Retro Debate- Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton

Very interesting video, from 1994.



You've got to hand it to Slick Willy.  First of all, I give him credit for honestly fielding and addressing the question.  At least Clinton tries to debate the numbers before crawling back into the bastion of party talking points, like "balanced approach," and "fair shares," which is more than we could ever expect of our current president.  Second, he sure knows how to work an audience.  When Clinton's argument confirms that HillaryCare would increase cost for businesses across America, what does he do?  He cracks a joke, poking fun at his notorious love of food, and suggests that the healthcare mandates would only add 2% to Cain's company's bottom line.  And that's no big deal, right?  Just pass it on to consumers, they'll pay it!

Sound familiar? If you have a Bank of America account, it should. A recent federal mandate levied by those lawyers in Washington (and unsurprisingly, spearheaded by Democrats) has negatively impacted BoA's profitability, so now we have to pay $5 a month to use our debit cards. Administrative costs have been passed on to consumers.  No big deal either, I guess. 

But once the laughter from Clinton's joke subsides, Cain explains that this "2%" figure, and his numbers in general, are all wrong.  The burden to the company would be much higher than Clinton estimates.  But shortly after, Clinton skates out of this moment with minimal damage by suggesting that if Cain would only send his numbers to the White House office, Slick Willy'd straighten him out.  Cain then went on to send over those numbers, and subsequently authored an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and is credited as a major factor in the collapse of support for HillaryCare. 

Personally, I'd relish an opportunity to see Herman Cain debate Barack Obama, and have become more excited at the prospect after seeing this exchange with Bill Clinton, who is, in my estimation, far more skilled in debate than our current teleprompter junkie in the Oval Office.  It would be an absolute evisceration of Obama's platform. One guy is a seasoned businessman and mathematician that understands real-world fiscal operation, and the other guy is a college professor and politician that understands the socialistic concepts that he read about in some books. One guy has created geniune wealth, while the other has only manipulated it to satisfy his radical ideology.

Every four years, we bicker about which representative we should select from among the putrid cesspool that is American politics.  I, for one, find Herman Cain to be a breath of fresh air, and miles from ordinary.
 
William Sullivan

One Hell of An Analogy for the Budget Debate

Courtesy of Henry Percy, excerpt from his article "The Budget Crisis Explained to a Nineteen Year Old."  Article found here at American Thinker.

Let's say you earn an even $100,000 per year, part of the 52% of Americans who pay taxes. You've got too much to qualify for food stamps or the Earned Income Tax Credit and other goodies, but you're not rich either, driving an old car, definitely no corporate jet waiting for you at the airport.

But wait, why are you driving an old car? Why not a BMW? You deserve it. And a Lexus for the missus? And a vacation in Hawaii? Cruise in Europe? You're wonderful, you deserve it all. Soon you're spending $150,000 per year. It's not hard, because you, not the bankers, set your own credit card limit.

After a couple years the missus gets nervous, says maybe, just maybe you should cut back. You're indignant: you have to have transportation, are you expected to drive an old clunker? And you need to relax; you'd be a nervous wreck without getaways to far-off places.

OK, you tell her, how about we cut back on our tips when we eat out? That'll save $10 per year. (This is the equivalent of eliminating the tax deduction for corporate jets, which was part of the Stimulus Bill and which Obama has hammered mercilessly, oh those fatcats in their private jets.)

The missus says that $10 is really, kinda, sorta insignificant compared to the $50,000 in new debt you're taking on every year. So at last you tell her you can embezzle $4,000 per year from your employer and cut your spending by $8,000, so you'll only slide $38,000 into the hole each year. You say all this with a great scowl, moaning about how hard it's going to be to reduce your standard of living so drastically. Then you tell her it was so much work calculating all those terrible cutbacks that you deserve a night out on the town to celebrate your newfound sobriety and prudence.