by Jack
First of all, nobody in their right mind would think 62,000 pages of complicated IRS rules and regulations is a great plan. Who would vote that into law? Yet this is what we have…amazing. So, anything that would simplify that tangled mess is off to a good start and probably better than what we have.
With that said, lets take a look at an article from Business Times. It has the good and bad points about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and lets see how you feel about it after you are done doing your homework?
Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the principles of Cain’s plan were solid. “As a matter of economic policy, it’s a very good idea: lower marginal tax rates, less double taxation on savings and investments, and elimination of corrupt and inefficient loopholes,” he told IBTimes. “Those are all things that public finance economists have long recognized are important.”
The 9-9-9 plan has drawbacks “relative to an ideal tax system,” but “relative to our current system, you’d have to say on balance it’s much better,” Will McBride, an economist for The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, said. “It reduces taxes on saving and investment, and that’s where economic growth comes from, basically. That is its primary benefit, and then, of course, it simplifies the tax code tremendously.”
Supporters of the plan have addressed some of the main criticisms of it, such as the fear — raised most recently by Michele Bachmann at Tuesday’s debate — that future presidents would inevitably raise the 9 percent rate, creating, for example, a 15-15-15 plan.
“It’s certainly a risk, but that’s the history of taxation,” McBride said. “Sure, there’s always going to be that pressure with any tax, but we have to compare to the current system, and it’s a big improvement over the current system. It’s a big reduction in the top tax rate and a flat tax on personal and corporate income. Those are very good things for long-term growth. Even if we eventually push the rate up to 15 percent, that’s a drastic decrease from the current system,” in which the corporate tax — though not personal income tax — is 35 percent.
And, in response to Mitt Romney’s jab at Tuesday’s debate that the 9-9-9 plan oversimplified the complex task of fixing the economy, Mitchell said, “I think the plan is strong because of its simplicity.” There is more to fixing the economy than tax reform, of course, but “one of the reasons I think Cain is attracting so much support is because he’s willing to come up with a bold plan,” he said.
Kevin Hassett, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, agreed. “This is a far more sophisticated plan than one might have expected, given that he is not a person that has been inside politics his whole life,” Hassett told USA Today. “The Cain plan is really solid. The only criticism one could make is it’s too bold or something like that.”
Side II: Bad Economic Policy
Critics of the 9-9-9 plan say that its negative microeconomic effects — that is, the potential burden on low-income Americans — would outweigh any benefits for the economy as a whole.
On paper, as Cain said at a debate in September, the plan treats everyone the same. But in practice, it taxes low-income Americans at a higher rate than their affluent counterparts, because how much a person would pay under the national sales tax, and how much they would save from the eliminated taxes on savings and investments, depends on how much of their income they spend, save and invest. In other words, the taxes take a disproportionate share of a low-income Americans’ disposable income.
Consider two people: one who earns $30,000 a year and spends all of it by necessity, and one who earns $500,000, spends $100,000 of it and saves or invests the remainder. Under Cain’s plan, the first person would pay an 18 percent tax on that $30,000: 9 percent in income tax and 9 percent in sales tax. But the second person would only pay about 11 percent in taxes on their $500,000 income: 9 percent in income tax and 1.8 percent in sales tax, since only 20 percent of their income would be subject to the sales tax, and savings and investments wouldn’t be taxed at all.
“Businesses will tax all wages, because wages don’t seem to be deductible,” Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, told IBTimes. “People, when they receive those wages, will pay another 9 percent tax on it, and then when they spend it, they’ll pay another 9 percent.”
That is a 27 percent effective tax on wages — but a zero percent tax on income from investments and capital gains.
“The obvious winners are the big guys who get a lot of their income from capital gains, and capital gains would not be taxed at all,” Williams said. But the majority of Americans who make their living from wages, not capital gains, would be hammered under the 9-9-9 plan.
“It is hard to fathom a hedge fund manager paying a higher effective tax rate than a secretary under Mr. Cain’s plan,” Andrew Fieldhouse, a budget policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, wrote recently. “Financiers would be able to receive all of their compensation as tax-free investment income, and … the windfall from eliminating investment income taxes would accrue to the top 1 percent of earners, who will pay over 70 percent of all capital gains and dividends taxes in 2011.”
The 9-9-9 plan “only makes sense if you believe that the problem with the current tax code is that low- and middle-income households have it way too good, and they should give more of their income to those poor Americans making more than half a million dollars a year,” Fieldhouse wrote.
Williams dismissed the idea that, as President Ronald Reagan famously argued, the economic benefits of cutting taxes for the wealthy would “trickle down” to middle-class and working-class Americans. “Only if you have very, very, very large macroeconomic gains would you get the trickle-down [effect], and in our history of that, there’s not much trickle down,” he said.
In a separate critique, Mitchell, the Cato Institute fellow — who did praise many of the principles of the 9-9-9 plan — expressed concern about some of the particulars, especially the idea of having three separate tax streams.
“Politicians have done a really bad job with one source of revenue, the personal income tax. Imagine giving them three sources of revenue,” he told IBTimes. “That, to me, would be very dangerous, because we see from the experience in Europe that politicians wouldn’t keep it 9-9-9. It would go to 19-19-19, or 29-29-29.”
What do you think? Would Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan be a good economic policy?
If you earn $40k and spend most of on necessities for your family, you would have a flat tax of 9% on your purchases, but you would also have a state sales tax, excluding groceries, lets say only half of that is taxable. So you can figure in another 4-4.5% on top of the fed tax. Add in 9% for income tax and you are up to 23% or more. So unless I am missing something, if you earn 40k a year under our current plan, and lets say you are married with two kids, and have a mortgage, you could be paying a little under $3000 a year in income tax. Under the Cain plan your tax would be a flat $3600 for income and figure another $1500-1800 for fed sales tax and then whatever the state ads on. I dunno…anyone have a good explanation for me?
Good or bad? I reserve judgment. In fact, I do not care.
That’s right, I do not care. Not one whit.
Suppose Herman Cain were elected President. Like all Presidents, he would use the bully pulpit to promote his plan in Congress and before the American people.
If he actually got anywhere 9-9-9 would, without a doubt, be argued, wrangled, twisted, wheeled and dealed, and transformed into something that Congress could pass. (I.E. Democrats would allow to pass.) Such a bill would likely barely resemble 9-9-9.
I don’t give a hoot about 9-9-9 other than it is a bold step in the right direction and I think Herman Cain would make a good President.
At least a much better President than his predecessor.
Personally, I wish someone would bend Herman Cain’s ear and say “flat tax” or “eliminate income tax, sales tax only”.
Cain’s plan may not pass but I love the fact that he has a plan and is willing to put it out for all to see. He has the POS prize winner beat on that alone. He is a smart guy, what he doesn’t know he will find out from what I am sure will be his very smart and very appropriate advisors. I just sent him $50, for me to do that is nothing short of amazing.
Pie, there is no question that we need serious tax reform and Cain has a plan. What we have now is just awful and it’s long overdue for a major revision. The question I pose, even though Cain’s plan may not work and therefore we shouldn’t get too excited about it, do you think it hints in any way about his wisdom/judgment for proposing it?
I like Cain’s forthright nature and I like the fact he is not a typical establishment republican and his background in business is good. However, I’m a bit concerned when a candidate for the most powerful job in the world proposes something that may not be well thought out. This job is way to important to shoot from the hip and hope it works. We need a rock solid personality, someone who is extremely cool under fire, who has restraint, introspection and clear vision for the consequences of his actions. Maybe Cain is the man, I just don’t know much about his personality makeup yet and a whole lot of people who have jumped on his bandwagon don’t know much about him either. That is troubling – even though I like the man and I think I could support him, there is much for me to learn about him. He is the most unknown candidate in the race right now because he has not been a politician and we don’t know how he will handle the competition and get along with the people he needs on his side. Have we seen a lot of endorsements from his former employers? I’m not aware of them, let’s go looking and see what we find.
Toby, Cain may be the man and I’m glad you like him. I like him too, I’m just not sure I’m ready to send him my money. Chalk it up to years of being totally screwed over by people I trusted and believed in. I’m a real hard sell as a result.
If I am wrong I am only out $50. I do not think I am wrong about this.
Toby, if I start a presidential campaign that will never pan out, propose a nonsensical taxation plan, and admit that I will violate the Constitution by refusing to hire certain people to my cabinet because of their religion, can I have your money too?
Update: MSNBC…”If you’re a corporation, own a small business or count yourself among the richest Americans, you’ll simply love it. If not, you’d simply pay a lot more in taxes.
Everyone hates the current tax code. A Congressional supercommittee is attacking the mess as part of a broad proposal to balance the federal budget. President Barack Obama wants to pay for his jobs stimulus package by raising taxes on the wealthiest households. Corporations are agitating for a tax holiday to bring home over a $1 trillion in profits stashed overseas to avoid the IRS back home.”
Hmmm…that doesn’t sound so good. If I can’t carry forward my $250k tax loss I’m really screwed.
No Chris, but you can take his money because you will likely be president if you have that much power.
I really like Cain and if the vote was today hed get my vote. But, I think he made a mistake coming out with his 9-9-9 plan so soon. Hes just put a big target on his back for not only the Dems but for the Reps too, as evident at the forum the other night. Hell have to spend his time defending the plan instead of doing what has been working for him so well up to this point.
We know hes smart, experienced and a non-politician, which are qualities a lot of us are looking for. He says he has a plan for changing the Federal Reserve Bank and someone to put in charge of it, but hes not ready to say what or who. He doesnt have foreign policy experience, but neither did Obama, so that is not a factor.
This reminds me of when G.W. Bush tried to change the Soc. Sec. system during his first term and was crucified. All he kept saying was this was his proposal, come up with something too. But, the attacks and discredit became the issue instead of correcting the problem that exist still today. President Clinton on the other hand with the support of a republican majority congress was able to make major changes to Soc. Sec. during his final term because both parties were able to work together.
Obamas presidency will not only go down in history as the worst concerning our economy, but as the most divisive factor amongst the two parties. Cain on the other hand comes across as having the personality and ability to bring people together, which we desperately need.
My advice. Stick to the issues, but keep the specifics of how until later when the timing is better and there is support in congress to make the needed changes.
Peggy: “But, I think he made a mistake coming out with his 9-9-9 plan so soon.”
He made a mistake coming UP with his 9-9-9 plan. It’s a bad plan, as almost every economist who has written on it has pointed out.
“Cain on the other hand comes across as having the personality and ability to bring people together, which we desperately need.”
Do you honestly believe this? I don’t see how you can say that Cain is going to “bring people together” when he has explicitly singled out a religious group which he doesn’t believe our country’s constitutional freedoms apply to. You know this, Peggy. I have pointed out Cain’s bigoted statements to you several times on this blog, and you’ve never responded to this issue.
Cain said he wouldn’t consider hiring Muslims to his cabinet if elected. If he followed through on this, he would be in clear violation of the Constitution.
Cain has also said that communities have the right to ban mosques. This too shows either a complete disregard for or complete ignorance of the Constitution.
Can anyone here who supports Cain please answer this question: How can you continue to do so when he has admitted that his personal prejudice against a specific group of Americans would interfere with his Constitutional duty as President?
Chris,
“Do you honestly believe this? I don’t see how you can say that Cain is going to “bring people together”…”
Yes, I do. He didn’t become the CEO of a major business without the people skills necessary to get people to work together. Have you heard him talk? He always says he’d bring people together and listen to what they say. Our current president is completely lacking in these skills and we are all suffering because of his shortcomings.
“I have pointed out Cain’s bigoted statements to you several times on this blog, and you’ve never responded to this issue.”
You must have me confused with someone else, because I’ve been gone for over 40 days and this is the first time I’ve commented on an article about Cain.
“Cain said he wouldn’t consider hiring Muslims to his cabinet if elected.”
If Obama can hire Marxist and Communist to his cabinet, doesn’t Cain have the right to not hire someone that differed from his beliefs? Last time I filled out a gov’t employment application I had to sign a loyalty oath swearing I wasn’t a communist. Have times changed so much and if so when?
“Cain has also said that communities have the right to ban mosques.”
Communities do have the right to approve what happens in their community. That’s why Chico doesn’t have a Super Wal-Mart. Also, the very large green belt limiting/preventing industry and residential development in specific areas. Remember? It’s not unconstitutional to control what happens locally. It’s part of the city councils’ and county supervisors’ responsibilities and duties that we elected.
I personally think he’d make a very good president, because he EARNED his way from nothing to become a very successful man. His parents had very little as far as what money could buy because of their blue collar jobs, but they raised a man who became educated and WORKED for what he has. And that is to be admired!! At least by me and several others.
Time will tell Chris, who will be going against Obama. I just hope you will give credit where credit is due and stop seeing everything from such a liberal point of view. You seem to have forgotten the racist remarks made by Obama in the recent past which brought about the “Beer Summit.”
No man or woman is perfect. We all make mistakes, but will we learn from them. Cain admitted he made a mistake. Did Obama? If he did, I didn’t hear it.
Some of the arguments against don’t make sense. From the article:
The entire thirty thousand wouldn’t be spent on taxable items so this is false. I also think I heard Cain say that necessities like food would not be subject to the sales tax.
The wealthy person paying 1.8% in sales tax is also bogus. If a guy buys a yacht, a villa, a jet or some other luxery item he will pay 9% on the total amount of the item. In addition, the money that he puts into savings and investment is also a contribution to the greater good…it just doesn’t go through the greasy, picking winners and losers redistribution center at the federal government. Instead it directly creates real lasting jobs, home loans that aren’t bogus, car loans, business loans, etc. If we reformed SS it would even help to create the opportunity for growing retirement plans that would place less burden on the taxpayer. In short that money FUELS THE ECONOMY!!!!!
This is a senior fellow? Businesses don’t tax anything…government does. (Product of our college system?)
This guy apparently believes that, oh I don’t know, A JOB, is too little trickle down. Incentive to save and invest for ones own future, to start ones own business doesn’t count as trickle down either. (Small minded thinker…has no faith in the poor having the ability to improve their own circumstances)
I do share the concern of Mitchell of CATO that three revenue streams would open the door to three higher (and higher and higher) rates, however, they would have to justify making that bigger hit on the poor and I doubt if any American would be happy about that.
I think it’s important for all Americans to pay into the system so they experience being equal as citizens. I think it’s important to encourage savings and investment for the future. One way for anyone to avoid the sales tax is to become a saver. The beauty in this is that the individual decides.
Re Post Scripts:
Pie, there is no question that we need serious tax reform … The question I pose, even though Cain’s plan may not work … do you think it hints in any way about his wisdom/judgment for proposing it?
He is the only one proposing real tax reform, no? Works for me. Wise judgment? Maybe not in terms of a campaign, maybe yes. Cain should not weld himself to 9-9-9, he should back off and say it is a proposal in progress and that he is open to discussion. I am pretty sure he already has, but I am not going to go look that up right now.
However this shakes down (there is plenty of time), I think Cain is a viable candidate and would make a good President. Yes, in my mind he has some definite negatives (like staying the heck out of some local issues and non-issues), but I won’t discuss them here unless he really pisses me off.
Who doesn’t have negatives? What candidate has ever been perfect besides Obama?
Here is what Art Laffer, economic expert had to say about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.
========
Art Laffer, economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, shared his thoughts Thursday on GOP presidential candidate Herman Cains 999 plan during an appearance on Fox News with Bret Baier.
The economist after whom the famous Laffer Curve was named, said of Cains 999,I think its a wonderful plan.
Laffer reportedly lauded the plans structure, saying it would lower the tax rate and broaden the tax base while provide people with the least incentive to cheat on their taxes. He also emphasized the importance of eliminating the corporate tax rate.
Fox adds:
Baier then asked him about many critics belief that the nines in the plan could be raised limitlessly by politicians in the future: Will we ever have a 20-20-20 plan?
Laffer said there will always be that problem with politicians and this is a plan the U.S. could benefit from now, as it is a huge improvement from the current tax codes.
The current tax codes are filled with all sorts of awful ducks, chickens, pigs and turkeys, Laffer said. Theyve got to be cleaned out and we have to revamp the codes. Id really like to see that done.
I’ve always respected Laffer. He was 100% behind Reaganomics when Ronnie was prez and we saw the economy surge for almost 8 years. During this time of prosperity Reagan dropped the corporate tax rate down to 34% from 46% and this had a tremendous impact on the 21 million jobs that were gained during his administration. We now have the 2nd highest corp tax rate (39.25%) and its cost us jobs and moved business out of the US. We’re only .031% from being the highest!
Thanks Peggy!
Hi,
I am Peter Harper, a member of some financial communities.
I would love to write some posts for your if you would allow it.It should be completely FREE of cost.
Let me know your thoughts.
Waiting for your positive reply.
Reach me at: peterharper99@gmail.com
Have a very Nice Day!
—
Regards,
Peter Harper
Marketing Head & Editor
Chicago, Illinois – 60607, USA
—– —– —– —– —- —
Phone : 9167458161I
Skype name : peterharper99
mail : peterharper99@gmail
Peggy: “You must have me confused with someone else, because I’ve been gone for over 40 days and this is the first time I’ve commented on an article about Cain.”
I didn’t know there were two different Peggys here, both of whom support Herman Cain. So you’re not the person who posted this, on September 27, 2011, at 7:46 AM?
“Bill O’Reiley on ABC this morning talked about a “Regular guy” having a chance to beat Obama and not a career politician. There is only one that fits the bill. H. Cain.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/09/gop-straw-poll-for-presid.html
It was then that I responded with a link to Herman Cain admitting that his prejudice against Muslims would trump his constitutional obligations.
I found many other posts by a “Peggy” who sounds a lot like you over the past forty days, and many of them voice support for Cain. So I am not sure what’s up. If you are not the person that has been posting these things, I apologize, and you may want Jack and Tina to look into the matter.
“If Obama can hire Marxist and Communist to his cabinet, doesn’t Cain have the right to not hire someone that differed from his beliefs?”
There are a whole bunch of things about this question that don’t make any sense.
The first is that it’s just not a logical argument. President X’s right TO hire certain people regardless of their political affiliation does not translate into President Y’s right NOT TO hire certain people because of their religious affiliation.
The second is that President Obama has not hired Marxists and Communists to his cabinet. Former Marxists and Communists, yes, but they all disavowed these belief systems long before being hired.
The third is that the analogy just doesn’t apply. Our country has been at war with Communism may times in the past. We have never been at war with Islam.
The final and most important problem with your argument is that it completely ignores the principle of religious freedom as outlined in Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
It is the height of hypocrisy for the Tea Party, who claim to be constitutional purists, to support a man who has explicitly admitted that he would violate this provision of the constitution if he obtained the office of president.
“Communities do have the right to approve what happens in their community.”
You’re ignoring the obvious, Peggy. Communities have the right to consider a wide variety of factors when making zoning decisions, but RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION IS NOT ONE OF THEM. A community cannot ban the building of a religious center simply because they disagree with the religion. If they have other issues with the construction, then they are allowed to consider those, but they cannot ban a mosque simply because they don’t like Muslims. If they do so they are in violation of their citizens’ religious freedom and can be legally prosecuted for this.
“You seem to have forgotten the racist remarks made by Obama in the recent past which brought about the “Beer Summit.””
He never made any racist remarks for me to forget. He did say the officer involved acted “stupidly.” Whether you agree with that assessment or not, his remarks were not racist.
Tina, I’ll have to reply to your points later.
Re Peggy’s: “If Obama can hire Marxist and Communist to his cabinet, doesn’t Cain have the right to not hire someone that differed from his beliefs? Last time I filled out a gov’t employment application I had to sign a loyalty oath swearing I wasn’t a communist. Have times changed so much and if so when?”
Yes, times have changed.
As for who the President can hire, the President can anyone he pleases for any reason he pleases. It is completely up to his own personal discretion.
If he does not want to hire a Communist, he does not have to hire a Communist.
If he does not want to hire an Islamo-fascist, he does not have to hire an Islamo-fascist.
If he does not want to hire a Muslim because he thinks the Muslim may be a Sharia adhering Islamo-fascist (or for whatever reason) he does not have to hire a Muslim.
Herman Cain is a practical guy. He knows a large fraction of Islam has declared war on the United States. He also knows that Islamicists are well known for duplicity and covert operations. Like Communists.
If he ever were to hire a Muslim or need to approve a Muslim to be put in a position of authority, I am pretty confident that person would be well vetted, given the real risks involved concerning Muslims.
I won’t bother to post for the umpteenth time the American Islamic Forum for Democracy web site. People should know by now that there are some Muslims who have not only fled Sharia, they have rejected it or are trying to transform it, and have embraced democracy. People who think I am a bigot with regard to Muslims can think anything they durn well please. I am done defending myself with bigot labeling morons. (Cain is probably done with this too.) Let the dopes and ostriches believe anything they want. You can’t change their thinking.
Chris: I stand corrected. I did submit that statement on Sept. 27th from Pensacola, FL during one of the rare times I had access to a computer and took the time to pull up PS. But, I didnt see your response and, therefore, did not reply. As for lots of other comments during Aug. 29 to Oct. 6, I seriously doubt there are more than one or two more. Jack and Tina, you dont need to look into this. But, enough on that.
As for the rest of your comments about what I stated I still stand by most of what I said:
Cain is a worthy candidate. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt make him less worthy.
Van Jones and Anita Dunn did proclaim to be members or admirers of a Communist organization and Marxist philosophy. Anita Dunns speech to the high school was in May 2009, and Van Jones did sign a 911 Truther petition, and he was involved with Marxist organization in the 1990s. Political views do not switch on and off like a light switch just because someone is in the WH one day and not the next or vise versa.
We may not be at war with the Islamic religion, but we are at war with Islamic Terrorist who come from or live in countries where the Islamic faith is their political foundation. Please dont split hairs on a war and undeclared war. (My dad was in a foxhole in WWII and the Korean conflict, and stationed at a hospital in Vietnam. My husband was very lucky to survive Vietnam only to be spit on when he got home by probably some of the same individuals who became your professors and have/had been filling you head with the garbage you have expressed.) Who, what and where the threat to America comes from has changed since we became a nation. Saying since weve never been at war with Islam doesnt eliminate the possibility of a future conflict with radical extremist. We are being attacked all of the time by individuals and groups using shoes, underwear and planes as bombs. Wake up!
Communities do have the right to approve what goes on locally. The Ground Zero mosque would have been built years ago if they didnt. Not saying it wont be built somewhere else or even there in the future, but for now its not happening.
Ill give you the Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution. But, Cain did say he was wrong and admitted it. Dont care what the Tea Party of anyone else believes. Still havent heard Obama do the same.
Ok, Ill even give you another one. Obama isnt racist, hes just a bigot. (See definition below.)
Bigot:
Intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Peggy: “Chris: I stand corrected.”
OK, thanks for clearing up my confusion.
“Cain is a worthy candidate. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt make him less worthy.”
I don’t think he’s an unworthy candidate because I disagree with him. I think he’s an unworthy candidate because the Constitution disagrees with him.
“Van Jones and Anita Dunn did proclaim to be members or admirers of a Communist organization and Marxist philosophy. Anita Dunns speech to the high school was in May 2009,”
Dunn’s speech, in which she quoted Mao Tse-Tung, was taken completely out of context by the right wing media. Dunn was being ironic when she referred to him as one of her “favorite political philosophers.” Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich, both Republicans, have also quoted Mao in the past, and “Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush “encouraged me to read a Mao biography.””
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-16/politics/beck.dunn_1_mao-mein-kampf-lee-atwater/2?_s=PM:POLITICS
From the same link:
“Beck led the charge against Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones over a petition Jones signed in 2004 calling for an investigation into whether government officials deliberately allowed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to occur.
Jones said of the petition on the Web site 911truth.org: “I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.””
Peggy: “Political views do not switch on and off like a light switch just because someone is in the WH one day and not the next or vise versa.”
I don’t believe they flip on and off, but I do believe people’s views can change over time. Communism was at one point a very attractive political philosophy to a lot of intelligent people. Over time, it was completely discredited. Many of the people involved may still have beliefs that you view as far left, but it is not accurate to describe them as current Communists.
“My husband was very lucky to survive Vietnam only to be spit on when he got home by probably some of the same individuals who became your professors and have/had been filling you head with the garbage you have expressed.”
Please.
“Communities do have the right to approve what goes on locally. The Ground Zero mosque would have been built years ago if they didnt.”
What do you mean? As far as I’m aware the Islamic community center near Ground Zero did not face any opposition from local government. Most of the opposition was led by Pamela Geller, the mentally ill right wing extremists whose most infamous blog articles include theorizing that Malcom X is Barack Obama’s biological father, insulting the Oslo terrorist victims after inspiring the terrorist in the first place, and calling Rick Perry a “stealth jihadist.”
“Not saying it wont be built somewhere else or even there in the future, but for now its not happening.”
Whaa–? What’s not happening? The “Ground Zero Mosque” which isn’t actually a mosque? I hate to break it you, but the community center opened weeks ago to little controversy. Did you not know this?
“Ill give you the Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.”
That’s kind of a big point to concede, since it’s pretty much the centerpiece of my entire argument.
“But, Cain did say he was wrong and admitted it.”
Do you have a link to his apology? I ask because I can’t find this anywhere. I do know that he denied saying that he wouldn’t hire a Muslim, and his statement on the rights of communities to ban mosques. Both of these denials were rated false by Politifact. But I have never heard him apologize for either of these statements.
Pie: “If he does not want to hire a Muslim because he thinks the Muslim may be a Sharia adhering Islamo-fascist (or for whatever reason) he does not have to hire a Muslim.”
But he would have to have legitimate reason to suspect that, and in his initial comments he said that the mere fact of someone being a Muslim would be enough to disqualify him from consideration. That’s unconstitutional, Pie, and I don’t understand why I keep having to explain that.
Here is a link of Cain clarifying his remark.
“In a statement sent to reporters following the meeting, Cain apologized for causing offense to Muslims, but didnt renounce his earlier comments.”
While I stand by my opposition to the interference of shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends, Cain said. I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60100.html#ixzz1av8FGa94
And another statement and link.
I immediately said without thinking No, I would not be comfortable, he said. I did not say that I would not have them in my cabinet. If you look at my career, I have hired good people regardless of race, religion, sex gender, orientation and this kind of thing.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55585.html#ixzz1av7IgCrC
And one more.
“Cain compared the treatment to American Muslims to plight of southern blacks before the Civil Rights era, which Cain experienced during his childhood.”
“In my own life as a black youth growing up in the segregated South, I understand their frustration with stereotypes,” Cain said. “Those in attendance, like most Muslim Americans, are peaceful Muslims and patriotic Americans whose good will is often drowned out by the reprehensible actions of jihadists.”
“Marro said that Cain’s apology appeared to be “genuine” and that the candidate had received a lot of “misinformation” about Islam, according to the Talking Points Memo’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, who spoke to witnesses at the meeting.
Cain, a minister, said that the group has invited him back to speak to the group’s youth group and during a worship service.”
Peggy, thank you for those links. I am glad to see that Cain apologized, and I hope he is being genuine. However, his refrain of “I did not say that” is untrue. See Politifact’s evaluation here:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/jun/08/herman-cain/cain-denies-claims-he-said-he-would-not-appoint-mu/
I am also curious, do you think Cain should have apologized for these remarks? I ask because earlier you defended what he said, and seemed to be arguing that there was nothing wrong with saying that communities have the right to ban mosques, and that presidents have the right to consider religion when making hiring decisions. Do you still agree with these positions, or have I been able to change your mind?
Good thing I’m not president, because it’s my belief that being a member of the Islamic faith is to subscribe to their politico-theocratic system, in that they believe its one’s highest calling to spread this political-theocracy until the world is put right under one religion/one government and that obviously puts America out in the cold. The more fundamentalist they are them more emphasis is given to this religious-geopolitical movement. I called this the nation of Islam movement, but that is a misnomer and I should not have done that. I hope this will clarify what I meant?
Islamic Sharia law that goes with it is wholly incompatible with the idealism that is in free America where we recognize equality and inalienable rights. Ya put these two things together and we have a potentially big problem, why would we want to do that? I would not allow Muslims to serve in Congress and above. There is too much risk and there is no reward. It might be PC, but its still stupid.
If we’re going to let Muslims in knowing how they feel about being citizens of Islam, hating Jews, supporting Sharia law, we might as well let in cannibals, anarchists, commies and nazi’s. They’re no more or no less compatible… in my opinion.
We have to have standards about loyalty and when a person owes their allegiance to another nation, in this case the nation of Islam…yeah, I got a problem with that! And I don’t support their all too common opinions on their barbaric 10th century notions of justice! Anyone who believe in that crap ought to live in a country that supports it, but not in America. So I guess we’re on two totally different tracks. -Jack
Jack, you have once again conflated the Nation of Islam with the religion of Islam. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME THING. This is not the first time you have made this ignorant error, nor is it the first time I have pointed the error out to you.
Given your seemingly willful ignorance on this issue, I don’t see how we can take your evaluation of Islam at all seriously. You clearly don’t know enough about the religion to even be able to tell it apart from another, totally different religion. So yes, it’s a good thing you’re not president, because if you were you couldn’t be trusted to do ten seconds of research before trampling all over the constitutional rights of a religious group that you know nothing about.
Chris my meaning for the nation of Islam is simply that Muslims recognize their own Islamic style government. Fundamentalist Muslims believe no other government is legitimate. They belong to a Muslim government or authority first before any thing else. I should have explained this and set it apart from the Nation of Islam movement, which is something entirely different.
Even if I were to believe that, Jack, your views on this matter are repugnant and totally counter to what the Constitution says and what the founders believed. Does this not matter to you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankie-martin/islam-the-founding-father_b_637106.html
“John Adams, America’s second president, named the Prophet Muhammad one of the world’s great truth seekers alongside Socrates and Confucius. Thomas Jefferson, the country’s third president and the author of the Declaration of Independence, learned Arabic using his copy of the Qur’an and hosted the first presidential iftar, marking the end of the daily fast during Ramadan. The Founding Fathers also drew upon principles from Muslim civilizations, among many others, in fashioning the American political and judicial system.
But perhaps the most striking writings on Islam by the Founding Fathers come from Benjamin Franklin, America’s great philosopher and scientist. Franklin expressed his respect for Islam and his strong belief in religious freedom when he wrote of his desire to see the Mufti of Istanbul preach Islam from a Philadelphia pulpit.
But he faced a challenge from his own countrymen in convincing them to be as tolerant.
In December 1763, a group of 50 Pennsylvania frontiersmen, seeking to prevent Native American attacks on their homes and frustrated that the government had not taken action against hostile tribes, tortured, mutilated and murdered a group of peaceful Christian Native Americans in the most horrific fashion.
The supposedly Christian frontiersmen, wrote an outraged Franklin, were more barbaric than those to which they claimed superiority.
Franklin went on to assert that Native Americans would have been safer had they been living in a Muslim country, as Islam shows even prisoners more humanity than the frontiersmen had shown free men. Franklin praised the compassion of the Prophet Muhammad, writing that the Prophet had applauded the humaneness of soldiers who treated their captives well. Franklin also spoke of his admiration for the 12th century sultan Saladin as a ruler who demonstrated both justice and compassion.”
What exactly would those things be Chris that you say are so repugnant? Where do my views and the Constitution differ?
Jack, what part of “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” do you not understand?
I think Cain’s objections were ideological more than religious, which is evident in his apology, further explanations, and participation with Muslims.
Chris, you refuse to acknowledge the ideological differences that many, including many Muslims, say are inconsistent with American laws and ideals. That is your right but it doesn’t mean you are right about Jack or anyone else who expresses reasonable caution, including Mr. Herman Cain.
A totally irrelivent evaluation! It assumes: a) That all Muslims are peaceful and wish us no harm, and b) That no Muslim is working within the US to destroy us from within. Jacks views are based on those two FACTS!
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/chrisfield/2011/03/23/shariah_law_in_america_the_islamists_plan_to_destroy_us_from_within
With respect to Sharia, yours is a mindlessly tolerant, naive, and narrow worldview.
Presidents must consider many things when evaluating cabinet members. I think all of our representatives and appointees should be required to have a background check to determine their loyalties to the US.
You are not mature enough to make the kind of adult decisions required of the president of the United States…which is why the founders wisely gave us that age requirement. Unfortunately for Americans, in Obamas case the age thing didn’t help. This president has encouraged class envy and redistribution of tax dollars and wealth based on special groups, class, and campaign donors. How’s that for being constitutionally challenged?
Your pompous preaching is wearing a little thin, Chris.
Tina: “A totally irrelivent evaluation! It assumes: a) That all Muslims are peaceful and wish us no harm, and b) That no Muslim is working within the US to destroy us from within.”
No, absolutely nothing I have said relies on either of those two assumptions.
I am quite aware that there are many Muslims who wish harm to the United States, and are working to destroy it.
That does not at all change the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids the president from religiously discriminatory hiring practices.
If anything, the idea that a president could disqualify a candidate based on the fact that they are Muslim relies on the assumption that all Muslims are enemies of the United States.
I know you don’t believe that, and I’m not accusing you of saying that. But your belief that the president can discriminate against a candidate simply for being a Muslim is logically inconsistent with your previous acknowledgments that there are peaceful, America-loving Muslims who are loyal to our country.
“Presidents must consider many things when evaluating cabinet members. I think all of our representatives and appointees should be required to have a background check to determine their loyalties to the US.”
Of course. No one has suggested otherwise. If a potential cabinet member has a history of being connected to radical Islam, they should of course be disqualified. But there is a big difference between that, and disqualifying someone merely because they are a Muslim. The latter is what Herman Cain was referring to initially, but it seems he has since apologized. So why are you still defending his initial error?
“*A U.S. judge refused a protection order for a woman raped by her husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah Law”
Tina, it’s important to note that this ruling was later overturned, and rightfully so.
Chris,
“I am also curious, do you think Cain should have apologized for these remarks?”
Yes, of course I believe he should have apologized, if what he said was wrong and/or a lie. And I think I proved with my links that he did and tried to explain his remarks on numerous occasions.
Let me clarify the difference between someone making a statement that is or may be wrong based on their knowledge or point of view versus someone who knowingly tells a lie. An out and out lie, “white” lie or lie by omission is still a lie. I do not believe Cain lied, but I do believe he misspoke and has apologized for it. Weve all told lies to not hurt someones feeling, but lying for personal, professional and political gain is wrong on every moral and ethical level.
On the other hand Ive heard Mr. Obama telling out and out lies. Today in NC he said the republicans stopped his jobs bills from passing the senate. That is a lie, because most of us know the democrats hold the majority in the senate and the republicans didn’t have the votes to pass it if they wanted to. So, is he lying and why? Obama lied because he knew the media would pick it up and repeat it over and over reaching enough uninformed individuals who would believe it to gain him some votes next November.
“I ask because earlier you defended what he said, and seemed to be arguing that there was nothing wrong with saying that communities have the right to ban mosques, and that presidents have the right to consider religion when making hiring decisions. Do you still agree with these positions, or have I been able to change your mind?”
I have not changed my mind on communities having the right to control what goes in to their areas. I do, however, believe the process must comply with our constitution and local regulations.
Religion should not be used in determining someones qualification for holding a position, but all high-level White House advisors members of Congress, Judges, etc. should be vetted and only those who can swear to uphold our constitution above all others should be confirmed fill those positions. Also, WH czars should be banned along with dozens of other positions filled without a vetting process.
Thanks Chris for the opportunity to clarify my position. Ive enjoyed our discussion. Ive learned something and hope you have too. Peggy
Chris: “That does not at all change the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids the president from religiously discriminatory hiring practices.”
The question was a media gotcha question for Mr. Cain and they and their preferred party scored.
People like you will not give him the same forgiveness or understanding that you give Obama for his many lies and gaffs. Now that the gotcha question worked, no matter what Cain says or does you will continue to argue the point. Would that you were this rigorous with members of your own party.
Had Obama been vetted AT ALL, if the media bothered to investigate democrats (as Palin has been for instance) we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in right now.
“If anything, the idea that a president could disqualify a candidate based on the fact that they are Muslim relies on the assumption that all Muslims are enemies of the United States.”
Although he answered without thinking, which was a mistake, he sincerely apologized and reached out to the Muslim community to make amends. I do not believe he was thinking in religious terms at all but in terms of the threat terrorists pose to America and his responsibility as president to protect the Constitution and protect Americans. You are being tiresome.
“…your belief that the president can discriminate against a candidate simply for being a Muslim…”
I don’t believe that and if you think I do you are projectinbg your own bigoted opinion about conservatives onto me. I don’t think presidents should descriminate based on religion or color. I do think in these times it would be wise to very carefully vet anyone that could conceivably have terror ties…even ties to DRUG CARTELS in Mexico!
“So why are you still defending his initial error?”
I’m NOT defending his initial error. I am accusing YOU of being like a dog with a favorite bone…you just won’t let it go and you are hypocritical since you do not seem to hold Obama to the same standard. His class warfare, expressed in policy and law not just words is descriminatory and totally against the Constitution. That you not only defend but applaud!
“…it’s important to note that this ruling was later overturned, and rightfully so.”
Indeed. You haven’t been around long enough to appreciate creep…we must guard against the creep of Sharia law into the American fabric and legal system and we must begin NOW.
Look at Europe…they failed to protect against Sharia creep and they are losing their heritage and setting up the atmosphere for bloody conflict. A nation that fails to assimilate it’s immigrants is a nation that cannot hold on to its original charter…it will crumble.
Cain takes the madate of the presidency to uphold the Constitution and protect the people very seriously. The answer he gave reflects that sense of serious dedication.
Tina, your initial comment definitely seemed to be a defense of the position that it is OK for a president to refuse to hire someone because of their Muslim faith. I apologize if I misread your intentions, but I think my mistake has more to do with your lack of clarity than any “bigotry” on my part.
After all, Jack has explicitly stated that he “would not allow Muslims to serve in Congress and above,” and compared Muslims to cannibals, Nazis, and KKK members. I am glad you do not share his views, but I hardly see how you can accuse me of “bigotry” for a simple misreading while you ignored the very clear bigotry perpetuated by your fellow blogger.
Hey Chris, be fair now, I qualified and tempered my remarks…I was reacting with more than a little frustration in my first comparison. Lets be clear what bigot means..the dictionary says, it is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race. I am tolerant of many views, many religions, many forms of politics and of all races. I only take exception to those people who want to kill us or geo-political-religious movements that want to dominate us. So be clear on what you are saying and be fair.
I found the below WSJ article by Arthur Laffer interesting and understandable. Similar plans by Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown had bipartisan support.
=========
“While the 9-9-9 plan has captured people’s imaginations at this moment, it’s not all that different from California Gov. Jerry Brown’s 13% flat tax when he ran for president in 1992. As you may recall, he came in second behind Bill Clinton in the Democratic Party primary.
In 1986, President Reagan passed a major tax-reform bill that lowered to 28% from 50% the top marginal personal income tax rate. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 also raised the lowest marginal income tax rate to 15% from 11% and closed many loopholes, making for a flatter tax structure. Reagan’s bill passed the Senate in a landslide 97-to-3 vote. Who says a flat tax can’t be a bipartisan proposal?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Tina: “The question was a media gotcha question for Mr. Cain and they and their preferred party scored.”
Please. The question was fair and relevant. A gotcha question is a question with no right answer, like “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
The question posed to Cain was a very easy one. He should have immediately said that he would not use religious criteria to determine who to hire, because that is unconstitutional. As someone who brings up the constitution quite a lot, he should have known this. While I accept his apology and appreciate his subsequent outreach to the Muslim community, I still think his initial answer is relevant because it shows how woefully unprepared he is for the job of presidency. As of only a few months ago, he did not have an eighth grader’s grasp of the U.S. Constitution, and he cannot think on the spot at all. If this very simple, fair, and clear-cut question is too much of a “gotcha” for Cain, than he clearly is not ready for the pressure of the presidency.
“I am accusing YOU of being like a dog with a favorite bone…you just won’t let it go and you are hypocritical since you do not seem to hold Obama to the same standard. His class warfare, expressed in policy and law not just words is descriminatory and totally against the Constitution. That you not only defend but applaud!”
Tina, you use the term “class warfare” in the same way you use the term “bigotry.” Both of them, in your mind, are only applicable when you feel like they are being aimed toward your preferred group. Obama is guilty of bigotry and class warfare because he suggests raising taxes on the rich…but you have no problem with Cain saying that he will employ discriminatory hiring practices against a religious minority, or advocating a plan that most economists have said will raise the tax burden on the poor. Cain has also said that “if you dont have a job and youre not rich, blame yourself! […] It is not someones fault if they succeeded, it is someones fault if they failed.” How is this not class warfare? We’re in the middle of record unemployment, where there are four job-seekers for every opening, and Cain is out there telling those who can’t find jobs that it is all their fault, as if they’re just lazy stupid leeches?
Of course, that’s not class warfare or bigotry to you. Those are things that only Democrats do to Republicans.
It’s positively Orwellian. You’ve accused me so many times of “seeing everything through the lens of bigotry…” and yet you constantly accuse people who disagree with you of being bigoted when that term in no way applies. You use this term in such a way that it loses all meaning, making you guilty of the very thing you criticize.
Peggy: “Religion should not be used in determining someones qualification for holding a position, but all high-level White House advisors members of Congress, Judges, etc. should be vetted and only those who can swear to uphold our constitution above all others should be confirmed fill those positions.”
Thank you! I absolutely agree, Peggy. Now I’m just waiting for Jack to come around.
“Also, WH czars should be banned along with dozens of other positions filled without a vetting process.”
Hm…not sure I agree with this. You do know that all presidents have had czars, and some have argued that Bush had more than Obama. But the term “czar” is very unofficial, so there is some debate on this matter.