• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Herman Cain for president?

Would you vote for Herman Cain for president?


  • Total voters
    88
that people who have no jobs have no disposable income. and that when you increase the cost of labor, all that you do is lower the demand for labor, meaning that there are fewer jobs and more people get fired.

price floors always produce scarcity.

No, there would be MORE jobs because of the increase in sales, and thereby, increased income with more money to hire more workers, and the whole thing spirals upward.
 
No, there would be MORE jobs because of the increase in sales, and thereby, increased income with more money to hire more workers, and the whole thing spirals upward.

Did you read my post about Bolivia?

That was real, BTW.

Now, once the dollar declines to the value of the Boliviano, then that $20 minimum wage will be affordable.
 
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but in the RCP average of the last three polls, Cain has moved from 2% (low) to 10% (high of 12%) putting him within the margin of error with Palin, Romney, Paul and Pawlenty.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

I'm beginning to think we may have a Pawlenty/Cain ticket....but that's just a wild guess at this point.
 
No, there would be MORE jobs because of the increase in sales, and thereby, increased income with more money to hire more workers, and the whole thing spirals upward.

scanner as soon as your costs of employment go up, your prices go up, which means there won't be any extra sales. quite the opposite in fact; since demand is a function of supply, you will see less sales and the thing spirals downward


Just As It Has Done Every Time This Hair Brained Idea Has Been Tried Before



no such thing as a free lunch, my friend.
 
Revenue is all what we are after, sadly some just want to punish the rich because they are have more money than they do.

When almost half the people pay no income tax, perhaps they should be the ones tapped too. Raise all taxes the same percent across the board.

I don't really think any taxes should be raised, but if they are, lets be fair about it.
 
No, they would have been employed at higher wages, making it possible for them to go to the stores and buy things, stimulating the economy. Also, not only would they have been able to buy things, but so would the many more people who would have been employed, as a result of the added income to the businesses from increased sales, creating increased hiring, and more employment.

The stores selling the stuff would have to raise prices because of the minimum wage too. What's the use of having more money if everything is going to cost more?
 
For the enjoyment of any Cainiacs.

 
would you vote for Herman Cain if he made it to the presidential election?

Absolutely.

If Ron Paul doesn't make it, Herman Cain is my next choice.

If Ron Paul does win, Herman cain should be his running mate.

THEN our country will be on the road to RECOVERY!!!!!!!
 
Absolutely.

If Ron Paul doesn't make it, Herman Cain is my next choice.

If Ron Paul does win, Herman cain should be his running mate.

THEN our country will be on the road to RECOVERY!!!!!!!

You mean on the road back to the "50's"!
 
Absolutely.

If Ron Paul doesn't make it, Herman Cain is my next choice.

If Ron Paul does win, Herman cain should be his running mate.

THEN our country will be on the road to RECOVERY!!!!!!!

With no changes in Congress at all? How much power do you attribute to the presidency, anyway?
 
Cain is a well-meaning, seemingly honorable old guy. Nonetheless, he's a side-show. I congratulate him, however, for having gained so much notoriety, so fast.
 
Cain is a well-meaning, seemingly honorable old guy. Nonetheless, he's a side-show. I congratulate him, however, for having gained so much notoriety, so fast.

I don't think that's entirely true, there is still a lot of time to go and many many debates.
 
Racist, bigoted piece of garbage. And no, I don't care that he's black. Anyone who says that a certain race of people need to prove their loyalty to him is a bigot.
 
I really don't know enough about him yet. All I know is he was a business man so I will need to know a lot more from him. He has no political experience as a GOV. or SEN.
 
In the '50s, the US was able to build the interstate highway system and help to rebuild both our allies and former enemies, while paying down the wartime debt.

So, what's wrong with the '50s again?

In the '60s, the US landed a man on the moon and fought the most divisive war since the civil war, passed civil rights, and remained the world's foremost creditor nation.

Other than said war, the '60s weren't so bad, either.

The '70s saw economic turmoil caused by OPEC, and gas prices that went up by a factor of 6 or so. Still, we didn't incur a huge debt, and remained a creditor nation.

So, what was so bad about that?

It seems to me that the downhill plunge of this nation started about 30 years ago, and has been accelerating since. Maybe I'm just old and cynical, but it looks to me as if things are getting worse.
 
In the '50s, the US was able to build the interstate highway system and help to rebuild both our allies and former enemies, while paying down the wartime debt.

So, what's wrong with the '50s again?

In the '60s, the US landed a man on the moon and fought the most divisive war since the civil war, passed civil rights, and remained the world's foremost creditor nation.

Other than said war, the '60s weren't so bad, either.

The '70s saw economic turmoil caused by OPEC, and gas prices that went up by a factor of 6 or so. Still, we didn't incur a huge debt, and remained a creditor nation.

So, what was so bad about that?

It seems to me that the downhill plunge of this nation started about 30 years ago, and has been accelerating since. Maybe I'm just old and cynical, but it looks to me as if things are getting worse.


Gee, and 30 years ago we had, er, let's see, Reagan for President. Things got better under Clinton, but then we had Bush for 8 years - that really was a long time for anything good to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom