In the days before the vote, nearly all the delegates who voted for Cain either said or heard someone else say this: "I love Herman Cain, but he can't get elected." The assumption that Cain can't win the Republican nomination was a serious obstacle in their minds. But at some point late Friday and early Saturday, the delegates overcame that obstacle. Some concluded that since they had heard so many people speak well of Cain, he could indeed win, if everyone who liked him would actually vote for him.Now that's interesting.
UPDATE: Here is the video of Mr. Cain's remarks on health care at the recent debate.
I remember reading some posts by left-leaning writers, which I can't seem to find now, that pointed to these very remarks from the debate as the ones that made them angriest. Their point, as I recall, was that nothing in Obama's plan would put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. I assume they believe this is true because the letter of the law does not do so.
However, it's hard to see how the plan avoids triggering the consequence, even if it does not state that it will do so.
16 comments:
I like Cain for his words, how he says them and because he's NOT a career politician.
He's got my vote.
William sends.
I like Cain quite a bit, particularly for his business acumen, biography, and what appears to be a wide streak of candor.
My concern is that he doesn't seem to know a lot about foreign affairs, and maybe not a lot outside of business. His early gaffes about Israel and Muslims pointed this out.
That said, when Cain was called on his previous Israel gaffe, without any prevarication he said that he hadn't known what he was talking about, but that he had since read up on the issue, and he showed that by re-answering the question well.
Cain doesn't have everything I want in a president, but no candidate right now does.
I will say, from the beginning, I've severely disliked the "I would support him, but he can't win the nomination" nonsense. If you start supporting him, he's one vote closer to the nomination. Never give up before the fight even begins.
I will still be voting for Herman Cain when the SC primary rolls around.
Well the interesting thing is exactly *who* is saying Cain could not win?
Like Cicero said: "Qui bono?"
If you think he's the right choice, vote for him.
This is the reason that I took the trouble of backing Rep. Bachmann early in the process -- if she was going to have a chance at all, she needed people to support her. Her Constitutional arguments were strong, but few will back anyone until they see other people backing that person.
I wonder about Cain. I have to admit that I hadn't paid much attention to him out of a vague sense that he probably couldn't win -- which is apparently a very common sense. Where is it coming from? SNL joked this weekend that the Republican debate was between Gov. Perry and former Gov. Romney, and 'six other people who will never be President but showed up anyway.' We all think we know who the frontrunners are, but Cain walked away with a major victory here. So where is this sense about the race coming from? Media reports, and SNL skits?
That's sort of alarming, isn't it?
Quite alarming, actually.
Now I have to read up on the Fair Tax, which Cain's 999 plan is a prelude to (at least, if he can get it through Congress).
Any thoughts on the Fair Tax?
To digress for a moment, '999 plan' just sounds like it came out of a pizza chain marketing dept., doesn't it?
The Fair Tax is nothing more or less than a plan to replace the entire tax code (not just income, but Social Security, Capital Gains, Medicare and other assorted Federal taxes) completely with a flat national sales tax combined with a monthly prebate check cut to every household in the US for the tax expenses calculated that that household will require for living necessities. In other words, you get a check making up the amount you'd need to pay in tax for a month's groceries, and other minimum living expenses each month, and any tax you spent above that (based upon what you purchased) would go to the government coffers.
My only concern with it is that if the other federal taxes are removed solely by the force of law (and not by repealing the 16th Amendment) then a future Congress will simply restore those taxes on top of the Fair Tax. Other than that, it's a plan I wholeheartedly support.
I would assume that the powers that be would simply add the national sales tax onto the existing structure, as European nations have done with the VAT on top of personal income taxes et cetera. I would prefer a flat income tax rate and a low flat business tax rate without the national sales tax. Another element to consider is that the cumulative effects of the VAT create a very large tax bite: 10% tax on each material, plus 10% on each layer of production, plus the final 10% on the finished good, for example.
LittleRed1
LR1, according to the Wikipedia article on the FairTax (I wish people would stop naming things w/o spaces), it is a tax only at the point of sale, so it's not like a VAT.
There's been a FairTax bill in committee in each session of Congress since 1999 (Zell Miller was a co-sponsor, interestingly enough). These proposals replace the current tax structure, including getting rid of the IRS entirely, as part of the bill. They also give a "prebate" to each taxpayer equal to the tax on spending at the poverty line, so each month you'd get a check from the government. (The 2009 bill stipulated $208 / mo for a single adult.)
I think the biggest issue is that no one really knows what would happen if it was implemented. (Sure, lots of economists have theories ...)
Cain's 999 plan is a phased implementation of the Fair Tax (thankfully, Mr. Cain uses spaces).
Phase 1 is simply a reform of the current tax system, basically capping income tax at 25%, not taxing overseas profits brought back to the US, reducing the capital gains tax, etc.
Phase 1 Enhanced is his 999 plan: 9% national sales tax, 9% individual flat tax, 9% business flat tax; no payroll tax, inheritance tax, or capital gains tax.
Phase 2 is implementing the Fair Tax.
I'm not sold on all this by any means, but since I brought it up I thought I'd present my initial research.
Zell Miller's endorsement of it is persuasive. He was one of the last good men in politics; although Allen West is another, there are few left.
Not that Zell was perfect. He was a segregationist in his youth, a fault he admitted and apologized for later. I never met a perfect man, though, and few enough good ones. He did his best later, and I still believe that his speech at the RNC in 2004 is what decided the election.
I admire Miller quite a bit, and his endorsement makes me at least think about it more seriously.
I didn't know he had been a segregationist, but we all make mistakes. It sounds like he recognized his.
The problem with the FairTax to me is twofold- first that inevitably, it will get legislated that some people need a larger prebate, and some might not need any, and it will be made progressive, partially defeating the purpose, and 2) that an income tax would later be added back, but only to high income earners.
Of course, the argument against all these concerns is that what we need is to get rid of the jalopy we call our current tax system, and replace it with something that hasn't been corrupted yet. We can deal with the inevitable corruptions of man in any system later- just as we're dealing with this one now.
I don't care who they are, so long as they crush the Left and eradicate their power base from existence.
That's sort of alarming, isn't it?
It's bad propaganda for people to become aware of it. But even bad propaganda works, precisely because most people are born to follow and do as they are told, when they are told. They wait around until someone tells them that people are now following Leader A. Then they will also believe in leader A.
Post a Comment