Added: 5 months ago
From: HowTheWorldWorks
Views: 6,972
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (455)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I've heard hat Herman Cain's 999 plan came from SimCity 4. Haha.

  • @MrEliteFeet It came from Hitler Nien Nien Nien.

  • @MrEliteFeet It did...

  • @Lee D. ....RNC cannidates have been voted off "te island"

    please do a vid of (or simply reply) as to WHO IS THE BEST NOMINEE you would Endorse

    ...

    .Thumbs up to second this notion... 

  • Thanks for the question. I remember that being asked. Cain wanting to "Start Over" the EPA after cutting it? LOL. I wish Ron Paul was asked that question. As you know, he had a list of many departments for a total of $1T in cuts. That's $1,000,000,000,000. I differ with you on 999. Opening the sales tax IN ADDITION TO keeping an income tax is like opening a Pandora's Box. Ron Paul believes in cutting spending first, which really makes more sense. I hope you consider strongly Ron Paul.

  • @MyPalAndy You should also consider Gary Johnson; He would cut spending and rewrite the tax code to just include only a national sales tax, or fair tax. So there will be no income tax and so on.

  • @HowTheWorldWorks Are you aware it's actually a 9-9-9-9 plan? Because the employer pays 9% tax on income BEFORE paying employees. Therefore, the paychecks to employees essentially do have a 'payroll' tax. A national sales tax is a horrible, non-conservative idea. Once it's there, it can never go away. Fix the root problem - end the fed, and we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the things we never asked for.

  • I dont trust Cain. I do trust Ron Paul.

  • Wanna sell the FairTax? Encourage the fact that it is a PROGRESSIVE tax. I am a liberal/progressive and I support the FairTax.

  • the DOD (military industrial complex) lol. Trillions and Trillions of dollars go to them.

    vote Ron Paul.

  • So, the 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes for the poor, cut them for the rich. Eliminate taxes on profit made in other countries for multinational companies. It will also get rid of the capitol gains tax.

    I don't see how this plan is good, AT ALL.

  • @techwizzkid24 You nailed it!

  • grats Lee

  • Lee, I'd like to hear your opinion on what would happen if a Democrat administration and super-majority (like the one we had in 2009) got a hold of Cain's 9-9-9 plan? That is my only worry with it. While it would eliminate many other taxes - Democrats could raise both an income tax a corporate tax AND a sales tax to their hearts desire ...

  • LEE: Glad you like Herman's plan too. Anyone can figure it out in mere seconds and it gets rid of most of this Rube Goldberg tax structure. Eventually getting rid of the IRS is certianly a good thing. The income tax is being used as a bludgeon against us and it must go!

  • @ignbtd to participate but later was on the hook at the threat/fear of Russian controlled Iran. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?

  • @ignbtd Bingo, you got my point exactly, democracy in certain countries can allow dictatorship, in the United States we have a little thing called the constitution that protects peoples individual rights and freedoms from dictatorship, even if it was put in place democratically. We see this in other countries as we speak where (for example) Sharia law is democratically elected and enforced like an iron fist.

  • @ignbtd

    I only brought up the fact that he was the Prime Minister of a democracy because people who are completely ignorant of facts and history were calling him a dictator for some reason.

    It's wrong to remove a foreign government for the sole reason that they wouldn't let your companies continue to take 95% of the profits from their country's resources, which is exactly what we did in Iran and in many other countries all over the world during the past 60 years. Can you agree on that?

  • 999 will never succeed. the big corporate organizations will never give up the loophole deduction tax systems. Nor will the politicians, who use the same loopholes to save 10,000s, actually cast a vote to put in place.

  • @ignbtd

    Please do five minutes of research on Mohammed Mossadegh before you post such an ignorant comment.

    Mossadegh was NOT a dictator. The person we replaced him was. You know, the guy we gave millions of tax payer dollars to and trained his secret police torture techniques?

  • @yeebuddeh1 It is questionable that the U.S. helped the United Kingdom restore the previous shah that was before Mohammed Mossadegh but remember in WW2 Iran was working with Hitler in fact that is why Persia was changed to Iran or Irania which is Farsi for Aryan. Also there was oil piped to Russia after WW2 but when Russia was suddenly a threat to the free world(communism) then U.K. felt the need to secure that oil and there was a danger of a Russian takeover of Iran. At first America refused-

  • @ignbtd THANK YOU, good point, what if democracy is in a country where the majority votes for slavery and repeal of rights? democracy should never supersede rights and freedom of the individual.

  • @weseyedwalk Exactly, Ben Franklin called democracy "the tyranny of the majority." We are seeing it now in tax policy. Franklin al;so called democracy "2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner." He also said "liberty is a well armed sheep, disputing the results." or something like that. I am reciting these from memory so they are not word for word.

  • @intrepidorator I agree to bad many people don't understand this.

  • Comment removed

  • @intrepidorator sorry that last comment was meant toward nekdolan

  • @weseyedwalk no problem

  • @intrepidorator Just curious but do you consider yourself a conservative? liberal? libertarian?

  • @weseyedwalk I am a libertarian for the most part. with some aspects of conservatism amd a little liberalism built in. but I always answer Libertarian when asked.

  • @intrepidorator Ok I gotta ask, I think this is a tough one, but what do you think about Mexican cartel members or jihadist terrorists coming over our borders? Should we stop them, if so, how? do they have the same constitution rights as us? Should they? before /after they enter? I'm just curious of your opinion, thanks.

  • @weseyedwalk OK I'll answer the questions 1 at a time and in order

    1. I am against jihadists and cartel members crossing our borders.

    2. We should stop them by securing our borders.

    3. According to our supreme court, yes once a person is on our soil they are protected by our constitution.

    4. No, I don't think that enemy agents should have constitutional protection.

    Not securing our borders after 9-11 was Bush's biggest failing, followed by his out of control spending, especially medicare part D

  • @intrepidorator intersting, I agree with all of your answers, although I think Bush met a whole lot of resistance on his 'fence'. I wonder if we were ever invaded by an army, would those invaders be protected by the constitution and if they were and they went to court then are they convicted of treason against the U.S.? or would they be tried in a military court? Would lethal force to stop them violate the constitution? Sounds tricky and slippery. I am pro constitution though.

  • @intrepidorator I had a recent debate with a self proclaimed libertarian who called me a bigot when i presented the same solutions to border security, i was surprised. He actually called me a liberal also, couldn't figure that one out. I consider myself pretty conservative and I am Mexican and native American but sure not a bigot though. It's just I'm against known criminals or terrorists walking right in, while innocent people could be victimized, murdered.

  • @weseyedwalk I would agree with you, We have found proof on our border of terrorists coming into America.

  • @intrepidorator I guess I think of 911 and how we didn't secure the door to the flight decks of commercial aircraft until after 911 happened, why should we wait until terrorists are caught coming over to think of that problem? We should think ahead of them.

  • @weseyedwalk Yes, conservatives have been sounding the alarm for 10 years at least. Remember the minutemen on the border?

  • @intrepidorator Another thing is why do Asians and Filipinos and others have to pay money and jump through hoops to become part of this country (and I welcome them) but other just walk over unchecked bringing disease, or sometimes crimes, or worse? Doesn't seem right or fair or safe. I feel bad for those people who do things the right way when others just slip through the cracks they had to pay money, it's very biased as I see it. Not many want to touch this subject.

  • @weseyedwalk Well, your premise is half right, many mexicans come into America legally and I welcome them. We need immigration to strengthen America, but it has to be LEGAL immigration. The answer is to completely 1. secure the border 2. do background checks on every person entering the U.S.A. 3. increase legal immigration to add tax payers to the nation. 4. Deport anyone that is currently here illeaglly.

  • @intrepidorator Yes, I am all in favor of legal immigration, that's why I said also I welcome them, but at least we know who is coming in and that they are not known criminals or terrorists. Yes I agree with you, I think anyone here illegally should either start from scratch and go through the legal process (pending a clear background check, -crime fee). Or be immediately deported if they refuse, or if they are criminals or terrorists.

  • By the Way, great video Lee as always you are the man.

  • @ignbtd

    Mohammed Mossadegh was NOT a dictator. I have no idea why you think he was

  • the dumbest video this guy has done. cain is federal reserve scum. give him four years and lets see how many trillions he can spend on war. cain loves the 'patriot' act. go ahead, vote for the doosh, now neocons can brag that theyre not 'racist' to all their asshole friends. now the left and right can feel good about themselves for putting a black man in the executive office. stupid. after this bullshit, lets put a woman in there! if for no other reason, because we're not sexist. we are good.

  • @rnrsteev Oh God, another neoliberal. Go away.

  • @TravisTClevelandSteamer - neoliberal? youre clueless! suck a dick, ass-clown.

  • IMO the 999 plan is scary because it may start out at 9% but what is to keep government from increasing all or any of those three categories of taxation.

  • @intrepidorator

    So you're saying the son of a CEO who gets to go to a private school in an upper class neighborhood has the SAME chance of success as the son of a heroin addicted mother and a father doing life in prison who gets to go to a shitty school in a rotten gang infested neighborhood with teachers that don't give a fuck about him?

    If so, you're completely delusional and ignorant of the realities of what many poor people face growing up.

  • Comment removed

  • lol "fair tax," yet another political oxymoron.

  • Fair Tax at 15% with absolutely no exceptions for anyone poor or rich.

  • @intrepidorator It's not a matter of being jealous but if certain policies are designed to help the rich and punish the middle then you have a problem....

  • The 9-9-9 plan might seems to be a good economic plan, but it is a huge danger. Lee, you are just looking this through an economist eye, don't ignore history or politics. The plan gives the Federal Govt a new power to tax on sales without getting rid of the income tax, or any other form of taxation.

    FairTax seems to be good as well, but 23% is just too much, and the rebate for poor families will be just another huge entitlement program in the future.

    Both Cain's solutions are no good.

  • The thing that scares me about Herman Cain is that he used to work for the Federal Reserve.

  • Straw Poll winner:  hermancain dot ytmnd dot com

  • @therealgarygnu LOL! Awesome. Him for president!

  • What does "ewiminate" mean?

  • Regarding Cain's 999 plan, what will stop the government from raising the income tax later on and, retaining the sales tax?

  • @KellyVisionPictures His big tell is that he won't touch monetary policy, You can rewrite the tax code all you want but it will be useless if the money's not worth anything.

  • Lol @ the idea of a black republican

  • So glad to see the nook link. 3 books to go and this one will work into the list. Thanks.

  • @ZackAttack261

    Do you know what the Savak was? It was the Shah's secret police force. They were trained unspeakable torture techniques by the CIA and Mossad and used them against thousands of their own people. Anyone that dared to dissent or speak out was rounded up and tortured and/or executed.

    Iran isn't really any better after 1979 either, the Savak has simply been replaced with The Revolutionary Guard. The only difference is they're no longer trained and funded by the US and Israel.

  • Herman Cain believes that the military is not just about defense but about prevention and intervention. That America should intervene militarily when it may or may not serve the purpose of securing America’s long term interest or to "help" countries that are unstable and need our help. He would advocate a Large increase in defense spending to demonstrate to the world America is the strongest military power.

  • Don't become a fat head now! LMAO...

    yeah I saw it when it happened live, congratulations!! Great question..

  • I just still have to say, cut the department of agriculture. the most un-free market system department that we have here in the states.

  • Didn't Ron Paul request a record about of earmarks even though he advocates fiscal responsibility?

  • We should cut the Department of Kissing Israel's Ass!

  • The 999 plan is a pile of garbage, because Cain put the fair tax upon the Income tax.

  • @mwangolatrue I perfer the Fair Tax as well. But throwing out the current tax code is a great first step. Go Mr. Cain!

  • @mwangolatrue And won't touch the inflation tax.

  • The fair tax is highly regressive... why don't people realize that? Even Ron Paul announced his skepticism for the tax.

  • If you don't support Ron Paul then your not serious about cutting government. period.

  • You think Herman Cain came up with "999" through careful and deliberate study of economic and governmental models, and it just so happened that the best result was 9% income tax, 9% corporate, and 9% sales? No, he chose it because it's catchy. 999 is a campaign slogan first, and *maybe* economic plan second. Not obvious lies like Obama's self-contradictory campaign promises, but still pretty suspicious.

  • Comment removed

  • What do you think of Tom Woods' critique of Cain on his site?

    Or of Cain's position regarding the Federal Reserve?

  • If Cain is "doing well in the polls" like you say.. even though he's Not doing well in 95% of them...... then Ron Paul is dominating the others, Perry is crushing his opponents and Romney is doing god-like. Rick Santorum should be fired up about how he is doing!!!!!

  • That 4 % less then the canada nation sales tax

  • Thanks for mentioning Ron Paul in your video.

  • Most economist are actually not Keynes, the only reason you are hearing so much about them now is politicians that support his ideas are now in power. Milton Friedman did a great job in disproving Keynes theory with his monetary theory.

  • Yeah, I saw that, Lee. Good job, brother :-)

  • The 999 Plan sounds like a good idea. It would also make it easier to transition into the 000 Plan!

  • @JETZcorp

    There is no ability to have a 000 plan, the State needs to function and with no revenue there is no defense, for our nation, or more importantly there is no nation.

    My big beef with the "Fair" tax that Lee presents is this "pre" bate crap. Stop the madness no rebates no "pre"bates everyone pays no free rides.

    The problem with a 9/9/9 plan is it is just adding more taxes, why would I give the Fed a sales tax so the socialist can raise rates again on three taxes instead of two?

  • @ViCe1986 The point of the 000 plan is that there would be no State. Everything the State does is inefficient and all of its duties should be assumed by private enterprise.

  • @JETZcorp

    I completely disagree, there is a need of a national defense and courts these cannot be entrusted to private enterprise since industry is not impartial. While industry does many things well, defense and justice are not best suited in the hands of private industry.

    There is no profits to be made in defense and justice, only expense so no industry and ethically run those two functions of government. Only through tyrannical or corrupt endeavors can profits be made.

  • @ViCe1986

    There's no profits to be made in defense?

    Tell that to Lockheed Martin, BAE systems, KBR, General Dynamics, Halliburton, Blackwater, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, DynCorp, ManTech International, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, Hewlett-Packard, The Carlyle Group, United Technologies, etc.

    Defense was privatized a long time ago. That's why we've been at war somewhere in the world almost constantly for over half a century. There's more private forces in Afghanistan than there are soldiers.

  • @yeebuddeh1

    Defense research has always been in the private sector but that is tax dollars being spent. A civilian cannot purchase a B2 Bomber!

    Also while the US Government is far from perfect, a private judicial and law enforcement system is tyranny in it's purest form. There incentive is to arrest anyone they can whether they are innocent or guilty since the more people arrested and incarcerated means more profits.

    You can be a moron all you want it still means you are a moron.

  • @ViCe1986

    Not just defense research, there's also weapons manufacturing, private mercenary forces, catering for the troops, etc.

    The reason we've been at war somewhere in the world almost constantly since WWII is because there's an economic incentive for these industries to have conflict. That's exactly what Eisenhower warned us about.

    I agree with your point about the judicial system, the fact that we have private prisons is scary. But don't call me a moron without having your facts straight

  • @yeebuddeh1

    You logic is really weak, and where did I call anyone a moron?

  • @ViCe1986 much agreed

  • @ViCe1986 Now since when has government been impartial?

    And as far as there being no profits to be made, that's completely wrong. Nobody wants to be vulnerable to invasion, so they'd be willing to pay someone to be ready to keep them safe. The protectors don't have to steal (tax) from you to get that job done, as long as you value your security. If you don't want to pay, you don't get protection, just like any other service. And if it were private, it wouldn't be a giant monopoly anymore!

  • It's rare that we agree on much Lee, but we agree on the Fair Tax. Please take the time to make an exhaustive video about the topic for your viewers; it could change their lives more than campaign promises ever will.

  • It seems that a lot people are misinformed of the 9-9-9 plan. Phase One - a flat 9% individual, business, and sales tax. This does NOT add to the taxes that already exists and even eliminates other taxes such as capital gains, death tax, and payroll taxes. Once this is implemented, Phase Two is to implement the Fair Tax. It would be extremely difficult to go from our current tax system right into Fair Tax. The 9-9-9 plan is an easier transition into it.

  • ron paul dont focus on any single thing. He tend to be for across the board elimination. I think Ron Paul should follow Cain's approach to actually be more specific

  • The 999 plan does not work. Tax deductions are not tax loopholes. Business's would go into the ground if they weren't allowed deductions. Now Some business's take advantage of this system by using and paying for deductions they don't necessarily need at the time. This makes the tax code complicated. But in short we cant have another income tax even if its 999. The Fair tax is the ONLY solution. Although I don't agree with the rate. 23% is ridiculous. I'm thinking more 10-15%.

    Ron Paul 2012!!!!

  • @vts101 Some quick notes:

    - "The 999 plan does not work" They say the same about the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. 999 is both combined, a middle step to the Fair Tax, which HC has supported in the past.

    - "Business's would go into the ground" If the deductions make the business taxes go from 45% to 15%, then 9% is lower.

    - Business's would go into the ground" Extensive study was done to get this number. Look it up and debate the math.

  • @bsabruzzo I don't wanna sound mad/argumentative, but you're clearly not a small business owner. There is a very good reason why we have deductions. I think you need to look up actually what deductions are (not trying to be mean). In many business's most of the "income" goes right back into supporting the business. So without deductions, and paying at a set rate, many business's would not survive. And that is why many business's pay lower than 9%. Big business's aren't the only ones doing this

  • @vts101 "I don't wanna sound mad/argumentative" You're not.

    "you're clearly not a small business owner" No, only qualify as a Micro-business owner.

    "most of the "income" goes right back into supporting the business" Yup, exactly.

    "without deductions, and paying at a set rate, many business's would not survive" If deductions equal a tax rate of 20% (down from the 35%-45%), then a 10% flat rate is better and 9% is better yet. Math.

    More to come...

  • @vts101 " many business's pay lower than 9%. Big business's aren't the only ones doing this" Let's set aside the argument that your 9% rate is via the government picking and choosing winners rather than the market doing so (the real reason a small government is better than deductions) and that corporations and businesses actually pay 0% taxes (passed on to the customer via higher prices, which is why the Fair Tax works to lower taxes and prices).

    More to come.

  • @vts101Part 3...

    Remember that the taxes include: income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas tax, import tax and many more as well as the corporate tax. We set aside the fact that those are all passed on to the customers and the Fair Tax (and even the 999 Fair/Flat hybrid) take over for most of these.

    A deduction or tax credit that works out to a 15% tax rate is still much higher than 10%. I did the math and 15 is higher than 10. Go look that up. 15. 10.

    I hope that helps.

  • @bsabruzzo You still don't understand that it rarely above 9. Many business's pay less than 9. Many pay 5% when including deductions. Do the math 9 is more than 5. I know its difficult but maybe if you think about it one day you'll realize 9 is more than 5.

    Happy learning!

  • @vts101 "You still don't understand that it rarely above 9" Teach me Sensei.

    When you remove the Federal Government's deductions that pick one company over another (as most do - and I'm not calling those loopholes), what is the rate?

    As a business owner, I pay 0% in taxes (thank you loyal customers), but that price was passed on from my suppliers. This cumulative tax has been calculated at 23% of the price (to get back to the Fair Tax), thus the 23% would reduce prices by that much.

  • @bsabruzzo That's why I'm advocating for the fair tax dummy. The 999 plan would raise taxes on some businesses that pay close to nothing already in taxes because of very necessary deductions. DUH

  • @vts101 "That's why I'm advocating for the fair tax dummy" So, you really did " wanna sound mad/argumentative" huh?

    If you ever take a drive to NYC from Washington DC, you have to pass through Baltimore, MD. You can't just jump there instantaniously.

    To mix metaphors, try turning a battleship around in less than a mile... can't be done.

    The 999 plane is that extra 6 miles to turn, It's Baltimore, MD.

    And it is a way to transition from a Pro tax to a flat tax to a consumpt tax

  • @bsabruzzo

    1.Well I thought we would have a nice discussion but then your sarcasm sunk in on the second response.

    2. I'm not sure its better, for the reason's I stated before many businesses would see this as a tax increase because of no deductions. If you keep the deductions in then I'm all for it.

  • @vts101 "1.Well I thought we would have a nice discussion but then your sarcasm sunk in on the second response" I though we were having a nice discussion. And in that second response was the term "Micro-business" the sarcasm, because it is an accepted term for those online, less than $100k businesses. The real sarcasm was a simple little joke, not name calling. The 3rd, was snark, but still respectful (calling you teacher...)

  • @bsabruzzo I was referring to when you said "I did the math and 15 is higher than 10. Go look that up. 15. 10."

    But anyway I still stand by what I said. The fair tax is the way to go. Getting rid of deductions is not.

  • @vts101 "I was referring to when you said " Yes, a civil joke. But taken the wrong way.

    "The fair tax is the way to go. Getting rid of deductions is not" but the Fair Tax gets rid of deductions, as per what I said before (passed cumulative tax to consumer, lower prices, etc), so that was why I was confussed.

  • @vts101 (2.) I accidently deleted my responce that said we can agree to dissagree. And that I prefer a smaller, free government rather than a Solyndra or GM, where the gov't plays "eeny-meeny-miney-moe" and picks winners with deductions.

    There was a comment about Reductio ad absurdum as well, but we know about that's use anyway.

    Nice chatting with you and good luck with your business.

  • @bsabruzzo Thanks, You too.

  • @vts101 And still more...

    Once you set aside the unconstitutional control over the market from the Federal government, you don't have a 9% tax rate If I paid ALL my taxes by not taking deductions, I'd pay 10% as a Sole Proprietor. Yes, deductions lower than, but I sill get charged taxes from my supplier (customers pay the taxes) and I pass that to my customers. Thus 0% taxes, but higher prices, so the consumer pays the cumulative taxes.

  • @vts101 And another one...

    The lack of deductions, acording to the study of the Fair tax, doesn't harm businesses because businesses pass the cost to the customer and the lower that tax is, the lower the price without cutting into profit.

    You claim that all businesses pay less than 9%. I'm not arguing that. I merely said that the cumulative tax would be lowered and deductions would paid for by those lower tax rates.

  • @bsabruzzo Passing along the cost to your to your customers does hurt business because that's how you lose customers. DUH

  • @bsabruzzo Passing along the cost to your to your customers does hurt business because that's how you lose customers. DUH

  • @vts101 Well... you better say "RON PAUL 2012!!!" at the end so people will like your comment huh?

  • @KingDingaLing090 Um no that's just who I'm supporting...clearly

  • @vts101 If you didnt say that at the end people would igore your comment. I could say.

    "I eat shit! RON PAUL 2012!!!" and I could get several thumbs up.

  • @KingDingaLing090 Well I dunno maybe that's why people thumbed it up, I'm not really concerned about getting thumbs up. Just stated my 2 cents

  • @vts101 They wouldn't go into the ground if the taxes were lower not requiring a tax deductions. I am tired of the dead weight loss in the economy by lawyers,accountants, and beauracrats.

  • Whatever you think about Ron Paul, you can't blame any of his supporters for being irked by the fact that suddenly Straw Polls matter when someone else rates in one.

  • Department of Education. Save our kids minds & maybe we gotta chance.

  • Cain actually has a plan and is likable. I'm a Ron Paul supporter and have been wondering why Ron does not come out with a step by step plan that HE runs on. That's really what people want right now.

  • love the idea of flat 9% tax on income, corporate, and sales to bad it will never be voted into law. like term limits its hard to get the abuser (congress) to vote their own way out of a life time of special interests meals and shady deals.

  • I LOVE HOW REPUB ALWASY SAY STUFF LIKE I FEEL OR IN MY OPINION IT WOULD WORK BUT ECONOMIST ALWAYS SAY IT WOULD NEVER WORK

  • @kainniak1 Your insanity saddens me.

  • @kainniak1 Lefties and Keynesians who wear the clothes of economists are not economists.

  • @kainniak1 most economists follow Kaynsean models which has lead to the debt crises we are in today, why should we listen to them?

  • Lee,

    I don't hear Cain talking about scrapping the 16th amendment BEFORE introducing the his 9% sales tax. Are you concerned it will become a national tax in addition to all the others?

  • Dammnit! Endorse Gary Johnson!

  • @thewizzardof9 Paying a few extra pennies for milk won't kill anyone.

  • @4fingeredgames The point is it will slow down spending, and that is our economy. How many people buy things on the internet to avoid state taxes? you will see people producing more of their own food and goods to reduce cost.It will cause an incredible economic slow down.

  • @Thewizzardof9 Well Actually the 9-9-9 the money people saved in their taxes would most likely balance out the cost, plus he said that in impoverished neighborhoods he could have a 8-8-8 plan or a 7-7-7 plan.

    

  • the 999 plan would be one hell of a tax hike. the sales tax portion of this will kill the economy. it has no chance of passing so I still support Cain for all his other ideas.

  • @Thewizzardof9 most areas of the country have a 5.5% to 12% sales tax as it is and the income tax is between 10% to 15% Nationally. 9% tax is actually an improvement for most people...

  • @ghettoflyer To be clear. the average state tax is 8%. Add 9% to that and you have 17% sales tax, then you add 9% income tax with no deductions. and you have 26% then you add the cost to goods you pay for corporate taxes. Yes you pay for those taxes in the cost of goods.now we have 35% taxes. what are we paying now? 8% state, plus if you only make a couple hundred K a year with deduction 3%, and a lot of corps like GE pay nothing to add to the cost of goods. so right now we pay about 11%.

  • Herman Cains personal story about how he survived cancer totally rips socialized medicine to shreds

  • It has to be the Dept. of Ed. Of all the useless destructive federal agencies, undoubtedly the DOE is the most destructive. It is like eating your seed corn. Most federally agencies mainly affect the present. As the DOE produces a future generation of maleducated citizens, it also blights the future.

  • Michael Scheuer

  • Neat! I'll have to watch that question, I missed most of the debate...

    For me, Herman Cain is appealing partially because he's not a politician! He says what he is, he means it, he isn't changing his message for the next crowd- he's extremely refreshing. He is also a very strong speaker, and seems to get better as he goes. He's really found his voice. Plus I am a supporter of the Fair Tax too.

  • @ZoozaTheBink You know he worked at the federal reserve?

  • @ShatterNWO

    Yes, I am aware. No offense, but I feel that some people have an irrational fear when it comes to the Federal Reserve. Having been on the board in Georgia has apparently helped Mr. Cain look at the subject more rationally, which I appreciate. He has stated that he is fine with auditing the fed, by the way, but that it isn't his top priority- and I agree with that attitude. There are many bigger problems to deal with: namely reversing all the damage Obama has done, first.

  • @ZoozaTheBink Irrational fear? I would say so when the average life span of a fiat currency is 27 years, we've been a fiat for 40. The damage Obama has done wouldn't be possible with out a central bank, it's jeffersonianism vs Hamiltonian, Cain is on Hamilton's side, don't be fooled.

  • Yes, yes, yes. For those who do not know what the EPA is (Environmental Protection Agency), think of this...

    -banning our own own (EPA), while paying tenfold for foreign bought.

    -stealing our own land (AGO Initiative) all across the US

    -wasting millions and millions on failed 'green' jobs and 'green' energy

    The EPA should go immediately, and you know what else? The Depart of Energy produces ZERO energy. Bye-bye.

  • Ron Paul is spot on when it comes to domestic issues for the most part, but people should be more critical when it comes to his foreign policy. His anti-U.N. rhetoric is on track, but when it comes to defense and the war on terror abroad, I am a bit skeptical to support him.

  • @OddRobb What are your specific concerns? His stance on Iran? Israel?

  • @ShatterNWO Russia, China, Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan for the most part

  • @OddRobb Our own CIA said there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion. Obviously, we found no weapons of mass destruction. They said no nation building, McCain was saying 100 years if necessary. Now they are doing the same thing with Iran. Let's just let Israel handle it. They can and will destroy Iran if we let them. We left Vietnam and now we're friends and trade with them and their economy boomed. Where do you see Libya in 15 years? I'm pretty sure our intervention will backfire

  • @OddRobb None of them have the same military capabilities we do and if we got rid of the EPA we would be a lot less reliant on overseas resources. Should we really be nation building and empire competing? The cold war was a fraud set up by our leaders and the soviets to increase each others military budget and grow the size of gov't within and beyond each others borders. The playing field is no longer black and white checkers, it's 3 dimensional chess.

  • @ShatterNWO Resources aside, they are still grave threats. Russia has said it will use nuclear weapons in any engagement with the West Europe or the U.S. China is rapidly militarizing and are developing weapons that are superior to our own. Same with Iran; who needs military when you have nukes? We need to preserve the peace and promote stability. If historically belligerent nations think they can get away with aggression against us or our allies, THEY WILL. Imbalance of power leads to war.

  • @OddRobb If you think about it, Ron's foreign policy would keep us much safer. We should build up our defenses and stop trying to be the police of the world. We need to bring the troops home and put them on our borders!

  • Ron pauls weakness is foreign policy, his domestic policy is very popular and i think correct(Though i do think the whole Gold Standard is a little to simplified and no one ever mentions the problems of it. Ron Paul sounds insane when he says Iran is not a threat, when a country that gives Hundreds of millions of dollars a year to terrorist organizations is developing nuclear weapons, then there are some serious problems.

  • @Mezey5 Exactly, for the most part. There are 2 camps that hate Ron Paul. The uninformed or misinformed and the people that disagree with his foreign policy. The foreign policy people can and usually debate, but the other people just try to create drama or nice rhetoric like, "he wants to legalize heroin" etc.. or "he hates America" Like this clown trenaway on this thread

  • @Mezey5

    I agree, we need to invade Iran because they're an incredibly dangerous regime that sponsors terrorism and a huge threat to national security because they're building weapons of mass destruction.

    ...wait a minute...where have I heard that one before?

    The government honestly believes the American public is stupid enough to fall for that exact same crock of shit all over again. And you know what, they're absolutely right.

  • @yeebuddeh1 You want to stick your head in the sand that is your choice, but don't come complaining "The government should of done something" or "Its our fault because we are mean to them", once they develop their Nukes. Also, this is nothing like Iraq. It is well known they have multiple enriching centers, you cannot honestly tell me those are only going to be used to create Nuclear power.

  • @Mezey5

    Let's say in 1953 Iran overthrew our democracy for oil profits and installed, trained and funded a murderous dictator for 26 years. Then, we overthrew him and christian fundamentalists took power and created an oppressive theocracy. Decades later they named the US the axis of evil, invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada, put their navy in the Caribbean. Then they say we can't generate nuclear power because we might be making nukes, even tho they're the only nation to ever use them

  • @yeebuddeh1 They *tell us* they want it for nuclear power.

    But considering how they've been acting towards certain nations I'd sooner give a 10 year old a flamethrower.

  • @yeebuddeh1 Yes Oil profits, that makes no sense at all, why in hell would our oil industries want competition from another country? Then you equate us to Iran only swapping out the power we have. What your saying has not happened. You still believe they are genuine when they say they only want Nuclear power, they refused any enriched uranium we were willing to sell to them, they could use coal as a power source(it is cheaper).

  • @Mezey5

    I was being hypothetical, just trying to get you to see it from Iran's perspective instead of always viewing the world through ethnocentric American eyes. I know what I said didn't happen to the US, but what I said is what the US has done to Iran for over half a century.

    Even if it is for weapons, why are we allowed to have nukes and Iran isn't? We've been a much larger sponsor of terrorism, we have the largest stockpiles of weapons and we're the only nation to ever actually USE them.

  • @yeebuddeh1 I know, i just find it absurd to think that we can equate ourselves to Iran, there is a real risk of actually giving them to terrorist. As far as us using them, it saved more lives then it cost, and i am sure the Japanese would rather not have the Russians controlling their islands. Which is why we dropped the second bomb. We didn't want what happened to Berlin to happen to Japan. Do you honestly think that Iran would use nuclear weapons in the same manner?