Herman Cain

moreluck

moreluck

golden ticket member
toonertoo said:
For crying out loud. I do not understand why months ago I said I like Herman. I started the thread I want Herman. I dont see a thread about, why I love
Obama
Every thread defends him, not one supports him.
Beating the crap outta poor Herman, (but I can see he likes it, it makes him come alive)
Ok so hes a nobody with not much money.
Obama was a nobody with lots of money.
Obama is still a nobody, with the presidency, and so many sneaky and dark secrets, we do not have the time or energy to post it all.
Perry has issues with Immigrants
Romney with obamneycare
Bachman being to shrill
Ron Paul too liberal
Hunstsman too liberal
Johnson too liberal
gingrich too professorlike, and his domestic relations problem
Santorum, couldnt win the state
What is the problem with Herman???? he worked in the federal reserve? he worked at burger king? He worked in a pizza shop oops ran it, worked for Pillsbury, oops ran it....:biting:, he worked, he worked, more than our POTUS ever did and we elected him...........................:sad-little:
Click to expand...
I figure, when the other side (not the member on BC, but the non Republicans) attacks, it's because they feel threatened. They always did it when there was talk of Sarah Palin and I think Herman Cain scares them that he could be a threat............taking away the race card that they always play. Also, Cain has tons more experience than Obama has even now. Also, Cain isn't a pretender. He doesn't pretend to know aomething. If he doesn't know something, he will find it out......that's already happened in regards to some sort of foreign thing.

I know Cain could handle foreign affairs better than O because Herman won't be bowing to anyone!! I know he would appoint the smartest people to be advising him and not his friends/lawyers like Obama did. Cain has so much more going for him than Obama ever did.

There's a long campaign to get through and we'll just see who ends up on the GOP ticket.....that'll be the person I vote for.
 
toonertoo

toonertoo

Most Awesome Dog
Staff member
Yes I will back whoever the nominee is, anyone with issues are better than who we have. The key I think is employing people who have the Know. You dont employ your party buds for national security advice, legal advice, financial advice. you pick the brightest and the best. No one person can know it all. That is this prez biggest problem, he thinks he knows everything, and he knows nothing. But at least he has his party buds, and he does know how to pull off the parties at our expense.
 
klein

klein

Für Meno :)
Herman said a good blooper today, calling all black people have been brainwashed and vote democratic.
Almost the same thing as calling them all stupid.

I say it was stupid for Cain to even say that. He sure won't get the black vote that way.
 
toonertoo

toonertoo

Most Awesome Dog
Staff member
He will get the vote of hard working Americans that just happen to be black. I dont see Cain as black, I dont think he does either, he sees himself as an American. I dont think of myself as white, I think of myself as American. I dont judge by color, I judge by substance. Just as Hillary Clinton, to say she could win the woman vote in 2008 was absurd. American women have a brain, and will vote for the person best qualified in their mind. To say that someone will vote based on race or gender, puts them all in the same class, dumb 101. But there are many in Dumb 101, and thats just a fact jack. And I support what he said. Many were brainwashed, or thought he was going to give them a free ride, because of their race. That fight is over, sorry.
 
klein

klein

Für Meno :)
So, it would be okay for Obama to counter speech and say most white people are brainwashed and vote repubilcan ?
I don't think so !
 
toonertoo

toonertoo

Most Awesome Dog
Staff member
klein said:
So, it would be okay for Obama to counter speech and say most white people are brainwashed and vote repubilcan ?
I don't think so !
Click to expand...
It would be ok if he said that, but Klein, there are many people who are white who vote democrat. So that adage, really dont dance. It really couldnt be worse than any of the stupid things he has said.
We here in America vote for the person we like, and most of us dont care about color. Obama has made it about color.
Democrat used to be for the worker. Now the democrats are trying to kill the worker. From the coal mines, to the drilling rigs, to the environmental controls on the car makers. The pollution controls, etc.
I have my opinion and you have yours. My philosophy was to vote as my family did, and I remember my dad telling me, dont vote for them damn republicans. I cringe to think of the times I voted, when I knew nothing but vote D.
As I grew up, or got older, I learned to think for myself and I like conservative values. I was once at the crossroads of being supported by the govt, or making my own way. I chose the latter. Im proud I did. I want to help people who are in the position I was 30 yrs ago. I dont want to help those who have stayed there.
I dont want to fight wars, but I want us, and my offspring and theirs to be safer, so we have wars I support.
I dont know the records of leaders in the past 50 yrs, only maybe 16-20. Like the OAK ridge boys said,or was it Alabama, when the stock market fell, we were so poor we couldnt tell. That was a good place to be, LOL.
But in my opinion, everything this president has done has hurt us. Militarily, yes we got Bin Laden, but how?
Why did we send guns to Mexico? To make guns look bad here? Police arresting a guy breaking into a house, he calls cops stupidly? He opinionates when he shouldnt, small mistake maybe, but he does not learn. he is so arrogant, it never ends.
Inter continental railroad. the guy dont know crap unless he reads it. he may be book smart, but world dumb.
I rest my case, lifes too short to argue, especially when your vote dont count anyway.
peace, bs
 
brett636

brett636

Well-Known Member
Jones:883810][QUOTE=brett636 said:
You do realize JFK supported cutting taxes on the rich and is still highly popular to this day?
Click to expand...
When JFK was talking about cutting taxes on the rich the top tax rate was 91%. He cut it to 70%. In addition he supported treating capital gains as earned income and taxed it at the same rate, 70%.[/QUOTE]

I knew some liberal on here would he quick to point that out, and as I expected you left out the most important part. The tax code was much different then compared to today. Deductions were much more numerous so even though the tax rate was 90% or 70% the effective tax rate was much lower. Even lower than today. Trying to do your best TOS impression there Jones? I thought you were better than that.
 
J

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
brett636 said:
I knew some liberal on here would he quick to point that out, and as I expected you left out the most important part. The tax code was much different then compared to today. Deductions were much more numerous so even though the tax rate was 90% or 70% the effective tax rate was much lower. Even lower than today. Trying to do your best TOS impression there Jones? I thought you were better than that.
Click to expand...
You're the one who brought up Kennedy cutting taxes on the rich. What I'm telling you is that the top rate was 91% and he cut it to 70%. In addition someone who was at that top rate would have paid 70% on capital gains rather than the 15% at which it is capped today. If you want to argue that effective tax rates were lower in 1964 than they are today, perhaps you could provide a chart to demonstrate that.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Jones said:
You're the one who brought up Kennedy cutting taxes on the rich. What I'm telling you is that the top rate was 91% and he cut it to 70%. In addition someone who was at that top rate would have paid 70% on capital gains rather than the 15% at which it is capped today. If you want to argue that effective tax rates were lower in 1964 than they are today, perhaps you could provide a chart to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...

Appears your opin is no longer valid as now you've been labeled another TOS'er so your words are meaningless here! Look at the brightside, you're not a socialist yet but then the day is not over either.
:wink2:
 
brett636

brett636

Well-Known Member
Jones said:
You're the one who brought up Kennedy cutting taxes on the rich. What I'm telling you is that the top rate was 91% and he cut it to 70%. In addition someone who was at that top rate would have paid 70% on capital gains rather than the 15% at which it is capped today. If you want to argue that effective tax rates were lower in 1964 than they are today, perhaps you could provide a chart to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...

I'll gladly educate you on taxes considering it appears you need a lot of educating. Although the tax rates were in the 90% range in the 1950s and 60s the taxes collected by the government as a percentage of GDP are hardly any different that of today. I give you exhibit A.

It doesn't matter where the tax rate is the tax revenue is nearly the same. The capital gains tax is a different animal. The higher the rate the lower the revenue. Now I'm certain your with Obama on this one that the rate has less to do with the actual revenue and more about "fairness". As we all know to you libs "fairness" is more important than revenue or facts.
 
J

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
brett636 said:
I'll gladly educate you on taxes considering it appears you need a lot of educating. Although the tax rates were in the 90% range in the 1950s and 60s the taxes collected by the government as a percentage of GDP are hardly any different that of today. I give you exhibit A.

It doesn't matter where the tax rate is the tax revenue is nearly the same. The capital gains tax is a different animal. The higher the rate the lower the revenue. Now I'm certain your with Obama on this one that the rate has less to do with the actual revenue and more about "fairness". As we all know to you libs "fairness" is more important than revenue or facts.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to wonder who you are talking to.
You said that Kennedy favored cutting taxes on the rich.
I pointed out that what he did was cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.
You responded by ranting about liberals and saying that didn't matter because the effective tax rate was lower back then that it is today.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense (if it didn't matter, then why did he do it and why are you giving him so much credit), but I said well ok if you want to argue that effective rates were lower back then post some evidence.
Instead you posted about a chart about historic tax revenues...and then ranted some more about liberals.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Jones said:
I am beginning to wonder who you are talking to.
You said that Kennedy favored cutting taxes on the rich.
I pointed out that what he did was cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.
You responded by ranting about liberals and saying that didn't matter because the effective tax rate was lower back then that it is today.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense (if it didn't matter, then why did he do it and why are you giving him so much credit), but I said well ok if you want to argue that effective rates were lower back then post some evidence.
Instead you posted about a chart about historic tax revenues...and then ranted some more about liberals.
Click to expand...

I thought that he was showing his knowledge of taxes while he was also showing us what a non sequitur was.

Impressive lesson example.
 

Similar threads

V
How the U.S. Government Will...
Replies
4
Views
442
vantexan
V
Jetboat1
Help with LLY.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Just A UPS Guy
Just A UPS Guy
burco8080
central state pension
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
10K
Over70irregs
Over70irregs
S
Removed from service over a month ago but still haven't been fired
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
El Correcto
El Correcto
N
Full time driver to cover driver
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
7K
SorryLazyPOS
SorryLazyPOS
Top