Based on a question by Lee Doren, Herman Cain said if he were forced to remove one department, he would scrap the EPA and rebuild one that actually works. He also gets in a fix for Social Security at the end:

email



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.

  • Anonymous

    I do like this man……….!!!!!!!!!
    he has style.!!!!!!!!!1

  • Anonymous

    Cain is great. I loved his response.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    Well I agree that the EPA needs to go, but why would you try and replace it?

    • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

      Because unchecked capitalism would put nature in harm’s way.

    • http://twitter.com/Shad_Stang Paul D.

      “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.”
      Notice he said limited, not destroyed.

  • Anonymous

    Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, Herman Cain says EPA has gotta to go, and respect we much!

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I liked Cain’s answer for this one. However, I would have asked how many departments would you abolish?

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

      Get a question like that in the primaries and it will haunt you through the general election. Those questions will only go to RP because he is willing to be honest and there is a desire to marginalize him on both the left and the right. I’m not a RP fan, but I do know that it’s toxic to say you will cut any government program that isn’t in the constitution………sad to say, but you have to play the ball from the line you’re at. If you’re on your own 10 yard line, you don’t play the hail mary……you try to get a first down and move the ball downfield.

      • Jack Bryan

        You’d be right if you were talking governance, but not running for office. The Democrats ran on nationalized health care for 60 years before they got it passed. Better to run for what you want rather than what you’ll settle for.

        • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

          Riddle me this-

          Did Obama say that he wanted nationalized health care when he was trying to pass it or did he lie? He didn’t run on it, he said one thing to the nation and another to his constituency. The fact that people are stupid and believed a liar are irrelevant when it comes to running for office because only one side cares to be honest (although not all the time)- It’s Alinsky tactics we are fighting against. Besides…..most people (>70%) didn’t want it, but the Dems passed it anyways- I also watched the START 3 debates and saw how much they lied and lied and then passed it without even addressing the concerns for loopholes allowed for the Russians………………do you think anti-American politicians care to tell the truth about what they are trying to do to this country?

          • Jack Bryan

            Of course not, that’s not the issue. The issue is trying to pick a candidate that will cut through the bull and level with the people. Rick Perry is the perfect example of what not to do. Call Social Security a ponzi scheme one day (true), then the next day say we have a “sacred pledge” (bull) just isn’t good enough. Better to tell the truth now when people are desperate enough to listen.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Crouse/100000265688038 Diane Crouse

              I agree with you on the the flip flop stuff, we need someone that will stand strong in their convictions. We need a Statesman or women that will uphold the Constitution, someone with character, virtue and honesty. We need someone that will speak the truth no matter what way the political wind is blowing. We can not let the lame stream or any other media control our choice this time either.

          • http://www.facebook.com/steamboat2302 Joshua Saunders

            Actually, if you were paying enough attention, he ran on more then just ACA. He ran for single payer and has since he went into state/national politics. He hid it in his televised speeches, but his fundraisers and rally’s that were “under the radar” he very much ran on it. It was out there, but the vetting was not done by the american people. To intentionally leave out a lynchpin in your own political intentions to bring it up after the election is unethical, and would never be forgiven by our side, much less middle america. Just because Liberals do not care, does not mean we can be so cavalier about it.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        See, this is one of the things I love about being able to comment with all you guys. I get edimucated on US politics ;-)

      • Frederick

        I kinda agree. Questions like this are hypothetical distractions, and only serve for vicious attacks later from news hacks which consequently have the potential to put the politician on a defense posture for as long as said politician is asked to answer for what was meant by such and such..

        To a certain extent, a question poised as such is kinda inappropriate eventhough the EPA is a huge problem.

        • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

          This brings up a very good question (for me)……..I’m curious about the Dem primary debates- do they tear into each other using the same kind of divisive questions? Do they ask, who will you steal money from to pay for this program? My bet is that they run as centrists within the full spectrum and not as liberals. I’m too lazy to analyze this myself, but you did bring up this question for myself which is: Are politics designed, overall, to be self-defeating for small government and perpetually move us to a large centralized government?

          • Frederick

            I’ve been thinking about this question you bought up for yourself. When it comes to government trajectory, we as American’s often look at symptoms rather than the cause. Only public, and private virtue are capable of maintaining small limited government. This is an axiom that cannot be dismissed as lofty. It is much broader than simply electing people who believe in such things. It must be practiced by most freely, and consistantly. This all boils down to ethics both public, and private. The free market cannot sustain itself if actors are constantly taking advantage of the institution. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it ethical, nor moral whether one believes in a god, or not. Good citizens would report unethical practice, or loopholes in law to their representatives, but if ones representative is unethical him, or herself, you may have just given more opportunity for a vulenrability a law, or lack there of to be exploited on a grander scale. It requires good citizenship by everyone to keep things ethical, and free. Ethical people don’t slaughter all the whales, and strip the forest clean. In the free market good people don’t take advantage of their employee’s, nor do risk takers create finanical instruments that undermine the market place etc.. Do you see where I’m coming from? The atmosphere in today’s Amerca is so corrupted by lack of virtue, that American’s are living within an institution compensating for lack of ethics, and moral grounding. This causes further inbalance between limited government, and authoritarianism. Authoritarianism by its very nature forces one size fits all obedience, the antitheses of liberty.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3S535BCKXMAFKKE7NATPNWJBXA Barbara

    I love this man. I wish he had a chance, but we all know he doesnt. Its a shame.

  • Anonymous

    The EPA seems to be killing lots of jobs now, but I’m surprised no one went after the DOE – Dept of Energy or Dept of Education. Both of those seem to have failed miserably. The DOEnergy seems to also have stifled job creation by preventing drilling and fracking.

  • Anonymous

    There are many Federal Departments like the EPA (which, by the way, is probably un-Constitutional anyway) that can be eliminated and would not affect our quality of life. Why? Because most if not all of the states currently have some kind of department that can, could, does, or would do the same thing as the EPA anyway. Why have the duplication? I believe government is more responsive and responsible when it’s closer to the people.

    Also, I’ve done the math on a similar solution to Mr. Cain’s with SS. Here’s how it goes:

    A person graduates college in 2012 with only a liberal arts degree.
    Earns on average $35,633 their first year out of college.
    The money they and their employer currently send to the government INSTEAD goes into a “S3A” (my fancy name for a Social Security Savings Account – currently 10.4% total).
    If they only get a 2% raise per year throughout their entire working life ($81,857 at age 65).
    If they only earn 2.4% on their money.

    THEY RETIRE AT AGE 65 WITH $407,000.00 IN THEIR S3A!!

    For a married couple it’s double – $814,000.00

    If they live to be 93 years old, they would be able to withdraw $1,211.00 each per month (not including the interest earned on the money still in the account as it’s being withdrawn).

    THAT’S HOW I’D SOLVE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!

    As far as existing social security benefactors, CUT THE EPA AND USE THE SURPLUS TO PAY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Crouse/100000265688038 Diane Crouse

      I like what you are saying here and I believe that is a very doable idea.

  • Anonymous

    There are many Federal Departments like the EPA (which, by the way, is probably un-Constitutional anyway) that can be eliminated and would not affect our quality of life. Why? Because most if not all of the states currently have some kind of department that can, could, does, or would do the same thing as the EPA anyway. Why have the duplication? I believe government is more responsive and responsible when it’s closer to the people.

    Also, I’ve done the math on a similar solution to Mr. Cain’s with SS. Here’s how it goes:

    A person graduates college in 2012 with only a liberal arts degree.
    Earns on average $35,633 their first year out of college.
    The money they and their employer currently send to the government INSTEAD goes into a “S3A” (my fancy name for a Social Security Savings Account – currently 10.4% total).
    If they only get a 2% raise per year throughout their entire working life ($81,857 at age 65).
    If they only earn 2.4% on their money.

    THEY RETIRE AT AGE 65 WITH $407,000.00 IN THEIR S3A!!

    For a married couple it’s double – $814,000.00

    If they live to be 93 years old, they would be able to withdraw $1,211.00 each per month (not including the interest earned on the money still in the account as it’s being withdrawn).

    THAT’S HOW I’D SOLVE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!

    As far as existing social security benefactors, CUT THE EPA AND USE THE SURPLUS TO PAY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY!

  • Anonymous

    …..BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO !”

  • Anonymous

    This was a horrible answer.

    “…and then start rebuilding a responsible EPA.” You see, he has no problem with unconstitutional, big government agencies, he just wants them to run better.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ncweb76 Nick Tarlton

    Who needs clean air and clean water…personally i love to choke and drink radiation, pesticides, and any other industrial waste. Yummy!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Crouse/100000265688038 Diane Crouse

    I like Mr. Cain, he is sincere and he is honest. I was watching him on the internet in motivational speaking engagements for a couple of years now. He has not changed just because he is running for office. He understands what is happening in the in the business world and to the economy. He is intelligent and obviously cares about doing something about what he knows is not right. He has lots of qualities we need in a leader. He is a very likable man too. I would not mind a ticket of him and Santorum or Bachmann. I however do not want any one picked by the press. We have to be in control of this process not the lame stream media.

  • Jason siejutt

    It’s a shame that Mr Cain isn’t getting more support from the Right. No Fox and others want to push Perry and Romney!!