The richest one percent will save on average $205,000 in taxes. The poorest 60% (most of us) will see an INCREASE in taxes on average of $2,000.

Cain admits this, but says "it will be good in the long run". Huh?

The Republicans just get goofier and goofier.

Huh, I thought even the democrats where asking for everyone to pay their "fair" share, Or is that only the rich should pay most of the share and the poorer pay nothing.

The plan is interesting because it gets away from the tax havens which allow many to pay very little. It is said that that the 60% you talk of is a misnomer since 50% actually pay nothing and that cannot be good for the country since it is unable to balance its budget. It also gets rid of those inefficient state taxes

It is also a transitional step to the 'Fair Tax'.

I like it in principle ;but agree with those who say it won't and shouldn't pass in Congress.

The logic is simple... in the hands of the Dems... 9-9-9 becomes 12-12-12... 15-15-15 etc. He counters that he'd require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes .Not sure how he'd get Congress to agree to that .

I like a sales tax in lieu of an income tax . I don't like the idea of the Feds collecting both. Also a sales tax would take an important revenue source from the States...

And as we all know... the bucket list 1 and bucket list 2 (now called a 'jobs bill") are attempts by the Feds to transfer money to States with 'out of balance' budgets (the ones more inclined to be mini-nanny states ) to keep public service unions appeased .

9-9-9 is a serious tax reform proposal worthy of serious debate and not flippant comments like he got from Bachmann and Huntsman during the last debate. As with all plans ;what emerges as the final law rarely resembles the initial proposal.
What I'm hearing in the OP is the tired old cliches which get boiled down to this ..... unless the tax system is structured "progressively " i.e. squeeze the rich.. then it is unfair to the poor . Blaaa blaa blaa .

Tom trust the system, you would be amazed what might be collected by a system like this, it probably wouldn't need to escalate for years and you could exchange state taxes for the last 9% under a revenue sharing formula which would give states a certain growth income stream. Just think, Buffet and Gates pay all three which is more than they do now, with a little creative distribution rules on corporates it cannot be hidden

Your system is different in that your states don't have autonomy. I am not comfortable with some bureaucrat in Washington deciding how much revenue my state or local government needs.

Your system is different in that your states don't have autonomy. I am not comfortable with some bureaucrat in Washington deciding how much revenue my state or local government needs.

I'm not sure what you mean Tom by our states don't have autonomy. Our states exercise all powers not reserved for the federal government. Our states ceded much but not all of their taxing powers in exchange for a designated share of certain federal revenues, state and local government still raise their own revenues but there is clear oversight to prevent rorting particularly at local level. You have a very closed mind as to what might be achieved by a different approach and this 9-9-9 approach is certainly different. I understand because I know what the fear of the GST was here before it was implemented and the arguments are familiar

I am sure that the GST or as the Europeans call it ;the VAT is a great source of revenue for the government to dip into. I'm not closed minded about it at all. I just say you can't have both. I'd prefer it as a replacement to the Income Tax ;but the sales tax is just but one of the 9's .

Cain is pandering to his base, because the last thing a rich guy needs is more money to buy more politicians so he can suck even more money out of the economy, instead of circulating it, and making it the old fashion way, by earning it, and not making some accountant rich or play the ponies... er... I mean the stock market, which is a huge casino for the rich guys.

I would trade the nanny state for the end of corporate welfare and the job creators did there job, or fire them all and take there money.

9% sales tax on new goods? That's crazy? Even the middle class, What's LEFT OF IT, ain't going for that crap.

He needs a better plan! You guys on the right need better candidates.

Tom the way to get a fair tax system is to get as broad a base as possible, I don't think you and I disagree in that particular, but one of the ways to do that is with a consumption tax. This is not to say there should not be income taxes but they are regressive particularly where the lowest earners are concerned, because their impact on individual spending power is much greater.

A 25% tax on the rich is not felt as severely as it is on a low income earner and this is because price is no respecter of persons, but a consumption tax takes much more from the rich because of their capacity to spend and their inability to avoid. Thus the base is broader. It also takes no account of unemployment since people will spend on commodities irrespective.

A effective taxation system shears the sheep with a minimum of bleating. This is a principle we know well

The way to get a fair tax is the congress sitting down and negotiating, not pandering to the ones slipping them the cash, and telling them what to do!

Nobody gave a rats patoot about taxes until the money was ripped off and with held from the economy. Now we have all these cockamamie schemes about what's fair, what's NOT, who did what, who deserves what. We fight and they dictate. They laugh at us running around while they keep buying OUR politicians from us.

At least the posse has shown up on Wall Street, and they ain't arguing about abortion, welfare, tax plans, gun control, or immigration, elections, or gay rights.

They come to get the bad guys, you know the ones stopping the jobs, the economy, and the American way.

Nobody gave a rats patoot about taxes until the money was ripped off and with held from the economy.

Tax reform has been a conservative cause since I was a young man and it has remained so.
The problem is that the so called liberals hold progressive redistribution as the Holy Grail .

They come to get the bad guys, you know the ones stopping the jobs, the economy, and the American way.

Now where I have I heard that before? Truth, Justice and the American Way. How is that working out for you? Not so well I hear and these fellows on Wall Street aren't Superman just vigilantees in a long tradition.

Sometimes radical change is necessary and this might be the time to implement some, right at the moment where people are dissatisfied with the established thinking and order

It's a slow ugly process, but it works better than any other system in the world. Don't be fooled by cheap knock offs, or want to be's.

Remodeling don't look pretty while you are doing it, but it will get done, eventually. You are taking notes aren't you?

No tal, not taking notes, been there, done that. We are in a post reconstruction phase, dealt with the sources of unemployment by exporting the industries and finding the products everyone wants.

If you want to know how to do it we will send you the plans

Just curious, as you exported the industries, what did you do with the unemployed people from those industries?

Just curious, as you exported the industries, what did you do with the unemployed people from those industries?

Retrained them, You want the dole, you take what's available or you retrain. Now we have 5% unemployment and most of that is structural, where we had 8% and higher before. Obviously our thinking was wrong, too tied to protecting blue collar employment. We have gone from about 60% unionisation to about 20%. When we turned around unemployment we also turned around our economy and were able to produce surpluses. A big part of what we did was tax reform. You see we are not as dependent as you are on the capitalist theorum. We can allow government to be directly part of the way things are done because we are not as hung up on everything being "free". We did privatise some government enterprises along the way and I have to say that has had very mixed success with most under performing on the service side of the business

Just curious, as you exported the industries, what did you do with the unemployed people from those industries?

I expect the coopers and blacksmiths had to find something else to do.

I expect the coopers and blacksmiths had to find something else to do.

Oh yes Tom we put them to work in the wine industry, expanding market in Asia, you see, or perhaps you don't, we had no use for horses since we were able to buy cars from Asia and barrels are in great demand

I've tasted some of the swill . They love trying to sell us wines with Kangaroo labels .

I've tasted some of the swill . They love trying to sell us wines with Kangaroo labels .As per Wine Spectator, Australia has the #2 and #7 wines of the year worldwide with many more in the top 100. But I'm sure you know more than Wine Spectator.

The sale of Aussie wines continues to decline here . I know they are making it up with sales to China. Let the Chinese enjoy those fine wines. They can have them.

That's likely because California wines have reached very good levels of quality and are marketed heavily.

The sale of Aussie wines continues to decline here . I know they are making it up with sales to China. Let the Chinese enjoy those fine wines. They can have them.

Hard luck Tom you are missing out on quality and cheap prices but the chinese market is bigger than yours so who cares, at least we don't have to put up with US wines here, even the froggies are underselling our wines here

That's likely because California wines have reached very good levels of quality and are marketed heavily.

Might be but we save our special wines for you guys, I expect you have found a product called yellowtail, very inferior. But In these trying times you should support the local product

Steve Moore (a Cain advisor;one of the people who helped Cain design the 9-9-9 plan; and Economic Editor at the Wall Street Journal ) says that even though he favors a national sales tax ;that he will advise Cain to remove it from the plan because it is clear that a national sales tax is not politically viable.

Cain also looked bad in flipping about a theoretical swap of terrorist for a captured US soldier similar to the deal Israel made for the release of Gilad Shalit . The "what would you do if...." question was given to Cain during a morning interview . He indicated under that scenario he would allow for the release of multiple jihadists at GITMO in exchange for a captured US serviceperson.

After the debate (after someone told him how dangerous that admission would be) ;he flipped and said he misspoke during the morning interview.

Over all he had a very bad day.

Yellow tail... yeah that's the one I had with the kangaroo label. Yuck

yellow tail.....yeah that's the one I had with the kangaroo label. yuck

Yes made by a german immigrant with a big ego

It will never compete with Wild Irish Rose!!

Might be but we save our special wines for you guys, I expect you have found a product called yellowtail, very inferior. but In these trying times you should support the local productYellowtail is indeed old hat. I love wine. I'm not american BTW. I try wines from all over, I'm not partial to geographic preferences.

Yellowtail is indeed old hat. I love wine. I'm not american BTW. I try wines from all over, I'm not partial to geographic preferences.

Hi NK while I agree with you in many ways there are wines from certain places that are preferred. Wolf Blass did some terrible things to Australian wine in his early days.The Mudgee region in Australia does particularly well with Shiraz and Chardonnay and the Barossa Valley in South Australia is excellent also particularly with Tramminer. You might like to try some Clare Reisling but I'm not a fan as it causes a very dry palate. The Kiwi's have gone mad with Sauvignon Blanc it seems to be forcing many other whites out. Unfortunately the breaking of the drought has meant the quality is down in the last two vintages. We are awash with the stuff down here so anything you can do to relieve the pressure

Hehe, will do. Barossa has been on my list.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage of their income. Without deductions.

Can't get more fair than that.

The left should love it... the Rich still have to pay more than the poor.

The math says its not fair. 9% of a poor mans wages is not the same as a millionaires 9%, poor people have even less at 9% than they have now and a rich guy essentially gets an even bigger part of the pie than he had before. How is rewarding a so called job creator for not creating jobs a solution for unemployment?

Its not. The numbers are equal, but the impact, and piratical applications is not. You would create 30 million jobs tomorrow if you raised taxes to 70% for the rich, because then they would have to actually create jobs to make money, but of course its okay for a rich guy to be lazy and not do his job, and play on Wall Street, but ordinary people actually have to get up and do real work for a living.

What a double standard, and I would love to see a rich guy, cut his own grass, or change his kids diapers, or even fix lunch for his own kids. But then that's the whole purpose of the slave class, is so the rich guy can be fat, and lazy, and raise kids to tell poor kids to go die in a foreign land, so he can keep making even more money from some body else's land and resources.

No wonder the right is so big on sucking the money from the economy, because they think that corporations should tell us what to do instead of we the people taking this country back through our government.

The revolution will be televised, check your local stations.

The math says its not fair.
Math can quantify 'fairness' ?
States and local governments collect sales taxes at a fixed rate and I hear no one complaining about the fairness. The rich buy more ergo they pay more in sales taxes .

You would create 30 million jobs tomorrow if you raised taxes to 70% for the rich,
Like the gimmic the Dems tried to pull yesterday with a meaningless tax increase that would've cost the rich an extra $500 /year ? That's the tax that is going to create all those jobs ? The Dems don't even believe their rhetoric.

but of course its okay for a rich guy to be lazy and not do his job, and play on Wall Street, but ordinary people actually have to get up and do real work for a living.

Would love for you to go on the exchange floor and tell the workers their that they don't get up early and put in a hard day doing real work.

math can quantify 'fairness' ?
States and local governments collect sales taxes at a fixed rate and I hear no one complaining about the fairness. The rich buy more ergo they pay more in sales taxes .

The math is a credible predicter of cause, effects, results, and outcomes, theoretical, but it lays out a plan, thats how we got to the moon. No the rich don't buy more, they buy more lavishly, and thats a small part of the population, and doesn't mean a thing with the cost of beans, or a loaf of bread. Last time I looked, there were just ordinary people at the grocery store and we all had coupons because the price of bread is a bigger chunk of the budget than say Steve Forbes, or Mitt Romney. Wonder if those guys ever stepped into a Walmart?

Like the gimmic the Dems tried to pull yesterday with a meaningless tax increase that would've cost the rich an extra $500 /year ? That's the tax that is going to create all those jobs ? The Dems don't even believe their rhetoric.
Do the math!!!!!!

Would love for you to go on the exchange floor and tell the workers their that they don't get up early and put in a hard day doing real work.When is the last time they built a bridge? Swept a street? Swung a hammer? When was the last time Wall Street did anything for the Nation, Oh thats right, when they tanked the economy! But I might get up early and join the protestors outside of wall street, and tell those guys on the exchange floor to get a real job, and stop screwing up mine.

Or to tell them THEY ARE FIRED!

Need help with the math??

The poor buy less, so they pay less... the same percentage for everyone is what's fair.

Dreaming up excuses to give certain groups prefferential treatment is exactly the same as political contributions for access.

Someone is getting over on someone else.

If its NOT equal for everyone, then there is no equality, period.

9% of a poor mans pay is exactly the same as 9% of a rich mans pay... they are both 9%.

I don't care what they buy... They buy more and spend more . If they buy lavishly so what ? Ask John Kerry . When he purchased his yacht someone built it . Oh wait... that's right... it was built in New Zealand .
When he docks it his state gets the docking fee... Oh wait... he docks it in Rhode Island because he's a tax dodger .

If you want to exempt certain foods I wouldn't object. A consumption tax is a much better idea than an income tax . Where Cain has it wrong is having both . It was only when progressives couldn't figure out a way to pay for government expansion did the Marxist concept of a "progressive" income tax come into play. After elimination of private property ,the progressive income tax was the 2nd of his 10 planks .

Oh wait...that's right .... it was built in New Zealand .There are no american yacht builders so that settles that strawman rant.

Thanks guys, for presenting a clearer picture. No wonder we have a conflict, you guys can't count, so may I suggest getting a 5th grader to do the math for you?
Fact,
9% 0f 50k < 9% 9f 50x 10 to the 6th power.

but according to YOUR math,

9% 0f 50k = 9% of 50x 10 to the 6th power. Which it does NOT!!

LOGIC,
Break it down to you, does the Walmart depend on rich people, or middle America to survive?

Could Walmart even survive without 20 cents a month laborers from a foreign sweat shop?

Could YOU survive paying Neuiman Marcus prices for your kids back to school clothes?

Can they nation survive if the roads and bridges were condemned, or the bridges fell down, or the fires be put out, or the crops not picked, or no teachers in the class, no grocery stores?

Where would you go to buy food for your family?
A=backyard
B=grocery store
C=wall street

No where on this test, is there a question about left, right, D's or R's, just straight logic to see if you can count, and relate to the numbers.

9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage as 9% of a bag of Oranges.

9% is 9%.

9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage and 9% of a bag of Oranges.

9% is 9%.


Doesn't matter if it a bag, trucload or Trainload. 9% is still 9% of something.

Apples and oranges may be fruit, but you can't compare them to each other.

MATH 101, Never compare apples and oranges.

Apples are different in color, content, and price, so how are they equal? You would have done better with two shoes being equal, but that would be awkward since your feet are not, one is left the other is right, but they come as a set don't they?

Never mind, if you don't understand simple math then Geometry would be really impossible, and forget algebra and physics.

Enjoy your fruit and try not to understand them. Eat your PEAS!!

Percentages of anything are the same no matter what you compare.

9% of any one thing is still the same percentage of 9% of anything else.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/percentage


Per·cent·age (pr-sntj)
n.
1.
a. A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98.
b. The result obtained by multiplying a quantity by a percent.
2. A proportion or share in relation to a whole; a part: The hecklers constituted only a small percentage of the audience.
3. An amount, such as an allowance, duty, or commission, that varies in proportion to a larger sum, such as total sales: work for a percentage.
4. Informal Advantage; gain: There is no percentage in work without pay.
Usage Note: When preceded by the, percentage takes a singular verb: The percentage of unskilled workers is small. When preceded by a, it takes either a singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase that follows: A small percentage of the workers are unskilled. A large percentage of the crop has spoiled.

If you want to exempt certain foods I wouldn't object. A consumption tax is a much better idea than an income tax . Where Cain has it wrong is having both . It was only when progressives couldn't figure out a way to pay for government expansion did the Marxist concept of a "progressive" income tax come into play. After elimination of private property ,the progressive income tax was the 2nd of his 10 planks .

Well, there you have it. A 10 point plan for a classLESS society.

You said you don't believe in classes.

You can't have it both ways

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into .

I don't group people into collectives .Marxism may have defined his utopia by a classless society . But his remedy was to lock the proletariat into a state dependency funded by the destruction of the bourgeoisie.In the end there is still 2 classes... the dependent class ;or serfs ;and the government elites and the people they choose to be winners .

Anyone who believes in any degress of self determination would find that an abomination... an evil. Marx in truth longed for the days before capitalism elevated people beyond the "classes" of preindustrial feudalism where class was preordained and irrevocable.

That is the true goal of Marxism and it has never achieved anything less.

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into.

WRONG! This creates two classes, Haves, who succeeded, or have not who have failed. Further evidence, the haves can give their kids a silver spoon to suck on, the have nots give theirs food stamps. And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.

Sure some of the have nots escape, but they seldom go far.

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into .



You said you don't believe in economic, social or racial classes.





I don't group people into collectives .Marxism may have defined his utopia by a classless society . But his remedy was to lock the proletariat into a state dependency funded by the destruction of the the bourgeoisie.In the end there is still 2 classes .... the dependent class ;or serfs ;and the government elites and the people they choose to be winners .



Marx and all of the other 18th and 19th political economists are where they should be; in the archives. They are only of curiosity value in modern society.




Anyone who believes in any degress of self determination would find that an abomination ...an evil.


No one with any idea of history believes what Marx said. Marx was wrong.




Marx in truth longed for the days before capitalism elevated people beyond the "classes" of preindustrial feudalism where class was preordained and irrevocable.




What?? Are you saying Marx was a closet feudalist.

It has nothing to do with being preordained and it certainly not irrevocable. Where do you get this from?

It is the result of the social relations that existed at the time. His dialectic explains the relations of production and the resultant classes. It is a dialectic account of class struggles throughout history.

Its not rigged... being born to parents with some money is no guarantee of success in life... and being born poor is no excuse to be lazy and not try or a guarantee you won't succeed.

I grew up a lot more poor than I am now... my parents were born dirt poor and did very well for themselves. Just not as well a I have managed due to no small amount of hard work and luck. I still am not wealthy.

I know more than a few people born into money that are far from being well off much less rich or successful.

Now of course, the liberals have a vested interest in keeping the poor, poor, and teaching them to play the victim rather than getting off their butts and working their way to success. They want to make them dependent on handouts so they can keep their vote.

And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.

If you are calling the game rigged then you are proving my point about the government determining winners and losers.

I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.

Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.

If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .

If you are calling the game rigged then you are proving my point about the government determining winners and losers.

Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.


I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.

Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.

If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .

You are suggesting that the system isn't rigged in favour of capitalists. That is certainly a long bow. The government policies are meant to bring balance into the system. To enable some people to attain the basic necessities they cannot otherwise gain for themselves because they have no access to capital. Tell me Tom, how is this capitalist utopia working out for you? From the reports I hear there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the inequalities.

The government policies are meant to bring balance into the system. To enable some people to attain the basic necessities they cannot otherwise gain for themselves because they have no access to capital. Tell me Tom, how is this capitalist utopia working out for you? from the reports I hear there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the inequalities.



Hi Clete,

Exactly right.

Under Capitalism two realms of authority have always existed. To suggest otherwise is to promote Capitalism as a utopian.

Tut

Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.
Nope the government can of course make laws so long as they are universally applied. The OP I started yesterday however is an example where crony socialism picked an electric car company and gave it an advantage over it's competitors.

Don't get hung up on a scam Tom

The repubs did the same thing when they were in power, helped their friends. That's why they all want power. Wouldn't you, when it was your turn? That doesn't make it right, but this is the system we have allowed to be built. You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it touches.

Tom is complaining that the system has enriched someone outside the US, but the US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years. Capital doesn't care who does the work so long as it gets the profits. This is a lesson those who like the capitalist system of open borders and the free market don't like, they don't like the market to be that free

You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it

It's not up to Wall Street to change it . It's up to the elected officials . And tal for the record . I never defended the Repubics for playing that game ;nor did I say hehehe... the Repubics are in so it's their turn to suckel at the public teat .


US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years. Correct... more bad policies out of Washington like intrusive over regulation and taxation ;and the silly devaluation of the currency.

Keep it up guys. You prove my point with every paragraph.

Maybe we all have been saying the same thing in different ways since people do see what they can see, from wherever they are sitting.

It's not up to Wall Street to change it . It's up to the elected officials . And tal for the record
Keep it up guys. You prove my point with every paragraph.

And you prove mine. Now that statement you just made

It's up to the elected officials
That is the same as saying the government, or is the government that inconvenient thing called the administration, I find it confusing as to what you actually mean when you say elected officials, is that the President but excluding his cabinet? Or some high and mighty Senator? Or some lowly representative? But certainly not a sepreme court justice.

So Tom you are in favour of government changing things, that's is a flip flop from you.

Hello:

I agree with tom. He calls it crony socialism, and I call it crony capitalism. Whatever you want to call it, it's the same thing. The government starts picking winners and losers...

Although tom will point out the subsidy to Solyndra as an example of how right he is, I point to the BILLIONS we give to the oil companies, who had a VERY GOOD QUARTER, I might add.

It's ALL based on the same thing.. Some businessmen found out they could get their congressman to tilt the market in their favor so they could make money WITHOUT having to COMPETE for it. BOTH sides do it, and it must stop.

To solve it, my FIRST thought would be to get RID of money in politics. Tom of course, thinks the solution is MORE money in politics.. He's wacked, isn't he?

excon

Not at all. I'm the 1st one to say let the market decide winners and losers and would be more than willing to end oil company subsidies yesterday.
You however are constantly calling for money in politics . But you want it to be taxpayer's money . You want the taxpayer to pay for campaigns (public financing) . You want the taxpayer to fund "wacked" projects like high speed rail . You want the government to invest in all types of things on the hope that at some future day it will pay off .

Hello again, tom:

I want those things, NOT because they're GOOD places to spend money, but to REALIGN the playing field AFTER the politicians have been bought.

I'm a BELIEVER is a free marketplace.. But, when the FIRST businessman got a favor, it was the FIRST time the government needed to COUNTER it. If he NEVER got a favor, then there would be nothing to counter, and our markets WOULD be free.

Having said that, there ARE places in the economy where it IS appropriate for the government to spend. That would be where the commons are involved. Things like roads, and the water supply should be owned by EVERYBODY.. The defense of our land, and maintenance of our wilderness should not be contracted out.

If there were a truly free market place here, there would already BE bullet trains, and the government wouldn't have had anything to do with it.

excon

If there were a truly free market place here, there would already BE bullet trains, and the government wouldn't have had anything to do with it.

No there wouldn't because there is no sufficient demand. Everyone touts the Chinese building them even though their trains run empty and the primary reason for their investment is to bring troops to their frontier in Tibet .

No nation is more suited to bullet trains than Japan ;and yet... only the Tokyo -Osaka line runs at anything close to a profit. Their rail system has been a drain on the government since 1964.

Not only that ;but high speed rail in Japan and Europe has done nothing to change commuting habits... oh wait... in Japan FEWER passagers use rail than before .

The nation would get better bang for the buck with subsidizing freight rail .

Hello again, tom:

You miss my point.. I'm not a believer in bullet trains, per se.. I'm a believer in the FREE marketplace delivering bullet trains, if and when they're wanted and needed.

excon

Then we agree... end the subsidies to bullet trains and phony green technology. Another subsidized green energy company went belly up .

Second Energy Department-backed company goes bankrupt - The Hill's E2-Wire (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/190641-second-energy-dept-backed-company-goes-bankrupt)

More taxpayer money wasted.

I wonder what herman's plan is now he has again been accused of being a naughty boy

Not to worry . Bubba Clintoon set the bar so low an ant could hurdle it.
This high tech lynching of Cain is the worse of American journalism . As of now there is nothing but unsubtantiated rumors . He was in an executive position for years . If what is being said of him were true there would be many women from his various places of leadership that would've come forward long before now.

Cains problem is that he doesn't have a bunch of slug advisors like James Carville to go on the TV talk show circuit and attack the women. He doesn't have a staff to handle "bimbo eruptions". He doesn't have a wife claiming a "vast left wing conspiracy " is attacking him.

Why can't Cain keep his stories straight?

Why does he have to reply at all ? Wasn't there a confidentiality agreement ? Who violated it ?
Why is he being attacked ? Why was Edwards allowed to run a whole campaign with the press covering up an affair while his wife battled cancer ? Why did it take the National Enquirer to reveal his love child ?

Joel P. Bennett the women's lawyer said a statement would be released by him but the women won't go public ? What does that mean ?

But you hit on an important point . The question is not what Cain did... it's how he responds to unsubstantiated smears by unnamed sources. That's really politics at it's lowest form.

Well he could handle it better than he does the foreign policy questions.

As of now there is nothing but unsubtantiated rumors .Hello tom:

He remembered a settlement.. Looks substantiated to me.. There were TWO payoffs. Looks substantiated to me. He remembers the incidents.. Looks substantiated to me.

excon

$70,000, that's a nice size rumor.

Well he could handle it better than he does the foreign policy questions.

That is the real issue to consider. His responses to foreign policy questions are lame .

Like I said... short rape (Clinton: "better put some ice on that lip") I see nothing Cain might've done that disqualifies him.
Executives in this country are very vulnerable to such charges ;and settlements are a matter of convenience . One cannot infer guilt because the lawyers get together at the bar and hatch out a deal to make the charges go away. That's why confidentiality terms are part of the deal.

But this is indictment by innuendo ;Guilty until proven innocent. Another attempt to take down a conservative black man who has strayed from the Washington DC plantation.

Sounds an awful lot like what the conservatives did to Obama, but that's all forgotten now.

I don't recall any sexual harassment charges against Obama.

Probably because he isn't even an American citizen.

I don't know about anyone else ,but I never took that seriously and frequently stated why they were wrong.

It remains to be seen if there is any basis to these charges against Cain.

It's the lynching of a black man... by cowards that don't even have the courage to show their faces...

I'd love to see these spineless sluts sued for slander and defamation... Its every persons right to face their accusers... if the accusers are too cowardly to show their faces and be named publicly... they should keep their mouths shut.

This is likely all about gold diggers that had their advances refused by a man that didn't want anything to do with them. SO they dreamed up false charges.

After all, they could open their mouths... they already breached their confidentiality agreement... and there is no proof that this ISN'T exactly what happened

I'd love to see these spineless sluts sued for slander and defamation....Its every persons right to face their accusers...Hello again, smoothy:

Dude, you got it backwards.. The women are the ones who SUED Cain. HE'S the one who caved and paid them so he didn't have to face his accusers.. That's what the settlement/agreement is about. He ran away from it...

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Dude, you got it backwards.. The women are the ones who SUED Cain. HE'S the one who caved and paid them so he didn't have to face his accusers.. That's what the settlement/agreement is about. He ran away from it...

excon

Really.. got a court docket where a trial actually took place and a verdict was issued? When you are sued... its heard by a judge and a ruling is made...


But oh... there wasn't any was there... since real cases get would get 6 to 7 digit awards... not a few months pay worth if they had any merit.

What never heard of scorned women dreaming things up before? Talk to any divorced guy. It happens on the west coast at least as much as it happens on the east... and everywhere in between.

Cases that don't have merit the people take a few bucks to just go away, because they know they won't win in court. These were just a few bucks... and at least one was brought up a month AFTER Caine had already left that job... seem rather odd the timing on that?

What never heard of scorned women dreaming things up before?Hello again, smoothy:

You're barking up the wrong tree.. Let's go over this again..

Sure, I've heard of women dreaming up stuff. But, when they COMPLAIN, and you're INNOCENT, you don't CAVE and pay them off. You DEFEND yourself, and face your accusers in court (to borrow a phrase from you). Cain didn't do that. He caved. Now, I don't know if he was falsely accused or not. All I know is that he didn't defend himself. I get a message from that. You get an entirely different one. I don't know how. Oh, yes I do. You wear right wing blinders.

excon

He was not involved in the settlement . It was a decision of the National Restaurant Association.
This has gone on a week and nobody has anything on Cain . The Restaurant Assc. Has released the woman from the agreement and she still will not go public... oh her lawyer is sure she had a case. He says so with certainty in between his numerous "I don't recall" responses to questions from the press.
Unlike you ,I am going under the presumption of innocences ;and all I need is the Duke Lacross case as a template as to what can happen when men are falsely accused. Or I can look at the lame attempt of the left to take down Clarence Thomas ;one of the finest jurists this country has ever produced.

Her statement yesterday was that she and her husband 'see no value' in revisiting the case. Which means either that no one has offered her enough money to go public; or by going public she will be exposed as a fraud.
Or maybe she's afraid of some James Carville type dragging her name through the mud... ( "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find. " )... oh wait... that was a Dem.

I saw the unemployment figures announced and then I realize that 9%-9%-9% is also the Obama unemployment plan.

Hello again, tom:

So, it's fine with you, that your candidate didn't know that China has nukes, doesn't know what a neocon is, doesn't understand the right of return, and is WILLING to FAKE his way through it.

That's what he's doing. He was asked about the right of return by Chris Wallace.. You could SEE the blank stare in his eyes. Wallace HELPED him. He made up an answer about that right needing to be negotiated.

The next day on Greta's show, he ADMITTED that he had no clue what the right of return is. He MADE IT UP. HE DID IT ON NATIONAL TV WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE FREE WORLD.

I'm APPALLED.. You should be too.

excon

Don't forget Cain's quote from a great poet: "Life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line."

If you saw my comments to tal (#73)you know that I am very concerned about his lack of understanding of foreign policy . He is not my candidate . But I am stepping up to the plate to defend him against this slander. The Politico is not reporting about his foreign policy answers ;but they must've done over 50 reportings in the last week on this non-story.

But I am stepping up to the plate to defend him against this slander.
Why do you think it's slander? The women didn't resurrect this. And, as a woman in the workworld for 35 years, I have no doubt it really happened -- why else the payoffs back then?

I have no idea... Cain wasn't a party to the settlement . What I do know is that he disputed the charges then ;and he still does today.

Of course, any male will dispute similar charges!

Hello again, tom:

As smoothy is quick to remind us, he COULD have faced his accuser in court, but he paid 'em off instead...

Now, I'm not saying he did it, and I'm not saying he didn't. All I'm saying, is he had a CHANCE to defend himself, and he didn't take it. He WAS the CEO, after all.

excon

He did not pay them off. He denied the charges and the NRA made the deal.

I give the benefit of the doubt to cases like his and Jesse Jackson's . What ? You didn't hear about that ? Doesn't surprise me.
http://gawker.com/5842534/gay-ex+staffer-files-suit-against-jesse-jackson-for-sexual-harassment-discrimination

As has already been pointed out the only issue that will come of this is the fact that he doesn't have a campaign organization preparing canned answers for him ;and deflecting "bimbo eruptions " (hmmm where did I hear that one before ? ).

he doesn't have a campaign organization preparing canned answers for him
Why would he need this?

Don't know... why would a 2 term sitting President need it ?

He did not pay them off. He denied the charges and the NRA made the deal. Hello again, tom:

That's why I mentioned that he was the CEO. HE, and the NRA were indistinguishable. If HE wanted to defend himself, he could have ORDERED it. He didn't.

excon

The fact is that all that is is speculation . He was CEO but that means squat if the board of directors make a different call. He left the job shortly after . Did he resign in protest to the settlement ? Was he forced out ? You don't know and neither do I .
Do you really want another Ray Donnovan scenario with Cain asking which office he goes to to get his reputation back ?

Hello again, tom:

Personally, I'm sorry the story broke. I'd much rather have him defend his positions rather than something like this. I've been a victim of false allegations.. There's really no defense to it.

excon

There's really no defense to it.
And it works the other way too. Your male supervisor comes on to you, a female employee. Then what? Most of us either give in, going along with it somehow, or walk away at the risk of our jobs.

You both make valid points... I have a personal poilicy of no fraternization with my staff and I never have meetings in my office with my door closed . I am a stiff at the Holiday party...

It used to not be that way. But I've seen predatory behavior of both sexes and have sat through many HR meetings related to this subject.
Boston Legal doesn't happen anymore .

You know what this shows once again that there is a glimmer of light and then human nature is shown for what it is. Throw one more on the scrap heap and let's move on

Nope ;not unless the charges are proven. The double standard is unbelievable .