Talk:Political positions of Herman Cain

It appears that most of this content has either been written by people new to Wikipedia, or by Cain's campaign team. The positions include large amounts of points which are either not supported by the links cited, or which are so inane as to be meaningless. For example - can somebody go round and make sure that the page of every other politician makes clear that they think illegal immigration is a bad thing; Iran could constitute a threat to Israel; children are our future, etc. etc. Marty jar (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

999 plan is from Sim City?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html

--72.197.35.238 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

9-9-9 Plan
Seems that someone's trying to do their own refutation of the 9-9-9 Plan's detractors, rather than simply reporting the reactions by other qualified sources such as the Tax Policy Center. The current section of the article on the plan draws from numerous unrelated statistics and attempts to string them together into a new argument to support the plan, rather than objectively provide information and statistics on the plan itself by qualified sources. Most notable in this section is the use of the second-person when referencing the average person. I don't want to make a unilateral edit to remove it, however, without checking in first, lest it turn into an unconstructive edit war. the_one092001 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the use of 2nd person to 3rd person. Thanks for catching it.Zkc28 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to shuffle the "It's a change in the corp tax" vs. "It's a VAT in place of the corp tax" as this is stated both ways over and over again currently. Hcobb (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of the recently added material on this proposal appears to be WP:SYNTH. By that I mean it's a bunch of facts compiled by Wikipedia editors meant explain, defend, or oppose the proposal. We should not be doing that. It's OK to cite facts and figures compiled by others, but we shouldn't be creating our own analysis.   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Cain interview with Morgan
I have deleted the interview with Morgan in which Cain discussed his stance on abortion. I have done so for the following reasons:

(1)Interview was too long to appear in the abortion section...it simply did not belong there (2)Interview was taken out of context (3)Inclusion of the interview seemed biased against Cain has given numerous interviews in which he did not struggle to present his views. (4)Interview spacing did not render correctly on some browsers

999 - POV and unsourced removed...
"The first prevalent criticism of the 9–9–9 plan is that it will be very easy for the United States Congress to increase the rates to something like 10–10–10 or 21–21–21. The benefit of the 9–9–9 plan is transparency." This is unsourced. I have heard this analysis, but what is the basis for saying it's the most prevalent?...

"The United States Congress currently has control of the tax laws and this situation will not change under the 9–9–9 plan. Is the average United States citizen aware of the current tax law complexity and all the loopholes constantly being voted in and out through daily operation of the government and lobbying interests?" Unsourced pro-999 polemic.

"A simplified tax law will benefit everyone. If the United States congress gets the idea that it can simply increase the rates in the 9–9–9 plan, everyone will see it and congressional leaders who supported it will quickly lose their jobs. The potential economic improvement in the United States' economy will also be a disincentive to increase the tax rates, as tax revenue will increase without a rate increase." Blatant POV-pushing!

"The second prevalent criticism of the 9–9–9 plan is that the apparent local sales tax will increase. In other words, if people are paying 9% local sales tax, the 9% consumption tax of the 9–9–9 plan will increase the tax on goods to 18%--9% local sales tax + 9% federal consumption tax. The free-market theory that counters this argument is competition. Businesses, who are now also benefiting from the 9–9–9 plan, will necessarily need to pass on some or all of their savings to remain relevant in the marketplaces or risk losing valuable employees, market share, or both." - again, more unsourced polemic.

"The following table attempts to apply the 9–9–9 plan to personal income and illustrate free-market business operations. Note that numbers are rounded down and accounting details are minimized for the purposes of simplification in this context.

"

Where does this table and its analysis come from. The idea that someone making around 24k/year would pay less taxes under Cain's plan is certainly not the consensus analysis of economists. It's generally accepted that consumption-based taxes tend to hit lower income people harder, as they spend a much larger percentage of their wages. Someone making millions every year is most likely saving a good chunk of that.

By the time I got done cutting out all the unsourced and POV-pushing stuff, there was nothing substantive left in the section. So now the "9–9–9 Plan Analysis" section is gone. -Helvetica (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation #71 - Tolliver, Lafe. "Cain….Raising Cain!" The Toledo Journal, October 14, 2011.
In the article under Capital Punishment, it claims that when asked about whether capital punishment should be done away with, Cain responds No. If you do away with it, that will only brainwash people into thinking that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. I'm a little skeptical that the article cited for that quote is a serious article and probably shouldn't be used as a reference of his political positions. In it, every answer Cain gives claims someone (usually black people) are brainwashed and, at the end, runs off to bilk "rich, white, Southern folks" by singing gospel. Given some of Cain's past behavior though, I grant I could be mistaken. [Link to article: http://www.thetoledojournal.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=111034&sID=16&ItemSource=L] 71.83.176.227 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gospel singer
I added that Herman Cain is a gospel singer with proper citation. Any disagree?129.2.129.223 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cain's singing is a hobby or avocation and inappropriate for primary mention in this article's lead section; it was also sourced to another Wikipedia article, not a proper way to do so. —ADavidB 15:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Herman Cain is a professional singer and has released a new album for example.

Why is gospel singing less appropriate to mention than businessman and radio talk show host? None have direct connections to his political views. Please reconsider your views before responding.129.2.129.223 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the man's political positions. His business background and content of his talk radio show are much more clearly linked to his political values than his gospel singing.  If you feel otherwise, it would help to include a reliable source that shows how his gospel singing relates so prominently to the subject of this article. Per the source you provided, it is a "years-old album" and wasn't released by Cain's campaign. —ADavidB 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not making sense. You are saying that because the album was not released by the campaign, it is not linked to his political views? Was his talk show influential on his political positions? Give a source. Was his earlier career influential on his political positions? Give a source.

At the very least, his gospel album shows his value in exercising freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion, a First Admendment right. I see no more connection between his talk show and his political views. 129.2.129.223 (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Political positions of Herman Cain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160202054845/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2525: to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2525:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)