politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Herman Cain unveils economic plan (less taxes and regulations)
Source:
The Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/29/herman-cain-unveils-economic-plan/
Published: Jun 29, 2011
Author: Alex Pappas
Post Date: 2011-06-29 21:43:20 by Hondo68
Keywords: eliminating capital gains taxe, eliminate government regulatio, cut unemployment rate in half
Views: 11147
Comments: 55
Herman Cain announced an economic plan Wednesday that includes eliminating taxes on capital gains. The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza turned presidential candidate, known for usually speaking in generalities when it comes to policy, came out with the plan while stumping in South Carolina. “The capital gains tax represents a wall between people with money and people with ideas," Cain said. "And people with ideas are the catalyst for new businesses and new job growth." Cain said this would also encourage companies to “invest in worker training programs, new equipment and emerging technologies.” Cain's "Economic Vision: Jobs for America" plan also includes lowering the top corporate and personal income tax rates to a maximum of 25 percent. He also proposes forming a commission to review and possibly eliminate government regulations. Cain claims his plan would cut the unemployment rate in half. (Romney leads Bachmann, rising in NH) “We will continue to roll out parts of his plan over time across the country, with each city having significance pertinent to a particular industry or portion of his economic plan,” said Ellen Carmichael, a spokeswoman for Cain. “We chose Greenville to draw attention to the friendly business climate of South Carolina and how federal interference, most recently with the NLRB, impedes job creation.” Cain’s business experience also includes serving on the board of directors for seven corporations and leading the National Restaurant Industry, his campaign said.
Poster Comment: Will Cain and Paul start hammering the neocons on economic policy, in the debates?
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain laughs with Earle Gregory while touring the Next Innovation Center in Greenville, S.C., Wednesday, June 29, 2011. (AP Photo/The Greenville News, Bart Boatwright)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
FWIW, Bush cut capital gains taxes from 20% to 15% (long term) and the result was anemic job growth compared to Clinton. But Republican economic policy is based on orthodoxy, not facts.
In 1993, Clinton raised taxes on upper-income Americans, boosting the top rate to nearly 40 percent. But the higher tax rates didn't boost government revenues as Democrats and the administration hoped, despite the economy coming out of a short and shallow recession. "The tax increases added very little to Treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree," high-tech analyst Jerry Shenk writes on the American Thinker website. Clinton boasts about his budget surpluses, but they did not occur until after the Republican-run Congress sent him a deficit-reducing bill in 1997 that he signed reluctantly. Among its tax cut provisions, it cut the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. "The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically," Shenk found. "Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy," he said.
Correct...your moronic revisionism and sophistry aside, it boosted them even more than they had hoped. A capital gains tax cut did not boost revenues 10 foid to the cut. Nor has any evidence been offered that cutting capital gains taxes results in an increase in industrial or technological based capital investment, which has always had a generous depreciation/recapture schedule associated to it anyway. The tax has always had deferral capabilties and the biggest segment affected, the housing market, had an outright forgiveness on the sale of any first home.
"The tax increases added very little to Treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree,"
Wow..."I heard me say it it must be correct!!!" Post the reports, Paddy...
Does the word "esitimate" need to be defined for you, douche?
Does the phrase "even Clinton's own OMB said the deficit would only increase after the tax hikes" mean anything to you?
Do you think there is a reason the author would use an estimate to support his thesis rather than actual performance?
Yes, because Clinton never had any intention for spending cuts which, in addition to the economic boost provided by the 1997 tax cuts, is why the budget became balanced. Clinton never had any intention of balancing it.
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#24)
Chuckles...change your diaper...the trail of shit is getting longer and deeper... GOP Budget Busters by Stephen Moore Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. Added to cato.org on January 20, 1998 This article appeared on cato.org on January 20, 1998. The latest press release from the White House Budget Office proclaims that total federal expenditures will rise by "only" $70 billion in 1998. That single- year increase exceeds the combined income of all residents of the state of Kansas. In fact, there are 14 states with combined personal incomes of less than $70 billion. And that's just the increase in spending in 1998. The total federal budget now exceeds the combined family budgets of every household in America living west of Colorado. Happy new year! Who's responsible for this spending binge? To suggest that congressional Republicans share any part of the blame is to invite a look of disbelief from party faithfuls. Yes, the budget is loaded with gobs of new social spending, concedes Newt Gingrich. But, he says, Bill Clinton made us do it. We are also told that $70 billion was the ransom the GOP had to pay to get a tax cut in 1997. Few people would argue with the proposition that this president is fond of spending other people's money. When Bill Clinton took office Washington spent $300 billion less than it does today. And Republicans are co-conspirators in this year's budget build-up. Last February Bill Clinton asked Congress for $1.688 trillion to operate the government -- a truly audacious sum that was ridiculed by fiscal conservatives. Yet the final budget approved by [the GOP] Congress somehow managed to exceed the Clinton request by $4 billion. Can a president politically blackmail Congress into spending more money than he himself asked for? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5661
Is the subject balanced budgets or tax receipts?
I recently plowed through last year's 13 appropriation bills and found further evidence of GOP profligacy. While it is true that in most cases the total dollar amount of those spending bills was lower than the president's request, there were dozens of programs for which the budget approved by Congress was more than the White House had sought (see table). For example, the $7.6 billion bilateral foreign aid bill, the most expensive in history, contains $200 million more for ineffectual Agency for International Development (AID) assistance funds and $100 million more for the State Department than the White House sought. Michael Prowse of the Financial Times recently noted that America would do much more to promote global prosperity if it dropped millions of copies of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations out of airplanes flying over Third World nations than it does by bribing corrupt regimes with foreign aid. GOP appropriators apparently disagree. One of the largest dispensers of corporate welfare in the budget is the Export- Import Bank. Rather than end that aid to K Street corporate welfare queens, Congress appropriated $680 million for the bank, $50 million more than the Clinton budget demanded. The 105th Congress seems intent on proving it's as green as the Sierra Club by outspending Clinton and Gore on environmental programs. Hence, even though the government already owns more than one-third of the land area of the United States, GOP appropriators approved $206 million for Interior Department land acquisitions--almost twice what Clinton and Gore wanted. The GOP was also more generous than the Clinton White House to the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and selected farm programs. The labor, health and education bill was the fiscal equivalent of the Alamo for conservatives. Home heating assistance, a program that Reagan and David Stockman tried to exterminate 16 years ago when the energy crisis ended, gets $100 million more than the Clinton budget request. Something called the School Improvement Program (who could be against that?) was slated for termination in 1995 but now gets $200 million more than our education president wanted. School districts with military bases will receive $150 million more in Impact Aid than Clinton requested, even though communities raise holy hell if Congress attempts to close bases. There is also more money than Clinton sought for libraries, AIDS research, refugee assistance, subsidized housing, Head Start, education research and even the Food and Drug Administration. Two of the biggest embarrassments for the GOP are the budgets for the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Community Development Block Grant program. The ARC helps fund such vital infrastructure projects as a football field, used as a practice facility for the NFL's Carolina Panthers, in one of the richest counties in South Carolina. For 20 years CDBGs have been Congress's most notorious urban slush fund. This year Congress rewarded the ARC with a $10 million budget increase -- $5 million more than Clinton wanted. CDBGs were awarded $75 million more than Clinton requested. My estimate is that in total Congress spent almost $5 billion more on 35 domestic programs than the White House requested. Explain that, Mr. Gingrich.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHerman Cain announced an economic plan Wednesday that includes eliminating taxes on capital gains.
#4. To: go65 (#3)
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#4)
(Edited)
In 1993, Clinton raised taxes on upper-income Americans, boosting the top rate to nearly 40 percent. But the higher tax rates didn't boost government revenues as Democrats and the administration hoped, despite the economy coming out of a short and shallow recession.
#6. To: war (#5)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree
#9. To: war (#7)
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#9)
#11. To: war (#10)
#21. To: no gnu taxes (#11)
Does the phrase "even Clinton's own OMB said the deficit would only increase after the tax hikes" mean anything to you?
#24. To: lucysmom (#21)
Do you think there is a reason the author would use an estimate to support his thesis rather than actual performance?
Replies to Comment # 24. Yes, because Clinton never had any intention
#26. To: no gnu taxes (#24)
Yes, because Clinton never had any intention for spending cuts which, in addition to the economic boost provided by the 1997 tax cuts, is why the budget became balanced. Clinton never had any intention of balancing it.
#27. To: no gnu taxes (#24)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]