Google Groups
Join To Get Blog Update Notices
Visit the Hickory Hound Group

Friday, October 14, 2011

The Real Herman Cain says "We didn't need to Audit the Federal Reserve"

Herman Cain Lies to Ron Paul's Face About the Federal Reserve at GOP Debate

Always falling back on the old "You can't believe everything you read on the internet, yada, yada, yada... Mantra. I agree you can't believe everything you read on the internet, but you can believe even less from the Conditioned Programming Lame Stream Media. The Internet is a resource receptacle just like a library. You go there to find information. If you have a couple of well-rounded resources with in-depth research of information, then it is as good as gold. It all depends upon the researcher, not upon the resource. Antone who doesn't understand this is intellectually lazy and I doubt they have done much research themselves.

Many of the lazy reporters covering the debate went along with Mr. Cain's response that you can't believe everything you read on the internet and then called Ron Paul out as though he didn't have his facts straight? As was pointed out on the United Liberty Blog. by author Jason Pye:

Well, there’s a problem with this. Herman Cain wasn’t misquoted. While filling in for Neal Boortz back in Decembert 2010, Cain was very dismissive of calls to audit the Federal Reserve (you can hear it in his voice) and did in fact say that people were calling for such a statutory measure “don’t know enough about [the central bank]” (emphasis mine):
[T]he Federal Reserve already has so many audits, it’s ridiculous. I don’t know why people think we’re gonna learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve. Now, I no longer serve on the board of the Federal Reserve. I’m not being defensive of the Federal Reserve; in fact, some of the policies and some of the actions of the Federal Reserve, I don’t agree with because the attitude and the non-politization in the 90’s when I served is totally different than what’s going on today. But that’s another matter.
But people who say, “we outta audit the Federal Reserve because we don’t know enough about it.” Well, here’s the advice I’ve given to people who ared worried about an audit of the Federal Reserve; call ‘em up, and ask ‘em if you can stop by and have one of their PR people or one of their Public Relations people explain to you how the Federal Reserve operates.
I think a lot people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don’t know enough about it. There’s no secrets going on in the Federal Reserve, to my knowledge. And I tell people, we’ve got 12 Federal Reserve banks, find out which district you’re in, call ‘em up and go from there.
We don’t need to waste money with another commission, or an audit that’s not necessary, because, folks, we’ve gotta lot of other problems we need to worry about.

Cain’s TARP talk, praise of the Fed could hurt him with conservative voters - The Hill - Cameron Joseph - October 13, 2011 - Businessman Herman Cain has shot to the top of the polls with support from Tea Party members, but his backing of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and opposition to auditing the Federal Reserve could hurt him with those same voters... “Among the Tea Party audience, the TARP bailout is something they’re adamantly against, and they’re going to absolutely need to hear more from him on this issue to be comfortable with him,” said Russell. “I don’t know one Tea Party activist who’d say it’s a bad idea to audit the Fed, that’s not a popular position for him to be staking out.”... Cain served as chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve in the mid-1990s and, in Tuesday’s debate, expressed his admiration for former Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. “The way Alan Greenspan oversaw the Fed and the way he coordinated with all of the Federal Reserve banks, I think that it worked fine back in the early 1990s,” Cain said.

Tax group: 9-9-9, a 'major tax cut' for the rich, 'substantial' increase on others - NBC - Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News - October 13, 2011 - The non-partisan Tax Policy Center is readying a report on Cain’s plan, though it is waiting for more details from the campaign. But it has come to some conclusions already.    Cain’s plan "cuts taxes for the rich and raises taxes on the poor,” Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, tells First Read. He added that it would create a "much more regressive tax system.”    The plan would represent a “major tax cut” for the rich and raise taxes “substantially” on the poor and middle class, Williams said. "Given that a big chunk doesn’t pay any income tax, this would be a big tax increase on people at bottom end. At the top end, the opposite happens."    The top end would go from about a 35% income tax rate to 9%. "That's a big, big drop," Williams said, adding that the capital-gains tax would be another added benefit for the wealthiest. "People at the top would see far and away the largest share of the gains. Those people are going to see a huge tax cut."    Currently, there is no federal sales tax. There are state sales taxes, however, and Cain’s plan would add 9% to those. So, in Iowa, for example, where there is a 6% sales tax, that would mean a 15% sales tax.


harryhipps said...

I'll bite on this one. The problem I see with the income inequality in this country is in the feckless corporate governance that bloats ceo and cfo pay, along with others that, for example sit on "boards" that do little and pay very well for almost nothing. I also despise the crony capitalism where government rules and rigging picks winners and losers. I DON'T begrudge the Gates, Michael Jordans, and other successful people that made their money (yes some had advantages early in life and lucky breaks along the way but that's life).
In terms of tax policy, it is dangerous for the top tiers to pay all and the bottom to pay nothing. This leads to democracy where two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. We all need skin in the game. If the cost is too high, we need to cut back. But when some pay almost all the bill and some pay none of the bill, we are going to get an ever expanding government as we vote ourselves more benefits at someone elses expense.
Even now, with all the yin and yang about how we're going broke, we are still wasting tons of money. And just like the healthcare bill, we are more concerned with who pays than making the system more efficient and containing costs, in addition to the decision on whose role it is to take care of the need.
I think the focus has to be on reducing regulations and reigning in the ever expanding government so we can live freely and not worry about the feds taking over everything. And even lower wage folks need to pay for the services they ask for. There a few at the very bottom that will never be able to support themselves, but fed benefits touch a lot more than that.

James Thomas Shell said...

I agree that we all need to have skin in the game and I like a flat income tax with zero deductions or a consumption VAT that reduces the reliance on consumption, but having both is not good, because the crooked politicians will continue increasing one or the other constantly.

The problem now with the income tax is that it is being paid to accountants, lawyers , and other "professionals" to avoid it being paid to the gubment. These "professionals" have lobbyists that are doing everything they can to keep the tax system status quo or make it even more convoluted, because that is where their income is derived.

harryhipps said...

Whatever tax system gets adopted, it needs to be fairly simple and completely transparent. If we have a flat tax or consumption tax that is 9 9 9 and they try to make it 15 15 15 then people can immediately see it and voice their disapproval, Then we can have an open discussion on spending and what we need to do to balance the books.
As it is now, they can just make a convoluted system more complicated and no one either sees or understands what happened except for the fact that we're poorer. Make it plain.

Silence DoGood said...

I'm guessing here that you both have seen the tax code volumes. Most well stocked libraries have a copy. Each year, it increases by one volume. Those volumes are in the neighborhood of 700 pages in content. So in that regard, when you have tax codes changing at that rate on an annual basis, one would need an accountant and and attorney to beat the government. That is in addition to the 70+ tax volumes already on the shelf.

I concur, we all need to have a stake in the game. But when you have the means to rig the rules and limit your exposure in the game so that despite the outcome, you win, where is the necessity to play?

Insofar as becoming poorer is concerned, I don't see it happening in the upper tiers myself. What I don't see is them paying at a rate equal to the others. Sure, I've heard that argument of, "they make more, so they should be taxed less because they still pay more." No, they shouldn't. That is where this entire notion of sliding tax code by income evolved from. Time for it to go the way of the dinosaur. If your personal income is just too much of a burden for you to bear, perhaps you should consider controlling costs by controlling your salary. Lay yourself off for a month or so on furlough. Re-invest in your business and take advantage of those existing tax breaks and incentives the conservative branch loves to crow about. But to even foment the thought of "I make too much money to be taxed at this rate and it's unfair." C'mon.

Now that I have all concerned seething, the word verification today was "polis". In true Greek fashion, how could I not comment?

harryhipps said...

Besides the complexity of the tax code there is a simple question of equal treatment under law. I don't see a real problem with some higher rates on the affluent, but we do way too much engineering through the tax code which is not the governments place. The tax code should raise needed revenues period. It's not the business of the gov't to encourage home ownership versus renting by giving a home mortgage deduction. Whether you go to college or not isn't any of their business. Having or not having kids is not the IRS's business, etc.
And the worst aspect of any tax discussion is the amount of gdp that the feds spend which necessitates a big bite out of the producers hides. Privatize retirement, create health savings accounts, quit social engineering, quit manipulating the economy and stick with the limited, enumerated powers agreed to in the constitution and we won't need to send 27 or 28% to DC to start with.