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: