“We know what we need. We know who to blame.”
 

Hank Williams Jr. after his treatment because of his analogy about Boehner and Obama on the Fox & Friends show, which culminated in him fired by the NFL released this song called "Keep the Change".

I like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=cDvBmWOf8m0

He is such an outdated red neck, but the song is catchy.

Thanks Rich,

We need entertainers that tell the truth. I cannot wait until this nightmare called B. Hussein Obama hits the golf links permanently.:blahblahblah:

:cry: His correct title is President Obama. :ho:

I agree, but you will never hear that from the hate-mongering right wingers here.

I know. I'm guessing it because of the way you always say "President Bush" when you spoke of the former president.

Also, a very rare political post from my buddy CaptG :MOJE_whot:

Don't be such a stranger G!!

Yea, like we were so accustomed to hearing "President Bush." Obama will never be my president. He is clueless and the United States is like a ship without a rudder.

I cannot wait until this nightmare, the so called President B. Hussein Obama hits the golf links permanently...
is that better?

Not Listening?
 

I sure wish it was different, but the bunch of seekers and naysayers who had the debate in New Hampshire tonight sure didn't have any ideas that sounded particularly compelling. One guy had a 59-point plan that was sleep-producing even before one got to a couple dozen points. Another guy said he'll tell us his plans later this week. Another kept repeating "9-9-9", a proposal that the people who evaluate such plans say won't even come close to balancing the budget.

They must really think their "base" is really dumb...or not paying attention.

OK, I'm guessing you don't respect Herman Cain. Why else would you derisively refer to him as "another guy". Anyone who wants to discredit Herman Cain's proposal will assume the worst will happen under his plan to devalue it's effectiveness. It's no secret that the mainstream media is not in his corner. (Brother, can you give me a big....."Duhhh!!";.......Amen)

Maybe you can listen to this other guy (I mean Herman Cain, himself) tell you about his plan himself. Maybe he'll inspire you.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/11989...ylist_id=87057

Who are the people you refer to that evaluate such plans? Are they democrats? Socialists? Do they have names so that their neutrality, non-partisan judgement can be validated? Please.....please..... don't come back with your favorite source the New York Times.

Does the Obama administration using its Cloward-Piven strategy to bankrupt America and pave the way for pure socialism and redistribution of wealth through big government, appeal more to your ideology then what you pessimistically "wish was different?"

From Wikipedia: "The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

By the way, Francis Fox Piven is still in the mix. I saw her on prime time news speaking in support of the "Occupy Wall Street" group in all her Marxist glory. Incidentally, Communist Party USA also supports the "occupiers".

Democrats? Socialists? Not Hardly
 

First, maybe we should consider the 9-9-9 plan itself. Cain has explained that he was not the author of the plan alone, but that he had consulted with some of the top economists in the country. But when pressed by Chris Wallace on Fox News, he refused to provide any names, citing the need to "protect their confidentiality".

When Cain was unable to fill in any detail on his plan, Wallace stated that his staff at Fox News had analyzed the plan and that "It looks to us like under your plan, corporations and the wealthy will pay considerably less than they currently do, and lower-income people particularly, the 45 percent, roughly, of Americans who don’t pay income tax now will end up paying a lot more.”

Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform (ATR) has also been somewhat critical of the plan. Ryan Ellis, ATR’s tax policy director, said Cain’s plan to tax more on the consumption side was a positive step. But Ellis also worried that, if a new national sales tax was implemented, Democrats would try to use it to expand the scope of the federal government.

Analysts from Bloomberg Financial News said that, based on 2010 information, 9-9-9 would have brought in close to $2 trillion, compared to the government’s actual collections of $2.2 trillion under the current taxation laws, actually increasing the deficit rather than reducing it.

So many have some serious questions about Cain's plan. Democrats, Socialists, un-named critics? No. There are some of those, for sure. But certainly Fox News, Grover Norquist and Bloomberg Financial can't be counted in that category of critics, even by the most right-leaning supporters of Cain.

As far as the "unnamed critics" who you wanted identified, doesn't the public have the right to know who Cain consulted with to come up with his plan? To have them speak to the economics of how the plan will work? To specify what the underlying assumptions are? So far, the 9-9-9 plan is nothing more than 32 bullet points on Cain's website, most of which are glittering generalities like,

• "Current circumstances call for bolder action",

• "Amidst a backdrop of the economic boom created by the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people...",

• "Pro-growth economic policies equal a strong dollar policy" and,

• "It would make it possible to end the IRS as we know it."

C'mon, if the public supports someone running for POTUS who presents no more detail than this as the foundation for his fiscal policy, we're going to deserve what we get.

Like I said, some of the candidates must think we're not listening. Maybe some of us aren't

At least he is thinking and has a plan. Better then "Hope and Change."

Besides, a President cannot change the way we pay our taxes.

VK, you have made a compelling case against Cain's 9-9-9 plan. You chose in your response to focus and trash but one candidates plan which is not consistent with your initial broadside. The Cain plan was arguably the evening's piñata for the other candidates as well.

Your initial post was critical of all the candidates and plans. What points about Romney's plan didn't you agree with? You said, "One guy had a 59-point plan that was sleep-producing even before one got to a couple dozen points." In fairness to your hit on Romney, the forum itself precluded a point by point explanation and discussion.

Further, you avoided any reference to the Obama administration's plan and my specific reference to the suggestion that Obamanomics are somewhat rooted in the Cloward-Piven strategy. You appear to be deliberately selective about what you respond to? To use your "listening" analogy, perhaps you have engaged "selective listening" to hear only what is consistent with your own biases.

If you don't see any redeeming value from the Republican candidates, does that mean you are a supporter of the current administration's economic policy? Your perspective as a respected and knowledgeable member of the banking community is always appreciated.

Do any of you realize that a 9% national sales tax would make our prices on goods in Florida at 15.5% added on in tax?

For example, if you buy a new car at $27,500, you will be paying $31,760 for that car ($4,260 in sales tax).

As the 9-9-9 proposal presumably reduces the income tax and other taxes significantly. Wouldn't you have to calculate that savings into the equation to determine if you come out ahead, break even or lose. Regardless of the plan, there will be winners and losers. Those whose ox gets gored will protest the loudest.

For certain, I agree with you that there should be considerable skepticism about 9-9-9. I would like to see the numbers contrasted with the budget in some detail. The real projections on how much can be raised need to be factored into the equation. The partisan, intransigent hipshooters who reject plans summarily while unencumbered by an analysis of the details are a big part of stagnation that brought us to our present circumstance. They can't get past their own prejudices, biases and ideologies to paradigm beyond party talking points.

Unlike VK, I did hear some components of each plan that I can support. The repatriotization of overseas capital, the repeal of Obamacare, reducing the deficit, expanding our domestic energy resources, tort reform, closing tax loopholes for the rich, reduced capital gains taxes to help those whose pensions are vested in 401k's and other funds, some reduction in spending and the shrinking of government to name a few I heard. They just haven't been tidily wrapped up and presented into one plan. I don't expect everyone to agree but would welcome contrasting insights, sans blanket rejection of the candidates positions.

Apologies to Richie but, I didn't start the hijack. On that note, a simple disclaimer by ESPN would have sufficed. It would have been classy for them to say he was not speaking for ESPN but ESPN respected his right to say what he felt he had to say. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. In its context, Williams should have been given the benefit.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our country and needs to be fully protected. Having said that, when you are being paid and representing ESPN or any entity you still have the right to say what you want and the entity has the right to terminate your relationship. Simple as that. :boom:

Fair Criticism
 

That's a fair criticism. I think it's time to take a look at Mitt Romney's economic proposals. From what I know, his plan is somewhat more comprehensive than any of the other Republican candidates. I will try to study his proposals and respond here.

No, I have not studied or criticized the plan proposed by the Obama administration. First, it'll never see the light of day in our Congress which is so ideologically-driven that negotiating some middle ground proposal is an almost impossible concept. In fact, I don't even expect the "super committee" of 12 people to reach any sort of agreement. My guess there is that they'll let the automatic spending cuts kick in. And the Bush tax cuts will expire and taxes will increase at roughly the same time. At best a wash for the public.

I don't believe President Obama will be re-elected, at least not with my vote. I further expect that the balance of power in the Congress is not likely to change much, so if he is re-elected, we'll be facing another four years of ideological logjam in Washington. Why bother analyzing the administration's plan?

So I will take a look at Romney's plan. I fully expect that it will be more thoroughly thought-out and presented than those of the other GOP candidates.

Is anybody taking into account the massive economic upswing that will happen under the 999 plan as businesses getting a steady 9% corporate rate will rapidly expand; additionally paying the new 9% consumption tax in doing so, and create many thousands of new jobs in their company and the companies supporting their expansion.

This plan will also make domestic expansion more desirable than foreign expansion; another plus.

This is not a static situation. You cannot just look at the economic leader board and then translate that activity to Cain's plan. The playing field is going to be very dynamic.

P.S. To Buggy: You don't have to buy that car Buggy, and you only pay an income tax of 9%. You will have control over how much additional tax you pay by how much you consume or don't consume. Doesn't sound so bad now, does it.

Change we can believe in.:beer3:

Trite.....tiresome.

Glad you've finally accepted how your posts are taken by others. It's good to look in the mirror, as you've said. I'm proud of your progress :1rotfl:

:cry: Mr. Cain must not have paid attention to what the luxury tax did to our economy 20 years or so ago.
I was in the boating business and that tax devestated us. Many companies went out of business and many people lost their job. The boating industry never fully recovered. :grumpy:

This isn't a luxury tax, G. This is a consumption tax on almost everything in conjunction with you having more money in your pocket because of a 9% income tax. Instead of paying your 30% to the Feds, you pay 9%. Then with all that money left in your pocket, you decide how much more you will send to Uncle Sam by what you do or don't buy. You have the freedom and the power. Can you say Hallelujah brother for me just one time!!

:1rotfl: Yes, looking in the mirror and really confronting your demons is a cleansing experience.:MOJE_whot:

We have neither an income nor sales tax here in NH. I've often been asked which I prefer. My response is "if you put a gun to my head, I'd choose the sales tax".

I look at it this way. When I earn money, I have a choice - spend or save. If I spend, I'm making my contributions. If I save, I'm making capital available for investment. An income tax removes a lot before I get to make that choice and, more importantly, makes it easy to put citizens against each other - very easy to "divide and conquer" with social engineering of the tax code.

Much harder to do that with a flat national tax.

We're in total agreement with this post.

While Cain is an interesting 'flavor of the week' and his 9/9/9 plan is a worthwhile discussion, I cannot conceive of any Congress in 2012 or 2014 seriously considering the complete dismantling of the IRS and instituting a national sales tax. Even if costed out completely and evidently better at deficit reduction, when the rubber hits the road lobbyists will exert far more clout than the new guy in town who has never even held elective office.

Let's talk realistically. The decline of Bachmann, Perry et al. is an indicator that the Republicans realize they can't hitch their wagon to a real conservative. They are obviously moving to the more centrist Romney, and the Christie endorsement sure looks like the tipping point.

We can study Romney's platform all we want but he has already made the most important point very clear. He will follow the Republican line and oppose raising any new revenue from taxes. Today's polls show that while President Obama's approval ratings are hovering around 44%, the regular folks concept of his Jobs Bill brings a 64% approval rating. I see this figure rising in the coming months unless Congress passes significant portions of Obama's action plan; some tangible job creation spending and some tax increases. To some degree, both of these elements will be necessary to blunt the protests of the "99%", whom I think will increasingly become the voice of people demanding Congressional action. Like it or not, I think all of this leads to the reelection of Obama. UNLESS: 1) Congress does nothing to appease the 99% who decide to throw him out with all the Congressional incumbents, or 2) Romney softens his position on raising revenues and promises he can convince Congress to approve his plan, a little bit more conservative version of Obama's.

Obama is done. The only question is who will replace this incompetent January 20, 2013?

Trite....tiresome. :boom:

Explain Please??
 

Richie, how are you going to explain how great that 9% income tax is to the 45-50% of Americans who don't make enough to pay any income tax now under the current tax tables?

In that that group is pretty important in spending on "stuff" to keep the economy going, explain please how half the population having less to spend after paying the new 9% tax is good economic policy?

Oh, you mean the people walking around with $200 dollar phones and cars and watching TV on 50 inch screens? The ones too poor to pay a sales tax? I am tired of the lazy spoiled people in our society that will not sacrifice before the luxuries. They are the entitled ones, not the ones who have contributed for 50 years while doing without.

I don't have all the answers. It just sounds better than we have now.

Nathan Lewis wrote an interesting piece in Forbes where he compares the "Flat Tax", the "Fair Tax" and Cains 9-9-9 plan. It's an interesting read. I especially was intrigued by Hong Kong's Tax Plan (even though the author doesn't think it would raise the required revenue for all our rampant spending)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanle...ns-9-9-9-plan/

I have been reading threads here for years and I am convinced that the people who voted for Obama (Mr. Zero) will vote for him again. You cannot control stupidity.

We all know there is some abuse of welfare funding and we have all heard of the welfare families driving fancy cars and having the high def televisions and iPhones. There are also a lot of very deserving people who have come on hard times that need some form of welfare in order to survive. Recently, a study showed one in four American children went to bed hungry - and that does not mean they had 3 meals that day and were still hungry.

I urge each of you to volunteer a couple of days a month at some project in order to see the people who need our assistance.

You do not need to be a member to read posts. You have been a member since August, but you sound like you have been here many years. I think you are TBUGS. What say you? ( you are the one who brought the subject up)

AND it doesn't mean that their parents aren't driving fancy cars, watching high def TVs and using iPhones either...

It a new playing field here VG. Buggy's been a follower of the forum protocols, and that's all that matters really.

I never really looked before, but you've racked up an amazing number of posts in your short time after registering. Quite impressive.

He's got my vote! :boom:

Richie, thanks for the kind words. You know I appreciate them.

As for me being on the forum for many years, not so. I only moved to The Villages in October, 2009, and did not know anything about TOTV until sometime in early 2011. Wow, VillageGolfer, you really jump on a posting fast. I edited that one within 2 minutes of writing it and changed it to the topic of welfare.

Katz, would you let your children go to bed hungry when you had a fancy car, an iPhone, and a high def TV? Parents sacrifice for their kids for the most part. Sure, there are some terrible parents but it is not the norm.