9-9-9

9-9-9 doesnt add up herman . .

lefty

From a real expert:

The Godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer, has given Herman Cain​'s signature "9-9-9" economic plan a critical boost, even as it has come under heavy fire from his GOP presidential competitors

The famed economist told HUMAN EVENTS that the proposal was pro-growth and would create the proper conditions for America's economy to expand and thrive again.

"Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy," Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. "The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates."

Added Laffer: "Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."

Laffer also said that "such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment."


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46828

supply side economics is what got us into this mess

supply side doesnt work, doesnt trickle down

so we will let the richest of the rich pay 9% of their income in taxes . . wow great deal for the rich, hmm surprise surprise

why a regressive tax, where the poorest pay the largest percentage of their income, rather than a progressive tax system, what we've always had, where the rich pay a greater percentage of their income than the poor do . .

i suppose the question is moot, since the republicans will never nominate cain, theres just no way . .

lefty

Herman Cain 999 Plan: Did It Come From SimCity?

huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html


pretty funny if true....

lefty

I believe its been a progressive income tax since its inception in the 19 tweens . .

since 1981, supply side economics has turned america into the haves and have-nots, and its getting worse . . sorry going on vacation, dont have time to bust out the pie charts and stats . .

lefty

And who implemented the progressive tax system in 1913? Shockingly, it was by a PROGRESSIVE.

I will wait on pins and needles for some data to support your claims of supply side economics running this country into the ground, and how it transformed this country into the haves and the have-nots. All I ask is that you provide some date/facts to back up your assertions. I can't wait to be enlightened......If you fail to do so, I will take it as you talking out your backside....I think Yonni is right, you are a lot like voiceofreason.......

So are we concerned about the deficit in this supply side fantasy??? Check what Reagan left the country with. Check both of the Bush runs and how they left the deficit.

Check the data of the Companies that took advantage of the offshore Capital repatriation and how they trickled down the jobs. Check CEO salaries against workers by %. Check Corp. profits vs "job creation"

Enough proof??

voiceofreason wrote:

So are we concerned about the deficit in this supply side fantasy??? Check what Reagan left the country with. Check both of the Bush runs and how they left the deficit.

Check the data of the Companies that took advantage of the offshore Capital repatriation and how they trickled down the jobs. Check CEO salaries against workers by %. Check Corp. profits vs "job creation"

Enough proof??

I will ask you again; can you name ONE sector of the economy that is supply side/free market driven? Reagan is the lesser of MANY evils that are to blame for the mess we are in, EVERY POTUS since Wilson, save ONLY Calvin Coolidge is to blame. They all have blood on their hands, with FDR, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, Obama, George Sr, George Jr, Carter, and YES Clinton with buckets of blood dripping from their hands! The deficit has been climbing ever since Wilson spawned the Federal Reserve and the progressive tax system, and it has been climbing at scary rates ever since Nixon completely abandoned the gold standard. No POTUS, your beloved Clinton included, since 1971 has significantly reduced the deficit, let alone ran a REAL surplus. Don't give me the liberal LIE that Clinton had a surplus, that was just creative accounting and outright theft from Social Security.

Can you explain how corporations were able to take advantage of anything? Didn't they have to FIRST have government assistance? Lets take the banks, would they be able to do any of these evil deeds w/o first having regulations in place that allowed such acts to be legal? Would the have been so bold if they hadn't been assured ahead of time of being bailed out if needed? Wall Street is corrupt, you won't get an argument from me on that, but they are only able to get away with what the government allows them to. So, the anger should be directed at the government, and the regulations that benefit the corporations that have enabled them to become "too big to fail". Under a free market, there would be LOWER unemployment rates. Why? Because the only way businesses can survive under free market conditions is to actually make a profit. As it is today, those that wish to do thins honestly are sitting on their capital because they see an unsettled future, and threats from the current regime of punishing those who are successful via higher taxes. You want businesses to expand and hire people, get the government out of the way! Yes, it IS that easy!!!! Now I ask, what proof did you offer? Spewing talking points from leftist sites backed by NO actual data is NOT proof, it is BULLSHIT!

a free market without any governmental constraints just goes to hell, the fantasy of a totally free market is ,....well a fantasy

lefty

Quote :

Wall Street is corrupt, you won't get an argument from me on that, but they are only able to get away with what the government allows them to. So, the anger should be directed at the government, and the regulations that benefit the corporations that have enabled them to become "too big to fail".

amen brother amen

lefty

lefty wrote:

a free market without any governmental constraints just goes to hell, the fantasy of a totally free market is ,....well a fantasy

lefty

Nice waffle! Can you come up with even ONE 'mostly' free market driven sector in America? When/where did I call for zero government oversights? That would be anarchy, NOT a free market or a MOSTLY free market! I am guessing you know that already, thus your avoidance of providing ONE example, and instead you throw out hyperbole and pure nonsense rather than address the issues.

proutdoors wrote:

lefty wrote:

a free market without any governmental constraints just goes to hell, the fantasy of a totally free market is ,....well a fantasy

lefty

Nice waffle! Can you come up with even ONE 'mostly' free market driven sector in America? When/where did I call for zero government oversights? That would be anarchy, NOT a free market or a MOSTLY free market! I am guessing you know that already, thus your avoidance of providing ONE example, and instead you throw out hyperbole and pure nonsense rather than address the issues.

i have never made a point about a mostly free market, you are spewing this, , ,so go on and make your pointless argument


lefty

Yet again, you have ducked the question. I surmise that it is because you have no answer! You rant about how the free market<>supply-side demands have gotten into this mess, but you fail to give ONE example..........I must admit to being a tad disappointed. I was hoping for someone with some substance, but it appears you lack even less than vor, and that is saying something....

proutdoors wrote:

Yet again, you have ducked the question. I surmise that it is because you have no answer! You rant about how the free market<>supply-side demands have gotten into this mess, but you fail to give ONE example..........I must admit to being a tad disappointed. I was hoping for someone with some substance, but it appears you lack even less than vor, and that is saying something....

oh so thats your idiotic game, to say you never got your 'real' supply side going, reagan and the last 30 years or repub econ policy isnt really what you wanted, if theyd just do it right, it wouldve worked huh???? right wing nut job alert!

reagan and the republicans have drove this country to hell...how anybody that makes under 500K could vote repoop is beyond belief . . i guess they get you with the bs so called christian agenda . .. what a load of shit

lefty

Lefty, I expected no less from you. It didn't take long to see that you are void of thought, and you have NOTHING but hyperbole. You lack substance, not that I am surprised. You are completely ignorant on what supply side economics is, on what a free market looks like, on what constitutes capitalism, and where I fall in the political sphere. Hint: I am NOT a dyed in the wool republican! But, I damn sure am NOT a democrat! We haven't had supply side economics since Woodrow Wilson (no doubt a hero of yours) rammed through the progressive income tax system and instituted the Federal Reserve. To assert otherwise is a display of either complete ignorance as to what supply side economics is, or an example of one being intellectually dishonest.....

ohh so nothing reagan did was supply side economics? david stockman?

Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted the approval of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped to be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state", gaining a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

you know it qall ended with us doing a republican buddy savings and loan bailout where we bailed out all the republican goons . . oh thats what bush had to do in 2008, bail out the repubs again. .. man those wall street republicans . . .

so youre the only dingo around that spouts woodrow wilson mate


lefty

proutdoors wrote:

Lefty, I expected no less from you. It didn't take long to see that you are void of thought, and you have NOTHING but hyperbole. You lack substance, not that I am surprised. You are completely ignorant on what supply side economics is, on what a free market looks like, on what constitutes capitalism, and where I fall in the political sphere. Hint: I am NOT a dyed in the wool republican! But, I damn sure am NOT a democrat! We haven't had supply side economics since Woodrow Wilson (no doubt a hero of yours) rammed through the progressive income tax system and instituted the Federal Reserve. To assert otherwise is a display of either complete ignorance as to what supply side economics is, or an example of one being intellectually dishonest.....

hey i got a B in micro and macro economics buddy boyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

hahahhaha


lefty

lefty wrote:

ohh so nothing reagan did was supply side economics? david stockman?

Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted the approval of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped to be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state", gaining a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

you know it qall ended with us doing a republican buddy savings and loan bailout where we bailed out all the republican goons . . oh thats what bush had to do in 2008, bail out the repubs again. .. man those wall street republicans . . .

so youre the only dingo around that spouts woodrow wilson mate


lefty

How do you have supply side economics with bailouts? You have now proven you are completely ignorant on the subject! You apparently adore Wilson, since pert near everything you advocate is right in line with his way of thinking.......Where is your angst for the bailouts Obama has given to 'wall street democrats'? You know, the ones making up the majority of his Cabinet....

you mean the bush wall street bailouts ?

oh and im sorry the repubs never did supply side the way YOU wouldve liked, but they tried it, it failed horrible, and now we have this mess .. . sounds like you read too much economic theory . .real world man, real world !

lefty

Bush bailouts, Obama bailouts, they ALL stink! You are so biased you can excuse everything dems do and condemn everything reps do. I condemn BOTH. You claim to have studied macroeconomics, but you either learned nothing, or you are lying. Which is it? Where exactly do bailouts come into play in macroeconomics? How does lower taxes and fewer regulations equate to bailouts?

proutdoors wrote:

Bush bailouts, Obama bailouts, they ALL stink! You are so biased you can excuse everything dems do and condemn everything reps do. I condemn BOTH. You claim to have studied macroeconomics, but you either learned nothing, or you are lying. Which is it? Where exactly do bailouts come into play in macroeconomics? How does lower taxes and fewer regulations equate to bailouts?

why dont you tell us and we'll all know . .

lefty

You are the one implying they are intertwined, so the onus is on YOU to make the connect.........DOH!

tie tax cuts for corporations to jobs . . maybe we do need tariffs, and no free trade, we cant compete cheap enough because of the higher standard of living we have . .

bring capaital gains back to 35% to49%

lefty