.Actually, he's sort of correct about the "we will outgrow China" bit. Assuming, of course, that they don't keep a 10% growth rate forever, and that does seem a reasonable assumption.

With a 10% growth rate and a $6 trillion economy, China would grow at $600 billion a year.
With a 5% growth rate and a $14 trillion economy, the USA would grow at $700 billion a year.
And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.I don't think that either Iran or North Korea is currently aiming to build a bunch of aircraft carriers. So they don't fit this part either.

It is really obvious that he did mean China. It is also obvious that he has no clue which potential enemies might have nukes. Since that's not too long a list (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel)*, I don't think that a failure to know this can be forgiven for someone who hopes to become president of the USA. Then again, saying that it disqualifies him isn't accurate either, as he has done that way earlier already. So it is simply more evidence of his unfitness for office.

* I do assume neither the UK nor France would use its nuclear weapons against the USA in any conceivable scenario.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 10:47 AM
With a 10% growth rate and a $6 trillion economy, China would grow at $600 billion a year.
With a 5% growth rate and a $14 trillion economy, the USA would grow at $700 billion a year.


Yeah, the first year...but then that whole compounding interest thing kicks in and eventually they catch up.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 10:57 AM
On topic: So he made a goof. So what. Everyone does it. Differentiate single-statement gaffes from repeated statements that demonstrate that the candidate doesn't have a fucking clue. Save the ripping on the gaffes for SNL and focus on the real substance of what s/he stands for. Every candidate gives plenty of substantive reasons to dislike them without having to focus on the inevitable brainfarts that come with the stress of the campaign trail.

We are in an economic and political crisis in this country that rich, middle-class, poor, corporations and politicians got us into. So far, the only ones that have not paid a price to get out of that situation are the rich and corporations. Tell me how 9-9-9 is good for me. Tell me how it doesn't yet again put the burden on middle class and small businesses while yet again lightening the load on the wealthy and corporations.

I agree completely.

On the 9-9-9 thing, it appears to me that if you figure in that consumers pay the taxes for corporations, as an add-on to the retail price, then essentially, we will be paying a 27% rate. I haven't really dug into it much because I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning. I'm simply basing that on what I see.

Perrys plan is even worse, because you get a choice of which you would rather pay. Well, I'll take the one that I have to pay less. If I have access to lots of loopholes in the current plan, then why would I change?

If you're going to change the tax system, then you have to close the IRS and totally scrap the existing system, then put in a new system. I like a flat tax, and I also like a consumption tax, but not as much. I hate taxes because I believe they are spent on wasteful shit that does nothing but keep the shitheads in office, in office.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 11:12 AM
Both flat taxes and consumption taxes are massively regressive on those who can afford it the least (ie those that live paycheck to paycheck). All they are are handouts to the wealthy.

WinespringBrother
11-02-2011, 11:12 AM
Well, I was wondering if he was thinking of their space program. But that would also work.

However, those ideas are rather shot out of the water by the figures he then uses. Neither North Korea nor Iran have an economy that is over one third the size of the American economy, nor do they have 10% growth rates.
Actually, he's sort of correct about the "we will outgrow China" bit. Assuming, of course, that they don't keep a 10% growth rate forever, and that does seem a reasonable assumption.

With a 10% growth rate and a $6 trillion economy, China would grow at $600 billion a year.
With a 5% growth rate and a $14 trillion economy, the USA would grow at $700 billion a year.
I don't think that either Iran or North Korea is currently aiming to build a bunch of aircraft carriers. So they don't fit this part either.

It is really obvious that he did mean China. It is also obvious that he has no clue which potential enemies might have nukes. Since that's not too long a list (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel)*, I don't think that a failure to know this can be forgiven for someone who hopes to become president of the USA. Then again, saying that it disqualifies him isn't accurate either, as he has done that way earlier already. So it is simply more evidence of his unfitness for office.

* I do assume neither the UK nor France would use its nuclear weapons against the USA in any conceivable scenario.

So if he was talking about China and not brain-freezing on the country, then Jill is probably right. I'm at work, so can't really listen to interviews to get the full context of his statements (talking about Chinese economy also, etc).

Crispin's Crispian
11-02-2011, 11:17 AM
I agree completely.

On the 9-9-9 thing, it appears to me that if you figure in that consumers pay the taxes for corporations, as an add-on to the retail price, then essentially, we will be paying a 27% rate. I haven't really dug into it much because I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning. I'm simply basing that on what I see.
I've seen a handful of tax "experts" say something similar. At the very least, the average American will pay quite a bit more and I think the richest will pay less. It almost seems like a deliberate middle finger to OWS.

If you're going to change the tax system, then you have to close the IRS and totally scrap the existing system, then put in a new system. I like a flat tax, and I also like a consumption tax, but not as much. I hate taxes because I believe they are spent on wasteful shit that does nothing but keep the shitheads in office, in office.
I kind of agree about scrapping it all. I don't like flat taxes unless they can be adjusted to acocunt for cost-of-living, etc. At least a consumption tax can't really be loop-holed. I guess. I'm sure they'd find a way (i.e., writing off expenses for business).

The main thing that bothers me about Cain's harassment problem is that he's obviously lying about it and having to cover his tracks. I guess we could chalk it up to inexperience, but once you lie about something, it takes way more work to maintain the lie. And as soon as you're called on it, you lose all integrity. And that's only if I assume the allegations are false...

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 11:18 AM
So if he was talking about China and not brain-freezing on the country, then Jill is probably right. I'm at work, so can't really listen to interviews to get the full context of his statements (talking about Chinese economy also, etc).Well, you can read the transcript which is provided below the video of the interview. That can be found here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/hermancain_10-31.html), which is the second link in the OP.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 11:24 AM
The main thing that bothers me about Cain's harassment problem is that he's obviously lying about it and having to cover his tracks.

Considering at least one of the women involved is trying to get out of her NDA to talk about it now that Cain's has been saying nothing happened...it reeks of complete BS by Cain. Obviously something happened or she wouldn't have gotten a year's salary in severence and Cain wouldn't have had her sign a NDA about it.

Its a d!ck move on his part to say nothing happened when he knows she legally can't say anything.

Cain is just another flash in the pan GOP frontrunner. It will be Romney in the end just like it was McCain last time...pretty much because the GOP has no real solid candidates. All that is really left to be decided is whether or not one of the far-right wackadoos decides to run on a Tea Party platform. If that happens, it could be 1984 all over again with the party roles reversed.

Update on the Cain sexual harassment hypocrisy: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/191245-attorney-says-cain-accuser-wants-to-speak-publicly-about-case

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 11:30 AM
A consumption tax could exempt those things "necessary" for life, such as food items purchased under X amount (I think that we could agree that things like Kobe beef are probably outside the scope of things that could possibly count as a necessity), clothes under X amount, vehicles under X amount, all school and home office supplies under X amount (things like copy machines would probably not be in this group unless it's one of those scanner/faxes) etc. This could have the added effect of making people think about the things they are willing to splurge on, such as shoes that cost 200+ a pair when they are only spending 50/week on cheap food. Businesses are never going to be "caught" as they pass any expenses, forced on to them or not - labor costs, procurement and manufacturing costs, taxes and energy costs, carbon offsets, etc - on to the consumer anyway. At least though the luxury goods that are purchased couldn't be written off though, as those would either have to be bought by the company and then given to an executive as compensation (and compensation amounts could definitely be capped, but would need enforcement) or just bought by the person directly and thereby incur the tax.

You could still have "green" tech tax breaks that way, and you could possibly use a tax system like this to encourage healthier eating habits more readily, and it isn't that easy to avoid unless you are willing to buy everything under the limit points, or you just choose to pay more for luxury.

I'm not saying it is what we should do, but this is one easier layman's thoughts on how it could work.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 11:33 AM
I think that we could agree that things like Kobe beef are probably outside the scope of things that could possibly count as a necessity

No one who has ever had Kobe beef would agree with that sentiment.

such as shoes that cost 200+ a pair

Never cut corners on birth control, eye glasses or good shoes.

Crispin's Crispian
11-02-2011, 11:40 AM
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/10/25/12/anigif_enhanced-buzz-7844-1319559551-27.gif

Believe or not, I try to be objective about this stuff. He's lying about it, but I'll reserve judgement about why he's lying until I have more information.

But that smile... I mean, c'mon.

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 11:42 AM
Considering at least one of the women involved is trying to get out of her NDA to talk about it now that Cain's has been saying nothing happened...it reeks of complete BS by Cain. Obviously something happened or she wouldn't have gotten a year's salary in severence and Cain wouldn't have had her sign a NDA about it.

Its a d!ck move on his part to say nothing happened when he knows she legally can't say anything.

Cain is just another flash in the pan GOP frontrunner. It will be Romney in the end just like it was McCain last time...pretty much because the GOP has no real solid candidates. All that is really left to be decided is whether or not one of the far-right wackadoos decides to run on a Tea Party platform. If that happens, it could be 1984 all over again with the party roles reversed.

Update on the Cain sexual harassment hypocrisy: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/191245-attorney-says-cain-accuser-wants-to-speak-publicly-about-case

Funny how fast the "pull yourself up by your boot straps, don't use race as an excuse" guy plays the race card when it might help him. I guess it is only poor black people that shouldn't play the race card.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 11:43 AM
Its a d!ck move on his part to say nothing happened when he knows she legally can't say anything.I'm wondering: can't he be prosecuted (or whatever the precise term is) for violating the NDA, seeing as how he's talked about it?
He can of course claim that he did not say the truth at all, but I don't think that would help him all that much.

Never cut corners on birth control, eye glasses or good shoes.Come on, the back surgery made necessary by not wearing proper shoes can't cost more than $200, can it?

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 11:52 AM
Let's get "Condi" to run, she doesn't like the race card for either side and apparently other world leaders think she's hot, so that might be good for some diplomatic gamesmanship. She'd break at least one more barrier though, the Presidential virginity.

(No, I'm not serious, I don't honestly know that much about her politics)

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 12:00 PM
I'm wondering: can't he be prosecuted (or whatever the precise term is) for violating the NDA, seeing as how he's talked about it?
He can of course claim that he did not say the truth at all, but I don't think that would help him all that much.

Come on, the back surgery made necessary by not wearing proper shoes can't cost more than $200, can it?

Prosecuted, probably not, that would imply criminality, but subject to a civil suit, quite possibly. What I don't get is why all these people always take hush money and sign NDAs when they have legitimately been wronged. Sexual harassment shouldn't be able to be bought off for a simple year's salary.

And Gonzo, there's a huge difference between wearing specific orthopedically necessary equipment and $200 Nike Shoxs in your favorite color, when there are better exercise shoes in Nike's line available for conditions like pronation correction or even just neutral running. When you are buying simply for style, that's luxury.

You will note I never said a thing about taxing any medically necessary items or treatments (boob jobs and the like that aren't performed for medical necessity/reconstructive surgeries could be an easy revenue stream though).

Davian93
11-02-2011, 12:20 PM
Prosecuted, probably not, that would imply criminality, but subject to a civil suit, quite possibly. What I don't get is why all these people always take hush money and sign NDAs when they have legitimately been wronged. Sexual harassment shouldn't be able to be bought off for a simple year's salary.


Many times, companies have an arbitration process added into contracts for any employment issue up to and including sexual harassment. This is particularly true in defense contracting but it exists in other places too. Thus, you see a lot of binding arbitrations instead of court battles. Also, lots of attorney's won't take on a large corporation in open court unless they are very well paid...in the case of thses employees, they very likely did not have the money to finance a years long legal battle.

I happen to know someone who was involved in this sort of case against a company and her arbitration took a solid 3 years for a decision and even after that decision, the company then tried to back out of it by sueing the arbiter (who they picked) saying that the arbiter was biased. She eventually won her battle and after everything, she was awarded 1 year's salary in severence and another 25% in "damages". Her lawyers fees were also paid thankfully. Still, that is small recompense for the hell she went through at that job and in the years following it.

When you are buying simply for style, that's luxury.



What medically necessary shoes might look like:

http://content.nordstrom.com/imagegallery/store/product/large/12/_5734152.jpg

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 12:29 PM
What medically necessary shoes might look like:

http://content.nordstrom.com/imagegallery/store/product/large/12/_5734152.jpgI have no idea what specific medical condition those shoes could be good for, but I am willing to accept a claim that they're not bought from a sense of style.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 12:44 PM
I have no idea what specific medical condition those shoes could be good for, but I am willing to accept a claim that they're not bought from a sense of style.

You, Sir, are obviously not a metrosexual.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Both flat taxes and consumption taxes are massively regressive on those who can afford it the least (ie those that live paycheck to paycheck). All they are are handouts to the wealthy.

Can you show me a link to this?

I'm also from the camp that says everyone should pay taxes or nobody should pay taxes, so it might not mean much to me.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 01:01 PM
Can you show me a link to this?

I'm also from the camp that says everyone should pay taxes or nobody should pay taxes, so it might not mean much to me.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html


By definition, flat taxes and consumption taxes are regressive as the wealthier you are, the less of your overall income is spent on consumable items. A flat tax has a far harsher affect on the poor as while 20% or 9% of ones income isn't a lot to an individual pulling in $1 million a year, its a massive burden on someone pulling in $20 K a year. You'd have to massively increase the personal deduction and exempt a bunch of things for it to even be tenable for the poor and middle class. Once you do that, you're right back where you started with a progressive income system but one that brings in even less revenue because the wealthy are off the hook on their top income.

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 01:02 PM
Well, being from an at-will employment state, I'm not all that familiar with contract based employment. It's used on a pretty limited basis here (only for IT that I really know about). Seems like the gov't would take a dim view of a set up like that, since it's usually gov't and employees and not the companies themselves that have the interest in it. Companies would probably prefer asexual drones if they had their druthers.

Most of the medically necessary foot issues I'm familiar with tend to use braces or simple shoe inserts for corrections. That said, those shoes really are fugly.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 01:03 PM
Well, being from an at-will employment state, I'm not all that familiar with contract based employment. It's used on a pretty limited basis here (only for IT that I really know about). Seems like the gov't would take a dim view of a set up like that, since it's usually gov't and employees and not the companies themselves that have the interest in it. Companies would probably prefer asexual drones if they had their druthers.

Most of the medically necessary foot issues I'm familiar with tend to use braces or simple shoe inserts for corrections. That said, those shoes really are fugly.


Funny story, our lovely government is the one that negotiated that exemption into their contract bids for overseas DoD contracts...so there's that.

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 01:07 PM
Funny story, our lovely government is the one that negotiated that exemption into their contract bids for overseas DoD contracts...so there's that.

Like I said... Seems like. I never said that the actions of the government actually reflected stated intent. I had a huge post on the bureaucracy and accountability, but it got ate and I have stuff to do and lunch is over.

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 01:08 PM
Many times, companies have an arbitration process added into contracts for any employment issue up to and including sexual harassment. This is particularly true in defense contracting but it exists in other places too. Thus, you see a lot of binding arbitrations instead of court battles. Also, lots of attorney's won't take on a large corporation in open court unless they are very well paid...in the case of thses employees, they very likely did not have the money to finance a years long legal battle.

I happen to know someone who was involved in this sort of case against a company and her arbitration took a solid 3 years for a decision and even after that decision, the company then tried to back out of it by sueing the arbiter (who they picked) saying that the arbiter was biased. She eventually won her battle and after everything, she was awarded 1 year's salary in severence and another 25% in "damages". Her lawyers fees were also paid thankfully. Still, that is small recompense for the hell she went through at that job and in the years following it.



What medically necessary shoes might look like:

http://content.nordstrom.com/imagegallery/store/product/large/12/_5734152.jpg

Wait. You're saying that after years of dragged out legal processes it might still be possible that a corporation would have to pay a pittance in damages to the little guy?

We can't have that, now, can we. Lessee....

How 'bout a loser pays provision?

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 01:43 PM
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html


By definition, flat taxes and consumption taxes are regressive as the wealthier you are, the less of your overall income is spent on consumable items. A flat tax has a far harsher affect on the poor as while 20% or 9% of ones income isn't a lot to an individual pulling in $1 million a year, its a massive burden on someone pulling in $20 K a year. You'd have to massively increase the personal deduction and exempt a bunch of things for it to even be tenable for the poor and middle class. Once you do that, you're right back where you started with a progressive income system but one that brings in even less revenue because the wealthy are off the hook on their top income.

So, our current system is regressive and unfair because the rich don't pay enough.

The consumption tax is regressive because it taxes the poor unfairly and it would most likely have to be set at such a high rate that it would be unaffordable to the poor.

A flat tax is unfair because it taxes the poor and the rich at the same rate and is unfair to the poor.

A VAT tax is regressive because all of the taxes are passed on to the consumers and the poor end up paying more in the end.


Don't worry, I can fix it and we can all still pay the taxes we love to pay and we'll probably fix most of the bitching about who pays more and who gets hurt more from this one or that one.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 01:57 PM
So, our current system is regressive and unfair because the rich don't pay enough.

The consumption tax is regressive because it taxes the poor unfairly and it would most likely have to be set at such a high rate that it would be unaffordable to the poor.

A flat tax is unfair because it taxes the poor and the rich at the same rate and is unfair to the poor.

A VAT tax is regressive because all of the taxes are passed on to the consumers and the poor end up paying more in the end.


Don't worry, I can fix it and we can all still pay the taxes we love to pay and we'll probably fix most of the bitching about who pays more and who gets hurt more from this one or that one.


What is your solution to the problem?


Mine is as follows:

1. Cut back entitlements
2. Raise revenue
3. Pay off debt

Once the debt is paid off, lower taxes back to normal rates and maintain the status quo with no massive deficits.

SS and Medicare both need to be fixed and that is going to be nasty, hard work. The military needs to be cut back significantly too...we simply can't afford the amount of military spending we've had over the past decade. We need to go back to a peacetime footing. Hell, I'd look at cutting as deep as 40% off the top for the military as a whole. Drop it back from $700-800 Billion into the $400 billion range.

Sei'taer
11-02-2011, 02:16 PM
What is your solution to the problem?


Mine is as follows:

1. Cut back entitlements
2. Raise revenue
3. Pay off debt

Once the debt is paid off, lower taxes back to normal rates and maintain the status quo with no massive deficits.

SS and Medicare both need to be fixed and that is going to be nasty, hard work. The military needs to be cut back significantly too...we simply can't afford the amount of military spending we've had over the past decade. We need to go back to a peacetime footing. Hell, I'd look at cutting as deep as 40% off the top for the military as a whole. Drop it back from $700-800 Billion into the $400 billion range.

Mine was pretty much going to be "stop spending so much goddamn money" But yeah, I'll go with yours. I'd only add two things:

Pass a balanced budget amendment. If they don't have the money, then they can't spend it. That'll be regressive on the poor though because of the entitlements they depend on and if a politician needs money, he's going to cut it from the place that makes the most headlines and hurts the most people to make it as unpalatable as possible and then blame it on the other party.

Cut our military to a purely defensive military. I think we could go even deeper than 40%.

There's lots of other things we could do too. Like cutting lobbyists.
Linking congressional pay to budget.
Stopping pay raises for gov't unless approved by district voters.
Chopping pensions for congress.
No more bailouts...ever...for anybody, that means Greece and BofA equally. Fuck you, pay attention to what you are doing and if you like to gamble, then live with the consequences. Sometimes gambler lose everything.

There's more, but I'm on a time crunch right now.

Terez
11-02-2011, 04:36 PM
On the sexual double standard thing, I really think that it exists on the right. Lefty's are brutal on their own who get involved in sex scandals (Im thinking of Edwards and Spitzer..and Weiner on a smaller scale).
Does anyone remember the epic scolding I got from SP when the news hit the tabloids and I said it wouldn't surprise me if it were true because Edwards was a douchebag? Yeah. I have never been fond of him, and tried to talk Callie out of supporting him in the primaries before that point.

Cain is just one of those idiots that thinks everything will be alright if he tries to run the country like a business. The GOP likes CEO-type candidates based on this logic, apparently forgetting that most businesses are designed to funnel profits into the hands of an elite few.

Terez
11-02-2011, 06:03 PM
I'm at a loss as to how a 5% growth rate will help us beat China's 10% growth rate. Granted, I'm not a CEO and my math skills are iffy sometimes but that sounds a bit suspect.
China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy -- much bigger -- but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.
5% of 14 trillion = 0.7 trillion.
10% of 6 trillion = 0.6 trillion.

The Unreasoner
11-02-2011, 06:37 PM
A high consumption tax with necessities exempt (and kobe beef should be free to those who will appreciate it), a small flat income tax, and a hefty tax to pay on inheritances (doesn't have to be paid all at once (if you inherit artwork for example, you shouldn't need to sell it), but rather in installments at a floating rate over twenty or so years).

And, nukes or not, we should fear China. (but probably nukes). Although they can't keep the 10% growth rate forever: look at the statistics on age in china: the workforce will be crippled (do they have social security? if so, we just might catch up after all)

Davian93
11-02-2011, 06:39 PM
5% of 14 trillion = 0.7 trillion.
10% of 6 trillion = 0.6 trillion.

But if those rates are constant, eventually, 10% growth catches up to 5% growth regardless of what happens in the first calendar year.

After 30 years, $6 trillion at 10% becomes $24 trillion.

After 30 years, $14 trillion at 5% becomes $35 trillion.

Notice how the gap is closing as a percentage?

Right now, our economy is 233% larger than theirs. In 30 years, at those rates, our economy would only be 46% larger.

So, he's inaccurate/disingenuous at best and an idiot who doesn't understand basic compounding interest growth at worst (scary if its this as he is/was a CEO of a major corporation).

The Unreasoner
11-02-2011, 06:46 PM
But if those rates are constant
But they're not. Which doesn't mean China won't pass us. They still could. Maybe even within 20 years.

Also, Cain may know all of this perfectly well, it's just that he needs to dumb down his points so the average voter can follow it. (He won't win anyway, so I don't really care if he is clueless though)

Davian93
11-02-2011, 06:48 PM
A high consumption tax with necessities exempt (and kobe beef should be free to those who will appreciate it), a small flat income tax, and a hefty tax to pay on inheritances (doesn't have to be paid all at once (if you inherit artwork for example, you shouldn't need to sell it), but rather in installments at a floating rate over twenty or so years).

And, nukes or not, we should fear China. (but probably nukes). Although they can't keep the 10% growth rate forever: look at the statistics on age in china: the workforce will be crippled (do they have social security? if so, we just might catch up after all)

There are some that argue that China's entire economy is a massive paper dragon that will eventually collapse under its own rate for a variety of reasons. For one, their main attractiveness for foreign investment is their cheap labor rates. However, there are other countries that are coming onto the scene that are cheaper, will do the same labor and aren't superpowers. In addition, China's workforce is starting to do what workers everywhere do when they see their economic betters getting richer...they're starting to demand more money for themselves so they can buy a better bicycle or even an automobile and go on vacations, etc etc. Soon, ~gasp~, they might start demanding stronger social programs. If that happens, those manufacturers will move on to India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc and pretend like China never existed. Add in their continued quality issues on manufacturing (if they can cut a corner, they will...that's their culture. Quicker and cheaper is better, period). American manufacturers have had huge issues with moving high-tech manufacturing there.
In addition to that basic issue, they seem intent on dumping huge amounts of capital into heavy industry and their military. Neither of these are the future and those are essentially black holes for economic growth. They do have a great start on the rare metals market...something we are really missing the boat on in the US but that could easily change.
Finally, their currency is artificially low and inflation pressure is really starting to build on them to raise it. If that happens, their great export rates will decline and it will be a net loss for them and net gain for us as we're probably their largest importer of manufactured goods. Any change in that rate that strengthens the Yuan helps us.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 06:51 PM
But they're not. Which doesn't mean China won't pass us. They still could. Maybe even within 20 years.

Also, Cain may know all of this perfectly well, it's just that he needs to dumb down his points so the average voter can follow it. (He won't win anyway, so I don't really care if he is clueless though)

I would guess that he's arguing for "average" rates that that level...which would have the same effect. I think, given some minor tweaks, our economy could easily continue to crush them economically. But we need to want it and I dont see our current political leadership wanting it bad enough as they aren't looking long-term.

The Unreasoner
11-02-2011, 06:52 PM
So are you really worrying about compounding rates?

Davian93
11-02-2011, 06:55 PM
So are you really worrying about compounding rates?

No, but I dont like dishonest statements like that. Eventually, given those two rates and starting points, they'd catch up.




Somewhat back on the original topic...http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282007/first-thing-we-do-john-derbyshire

What a great "defense" for Cain's allaged sexual harassment. Gist of it: Women can't take compliments and anyone can file a lawsuit so its probably BS.

WOW.

Cor Shan
11-09-2011, 01:31 AM
Its okay, its all a joke apparently:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45171907

I love Herman Cain more and more as time passing. It almost seems like my theory that the republican party brass doesn't want any good candidates running against an incumbent holds some water.

Sei'taer
11-09-2011, 09:19 AM
all that means is he's got the anime vote. Which is pretty small, I admit, but it's something.

fdsaf3
11-09-2011, 12:26 PM
If we're concerned about China's 10% growth rate, we should really be concerned about countries like Singapore which is averaging 14.5%, right?!

I think the convention is to make China out to be some sort of USSR-style bogeyman when in fact it's not. Making predictions for what economies are going to be like in 30 years...good luck with that. Then again, it might be easier to predict what the U.S. GPD is in 30 years than what the unemployment rate is going to be in six months.

As far as Chinese nukes are concerned, what everyone should at least be paying attention to is that China is working with Pakistan to develop their nuclear program. It's a similar process that the U.S. went through with India to develop their nuclear program, only Pakistan is definitely not a country the U.S. wants armed with nukes. I'd highly suggest that anyone with foreign policy interests check out this story since it's really interesting and raises a lot of interesting questions. Namely:

1. Why do a few select countries from the 1960s get to decide what other countries can and cannot have nukes?

2. Is it fair for countries with nukes (U.S., China, etc.) to regulate the international denuclearization movement? It sort of seems like a child collecting all the toys is telling all the other kids in the playground that toys are dangerous and none of them can have any.

3. What is the world going to do when it inevitably happens that a rogue nation (like Iran) gets a nuclear weapon? The U.S. invaded Iraq on the faulty premise that they had WMDs - what's going to happen when a country like Iran actually has one?

Scary stuff.

SauceyBlueConfetti
11-09-2011, 02:37 PM
We're strongly opposed to ruining a good cigar. Certain standards have to be met.

Elaborate.

:D:D:D:rolleyes::p

Sei'taer
11-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Elaborate.

:D:D:D:rolleyes::p

Uhhhhh...nope.

GonzoTheGreat
11-10-2011, 04:19 AM
Uhhhhh...nope.Then it may be necessary to set up a research project to test these (alleged) limitations "in the field". Now if Berlusconi hadn't made such a mess of his finances, then I probably could've gotten EU subsidies for this project.