• 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
Your Star said:
I'm not a socialist.
Click to expand...

Well let's play a game then:

Well of course you would, because he doesn't believe in your socialist tendencies and welfare state system.

Satisfied... ?

.
 
Herman Cain wants to implement the fairtax. That is an indication to me that he is idealistic, but perhaps hasn't thought some things through. Would I vote for him over Obama? In a heartbeat. However, he is not my first choice in the primary.
 
friday said:
Herman Cain wants to implement the fairtax. That is an indication to me that he is idealistic, but perhaps hasn't thought some things through. Would I vote for him over Obama? In a heartbeat. However, he is not my first choice in the primary.
Click to expand...

You believe the current system is better than the Fairtax?
 
friday said:
Herman Cain wants to implement the fairtax. That is an indication to me that he is idealistic, but perhaps hasn't thought some things through. Would I vote for him over Obama? In a heartbeat. However, he is not my first choice in the primary.
Click to expand...

Fair tax is better than any other tax system purposed thus far. It would be even be better if it was combined with a reverse income tax
 
xpiher said:
Fair tax is better than any other tax system purposed thus far. It would be even be better if it was combined with a reverse income tax
Click to expand...

The fair tax eliminates the income tax. No more IRS.
 
Barbbtx said:
The fair tax eliminates the income tax. No more IRS.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what the reverse income tax is? Also, the IRS would still exist with the fair tax. 1) The IRS would still be in charge of collections and ensuring no one is cheating, 2) the pre-bate would need to be devided out.
 
Every time I see the last name Cain, it makes me think of the Danzig song... lol, and there are a lot of posts with his name in the title right now.
 
xpiher said:
Do you even know what the reverse income tax is? Also, the IRS would still exist with the fair tax. 1) The IRS would still be in charge of collections and ensuring no one is cheating, 2) the pre-bate would need to be devided out.
Click to expand...

Cosidering there will be no taxes except what retailers collect, there won't be a whole lot for them to do.
Why would the pre-bate be divided out? Each family gets a check, per members in household. Monthly I think. You buy stuff. The stuff you buy has a 23% tax on it. As long as you live below the poverty level, you'll not be paying taxes out of your own pocket, but you are still paying taxes as you spend that money. Nothing to keep track of. Never have to file taxes again.
The IRS will not be in charge of collections. The retailers will simply send them in as they do to the state, only it will be to the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
Cosidering there will be no taxes except what retailers collect, there won't be a whole lot for them to do.
Why would the pre-bate be divided out? Each family gets a check, per members in household. Monthly I think. You buy stuff. The stuff you buy has a 23% tax on it. As long as you live below the poverty level, you'll not be paying taxes out of your own pocket, but you are still paying taxes as you spend that money. Nothing to keep track of. Never have to file taxes again.
The IRS will not be in charge of collections. The retailers will simply send them in as they do to the state, only it will be to the federal government.
Click to expand...

I meant to say divvied out/up. An agency that knows how much people make will still need to exist in order to ensure that money goes out to people correctly. Furthermore, funds still have to be collected and sent to congress. The IRS would still exist.

But, as I said, a reverse income tax combined with the fair tax would be better than the prebate. Some may say there isn't a difference, but I think there is, although a subtle one. The prebate is designed to remove the taxes from life necessities, giving money to everyone, where as a reverse income tax is designed to keep people just above the poverty rate and doesn't give money to those who aren't in direct need of it.
 
Barbbtx said:
Thank you. Some people found his answer about Afganistan as a poor answer.
They thought he was uninformed about it.
Click to expand...
My, wouldn't that have been nice of the media to have done that with Obama on Cap Gains, Wright, Ayers, Alinsky, Talks with our enemies without preconditions, his asinine comments about healing the planet and the world changing after he was elected and on and on and on?

Talk about uninformed coupled with being wholly unrealistic, and dangerously narcissistic.

But such imbalance with journOlists is to be expected.

.
Click to expand...
 
friday said:
Herman Cain wants to implement the fairtax. That is an indication to me that he is idealistic, but perhaps hasn't thought some things through. Would I vote for him over Obama? In a heartbeat. However, he is not my first choice in the primary.
Click to expand...

They said similar things of Reagan and his comments about the Soviet Union. This is in our hands... the Soviet Union wasn't... yet his idealism proved correct, and Cain's is spot on too. Progressive taxation isn't American, it's Communist. Cain would be bringing our tax system in line with American values and greatly eliminate an overbearing unAmerican government agency that strikes fear in people like the brown shirts and the late night knock did .

For example:
IRS charges pro golfer Jim Thorpe with failure to pay taxes - Orlando Sentinel

This guy had some bad management and a convoluted system that didn't allow him to manage his finances in a simple, straight forward manner and he ended up paying with his liberty. I was so pissed off when reading this and it still pisses me off to no end. It's not like he pulled a Wesley Snipes.

Of course, you get folks like OC who think the IRS Nazi's need more people and resources. I guess the bean counter wouldn't know what to do if the Tax Nazi's got shut down.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
They said similar things of Reagan and his comments about the Soviet Union. This is in our hands... the Soviet Union wasn't... yet his idealism proved correct,
Click to expand...

You picked a really really bad example. The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly. Reagan had very little to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I believe he was a great president and he handled the slow collapses very well, but he didn't causes it.

BTW, Obama supports fixing the tax code.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly.
Click to expand...

The SU collapsed because it was totalitarian. The three things you list are suffered in every country, today, and don't qualify as key reasons for anything. Those are all symptoms, not causes.

Reagan had very little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Reagan's policies played a significant role. Democracy was a cause, as totalitiarianism was a cause. Let's not confuse source and symptom.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
You picked a really really bad example. The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly. Reagan had very little to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I believe he was a great president and he handled the slow collapses very well, but he didn't causes it.

BTW, Obama supports fixing the tax code.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are too young to know, but even if you were an adult back then I suggest you go back and read the news from that time. They called Reagan "nuts", "a cowboy", "dangerous"... and on and on. They did not see his take on the USSR as realistic, but dangerous. He proved them ll wrong regardless of what take you take on its demise. Reagan foresaw its collapse when nobody else did.

His "ash heap of history" speech before the British Parliament wasn't seen as realistic at the time. Quite the contrary.

Reagan brought Gorby and their Utopia to the brink by escalating an arms race they couldn't win and let Gorby walk over the edge of the cliff.

.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The SU collapsed because it was totalitarian. The three things you list are suffered in every country, today, and don't qualify as key reasons for anything. Those are all symptoms, not causes.
Click to expand...

No, those were causes for the break up of the USSR. Even if the USSR wasn't totalitarian, it still would of collapses because of those "symptoms" Just like Rome. If it was because of totalitarianism, Russia wouldn't hold the place in the world that it currently does.

zimmer said:
Perhaps you are too young to know, but even if you were an adult back then I suggest you go back and read the news from that time. They called Reagan "nuts", "a cowboy", "dangerous"... and on and on. His "ash heap of history" speech before the British Parliament wasn't seen as realistic at the time. Quite the contrary.

Reagan brought Gorby and their Utopia to the brink by escalating an arms race they couldn't win and let Gorby walk over the edge of the cliff.

.
Click to expand...

I didn't live it, but I know exactly what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about how people portrayed him. I was talking about facts. He did not cause the collpase of the USSR. Like I said, he handled the USSR very well .... South America, not so much.
 
xpiher said:
No, those were causes for the break up of the USSR. Even if the USSR wasn't totalitarian, it still would of collapses because of those "symptoms" Just like Rome. If it was because of totalitarianism, Russia wouldn't hold the place in the world that it currently does.



I didn't live it, but I know exactly what you are talking about. I wasn't talking about how people portrayed him. I was talking about facts. He did not cause the collpase of the USSR. Like I said, he handled the USSR very well .... South America, not so much.
Click to expand...

I have added to the above. See bold:

zimmer said:
Perhaps you are too young to know, but even if you were an adult back then I suggest you go back and read the news from that time. They called Reagan "nuts", "a cowboy", "dangerous"... and on and on. They did not see his take on the USSR as realistic, but dangerous. He proved them all wrong regardless of what take you take on its demise. Reagan foresaw its collapse when nobody else did.

His "ash heap of history" speech before the British Parliament wasn't seen as realistic at the time. Quite the contrary.

Reagan brought Gorby and their Utopia to the brink by escalating an arms race they couldn't win and let Gorby walk over the edge of the cliff.

.
Click to expand...
His idealism, though not accepted by many, even in his own Cabinet... proved correct. Taxation is in our control, we only need elect people like Herman Cain who possess the will to educate the pubic and invest political capital carrying this through.

.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
You picked a really really bad example. The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly. Reagan had very little to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I believe he was a great president and he handled the slow collapses very well, but he didn't causes it.

BTW, Obama supports fixing the tax code.
Click to expand...

btw: raising the top rates =/= "fixing the tax code"

and the reason that the Soviet Union had to ramp up military spending was to match Reagan. Detente had been a stabilizing gift to them. Yes, you could argue that eventually-they-would-have-collapsed-anyway; but that is true of any nation or empire, and to suggest that we ignore the actual historical causes in favor of theoretical later ones is nonsensical.
 
xpiher said:
You picked a really really bad example. The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly. Reagan had very little to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I believe he was a great president and he handled the slow collapses very well, but he didn't causes it.

BTW, Obama supports fixing the tax code.
Click to expand...

"corruption, over spending on the military, and trying to control to much of the world directly"- gosh, that has a familiar ring to it. It's almost like there is a nation today trying to do the same thing, and with the same results.
 
cpwill said:
btw: raising the top rates =/= "fixing the tax code"
Click to expand...

You are being willfully ignorant. You come off as too informed to actually believe thats all Obama wants to do.
 
xpiher said:
I meant to say divvied out/up. An agency that knows how much people make will still need to exist in order to ensure that money goes out to people correctly. Furthermore, funds still have to be collected and sent to congress. The IRS would still exist.But, as I said, a reverse income tax combined with the fair tax would be better than the prebate. Some may say there isn't a difference, but I think there is, although a subtle one. The prebate is designed to remove the taxes from life necessities, giving money to everyone, where as a reverse income tax is designed to keep people just above the poverty rate and doesn't give money to those who aren't in direct need of it.
Click to expand...

No, everybody gets the same pre-bate according to how many are in the family. It's not based on how much you make. Why does the government need to know how much people make, when they will only be collecting taxes on what people spend?
A reverse income tax is still an income tax. The fair takes gets rid of it.
Why does it feel like liberals don't really care about the poor, but are more concerned with punishing the wealthy?
( I realize you're not a liberal) just sayin' maybe you haven't thought this through.
 
Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions
Americans For Fair Taxation: Rebuttals
Americans For Fair Taxation: The Basics

Americans For Fair Taxation:
Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions Answers
What is taxed?

The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive.
Click to expand...
Exactly what taxes are abolished?

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes
Click to expand...
.



How does the prebate work?

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below.
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions
Americans For Fair Taxation: Rebuttals
Americans For Fair Taxation: The Basics

Americans For Fair Taxation:
Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions Answers
Click to expand...

As I have shown you before, Snopes research has already determined that under the national sales tax plan called "fair" tax that those making under $200,000 will pay more in taxes and those making over $200,000 will pay less in taxes.

In addition:


MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

"according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."
Money Magazine uncovers flaw in Fair Tax Book - Sep. 7, 2005
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom