http://video.foxnews.com/v/1118760560001...omic-plan/


He knows what the hell he's talking about and I'm sick of retreads, turbos, and the batshit insane.

Quote:Why am I supporting Herman Cain?

Because he hasn't dropped out just yet.

I keeeeeeeeed I keeeeeeeeeed.

(08-20-2011 01:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:Why am I supporting Herman Cain?

Because he hasn't dropped out just yet.

I keeeeeeeeed I keeeeeeeeeed.

You know Paul doesn't support the Fair Tax because, as he says, "it would create a black market", right?

(08-20-2011 01:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-20-2011 01:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:Why am I supporting Herman Cain?

Because he hasn't dropped out just yet.

I keeeeeeeeed I keeeeeeeeeed.

You know Paul doesn't support the Fair Tax because, as he says, "it would create a black market", right?

He said he's sympathetic to the Fair Tax but prefers a Flat Tax but, in his own words, "I'd want it realllllllllll flat like zero."

He needs to slow down while saying 9-9-9. He sounds like Hitler in Downfall "Nein! Nein! Nein!"

(08-20-2011 02:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-20-2011 01:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-20-2011 01:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:Why am I supporting Herman Cain?

Because he hasn't dropped out just yet.

I keeeeeeeeed I keeeeeeeeeed.

You know Paul doesn't support the Fair Tax because, as he says, "it would create a black market", right?

He said he's sympathetic to the Fair Tax but prefers a Flat Tax but, in his own words, "I'd want it realllllllllll flat like zero."

....and he expects to fund the government how? Fairy dust?

BTW, he's not sympathetic to the Fair Tax. He's come out against it. As for a flat tax, that won't do **** and it damn sure won't do **** about people that don't pay anything.

The "9-9-9" is basically my "15-15-15" except that I'm including the Boortz-Linder prefund (I don't think he is, but haven't seen anything definitive) and I'm balancing the budget where he is just doing something that's revenue-neutral with current tax rates and loopholes.

(08-20-2011 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "9-9-9" is basically my "15-15-15" except that I'm including the Boortz-Linder prefund (I don't think he is, but haven't seen anything definitive) and I'm balancing the budget where he is just doing something that's revenue-neutral with current tax rates and loopholes.

His 9-9-9 approach is only the start. He talks about eventually shifting to to the Fair Tax. I guess you didn't watch enough.

(08-20-2011 06:58 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-20-2011 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "9-9-9" is basically my "15-15-15" except that I'm including the Boortz-Linder prefund (I don't think he is, but haven't seen anything definitive) and I'm balancing the budget where he is just doing something that's revenue-neutral with current tax rates and loopholes.

His 9-9-9 approach is only the start. He talks about eventually shifting to to the Fair Tax. I guess you didn't watch enough.

No, I know he wants to get to Fair Tax. I'm still skeptical that will ever fly politically. What you do accomplish with 9-9-9 (or 15-15-15 with prefund) is that you get rates down low enough that there's very little incentive to make moves that are bad for the economy, in order to save taxes. And with marginal rates lower than most of the rest of the world, the tax incentives turn around and favor bringing jobs home instead of shipping them overseas. Clearly, taxes aren't the only consideration in plant location decisions. But they are one consideration, and usually a big one, and one that we can win. And we need to win as many of the battles as we can.

0% taxes on repatriated funds. That's over 1.2 TRILLION dollars that could be used to invest in this country. I see NO one talking about that, other than Cain, including the "savior" of some people here. That shows me Herman knows more about finances and economic matters than anyone else in the field, which isn't saying much as many are career politicians, INCLUDING, Paulbots, Ron f'n Paul who's been in Congress for, what, 3 damn decades? Or is it 4?

(08-20-2011 09:35 PM)Rebel Wrote:  0% taxes on repatriated funds. That's over 1.2 TRILLION dollars that could be used to invest in this country. I see NO one talking about that, other than Cain, including the "savior" of some people here. That shows me Herman knows more about finances and economic matters than anyone else in the field, which isn't saying much as many are career politicians, INCLUDING, Paulbots, Ron f'n Paul who's been in Congress for, what, 3 damn decades? Or is it 4?

If you go to 15-15-15 (or 9-9-9) you effectively accomplish this. Why? Because you would get to offset foreign taxes paid against any US tax liability upon repatriation, and virtually every other country has higher tax rates than 15% (only Ireland at 12.5% is lower).

(08-20-2011 06:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, he's not sympathetic to the Fair Tax. He's come out against it. As for a flat tax, that won't do **** and it damn sure won't do **** about people that don't pay anything.

I've heard Ron say numerous times that while he likes the Fair Tax, he thinks a flat tax was better. And Ron would like to continually shrink government back to it's constitutional box. Realize of course that in and of itself would produce quite a small flat tax. But up until the 1900's the US government was funded entirely on user fees and tariffs. There was no direct federal tax levied.

It doesn't matter what Paul or Cain do. Neither will win their party's nomination so they'll just fade into the background again.

(08-21-2011 01:06 AM)TOGC Wrote:  It doesn't matter what Paul or Cain do. Neither will win their party's nomination so they'll just fade into the background again.

If Dr. Paul does lose, he'll still have planted enough seeds for Rand to likely get the nomination in 2016 should he choose to seek it.

(08-21-2011 02:01 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2011 01:06 AM)TOGC Wrote:  It doesn't matter what Paul or Cain do. Neither will win their party's nomination so they'll just fade into the background again.

If Dr. Paul does lose, he'll still have planted enough seeds for Rand to likely get the nomination in 2016 should he choose to seek it.

Rand will have less of chance because of his total embrace of the Tea Party platform. Something like that might win you an office on a state level election but not on a national level election.

Embracing the Tea Party platform is a bigger negative than embracing PIMPCORN, Soros, Muslims, Socialism, BLT, homegrown American terrorists and... Michelle . Sure.

(08-21-2011 10:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Embracing the Tea Party platform is a bigger negative than embracing PIMPCORN, Soros, Muslims, Socialism, BLT, homegrown American terrorists and... Michelle . Sure.

Most Americans either have little to no knowledge of those subject.

Like you, for example.

I have more knowledge of those subjects than you do about the Tea Party.

(08-21-2011 10:55 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I have more knowledge of those subjects than you do about the Tea Party.

That is a false statement.