Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Rush Limbaugh sleeps while Herman Cain attacks free market and federalism
10-23-2011 | JOHN W K

Posted on 10/23/2011 4:57:25 PM PDT by JOHN W K

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last

121 posted on 10/23/2011 7:13:42 PM PDT by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


so how does the CURRENT tax code comply?

At least Cain’s 9-9-9 plan gets rid of 1,000+ pages of corrupt tax code

122 posted on 10/23/2011 7:24:08 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
And keeps alive the tax which created the 1,000+ pages of corrupt tax code you mention.


123 posted on 10/23/2011 7:36:27 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Many years ago Cain was a flat tax proponent - then he moved to the Fair Tax, which is all consumption tax (no corporate or income tax). He has been an advocate for the Fair Tax almost from the beginning.

When Cain started his run for President this year - he started on the Fair Tax platform. He began to talk to economists about the state of our country and realized things were in worse shape than he expected, so he came up with an “intermediary” plan, which is the 999. It is a “hybrid” of the Flat tax and Fair tax.

The plan is to create an economic boom (Paul Ryan confirmed the other day, yes it would create an economic surge), bring flat and fair taxers together, and give Cain and Congress an opportunity to cut spending. During this time, Cain hopes to educate people on the Fair Tax, which is phase II of his 999 plan.

124 posted on 10/23/2011 8:10:30 PM PDT by justsaynomore (Cain 2012 -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: justsaynomore

125 posted on 10/23/2011 8:20:48 PM PDT by justsaynomore (Cain 2012 -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

That’s because they are anxious to make it seem like Cain is favoring blacks with the empowerment zones.

126 posted on 10/23/2011 8:30:41 PM PDT by Politicalmom (I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal. -Rick Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Very well said and hits the nail on the head.!!!!!

127 posted on 10/23/2011 8:39:57 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Your wrote:

That’s because they are anxious to make it seem like Cain is favoring blacks with the empowerment zones.

I guess you missed what I wrote:

And why is it that none of the above “conservative” media personalities are concerned that a power to “designate” geographical areas within each of the various united States to be an “opportunity zone” invites political partisanship of the most dangerous kind in that a democrat president, as exhibited by the Obama Administration, will use such power to reward friends and punish political enemies? I thought Rush Limbaugh was the fountain of all political knowledge and would see through this Washington Establishment’s cooked up scheme to enlarge its blackmailing powers over the States [e.g., federal highway funds and the Establishment’s No Child Left Behind Act] and further enslave the defenders of a free market system. And these complaints do not even take into account how Herman Cain’s proposal feeds the class warfare game which our folks in Washington have learned to play to perfection with their good-cop bad-cop routine which is engaged in by the leadership of both political parties, and done so in concert!

Why are you bringing up the race card which is nothing more than a distraction from the evil which "opportunity zones" would bring?


128 posted on 10/23/2011 10:05:23 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


I didn’t miss what you wrote. I didn’t bother reading what you wrote, since you started this thread with a pile of garbage.

129 posted on 10/23/2011 10:13:02 PM PDT by Politicalmom (I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal. -Rick Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Regardless of an FReeper's individual preference for the GOP nominee, no one in the race is explicitly (other than R Paul) focusing on elimination of federal spending programs, agencies, waste, etc. All we hear is the 'best ideas' of how to increase revenues by changing the tax code.

For that matter, little is being offered about lobby reform and the MSM does not want to hone in on how legislation is being fabricated these days and lop-sided federal wages when compared to the private matter who wins (other than Zeewoe), not much will change for the good.

The federal debt is crippling potential economic growth and goobermint function.

130 posted on 10/24/2011 2:57:27 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


I agree any sort of federal sales tax is a bad move, insofar as it green-lights the ability of the Feds to monitor every transaction, adjust the tax on all kinds of factors (individual financial & health history, exact product type), and extort ever more money out of pockets in lieu of reducing spending.

The way the lead article presents this view, however, is rather deranged.

131 posted on 10/24/2011 3:30:27 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Really? The truth is garbage?


132 posted on 10/24/2011 4:12:10 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: RSmithOpt
If you are saying we need to focus on cutting spending, I agree and the following quote tells us why!

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." Author(s) unknown

Not only does Herman Cain want to keep alive the manipulative income tax, but he wants to enlarge the manipulation with a tax which touches the sale of every new manufactured product sold, a “national sales tax“, which in itself would violate another provision of our Constitution aside from Article 1, Section, 9 Clause 6. The violation being, that any general tax laid among the States was intended by our founders to be laid by the rule of apportionment which prevents a deadly evil of “democracy“.

Our founders understood a suicidal evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population is free to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. And to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States, but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s fair share of a total sum being raised, and prevents the class warfare game. The formula being:

State`s Pop
U.S. pop.

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves and explain the rule of apportionment!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Herman Cain’s national sales tax perpetuates the very evil of “democracy” which our founding fathers provided protection against with the rule of apportionment, and it allows the Congressional Delegations of large populated States like pinko California to recklessly spend from the federal treasury without having to bring home the bill and hand it to their State’s Legislature and Governor who would then have to deplete the State’s Treasury to pay for the pork their Congressional Delegation bought while in Washington.

Unfortunately the rule of apportionment has been perverted by our government school teachers who teach our nation’s children that our Constitution, under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, Blacks were made 3/5th of a person.

And who among our “conservative” talk show hosts will explain our founding father’s true intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted?

Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any talk show host ever summarize our founder’s intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to taxation?

If Herman Cain were sincere about offering a “bold plan” designed to control the irresponsible spending of Congress and one that would remove Congress’s manipulative hand from our once free market system, he would be promoting the 32 word plan which would re-establish our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money



133 posted on 10/24/2011 4:54:26 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson