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: 11132
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 # 47.
#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.
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
strawman Clinton never had any intention of balancing the budget.
And yet he did. Go figure...
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget October 8, 1998 Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution. Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office. And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook? Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities." And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It's funny, but back in January the White House didn't seem too concerned about saving the surplus for "shoring up Social Security." Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever? So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.) The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing. https://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html
"If you want to know in what direction a man is going, watch his feet, not his mouth." Fact remains the budget was balanced when Clinton was president and promptly returned to deficits under Bush.
And Clinton had nothing to with balancing the budget other than being there and Bush had nothing to with deficits returning other than being there. Here's your facts: Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."
Those are your "facts", here are mine: The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress… For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more. By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996
That's not a fact. It's an opinion. The increased revenue was mostly due to a recovering economy, which the tax increases probably caused to recover more slowly than it otherwise would have. What I posted was a fact. Clinton absolutely demagogued the GOP's 1995 budget.
"Probably" is a word we use when disseminating "facts"?
First of all this sentence was conveniently left out of the post (I wonder why): Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. Second, it is asserted without evidence that the 93 tax cuts had "a lot" to do with it. How do we know it had anything to do with it or furthermore caused less revenue to be created? Third, there is no record of who the author of the claptrap is, or why we are to believe he knows anything.
The GOP was predicting that the tax hike would DOOM the economy. Newt Gingrich predicted in July 1993: "This economy will sink deeper into recession. There will be higher unemployment. The recovery will be longer." Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim: "Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy." Phil Gramm. The same man who led the 1990's crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a "nation of whiners," boldly - and wrongly - predicted: "I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs...I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people." +++++++++++++++++++++++ Are republicans EVER correct about anything, Paddy?
Good grief, war, you're right again. President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich. Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all. The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997
#49. To: lucysmom (#47)
Re-writing history is a GOP apologists specialty. Reagan raised MORE taxes than he cut. You'll never hear them admit that out loud...
The Clinton White House? They had no agenda, huh? appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, That's what always happens in times of economic growth.
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?
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#24)
Yes, because Clinton never had any intention
#29. To: war (#25)
#30. To: no gnu taxes (#29)
Clinton never had any intention of balancing the budget.
#32. To: lucysmom (#30)
(Edited)
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#32)
#38. To: lucysmom (#37)
Fact remains the budget was balanced when Clinton was president and promptly returned to deficits under Bush.
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
Here's your facts:
#40. To: lucysmom (#39)
(Edited)
The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well.
#42. To: no gnu taxes, lucysmom (#40)
probably
#43. To: war (#42)
#44. To: no gnu taxes (#43)
(Edited)
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it.
#47. To: war, no gnu taxes (#44)
The GOP was predicting that the tax hike would DOOM the economy.
Replies to Comment # 47.
#54. To: lucysmom (#47)
says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers
End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]