Politics

AP Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & the Economy

Associated Press Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & Economy

Republican presidential candidates are seen at the debate at Dartmouth College Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011 in Hanover, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Editor’s Note: The following “fact check” was composed by the Associated Press (not the Blaze). Below, find the inconsistencies the AP claims to have found during last night’s GOP debate:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is regulation strangling the American entrepreneur? Several Republican presidential candidates say so. The numbers don’t.

The anti-regulatory fervor was in evidence Tuesday night in the latest GOP debate, but rhetorical flourishes, on that and other issues, masked far more complex realities. (Related: “Here‘s a Look at Key Moments in Tuesday’s GOP Debate“)

A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts.

MITT ROMNEY: “All of the Obama regulations, we say no. It costs jobs.”

RICK PERRY: Regulations “are strangling the American entrepreneurship out there.”

RICK SANTORUM: “Repeal every regulation the Obama administration put in place.”

Associated Press Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & Economy

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren‘t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

The conservative National Federation of Independent Business asks its small-business membership each month to name the single most important problem they’re facing. Last month, the most common response was “poor sales,” cited by 28 percent. Government regulation came in second, at 18 percent.

Concerns over regulation have increased in the past two years – only 11 percent cited it in April 2009, not long after Obama entered the White House. But the rise hasn’t been outside historical norms. More small businesses complained about regulation during the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

High levels of economic uncertainty are another drag on business, but economists say that’s less due to regulation than to fights over government spending and taxes. Both consumer and business confidence fell in August, for example, as the White House and Congress wrangled over the nation’s borrowing limit. But that was a bipartisan dispute that can’t be solely pinned on Obama.

—

Associated Press Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & EconomyREP. MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B Trust Fund is going to be dead flat broke.“ She also charged that ”President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare.”

THE FACTS: Bachmann is mixing up Medicare while exaggerating the danger of insolvency.

Part B is not for hospital payments, but for outpatient care, and it‘s technically impossible for that part of Medicare to go broke because it is financed by the federal government’s general fund and by beneficiary premiums. Medicare’s Part A is the hospital trust fund, and it is now projected to become insolvent in 2024, 13 years in the future. Even then it would be able to pay 90 percent of its obligations, a far cry from “dead flat broke.”

When the fund has been threatened in the past, Congress has come through with changes that restrained program growth, largely by cutting provider payments.

There is no evidence to support her charge that Obama plans for Medicare to collapse; his health care law envisions nothing like that. In fact, a Republican budget that Bachmann voted for would make far larger changes to the program for the next generation, converting it to a voucher-like system.

—

Associated Press Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & EconomyHERMAN CAIN: Repeatedly touted his 9-9-9 tax plan as a “bold” overhaul of the tax code that would get the economy back on track, and be embraced by the nation.

THE FACTS: Cain’s plan is bold, and some economists think it includes features that would help the economy. But it is unlikely that the millions of low- and middle-income families who would face significant tax increases will embrace it. The wealthy, however, would probably love it because they would get big tax cuts.

Cain would eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and replace the progressive federal income tax with a flat 9 percent tax on income. He would lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 9 percent, and impose a new 9 percent national sales tax.

Cain argued Tuesday night that low-income workers would pay less because he would eliminate payroll taxes, which total 15.3 percent of wages, when employer and employee shares are included. But his analysis omits the fact that most low-income households make a profit from the federal income tax because they qualify for so many credits, deductions and exemptions. The result is that most low-income families currently pay less than 9 percent of their income in federal taxes. Nearly half of all U.S. households – mostly low-and middle-income families – pay no federal income taxes at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

Additionally, all households would face a new 9 percent national sales tax, again disproportionately impacting those with lower incomes who spend all or most of their money.

High-income households would get a tax cut from the lower income tax rate. Also, Cain’s proposal would eliminate taxes on capital gains.

—

ROMNEY: “On Day One, I will issue an executive order identifying China as a currency manipulator…If you’re not willing to stand up to China, you’ll get run over by China. And that‘s what’s happened for 20 years.”

JON HUNTSMAN: “I don’t subscribe to the Don Trump school or the Mitt Romney school of international trade. I don’t want to find ourselves in a trade war…. We have to get used to the fact that, as far as the eye can see into the 21st Century, it’s going to be the United States and China on the world stage.”

THE FACTS. Economists largely agree with Huntsman, who was U.S. ambassador to China earlier in the Obama administration, that confronting China head on over currency manipulation would bring retaliation against U.S. business. The policy debate among Republicans – Democrats, too – is whether that risk is worth it.

Few dispute that China manipulates its currency by pegging it to the dollar. However, opponents of confronting China worry about a trade war that the fragile global economy cannot afford.

China may have more to lose than the U.S. if trade in goods were curtailed. But Washington depends heavily on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance its budget deficits.

—

PERRY: Pointed to “the 54,600 jobs that have been created” by two state funds used for attracting businesses to Texas or helping new companies get started.

THE FACTS: The funds have not delivered that many jobs yet. Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman, said figures for 2011 are not available, but as of the end of 2010, the funds had only created 30,749 actual new positions in the state.

To be sure, the 89 firms that have received $439.5 million in state money have several years to create the jobs. But one study found nearly half the companies that got money had not met their goals. In many cases, the governor’s staff allowed the companies to renegotiate their contracts or pay back a percentage of the funds they received.

—

Associated Press Fact Checks GOP Candidates on Taxes, Jobs & Economy

BACHMANN: “I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum-level lending standards to new lows. It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans.”

THE FACTS: It might be argued that the government pursued policies under both Democratic and Republican presidents to promote home ownership, such as setting up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make more affordable mortgages possible, and the tax deduction for home mortgages. But it’s a stretch to suggest that federal regulators forced banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. And neither Bachmann nor most other Republican presidential contenders are calling for a repeal of the home-mortgage deduction.

Many of the subprime loans that inflated the housing bubble were not made by banks, but by mortgage companies that weren’t regulated by the federal government. A big reason they made the loans was because they could profit by selling them to Wall Street investment banks, which made money by packaging them into securities and selling them.

Comments (184)

1 2 3 4
  • MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:21am

    Well AP, I think it is about damn time that everyone has a stake in the game. I’m sick of dragging half of the country on my coat tails. What part of “DON’T TREAD ON ME” dont you understand?

    Report Post » MEDICINE TO THE DEAD  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:32am

      THE FACTS: Cain’s plan is bold, and some economists think it includes features that would help the economy. But it is unlikely that the millions of low- and middle-income families who would face significant tax increases will embrace it. The wealthy, however, would probably love it because they would get big tax cuts

      That sums up the Republican position, on every issue, quite nicely.

      The weird thing to me is, the posters here side with the wealthy. Still hoping the wealth will trickle down, although history shows that’s not going to happen.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Squ33
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:53am

      The AP clearly has no understanding of free market economics, and that is why they distort the “facts.” Example: Regarding the General Fund, in the future it will need to be financed completely by borrowing from other nations, because the U.S. will not have enough tax revenue to pay for such services.

      Report Post » Squ33  
    • Ddrummer68
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 1:11pm

      “The wealthy, however, would probably love it because they would get big tax cuts.” – This statement alone tells us all we need to know about the AP ‘Fact-Checker”s intent. It is nice of AP to admit, though, that most low-income families actually profit from the tax code, and that nearly half of American’s pay no taxes at all. If the Dems can just press for that extra 3-4%, they’ll have an unbeatable voting bloc.

      “And neither Bachmann nor most other Republican presidential contenders are calling for a repeal of the home-mortgage deduction.” This statement makes no sense. Nowhere in Bachmann’s critique of federal mortgage policies did she mention the home-mortgage deduction. I’d be happy to see the mortgage deduction go away – just as soon as we’re all on the level playing field of 9-9-9, 10-10-10, or whatever other plan makes the most fiscal sense.

      Report Post »  
    • DanWesson455
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 1:28pm

      Those who do not believe we have a hidden SALES TAX already in place have not thought of exactly what an EXCISE TAX IS: They are all paying it now.
      Item Tax
      Rate Measure
      General Fund Excise taxes
      Small Cigarettes $1.01 pkg 20
      Cigars, large $0.40 ea. cigar
      Distilled Alcohol 80 proof $2.14 750 ml
      Wine 14% Alcohol or Less $0.21 750 ml
      Wine 14 to 21% $0.31 750 ml
      Wine 21 to 24% $0.62 750 ml
      Wine Sparkling $0.67 750 ml
      Wine Carbonated $0.65 750 ml
      Hard Cider $0.04 750 ml
      Beer $0.05 12 oz
      Pistols and Revolvers 10% price
      Other Firearms and Ammunition 11% price
      Tanning Salon 10% price
      Gas guzzler 21.5-22.5 mpg $1,000.00 vehicle
      Gas guzzler 12.5-13.5 mpg $6,400.00 vehicle
      Telephone Calls 3% local
      Wagering excise tax 2.50% wager
      Black Lung Disability Trust
      Coal mined $1.10 ton
      Coal mined 4.40% price
      Coal open pit $0.55 ton
      Coal open pit 4.40% price
      Highway Trust Fund
      Gasoline $0.183 gallon
      Diesel $0.243 gallon
      Alcohol fuels $0.183 gallon
      LPG fuel $0.183 gallon
      LNG fuel $0.243 gallon
      CNG fuel $0.183 gallon
      Tires over 3,500 lb. rated wt. $0.09 10# rated wt
      Heavy Trucks 12% price
      55,000–75,000 lbs. capacity $100.00 truck/yr.
      each 1000# over 55,000 $22.00 truck/yr.
      over 75,000 # $550.00 truck/yr.
      Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
      Leaking Gas storage .1 cent gallon
      Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Excise
      Vaccine $0.75 dose
      Water Transportation Passenger excise tax
      S

      Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • DanWesson455
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 1:30pm

      Ship voyage $3.00 passenger
      Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund
      Ship fuel $0.20 gallon
      Oil Spill fund
      Oil $0.08 barrel
      Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
      Harbor Maintenance 0.13% cargo
      Sport Fish Restoration & Boating Trust Fund
      Sport Fishing gear 10% price
      Boat Gasoline $0.183 gallon
      Boat Diesel $0.243 gallon
      Airport and Airway Trust Fund
      Airline Ticket 7.50% price
      International Ticket $16.30 ea.
      Air Cargo 6.25% charges
      Comm. Aviation kerosene $0.043 gallon
      Jet Fuel $0.218 gallon
      Aviation gasoline $0.194 gallon

      There are probably more but what is the use?

      Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 1:41pm

      @JZS

      Oh well in that case, good thinking JZS, excuse me for speaking out. The 50% of tax payers and I will get back to work dragging the parasites though life. I can’t believe I was tired for a second there, of carrying the weight of half the country, and being a slave to the zero liability voters. Sorry, lets keep this between us, don’t tell Obama. He hates wealth creators enough already. Can someone play the sound of whips cracking in the background and maybe someone shouting ROW! ROW! ROW!!!

      Report Post » MEDICINE TO THE DEAD  
    • Right_on_the_Left_Coast
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:36pm

      @JZS,

      …and to sum up the Democrat position:

      Even though businesses everywhere moving jobs oversees because of cheap labor, we are going to make doing business in America even more distasteful by taxing the investment-class Americans that created or funded those businesses to begin with. We’ll punish them all for being successful until they take all their economically stimulating ventures elsewhere!

      With capital gains and dividends going up, not only with other countries offer cheaper labor, but they’ll offer cheaper investment taxes too! In many cases, half what America’s government taxes its investors, and at a flat rate. In that kind of scenario, how could you blame businesses for finding that it’s more financially realistic to begin new startups in other countries, rather than here in America.

      This isn’t JUST about trickle-down economics. This is about generating jobs because America is an attractive place to do business. But the more you tax investors, the less investment you have, and foreign economies start looking better and better. Than American jobs become fewer and fewer, and consequently so will American consumers. Until America becomes a thoroughly UNATTRACTIVE place to do business… I don’t need the money to trickle down. I just want to to STAY HERE!!!

      Report Post » Right_on_the_Left_Coast  
    • Wyoming
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:37pm

      AP‘s fact are flawed statistically the numbers haven’t changed from the past – well we are being flushed down the toilet and we were spiraling down10 years ago and still are but we just happen to be closer to the sewer pipe. That doesn‘t mean that government regulations and government welfare are not causing the problem just because the regulations haven’t changed significantly recently – it means they created the problem and we are reaping the rewards of those policies now.

      And I don’t want wealth to trickle down – wealth is created. Regulations create sanctioned theft. Wealth is in the ground, in the air, in the water, and in our minds. If it just exists and all equally deserve it then all the animals would be filthy rich already because they are not greedy.

      Socialism takes something I make at the point of a gun (theft) and gives it to those who won’t try to make anything (everyone is capable of contribution – unless literally brain dead). The maker hates the deal and the taker is happy – but not content.

      Capitalism takes something I make and trades it for something somebody else made and both are mutually content in the transaction. If I want more, I make more. Capitalism is not theft. Theft by any other name is still theft.

      Report Post » Wyoming  
    • Right_on_the_Left_Coast
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:38pm

      @MEDICINE TO THE DEAD,

      Ha! Well said! Exactly!!!

      Report Post » Right_on_the_Left_Coast  
    • RavenGlenn
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:41pm

      @ JZS: Trickle down of wealth doesn’t happen? Really? Where do you live? I dare you to show me that the poor cannot afford FAR more today than they could in the past. As the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor(myself included). Most households have multiple TVs(often flatscreens), computers/laptops, multiple vehicles, stereo systems, video games, blu-ray players, etc etc.

      The amount of nice things we have continuously increases as these magical 1% continue to get richer. You folks need to get it through your head that the wealth isn’t a pie where if the rich grab more, you lose some. The wealth GROWS and gets bigger. As the rich have gotten richer, so has the middle class by the same percentages.

      Report Post »  
    • rightwingwacko
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:52pm

      Why is it wrong to say people should have to pay their fair share and to quit getting a PROFIT from the work of others.

      Report Post » rightwingwacko  
    • grandma7
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 3:12pm

      Told my Grandson, this past weekend:
      “We LOVE the wealthy—-so much so, that we want EVERYONE in the US to be wealthy. The wealthy give you the jobs you need to keep this world going. Feel fortunate to know someone who is wealthy, in fact, BE that person. BE the wealthy and do what they do—–produce jobs, give to countless charities, form foundations & hospitals & schools & museums & parks & produce the world’s products & food —–and when December comes, throw a big office party in the name of Jesus, give bonuses and plan on doing more the next year. You be that wealthy person, and start planning for that, today” (He’s 12).

      Stuns me when the liberals talk about hating the wealthy. I’m guessing they want to keep everyone poor……Sorry JZS – that’s called oppression/socialism/communism.

      Report Post »  
    • 2smart
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 3:49pm

      It appears that the AP plays fast and loose with the facts. I thought that they had real journalists over there, not propagandaist’s. Sorry, my bad, information officers and the information isn’t neccessarily the truth.
      @JZS, where ya been? It‘s been awhile since I’ve had a good laugh from your posts. Off at indoctrination school, I bet, or was it a re-education camp? Well you didn’t waste anytime gettin back into the groove and posting the liberal propaganda for the rest of us to wonder where your common sense is. Well, no matter, enjoyed the laugh, keep up the humor and don’t accept any wooden nickels from the entitlement providers.

      Report Post » 2smart  
    • DeepThought42
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 5:25pm

      Newt has finally changed my mind about him after last night’s debate. He is always the smartest person in the room and the series of debates have proved that. He has great ideas and the experience to get them passed in Congress. Mitt is a RINO so I’ll wait for the third party candidate in 2016 if the establishment keeps control of the process. Cain‘s sales tax is just another new revenue stream for big government and won’t fly. He can’t see past his own potential presidency. Bachman started strongly but has given in to quick snipes and talking points. Perry is a big disappointment with a liberal/progressive immigration record. Today, I‘m switching my support to Newt and I’m ready to donate to help him get elected.

      Report Post »  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 5:36pm

      Want to know where JZS stands on any issue? Here is the test. Will this result in more power to the individual or government? JZS has chosen bigger government and more regulation every time. He actually would like to replace parental decisions with government mandates, like deciding at what age your child can tan.

      That sums up JZS’s position, on every issue, quite nicely

      The weird thing to me is JZS sides with bigger Government. Still believing a bigger more intrusive government will somehow result in a more liberated and empowered poor and middle class, although history shows that’s not going to happen.

      2012: The people who work for a living vs. the people who vote for a living.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • yooperjo
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:15pm

      Right On!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:04pm

      Hi Blaze, can post on any topic here? I think you’re violating my freedom of speach, just like Hank Jr.!

      Anyway, Spechaser, are you thinking that Republicans like Reagan didn’t increase the size of government? Or Bush? Do you not know that the deficit increased by three trillion dollars under Reagan and that he passed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history and dramatically increased the size of government? Do you not understand that the US collapsed after seven years of Bushenomics? And you want to do the same? And think it will be different this time?

      You’re wrong, I do want power to the individual. That’s exactly what I want, and what the protesters on Wall Street want. One individual, as in one person, one vote. But you’d have it otherwise IMO. Seems to me you’d like the richest 1% of the “individuals” in this country, who already own a third of the country, to own even more. When will you be happy? When the top 1% own 50% of the country, or 99% of the country? Will you be free then?

      Spec, you’re confused IMO. You’d rather, as with Cain’s 999 proposal, have your taxes raised in order to reduce the taxes of rich. Well, then vote for him.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Mr.X
      Posted on October 13, 2011 at 2:18am

      I think it is accurate to say that those in the low to middle income range will have an increase in the taxes they pay, but that is because they pay nothing now or in some cases the government is paying them. I believe that you should contribute something no matter how much you make, there are no free rides. Even if you only make 25000 a year, 9% is comes out to $6.16 per day, I don’t think that is asking too much. In addition, this is going to help our economy recover which is going to be good for everyone. If you put the money back into the peoples pocket, there will be more to go around for everyone.

      Report Post »  
    • emty44
      Posted on October 13, 2011 at 2:42am

      @jzs, I am not “siding” with anyone, but why in the world shouldn’t all americans be paying something in taxes…..I am one of those who now find themselves in that lower tax bracket that may not pay anything in taxes and may even get that tax credit next year……is that really fair? I don’t think so. If I or others aren’t paying into the system, 1, we are told that we are 2nd class, and our thoughts and ideas are not important, and 2, when to many are being bought off by the elites with tax incentives, those same elites names may change, but the elites will always stay in power, and those down on Wal street with legit protests will never see any real change……

      Report Post »  
    • cajun_kowboy
      Posted on October 13, 2011 at 9:12am

      AP makes the Tea Party case when it said some people are profiting from NOT paying taxes in the form of tax credits. Obama wants EVERYONE to get skin in the game. By everyone he means the rich. The 9 9 9 plan is a plan that should be given a chance. 1. It’s actually a plan and not an anti-status quo movement. 2. Cain is not a politician, which is something else that needs to be touted. Why should we trust the same people who got us into this mess to get us out of it?

      Report Post »  
    • McClarinJ
      Posted on October 14, 2011 at 5:28am

      JCZ, don’t worry. Cain’s 9-9-9 will morph in a flash to 10-10-10, 11-11-11, 12-12-12, and so on. Cain is a tool of the New World Order and his big contribution would be to give the feds a new sales tax. What‘s not to like if you’re a big-government liberal?

      Report Post » McClarinJ  
  • microace
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:18am

    Really, the AP is worse on facts than anyone, what about the refineries the EPA closed in Texas, what about the coal firing electric plants that are having to close cause of EPA regulations, what about the drilling in West Texas that has ceased cause of the Sand Lizzard. How about all the drilling that is not taking place in the Gulf of Mexico because they aren’t giving permits…What about all the people who are not being hired because companies have no idea what regulations they will be hit with when Obamacare is in place…

    Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:37am

      .
      Can someone point me to the “AP Fact Check” on Obama’s campaign promises?

      I know they’ve been really busy watching Bristol Palin, but come on, AP, maybe once be honest.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • Irish Eyes Are Smiling
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 3:41pm

      Agreed, the AP is very vague about their ‘facts’. the article says ‘economists’ say . . . who are those economists. who did they vote for. I don’t understand why the blaze repeated this article, it isn’t worth repeating, it’s worth using to dump the garbage in and take to the trash can.

      Report Post »  
    • PharmDan04
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 4:36pm

      No to mention the expansion of government to enforce all of these regulations. EPA as well as the education department shoud be cut completely. Leave education to the states and local governments. I think we all know what Obamacare would mean to our healthcare system.

      I like Cain’s plan because it is just that…..a plan! Every other candidate is just spitting out the same generic political garbage we have heard for years from our presidents both dems and republicans.

      Report Post »  
    • KenInIL
      Posted on October 14, 2011 at 5:55pm

      I think the .2% is only for the news business. You are right they missed the 250000 Gulf jobs lost when they shut down Gulf drilling — let alone the jobs lost when the pump price went from $2 to $4. Maybe they only counted the Solyndra jobs.

      Report Post »  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:15am

    What I want to know is who is checking the AP. Anyone in their right mind does not trust the AP. That would be like trusting Pravda during the cold war.

    Report Post »  
  • An_American_Thinker
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:13am

    Love 999. Everyone should have some “skin” in the game. It is ludicrous to pay taxpayers because they work and have a family…such is the result of the “Earned Income” tax credit. My own kids think it’s crazy, but they get back everything they pay in plus an additional $2,500 to $3,000 because of the credit. Mr. Cain’s 999 plan puts families in charge of the amount of taxes they pay. The National Sales Tax would be on “new” only, not used. Used cars and second hand store purchases would be exempt. Also creates a great boon to recycling! Love it, love it, love it!

    Report Post »  
    • mad_hatter
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:22am

      I think 9-9-9 was talked about too many times in the debate. People started just laughing at it. He should hold back saying too many times or people may get irritated, though it is funny, the interaction. Here is the whole debate, (http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/wapo_bloomberg_debate_review.html ) 9-9-9 was mentioned almost 2 dozen times. TOO MUCH

      I agree that we can do something bold but you don’t want a Federal Sales tax as well as a State tax that is 9% plus another 7% from the state. Do you want a 16% tax off everything you buy. And if his plan was passed, minus the 2/3 override vote, that would mean they could increase it.

       
    • Free Speech
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:35am

      I agree. 999 is a joke.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:08am

      9-9-9 is absurdly regressive in structure. A 9 percent sales tax will do nothing more than limit consumption and cause an expansion of the underground economy. Like many he confuses that the wealthy don’t create jobs, they invest in companies that respond to demand. The larger groups of society need enough disposable income to fuel demand. The wealthy can only buy so many houses, cars, clothes, toys, etc. Elimination of the capital gains tax will perpetuate the concentration of wealth, which is the biggest factor slowing the economy. The faster money moves through an economy the healthier it is. Concentrations of wealth by definition slow the movement of money. That is not ideology that is a fact……But of course as noted here everyone seems to like their own facts.

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 12:05pm

      right, so to follow your 9-9-9 logic, if we are encouraging people to “buy used goods” by not taxing them, we would also be discouraging people to buy “new”, and in turn, manufacturing would slip. And more job cuts would occur… right?

      and why do i care about creating a recycling boon?

      Report Post »  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:11pm

      american thinker. i also like 999 plan, not as much as ‘the FAIR TAX’. both ‘Fair Tax’ and cain’s 999 plan taxes the underground economy. these tax plans give workers more of their own earn money to spend as they choice. also with these tax plans prices on goods will become more compative and BOOST the general economy

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
    • PharmDan04
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 4:48pm

      I don’t believe it to be regressive at all.
      Eliminating the IRS, preventing those that cheat on taxes doing so (many wealthy individuals do this), collecting tax from illegal immigrants, everyone paying the same percentages, NO TAX LAWYERS

      These are all positives to me! Do any of you know a better way to broaden the scope of people that pay taxes yet keep it fair for all those by doing it by taxing a percentage of income? What about collecting taxes from millions of illegal immigrants?

      Report Post »  
    • McClarinJ
      Posted on October 14, 2011 at 5:38am

      If Cain is so smart, how did he miss the signs of the impending collapse of 2008 and the bursting of the real estate bubble? He was a regional Federal Reserve director but that doesn’t mean he learned anything. He thinks the Fed has nothing to hide so an audit would be pointless. What a doof! But don’t worry, he promises to surround himself with “experts” who will advise him. Somehow I doubt his ability to pick the right experts, especially so in light of his great admiration for Alan Greenspan, one of the principal architects of our impending super-meltdown.

      Report Post » McClarinJ  
  • Twinspeedr
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:11am

    “But it is unlikely that the millions of low- and middle-income families who would face significant tax increases will embrace it.”

    Well, DUH! If you pay nothing in taxes or see net revenue from the current “sick and twisted” tax code of course you you be against it. Our Progressive tax system is not only illegal, it is immoral.
    The AP fails to make the salient point that Cain’s plan is honest and EQUAL!!! The dopes receiving Government largesse aren’t participating because they have to incentive to do so, let’s get everyone in the game so they have to compete. We are fighting many things these days, complacency is one of these things that is rarely talked about and it is playing a huge role in our economic problems.

    -= Herman Cain 2012 =-
    * All you need to know is 9 *

    Report Post » Twinspeedr  
  • mac410
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:55am

    Can you picture Cain’s income tax form? Three lines:

    Income: $XXXXXX
    Times .09
    Tax Due: $XXX

    That’s it! No 1040′s. No Sch. A B C and the rest of the alphabet. No sheafs of paper attached. No tax preparation fees. No keeping file folders of receipts for 5-20 years. No weeks of calculating and trying to find missing pieces of paper. Just a simple one page three line form and done. Could be done on a postcard for that matter.

    Report Post »  
    • Attention2Detail
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:13am

      Your forgot the most important thing. NO IRS !!!

      Report Post » Attention2Detail  
    • mad_hatter
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:14am

      I agree with Santorum that Cain’s plan is scary if it is changed, if they only pass the bill and not the 2/3 vote override. It may be better not to pass it. Pick on VAT or Income Tax, not both. No one wants a Fed sales tax with a state tax on top of it. Here is the whole interaction: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/cain_santorum_999.html

      Report Post »  
    • mad_hatter
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:16am

      Attention2Detail,

      That still doesn’t mean there would be an agency enforcing it… especially since there are still ‘loop-holes’ per sea. Deductions have to be investigated.

      Report Post »  
    • jmiller_42
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:54am

      lol, you forgot at least one X in your equation and, more likely, 2. How many 6 digit numbers do you multiply times .09 and come out with 3 digits? Fantasy land my friend. Their will be an IRS and a new CRS (consumtion revenue service) Plus 9% more on anything you buy as a consumer, which for many, is your entire paycheck.

      Report Post » jmiller_42  
  • woodyl1011fl
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:45am

    AP fact checking is about as worthless as obummers/democrats saying ther’e for the middle class and poor what joke but of democrat voters will actually belive them Always Propaganda news does work for the 435 that thinks the country is on the right track and obummer is doing a good job. Who run that outfit Wasserman?

    Report Post »  
  • Nanner-SW
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:40am

    For those that currently get more from the fed tax than what they put in, maybe they would be more concerned with how the government spent peoples money if their own money was added into the pot. Yea civic responsibility.

    Report Post » Nanner-SW  
  • Selfreliance
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:23am

    “Additionally, all households would face a new 9 percent national sales tax, again disproportionately impacting those with lower incomes who spend all or most of their money.”

    Which might be a problem, as long as you ignore the change to corporate tax levels. When you tax corporations at 35%, every corporation along the supply chain must add additional margin to their portion of the process in order to cover tax obligations while meeting their profit objectives. Reducing this tax by 3/4 — from 35% to 9%, a drop of 26% or 74.2% of the current tax level — means less markup by the manufacturer, importer, wholesaler, distributor, and retailer. Lower fees by the shipping company, reduced fees to rent the retail space from its corporate owner. These reductions — simply because the corporations that create, move, and deliver goods to the consumer pay a much smaller percentage of their markup to the government — are far more than enough to cover the 9% tax added directly on the consumer.

    Taxes on business are simply passed along to the customer. They are hidden taxes, in Cain’s plan to be replaced by explicit taxation on the end user. Claiming that the 9% sales tax will cause a net increase in cost of goods to the consumer is a poorly thought out claim that falls apart upon even a cursory examination. Great job, AP.

    Report Post »  
    • Delta_River_Folk
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:34am

      If all american citizens have the right to vote, then why don’t all american citizens have the right to help foot the bill? We don’t say, ” Well you are poor or low income so you can’t vote”. People should put up or shut up. Maybe that should be a requirement for voting. If you have paid Federal taxes in the previous year, then you have the right to vote. That would eliminate spending someone elses money.

      Report Post »  
    • MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:17am

      @delta

      I‘ve always said that you shouldn’t be able to vote if you don’t pay taxes. As Andrew Wilkow states reguarly, people that don’t pay any taxes are zero liability voters. It doesn’t matter what the hell happends to everyone else they are not affected. That’s like me being able to go into a casino and play without anteing up. What right does someone have to play the game without betting anything?

      Report Post » MEDICINE TO THE DEAD  
    • saranda
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:27am

      @medecine – that is ridiculous. Who are you going to exclude next from voting? Union members? women?

      Report Post »  
    • MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 1:55pm

      @saranda

      Don’t give me any ideas… kidding, kidding. I would exclude no one but people who pay absolutely no income tax, exactly as my post said. If you think that is “ridiculous”, then explain why instead of jumping to random conclusions. Why do you think it is fair for half the country to carry the other half on its back? Elaborate please.

      Report Post » MEDICINE TO THE DEAD  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 2:17pm

      @saranda YES:)

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
    • sarcoq
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 3:45pm

      @Saranda
      Unions and women would not be excluded IF they are working and pay taxes. It’s simply as straight forward as stated by Medicine and Delta.

      Report Post »  
  • SEPARATENOW
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:13am

    Let me fact check AP and it’s assertion on 9-9-9…

    The rich want 9-9-9 because it will be a windfall for them. The middle class and poor don‘t want it because they’ll pay more. Hmmmm…

    Aren’t the rich and their evil, greedy corporations supposedly skating on their taxes now? Aren’t the middle class and poor shouldering too much of the tax burden? Hmmmm…

    Which is it AP? Here are some real facts:

    The top 10% of federal income earners pay almost exactly 70% of all federal taxes now, while earning just 46% of the federal income. The bottom 49% pay 0% federal income taxes.

    So the rich really do want 9-9-9 because the AP and the Obamunists already know the rich are paying not only their fair share they’re paying for the vast majority of everything.

    So much for the AP fact checkers.

    Report Post » SEPARATENOW  
    • ccr
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:25am

      There is soooooooooooo much in this AP “fact check”………WHY does the Blaze bother to “print” it???

      Report Post »  
    • Gooch
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:45am

      Herman Cain’s 9/9/9 plan will give the government another means of taxing us. You are crazy if you think the rate will remain at 9%, Cain will not be president forever, but you may not know it if you listen to him answer the question about why it wouldn’t go up. As for the payroll tax, most lower income families do not pay this, and to say they do is dishonest, sure it may come out of their pay check, but it is returned to them via the earned income tax credit. This of course would go away with a flat tax, and the lower income families would be in the same spot, except for now they have to pay an additional 9% on everything they buy, keep in mind with state, county, and city sales tax rates anywhere from 5-12% this would be a significant increase in the tax burden. Cain also falsely believes that companies will give their half of the payroll tax back to the employee, in a time where companies are holding all the money they can. Sure some may give some even all back, but in today‘s economy I wouldn’t count on it. Cain’s website says the 9/9/9 plan is just the first step in getting us to the Fair Tax, another piece of legislation that will be hard to pass. I actually do support the Fair Tax because it call for the repeal of the 16th amendment first, which the 9/9/9 plan doesn’t. But faced with two difficult to pass bills, why not go for the Fair Tax first. Could be that the Fair Tax is not the true goal, another revenue stream may be the actual goal.

      Report Post » Gooch  
    • PharmDan04
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 4:56pm

      It seems the government is ALWAYS trying to raise our taxes. At least by adopting Cain‘s plan we would know our baseline tax rates and don’t forget….congress needs to obey the demands of the peope as far as voting to raise taxes. There is no way that if Cain gets 9/9/9 passed that congress would every vote to increase it because they know it would mean a death sentace on their career. We need to be more diligent in telling congress what do pass and not to pass! 9/9/9 can and will pass if We the People want it!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • Stoic one
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:08am

    Hey BLAZE, perhaps YOU could do an analysis side by side to the AP’s????????????

    Report Post » Stoic one  
    • jjoy
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:17am

      It would be just as “skewed” as the AP’s version now that fox “news” has become a bona fide member of the lame stream media…

      Report Post » jjoy  
    • Hockeytown
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:57am

      JJoy I agree with you about Fox New more and more, but do you not remember that Glenn is no longer with Fox News and this is his website?

      Report Post » Hockeytown  
  • JohnGalt
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:05am

    “THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.”
    Really? I know in Atlanta there is a regulation that was passed for food trucks that have to now pay rent when they stop to serve their customers of approximately $20,000 a year putting many of those guys out business.

    I wonder just where do they get their data?

    Report Post » JohnGalt  
    • Locked
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:06am

      Well, according to your quote, from the labor department ;-)

      Report Post »  
    • MrObvious
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:24am

      Companies are unlikely to site regulations as the reason for layoffs; as, more often than not, the layoffs are a result of reduced revenues and/or increased costs. Regulations tend to reduce revenue by making products and services more expensive to buy, and increase costs by making supplies and services more expensive to utilize, as well as adding direct costs.

      The self employed and small business don’t tend to provide any publicly accessible data, on their reasons for reduced incomes to the governemnt. DOL would be the wrong place to get stats on profit and loss from larger corporations who file that kind of data with the SEC.

      It‘s not just Obama’s regs that need removal.

      SOx has been running lives and costing jobs sense it’s passage, in, an overblown, response to Enron.

      The C.R.A. (cheap mortgages all around), created a situation that culminated in the banking collapse that lead to TARP and Frankin-Dod (fed’s ability to take over “failing” institutions, at will, and without due process).

      The 16th (Federal Income Tax) Amendment has been around almost 100 years.
      It has been used, and abused, by the government, as a tool of oppression, and requires every citizen to supply the federal government with exhaustive amounts of private data. Even though the filing is called “voluntary”, the consequences for failing to report tend to be more expensive than most can afford; and, most of the data still gets collected.

      All these, and more, need to be repeal

      Report Post »  
    • MrObvious
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:32am

      SOx, CRA, Frankin-Dod and many more laws need to be repealed in full.

      The 16 Amendment to the constitution needs to be repealed.
      The only issue I have with 9-9-9, is it’s inclusion of an income tax.
      The Fair Tax does not require the 16th Amendment to function and could be dual tracked with a repeal of the 16th Amendment. 9-9-9 includes an income tax that depends on the 16th Amendment.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:02am

      The food truck regulation was enacted by the city of Atlanta – it has nothing to do with Obama. Of course your side had no interest in the truth or facts, it’s much easier to just point to Obama as the source of all the problems.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
  • countryfirst
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:04am

    I still like Cain , but Newt is the only one stating that we are in a fight with a socialist President.

    Report Post » countryfirst  
    • bxy
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:23am

      Herman Cain defends TARP again, supported Romney in 08, said economy was fine before meltdown, supports patriot act, is anti second ammendment, lied last night about fed comments, and flip flops on social and foreign policy issues…….He was exposed last night – his words:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caeNXivEGEg

      He doesn’t even know how the fed works and he was a chairman………..

      Report Post »  
  • TomFerrari
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:04am

    FACT:
    It is the NOT-YET-EXISTING COMPANIES that are being TRAMPLED!
    You cannot START a company with all the bureaucratic red tape, licenses, permits, patents, trademarks, etc.
    So, statistics on EXISTING companies don’t mean crap !
    It is the man with an IDEA or 50 in his head that cannot get funding, that cannot afford $30,000 in patent attorney fees. It is the couple who wants to bake grandma’s brownies and sell them, but cannot afford to build a commercial kitchen that is up to health code inspections and state and federal electrical codes. (California’s electrical code is just ridiculous!)
    At the same time, illegal aliens are making tamales and selling them in home depot parking lots out of the back seat of their cars, no permits, no licenses, no commercial kitchens.
    After all, if you are willing to break FEDERAL laws to enter the country, why would it matter that you broke a local law that requires you have three sinks, rip out your cabinets and buy raises steel shelving, and replace your lights with flourescents, and switches that cannot be auto-on but must be auto-off, etc.
    Sheesh! We just wanted to bake some cookies.

    Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Locked
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:13am

      I’m not sure which regulations in particular you mean. I know for a fact that it costs less than $100 to incorporate in Delaware (although the annual renewal is a couple hundred); I had several friends in college who did so, simply because it was so cheap and they had ideas for some website-based stores and services.

      Patenting is a whole new ball game, and the killer is not the cost of the patent application process (around a few hundred dollars), but the cost of attorney fees to make sure it’s actually not infringing on a different product and is actually unique enough (usually several thousand dollars).

      Obviously the better idea is to use a lawyer to make sure you do everything correctly, but incorporating (literally starting a new business) or filing for a patent is incredibly cheap.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:08am

      Health Departments exist for a reason you idiot, to make sure the food you eat is cooked/baked/served safely. You kind are first to be outraged if someone in your family were to be sickened or died from eating tainted food.

      And Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with the regulatory environment you cited – heath department regulations are a local matter, not federal.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • drago
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:35am

      @simpletruths aka encinom, get lost kid, dont you have a video game to play, moron…..

      Report Post »  
  • jkendal
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:59am

    If you trust the AP to give you all the facts (or trust them on anything for that matter), then you are a dupe.

    Report Post »  
    • ccr
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:24am

      AMEN to that Jkendal!!!

      The “spin” with AP is very obvious.

      “spin – spin- spin” Why waste print on the blaze??

      Report Post »  
  • cemerius
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:58am

    Wow! Here I thought regulations and the slow speed of red tape were keeping the oil rigs off shore from employing those 100,000 workers? What about the Environmaental regualtions that are keeping the Alaska pipeline and Canada to New Orleans pipelinie ahhh yeah more Environmental REGULATIONS!!! Why have we not built a new nuclear powerplant since the 70′s yep you betcha “ebnvironmental regulations”!!! Why are we spending so much on natural resources? ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS!!! Global Warming snkae oil salesman have caused MORE damage to the current economy than Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did to housing!!!!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:09am

      Why do we let the small percentage of ENVIRONMENTAList control the economy. We are really living in bizzarro world.

      Report Post »  
    • cemerius
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:09am

      absolutely “bizzaroland”……and soon “zombieland”!

      Report Post » cemerius  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:46am

    On Cain: “But his analysis omits the fact that most low-income households make a profit from the federal income tax because they qualify for so many credits, deductions and exemptions.”
    That’s right, EVERYONE will have skin in the game and EVERYONE will vote against higher taxes.
    Right now you have 50% of the population voting for pay raises in the form of government handouts every 4 years.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:57am

      Cains plan also eliminates the home mortgage interest deduction. Many people rely on that.

      Report Post »  
    • miljr11
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:10am

      The home mortgage deduction is very small compared to what you’ll keep in your take home pay over the year. I’d be glad to see the 9-9-9 if food and clothing weren’t taxed. I’d like to see everyone paying taxes. This plan would raise wages and incentivise people to work.

      Report Post »  
    • Delta_River_Folk
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:14am

      Most people need to learn not to rely on any Tax rebate. That is what is wrong with our system, it give incentives to people for doing nothing. We need a simple easy to follow tax system, not the shell game we currently have. Personally, I would take it a step more:

      A Straight Forward, BOLD, OUT of the BOX solution to our Nation’s Fiscal Policy

      1) Shift 100% of tax collection from the Federal Government to individual State Governments, (as originally outlined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions before the 1900’s)

      2) Delegate more than 70% of the federal governments spending to state governments (e.g., Health and Human Services, Housing, Education, Energy, Agriculture, Labor, Social Security, entitlements, etc..)

      3) States would provide the federal government with enough money to cover the spending not previously delegated to individual states (e.g., National Defense, Foreign Diplomacy, and other items originally outlined in the Constitution)

      4) Each state would be responsible for a percentage of the federal government’s spending based on state’s population

      Let’s put the “s” back at the end of the United State’s’

      Report Post »  
    • idontgetit
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:17am

      It just makes to too much sense!

      Report Post »  
  • waluman353
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:43am

    What?……..no ron paul facts???
    RON PAUL 2012!!!

    Report Post »  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:48am

      Seems the AP couldn’t refute anything he said. YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Go Ron Paul 2012!!

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:02am

      He did well last night. If he’s not the nominee, I would love to see him put in charge of the Fed by the winner. Are gentiles allowed to chair the Fed?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • miljr11
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:05am

      Dr. Paul is only an interesting spoiler….again. His viewpoint is not necessarily wrong, but it won’t be accepted by most voters. Great he raises money well. Great he gets Lib and Con support. Just not enough of it to help himself or anyone else. He’s spending too much valuable time money and energy on ideas that go no where. What’s acceptable to one side is not to the other and visa versa. His foreign policy kills him with me and I don’t mean bringing home the troops. That’s a good idea. His domestic policy is a winner with me. We can’t cut defense. Without the largest most formidable military all else is moot. We just can’t use them as a meals on wheels or a police force. I wish he‘d move on and show who he’d support.

      Report Post »  
    • BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:14am

      I’m sorry… I don’t think RP would EVER work for the Fed.

      Report Post »  
    • BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:17am

      RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO CUT DEFENSE! How many times does he have to say it before you hear him!?

      Bring the troops home, put them on the border. If we need them for future defense, we can mobilize. No one is saying to cut the size of our defense! Just militarism. Do you know the difference or do I need to work overtime to find the information?

      Report Post »  
    • wildjoker5
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:46am

      They don’t even mention when Ron Paul calls out Cain and his lies about the FED.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:47am

      Re: The Fed, Cain called Paul a liar — Paul said “I’ll provide the tape” — This morning, You Tube is full of video where Ron Paul was factual and Herman Cain LIED.

      It showed Mr. Cain’s lack of understanding of the Fed and also (in my opinion) showed a lack of character.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiUamhNRF68

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:49am

      Ron Paul spending time on things not important? Jeesh. The candidates are all talking about small tweaks to business as usual. America is in SERIOUS trouble and it’s time for a DRASTIC CHANGE IN THE WAY THEY HANDLE BUSINESS!

      Report Post »  
    • citizen_brain
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 11:38am

      Ron Paul 2012, the only real candidate is Ron Paul. The rest are flip floppers, where Paul has been consistent for 35 years.

      Report Post » citizen_brain  
    • Bob Hirschmann
      Posted on October 13, 2011 at 10:29am

      I was wondering the same thing. Why is he being ignored AGAIN? Maybe because AP couldn’t find anything wrong with his point of view???

      Report Post » Bob Hirschmann  
  • hauschild
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:34am

    “exaggerating the danger of insolvency.”

    Wonder if any of those loser AP’ers would be willing to wager some of their cash on their claim???

    Report Post »  
  • ACA
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:33am

    Most of these explainations are spin… Just about every issue argued, (except trade with China), is over something the the federal government SHOULD NOT be doing in our Constitutionally Limited Republic!

    There are issues with each of these candidates, the guy who most closley represents the job description laid out in the constitution for the chief executive is Ron Paul. Is he electable?? I’m not sure.

    Report Post »  
  • Delta_River_Folk
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:30am

    Sponsors of the debate tried to make Romney look good. Why hasn’t the left attacked Romney like Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. I am convinced that the Left wants Romney to win the GOP nomination, because Romney cannot attack or defend things he has agreed with in the past (Government ran healthcare, abortion, global warming, all things Pink-O-Commish). When he tries, the left will call him an indecisive Flip Flopper. Secondly, even if Romney beat Obumer, the left would still be satisfied because it would be like having a milder Obumer in office. This country has to have a true conservative as the GOP nomination, not a RINO.

    And as Always

    A Straight Forward, BOLD, OUT of the BOX solution to our Nation’s Fiscal Policy

    1) Shift 100% of tax collection from the Federal Government to individual State Governments, (as originally outlined in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions before the 1900’s)

    2) Delegate more than 70% of the federal governments spending to state governments (e.g., Health and Human Services, Housing, Education, Energy, Agriculture, Labor, Social Security, entitlements, etc..)

    3) States would provide the federal government with enough money to cover the spending not previously delegated to individual states (e.g., National Defense, Foreign Diplomacy, and other items originally outlined in the Constitution)

    4) Each state would be responsible for a percentage of the federal government’s spending based on st

    Report Post »  
    • CitizenLAK
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 10:49am

      Love this plan. I have been reading The Federalist Papers and it is incredible how off track we are. Everybody should read The Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution and limited government. What I want to know is when did Congress start being exempt from the laws they passed. This is one of the crucial checks on the Federal government making bad laws and becoming too big.

      Report Post »  
  • bigfatslob
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:29am

    AP, I thought there would be hope for them but, they’re back to their leftist slant. I don’t know where to begin with this article, its as deceptive as a budjet out of Washington ei. agreed that .2 of 1% of layoffs are due to regs. BUT not mentioned is what % is NOT HIRING because of regulation, that should be a number to frighten Obama !
    Critizism of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is PURE OPINION, readi it, no fact checking there !
    The entire article is Le ft Wi ng B S.

    Report Post » bigfatslob  
  • beenaroundyaknow
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:27am

    Having the AP doing the scoring is a waste of time. On regulations alone, it’s not about layoffs, it’s about the lack of hiring due to business uncertainty. Most of the regulations for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank haven’t been written yet. How can a business make a plan to be profitable when they don’t know what might hit them?

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:26am

    Good work on figuring it out. Let us have Cain for 2012.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • schmite123oh
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:42am

      But his analysis omits the fact that most low-income households make a profit from the federal income tax because they qualify for so many credits, deductions and exemptions. The result is that most low-income families currently pay less than 9 percent of their income in federal taxes. Nearly half of all U.S. households – mostly low-and middle-income families – pay no federal income taxes at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

      This sums up the problem doesnt it. FUnny How Paul was not mentioned for any errors, I’m voting Ron Paul or Herman Cain come primary time!

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:51am

      You should get nothing more back than what you put in. The poor making a profit off the government IS THE PROBLEM. Cain is not advocating that the poverty level be ignored, just that no one makes a profit. their profit comes out of my pocket.

      Report Post »  
  • hempstead1944
    Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:24am

    Bachman has had difficulty with “facts” for sometime. Her recent gafs are nothing new.

    Report Post »  
    • hauschild
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 8:36am

      Depends on what the term “facts” means to you.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on October 12, 2011 at 9:15am

      I think the quotation marks sum it up pretty well. If you take them out, he actually meant lies.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love