Herman Cain

[/dev/null]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/bachmann_the_devil_is_in_the_details_of_cains_9-9-9_plan.html

 

The devil is in the details

[Booster4324]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/bachmann_the_devil_is_in_the_details_of_cains_9-9-9_plan.html

 

The devil is in the details

 

 

Bwhhahaha

[OCinBuffalo]

Great post. It politically more valuable to divide than to unite. This is what they are up to. Only in a perverted, brainwashed world is a progressive tax interpreted as fair. It's ludicrous and criminal. That's why IRS collectors would be friggen dumped in the swamp for pulling this crap. Only question I have is why would you agree to pay more than your fair share? If I feel philanthropic, I'm giving money to a charity of my choice. Certainly not to any government.

I recognize that I make 10x more than many people. Therefore, in addition to thanking God and my parents for the talents I received, I also understand that I have a responsibility to my community and country to be a good steward of the wealth I am trying to create. That means paying for things that make things better. I have no problem with it, and I am not even one of the "millionaires and billionaires" that are constantly being vilified.

 

However, I am not a f'ing sap, and therefore, since I am paying more, I feel I have a right to demand that everybody else at least pay something. Also, I have a right to demand that my "more money" is being used effectively. How many people have literally starved to grow a business from nothing? I have. So anybody who runs around declaring that that have a right to take ever increasing sums of my money, on the pretense that they are entitled to it, or that somehow I didn't earn every single thing I have with hard work, or that I didn't throw away numerous chances to make even more money staying in what I was doing, taking a huge risk on this that I am not clear of yet, or that government had anything to do with my results ---well? Say that to my face, and see what happens.

Why are you bringing up this false argument again? That is 0% Federal income tax. Plenty of taxes are paid by the bottom 50% that are either Federal, State, County/Parrish/whatever, City, and/or non-existent dogcatcher tax. Okay i made the last one up, maybe...

 

Fed mixes up their taxes by redistributing it to the states. States mix up their taxes by redistributing it to the County/Parrish/whatever, City, and/or non-existent dogcatcher tax.

 

Point me to a chart with total taxation by income level. It is not going to look anything like your picture.

My mistake. I did mean to add "income". I guess I was thinking faster than I was typing.

 

However, please describe which state/county pays for "aircraft carriers" as I wrote above. I think you could have probably inferred what I meant, and not wasted a page debating needlessly with Chef.

 

You obviously think that there's nothing wrong with "mixing up" taxes. Let me educate you. The biggest LIE of Medicare is that the Feds run it with 4% administration costs. By the time the money gets to the patient, at least 40% has been taken out directly due to the fact that the Federal/State government is involved. Some of my clients have 3-4 FULL TIME nurses at total cost of $120k a piece who give 0 hours of care a year. Why? Because they are fully dedicated to complying with Federal, State, County and City regulations. These organizations have 2% margins and have to cut staff/materials all the time, because they have to maintain this non-value adding staff, and can't afford to be fined.... exorbitantly. Make no mistake: they are going to get fined. Why? Because the state hires private contractors, with 0 accountability, and pays them by the % of fines they impose. Yeah, that's much better than corporate America. All these guys can do is contain the fines, they can't ever hope to stop them. And of course, as soon as they get fined, some assclown lawyers sue them looking for a handout.

 

Liberals love to talk about "trickle down" economics. Well, what the F do you thin happens with your medicare deduction? It goes to the Feds, and then absolutely "trickles down" to the state, and in the case of Medicaid, county, and finally gets to the institution. That's after every assclown Ph.D nurse has already taken their cut for another piss poor attempt at trying to do my job, and after the state employees have taken their "administration" cut.

 

This is BEFORE we talk about Fraud. This is BEFORE we talk about abuse. This is BEFORE we talk about every scumbag lawyer, union boss, and politician and political organization that routinely shakes these guys down for money....or else they will send in the regulators and surveyors.

 

Still think "mixing up" taxes is a good idea? The private insurance companies have nothing, NOTHING, on the governments, lawyers and unions when it come to "profiteering" on health care.

[John Adams]

Let's not leave out the biggest federal leaches: consultants. The US government loves to pay a useless consultant who has all the answers and presents a know it all plan, only to either poorly execute the plan or move on from the plan mid stream or to find out the consultant knows diddly. I'm not sure what's more useless: college professor, lawyer, or government consultant. It's a tight race.

[Booster4324]

I recognize that I make 10x more than many people. Therefore, in addition to thanking God and my parents for the talents I received, I also understand that I have a responsibility to my community and country to be a good steward of the wealth I am trying to create. That means paying for things that make things better. I have no problem with it, and I am not even one of the "millionaires and billionaires" that are constantly being vilified.

 

However, I am not a f'ing sap, and therefore, since I am paying more, I feel I have a right to demand that everybody else at least pay something. Also, I have a right to demand that my "more money" is being used effectively. How many people have literally starved to grow a business from nothing? I have. So anybody who runs around declaring that that have a right to take ever increasing sums of my money, on the pretense that they are entitled to it, or that somehow I didn't earn every single thing I have with hard work, or that I didn't throw away numerous chances to make even more money staying in what I was doing, taking a huge risk on this that I am not clear of yet, or that government had anything to do with my results ---well? Say that to my face, and see what happens.

 

My mistake. I did mean to add "income". I guess I was thinking faster than I was typing.

 

However, please describe which state/county pays for "aircraft carriers" as I wrote above. I think you could have probably inferred what I meant, and not wasted a page debating needlessly with Chef.

 

You obviously think that there's nothing wrong with "mixing up" taxes. Let me educate you. The biggest LIE of Medicare is that the Feds run it with 4% administration costs. By the time the money gets to the patient, at least 40% has been taken out directly due to the fact that the Federal/State government is involved. Some of my clients have 3-4 FULL TIME nurses at total cost of $120k a piece who give 0 hours of care a year. Why? Because they are fully dedicated to complying with Federal, State, County and City regulations. These organizations have 2% margins and have to cut staff/materials all the time, because they have to maintain this non-value adding staff, and can't afford to be fined.... exorbitantly. Make no mistake: they are going to get fined. Why? Because the state hires private contractors, with 0 accountability, and pays them by the % of fines they impose. Yeah, that's much better than corporate America. All these guys can do is contain the fines, they can't ever hope to stop them. And of course, as soon as they get fined, some assclown lawyers sue them looking for a handout.

 

Liberals love to talk about "trickle down" economics. Well, what the F do you thin happens with your medicare deduction? It goes to the Feds, and then absolutely "trickles down" to the state, and in the case of Medicaid, county, and finally gets to the institution. That's after every assclown Ph.D nurse has already taken their cut for another piss poor attempt at trying to do my job, and after the state employees have taken their "administration" cut.

 

This is BEFORE we talk about Fraud. This is BEFORE we talk about abuse. This is BEFORE we talk about every scumbag lawyer, union boss, and politician and political organization that routinely shakes these guys down for money....or else they will send in the regulators and surveyors.

 

Still think "mixing up" taxes is a good idea? The private insurance companies have nothing, NOTHING, on the governments, lawyers and unions when it come to "profiteering" on health care.

 

I think mixing up taxes are a horrible idea. Way to totally miss the point. Glad you acknowledged that they (lower income earners) pay taxes and that the taxes are so convoluted that theft, corruption etc are and issue and we cannot even tell who is paying what. Thanks.

[OCinBuffalo]

Let's not leave out the biggest federal leaches: consultants. The US government loves to pay a useless consultant who has all the answers and presents a know it all plan, only to either poorly execute the plan or move on from the plan mid stream or to find out the consultant knows diddly. I'm not sure what's more useless: college professor, lawyer, or government consultant. It's a tight race.

This is inaccurate. No good consultant is a "know-it-all", rather, they are a "have listened to it all and wrote it down", such that when you try to take them on, they pull out what you said 3 months ago and own you with it. And, in reality, there are 2 types of consultants:

1. Those who spend 3 months, put everything you give them in a 3 ring binder, reword it, add a little value perhaps, define the problem, propose some solutions, and then send you the binder and their bill.

 

2. Those who will spend as long as it takes, and in addition to propose solutions, #2s can correctly recommend one, and have the skills to both manage and provide the implementation of that solution to completion(provide does not mean hire subcontractors, provide means you could do it all yourself if necessary). Then, of course, these types rape you for add-ons and change management(was my specialty), but at least you got something tangible that solves the problems and is 100% tailored to your specific needs.

 

Plastic dog schit is more useful and insightful than the #1 type consultant. Why? Because if you never have to implement things, then you never know if your solutions are actually solutions, and, you never know what actually doing it entails. Therefore, you have no idea if the client is even capable of doing what you are advising them. Beware of consultants who talk about "advice" and don't talk about "implementation".

 

You are confusing #1 and #2 types. #2s are contractually obligated to get something done, or they are fired, it's as simple as that. Anybody that hires a #1 to do implementation is an idiot.

[DC Tom]

This is inaccurate. No good consultant is a "know-it-all", rather, they are a "have listened to it all and wrote it down", such that when you try to take them on, they pull out what you said 3 months ago and own you with it. And, in reality, there are 2 types of consultants:

1. Those who spend 3 months, put everything you give them in a 3 ring binder, reword it, add a little value perhaps, define the problem, propose some solutions, and then send you the binder and their bill.

 

2. Those who will spend as long as it takes, and in addition to propose solutions, #2s can correctly recommend one, and have the skills to both manage and provide the implementation of that solution to completion(provide does not mean hire subcontractors, provide means you could do it all yourself if necessary). Then, of course, these types rape you for add-ons and change management(was my specialty), but at least you got something tangible that solves the problems and is 100% tailored to your specific needs.

 

Plastic dog schit is more useful and insightful than the #1 type consultant. Why? Because if you never have to implement things, then you never know if your solutions are actually solutions, and, you never know what actually doing it entails. Therefore, you have no idea if the client is even capable of doing what you are advising them. Beware of consultants who talk about "advice" and don't talk about "implementation".

 

You are confusing #1 and #2 types. #2s are contractually obligated to get something done, or they are fired, it's as simple as that. Anybody that hires a #1 to do implementation is an idiot.

 

And, to JA's point, most government consultants are #1. In fact, they're usually contractually obligated to be #1, and get fired if they're not.

[Juror#8]

Herman Cain is an anomoly. WH doesn't know how to approach his potential candidacy. For that reason, and somewhat ironically, he has tremendous political strength.

 

A Herman Cain and Mitch Daniels or Marco Rubio or Duncan Ross or Sam Brownback ticket would be formiddable.

[Magox]

Herman Cain is an anomoly. WH doesn't know how to approach his potential candidacy. For that reason, and somewhat ironically, he has tremendous political strength.

 

A Herman Cain and Mitch Daniels or Marco Rubio or Duncan Ross or Sam Brownback ticket would be formiddable.

If herman cain were to win the nomination, a guy like Mitch Daniels would be his best choice... you would think Rubio, but could you imagine the attacks of inexperience between him and Cain. A guy like Mitch Daniels, who arguably would be the best president we could possibly choose anyway, would bring lots of experience, know-how and intellectual power to the ticket.

[Kevbeau]

Cain is fairly open that his 9-9-9 plan is a stepping stone to full implementation of the fair tax. I have to agree with Magox. As much as I like Cain the triple 9 plan wouldn't be viable in it's current form and nor would i expect it to be. Right now, it's a sales tool and it's simple enough for Joe the Plumber to understand. I will say it's nice that at least an alternative plan is getting some press/discussion time, especially considering most candidates wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I would expect Cain to firm up his plan if his momentum continues to build.

[OCinBuffalo]

And, to JA's point, most government consultants are #1. In fact, they're usually contractually obligated to be #1, and get fired if they're not.

 

Well then, back to my point, the people that cause that to be so are idiots.

[DC Tom]

Well then, back to my point, the people that cause that to be so are idiots.

 

That would be the American voter. Seriously.

[OCinBuffalo]

That would be the American voter. Seriously.

The American voter doesn't sign contracts. They also don't read status reports, sign time sheets and expense forms. The American voter is not in the conference room approving the next phase of the project, signing off on change management items or add-ons.

 

No sir, the people in government do that. And if, as you imply, they are not capable of doing these things properly, then they shouldn't be doing them at all. If that's the whole job, then we don't need them. If that's the point of the whole group, then we don't need it.

 

A long time ago I went down to DC for a demo with the VA. The word for word feedback was: "This is the future of health care. You guys have the best software I've ever seen by far, in fact I didn't even know some of this was possible". We didn't get the gig. Why? I was literally told that the people in the room were afraid that our stuff would expose their incompetence.

 

I am not big on blaming clients, and I don't allow it as a rule, but, in this case: Come on, man! The American voter isn't the reason we allow these incompetents to refuse to improve. The size of the government and the lack of transparency is.

[Captain Hindsight]

The American voter doesn't sign contracts. They also don't read status reports, sign time sheets and expense forms. The American voter is not in the conference room approving the next phase of the project, signing off on change management items or add-ons.

 

No sir, the people in government do that. And if, as you imply, they are not capable of doing these things properly, then they shouldn't be doing them at all. If that's the whole job, then we don't need them. If that's the point of the whole group, then we don't need it.

 

A long time ago I went down to DC for a demo with the VA. The word for word feedback was: "This is the future of health care. You guys have the best software I've ever seen by far, in fact I didn't even know some of this was possible". We didn't get the gig. Why? I was literally told that the people in the room were afraid that our stuff would expose their incompetence.

 

I am not big on blaming clients, and I don't allow it as a rule, but, in this case: Come on, man! The American voter isn't the reason we allow these incompetents to refuse to improve. The size of the government and the lack of transparency is.

I had a teacher a few weeks ago tell me a very similar story. sadly i wasnt even surprised

[John Adams]

And, to JA's point, most government consultants are #1. In fact, they're usually contractually obligated to be #1, and get fired if they're not.

 

I'm sure Mr. "I make 10x more than you" will say he's #2 but I've never met a #2 consultant that worked for the government.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm sure Mr. "I make 10x more than you" will say he's #2 but I've never met a #2 consultant that worked for the government.

Say #2? Buddy I started a company from scratch based on a complete architecture I built from scratch, based on running a 3 year feasibility study I conducted whose methodology is now proprietary. The architecture has been ported into multiple industry-specific solution frameworks, and I'm only an average programmer . I'm too slow, and getting slower seemingly by the day. A fact that I am constantly reminded of by certain younger assclowns....but my ability at the rest of it means they get back in their holes and code.

 

 

so....where's the "say"? Much more like "do".

 

You've never run across Cap Gemini, Lockheed, or Accenture? You sure you know anything about the government? Their contracts probably add up to at least a couple billion, if not more. And that's only the management consulting/IT stuff.

 

If you are talking about Booz Allen, Deloitee, and McKinsey, then yeah, they are #1 types, and I wouldn't work for any of em.

Edited October 12, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[John Adams]

Cain is trying to prove that his 999 plan works.

 

Cain's plan is able

 

 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said the Cain estimates were a good-faith effort at a rough calculation of the rate needed to be revenue-neutral.

 

“I don’t think it’s dramatically out of line with reality,” he said. “It’s just hard to do this without having access” to the sophisticated tax system models in the government.

 

Alan Viard, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, which favors smaller government, said the revenue estimates were “in the ballpark in some vague sense.” He said the rate might need to be a percentage point or so higher to generate the same amount of revenue that the current tax code does.

 

 

[Magox]

Cain is trying to prove that his 999 plan works.

 

Cain's plan is able

 

 

 

Not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. Also, what about the regressiveness of the proposal? It's unacceptable, UNLESS they excluded essential items, such as food, clothing, rentals, etc. If he included these exclusions and a few others I could be for a national sales tax. But, opening up a new revenue stream for the government could be a slippery slope.

[John Adams]

Not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. Also, what about the regressiveness of the proposal? It's unacceptable, UNLESS they excluded essential items, such as food, clothing, rentals, etc. If he included these exclusions and a few others I could be for a national sales tax. But, opening up a new revenue stream for the government could be a slippery slope.

 

The regressiveness of the plan, the 9% that hits the low income and leaving the gas taxes, certainly is a tough pill to swallow. I always saw in the flat tx-ish proposals a cutoff below which the flat tax did not apply. Not sure if Cain would make that part of the plan.

 

I am for tax code simplification--not at all convinced Cain's plan is practical and the one--but at least he's trying to blow up the current system of loops and special interests and create something much cleaner.

[Gary M]

He said the rate might need to be a percentage point or so higher to generate the same amount of revenue that the current tax code does.

 

 

So some cuts will need to be made!!!!!

 

 

good