• 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
Centrist77 said:
Smart how?
entertainment and self promoting wise? I agree

President wise absolutley not and I gurantee they never make it and they arent postive to anybody objective. They are both part of the problem with politics and not the solutions. lol
Click to expand...

Smart as in being successful in the business and legal world

A study showed they finished #1 and #2 in positive intensity levels among the candidates
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Smart as in being successful in the business and legal world

A study showed they finished #1 and #2 in positive intensity levels among the candidates
Click to expand...

A poll? it must be true then, Im sure they did to partasin people. I dont know anybody objective that thinks they have a shot, are our future or arent part of the problem. A shock jock and and walking talking point. :)

I have a bet with Barbtx would you like to bet too?
Cain/palin will never be president/vice president if they do you can pick my sig lin for a month or my avatar for a year and vice versa.

You game?
 
Centrist77 said:
LOL glad you liked it looks like in the near future your gonna own her avatar and ill own her sig :D
Click to expand...

Yea, I imagine I'll be pretty miserable for a year and be lookin' like a fool with liberal stuff when I post. NOT! You two are going to lose and you'll be sporting some Herman Cain, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh stuff. :)
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course it was, yet there do seem to be people who believe that Obama really is a socialist out to destroy the country, and that they must unseat him, regardless of who the next POTUS may be.

But, people who hold such a belief would vote Republican if "their" party ran Charlie Manson. So, the task is to either convince rational voters that Obama is what they say he is, or else come up with an electable candidate.

So far, the electable candidate project hasn't gotten off of the ground.

But, then, neither has the convincing rational voters that Obama is a socialist out to destroy the country project.
Click to expand...

How easy or difficult it is to beat Obama, will depend on the economy. What will the unemployment numbers be, will gas be $5 or $3.

Personally I think Cain can beat him no matter what the economy looks like. Not too sure about some of the other ones running.
 
Barbbtx said:
Yea, I imagine I'll be pretty miserable for a year and be lookin' like a fool with liberal stuff when I post. NOT! You two are going to lose and you'll be sporting some Herman Cain, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh stuff. :)
Click to expand...


Hey my sig line for you isnt going to be anything liberal lol
also I told you I already support Beck, Rush, Hannity, and others for what they are ENTERTAINMENT

if you want to get me youll have to make my sig say something like those guys dont lie and only tell the truth or that palin is very smart, articulate and the type of person we need in charge LMAO

any of those lies would be good to make me say.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Remember all the outcry of political experience coming from the right on Obama. I have a question where is this man "political experience"?
Click to expand...

Cain has an awesome resume and some things you could say involved politics.
He skewered Bill Clinton in 1994 that opened doors to him. his resume is massive compared to anyone elses including Obama and hard to get into all of it here.
Also he was elected Chairman of the federal reserve which Ron Paulettes try to smear him with. It's actually a plus.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Herman Cain and the Fed

At a recent Spectator press event I had the opportunity to ask Cain about his views on the Federal Reserve. His view is that the Fed's current dual mandate is overbroad, and that it should not be tasked with promoting maximum employment. He argued that the only role of the Fed should be to stabilize the price level, and suggested that as president he would try to end the dual mandate.

While keeping inflation expectations stable doesn't necessarily entail a specific Fed stance (for instance, during a downturn it would be necessary for the Fed to engage in very loose monetary policy to avoid deflation), Cain made it clear that he favored tighter money for the current economy. In other venues, he's expressed approval of some kind of gold standard or other asset backing for U.S. currency. And he's not impressed by current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's management of the crisis and weak recovery -- he said flatly that he wouldn't reappoint Bernanke in 2014 if he were president. Cain declined to suggest who he would replace Bernanke with, however. Although he had a few candidates in mind, he chuckled that he wouldn't want to invade their privacy just yet.
Click to expand...
 
Centrist77 said:
Hey my sig line for you isnt going to be anything liberal lol
also I told you I already support Beck, Rush, Hannity, and others for what they are ENTERTAINMENT

if you want to get me youll have to make my sig say something like those guys dont lie and only tell the truth or that palin is very smart, articulate and the type of person we need in charge LMAO

any of those lies would be good to make me say.
Click to expand...

Well that's what I was thinking. Something like how much you admire them and agree with them. Or how sexy you think Rush is. :)
 
Barbbtx said:
Well that's what I was thinking. Something like how much you admire them and agree with them. Or how sexy you think Rush is. :)
Click to expand...

LMAO
Rush is sexy is halarious, I might do that anyway lol
 
Barbbtx said:
How easy or difficult it is to beat Obama, will depend on the economy. What will the unemployment numbers be, will gas be $5 or $3.
Click to expand...
That will have a lot to do with the outcome of the next election, no doubt. People do seem to believe that the POTUS somehow controls the economy and the cost of gas.

Can Cain beat Obama? Depends on what you've just mentioned, as well as how the campaign goes. Right now, Cain lacks name recognition, but that could be fixed.

What has he said as a pundit that is going to be dug up to haunt him during the campaign?
 
I have yet to hear Hermain Cain say anything that wasn't simply reiteration of the common republican talking points that litter Fox News 24/7. He is a mouthpiece for the controlling factions of the republican party, and those people are militaristic, dangerously nationalistic, pro-businessmen (not business, but businessmen), full if religious intolerance, and basically indifferent to the needs of 90% of the population.

These are the same guys who crafted the Bush agenda, who turned the republican party into the party of "no", only now they have some tea party rhetoric (which they do not intend to honor) added to the mix.

If you support Herman Cain, you're really supporting those guys. And those guys are the bad guys.
 
Centrist77 said:
A poll? it must be true then, Im sure they did to partasin people. I dont know anybody objective that thinks they have a shot, are our future or arent part of the problem. A shock jock and and walking talking point. :)

I have a bet with Barbtx would you like to bet too?
Cain/palin will never be president/vice president if they do you can pick my sig lin for a month or my avatar for a year and vice versa.

You game?
Click to expand...

A study, not sure how it was taken. Indeed they were partisan, as it was a ranking of the GOP presidential field.

No, the field is wide open and betting is unwise.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A study, not sure how it was taken. Indeed they were partisan, as it was a ranking of the GOP presidential field.

No, the field is wide open and betting is unwise.
Click to expand...

SO no bet huh.
How about this, what if the field gets less wide, I dont think he/she will but if Cain/Palin gets the bid will you take the bet then? :D
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Raising taxes significantly wouldn't do much to bring down the deficit.

I think it would be better to spur economic growth(and job creation) by lowering the tax rate.
Click to expand...


So by having less money coming in (from higher taxes) thereby we're going to have more money coming in. That's makes a lot of sense doesn't it ? Pheeeeeeeeeww !!!! (high-pitched whistle).

If you want more money in the treasury you bring more money in, not less. Lowering the tax rate will only cause the treasury to be even smaller, and the deficit even worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40888787/ns/business-tax_tactics/
 
Last edited:
Scanner said:
So by having less money coming in (from higher taxes) thereby we're going to have more money coming in. That's makes a lot of sense doesn't it ? Pheeeeeeeeeww !!!! (high-pitched whistle).

If you want more money in the treasury you bring more money in, not less. Lowering the tax rate will only cause the treasury to be even smaller, and the deficit even worse.

Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budget - Business - Personal finance - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

That theory works only on paper and isn't the product of deep thinking. More money comes in because the economy is allowed to expand, with more money being made, and therefore more revenue.

There are other advantages to lower taxes as well, but it is true that they actually bring in more revenue over the long haul.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Click to expand...


OMG! Kennedy was a Republican after all.

So, the top tax rates in 1963 were... what again? Kennedy was right, they were pretty high. They are how much now?

It's much like setting the price in a retail business. Set them too high, and you lose customers. Set them too low, and your profit margin isn't high enough to pay the bills. Rather than go on about how cutting taxes raises revenues, perhaps a better idea would be to try to determine just what the optimal rate might be.

That is not what all retail businesses do, of course. Only the successful ones do that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OMG! Kennedy was a Republican after all.

So, the top tax rates in 1963 were... what again? Kennedy was right, they were pretty high. They are how much now?

It's much like setting the price in a retail business. Set them too high, and you lose customers. Set them too low, and your profit margin isn't high enough to pay the bills. Rather than go on about how cutting taxes raises revenues, perhaps a better idea would be to try to determine just what the optimal rate might be.

That is not what all retail businesses do, of course. Only the successful ones do that.
Click to expand...

They are much lower now. There are also many less loopholes. Back then we didn't have the global market we had today, we were simply more advanced, not to mention much of the world had to recover from WW2 while we came out pretty much on top.

You are using the wrong business model comparison. Lower taxes allow businesses to grow and compete in a global market. As business grows, more jobs are provided, and more stock values rise. Obviously you can't eliminate taxes, but everyone is better off if you are getting revenue from quantity, not rates.

Take Ireland for example, they lowered taxes and had so much economic growth some EU officials asked them to raise the rates so they wouldn't get too far ahead of the neighboring countries.

Optimal rates change, and right now it would be better if that unknown rate was lowered.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot 88 said:
Optimal rates change, and right now it would be better if that unknown rate was lowered.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Right now, the government is struggling with a huge deficit, and not doing so well with it. On the one side we have "tax the rich", on the other "lower taxes and improve the economy." How do we know that the tax rate is either too high or too low to bring in the revenue needed to close the gap? Overall federal taxes are lower now than they have been in some time.

I think we can all agree that putting people back to work is the solution to the economic problems, but how best to do it?

One thing that would no doubt help: Get the burden of health care off of the employers. That would no doubt save them more money than any practical tax cut would do.
 
:) and what was revenue when Kennedy made that speech? Revenue is what we are after, after all.



hauser.gif





Revenues aren't a function of Rates. They are a function of GDP. You want to increase revenue, you gotta increase GDP.
 
cpwill said:
:) and what was revenue when Kennedy made that speech? Revenue is what we are after, after all.



hauser.gif





Revenues aren't a function of Rates. They are a function of GDP. You want to increase revenue, you gotta increase GDP.
Click to expand...

That graph backs up your opinion nicely. Now, do you increase GDP by decreasing taxes? Or is there some other course of action that is needed.
Right now, increasing the GDP and decreasing the deficit should be priority 1 and 2, not necessarily in that order.
 
cpwill said:
:) and what was revenue when Kennedy made that speech? Revenue is what we are after, after all.

hauser.gif





Revenues aren't a function of Rates. They are a function of GDP. You want to increase revenue, you gotta increase GDP.
Click to expand...

Revenue is all what we are after, sadly some just want to punish the rich because they are have more money than they do.
 
Dittohead not! said:
How do you know? Right now, the government is struggling with a huge deficit, and not doing so well with it. On the one side we have "tax the rich", on the other "lower taxes and improve the economy." How do we know that the tax rate is either too high or too low to bring in the revenue needed to close the gap? Overall federal taxes are lower now than they have been in some time.

I think we can all agree that putting people back to work is the solution to the economic problems, but how best to do it?

One thing that would no doubt help: Get the burden of health care off of the employers. That would no doubt save them more money than any practical tax cut would do.
Click to expand...

Well, as shown by Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy, lowering taxes raises revenues. Taxing the rich does supply a short burst of revenue, I will admit, but is damaging and less effective in the long haul.

First, we need incentives and penalties to stop outsourcing. Secondly, we need to solve the undocumented worker situation. Thirdly, we need welfare reform so we are not making it easy to not work, rather than the intended purpose of helping those that need assistance. These things combined with effective pro-business policy will create jobs.
 
Nope, unless I missed it he has no interested in nuking the Patriot Act or chaning our foreign policy. He's also a social conservative (supports government thugs interfering in your personal life) and a religious conservative. I rather be lynched by David Duke than vote for that statist.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Well, as shown by Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy, lowering taxes raises revenues. Taxing the rich does supply a short burst of revenue, I will admit, but is damaging and less effective in the long haul.

First, we need incentives and penalties to stop outsourcing. Secondly, we need to solve the undocumented worker situation. Thirdly, we need welfare reform so we are not making it easy to not work, rather than the intended purpose of helping those that need assistance. These things combined with effective pro-business policy will create jobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what we need. However:

Incentives and penalties to stop outsourcing? What! Are you anti free trade? What a bunch of liberal hooey that is!

Stop undocumented workers.. um.. sure.. we're willing to do that (Washington pols speaking) just as soon as you can replace all that lovely money we get from the lobbyists who like the cheap labor.

Welfare reform: Sure, every Washington poll will be glad to mouth platitudes about that, along with calling for immigration reform and building an expensive and unworkable border fence.

In short, we need to reform Washington.
 
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom