WOOHOO Go Herman Cain!!

[Mjolnir]

??? The 16th amendment changed that. A natinal consumption tax is something that would cause everyone to have skin in the game and is by no means a bad thing. Cain may not be a George Washington (or is he?), but I certasinly don't believe he is one of the progressives who is out to destroy liberty and unite us under a one world governance. He spent YEARS as a talk radio host where he was free to spew wahtever he pleased without regard to how people would judge him and he spoke in terms of American exceptionalism and often times promoted libertarian ideas (one of his staunchest backers was Neal Boortz, a natioanlly syndicated libertarian host).

If you have the time and inclination there are some superb treatises questioning the constitutionality of the 16th Ammendment. If you dig deeply enough and read the reference material you may come to see it as I do. No guarantees but I have come to the conclusion that those "old dead white guys" were a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Just sayin'.

Ask him about the Federal Reserve System...

 

[Mjolnir]

Y'know... 999 upside down is 666!

BOOGIE BOOGIE BOOGIE!

I never looked at it that way. LOL!

Since we're playing this game do a good search on "Cain" and "Tubal-Cain".

 

[gsneff]

If you have the time and inclination there are some superb treatises questioning the constitutionality of the 16th Ammendment. If you dig deeply enough and read the reference material you may come to see it as I do. No guarantees but I have come to the conclusion that those "old dead white guys" were a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Just sayin'.

Ask him about the Federal Reserve System...

I have read some of that and have no reason to affirmatively overturn it. No one is questioning the "old dead white guys" but the simple fact is that previous generations have allowed the gov't to grow beyond it's constitutional limits and it can't be disassembled overnight so we need to establish a taxation system that is the least intrusive and hardest to manipulate into a means of creating social justice as possible and a national consumption tax is, imo, that best route to fund the gov't until we can wean ourselves off of the programs.

Have an uncle that had the pleasure of discussing the fed with him and he opposes it as it currently exists. In his oppinion, the fed should have one task and that is toensure a stable dollar and NOT to manipulate the market. The fed needs much mor oversite from congress but ultimately he trusts businessmen more than congress to control our dollar.

 

[Takuan]

Michelle Bachmann stole my "Herb" Cain joke for the debate! Grrrr...

 

[returningliberty]

Michelle Bachmann stole my "Herb" Cain joke for the debate! Grrrr...

Lol I saw that! She's such a cook rofl.

 

[Leonidas]

If you have the time and inclination there are some superb treatises questioning the constitutionality of the 16th Ammendment...

So......let me understand........part of the Constitution is NOT Constitutional. Someone is saying that with a straight face............and someone else is buying.

 

[Mjolnir]

Check this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/153575/her...theres-no-reason-to-audit-the-federal-reserve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...rman-cain-fed-audit-gop-debate_n_1006228.html

I told y'all a much several times within the last couple of days...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mjolnir]

So......let me understand........part of the Constitution is NOT Constitutional. Someone is saying that with a straight face............and someone else is buying.

Neither is the 14th Amendment...

You've obviously not looked into it. But even that is no excuse because often legislation is passed that does not agree with the Constitution or the principals of a Republic... Wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hardballing]

Are you suggesting that the governments interference into the free market with more regulations and taxes didn't help creat this job market right now? I think somebody looking for a job right now has every right to be mad at the government and what they been doing to our economy.

Also have you read any independent views on his 9-9-9 plan here is one

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...ong-overdue-tax-reform-or-job-killer/(page)/2

The part that bother me. Individual making $20,000 per year tax goes from 12.8 to 17%. $55,000 goes from 16.9 to 17.9%. Here is the best part $300,000 goes from 27.97% to 16.3%.

I hate the idea of a national sales tax, I don't trust my government with new taxes to raise.

Don't know why folks have to overcomplicate this. Cain hasn't.

And how do you get ANY raise in "individual making $20,000 per year" when payroll taxes are currently around 15% for the individual and 9-9-9 drops them to...9%. Ditto on any other income group. The flat rate on personal income is 9%. NO other loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc. 9% sales tax on items purchased. Don't want to pay it, don't buy it. Want to save. You're rewarded. Additonal and final 9% is for corporations on any monies made except for purchases from another corporation. Leave it to CPA's to befuddle even the simplest proposal.

Same bill that enacts kills the current tax system. There is no double dip. Don't trust your governemtn to not raise future rates. Good. You shouldn't and almost certainly some will try to. But they are doing that now so I don't see how anyone's fear of a future action means that you are not watching for that action, being active to prohibit that action, and voting out those who engage in that action.

The "fear" part, imo, is a circular argument. And a weak one.

 

[Leonidas]

Wow.

^^This^^

Amendment, from amend, to change. By definition, an Amendment to the Constitution is constitutional. That is because it is part of the Constitution. It amends the Constitution. i.e. it changes the Constitution. After you do it the Constitution is partly different. That's because you partially changed the Constitution.

 

[RCRAMIE]

Don't know why folks have to overcomplicate this. Cain hasn't.

And how do you get ANY raise in "individual making $20,000 per year" when payroll taxes are currently around 15% for the individual and 9-9-9 drops them to...9%. Ditto on any other income group. The flat rate on personal income is 9%. NO other loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc. 9% sales tax on items purchased. Don't want to pay it, don't buy it. Want to save. You're rewarded. Additonal and final 9% is for corporations on any monies made except for purchases from another corporation. Leave it to CPA's to befuddle even the simplest proposal.

Same bill that enacts kills the current tax system. There is no double dip. Don't trust your governemtn to not raise future rates. Good. You shouldn't and almost certainly some will try to. But they are doing that now so I don't see how anyone's fear of a future action means that you are not watching for that action, being active to prohibit that action, and voting out those who engage in that action.

The "fear" part, imo, is a circular argument. And a weak one.

I didn't the economist who looked at it did. 9% income tax plus 9% sales tax when somebody making $20,000 a year spends 90% of the income means they will see a higher tax burden.

 

[gsneff]

I didn't the economist who looked at it did. 9% income tax plus 9% sales tax when somebody making $20,000 a year spends 90% of the income means they will see a higher tax burden.

The big thing EVERYONE is overlooking is the fact that you and you're employer pay 15% FICO so the income tax will drop by 6% and EVERYTHING you buy has built-in corporate taxes since corporations pay a 35% income tax. With a reduction in corporate income taxes by 26% prices will drop, so even with the 9% sales tax the overall cost, and tax burden, will be reduced on everyone!

 

[Takuan]

[yosemitesam] Only 9/9/9!?!... This is America!!!... Gotta be 10/10/10!!!... Ya razzin' frazzin' varmints ya!!! [/yosemitesam]

 

[Mjolnir]

^^This^^

Amendment, from amend, to change. By definition, an Amendment to the Constitution is constitutional. That is because it is part of the Constitution. It amends the Constitution. i.e. it changes the Constitution. After you do it the Constitution is partly different. That's because you partially changed the Constitution.

You are missing the point about the LAWFULNESS of the Amendment. They could pass legislation banning you from owning firearms. Would that be lawful?

This isn't a "debate" or a contest of who can be the most cynical. Look into it or remain as you are on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leonidas]

You are missing the point about the LAWFULNESS of the Amendment. They could pass legislation banning you from owning firearms. Would that be lawful?

You have missed the point on the Constitution. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an Amendment to be lawless. It is the supreme law of the land. What you are arguing is that the Supreme Court could rule that Article 1, Sec. 2 is unconstitutional. That is ridiculous and I am shocked that this is even under discussion here.

 

[returningliberty]

You are missing the point about the LAWFULNESS of the Amendment. They could pass legislation banning you from owning firearms. Would that be lawful?

This isn't a "debate" or a contest of who can be the most cynical. Look into it or remain as you are on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they amended the 2nd amendment it would, in fact, be lawful. The way the constitution is read, whatever is said Last is binding. And, the constitution, when read in that manner, cannot contradict itself.
So, the lawfulness of a constitutional amendment cannot be questioned.

 

[Mjolnir]

If they amended the 2nd amendment it would, in fact, be lawful. The way the constitution is read, whatever is said Last is binding. And, the constitution, when read in that manner, cannot contradict itself.
So, the lawfulness of a constitutional amendment cannot be questioned.

Both of you are confusing LEGAL and LAWFUL.

And if you believe ANYTHING that is passed is LAWFUL then u must accept that you have no liberty except that which they ALLOW... I'll pass.

 

[Mjolnir]

You have missed the point on the Constitution. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an Amendment to be lawless. It is the supreme law of the land. What you are arguing is that the Supreme Court could rule that Article 1, Sec. 2 is unconstitutional. That is ridiculous and I am shocked that this is even under discussion here.

If an Amendment is passed unlawfully then what? You accept it as valid? Then you are a subject at their whim. If an Amendment was passed when Congress was out of session by, say, ten members would that count? And if that Amendment violated the Constitution as written then what? Cannot be? Ha! Riight... You're already living it.

 

[returningliberty]

If an Amendment is passed unlawfully then what? You accept it as valid? Then you are a subject at their whim. If an Amendment was passed when Congress was out of session by, say, ten members would that count? And if that Amendment violated the Constitution as written then what? Cannot be? Ha! Riight... You're already living it.

Lol dude, go back and read the constitution.
An amendment to the Constitution can be created one of two ways:
1.) 2/3 of each house vote to propose the amendment, which is then sent to the state legislatures. 3/4 of all the states must then vote to ratify and make the amendment binding.
2.) 2/3 of the states have special conventions to propose the amendment, which then 3/4 of the states conventions/legislatures must vote to ratify.

What you just described is Impossible.

 

[goodburbon]

The "press" isn't wasting any time pouncing on Cain, he must be an actual threat.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/10/14/ac-kth-herman-cain.cnn