Just for fun
 

Was Herman Cain's 999 plan inspired by SimCity?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1008952.html


Mr. Cain's response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1011933.html

Politicians can play SimCity only with an infinite-money-cheat. For them, hacking the game to implement that a god-mode-cheat is what SimCity is about.

That's not the most objective of sources...they're right up there with the Heritage Foundation. That's like someone on the other side citing MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress. I'd be absolutely skewered here if I tried to trot them out as a citation. I would have quoted the guy from the more neutral Brookings Institute:

And the other sources? Its one thing if that was the only source provided. It was not. One can cherry pick, or look at the whole of the sources....

And you continue to ignore that its a real solution, instead mocking it because you don't care for it, even when sources are provided to show it is workable and a step forward. Mockery is never a solution.

Is that Art Laffer of the laughter curve?
So that is a wealth redistribution economist ....sorry that is tax cutting from the top down economist whose inovative plan to redo the tax system and boost growth turned into an expensive joke.

Saying Art Laffer thinks it's a good idea is something you should probably keep under your hat. He's not only a bad economist, but a partisan hack to boot.

No, only recently has anyone taken a look at this plan that I'm aware of. Even these closer examinations reveal nothing worth talking about. There has not my much of anything that I have found on the net taking this plan apart. Do you have something I can read about.

Old school Republican Bruce Bartlett was the domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and worked in the Treasury under George H.W. Bush. He takes the plan apart here:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...cain-tax-plan/

I think Cain knows whatever plan he has is just that, a plan. No doubt he used 999 because it's catchy, but at least he's thinking. The fact is congress will tear apart any plan based on the special interest they serve.

From the article:

I did not read any further than this.

:hmmm: Seems this gentlemen is making guestimations a well. Or as Bachmann put it..."the Devil is in the details.":88)

I think it is safe to assume that the plan will not fly however we can state that we are recognizing that the current tax code, in short, sucks. If anything, it has us talking and a few sweating that soon they must might have to start paying tax.

Mookie, don't you think it sounds a bit hypocritical of you to say this just two posts after saying this?:

So an "old school" Republican is only a partisan hack when he doesn't support your point?

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Not all Republicans are partisan hacks. Laffer, however, is and has shown in the past that he will ignore reality and make up his own facts, misconstrue correlation and causation and generally provide bad information. I may disagree with Bartlett on many things, but he usually provides pretty sound arguments backed up with facts and data.

I'll let you in on a secret: I read American Conservative magazine and I find a lot of what they say to be intriguing and well reasoned. Particularly loved this one, in light of our recent conversations about the causes of the financial crisis: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...e-wall-street/

That's a nice Washington two step you're doing there Mook! :DL If he usually provides sound arguments backed up with facts and data how can you disagree with him on so many things?

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/07/1...-jobs-is-a-lie

For thirty years, Republicans have behaved exactly like dolls with pull strings. Tug on the back, and they repeat, without fail, "we need to cut taxes on businesses so they can create jobs".
Likewise, for thirty years, Democrats have tried to tell Republicans that this is a terrible idea. "Reality" has tried slapping the GOP upside the head with facts about how tax rates are not really tied to an economy's performance, and that cutting taxes on businesses simply pushes the burden for government spending on to the middle class.
Republicans, it seems, have not and will not learn the lessons of history. And so, here we are, a nation paralyzed by something as trivial as raising the debt ceiling, with lawmakers on both sides pushing for everything from cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Off the table? Tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and tax increases on American corporations.
Why, you might ask, are politicians from both political parties trying to balance a $14 trillion debt by cutting off food aid for grandma? Because the majority of them, particularly those on the right wing, are religiously devoted to the idea that taxes are bad. Taxes are evil. Taxing people, especially rich people, is a sin.
After all, they argue, taxing businesses kills jobs, right? Wrong.
In terms of any company of notable size, the corporate tax rate is 35%. That's 35% after deductions. Deductions to corporate rates can be pretty high, if you've got really good accountants and really good lobbyists (to bribe Congress into doing what you want). What do corporations really pay in taxes? Let's look.

Here's a list of companies that paid a lot less in taxes lately than you have. The list was compiled by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and his office.

• Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]) received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

• Over the past five years, while General Electric (NYSE: GE) made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

• Chevron (NYSE: CVX) received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

• Boeing (NYSE: BA [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]), which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

• Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO), the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

• Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS)in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

• Citigroup (NYSE: C [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]) last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

• ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

• Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines (NYSE: CCL) made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

That's just a snapshot of some of the biggest, most egregious examples of corporate income taxes being at or below zero. And yet, we're told that grandma has to die without food and medicine so these same corporations can avoid paying higher taxes (or in these cases, really ANY taxes)? How is that even a legitimate debate point in this country?
A similar argument is made that corporations need lower taxes, so they can take that tax money and use it to hire more workers. The idea is that lower taxes lead to more jobs. That sure sounds reasonable on some level, doesn't it? How does it work in practice?
Well, as of now, corporate America is sitting on $2 trillion (and climbing) in cash. They're not hiring. In fact, in many cases, corporations are downsizing, despite booming revenues! You don't even have to listen to me on this one. How about this quote, from that noted left-wing socialist/communist rag "Fortune" magazine?
"The Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5 percent. Total profits soared 81 percent. But guess who didn't benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market."
That's right. Corporate America took in a 10.5 percent gain in revenues and rewarded the American people how? By slashing jobs where possible and refusing to invest that money in new jobs, anywhere. The most notable hiring binge from the last year was McDonalds (NYSE: MCD [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]), which is great if you're a teenager looking for discounts on milkshakes, and not so great if you've got kids who needs shoes and clothes.
Who's been cutting jobs? How about we use this space to shame them for being anti-patriotic and cutting American jobs during a recession.

Douchebag Companies that Cut Workers Despite the End of the Recession

• Nokia (NYSE: NOK) cut 4,000 jobs or 3% of its workforce.

• Goldman Sachs cut 1,000 jobs or 2.8% of its workforce. (Even after all the bailouts? Impressively awful, GS!)

• Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO) cut 6,500 jobs or 9.2% of its workforce. Way to go, Cisco! Way to step up for the team!

• Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) cut 1,500 jobs or 1.14% of its workforce. This despite being on the payroll of the US government and a part of the war machine...during two, maybe three, wars! That's impressive!

Let's recap. Despite two massive wars, a war machine company needed to cut jobs. Despite banksters that own the government and rule the universe, Goldman had to lay people off. Despite a tech boom, Cisco laid off ten percent of its workers. And despite every single American upgrading their phone every 6 months, Nokia had to dump three percent of its workforce.
Note that this all happened despite piles of cash reserves, economic inflows that were all but guaranteed, and an improving economy. Despite that, and despite already-low taxes, these bastards are cutting jobs. And they have the nerve to ask for more tax cuts?
By now, one thing should be clear. When politicians say we need to cut taxes on businesses to provide jobs, they're absolutely full of it. They might be misinformed by staff. They might be lying to you. They might not know their ass from their elbow. They might be blinded by the religion of tax cuts, which is as powerful a force in the GOP as Jesus can be.
Or, in the case of traitors like Eric Cantor (who is pushing the country into default while owning securities that will rise in value if the US defaults), they might just be in it for the money. After all, half of Congress is comprised of millionaires, many of whom own their own businesses and almost all of whom own stocks.
So, as it turns out, we get to the real story: a tax cut for the wealthy just happens to benefit...themselves.
----
In Germany, some years ago, former minister president Jürgen Rüttgers dared to label the neo-liberal claim that tax-cuts automatzically would create jobs, a "myth". He pointed out back then that the state cannot create jobs or encourage job-building by lowering taxes, and that too many other factors additionally interfere with this - in his words, if I recall correctly - "naive" and simplistic link of taxes and employmentr rate. I would remind of the fact that you deal with a whole bunch of anonymous investors as well - and these do not tend to be patriotic, but they want to catch off and keep the cream. Jürgen Rüttgers, back in 2005 or 2006 it was, of course got crucified for his blasphemy, by his own party the CDU, and the FDP anyway. But there is just one problem: federal statistics show that he is right. The numbers show that we had higher employemtn rates at titmes when ciorprorate taxes were high, and that we had and have higher unemployemnt when corporate taxes are low.

Now be careful to consider there to be a casual link. I think there is no link of significant dimension. I think we fall for a myth when we think taxes would casue employment to go up and down. I think it is very different factors deciding on employment situations in an enconomy. These factors may correlate with the currentz tax settings, but must not, so agaionb: be careful to proclaim a causal link there.

So i agree with the author of the above article, when he says: a tax cut for the wealthy just happens to benefit themselves. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Not in Germ,any. Not in America. Not in Switzerland and Austria (whose statistics I have just checked via Google). It is a religious thing indeed: taxes are evil in themselves.

Ironcially, this does not adress the monumental structural problems of America at all. A medieval powergrid. A dangerously eroded traffic infrastructure. It does not solve the Himalaya-mountain of American debt, the lack of competitiveness of American industry, and products "made in the US". Cain just distracts from these things, or avoids them.

And maybe that is the real reason behind his simplistic slogans: hiding that he has no answers, and focusses on preserving his own wealth and profit interests. If private business and poltics get held by the same pair of hands, it never goes well, I think. The interest conflict is preset and cannot be avoided. And what entrepreneur would damage his own business for the sake of state reason or national interest if he has the power to make it happening just the other way around?

There is more than just 9-9-9 slogans. Similar to Change and Hope.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_matchups