Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

[cwalner]

Here's the problem I have with talking about his being "qualified". What's NOT qualified is a Senator or Congressman. What is qualified is someone with experience as a Governor, a VP or other significant activities.

That excludes Obama, but that's not my point.

What SHOULD be qualfying is significant experience in the private sector.

Whether the voting public can realize that and vote accordingly is another matter. Romney is a glib, practiced, polished politician.

Is that the solution, or the problem?

The problem is what you are criticizing Obama for, applies even more so to Cain. This is why I, personally, reject the meme of valuing political outsiders or considering business experience applies directly to political positions. Cain my have experience dealing with employees and boards of trustees, but that is nothing like dealing with Congress. Cain has no experience either in governing and thus dealing with a legislature, or every have been in a legislature himself. I still remember the reasons why Perot was not considered a serious candidate. He ran from the exact same position that Cain is running from now.

I might have disagreed with Bush's policies, but his experience as governor of TX taught him how to deal with a legislature, and he was very effective, from the start, in getting his policies enacted. Romney has a similar experience. Cain has nothing remotely like this.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The problem is what you are criticizing Obama for, applies even more so to Cain. This is why I, personally, reject the meme of valuing political outsiders or considering business experience applies directly to political positions. Cain my have experience dealing with employees and boards of trustees, but that is nothing like dealing with Congress. Cain has no experience either in governing and thus dealing with a legislature, or every have been in a legislature himself. I still remember the reasons why Perot was not considered a serious candidate. He ran from the exact same position that Cain is running from now.

I might have disagreed with Bush's policies, but his experience as governor of TX taught him how to deal with a legislature, and he was very effective, from the start, in getting his policies enacted. Romney has a similar experience. Cain has nothing remotely like this.

Exactly. Cain might be a decent choice for VP, but he doesn't have the government experience necessary for the big job himself. He's smart and successful and could conceivably do well in the job, but it's a giant risk.

 

[Drachasor]

Drachasor, you appear to be arguing against positions I haven't taken and then insulting me for being incorrect in said phantom positions. Could you please, for the last time, cut the straw men?

What did I misunderstand? You said my analysis was significantly flawed. I have shown it was not. In what manner did you think there was a significant flaw that I did not demonstrate? You also did ignore my post where I addressed your point on my analysis.

If I haven't addressed your argument, then please state it clearly here.

 

[bikerdruid]

Exactly. Cain might be a decent choice for VP, but he doesn't have the government experience necessary for the big job himself. He's smart and successful and could conceivably do well in the job, but it's a giant risk.

cool....
the republicans have a few candidates for VP.
when are you going to come up with a presidential candidate.
it's almost 2012.

 

[Neally]

Strawman, because that's not what I am saying. For instance, I'm not saying the rich should be forced to only consume as much as they need. I merely am saying they should pay taxes which they can afford -- just like everyone else.

Okay, so you are arguing in favor of half of the classic communist phrase.

Except it is not fair, because the poor and lower middle class need much of their money for basic needs and survival. They can't afford the same level of taxes that someone with more money can, and so taxing them at the same rate places a greater burden on them.

So goes the logic of of the liberals and communists. The rest of of consider everyone paying the same % as the fairest way to pay for government.

This is like proposing that if you and a friend are helping someone move and you can lift 100 lbs, and your friend can lift 500lbs, then you should both do the same amount of work because that's "fair."

It's like paying movers the same salary when one can move 5 times as much because paying them the same amount is "fair".

 

[bikerdruid]

Okay, so you are arguing in favor of half of the classic communist phrase.

So goes the logic of of the liberals and communists. The rest of of consider everyone paying the same % as the fairest way to pay for government.

It's like paying movers the same salary when one can move 5 times as much because paying them the same amount is "fair".

'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'.
what could possibly be more fair than that, unless you are greedy and have no desire to help your less fortunate neighbour.
the american abysmally far right is the epitome of greed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What did I misunderstand? You said my analysis was significantly flawed. I have shown it was not. In what manner did you think there was a significant flaw that I did not demonstrate? You also did ignore my post where I addressed your point on my analysis.

If I haven't addressed your argument, then please state it clearly here.

I haven't MADE an argument with regards to Cain's tax plan. But you're claiming I have an argument. That's yet another lie.

You've claimed that I believe the rich can't afford new taxes. I've never said that.

You've claimed that I don't understand the US tax code when all I did was point out your error with marginal tax rate. Do you know how stupid that argument is?

Are you capable of having an honest discussion?

----------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the tax discussion, it's fairly simple to address whether or not Cain's plan brings in a similar amount of money as the current budget does. For a big picture back-of-the-envelope look, one can assume that his 9% tax applies to all economic activity (the GDP) in the US. 9% of $14.7 trillion is only $1.323 trillion. This falls short of $2.162 trillion brought in 2010.

One can also look at each sector that Cain's tax plan applies to.

Gross sales in the USA (2009) = $2.6 trillion

Gross personal income (2009) = $7.6 trillion

I can't find data on gross corporate income, but the sales tax and income tax portion of Cains plan produces $0.92 trillion. Unless his plan increases the current corporate income tax from $191 billion by over 6 fold than his plan won't come anywhere close to current revenue.

The above is an argument or a position I've taken with regards to Cain's tax plan. You may form arguments against it if you'd like. If you invent positions that I haven't taken than I will call you out on them.

 

[Neally]

'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'.
what could possibly be more fair than that,

Asks, the communist.

How about, "from each according to their choice, to each according to their ability"

unless you are greedy and have no desire to help your less fortunate neighbour.
the american abysmally far right is the epitome of greed.

Common urban legend. The fact is that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/conservative-voters-are-more-liberal-with-charity/19091

 

[Drachasor]

Okay, so you are arguing in favor of half of the classic communist phrase.

That doesn't make it wrong. Pretty much any policy anyone advocates can be compared unfavorable to communism, fascism, dictatorship, or anarchy.

So goes the logic of of the liberals and communists. The rest of of consider everyone paying the same % as the fairest way to pay for government.

So, which Presidents of the United States and which Congresses would you say weren't using liberal/communist logic? Progressive taxation has been used for a long, long time. Just curious (I'm not saying that's what makes it right, mind you).

Given that most people support these policies, I think it is unfair to say "the rest of us." You imply you are in a majority that doesn't exist.

It's like paying movers the same salary when one can move 5 times as much because paying them the same amount is "fair".

No, it's not like paying them the same salary at all. I've explicitly said I am not for that. Taxes are NOT a salary, and even with higher marginal rates a high income earner will always make more money than someone with a lower income.

 

[bikerdruid]

Asks, the communist.

How about, "from each according to their choice, to each according to their ability"

Common urban legend. The fact is that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/conservative-voters-are-more-liberal-with-charity/19091

charity will not solve the american problem of homelessness caused by greed.
besides, giving money to churches does not equate to feeding and housing the poor.
btw...the walton scum, some of the wealthiest, are also the most niggardly about giving.

 

[Drachasor]

I haven't MADE an argument with regards to Cain's tax plan. But you're claiming I have an argument. That's yet another lie.

You DID act like a minor problem was a major one. I said it was minor and then you insisted your points were very significant...which leads us into...

You've claimed that I believe the rich can't afford new taxes. I've never said that.
...
You've claimed that I don't understand the US tax code when all I did was point out your error with marginal tax rate. Do you know how stupid that argument is?

Assuming a minor problem in my calculation meant a major problem in my conclusion indicates you don't understand the significant of the problem. That implies you don't understand the US tax code and that the rich provide most of the tax revenue.

I DO understand the marginal tax rate. Don't confuse a mistake* with not understanding marginal income tax. As I have said repeatedly, I posted my response with a fix and how it doesn't change the analysis. You ignored that, deciding instead to focus on minor details and claiming they weren't minor.

Alternatively it could imply you're just really stubborn in an argument and are making a mountain out of a molehill for another reason. I will assume it is this one from here on out.

*And I grant it was a stupid mistake, but one can make a mistake with something they know.

 

[Neally]

That doesn't make it wrong.

As long as you recognize where your rationale comes from and are comfortable with it, fine by me.

Given that most people support these policies, I think it is unfair to say "the rest of us." You imply you are in a majority that doesn't exist.

No majority implication. Just the rest of us.

No, it's not like paying them the same salary at all. I've explicitly said I am not for that.

I showed how your analogy failed, but whatever.

Taxes are NOT a salary, and even with higher marginal rates a high income earner will always make more money than someone with a lower income.

As they should, and the communist philosophy of taking from each according to his ability is not how those of us that support a flat tax think it should be done.

the walton scum, some of the wealthiest, are also the most niggardly about giving.

So now that your bigoted false claim that the right is less charitable has been demolished, the goalposts have to move to pick out individual people? You make funny long time.

 

[bikerdruid]

So now that your bigoted false claim that the right is less charitable has been demolished, the goalposts have to move to pick out individual people? You make funny long time.

you editing of my post to obscure the counter-point is noted.
i merely used the walton scum ans an example.

here is my full post.

charity will not solve the american problem of homelessness caused by greed.
besides, giving money to churches does not equate to feeding and housing the poor.
btw...the walton scum, some of the wealthiest, are also the most niggardly about giving.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You DID act like a minor problem was a major one. I said it was minor and then you insisted your points were very significant...which leads us into...

Assuming a minor problem in my calculation meant a major problem in my conclusion indicates you don't understand the significant of the problem. That implies you don't understand the US tax code and that the rich provide most of the tax revenue.

I DO understand the marginal tax rate. Don't confuse a mistake* with not understanding marginal income tax. As I have said repeatedly, I posted my response with a fix and how it doesn't change the analysis. You ignored that, deciding instead to focus on minor details and claiming they weren't minor.

Alternatively it could imply you're just really stubborn in an argument and are making a mountain out of a molehill for another reason. I will assume it is this one from here on out.

*And I grant it was a stupid mistake, but one can make a mistake with something they know.

Thank you for yet another post proving that you are a dishonest liar.

 

[Neally]

you editing of my post to obscure the counter-point is noted.
i merely used the walton scum ans an example.

Your "counter-point" has nothing to do with the fact that you were demonstratively wrong in your claim that the right aren't charitable. Throwing in the Walton insult doesn't change that, but is clearly a desperate to try to retain some credibility.

 

[mhaze]

You DID act like a minor problem was a major one. I said it was minor and then you insisted your points were very significant...which leads us into...



Assuming a minor problem in my calculation meant a major problem in my conclusion indicates you don't understand the significant of the problem. That implies you don't understand the US tax code and that the rich provide most of the tax revenue.

I DO understand the marginal tax rate. Don't confuse a mistake* with not understanding marginal income tax. As I have said repeatedly, I posted my response with a fix and how it doesn't change the analysis. .....

I have to agree with Newtons Bit on this. You made a claim that the 999 plan couldn't produce enough revenue, and then you tried to support it. You were proven wrong repeatedly. Now you claim that somehow you have STILL proved the 999 plan doesn't produce enough revenue.

You simply haven't done that or anything like it.

All you've done is "repeated the claim".

 

[bikerdruid]

Your "counter-point" has nothing to do with the fact that you were demonstratively wrong in your claim that the right aren't charitable. Throwing in the Walton insult doesn't change that, but is clearly a desperate to try to retain some credibility.

the american abysmally far right is also quick to hand-wave away anything that counters their niggardly attitude.

 

[Neally]

the american abysmally far right is also quick to hand-wave away anything that counters their niggardly attitude.

So the qualifier is the far right? Is that the point of the italics? Sorry, I don't have data as to the charitably of the far right vis-à-vis the right and the left and the far left, but then neither do you.

 

[mhaze]

you editing of my post to obscure the counter-point is noted.
i merely used the walton scum ans an example.

here is my full post.

charity will not solve the american problem of homelessness caused by greed.
besides, giving money to churches does not equate to feeding and housing the poor.

Throughout history, there has been no society that did not have slums, or something that resembled homelessness, and no society that did not have some version of "the poor".

 

[Newtons Bit]

I have to agree with Newtons Bit on this. You made a claim that the 999 plan couldn't produce enough revenue, and then you tried to support it. You were proven wrong repeatedly. Now you claim that somehow you have STILL proved the 999 plan doesn't produce enough revenue.

You simply haven't done that or anything like it.

All you've done is "repeated the claim".

Ironically, his claim is correct and it's easy to prove using a little bit of math...