sniperviper21
Golden Master
- Messages
- 5,460
- Location
- USA
9-9-9
- Thread starter sniperviper21
- Start date
foothead
Omnicide now.
- Messages
- 10,027
- Location
- My own personal hell
I ran the numbers, and it simply cannot realistically work.
Based on 2010 incomes, the 9-9-9 plan will net approximately 1.895 trillion dollars annually. This is with no tax breaks whatsoever, and sales tax applied to all purchases except for food.
Under the current tax plan, the net was 2.162 trillion in 2010.
The federal government spent 3.456 trillion that year. Of that, 2.107 trillion was spent on mandatory things such as debt interest, medicare/medicaid, and social security. This number does not include military or any other federal programs.
I don't really know how Herman Cain thinks this is going to work, but my best guess is that he thinks that he's going to:
a) cause economic growth, which will create more taxable spending
b) cut government spending down to a manageable level
c) begin paying off the deficit so there is less annual interest.
The first one is very well possible, but tax codes should never be based off an assumption. For all we know, he could put this in place, then the economy gets even worse. All that would do is make the government borrow even more, which will create even more interest and make the economy worse.
The second is just unrealistic. To get spending low enough that his plan could work would require spending to basically be cut in half. That is simply not going to happen within one or two presidential terms. Just look at congress right now, they'll spend days bickering about just a couple billion in cuts.
As far as paying off the deficit, that would require spending to be cut even further. This is even more unrealistic.
Let's face it, taxes are going to have to increase. There's no way around that. Any candidate telling you otherwise is lying.
Out of curiosity, who might that be? Chris Christie?
Of the current candidates, I like Gary Johnson and John Huntsman. Unfortunately, the media is completely ignoring them, so it's incredibly unlikely that either will get the nomination. It's a shame really, because John Huntsman seems like he would be able to pull a lot more undecided voters than someone like Perry or Bachmann, who both seem incapable of managing a country. Gary Johnson could probably pull a lot of the Democratic vote.
I also like Ron Paul. It's not so much about his politics, I just like the fact that he doesn't constantly lie and dodge questions like every other politician.
Based on 2010 incomes, the 9-9-9 plan will net approximately 1.895 trillion dollars annually. This is with no tax breaks whatsoever, and sales tax applied to all purchases except for food.
Under the current tax plan, the net was 2.162 trillion in 2010.
The federal government spent 3.456 trillion that year. Of that, 2.107 trillion was spent on mandatory things such as debt interest, medicare/medicaid, and social security. This number does not include military or any other federal programs.
I don't really know how Herman Cain thinks this is going to work, but my best guess is that he thinks that he's going to:
a) cause economic growth, which will create more taxable spending
b) cut government spending down to a manageable level
c) begin paying off the deficit so there is less annual interest.
The first one is very well possible, but tax codes should never be based off an assumption. For all we know, he could put this in place, then the economy gets even worse. All that would do is make the government borrow even more, which will create even more interest and make the economy worse.
The second is just unrealistic. To get spending low enough that his plan could work would require spending to basically be cut in half. That is simply not going to happen within one or two presidential terms. Just look at congress right now, they'll spend days bickering about just a couple billion in cuts.
As far as paying off the deficit, that would require spending to be cut even further. This is even more unrealistic.
Let's face it, taxes are going to have to increase. There's no way around that. Any candidate telling you otherwise is lying.
Out of curiosity, who might that be? Chris Christie?
Of the current candidates, I like Gary Johnson and John Huntsman. Unfortunately, the media is completely ignoring them, so it's incredibly unlikely that either will get the nomination. It's a shame really, because John Huntsman seems like he would be able to pull a lot more undecided voters than someone like Perry or Bachmann, who both seem incapable of managing a country. Gary Johnson could probably pull a lot of the Democratic vote.
I also like Ron Paul. It's not so much about his politics, I just like the fact that he doesn't constantly lie and dodge questions like every other politician.
OP
OP
sniperviper21
Golden Master
- Messages
- 5,460
- Location
- USA
where did you get the numbers to come up with all that.
Also, how did Clinton create such a surplus?
Also, how did Clinton create such a surplus?
foothead
Omnicide now.
- Messages
- 10,027
- Location
- My own personal hell
IRS website.
superman22x
Golden Master
- Messages
- 7,904
Clinton was in the dot com bubble.
No, Paul Ryan. Being from my state, he's done a lot of town-meetings here. I've sat through one and it was amazing. Most politicians need aids to do their research and can hardly remember numbers when they talk about economics. He was up there and knew everything and was even able to do the math that proved the numbers when asked. I have never seen a politician actually prove the numbers before.
