Republican candidates for 2012

• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;930796 wrote:And my main point is how unrealistic it is to think that Cain would even be elected if he won the nomination because he will be skewered in the media for trying to get the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich. He would have zero chance of beating the king of class warfare in a general election.

  OK I get your point. Yes he will be skewered in the media. So will Paul. They will ask him about the civil rights act/voter rights act. Gulp. Cain's 9-9-9 plan has propelled him to the top tier. Bring it on.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;930789 wrote:Cain campaigns on controversial tax plan and gets elected = strong mandate.

  Cain's plan is simple 9-9-9. No bullshit. No tax breaks for big corps. You could fit it on a pizza menu. Throws out the 7,500 page albatross we have in place today. You will not need tax lawyers and a team of accountants to figure out your tax liability. Its simple take profits/income x .09. Done.
  

  I Wear Pants;930789 wrote:Obama campaigns on controversial health care plan and gets elected = "no one wants it how can he do this that monster."

  Obama campaigned on a general idea. Not a simple plan. What Obama ended up signing off on was a far cry from what he campaigned on. I would argue if he would have stuck to his guns he would have been standing on more solid ground today. If Cain were elected president and signed off on anything other than 9-9-9. He would experience the same fate Obama has and likely be a 1term president.
• stlouiedipalma

  I don't know which is more amusing: watching these folks debate or observing the analysis on OC.
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;930876 wrote:I don't know which is more amusing: watching these folks debate or observing the analysis on OC.

  You don't like Cain's 9-9-9 plan?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/richard-lowrie-herman-cain-tax-plan_n_1006201.html
  
  LOL. Apparently I am as qualified as the guy who came up with Cain's 999 plan and I assume did the "dynamic analysis" behind it.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;930904 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/richard-lowrie-herman-cain-tax-plan_n_1006201.html
  
  LOL. Apparently I am as qualified as the guy who came up with Cain's 999 plan and I assume did the "dynamic analysis" behind it.

  You know damn well there is a team behind this. Attack the plan on its merits fine. Now you are grasping at straws to attack the messengers. You sound like the left. Are you an elitist now? Only the wizards of academia are able to devise any plan? Yeah that makes sense. Lets go with the 7,500 page tax code that only they can understand. And if you don't get it and screw up, guess what you pay out the ass for it or end up in jail. Have you ever run your own business?
  
  Paul is at this point unable to convey his message to the average primary voter and this is what we get? Wow.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  majorspark;930923 wrote:You know damn well there is a team behind this. Attack the plan on its merits fine. Now you are grasping at straws to attack the messengers. You sound like the left. Are you an elitist now? Only the wizards of academia are able to devise any plan? Yeah that makes sense. Lets go with the 7,500 page tax code that only they can understand. And if you don't get it and screw up, guess what you pay out the ass for it or end up in jail. Have you ever run your own business?
  
  Paul is at this point unable to convey his message to the average primary voter and this is what we get? Wow.

  Relax. I just found it interesting that some bank teller or whatever is the guy Cain called his lead economist on his prized 999 plan, which is the only answer he has to any question he is asked. It doesn't discredit the plan. I already did that on it's merits.
• BoatShoes

  fish82;930771 wrote:The pubs are going to have solid majorities in both houses in 2013. They'll pass whatever the GOP POTUS puts in front of them. I can think of about 53% of the country that would go for 9-9-9.

  The 53% of the country who's average tax rates would rise according to the Tax Policy Center? Conservatives literally fall for any plan that sounds good despite how awful they would be in practice. 9-9-9 plan, cut spending = exploding growth, cutting revenue = greater revenue, "Fair Tax" etc.
  
  The deficit would explode, the very rich would pay less taxes than the very poor. With the elimination of deductions and credits, everyone in america except the very rich would see their taxes rise as a share of their income.
  
  The plan is a disaster and yet what is worse is that conservatives have some how been bamboozled into supporting it and thinking it's a good idea even though it would raise a majority of their taxes.
  
  And of course it would never pass because even if Republicans take back the Senate, the Democrats will only repeat the epic level of obstruction that the Republicans levied against Obama.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;930935 wrote:Relax. I just found it interesting that some bank teller or whatever is the guy Cain called his lead economist on his prized 999 plan, which is the only answer he has to any question he is asked. It doesn't discredit the plan. I already did that on it's merits.

  Look you and I agree on a lot of things. You are more of an idealist and I am a realist. I would vote for Paul even though I disagree with some of his idealistic foreign policy issues that I personally believe will cost this country in the long run. The fact is Paul is not able to get his message to the average primary voter. Cain is able to do that. His plan is a step in the right direction. It is ten times better than the system we have in place.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;930776 wrote:Ron Paul policies stand even less of a chance. I agree that Cain's 9-9-9 plan will be extremely difficult to get through congress but if Cain were elected he would have a very strong mandate.

  No. The Presidential Mandate is a myth. BHO had strong majority's in both houses and left behind an extremely unpopular president and yet as we saw, there was no mandate for his healthcare reform bill or anything else.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;930950 wrote:No. The Presidential Mandate is a myth. BHO had strong majority's in both houses and left behind an extremely unpopular president and yet as we saw, there was no mandate for his healthcare reform bill or anything else.

  Boat why do you make me repeat this. BHO would have been better off sticking to his guns and not settling for the watered down plan. He lost his base. If he held his ground and painted the republicans as obstructionist he may have stood a chance. Instead he singed of on a bill that pissed off his base as well as lighting a fire under the asses of those that opposed it.
  
  Cain would suffer the same fate if he signs off on anything greater than 9-9-9.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;930958 wrote:Boat why do you make me repeat this. BHO would have been better off sticking to his guns and not settling for the watered down plan. He lost his base. If he held his ground and painted the republicans as obstructionist he may have stood a chance. Instead he singed of on a bill that pissed off his base as all the while lighting a fire under the asses of those that opposed it.
  
  Cain would suffer the same fate if he signs off on anything greater than 9-9-9.

  I don't know...to me a mandate implies that more than just the fired up base would be mandating the president to do something. If BHO had proudly stood behind a Public Option or Single Payer, it may have pumped up his base but I sincerely doubt that moderate America would have treated BHO as if they mandated he do that when he stepped into office...
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;930836 wrote:Cain's plan is simple 9-9-9. No bullshit. No tax breaks for big corps. You could fit it on a pizza menu. Throws out the 7,500 page albatross we have in place today. You will not need tax lawyers and a team of accountants to figure out your tax liability. Its simple take profits/income x .09. Done.
  
  
  
  Obama campaigned on a general idea. Not a simple plan. What Obama ended up signing off on was a far cry from what he campaigned on. I would argue if he would have stuck to his guns he would have been standing on more solid ground today. If Cain were elected president and signed off on anything other than 9-9-9. He would experience the same fate Obama has and likely be a 1term president.

  I wasn't commenting on the quality/lack of it in Cain's plan. Merely that I found it interesting that if Cain gets elected after campaigning on something you think it gives him a strong mandate to do that thing. But when Obama did it you didn't.
  
  And I agree with you about him trying to take the middle ground which is not the ground to take in politics. You end up pissing off everyone instead of people thinking you're making compromise. In this case the left is pissed you lost your nerve and the right is pissed because it is politically expedient for them to be so.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;930836 wrote:Cain's plan is simple 9-9-9. No bullshit. No tax breaks for big corps. You could fit it on a pizza menu. Throws out the 7,500 page albatross we have in place today. You will not need tax lawyers and a team of accountants to figure out your tax liability. Its simple take profits/income x .09. Done.

  But see, business people and even individuals, by and large, prefer complexity over simpleness if their taxes are lower. I will pay more in taxes under the 9-9-9 plan than I do currently do under the current "monstrosity" most of which doesn't apply to most Americans. Additionally, because the people who's taxes will be lowered already have enough disposable income to spend on what they want, them keeping more will not increase aggregate demand for goods and services and therefore even if they use it to buy stock in Starbucks, it will be of no consequence because there won't be any new demand for latte's etc, etc.
  
  And let's compare Romney's Chief Economic Adviser to Herman Cain's.
  
  Romney's: Gregory Mankiw, Ph.D. Former Chair of the Council of Economic Adviser's and the 25th most cited economist in the world noted for arguing against raising marginal rates because of its effect on work incentives.
  
  Cain's: Rich Lowrie, B.A. Director of Investments of Wells Fargo Advisers; Pepper Pike, Ohio. You can check out his LinkedIn page here where he lists himself as Herman Cain's "Senior Economic Adviser" http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-lowrie/a/74b/805
  
  And it's not about being "elitist." You're an avid capitalist right and believe that highly talented individuals ought to be rewarded and respected. The Founder's were all elite and created the Senate to preserve the elite. To think it might be more appropriate to have someone like Greg Mankiw, someone at the very pinnacle of their field, leading your economic team when you're running for the highest office in the land is exactly what you might expect out of someone who is a capitalist.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;930963 wrote:I don't know...to me a mandate implies that more than just the fired up base would be mandating the president to do something. If BHO had proudly stood behind a Public Option or Single Payer, it may have pumped up his base but I sincerely doubt that moderate America would have treated BHO as if they mandated he do that when he stepped into office...

  Independents and moderates are the most easily swayed by a strong passionate arguments. Independents and moderates love to see a candidate standing up to the party establishment on both sides. People are tired of seeing politicians fold because of political expediency. Obama blew his chance. If Cain sticks to his guns he may not get it the first round but will likely be there for the second round. If he falters like Obama he will suffer the same fate.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;930975 wrote:But see, business people and even individuals, by and large, prefer complexity over simpleness if their taxes are lower.

  I don't know who fed you that line of shit. I work in the private sector. I own one small business. I am about to purchase another one for my wife to run. Just a small drive thru coffee shop she has been working in so don't get excited and label my as a corporate fat cat. Both are small enterprises. I will gladly take simpleness in favor of a an increase in federal taxes.
  

  BoatShoes;930975 wrote:I will pay more in taxes under the 9-9-9 plan than I do currently do under the current "monstrosity" most of which doesn't apply to most Americans.

  I too will pay more. At least to the feds. No need for an accountant now. I save money and time. Income x .09. Net profit x.09. A circus chimp could run those calculation. More people like simplicity and transparency than you think. That is what is propelling Cain. We are sick of the bullshit tax code. Its an albatross around our necks. And the vehicle the feds use to hustle us into line.
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;930876 wrote:I don't know which is more amusing: watching these folks debate or observing the analysis on OC.

  What is even more amusing would be watching Harry Reid trying to translate Herman Cain's negro dialect.
• OneBuckeye

  

  Put me on the Herman Cain bandwagon. He seems to be the only one who could bring real change to the white house and isn't a politician. I think Ron Paul could do it too, but there is no way he could beat Obama. I wonder how the black vote would change with Cain v Obama. I believe Obama got 95%+ of the black vote last time. Cain might make some of them stop and think at the polls for a bit. If he got 30% of the black vote I think he would have an excellent chance at winning.
• QuakerOats

  I thought Newt was, once again, excellent. He is intelligent, has a masterful grip on history, bold and innovative ideas, and can articulate his position better than anyone. I though Romney did a good job again also, and I really thought Bachman did an excellent job last night. Any of them at the table would be light years better than obama, but I think those 3 are the strongest.
• OneBuckeye

  

  I don't think there is a chance Newt or Bachman could beat Obama. I don't think anyone can but Cain and Romney...
• BGFalcons82

  

  QuakerOats;931145 wrote:I thought Newt was, once again, excellent. He is intelligent, has a masterful grip on history, bold and innovative ideas, and can articulate his position better than anyone.

  If I was conducting the interview for the job of President, I think Newt is the most highly qualified candidate. His resume is very strong, his leadership skills are good, his ability to command the language is up there with Reagan, and he has all of the intangibles conservatives look for in the position of POTUS.
  
  Problem is...he's been married a few times and he ran around on his wives (Hell, maybe he even stayed at a Southern hotel where the "N" word was written on a bathroom stall and since he stayed there, he's a racist bigot KKK leader). These are major disqualifiers for him amongst his Repub detractors and the lame stream media. But if he was named Bill Clinton AND wore a "D" on his lapel, then all would be forgiven and sex wouldn't be a factor in any discussion. Not that we live in a 2-faced country or anything like that.
• Ty Webb

  

  At this point Mitt Romney is the only one who would be likely have a legit chance of beating the President
  
  I do have a question though .....can the Republican nominee survive a long bloody primary and be strong enoug going into the general election?
• QuakerOats

  Ty --- you continue to throw up on yourself. Any repub - even the generic one - beats obama. The only question that exists is whether the repub will actually be running against obama!
• Ty Webb

  

  Ok.....can I have a logical,intelligent response now?
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats;931238 wrote:Ty --- you continue to throw up on yourself. Any repub - even the generic one - beats obama. The only question that exists is whether the rebub will actually be running against obama!

  Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Jon Huntsman, Newt, etc... these people wouldn't beat Obama.