Posted on 10/11/2011 8:18:29 PM PDT by Fred
There was one clear winner from Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, based on the simple metrics of name recognition: businessman Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan."
Virtually all the candidates at the debate table had something to say about Cain's plan to replace the tax code with three, flat nine-percent federal taxes on consumption, business and income. Cain, once delegated to the remote wings of the debate stage, has enjoyed a surge in the polls ever since he won the straw poll in Orlando, Fla., last month, and at the first debate since he joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the top tier, Cain and his policy proposals took up more of the debate's time than the ideas floated by any other candidate.
Of course, this isn't to say that any of them praised Cain's idea. Far from it. In fact, everyone who had an opportunity took shots at the plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What is so difficult to understand?
Any law, including sales tax, can be changed anytime by simple majority vote just like any other law (senate filibuster may or may not help a bit)
It is meaningless what protections you write in to the law. What congress passes, can be changed if (future) congress and president so want.
What do you propose? Keep the current system in place? Business as usual?
To change a law requires both houses and a Presidential signature, or veto override in both houses.
It’s really elemental. Just read the constitution or look up School House Rock on how a bill becomes a law.
You have serious issues.
Anything passed by congress (and signed by president) can be changed by congress (and signed by president). There are no protective measures. Got that? This 2/3 change requirement is absolute BS and only an absolute fool would claim otherwise.
Congress is not bound by the measures in existing laws, it can simply rewrite them anytime.
Once day there will be Dem president and Dem congress again.
This 999 can become 9-9-25, or 20-20-20 anytime. It would be foolish to create a new tax (remember AMT for “the 20 rich families”)
You are exactly correct, which is a great reason to support the only candidate serious about replacing our current nightmare, not just tweeking it.
particularly for a tax plan that increases taxes on seniors, the average family, "the poor," etc
Who should pay taxes? How much is the poor's fair share? How much is the rich's fair share? That is not an argument normally espoused by conservatives so I would like some explanation on what exactly you think our tax code should look like and who should pay how much.
... companies and individuals in "empowerment zones" get tax breaks others don't.
I don't know what an empowerment zone is, but I don't like it. We both know Cain's plan doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hades of getting passed. But he is advancing the argument that the current system is broken and needs to be replaced. That's worth a lot more to me than a typical candidate that panders about tweeking the current system.
Repeal won’t be nearly as easy as you think. See Obamacare as an example.
So your opposition is political, not fiscal? He could just give a vague outline in flowery conservative sounding language like all the others. I appreciate that he isn't.
It is the central policy in his campaign. And what is his fallback position if that central policy has no chance of ever passing?
I would think Cain is a smart enough businessman to have a Plan B and a Plan C and a Plan D. But like other smart businessmen you don't start moving to compromise on Plan D until you have pushed Plan A as far as it will go. All the other serious candidates sound like they'll fight tooth and nail to try and get a few of their ideas added to whatever Congress wants. That's not enough for me anymore. I want fundamental conservative change and we need a President willing to shoot for that lofty goal.
Bingo, you have nailed the biggest issue people have about the 9-9-9 plan.
Some people would rather stay stuck in a deep hold forever, because they're afraid if they attempt to climb out they might hurt themselves.
1.First Huntsmans statement: ".....but I won't mention your religion, OH!, sorry Rick."
Perry wouldn't/couln't respond to that one either.
2. Romney with the uninsured children statement:
Perry wouldn't/couldn't respond to that, as most of those uninsured would be illegals, and he didin't want to go there either.
I suspect, due to those statements by nasty Huntsman and Romney, Perry was set up for disaster last night. Pre-arranged PILE on/Gotcha.
Of course, Cain could also add an expention for new homes (as a trade off for the home interest deduction going away--something I support). The plan right now is just a framework, not the finished product.
I think it’s pretty obvious you and I have the same basic goals and agree on the same fundamentals. We may not agree on which is exactly the right path to get us where we need to go but we don’t have to. I also think we have the same concerns about the candidates and their vision and plans. Thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it.
I already pay 21% income tax to the feds under the existing tax structure.
Just using those two figures, I pay 31% of my income JUST TO EXIST. That ignores state income tax and local property tax.
Under Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I pay 9% flat tax plus 9% consumption tax for a total of 18% to the feds.
Add the existing state and local sales tax, I pay 28%
Not only is MY tax rate reduced, but 50% of the population not currently paying income taxes will contribute 18% more than they used to.
I see it as a small reduction in my tax burden and a redistribution of the cost to be an American across the board, even to those who are illegal aliens and are sucking the life out of our country.
You’re right there is no sense in even trying to reform the current 35% business tax, 35% income tax, the 15% Social Security & FICA tax plus all the other mics federal taxes out there.. Let’s just keep it the way it is, afterall if we change it the Dems could one day gain control of both Houses and the Presidency and just change it back.
Good Grief.
Point me to the last Presidential candidate who WON the White House running on a platform of increasing taxes on seniors, average families, “the poor”, small businesses, etc. And consider that Obama will likely be running on his tax plan of increasing taxes on millionaires.
I did, and for the life of me I can't find the part that allows it. It is a given that unless otherwise stated a simple majority is all that's needed to pass a law or accomplish an act. That's why only a majority vote in the House is needed to impeach someone but a supermajority is needed to remove them from office, because the Constitution specifies the 2/3rds vote for removal by the Senate but is silent on what is required by the House.
Now, perhaps you might like to reread the Constitution for your self and point out where the Constitution allows what you say it allows?
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.