The godfather of pizza learned his economics from the godfather or Reaganomics.
Nerds 4 Cain is in production: www.nerds4cain.com
Posted on 06/09/2011 5:13:40 AM PDT by Brookhaven
When it comes to economics, Jack Kemp was often called the heir to Ronald Reagan; it’s more accurate to say he was the godfather of Reaganomics. After all, it was Jack Kemp who, in the 1970s, sold Ronald Reagan on the virtues of supply side economics.
While Ronald Reagan publicized supply side economics to the world, it was Jack Kemp who actually designed the economic plan that Reagan signed into law. Reagan laid out the vision of the road ahead; Kemp poured the concrete for the highway.
Those economic policies—which became know as Reaganomics—were the foundation of the economic boom of the next two decades. Despite it’s obvious success, once Reagan left office the GOP establishment slowly abandoned supply side economics and returned to its old government-centric approach. Reaganomics was good for the country, but it wasn’t always good for politicians (who found it easier to obtain votes by focusing on how the government can help people, instead of how the government can empower people).
Jack Kemp never wavered from his supply side principles. He carried the Reaganomics torch his entire life. What many don’t realize is that Jack Kemp passed that torch onto someone else: Herman Cain.
Soon after Cain’s famous confrontation with Bill Clinton, Jack Kemp traveled to Omaha to meet Herman Cain. It was the start of a strong relationship. A relationship where Kemp (the architect of Reaganomics) mentored Cain on economic theory. As Herman Cain described it: “He helped me to focus in on the power of the free-market system. Growing up in corporate America, I was in the middle of it. I didn’t step back and analyze it. He helped me to realize that it was under attack; he helped me to recognize the grenades that were being thrown at the free-market system; he helped to realize, and even study, how tax rates being too high was a negative against the free-market system.”
Jimmy Carter devastated the American economy with Keynesian economics. Reagan saved it by implementing supply side economics which ushered in two decades of prosperity. Now another Democrat president is wrecking our economy with the same big-government Keynesian economics. We need another supply-sider; we need another Reagan.
Who understands fully that supply side economics is the solution? Who can take the case for economic change over the heads of Washington politicians directly to the American people (as Reagan did)? Who’s more concerned about rebuilding America than building their political career?
Herman Cain learned economics from the man that tutored Ronald Reagan, he has the ability to move crowds and opinion, and he’s in the race for the right reasons. Herman Cain is the man we need.
From Reagan to Kemp to Cain; the supply side torch has been passed to the next generation. It’s time to use it to relight our economy.
The godfather of pizza learned his economics from the godfather or Reaganomics.
FLASHBACK: In 2008, Herman Cain praised TARP, chided "free market" purists
I doubt Reagan needed much selling. He is the only president with an economics degree. He may not have remembered his lessons in detail but he already had the mindset. Kemp just brought it all back.
I wonder if Cain would thank Al Gore for letting him know on live television that Gore doesn’t consider him to be quite as big of loser as every other Republican and conservative.
Kemp became very liberal in the 1990s most signified by his 1996 election debate with Gore where he kept apologizing for being a conservative(but not in those words) and made things even worse. The sign of trouble was after the Clinton election 1992 Kemp started saying he could convert blacks from Clinton to Republican much like Steele claimed in early 2009 by opologizing for being a Republican.
Kemp never turned against tax cuts but instead preached that you could have tax cuts pay for spending increases (to convert minorites), and unfortunately that being the political path of least resistance (which was probably Kemp's real reason) that was tried under GWBush and even more-so under Obama leaving us in the mess we are in.
Yep - and once upon a time, I fell in love with a guy that turned out to be gay.
Everyone makes poor decisions, thinks something sounds great and it turns out bad, and wishes they could change a dumb thing they did in college.
No one single person is going be 100% pure. You might be surprised to know, as a hardcore conservative and christian, I support legalizing pot for medical use...drives my hubby nuts.
Herman Cain, like Palin (who I love), and all the rest in the Repub lineup, is a flawed human....but he’s a good one.
Herman Cain supported the concept of the government providing assistance to the banking system to help them get their act back together, because he believed we were facing a financial meltdown.
He opposed the way it was implemented via the TARP program.
He opposed the government picking winners and losers.
He opposed using TARP money to bail out the car companies.
He opposed providing favoritism to the unions.
He opposed forcing banks that had not requested TARP money to take it.
Herman Cain’s position on TARP can be found on YouTube at this address: “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSm2d6DqkUs"; .
No matter what Kemp’s views in other areas, when it came to supply side economics he remained solid his entire life.
We got fooled by both Georg Bush’s, who both claimed to be supply-siders, but were really big-government Keyensians?
How many of the current crop of candidates running, who claim Reganites economicly, are really just big-government wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Cain’s the real deal when it comes to Reaganomics.
But Reaganomics isn’t Libertarian-o-nomics. If you’re going to criticise Cain, because he isn’t a purist Libertarian like Ron Paul, then you need to also criticise Reagan, because neither was he.
OK, think about what you said.
I only commented on Kemp not Cain. I am trying to avoid the rush to jump for or against specific candidates and generally always liked Cain, in fact he was on Glen Beck yesterday.
Kemp was a huge disappointment to me in the 1990s and I had big hopes for him but also learned too. Anytime a Republican claims they will reach out to minorities they always seem to mean to apologize to them and throw them government $$$, Steele follows Kemp's path in that. Reagan did lots of stuff I didnt like in compromises to get bills passed, but he never preached liberalism like Kemp did. Kemp was the 'tax cutting liberal'
Yes, and if he would say, "I was mistaken, as were many others, in believing we were facing a financial meltdown", I would accept that as a fair and reasonable answer.
What I want to know is that when the next Henry Paulson comes screaming, "I need X trillion of tax money to buy up my cronies' bad assets TODAY, or there will be blood in the streets", Cain will have the guts and common sense to tell him to take a hike. So far I have not seen the evidence that he will.
You can be liberal on social issues areas, but still be a solid supply sider when it comes to economics.
I hardly see it as fair to paint Kemp as some type of ultra-liberal (as your post implied) simply because he wasn’t an ultra-conservative in every area.
When it came to economics though, he was always a solid supply-sider. And he continued to push for supply-side economic principles long after much of the GOP had fallen back into Keyensianism.
It’s fair to give credit where credit is due. And when it comes to Reaganomics he deserves credit.
I agree, but you probably have one or two issues which you consider to be essential.
For me, support of TARP (the template for just about everything in Obamanomics) is that issue.
and wishes they could change a dumb thing they did
Cain isn't wishing to change a dumb thing he did in the past. He's basically doubling down on it.
Apparently you didn’t watch the video, because that is exactly what he said.
Specificly he said what he would do if someone came to him saying we had to take emergency action or the economy would melt down and the banks would fail. His response:
“Let them fail”
If you watch the video at the link, you’ll find he’s learned something from hindsight, and now advocates the same positon you do.
I can’t get streaming video from where I am right now. I will check it out tonight.
The idea that Kemp can cut your personal taxes and that will will result more revenue that he can spend buying liberals voters votes not costing anyone anything has been tried over and over and has failed. It is only even possible because we print and debase our own currency.
When you both cut taxes and increase spending as is always done the tax payers wont rebel against the (liberal) spending because it appears to be of no cost to them, until years later when prices go up and the finger pointing starts. This is the reality that Kemp ignored and how we got the GWB legacy.
#1 : We no longer have the luxury of political solutions that increase government spending and deficits and then plan on pointing fingers at those we made the deals with later, (the standard political approach)
#2 : Reagan did not have to deal with a modernized, ambitious and educated super-economic powerhouse like China to have to compete with.
In this environment a pure capital gain tax cut BY ITSELF might just stimulate more investment in China not here. How does Germany maintain a trade surplus with China?
This is not personal to Cain but I decided back in 2008 to be skeptical of any painless campaign promises. I certainly didn't buy Trump's claim that HIS threat of unilateral tariff's would magically result in China shipping our factories back to the USA anymore than Obama's previous promise of raising taxes on certain corporations would do the same. I will ask : How is Cain going to stimulate investment here in the USA? (without running up more debt)
I like Cain and am watching his campaign with interest. Freepers could support him and he’s a fresh face.
He’s made some rookie mistakes though. Like appearing during an interview to not know the right of return was. He can’t afford any major gaffes if he is to have a chance at the nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.