If Cain ran against Obama...

Thunder said:

that's a far-cry from selling drugs, jackin' liquor stores, pimpin' ho's, and other racist stereotypes.

Click to expand...

No, not really. I've been referred to as an uncle tom, a racist and a house negro by black members of this forum, just because I'm a Conservative.

I don't see a difference, but I'm in no way surprised that you do.

The whole thrust of this thread disturbs me. It assumes that the majority of Blacks will vote for a Black just because he / she is Black. 88% of Blacks voted Democratic in the 2004 election. 96% voted Democratic in 2008. That could be interpreted to mean only 8% of Blacks voted based on skin color. This would suggest Blacks would vote overwhelming for a Democrat in 2012 regardless of the race of the GOP candidate. Having Cain as the candidate might split the 8%, but nothing more.

apdst said:

I've been referred to as an uncle tom, a racist and a house negro by black members of this forum, just because I'm a Conservative.

Click to expand...

Were you referred to as those things because you didn't deal drugs, rob convenience stores, or collect welfare?

Or was it for being a conservative?

apdst said:

No, not really. I've been referred to as an uncle tom, a racist and a house negro by black members of this forum, just because I'm a Conservative.

I don't see a difference, but I'm in no way surprised that you do.

Click to expand...

apdst - you and I disagree about almost everything on this forum but allow me to express my strong disapproval of anyone who could call you those names. You have a right to be a conservative, even a far right winger if you want to and should not be called those names. Nobody here knows how you conduct yourself in real life. To make that sort of judgment about a person because of their views here is not right.

Tucker Case said:

Were you referred to as those things because you didn't deal drugs, rob convenience stores, or collect welfare?

Or was it for being a conservative?

Click to expand...

Go back and read my posts, then you'll know what I said.

haymarket said:

apdst - you and I disagree about almost everything on this forum but allow me to express my strong disapproval of anyone who could call you those names. You have a right to be a conservative, even a far right winger if you want to and should not be called those names. Nobody here knows how you conduct yourself in real life. To make that sort of judgment about a person because of their views here is not right.

Click to expand...

I appreaciate the sentiment, but those comments don't bother me in the least.

apdst said:

Go back and read my posts, then you'll know what I said.

Click to expand...

I know what you said. But you didn't specifically address the statements that triggered the exchange. thus, I asked for further clarification.

apdst said:

No, not really. I've been referred to as an uncle tom, a racist and a house negro by black members of this forum, just because I'm a Conservative....

Click to expand...

I would like to see evidence of this. thanks.

Thunder said:

forgive me Bob, but that is one damn racist statement you just made.

Click to expand...

I think it is frustration, not racism. Over and over we see a black choose to become a conservative, and those who speak for 'all blacks' like Sharpton or Jackson, put him down. You shouldn't blame the rest of us for getting the impression that blacks are somehow monolithic...... We know indivuduals who don't hold those ideas.....but at the voting booth the numbers say 'monolithic'.

Its hard to understand black Republicans in the same way that it is hard to understand gay Republicans. I certainly support their right to be whatever they choose, however, for the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would belong to a party that more often than not is fundamentally opposed to their well being.

disneydude said:

Its hard to understand black Republicans in the same way that it is hard to understand gay Republicans. I certainly support their right to be whatever they choose, however, for the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would belong to a party that more often than not is fundamentally opposed to their well being.

Click to expand...

you really don't understand how people can have a different perspective on their own well being?... seriously?

Thrilla said:

you really don't understand how people can have a different perspective on their own well being?... seriously?

Click to expand...

Yes...seriously. As a gay person, why would you ever belong to a party that is fundamentally against granting you civil rights? And, if it were possible, would do everything that they could to take away the rights that you have.

Same for blacks....

Why would you belong to a party that is fundamentally against your well being?

disneydude said:

Yes...seriously. As a gay person, why would you ever belong to a party that is fundamentally against granting you civil rights? And, if it were possible, would do everything that they could to take away the rights that you have.

Same for blacks....

Why would you belong to a party that is fundamentally against your well being?

Click to expand...

maybe they believe that being a Democrat is fundamentally against their well being ... and would rather change the system from withing the party they most overall align with.
maybe they want to do what the gay republicans did ( bring an end to DADT) ..without leaving the party that they agree with on a whole host of other issues..

or maybe, just maybe, they don't play identity politics games and focus on other issues besides social issues... maybe they don't feel being black or gay should be an automatic ticket to the Democratic party rolls.

the mainstream party for Conservatives is the GOP... and yes, even blacks and gays can be conservatives.

Thrilla said:

maybe they believe that being a Democrat is fundamentally against their well being ... and would rather change the system from withing the party they most overall align with.
maybe they want to do what the gay republicans did ( bring an end to DADT) ..without leaving the party that they agree with on a whole host of other issues..

or maybe, just maybe, they don't play identity politics games and focus on other issues besides social issues... maybe they don't feel being black or gay should be an automatic ticket to the Democratic party rolls.

the mainstream party for Conservatives is the GOP... and yes, even blacks and gays can be conservatives.

Click to expand...

I guess if being conservative is important enough to you to belong to a party that would love nothing more than to see your rights subjugated and treats you as a second or third class citizen....then I see your point.

disneydude said:

I guess if being conservative is important enough to you to belong to a party that would love nothing more than to see your rights subjugated and treats you as a second or third class citizen....then I see your point.

Click to expand...

i'm pretty decent at hyperbole... but i don't feel like responding to your hyperbole with my own right now... maybe later , after I get a dozen whiskeys in me.

disneydude said:

I guess if being conservative is important enough to you to belong to a party that would love nothing more than to see your rights subjugated and treats you as a second or third class citizen....then I see your point.

Click to expand...

The gay conservatives and Republicans I know don't see it that way. Of course, most of them aren't endlessly fixated on their own sexuality. Being gay is just a fact and a facet of who they are.

A.Pearce said:

No and a little bit, but I think the economy will steal more. Also, I would never vote for Herman Cain. A national Sales tax, really? I'm sure that will stay at only 9% ROFLMAO. As far as I'm concerned he may as well be another neo-con.

Not that I don't like pizza, I love it :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I don't like him as a president but I give him credit for fronting a plan rather than acting like most politicians and waiting for everyone else to front their plans so they can sit back and throw stones at it. He is at least giving people something to discuss. Whether they want to discuss the policies or dismiss them IMO is more telling on them than him.

Thrilla said:

maybe they believe that being a Democrat is fundamentally against their well being ... and would rather change the system from withing the party they most overall align with.
maybe they want to do what the gay republicans did ( bring an end to DADT) ..without leaving the party that they agree with on a whole host of other issues..

or maybe, just maybe, they don't play identity politics games and focus on other issues besides social issues... maybe they don't feel being black or gay should be an automatic ticket to the Democratic party rolls.

the mainstream party for Conservatives is the GOP... and yes, even blacks and gays can be conservatives.

Click to expand...

"Gay conservative", sounds like an oxymoron imo.

Although I know they exist because of that GOProud group.

obvious Child said:

o'rly?

What's stopping congress from turning a 9-9-9 to a 25-25-25 plan? This is actually worse then a VAT as it's a single flat rate that can be easily raised.

Click to expand...

hmm... it strikes me that a flat tax is harder to raise than a VAT; because the VAT is not always immediately visible, and can more easily be raised on specific items and procedures. how do you figure on this statement?

poweRob said:

I don't like him as a president but I give him credit for fronting a plan rather than acting like most politicians and waiting for everyone else to front their plans so they can sit back and throw stones at it. He is at least giving people something to discuss. Whether they want to discuss the policies or dismiss them IMO is more telling on them than him.

Click to expand...

interesting.

do you feel the same way about the House passing the Ryan Budget v the Senates' multi-year refusal to pass one?

Camlon said:

What is stopping congress now from increasing taxes?

Click to expand...

The regular politics. Furthermore, the complexity of the tax code actually is somewhat of a barrier to raising taxes. Special interest groups will get in the way, demanding exemptions that essentially grinds the process to a halt. With Cain's essentially flat tax, there's none of that.

It is much harder to increase taxes when it will affect everyone.

Click to expand...

That may be true, but a that kind of tax is easier to raise as we've seen with European VAT and Eastern European Flat. When all you have to do is change a digit rather than add volumes to the tax code, it's a hell of a lot easier.

Bull****!

Click to expand...

Are you actually denying the concept of marginal propensity to spend/save exists? I know Conservative is that foolish. I didn't expect you to be.

One of America's biggest problems, is its low savings rate.

Click to expand...

That does not invalidate my point about high MPS people expanding consumer demand. Furthermore, I agree with you. However, a reasonable person must recognize that with an economy that's 70% based on consumer spending, hurting those who have higher MPS is not going to help.

Low savings rate means less investments

Click to expand...

Yeah, but those with high MPS generally don't accumulate enough savings to make that a valid point.

which is certainly not good for America's industries. You will reduce spending, but instead you will increase investments. Hence, economic output won't go down.

Click to expand...

That's a big assumption that basically treats everyone the same. See my point above for why your argument isn't valid. Furthermore, investment only increases when there is future foreseeable demand that is greater than the cost of investment. The notion that investment will occur because there is savings flies in the face of the two trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets right now. They've said. They're not investing.

obvious Child said:

The regular politics. Furthermore, the complexity of the tax code actually is somewhat of a barrier to raising taxes. Special interest groups will get in the way, demanding exemptions that essentially grinds the process to a halt. With Cain's essentially flat tax, there's none of that.

Click to expand...

I don't want crony capitalism, and that crony capitalism prevents us from increasing taxes is a terrible argument.

That may be true, but a that kind of tax is easier to raise as we've seen with European VAT and Eastern European Flat. When all you have to do is change a digit rather than add volumes to the tax code, it's a hell of a lot easier.

Click to expand...

Take look at Australia and Switzerland. Governmental spending in Australia is 37.19, and 34.17 in Switzerland. In the US governmental spending is 42.46% of GDP. Both Switzerland and Australia has a VAT, and I can promise you it is difficult to increase the VAT. Much harder than the tax increases Obama has already implemented with his health care plan. Transparency is much more powerful than special interest groups.

Special interests are not preventing Obama from increasing taxes, Republican are.

Are you actually denying the concept of marginal propensity to spend/save exists? I know Conservative is that foolish. I didn't expect you to be.

That does not invalidate my point about high MPS people expanding consumer demand. Furthermore, I agree with you. However, a reasonable person must recognize that with an economy that's 70% based on consumer spending, hurting those who have higher MPS is not going to help.

Yeah, but those with high MPS generally don't accumulate enough savings to make that a valid point.

That's a big assumption that basically treats everyone the same. See my point above for why your argument isn't valid. Furthermore, investment only increases when there is future foreseeable demand that is greater than the cost of investment. The notion that investment will occur because there is savings flies in the face of the two trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets right now. They've said. They're not investing.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not denying that the concept of marginal propensity to spend and save exists. I said your point that a VAT will destroy the economy is bull****.

Two things can happen
1. People won't save enough. Then it won't have very much effect on the economy and will be like an income tax
2. People do save more money, and the saving's rate increases. This could be bad during a recession, when companies are not willing to invest. The easy solution is to let Government invest in the infrastructure before private companies take over.

Camlon said:

I don't want crony capitalism, and that crony capitalism prevents us from increasing taxes is a terrible argument.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is good. Only that it exists. You'd be amazed just how hard GE and Caterpillar fight for their deductions.

Take look at Australia and Switzerland. Governmental spending in Australia is 37.19, and 34.17 in Switzerland. In the US governmental spending is 42.46% of GDP. Both Switzerland and Australia has a VAT, and I can promise you it is difficult to increase the VAT. Much harder than the tax increases Obama has already implemented with his health care plan. Transparency is much more powerful than special interest groups.

Click to expand...

How exactly is a VAT and tax rates indicative of government spending? You can have really low taxes rates (as the US has historically and internationally on individuals) and have high spending as percent of GDP.

Special interests are not preventing Obama from increasing taxes, Republican are.

Click to expand...

At the moment yes, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Obama won't be in office forever, but special interest will always have a hand in a pot.

No, I'm not denying that the concept of marginal propensity to spend and save exists. I said your point that a VAT will destroy the economy is bull****.

Click to expand...

Where did I say a VAT will destroy the economy? I didn't. You made that up. I said that a regressive tax will affect those with high MPS which will affect corporate profits, the stock market and net wealth accruing to the wealthy. That does not mean the economy will "be destroyed" just slowed.

Two things can happen
1. People won't save enough. Then it won't have very much effect on the economy and will be like an income tax

Click to expand...

Possible.

2. People do save more money, and the saving's rate increases. This could be bad during a recession, when companies are not willing to invest. The easy solution is to let Government invest in the infrastructure before private companies take over.

Click to expand...

Actually it's really the only solution. That short of a China like government bank which funds SOEs...which is a horrible idea.

rocket88 said:

And the Right claims not to be conscious of race....

Anybody who says you're a racist for not voting for Obama is an idiot and doesn't deserve to have you give them the time of day. However, comments like this don't make you look "un-racist." To be bluntly honest the whole "People think I'm racist because I didn't vote for Obama" is largely a wingnut fantasy. Some of you guys just love it when the race card is played, and when it isn't, you try to goad somebody into doing so.

Calling him a "half-breed" is racist, because it has nothing to do with his policies or his Presidency. It focuses only on the fact that his parents were of different races. There's plenty of room to criticize his policies and the fact that he's been completely ineffective. None of those things are because his father was black and his mother white.

Click to expand...

Given the deal that is made of the fact that Obama is our first “black” President, and given the idea that there is anything “racist” about not supporting him, I think it is a perfectly fair point to make that as a “half-breed”, he's not really “black”.

I'll take it even farther.

The vast majority of black Americans have had ancestors who have been in this country for centuries, the earliest of them having been brought here as slaves. For much of their history here, they've not been fully accepted into the mainstream culture, and so they formed their own subculture.

Barak Obama has no part in any of that. His mother was a white American, and his father was a Kenyan national. Neither side had anything to do with the black American culture.

By culture, and by heritage, the average black American has much more in common with the average white American than with Barak Obama.

Blacks were excited about Obama being elected President, because he's one of “them”. Except that he's really not.

In the event that Mr. Cain succeeds in getting elected President, then it will be him, and not Barak Obama, who is truly our first “black” President, in any sense that actually ought to mean anything to black Americans in general.