The 9-9-9 Controversy.

As I say, I am extremely depressed.

If you think that modeling ourselves after communist China is conservatism, then of course I will not appear conservative to you.

Here is your American "conservative" future. Get on your color-coded uniform and line up for your indoctrination. Remember, the CATO institute calls this the freest economy in the world. Remember, this is the ultimate source of Romney's campaign millions, because this is where the goods are made that ultimately enrich Romney's backers. Remember, this is the ultimate result of offshoring and deregulation and corporate freedom:

The depression I get, but overall you are making no sense whatsoever. You are picking little tidbits of info and trying to connect dots that do not connect. What do you mean modeling ourselves after China? How is that paying for Romney’s campaign? China is only taking advtange of our own self inflicted economic wounds, most of which are inflicted by government.

And you think profits are why gas is expensive? Profits equal about 12-16 cents a gallon. Taxes are 3 to 5 times that depending on area. And not being able to drill in this country is probably doubling the cost of the raw material. Government, not profit, is the driver of gas costs.

You are depressed, but angry at the wrong folks.

Don't be fooled into thinking surrendering to Wall Street is conservative or American. We should remember, we fought this battle before. The true conservative position is not surrender to power. This cartoon is an update of a Teddy-Roosevelt era cartoon that attacks Obama for being a tool of Wall Street. I tell you, Romney is not much better.

Who has our backs? Who has our interests? Who is saying that we need a better deal? Answer: nobody. We need a Teddy Roosevelt, we need an Eisenhower, but I don't see anyone like that. I see self-deluded psycophants who think conservatism is a return to serfdom, and the corporate elite is better at running our lives than we are, and selling our government to the highest bidder is a return to what the founding fathers wanted.

And don't give me that "we have opportunity." Yeah, there's opportunity in Red China, too, and there was opportunity in the USSR. Opportunity for a handful to play by the party rules and become part of the fat cat elite themselves. But no opportunity for the vast majority of honest, hardworking men to get decent jobs and raise a families on single-income, like we used to be able to do, by the millions, in the 1940s 1950s 1960s and 1970s. That opportunity no longer exists for the hoi polloi (look it up). We have been losing freedom for the last three decades, not gaining it. The 19th century is not a good role model, neither is Communist China. What we need is a return to Eisenhower republicanism. Or do you really prefer this?

How about the complainers about his 9 9 9 plan, come up with a different one which is better.

I haven't complained publicly, but I think spending should be addressed before tax discussions take place.

My 9-9-9 plan:

1 - Of all government programs, departments, etc., completely eliminate 9% of them a year for 9 consecutive years.

2 - Of the programs, departments, etc., that are left, cut 9% of their annual budget for 9 consecutive years.

3 - of those left, cut their employment/staff by 9% a year for 9 consecutive years.

I like that Cain is putting forth an idea - BUT - how about focusing on cutting government rather than some new creative way to forcibly take money from the people.

>>> I like that Cain is putting forth an idea - BUT - how about focusing on cutting government rather than some new creative way to forcibly take money from the people. >>>

Wow, walk and chew gum at the same time? Cain has a plan for cutting government. It’s a good plan, like some of the others. But that’s a different issue.

And this plan replaces the most “creative way to forcibly take money from people” ever known to man, our current IRS code.

Its a lot easier and more fun to criticize other peoples ideas and a lot safer since you are not subjecting yourself to criticism if you propose your own idea

Cain is very bold in proposing this knowing what would come down on him because of it, while the others skate, and that shows his great integrity.

Nobody but Cain has proposed a concrete plan to address the mess.
We have the Degenerate Islamo Commie from Kenya pushing us into the mud of riot-torn Kenya.
Mitt and Rick and Michelle act like Sarah Palin's children (her comparison last night on Greta).
Herman Cain doesn't say enough positive about his plan.
The stability and the reform will encourage business growth.
This will create jobs and taxpayers.
Add an attitude adjustment for the EPA and booting out the czars and moratoria and voila.
Happy days are here again.
But no, we gotta have a stage full of stooges throwing pies.
Tick tock Romney's a lock--unless--
What would Newt or Herman Cain do to Obama in a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas format.
Pizza meat.
(Meat-a-phorically speaking)

I respectfully submit that you are fundamentally confused.

Government spending is one issue.

How we form our tax code is a totally separate issue.

You insist on mixing them. They are two different issues completely. We should reduce government spending and we should greatly simplify our tax code. YES. But the tax simplification plan is NOT THE GOVT SPENDING PLAN.

>>> The true conservative position is not surrender to power. >>>

wow, you are part Occupy Wall Street and part , um, I have no idea.
The true conservative position is not to surrender to GOVERNMENT POWER. It has nothing to do with free enterprise success and money. Now, to the point that too much of Wall Street is tied to government power, there is a wall street component. But your arguments have been incoherent and tinged with a good measure of class envy and little understanding of how a lot of rich folks got that way.

“China is only taking advtange of our own self inflicted economic wounds, most of which are inflicted by government.”

Government is a tool; it is not a money-hoarding entity. The top 1% have increased their wealth, over the last 30 years, by 20% OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY while everyone else has lost wealth. Sure, they use government, but they use it to enrich themselves. Same as communist Chinese billionaires. They get the government to change the rules like CEOs can now be paid in stock (they couldn’t 30 years ago) to avoid income tax, like off-shoring and out-sourcing got made from a rare practice to a super-profitable and common one, like pensions got eliminated nominally because we were getting our new 401ks to take their place, and high tax brackets were eliminated that removed the cap on high wealth.

Let’s face the truth honestly. I can provide facts and figures references, but you’ve got to know I am speaking the truth. Our nation has changed over the last 30 years. Our top 1% is way, way, way, way richer and more powerful. Our regular people can no longer live in single-earner families, no longer payoff their mortgages in 15 years, no longer can hope to retire at 65, no longer have security, no longer have pensions, and all that means that they have LOST FREEDOM. They didn’t lose their feedom to government, they lost their wealth and security and therefore their freedom to our 1%ers.

Wow, walk and chew gum at the same time? Cain has a plan for cutting government. It’s a good plan, like some of the others. But that’s a different issue.

According to his website, his "plan" for cutting spending is little more than political-speak. No mention of actual details unlike his tax plan.

And this plan replaces the most “creative way to forcibly take money from people” ever known to man, our current IRS code.

I'm not arguing the merits of his 999 plan. I am saying that I believe his priorities are flipped. Our problem is not the tax system, as convoluted as it may be. Our problem is out of control spending.

>>> Government is a tool; it is not a money-hoarding entity. The top 1% have increased their wealth, over the last 30 years, by 20% OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY while everyone else has lost wealth. Sure, they use government, but they use it to enrich themselves. Same as communist Chinese billionaires >>>

I give you an A in fact finding but an F in linear thinking and deductive reasoning. During the 30 years that we have changed, we have seen a massive increase in government and regulations and bureaucratic fifedoms. It is GOVERNMENT, not BUSINESS, that is the problem.

And if you don’t see that, you must be a Huff Po troll or something .

I respectfully submit that you are fundamentally confused.

Government spending is one issue.

How we form our tax code is a totally separate issue.

Agreed in that they are two separate issues. My point is that Cain is focusing much more on the tax issue than the spending issue - And he is wrong in doing so.

Runaway government spending is a FAR bigger problem than the current tax code.

>>> Agreed in that they are two separate issues. My point is that Cain is focusing much more on the tax issue than the spending issue - And he is wrong in doing so. Runaway government spending is a FAR bigger problem than the current tax code. >>

Couple things:
First, your impression of focus may not match reality. Cain has had a spending plan for many months, long before he had 999. He did not engineer the idea that everyone else would be much more interested in 999 than his “10 across the board plus deep dive” spending plan. That’s how it happened. And before deep dive, he was a tea party speaker where his entire focus was on rolling back not only the spending, but also the reach of government into our lives.

Second, the tax code is an evil manipulator, and if you’ve ever owned a business, you would know just how evil it is and how much it dominates the life of a business owner. It is oppressive. So it may be more important than you realize.

But my main point would be don’t assume Cain’s emphasis just because the media focuses on a certain issue. He was about reducing government long before he had 999. And that would be a way to measure his focus.

Our problem is both. I’m going to go out on a long long limb and say that you probably do not now, nor have ever, run a business and hired poeple.

Project much? I have, for years, owned a profitable, medium-sized business that employs several dozen people. Haven't laid off anyone, haven't cut any hours, nor have I cut any benefits since the economy went south - And we continue to make a profit to this day. Not that any of that matters here, but you did raise the issue.

Our problem is most assuredly both. Currently, though, spending is creating the much bigger challenge to long-term sustainability for our society than the tax structure is.

Well, Cain's own website has a link right across the top of the main page for his 999 plan, while his "plan" to cut spending is merely sound-bites further inside the website.

I'd say, based upon that, that it is pretty clear what Cain's main focus is.

I'll let you have the final say.

>> Our problem is most assuredly both. Currently, though, spending is creating the much bigger challenge to long-term sustainability for our society than the tax structure is. >>

The long term sustainability has to do with deficits, of which spending is the main (but not only) culprit. The other culprit is a dying economy which is killing revenues.

I assume you agree that the problem with government spending is that we are running up huge deficits.

Now as a business owner, I would have thought that you would have intuitively known that the only way to reduce such a deficit is by both cutting spending and by increasing revenue. We’ll NEVER get their by cuts alone. We just can’t. The hole is too big.

As a conservative, the only way to increase revenue is to grow the economy. The main goal of 999 is to grow the economy. Thus it is a deficit attacking idea just as his “10% across the board plus deep dive” plan is a deficit attacking plan.

Thus I was not projecting, but merely extrapolating that your reasoning and emphasis was not the standard reasoning and emphasis of a small business owner.

>>> Well, Cain’s own website has a link right across the top of the main page for his 999 plan, while his “plan” to cut spending is merely sound-bites further inside the website. I’d say, based upon that, that it is pretty clear what Cain’s main focus is. I’ll let you have the final say.>>>

999 is the focus now because that’s what everybody is interested in now - it’s the new toy - the new topic. But Herman Cain, nor any candidate, is defined by what has happened in the last 21 days. The entire history of Cain is about reducing the size, scope and reach of the Federal Government.

A sports analogy: Joe Montana finished his career with the Kansas City Chiefs.....and while he was with the Chiefs...he talked about the Chiefs. But are you telling me that Montana is not more about the 49ers over all? That would be absurd.

” As a conservative, the only way to increase revenue is to grow the economy. The main goal of 999 is to grow the economy. Thus it is a deficit attacking idea just as his “10% across the board plus deep dive” plan is a deficit attacking plan.”

Correct on both counts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.