http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/?hp
Inside the Cain Tax Plan
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
With recent polls showing increased support for Herman Cain as the G.O.P. presidential nominee, attention is being drawn to his platform, especially what he calls the 9-9-9 tax plan. News reports describe it as a 9 percent tax rate on business and personal income, combined with a 9 percent national sales tax. Little detail has been released by the Cain campaign, so it's impossible to do a thorough analysis. But using what is available on Mr. Cain's Web site, I'm taking a stab at estimating its effects.
First, the 9-9-9 plan is actually an intermediate step in Mr. Cain's plan to overhaul the tax system and jump-start growth. Phase 1 would reduce individual and business taxes to a maximum of 25 percent, which I assume means reducing the top statutory tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. No mention is made on the site of a tax cut for those now in the 10 percent, 15 percent or 25 percent brackets. This means that the only people who would get a tax rate cut are those now in the 28 percent, 33 percent or 35 percent brackets. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4 percent of taxpayers pay any taxes at those rates.
As for corporations, Mr. Cain's proposal is primarily going to benefit those with revenues of more than $1 million a year, because they account for 98.7 percent of all receipts by C corporations. (A C corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners that is taxed as a corporation; its shareholders pay taxes individually on their gains.) Those companies with receipts over $50 million account for 88.8 percent of total receipts.
Other business entities — sole proprietorships, S corporations (which have between 1 and 100 shareholders and pass through net income or losses to shareholders) and partnerships — would not benefit because they are not taxed on the corporate schedule. But they represent 92 percent of all businesses.
Second, Mr. Cain would eliminate all taxes on profits earned by multinational corporations outside the United States. It's hard to know the impact of this provision, but according to Martin Sullivan, an economist with Tax Analysts, the 50 largest corporations in the United States generated half of their profits in other countries. The actual benefit of Mr. Cain's proposal would be much greater to many of them, because, according to Mr. Sullivan, while some of these 50 companies have no foreign operations, others derive 100 percent of their gross profits in foreign countries. In 2010 these included Philip Morris, Pfizer and Abbott Laboratories.
Third, Mr. Cain would abolish all taxes on capital gains. Such taxes typically generate more than $100 billion in federal revenue annually, according to the Tax Policy Center. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of all capital gains are reported by those with incomes over $1 million.
Mr. Cain says these three proposals, which he would put into effect immediately without offsetting the lost revenue, will jump-start economic growth. He offers no evidence for this assertion; it is simply put forward as self-evident. But the experience of the George W. Bush administration was that cuts in tax rates on the wealthy and on capital gains had no effect whatsoever on growth, according to the Congressional Research Service.
And this is only Phase 1 of the Cain plan. In Phase 2, the payroll tax would be eliminated, causing more than $800 billion in revenue to evaporate. The estate and gift tax would be abolished, further reducing taxes on the wealthy. And the 9-9-9 plan would be implemented. It's important to understand that the 9 percent rates on personal and business income would apply to very different tax bases than now exist. For individuals, the tax would apply to gross income less only the deduction for charitable contributions. No mention is made of a personal exemption.
This means that the 47 percent of tax filers who now pay no federal income taxes will pay 9 percent on their total income. And elimination of the payroll tax won't even help half of them because the earned income tax credit, which Mr. Cain would abolish, offsets both their income tax liability and their payroll tax payment as well. Additionally, everyone would now pay a 9 percent sales tax on all purchases. No mention is made of any exemptions from this tax, so we may assume that it will apply to food, medical care, rent, home and auto purchases and a wide variety of other expenditures now exempt from state sales taxes. This would increase their cost of living by 9 percent while, at the same time, the poor would pay income taxes.
The business tax in the Cain plan bears no resemblance to the present corporate income tax. The tax would apply to gross sales less dividends paid and all purchases from other companies, including investment goods. Thus, there would be no deduction for wages. How benefits would be treated is unclear, because purchases of things like health insurance might constitute a purchase from another company and remain deductible. If so, what is to stop a company from paying its employees by leasing their cars and homes for them and even buying their food and clothing? That would reduce their taxable revenue.
The abolition of any deduction for wages is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers' share of the payroll tax. And since the dividend deduction doesn't appear to be related to profitability, companies could borrow to pay dividends and still get the deduction. Even a novice tax lawyer could easily make a tax shelter out of that.
And here's the kicker in the Cain plan. Phase 2 is merely a transition to yet another fundamental tax reform. In Phase 3, the United States would adopt the so-called Fair Tax, which would replace all federal taxes with a 30 percent sales tax on all goods and services. In a previous post, I explained why the Fair Tax is a bad idea. I went into more detail in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on July 26.
Whatever one thinks of the Fair Tax, it makes not the slightest bit of sense to have a plan that requires fundamental changes to the federal tax system twice to achieve its objective. Veterans of tax reform attempts in the United States know reform is very difficult and time-consuming even once. If the Fair Tax is a good idea, Mr. Cain ought to just do it, without confusing the issue with his unnecessary and highly complicated 9-9-9 plan. After all, one of the prime selling points of the Fair Tax is its simplicity, and the 9-9-9 plan is far from that.
Because so little detail exists, it's hard to do either a proper revenue estimate or distributional analysis of the Cain plan. It's obvious, however, that Phase 1 would represent a huge tax cut for the wealthy at a time when federal revenues are at a historical low as a share of the gross domestic product and the economy's fundamental problem is a lack of aggregate demand.
Thus the Cain plan would increase the budget deficit without doing anything to stimulate demand, because rich people can already spend as much as they want and are unlikely to spend more even if their taxes are abolished. The poor and the middle class might increase their spending if they could keep more of their earnings, but they will unquestionably pay more under Phase 2 of the Cain plan. With no tax on capital gains, the rich would pay almost nothing, while elimination of all deductions and credits, as well as imposition of a national sales tax, must necessarily raise taxes on everyone else, especially those not now paying income taxes.
At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase. Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain's tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.
Good article and it does bring up some valid concerns. I believe his proposal does not include any personal exemptions to my knoledge. I do however believe that there is a "prefund" for basic necessities like food, clothing, housing and utilities. It is true that this is an intermediate step to a Fair Tax, Cain has been very forthright about that.
This brings up some troubling questions that will certainly need to be addressed.
At least he's proposing something entirely new rather than continuing on with our failed taxation system which is far too complex to comply with and enforce. As well, the tax code has been used as a personal payback account by politicians of both parties for far too long as a reward to their campaign backers.
I've pretty much ruled out voting for anyone who promises lowering taxes under our current system lower than they are now as some sort of responsible fiscal policy.
Conservative groups are actually promoting this video making fun of Herman Cain's strange campaign video.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/video-makes-fun-herman-cains-odd-campaign-video-funny-0
It is pretty funny!
Cain was on the networks this morning talking about it. He said, "I want the people who work for me to be who they are, not packaged for TV. Mark smokes. I'd like for him to quit, but that's who he is, and I'm not here to change people!"
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 02:13:52 PM
At least he's proposing something entirely new rather than continuing on with our failed taxation system which is far too complex to comply with and enforce.
The present
system isn't too difficult. The problem is all the effing loopholes and exceptions and the like. If the basic system remained as-is, but we eliminated most of the special treatment it would be easily understandable. Yet another example of what happens when money and politics mix.
Quote from: nathanm on October 27, 2011, 03:59:33 PM
The present system isn't too difficult. The problem is all the effing loopholes and exceptions and the like. If the basic system remained as-is, but we eliminated most of the special treatment it would be easily understandable. Yet another example of what happens when money and politics mix.
So, if we eliminate 5,999 pages of teh 6,000 page code?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 27, 2011, 04:12:21 PM
So, if we eliminate 5,999 pages of teh 6,000 page code?
It would probably need to be 25-50 pages (or 100, given the way the Federal Government wastes paper by triple spacing and has headers/footers that take up half the page), since it has to cover things like nonprofits making a profit on non-tax-exempt activities and other corner cases. I would rather the tax code be both clear and precise, otherwise we'll end up wasting money on endless court cases.
Quote from: nathanm on October 27, 2011, 04:44:38 PM
It would probably need to be 25-50 pages (or 100, given the way the Federal Government wastes paper by triple spacing and has headers/footers that take up half the page), since it has to cover things like nonprofits making a profit on non-tax-exempt activities and other corner cases. I would rather the tax code be both clear and precise, otherwise we'll end up wasting money on endless court cases.
Would you suggest a rate structure with progressive increments? Would investment income be taxed in the same way that it is today?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 27, 2011, 04:12:21 PM
So, if we eliminate 5,999 pages of teh 6,000 page code?
New form 1040:
How much did you make?
Send it in.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 27, 2011, 04:52:29 PM
Would you suggest a rate structure with progressive increments? Would investment income be taxed in the same way that it is today?
I don't really have a problem with the general outlines of the tax system as it exists. I think that long term investment holdings should continue to be taxed at a lower rate than short term holdings, which should continue to be taxed as regular income, so yeah, I think the general system is ok. The thing I find most annoying on that front is the necessity of keeping track of documentation of cost basis, such that you only get taxed on gains, but I don't really see a way around that as long as investment income is taxed at all, and quite honestly, I think that would be utterly ridiculous.
And yes, I do think progressive taxation is the way to go. There's just not much money at the bottom, and a much greater proportion of the income of those at the bottom of the income distribution goes to necessities, so their tax rate should naturally be somewhat lower. I wouldn't even be terribly opposed to keeping current rates if we can add a couple of brackets higher up the income scale, perhaps peaking at 40-50% for the very top earners. That should get them paying about what the rest of us do. (remember, in a progressive system, a 50% top rate doesn't mean that you only get to keep 500,000 out of your first million in income, more like $750,000, depending on exactly how the brackets are structured and what rates apply)
I don't think any reform to the tax code is doable without getting money out of politics first. No serious reform is possible without doing that. Given that Congress' approval ratings are running right around 9% now, I dare say most everyone would be interested in that goal. We can argue about the rest later, IMO.
Quote from: nathanm on October 27, 2011, 03:59:33 PM
The present system isn't too difficult. The problem is all the effing loopholes and exceptions and the like. If the basic system remained as-is, but we eliminated most of the special treatment it would be easily understandable. Yet another example of what happens when money and politics mix.
In your haste to disagree with me, you end up looking like a walking contradiction.
Quote from: nathanm on October 27, 2011, 07:08:14 PM
I don't really have a problem with the general outlines of the tax system as it exists. I think that long term investment holdings should continue to be taxed at a lower rate than short term holdings, which should continue to be taxed as regular income, so yeah, I think the general system is ok. The thing I find most annoying on that front is the necessity of keeping track of documentation of cost basis, such that you only get taxed on gains, but I don't really see a way around that as long as investment income is taxed at all, and quite honestly, I think that would be utterly ridiculous.
And yes, I do think progressive taxation is the way to go. There's just not much money at the bottom, and a much greater proportion of the income of those at the bottom of the income distribution goes to necessities, so their tax rate should naturally be somewhat lower. I wouldn't even be terribly opposed to keeping current rates if we can add a couple of brackets higher up the income scale, perhaps peaking at 40-50% for the very top earners. That should get them paying about what the rest of us do. (remember, in a progressive system, a 50% top rate doesn't mean that you only get to keep 500,000 out of your first million in income, more like $750,000, depending on exactly how the brackets are structured and what rates apply)
I don't think any reform to the tax code is doable without getting money out of politics first. No serious reform is possible without doing that. Given that Congress' approval ratings are running right around 9% now, I dare say most everyone would be interested in that goal. We can argue about the rest later, IMO.
Actually, I think rather than there being a distinction between long-term gains and short term gains, have different rates for passive or active investment and have a few safe havens like cap gains on a primary homestead taxed at a lower rate or still allow the reinvestment of that capital with no tax penalty. I'm defining passive investors as people who do nothing but push paper, betting on paper gains or losses to make their money, and not directly putting capital into a business operation. Buying 10,000 shares of GE simply isn't the same as providing capital for a local business which could add 10 or 20 jobs to the local economy.
I think you could also take a lot of gyrations out of the financial, real estate, and commodity markets going about it that way. People making a living flipping stocks and trading commodities can literally let their greed dictate what happens to other's retirement accounts and what people wind up paying for gasoline or food. Make the stakes higher for home flipping and that would help curb the rapid escalation of home prices that result in the massive calamity we saw the last few years. In other words, look at the specific activity, not the time-frame so much in considering the rates.
I realize the current code with short and long term gains is supposed to help delineate such activities, but apparently the tax code hasn't been much of a deterrent to preventing certain practices that affect the overall financial picture for everyone else. I've never been much for taxation as being a deterrent to behavior, but considering what the home flipping binge ultimately contributed to the housing bubble and nearly brought down the financial markets, I think there's a reasonable argument to make for it in certain cases. Or as another example: what speculators did to oil prices in 2008 and continue to do today.
Don't penalize those creating jobs for others and who make a great profit creating something. Tax the smile out of those who do nothing but push money from place to place and fleece others in the process.
Yeah I know it doesn't sound all that conservative, but I think there are a lot of wealthy people under the gun right now who make an honest living and will continue to create jobs so long as they've got the capital to do it. Don't hammer the people who provide jobs, hammer those who exploit the system to the detriment of others.
When I said system, I meant the basic underpinnings. The underlying concepts are sound. The basic rates aren't even too terribly far off from where they need to be to get the deficit under control, since we'll be paying for a lot less blowing stuff (or at least doing it more cost effectively) up pretty shortly. Get the economy out of slowsville and the problem will pretty much fix itself, especially if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.
It would be nice if we can manage to get the whiners to let us run a budget surplus for a while when the economy picks up, so as to pay down the debt to something closer to 50% of GDP and forestall the need for the Fed to raise interest rates significantly should that expansion grow too vigorous.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 27, 2011, 06:07:54 PM
New form 1040:
How much did you make?
Send it in.
That's a lot like President Obama's new 90-90-90 plan.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 28, 2011, 10:14:47 AM
That's a lot like President Obama's new 90-90-90 plan.
It's no wonder you cry yourself to sleep. You're delusional!
Quote from: nathanm on October 27, 2011, 07:08:14 PM
I think that long term investment holdings should continue to be taxed at a lower rate than short term holdings, which should continue to be taxed as regular income, so yeah, I think the general system is ok. The thing I find most annoying on that front is the necessity of keeping track of documentation of cost basis, such that you only get taxed on gains, but I don't really see a way around that as long as investment income is taxed at all, and quite honestly, I think that would be utterly ridiculous.
If you are gonna give a break for something proven to NOT work, then let's redefine long term and short term. Long term IS not a year and a day. Long term is at least 5 and probably should be 8 to 10 years. That way money actually has the opportunity to possibly move around enough to make jobs/economic activity.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 28, 2011, 10:14:47 AM
That's a lot like President Obama's new 90-90-90 plan.
Miss your ritalin today??
Looks like it's time for the dealer to change hands.
(and Romney moves into the lead)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127907-503544/herman-cain-i-never-sexually-harassed-anyone/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127907-503544/herman-cain-i-never-sexually-harassed-anyone/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel)
QuoteHerman Cain: I "never sexually harassed anyone"
Looks like this one's got legs.
"I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely, because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless." - Herman Cain
Cain then said he was unaware of any settlement payments to the two women.
Who among us really believes the second line?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 31, 2011, 11:22:53 AM
"I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely, because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless." - Herman Cain
Cain then said he was unaware of any settlement payments to the two women.
Who among us really believes the second line?
You mean how instead of denying it he denies knowledge of it?
Yeah, it's bullpucky.
I think this is where everyone in the Tea Party finds out just how insubstantial a candidate Herman Cain really is. Similarly, this is where everyone in the Cain campaign finds out just how insubstantial the Tea Party's support for Herman Cain really is. The whole campaign may not crumble at this point, but I don't see how 1) the media doesn't run this into the ground and 2) how the Tea Partiers don't slowly start to bleed away from him and back to Perry (or Bachmann, or Newt, or Santorum, etc) if he's discovered to be tainted goods.
Unrelatedly, there's this:
http://www.jsonline.mobi/watchdog/noquarter/state-firms-cash-to-herman-cain-may-breach-federal-campaign-tax-laws-132898423.html?ua=android&dc=smart&c=y
wherein some principles in Cain's campaign were funding him in all sorts of hinky and probably illegal ways prior to his establishment of a candidate.
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2011, 11:27:09 AM
You mean how instead of denying it he denies knowledge of it?
Yeah, it's bullpucky.
He said;
Cain said that if more allegations surface, it will be because people "simply make them up." He said "the only other allegations will be trumped up allegations."
"There is nothing else," he said.
So what he said was the two allegations were the real allegations, and his minions paid it off if anyone did - and without his knowledge. Since these were the only two, then other allegations are trumped up.
We need him for President!
I figured it was only a matter of time before he got "Clarenced". Politico is releasing few substantial details and I don't think there's any meat to the allegations. The only thing we seem to know is there were some allegations that he made a couple of women "feel uncomfortable". No groping, no overt sexual overtones. At least from what I managed to hear on the drive in from OKC this morning. I suspect this came from either the Perry or Romney campaigns and I predict this blows over in a matter of days.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 11:48:11 AM
I figured it was only a matter of time before he got "Clarenced". Politico is releasing few substantial details and I don't think there's any meat to the allegations. The only thing we seem to know is there were some allegations that he made a couple of women "feel uncomfortable". No groping, no overt sexual overtones. At least from what I managed to hear on the drive in from OKC this morning. I suspect this came from either the Perry or Romney campaigns and I predict this blows over in a matter of days.
How dare these victims turn Cain into a victim..wait.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 11:48:11 AM
I figured it was only a matter of time before he got "Clarenced". Politico is releasing few substantial details and I don't think there's any meat to the allegations. The only thing we seem to know is there were some allegations that he made a couple of women "feel uncomfortable". No groping, no overt sexual overtones. At least from what I managed to hear on the drive in from OKC this morning. I suspect this came from either the Perry or Romney campaigns and I predict this blows over in a matter of days.
He is being "welcomed into the club." Should get his letter and instructions on the secret hand-shake from brothers Bill and Clarence soon.
(http://pointlessbanter.net/files/2007/09/postcard-front.jpg)
The more that has come out about this, the funnier it's getting. I'm glad I work in an office where I can complement my female co-workers when they look nice, without fearing legal action.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 31, 2011, 12:33:59 PM
I'm glad I work in an office where I can complement my female co-workers when they look nice, without fearing legal action.
Never take that for granted.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 31, 2011, 12:33:59 PM
The more that has come out about this, the funnier it's getting. I'm glad I work in an office where I can complement my female co-workers when they look nice, without fearing legal action.
Thin ice, dude! Be afraid - be very afraid!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 31, 2011, 11:44:34 AM
He said;
Cain said that if more allegations surface, it will be because people "simply make them up." He said "the only other allegations will be trumped up allegations."
"There is nothing else," he said.
So what he said was the two allegations were the real allegations, and his minions paid it off if anyone did - and without his knowledge. Since these were the only two, then other allegations are trumped up.
We need him for President!
Shouldn't his talking about the charges in public ( and denying them) void the two victims' NDAs? That would make things really interesting.
Quote from: swake on October 31, 2011, 01:12:35 PM
Shouldn't his talking about the charges in public ( and denying them) void the two victims' NDAs? That would make things really interesting.
I think he needs to have the NRA/NRF wave the NDAs. It's going to happen eventually, because some lefty news org, or one of his opponents is going to "make them an offer."
We need to be able to measure the silliness of the allegations.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 31, 2011, 01:15:14 PM
We need to be able to measure the silliness of the allegations.
That's it. This could be his mantra. Anyone who's ever felt like these women, if the allegations are true or not, will love it.
The allegations may have involve a gesture too. . . .
JONATHAN MARTIN of Politico: —
What actually happened to these women as well–we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. These women felt uncomfortable, they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain's on the road. Um, but, we-, we-, we're just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what's in the story.
There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual.Thank God, that there is not a pubic hair on a Coke can. . .yet.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 11:48:11 AM
...I predict this blows over in a matter of days.
No way. An unholy alliance of Perry/Romney supporters, democrats wanting to play politics, and media obsession with anything that has the word "sexual" in a headline want this scandal to have legs.
If the women are attractive and make statements on television that he made them "feel uncomfortable", then his campaign is toast.
Boom
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/)
Herman Cain's Gospel: 'He Looked Beyond My Faults'
QuoteOne of the more interesting moments during Herman Cain's appearance today at the National Press Club came not when he struck back hard against reports that he sexually harassed an employee of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, but when he burst into song at the end.
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2011, 02:57:01 PM
Boom
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/)
Herman Cain's Gospel: 'He Looked Beyond My Faults'
I love it. . . That has got to make both the Libs and the establishment GOP crawl and cringe.
I like him more every day!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 31, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
No way. An unholy alliance of Perry/Romney supporters, democrats wanting to play politics, and media obsession with anything that has the word "sexual" in a headline want this scandal to have legs.
If the women are attractive and make statements on television that he made them "feel uncomfortable", then his campaign is toast.
Just a bunch of racist haters trying to do this to Cain.
I like Cain and I think I could support him. Voting for him would assuage my mountains of white guilt.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 03:29:58 PM
Just a bunch of racist haters trying to do this to Cain.
I like Cain and I think I could support him. Voting for him would assuage my mountains of white guilt.
maybe if you got him and the 'rent is too damn high' guy on the same ticket....
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 03:29:58 PM
Just a bunch of racist haters trying to do this to Cain.
Really?
So you must think that anything said bad about him makes the person a racist?
Really?
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2011, 02:57:01 PM
Boom
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-gospel-he-looked-beyond-my-faults/)
Herman Cain's Gospel: 'He Looked Beyond My Faults'
Herman Cain! Does God speak to you? Then consider medication. Come to think about it, shouldn't we know what thsee guys dope up on. I hear it's provigelence for our POTUS....
So: this brings up two questions: is Cain presidential material if 1) he's a sexual harasser and has paid off his victims and 2) if his campaign can't seemingly deal with this as a PR issue? These are two related but separate problems. One's a moral issue, the other cuts right to the heart of how to build, staff, and manage an effective political organization. Which is what a President does.
I'm going to give him a C- on 1), pending new revelations, and give him an F- on 2) so far.
Quote from: we vs us on October 31, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
So: this brings up two questions: is Cain presidential material if 1) he's a sexual harasser and has paid off his victims and 2) if his campaign can't seemingly deal with this as a PR issue? These are two related but separate problems. One's a moral issue, the other cuts right to the heart of how to build, staff, and manage an effective political organization. Which is what a President does.
I'm going to give him a C- on 1), pending new revelations, and give him an F- on 2) so far.
Perhaps the alleged sexual harassment is designed to attract liberal voters?
Quote from: we vs us on October 31, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
So: this brings up two questions: is Cain presidential material if 1) he's a sexual harasser and has paid off his victims and 2) if his campaign can't seemingly deal with this as a PR issue? These are two related but separate problems. One's a moral issue, the other cuts right to the heart of how to build, staff, and manage an effective political organization. Which is what a President does.
I'm going to give him a C- on 1), pending new revelations, and give him an F- on 2) so far.
I hope he gets the GOP nomination; Obama vs Cain would be outstanding! I want Dave Chappell to do a skit on it so bad.
Quote from: carltonplace on October 31, 2011, 04:05:56 PM
I hope he gets the GOP nomination; Obama vs Cain would be outstanding! I want Dave Chappell to do a skit on it so bad.
Oh man, that'd be great.
Quote from: we vs us on October 31, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
So: this brings up two questions: is Cain presidential material if 1) he's a sexual harasser and has paid off his victims and 2) if his campaign can't seemingly deal with this as a PR issue? These are two related but separate problems. One's a moral issue, the other cuts right to the heart of how to build, staff, and manage an effective political organization. Which is what a President does.
I'm going to give him a C- on 1), pending new revelations, and give him an F- on 2) so far.
Did you jump to those conclusions near as quick with Clinton?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 31, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
Really?
So you must think that anything said bad about him makes the person a racist?
Really?
Sure, why not? Every bad thing said about Obama or opposition to his policies is absolutely racist. Why would it be any different with Mr. Cain?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 04:11:46 PM
Sure, why not? Every bad thing said about Obama or opposition to his policies is absolutely racist. Why would it be any different with Mr. Cain?
Speaking of, have all of these potential POTUS' posted their birth certificates? Has anyone asked for them, seen them, denied they were real and demanded the real birth certificates?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 04:10:55 PM
Did you jump to those conclusions near as quick with Clinton?
Nope. Clinton hadn't paid anyone off, and the right wing had a history of throwing just about anything against the wall that would or wouldn't stick. Up until Paula Jones actually sued, it was a whisper campaign and never amounted to much more in a court of law. Include all the kee-razy Whitewater/Vince Foster/Mena Airport/etc/etc/etc allegations and the whisper campaign actually got lost somewhat in the haze up until his impeachment.
But of course, I'm also from Arkansas, and we've all had heads up about some of this stuff, since at least the mid '80s.
Notice I gave Cain a slightly less than average grade on the morality side of things. If he's a touchy feely or inappropriate dude, he'll fit in just fine in Washington, and so long as he's not a current member of the Fondle-ocracy I don't have a problem forgiving someone their sins. It's when something legally binding occurs (ie. settlement) that the issue has to be paid attention to.
I stand by my F- grade so far for Managing a Political Crisis. They knew about the Politico story easily a week or so before it actually dropped, and his response to date hasn't been encouraging.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 04:11:46 PM
Sure, why not? Every bad thing said about Obama or opposition to his policies is absolutely racist. Why would it be any different with Mr. Cain?
You well know that most of us never said that. Don't lower yourself to get even with a small group of crazy liberals.
Quote from: we vs us on October 31, 2011, 04:24:03 PM
Nope. Clinton hadn't paid anyone off, and the right wing had a history of throwing just about anything against the wall that would or wouldn't stick. Up until Paula Jones actually sued, it was a whisper campaign and never amounted to much more in a court of law. Include all the kee-razy Whitewater/Vince Foster/Mena Airport/etc/etc/etc allegations and the whisper campaign actually got lost somewhat in the haze up until his impeachment.
But of course, I'm also from Arkansas, and we've all had heads up about some of this stuff, since at least the mid '80s.
Notice I gave Cain a slightly less than average grade on the morality side of things. If he's a touchy feely or inappropriate dude, he'll fit in just fine in Washington, and so long as he's not a current member of the Fondle-ocracy I don't have a problem forgiving someone their sins. It's when something legally binding occurs (ie. settlement) that the issue has to be paid attention to.
I stand by my F- grade so far for Managing a Political Crisis. They knew about the Politico story easily a week or so before it actually dropped, and his response to date hasn't been encouraging.
Nobody has shown one shred of evidence anyone was paid off on Cain's behalf and you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. You seem to have forgotten they had recorded phone conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers during the 1992
campaign. This is nothing but allegations of someone "feeling uncomfortable" which given the climate of the early to mid '90's with new sexual harassment legislation and all the awareness that brought might not have been terribly uncommon to hear.
Cain now sings a different song.
"Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told their publication that Cain himself had indicated to campaign officials that he was "vaguely familiar" with the charges and that the restaurant association's general counsel had resolved the matter."
http://news.yahoo.com/supporting-cain-gop-evokes-thomas-hearings-063515247.html
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 01, 2011, 07:20:01 AM
Cain now sings a different song.
"Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told their publication that Cain himself had indicated to campaign officials that he was "vaguely familiar" with the charges and that the restaurant association's general counsel had resolved the matter."
http://news.yahoo.com/supporting-cain-gop-evokes-thomas-hearings-063515247.html
He must have learned that song from Obama......
Quote from: Breadburner on November 01, 2011, 09:01:58 AM
He must have learned that song from Obama......
Sounds like you were correct Conan.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 31, 2011, 06:02:05 PM
Nobody has shown one shred of evidence anyone was paid off on Cain's behalf and you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. You seem to have forgotten they had recorded phone conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers during the 1992 campaign. This is nothing but allegations of someone "feeling uncomfortable" which given the climate of the early to mid '90's with new sexual harassment legislation and all the awareness that brought might not have been terribly uncommon to hear.
That's just not true. 2 women in separate instances were offered settlements because of his alleged behavior. They are legally enforceable agreements and hence very substantiated. All the reporting, likewise, confirms it. Not just from Politico, who broke the story, but other outlets now too. What's more, Cain himself is now starting to confirm it in dribs and drabs.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
You're reaching for a double standard with Clinton that just isn't there. He took his lumps, too. For a decade or more, actually. And he was impeached for his dalliances. I'm not excusing anything -- remember, us Arkies knew most of Clinton's predelictions, but this isn't about Clinton in the least. This is about Cain, what he's done, how he's dealt with it, and how it affects the current race. And I'd say he's looking more and more inept at damage control as this thing wears on.
Quote from: we vs us on November 01, 2011, 09:11:23 AM
That's just not true. 2 women in separate instances were offered settlements because of his alleged behavior. They are legally enforceable agreements and hence very substantiated. All the reporting, likewise, confirms it. Not just from Politico, who broke the story, but other outlets now too. What's more, Cain himself is now starting to confirm it in dribs and drabs.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
You're reaching for a double standard with Clinton that just isn't there. He took his lumps, too. For a decade or more, actually. And he was impeached for his dalliances. I'm not excusing anything -- remember, us Arkies knew most of Clinton's predelictions, but this isn't about Clinton in the least. This is about Cain, what he's done, how he's dealt with it, and how it affects the current race. And I'd say he's looking more and more inept at damage control as this thing wears on.
Told you it was a race thing!
I think anyone who has risen to his level of success has had snipe attempts from former employees. Depending on how he handles this, it could be good for him. It's not fair to pass judgement until there is actually a human being making claims against him. Media hit-jobs are a dime a dozen and worth as much.
I'm glad to see the media finally vetting him rather than just considering him an annoying polling anomaly.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 01, 2011, 09:25:30 AM
Told you it was a race thing!
I think anyone who has risen to his level of success has had snipe attempts from former employees. Depending on how he handles this, it could be good for him. It's not fair to pass judgement until there is actually a human being making claims against him. Media hit-jobs are a dime a dozen and worth as much.
I'm glad to see the media finally vetting him rather than just considering him an annoying polling anomaly.
There were 2 that we know about.
Quote from: we vs us on November 01, 2011, 09:11:23 AM
That's just not true. 2 women in separate instances were offered settlements because of his alleged behavior. They are legally enforceable agreements and hence very substantiated. All the reporting, likewise, confirms it. Not just from Politico, who broke the story, but other outlets now too. What's more, Cain himself is now starting to confirm it in dribs and drabs.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
You're reaching for a double standard with Clinton that just isn't there. He took his lumps, too. For a decade or more, actually. And he was impeached for his dalliances. I'm not excusing anything -- remember, us Arkies knew most of Clinton's predelictions, but this isn't about Clinton in the least. This is about Cain, what he's done, how he's dealt with it, and how it affects the current race. And I'd say he's looking more and more inept at damage control as this thing wears on.
Now we find out late yesterday and overnight there are apparently two women who reached settlements. When you were running with this yesterday, Politico had not gone so far as to confirm anything just vague sources and rumors for all we knew. As far as Cain's handling of it so far, I can't fault the way this has happened. Of course he recollected this all along, we all know that. But when first confronted with the story, I wouldn't expect much of a tell-all from the candidate. He needed to meet with his advisors and figure out the proper way to address the issue. Why he wasn't better prepared for this prior to it breaking? Perhaps he hoped it would never come to light and that the two women would stick to their NDA's. It appears that the story was not even uncovered by either of the two women involved but third parties either working in or around the restaurant association.
And for what it's worth, I'm not reaching for any double standard. I simply asked if you jumped to such quick conclusions about Clinton. You erroneously stated that until Paula Jones sued it was a whisper campaign against him, which again is a complete proven falsehood. Gennifer Flowers came out during the 1992 campaign with recorded phone messages. Pretty substantiated proof he was a diddler. As we found out later there were far worse instances of behavior which bordered on rape. Clinton's protectors engaged in some of the worst public victim-smearing we've ever seen. Paula Jones anyone? Kathleen Willey? No telling who all else was paid hush money.
Having worked in corporate America as a mid-level manager after the new sexual harassment laws came out, I can tell you the bar is so low for allegations, it's simply easier for a company to pay off and walk away. Quite literally someone can claim an uncomfortable working environment just by a supervisor or co-worker putting their hand on that person's shoulder while looking over their shoulder at a work item, or for telling crass jokes. Unless there's any sort of physical evidence like a stain on a blue dress, it's a he-said/she-said case and the "victim" overwhelmingly walks away the victor every time unless it can be proven they've got a pattern of such allegations everywhere they have worked. Unless the accused is a known predator, or there was a third party witness, companies will seldom fire them.
I think there's now an implication that Cain paid hush money or that the restaurant association paid hush money. Based on my experience in the business climate of the mid 1990's with these new harassment laws, this was handled much in the same way the rest of corporate America was handling it. It's not "hush" money so much as it's "go away" money, and yes, there is a very clear distinction on this.
I'm like Gaspar, I'm glad the media is finally taking Cain seriously. Let's see how he handles this, it could reveal a lot about his leadership qualities or lack thereof.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2011, 10:06:01 AM
Now we find out late yesterday and overnight there are apparently two women who reached settlements.
NBC was stating that by yesterday AM.
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2011, 10:08:47 AM
NBC was stating that by yesterday AM.
But NBC is a liberal leaning corporation...
::)
http://news.yahoo.com/cains-conflicting-statements-sexual-harassment-allegation-create-more-151215247.html
The former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza denied Monday that he was aware of a settlement between the two accusers and the National Restaurant Association, but his story changed as the day evolved.
"If the Restaurant Association did a settlement, I wasn't aware of it and I hope it wasn't much because nothing happened," Cain said in a Fox News interview, and repeated the same line at the National Press Club later that afternoon.
But in an interview later in the evening with PBS, the Tea Party star said he was, in fact, aware of a deal.
"I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word 'settlement' versus the word 'agreement,' you know, I'm not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn't have to bring it to me," Cain told PBS' Judy Woodruff.
Cain blamed the discrepancy on the wording and the difference between a "settlement" and "agreement."
"I didn't change my story. I simply got the wording right," he told HLN's Robin Meade today.
But his attempts to explain the story created even more confusion today. Cain said the settlement equated to about three to six months of severance pay, but the accusation didn't come up until the woman had left the National Restaurant Association.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 01, 2011, 08:31:57 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/cains-conflicting-statements-sexual-harassment-allegation-create-more-151215247.html
The former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza denied Monday that he was aware of a settlement between the two accusers and the National Restaurant Association, but his story changed as the day evolved.
I expect you will have the opportunity to wipe that ear to ear grin off your face eventually.
Quote from: Hoss on November 01, 2011, 10:21:27 AM
But NBC is a liberal leaning corporation...
::)
That's why no one listens to it.
:D
And here is another one claiming that Cain harassed.
I won't be too surprised if it is all true. Wow! How unbelievable is that? A Republicontin lying about sex?? Hmmm...maybe he should be impeached!!
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-harassed-cain-195748722.html
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 02, 2011, 06:20:17 PM
And here is another one claiming that Cain harassed.
I won't be too surprised if it is all true. Wow! How unbelievable is that? A Republicontin lying about sex?? Hmmm...maybe he should be impeached!!
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-harassed-cain-195748722.html
I don't think he's lied under oath...yet. That's why Clinton got impeached, he perjured himself. Lesser people might be in prison for rape today or on a sex offender registry at best.
Yeah, this latest one doesn't look so good for Cain. She doesn't have an NDA and did not reach a settlement. Now it's a matter of she said/he said.
Not that I've spent time sexually harassing people, but this is yet one good reason I will never run for office. You never know what someone may have taken out of context years ago, or even made up in their head as being more than it was. When someone decides to come out from 15 years ago and say they were "uncomfortable" I consider it could have been an overblown issue. Behavior that would have been brushed off 30 or 40 years ago as being nothing more than low-brow kidding now gets taken seriously because of all the attention placed on SH back in the '90's.
I can think of one incidence where I was leading a training school for a week in Dallas with 8 or 10 new reps. One of the reps played the "Duck Job" audio file as we were coming back from a break, just several of us guys standing around, no women in the room. One of the female reps came in at about the "climax" of the audio file. I motioned for the rep who was playing it to shut his lap top. Now, someone like that could very easily say she was "made uncomfortable" by that and as a manager I did nothing to stop it. Did I err by not telling him to play it on his own time in his motel room that evening? Possibly so. At any rate, it's not like I groped anyone nor was I the one playing the file, but as the "person in charge" I could have just as easily been hit with such an allegation of "hostile work environment".
I can also think of an incident one year at the company awards trip in Montreal. My ex-wife and I had gone for massages that day at one of the really nice spas in Montreal. We ate that night with one of the corporate VP's and he made the off-the-cuff comment that my wife was welcome to come rub his shoulders any time. We all laughed that off and I never thought twice about it, but if he'd said to someone with less of a sense of humor, he could have easily gotten slapped with harassment as there were other people at the table. I'm just not one to blow an odd compliment about my spouse out of proportion.
To me, it's complete BS, but again, it illustrates how easily that can be spun later in life on someone to make them sound like a sexual predator when it's not even close to the truth. Knowing the propensity of the media to blow things out of proportion, I'm sure "pervert" will come up in a story on Cain before long.
I'm not apologizing for Cain or running interference, but I can see how an invitation to his personal apartment might have spun out of control, say if the person accusing this now didn't realize it was an invitation to have dinner with Mr. and Mrs. Cain. Again, I wasn't there so I don't know. I'm simply speaking from relevant experience of being in mid-level management when all this really got big in the mid to late '90's. People were encouraged to "come out of the shadows". I'm sure some were legit, and some were like the slip and fall claimers at Wal-Mart.
I'm going to give him the same benefit of the doubt I'd give any candidate of any political party and that's that I'm far more concerned about how they will lead the country. I would assume after this episode, that type of leadership won't include any slaps on the donkey for good work.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2011, 08:47:35 PM
I don't think he's lied under oath...yet. That's why Clinton got impeached, he perjured himself. Lesser people might be in prison for rape today or on a sex offender registry at best.
Yeah, this latest one doesn't look so good for Cain. She doesn't have an NDA and did not reach a settlement. Now it's a matter of she said/he said.
I can also think of an incident one year at the company awards trip in Montreal. My ex-wife and I had gone for massages that day at one of the really nice spas in Montreal. We ate that night with one of the corporate VP's and he made the off-the-cuff comment that my wife was welcome to come rub his shoulders any time. We all laughed that off and I never thought twice about it, but if he'd said to someone with less of a sense of humor, he could have easily gotten slapped with harassment as there were other people at the table. I'm just not one to blow an odd compliment about my spouse out of proportion.
To me, it's complete BS, but again, it illustrates how easily that can be spun later in life on someone to make them sound like a sexual predator when it's not even close to the truth. Knowing the propensity of the media to blow things out of proportion, I'm sure "pervert" will come up in a story on Cain before long.
Clinton - again, goes to the "degree" of lying. He lied about BS BJ in the Oval office. Didn't cost any of us anything, and Monica, Billy, and Hillary all had a good time. Who cares?? On the other hand, we have the lies about Iraq that got us into a multi-trillion dollar sinkhole that has killed over 4,000 of our kids. Yeah, Billy Bob is the important lie here...talk about blowing things out of proportion...
I think it is more a case of he said/ three of them said....
It's good that none of the women in your life/family have not been subject to harassment. I was at a small local company several years ago where the President (small, out of town owners) had an informal "arrangement" with the more attractive women in the company...as long as they would not protest an occasional grope or two, they could keep their jobs and get occasional raises. One didn't go along - she only lasted a couple of years until he could cook up an excuse. Luckily, he was eventually investigated by an outside military agency and was allowed to "retire" - no harm/no foul.
By far the worst example I have ever encountered - in fact, the only overt systemic example I have ever encountered. Luckily.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 02, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Clinton - again, goes to the "degree" of lying. He lied about BS BJ in the Oval office. Didn't cost any of us anything, and Monica, Billy, and Hillary all had a good time. Who cares?? On the other hand, we have the lies about Iraq that got us into a multi-trillion dollar sinkhole that has killed over 4,000 of our kids. Yeah, Billy Bob is the important lie here...talk about blowing things out of proportion...
I think it is more a case of he said/ three of them said....
It's good that none of the women in your life/family have not been subject to harassment. I was at a small local company several years ago where the President (small, out of town owners) had an informal "arrangement" with the more attractive women in the company...as long as they would not protest an occasional grope or two, they could keep their jobs and get occasional raises. One didn't go along - she only lasted a couple of years until he could cook up an excuse. Luckily, he was eventually investigated by an outside military agency and was allowed to "retire" - no harm/no foul.
By far the worst example I have ever encountered - in fact, the only overt systemic example I have ever encountered. Luckily.
I'm sorry, did I miss the intent of the post I previously quoted? You mentioned something about impeachment so I assumed you were referencing the Clinton impeachment. Of course, Mr. Cain would have to be an elected official to be impeached. Perhaps you ditched that semester of Civics...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2011, 12:59:21 AM
I'm sorry, did I miss the intent of the post I previously quoted? You mentioned something about impeachment so I assumed you were referencing the Clinton impeachment. Of course, Mr. Cain would have to be an elected official to be impeached. Perhaps you ditched that semester of Civics...
Too much of a stretch - sorry - I was looking far ahead to the future should he be elected to something, then the grounds for impeachment would already be in place waiting to happen.
I suspect he will be impeached by opinion polls long before he becomes officially "impeachable".