CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow interviewed Rich Lowrie, Herman Cain's principal financial advisor, about the 9-9-9 plan which he devised. Lowrie, a retail financial advisor in a suburban Cleveland branch of Wells Fargo made some pretty impressive--although totally unsupported--statements about the effects of the plan. He said that "low income Americans would get a 10% increase in their incomes". In another part of the interview he stated that "GDP would increase by 14% per year", and "the unemployment rate would drop by 3%".

Although Kudlow tried to get some details on how these results would occur, Lowrie couldn't provide any.

Addressing just one of Lowrie's claims--GDP growth--there has been only one year in history that the U.S. GDP grew by more than 10% and that was only by 10.1%. Lowrie's claim for 14% growth would be dramatically higher than any year in recorded U.S. economic history. And in that the most recent projections of economic growth show an almost stagnant 1 to 1-1/2% projection, Lowrie's claim for 14% growth is, in a word, unbelievable.

Lowrie's projection that lower income workers would enjoy a 10% increase in their income flies in the face of the report released earlier this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the real income of U.S. workers has actually declined by 7% in the last four years and that it would take until 2021 for their real income just to climb back to 2007 levels.

I don't know how much Lowrie really knows about economics, but he seems to be mastering the often-used political ploy that if you keep saying something often enough, people will begin to believe it. After another political observer watched a re-run of the interview on his program this morning all he could do is laugh, shake his head and comment, "...this guy is just making it up".

I don't think it'll be too long before we all find out the truth about the possible effects of the 9-9-9 plan, without even considering the fact that not one politician or political observer believes that 9-9-9 could ever be passed into law. Then we can get on with more realistic and serious options for addressing the U.S. fiscal crisis.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow interviewed Rich Lowrie, Herman Cain's principal financial advisor, about the 9-9-9 plan which he devised. Lowrie, a retail financial advisor in a suburban Cleveland branch of Wells Fargo made some pretty impressive--although totally unsupported--statements about the effects of the plan. He said that "low income Americans would get a 10% increase in their incomes". In another part of the interview he stated that "GDP would increase by 14% per year", and "the unemployment rate would drop by 3%".

Although Kudlow tried to get some details on how these results would occur, Lowrie couldn't provide any.

Addressing just one of Lowrie's claims--GDP growth--there has been only one year in history that the U.S. GDP grew by more than 10% and that was only by 10.1%. Lowrie's claim for 14% growth would be dramatically higher than any year in recorded U.S. economic history. And in that the most recent projections of economic growth show an almost stagnant 1 to 1-1/2% projection, Lowrie's claim for 14% growth is, in a word, unbelievable.

Lowrie's projection that lower income workers would enjoy a 10% increase in their income flies in the face of the report released earlier this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the real income of U.S. workers has actually declined by 7% in the last four years and that it would take until 2021 for their real income just to climb back to 2007 levels.

I don't know how much Lowrie really knows about economics, but he seems to be mastering the often-used political ploy that if you keep saying something often enough, people will begin to believe it. After another political observer watched a re-run of the interview on his program this morning all he could do is laugh, shake his head and comment, "...this guy is just making it up".

I don't think it'll be too long before we all find out the truth about the possible effects of the 9-9-9 plan, without even considering the fact that not one politician or political observer believes that 9-9-9 could ever be passed into law. Then we can get on with more realistic and serious options for addressing the U.S. fiscal crisis.

CNBC ? Of course he would be shaking his head, that channel has been carrying Obama's water since 2008.

Lowrie also said he doesn't have an advanced degree in Economics but doesn't need one. His predictions compromise that statement. although he claims that he has been getting advice from Arthur Laffer...

Retirees are not going to do well ith the 9-9-9- plan because it will amount to double taxation given the national consumption tax and on top of that a state sales tax. Since wages are the basis for taxes, it will create a desire for people to to attempt to claim some wages are really expenses. A manufacturer would get a better break than a service related company because the former has such things as raw materials to expense while the latter expense is primarily wages. I only point this out because while 9-9-9 fits in a neat little package for the debate while on the campaign trail it is going to be a nightmare to sort out in reality

Lowrie ..... Lowrie ......... isn't he an employee of the Koch Bros. and whose job it used to be was to put signs on the front door of black resident's of Ohio's telling them they were ineligible to vote?

Originally Posted by coralway

Lowrie ..... Lowrie ......... isn't he an employee of the Koch Bros. and whose job it used to be was to put signs on the front door of black resident's of Ohio's telling them they were ineligible to vote?

Yea, and he has clean white sheets in his closet.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow interviewed Rich Lowrie, Herman Cain's principal financial advisor, about the 9-9-9 plan which he devised. Lowrie, a retail financial advisor in a suburban Cleveland branch of Wells Fargo......

I don't think it'll be too long before we all find out the truth about the possible effects of the 9-9-9 plan, without even considering the fact that not one politician or political observer believes that 9-9-9 could ever be passed into law. Then we can get on with more realistic and serious options for addressing the U.S. fiscal crisis.

I have been waiting for discussion of the fact that Cain's 9-9-9 Plan is Phase I of 2 phases for replacing the current disaster of a tax system. So far, nobody that I have seen has discussed that 9-9-9 is Phase I to bring immediate remedy to the current economic crisis, and then Phase II Cain would promote is the Fair Tax.

His web page on 9-9-9 leading to Fair Tax is here. Far more people than Lowry have been studying, refining and promoting the Fair Tax a lot longer than the 999 phase Cain promotes to pave the way to it.

"Phase 2 – The Fair Tax

Amidst a backdrop of the economic boom created by the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people on the benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax would ultimately replace individual and corporate income taxes.
It would make it possible to end the IRS as we know it.

The Fair Tax makes our exported goods and services the most competitively internationally than any other tax system."

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Cain explains Fair Tax in the May debate, here:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9fesMAvwA[/ame]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Lowrie also said he doesn't have an advanced degree in Economics but doesn't need one. His predictions compromise that statement. although he claims that he has been getting advice from Arthur Laffer...

Retirees are not going to do well ith the 9-9-9- plan because it will amount to double taxation given the national consumption tax and on top of that a state sales tax. Since wages are the basis for taxes, it will create a desire for people to to attempt to claim some wages are really expenses. A manufacturer would get a better break than a service related company because the former has such things as raw materials to expense while the latter expense is primarily wages. I only point this out because while 9-9-9 fits in a neat little package for the debate while on the campaign trail it is going to be a nightmare to sort out in reality

How old is too old to pay taxes? I've always thought that 80 year old people should be let off the hook! Someone needs to add an old age exemption, even to the current system of taxation.