By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin is very impressed with Rick Perry’s new economic and tax proposal that Perry announced today. He even went as far to say that Perry may finally be finding his legs in this campaign.

Levin breaks down his plan:

—-

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Brandy Carter

    Wonder what Levin thinks of Newt’s plan, which he came up with months ago.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Rickman-Carder/100000546586274 Diane Rickman Carder

      really why is he just releasing it now then

      • http://www.facebook.com/paleophlatus Pete Bennett

        If you’re really interested you can go to Newt.org and read all about it. He did start talking about it some time ago, and his speech at the Heritage Foundation lays it out quite well.

        • ginger partington

          He must have been working on it while he was sailing the Greek isles with the lady he took shopping at Tiffany’s.

  • http://twitter.com/JTVolkens Jeremy Volkens

    I won’t be able to listen until later, but my main concern with what little I know of this plan is with the ‘opt-in’ portion. From what I understand, if you would rather keep your current tax rate, you can. So what does that mean for the 50% (or so) who pay ZERO? They get to continue paying nothing? If so, how does that fix anything?

    • Anonymous

      You can choose to file under current tax code, so yes 0 stays 0. Levin also used an example under the Perry flat tax, which has a few deductions, a family of 4 making 50K, pays 0 tax because of a $12, 500 per person deduction.

    • Anonymous

      Tha entirely depends on what you are trying to fix.

    • Anonymous

      In that respect, at least the 40+% that pay nothing would be participating under the 9-9-9 plan in the sales tax 9.

      GB

      • Anonymous

        NOBODY pays NOTHING. The 47% you’re referring to? They pay state, local, property, etc. taxes – MORE taxes than the richest top 2% do. Please educate yourself. AND – with the 999 welfare-to-the-rich plan, it would mean that the richest top 2% would be paying next to NOTHING, while the poor and middle class, who currently pay a higher tax rate than millionaires do – would be paying MORE, because along with that, there would be an ADDED sales tax of 9% on everything they buy. You may not care about 98% of Americans getting their taxes RAISED under 999 and Perry’s “flat” tax (which are the same exact things – giveaways to the rich on the backs of average Americans), but most of us do – which is why nearly 80% of Americans want taxes raised on the rich in EVERY SINGLE POLL. You people are so out of touch with average Americans, it’s pathetic.

        • http://motherjones.com invader

          close enough to Zero. I am the 53%… I pay and pay.

        • Anonymous

          When we are referring to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in the title of the subject, meat head, and we say that 40+% do not pay any taxes, we are referring to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

          But let me educate you even further… There are folks who not only do not pay income taxes, but get government assistance (used to be called relief, then it evolved in to welfare, and who knows what it is called today, there are so many programs?) and actually “make a subsistence living off of my taxes, then they go do lawns and make cash with which they buy their big screen t.v.s and IPADS, etc. etc.

          SO, not only are there those who pay nothing, but there are people who make money from the taxpayers without lifting a finger.

          It is wonderful when someone as naive as you comes along, because it makes me feel so strong and wise and powerful. I only hate that you never got a real education. I said REAL. You will get an education, believe me. It is better that you seek it, rather than letting it catch up to you and bite you in the rear pockets.

          “LET THEM EAT CAKE!” – attributed to the web page of Marie Antoinette.

          GB

        • http://imooblog.blogspot.com/ IMOO

          Please educate yourself. There is a HUGE difference between INCOME TAXES and PAYROLL TAXES. One pays for government expenditures, the other (supposedly) pays for Social Security. Mixing the two together creates a false basis for argument, and shows your ignorance.

          • Anonymous

            Speaking of ignorance, Income tax is collected on earned income. Payroll tax is collected on wages. FICA is social security.
            From the POV of the guy getting robbed (aka Taxpayer) there is no difference.
            From the POV of the robbers (aka IRS) there is. So I guess we know which one you are.

            • http://imooblog.blogspot.com/ IMOO

              I pretty much agree, what I was simply pointing out is that people tend to “lump” Federal taxes into a single bucket and make a false argument based on the “lump”.

              Trust me, I pay my “share”…more than that. I’m a middle-aged guy, divorced, with kids. I pay more in taxes than many people make in a year, and there are weeks that I run out of food for the week for myself. I pay. Through the nose.

              • Anonymous

                I might be wrong but my understanding of the various revenue plans put forth is they all are flat tax based which voids the distinction. Other then FICA, income and payroll are lumped together. I don’t remember the “other ” category being in the lump. My pet peeve is the death tax. since taxes have already been paid (in theory) the death tax seems to be double taxation. Not even death gets you out of the clutches of the IRS.
                All this is beside the point. That point being that Congress has a spending problem. The various revenue plans are just a distraction from that problem. As it’s been pointed out, rearranging the deck chairs didn’t help the Titanic.
                AFAIK, the ‘black’ (hidden black, not ethnic black) portion of the US economy is estimated to be under 5%. The ongoing economic crisis will grow that percentage, if it hasn’t already.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, having paid taxes myself and having not been fortunate enough to even be close to the top tier of income earners, I prefer the Perry plan to the current tax structure. You markfive are the one in need of an education. Perry’s plan will not raise taxes for anyone since the tax payer, under his plan, has the choice of paying Perry’s flat tax (which is lower for most people) or paying under the current tax structure. Clearly any rational tax payer will choose the lesser of the two tax structures, which may in some instances be the current system at some lower tax levels. By the way Perry’s flat tax is not the exact same thing as Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, because Perry’s plan does not include a national sales tax.
          U.S. middle class workers continue to spend irrational sums of money through laws passed by their government representatives at rates unheard of in any past or current civilization to subsidize failing bankers, failing auto companies, graft, corruption and political games dreamed up by numerous political representatives of a frequently sociopathic bent. These same workers can only benefit by paying less to support this pathetic political edifice. If you have a fear of deficits, vote for representatives that will cut spending instead of pandering to greedy, frequently lying socialists and their schemes. As long as you vote to spend (borrow/tax) irrational sums of Peter’s money to pay off Paul everyone will be poorer and the deficits many on the left hypocritically claim to care about will only grow.
          If the average American supports the current tax and spending structure they are delusional, probably in need of therapy and it would explain the voting behavior for the last couple of decades. The definition of insanity some say is to repeat the same behavior over and over again and expect different results. To endlessly tax oneself in hopes of paying off a certain sociopathic segment of the electorate that is willing to destroy the country to satisfy their appetite is not a plan I have ever agreed to. If you and supposedly most Americans agree with this current suicide course, then I may have to leave the country, because they will have abandoned the Constitution. I certainly hope people like you do not represent the majority of Americans.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WJQSFIHBUAFXJDI4YQH2XWLQRE Rambo

          Markfive, after scrolling down and seeing just how many times you have posted, I have come to the conclusion that you either work for the DNC or are a filthy hippy down at OWS. You cannot work 60 hours a week and have this kind of time to post as much drivel has you have today. So, here are my suggestions…first, take a shower; second, look at the 10 commandment and focus on the “thou shalt not covet” parts; third, you worry about you and I will worry about me. Your freedom to be you also includes me freedom to be free of you.

          • Anonymous

            What do you mean “as much as I have today”? I posted about five comments in one hour – and that’s all I’ve posted on the INTERNET today. You’ve posted MORE THAN I HAVE just in this one thread under this one article. lol And you think because I post 5 times in one hour under one article – after work hours, starting after 7pm, that a) that must mean that I don’t work 60 hours a week, or b) that I’m a fake person from the DNC?

            SERIOUSLY? LOL

            You sure are paranoid. Should I suspect that because you post three times in an hour that you don’t work, or that you’re sitting around in some tea party protest?

            I think you must be the most out-of-touch-with-average-Americans right winger I’ve EVER come across. Take a look at how many right wingers post under articles – constantly – ALL DAY – every day, sparky. Should I assume that they’re all not working and on public assistance or something? You DO realize that working people have FREE TIME when they’re FINISHED WORKING FOR THE DAY AND AT HOME, right? Do you get weekends off from your job? Do you get a lunch break at your job? Do you get sick days at your job? Do you work seven days a week? No. You most likely work FIVE days a week, like most Americans – guess why? Can you guess? I’ll give you three guesses who made it possible for you to have the option of an 8 hour work day with lunch breaks and weekends off. Let’s see if you can figure it out. Then think about the fact that if you do – that means that I WORK MORE HOURS A WEEK THAN YOU DO at my job – my taxpaying, full-time, PRIVATE SECTOR job that I’ve had for the last 13 years – the latest position I’ve had since starting to work at the age of 16 to earn everything my wife and I have. Is it SERIOUSLY impossible for you to imagine that people who work for a living think that millionaires should pay at least as high a tax rate as a middle class family pays (again – as REAGAN HIMSELF said)? and if so – where did you go wrong in your life to think like that? Is it that you’ve just never done any independent thinking? or that you’re pathologically incapable of thinking of the common good, and only care about the richest top 2% – who DEFINITELY don’t care about you? or is it that you ARE one of the richest top 2%, and you’re just so far out of touch with how average Americans think and what we deal with every day – and so busting at the seams with the anti-Democracy, pro-Plutocracy, anti-American propaganda that streams out of Rush Limbaugh’s gaping maw every day? Are you just a receptor, with no mind of your own? That’s the only explanation one can imagine for someone who would actually push for welfare – paid for by 98% of Americans – for MILLIONAIRES. Have you ANY idea what Jesus would say to you about that? lol

            By the way, I’m sitting here chuckling in astonishment about the fact that you actually think that because someone responds to a few comments in an article’s comment thread AFTER normal work hours, on his private time, either doesn’t have a job, or must be some sort of plant in a conspiracy against you (a defense mechanism, no doubt, that allows you to not have to actually respond to anything presented to you – or it may be a symptom of paranoid personality disorder – so which is it?) Should I assume that you’re a plant from the RNC because you’re arguing your own position, too and have posted more than twice? Is that what you’re trying to tell me? You DO realize that the position you hold puts you in the BOTTOM 20% in terms of the opinion of Americans – that you’re in the minority – right? Check the polls on these issues, sparky. Americans want spending on infrastructure, tax loopholes for corporations disappeared, taxes raised on the rich, etc. – and they overwhelmingly disagree with GOP economic proposals and now hold a NEGATIVE view of your corporate-sponsored “tea party”. Your time is OVER, sparky. Americans have woken up – and you know what they’ve woken up to? The words of Thomas Jefferson:

            “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

            Guess what else he said.

            “Banks are a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies.”

            He also said that the power banks have should be returned to the people.

            Guess you have to disown Thomas Jefferson now, huh?

            Remember Reagan? He was for raising taxes on millionaires – and DID. Know when he did it? AFTER he realized that cutting taxes for the rich FAILED, when unemployment jumped through the roof during his first three years, from 7.5% to 10.8%. Guess you have to disown Reagan now, huh?

            How do you think this whole economy thing works, sparky? When there’s no revenue coming in, guess what happens? Deficits happen. Then what happens? We have to BORROW. Then what happens? We get a DEBT. Now – guess what happens when there IS revenue? Deficit? Goes down. Debt? Goes down, because we can pay it off. Economy? GROWS. That’s sort of how this whole thing works and always has. Or have you not been ALIVE for the past 50 years, having been witness to “trickle-down” having literally NEVER. ONCE. WORKED, the way the rest of us have been? You know when the U.S. economy was at it’s BEST in the history of the 20th Century? When Eisenhower – a Republican, btw – had the tax rate on the richest top 2% at 90%. Yes – 90%. That’s kind of why we have HIGHWAYS now. And we’re not even talking about 90%, sparky – we’re talking about ending Bush’s FAILED tax cuts for the rich, which would mean a mere 3% restoration of the tax rate on the rich under Clinton – you remember – the president who created more jobs than any Republican president in the 20th century – over 23 million – more than Reagan – yeah – that happened after he raised taxes on the rich. Oops!

            Listen, sparky lol Oh – I almost forgot – your opening yourself up to the Bible smack down – you mentioned the “shall not covet” parts of the Bible? First of all, that was talking about your neighbor’s wife, but let’s put your ignorance of the Holy Bible aside. A) Refresh yourself about the message of Jesus Christ when it comes to the poor and struggling, and what he said about the rich. Hint: had something to do with how easy it is to get into Heaven if you are. Which is not to say that just because one is rich that they’re a bad person – I’m mentioning Jesus’s comment to make the point that you seem quite unfamiliar with him. C) If “Thou shall not covet” (and you’re referring to money or property) – then tell Republicans to stop trying to RAISE MY TAXES to pay for WELFARE FOR THE RICH that’s added over a TRILLION dollars to the deficit (oh – and before you mention the stimulus bill? You probably blocked this out – over a third of it was TAX CUTS – which added the BULK of it’s $700 billion cost – tax cuts that Republicans DEMANDED be in it or they wouldn’t vote for it – and then didn’t vote for it anyway. lol) – tell them to end the welfare for the rich that hasn’t helped the economy in 12 years – tell them to stop holding our economy hostage if millionaires don’t get their taxpayer-subsidized welfare – and ask yourself what JESUS would have thought of the idea of having the POOR pay for welfare for the RICH. Do that. Tell the GOP to stop trying to redistribute my hard earned money to the richest top 2%, who aren’t hiring anybody – in fact, are laying off thousands – even though that they’re currently at the highest profits they’ve seen in U.S. HISTORY.

            In other words, stop embarrassing yourself, sparky. The overwhelming majority of Americans HATE your “ideas”, and they don’t want their wealth redistributed to the richest top 2% anymore. See, the American people kind of like DEMOCRACY – NOT Plutocracy. So when someone like you is arguing to end Democracy and replace it with Plutocracy (you might want to look it up – it might be a word you’ve never heard before, sparky)? See, the American people agree with Thomas Jefferson, who warned future Americans about that happening when banks and corporations have more control over the country than We the People and the people in the our government that we vote for. Oh! That’s right – you don’t want us to vote anymore. Thanks for reminding me – eleven GOP senators are on the record as wanting to repeal the 17th amendment to take away our right to vote for our Senators and instead have them appointed by corporate-bribed, unelected legislature, and every GOP governor across the country right now is passing anti-voter laws that could mean, in the report released this week, that up to 5 million people wouldn’t be able to vote. Oh, but that’s okay, right? Because those people aren’t rich and don’t like the idea of their taxes being raised to pay for welfare for the rich and don’t want to see the middle class destroyed.

            You take care, sparky.

        • Anonymous

          are you really that dumb? So 38% of $1,000,000 is less than state and local taxes and sales taxes, and I guess under your ridiculous world, the rich pay none of those things. They have a magical kingdom where the state does not tax them, they are tax exempt on all purchases. Actually do a little math and grow a brain stem.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MK33JTZKF4KJNUJGSL53HHVWRQ Lori

        That 999 plan is very conceiving!! You got to remember people in proverty and not mention there are working will have to pay for taxes in their state. You will have to pay for thier instate tax and on 9% sales tax. That is gonig even make it worse American people. And the way Obama got this country in just a mess. It wont stay on 999 plan. They say it will even can raise . I don’t like that. I think I will go with Perry’s plan.

        • Anonymous

          Are those same people that “will have to pay taxes in their state” absolved from those state taxes now? If so, I apologize. But if their states have taxes that may not change. Those will still be called “state taxes.”

          The 9-9-9 plan is a Federal tax plan in which the 23% embedded taxes will be replaced by the 9% national sales tax.

          GB

    • Anonymous

      NOBODY pays zero taxes. You’re talking about Federal taxes not paid by 47%. But that 47% pays state, local, property, everything else. The math comes out to that 47% paying MORE taxes at a higher rate than the richest top 2%. Please educate yourself. The fact that you think 47% of Americans pay zero taxes is a sign that you don’t know much about average Americans. Not to mention, Federal taxes are the lowest they’ve been in four decades. Seriously – instead of attacking struggling and middle class working Americans, perhaps you should start to get angry at the fact that the top 400 corporations in America LITERALLY paid ZERO taxes – NONE – last year. Oh, but that’s just fine, right? Because they’re “creating jobs”. Interesting. So how’d that go for you for the last 12 years?

      • http://imooblog.blogspot.com/ IMOO

        Federal taxes? Both INCOME Tax and PAYROLL Tax, as well as a plethora of “hidden” taxes in places like your phone bill. Your basic statement is true but your “backup information” is severely flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the tax system, as it stands today.

      • Anonymous

        OK. I’ll bite on your original comment: “The 47% you’re referring to? They pay state, local, property, etc. taxes – MORE taxes than the richest top 2% do.”

        Kindly show me how someone making $35,000 pays MORE in state, local, property taxes than someone making $200,000. I don’t see how it adds up, and would really appreciate an education in your math. Are you saying that the top 2% don’t own property or spend money on anything? (Aside from the bulk of income taxes that they pay (per government records)

    • Anonymous

      It doesn’t. SEE my post. All politicians have something of the flim-flam man going.
      The point of all the competing plans is lost on me. Maybe I’m just stooooopid but the Problem is SPENDING. increasing revenues will just mean spending is increased, which leaves America worse off. I want a balanced budget Amendment and any one rational does too.

    • Anonymous

      Simply put it fixes nothing. We need to reform the current tax code, not offer yet another option that fails to broaden the base and force everyone to have skin in the game.

      Politics pure and simple. It ain’t flat, it increase rather than reduces compliance costs, and it fails to address the underlying failure of the existing tax code.

  • Anonymous

    This is crazy …. Levin knows that the flat tax idea has been around a long time . And Perry coming out with it is not like he just invented it . These people like Levin , Hannity , and Limbaugh are all in on it with the DC establisjment . Bend over people , we’re going to be screwed AGAIN . The Republicans had 3 years to find a true Conservative ( like Sen. Demint SC ) and look at the field of candidates . It’s a joke , and it’s all being done by design . Well , at least we have 1 candidate who at least tells the truth , like Paul . And Cain ? , the Socialists are licking their chops to have him go against obama . In that case, obama wins . * The Socialists are scared to death of a Ron Paul vs obama .

    • Mr. EMT

      Ah, just got in from your tinfoil briefing I see.

      • Anonymous

        We can hope his handle is literally true…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Rickman-Carder/100000546586274 Diane Rickman Carder

      i doubt you even heard the details

    • http://motherjones.com invader

      Actually we have a pretty good bunch to chose from. Me. I like Cain and Gingrich best, but Perry will also do.
      None are perfect, but any can beat Obama on the issues.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

        True. I like Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, even Bachmann sometimes. Cain, on the other hand, would be the last one I chose.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    not sure if the good rick perry outweighs the bad rick perry…

    • Anonymous

      I can relate…but I keep getting more information about Perry that makes me like him more. Top that off with one of my favorite Governors (Bobby Jindal), Steve Forbes, and others endorsing him and I think he is gaining steam with me. I just wish he could articulate himself better in debates (superficial, I know). Although I thought he lost the argument with Romney in the last debate, I give him credit for going for the throat. We’ll need that kind of balls when he’s up against the media and the Obama propaganda machine.

      • Anonymous

        David, you’re right on. As Levin notes, we have to hold obama to HIS RECORD. We need a nominee with A RECORD. 10 years is a long time to be a Governor an despite the in-state tuition issue and the vaccine issue, Perry IS very solid.

        Look at Romney’s record

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Rickman-Carder/100000546586274 Diane Rickman Carder

        absolutely

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1612645745 Ileen Bocchino Cuccaro

        I agree David, its like who coaches him. He got a few big name people to come on his campaign, so that may help. He just has not shone in the debates. Of course Romney has been running for 5 years. Perry 6 weeks..He was on O’Reilly tonight and he sounded good. I also think he should leave the Romney stuff for a while. Talk about his agenda and he will be good.

        • Anonymous

          I agree!..it is now time for all the candiates to attack obama and his record and to talk about their own plans…NOT continuing to attack each other!

        • Anonymous

          Try 10 weeks Ileen and it wouldn’t matter if Perry were campaigning 10 years the guy has no chance of winning in 2012…. If, by some Miracle, the Far right forces him down our throats the same way that you and people like you forced Angle and O’Donnell in 2010 down the Electorate’s throats the people in the middle will simply move left and Perry will lose by 10 points, just like Angle and O’Donnell did.

          The guy is EXTREME and inconsistent on his positions (immigration, Vaccine, claims to be ProLife but endorses a ProChoice Candidate for the Presidency three years ago, wants a lower profile military, etc., etc.)…. When you add the fact that he is terrible on his feet, no wit to speak of and not very bright….. And you consider all of the Corruption inuendo, some pretty poor state stats in Policy Issues, and the fact that he has never earned a paycheck that was not funded through taxpayer dollars this guy has no chance.

          • Anonymous

            You are correct about Perry’s inconsistency, but he has offered a tax plan superior to the current one and any the Democrats have provided. Personally, I prefer a more “extreme” ideologically consistent candidate. George Bush was elected in the Republican primaries because of the lie that Pat Buchanan was too extreme. He went on to win the general election. How do you like the results? We have since suffered ever increasing deficits, the Iraq War and a Democratic replacement (Barak Obama) on a national suicide mission. What is wrong with extremism in the defense of virtue? If you continually vote for flawed candidates to capture some segment of the electorate willing to destroy the country and anyone who stands in their way in an attempt to seize control of the purse strings and enslave the masses in fear and fiction, don’t be surprised at the result. He’s sitting in the White House now.

      • Anonymous

        Jindal is certainly “ALL IN” behind Perry. Re-elected Saturday and Monday lots of staff announcements. Most are going to either Perry’s campaign or consultant firms advising it.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think it is superficial at all to wish Perry could articulate himself better in debates..he comes across as pretty dumb to me!…and, he needs to learn to talk faster!..if he wins the nomination and has to go up against obama in debates, I think we are doomed!..why?..because people who tune in to watch and who have not done their research will go on appearances only…and, in my opinion, Perry won’t stand a chance!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

          It is typical for many people. Perry does not seem dumb to me at all, because I listened to what he was saying, rather than paying attention to his tie and the fact that he stumbled over a few words. But if you believe that Obama is such a good debater, your opinion about Perry may well be understood without suspecting a bias.

    • Anonymous

      Me too bro.

    • http://motherjones.com invader

      The good and the bad Rick Perry outweight Socialist Obama. Remember that.

      • Anonymous

        Not for the People in the middle who decide general Elections.

        • http://motherjones.com invader

          Thats why as distasteful as it seems, I think we need a Conservative against a socialist. Not a rino as the GOP nomination. I think the People in the Middle as you say need a clear choice. I think most will see they cannot live under socialism.

        • ginger partington

          Actually, elections are won when one side turns out more heavily than the other. There are few in the middle. They are called swing voters, and they are fickle. The Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, if they pick a weak moderate that is hated by the base.

          • Jim P

            The Buckley Rule or the Limbaugh Rule? The Limbaugh Rule will guarantee Obama’s reelection.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      Outside of the negative media campaign I see very little of bad Rick Perry.

  • Anonymous

    It was good for a change to hear Levin excited about something. I don’t like 999 or 909. This sounds good, so far. Need more info, but eliminating the death tax alone, has me on board with it.

    Until something better comes along.

    • Anonymous

      DebbyX, I agree! Eliminating the death tax part is so needed. It’s horrible when families who have had farms or businesses or even homes in their families for generations are forced to sell them just to pay the tax burden. That should never happen.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds good to me. I wonder if it revenue neutral. Sounds like it must include spending cuts. Not bad for a capital crony guy!

    • Anonymous

      We don’t want revenue neutral, with the creation of thousands of jobs, the cap of spending at 18% to GDP the debt has to go down.

      • http://twitter.com/Stewman1965 Bill Steward

        The problem is, until Congress learns how to cut, the Tax plan has to be revenue neutral… Even with a Republican run house, they still raised the debt ceiling and increased spending, Perry can’t propose a plan that he can’t pay for because we can’t rely on Congress to stop spending and find cuts…

        • Anonymous

          That is very true everything is contingent on congress no matter whose plan we like.

          • http://twitter.com/Stewman1965 Bill Steward

            Unfortunately.. But I do agree with your first post, we don’t want a “revenue neutral” tax plan because the goal should still be to cut, cap and balance..

          • Anonymous

            Perry does want to limit gov’t spending to 18% of the GDP. As president he can veto spending in excess of that.

            With Ryan in the house — where the budgets come from — and Perry as POTUS the chances are excellent that spending will go down, even without 60 seats in the Senate (as long as we get 50-51). The Senate simply cannot keep blocking spending plans that have majority support in both houses and support of POTUS. (Recall what Reid just did.)

            So the plan does not need to be revenue neutral.

        • Anonymous

          If even a repub president proposes a really good plan and then pitches it *to the public* with a plea to put pressure on Congress, I’d bet it would pass. Remember Tip O’Neill after Reagan did this with tax cut proposal? O’Neill was in shock. He said, “We’ve never gotten so many calls on a bill!”

  • Anonymous

    So, we still have the full blown IRS as we do now. Just great.

    • Anonymous

      But people can opt out. And in a year or two, if enough people opt out, Congress can cut their funding. Next year, cut it some more. Next year….

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      No, we don’t, DRW. The less people filing old tax forms, the less IRS agents will be needed.

  • Anonymous

    This is starting to sound good. Can’t do it without the Senate.

    If he will now tell me he will stop islamic immigration, enforce immigration laws, cut to zero the budgets of Depts of Education, Energy, Commerce, Ag. EPA, dismantle DHS, purge the INS of subversives, I am really paying attention.

    Now Rick still sounds like promises, how you going to do it?

    • Anonymous

      As always, you bring up great points sDee. We get so myopic on the Presidential candidate. We need to focus the same energy on turning this Senate upside down. The Presidency won’t mean much if the Senate majority isn’t in place.

      • Anonymous

        Yup. Then we start attacking those Central Departments by explaining to fed-weary America that we can do better with that money by not sending it to DC the first place!

    • http://twitter.com/SueNC Susan Wright

      He’s mentioned getting ourselves out of the UN. That’s good enough for me. He’s the first to come close to calling the UN out for what it is… a cancer and a detriment to our nation!

      • http://www.facebook.com/paleophlatus Pete Bennett

        What about just severely limiting our financial contributions, but keeping our membership in the UN, if for no more than to keep an eye on them? Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

  • Anonymous

    The idea of the reform was to make it equal for everyone, this doesn’t sound like it does.If you like the current tax structure you can use it, right where is the reform? We need businesses like GE who make the billions, and pay nothing, to pay their fair share, how does this address this?

    • Steven

      It doesn’t. Its form not substance on the tax side. On the spending side, Perry has some good, modest ideas. Still, I would like to see him defend and sell this plan without a teleprompter.

      • http://twitter.com/SueNC Susan Wright

        You must have missed him on O’Reilly’s show tonight.

    • Anonymous

      NO, the idea of THIS reform was NOT to make “IT equal for everyone”.

      The key word in your post is “fair”. That’s an obama word. When marxists use it, it always means “soak the rich” – at first. What it winds up doing is destroying everyone’s financial hopes. Ask the Russian soldiers who were selling their AK47s to feed themselves and their families. Ask the Chinese, who finally resorted to some degree of capitalism and are now growing their economy like crazy. Ask the North Koreans who are starving because of “fairness”. All their leaders, BTW, had an amazingly larger share of “fairness” than the peasants who are still waiting for the proletariat dream / fantasy to come true.

      America WAS NOT – REPEAT, WAS NOT – founded to give everyone the same amount of money, education, property, good looks and hair gel.

      The intent of the Founders was to give people the opportunity to advance as far as their abilities, determination, an intelligence would permit. When you say “fairness”, you’re talking about taking away what other people earned because you’re not willing or able to earn enough to satisfy you. In an honest universe, this is called stealing.

      And you are trying to use “fairness” as a cloak so you can appoint someone else to do the physical stealing, thereby avoiding getting hurt yourself.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5YR3CJR7FTMNKZF2RMPN23LASA MACH1513

        You cannot be that dumb. Seriously, if you are going to make a statement make sure that your straw man has at least a hint of plausibility: to wit “America WAS NOT – REPEAT, WAS NOT – founded to give everyone the same amount of money, education, property, good looks and hair gel.” No one, not even Obama, argues for that. Seeking equity is not seeking an exact equality.
        You can dislike B.O.’s positions – but please at least correctly state them.

        • Anonymous

          I wasn’t responding to or quoting obama’s positions. I was replying to ydnartitcomb. Equal is what he said, so I assumed it’s what he meant.

          And equality of outcome is what the Left preaches, although they are the classic example of the saying “some are more equal than others”. While the Left elites, in whatever nation and time, use equality as their justification, they have no intent of being equal themselves. And “fairness” is a codeword they often use, at least of late, because people, because (I think) “equal” seems to have fallen out of favor with us bourgeoisie, whom they wish to guile or guilt-induce. therefore I assume that ydnartitcomb is one of them.

      • Anonymous

        So by that logic, you should be furious that the richest top 2% pay a lower tax rate than 98% of Americans? That all of our taxes would be RAISED under Perry or Cain’s plan to give welfare to the richest top 2%, who are already at the highest profits they’ve seen in U.S. history – but are STILL laying people off? Good. 98% of Americans are furious about that, too, which is why in EVERY SINGLE POLL, nearly 80% of Americans – and even 40% of Republicans – want taxes raised on millionaires and tax cuts for the MIDDLE CLASS – which is the engine of America’s economy and always has been.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I think everyone should pay the same percentage rate. As for furious, I don’t accept your attempt to offload emotions on me.

          Our taxes would not be raised under Cain or Perry, because their tax plans would REPLACE the current one. Except in Perry’s plan, if you wanted to keep the current tax rate, you could.

          98% of Americans are furious? Really? Would you be part of “the 99%”? The extremely high percentage you stipulate is an incredibly high figure for any political issue at any time. Like probably non-existent.

          Especially when you add the tag “furious”.

          What we need is a reasonable flat tax rate with few, or better yet, no, loopholes, and certainty – certainty that it’s not just a temporary trick to lure businesses into committing themselves and then raising taxes again, once their capital investments are sunk costs.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

    50-50 – what’s missing…

    Limbaugh and Levin loooooove Perry’s (Forbe’s) Flat Tax.

    Ok.

    Has Levin clarified somewhere, I may have missed it, previous comments that he could support Cain’s 9-9-9 plan but only AFTER repeal of the 16th Amendment if a national sales tax is included, but the 16th Amendment is OK to retain with a flat tax type of plan?

    Levin says at 9min. 3sec. –

    Perry’s Flat Tax is a good proposal,

    “… just as Herman Cain’s proposal was too but for the need, in my humble opinion, to repeal the 16th Amendment before we put a new, massive national sales tax out there … .”

    Is Levin’s way of phrasing the issue suggesting that it is OK to maintain the 16th Amendment as long as a national sales tax is not included in a tax plan?

    Has any candidate proposed the repeal of the 16th Amendment, no matter what plan is proposed?

    Maybe a repeal of the 16th Amendment should be proposed, as Congressman West implied in this interview.
    >> see it here – http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-west-obama-foreign-policy-all-about-being-imperial-president/

    No to 9-9-9 tax on income AND consumption…

    Congressman West says at 6min. 40sec.

    -“… you cannot combine the two forms of taxation.

    -Taxing the American people for their production, or income, and then also taxing their consumption.

    -You know, before the time when we brought about the 16th Amendment and we created the IRS and personal income tax, we taxed people on their consumption.

    – Then we made the decision that we would tax people based upon their income and their production. [... NOT including consumption]

    -We cannot now have a government that’s going to tax both because that would be a heinous violation of what our principles should be.”

    – – – – – – – –

    So, do NOT tax BOTH “income” AND “consumption”…

    … and while we’re at it, repeal the “progressive” graduated 16th Amendment “income” tax, put it on the dung heap of history and burn in into nothingness.

    Art

    • Mr. EMT

      Perry has been calling for the need to repeal the 16th for years, it was in his book FED UP and earned him a lot of criticism.
      He also called for it as soon as his campaign website was unveiled

      huffpo criticizing perry over his statements about the 16th amendment a year ago
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/rick-perry-america-century-daily-show_n_780782.html

      • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

        That’s good…

        Do you know if he is calling for repeal of the 16th Amendment BEFORE or AFTER the “choose your plan” part is implemented?

        Levin says the “choose your plan” part this way at 2min. 6sec. –

        “… this flat, personal income tax is optional.

        “If you like the current tax code, if you pay federal income taxes and you like the current tax code, congratulations.

        “You can keep filing that way.

        “But if you don’t like it, you have an option.

        “A flat personal income tax filing on a large postcard.”

        I’m thinking that repeal of the 16th Amendment would be AFTER his current plan is implemented, because it would not need to be an option otherwise.

        Art

        • Mr. EMT

          Nope, i don’t know what priority Perry places on the issues he wants to address and what order he wants to implement any changes.

          A lot of these plans by any of the candidates are going to depend on how things come out in the wash.
          Whoever wins, whatever their plan is will have to go through both houses and deal with any amendments or changes that the houses try to add or take away from them.

          I remember when Forbes ran and proposed the flat tax and got people talking about it. The flat tax then got criticisms from both sides but the most attractive thing about it then was how simple it would make filing and paying taxes for everyone.
          Now Forbes is advising Perry and the one thing that brought Cain to the table, being a “successful” business entrepreneur gets to stand against Forbes.
          Also as hard as Cain has been trying to hide who the architects and details of his plans are competing against Perry who appears to have laid everything out on the table as far as who is behind it and what it means.

          • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

            The educating continues…

            As Cain said previously, as the people were educated about 9-9-9, we would support it.

            Perry will probably say the same thing about his Forbes style flat tax plan.

            Well, we’ll see which “executive” wins.

            -Cain the business executive
            -Perry the political executive
            -Gingrich the politician and recently the business executive
            -Santorum the politician
            -Romney the political executive and business executive

            Art

            • Anonymous

              Whenever a guy says that when people are educated about whatever, they will support it, I get nervous. Obama has been saying that about everything he does. When it manifestly fails, it’s someone else’s fault according to him. It that we are too dumb to understand whatevr horrid thing he did. And so on and so forth.

              I’ve run the numbers on Cain’s plan and examined his assumptions — the first increase my (and many people’s) tax burden and the second are not supported by anything more than hand-waving and wishful thinking. I do not like that in a potential leader.

              What is clear to me is that Cain did not think his plan through and he does not understand it in a meaningful sense. He’s been hit pretty hard on it and he’s hit back with “they don’t understand it” and “people need to be educated” while at the same time tweaking it this way and that.

              This is shoddy behavior and we’ve seen it before. Cain’s action mark him out as an unserious man with an unserious plan.

              That is not what we need.

              • Anonymous

                What we don’t need average Americans’ taxes RAISED in order to give welfare to the richest top 2%. That’s 999 and that’s Perry’s plan, and that’s the UNfair tax. It’s all the same scheme.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5YR3CJR7FTMNKZF2RMPN23LASA MACH1513

          Does anyone here have a brain? If you repeal the 16th amendment you cannot have any income tax: not 9-9-9, not Perry’s flat tax, not the current system. Read the friggin’ amendment!

      • Anonymous

        So how do you feel about current GOP candidates and Republican Senators and tea partiers wanting to repeal the 17th amendment – to take away your right to VOTE for your Senators? Hm?

        Funny, isn’t it? That the only party talking about shredding the Constitution and taking away the rights of American citizens – are on the right?

        Hm.

        • Anonymous

          Funny, I don’t recall a plethora of Republican Senators and tea party activists demanding to repeal the 17th amendment. However, the Democrat lefties support abortion in clear violation of the Constitution and fought to limit corporate and union advertising in clear violation of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…” The president embarked on a battle in Libya without Congressional authorization in possible violation of the War Powers Act his own party supported. Their simply is no law the left is unwilling to break or ignore for their own advantage. Apparently, you have no problem with them either. Repealing the 17th amendment is at least a legal procedure. That’s more than can be said for many Democratic proposals.

        • Mr. EMT

          What current GOP’ers want to do away with the 17th amendment?
          You should have sourced your comments, I don’t hardly ever take someone’s word on the internet at face value.
          And also, first, second, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments.. all have been assaulted by the left.

      • Anonymous

        EMT, I have some responses to your criticisms of Bachmann you replied with a day or so ago. I don’t want to cross-post – if that’s what it’s called – but I’ve lost the thread where that discussion was posted. If you can put me on track again, I’ll post my responses there.

  • Anonymous

    Perry’s plan: http://bit.ly/rA7Zdk

    Yes the lower incomes remain neutral in this thing, but the job creators will explode under it – wage growth is finally in the air. This is a very good plan, and it’s politically doable. We expand the base by bumping them up a tax bracket or two, and money will be flowing in this country like the Fountain of Youth.

  • Anonymous

    hello RS good to be back !”

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    H and R Block hardest hit.

    • Anonymous

      Not really…. Prudent people will figure their taxes both ways and pay the one that requires the least…. H&R Block will still have to help people do that … Those that won’t already do the “short form filing”…. The 3M words that Perry speaks of are still very much in play.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry is a bad candidate with a good plan. I like the flat tax, its an improvement over the current system. But, I’m sticking with Cain and 9-9-9. The 16th Amendment needs overturned and I’m not sure the flat tax is a good precursor to that end. Cain is a better candidate with a better plan.

    BS
    DTOM

    • Anonymous

      Why would you want 98% of Americans’ taxes RAISED in order to redistribute their wealth to the richest top 2%?

      • Anonymous

        So they can give guys like you a job and get you off Public Assistance….. This in turn will mean that we who pay taxes will have one less free loader to care for.

        • Anonymous

          What do you mean, “guys like me” on “public assistance”? I work 60 hours a week at a full-time job, and have worked all of my life since the age of 16. Gee, do you think instead it might be that I don’t like the fact that trickle-down has UTTERLY FAILED FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, because corporations at all-time high profits, instead of hiring, are laying thousands of people off and taking away their health insurance plans, and that this PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR THE RICH costs American taxpayers $11.6 Million EVERY HOUR and that it’s the number one contributor to the DEFICIT? Gee, ya THINK? If, in every poll, nearly 80% of Americans want the rich to finally start paying the same tax rate that the rest of us pay – like EISENHOWER AND REAGAN understood – does that mean nearly 80% of Americans are all on “public assistance”? What jobs are these corporations currently paying ZERO taxes (the top 25 corporations in the U.S. paid zero taxes in 2010 in case you didn’t hear) creating? Hm? George Bush had the worst jobs record of any president in U.S. history, creating only 3 million private sector jobs in eight years – that info came right from the WSJ, sparky – he cut taxes for the rich. When Reagan came into office in 1980, unemployment was at 7.5% – he cut taxes for the rich – unemployment then skyrocketed over the next three years of his first term to 10.8%, while the deficit exploded. You know one of the reasons why the economy started getting better under Reagan in year 4? BECAUSE HE REALIZED HE HAD TO RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH – and DID. Seriously – the fact that you only think that a) the poor are on public assistance, when the rich accept more welfare and tax subsidies from the government than ANYONE, and b) that any American who thinks taxes should be raised on the rich doesn’t have a job, shows how utterly, pathetically out of touch with average Americans you are. I feel sorry for you – I truly, truly do. It means that you either never worked for a living or that you’ve earned so much money that you now have no idea how the rest of us who work for a living think and live. Either way – I hope you get it one day. I really do.

      • Anonymous

        Why do you continue with the disproven claim that taxes will be raised under Perry’s plan. The flat tax will be lower for most tax payers, and the small segment that would fall under a higher tax burden can pay under the current tax structure according to Perry’s plan. Either you are ignorant or consciously lying about the tax plan. Care to let us know which?

        • Anonymous

          You’re only referring to the Federal income tax, there, sparky. Your comment makes it pretty plain that you have no idea what the plan means. Most Americans pay local, state, property taxes, along with others, creating, even in absence of federal income tax, a higher tax rate than the richest top 2% pay. Now – ADD to that a 9% sales tax on EVERYTHING we/they buy. Bread? 9% more tax. Starting to get it now? And under that plan, the richest top 2% would be paying even LESS than they pay now. Get it? It’s a GIVEAWAY to the rich that’s PAID for by RAISING TAXES on 98% of Americans – people who are barely making it as it IS. P.S. The fact that someone is telling you something you don’t know and haven’t looked into does not make THEM “ignorant”, nor does it mean that they are “lying” – it means that YOU are either poorly informed, misinformed, or that you’ve been too lazy to actually do any research and have instead simply ACCEPTED what’s been sold to you. The “flat” tax, the 999 tax, the UN”fair” tax – it’s all the same SCHEME to get average, working people to SUBSIDIZE the wealthy by shouldering practically the ENTIRE tax burden – it’s a SCHEME to dismantle the middle class, sparky. It always has been. The right is very good at using populist and patriotic language to wrap their unAmerican schemes in to get YOU to vote against your own interests. Stop falling for it.

          • Anonymous

            Markfive (or is it Spunky),

            Actually, I have looked into Perry’s plan. Your comments only express misinformation as to the nature of Perry’s plan in that you again incorrectly imply it adds a 9% sales tax to everything you buy. Perry’s plan is basically a 20% flat income and corporate tax, that allows rate payers to pay under the current system instead, if it is cheaper and less costly to them. How such a plan raises anyone’s tax rates when it doesn’t even force anyone to change their tax plan is beyond comprehension. In regards to your rant about local, state, and property taxes they are unaffected by Perry’s plan and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Your claim that Perry’s plan may reduce the overall tax burden on upper income individuals is true (most of the tax burden is paid by high income earners the bottom 47% don’t pay Federal income tax), and middle class tax receipts may comprise a greater percentage of the total tax receipts but their actual total tax rate will either be the same or less than now. You have still not explained with any coherence how you will pay more taxes under Perry’s plan. You apparently have no clue as to the subject you are writing about. As to being, misinformed and lazy, you seem to fit the bill on both counts. Allow me to repeat what I wrote to you in an earlier post:

            “Perry’s plan will not raise taxes for anyone since the tax payer, under his plan, has the choice of paying Perry’s flat tax (which is lower for most people) or paying under the current tax structure. Clearly any rational tax payer will choose the lesser of the two tax structures, which may in some instances be the current system at some lower tax levels. By the way Perry’s flat tax is not the exact same thing as Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, because Perry’s plan does not include a national sales tax.”

            As you can see the claim that anyone will have to pay more tax under Perry’s plan is demonstrably false. Under Perry’s plan taxpayers can still pay taxes under the current plan or the new plan whichever is less. They will not pay more unless the taxpayer deliberately chooses the higher taxed plan.

            As to your implication that the richest 2% pay less local, state and property taxes than the rest of the population, you have provided no proof. Certainly, higher income earners pay more property tax than low income people who don’t have property at all. However, if you are hilariously claiming to be offended by the local, state and property tax burden then you could work and vote to repeal those taxes. Most leftists in California seek to repeal Proposition 13 and raise property taxes. Your bizarre implication that the political right and not the political left seeks to empower the richest and most powerful falls flat in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary. Allow to me repeat some of what I wrote to your earlier:

            “U.S. middle class workers continue to spend irrational sums of money through laws passed by their government representatives at rates unheard of in any past or current civilization to subsidize failing bankers, failing auto companies, graft, corruption and political games dreamed up by numerous political representatives of an occasionally sociopathic bent. These same workers can only benefit by paying less to support this pathetic, political edifice. If you have a fear of deficits, vote for representatives that will cut spending instead of pandering to greedy, frequently lying socialists and their schemes. As long as you vote to spend (borrow/tax) irrational sums of Peter’s money to pay off Paul everyone will be poorer and the deficits many on the left hypocritically claim to care about will only grow.”

            The bank and auto company bail outs (taking money from that poor 98% and giving it to the not so capable rich, without the direct approval of the same 98%) and many other give-aways were all supported by the current occupant of the white house. Last I checked he’s not a right winger or a Republican. You might also note, the 2 trillion dollar stimulus package he passed increased the burden on that struggling 98% percent without any visible benefits to the same. However, their were many a wealthy beneficiary of that stimulus money. So much for the political left’s feigned support but demonstrable dislike and disregard for the poor and the 98%. When you are actually willing to look at the rather bare, dry skeletons in the closet of the political left (over 100 million killed at last count), you may be capable of an honest discussion of the issues. I really hope it’s not beyond you.

            P.S.-Your misinformed and/or unsupported comments do not appear more intelligent when you put CAPITALIZE them. You may want to consider it in the future. Oh! by the way, please stop with the diatribes about the Cain 9-9-9 plan since I do not support it, did not support it in previous posts and is like most of your discourse irrelevant.

  • Anonymous

    it is the folks who will decide if the rich pay less in taxes or not that is the cool thing of giving flat tax as an option so if the libs play class warfare then it would be the folks who chose to give more to the rich by choosing the flat tax not the evil conservatives

    • Anonymous

      The only people playing class warfare are those advocating that the richest top 2% be SUBSIDIZED by 98% of Americans – who want average working, taxpaying Americans to pay for absurdly high tax cuts for the rich, which is the number one contributor to the U.S deficit right now. Get it? I find it truly sad that you think that nearly 80% of Americans (check EVERY poll, sparky) who think millionaires should pay at least the same tax rate as WAITRESSES do are playing “class warfare”, but those who think the richest top 2% should pay a lower tax rate than middle class families are NOT. Who’s side are you on? Because you’re certainly not on the side of the majority of Americans.

      • Anonymous

        with a lib the truth as usual is the other way around….fed govt is subsidizing the nearly 50% who pay no fed income taxes on the backs of the rich who pay nearly all the taxes…does not matter to me how much a rich person makes, if a person is rich it is because that people are buying what the rich person is selling that is the american way…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Baba/1109317395 Matt Baba

    Didn’t he just take this plan from Forbes? then got the endorsement? is this battle of the plans or a presidential primary?, i don’t care what plan he picked out of the basket, it doesn’t mean he will make a good president. I’d rather vote for the smart and inspiring rocket scientist/mathematician, Herman Cain, than the Romney wannabe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Rickman-Carder/100000546586274 Diane Rickman Carder

      comeon cain is no rocket scientist!

      • Anonymous

        No, I think it was more computer science actually.

        Not sure that’s a point in his favor though. He’s not applying for a job at Microsoft.

        • ginger partington

          A pizza mogul is not qualified for the presidency.

      • Josh

        Actually, his job was mathematician for rocket fired ordinance trajectories, so … yes, he is a rocket scientist…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

          This is not what rocket scientist means. And he was no mathematician, either. He was a computer guy. In those early days, computer personnel were given regular job titles that reflected tasks they were involved in. So, if Cain worked in the group that did ballistic calculations, he could be reading punch cards and still called a mathematician. Obviously, he was not scientifically inclined, or would have likely stayed in that field.

          • Josh

            Forgot to look up “rocket scientist” in the dictionary, so you got me there.

            However, as for the mathematician, if he had a degree in computer science, then he was a mathematician. I know, personally. Until the mid-1990s, the computer science degree was a modified mathematics degree. That’s because there were not enough courses in computer science, and it was (and is) widely held today that computer science is about computational theory and mathematics is a critical part.

    • Anonymous

      If he can recognise and pick good plans, he’ll make a president.

      And I really don’t think Perry wants to be Romney.

  • Anonymous

    Are we voting for the candidate or just for their campaign ideas? Any specific tax plan overhaul, while encouraging to see, will be tough to get passed. If this plan or Cain’s 999 plan doesn’t get through congress, who is the person we’re left with at the helm? Conservative convictions, executive leadership ability, perseverance, vision… These things will outlast specific tax plans.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’m giving up on evaluating the pros and cons of each specific plan, and I’m looking at who can work with/against congress, appoint good supreme court judges and adapt to the heinous complexity of leading the nation without losing their conservative center.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe if Perry proposed his tax plan a Month or two ago I would be impressed but his just saying and doing whatever to get elected. A couple of weeks ago he copied Palin’s energy plan and now this. I’m not impressed because I don’t trust or believe perry will follow though with it. There is one agenda I BELEIVE Perry will fight for and that is a path of citizenship to all mexican citizens that are illegally here. He has a track record of that.

    Cain 2012!!

    • http://twitter.com/SueNC Susan Wright

      i think they’re ALL just saying and doing whatever to get elected. that’s the point, isnt it? Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has morphed into the 9-0-9 plan, with a special rate for the ‘victim’ class.
      he’s flip flopped on that… on abortion… on islam… what next??

      • Anonymous

        Cain lost me with the 9-0-9 plan. More of the same carve outs, waivers, and EMPOWERMENT Zones……give me a break. The whole nation is an empowerment zone after 2+ years of this poser.

        • Anonymous

          The 909 kicks democrats butt in those poor communities. It injects capitalism.

          His 909 empowerments incentivies businesses to develop in those areas. The poor now are more able to get out of poverty by working.

          The elimination of overtime, bonus, and increase tax rates with increase income will allow all of us to take control of our finances in away that we
          never done before but for the poor it will allow them to work out of poverty!

          His plan is a working mans plan!!

          With his 999plan without 909 it does increase the taxes on the poor b/c they will spend all their money.

      • Anonymous

        Its not a flip flop, and it’s not giving money away. It is empowering the individual and the 909 has been there all along. What Cain is doing with this plan is to inject capitalism in poor communities that the democrats are slaving just for votes.

        People that are poor will spend all of their money vs people that have better incomes will save. The poor taxes will go up without the 909 how else can it be sold.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Rickman-Carder/100000546586274 Diane Rickman Carder

      i am glad he put some time and thought into it. cain sure didnt

      • Anonymous

        Cain came up with his own tax plan. Than he gave it to his economists to make the #’s work. Cain was the chairman of Americans for Fair Taxation. The Fair Tax that he help to promote, organize, and did Fairtax workshops all across the country, that abolish the IRS and repels the 16th amendment. He came up with the 999 plan to transition to the FairTax.

        Perry just copied Steve Forbs

  • Anonymous

    And for the vast majority who are ignorant about his “Energy” plan, just consider that engineering firms are backlogged designing new manufacturing plants for places like OH, PA & WV. All that is needed is a guarantee of long term stable access and pricing for natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil. These are the No. 1 raw material for manufacturing most things made.

    It is not the drilling jobs, but the blue collar $100K annual (even if non-union) paying type manufacturing jobs along with all the support industries and durable goods suppliers that will make the economy boom like it never has before.

  • http://twitter.com/BorisBad Boris Badenough

    Under Perry’s plan we will continue to pay nearly $500 BILLION a year to accountants and tax attorneys so they can tell us if it is better to opt in to the new tax plan or if we would be better off filing under the old. If people are able to file under the current structure at their option the 47% of people not paying income tax today, therefore, will continue to no pay taxes. GOD HELP US when that number exceeds 50%! And, unlike 9-9-9 which would remove EVERY other federal tax (including, but not limited to Gasoline Tax, Alcohol Tax, insurance Tax, firearms tax, tobacco tax etc etc) Perry’s plan leaves all those hidden taxes in place. And with no national sales tax the easily $1 TRILLION annual underground economy will continue to pay ZERO tax of ANY kind! In fact, both O’Reilly and Hannity pointed this fact out earlier this evening. Also, consider, Perry is advocating a 20% personal tax and a 20% corporate tax. Keep in mind, corporations never really pay corporate taxes. WE DO! They simply build the corporate tax burden into the price of every consumer product they sell us. 20 + 20 = a total REAL tax burden of 40% PLUS Perry would maintain the total of 15.3% payroll tax ON TOP! With the 9-9-9 plan 9 X 3 = a 27% TOTAL tax burden and ELIMINATES the payroll tax along with the IRS as we know it today. Sorry, Perry’s plan falls well short of the Cain proposal!

    • Anonymous

      Sorry — your comparison is apples and oranges. The 27% and 40% (neither of which are quite work out to that, BTW) are on quite different amounts.

      Cain’s plan zero’s income tax for most, if not all, of that 49%, so no win there.

      And Cain doesn’t get really rid of those other taxes you mention — he replaces them with a 9% tax on pretty much everything, which is generally higher than the current aggregate.

      If you run the numbers for Cain’s paln and Perry’s, you very likely find that your total tax burden under Cain’s plan goes up by quite bit, both compared to Perry’s 20% scheme and the current scheme. Maybe you are OK with that.

      Also, it is really trivial to figure out which plan you’d be off under Perry’s scheme. Not sure why people keeping missing that point.

    • mike eustace

      Not so…Turbo tax, and others will have you an easy “what if” check to see which is better for you. The thing is set up to allow those that benefit to stay with the old system, but once you do convert to the flat tax, you can’t go back.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chrissie-Siggelakis/671586719 Chrissie Siggelakis

    Great, my two favorite talk show host really like Perry’s plan. I love it. Thank you RS for the video.

  • Anonymous

    They are all just pandering, (imo) , any plan that does not bring EVERYONE into the game is a cop out. Letting 49% (for now) of American citizens slide and ride for free is unacceptable . It just perpetuates the class warfare game that politicians use to control.
    They are showing their true colors, they are all just politicians begging and offering bribes for votes instead of being a leader with solid idea’s and plan to reverse America’s slide into the 3rd world abyss.
    None of them have any true character, they are like reeds bending in the wind. Once again the GOP is showing they are incapable of fielding a candidate of true substance.
    The GOP establishment has won this round in their fight to maintain their status quo.

    They are heading for another loss.

    • Anonymous

      Do you have a defensible prescription you’d like to offer?

      • Anonymous

        I am not in favor of Perry’s hybrid approach. The current Tax Code must be retired in total. It is a criminal document produced by corporate lobbyist and their bought and paid for politicians to the benefit of those two groups. It is used as a class warfare tool by the political establishment.

        http://www.pjtv.com/

        Congressman West suggests reforming our progressive tax code system, we must broaden the tax base and he suggests a flat tax of 13% to 16% with two deductions, a child tax credit and a mortgage interest tax deduction.

        That is all that is needed , that simple.

        • Anonymous

          I like Alan West. My favorite tax plan is Paul Ryan’s.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t like how Perry plans to have a balanced budget by 2020. 2020, really?? That would mean by the end of his second term (assuming he got one) it would be balanced. And guess what if its not, oh well got my two terms. Its not like he can run again. Thats also assuming congress goes with him the whole time after however many of them have changed out. Why can’t he at least say balanced in the first four years?? Start cutting departments!! HUD…cut…EPA…cut….DOEd…cut How many more government programs can be scrapped?? Instead they look to not only cut military spending but military programs that are their for the service members i.e. retirement, tricare, etc.

  • Jason siejutt

    Rick Perry doesn’t address the problem “big government” “Spending” Wake up Levin!!!

  • Anonymous

    It sounds great to me.

  • Anonymous

    I love Levin but, goodness me, he always sounds so angry, even when reporting something he’s supposedly happy about. I’ve only been listening to him in the last couple of years but does anyone know if he only ever sounds like this when a democrat is in the white house? Oh and have I already mentioned how I love him?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know why any of them don’t propose a graduated scale flat tax. If I understand Perry’s proposal, if you make 39,999, you pay nothing. If you make $40,000, you pay $8K in taxes. So by making one more dollar you have a net loss of $7,999. I thought that it was supposed to be easy.

    Maybe I’m missing something. If Levin likes it, I must be.

    • mike eustace

      Orlandocajun,

      Nope….I think you’ve got it wrong…The first 40k is like a tax credit, you start paying 20% on dollars over 40k. Example Income = 42k…42k-40k = 2k, 2k times the 20% rate = $400 tax owed. Your effective tax rate is $400/$42,000 = 2% on an income of $42,000.

      Another example: Income = 60k. 60k-40k = 20k taxable at 20%= $4,000 in taxes owed. Effective tax rate = $4,000/$60,000 = 6.7%. That is the beauty of it….the EFFECTIVE Tax Rate is progressive, so the liberals can’t whine about “fairness”, yet the rate is a flat 20%.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vito-Danelli/537214166 Vito Danelli

    Wow, man! Neocon/George W Bush bootlicker Mark Levin is impressed with the Rick Perry Plan. I guess this finalizes it – Rick Perry is the officially-backed candidate of the Dittoheads and Tea Party rubes. After all, they follow in lockstep with whatever Rush, Hannity and Levine tell them.

    • Anonymous

      No kidding, at least now I don’t have to read it, as almost anything Levine likes has to be F’ed up. The biggest mystery is why anyone would listen to these guys in the first place? Especially Limbaugh I mean I always look to overweight drug addicts who have been divorced several times, that never served in the military and have never been elected to even local dog catcher is somehow an expert on everything? The thing really gets me that as a lifelong republican it’s embarrassing that our elected officials kiss his ass 24/7? Our party will lose to Obama again it we continue to listen these morons.

      • Anonymous

        But you listen to radical Socialist that Hates America ?
        That has never had a Private Sector Job in his life ?
        Not to mentions Friends , Mentors and a Minister who are hell bent on destroying our Nation .While making it Greece ?
        Who has spent 2.7 Trillion and made our Economy far worse off .
        Alone with almost a Trillion spent given to Unions and his Green Cronies with totally failed projects .
        Your no Marine .
        Captain . 6 Years .2nd ReCon 03 0321 .
        Nam 3 Tours , Silver Star , Recommended Navy Cross.
        2 Ph.s
        All Marine Judo World Champ 68-69-70 .. Caught Quick Kill ..Stone Bay
        and Q-CO .
        Look me up .
        After the Corp I started at the bottom at 28 dead Broke .Starting on my own with nothing in the bank .
        Retiring at 51 quite wealthy because I believe in Capitalism not Communism .

        • dave_ct

          Sir, on behalf of myself and my family, thank you for your service and sacrifice!

        • Anonymous

          Never voted for Obama, never will. 30 years retired as a MGySgt, 3 combat tours, last being a year in Iraq. I don’t need yours or anyone else’s approval to justify my service to Corps or country my friend. That was done by the many 1000’s of Marines who worked for me in and out of the combat zone. Sir, you might want to check yourself with the mirror man before you start deciding who is a Marine and who isn’t. Take care.

  • mike eustace

    Good.. I know some folks that really like and respect Mark, so maybe he will influence them to look past the media “gorilla dust” they are throwing at Perry.
    Here is my take on the field.
    No legislators need apply…the guy we’ve got now was a legislator and community agitator, and you see how that worked out. Executive experience is a must.
    No Lawyers need apply…2 strikes against Bachman, she is a lawyer and has no executive experience, just legislative. I don’t know if Santorum is a lawyer or not, but he is disqualified due to lack of executive experience, the same for Newt.

    That leaves Perry, Romney, Huntsman, Johnson (all have executive experience being governors), and Cain, who has executive business experience.

    Of these, only two have the money and organization to run the gauntlet, Romney and Perry. If you like northeastern Rockefeller republicanism, Romney is the choice. If you like western, Reagan/Palin type republicanism, Perry is the choice.

    • Anonymous

      A couple of Corrections… Romney is no NE Rockefeller Republican despite what you and Newt say…. and Perry is certainly no Western style Reagan…

      Romney is more conservative than Perry on Immigration, on Protecting the Borders, and on maintaining a strong Military…. Romney is ProLife, Believes in Marriage between a Man and a Woman and included in the Constitution as an Amendment (something that Perry just recently moved to when he saw he was getting eaten alive on the topic)…. Romney has proved himself a much more effective Economic Conservative and you can see that by just comparing Governor Records between the two.

      No, if you want to call Romney a Rockefeller Republican, you eaither don’t know Rockefellers positions are you don’t know Romney’s….

      Not only that, you are going to learn that Romney will absolutely kill Perry in the Western states…. In fact, so will Cain if he is able to stay in… Perry is a non-starter and there is literally nothing about him that reminds me or 90% of the Electorate of Reagan…

      I would say “Nice Try” but it really wasn’t….

      • mike eustace

        Romney “says” he is prolife, anti-illegal immigration, etc, BUT he also has taken opposite views to these same issues and not too long ago. Don’t beleive me, check the clip on YouTube from back in the 90s with him talking about being an “independent” during and shortly after the Reagan years because he didn’t agree with Reaganism, he also was pro abortion when he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for his senate seat, he also was for “comprehensive immigration reform” aka amnesty. Rick Perry has been prolife all his career, fought Bush on amnesty, and has a very good rating with the anti-illegal immigration group that studies and rates these politicians, and he is damn sure more like the great Ronald Reagan that Romney. Also, it easy for someone to sit back and talk about immigration when you’ve governed and live in a little piss ant state with no international border. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico & California have to deal with reality. The Fed won’t enforce sovereignty, and these states get to deal with the fallout.

        The truth is your guy Romney is a rich, white, flip flopping Massachusetts liberal with good hair. In 2004, a guy just like that ran and lost.

      • Anonymous

        Poyman,

        You criticized Perry earlier for saying he’s pro-life while have supported a pro-choice candidate in a previous election. Well, Romney was previously pro-choice himself and signed legislation expanding the number of Massachusetts citizens eligible for family planning services, including the “morning after” abortion pill.

    • Anonymous

      The liberal media loved Kerry, but he lost. And while they love Romney now, they will brand him king of the flip-floppers before the general election. If you think the media doesn’t change, go study what they done to McCain in 08. That’s right, even the New York Times loved him, before they hated him, and endorsed Obama. But they did endorse McCain for the primary, feeling they were choosing someone the democrat nominee could defeat. Do your homework on the liberal media, and you’ll know.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MKO43BHCQELO277YOMB5FA6LME Erik Hewitt

    Wait. This is a 20% tax for anyone who pays more than 20% in taxes. The people paying nothing or a tiny amount will obviously stick to the old code. That’s both the “poor” and the crony capitalists who have carved out their own lobbyist-PAC niches deep in the 70,000 pages of code. I can support a flat tax but only if it starts with throwing out the present monstrosity and starting over clean.

  • http://twitter.com/irobut John Keir

    double post

  • http://twitter.com/irobut John Keir

    Levin has been going out of his way to push Perry and one has to wonder why in the world a ‘constitutional conservative’ would push so hard for such a big government, crony capitalist, open borders boob like Perry? Aside from that, does anyone at all believe that Perry would stand an ice cube’s chance in hell going up against Obama in a debate? I mean let’s get serious here, the man is a bumbling wreck when debating within his own party!

    In any event, I find it very convenient that Levin completely ignores or whitewashes all of Perry’s big government liberal tendencies while simultaneously hammering Mitt Romney for exercising powers constitutionally reserved for the states.

    Wake up people! These media establishment cronies (who are themselves the establishment that they so love to paint others as) have an agenda! Anyone that takes anything any of these people say at face value is a fool.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3XCPJMKVTQIWMTFZHANRX5IIHQ Allen

      Levin is clearly NOT a Conservative, at least one with principles……

      Rick Perry is an Al Gore Demorcrat he has Bob Dole campaign staff and endorsed Pro-aborton Rudy Guiliani for POTUS

      ACTIONS speak lounder than WORDS………Mark Levin is a RINO…….lover

      Reagan “FACTS are stubborn things”

      • Anonymous

        You know, as much as I detest Al Gore, there was a time in his political career that he was far more conservative than many republicans from the northeast. At some point in time, 88-00, he completely lost his mind. If you were to study his career, you would know, Tennessee doesn’t elect many liberals. Clinton carried the state more than Al, proven by Bush carrying the state in 2000. Gore was a much different man when he first went to Washington (power corrupts), and a study of history will show this. “Facts are stubborn things”, and remember Reagan was once a democrat too!

  • Anonymous

    A straight flat tax has no chance of passing (it penalizes low income earners)…. Perry has no chance of winning a General Election…. And Mark Levin is the biggest “DIVIDER” that this party has ever had. If Reagan were President today and he heard some of the crap that Levin spews on his broadcast he would boot him out of his administration tomorrow. Levin not only breaks the 11th commandment he stomps all over it.

    I do have respect for Forbes (a little bit), and this is his plan…. Perry has no chance of being able to defend it under enemy fire however…. Hell, he did a terrible job of answering some of the questions on O’Reilly’s show last night and O’Reilly couldn’t have been a more friendly interview..

    I personally believe in a flatter more taxpayer friendly tax plan but it can’t be an opt in or opt out program as Forbes suggests…. The Perry/Forbes Plan leaves the 3 million words (that Perry complains about) still in play, meaning one figures their tax both ways under this program…. A flat plan should be based on income, there should be basic deductions allowed (i.e.mortgage interest, Business Expense for small businesses and not for profit donations) and there should be four or five levels of flat tax percentages based on income after basic deductions so that Earnings Levels are considered…. (There should be no zero level by the way as everyone needs to invest in America via an Income tax plan)…

    I like the idea that we are talking about Tax Reform, we need it…. But we also have to consider how well a candidate would compete against Obama.

  • Jengis Con

    I like the Anybody But Obama (ABO) plan . . .

  • Anonymous

    9-9-9

    It’s a multifaceted solution addressing many issues at once in its simplicity. I can remember another man with a bold plan that was simple “We win they lose!” and went about putting the policies in place to do just that. Herman Cain has that same sort of bold plan to solve big problems and end class warfare envy politicking as we know it.

    9-9-9 encourages working poor to save which is typically the reason working poor are still WP after a decade of working. See immigrants who come with nothing and barely speak the language and live the American Dream through hard work, savings and make it.

    The 9-9-9 plan encourages job growth, lowers cost for the employer which has direct correlation to pricing -good for the consumer. Also, gives people more money on their paychecks to spend/save.

    If One gets $200.00 EXTRA a on their paycheck each week and the same bag of groceries One paid $200.00 for under 70,000 pages of tax code – One pays an extra $18.00 but still has $182.00 to put into savings that week or offset other taxable goods they might purchase that week. Many will see much more on their chacks that $200.00 and even the working poor will have more funds available each week.

    When people are putting their money into savings accounts then banks don’t need TARP bailouts the Federal Reserve printing money to supply them therefore devaluing savings accounts of the elderly and hurting the poor with inflation.

    When perpetual working poor are saving they won’t be perpetual working poor and they won’t need government forcing banks to change time tested loan standards or F&F distorting the housing market creating bubbles.

    9-9-9 takes away the catalyst for most if not all the divisive bickering ie envy politicking and class ware rhetoric as it treats everybody fairly, the same. The rich spend more because they can so they will pay their fair share.

    9-9-9 allows Michael Moore or the frugal Warren Buffet to stimulate the economy and pay more taxes until their hearts content. True patriots! Moore can film a documentary of him and Buffet going around the country spending their money until they’re blue in the face paying taxes. Moore can call his documentary “Warren and Me.”

    When we pass 9-9-9 pols will not be able to raise taxes because it will be easier for the opposition to explain how that “directly affects your life” to the consumer/voter. You’ll have a lot more people voting when you try raising their taxes. Good luck with that tax loving Democrats or even the “read my lips crowd” within the GOP establishment.

    Herman Cain one simple plan addressing many problems directly at the roots and SOLVING THEM. Romney 59 of them.

    Millionaires like Romney and billionaires will be getting a tax break too and instead of hiding their money in the loopholes of 70,000 pages of tax code, they will spend it and pay plenty of taxes – because the so called “rich” spend more money by default. Cain’s plan sends the taxes to the government through the economy which means free markets will decide the winners and losers – not the government!

  • Anonymous

    Cain vs Lawrence O’Donnell
    http://tinyurl.com/3fcsc98

    Cain vs young Bill Clinton – Hillarycare
    http://tinyurl.com/5u7gmtj

  • Anonymous

    Cain MTP
    http://tinyurl.com/6eysdhw

    Cain vs Romney 9-9-9
    http://tinyurl.com/3dnb56z

    David Romney/Mitt Gregory: Are you saying the state tax will go away?

    I ask people to watch both links and look at how similarly David Gregory and Mitt Romney are deliberately being obtuse or trying to confuse the American people they must believe are stupid.

  • Anonymous

    Addressing some of the smears against Perry.

    There they go again” -Ronald Reagan

    Perry didn’t give illegals money for tuition, he gave them the instate break for people who live in state and pay taxes. The illegals children still have to pay their own way.

    Rick Perry doesn’t control the Feds and Arizona was sued by the Feds. These arguments being made by the the Alex Bachmann Jones Romney crowd are untrue. They also defy common sense and logic because they are turning reality upside down and reading it bass-ackards coming to the most absurd conspiratorial conclusions. They do the same with Herman Cain and 9-9-9. It’s pathetic!

    Addressing the hyperbole that Perry is not a conservative.

    Rick Perry, same as Reagan, Herman Cain same as Reagan. Disillusioned former believers. Formidable foes to Democrats. Al Gore was considered a conservative when Perry supported him AGAINST an east coast progressive liberal Michael Dukakis. Hello!

    Now about the other popular distortions about Perry’s record:

    You can’t have state mandated vaccinations in Texas!

    A 2003 law state that anyone can opt-out of any mandated vaccination requirements for conscientious, philosophical, religious READ any reason by filling out an extra form when you enroll your kid in school. Stop lying about that.

    It was mandated by Governor Perry because he wanted to save lives. In Texas insurance companies aren’t obligated to pay for vaccinations unless they are mandated. Its a gimmick in a sense so people who want their children protected don’t have to pay $360.00 per child out of pocket and anyone who doesn’t fills out an extra piece of paperwork. BIG DEAL!

    In state tuition for illegals

    Same hyperbole about Perry supporting amnesty. Lie smear distort Bachmann type crazy and turns everything upside without understanding details leads to the crazy conclusions..

    The illegals pay property taxes too, even if they don’t own any property its figured into their rent. Unless of course Ann Coulter or or any other ‘conservative’ is going to tell us landlords don’t consider things like the taxes they pay on the property they own into their rent.

    I don’t think a conservative like Ann Coulter would want to do that because it undermines a very important talking point conservatives like about raising taxes on business and passing cost to consumer.

    What Perry did is perfectly fair to innocent children of illegals and out of state tuition American citizens. Illegals pay taxes in state. Stop lying about that.

    “You know very well that the In-State Tuition LAW was passed by the Texas Legislature 188-4!”

    In a very conservative liberty oriented federalist minded state that actually has to live with and deal with the problems. Imagine that! Perry not conservative. Laughable! Defies not only common sense but decency. Perry supported a young CONSERVATIVE Al Gore against an east coast liberal Dukakis. IMAGINE THAT!

    Arizona agreed with Perry and didn’t elect Tom Tancredo because they think he goes too far in his rhetoric to the point of sounding inhuman. Arizona another state that has to actually deal with the problems -border crossings and all – AZ actually did try to do something about it and was sued by the feds. IMAGINE THAT!

    Ann Coulter and the rest you sound foolish when one follows your logic to its conclusion and compare it with reality. Stop turning reality upside and coming to bass-ackwards conclusions in relation to reality, common sense and decency.

    People who claim to love Reagan breaking his 11th commandment in ways that defy reality, common sense and decency.

    Rick Perry is terrible debater

    Rick Perry does seem a little uncomfortable breaking Reagan’s 11th commandment but he sure steps it up when attacking Obama. Many people believe if John McCain was as feisty as Rick Perry he’d be President today instead of Obama.

    Rick Perry won’t admonish the Pastor

    Please explain to me why the MSM or Mitt Romney gets to use their 1st Amendment rights to violate and trump a candidate running for office Constitutional right to not have a religious test imposed on him?

    Why does Rick Perry have to admonish another man’s right to free speech because the media or some stooge doesn’t understand the concept and protections our Constitution provide? Perry said he disagreed and that’s all he has to say other than the man has a right to his 1st Amendment rights and the politically correct tyranny do not have the right to trample two free men’s Constitutional right with theirs without it being called what it is. Tyranny! Contrary to what progressives or the politically correct believe while deciding which rights people they disagree with deserve.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      Here is a troll named Cainbot.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

        Disregard the above post. It was placed there by mistake.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bhanley Brian M. Hanley

    You call it like you see it! Well said!

  • http://twitter.com/verigatari verigatari

    Perry came up with a good proposal? More like he copied Newt Gingrich’s proposal and increased the taxes. Gingrich was the one to come out first with a serious optional flat tax proposal, not Perry

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3XCPJMKVTQIWMTFZHANRX5IIHQ Allen

      Yeah and part of his plan copies Romney’s 59 point plan too……

      Slick Rick needs to go back to Texas……

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3XCPJMKVTQIWMTFZHANRX5IIHQ Allen

    Slick Rick is an Al Gore Democrat, still.

    PerryCare mandating HC for young girls in exchange for donations….
    Appauled New York’s Gay Marriage in August
    Won’t build a fence along the Southern border…….
    Provides in-state tutition for illegals. Hispanic Americans kids in Oklahoma pay full price
    Says he’s Pro-life but endorses Pro-abortion Rudy Guiliani for POTUS when Mike Huckabee from next door was begging for his endorsement….

    Rick Perry is NOT a Conservative and anyone who supports him is NOT a Conservative that includes Mark Levin………………a real RINO supporter

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      You forgot Bilderbergs. The tin-hat council will reprimand you now.

  • Anonymous

    on the news perry may opt out of future debates. i dont blame him after you throw up over yourself your left with dry heaves

  • Anonymous

    rick perry said that as a devout christian he reveres human life. how does he then justify executing 234 people ?

    • mike eustace

      Easy..he reveres “innocent” life, convicted criminals are not “innocent” . There is a difference between killing an innocent life in the womb and killing a convicted criminal.

  • Anonymous

    Nice solution. Now all we need is a problem it fits.
    ALL the GOP candidates are off base. America has a spending problem. All the revenue solutions in the world won’t help. Congress will spend 100+% of revenues. That makes any revenue increases useless. That is what the Teabaggers are about and once they figure out Cain is hustling them, they will drop him like a hot ejection.
    At least Rick winked at a balanced budget amendment, which would be a solution if done right. All Rick did was wink because he is a crony capitalist like the others. He does more then wink and his cronies will go postal on him. They are counting on a big payout from the money they invest in his campaign.
    Ron Paul might not be but who knows. Paul is so far out of his box that he uses Google earth to see it. I would describe Paul as a nutter but some of my best friends are nutters and I don’t want them stalking me.
    Bachmann might not be but that doesn’t matter. She has hit that glass ceiling. The good old boys of the GOP will not let her anywhere close to the steering wheel, much less the foot pedals.

  • Anonymous

    LOL!!! Mark Levin? If there’s a bigger idiot on the radio, I’ve yet to hear him. (Well, maybe Michael Savage qualifies, but that’s it.) He’s nothing but a shrill blowhard.

    Of course, it’s totally predictable that Levin and the rest of the Neandethral right wing would be salivating over Rick Perry’s new tax plan, hoping against hope that he can revive a candidacy that has become all but irrelevant following debate performances that exposed him to the nation as the dullard those of us who live in Texas always knew that he was. They want nothing more than to see a hard right-winger get the GOP nomination, never mind the fact that any such nominee wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning the general election.

    Maybe one day, Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the rest of the uber right-wing numbskulls will realize and accept the fact that they and those who agree with them lock, stock & barrell on every issue only amount to about 10% of the population. You can’t win national elections with only 10% of the vote.

    But try as they might to prevent it, however much they whine and moan, Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. Not only is he the smartest, most articulate, best qualified candidate, but he can actually WIN a general election match-up against Barack Obama. Most Republicans realize this, even if it’s not what they’d prefer.

    • Anonymous

      Dan, if you even mildly paid attention to the polls you’d know Obumma is going to lose Herbert Hoover sized and take a lot of Democrat/socialist down with him . . . deservedly so.
      What do you want four more years of from Obama-Pelosi-Reid? The Great Recession? 1983 employment level? Most Americans in poverty – ever? Record bankruptcys and foreclosures? Half of minorities graduating from HIGH SCHOOL? $4/gal gas? What is it you want four more years of?

      • Anonymous

        It depends on who the reeps run against him…. If they go with Perry the Reeps will lose by 10% and it will mark the first time a sitting President with poll numbers as low as his win a second term….

        Cain might have a chance but the “No Experience” thing will scare away alot of voters….

        I truly believe that Romney is the only guy on the GOP side of the aisle that can beat him…… But knowing you and your buddies from previous posts show me that you don’t accept that truth and it’s too bad….

    • Anonymous

      Most Republicans do not believe that Romney is the only candidate to beat Obama. Romney only gets 20-30% in polls. So 70-80% do not support Romney. Romney is a liberal and father of government run health care. He is not the smartest best qualified candidiate. I dont think he has a day job except to practice for debates and memorize answers and think about how to hide his enormous flip flaps on issues.

      And if you think Mark Levin is the biggest idiot on the radio, it says a lot about you.

  • ID-2

    High praise from a conservative indeed.

  • Anonymous

    I love Levin. He tells it like it is. Dims have a mental disease. Read post below and see if you can find one single fact in any of his rantings?

  • Anonymous

    Cain’s plan is better for a few reasons: It’s real tax reform and it gets the 50 percent who now pay no taxes paying. It also gets the $1 trillion underground economy paying taxes. Consider that the underground economy is 1/4 th of gdp.

    A side affect of the Cain 999 plan is illegals will have to pay taxes; that should reduce illegal immigration somewhat. I know that illegals are having a hard time finding work here in CA. They stand on street corners waiting for work, and get maybe one or two days per week work. All the while they are paying rent and purchasing food. If they were paying sales taxes, which 999 would require, the cost of staying in the USA would be daunting.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      Cain’s plan is not a plan. It is a slogan. There is no chance that such a proposal will be even considered by the congress, as it should not be. These cainbots are really getting on my nerves, and looks like not only mine:-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3LN7IVKKQUJBXCPOYWO3XDWB5Q A Hick

    Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. The tea party and all conservatives will do as the Bushes and Wall Street tell them. The pitch will be blunt: vote for Mitt, or get Obama again. They will flock to the polls to vote for Mitt.

    As far as Ranger Rick’s silly tax plan goes, any simpleton can see the obvious result. A dramatic increase in the federal deficit. The lower classes (the half of the country Fox News says pays “no taxes”) will opt for the old system, and still pay “no taxes.” The people in the middle who have substantial “earned income” will pay much less than they currently pay. The extremely wealthy speculator class (who subsist entirely on capital gains from gambling in derivatives, hedge funds, etc.) will pay no taxes just like the poor. Net result, much, much less revenue, and with the dramatically increased defense spending and “national security” and “energy” pork barrel giveaways you can expect with a Perry presidency, national bankruptcy is guaranteed before Perry would get out of office.

    • Anonymous

      You skipped a step. Romney still has to get the nomination. Right now he’s stuck at 24% with little likelihood of getting higher. The aggregate conservative vote swamps him. First Perry beat him, and then Cain Beat him, and soon it will be Newt’s turn and then perhaps Perry again. If Romney gets the nomination it will only be because he was the plurality’s second choice and conservatives were unable to agree on an alternative. He is being anointed by the MSM precisely because they perceive him as having the least chance of beating Barry the Bamster.

      Your class warfare rhetoric is puerile. The top 1% in earnings pays 36.73% of the nation’s income tax. The top 5% in earnings pays 58.66%. The canard that the “rich” make all their money in capital gains is a lie – it is a situation that pertains to only a few, and in fact a reduced rate for capital gains is entirely justified by both economic and public policy. Warren Buffet’s nonsense to the contrary is merely his attempt to suck up to the democrats in order to preserve his tax subsidies at the expense of real tax reform. All the rich people and the corporations that you children condemn do, in fact, employ millions of Americans – even the useless union thugs that make up a large percentage of the government work force.

      That being said, yes, of course conservatives will vote for Romney if he gets the nomination. I, for one, would vote for anyone selected randomly from the telephone directory of any metropolitan area of the country before I’d vote for Barry. He is that bad.

  • Anonymous

    All the Candidates are missing the point. Spending is the problem. Increasing revenues will not help a spending problem. So long as congress spends 100+% of revenues, there will be a problem. The only hopeful part of the Perry Plan is the Balanced Budget Amendment.
    Rick just winks at that. Cronyism is the foundation of the current political system. Until that is addressed any plan is just misdirection.
    I would attack the source. put a limit on how much money a campaign can raise. Require Media to use a fixed rate for political advertising. Make those numbers low enough so that ‘normal’ citizens can compete.
    As it stands now, you either need to be filthy rich or have rich friends to run for office. Rich friends expect to be paid back in the form of taxpayer dollars,
    Cronyism leads to corruption. Corruption leads to waste. Together they create deficits.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      You do not need to be rich to run. You need money to get elected, though, and only because spreading the message is not free, as it involves other people making a living. So, what is wrong with it? Why would you run if you don’t have money, and if you believe that deserve the top spot, then why don’t you have them?

      • Anonymous

        needing money to get out the message is the root of corruption in the body politic. Reduce the money needed and you reduce the corruption. That benefits everyone.
        Zaller politics (Mass Market Media politics) was developed after the introduction of the television in society. Zaller politics was the standard but the WWW is changing that. Not fast enough but it is what it is.

  • Anonymous

    Please! I have written much about the mistake of 08. In 2010, we began to correct the mistake, and 2012, can be the completion. I believe, honestly, that the Obama team wants Romney to get the nomination. We don’t need compromise, we need a movement, to the right. The middle now, is where the left used to be. And I know that rhino republicans want Romney. Can we all agree that the media is biased to the left? Now go back to 2004, and remember the media’s defense of Kerry the flip-flopper? Wasn’t that good, loser, right? Now how much do you think the media will defend Romney? Very little. By the time the 2012 general election arrives, Romney’s poll numbers, which can’t get to 30% now, will be fortunate to get to 45% then. Perry isn’t a great debater, but he can get better. You can’t undo a flip-flop! Now, others have said that Romney has won every debate. I disagree, Cain has won one clearly, and has been near the top in others. But Cain’s 999 is a start, but I’m not liking one of the 9’s. Sales tax at the federal level is dangerous, as even if conservatives win in 2012, liberals may once again take control of congress someday along with the WH, and we know what that would mean, especially under better economic times. But even in 2013, if Cain were elected, a 9% sales tax would slow recovery, as everything we buy would have that 9% added to it. Buying a new $30,000 would have $2,700 tax on it, plus the 6% state tax in my state would make the total tax burden 15% or $4,500. That is enough to discourage many buyers, and that would make the Obama recession era last even longer. I realize that the 9% sales tax would increase revenues, but we need to get to the balanced budget, with more workers and less spending. Newt, who I believe is the most conservative, is the best at the debates all in all. But will his party, and the nation ever forgive him for his personal problems? We can count on the liberal media to never ever forgive him. Be assured, that if Newt got the nomination, there would be at least one negative article per day from the end of the convention until election day. Paul, to me has an electability problem. A solid base, but I don’t believe he can muster the votes needed to get the nomination. Primaries do have surprises, and he could be one of them, and if he is the surprise, I have no problem supporting him. And I do believe he could beat Obama, but his coattails would be short. So, Perry and the flat tax is welcome. Many in the media and otherwise, have distorted Perry’s positions on many of the issues. While I don’t agree with Perry on every issue, I believe he is the best electable conservative we have running. I like the flat tax idea better, and I like the energy policies. He is still my first choice, because, he has a good record in Texas for the economy and jobs. Texas is leading the nation in these 2 vital areas, in this recession era. Others can claim better numbers, but that was a different era than what we are now experiencing. So, Perry is my first choice, with Newt and Herman tied at this time for second, with Romney and Paul tied for forth.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry’s flat tax is a real winner! Rick Perry is attracting accomplished talented people in his national campaign staff. Rick Perry is also attracting the right Republican establishment that can deliver the nomination. Tort reform, loser pays, pro-gun rights, elimination of job killing regulations and entitlement reforms are just what Republicans have been trying to accomplish since Barry Goldwater. Rick Perry is faithfully implementing the Republican platform.

    Rick Perry’s tax, legal reform and economic agenda are the right solutions that can pass in Congress.

    2012 can’t get here soon enough.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-Dooley/9203055 Joseph Dooley

    These plans at least show us where the candidates stand ideologically, even though they have no chance of becoming law. Romney’s plan is awful. Cain’s and Perry’s are awesome.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DAKZSX4HC7H6TGT6NCAOPJMVVY Leonard

      I disagree. The only plan that has no chance of becoming a low is Cain’s. It was never intended as a plan, but as a marketing gimmick.

  • purplepick

    Once again …
    yes dear, you’re right and I’m wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Regardless, he remains an ignorant communicator. A good politician should be articulate. I love GW but I really think it is a necessity to be a good communicator.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone can come up with a good proposal. It is about implementation. I don’t believe Perry has the gonads for implementation.

  • Anonymous

    All please read the entire plan……
    20%flat tax with exemptons of 12,500 per; ded for local taxes, mortgage int, chairty
    no tax on cap gains
    no tax on qualified dividends
    no tax on social security benefits
    freeze..yes freeze on all new and proposed regulatons
    complete audit…yes complete audit on all regulatons with a three criterian to remain, be changed, or eliminated
    sunset all regulations unless congress re approves them
    eliminates the zero base budgeting with an annual budget for all agencies
    fixes SS System by keeping current for current and soon retirees,but
    creating a new Restirement security system for those younger generatons
    repeals Dodd Frank
    Repeals Sarbanes Oxlly
    REPEALS OBAMACARE

    Redcuce expenditures by eliminating earmarks and other targeted ueselss and costly programs
    AND…by limiting expenditiures to 18% of GDP
    AND ..by calling for and pushing for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    and others especially on corporate tax reform to get us competivie with other natons

    hoopop