The reason why Obama won in 2008 is because he co opted the Conservative platform of lowering taxes. He lied, but it worked. The person who is going to win in 2012 is going to be the one who tells the people I am going to get you more money in your pocket. Obama will do it by saying he is going to take it from the rich and give it to you. The Conservative message has to be, “I’m going to take it from the government and let you keep it and I’m going to help you make more”. Why would we want to hitch our wagon to the guy who is saying 'I am going to create a new way to take money from you and give it to the government'? That message will not win.
I agree. Thank God that all but the most simple minded (Yes I do mean you) understand that isn't what he's saying.
Not even close.
BTW, Perry's done, kaput. I'm just responding because sometimes it's fun to kick dead things.
Then why don't you stop spamming every thread with the same fraudulent attack post and address the points made TO you for a change then?
9-9-9 does “not add a new way” to tax, it replaces a corrupted failed tax system with a simple, transparent broader tax code. It replaces, not adds to, the current tax code.
You like staying with the VAT tax system we have now?
That's a lie, this plan raises taxes on the poor and middle class and does nothing to control Federal spending.
Abolish the IRS and the EPA, destroy the unions by outlawing withholding of dues from paychecks nationally,and attack the lawyers who drive up the cost of everything by instituting hard edged Tort Reform.
He can go get bent with new Federal sales tax while leaving the IRS and income tax in place.
Please watch the actual interview.
You are going off with David Gregory’s questions, which Cain answered over and over again.
Cain repeatedly explained, correctly, that the 999 plan does not create “new” taxes, as you and David Gregory argue. It REPLACES several “old” taxes, with the net impact that most people will pay fewer taxes and all people will benefit from Fedzilla’s tax tentacles being cut off at the nub.
I don’t know how many more times it can be explained to people that abolishing at least three taxes and replacing it with one tax at an effectively lower rate is not “adding a new tax upon the old taxes.”